Matt Yglesias: This is a really sort of big picture question, but over the years, I've
heard a number of different members of your team refer to your kind of philosophy in foreign
affairs as realism.
Is that a term you would use?
Barack Obama: You know, traditionally, a lot of American foreign policy has been divided
into the realist camp and the idealist camp and so if you're an idealist you're like Woodrow
Wilson and you're out there with the League of Nations and imagining everybody holding
hands and singing Kumbaya and imposing these wonderful rules that everybody's abiding by.
And if you're a realist, then you're supporting dictators who happen to be our friends and
you're cutting deals and solely pursuing the self-interest of our country as narrowly defined.
And I just don't think that describes what a smart foreign policy should be.
I think it is realistic for us to want to use diplomacy for setting up a rules-based
system wherever we can, understanding that it's not always going to work.
If we have arms treaties in place, it doesn't mean that you don't have a stray like North
Korea that may try to do its own thing.
But you've reduced the number of problems that you have and the security and defense
challenges that you face if you can create those norms.
And one of the great things about American foreign policy in the post-World War II era
was that we did a pretty good job with that.
It wasn't perfect, but the UN, the IMF, and a whole host of treaties and rules and norms
that were established really helped to stabilize the world in ways that it wouldn't otherwise
be.
Now I also think that if we were just resorting to that and we didn't have a realistic view
that there are bad people out there who are trying to do us harm and we've got to have
the strongest military in the world and we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries
that wouldn't do what we need them to do if it weren't for the various economic or diplomatic
or in some cases military leverage that we had.
If we didn't have that dose of realism we wouldn't get anything done either.
So what I do think what is accurate in describing my foreign policy is a strong belief that
we don't have military solutions to every problem in the 21st century.
That we don't have a peer in terms of a state that's going to attack us and bait us.
The closest we have obviously is Russia, with its nuclear arsenal, but generally speaking
they can't project the way we can around the world.
China can't either.
We spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined.
So the biggest challenge we have right now is disorder.
Failed states.
Asymmetric threats from terrorist organizations.
And what I've been trying to do is to make sure that over the course of the last six
years and hopefully the next two, we just have more tools in our tool kit to deal with
the actual problems that we have now and that we can project into the future, rather than
just constantly relying on the same tools that we used when we were dealing with Germany
and Japan in World War II.
And so ending two wars was important, not because I was under any illusions that that
would mean we wouldn't have any terrorist threat.
It does mean, though, that by not having 180,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can then
more strategically deploy, with a smaller footprint, special forces, trainers partnering,
that allows us to get at the actual problem and then frees us up to be able to send a
team to prevent Ebola.
To double down on our investments in things like cyber security.
To look at the new threats and opportunities that are out there.
And that, I think, has been the real challenge over the last six to eight years.
Matt: So in the Middle East, where we're still very much engaged despite the draw down from
Iraq.
The Clinton Administration had a policy they called Dual Containment of Iraq and Iran.
The Bush Administration had an idea about preventative war and about rollback and Democracy
promotion.
Under your administration, the country is still very involved in that region, but I
don't think we have as a clear a sense of what is the sort of strategic goal of that
engagement.
Obama: Well, partly it's because of the nature of what's happened in the Middle East.
I came in with some very clear theories about what my goals were going to be.
We were going to end the war in Iraq.
We were going to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, trying diplomacy first.
We were going to try to promote increased economic development in the Muslim countries
to deal with this demographic bulge that was coming into play.
We were going to promote Palestinian and Israeli peace talks.
So, there were all kinds of theories.
And then the Arab Spring happened.
I don't recall all the wise men in Washington anticipating this.
And so this has been this huge tumultuous change and shift and so we've had to adapt
even as it's happening in real time to some huge changes in these societies.
But if you look at the basic goals that I've set: making sure that we are maintaining pressure
on terrorist organizations so that they have a limited capacity to carry out large-scale
attacks on the West.
Increasing our partnering and cooperation with countries to deal with that terrorist
threat.
Continuing to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
And using the tool of sanctions to see if we can get a diplomatic breakthrough there.
And continuing to try to move the Israeli -Palestinian relationship into a better place,
while at the same time helping the region as a whole integrate itself more effectively
into the world economy so that there's more opportunity.
Those basic goals still hold true.
But what people rightly have been concerned about that the forces of disorder – sectarianism,
most tragically in Syria, but lingering elements of that in Iraq as well, the incapacity of
Israelis and Palestinians to get together, and the continued erosion of basic state functions
in places like Yemen, mean that there's more to worry about there than there might have
been under the old order.
We're kind of going through a passage that is hard and difficult, but we're managing
it in a way to make sure that Americans are safe and that our interests our secured and
if we can make progress in restoring a functioning multi-sectarian Iraqi government, and we're
able to get a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran, then we have the basis I think for a
movement towards greater stability.
But this is going to be a generational challenge in the Muslim world and the Middle East that
not only the United States but everybody's going to have to deal with.
And we're going to have to have some humility in recognizing that we don't have the option
of simply invading every country where disorder breaks out.
And that to some degree, the people of these countries are going to have to, you know,
find their own way.
And we can help them but we can't do it for them.
Matt: It seems to me, on that point, that members of your administration often seem
acutely aware of sort of the ideas of limits of American power, maybe to a greater extent
than they always feel comfortably articulating publicly.
Is it difficult to say, in the political and media system, that there are things that you
can't really do?
Obama: Well...
American leadership, in part, comes out of our can-do spirit.
We're the largest, most powerful country on earth.
As I said previously in speeches: when problems happen, they don't call Beijing.
They don't call Moscow.
They call us.
And we embrace that responsibility.
The question, I think, is how that leadership is exercised.
My administration is very aggressive and internationalist, in wading in and taking on and trying to solve
problems.
Where the issue of limits comes in is what resources do we devote that are going to be
effective in solving the problem.
So, in Iraq, when ISIL arises, if you think you have no constraints, no limits, then I
have the authority as commander-in-chief to send back 200,000 Americans to re-occupy Iraq.
I think that'd be terrible for the country.
I don't think it’d be productive for Iraq.
What we've learned in Iraq is you can keep a lid on those sectarian issues as long as
we've got the greatest military on earth there on the ground, but as soon as we leave, which
at some point, we would, we'd have the same problems again.
So what I said was Iraqis have to show us that they are prepared to put together a functioning
government, that the Shia majority is prepared to reach out to the Kurds and Sunnis, and
that they're credibly willing to fight on the ground, and if they do those things, then
we can help and we're going to have a 60-nation coalition to do it.
So, if you look at that strategy, yes, it acknowledges limits.
It acknowledges that its a bad idea for us to, after 13 years of war, to take over a
country again.
But that doesn't mean we're not engaged, and it doesn't mean we're not leading.
And so, I think the real challenge for the country not just during my presidency but
in future presidencies is recognizing that leading does not always mean occupying.
That the temptation to think that there's a quick fix to these problems is usually a
temptation to be resisted.
And that American leadership means wherever possible, leveraging other countries, other
resources, where we're the lead partner because we have capabilities that other folks don't
have.
But that way there's some burden-sharing and there's some ownership for outcomes.
And many of these problems don't get solved in a year or two years or three years.
I mean, the Shia-Sunni split in the Middle East right now is one that has been playing
itself out over centuries.
We have the opportunity, I think, to lessen those tensions and to lift up voices that
are less prone to exploit those sectarian divides, but, you know, we're not going to
eliminate that stuff overnight.
The trend towards extremism among a small segment of Muslim youth in the region, that's
a trend that's been building up over a period time in part because of broader demographic
problems and economic problems in the region, partly because of a perverted ideology that's
been hypercharged through the internet.
It's winning the hearts and minds of that cohort back.
That's a multi-year project.
And so in the mean time, you take the victories where you can, you make things a little bit
better rather than a little bit worse, and that's in no way a concession to this idea
that America is withdrawing or there's not much we can do.
It's just a realistic assessment of how the world works.
Matt: You seemed to resist the realist label earlier, but when you talk about your goals
earlier, you seem very concerned about disorder and you didn't mention anything like democracy
and human rights and the country you mentioned partnering with, it's places like Egypt where
they came to power in a military coup, Saudi Arabia, with public beheadings, Bahrain, where
during the Arab Spring they were beating nonviolent demonstrators and repressing that violently,
do you have any concerns about those sort of long term sustainability of those kind
of partnerships?
Obama: This is a perfect example, Matt, of where the division between realism and idealism
kind of breaks down.
I think any realist worth their salt would say that any society that consistently ignores
human rights and the dignity of its citizens at some point is going to be unstable and
not a great partner.
So it's not just the right thing to do, it's also very much in our interest to promote
reforms throughout the Middle East.
Now, the fact that we have to make real time decisions about who are we partnering with
and how perfectly are they abiding by our ideals, and are there times where we've got
to mute some of our criticism to get some stuff done, are there times where we have
an opportunity to press forward, that doesn't negate the importance of us speaking out on
these issues.
As I said during the State of the Union speech and as I've said in any speech that I’ve
made in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world, it just means that we've got to
do more than one thing at a time.
We need a strong bilateral relationship with China to achieve a bunch of international
goals like climate change that are of great national security importance to us and billions
of other people.
That doesn't mean it's not smart for us also to speak out about censorship and political
prisoners in China.
We have to do both those things and there's going to be some times they come a little
more into the fore than in other times.
And the same is true in the Middle East and elsewhere.
But I am a firm believer that particularly in this modern internet age, the capacity
of the old-style authoritarian government to sustain itself and to thrive just is gonna
continue to weaken.
It’s gonna continue to crumble that model.
My argument to any partner that we have is that you are better off if you've got a strong
civil society and you've got democratic legitimacy and you are respectful of human rights.
That's how you're going to attract businesses, that's how you're going to have a strong workforce,
that's how ultimately you've got a more durable not-just economy but also political system.
But in those conversations, I'm also going to acknowledge that for a country that say
has no experience in democracy or has no functioning civil society or where the most organized
factions are intolerant, you know, religious sects, that progress is going to be happening
in steps as opposed to in one big leap.
And that's, I think, the goal of any good foreign policy is having a vision and aspirations
and ideals, but also recognizing the world as it is, where it is, and figuring out how
do you tack to the point where things are better than they were before.
That doesn't mean perfect.
It just means it's better.
The trajectory of this planet overall is one toward less violence, more tolerance, less
strife, less poverty.
I've said this before and I think some folks in Washington were like, "Oh, he's ignoring
the chaos of all the terrible stuff that's happening."
Of course, I'm not ignoring it.
I'm dealing with it every day.
That's what I wake up to each morning.
I get a thick book full of death, destruction, strife, and chaos.
That's what I take with my morning tea.
Matt: Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about
terrorism and this kind of chaos as opposed to a longer term problem of climate change
and epidemic disease?
Obama: Absolutely.
And I don't blame the media for that.
What's the famous saying about local newscasts, right?
If it bleeds, it leads, right?
You show crime stories and you show fires, cause that's what folks watch, and it's all
about ratings.
And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos along with plane crashes
and a few other things, that's the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs.
There's just not going to be a lot of interest in a headline story that we have cut infant
mortality by really significant amounts over the last 20 years or that extreme poverty
has been slashed or that there's been enormous progress we set up when I first came into
office to help poor farmers increase productivity in yields.
It's not a sexy story.
And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex
system, it's a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.
Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people.
It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've
got a bunch of concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead
people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.
We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant
and aggressive in trying to deal with that.
The same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city
to thrive.
But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues and we've got to make sure we're right
sizing our approach so that what we do isn't counterproductive.
I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our
country safe.
And despite the incredible valor of our troops and I'm in awe of them every single day when
I work with them, you know, the strategy that was crafted in Washington didn't always match
up with the actual threats that were out there.
And we need to make sure that we're doing the right things and doing those well so that
we can also deal with future threats like cybersecurity or climate change or different
parts of the world where there are huge opportunities but before I came into office, we had neglected
for quite some time, Asia Pacific being a perfect example.
Or our own backyard, the Western Hemisphere, where there's been real progress in Latin
America and we've got the opportunity to strengthen our relationships.
But there are also some big problems like Central America where, with a relatively modest
investment, we could really be making a difference and making ourselves safer.
Matt: So there's this idea of a pivot to Asia and what does that mean to you in specific
terms?
A transfer of hard military resources, a transfer of time on your agenda in the national security
council?
Is it something you've really managed to pull off or does the Middle East really still have
us kind of sucked in?
Obama: I think it means all of the above.
Look, Asia is the fastest growing region in the world, the most populous region in the
world and you've got the largest country in the world, China, that has undergone this
incredible, dramatic transformation over the several last decades.
How well America does, economically, from a security perspective, is going to be linked
to our relationship to that region.
So we've said, a) we've got to make sure we’ve got a constructive relationship with China,
one that is hardheaded enough to make sure they're not taking advantage of us, but also
sends a message to them that we can create a win-win situation as opposed to a pure competition
that could be dangerous.
And in order to do that, China, you've got to step up and help us underwrite these global
rules that in fact help to facilitate your rise.
Things like free-trade rules that are fair and maritime rules that don't allow large
countries to bully small ones.
So that's one big piece of it.
A second big piece of it is making sure that our allies like Japan and South Korea feel
confident that we're always going to be there and that our presence is not one that over
time wanes, because they're looking at a really big neighbor next door.
They want to make sure that if America is their key partner, that America is going to
stand with them through thick and thin.
Then you've got all these smaller countries, or countries that are developing, and are
coming into their own in the South Pacific, in SouthaEast Asia and what we see there is
this enormous hunger for more engagement with America.
They want to do more business with us.
They want to have more defense cooperation with us.
And what we've been able to do over the last six years is to have systematically build
this set of relationships and strengthen trading platforms, strengthen security cooperation,
everything from how we deal with disaster relief, so if something like what happens
in the Philippines happens in other countries can work more robustly and we’re building
resilience to how we're dealing with deforestation.
All these things are areas where we've made an enormous investment and there have been
significant payoffs.
Matt: You mentioned the Philippines, and earlier the idea that there are big gains potentially
to be made by giving some assistance to Central America.
Does it really make sense to have so much of America's foreign aid going to a country
like Israel that's quite wealthy when there are other democratic allies in other regions
in the world that seem maybe more in need of assistance?
Obama: Well, our relationship with Israel is in many ways unique.
It's our strongest ally in the region.
Our people-to-people ties are unmatched.
And partly because of world history, the vulnerabilities of a Jewish population in the midst of a really
hostile neighborhood creates a special obligation for us to help them.
I think the more interesting question is if you look at our foreign assistance as a tool
in our national security portfolio, as opposed to charity, and you combined our defense budget
with our diplomatic budget and our foreign assistance budget, then in that mix there's
a lot more that we should be doing when it comes to helping Honduras and Guatemala build
a effective criminal justice system, effective police, and economic development that creates
jobs.
Matt: So you're saying it would make sense to reallocate those resources?
Obama: Well, and part of the challenge here is just public awareness.
Time and time again, when they do surveys, and they ask people what proportion of the
foreign budget is spent on foreign aid?
They'll say, ‘uh, 25%’.
They're pretty sure all their hard-earned money that they pay in taxes is somehow going
to other folks.
And if we can say, it varies between 1-2% depending on how you define it.
And if we were to make some strategic investments in countries that really could use our help,
we would then not have to deploy our military as often and we would be in a better position
to work with other countries to stand down violent extremism.
Then I think people could be persuaded by that argument, but we haven't traditionally
talked about it in those terms.
It's one of the things I'd like to do over the next couple of years is to try to erase
this very sharp line between our military efforts in national security and our diplomatic
and foreign assistance efforts.
Because in this environment today, we've got to think of it all in one piece.
Matt: The transformation and growing prosperity in China is really probably the biggest story
of the times we're living through.
And it's something that it seems to me as something that causes a lot of anxiety to
a lot of Americans.
You know, we've been having our own economic struggles, but also from a geopolitical standpoint,
it's a country with a very different political system, with very different values.
Is this something that you think people should regard as alarming?
Obama: No, we shouldn't alarm at it.
In fact, we should welcome China's peaceful rise.
Partly from just an ethical perspective.
To see hundreds of millions of people rise out of dire poverty and be able to feed their
children and have a decent home.
That's a good thing and we should encourage it.
In addition, a China that is disorderly is a big problem because there are a lot of Chinese
in the world and if they're not doing well and they're unstable, that's very dangerous
for the region.
Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has
taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its
own weight or following the rules of the road and we were and in some cases we got the short
end of the stick.
This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific partnership,
the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating.
There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, why would we want another
trade deal, that hasn't been good for American workers?
It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling
it back to WalMart and, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.
And my argument is two-fold.
Number one1: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we’re trying
to deal with right now is can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards,
et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer because right now
it's not fair and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime.
We can’t just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us.
But the second reason it's important is because the countries we’re negotiating with are
the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with.
And if we don't write the rules out there, China’s going to write the rules.
And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law
or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or
we will be deeply disadvantaged.
Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged.
So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged.
Why would we want to maintain the status quo?
If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time
recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal.
It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them,
but they're already selling here for the most part.
And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the
game in a place that we've got to be.
Matt: Why is you think that you haven't been able to persuade your friends in the labor
movement of that?
They presumably look at these issues pretty closely, they know the interest of their members.
Obama: Well, look, the story, the narrative, the experience that people have seen over
the last 20 years, that's a real experience, that's not something we deny.
That's why during the State of the Union address, I was very explicit.
I said, look, not every trade deal has lived up to the hype.
And there are real gaps in the current trading regime that means there are a whole lot of
Toyotas sold here and almost no Fords or Chryslers sold in Japan.
But what I say to them, if in fact, the current situation disadvantages us, why would we want
to stick with the current situation?
Now, sometimes their response will be well, what you're doing isn't enough, what we need
to do is to have union recognition in Vietnam or we need Japan to completely open its markets
and not have any barriers whatsoever and we need that immediately.
And I say, well I can't get that for you.
But what I can do is make the current situation better for American workers and American businesses
that are trying to export there.
I can open up more markets than what we have open right now, so that American farmers can
sell their goods there.
And, you know, better is better.
It's not perfect.
Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years are not easily forgotten, and the
burden of proof is on us then to be very transparent and explicit in terms of what we're trying
to accomplish.
It's similar to the challenge we've got on the Iran negotiations.
And maybe I'll close with that point because that's been an issue of great interest.
People are right to be suspicious of Iran.
Iran has sponsored state terrorism.
It has consistently, at the highest levels, made deplorable anti-Israeli statements.
It is repressive to its own people and there is clear and unavoidable evidence that in
the past they have tried to develop a weapons program and have tried to hide it from view.
So that's a given.
And it's understandable why people are concerned, both here and around the world.
But what I've also said is that the deal that we've struck, this interim deal brought about
by the tough sanctions regime that we put together, offers us our best opportunity to
solve the problem of a nuclear Iran without resort to military force.
Iran is negotiating seriously for the first time and they have made, so far, real concessions
in the negotiations.
We have been able to freeze the program, for the first time, and in fact roll back some
elements of its program, like its stockpiles of ultra highly enriched uranium.
And so, for us to give an additional two to three months to exhaust all possibilities
of a diplomatic resolution when nobody denies, including our intelligence agencies, and Mossad
and others, nobody denies that Iran right now really is abiding by the terms of our
agreement, so we’re not losing ground.
They're not surreptitiously developing a weapon while we talk, for us to give two three months
to figure that out, makes sense.
Now, same thing with respect to trade.
You're going to meet some folks who are going to be skeptical and their impulse is going
to be well, let's pile on some more sanctions, and let's squeeze them a little bit more,
and any deal that you're going to strike, they’re gonna cheat, and we can’t trust
them, and it’s gonna be a bad deal, and I get all that.
But my message is that we have to test the proposition, and if in fact, a deal is struck,
then it's going to be a deal that everyone around the world is going to be able to look
at.
And everybody's going to be able to determine, does this in fact prevent Iran from getting
a nuclear weapon?
And if the answer is yes, then it's a good deal.
If the answer is no, then it's not a deal that I'm interested in striking.
There may be some technical arguments, in part because, there are some who will only
be satisfied with the Iranian regime being replaced.
They don't even like the idea of Iran having any nuclear technology or nuclear know-how.
Matt: In your first campaign, there was talk of the idea that you might hold direct negotiations
with countries like that.
Obama: Well, we have had direct negotiations.
That's exactly what we're doing.
We're now testing the proposition and the question then is, Matt, is whether or not
Iran can say yes to the world community that has determined this is a fair approach that
gives Iran the ability to reenter the international community and verify that it's not pursuing
a nuclear weapon.
But this is another example of the overall point that I was making at the start.
So it's a good way to summarize: We can't guarantee that the forces inside of Iran take
what should be seen as a good deal for Iran.
We can't guarantee that they make a rational decision anymore than we can guarantee Russia
and Mr. Putin make rational decisions about like something like Ukraine.
We've got to guard against their efforts militarily.
Any aggression they may show we've got to meet firmly and forcefully.
But we've also got to see whether things like diplomacy, things like economic sanctions,
things like international pressure and international norms, will in fact make a difference.
Our successes will happen in fits and starts and sometimes there’s gonna be a breakthrough
and sometimes you'll just modestly make things a little better.
And sometimes the play you run doesn't work and you've got to have a plan B and a plan
C. But the overall trajectory, the overall goal is a world in which America continues
to lead, that we're pushing in the direction of more security, more international norms
and rules, more human rights, more free speech, less religious intolerance.
And those efforts over time add up and I'm confident that there's a way for us to maintain
our idealism, be hardheaded, in assessing what’s out there, confronting the dangers
that we face without exaggerating them.
America, I'm pretty certain, is going to be the indispensable nation for the remainder
of this century just like it was the last one.
Alright.
Thanks so much.
Matt: Thank you.
Obama: Appreciate it.
Matt just kept on going man.
I had to like.
I gave him like three cues and he just blew by them.
Did that go over like a half hour longer than it was supposed to?
Ezra was definitely better behaved.
It was a good conversation.
I hope you guys thought it was useful…..
Obama: My butt is sore.