Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at a time when we are facing serious international challenges, from Russian meddling, to North Korean sabre- rattling, to an increasingly assertive China, it is very essential that the President have a qualified Secretary of State whom he trusts to be on the job.
Mike Pompeo unquestionably understands the international challenges we face and is more than capable of being a very effective Secretary of State. When I talk to our allies, they are anxious to see him on the job.
Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle are now claiming that he is not suited for the post of Secretary of State because of positions he took as a Member of Congress or his holding to traditional Christian teachings, as if a person's religion ought to have something to say about their being in public office or public service. Others have spoken about that, and I don't have a whole lot more to add on that point. I would note the irony, though, that many of the Senators who are most likely to vote against Cabinet nominees are also rumored to have Presidential ambitions. They should ask themselves if they truly want to live with the precedent they are setting.
You don't have to like the President personally or support the President's policies, but as an American, it is in all of our interests to have a fully functioning executive branch, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
If a mainstream Republican former Member of Congress is deemed unacceptable because of his beliefs, how should mainstream Republicans vote when faced with future nominees who do not share the beliefs that Republicans hold? Should Republicans just willy-nilly vote against any future nominee who does not share our political or religious views?
That said, I would like to focus on other attributes of Director Pompeo's which some have criticized but which I see as assets.
By all accounts, this nominee's tenure at the CIA has been a success. However, some Senators who supported him then are now arguing that he should not be Secretary of State because he is not diplomatic enough.
First, let's dismiss the more radical talking points about his being a warmonger. The theory is that President Trump is liable to start a war at any moment, so we need to force him, as President, to have Cabinet officials surrounding him who will counteract his impulses. We could have a hypothetical debate about whether, if the American people elect a warmonger as President, he should be allowed to appoint a warmonger Cabinet, but suffice it to say that I don't think that label applies to Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump, and I view such accusations as simply cheap partisan talking points.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that Mike Pompeo doesn't always couch his words in diplomatic niceties. He doesn't mince words about the threats that we face. And his time at the CIA has surely enhanced his strategic thinking. That is good, and that is exactly what we need at the State Department. We need less diplomatic double-talk and more clear-eyed, strategic thinking about international threats.
Real diplomacy isn't always about sweet talk. Sometimes it requires taking a firm stand, and to be effective, it should be part of a strategic vision that incorporates all the elements of statecraft. For instance, I hope we have finally discarded once and for all the diplomatic impulse to make unilateral concessions to President Putin in hopes they will be reciprocated, as exemplified by the Obama-Clinton reset. We all know it didn't really reset. If you understand Russian history and Russian political culture, you know that Russians, especially from a KGB pedigree, are likely to see this as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Diplomatic overtures to the Russians without a corresponding demonstration of strength are simply an invitation to further aggression and misbehavior.
I think we are finally arriving at a bipartisan consensus that Russia is a major geopolitical foe. Mike Pompeo has made clear that he has no doubts about the threat from Russia. He understands the need to push back and push back hard against Russia's attempt to dominate its neighbors and sow discord in the West. The threat from Russia will need a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of statecraft, including government-to-government diplomacy alongside military deterrence, intelligence and counterintelligence, cyber security, and public diplomacy, just to name a few, and there are a lot of others.
Another area where some clear-eyed strategic thinking is even more crucial is our approach to the People's Republic of China. So I just stated: Consider China a bigger threat than Russia. I just returned from a trip to China with several colleagues at the beginning of this month. It was an eye-opener. We hear a lot about how China is embracing capitalism and becoming more and more like us. Just don't believe it. The Chinese Communist Party has modified its economic policy to allow for economic growth, but it still serves the interests of the state, not the interests of the people. It is not a free market, clearly, because they admit that their economic system is what they would call authoritative capitalism, aka mercantilism.
I visited with government officials at the national and local level, Chinese and American businesses, and American diplomats. The Chinese officials and the Chinese businesses had their talking points down almost too well. However, the impression that I took away from the visit is that the Chinese Government will do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical--to get ahead of the United States, and when they get ahead, to stay ahead.
China coined the term ``peaceful rise'' to describe its drive to become a great power, which is designed to sound very benign. In fact, China later changed this slogan ``peaceful rise'' to ``peaceful development'' out of concern that the word ``rise'' sounds threatening. Just to be clear, I am not threatened by Chinese economic growth.
The development of a truly peaceful, free market democracy, no matter how large, would not be threatening because democracies generally do not threaten each other, and free enterprise is mutually beneficial. The fact that so many Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class is a good news story for humanity. It is also good for the United States. The more Chinese people who can afford to buy our pork and soybeans, our John Deere tractors, and our advanced manufacturing, the better for Iowa and our national economy.
Free trade on a level playing field enriches both participants. Unfortunately, China is not interested in a level playing field. It seeks dominance economically, militarily, and politically. Confucius said: ``Heaven does not have two suns and the people do not have two kings.'' By the same token, the Chinese leadership does not think there is room for two great powers in the world.
China seeks the advantage of trade with the United States but not mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the WTO. Despite having a middle class that is bigger than ours in the United States in absolute numbers, China still claims to need special preferences extended to developing countries. China erects nontariff barriers in ways that just very barely skirt triggering WTO compliance in violation of the spirit of the level playing field the WTO seeks to create.
The Chinese military is 60 percent larger than the U.S. military, and its efforts to claim exclusive control over the South China Sea, in violation of international law by creating artificial islands, reveals an expansionist impulse. You can't hide those islands. You know it implies dominance.
However, the threat from China is not mainly military. The influential ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu focused on the role of deception over combat. He famously said: ``To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.''
Now, get this. The problem we face is, we are being treated like an enemy to be subdued without realizing it. I say all of this not to be an alarmist but to point out that China sees itself in a long-term strategic struggle with the United States. We don't need to overreact to this fact, but we do need to be aware and to apply some clear-eyed strategic thinking of our own. In that respect, Mike Pompeo's unique background seems perfectly aligned with the task ahead to develop a strategic foreign policy toward China incorporating all the elements of statecraft.
Because I have mentioned aspects of Chinese culture to illuminate the strategic thinking on the part of the People's Republic of China, I don't want to give the impression that this is a clash of civilizations. On the contrary, it is not traditional Chinese culture that is the problem; it is the unreconstructed Leninist nature of the state system that is the problem.
It is sometimes claimed that Chinese culture is not compatible with democracy, but that is hogwash. The proof to the contrary is the Republic of China on Taiwan. Taiwan is a fully functioning, prosperous democracy with the same Chinese culture and traditions.
This same democracy is what mainland China could have also if it is able to shed its one-party dictatorship, and I hope it will shed that someday.
In the meantime, we need leaders in our government who see China clearly and have the ability to think strategically. Mike Pompeo seems to me to be just that kind of a person, so I am happy to support his confirmation as Secretary of State.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source