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.
I miss this man :(
Dang you got me excited. This is soooooo 2015.
MattY interviews Obama on foreign policy - really interesting interview and something to have on while you do other stuff.
Compare how intelligently and coherently Obama discusses these topics to what we have now. Like night and day.