MSNBC "All in with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: Foreign Affairs

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HAYES: Yesterday U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley announced new Russia sanctions. And then today, after Russia complained, President Trump walked them back. Washington Post reporting Trump was, "upset the sanctions were being officially being rolled out because he was not yet comfortable executing them." Joining me is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Member of the Foreign Relations Committee. And Senator, this fits with a broader pattern in which the President seems to be at odds with his own administration over Russia. What do you make of it?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT), SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, the foreign policy of this administration is a slow-motion car crash. And every single time that an administration official gets trotted out just to be overridden by the President hours or days later, it weakens American credibility across the board. So separate and aside from the specific question of what the heck our policy is vis-a-vis Russia, we are seeing American influence atrophy because Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley are often contradicted by the President within the news cycle. I have no idea what the President`s policy towards Russia is. On one hand, he has been very slow to sanction Russia. He is walking back Haley`s commitment with respect to these latest sanction. On the other hand, he did take steps that the Obama administration was unwilling to take, sending lethal arms to the Ukrainians in the middle of that fight. The sanctions he finally did announce a week and a half ago resulted in a ten percent diminution of the Russian stock market. It just seems to be you know, a policy that`s made up on the fly on a day-to-day basis. And you know, ultimately, you know, that makes no sense to the rest of our allies who are trying to be in this with us together.

HAYES: Is there a risk there? It seems to me that it`s fair to characterize the Trump administration as both being more solicitous and easier on Russia and Putin, and also more aggressive at the same time.

MURPHY: Yes. Listen, and I think you have to be fair that you know, this policy has been somewhat schizophrenic. There have been aggressive steps taken and then there have been moments in which Russia has gotten much of what it wanted. But this the broader sense, let`s be clear that Russia is the winner in this relationship over the last year and a half because let`s set aside these specific policies regarding sanctions. By America`s withdrawal from the Middle East, Russia has inserted itself in a way that has empowered it in a region that they have long been asking for power. The assault on the State Department, which is the primary means by which we push back against Russia`s asymmetric methods of warfare in and around its periphery, has been a gift to Russia. So whether or not we`re you know, going to do the next round of sanctions, Russia is getting a gift by America`s general withdrawal from the places that it cares about.

HAYES: Finally in this, do you -- do you think the President is motivated by being compromised in some way?

MURPHY: There is certainly a possibility of that. I mean, it`s hard to understand why he has been unwilling to take steps that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have wanted him to take. And the message that he has sent overall to the Russians is that they are by and large free to manipulate the 2018 elections in the way they did in 2016. And I think we are all trying to figure out what the reason is for this very bizarre
positioning that we`ve watched on Russia.

HAYES: The President ordered strikes on three sites in Syria controlled by the the Assad regime, alleged to be involved in the production or storage of chemical weapons. On Friday night, he said this via Twitter. "A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you for France, the United Kingdom for their wisdom, and the power of their fine military. It could not have had a better result. Mission accomplished." Was it mission accomplished?

MURPHY: What was your mission? If your mission was to look tough and dominate a news cycle, he did that. But if your mission is to actually bring the civil war to an end, to save the people of Syria, then there is no way the mission is accomplished. Evidence suggests that these surgical missile strikes end up just quickening the pace of Assad`s assault on his own people. That`s what happened after last year`s strike, and the politics of escalation in which American actions get met with equal or greater reactions from the Iranians and the Syrians and the Russians is ultimately awful news for the people of that country. So that mission is certainly not accomplished.

HAYES: I would just interject that there is some reporting indicating there has been further strikes just in the last hour perhaps carried out by the Israelis. That`s not -- it`s all sort of unconfirmed. That`s sort of floating around right now. But that`s in the background. Do you -- I just want to be clear. Did you oppose the strikes? Do you oppose them?

MURPHY: Yes, I did oppose the strikes.

HAYES: Substantively, not just on a sort of legal basis?

MURPHY: On both strategic and legal grounds. I understand that it makes us feel good to hit Assad, and he deserves everything that he gets. But ultimately if our desire is to bring this civil war to an end, we are going to have to live with some very unsavory terms. That will likely mean that Assad or some successor to Assad stays in power. And every time that we continue this policy, which has been the Obama policy and the Trump policy of providing just enough pushback against Assad to keep the civil war going, but never enough pushback to actually dislodge him from power. All we are doing is postponing the misery of the Syrian people without actually having any policy that will mean that Assad is removed from power. And so I argue for a reorientation of our policy here that seeks a diplomatic end that may end up with Assad or his allies staying in power for a period of time but ends the carnage.

HAYES: Finally, you announce today you`re a no on Pompeo for Secretary of State. Quickly, why?

MURPHY: Yes, listen, Pompeo may end up being a better Secretary of State than Rex Tillerson, but that`s a pretty low bar. What I`m worried about is that there`s going to be no one walking into the President`s office that is going to recommend diplomatic solutions to big complicated problems in the world. Bolton is going to advocate for a military response. Traditionally, the Department of Defense comes in with military options. Now Pompeo, who has a reputation of thinking about military options before diplomatic options will just add fuel to that fire. And so I see both sides of the ledger with Pompeo. I actually think he will restore some morale to the Department. Ultimately I`m worried about the advice that he will give side by side with the advice that the President is going to get from his new National Security Adviser.

HAYES: All right, Senator Chris Murphy, thanks for being with me tonight.

MURPHY: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source