podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and on google play. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> now available at the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the directory. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of government. contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today. every c-span shop purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. journal" continues. host: our first guests is lyle

goldstein. thanks for giving us your time. a little bit about the defense priorities, what is it, and how is the organization funded? guest: i am a professor. i have been a professor at the u.s. naval war college for 12 years. i left with the intent to speak my mind freely about sensitive issues like taiwan. defense priorities is a think tank, we are -- i would say, leading up the wave arguing for realism and restraint. i am not so well advised about our funders. i know that, unlike many think tanks, they are all american that are funding our institute.

this cannot be fed in a lot of -- said in a lot of washington thanks take -- think tanks, unfortunately. host: you talked about speaker pelosi's trip to taiwan. what do you think is the intended purpose, and you think it means that -- and do you think it meets that? guest: i think it is a political stunt. like tom friedman in the new york times, it is reckless. the u.s. china relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. causing a storm in that relationship, you would have to have a really good reason. let's face it, the biggest issue facing our planet, climate change, the future of the global economy, nuclear proliferation and preventing some kind of catastrophic, great power or. these will be determined by

u.s.-china relations. i was not pleased to see this. clearly, i am not an expert on u.s. politics. i focus on chinese politics. the trip is no doubt intended to boost the political fortunes of pelosi, and democrats going into the midterms. i think the biden administration was rightly every cautious, and with hoping that she would not go. we are going to see the consequences. i do not think this is going to lead to a war. it might. undoubtedly, this is going to lead to grave tensions and an escalation and aspiring rivalry that could lead to war. i believe our nations are on a collision course. i think responsible leaders need to take steps to get us off that collision course, not to accelerate the process. host: what exactly about the

visit by the speaker accelerates the process in your mind? guest: you are going to see the next few days, unfortunately. a host of large military exercises that demonstrates china's preparations for war. i do not doubt there will be some kind of counter reaction by the united states. our forces will be in closer proximity than ever, they are already in close proximity, but greater proximity. we all know we have seen a brilliant example in this in eastern europe, how threats, counter threats lead to escalation. and, eventually war. we are looking at a simple repeat of that scenario. instead of watching it happen or pouring gasoline on the fire, we should be taking steps.

we need to step back from the brink. i know compromise is a bad word in washington. that is regrettable. responsible foreign policy, we would embrace compromise. i worked for the navy for 20 years, i know what the military battles look like. i well acquainted with china's preparations in this area. this is not something -- taiwan should not be the stage for political theater. host: our guest with us until 8:45 if you want to ask him about the speaker's trip to taiwan. if you want to ask him questions, it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

the speaker had an op-ed in the paper talking about some of her intentions for this is it. i want to walk through a couple of things and ask about them. she writes in part in face of the chinese communist party's accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation could be seen as an unequivocal statement that the u.s. stands with china -- with taiwan and defends itself and its freedom. what do you think about the statement in light of her trip? guest: this is this hyper, ideological viewpoint, call it extreme neoliberalism. it has gotten us into a bad place. we have fought for what, two plus decades to bring democracy and human rights to afghanistan. what did it get us? it is worse off than ever before. many americans died many more afghans died. we have seen this over and over

again. in vietnam, we were supporting the territorial integrity of vietnam. there are so many examples of this. taiwan, if you know the history -- americans are by and large ignorant to the history of taiwan. which is a shame, we might be fighting a war over it. china's claim is pretty good, they controlled the island well before american independents. that goes back pretty far. i would not want to compare china's claims to taiwan to our claims to their eastern territory. anyway, i think here, a lot people in washington make the mistake of turning this into a messy struggle between good and evil. that is a wrong handed approach that will quickly lead us into world war iii with another nuclear power.

that is not how international relations work. it is more complicated than that. it is a lot of gray. we are going to have to deal with that complexity, and use restraint and realism. we cannot wish china away. we cannot sit around and hope they will collapse or something like that, that is not what is going to happen. we have to be exceedingly careful. there are nimitz to american power. it is not to say we should put our forces back in the pacific. i worked for the navy, those forces are not infinite. just as we cannot determine the future of afghanistan, nor can we control the future of hong kong. we should not try, the same is true for taiwan. we have defense commitments in the indo pacific, treaty allies, japan, the philippines.

there is a much better place to draw the line. those companies are not threatened by china. although, they may indeed undertake some increase in expenditures to be proven. taiwan has spent well under 2% on its defense for decades. this explains why they are in the situation they are in, in many ways. they have more or less ignored their own defense, which is reckless on their part. more or less, there is not much we can do about the fate of taiwan. it is similar to hong kong in that way. trying to do so is

moving forward, the chinese communist party did not follow through with the invasion of the island. my main concern is the fact that the chinese government right now is in a place between defaulting on loans, initiatives, investments have slowed dramatically. i do not see how they could possibly consider affording a war right now.

you have the taiwan semi conductor company, which produces processors. we have a pretty big, huge, you could call it concern in taiwan, as well as in china. you also have the fact that china owes a lot of american debt. another thing to consider whether or not these tensions will rise to the point of war. we are so tightly connected, it is almost mutually shared. host: mr. goldstein? guest: andrew makes a lot of great points and i agree with him. it is so intertwined that war should be unthinkable.

a lot of people think about china and the u.s., both militaries are actively planning for a war and the u.s. is on the cusp of spending trillions of dollars on that rivalry. it is getting incredibly expensive. i would say on the semi conductors that some of the news in the last 24 hours has been interesting. china and taiwan trade billions of dollars a year. they have a reasonably good trading relationship and have some interdependence themselves. halting some exports would cause major trouble. the more and more i hear this argument in defense, we have to defend semi conductors or the global economy would be upset, i am not agreeing with that.

we should not risk nuclear war for semi conductors. global markets will adjust. it would be a problem. when you are talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of american lives on the line, it should not be about an semi conductor, which could be produced elsewhere. cars rents of will not find a catastrophic war over semi conductors. why china did not invade taiwan in 1949, they wanted to and had plans to do so, in 1950, harry truman made a speech that i would advise all your listeners to read that speech carefully. president truman outlined taiwan is part of china, which is a

funny thing for a president to say. he wanted to make sure the u.s. and china did docket into a war. six months later, the korean war happened. we put our fleet in the straight and that prevented china from unifying with taiwan. they did invade the other large island in the area, which is also a province of china. there is that history. andrew's point is important to consider. it is a civil war. many americans went to taiwan to study chinese. some of the most important artifacts from chinese culture are at the museum in taiwan, in taipei. we understand this as a civil war, which is basically what it is. you realize the u.s. should have no role. just like we should have had no