relations. did they succeed? what message did they send to the rest of the world? this is inside story. ♪ >> welcome to the program. relations between the world's two leading superpowers have been described as fraught, tense

and strained. china and the united states disagree on many issues including trade, human rights and the rule of law. their leaders seem to find ways to cooperate such as a recent agreement on crime it -- climate change. president biden and xi jinping had their first virtual summit to resolve their differences. the meeting produced no breakthroughs, not publicly. both sides called it an opportunity to repair ties. our correspondent reports. >> the leaders of the world's two biggest economies sat face-to-face for the first time using their virtual summit as a way to reset points of tension in their relationship. pres. biden: we need to establish commonsense guardrails, to be clear and honest where we disagree, and work together with -- where our interests intersect, especially on climate change. >> for years, the u.s. has accused china of economic and defense provocations that

include disrupting global trading practices that hurt american businesses. more recently, stepping up military incursions near taiwan. president biden said recently the u.s. would defend taiwan in any conflict. in tuesday's summit, he also told the chinese president the u.s. was committed to a one china policy, and opposed any change in taiwan's status. xi jinping referred to biden as an old friend, saying china and the u.s. need to increase communication and cooperation. >> china and the united states should respect each other might coexist in peace and pursue cooperation. >> respect between the two countries has been challenging. the u.s. alleges china's government is mistreating chinese moves looms -- muslims

and has protested the crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators in hong kong. joe biden's popularity is sagging domestically, but he went into his conversation fresh from a legislative victory, signing into law one point $2,000,000,000,000 infrastructure overhaul. joe biden says it will create jobs and allow the united states to compete with china in the 21st century. >> there was speculation -- would invite biden to the winter olympics in beijing in february, which some members of congress want him to avoid. according to officials, the subject never came up. in all, the summit produced no major announcements, but instead was designed to de-escalate geopolitical tensions so the u.s. and china can stabilize their relationship and avoid

destabilizing the entire world. >> the view from china was quite different. link -- english language state media highlighted xi jinping's calls for respect and cooperation. >> beijing has described the meeting as fruitful and constructive and says it opened doors to future communication. chinese state media said it was reassuring to the international community that these two superpowers were trying to manage their differences. xi jinping went into this meeting wanting to appear strong, wanting to defend china 's interests. he did that in two areas. in trade, he said he wanted to fast-track economic exchanges between the countries and warned joe biden against using security issues this oppressed companies. the second topic was in regards to taiwan, arguably the most important topic for beijing. xi jinping warned president biden that any kind of talk of

taiwan independence would be playing with fire and that in turn, they promised to abide by the one china principle. if you contrast the earlier meeting we had in alaska between the two sides, a meeting for love harsh language and hostile tones, we've had this meeting between joe biden and xi jinping which opened with friendly smiles, waves of the hand and xi jinping referring to joe biden as an old friend. because of those reasons, we have seen this meeting is being perceived as a successful resetting of the tone between the two countries. >> let's bring in our guest. victor gal, chair professor of -- university. in washington dc, former u.s. deputy assistant secretary of

defense. welcome. i would like to ask you first, we have heard relations between these two countries were extremely poor. aung san suu kyi aung san suu kyi aung san suu kyi in a matter of a few days aung san suu kyi aung san suu kyi, we have had an agreement on climate change, now we have this very cordial public meeting. what you think is driving this change in emphasis? >> the u.s. has attempted to reverse what has become the most important development, which is that china is quickly becoming the most powerful state while the u.s. is in relative decline. for that reason, china sees time on its side. meanwhile, the united states has attempted to reverse this which has resulted in military and economic conflicts. given china has pushed back, the u.s. has tested its limits. both countries have a common

interest in not letting this get out of control. that being said, i think simply because the u.s. is in decline, it has more incentives to challenge the status quo. >> essentially, china has -- in a strengthening position and the u.s. is at a disadvantage. do you think that is what has moseyed mutt -- motivated the president's acceptance of this public meeting with joe biden? >> i think president biden and xi jinping, they knew each other well, for more than a decade. they were the vice presidents of each other's countries and they got along very well. this summit is long overdue. it should have happened earlier this year. however, the fact that it takes place is truly a milestone. it gives assurances to everyone

in china and the united states that despite all of the differences, the top leaders of the two countries can sit down, be friendly and cordial and discuss all of the differences rather than trying to get each other jangled up. this is the better side of the china-u.s. relations and i hope it gives everyone the reason to believe that they can get over their differences and they can find a way to get along despite their tremendous differences which need to be managed. >> was this meeting perhaps a u.s. recognition that previous efforts to influence china's domestic and foreign policy have floundered? >> first of all, i would concur with the professor's assessment that the virtual meeting taking place, that in and of itself is

a positive development. the fact that it was frank, candid and cordial is also positive. particularly when you juxtapose that to the meeting that occurred earlier this year in anchorage, which quickly deteriorated. that said, i think if you read the readout from the white house , we can all assess that nothing substantive actually came out of the meeting. there were no deliverables, no real agreements to do anything. i think the biggest take away is that both countries, both governments recognize that open and transparent communications are required and this virtual meeting on the heels of two telephone calls that have occurred since president biden took office is a positive development. >> i want to talk about that meeting because when the

secretary of state and chinese foreign ministers met, the tone was more hostile. take a look. >> i just made my first trip to japan and south korea. i have to tell you, what i am hearing is very different from what you described. i am hearing deep satisfaction with the united states -- that the united states is back and reengaged. i am also hearing deep concern about some of the actions for government has taken. >> china, as it has in the past and from now on, will never accept the u.s.' winning this criticisms. must a to the u.s. drops its frequent hegemonic actions of interfering with chinese internal affairs. >> i want to ask victor about this because we had strong words from the u.s., but also strong words from china. that is unusual. i have heard under president xi,

there is assessment of that policy being described as aggressive diplomacy. china was no longer going to take criticism, but essentially take the fight to those who are opposed to it. now we are seeing a change. it is a suggestion that china has become concerned that that policy has overreached the mark and brought it closer to risky confrontation with the u.s. and others, and that perhaps is why we are seeing the styling back of rhetoric? >> -- took place very special circumstances. it was very cold. and then the -- on the chinese side and their counterparts in the united states, they were sizing up each other, trying to test each other in preparation for the summit -- virtual summit meeting which took place today.

the working level meeting needs to be as straightforward as possible. the chinese side, the united states had no justification to talk to china from the position of so-called "strength." i think china feels comfortable enough to tell the united states in very serious and straightforward terms that the relations between china and the united states should be level. nobody should lecture the other from above, and china and the united states need to deal with each other as equals. this is reflected very much in this virtual meeting today. president biden and xi jinping seem to get along very well, they respect each other. they like each other. they can get along with each other. the working level people, the secretary of state, national security advisers in china, need to deliver all of the goodwill

demonstrated by the heads of state. this gives hope that china and the united states will not go to war for my go to conflicts, go to each other's jugular, they will get down to business to treat each other as equal. and then, the world is big enough to accommodate both china and the united states. >> this virtual meeting if i understand correctly, is essentially one step up from a phone call but far below a face-to-face meeting. obviously, there may well be logistical reasons why the men couldn't have a face-to-face meeting, but what to be read into the fact that rather than having yet another phone call, they decided to have a virtual summit meeting which lasted three hours and was very public? >> it is difficult to say. there could be many variables. it could be possibly reducing the fallout if the meeting would

be a failure, it could be caution over the pandemic. work, it could simply be not wanting to take a real meeting -- so, i agree with what was said, the previous meeting in alaska was more confrontational simply because they were testing each other out and pushing back. the thing for china, and pressure for that sake, is they are reluctant to be -- inequality were the u.s. will come and possibly lecture them. instead, they are insisting on having this meeting as sovereign equals. i think this meeting went better because this was not how the meeting started. biden did not show up to lecture

xi jinping. this had the feeling of a meeting between equals which have common interests in seeking cooperation and reducing tensions. that set the format on the right track. that said, given the meeting went well it is quite possibly -- quite possible it could upgrade them to a meeting in person. but, it all depends on how this plays out. i would add also one difference this time was biden keeps pointing out needs for common rules of the road, which is what americans keep referring to the so-called international system. this is a very bad point of depart -- bad point of departure because they have correctly interpreted -- rules. the chinese insist on operating under the rules of international law under the u.n. charter. on the contrary, we see the u.s. when it speaks of values and

rules, it implies that has the prerogative to use liberal values to accept itself from international laws. that is why things went so bad in alaska as well. i think that was the main reason this meeting went so much better than the previous. >> let me ask you about that element of creating a common understanding of the world in which both countries led. do you think we are seeing a subtle shift in u.s. policy in as much as it is trying to talk about the rules of the road, the guidelines and guardrails? in terms of the -- for want of the better phrase, the playing field both teams are on rather than trying to directly influence china? >> i would say there has been a distinct revolution in

china-u.s. relations since 2017 when the last national security strategy was published where great power competitions were specifically cited as the greatest national security challenge to the united states. we called out xi jinping's china as being primary focus. i would like to push back a little on this concept of the united states lecturing china. if you go to practically any corner of the world today, whether it is within europe, or china's neighbors, there has been a confluence of interests and alignment with international norms and democratic values, pushing back on what has been an assertive and aggressive chinese foreign policy that has used economic coercion against australia and south korea,

lithuania most recently. it is somewhat ironic that the chinese are complaining about the united states lecturing when chinese diplomacy has brought a new term to our lexicon, wolf warrior diplomacy. i would push back on that. with respect to the actual meeting yesterday, and the fact that it was virtual, i think that is a positive development. it is a step up from a telephone call but at a certain point, hopefully president xi will be able to travel again internationally. he missed the international stage of the u.n. general assembly, he missed meetings in rome and glasgow. at a certain point hopefully xi jinping will be able to venture outside of china to engage with his counterparts in china. -- counterparts in person.

>> there is a problem the u.s. has with regards to taiwan, but if i understand it correctly, the u.s. has a policy we talked about about there being a one china policy, that it agrees with the one china policy. at the same time, president biden has said it will defend its allies. to an outsider like me, that seems like a mixed message. that seems like two sides of the same coin. does that counter any understanding or -- when it comes to meetings like this. china perhaps understandably would say, you are saying one thing but willing to do another. we do not exactly know where you stand on this. >> i would say that u.s. policy has been consistent and long-standing since 1979. i would also mention we have domestic legislation that governs our unofficial

relationship with taiwan. there have been no changes there whatsoever. again, the president yesterday reaffirmed the u.s. commitment to the one china policy, the commitment to the three communiques as well as the commitment to the six assurances, which might chinese colleagues failed to mention is also integral to our relationship, albeit unofficial. united states has also been steadfast in its commitment to know unilateral changes in the cross strait situation. i would venture to say that this particularly over the last 12 to 15 months, the exponential increase in pla activities meant to intimidate and coerce the people of taiwan has not done anything to stabilize the relationship. >> i want to move on from taiwan, we could be talking about that for hours. victor, this is being referred

to as an effort to reset relations. i'll be at the meeting between the two presidents appears to have been cordial, is it going to be difficult for president xi jinping to persuade other elements of his party, of his government who might have stronger feelings toward the u.s. that this is now the route to go, that both countries can work together? >> i think among the chinese people and government officials, there is tremendous goodwill for the united states. don't get me wrong cover the chinese people are not enemies of the united states. if we look at the deterioration of the china-u.s. relations ever since trump became president, a lot of the problems were created by the american side, rather than the chinese side. the chinese side were on the receiving side of all of these -- so i think if we can really

get down to business, we can really call a spade a spade. china-u.s. relations can go back to constructive, friendly relations. i think in the united states, there are people who need to come to terms with the fact that china is soon becoming larger than the u.s. as an economy. that should not cause insanity, they should treat this as a reality. the key is now that china is fast becoming the largest economy in the world, how can china and the united states get along with each other? this should be the key thing that biden and xi jinping needs to talk about. i think these countries have very different systems. i do not think china has any desire or commitment to replace united states as the top dog of

the world. we simply see no fun becoming the top dog of the world. that is why xi jinping said the world needs to be big enough to accommodate the united states. fundamentally, china and the united states should not be enemies against each other, they should be partners and friends. >> sorry to interrupt, but i want to come to glenn. the meeting was three hours long. we only saw a small proportion of it. clearly there was stuff being discussed not in public. what evidence going forward do you think we should look at to see whether or not this meeting has actually had an impact, positive or negative, on relations between china, the u.s. and all of the countries and the reason -- in the region who will be directly affected between any change in the relationship. >> obviously both parts --

addressing each other respectably. however, i do not think too much was achieved. when it comes to economics, obviously there is more room for maneuvering in terms of both sides finding compromise. this is a very difficult part because i think the partnership between the u.s. and china used to be divined by traditional labor where china would produce and assemble. but, this is not the china of today. it is more a direct competitor to the united states. there is more of a need there to renegotiate economic partnership to accommodate -- what format they can compete. >> time has come up against us through mesh us. i want to thank all of our guests. thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting a lag0.com. for further discussion, go to

our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for me and the whole team, goodbye for now. ♪

srrrrqúúú/

diep tran: i think people are aware of vietnamese cuisine, and most people don't want that cuisine to change or don't want to have their understanding of the cuisine to change. because the cuisine is changing all the time. the idea of a, like, this unifying national cuisine, vietnamese cuisine, it doesn't exist. really, it truly doesn't exist. even a unified vietnamese identity doesn't exist. [dings] like, it's kind of like saying italians--defined by tomatoes and olive oil. what people see as essential, it's because they're looking from like an outsider's point of view, and it's not granular.