hello and welcome to crossfire all things considered i'm peter lavelle rising china in a pivoting america according to a recent white paper china's military establishment is carefully watching and becoming very concerned over washington strategic planning in the pacific ocean the americans say their pivot is a natural reallocation of resources the chinese see it as a regional policy of containment. across the chinese defense concerns i'm joined by neil gupta in washington he is a professor of strategy and globalization at the university of maryland and also in washington we have matthew skew venza he is an associate editor of the china channel at the atlantic and in boston we cross to john walsh he is

a contributor to counterpunch and antiwar dot com as well as a founding member of come home america right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want john if i go to you first in boston do you think that the chinese feel like this is a policy of containment we had containment during the cold war of the soviet union we have containment of iran now so china's next well i think there's little doubt about that because the united states secretary trying kerry secretary of state says and others say that we the united states is sending sixty percent of a vast military armada to to the to the east asia the western pacific now they say the excuse given is there's more economic activity there so the u.s. needs to send troops. well down the street here this is salem a small that is a lot of economic activity do we need to send troops it is it is just an absurdity

it's a nonsense as far as keeping the seas open there are no want to start and to close the seas china needs open seas for its development so that doesn't make sense i think that this is yet another attempt by the united states to maintain its edge a man. status in the world and i think there's a bit of panic going on here in the united states foreign policy establishment because if they cannot break china up then the united states is destined if china is to become a moderately prosperous country and bring wellbeing to its citizens then the united states will be in place just for a few of the difference in population i think so i think it was it was a bit of good or bad first it won't go ahead. well i

mean i think there's a lot more to the pivot to asia than simply containment of china i think that that's a very simplistic rendering of the idea and i wouldn't be oh i also wouldn't be overly sanguine about the ceiling issue the fact that there is never been a threat to the ceilings doesn't mean that there never could be a threat and i think you know the united states has a legitimate interest in protecting the sea lanes in global commerce and it isn't just washington's interest you also have to consider several of the other countries in the region that have very very advanced trade relations with the u.s. japan and south korea the philippines those countries are also. would prefer washington's activity in that in the east asia region particularly in relation to the ceiling. in what in washington which i reply to what we've already heard. yes exactly because i mean you know basically the last thing we should expect last

thing the chinese would expect or any other government to expect is that for the u.s. to act irrationally and you know i mean given that asia has about fifty five percent of the world's population it's more than thirty percent of world g.d.p. by another ten years asia will be more than us and europe combined by g.d.p. and so and of course you know economic power and military power. you know highly correlated but in the medium to long term and so it's rational for the u.s. to be focusing in terms of quote unquote the pivot economic political pivot towards asia that's number one number two is so we should not expect the u.s. to act irrationally and that's kind of the invasion of iraq was the rational was and it wasn't wasn't that irrational wait wait wait wait of course it was it rational that was completely stupid on the us part but just because the us acted irrationally doesn't mean that it's good for the u.s. to keep acting irrationally for ever number one number two is that we should not

make the mistake of looking at this as a us versus china because in this day and age what we're talking about coalitions of and actually if the u.s. was you know kind of jumping into asia uninvited that would be one thing i could imagine you know kind of. a lot of concern about that but u.s. is being invited back you look at japan south korea look at in fact it china ally for long times singapore and of course vietnam philippines malaysia indonesia australia india and so when the u.s. is being invited back we have to look at the correlation that's concerned about the robustness on china's part can john you want to jump in can i can tell instantly go ahead please i please claim since i seem to be i seem to be in the minority here. i think that when one talks about japan and south korea one must remember

that those are both occupied countries i complied by u.s. forces that is not trivial secondly i think that you have to look with the u.s. foreign policy establishment is saying richard armitage taj former undersecretary of state and joseph nye were recently and a trip to japan an unofficial mission but blessed by x. secretary of state hillary clinton and before that they wrote an article i believe it was in foreign affairs i can't recall i think it was in foreign affairs. and what they were trying to do in that article is essentially go to japan into confronting china you know absent. in the comments of of the other two casts here is any acknowledgement that the united states is running an empire with hundreds of military bases all around the globe second i mean what i have to say and i would

say just one more thing clearly i mean they were not necessarily a mistake because the policy in the united states in the middle east and i think in the world is either submit or be destroyed ok good point neil in washington right head replied lawry he did not submit libya's destroy the rules as to the period pineal go ahead we have to face it we will wait a second john you know to say that the us is an occupier in japan and south korea is fundamentally to misinterpret the reality u.s. yes a strong military ally of japan and south korea and clearly has defense treaty with both countries but you know i mean i come from india and i know about british rule and british occupation of india and essentially the industrial revolution in britain in the nineteenth century was fueled from india you know so occupiers in the past have always have had a history of actually mask the countries that occupied look at how japan and south

korea have performed with the you know under the alliance with the u.s. they have tried and sort of call it an occupation is complete nonsense matt you want to jump in there because they well let's go to math first and go to mass matt ok fine fine what i what i want to say is this i think both of you both of the fellow guests are interpreting that pivot is a much too grandly the pivot to asia really isn't all that much i mean it's something it's just a simple term to describe something that's been happening over the last decades anyway and we also cannot forget the political component of the of the pivot to asia which is this president obama wanted to send signal a clear. you know that the u.s. was less interested than the previous administration in war in. war in the middle east and wants to be in focus on relations in east asia because in the long term

that's far more important john you want to. go ahead well i would agree that in large part the the united states because. sort of bogged down in the middle east because the largely because of the impact of the israeli lobby has not been able to counter china in the way it would like but i'd like to i'd like to go to henry kissinger here for a second. henry kissinger in his account china which is not a bad book actually talks about a fundamentally different culture in china from that of the west and i think we should listen to him on this point because for example if you look at the fifteenth century when china was the most powerful nation in the world it sent out ships bigger than anything columbus would dream of one hundred years later traded. it it traded it explored but unlike the west it did not conquer it did not in slaves

that is the western tradition and if you think we've escaped that history. and i mean the way things look british empire is really i mean but the united states and hired i mean this was a neil going it's plain as the nose on your face. you know quite out of the little way the second. or second you know you look at china to look at china in the fifteenth century and say that somehow that's a good indicator of china today is completely wrong it's like saying let's you know forget about everything that's really years back you know but not enough but but wait a second i mean the mobius look at the u.s. under george bush and you know from two thousand to two thousand eight and to say well you know the white house today is the same leadership it is change is the same what is it what is the biggest differences what is the biggest difference. what is the biggest difference or any difference is there any to if you know the previous president. but wait

a second you talk about irrationality in iraq and afghanistan and that irrationality took place under the previous president it's not necessary yes certainly the president attributed to him you know those apologies along to it was he when he was that. makes a good point but let's go from the fifteenth century to today and let's look at two things about china today it's this world's second largest economy it has not one single overseas base as compared to the united states with hundreds secondly in the white paper the chinese speak over and over again right gentlemen i'm going to have to jump in at this point we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on china stay with hockey. league.

this is. just things like us really my colleagues and i will never shake mr saakashvili as

hands i consider him a war criminal. secret laboratory to mccurry was able to build a new most sophisticated robot which all unfortunately doesn't give a darn about anything tim's mission to teach creation why it should care about humans and worry that this is why you should care only on the dot com. world. science technology innovation all the least of elements from

around russia we've got the future covered. please. welcome back to cross now where all things considered i'm peter lavelle to mind who were discussing china's pivot. ok newfangled back to you in one chinese china acting rationally i mean you brought up the issue of rationality go ahead. i think china is acting rationally rationally meaning what's good for china on. at least let's see in the short to medium term that doesn't necessarily mean that china especially or the u.s. or the rationality on the part of the us here and countries necessarily is aligned

you know because it's like to combat and if you will and each may act rationally but it doesn't necessarily mean that there's alignment you know clearly china's energy needs a massive and you know projecting out for the next twenty years china's energy dependence on the rest of the world is going to increase and if you look at what's happening in south china sea what's happening you know with the islands of you know there are. reports indications of estimates of four significant oil and gas reserves so i think that's a huge part of what you know china wants to be able to own that to control that and it's good for china now whether china can get away with that get away with it because players all right matt jump in what do you think about that. well i mean yes i agree with the professor mean it's a case where the pivot to asia is both countries acting rationally in that you know

you have china that is also growing and china has a sphere of influence that it wants to operate you know has laid expansive claims over the east china sea in the south china sea they claim these territories for a very long time but only recently have they really had the muscle to to act on these claims and for the united states has an interest of course in maintaining its a gemini over the sea lanes in the east china sea as well as as a partnerships with countries like japan and korea malaysia etc so i don't think we should say that there is any this is a case where one country is is misbehaving or one country is acting irrationally because it simply isn't true this is something that was inevitable and not something that is in the term pivot to asia i believe is simply branding it's simply a way to refer to something that was happening already and it's going to continue it isn't new ok john what do you think about that. i mean why do you need the military for

a pivot why do military all the time well that was going to be one of the points i was going to make why just as i said when i started out if we have a sale at macy's down the street with there's lots of economic activity we have to send the military down there i don't think so it is i think that. looks like judging from his point little conditionally of deterrence there is a yeah there is a washington centric view if you if you get inside the beltway the idea of washington and the and the united states is the savior of the world and in enforcer of human rights is solid but if you go out into the rest of the world you begin to encounter a challenge johnson's books you know empire of bases and blowback and that's the reality and to turn our impacts this no id military empire the biggest the world has ever seen and attribute to it after what we've seen in libya syria iraq iran

benign motives i think that's the height of folly that's not the reality we're having with. your folly is a very not aggressive what larry all of us read in that china or here and we have to realize that you know neal go ahead in washington jump in i think i think i think i think it's fundamentally wrong to look at it as a u.s. centric perspective in fact you have to look at it first and foremost as a centric issue and the players in this game that's being played out not just the u.s. and china it's not just the chinese the you us you you have to look at other players within asia you cannot just say that japan doesn't matter south korea doesn't matter doesn't matter philippines indonesia malaysia singapore india they don't matter the only thing that matters is china what kind of an argument is that you want to apply to that go ahead and. making that argument is let me john you want to

reply to that and saying is that the argument you made the argument is that you know what is right and i had to bring it any i don't really get you. go john i agree i mentioned south korea i mentioned south korea i mentioned japan if you don't read well you don't get mine i call it a right scuse me if you bring in a third one if you want a pretty good instance of aggressive imperial movement consider remember that the war in vietnam left two to four million people dead according to robert mcnamara that was not the act of a but now if so why is here doug inviting us back and one of the next to me is more than that job because i think you raise an excellent question you raise an excellent question about asian powers and asian countries being the determinant of what goes on in asia may i remind you the united states is not an asian power it's half a world away it doesn't even belong there i think we talk about how you get what experiences and lighted by asian countries don't be asian countries have

a right to invite the united states or you think the asian country said no to any but in both. in both south korea and japan there are large peace movements that want the us out of there so who's doing the inviting that one policy established by linked in but then again and i get and just because it is a little bit lower i don't think that isn't i don't think that's a really big bite and just because that it's a movement doesn't mean that south korea as a country or the south korean government wants the u.s. to go away i mean there are movements of all types of that movement that is going to send us humans up the country ok matt jump in yes matt jump in go ahead yeah i agree don't matta sure the idea that. the idea that these countries don't you know that are not mindful of the fact that. u.s. power they don't think that u.s. power is coercive in japan and korea as the professor is saying this is something

that they they they want as a check against chinese power i'm not saying that china is any worse than the u.s. i'm not saying that they're any more belligerent that there is a moral issue here or a normative issue it's simply the case is this if the u.s. were to withdraw all of its military troops tomorrow or the next day from east asia i can't i don't think that we're going to experience a period of complete peace and harmony and you have to think about how deterrence works and in that china with the largest military in east asia would behave very differently if they didn't have the united states there i'm not saying that this is necessarily a great thing but the idea that the united states is the principal aggressor and is the only country with imperial interests in east asia is wrong china has interests as well in a sphere of influence that it wants to to to preside over and that's simply the case of world politics going back for centuries countries have series of influence they want to exert influence over other countries and the idea that the united

states is uniquely malevolent in this regard is completely false john jump in. well ok you know you can appeal to to to the future what would be and should be and will be i'm appealing to history united states started aggressive who are in korea and i'm declared war by the way the first we had under progressive so-called progressive president harry truman also a mass murderer for dropping the atomic weapons on japan started that war actually and that's another thing the firebombings of japan and the now you're going to enjoy our bureau there and run it and not even care he was robert mcnamara said that wait a second let me finish and then the united states started a war and vietnam laos cambodia come on now this is a ruthless empire and you can turn it over it i mean john but history just go away . let's not jump in sir john wait

a second i mean you look at china's history no no no wait a second you look at china's history you look at china as i want to say the words and anybody who crushed you know shanon effort no. no no no wait a second i mean you know china has never given a lasting love i mean let me elaine in washington the second the last yes. yes the last thing i would say is that the u.s. you know has been you know. well meaning fellow throughout its history look at look at those are going to a certain extent that's ok but they're not about let's go wait and see i can't about this just because the u.s. is going to be like does not mean that about it human rights and that sort of thing has nothing to do with us foreign policy henry kissinger says that stephen walt says that john mearsheimer says that it's absurd that the sec only only does something about academic those not only believe in that sort of things aren't just for you are you saying that saying here is that you know china is the best behaved

country on earth. i did not say that i said the united states and that's sort of the power it is a ruthless imperial power and china is well while advise to be very careful matt jump in go ahead. yeah well i mean you're ignoring the capacity i mean china has never had the strength to wage a war across an ocean the united states did but the idea that the their behavior would be any different hundred. finally were slave ships from the west. it was a most powerful clinicians and i don't understand how can you hounds culture counts what your ig it's not a coincidence that as china has grown stronger that its economy has grown that its military has grown that it has pursued a more interest interventionist foreign policy this is what happened to the united states this is one where the before in the united way it's been interventionist

have you not paid attention to anything in answering over the last few years because i have. china china that the u.s. isn't mentioned while and receive nowhere. all right you're not letting me finish because you don't have any real point to make here what i'm saying is this that you have as i do china has been more aggressive in pursuing its territorial claims in the east china sea in the south china sea it is not a coincidence china has has had these opinions it has had these claims for decades but in the past they were unable to act upon it because they lack the power now that china has more muscle it is going to pursue its interests like any country would i'm not saying china is worse i'm not saying it's better it's not a moral issue it's not a normative issue china is simply pursuing it saying it was more aggressively now because they have the ability to do so and these interesting clue claims that you're seeing trees there's american exceptionalism the name in the e-mail is from henry kissinger there's. there's an american exceptionalism in that you know i mean

because it makes the point which i think it's we are second all right gentlemen i don't think you can hear we have run out of time fascinating discussion many thanks to me to my guests in washington and in boston and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember crosstalk. it was terrible. the city was on fire nobody knew what was happening. five days without a break we were terrified. and there was no communication only tanks all around us

we came out to find georgian democracy in our streets. that any one of us could have left straight away but we knew that our first tutti was to defend our homeland now that we've had peace since two thousand and one of the places reviving and coming back to normal suffered since april twentieth twelve i've been the president of the republic of south ossetia i'm very pleased to see those old people is so positive about building and strengthening our country's state. lives in the city and we love it everyone loves his homeland right but you know we didn't expect to live through five years of such peace and quiet. there's no war. i heard you saying that you believe that all environmentalist want is to shot down the last and i wonder who do you believe why they must their minds of these global

communist conspiracy is very clear that when the ballot came down the extreme communist or marxist factions had to find somewhere else to get to do the damage to the west they wanted to do and they found that in the environmental movement. this is injunctions our city. my colleagues and i will never shake mr saakashvili as hanscom i consider him a war criminal and.

the main competitor girl on the market is mother nature. may customers struggle with goods. fight for each drop from an old dirty supply and. let people think i are prices pure want to. live on our teeth. they use it up there and wash their hands in it and flush their toilets when the same water. nestle's is selling and spraying water.

i have. to live on one hundred thirty three bucks a month for food i should try it because you know how fabulous bad luck i got so many i mean. i know that i've seen the same thing really messed up. and we're all very so personally apologize and. worse you're going to say no my house is a. radio guy in fort lauderdale minestrone. i want to close for a politician because you never seen anything like that i'm told. it's just so. you guys i'm having mark welcome to the set well the government has been scrambling recently to keep it.