could use. we are to shy to talk about vision to turn chinese navy into a blue water navy actually we have but it's clear that if i need a century they will be developed hopefully into a world class a military that would even crude 1st because the chinese navy. hello and welcome to the party one of the most cited chinese fables these days ease

the one about tigers clashing in a monkey our tree waiting to reap the benefits ass promising as it may be for those watching china and the united states jostle over the technological head gemini is it realistic to expect that the standoff between the worlds largest economies will not engulf everybody all to discuss that i'm now joined by salvatore a bonus associate professor in sociology and social policy at the university of sydney professor bonus's good to talk to you thank you very much for your time oh banker for having me on the program i really appreciate it now i mentioned this rather optimistic tigers and monkey outlook in my introduction but another animal prover of that is very popular in this part of the world is about to allophones and it says that it doesn't matter whether elephants are fighting or making lots of the big grass underneath gets trampled anyway which of the these 2 wisdoms do you think is more relevant this people around the world are trying to understand. how this.

american spat is going to affect them oh i don't think these kind of metaphors for really very useful you know really there's there's not much happening in the global economy as a result of the u.s. china so-called trade war you know tariffs are not the end of the world and supply chains are not being destructive because of these these conflicts i mean just to put things in perspective you know most things that are exported from china say united states are exported as finished products the same holds true for most things exported from the u.s. to china so any tariffs on those products while they might affect price levels in the u.s. or in china and they might affect the level of trade between the u.s. and china they simply don't disrupt the global supply chain so the rest of the world is hardly affected at all while they haven't disrupted global supply chains yet but i think there is some administration officials who express that intention very clearly and i think the answer to my question partially depends on how you

conceptualize these talks whether you think it's only about the trade dispute or whether as some administration officials suggest that it's a clash of civilization for global technological dominance where do you stand on this oh i don't think it's about trade at all this is clearly about you know writing the standards for the 21st century but that doesn't really capture the rest of the world and it's. you know in the conflict this is the us china thing and i think the rest of the world can pretty much rest easy that whoever wins this dispute and frankly as an american i think it will be the united states whoever wins this dispute things will go on pretty much the same for the rest of the world in fact this dispute is creating opportunities for the rest of the world especially in the agricultural sector where countries like brazil are taking up the slack of u.s. agricultural exports to china now the trumpet ministrations officials are pretty clear that. it's not about soybeans it's not about even the trade deficit any more

they want to dismantle the whole architecture i'll chime in as state capitalism. we know that trump is the best sick person but don't you think that's why even for him well it's very ambitious but i also think it's very appropriate i mean look back in 2001 when china joined the world trade organization it agreed to things it agreed to open its markets trade in tariffs so most favored nation status goes along with. membership and the 2nd thing it agreed to was what's called national treatment that country of companies from foreign countries would be treated exactly the same way as domestic companies in the chinese market now we got the tariff reductions that went along with the view cio membership but we didn't get the national treatment and we've been waiting for that i mean china had a 5 or 6 year phase in period depending on the industry but that period is long since over by 2007 china was supposed to be extending national treatment to not

just american companies but to companies around the world in the chinese market and that simply hasn't happened this is what the dispute is about and if china doesn't want to provide national treatment to international companies it should do the honorable thing and withdraw from the duty oh it's china that is simply not following w.t. overrules are really put it this way any chinese company that wants to come to the us and set up operations can do it and can do it on the same basis as american companies except in a very limited number of areas that have to do with national security and here the huawei debate which i'm sure will talk about has become a big part of that discussion but in other industries china can come and operate as a u.s. company the most famous example is smithfield foods the u.s. america's largest pork producer is actually now a chinese company owned by. and that's no problem u.s.

companies catch go operate in china but i think there's a difference between urging china to comply with its w 2 your applications and telling china to abandon its entire can all make and development system was the bast dad can hope for do you think for example he can get beijing to you drop state subsidies for state owned enterprises well i mean it was china that offered to not only offered but expressed a desire to make that transition back in the 1990 s. china was admitted to the w cio on the basis of chinese presentence that china would transition from being a state capitalist country to being one where foreign competition was welcome i mean just to put this in perspective in 2001 china agreed that its entire telecommunications sector and its entire banking sector would be open to american companies you know try opening a bank account in renminbi at

a us bank in china it's impossible but they guaranteed that by 2007 that would happen and now you know when is the time right i mean i think that this should have happened you know under the obama administration once it became clear that china was not going to live up to its commitments but at some point china should either obey the rules that it has committed to and you know that is ahead of say and shaping or it should just admit that they're going to abandon the rules i mean i think it's kind of ridiculous when she gives major policy speeches talking about how you know china is committed to internationalism and rule of law when in fact it does nothing of the kind but professor i mean this argument this is pretty familiar i mean i've heard that from noncompliance the chinese noncompliance b.w.t. all rules i heard it from the americans i heard it from the europeans i heard it from russians i heard it from aig. why did it take so long for anybody to even

voice those concerns promptly oh and this is one of the reasons donald trump was elected in 2016 because there had been 8 years of china simply disregarding its obligations under the obama administration china disregarding or the obama administration not asking hardly enough oh no it's not up to united states to enforce chinese law you know the treaties that brought china into the world trade organization is now part of chinese law and china is supposed to be enforcing it what this is what donald trump said was enough is enough you know we've waited you know 8 years we've waited 16 years well you know how long do you wait and you know trump's answer was you know no longer and so trump has taken the lead the trump of ministration is taking the lead in pushing china to open its store to the world and you know that's a path that china has repeatedly said it wants to take maybe all it needs is a little bit of you know a little bit of

a push from the outside to get it over the political home i think you would also agree with me that for the trumpet ministration it's not only about the. rules i think trump himself has a major groove and says about the world trade organization it's it's primarily from what i understand it's primarily about preventing china's had germany as a global economic power and i think there is an assumption on the part of the american policymakers that much of chinese economic growth still comes and still fueled by borroughs or stolen. technology from the west and there is an assumption that if the united states were to put a man to forced acknowledge it transfers or intellectual property if the china's economy with automatically slowed down can you take that for granted because from my understanding chinese silicon valley has long since caught up with america's west coast in terms of. ation well i mean that's a that's

a question of judgment i mean in my view china has come nowhere near to catching up to the us in technology and most of its technology is still somewhat derivative of american models and you know force technology transfer is really a serious problem in terms of china trying to get up to american standards look there's plenty of technology transfer that's perfectly legal and that's perfectly appropriate in an international trading regime the problem comes when a country says when a government a sovereign national government says you must break international law that it says this to a company and give technologies to chinese companies or you can't do business in china now that's a serious problem i still don't think that even doing that china will stand a chance of catching up because really you know leadership in the 21st century requires entrepreneurship it requires you know it requires a real leadership approach that is different from simply you know forcing others to

give you their technology well and i think those areas respect i think china would not be what it is right now without someone to bring their ship on some novel thinking and some thinking outside the box can i ask you something else about the w t o because china's economic model wasn't invented i think one of the complaints of the trump administration with regards to its predecessors is that the americans used to go soft on china because they didn't understand the chinese mentality they didn't understand china's real motives do you think charm's negotiators gapped china well enough to understand when to stop pushing oh it's you know as a china specialist myself i am very opposed the idea of any kind of chinese exceptionalism. chinese business people in the chinese government they want money and american business people the american government they want money in this in the end is all about money who is going to make the profits and you know i don't think it's. takes any special understanding of china to really want to win in this game

and you know the united states is playing to win i don't think anyone in the trump administration makes any bones about that i think the united states has the wherewithal to win these battles but you know i don't see it as a problem that a country wants to do well look i don't see it as a problem that china wants to take advantage of global trade rules for its own benefit the problem comes when americans and europeans and others around the world let them do so well in peril perhaps now the chinese state media are now advancing the narrative dad if worse comes to worse china could easily leave without a deal and with all the arabs that the united states already put on it. side do you thing will last longer with the current state of affairs well the 1st thing i think it's important to remember is that as of last week only 8 days ago there was a deal and at the last minute china red line did you know put strikes roosevelts

all of the enforcement provisions of the deal so china said look we agree with this deal in principle but we're unwilling to see it actually enforced you know i think that push comes to shove and as the tariffs start to bite into the chinese economy i really think china will come to the table and agree to those enforcement provisions i want to be clear the deal is already there and the u.s. and china have a deal what they don't have is an agreement on enforcing the d.l. a lot of chinese commentary is now filled with the references to 500 years of chinese civilizations which is. clearly a bit of a broad at this point of time but i think it's also clear that dylan has a much shorter political deadline than big chinese communist party trump is very straightforward about wanting to inflict pain on the chinese leadership do you think that china's leadership has a capacity to inflict pain on trump. 1st china has virtually no cards to play in

this dispute you know people talk a lot about chinese punishment of u.s. farmers but the fact is that global agricultural prices have been in decline for 2 years and the troubles facing american farmers have very little to do with trade war and time trying to use tariffs and a lot to do with the decline in global agricultural prices so china has very little leverage in this deal on the other hand you know outsiders you know westerners americans in particular tend to see china as some kind of monolith as this great communist party that you're runs everything with no no disputes and no arguments well you know i'll tell you china's but chinese business people are right now scared and they're right now calling their friends in the communist party they're calling the leadership and they're saying we need to get something done as it is production is leaving china for vietnam people you are chinese manufacturers who are afraid of the u.s. tariffs especially those in the low end making consumer products cheap consumer products like toys and shoes they're moving the southeast asia now china needs to

stem that flow once that industry goes to southeast asia it's gone for good it's never coming back to china and chinese leaders are aware of this i mean the clock is ticking on china yes trump has a clock ticking for you know a year and a half till the next elections but i think china's clock is ticking much much faster than that ok well professor backbones we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments stay tuned. join the every thursday on the alex simon chill and i'll be speaking to guests of the world of politics school business i'm showbusiness i'll see you then.

the tense situation in venezuela is still all over the news the problem in venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been great only temperament from the inside venezuela things look different we're going to announce sanctions against petroleum to venezuela associated. bonus will have a supplement to. that person that sort of polling data to see on the path and the path of the moment the focus of the who story isn't new makes him cold in henry kissinger to tell him that it would not be tolerated in latin america. an alternative economic and social system could take hold and therefore the policy would be to make the economy scream so wants now making the economy of venezuela screed.

welcome back to worlds apart with salvatore associate professor in selsey ology and social policy at the university of sydney professor one of the points that's western commentators also in the make about the reason why the top administration is collapsing on china now is because china is supposedly moving into a new technological phase with its exports of computing and communication technologies its efforts to build the g 55 g. arrive in networks around the world and because it's a different system a different value system because it's now a democracy it's no longer just a trade issue it's a security issue because we don't know what the chinese companies are going to do

with all that data is that a valid argument oh it's certainly a valid argument and i'm going to be very frank with you if i were chinese or for that matter you know russian or maybe even german i might not want to have american technology in this crucial infrastructure because we can be very sure that the american government is able to exert pressures on american companies to you know it here to you know american national security concerns and in the same way chinese companies of course are beholden to the chinese government even more so i mean in the united states at least some legal process is required for the security services to break into american technology and we've seen american technology companies sometimes resist government orders but in china there is no resistance whatsoever i think it's a very legitimate concern i think in the light of the miller investigation mission should really knows the play of the due process in the united states with that because i think the american intelligence officers also know how to cut corners there but i think you leave me to my exact point that. companies on their own to

transfer data and technology to you. american then western intelligence agencies is there really a space here for a moral value based argument if you just say that we don't want china to get access to these to these we can understand that it's a competition argument but if you make a value based argument to be a democracy and they're not isn't it a bit a bit of a stretch given the recent track record by american the western and western intelligence agencies i know it's no secret that american intelligence agencies and i would say western i would say american anglo-american including the u.k. do exert enormous pressure on american technology companies to allow access to their systems and we have well documented evidence that that has occurred throughout the 2000 so i don't think anyone would deny that the difference is that you know for people like me the difference is that i'm an american and this is

a very realistic bait about national interests and you know i think it would be blind of the united states simply to allow chinese companies to control this crucial infrastructure and here we're talking specifically about while way which has close links to the chinese government to the chinese military and to allow them to control american infrastructure what i think just be a dereliction of oversight on the part of the american government and it shouldn't happen and shouldn't happen in close american allies like australia the united kingdom nato countries as well but can you really advance that kind of argument and call for the enforcement of w.t. all rules because if you prevent one chinese company from operating in the american market i don't see how it would encourage the chinese leadership to permit a more 7 open space with the american or other companies in their own country oh don't. have a built in national security exception mechanism and you know i think it would be entirely appropriate if china were to prohibit american companies from controlling

this crucial infrastructure. but let's be very serious about this china for him it's facebook from providing. the ability of chinese people to upload photos you know it's prohibits you tube it prohibits over from driving people around in china and for stuber to transfer its technology to d.d. instead and take a minority stake in d.d. you know this is from the chinese side this is not about crucial infrastructure this is about you know entire sectors of the economy and that's where this differs the debate on the u.s. side in the chinese side well i think those sectors of the economy also have security implications now one curious thing that i noticed is that taking on china has seemed to put trump in the better graces with harshest critics people like tom friedman of the of the new york times for example who typically speak for the washington consensus he now came out in support of trump do you think these china policy may try to get more acceptance domestically honestly i don't think so i

wish they were the case but i don't think it will be you know most of the opposition to trump domestically has very little to do with foreign policy and is really all about trump the person and about trump's domestic agenda so while trying to make at some point some support from unlikely friends when it comes to the china debate the china debate crosses party lines it's not about democrats versus republicans it's about china hawks versus china doves and each of the parties each of the 2 major parties has people in both camps so i don't think this will particularly help trump in you know in the media or in the 202020 elections but i don't think it will hurt him either now standing up to unfair trade and manufacturing promises practice is rather was while. initial campaign promises that god trump elected in different places you alluded to earlier and he was elected as we all know much to the outrage of the liberal establishment what you called the.

expert class i know you wrote a whole book on that but before we discuss it why did why do you think the experts didn't see these populist wave coming especially given the the singular and i think very pronounced the fact that globalization had specifically on the american economy well 1st i think it's worth remembering that the populist wave in the united states was not a very big donald trump one of minority of the popular vote and just squeaked through with an election victory that's still millions of people oh yes yes no i don't it's a big accomplishment but i don't fault america's expert class for not seeing a populist wave i do fault america's expert class for being at heart in many ways anti-democratic you know very pro liberal but not very pro people and i think that's been a problem on both sides of the american political debate i mean let's not forget bernie sanders with very little money and no institutional support almost won the

democratic party primary as well and personally i would love to have seen a 2016 election that was sanders versus trouble maybe we'll get that in 2020 but you know this wasn't. you know this wasn't just a trump phenomenon and you know trump won the election and i think that's been infuriating to many of america's experts but i think many of them would have also been quite infuriated with the sanders victory as well now in your book you make an interesting point that the regardless of all the accusations trump is not and could not be authoritarian but many of his liberal critics are could you explain that oh authoritarianism has a very specific meaning in the dictionary in american history and then later in political science a thorough tarion ism is when government is conducted by telling people that they should obey authority and historically those authorities have been the church the military and the security services well you know and when i say the church i mean

the institutional. church the you know the bishops and the and the archbishop's well you know in the united states trump has not have the support of organized religion he's had many religious people support him but you know not organized religion he certainly didn't have the support of the security services in 2016 if anything they did everything possible to prevent a trump victory you know just because you don't like someone doesn't make that some person authoritarian i mean someone like francisco franco in spain you know he was an authoritarian that the church and the security services put him in power and kept him in power but authoritarianism means telling people not to think for themselves and if trump is about anything it's about telling people ignore the authorities think for yourself and people who vote for themselves voted for trump in defiance of the experts i think in your book you go even further arguing and showing how contemporary liberal liberalism has become quite a liberal and i have to say very very scripted in telling people what to think how

to think who do you agree or disagree with i know you've been teaching abroad for almost a decade do you think you would have been able to ride this book if you state. i think in many of the more difficult i could have written it. and kept my job if that's what you mean but being abroad gives you a perspective on your home country and i really encourage americans to travel and get that sense of perspective you start to realize you start to see debates from the outside instead of seeing them as a participant in the debate itself and you know when you see american democracy from the outside not just american democracy american democracy but even more european democracy when you see it from the outside you start to see many of the flaws now you know personally i'm a democrat i think more democracy is the answer to these flaws i'm very troubled but i have a lot of colleagues who think that the the solution is to limit democracy to limit people's freedom to make choices to restrict the topics on which people. or should

be allowed to choose and i think that's very dangerous for any democracy you know what i'd like to see is all options on the table all voices reflected in the media particularly on the internet i'm very opposed to internet censorship i'd like to see a robust debate and when you have a bus debate i think ultimately you get the best government well professor so it's really we have a total agreement on that but we have to leave it here thank you very much for sharing your perspective but that's thank you for having me on the program i'm going to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and. the same place same time here on.

our china in the us in training endgame the battle lines have been drawn and demands made in this trade war it appears full size are preparing for the long haul what does it mean to win a trade war what does it mean to lose and how far could this. if you will not obey the voice of the lord your god will be careful to do all these commandments and the state use. in all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. and then the white people the stolen property and the point must be returned to black people. get rid of whites only the problems will go away. the local folks need to think. as president of the fleet.

wide farmers. free go be a day every single day. people being tortured to death expression the elderly people in the. mania somebody of my funk be enough somebody. may been under these white horse will find themselves affected by credit. for going to one of my teams and greens oh it's all sweat and blood of no. where are you going to have for dinner true that you don't have a need to be a student from miami bad schools feelings civil war in south africa never took a. lot of friends drug wars or any chong not be in the job of your and to prevent.

6 people are confirmed dead and hundreds more injured in post-election protests which rep to me and to mission comes from the concept. down those who are fronts terrorist group attacks syrian army positions in syria province using tanks and vehicles filled with explosives. and the un is the united kingdom a defeat in a dispute over the charcoal silence of the indian ocean calling on london to cede control of the territory within 6 months. is a full news update coming your way next alpha now though.