chinese navy. blue and welcome to the world apart from one of the most cited chinese fables these days he's the one about tigers clashing in a monkey i treat waiting to reap the benefits asked promising as it may be for those watching china and the united states jostle over the technological head gemini is it realistic to extract a deadly standoff between the world's largest economies will not everybody will 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 thank you for having me on the program i really appreciate it now i mentioned these 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 alison's 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 side the american spat is going to affect them oh i don't think these kind of metaphors are 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 a. with things in perspective you know most things that are exported from china so

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 well 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 us 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 anymore they want to dismantle the whole architecture all china's state capitalism and we know that trump is a been basket 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 o rules are we 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 china 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.t. all obligations and telling china to abandon its entire can all make and development system what's the bass dad can hope for do you think for example he can get beijing he'll drop state subsidies for state owned. enterprises well i mean it

was china that offered 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 it had 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 agents why did it take so long for anybody to even the voice those concerns promptly oh i 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 and china disregarding or the obama administration not asking for one 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 administration has taken 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 fuelled by borroughs or stolen dick knowledge 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 would automatically slow 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 innovation 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 it'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 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 i think china rebuild your respect i think china would not be what it is right now without someone to print or ship them some novel thinking and some thinking outside the box can i ask you something else about the w t l because china's economic model wasn't invented in 2001 it had a fairly collectivist system for centuries and 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 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 is

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 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 tears that the united states already put on it. reach 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 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 flick pain on the chinese leadership do you think that china's leadership has a capacity to inflict pain on trump 1st that 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 the 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. the 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 know 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 and out 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 will be back in just a few moments state. to . put themselves on the line they did accept the reject. so when you want to be president. wanted. to go on the pros this is one of the 3 of them will be good. i'm interested in the ones in the. movie.

down here and see the line here into the. distance in the. city. welcome back to worlds apart with salvatore the bones associate professor in sociology and social policy at the university of sydney professor one of the points that western commentators also in the make about the reason why the trumpet ministration 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. rather 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. insurgency 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 know is that a play out of the due process in the united states be 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 western 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 the to these to be can understand that it's a competition argument but if you make a value based argument 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 oh it's no secret that american intelligence agencies and i

would even 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 and 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. american allies like australia 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 difference the debate on the u.s. side in the chinese side well i think those sectors of the economy also have security implications and now one curious thing that i noticed is that taking on

china has seemed to put trump in the better graces we have 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 your 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 trump might get some ports 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 282020 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. a nice old 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 experts 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 populous 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 of authoritarianism 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 you know 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 illiberal 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 stayed. i think in many of my more difficult i could've 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 realise 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 that 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 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 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 and grange our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and

hope to see the same place same time here on worlds apart. this is a story about what happens austria stray bullets kills a young girl in the streets. what happens to her family and daughters in florida you know the mother daughter is buried in a cemetery it really messes with your head what happens to the community public was screaming for a scapegoat the police needed a scapegoat so why not choose

a 19 year old black kid with a criminal record who better to pen this than him and what happens in court. shocked shocked as far as i feel. we don't know she'll just brutal. end of this trial unfortunately you. will still love no children. max keiser financial survival guide stacey let's learn us out fill out let's say i'm not so i get. the fight wall street fraud thank you for helping.

on the story 6 that's right. slavery. is a 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 faithfully implemented for inside venezuela things move different we're going to announce sanctions against petroleum to venezuela associated. famously have a son of a moment in that absent political battle to see on the path to the magic. the moment the focus the whole story is a new nixon called 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 chilean economy scream

so wants to make the economy of venezuela scream. a new study reveals that the hundreds of widely sold you products from clothes and makeup to children's toys make. chemicals. positions in using tanks and vehicles filled with explosives a symbol rebranding exercise has apparently absolved them in the west size. counting is underway in the world's biggest election with.