hello and welcome to cross talk where all things considered. i'm peter lavelle in the wake of the 2nd high level meeting. where does the fraught china us relationship stand? the 1st meeting in anchorage alaska was an embarrassing failure for secretary of state, blinking at the 2nd meeting. the chinese presented the americans with a set of demand. it would seem the stage a set for real negotiations and not just the actrix. the. the cross talking china us relations. i'm joined by my guess, tom watkins and northville. he is president and c, e o of t. d. w, and associates, a global business and educational consulting firm in knoxville. we have sarah shue . she is a visiting scholar at to down university, and in beijing we have, i know our 10, he is a political and economic affairs commentator or across type roles in effect. that means you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciate, let's go to,

i know, are in beijing right before the 2nd summit or earlier this week. chinese media was expressing that the us is looking for or creating imaginary enemy out of china. and it was actually said during the high level meeting, what does that mean, imaginary enemy, can you explain that to our audience? well, china, that feels very beset, i mean, on almost a daily basis. this is kind of drum b to china is this that, and the other thing, there's very little proof, lots of allegations. so i mean, china has a seas. this is a situation where trying the u. s. is trying to play king of the hill. in essence, you know, try to cut down a competitor that's rising. the difficulty is that china is not trying to be a global hedge mom. and the u. s. is trying to maintain its position, so they, that imaginary part is all about what the u. s. perceives which china does not

agree with. ok, well, i can understand you. i live in russia. i know what it feels like, sarah, let me go to you and knoxville that the problem is here is that china is rising or returning depending on how you want to look at it. and it's the very fact that it is rising is a threat or a challenge to american hegemony. and that's why i said in my introduction, it's time to start negotiating. this is a reality, chinese market is suddenly stopped developing and it's certainly, and it has no reason to listen to what the united states says, particularly when it comes to its internal affairs. so, i mean, this is the quandary we all have. china is rising and the very fact that it is rising is from watch events perspective, a threat to it's a gemini, why the u. s. should be hedge a monic? well, that's a different question. go ahead sir. yeah, you know, china is rising and it's something that cannot be stopped,

especially because the government is trying to emphasize domestic growth in particular and less dependence on international trade and other international relationships. although the world is globalized, so it can't completely get away from that. but i think that trying to rise is inevitable. i think the u. s. has not encountered this type of situation in a long time, in which there has been a country that has experience really rapid growth, but with a completely different type of government structure. and you know, some of the objections that us has are against the type of economy that china has that it does interfere india economy simply because it is a socialist market economy. and that's something that us has gladly overlooks. for some time, i must say there are some real issues between the 2 countries that must be worked

out. perhaps that will not be worked out usually such as human rights and the crack down in hong kong. but other issues could be worked out. particularly the technology issue and the us china trade war there, these are things that really need to be discussed at the highest level. so take comment, let's continue with that point that because i think that's, that's really important. i mean, is this a type of relationship where you can pick and choose what to work on and still co exist because when, what we had in anchorage. and i can say that about both sides is basically criticizing each other's political structure and actually values here. and that, that's a conversation that stops very, very quickly or turns into an argument here. but just like, what's there with thing? i mean, can we compartmentalize trade for example, something that's very important to both countries. go ahead tom. yeah, absolutely. january, much, you know, i, watching this go on right now. it's the united states trying to hold china back

would be like building a chain link dance to hold back as soon ami that's coming in upon your shores. we need to find ways, there's tension, clearly in this relationship and that's another look i'm in a box when i got in the ring, i even with my best friend, i was there to win. right? and so it would come as no surprise to anybody that the china wants to regain its wealth and power of regain what it lost in the century of humiliation. what we need to do is find ways to, to, and try to guarantee mutual success versus victory. for one side have diplomacy. it's like an old playground piece of equipment of the see saw where one nation has to be up. the other one to be down or vice versa is not going to be productive. what we need, i believe, is a focus taking something from the china history of 6 seeds,

communication cooperation, collaboration, coordination, competition. absolutely. while we try to find ways to avoid confrontations, that would hurt not only as people have tried other people to us, but all of humanity is go back to our guest in beijing. i know, or i suppose, you know, the phrase in english talk is cheap. ok, i mean you can talk but talk of diplomacy, but i mean, over the last few weeks, the, the, the congress is not, not the president, not the administration congress wants to throw more money in for the military. and to basically to use it say it simply is that campaign, china, and we had wendy sure. where to she went to the high level meeting in china. but where did she go before that she went to other capitols to drum up military, military support against china? so, i mean, you can talk the talk of diplomacy, but i mean if you're creating a coalition, that is a military coalition against china, beijing should be given,

has fair reason to take cards. go ahead. well, absolutely. i mean, in many instances, what we do is we tend to kind of say that other people are going to do what we did . and in the, in the case of the u. s, you know, our history is a bit checkered. you know, there are a number of wars, there's slavery, there's the suppression of the indians, etc, etc. what we did in south america, you know, you, the list goes on. and unfortunately, this kind of 0 some, you know, idea that tom was talking about is, is very much in the american mind. in the u. s. we always believe that somebody else is going to do exactly what we did. and they don't take into accounts that there are different cultures, different ideas. and this is where you see a lot of gap. i mean, china success is the problem. if china wasn't the success, we would not be on the show. the china success with

a different system is an existential threat to our ideology. the whole idea of american exceptionalism, that it's okay to break a few eggs. if we're making a great omelet. but, you know, let's look at the omelette that we're trying to make. you know, open markets and ballad box have not solve the world's problems. you start looking around the world. where has the us successfully imposed? i mean that by imposed as opposed to, you know, countries adopting it themselves. where has that worked? it has it. i mean, airbus spring is a massive failure. we're seeing the the result of that into dasia. obviously iraq is a broken country because of what we did. ghana sat, we're leaving behind essentially a kind of poison pill on the doorstep of russia. china and all the stands around it as a try to figure out what they're going to do with the situation that was caused in

essence, by somebody else. so at this juncture, the, you know, the u. s. is viewing china the way they would act if they were in china's place in china, is trying to say, look, we're not trying to do the things you did. we're more internally focused. everything is about trying to help our people grow up on moderate economy. now, this is not to say china doesn't have problems, but they're not the problems that you know, my other guests and america said she mentioned human rights. there's a real difference between human rights in asia versus what we would perceive in the west and europe in america. human rights and asia is about having food. it's about have the opportunity. it's about having a basic services, basic socialism in essence. whereas in the us, we just equate human rights is the ability to say whatever you want at any time and a ballot box. but, you know,

let's look at these 2 systems over the last 40 years. what has happened? china has done very well. i mean, they, they went from nothing 40 years ago to being the 2nd. and eventually the 1st most powerful and nominal terms, not per capita. nominal terms, you know, economic power in the, in the us it's not you brought up is kind of back slide it, your product. let me, let me go to sara before we go to the break here, sir. i mean, this is a very interesting conversation because the problem i have is that, you know, we have this a talk chrissy versus democracy thing. ok. but the only one side is talking in ideological terms, okay. and in that division, it is again, i us against them this, this, this could, this creating, i think a false binary here and your address for one minute before we go to the right. go ahead sir. yeah, there is of all binary. also just you go to our point about human rights. i think the weavers in john province would disagree. you know,

that they're being forced to have you actually labor and talk to the leaders. i mean, i just talked about, um, what is the basis of this? is this all based on adrian's ends in the massive disinformation campaign that's being waged by the ca? i mean, where, where does this not just lead their answer please? what's our answer? go ahead sir. if it's real, it's based on actual interviews with readers. i have dentist, she and john i have actually spoken with sneakers and there are human rights issues there. you can't deny that. but i think that you know, it's not someone's human. right. and are you talking about? all right, this is a big topic and we will continue our discussion when we should go to a break here. we're going to go to a short break and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on us china relations. stay with our to

the the, me ah, well my phone are 69. i don't, i just saw up dollar form isis fighters and they're now voting a philippine naval ship with

john 900 just aren't abdulla still don't know who was waiting for them. can i get a little only me. ready ready when procession is 0 time and like, what do you call that? what does that word? it's called communism, right? only in communism with our state run countries, they have no recession, but they also have no way for anybody to have a life rather than being a slave. ok, that's where americans added me

. a new gold rush is underway, and gunner thousands of ill equipped workers are flocking to the goldfields, hoping to strike it. rich children are torn between gold and education. my family was very poor. i thought i was doing my best to get back to school, which still it will have the strongest appeal. the welcome back to cross stock were all things considered? i am peter la belle to remind you were discussing the us china relationship. me okay, let's go back to tom in north hill at the very end of the program. we had a discussion the topic of the week or it was brought up here. so tom, let me ok, irrespective of the stories that you read in the media,

because some of them are extremely extreme and they're very limited sourcing from what i can tell. but tom, maybe it brings up the issue here. i mean, how, what role should the weakness if any, play in this relationship? because i, what i find myself getting into this, this discussion with people, is that so what do we do? break off diplomatic relations? do we go to war? i mean, what do you, if it's an issue, how do you, how do you intend to have that is part of the relationship that you, you can't ignore china. ok. it's not panama. so i mean, how do you, how do you deal with this? go ahead. yeah. of course, we can, you know, avoid or can like china there. the fact is there are issues where we see the world differently in the way china has. and we've talked earlier, we have to find ways to address issues. climate change, the pandemic global economy, human rights, and as we pointed out,

no nation is without sin is when it comes to the way that is treated people within, within their borders. the issue i think that we're beginning to see here is rather than continually may china, the bogeyman and the problem, the straw man. so that we have our industrial military complex finding a new enemy in order to continue to perpetuate to increase budgets. we need to find ways to focus here in america on things that will make a strong china. this is pointed out by earlier guest over the past 40 years when from black and white to technical or 800000000 people moved out of out there. we've been sliding, we need to invest just recently in a bipartisan group in congress came together. the only other thing they agree on is their fear of china came together and are beginning to pass a trillion dollar investment program. and when we invest in america, it's going to pay dividends for the american people. we have been dis investing,

while china has been investing, whether it's high speed rail, 5, g, trying to control the south kind of see, you name it. and we need to continue to invest in america if we want to maintain the crown, whether you view that as the top nation from a moral perspective or one from an economic perspective. i know, let me go back to jump in there. go ahead. just jump in, sarah. that's part of the program. go ahead. yeah, yeah, i just, i just want to say that, you know, i, whether it's human right. you know what, whatever we're talking about in terms of human rights. i believe it's an issue based on what i've seen. i'd are disagrees. it doesn't. it's not material to the us china relationship right now. i think there are plenty of issues that us in china can actually work on human rights. not one of these. hong kong is also like,

it's not something that the 2 countries can come to an agreement on, but some issues they could agree on are in the area of technology or trade and so on. so that's where they should start to see what we can agree on, because there's a lot of work to be done in those fears, right? exactly, but there is what i know. let me go diner in beijing here. but there is what i would like to talk about what you can't talk about. ok, let's be be very clear about compromising a country sovereignty, hong kong, irrespective of how you feel, what hong kong, that's part of china, that's their affair. and the, the process of the united states and china exchanging diplomatic embassies is that taiwan is part of china. it's very clear, a very simple look at the documents. ok. it was explicit and implicit here where you wouldn't know that from the mainstream media whatsoever. so let's go to the theater when you, when you take a look at that, i mean, i think you're, you're absolutely right. but when you have

a treaty and it talks about returning hong kong in a orderly fashion, it talks about maintaining 2 systems, one government, and then the rules we can well, okay, my, my my, my, my question was originally directly to our, our guest in beijing and so we're going to listen, go ahead. okay, so tom, there it was not a treaty. remember how hong kong came into the possession of the british. it was a deal where they used gunboat, diplomacy to in essence saying that we're going to be your drug dealer of choice and you have no, you know, no options on that because we have our cannon's face towards your capital. so this was not some kind of treaty or a whole. hong kong was turned over because it had to, the lease was up, it was part of china. it was rested from china by highlands. i don't know how you can equate that any was i know the history here it was is not

a treaty very well. there is no treaty between great britain and china on that. it was a memorandum of understanding. and as you will call, if you read the documents with, miranda was all under the final, not under the u. s. not under great britain. it was part of a china, it was returned to china. and when you have a years worth of riots in the street, which are being heralded by the united states by britain, no one says any words about it, there's just kind of tough. tough isn't a terrible candidate. so you know, you, you want to put a rosy face on this thing and say that somehow these people. but is it a coincidence that to batch taiwan, hong kong sion john south trying to seize these are all areas literally surrounding china, which are being used to attack it. and this is what you have in china. china is

retreating and you're getting the exact opposite of what you were aiming at by attacking it. china is in fact being more defensive and big. why? because us and everybody else says that china is terrible. you cannot deny the daily drumbeat of nonsense that comes out of the press there. where is the evidence hallway? where is the evidence? i mean, all the evidence was passed by great britain, by germany, by everybody. but under pressure the united states, they all withdrew and said ok, we'll kick them out. same with all in new zealand. so don't tell me about how it's all fair and how this is a some sort of more listening thing. i have an issue since, i mean this engineer, this is i'm going to show john tomorrow to take a look. i've been there to other times create there is increased police presence on the streets. the aid is undeniable when i've been there. can i do with any

reaction or killing people do? what did you think of the, the sins wrong, terrorist who went down the subway killing men, women, elderly children on, on the subway platform because they're just going to i'm going to jump. so gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. i'm going to wait, but you've gentlemen, you know, be, and there were wiggers in syria to so the, you know, there is the element of terrorism that we all have to keep in mind here sarah, well, let me, one of the things that i find really troublesome is it, and i've already mentioned it during the program, is the, you know, the by the administration says it wants the stress diplomacy, but actions like i said, are louder. and it just seems to me that if you're being surrounded by an alliance as informal as it is right now against china, why in the world when we expect china to react, ok and, and every time there's

a push to, to spend more money and more bases more treaties, china is turned called an aggressive, well, i mean, what's the cause and effect right here? it seems to be out of order. go ahead sir. yeah, i agree. i mean, i think, you know, we've been really focusing on these inflammatory issues like human rights and he and john, these are things that you need to not focus on because, you know, otherwise try to come back with this really in response like i nar, who's had you know, who's, who's been living in china and so, you know, we don't, we don't what we need to move forward. we need to sort out the technology issues that are really a problem, improve the status of technology and also security in the us without completely trying to alienate china. i think that's a major day, especially with the technology, technological and military capacity. the time is building, it doesn't help the label, china as a strategic competitor or, you know, as

a potential enemy, i think that, you know, going in the completely wrong direction. and there are areas where the 2 countries could be here. but let me ask all 3 of you here tom. i mean, before we, before we had the cold war in the end of the cold war, the polar moment was history before that. and it was great powers having spheres of influence. it, you can do like it or dislike it, but that's how the world work from time in memorial. okay. what i'm getting at and well, i guess all 3, if we have the time, is that why can we just have peaceful coexistence. you take care of that, we'll take care of this and let's not bother each other too much. is that naive? go ahead. tom in diplomacy today, it's the, it appears my, our, that can't we all get along. and certainly there are some existential threats to the people, to chime us and all of humanity. climate change is one dealing with this,

and i reckon the ones that are shirley to come afterwards dealing with the global economy as i pointed out before. so as we talked about, it doesn't say that we deny issues are happening. we can disagree about our position and whether our values should prevail on the internal affairs of another nation. that's. that's okay. let's set them aside. then that's collaborating, cooperate, and addressing issues that impact us all. if we don't, we're going to have a very, very poor future for all us. i know is peaceful coexistence possible because i think china wants that. but i be that the mindset that we have had for decades in the united states, we cannot tolerate the other. go ahead one minute. well, you're right, it's an existential threat to us in the united states. we really do feel that we, you know, after world war 2, we felt that we did not actively intercede become the policeman of the world and

enforce kind of doctrine that we believed we would leave the peaceful coexistence only under one kind of cookie cutter idea that the world would have a 3rd world war. the irony is that we are now in a position where we're more ideological. and then the chinese, it's $180.00 degrees during mows time. it was worldwide revolution. today, it is american exceptionalism, their their opposite. they're the same side of the coin, this idea that you can impose your values on somebody else. now the reason i know, sarah, the reason i was intense just because, you know, i live here in china. i've also lived in u. s. i was in the government, i was a college politician, lawyer, investment banker. i've seen what we've done. it's not all bad. we have tremendous resources. we should be doing better and i grew up in abroad. i have to jump in here. we have run out of time many, thanks my guess, northfield knoxville and in beijing and thanks to our viewers for watching,

appeared are to see you next time. remember prospect the ah, the, the, the, the, the algorithm. so neural networks have been following us every where we look online, because our relationships are what matters most stuff. and that's how we find meaning. and how we make sense in our place in the silicon valley see don't mention in their sleep presentations. however, the ghost workers who train the software humans are involved in every step of the process when you're using anything online. but we're sold as this miracle of automation behind your screen is variable workforce. the scenes algorithm is for

next to nothing on a very good day to do $5.00. now, a really bad day. i could do 10 years worth isn't movable by design. it's about labor costs, but it's also about creating layers of lessening responsibility between those who solicit the kind of work and need it. and those who do it the ah,

me the know what was done in the log and by the, in the can, can hard while we're on by now i should know, i should know. moment the age and illegals on mon deals on males like one of them that will allow you on mobile for have an initiation and before we get off the, so give

me a shout and one out my my name is headlines, but its out here on our teeth disturbing revelations by bulk areas, health minister, a few admits cofi, the vaccination failures have caused the country almost $10000.00 lives as russian athletes, the cofi olympics, keep knocking gold and slept. western media and athletes increasingly seeing read the question that seems right to actually be that also the un comes under attack and the latest round of violence and i've gotten on its headquarters. there are a tax why what are being called anti government elements. we can confirm one security guard kill ah

.