the me the disturbing revelation is bible gary is health when a 1st he admits cobra. to vaccination failures, of course the country will much 10000 lives as russian athletes that the po, lympics keep not seeing. gold is left with the media and athletes increasingly seeing read has a question of teams, right? to be that the us comes under attack and the latest round of on. and i've got some headquarters that are attacked by what are being called anti government gentlemen. with one security guard confirmed that the next day it's across the organ just a few moments time. and he will be with you in an hour to bring it right up to speed on the morning level. he's headlines. that's it from the team on my cell phone. now, if you want us again at most good time,

a ah ah, ah. 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. per secretary of state blinking at the 2nd meeting, the chinese presented the americans with a set of demands. it would seem to 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 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 again. he is a political and economic affairs commentator or across type roles and effect. that means you can jump 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 sad. i mean, on the, almost a daily basis this is kind of drum b to china's, is that, and the other thing, there's very little proof, lots of allegations. so, i mean, china has, sees this as 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. farrah, 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, it is 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 why 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 in the 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, you believe, such as human rights and the crackdown 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 there 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 and it 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. we can re much, you know, watching this go on right now. the united states trying to hold china backward, the like building a chain link dance to hold back as soon ami that's coming in upon your shows. 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 seasonal where one nation has

to be up to 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, and simply use 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 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, the list goes on in, unfortunately, this kind of 0. some 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 account 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. it 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 the 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 air spring is a massive failure. we're seeing the, the result of that into danger. obviously, iraq is a broken country because of what we did. ganesha, 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 were more internally focused. everything is about trying to help our people grow up a 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 in 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 ballad 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 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 run out is kind of backsliding your product. let me, let me, let me go to sarah 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 talk prosy verses democracy thing. ok. but the only one side is talking in ideological terms. ok. and that division. it is again, i us again, spam this with this, could this creating, i think

a false binary here address that for one minute before we go to the break. go ahead sir. yeah, there is of all binary also just you go to our point about human rights. i think the weavers and she and john province would disagree. you know that they're being forced to have you actually 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? very 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 some one to many. 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 team, the ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, use

algorithms and neural networks have been following us every where we look online because our relationships are what matters most of us. and that's how we find meaning. and how we make sense in our place in silicon valley see, don't mention in the slick presentations. however, i think goes to 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. it's a long rouble workforce. that seems algorithm. that's next to nothing on a very good day to do $5.00. now. a really bad day. i could do henson. these workers are 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 us and those who do it the welcome across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you were discussing the us china relationship. mm. okay, let's go back to tom in northville 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 very limited sourcing from what i can tell. but tom maybe 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 is there. the fact is there are issues where we see the world differently in the way china hasn't. i mean, we've talked earlier, we have to find ways to address issues, climate change, the global economy, human rights. and as you pointed out, no nation is without sin. it's when it comes to the way that is treating people within, within their borders. the issue i think that we're beginning to see here is rather than continually make 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 went 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 and 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 just 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 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 just degrees. it doesn't, it's not material to the us. china relationship right now, i think there are plenty of issues that the u. s. in china can actually work on human rights. not one of these. hong kong is also like out. 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. focus on 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, let's 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 be, 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 pepe it or 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, no options on that because we have our cannon's face towards your capital. so this was not some kind of treaty or a home. hong kong was turned over because it had to, the lease was up, it was part of china. it was rested from china by the 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 which memorandum was all under the finer,

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 tut tut, isn't a terrible news period. 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 china seas. 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, not having an issue. 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 was reaction where you are killing people. do what did you think of the, the sins wrong terrorists who went down the subway, killing men, women, elderly children on, on the subway platform? because john,

i'm going to jump. so gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. i'm going to just wait, but you've gentlemen, you know, be, and there were weaker it's in syria to so the, you know, there is the element of terrorism that we all have to keep in mind here. sarah limit, 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 us needs to not focus on because, you know, otherwise try to come back with this really in response like i nar, his had you know, who's, who's been living in china and so, you know, we don't, we don't know 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 mistake, especially with the technology, technological and military capacity. the china 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 few countries could be here. but let me,

let me ask all 3 of you here. tom. before we, before we had the cold war and the end of the cold war, the polar moment was history before that. and it was great powers having spheres of influence. it couldn't like it or dislike it, but that's how the world work from time in memorial. okay, what i'm getting at and would like to ask all 3, if we have the time, is that why can't we just have peaceful coexistence? you take care of that? we'll take care of this and that'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. certainly there are some existential threats to the people or child 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've 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 walk rate and addressing issues that impact us all. if we don't, we're going to have a very, very for 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, they cannot tolerate the other. go ahead. one mit? 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 mouse 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, sarah, the reason i was incense is 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. i'm, i guess the northfield, knoxville and in beijing and thanks to our viewers for watching, appeared are to see you next time. remember, cross the ah, ah,

ah ah ah, i use the media a reflection of reality. ah, the in

a world transformed what will make you feel safe for tyson lation, whole community. are you going the right way or are you being somewhere direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted. you need to defend the join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. i this in any way cap. it's 20. 27 new 20. every

new the new one in 2027. sarah takes care of everything fully. pigeon. just because you will get that, daniel, does somebody have to do that? when sarah is a virtual assistant, who knows exactly what's best for you about this question, the, even the people would, they would need it for she was just wanted to swap in addition to process everywhere you go. artificial intelligence like sarah predicts your needs and does the work for you. ah.