in our lease to austin, live on a tablet block, nato. its our, we moved east. the reason us had jimmy, it's a dangerous is the lie. the sovereignty of all the countries, the exceptionalism that america uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if need to a disbanded shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large companies would lose millions and millions or is business and businesses good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is faster. ah, with the

hello and welcome to cross stock where all things considered. i'm peter live out in the wake of the 2nd high level meeting. where does the front 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. he would seem to stage a set for real negotiations and not just the actrix. ah, ah, 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 our tang and he is a political and economic affairs commentator or type rules and effects. that means

you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciate, let's go to i and are in beijing bright before the 2nd summer or earlier this week . chinese media was expressing that the u. s. is looking for creating a imaginary enemy out of china. and it was actually said during the high level meeting, what does that mean, imaginary enemy, could 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's this 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 surprising. 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. okay, well, i can understand you. i live in russia. i know what it feels like, sarah, let me go to you in 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 stop 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 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 and 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 you asked, 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 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. you know, take tama, let's continue with that point there, cuz 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 turns into an argument here. but just like what said, with thing, i mean we, 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 one right now. it's the united states,

trying to hold china back would be like building a chain link fence the whole back as soon army that's coming 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 friends, i was there to win. right. and so it would come as no surprise to anybody that that china wants to regain its wealth and power, regain what it lost in the century of humiliation. what we need to do is find ways to, to try to guarantee mutual success versus victory. for one side have diplomacy . it's like a whole playground piece of equipment of cecil, 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 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 to 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 the talk of diplomacy, but i mean, over the last few weeks, the, 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 use it to say it simply is to contain 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 to 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 a 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, 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 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. 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 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 in today's 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 of 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 guest in america said she, 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 how 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 balance 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 one. okay. let me the us, it's not, you know, it is kind of back slide it. you brought up. let me, 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 talk prosy versus democracy thing. ok. but the only one side is talking in ideological terms, ok. and that division. it is again, i us against them this, this, this could this creating, i think a false binary here address that one minute before we go to the break. go ahead sir . yeah, there is a winery also just to go to our point about human rights. i think the weavers and

she probably disagree, you know, that they're being forced to have you actually talk to the leaders. i mean, i don't know 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 fair answer please. what's our answer? go ahead sir. if it's real, it's based on actual interviews with readers. i have mentioned she and john, i have actually spoken with speakers 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 issues. 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 the families that jennifer mark. i took market function, you would like to get some idea of who definition me to do and i'm john got, i've got that limit and i wanted them all to go back to the left me about the less about i get up there for us. let

me use the the brother driven by dreamer shaped by those in ah dares thing we dare to ask me. ah, oh, welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter la bell to remind you we're discussing the us china relationship. ah ah,

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 okay, irrespective of the stories that you read in the media, because some of them are extremely extreme at the very limited sourcing from what i can tell. but tom and me, 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, i mean, you know, wider,

pretend like china is there. the fact is there are issues where we see the world differently than 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 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 and we're beginning to see here is rather than continually make china the boogeyman and the problem, the strong 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, his point is pointed out by earlier guest. over the past 40 years when from black and white to technicolor 800000000 people moved out of out there. we've been

sliding, we need to invest just recently. and a bipartisan group and in congress came together. the only other thing they agree on is their fear of china came together in our 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 1st 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 and just jump in, sarah, that's point of the program. go ahead. yeah, yeah, i just, i just want to say that, you know, i whether human, right, you know, 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 the u. s. and china can actually work on human rights. not one of the 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 why they should our focus on what we can agree on. because there's a lot of work to be done in those fears. right. exactly, but there's what i know, let me go down, are in beijing here with that, but there's 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 clint book, a very simple look at the documents. ok, it was explicit and implicit here, but you wouldn't know that from the mainstream media whatsoever. so let's go to theater when you, when you take a look at that, i mean, i think you're, you're actually 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 directed to our, our guest in beijing, and so we're going to listen 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 use gunboat diplomacy to an s and 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, you know, kind of treaty honory hope. hong kong was turned over because it had to, the lease was up, it was part of china. it was rested from china by pilots. i don't know how you can equate that any was i know the cure. 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 your memorandum was under a sci fi, not, not under the u. s. not under great britain. it was part of 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 period. so you know, you want to put

a rosy face on this thing and say that somehow these people, but is it a coincidence that tibet, taiwan, hong kong, shin, drunk 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 be why, because the u. s. 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 australia and new zealand. so don't tell me about how it's all fair and how this is

a some sort of more listening quality issues since, i mean this engineer, this is i'm going to shoot john tomorrow to take a look. i've been there to other times. there is increased police presence on the streets. the aide is undeniable when i've been there. can i reaction where you see, i'm killing people do what did you think of the, the wrong terrorists who went down the subway killing men? women, i elderly holden on, on the subway platform because i'm just going to, i'm going to jump. so gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. i'm going to quickly gentlemen, you know, be, and there were wiggers in syria to so that, 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 a, you know,

the by the administration says it wants the stress diplomacy. but actions like i said, are louder. and it seems to me that if you're being surrounded by an alliance is informal as it is right now against china. why in the world when we expect china to react, ok, 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, 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 a day, 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 let's not bother each other too much. is that naive? go ahead. tom. in diplomacy today, it's the, it appears i can't read 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 that 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 poor future for all of 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, 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. my guest in northfield, knoxville, and in beijing. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at archie. see you next time. remember cross the me. oh i i can't read drugs are essential than millions of patients. or are they, they want that pill that they hope will take care of their problem thoroughly and rapidly in the short term they really work. the problem is, in a long term,

they're mostly disastrous. suddenly stopping a drug can cause withdrawal symptoms more serious than the condition it was meant to treat instead of the beneficial effects of these different medicines ending up to something wonderful. very often they're harmful effects and up to something terrible can pills. so of all ills, or are we trying to mitigate life itself? i just think i was like i was just scared. i was just here a little girl, the 24. and like, didn't have to be so complicated. ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safe for the tycer lation community?

are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere which direction? what is truth? what is faith in the world to corrupted? you need to defend the join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah, in a drug started as a way to come back. a great problem. what's the one? it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just the north dakota. and it got to be something that you could get elected. this time, the fight against drugs took a check. he told us that andrew was a competent short form. this is way too dangerous for him to be doing. clearly they put him in harm's way. a rural college student does interest get shot in the head

and found in a river like that. something else had to be happening with the . the news ah, president by jo biden's approval rating, dropping to the lowest point in his presidency f. the chaotic withdrawal from afghanistan is the vast majority of americans consider the war of failure. the headlines this morning to pull out from cobbles, also serving as a way kept cold for americans allies to talk to you. diplomats no saying they can't rely on the us for military support and at the block these its own army. but who is going to shop drop in organ transplant will.