chinese media was expressing that the u. s. is looking for creating 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 sad. 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 rising. the difficulty is that china is not trying to be a global hedge amman. 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 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 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 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 india 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 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 trying to trade war. so these are things that really need to be discussed at the highest level. you know, take comma, 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. can only watch, 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 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 would come as no surprise to anybody that the china wants to regain its wealth and power. regain what it lost in the century of humiliation. what we need to do was find ways to, to, you know, 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, was 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 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 to 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 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, 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. 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 results of that into dasia. 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 tyna 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 and america said she and 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 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. you brought me money, 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 prosy versus democracy thing. ok. but the only one side is talking in ideological terms. ok. and, and that division. it is again, i us against them this, this, this could, this creating, i think a false binary here address that for one minute before we go to the right. go ahead sir. yeah, there is a fall winery also just to go to our point about human rights. i think the weavers and she enjoyed providence would disagree. you know that they're being forced to have you actually labor and talk to the leaders. i mean,

i don't know about 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 leaders. i have dentistry 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. 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

me that the civic leg around the world, expedition by 1000 miles round the clock and give it to the dead calm. as every country close by it was like the crew. gavin's food and water harbor to go to chat for a show. the little thing is that everybody's love or no food to know what about that? only give them up. so somebody stuck in the cove. it you're

living like the fema home. but in the 21st century, ah ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safe for the tycer relation community? are you going the right way or are you being direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to this end. ah, so join us in the depths all remained in the shallows. ah,

the family is not with the mark yet. i took my function. you have a good way to show me what is your number? how do you all done? got i've got that limit and i wanted them off. you're gonna go back to the left me about the less about i get up there for us. let me be

driven by dreamers shaped by those in me dares thing. we dare to ask me. oh, welcome back to cross talk. we're all things considered. i'm peter labelle. mind you were discussing the us china relationship, the 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 and 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 it 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 pretend like china is 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 is why is pointed out by earlier guest. over the past 40 years went from black and white to technicolor 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 by 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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. it is not

a treaty very well. there is no treaty between great britain and china, and that it was a memorandum of understanding. and as you will call, if you read the documents with miranda was under the final 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 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 be 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. i mean this in general, 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 help you with any

reaction or killing people do what did you think of the of the sins, wrong terrorists who went down the subway killing men, women, elderly children are 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 leave gentlemen, you know, but there were wiggers in syria too. so the, you know, there is the element of terrorism that we all have to keep in mind here. sarah, let me, one of the things that i find really troublesome is it, and i've already mentioned it during the program is the, 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 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 sarah. 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 the us need to not focus on because, you know, otherwise try to come back with this really and then respond 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 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 2 countries could. yeah, but let me, let me ask all 3 of you here. tom, i me 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 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 it, 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, and it appears night that can't we all get along. and certainly there are some existential threats to the people who are china,

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 the, 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. cooperate 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 pay for 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 because the placement 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. they're 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 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, i'm sorry, i was in abroad. i have to jump in here. we have run out of time many, thanks them, 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 the, the psychiatric drugs are essential for 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, any 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, scared,

little girl of 24. and like me didn't have to be so complicated. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy going from station let it be an arms race is often very dramatic developments. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk to join me every thursday on the alex simon show. and i'll be speaking to guests in the world, the politics, sport, business and show business. i'll see you then me only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking that is

a nation's allowed to do anything. all the master races and then you have the mind, nations who are the slave, the americans, brock obama, and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves the american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist. like turning this russian into this dangerous man that wants to take over the world. that was a conscious strategy. so some little bit on your own. i english v i v, i not leashed off in one tablet block. nato took it out. we moved east. the reason us had jimmy is a dangerous, is it 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 nature,

what is founded, shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. the madeline's, this our job by his approval ratings, up to the lowest of his presidency after the cale to withdraw from afghanistan. but the administration is sticking to the belief that some good pay all can still shift public opinion away from the object failure. the gun chaos tests. britton's relations with the us as questions joe biden's assessment of the situation and america's role as a global superpower. key us partners in the you rethink that dependence on washington with top diplomat saying they can't rely on american military. so.