into the notion of a cooperation because a cope and a cooperation is a word that has a relatively neutral and most preferably constructive connotation. but there is nothing constructive in this deal. i would call it a secret deal of perfect the of profiteering and provocation. why do i say that it's a deal poverty of perfidy. as francis said, you know, the united states, the u. k and australia gives friends a stab in the back and they feel a deal between france and australia and gave that to the united states. and you pay, so it's a trail of your closest allies or partners and then they try to package it if they tried to present the deal as some kind of something like a tool for peas for the asia pacific region. the whereas indeed, as you have fed already, great divide has emerged and contamination has emerged from various countries in that region. it's about money, look the united states and the defense contractors as well as the united,

the u. k. they're going to continue to make profit out of the business. expected to be something like $100.00 bidding us dollars over the years. let's not forget what kind of profiteering was taking place in the 20 year us war on in afghanistan, according to some latest report over 20 years, depending on budget, went up to 14 trading us dollars. and one 3rd and one half of that went to defense contractors. so it's a lot of money to be made out of this. and it's about probably cation. yeah. well, the defense spending is always about money by definition. and people make a lot of money here. but james, me, this is still another alliance, military alliance in the pacific region. there are plenty of them already. i very worried about the strategic balance when you and plus you bringing in the, the, another new killer, creating a new killer power as it were. i mean, this creates it in, nor this amount of instability. i don't really see the upside other than they think

they're creating a asia, nato. ok, which again is very problematic. i think we need less alliances for security. not more of them. go ahead, james. yeah, well 1st of all, i want to correct the notion that it's creating a new nuclear power. i mean, nuclear powered submarines. they're not nuclear arm submarines. we have to make sure to keep that distinction. but those submarine can, could carry those those weapons at a certain point of time. let's be clear about submarines. sure. ok. so could conventional submarines, i mean nuclear weapons can be made available to any country that has you know, bombers and rockets and submarines in any number of things. but that's not what this deal it's about. it's about nuclear powered submarines and sometimes the media kind of shades that difference. i don't think so far anyone's proposing for australia to have nuclear weapons. i certainly hope not because there's already been enough prolific proliferation of nuclear weapons, but i don't think my for my own view that the balance of power in the world is threatened in any way currently. so i don't see this is

a response to any particular problem. i think it's, it's unnecessary except as what's already mentioned, that it does shift the balance of arm sales in the world in the favor of american companies. and that's certainly, from my perspective, the most important element of this agreement because, and it's not just about australia, and i think we should underline this extremely important because the u. s. has not been in the submarine export business now for many decades. because the us only builds nuclear submarines and the u. s. had a policy of not exporting nuclear submarines except to one country which is britain . so now that they've made an exception and added australia, my question is, are they also going to add japan and even possibly taiwan to the list of countries that would be eligible to receive nuclear submarines time one certainly wants to

submarine suite. japan already has a big submarine fleet, but there are independent propulsion, diesel electric submarines. they might refer also to nuclear power. yeah. but yes, i think what this but james, i mean this does shift the strategic balance here. i mean, this is proliferation. as you suggested, they could get, get wildly out of control and turn into an arms race. here. and again, as i said in my introduction, as i said, tuition, i mean, no one wants to say the obvious in the media. this is exactly directed against china, and i find that very problematic there because i mean, this is creating a military alliance and china will have to react, okay, is that, do we necessarily have to go down this path? i think it's unnecessary. what do you think james? as i said, i'm not, i'm not defending the agreement. i'm saying the agreement is largely about arm sales. that ok, it's about ok. i don't think it substantially changes the military balance because had the french contract been awarded in the, in australia, about 12 conventionally powered air independent propulsion submarines. it would

have been at the equivalent capability to the 8 nuclear submarines the united states is intending to sell. it wouldn't make much difference at all in a strategic battle. well, well it station, but it may change, relate the relationship between china and australia, and that is strategic change here. let's go to our gas in peril. you'll go back, change strategically. we'll go back to me, let me get everybody in here. it's go to parents or know what i mean. how do you feel about all of this? because, you know, we're talking about the asia civic region, but this, it has implications for a, for nato, for us french relations of french, a u. k. relations, australia, trading relationship with the e, you read that there's a lot of different moving pieces here. go ahead and paris. i don't agree with james . i think that the nuclear power. ready summer in much more efficient and much more efficient was such

a big ocean as the pacific ocean. because a nuclear power submarine can, you know, stay one pod, hidden for much longer a diesel southern. so i think that so the passage ocean nuclear power. so means much better, of course the french do produce nuclear. ready attack nuclear submarines. they are called but i could add a new model. but the students actually enable us the french who sell them this nuclear estimate. because used to have a kind of taboo in the security council of the united nations that you do not export nuclear equipment and highly

enriched uranium to other countries as it has been done by the united states with britain in 58. but both countries are member but in manda of the security council. so so now it's a kind of breach of the state of that it's all agreement. and by the united states, we can understand the strategy kelly. we know if i can, if i can interrupt you here. i mean, this is also a breach of trust, isn't it? i mean, that's very important. we're always talk told how important nato unity is and all this. and then all of a sudden, you know, that unity isn't really there because the lack of trust. yeah. and so there is a lot of, i mean, it's true that on this matter and the americans treated the french very badly. i mean, b k. and there was trade and also because the prime minister of the street. yeah.

so the president of france on the 15th of june, last june 21. and michael asked him is everything right? is everything going well when the submarines program and the prime minister answered the president? yeah, everything is fine though. we know now that she had been in secret negotiations with the americans for the last 18 months. so it's really bad matters. but it's not more important than that because you have to think realities as they are. i mean, oh street. yeah, i've been protected by america since the war in 42 and the battle of the coral c. okay, let me, let me jump in here because i want to ask, we should in question before we go to the break here. i mean, there seems to be

a new cold war going on, but there's only one side pursuing the cold war. ok, i hope you understand what i mean by my question because china doesn't want this obviously is already is surrounded by american bases. i mean, how do you react to that? because it's that's how it's being framed in western media. go ahead there is this talk to because china is more assertive or china and the pursuing you. expansion is the strategy. so this kind of deal is necessary to contain china and we are perfectly perplexed. i mean, in the case of australia, there is no immediate strategic threat from china to they invade australia or tackle strangely, australia does not have a border with china. it does, it is not some, some kind of a territory would dispute against china. so why does australia even need to, to acquire such kind of much more secretive submarines that's just totally out of people's understanding. and if you think,

if you look at the relationship between china and australia that has already been pretty bad over the past few years in chinese, wherever saying if you have a job that has a crack in it, do you want to kick at it still, or do you want to handle with k? and i think that is the most important thing here. now the un secretary general antonio gutierrez, just urged china the united states to have dialogue in the late ok hold that thought there were going to go to the whole we get to go a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on tensions in the pacific state with our to the the, the next either financial survival guide. stacey, let's learn about fill out. let's say i'm

a 2 year period time grief on base of the site. c walk 3 prod. thank you for helping ah. enjoy that right fill out that way. oh right now, there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. is profitable to sell food that is fatty and sugary and faulty and addicted. not at the individual level. it's not individual willpower. and if we go on believing that will never change as obesity epidemic, that industry has been, who has been very deeply, the medical and scientific establishment, ah, what's driving the mac, its corporate, me. ah,

no, no borders, i'm just blind to tease. as emerge, we don't have authority, we go to the back scene, the whole world needs to take action and be ready. people are judge, you know, governors crisis, we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in our own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is paid for the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are together in ah, working machine. she popped in, she said, well,

i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas. and we, we said there was a going to buy another shooting another state part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a r 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act. when we're filing on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there, i was walking one of the dogs. why do you wear again? were you scared? that's such a good offer that i think the people need to take responsibility in their own hands and be prepared if those kind of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of shootings and we certainly wouldn't have the number down. i welcome back across type where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to

remind you we're discussing tensions in the pacific. ah, ah, okay, let me go back to james james, let me. lucian was explaining, describing the the 10th relationship that china and australia i've had over the last couple of years. but does this, this new to teach it packed is this kind of put the australia on the front line? i mean, why should china see australia is a friendly country because it's just not about submarines about additional bases. troop rotation? it's a lot more thing. you cybersecurity, it's the whole ball of wax here. ok. are they did or they it's kind of throwing down the gauntlet and, and agreeing to this coalition of countries in the asia pacific grim against china . go ahead, james. well, i don't think this agreement should be exaggerated. i do think that china has reason to worry, especially if this kind of arrangement is extended to japan and,

and perhaps taiwan. but i don't think it should be exaggerated. the way much of the media does. there's not a new cold war. why not? because the old cold war was because there were 2 independent blocks with no real communication between them. they were economically intern, independent of each other. u. s. and china have the largest trading relationship in the world. china is the largest trading part of trading country in the world. australia has a tremendously important trading relationship with china. this is about business primarily, and because it's about business, the us china relationship and the australia china relationship cannot be ruptured without enormous damage to both australia in the united states. so i don't believe this is a step toward war or a step toward violence. i think that's exaggerated, i don't think it's, it's a positive development aim, but it is marylee about selling. yeah. but to use but to use your own words here. i

mean, it's all about business, but this is military hardware. okay. that's. that's very, that's right. so okay, and then what's the problem is go ahead and solution and said the problem is the war in afghanistan is ending. that was big business for american military contractors. they're looking for new business. and right now there aren't, fortunately, i think there aren't any wars on the horizon for, you know, to fund a vast arms export business. so they're looking for new business. and i think this is part of the motivation for looking for an unprecedented kind of business deal. and it is a business deal because it involves selling one thing that the u. s. exports a lot of that, the biggest export or in the world of weapons. it is business, it's profit for corporations and they care a lot about that regardless, regardless of the national security impact, of course, it's going to be sold in terms of a so called new cold war. but i think the new cold war is the really,

really go ahead. that's exactly why china calling is an extremely responsible move . if you, if you want to do business is ok. but if you're dealing with sensitive to military technology and bringing potentially involving nuclear technology, you are going to calculate the repercussions that the steel is going to have low countries in the region. well, i don't have repercussion policy. i'm not denying that what i'm having. let me go to parents, let me go to parents right now. but, you know, i think, i think it's a very jo, political thing that australia and the new or william scott morrison feels threatened by china after you remember that in march 2020 the st. ask for international inquiry

on the penny and the chinese reacted very, very wrong and tough month. tough ways because it was a normal request by, by oh, straight out of an international inquiry in china. number 2, the british notice that you know, the chinese had promised to on kong that we would have one country. and now we have one country, one system which is the communist party system. and number 3, you have been, you have seen a chinese fleet taking for. ready themselves, the whole china sea of the south, which is bigger than the middle that and see and taking all of this islands in sales. and so on. all these small islands,

she's being add commerce in public in america, not to militarize this islands. and they have, in mid july, the china has it, can these land that belong to nobody actually for themselves? what they did put on this military bought strategy bumble enemy sides. so you have to understand that some pacific countries can feel threatened by china. these fact okay, let's go ahead. yeah. all right, 3 big points. i think these are actually on the mind of a lot of people. let me say is when you bite into the hand of one of your most important business partners, i don't want to say the people who feed you when you bite into that hand. are you not going to expect that some kind of reaction? look, that was the period of time where you talk about origins tracing. when

a lot of hostile forces were, she was in china of deliberately releasing the virus to the world, or even engineering such a virus to hom, other people and china was under a lot of pressure. even there was some kind of, you know, presumption of guilt before proven innocence. so of course, china is not going to accept that kind of rhetoric. and then australia being one of china's most important trading partners, comes out in the public manner. and pressure trying to have some kind of independent inquiry. of course that's not going to be accepted by china when the whole world is talking about cooperation. so you're not going to say because australia say there's in china, doesn't like that. so china acts in a very hostile manner. i think sometimes people get the logic wrong. and then in terms of hong kong, hong kong is part of china. and what china has trying to do is to give her a call as much autonomy as much of him as possible, but never giving away the one country principle. and even if, even if china has thought

a way that other people don't like how it handles the situation in hong kong, is it the business of anybody else to threaten china with military capacity? it is china's internal affairs. and if you have any, you know, complains or opinions, talk about it, you do that all the time. but to say that we need a military alliance to counter china. i think that is very far as, as far as the south china sea, at the end of the japanese occupation, it was american washer, that carry chinese soldiers to those islands which have been traditionally part of chinese territory. when you buy the maps of the south china sea in before this house out, china see the dispute started the 9 dotted line was there, nobody was contesting these water countries. i was claiming he's already already planning on building on these islands. china was forced to do whatever needs to protect its territory. the most important thing is these disputes between

china and its neighbors that it has a dispute with and we are solving these issues the, the, the code of conduct, hang on to have. everybody talked a little brain. don't know, please don't tell me. going to james. i'm going to go to games. now. hang on, hang on. i mean, i'd go to james here. we have a very limited amount of time. james, i'm glad that we know. and lucian have brought up the issue of these islands because what i find really puzzling and perplexing is it why, how is it in the american national interest to do go into a potential military conflict with china over these islands? what it is, what is the american national interest? why should they be fighting over rocks? go ahead. well, 1st of all, i strongly doubt that the u. s. will do anything that provokes the military outcome in this area. yes, the u. s. has been doing what it's been doing, mainly freedom of navigation is my it's i live very doubtfully,

very doubtfully. i strongly argue there is no, i've been arguing for decades and i'm still right there is no imminent war threat in east asia. there is no imminent threat from china and there is no imminent threat from the united states. there's a balance that both sides one piece and it's important that they understand that yes, people use words and words are cheap. they use words and they use agreements that are seen as threatening, but that isn't the same thing as war. and that's why it's also an exaggeration. i think to call this a cold war because in fact, the extent of relations between the countries in the region is extensive and they will need to solve those problems peacefully. we should not accelerate the war talk . we should in fact, refuse the war talk and recognize that it's not in the interest of any country to make threats or to you know, to talk and see if there is an imminent war threat. because what does that do? that it'll actually only increases the sales of weapons, which is really the business interest of the arm sellers. if you, if you keep stoking the idea that there is a war threat,

then of course you're going to helping companies sell more arms. i don't want to do that. i'm trying to diffuse attention, not increase it because i think that's kind of irresponsible to do that. and i also think it doesn't reflect the reality that there is very, very, it's very, very unlikely that either side will start anything aggressive because of the catastrophic economic and military effects would be too great for anyone to contemplate. the possibility of success were now you want to jump in there in paris? go ahead. no, i'm in the nobody. no, no, nobody wants a new 2nd. that's if you cool. but clearly the chinese want the americans out of the pacific. they want the americans out of a zone going from the gulf of bang gail, back to to, to our i and i remember meeting chinese and minister in aging in 2009. and he told

me very frankly, that i made, he did not belong to asia and as, as no place in asia, i should know should withdraw from asia. it is not the policy of america, and it is not the wish more interesting. it is not the wish of many countries along these seeds, these waters, including vietnam and malaysia and indonesia, honestly, pianos, and so on. they want 20 years ago. they would have liked maybe america to leave, but now they want them and they get to stay. and why they want to get to stay because they feel threatened by china. other right other wrong may be me. so she's in being should, should give us a proof that is not

a threat. what we remember is that a school that when we visited the united states with president obama, that these islands in the south china, she would never been weaponized. they are today. alright. alright, i have to jump in here. we have run out of time. we run out of time. my last comment is that the us should get out of nato and the you should stop militarized in the pacific. but that's my humble opinion. many thanks to my guess in beijing, basking and in paris and thanks to our viewers are watching us here are. see you next time and remember across the ah ah

ah ah, i use long when i would show the wrong one all just don't the rule. yes, to see out the thing because after an engagement equal betrayal, when so many find themselves well,

the part we choose to look for common ground. this is your media a reflection of reality. the in the world transformed what will make you feel safe relation to community you going the right way? where are you being somewhere direct? what is truth? what is faith in the world corrupted. you need to this end ah, to join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah,

the, i don't know. i mean there are some steps in there were rescuing the food that they were not scabbing or were rescuing resources that are still good. this is best by march 21st, which is in today's all these potatoes, paula pianos, onions, all of these came from waste brown sources. this is great for me because i'm always looking for a way to give things away. dr. because the tax laws, you know, definitely do benefit the wealthier people and our society. so it makes sense for them to throw it out right off, rather than give it to somebody who could use it. and then that person is not going to buy it. join me every 1st aid on the alex famine show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politic sport business and show business. i'll see you then.

in the moon, we are not seeking new co, warm all the major powers of the world have a duty in my view to carefully manage their relationships. as joe biden promotes global cooperation at the u. n. and the french president can, from the emitter, growing diplomatic back, which provide has also become this slight reco, you energy prices and a huge short fall in supplies. approx, nice laughing fines on poland using coal is also blaming russia for the crisis. and luxury inside time for one night and describing the teenage.