of us who works well with the watch live with ah ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things we're considered. i'm peter lavelle for decades. washington adhered to what has been called the one china policy and that included taiwan for better or worse. it is kept the peace in the region house speaker, nancy pelosi trip to ty, want put this into question, is the binding ministration needlessly and recklessly provoking china with

crush, sucking taiwan. i'm joined by my guess and you mock in beijing. he is a senior research fellow at the center for china and globalization in hong kong. we have angel juliano. he is a political and financial analyst at a lake jackson. we have daniel mcadams. he is the executive director of the ron pol, institute for peace and prosperity. our gentleman crosswalk rose in effect. that means you can jump anytime you want and i always appreciate, daniel, let me go to you 1st. i mean i set it all in my introduction. is the by the administration of bedding, the one china policy that was, it was, it's been around since 1979. it seemed, if it's in maybe you know, no one was happy with it but, and no one was i'm particularly unhappy with it as a, well, i mean, it was it, it both sides having a sense of an agreement. is that a done deal? i mean, this is just typical of what we're seeing as a by did ministrations foreign policy. it seems to be a foreign policy of go around the world and kick everyone in the face to see what happens. and that's exactly what's happening. there seems to be no strategic purpose for the us changing it's, it's tune toward china other than the fact that the democrats are facing very dire

. electro prospects here in just a couple of months. i think the move had a lot to do with politics, but it was also a very boneheaded move, which i'm sure we'll get into later. andy, let me go to you in beijing. i mean, if i were sitting in beijing, i'd say what is going on here? what prompted this, a parent change in policy, and what was the visit supposed to achieve? i mean, they, you know, i've always said, you know, a trip. okay, what do you want to do? what enact what kind of policy that is left completely empty? we have no idea other than it was just a stunt, and you don't do stance like that and a very sensitive area of the world. so i mean from your perspective there in beijing, how do you see things? well peter, i certainly hope that is daniel said that it does turn out to be a stunt war. some farewell tour from over the hill politician bob.

but i think a darker and perhaps an alternative and realistic explanation of this is that this is a consistent repudiation of the corner loan of china us relations. and this puts us on a very, very dangerous pass that i've described as the equivalent of the july crisis that served as the prelude to world war one. i did that said, i'm in the gun, the guns of august here. this is something that i've talked about earlier in the week here. angela, let me go to you. in hong kong. i mean, the, the, the one china policy works. so if it works, why fix it? i just don't get it here. okay. and what, what, what, what was the catalyst for this? what so, you know, because, you know, blaine can, can say something biden can say something. of course, nancy, if she's coherent, i mean, but why is leaving their words is not enough anymore. action speak more than words . go ahead and hong kong. well, i'm not surprised are those plans are done well,

header, we are talking about d. case. if you can see reports from the rand corporation in 2016, they already took talking about how they can contain china. now there's an acceleration. the rank operation document says clearly that there's a window of opportunity where the west can contain china and that wind of opportunities between 2050 to 2025. after that it would be they difficult, almost impossible to contain china. so the u. s. government is under pressure, so they using penalty to say when she, she went on our own and so on. do not do not bind to this. you know, this is she was actually the right candidate because they can shift the blame on her. but if you look, there is a consistent track record of undermining the one china policy. and the ultimate goal is to contain china. the same as you had rand corporation papers they were

talking about long ago how to contain russia. you know, daniel, do say a parallel to ukraine with this because you and i've talked extensively on this program about ukraine and on december 17th for russia, sent a note to nato into the united states, saying this is a red line. this is the terms and conditions you, you are aware of our intentions now, and they completely blew it off and then like, blowing this off as well as it always says nancy on her farewell to her. i mean, you know, i mean i, that, that's not good enough. and if i were the chinese, i wouldn't accept that as well. go ahead, daniel, that's exactly what i was thinking is all the parallels to ukraine and there certainly are so many of them. and i agree with a lot of of what you're, you're speaker, i'm sorry, a chemicals name from hong kong said, i think that's a great analysis. however, this is the gang that can't shoot straight. i am carrying out a rand study would be like me doing rocket science or something. you know, it's just not going to happen. that may be the goal of some of some pencil. next it

involved with the people who are carrying this out. can't do it. the parallels are there and they're actually sort of even spooky. ukraine was dependent on rush, affords economic growth for trade. it had a potential back in 2014 of really developing a meaningful relationship with russia. and further developing gets economy, which has stalled since the end of the cold war. the same is true with taiwan and china as, as your other guests know better than i am sure. taiwan depends on me and then china, it's his primary export market. taiwan imports, i think something like 90 percent of its energy, 98 percent of its energy. it needs china next door to be a trading partner. and the u. s. again came in as it did with ukraine in 2014 and said, oh yeah, we're going to destroy this relationship and would you get in return? nothing you get some promises from nancy pelosi, you know, take those to the bank right now. i'm a again,

trying to make sense of it is very difficult. andy, i'm going to be a little provocative right now. well, at the biden administration is walking away from the one china policy, so tiny can to, i mean, it's kind of a get out of jail free card. okay, you don't, you want to adhere to it? why should beijing go ahead? well, this is a very complex, dangerous situation, peter. so the cornerstone of china us relations is taiwan and the taiwan policy, the one, the one trying to policy the one china principle. so i don't think that china would walk away. the issue here is this. i completely agree that there are parallels between the ukraine situation, the taiwan situation in that the u. s. is looking to use both as the proxy to contain those that it sees as an adversary. the difference though is that taiwan intrinsically is also the lynchpin for american hegemony. not just in the pacific

would globally in that whoever possesses taiwan. well if, think about the 2 alternatives. if the u. s. wins, we can see an independent taiwan american military bases in taiwan. and that would constrain china dramatically. on the other hand, if taiwan were unified with china militarily peacefully, that changes the global landscape as well. so this is a very, very important, a juncture for china, us relations and the world. and in this way, it's a little bit different from the ukraine. but i think it is the same in that the u. s. is looking to use either the ukraine or taiwan as a proxy to contain those it sees as an adversary until, i mean, i mean without what's going on in ukraine and it's not going well for the ukrainians. it's not going well for nato. it's not going well for the biden administration, so they want to mess with china now. i mean,

do you see any logic to this other than the u. s. this is terrified of losing. it's a gemini and it's being, it's lashing out all over the globe. go ahead in hong kong. it is a desperate move it. so it's panicking. it's an empire the dispatch panicking or it's, it's saying actually that are things are moving on the bricks than on a line. would you have you have the, what did i, she is a lying behind the china and russia and the panicking because there's a new one older, especially economically there's a di dollarization ahead and this will accelerate the collapse of the west. so this is the last move. what they want to do is a parallel. well, you see in ukraine, they wanted to fight russia to the last ukranian. what could happen? what they hope to achieve in the region is to fight china to the last i, when ease and then not only taiwanese might actually lose the lives you might have

actually japanese to move in. and this is not only a containment of china, this is if this happen, it could be containment of, or se, asia, in, in the whole, the whole global south as she with, with, will actually suffer from that. well, you know, daniel, again, you know, kind of the same question i had for andy. i mean, if the u. s. isn't going to be at here by this policy of one china than i think all bets are off in the, in the chinese will say look, i mean, you're not going to, you're not a reliable partner. so we're gonna have to go out on our own much like what the russians had to do. i know that that goes down to a path of potential conflict. but i mean, if you can't believe your interlocutors in washington, then what are you supposed to do, daniel? exactly, and it's, i think it's a get another own goal by the united states because it's essentially the us who said now, hey, the rules are off, as you said. and so the chinese said, okay, that sounds fine. mainland china says that's fine. here's our military exercises,

we're no longer going to abide by the central line. i will no gone, no longer going to abide by the sort of agreements that we have to watch set down and we're going to start doing sanctions. i think i read that. i'm one of the sanctions on the export of santa taiwan. well, that's a big deal because it do a lot of building. it's going to ruin the economy. it's just demonstrating. i think the u. s. was hoping that china would overreact. the idea that china was going to shoot down philosophies. plane is pretty preposterous. it's certainly not in the nature of chinese behavior around the world. but i think that's why the u. s. moved to carry your groups to the region. they were hoping for a big dramatic reaction of not shooting down at least forcing down the plain. that didn't happen because that's not how china rolled right. just like al rush, not how russia roles until it was for still. and so they didn't get that. and so the gloves are oftentimes it's ok, we can wait this out, we can't housing, economic pain, we can't wait for elections and have a pro, you re unification. goverlan. daniel, don't you find it really interesting. again,

there parallel with ukraine, you know, is that the way the west in particular, united states talks about russia's special military operation that they're failing and all this, they always protect what they would do. oh, we would shoot down the plane. yes. but they would, you know, that again, this kind of arrogance of protecting on the others. who are gentlemen gonna jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue. our discussion on time was staying with ah ah

ah ah, a talked with

somebody over there with ah, a video you look on you up for you. but you suppose it is. if i knew the situation with

a, with a welcome act across that were all things considered. i'm peter lavelle from and you were discussing taiwan. ah okay, go back to andy in beijing. let's, let's talk about china's reaction to the policy trip. they, 1st of all, the chinese leadership made it clear that they weren't, they were not happy with this. and i always kind of like how the chinese and say they're unhappy that translates to furious in in western speak. i always kind of appreciate that that the, the tempered language from, from china. but you know that there is a reaction going on right now. and it's again,

kind of an extending to my question. you know, if the, if the rules don't apply anymore, china is going to be, let's just say more creative here. and it looks to me, it could be sustained and long term. i mean, the americans, i think this was a flash in the pan. poke them in the i, you know, don't work with the russians. nasty, nasty business that you're involved with. and then it would just kind of go away in the news cycle. no, i am looking at what's going on in the straits. this is going to be a long haul for the very reason that i keep pointing out is that the americans that have been in this policy, maybe china won't do it unilaterally, but it's going to interpret that policy in a different way. moving forward, my opinion, your thoughts, my friend in beijing. so peter little bit as i may some historical context here. i think we looked at the era of engagement so where the u. s. want it to work with china, but this was not for altruistic reason. of course. the american politics is

predicated where i would say america's view of itself in the world is predicated on american leadership, who gemini, and the smart decision at the time. for american elite, what we call the blob is that by co opting trainer with the johns a mean called of peaceful evolution, through soft means undermining train of sovereignty that that would be the best way to ensure american hegemony when they believe that that failed mrs. i think why we're seeing odd this change, i think what you're calling and i think accurately calling this abandonment of the one china policy to a much harder edged approach. so i think we should not discount ah, the u. s. ability to pursue this kind of goal. and of course, as china rises, it is perhaps the only country in the world that can challenge american hegemony.

so this is a very rational, even predictable response. and how is china responding to this? so i think that it's important to say that this talk of shooting down policies, plane, or intercepting it is not entirely an american invention. so there were chinese voices, some very influential ones, like who seeing the former editor in chief of the global tribes. who said exactly that, that, you know, if the plane is not intercepted and doesn't turn around, it could be shot down. so ah, certainly there are voices that are more hawkish, but i think what we see happening to your point about the chinese being very measured, i would say exhibiting both discipline and strategic patience is look at what happened in hong kong in the unrest a few years ago, there were people in china saying that the p l a should go in to put down this unrest, but instead, what did china do? it inactive?

some systemic changes like the passage of a national security. was that not only extinguished this, a foreign instigated unrest, but put hong kong on a sustainable path to stability and prosperity? so i think what we can see here is the policy, the u. s. as to what the policies not changed. i think the method has changed, but that how trainable react again is long term patients, resolute action, or that more than likely will results in, in taiwan being re unified one way or another. but the big wild card. and i think again, this is what makes it such a dangerous time for everybody is that the, the u. s. cannot accept this result. we may need a war ah, the u. s. will attack china. japan and korea may be dragged in just as other countries during world war one were dragged in against their will because they were

a locked into these alliances. and this could be a very, very bad outcome. you know, angela, in, in hong kong, before all this happened, strategic ambiguity was considered something good. ok, basically, it was a squaring the circle. i, you know, the u. s. recognizes that taiwan is part of china, though they could have some independent contact with, with taiwan. and it kind, you know, everybody, you know, parlayed and it works now. i think it stopped working here. so strategic ambiguity is turning into a negative thing. now go, head in hong kong for china was never an ambiguity. de china knew all along the long term plan. this is not the 1st time that the u. s. is going against the chinese sovereignty. and he just mentioned before in hong kong, the attempt of color revolution in hong kong was full sponsored back by the u. s. addition to that they were financing e t. i am the separatist wiggers engine,

john and a lot of them are actually terrorist or dial. emma has been financed by the c. i assume the 1950s. so you see this is not the 1st time that the u. s. is meddling into chinese sovereignty. i like what just and you just mentioned before about hong kong. you see what happened in hong kong is that china, as she used to set back to journey to a novel treaty because of the riots they had in hong kong, the enacted and national security low, which by the way was sign a petition was signed by 2300000 people. so a very large majority of people, they sign they, they backed b gene for enacting the special security law. and this became actually a 2nd handover, or actually maybe the when the handover of hong kong to china. because there were lots of agents and lots of fine meddling err since 1997. so i am confident that as

she were having tie one actually turning to an opportunity. yeah. me and daniel and i to point out to, i'll or other panel us and our viewers is that there, there were a lot of people in taiwan protesting policies visit. okay. you didn't get that in the mainstream media, but there were quite a few people that weren't happy with. daniel, we faced with a facilities trap right now is, is being played out in real time. i think you're absolutely right peter. and if i can just go back to one thing, you said, i think you made a great point, which is the u. s. depends on a new cycle that is breathtaking. really fast. there was, there was a new gallup for that just came out showing that only one percent of americans think that russia is, is the biggest problem that we face right now. that's a huge decline from february. so we're going to move past that. we're going to have a week of taiwan and then we'll move past that. that's just how it works in the u. s. los, he's tried to frame this trip as some sort of grand. sure what you say democracy versus authoritarianism. it's this whole new con idea that if the u. s. doesn't act

across the world and make every country by force, just like its own, the totalitarianism will try everywhere. and that just simply isn't the case. it's not been the case. all it's done is create a lot of heartache and it's maybe us relevant because as you rightly point out, this was not popular in taiwan. i looked at the protests. people were, were afraid, they've seen what's happened in ukraine. don't want to face this. and so it's fail, the u. s. is declining because it's afraid of declining. it's one of the most strangest, it's one of the strangest things in history. i think, you know, and watching the, the chinese military. it's quite formidable. and particularly since taiwan is an island off the mainland, china has the advantage here. and it's creating an amazing amount of deterrence. i mean, it's not like going into panama or grenada. okay. and last time, maybe daniel can help me with this when, when to last time the u. s. one,

a war maybe, you know, that's beside the point here. now you know that the, with what i'm getting at is that the u. s. military is good at the attacking sheepherders, but not a major power like china. and i, i wonder if people in the pentagon in their woke seminars are realizing this. go ahead, andy. well this is again i think what makes this on such a grave and dangerous hydration because i think on the one hand of u. s. military of course recognizes the risk that it faces. every senior military official has said that the u. s. i cannot count on winning. of course the factors you mentioned that taiwan being so close to the mainland. trump said this as well, but also they need to consider the rapid advances that the p l. a is made over the last 20 or 30 years since the last high one straits crisis. also strategically.

i'll use a bruce lee quote here. so bruce lee said, i do not fear the man who knows 10000 kicks, but i do fear the man who has practiced one kick, 10000 times. and with this means here is that the u. s. screens for missions all around the world in the middle east, in latin america in europe. china really has one focus. that's taiwan. so, anti area axis denial, this'll submarines. all of this. the armament, the doctrine, all the training is all oriented around one goal. so the u. s. military of course, is very worried. you look at the war games that they've run. they say blue gets its ass handed to every time you have the u. s. losing every time. so clearly, on one hand, the military recognizes the wrist, but under, in a country with civilian leadership. that is predicated on this notion of american

exceptionalism and that american national security rest on being the global hedge. mon, i, again, the u. s. may have no choice. they're trapped in their ideology that may drive them to a destructive, military conflict. again, many people only hear and what's really interesting is it, i reckon you're absolutely right, is that you have to pay your absolute right. but chinese, defending its sovereignty, that something that is completely unacceptable for washington. that's the tragedy of this exceptionalism. here, as all the time we have gentlemen here, i want to thank my gets in beijing, hong kong, and in lake jackson. and thanks to our viewer for what viewers are watching us here are to see you next time and remember process rules.

ah, the more so we'll show you the most for so for, is you do with russia is the aggression no answer much about it. i mean, it was worth teaching was to use it for border course. you know, we have any quality for russians. can all we gotta do is just read them over the head and just tell them the right way to live. there is going to do it. yeah, just a little bit, a boy with support. i'm with a phone number us the list with a lot of nice gloves with national convenience to be

a for the new sure wouldn't journalist with to finish with when you are season at the washer to work. so i would have to watch with when i would show seemed wrong when i just don't know. i mean you have to fill out these days because the advocate and engagement, it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. the for

the business. and you agree in the 3 and a rugby shoes on your medical graham. when you wrote you, did you lose? you got to really just such a group. can you provide you with such a short message after the difference in full a child wishing that you get thrown with them the problem and you're still sure if you're here, take your history as to your birthday and not the study. skills of play stuff coming off on ok, which which in longer it was just up and put stickers to put him on because a new a divorce. look, you school, run a don't know for the don't know if i should just to do given the other than that we're going to use just opinion enough is come on

the the china chooses the us of threatening international peace and security, life blending trillions on nuclear arms development and basting nuclear weapons around the world. flush opens a probe and thursdays deadly shelling of the ukrainian truth which killed if people including a 12 year old girl. must slam poland for removing the russian exhibition at the alpha, the concentration camps, a moral pain. it's another attempt to rewrite history the use.