to lee international payment system. so she'll be puppy jermel lewis, she donna and euro exchange rates followed minneapolis up our neck of the more social carbon would know what the committee met. that evoke missed the pilgrim this . that is the correct. can you say, well, don't know. sure, sure. my jail, a couple of us bosom and russian business overcome this song. see near rob bought it to the nazi to huddle. she's tremendously just me don't plus voice bullshit, nacia productive notches steel. osh, a miracle. what i see support, but themself when you come, when you with, before you got any of your mind or just, you know, but i, she's appraisal id, close book. i know post kit cost to get a group when you, when you spend him with dr. nutrition who is a school some delusion. look a little bit. lucian lives with

hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter labelle 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 crafts, shocking 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 angela juliano. he is a political and financial analyst at a late jackson. we have daniel mcadams is the executive director of the ron paul

institute for peace and prosperity. our gentleman cross acros, in fact, that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate, daniel, let me go to you 1st thing. i mean i, i set it all in my introduction is the by the administration of bedding, the one china policy. that was, it's been around since 1979. it seemed, if it's a, maybe no one was happy with it but, and no one was a particularly unhappy with as a well, i mean it was it, it both sides having a sense of an agreement. is that a done deal? well, i mean, this is just typical of what we're seeing as a buy did ministrations foreign policy. it seems to be a foreign policy of go around the world and kick every one 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 june 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 a 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 stuff 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 his daniel said that it does turn out to be a stunt wor some, a 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 corners 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. well that, that said, i mean 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 work. 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 e living there words is not enough anymore action speak more than words. go ahead and hong kong when i'm not surprised, a dose plans are done or well head we are talking about di, case. it's, 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 doctrine and says clearly that there's a window of opportunity where the us 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 your 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 brochure. 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, i agree with a lot of, of what you're there. 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 don't them carrying out a rand study would be like me doing rocket science or something. you know, it's just not gonna happen. that may be the goal of some of some pencil. next. you know, 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 develop it 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 min and 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 us 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? yeah, i mean, again, trying to make sense of it is very difficult. andy, i'm going to be a little provocative right now. well, at the by demonstration 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. ok. 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 a 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 when, 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 tie one 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 ukraine or taiwan as a proxy to contain those it sees as an adversary, you know, 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's a, it's panicking. it's an impiety dispatch panicking. it's, it's saying actually that things are moving on the bricks than on a line. would you have you had the, what did i, she is a lying behind the china and russia and the panicking because there's a new was 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 the, the hope to achieve in the region is to fight china to the last i, when he's and then not only taiwanese might actually lose the lifes. you might have actually japanese to move in. and this is not only a containment of china dishes, if this happen, it could be containment of, or se, asia, in, in the whole, the whole global south as she will, will, 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, 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, what are you supposed to do, daniel? exactly, and it's, i think it's a get another own go 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 had that weren't set down. i am going to start doing sanctions. i think i read that i am one of the centers on the export of santa taiwan. well, that's a big deal because they 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 below his 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 if not shooting down at least forcing down the plain. that didn't happen because that's not how china rolled right this. like al rush, not how russia roles until it was for still. and so they didn't get that. and so the gloves are off and chinese is okay. we can wait this out, we can cause 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, to the parallel with ukraine. it was that the way the west a particular united states talks about the russian 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 that's again,

this kind of arrogance, of projecting 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 i was staying with ah

ah ah ah, with welcome back to cross hoc were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle from and you were discussing taiwan.

ah. okay, go back to handy in beijing let's they talk about and china's reaction to the policy trip. they, 1st of all, the chinese leadership made it clear that they were, they were not happy with this. and, and i always kind of like how the chinese will say they're unhappy that translates to furious in in western speak. i always kind of appreciate that, that they tempered language from a, 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 rule of the rules don't apply anymore, china is going to be my, let's just say more creative here. and it looks to me, it could be sustained and long term. i mean, the americans might think this was a flash in the pan. poke them in the eye, you know, don't work with the russians. nasty, you nasty business that you're involved with. and then it would just kind of go away in the new 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 and 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 a little bit as i may some historical context here. i think we looked at the era of engagement so where the us wanted to work with china. but this was not for altruistic reasons. so 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 leads. what we could call the blog is that by co opting trainer with the johns, a mean called are peaceful evolution,

through soft means undermining china 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. 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 gemini. so this is a very rational, even predictable response. and how is china are responding to this? so i think that it's important to say that this talk of shooting down a close, he's playing 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, 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 b 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 his 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 china will 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 or 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 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. date a, 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. hong kong was full sponsored back by the u. s. addition to that, they were financing e t i n the separate a, we goes in king 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 he 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, a lot of fine meddling since 1997. so i am confident that as she were having tie one my actually tony chin up a treaty. yeah. me and daniel and i to point out to, oh, are other panelists 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 the 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 faced right now. that's a huge decline for 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. below, he's tried to frame this trip as some sort of grant. where did 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 totality carrying is more triumph 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 irrelevant 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 failed, 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, andy, watching 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. ok. and last time, maybe daniel can help me with this when. when's the last time the u. s. one, a war? maybe you know that's beside the point here. now you know that the, what i'm getting at is that the us military is good at the attacking sheepherders, but not a major power like china. and i, i wonder if people in the pentagon and in their woke seminars are realizing this. go ahead, andy. well this is again i think what makes this saw 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 tie one 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 what 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, muscles, submarines, all of this. the armaments, 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 it was really interesting. is it directly or absolutely right?

is that you have to have 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, press stop, rules ah, ah ah more fool, we're show you the most all who are so for is you do with russia is the aggression know his answer much about i need a key. what were the did you must, you should slow border worse. you,

we have any quality for russians. can all we gotta do is just feed them over the head and just tell them the right way to live. there is going to do it. yeah, just a we did it on the display of the with a boy with boy. i'm with a don't was a who i can see here. give me a phone number, the list with one of my gloves with history of for new. sure. wouldn't your news with our season at the washer to work so i would have to watch with

when i was shown seemed wrong when i just don't hold any world. yes. to say proud disdain becomes the advocate an engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah, no one, no, sir, no, no. admiral hook, no, no. what door? more shrill than what they should end up. unit 73. 1 was a unique organization. in the history of the world, what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short,

then build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had ever known. and grill oh, you know, to production issue or short a enough to kill, to will know new son, new rochelle. he on more more general manager thought this is meant new again from all one of our funding and i got the sale. i got your name. i understood, i wish to know about jewelry, whole knew he didn't or gospel more or less than a jr. let's i had to put all of this. call them all on all your body bill. can you go out hours? nice. oh boy. with to go on what the on this the world,

she my and new other all i can send more on. all said mom. good. so you don't the you, you love or put them out. give us a accuses, think you ways of threatening international peace and security by spending trillions on nuclear arms development and basing nuclear weapons around the world slash opens a pro thursday's deadly shelling of the nick by ukrainian troops which killed people including a 12 year old goal and go in prime minister to open plans, the liberal global audit calling for conservatives in europe and the united states to unite and coordinate a movement of conservative truth ah .