i know they said she of course, was lower because it was just there showed some interest in for the little kirk miller. or did you have regarding joe, by imposing these sanctions on russia. you has destroyed the american economy. so there's you boomerang self. ah, ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things we're 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 cross 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 angelo, 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 cross acros. in fact, that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate, daniel, let me go to you 1st. i mean i, i said it all. my introduction is the by the administration of bedding, the one china policy. that was, it was, it's been around since $979.00. it seemed, if it's a maybe where no one was happy with it but, and no one was i'm particularly unhappy with 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 u. s. a 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 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 is daniel said that it does turn out to be a stunt war, some farewell tour for an over the hill politician. 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. 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 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 living there words is not enough anymore action speak more than words. go ahead and hong kong. well, i'm not surprised or a dose plans are done. well, header, we are talking about d. case. it's, you can see reports from the rand corporation in 2016. they are ready to talking about how they can contain china. now these an acceleration, the rank operation document 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 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 um, 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 your, your speaker, i'm sorry, a chemicals name from hong kong said, i think that's

a great analysis. however, this is again, 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 it involved. but the people who are carrying this out can't do it. the parallels are there and there 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 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 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 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 to, what did i, she is a line 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 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 lifes. 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, that 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 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 have to work set down. and we're going to start doing sanctions. i think i read that. i'm one of their 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 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 forced to. and so they didn't get that. and so

the gloves are off and chinese is okay. 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, to the parallel with ukraine. it, was it the way the west a particular united states talks about russia's special military operation that they're failing and all this, they always protect what they would do. you know, we would shoot down the plane. yes, but they would, you know, that 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,

i spoke with with both both domo, she need to deal with a, a green already. a lot of them bought a nissan levy and he's not because tanya is normally

with us a personal number here with you ah, welcome back to cross talk. we're all things considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing taiwan. ah okay, is go back to andy in beijing. what's the talk about china's reaction to the policy

trip? the 1st of all, the chinese leadership made it clear that they were not happy with this. and i always kind of like how the chinese will say they're unhappy that translates to furious in western speak. i always kind of appreciate that that the, the tempered language rama 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, if 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, why they, this is a flash in the pan, poke them in the eye, 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 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 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 leads. what we called the blog is that by co opting traina 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 as unrest . wow, 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 as of us, 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 know the u. s. recognizes that taiwan is part of china, though they could have some independent contact with, with taiwan and a 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 a 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 separatist away goes inside 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 are andy 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, they enacted a 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 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 patricky. 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 or 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 already 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. what 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 totalitarianism will try and 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, with what i'm getting at is it, the u. s. military is good at it 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, but 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 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 access, denial, listen, submarines, all of this. the armis, the doctrine, all the training is all oriented around one goal. so the u. s. military of course,

is very worried. we 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, ah, 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 don't wait here and what's really interesting is it, you're absolutely right. is that, you know, hey, you're absolutely right, but china is defending its sovereignty. that's 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, and like jackson, and thanks to our bureau for what the worth are. watching us here are the phoenix time and remember ah ah ah, it with with

lou needs to come to the russian state will never be a landscape diva american calls all sons a week within the city of abilene. okay, so mine is 2000 speedy, one else about mas, even with we've little fan in the european union,

the kremlin jeff machine, the state aunt, rush up to date and split our t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with question, did you think even close with ah, the steel can you spoke with me for both both no moms in the deal. but nelson's new york's new good. i was

with grandma, but a lot of them bought a wall with the widow pollution. the scope of those should have been for you if there was a level grace for argument. you much anybody out that there was a lot of thought about you guys with they need that was do leaving and he's not because don't years more with

a with, with a piece. are people fleeing from southeastern ukraine. some have been bomb shelters for nearly 3 weeks. there was no phone reception so many had no idea how to get out of town with is let me see if he's done with pleasure, but i'm sure i did this with.