alliance for these teeth are precious appraisal. i did just look for the i know post husky cost to get the group when you, when you spin with dr. numbness. listen, who is this wilson delusion, little little booklet. lucille improves with ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are 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 strip the tie. want put this into question, is the biding ministration needlessly and recklessly provoking china

with cross sucking taiwan. i'm joined by my guess, andrew mark 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 lake jackson. we have, daniel mcadam sees the executive director of the ron pol, institute for peace and prosperity. har, 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 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 1979. it seemed, if it's maybe no one was happy with it, but at no one was a particularly unhappy with as a well, i mean it was it, it both sides haven't i 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 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 a farewell tour for an over the hill politician. ah, 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 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 a, 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 or a dose plans are done or well header we are talking about di case. it's, you can see we pause from the rand corporation in 2016. they already took 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 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 complain. china, the same as you had rand corporation papers. they were talking about non wiggle. how to contain russia. you know, daniel, do you 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 they're 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 to 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 your, your speaker, i'm sorry, are chemicals name from on concept. i think that's

a great analysis. however, this is the gang that can't shoot straight. i know them carrying out iran's 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 are involved, but the people we were carrying this out can't do it. the parallels are there and they're actually sort of even spooky. ukraine was dependent on russia, fords, economic growth for trade. it had a potential back in 2014, a 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 mainland china. it's as 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. 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 biden ministration is walking away from the one china policy. so china can to, i mean, it's kind of a get out of jail free card. okay. you, 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 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 look and strange traina 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. and that the u. s. is looking to use either the 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. is, is terrified of losing. it's a gemini and it's being, it's a 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 have to, 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 they hope to achieve in the region is to fight china to the last taiwanese 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, 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, so 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 what set down i am going to start doing sanctions. i think i read that them one of the sanctions 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 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 dislike hal rush. not how russia roles until it was worth still. and so they didn't get that. and so the

gloves are oftentimes it's okay, we can wait this out, we can house, you can on the pain, we can wait for elections and have a pro, you re unification. goverlan. daniel, don't you find it really interesting. again, there parallel with ukraine. it was that the way the west a particular united states talks about the rushes of special military operation that they're failing and all this, they always project what they would do. oh, 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. so i was staying with ah, look forward to talking to you all. technology should work for people with

a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order is a conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point, obviously is to create trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with a well never be a victory for russia wait for solution with a new modem, but look at a mean crane war is a proxy war. this is a war between russia and the united states. naz on them are made. it comes to not

should get done in carbon dioxide. america forces are and you're not in your to gauge in conflict of russian forties. american forces are here and defend nato allies. what happens if nato escalates even more than discussion? military operations become a war when you, but they'll set of rules that national and that'll that doesn't is much. i see it that i see your to us. thank you. costliest. got what i mean with so i you sleep issue. you can, you stuff with home is still food that are in your sewage near a secret. the girl who's only one main thing is important for knox, isn't internationally speaking. that is, that nations are allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the mind in a sense, while the slave americans,

proc obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this dangerous bogeyman there wants to take over the world. that was a conscious strategy. so some golf out of it on noon, i actually stood off to observe on and tablet block. nato said it's ours. we move east. the reason us had germany is so dangerous, is it? the law is the sovereignty of all the countries. the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is founded, shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is the reality

of what we're facing, which is fashion with . welcome back. across stock, we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle from and you were discussing taiwan. ah. okay, go back to andy in beijing. what's the talk about china's reaction to the policy trip? they? first 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 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. if the rule, if the rules don't apply anymore, china is going to be my, let's a sake more creative here. and it looks to me, it could be sustained and long term. i mean, the americans, i think 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 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, little bit of i may some historical context here. i think we looked at the era of engagement so where the u. s. wanted 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 leads. what we called the blog is that by co opting trainer with a johns, a mean called a 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 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, 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 like 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 view 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 swearing 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, 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 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're heading 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 a since 1997. so i am confident that as she were having tie one man actually

turning to an opportunity. yeah. me and daniel and i to point out to, i'll or 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 it. 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 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 for 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. where did you say democracy versus authoritarianism?

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 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, andy, 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. so, i mean, it's not like going into panama or grenada. okay. and the 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 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 taiwan being so close to the mainland. trump said this as well, but also they need to consider the rapid advances that the players 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 acts as denial, missiles, 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 and what's really interesting is it, i reckon you're absolutely right. is that you have to say, 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, it's 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 bureau for what you are for watching us here are you see you next time and remember ah, ah,

ah ah, ah ah. with

a crate. well, never be a victory for russia. ukraine war is a proxy war. this is a war between russia and the united states. as amman are made, it comes to last. you can then cowboys. america forces are and you're not in europe. engage in conflict with russian forces. the american forces are heritage of fan nato allies. nato escalades, even more in the special military operations,

become a war door when you put dell, some of the girls at the show. and that'll the notion is my idea that i see your thrust protecting costliest. yeah, that's what i mean. we've so usefully, he should unique and he said that there are many from the needs of the most of them let's you, when you read only this, don't finish that are in your sewage. nourish. he took the co who's february 2007, that e, me, of who jens munich speech is a milestone in contemporary history. many consider his famous address of the security conference to be a turning point in relations between moscow. on the west with president putin spoke about major geopolitical issues in no uncertain terms and harshly criticized the uni polo well, model u. s. foreign policy.