that's a real spread or is it just a rhetorical post hearing on the eve of some crucial political decisions in the u. k. in the united states and a in china to yeah, thank you. yeah, thank you for that question. yeah, i think that the world is getting too much dangerous period now, because i know since the 2nd world war we have been experiencing the same years of peace and somehow, you know, now we have a really, a very intense, a geopolitical kind of conflict. and we have now globalization as we know, capacity give a way to the regional and the to the, to the vehicle or it is on some major power. so that's really, unfortunately particularly we are seeing the, the award is really the global government system. actually since the 2nd world war

is, is somehow jeopardize. and for example, we really should really zoom the un, which is really got to p 5 countries to talk. and we should really a bit by mouth out to a system. so as a result of the original resolve, we see particularly those more secure lines. i mean, rather than economic lines, for example, in the last you know, some to some years we see w t o we see all those. you can not all, you see the, all those are, you can on the framework is what you know, quite strong in the past. but now that has been gone. we see now nato, we see, you know, advice. we see that also, you know, all those quad and others are military security allies are really booming up. that's really concerned. i mentioned confusion in the beginning. he was not just a lot of for he was also a politician and i think that's not a coincidence because if you take it on a yourself to steer whole societies, one way or another,

you have to combine politics and philosophy. now let me ask you this increasing belligerence that we are seeing from the west d. c. bad as a, as tactical matter as some sort of a, you know, short term political benefit. or is that actually a strategy on the part of the west? we need to actually go back to the fundamentals under the philosophy, philosophical, you know, thinking like, like chinese, i'm confusions, thinking over 2000 years ago is really piece is the most important thing. you hurt his thinking actually. so, so i think now we are one of the challenger faces. we have a different ideology, you have a different value, a civilization, probably in some kind of a clash is now that, that's really worries. we'll, we used to think you can only globalization would really unify everybody, you know, minimize all the differences. but on the contrary, we see those original reason those are different. audiology and values are really

cautioned. so, so how can we really overcome that? i think we still need to come back to the wisdom of all assess those, you know, you know how we can find a way to co exist peacefully. that is really a challenge and you know, we accept the different values. how we can make all the differences and accept minimize the difference of expanding the common space. that's really the chance we're having. well, that's a rang i think, you know, respecting the wisdom of the ancestors was also why one of the confucius teachings . that was the, the core of his understanding here, why he's also known as one of the earliest advocates of the so called golden rule don't do on to others. what you don't want to be done on to yourself. and i think one of the problems in the world today is that the american think we don't recognize. neither is neither russia nor chinese,

right. and legitimacy of our world view, they don't recognize that you know, we, as countries how that our vision have our history, have our understanding of what is good and bad in the world. and i wonder if any of those would measures that you proposed, you know, improve global governance negotiations and you know, mutual benefit, et cetera. is it possible without the western recognizing us as moral equals and do you think it's possible that they would ever recognize either russia or china as their moral equals? well, i think the, the, you know, we have is that established a post 2nd world war system. and our system is under great a job and i think we just run that by the very architects of that system. i mean, if there wasn't countries that are destroying that system right now, they're not. that's correct. and there was a lot of, there is a lot of our, you know, the system is not function. i mean we, we, we, we see that happening. so what we see basically. yeah, that's true. in the last the, you know, several decades we see the war,

you understand in surely on libya and there was a iraq before i yeah, yes. right. so, so, so, so we, and we also, you know, we really have to think of how we can overcome that with that, we also see what happened in vietnam in korea and things like that. so so the war now we're having a more much more prosperous, well, much more a much you reach the world, but still we, we still haven't found a solution to avoid conflict. so that's very sad, i think. yeah, let's go back to the golden rule of a confuses, you know, don't go to others. if i was, if you don't want to still to you. so that's really true. i, i really think that we should hold a bit by that. a self reflecting and find a way to coming out of this crisis. dr. wing. it it. he said it's very sad, but i think it's also very cynical. the fact that, you know, all the conflicts that you mentioned, western countries played a major role and,

and they actually initiated all those conflicts and all of a sudden they are still taking the bag by that. why, what they describe as facility and both on the part of russia and on the part of china is china of aggressive moves as well. how do you explain that? do you think they account was end of the fact that they have cost so much harm to the world and that they are not seen in the re guy in the realm of warfare by any measure? or do you think they honestly believe that they are the carriers of the goodness, the only carriers of the goodness in this world? yeah. you're right. i think that certainly, you know, it's, i'm fortunate that we, we have this great, great gap of besides standing. i think and also distrust this, could you give me all the reason background, you know, the logical differences via different different political system. and of course,

you know, given the over 3 years a pandemic, isolation all added up. but on the other hand, i think, you know, from john's point of view, i think, you know, we, we probably need to also make more clear of what has been achieved in china. you know, i, we live to 800 meeting with other property. we have actually built a vastly infrastructure system in the war, you know, in terms of the answer in to, to speak to your people. john has actually had a 1300000000 people under some kind of a medicare and what, what bill it un under some kind of social security benefit. so. so all those are great achievement. well, i've been really understood. i mean, while before the, i was, i war. now let me ask you specifically about the issue of taiwan because when it comes to that very perilous question, both the chinese and the americans are now using each other of trying to change. it's not the letter then the spirit of, of their previous agreements and those agreements. a lot of me for a very vague,

very ambiguous in nature. i wonder if i, if you would agree with me, then that ambiguity has served those beijing and wash and thing for quite some time . but now it has turned from being a safeguard into being in a major fuse to a potential conflict. isn't it, isn't that agreement in itself? dish and hi, communicate a major problem for both countries right now. something that could be used in order to start the war. yeah, that's, that's actually, that's very dangerous. now i think that the cornerstone and of course, the fundamentals of china us establish their magic ties in 1979. the shy communicate basically is a spell out very clearly that the u. s. recognize that, you know, there's one china and that you as a, we only maintain commercial culture and non official ties with taiwan. so what i

mean by non official ties. so that's, that's the, that's the principle. that's the prerequisite for establish too dramatic relation. and that's the china, a precondition for established of america. religion was 181 countries. so now us have nice to close the, i mean, the 3rd highest ranking official, you know, lined up to succeed, the president, the president goes wrong, really made a big official visit to taiwan. so that's really a big violation. so i think that's really a dentist move. i mean, you know, china has to respond. john has to do a pound is kind of a response is kind of a crisis, but i think, you know, really we should refrain from doing that. i mean, we're still seeing her congressman and people. i was official capacity is too long a parade. the sort of ty was. so that's where i don't use those are military. i was in the navy ships, i was a straight all the time. so, so we don't see chinese navies passing through current building or go to how, why,

you know, and things like that. so it's really, i think china was, and a lot of, you know, this kind of a publication to really challenge china and those hogan channels. they are calm, i really think that we go back to the basic, the fundamental trust and the principle. and i do have, i have used the garbage of america. i guess your will alone is not enough to go to that fundamental trust. i remember reading and henry kissinger is now more, and he was one of the architects of the shank. more that you know, that at the time it was negotiated, both sides wanted to overcome the taiwan issue as an obstacle to the very promising and burgeoning new relationship. so what was important was not what was in be in the agreement, the and beginning of the precise wording of it, but actual political will do you think there is a political will on the american side to actually come to terms with china. i think

they actually going to allow you to be mutual quality of benefit because from the recent moves they seem to be able to be willing to endure harm to themselves in order to, to do harm to others, including china. yes, i think that's this power issue has really gotten were dangerous. now i think that so we really have to be very careful and very cautious because the world hasn't hasn't see any, a conflict a particularly to this region 4447 decades. and i really think that, you know, highway is part of china historically and i've been recognized by the both side. i mean 900 to consensus is basically china assigning is came t that about, you know, the c p c. and i came to agree that there is only one china and both sides

recognize those other one china. so, so i think that to, you know, we can do the piece for negotiations through the integration through all the tourism exchange trade. eventually we will get to get the book, but now with foreign pressure was for inter inference is going to be very, very risky. and i think you maybe want to use china as a, as a car, as i'm think about aircraft carriers in this part of the work, which i think initially abandoned that kind of thinking. let's go peacefully. no solution to the prices of time one. ok, well that's why we have to take a very short break right now, but we will get back in just a few moments station. ah, we're

i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. 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 our personal intelligence. the point obviously is to great truck rather than fear a very job with artificial intelligence. we have somebody with obama protective phone existence, with oh, with news media was cards and that if you speak russian,

keep your voice down while out in about a couple. it doesn't put your human symbols on display a guy. so you guys don't talk to strangers. i avoid noisy gatherings with your colleagues and perhaps also your friends think you're guilty because you'll, russian, a specific social finding with

ah welcome back to will to part with henry wang the founder of the center for china. and will blaze ation dr. wing. before the break, we were focusing on the american belligerents and let's admit the world is more or less used to an american diplomatic rudeness. but both the european union and the united kingdom up until recently were officially in favor of strengthening died, ties, economic ties with china. but that seems to be changing to because at least trust, for example, they, the current foreign minister of the united kingdom and likely, and new prime minister said the other day that she would classify, or rather, codify china as a, as a threat if she comes to power, if that indeed happens,

what do you think that would mean both for london and beijing in practical terms? not in terms of political rhetoric, but in terms of trade and the jobs and the, you know, people's lives. i think it's going to affect a livelihood. the people around the world, particularly of all countries, for example, china's trade with western countries including you and you know, chinese largest trading partner for you. and so, you know, if the political relation gets really deteriorated, that in the fact and demand relations, you know, we already have no energy prices, the prices and all those things going on. we have high inflation. so, so china is a bad one of the global economy. i, for example, last year china's income tax was gone up. 30 percent is so trying to war so. so we will, we will not to really let that happen. if those political fall has been really,

really get into the system and they can the environment very dangerously for the war so. so i think we have to go back to the basics. we have to really make that the common sense for bio rather than we are. we are really please the nationalism populism. just because of getting the elective we have to really lead and bye bye good sense so, so that's very important. that's a test of the politicians in contemporary work. can i ask you specifically about your because i think older school it is, you just mentioned in great demand in western europe right now, because it is now left without access to the affordable russian energy sources, which i think it would agree with me for many decades served as an almost invisible and therefore under appreciated basis for many european industries. and the

question i have in my mind is, do you think the europeans can practically afford to cut ties with china in the same sudden manner, they tried to cut ties, economic ties with russia. can they actually do, given the scale of a konami calamity that is facing them right now? no, i don't think we can actually, unfortunately, well, well fortunately we are leaving very much into time warner. i think, you know, the case was washing probably is a good example of that because they want to but you know, because the really nice of the water, but i see that roger still doing ok and, and then basically also those things if the, if the release you know, practice economic sanctions, your sanction yourself too, so. so that's really relied too that people get into real life as the winter is coming. we're going to see a very hot winter warehouse on the have. we're going to have a see the energy prices sky skyrocketing and we see the full price is going up so

so, so there's my account is getting frantic. on top of that, we cannot afford to lose china economically, a convenience made in china and supplied wardrobe for the last to sort of like it. people get used to it and people realize it. so, so i think they are, they are trying to a couple, but i think, you know, this is really a competitor, land you to, i guess only get on the series. and i really make no sense. i think it's important of the countries work together that everybody interdependent on each other. that is really a good system rather than we are the couple isolated. and when we crash, indiana will be, will be destroy the war dr. rank. can i challenge you on that? a little bit because i know china has enjoyed many benefits of globalization and it tries to hold on as much as it can to the existing system. but i think it's pretty clear that many countries around the world i seeing into dependence not as

a source of security, but rather as a source of major vulnerability. and not only in the aftermath of the conflict and ukraine, but also because of the pandemic. when many actors international actually behaving extremely selfishly. so there is a clear move on the part of many industrial nations to make sure that they produce the basics of their own home, that they don't have to rely on crucial for commercial goods on anyone else. do you think globalization, the way we knew it is really sustainable in this day and age was in the global as he certainly had the big setback. i mean, particular was the ideological and cold war in some kind of practice. and a couple of guys actually is happening in certain sectors, but i think you know that they can try because they can experiment that. and i think the business community, the companies and the consumers will eventually rebel on that. and then they will not accept that. so so, so i think when they go to the back office,

next time out of box next time, be going to vote. a part of this, you know, was there was there for, you know, favorite go position probably because of the, of them, you know, they don't have all the supplies. if you don't have all the goods and they've all rely on locally to produce that, you're going to drive over to cost. we're going to lose productivity, lose the efficiency, you will make them alive, the miserable so, but i think the word is already quite, quite independent. now we cannot really go back to the old days and go to rank. he said that they may have many detrimental consequences, but in case of western europe and those consequences have already manifested itself . and what's your puzzling to me? i know that for example, china is very proud of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of power see, but it seems that many leaders in the west that committed to the reverse. they are ready to, you know, subject their populations to sharp decreases in living standards. as an acceptable cost for their foreign policy. and i wonder if,

how long do you think the people in western countries will be able to take that? and do you actually see any political forces that can argue for, you know, some sort of a different policy that would actually, you know, marry and not the couple. but mary, economy and politics back together was english. they probably will come. i mean, for example, the last 4 decades that the middle class of us as know really gone up and also that one percent of our street is always equal to 40 percent or 50 percent of a mass of population. well, you know, united states. so how can that consistent mom policy you can always say china is to be blamed and it can be a skate. go for that, but you can see what is coming, what is coming, and then, you know, use that a to really for you. hold on. i think in the end the, the voters will realize that it's their government not competent enough. they do

how it will not have a competent domestic policy. they cannot solve your own problem while then you can only probably rely on the, on the forward. now. so the old account you should avoid that. we should not to steer up the nationalism populism. it every countries including china so. so i think we have to come to the a sense in the end some day. i mean, i think the harsh, harsh economics issue is when big people think twice and go back to basics a year ago. and none of us would have believed that there would be a war raging in europe. and look what we have right now. and we are also seeing the disruption in economic and industrial ties which survive the most accurate period of the cold war. and now they're being severed. i know you don't have a crystal ball, but i also know that the chinese have a 2nd pretty election for sort of a longer view of history. where do you think we will see this continent? europe or your asia a year or 2 from now?

well, i think that will be, have the courage in dr. gong and good to you, the economy, and also the likelihood of the people in those continents. and you'll be all fed up . you mean like, like vietnam war, me used to be own or people for these is all my thing to do. but if i really found that is not necessary so, so i think that we really have to go back to the peaceful solution. i have a role the new york times as we command permit the 5 member countries and un pass you pass, you will have 7 party talks and then we should have a really getting older and solutions. and so the united nations and then we see secretary to hers is visiting a russian and you can so, so we need to something that i stop you separate. and then also, you know, how been a europe should really be the detention between china us. so let's all work

together. i mean, we have to get, let those of peace efforts prevail before we fail on that. i'm hearing a lot of discussion here in moscow than the concept of eurasia needs to be redefined that, you know, a couple of years ago you, we couldn't have imagined eurasia, you know, this vast land mass interconnected, prosperous, achieving good economic and social results. we couldn't imagine it without western europe, and i wonder if you think that is possible. now, do you think russia and china and all the, all the neighbors in betwixt and between can do it without the western europe while it is being a absorb and it's angie russian. nancy chinese sentiment. yeah, i think that that's, that's possible. depends on how the, how the play was because if they really, i think the west really corner china and the corner russian and really,

really hostile to true for this part of the war. you know, you probably bring them all together. you know that that's, that's quite possible. but i think on the other hand, you know, we're so much inter pine, we're so much interdependent. and let's not really know the whole order whole planet is actually our small. we should really all united and we do have a sure we have africa, lottie, america, that's all we have the, you know, 85 percent of the population. not giving the default of the world. we really need to really get all the countries together. we are in the same boat rather than one to 90. 3 boats really be a big ocean ship and we have taken care of each other. well. but dr. when you understand that many of the current predicaments in the global system are because of a number of countries which in says that only them have the right of steering that

shape one way and one way that with only benefit them. so let me come back to the question that i asked you before, but i want to get a clear answer. now, do you think the west would ever commit authentically commit to the mutuality of benefits rather than the neutrality of harm or damage or that which we are observing at the moment? do you think they can leave it with some kind of an agreement that would benefit others as much as it would benefit them? well, i think we probably will. we'll, we'll, we'll see, you know, but because i think they have a system, they, they, the wage the mattie war and that eventually the have always draw from that. they'd realize was a mistake they have made. so so, so for example, the, the, you know, americans apply all the weapon who you credit and same fight until last year. i don't think that was why way to do so. so i think we really need to come to the peaceful talks and that we should really have

a pupil solution that we really still got no hope for. rather than we totally or confront each other and destroyed, won't i still have a bit of hope that we can do talk and we can still make a piece out of this. well, let's go here. she said that the way out is through the door. somebody needs to use it anyway. dr. when we, we have to live there. i greatly appreciate your time today. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. and thank you for watching. called to see her again on with me. ah

ah ah, with a magic you pretty much like and you live muscles. if you look on the initial be white glove, not to get a dealer post on zillow diaz can use the put body when you, when you do origin. but y'all touch the with the done a

you, would you what i see the skinny bus is the little gear medation says diesel tutorial, dumbbell sub ah, a little was recently from the, from dallas to move center of chicago. lots of them will a company out there, so please. so mm with no property in putting me.