ah, fortune, pity up my be a lot about this with ah ah! with me. hello and welcome to worlds apart. 2 and a half millennia ago, the paragon of china's sage is confucius famously noted that the way out is through the door. but for some reason, no one seems to be inclined to use that method. this thing appears very timely to

day when, instead of trying to reduce global tensions following a rupture with russia, the west to speaking up here another 5. this time with china is the door to some sort of a peaceful understanding and mutual benefit among re powers to open. well, to discuss that i'm now a join from beijing by henry wang, the founder of the center for china and globalization. dr. wang, it's great to see you. thank you very much for a time. thank you. thank you. my question. now. over the last 36 months, we have been following the war that russia and the west, sliding in an over ukraine. but now it seems that one conflict open conflict with a nuclear power would not suffice for washington and its allies. because over the last couple weeks, there has been a barrage of very provocative statements and visits coming from various political corners in the west, coupled with increased naval activity, coupled with an intentional i think now

a decision to send more weapons to tie one. do you think that's a real thread or is it just the rhetorical postering on the eve of some crucial political decisions in the u. k. in the united states in china to yes, thank you. yes, thank you for that question. yeah, i think that the world is getting too much dangers of your period now because, you know, since the 2nd world war we have the experience of 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 is some, we know capacity give a way to the original is a 100 to a power. it is on some major power. so that's really, unfortunately, particularly we are seeing the,

the award is really the global governance system actually is since the 2nd world war is, is somehow jeopardize. and for example, we really should really zoom the un, which 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 result, we see particularly those more secure lines. i mean, rather than economic lines, for example, in the last, you know, 70 some years we see w t o we see all those, you cannot always see all those or you can only frame what 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. so caroline's 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,

you hear whole society is 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 and confusions and 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 challenges facing is we have a different id on a do of a different value, a civilization probably in some kind of a clash is now that's really worries we'll we used to think you can only go because

it 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, the piece for it. that is really a challenge and you know, we accept the different values. how we can make all the differences and then accept that minimize the difference of expanding the common space. that's really the chance we're having. well, it just 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 sink, 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 have that our vision to 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 propose, you know, improve global governance negotiations, you know, mutual benefit, et cetera. is it possible without the west of recognizing us as moral equals and do you think it's possible that they would ever recognize either russia, china as moral equals? well, i think, you know, you know, we have is that established a post 2nd world war system. and our system is under great, good job guys now. and i think we just renewed by did the very architects of that system. i mean, if there was some countries that are destroying that system right now, not, not correct. there was a lot of, there is a lot of our, you know, the system is not functional. we, we, we,

we see that happening. so what we see basically. yeah, that's true. in the last, you know, several decades, we see the war, you understand in actually 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. we'll wait for 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 world where 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 confuses, you know, don't go to others, is obvious if you don't want out of school to use. so that's really true i, i really think that we show a bit by that a self reflecting and find a way to coming out of this crisis. doctor, when 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 then they actually initiated all those conflicts and all of a sudden they are still taking the bag. but why, what they describe as facility and both on the part of russia and on the part of china, they accused china of aggressive moves as well. how do you explain that? do you think they are cognizant of the fact that they have cost so much harm to the world and that they are not seen in the right 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 sort of the, you know, it's, i'm fortunate that we, we have this great, great gap of besides standing, i think. and also this trust this, can you give me all the reason bad ground, 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 build the infrastructure system in the war, you know, in terms of the answering to, to speak to your people. john has actually had a 1300000000 people under some kind of a medicare and what all, what bill it, i'm under some kind of social security benefit. so. so all those are great achievement. well, i've been really understood, i mean, wow, people as i work now, let me ask you specifically about the issue of taiwan. because when it comes to that very perilous question, both the chinese and 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 let's, i mean for a very vague, very ambiguous in nature. i wonder if i, if you would agree with me that 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 the show hi, communicate a major problem for both countries right now. something that would be abuse you know, to, 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 spouse 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 we

mean by non official ties. so that's, that's the, that's the principle. that's the prerequisite for established a mat in relation. and that's the china, a condition for established of america. religion was 181 countries. so now us have nancy closer 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 military operations. are you know, 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 tie was so that's where i don't use those on military. i was in the navy ships, i was a party, so i went 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, those hogan channels. they are com, i really think that we go back to the basic, the fundamental trust and the principle. and i do have, i have used the study diplomatic times, 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 shanghai. my memoir that i know that and the time with 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 the, in the agreement, the ambiguity with all the fair, precise warning of it, but actual political will do you think there is

a political will on the american side to actually come to terms with the china? i think i'll be actually going to allow you the mutuality of benefits because of, from their recent moves they seem to be able us, they seem to be willing to endure harm to themselves in order to, to do harm to others, including china. yeah, that's, i think that's this tower you shoe has really getting word danders. now i think that to we really have to be very careful and very cautious because you know that the war hasn't, hasn't see any, a conflict a particularly to this region. 4447 decades. and i really think that, you know, ty wise is part of china historically and i've been recognized by the both side. i mean, i didn't, to cause as it is basically china assigning is came t that about,

you know, the c p c. and i came to a great that there is only one china and both sides and one china. so, so i think back to, you know, we can do the piece for negotiations through the integration through all the tourism exchange trade. eventually we would get together but, but now with foreign pressure was for inter inference. this 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 they should abandon that kind of thinking. let's go peacefully a 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 a

what he's got to do is identify the threats that we have treated from frontier sion . let it be an arms race is on offensive, very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be success. very difficult. time. time to sit down and talk with a question of your mind you thought at home you, i mean you really above up here and there know in a border with

all this and look at you live muscles. if you look on the initial be one of club masika dealer post on zillow, while diaz can used to put value a new with who did origin. but he also still listed on those of you a so much of that going to put that on the billing system a what i see the student both. there's no group you motivation says decent to do both. ah welcome back to want to part with henry wank. the founder of the center for china and will blaze ation. dr. wang before the break, we were focusing on the american belligerents and let's admit that well,

there's more land used to 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 and foreign minister of the united kingdom and likely new prime minister said the other day she would classify or rather qualify china as a, as a threat if she comes to power. if that indeed happens, what do you think that would means both for london and beijing in practical terms? not in terms of political rhetoric, but in terms of trade and jobs and you know, people's lives. i think it's going to affect a honestly the livelihood that the people around the world, particularly of all countries. for example,

china's trade with western countries. you got a, you know, chinese largest trading partner for you. and so you, for, if the political relation gets really deteriorated, that is the fact and cannot 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 backbone of the global economy. i, for example, last year china's income tax was gone up 30 percent. that is so kind a war so, so we will, we will not really let that happen. if those political fall has been really, really get into the system and making the environment very dangerously for the war so. so i think we, we have to go back to the basics. we have to really make that the comments as well rather than we are. we are really please the nationalism populism, just because they come out 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, the contemporary war. can i ask you specifically about your because i think older school, which 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 you 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 southern manner? they tried to cut ties, economic ties with russia. can they actually do it, given the scale of a konami calamity? the it facing them right now? no, i don't think they can actually unfortunately. well, well fortunately we are leaving very much into time warner. i think, you know,

the case was, russian probably is a good example of that because they want to but you know, because really i still want to but i see that roger still doing ok and, and then basically also those things. if the, if you really, you know, practice economic sanctions, you're setting yourself to so, so that's really loud to you that people get into real life. as the winter is coming, we're going to see a very hot wind turbine hotshot. perhaps 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. convenience made in china and supplied wardrobe for the last decade. 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 all the good. i'm serious and i really make no sense. i think it's

important of the countries work together that everybody inter, dependent on each other, that is really a good system rather than we are to cobble 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 actors 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 a 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, 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 barrel office, next time barrett box next time be going to vote. a politician not was there was there for your favorite globalization, probably because then, you know, they don't have all the supplies. you don't have all the goods and they've all rely on locally to produce that. you're going to drive up to cost, they'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 all this data rang, he said that they may have many detrimental consequences, but in case of western europe and those consequences have already manifested itself and was very 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 committed to the reverse. they are ready to, you know, some jag, their populations to shark 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, mary or not the couple. but mary, economy and politics back together was in this, they probably will come. i mean, for example, the last 4 decades that the be,

the cost of us has no really gone up. and also that one percent of the war street is always equal to 40 percent or 50 percent of mass population. well, you know, united states. so how can that consistent model 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 the not competent enough. they do how it will not have a competent domestic policy. you cannot solve your own problem while then you can only probably rely on the, on the forward a scapegoat. so the old account, you should avoid that. we should not to steer up the nationalism populism each or every countries including china. so. so i think we have to come to the sense in the end some day. i mean, i think the harsh,

harsh economic situation when big people think twice and go back to basics a here and go. 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 certain pre election for sort of a longer view of history. where do you think we will see the continent of europe or your asia a year or 2 from now? one thing that will be have a car seat in dry gong and a good a, you have the economy and also the livelihood of the people in those continents. on to be of further me like good like vietnam war, used to be own people for these are is all right, 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 had a new york time as a command firm in the 5 member countries. as un pass, you pass, you current, we should have 7 party talks and then we should have a really getting older and solutions a. so the united nations and i was the secretary to hers is visiting a russian and the and you credit so. so we need some international piece effort, and then also, you know, helping out mediated the europe should really be the detention between china us. so let's all work together. i mean, we have to get lots of those, the piece efforts prevail. now, before we fail on that, i'm hearing a lot of discussion here in moscow that the concept of eurasia needs to be redefine that, you know, a couple of years ago, we could 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 their neighbors in betwixt and between can do it without the western europe while it is being absorbed in it's angie russia. 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, to do 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 are so much intertwined who are so much interdependent and let's not really know the whole war to whole planet is actually are small. we should really all united

and we still have a sure we have africa. we have a lot to america. less all 3 of 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, a lot of this one to 93 boats. really be a big a ocean shoot and we have taken care of each other well. but dr. when you understand that many of the current predicaments and the global system, ok, because of a number of countries, we can 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 mutuality of harm or damage you with 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, better because i think they have a system they, they, the wage the mary war and that eventually the have always draw from that. they realize was a mistake they have made. so so, so for example, the, the, you know, americans now supply all the weapon, it's who you credible and st. a fighter until last year. i don't think that was right. a 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, that, that we really do gardener hopeful rather than we totally are, 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, erica, here. she said that the way out is through the door. somebody needs to use it. anyway. dr. went 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 well the part ah with me. oh, a with and we've she and we've been in week 6 i was showing a little was recently bullying from dallas to move center of chicago and lots of them will the quinn company out there. so please to somewhere. thank.