ah mm. with me. hello and welcome to worlds apart. 2 and a half millennia ago, the paragon of china's sage is confucius famously know 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 is picking up another flight. this time with china is the door to some sort of a peaceful understanding and mutual benefit among great powers. to open, but to discuss that i'm now a joint 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 your time. thank you. thank you. my

question now over the last 36 months, we have been following the war that russia and the west fighting in an over ukraine . but now it seems the one conflict open conflict with a nuclear power would not suffice for washington and its allies. because over the last couple weeks there, 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 intention. and i think now a decision to send more weapons to tie one. do you think that's a real threat or is it just the rhetorical postering on the eve of some crucial political decisions in the u. k. in the united states and 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 and now because,

you 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 is some, we know capacity give a way to be original is a 100 to a power. it is a major power. so that's really, unfortunately, particularly we are seeing the, the award is really the go back on the system actually since the 2nd world war is, 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 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 g o, we see all those you cannot or you 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, all good, 5 eyes. we see that also, you know, all those quad and others are military. so caroline's are really booming up. that's really a concern. i mentioned confucius 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're 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 challenges facing is we have a different ideology of 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 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 ancestors. 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 accept

minimize the difference of expanding the common ways. that's really the chance. where have you not? well, it doesn't 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, have our history, have our understanding of what is good and bad in the world. and i wonder if any, over those with measures that you propose, you know, improve global governance negotiations, you know, mutual benefit, etc. 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 the, 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 the very architects of that system. i mean, if there was some countries that are destroying that system right now, they're not correct. and there was a lot of, there is a lot of our, you know, the system is not functional. 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 the libya and there was a iraq before our 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, 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 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 way. 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. but why, what they describe as facility in 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 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 carrier of the goodness in this world? yeah. you're right. i think that sort of, you know, it's, i'm fortunate that we, we have this great great gap of misunderstanding. i think and also this trust, this will give you 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 child's point of view, i think we, we used to also make more clear what has been achieved in china. you live, we lived 800 meeting with other property. we have actually build the infrastructure system in the war, you know, in terms of the,

i'm sorry until you to speak to your people. john has actually had one on 3 billing people under some kind of 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, 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 is not the lighter than the spirit 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, then that ambiguous here has served both 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 would 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 as a spouse very clearly that the u. s. recognize the other one, china, and that you as a, we only maintain commercial culture and now official ties with taiwan. so what i mean by non official ties. so that's, that's the, that's the principal, that's the prerequisite for established with diplomatic relation. and that's the china, a precondition for established of america. religion was 181 countries. so now u. s. have 90 closely, 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 very dante's move. i mean, you know, china has to respond. john has to do a military operations. are, you know, of 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 are military. i was in the navy ships, i was a straight all the time. so, so we don't, the chinese navies passes 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 hog and 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 study to match the time, 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, you know, and 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 rare, 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 the actually going to allow you the mutuality of benefits because of, from their recent moves they seem to be able, they seem to be willing to endure harm to themselves in order to, to do harm to others, including china. yes, i think that's this tower. you shoe has really gotten very,

very dangerous. now i think that to, 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 the tie wise is part of china historically and i've been recognized by the both side. i mean, 192 cars as it is basically china assigning is came t that about, you know, the c p c in a came to your great that there is only one china and both side. we can eyes those and one china so, so i think about her, you know, we can do the piece for negotiations through the integration through older or tourism exchanges. trade. eventually we will, we'll get together but, but now with foreign pressure was for inter inference is going to be very, very risky. and i think yours may be want to use china as a, as a car, as a,

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 a solution to the prices of time. what, 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 he ah, mm . 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 that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about visual intelligence at the point, obviously is to great trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with a robot must protect his own existence with ah welcome back to want to part with henry wang the founder of the center for china

and will blaze ation. dr. wang before the break, re, we're 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 diet ties, economic ties with china. but that seems to be changing to because it least trusts, 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 qualified china as a, as a threat if she comes to power, if that indeed happens, what do you think that would means both for long done beijing in practical terms, not in terms of political rhetoric, but in terms of trade and jobs and people's lives. what is

going to affect the, obviously the livelihood of the people around the world, particularly of all countries. for example, china's trade with western countries. you go to you and you know, china is the largest trading partner for you. and so the political relations gets really deteriorated. that isn't a factor in 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. for example, last year china's impacts was gone up. 30 percent is so trying to war so, so we will, we will not really let that happen if those political 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 comments as well rather than we are, we are really please,

the nationalism populism just posed to 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 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 they can actually, unfortunately. well, we're out of leave. fortunately, we are leaving very much into time warner. i think, you know, the case was our washer. probably is a good example of that because they want to know because we really i still want to but i see that roger still doing ok and, and then basically also those things, if you really, you know, practice economic sanctions, your sanction yourself too. so. so that's really related to that, people getting do a lot. 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. 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 inter, dependent on each other, that is really a good system rather than to cobble isolated. and when we crash, indiana will be, will be, destroy the war dr. right. 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 sing 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 part of this, you know, was there was there for, you know, favorite go position probably because even though 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. we'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 a you said that the, it may have many detrimental consequences, but in case of western europe, it consequences have already manifested itself. and what's different, 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 are 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 into effect simply the last 4 decades that the middle class of u. s. has no really gone up and also that one percent of our street is always equal to 40 percent or 50 percent of a mass population. well, you know, united states, so how can that consistent mom policy? you can always say china is to be blamed and a can be a skate. go for that. but you can see what is coming, what is coming, and then you know, use that or how to really for you. hold on. i think in the end the, the voters will realize that it's their government. now the not competent enough they do how is without 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 each or

every countries including china so. so i think we have to come to the a sense in the ad sunday. i mean, i think the harsh, harsh economics issues with 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 periods of the cold war. and now they are being severed. i know you don't have a crystal ball, but i also know that the chinese have a certain pretty election for sort of a longer view of history. where do you think we will see the continent? europe or your asia a year or 2 from now? one thing that will be, have the courage in dr. gong and good to you, the economy, and also the livelihood of the people in those continents. on to be all fed up like, like vietnam war used to be,

own people for the right thing to do. but it really felt that is not necessary so, so i think that we really have to go back to the piece for solution i had. we're all the new york time. i me as a command firm and the 5 member countries and un past you pass, you great, we should have 7 party tops and then we should have a really getting older and solutions. and so the united nations and i was the secretary to hers is visiting a russian and you can't so, so we need something the last piece effort. and then also, you know, helping a europe should really be the dispatcher between china us. so let's all work together. i mean, we have to get a lot of those, the peace efforts prevail. now, before we fail on that, i'm hearing a lot of discussion here in moscow then the concept of eurasia needs to be redefine that. you know, a couple of years ago you, 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 one day, 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 the really, really hostile to, through this part of the war. you know, the public bring them all together. you know that, that's, that's quite possible. but i think all the other has, you know, we are so much intertwined with so much into the pendant and let's not really know

the whole order whole planet is actually are small. we should really all united and we do have a sure we have africa. well, the larger america less, all 3 of the, you know, 85 percent of the population not given the develop a warm we really need to really get all the countries together. we are in the same boat, you know, rather than 193 boats. we have 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 are because of a number of countries which insist that only them have the right of steering that shape one way and one way that would 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 you with that which we

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? one thing with over the will, will, will see, you know, but take, because i think they have a system they, they, the wage the mattie war and that you 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 apply all of the weapon who you credit and, and same fight 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 peaceful solution that we really still got no hope for. rather than we totally or confront each other and destroy the world. i still have a bit of the hope that we can do talk and we can still make a piece out of this as well as got here. she said that the way out is through the

door. somebody needs to use it anyway. dr. when 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 sir again on well the ah with me ah ah

ah a, [000:00:00;00] a b i a a failed to mention the ukrainian shelling of the new p at nuclear power plant in the watchdogs before police. doctor visit to facilitate a declining complaint in russia for the escalation with the russian back supervisor of the ukrainian city of the diaz is wounded in a terror attack. according to local officials, i made reports of another explosion in the area of petroleum corporation agree to trade gas and national currencies. instead of the u. s. a