[000:00:00;00] ah ah mm hm. mm. mm. hello and welcome to world support. 2 and a half millennia ago, the paragon of china stage 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

today when, instead of trying to reduce global tensions following a rupture with russia, the west to speaking up here another flight. this time with china is the door to some sort of a peaceful understanding and mutual benefit among great powers to open. well, to discuss that i'm now joined 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 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 that one conflict open conflict with a nuclear power would not suffice for washington and its allies. because over the last couple of 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 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 so much dangers of your period and now because, you know, since the 2nd world war we have the experience and 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 the globalization as is some, we know capacity give a way to the original is a 100 to the, to the geopolitical or it is on some major power. so that's really, unfortunately, particularly we are seeing the,

the award is really the go because the 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 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, all good, 5 eyes. we see that also, you know, all those quad and all those are military security allies are really booming. lot 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 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, to the fundamentals under to, for loss of philosophic who, you know, thinking like, like chinese, on the confusions and thinking over 2000 years ago is really piece is the most important thing. you heard you, his thinking actually. so, so i think now we are one of the challenger faces. we have a different id on a do 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 assess those, you know, you know how, how we can find a way to co exist, the piece for it. that is really a challenge. 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 does 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 worldview. 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 with measures that you propose, you know, improve global governance negotiations, mutual benefit, etc. is it possible without the west of recognizing us as moral equals and do you think it's possible that would ever recognize either russia, china as 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, 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 a, 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 war. 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 worse than 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 to still 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 blade as a major role. and then they actually initiated all those conflicts. and all of a sudden they are still taking the bag by the, by what they describe as facility of 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 distrust this. could 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 live, we lived at 800 meeting with other property. we have actually build the best 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 one on one 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, wow, before the i was, 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 the americans are now using each other of trying to change. it's not the less than the spirit 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 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 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 spouse very clearly that the u. s. recognize that, you know, there's one china and 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 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 it. every operation, 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 taiwan. so that's where i don't use those on military. i was in the

navy ships, i was a straight all the time. so, so we don't see 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 hogan channels. they are calm. i really think that we go back to the basic, the fundamental trust and the principal. and i do have, i have used the w to match, 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 the, in the agreement, the, and beginning of the 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 they actually going to allow you the neutrality of benefits 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. yeah, that's, i think that's this tower. you shoe has really gotten, were dangerous. now i think that so we really have to be very careful and very cautious because you know, that 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 consensus is basically china assigning is came t that about, you know,

the c p c. and i came to your great that there is only one china and both side recognizers and one china. so, so i think that, 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 card, 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 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 ah ah a little with center of chicago lyn latham with the show priest the semester ashley

with he's off. yeah, you on national and i don't like a no, but i learned montoya new york, we'll look at least the, the new sco sheet on when you had done my review. my auto bought. yeah. which in that usually a score to us? no, we do get question me a piece. oh no. oh oh yeah. you are mom. oh

ah welcome back to want to part with henry wink, the founder of the center for china globalization. dr. wang before the break, re, we're focusing on the american belligerence and let's admit that wealth is more or less used to american diplomatic rudeness. but both the european union and the united kingdom up until recently, were officially in favor of strengthening dia, ties, economic ties with china. but that seems to be changing too because it least trusts, for example, day 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. what is going to affect the 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 and you know, chinese largest trading partner for you. and so the political relation gets really deteriorated and the fact and going on relations, you know, we were, i 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 going up 30 percent is so kind a war so, so we will, we will not really let that happen if those political has been really, really get into the system and making 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 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 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, how in my mind is, do you think that 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 it given the scale of economic calamity that the 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 with 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, your sanction yourself too. so. so that's really loud to you that people get in 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 only get on the series. and i really make no sense. i think it's important for the countries walked together. got everybody interdependent 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 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, 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, you know, favorite globalization, probably because even though you know,

they don't have all the suppliers, 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 be efficiency. you will make them alive, the miserable so, but i think the word is already quite, quite independent. now we, we cannot really go back to the old days and go to ranking. you said that they may have many detrimental consequences, but in case of western europe or 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 and committed to the reverse. they are ready to, you know, some jang, 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 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, mary or 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. and 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. they cannot solve your own problem while then you can only probably rely on the, on the forward. sprinkle 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 end some day. i mean, i think the harsh, harsh economics issues with 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 good to have the economy and also the

livelihood of the people in those continents. on to be of further me like like vietnam war, me used to be open 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 a command firm and the 5 member countries and the un pass you pass, you will have 7 party tops and then we should have a really getting older and solutions. and so the united nations and then we see secretary hers is visiting a russian and the and you can so so with the some international piece effort. and then also helping 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. now, 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 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 and 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 true for 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 on the other hand, you know, we are so much intertwined who are so much interdependent and let's not really know the whole order whole pallet is actually our small. we should really hold all united and we have to have a sure we have africa, lottie, america, less, all 3 of the, you know, 85 percent of the population not given a give all of the warren, 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 the job. 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? sure 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, but take, 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 the mistake they have made. so so, so for example, the, the, you know, americans now supply all the weapon who you credit and same fight until last year. i don't think that was why the 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 do gardener hopeful rather than we totally are, confront each other and destroyed. won't i still have a bit of the 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 . 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 well, the part ah with mm ah, a