you served under president bush, remind some of us of the bush doctrine, the idea of unilateral united states action. some might say that why would we weigh? we have a date, we have a location, and we have the knowledge of the action they're going to take. it's not like they're hiding this from us. what about the first strike on part of the u.s.? >> we must be proactive instead of reactive. during the bush administration we were very reactive. we are waiting to get hit. we're still waiting to get hit. even with this administration, gutter back, i think these concerns are kids, your kids, the lives of americans. we cannot take a concern or threat. >> to think our president is doing this for posturing? do you think now in the planning rooms they're talking about how do we hit them? ottawa stop this? it would seem to me that given the rhetoric we have heard and given the real and present danger, the lesson you would want is to have these missiles launched on august 25. >> if i know anything about this president of what he has done so far, i think is going to take action. he took action in syria. i was

the united states and japan oppose any unilateral action that seeks to undermine japan's administration of the islands and we reaffirm article five of the u.s.-japan security treaty that covers these islands. we also oppose militarization activity in the south china sea. maritime disputes should be settled peacefully and maintain the freedom of navigation in accordance with the united nations conventions on the law of the sea. we maintain our unwavering commitment to the 2015 guidelines for u.s.-japan defense cooperation and we have instructed our staff to accelerate their implementation. we also will explore new and expanded activities and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, training and exercises, research and development, capacity building and joint and shared use of facilities. we discussed our deterrence to ensure the security and stability of japan and the asia-pacific region. we plan deep engagement through our extended deterrence and dialogue. both the united states and japan are committed to the realignment of u.s. forces in japan, which seeks to maintain operationa

acts independently, i suspect china will challenge in the wto any unilateral action the united statesakes. this is likely to end up in the wto regardless of how it is kicked off. has alreadyng criticized the plan. what sort of challenging actions could we see from them? robert: either there could be a series of challenging actions in deals withw china the u.s. on a whole host of economic issues. i hope that does not happen because i think today's announcement is an appropriate way for government to look at concerned that are expressed. requiring china is forced technology transfers or violating ip our rights. this really started in the united states with china in 1992, wherein the george h.w. bush action, when carla hills was u.s. trade representative. there was a significant engagement with china. it happened in 1995 and 1996, in the clinton administration. it happened subsequently in 2005 and the george w. bush administration. we raised a number of these. i think china will recognize that they should not overreact. this is an appropriate exercise by the u.s. of our fact-finding abil

>> the united states has been consistent that we'll explore and exhaust all diplomatic effort first. i would not anticipate the united states initiating military action unilaterally. connell: so your interpretation of everything that president trump has said so far this week, obviously some has been very aggressive from fire and fury on to the tweets this morning to the comments in new jersey yesterday, everything is a reaction to the north koreans doing something first and if so, what is that something? what's the line? is it an actual attack on a u.s. territory or is firing a missile near a territory like guam enough to it elicit the reaction? >> well i think it would be military action. the definition of that is pretty broad these days. connell: yeah. >> if one fires a missile at a u.s. territory without us waiting to see if it is going to hit or not and we have to take defensive actions on our own, in my view that is military action on the part of north korea. connell: from what i understand, again i'm sure you know more, when a missile is fired we can pretty much tell with our technology where it is headed? so if we can estimate that and we can tell it is 20

unilateral action. do you think that's a possibility given the threat of united states clearly feels it faces?s pretty bombastic comments. there's always been, the u.s. has always said it never takes any options off the table, including the military option. analysts who look at word game scenarios will say any u.s. preemptive attack in north korea will lead to a devastating retaliatory attack on south korea. seoul is not far from the border with north korea. there are literally thousands of artillery projectiles ready to be launched in north korea against the south. it's hard to imagine the u.s. making this kind of a decision, military decision, without consulting with south korea and without giving some kind of a heads up to china as well. isrlet: rex tillerson traveling through asia, he's in southeast asia, rallying support for tougher measures against north korea. will the support of countries like thailand or malaysia matter when you're talking about dealing with north korea? >> it really comes down to china. there is some small trait that goes on between north korea and other countries in

if the united states through its investigation to the side and it needed to take unilateral actions againsthinese or come to eight is the -- come to a dispute, or if it needed to take action under the wto rules, it should do it under the dispute mechanism. not since the u.s. joined the wto has it taken unilateral action against another actor. we expect that would likely be challenged by the chinese if the u.s. were to take sanctions. in ambassador lighthouses see ifny, -- we have to there is an investigation and what the investigation decides whether we know it will be wto complaining -- compliant. ishaad: this relationship very important for both sides, but is it more important for china to keep on the right side of the u.s.? i will bring up this function. it shows how far and away china states' biggest trading partner and vice versa. that's the thing about the u.s. china trade relationship. both economies benefit. any kind of trade war or tit-for-tat exchange would negatively impact both countries and impact the u.s. consumer. what --ortant to note when we talk to companies, this is on u.

over the last 25% in the 1980s, the super 301, section 301, unilateral action to apply open the market of major trading partners, the united states, the us treasury department, trading partners and analysis, trading partner, put on the analysis, if they enjoy significant bilateral trade surplus, $20 billion, they do not fit this, it is $9 billion, it is at least 3% of gdp, coming back to this in a moment and persistent 1-sided intervention occurs when net purchases of foreign currency are conducted repeatedly in total over 2% of gdp. of the three criteria the treasury scrutinized, it is the trading nation, i will argue people say that, you are suspicious and they are suspicious you have a very high trade surplus, currency is undervalued, taiwan has extenuating circumstances, taiwan's fiscal policy historically, taiwan has actually seen a rising external debt, last year taiwan's external debt was $159 million making taiwan's for and at the 37th largest in the world. taiwan is not a member of the international monetary fund, has no recourse for so long, fiscal policy -- trying -- taiwan trying to see as much as possible and after d

the super 301, section 301 mainly that the us unilateral action to pry open the markets of major trading partners in trace surplus. vis-À-vis the united states the treasury department now puts taiwan among six other trading partners on the so-called enhanced analysis so a trading partner is put on the enhanced analysis if they enjoy a significant bilateral trade surplus with the us defined as over $20 billion. taiwan does not fit this because it's $9 billion but the surplus is at least 3% of gdp taiwan does fit this and i will come back to this in a moment. persistent one-sided intervention occurs when net purchases of foreign currency are conducted repeatedly in total over 2% of the gdp, taiwan does not fit this. of the three criteria, treasury scrutinized taiwan since one but of course taiwan is not the only trading nation that has very high current account surpluses. in fact, i will argue district of course people usually say that if you have a large current of us that you are suspicious that you have a high trade surplus and that your currency is undervalued. let's examine if this is true. i think that taiwan has extenuating circumstance

united states? it's a ridiculous slap on the wrist. i do think -- normally i'm not in favor of unilateral action like that, but i do think in this case itfference because most of the oil, much of the oil thatne venezuela sends to other countries like china and russia, they don't get any money more that that. they are repaying debt with that oil. and so the united states is the place that's paying them cash, is so it definitely could hit them. but i think we should also keep in mind that the last thing they're going to do is feed the people. in other words, if they have only $1 billion in revenues, they're not going to feed the people. paul: thank you, mary. we have to take one more break. when we come back, we rememberfu our friend and colleague, joe ray go. trust safelite autoglass to fix it fast, and we'll get you back on the road! [dog barks] ♪safelite repair, safelite replace.♪ paul: finally this week, we remember our beloved friend and colleague joe ray go who died on july 20th at the age of 34. the oldest son of nancy and paul rego, joe grew up in massachusetts with his brotherre adam and sister grace. he majored in history at dar

action unilaterally without approval from the other side. that means that there is some effort to try to coordinate strategy between south korea and the united stateseen renewed talk of increasing their defensive posture, strengthening it, and possibly moving a defensive missile shield. some elements of a defensive missile shield further south and west. that's the area where the missiles that would be flying toward guam would be flying over japan. again, it's worth mentioning that so many of the missile tests that north korea have launched in the past couple of years have landed either near japanese waters or crossed over the japanese island. this country is no stranger to that kind of adventurism from north korea. now, there's other issues here. some people are saying that -- some analysts are saying that donald trump's comments are aimed at much at china as north korea. like so many other successive presidents, president trump has been very frustrated that china has not used its influence to prevail upon north korea. >> china certainly integral to helping resolve this situation. good to know that there's coordination going on because no matter wh

unilateral action to impose tariffs? impose other market restrictions on chinese access here in the united states or do other things that wto that's the key question. >> so, eric, let me ask you this, how do we go from this kind of investigation into the trade war rhetoric that is being thrown around? >> well, i think, you know, the broader context for this investigation that's about to be announced is that the honeymoon period and u.s./china relations at the beginning of the trump administration is certainly over the disappointment on cooperation on north korea and increasing frustration about the lack of progress on the trade agenda is clearly causing the trump administration to identify new tools, new mechanisms to push china harder. and this 301 investigation i think reflects that growing frustration together with the 232 investigations of steel and alum numb imports and -- >> right >> and the investigations into chinese avoid dance of our an i did-dumping rulings against them >> mr. trump has said that if the chinese will help on north korea, they get a better trade deal is that part of this this kind of saber ratt