Transcription
Well, in in terms of China, I'm fully in favor of containing China.
>> Okay. So, containment check. Okay.
>> It's containment. I'm not interested in regime change. I'm not interested in trying to turn China into a democracy.
>> Not going to happen. Yeah.
>> Not going to happen. We tried it actually. And I thought it was foolish to even pursue a policy of engagement toward China. We want to remain the only regional hegeimon in the world. We are a ruthless great power. Never want to lose sight of that fact. And the end result of this is you get an intense security competition between China and the United States and it revolves around the concept of security not prosperity.
>> I think what you just very quickly so what you see beginning to happen is that it's in all domains where the competition takes place especially high-tech. We do not want them defeating this defeating us in the high-tech war. We are competing with them economically. We are competing with them militarily and this is because the best way to survive is for us the United States of America to be the only regional hegeimon on the planet. China first of all is not a threat to the United States security. Big oceans, big nuclear deterrent and so forth. Second, we don't have to be in China's face. What do I mean by that? We don't have to provoke World War II over time. That's a long complicated issue, but this would be the stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die for imaginable. Fore.
>> Well, in in terms of China, I'm fully in favor of containing China.
>> Okay. So, containment check. Okay.
>> It's containment. I'm not interested in regime change. I'm not interested in trying to turn China into a democracy.
>> Not going to happen. Yeah.
>> Not going to happen. We tried it actually and I thought it was foolish uh to even pursue a policy of engagement toward China. With regard to Russia, I don't think Russia is a serious threat to the United States and indeed I think the United States should have good relations with Putin. It's a remarkably foolish policy to push him into the arms of the Chinese. There are three great powers in the system. The United States, China, and Russia. China is a pure competitor to the United States. It's the most serious threat to the United States. Russia is the weakest of those three great powers, and it's not a serious threat to us. If you are playing balance of power politics and you're interested as the United States in containing China, you want Russia on your side of the ledger. But what we have done in effect is we have pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese. This is a remarkably foolish policy. And furthermore, by getting bogged down in Ukraine and now bogged down in the Middle East, it's become very difficult for us to pivot to Asia to deal with China, which is the principal threat that we face.
>> [applause]
>> I think I think could David could I just say uh twothirds right perfect. [laughter]
>> So you gave him a B
>> or B+ A minus.
>> I'd always give him an A. Great inflation.
>> I just wanted to add a footnote which is that China's also not a threat. [laughter]
>> It's just not a threat. I mean
>> we're going to get to it.
>> China China China's a market. It's got great food, great culture. uh wonderful people, a civilization 10 times older than ours. It's not a threat.
>> Well, as an economist, can you talk about the impact of a cold or hot conflict with China from an economic perspective given the trade relationship?
>> Yeah, it would wreck California for one thing. It would destroy the economy that you guys are making completely. This economy has been the biggest beneficiary of China's rise probably in the whole world. So, it's crazy. Maybe if you're worried, if you're really worried about whether uh a worker in Ohio has a particular job on a particular assembly line, then uh you can be anti-China. If you're worried about the tech industry, about California, about peace and the future, you should be pro-China. That's all. So why has it become so universal to assume that we are already in a state of conflict with China on not just party lines but like almost any spectrum you could kind of like consider
>> because John said it exactly right and he predicted it better than anyone in the whole world in 2001. He said, "When China becomes large, we're going to have conflict." Because that's John's theory, and it's right as a description of American foreign policy that we are for power. They are big. Therefore, they're an enemy. They're an enemy of our aspiration to global.
>> Two cities trapped. Do you see that?
>> Let's let John jump in here.
>> Do you want You want me to Is it okay if I talk about this?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think um I think that um what's interesting I mean you you and Jeff I think arrive at similar conclusions about Ukraine but uh but different ones on China, right? Cuz Jeff is an economist and I think sees the world in fundamentally positive some ways based on the potential for trade economics basically whereas you see the world as more of a zero-sum game based on the balance of power. Why don't you just explain that differently?
>> Okay. Uh it is very important to emphasize as David was saying that Jeff and I agree on all sorts of issues including Ukraine and Israel Palestine but we disagree fundamentally as he just made clear on China. And let me explain to you why I think that's the case and then Jeff can tell you why he thinks I'm wrong. Uh it has to do with security. whether you privilege security or survival or whether you privilege prosperity and economists and I would imagine most of you in the audience really care greatly about maximizing prosperity for someone like me who's a realist what I care about is maximizing the state's prospects of survival and when you live in an anarctic system and in IR speak that means there's no higher authority there's no night watchman that can come down and rescue you if you get into trouble and this is the international system there's no higher authority In that anarctic world, the best way to survive is to be really powerful. As we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds, you want to be the biggest and baddest dude on the block. And that's simply because it's the best way to survive. If you're really powerful, nobody fools around with you. The United States is a regional hegeimon. It's the only regional hegeimon on the planet. We dominate the Western Hemisphere. And what China has begun to do as it's got increasingly powerful economically is translate that economic might into military might. And it is trying to dominate Asia. It wants to push us out beyond the first island chain. It wants to push us out beyond the second island chain. It wants to be like we are in the Western Hemisphere. And I don't blame the Chinese one bit. If I was the national security adviser in Beijing, that's what I'd be telling should be trying to do. But of course, from an American point of view, this is unacceptable. And we do not tolerate peer competitors. We do not want another regional hegeimon on the planet. In the 20th century, there were four countries that threatened to become regional hegeimons like us. Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. The United States played a key role in putting all four of those countries on the scrap heap of history. We want to remain the only regional hegeimon in the world. We are a ruthless great power. Never want to lose sight of that fact. And the end result of this is you get an intense security competition between China and the United States and it revolves around the concept of security not prosperity.
>> I think what you just very quickly so what you see beginning to happen is that it's in all domains where the competition takes place especially high-tech. We do not want them defeating this defeating us in the high-tech war. We are competing with them economically. We are competing with them militarily. And this is because the best way to survive is for us, the United States of America, to be the only regional hegeimon on the planet. So Jeff, let me let me set it up for for Jeff here. So Jeff, I you and John I think agree that the the game on on the board is power seeking. I think what John is saying is there are smart ways and dumb ways to pursue power. The containing China is a smart way. What we're doing in Ukraine is a dumb way. Whereas it seems like you're saying that all power seeking behavior is bad. That's not the game we should be playing. We should somehow opt out of that. Is that is that kind of where you're going? It's a it's not a bad way to say it, but I would I would put it in in another way. I read a a very good book uh John's. Um and and John described I'm going to quote him, but he can quote himself afterwards. He he he said that the regional hegeimons uh don't threaten each other actually. Why? Because we have big ocean in between. I deeply believe that China is not a threat to the United States and I deeply believe the only threat to the United States period in the world given the oceans, given our size and given the military is nuclear war. I deeply believe we're close to nuclear war because we have a mindset that leads us in that direction. We have a mindset that everything is a challenge for survival and that escalation is therefore always the right approach. My view is a little bit of prudence could save the whole planet. So why I don't like Ukraine is that I don't see any reason in the world that NATO has to be on Russia's border with Ukraine. I was as I said Gorbachov's adviser and Yeltson's adviser and they wanted peace and they wanted cooperation but whatever they wanted they did not want the US military on their border. So if we continued to push as we did, we would get to war. John explained that better than anybody, we're now at war. And even this morning, there is further escalation. Uh Blinken has said, "Well, if the Iranians give these missiles, then we will give missiles to hit deep into Russia." This is a recipe. And then we had Bill Burns, the CIA director, say last week an absurdity that he knows, but CIA directors never tell the truth. If they do, they lose their job. But he said, "Don't worry about nuclear war. Don't worry about saber rattling." My advice to you is worry a lot about nuclear war. And so be prudent. You don't have to put the US military on Russia's border. Okay? And my advice to Russia and to Mexico, when I'm going to Mexico tomorrow, I'll give them a piece of advice. Don't let China or Russia build a military base on the Rio Grand. Not a good idea for Mexico. Not a good idea for Ukraine. Not a good idea for Russia. Not a good idea for China. Not a good idea for the United States. We need to stay a little bit away from each other so that we don't have a nuclear war. By the way, I do recommend another good book and that is Annie Jacobson's Nuclear War, a scenario. It takes two hours to read. The world ends in two hours in the book. Uh and uh it's a very persuasive guide that one nuke can ruin your whole day, as they say. Jeffrey, can I um uh my my strong advice on this therefore is recognize
>> China first of all is not a threat to the United States security. Big oceans, big nuclear deterrent and so forth. Second, we don't have to be in China's face. What do I mean by that? We don't have to provoke World War II over time. That's a long complicated issue, but this would be the stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die for imaginable and I resent it every day when we play that game. We have three agreements with China that say we're going to stay out of that and we should and then would have no reason for war either. China. And then on the economic side, let me just reiterate because I was asked yesterday and there was some surprise, was it good to let China into the the WTO? I said, of course, it enriched all of you. By the way, it enriched me. It enriched this country. It enriched the world, including enriching China. That's normal. Economics is not a zero-sum game. We all agree on that. I believe that security doesn't have to be a zero sum game either. We can stay a little bit away from each other. And China does not spend its time bemoning America being a western hemisphere hegeimon. They don't. That's not their greatest interest to bring down American uh power in the Western Hemisphere.
>> Jeeoff, what about the energy?
>> Hold on. Let's let John respond to this ju
>> just very quickly. Most of you have probably never asked yourself the question, why is the United States roaming all over the planet interfering in every country's business? It's in part because it's so powerful, but it's also because it's a regional hegeimon, which means we have no threats in the Western Hemisphere. So, we are free to roam. The great danger, Jeff, if China becomes a regional hedgeimon and doesn't have to worry about security concern,
>> then they behave like us. Yeah. then they behave like us. But my point to you, Jeff, is let's prevent that from happening by preventing them from becoming a regional hedgemon. We don't want them to have freedom to Rome. You were talking about them putting military bases in Mexico. That's our great fear.
>> It's not my great fear. They have no interest in doing so because they don't want to get blown up either. So
>> they do seem to have a big interest, Jeff, in Africa, India, Russia, and they are Say it again.
>> China has some major is military bases there.
>> Well, they're building nuclear power plants and trade and they're building in favor of that. Let's go compete that way. I'm all in favor of that.
>> But Jeff, that's because they're not a regional hegeimon yet.
>> Yeah. If you try to prevent them from being a regional hedgeimon, we're going to end up in World War II because, as you say yourself, that this can absolutely spill over into war. I don't want it to spill over into war on the theory that maybe someday they behave differently. That's not a good theory for me.
>> So, so that part.
>> So, John, can we contain China and prevent them from becoming a regional hedgeimon without directly defending? I mean, isn't that where the rubber meets the road?
>> No, it's not just I mean, one could argue there's sort of three flash points in East Asia that you folks should keep your eye on. One is obviously, two is the South China Sea, and three is the East China Sea. And I think, David, that the place where a conflict is most likely today is not over. I could explain why. I think it's not a serious problem at the moment or for the foreseeable future. The South China Sea is a very dangerous place. we could end up in a war for sure even if we did not defend uh so don't want to overemphasize I agree with I agree with Jeff that we definitely don't want a war and we certainly don't want a nuclear war and he is absolutely correct that there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war breaks out of any sort between China and the United States many of us in the audience remember the cold war and this was an everpresent danger in the cold war. But my argument is that this is inevitable because in a world where you don't have a higher authority and you care about your survival, you have a deep-seated interest as any state in the system to be as powerful as possible. And that means dominating your world. Fore! Fore! Fore! Fore coming back. Fore! Foreign! Foreign! Fore speech. Fore speech.