Catch washington today for a fastpaced group work for stories of the day. Listen to cspan any time, tell your Smart Speaker play cspan radio. Cspan, powered by cable. Announcer next, testimony on the origins of covid19 with the former director of National Intelligence, john radcliffe, he testified before the House Committee on the pandemic with other government officials. They talk about the intelligence gathered by the u. S. And the roadblocks to the investigations. The hearing is 2. 5 hours. Next testimony on the origins of covid 19 with former director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. He testified before the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic with other government officials. We talk about intelligence gathered by the us and roadblocks to those investigations. The hearing is 21 2 hours. The select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic will come to order. Welcome everyone. With objection the chair may declare recess at any time for the committee on oversight an
And deny they are doing it. Ive been on business trips and i see them come into the Economic Zone and using violence. I think the truth of all this is to paraphrase, because im conscious that you have a program to attend to. I have to be out the door in a minute. I get the question. I think if you were to go through the analysis of each of the disputes from north to south, each has its own internal character isti characteristics. I would have different resolutions on each of them. Having spent some time looking at the underpinning legalness concern i concerning this and the positions of all seven parties, this is a highly variable feast. Its not just that we have chosen to be neutral. Theres a reason to be neutral. That is that the underpinning legal cases are if they came to jurisdiction, are so complex. If we had another hour, we could go through each of these individually. I think that would be tiresome for people in the gathering. Rather than have an adjudicat n adjudication, i poi
Dial in the arrangements in which Henry Kissinger reached effectively in the early 1970s. Which was a strategic accommodation between washington and beijing based on a common strategic between the soviet union. And the subsequent unfolding of what then become modernizing china, as well. Have we reached a new point at which that fundamental access has changed. I think personally that the shanghai meeting represents the culmination of the forces which have been in work for quite some time in the china russia relationship and the china u. S. Relationship which begin fundamentally to alter the premises of the 1972 strategic concord. The second point i would seek to go to how then our analysis to one side is this reality viewed from beijing . And then finally, and though i am no russia file, russia expert and no sovietologist by training, how some of these realities have viewed from moscow, as well. On the china view of reality, i think its always important to go back to the fundamental pri
Chinese i8 here on the ground. So where do we go from here . And i will conclude on these remarks. In the centrality of this relationship, i believe both governments in the region more broadly because of the centrality of the relationship to the region to biters to build the and the rest of the world as well as the move into the unfolding decades at the new century. The chinau. S. Relationship is a new narrative, a common narrative and here i dont simply speak in terms of some sort of Foreign Policy utopianism or some academic seminar. That is not helpful. I think you need a framework which somehow, someway with 158 es about a new type of great relationship. If you understand why president sheikh put that forward, is how you construct a relationship, which doesnt replicate the inevitability of conflict is received in the history of great powers before. Beyond that, it is basically a headline and an idea, a line. It is a sentence. If you go to chinese think tank land, as i do very often
Explicitly recognized, but critically managed in a manner which concludes that allowing any one of these matters to escalate into crisis conflict of war is mutually unacceptable. Thats the realist part. Whats the constructive part . The constructive part is this. If you look at the possibility of constructing genuine public goods between china and the u. S. , both bilaterally, regionally, and globally, the scope is, in fact, quite wide. If you look at a bilaterally, im a strong proponent of the early conclusion of the bilateral treaty for a simple reason. That is the more the two economies become enmeshed through investment, rather than just through trade, then, frankly, the more inseparable they become and the more their mutual interests in each others progress and advance becomes an indelible imprint within each country. So causing that investment treaty to come into being i think is a genuine public good. Because in the long term it will transform many elements of the relationship.