ah, ah hello and welcome to cross talk where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. we are told the new strategic alliance comprising the united states, the united kingdom, and australia is not directed against china. but of course it is. washington is developed numerous alliances against paging, but arcos has a new killer dimension. tensions are rising in the pacific, and no doubt china will react with the cross talking tensions in the pacific. i'm joined by my guess, lucian in beijing. she is host of the point with lucian on c, g t, n, and basking ridge. we have james not. he is a professor of international relations at new york university. and in paris we cross, do we know is your he is the chief foreign correspondent at the figured hoard cross type rules and effect. that means you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciate loosing. let me go to you 1st. so much of western media loves to talk about china, criticize china, but very rarely do they talk to the chinese themselves. you are very notable media media figure in china and across the world. so i would like your thoughts about this new strategic alliance that is supposedly not directed against china. go ahead and basing and computer for the invitation. i'm speaking on my personal, they have my personal capacity. so don't quote me as a special spence of the chinese government. so this deal is called a kind of security, a defense cooperation among the 3 countries. but i really don't think it fits into the notion of a cooperation because a co op and a cooperation is a word that has a relatively neutral and most preferably constructive connotation. but there is nothing constructive in this deal. i would call it a secret deal of perfect the profiteering and provocation. why do i say that it's a deal or poverty of perfidy. as friends, i said, you know, the united states, the u. k. and australia. give friends a stab in the back and they feel a deal between france and australia and gave that to the united states and you pay . so it's a betrayal of your closest allies or partners and then they try to package it. they tried to present the deal as some kind of something like a tool for peas for the asia pacific region. the whereas indeed, as you have said already, great divide has emerged and condemn a nation, has emerged from various countries in that region. it's about money, look the united states and the defense contractors as well as the united, the u. k. they're going to continue to make profit out of the business. expected to be something like $100.00 bidding us dollars over the years. let's not forget what kind of profiteering was taking place in the 20 year us war on in afghanistan, according to some latest report over the 20th, depending on budget, went up to 14 trading us dollars. and one 3rd and one half of that went to defense contractors. so it's a lot of money to be made out of this and relatively, it's about probably cation. yeah. well, the defense spending is always about money by definition. and people make a lot of money here, but james, this is still another alliance, military alliance in the, in the pacific region. there are plenty of them already. i very worried about the strategic balance when you and plus you bringing in the, the, another new killer, creating a new killer power as it were. i mean, this creates an enormous amount of instability. i don't really see the upside other than they think they're creating a asia, nato. ok, which again is very problematic. i think we need less alliances for security. not more of them. go ahead, james. yeah. well, 1st of all, i want to correct the, the notion that it's creating a new nuclear power. i mean, nuclear powered submarines are not nuclear arm submarines. we have to make sure to keep that distinction. but the submarine can, could carry those those weapons at a certain point of time. let's be clear about submarines. sure. ok. so conventional submarines i mean nuclear weapons can be made available to any country that has you know, bombers and rockets and submarines in any number of things. but that's not what this deal it's about. it's about nuclear powered submarines and sometimes the media kind of shades that difference. i don't think so far anyone's proposing for australia to have nuclear weapons. i certainly hope not because there's already been enough prolific proliferation of nuclear weapons, but i don't think my for my own view that the balance of power in the world is threatened in any way currently. so i don't see this is a response to any particular problem. i think it's, it's unnecessary except as what's already mentioned, that it does shift the balance of arm sales in the world in the favor of american companies. and that's certainly, from my perspective, the most important element of this agreement because, and it's not just about australia, and i think we should underline this extremely important because the u. s. has not been in the submarine export business now for many decades. because the us only builds nuclear submarines and the u. s. had a policy of not exporting nuclear submarines except to one country which is britain . so now that they've made an exception and added australia, my question is, are they also going to add japan and even possibly taiwan to the list of countries that would be eligible to receive nuclear submarines time one certainly wants to submarine. japan already has a big submarine fleet, but there are independent propulsion, diesel electric submarines. they might refer also to nuclear power. so i think with this but james, i mean this does shift their strategic balance here. i mean, this is proliferation. as you suggested, they could get, get wildly out of control and turn into an arms race. here. and again, as i said in my introduction, as i said, tuition, i mean, no one wants to say the obvious in the media. this is exactly directed against china, and i find that very problematic there because i mean, this is creating a military alliance in china. will have to react, okay. is that, do we necessarily have to go down this path? i think it's unnecessary. what do you think james? as i said, i'm not, i'm not defending the agreement. i'm saying the agreement is largely about arm sales. that okay, it's about ok. i don't think it substantially changes the military balance because had the french contract been awarded in the, in australia, about 12 conventionally powered air independent propulsion submarines. it would have been the equivalent capability to the nuclear submarines the united states is intending to sell. it wouldn't make much difference at all in a strategic battle. well, well, it station, but it may change, relate the relationship between china and australia and that is strategic change here. let's go to our gas peril. you'll go back, change strategic. okay, we'll go back to me, let me get everybody in here. it's go to parents or know what i mean. how do you feel about all of this? because, you know, we're talking about the asia civic region, but this is, it has implications for a, for nato, for us french relations of french, a u. k. relations, australia, trading relationship with the you mean that there's a lot of different moving pieces here. go ahead and pairs i don't agree with james . i think that the nuclear power summer in much more efficient and much more efficient was such a big ocean as the pacific ocean. because a nuclear power submarine can, you know, stay one pod, he didn't for much longer a diesel southern. so i think that so the passage ocean nuclear power. so means much better. of course, the french do produce nuclear. ready attack nuclear submarines. they are called but i could add a new model. but the austrians actually enable us the french sell them miss nuclear submarines because used to have a kind of taboo in the security council of the united nations. that you do not export nuclear equipment and highly enriched uranium to other countries as it has been done by the united states with britain in 58. but both countries, i'm member but amanda of the security council. so, so now it's again a breach of the state of all agreement. and by the united states, we can understand that strategically. we know if i can, if i can interrupt you here. i mean, this is also a breach of trust, isn't it? i mean, that's very important. we're always talk told how important nato unity is and all this. and then all of a sudden, you know, that unity isn't really there because the lack of trust. yeah. and so there's a lot of, i mean it's true that on this matter and the americans treated the french very badly. i mean, b k. and there was trade in and also because the prime minister illustrate. yeah. so the president of france on the 15th of june, last june 21. and michael asked him, is everything right? is everything going well with this amazing program and the prime minister answered the president. yeah, everything is fine though we know now that she had been in secret negotiations with the americans for the last 18 months. so it's really bad matters. but it's not more important than that because you have to think realities as they are. i mean, as being protected by america since the war in 42 and the battle of the colonel c. okay, let me, let me jump in here because i, when i asked we should in question before we go to the break here. i mean, there seems to be a new cold war going on, but there's only one side pursuing the cold war. ok, i hope you understand what i mean by my question, because china doesn't want this obviously is already surrounded by american bases. i mean, how do you react to that because that's how it's being framed in western media. go ahead. there is this talk to because china is more assertive or china in pursuing your expansion is the strategy. so this kind of deal is necessary to contain china and we are perfectly perplexed. i mean in the case of australia, there is no immediate strategic threat from china to they invade australia or tackles railey. australia does not have a border with china. it does. it is not some, some kind of a territorial dispute against china. so why does australia even need to, to acquire such kind of much more secretive submarines that's, that's just totally out of people's understanding. and if you think, if you look at the relationship between china and australia that has already been pretty bad over the past few years in chinese, wherever saying if you have a job that has a crack in it, do you want to kick at it still, or do you want to handle with k? and i think that is the most important thing here. now the un secretary general, antonio gutierrez, just urged china the united states to have dialogue in the late ok hold that thought there were going to get a hold. get to go over a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on tensions in the pacific state with our to me, i oh right now, there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. is profitable to sell food. that is fatty and sugary and faulty and addicted. not at the individual level. it's not individual willpower. and if we go on believing that will never change as obesity epidemic, that industry has been influencing very deeply. the medical and scientific establishment, ah, what's driving the obesity epidemic? it's corporate. me. ah, no, you know, borders. i've been blind to nationalities, emerged. we don't have authority. we don't actually world leads to take action and be ready. people are judge governors crisis. what we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenges to response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we need together in the media, a reflection of reality in a world transformed what will make you feel safer. type relation for community you going the right way? where are you being somewhere which direction? what is truth is faith. in the world corrupted, you need to defend the join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah ah, welcome ice across top where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing tensions in the pacific. ah, ah okay, let me go back to james james, let me a lucian was explaining, describing the the tense relationship that china and australia have had over the last couple of years. but does this, this new strategic pact is this kind of put australia on the front line? i mean, what, why should china see australia is a friendly country because it's just not about submarines about additional bases. true pro cation, it's a lot more thing. you know, cybersecurity to the whole ball of wax here. ok. are they just, are they kind of throwing down the gauntlet and, and agreeing to this coalition of countries in the asia pacific grim against china? go ahead, james. well, i don't think this ingredients should be exaggerated. i do think that china has reason to worry, especially if this kind of arrangement is extended to japan and, and perhaps taiwan. but i don't think it should be exaggerated. the way much of the media does, there's not a new cold war. why not? because the old cold war was because there were 2 independent blocks with no real communication between them. they were economically intern, independent of each other. u. s. in china. have the largest trading relationship in the world. china is the largest trading part. trading country in the world. australia has a tremendously important trading relationship with china. this is about business primarily, and because it's about business, the us china relationship and the australia china relationship cannot be ruptured without enormous damage to both australia in the united states. so i don't believe this is a step toward more or a step toward violence. i think that's exaggerated, i don't think it's, it's a positive development aim, but it is marylee about selling. yeah. but to use but to use your own words here. i mean, it's all about business, but this is military hardware. okay. that's. that's very, that's right. that's okay. and they didn't know what the problem is, go ahead. a solution said the problem is the war in afghanistan is ending. that was big business for american military contractors. they're looking for a new business. and right now there aren't fortunately, i think there aren't any wars on the horizon for, you know, to fund a vast arms export business. so they're looking for new business. and i think this is part of the motivation for looking for an unprecedented kind of business deal. and it is a business deal because it involves selling one thing that the u. s. exports a lot of the, the biggest export in the world of weapons. it is business, it's profit for corporations and they care a lot about that regardless, regardless of the national security impact, of course, it's going to be sold in terms of a so called new cold war. but i think the new cold war is the really, really go ahead. that's exactly why china calling is an extremely responsible move if you, if you want to do business. ok. but if you're dealing with sensitive military technology and bringing potentially involving nuclear technology, you are going to calculate the repercussions that the steel is going to have low countries in the region. well, i don't have a policy. i'm not denying that. what, okay, let me get, let me get to parents. let me go to parents right now. but you know, i think i think it's a very geopolitical. i think that australia and the new scott morrison feels threatened by china after you remember that in march 2020 the st. ask for an international inquiry on the band any and the chinese reactive very, very wrong and tough money because the way it is a normal request by, by straight out of an international inquiry in china. number 2, the british notice that you know, the chinese had promised for on kong that we would have one country to choose 10. now we have one country, one system which is the communist party system. and number 3, you have been you have seen a chinese fleet taking for. ready themselves, the whole china sea of the south, which is bigger than the middle that and see and taking all this islands in the sounds and so on all these small islands, she being add commerce in public in america, not to militarize this islands. and they have been made to live the china has he can these land that belong to nobody actually for themselves, whether they are both did put on this military boards, strategy, bumble, enemy size. so you have to understand that some pacific countries can feel threatened by china. these fact. okay, lucian. yeah. go ahead. yeah. all right, 3 big points. i think these are actually on the mind of a lot of people. let me say this, when you bite into the hand of one of the most important business partners, i don't want to say the people who feed you when you bite into that hand. are you not going to expect that some kind of reaction look at that was the period of time when you talk about origins tracing when a lot of hostile foresters were choosing china of either deliberately releasing the virus to the world or even engineering such a bar as to hom, other people and china was under a lot of pressure, even there was some kind of, you know, presumption of guilt before proven innocence. so of course, china is not going to accept that kind of rhetoric. and then australia being one of china's most important trading partners comes out in a public manner and pressure, trying to have some kind of independent inquiry. of course, that's not going to be accepted by china when the whole world is talking about cooperation. so you're not going to say because australia say there's been trying to, doesn't like that. so trying to act in a very hostile manner. i think sometimes people get the logic wrong. and then in terms of hong kong, hong kong is part of china. and what china has trying to do is to give as much autonomy as much of freedom as possible, but never giving away the one country reasonable. and even if, even if china has a thought a way that other people don't like how it handles the ration in hong kong, is that the business of anybody else to threaten china with a military capacity. it is trying to internal affairs. and if you have any, you know, complains or opinions, talk about it, you do that all the time. but to say that we need a military alliance to come to china. i think that is very far fetched as, as far as the south tennessee, at the end of the japanese occupation was american washer, that carry chinese soldiers to those islands which have been traditionally part of chinese territory. when you buy the maps of the south china sea in before this house out, china see the dispute started the 9 dotted line was there, nobody was contesting these water countries. i was already laying on building on these islands. china was forced to do whatever needs to protect its, its territory. the most important thing is these disputes between china and its neighbors that it has a dispute with and we are solving these issues. the, the south dakota condo, hang on everybody, you know, todd no grades, don't know. please don't tell me. going to james. i'm going to go to games now. hang on and play, hang on. i mean, i go to james here. we have very limited amount of time, james, i'm glad that we know. and lucian have brought up the issue of these islands because what i find really puzzling and perplexing is it why, how is it in the american national interest to do go into a potential military conflict with china over these islands? what it is, what is the american national interest? why should they be fighting over rocks? go ahead. well, 1st of all, i, i strongly doubt that the u. s. will do anything that provokes the military outcome in this area. yes, the u. s. has been doing what it's been doing. mainly freedom of navigation is my its allies very doubtfully, very doubtfully. i strongly argue there is no, i've been arguing for decades and i'm still right there is no imminent war threat in east asia. there is no imminent threat from china and there is no imminent threat from the united states. there's a balance that both sides one piece and it's important that they understand that yes, people use words and words are cheap. they use words and they use agreements that are seen as threatening, but that isn't the same thing as war. and that's why it's also an exaggeration. i think to call this a cold war because in fact, the extent of relations between the countries in the region is extensive and they will need to solve those problems peacefully. we should not accelerate the war talk . we should, in fact fuse the war talk and recognize that it's not in the interest of any country to make threats or to you know, to talk and see if there is an imminent war threat. because what does that do? that it'll actually only increases the sales of weapons, which is really the business interest of the arm sellers. if you, if you keep stoking idea that there is a war threat, then of course you're going to helping companies sell more arms. i don't want to do that. i'm trying to diffuse attention, not increase it because i think that's kind of irresponsible to do that. and i also think it doesn't reflect the reality that there is very, very, it's very, very unlikely that either side will start anything aggressive because of the catastrophic economic and military effects would be too great for anyone to contemplate. any possibility of success. or now you want to jump in there in paris . go ahead. no, i'm in the nobody. no, no, no, nobody at once. whoa. and you the 2nd pass if you quote, but clearly the chinese want the americans. ready out of the pacific, they want the americans out of a zone going from the gulf of bang, gail, bang gal to to, to our why. and i remember meeting chinese and minister in aging in 2009. and he told me very frankly, that i many did not belong to asia and as, as no place in asia and should know should withdraw from asia. it is not the policy of america, and it is not the wish more interesting. it is not the wish of many countries along the seas, this waters including vietnam and malaysia and indonesia, and so on. they want 20 years ago, they would have liked maybe america to leave, but now they want them and they get to stay and why they want them to get to stay. because they feel threatened by china. other right, other wrong may be me. so she's being should, should give us a proof that is not a fit. what we remember is that a school that when we visited the united states with president obama, that these islands in the south china, she would never been weaponized. they are to be alright. alright, i have to jump in here, we have run out of time. we've run out of time. my last comment is that the us should get out of nato and the you should stop militarize in the pacific. but that's my humble opinion. many thanks to my guess in beijing, asking and in paris and thanks to our viewers are watching us here are key. see you next time and remember to cross the ah man across the board of the 3rd some focus bittman vall. mm. oh. yeah. oh, oh i oh, just give me . i understand. i joined me every day on the alex salmon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me the who's the french defense ministry says nato partners will revise the strategic concept to be a lives following a dispute over recently signed security deal between the u. s. u. k, and australia. the left france out also ahead despite reco u energy prices. i'm a huge show for the supply. the block is slapping fine on poland using coal. and it's also blaming russia for the gas price crisis. and rubber bullets, tear gas, and hundreds of arrests fall ok. also the melbourne's war memorial process continue in australia against kobe vaccine laws for the 3rd day.

Related Keywords

Malaysia , Australia , Taiwan , Japan , Afghanistan , United States , Hong Kong , Paris , France General , France , United Kingdom , Washington , Vietnam , Republic Of , Beijing , China , Austria , Melbourne , Victoria , Indonesia , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Tennessee , South Dakota , China Sea , Poland , Kobe , Hyogo , Americans , America , Chinese , Austrians , Britain , French , British , Japanese , American , Scott Morrison , Bittman Vall , Pacific Ocean , Asia Pacific , Antonio Gutierrez , James , Peter Lavelle ,