19 Episode results for "Center For Security"

Dynamite: Audrey Kurth Cronin on New Technology and Terrorism | 4

American Innovations

33:30 min | 8 months ago

Dynamite: Audrey Kurth Cronin on New Technology and Terrorism | 4

"From wondering. I'm Steven Johnson and this is American innovations today. We conclude our series on dynamite Alfred Nobel worked on dynamite. Indistinctly unglamorous labs is apartment kitchen has converted carriage house and finally on an abandoned Bartsch but his ambitions whereas large and grand as his labs for small and humble Nobel envisioned dynamite transforming cityscapes and blasting railways buildings and tunnels into existence. And when he finally got dynamite right it did just that power the industrial age and made the modern day metropolis possible but it also led to new forms of terrorism. Anarchists used dynamite to assassinate political leaders including the Russians are Alexander. The second that fearful blast in eighteen eighty. One was in fact the very first suicide bombing on this episode. I talked to security expert. Audrey Kurth Cronin to argue Nobel story is also the story of our current times once again backyard inventors spearheading new technology. But that technology is being used in lethal ways that we've never seen before. Cronin is the director of the Center for Security Innovation and new technology at American University in Washington. Dc. She also wrote the book power to the people of open. Technological innovation is arming tomorrow's terrorists. She believes that new technologies like Cyber Weapons Three D. printing artificial intelligence are this century's version of dynamite. So how do we encourage people to keep innovative while making sure those groundbreaking inventions? Don't open the door to new forms of violence. Audrey Kurth Cronin. Thank you so much for joining us on American innovations. Thanks for having me so I WANNA start talking a little bit about your book which is power to the people how open technological. Innovation is arming. Tomorrow's terrorists how did you get into this project in the first place? Well I was looking at the relationship between the late nineteenth century and the current day and seeing a lot of parallels between the incredibly fast innovations that were occurring with technology. Then and also today so I wanted to write about a breakthrough technology. I wanted to write about game. Changers that surprise people especially technologies with great potential for good that can also be lethal and then there were two specific. Things that happened. I was reading a book that quoted Nobel Alfred Nobel arguing that is explosives would make war so terrible that it could never occur and then of course we went straight into world war one and the irony of that the horror of that really struck me and then on the same day. I just happened to be watching a youtube video of Mark Zuckerberg defending facebook. You know wish along with Youtube and twitter and other things like what's up has been used by terrorist groups like Isis in ways that are horrifying and just like Alfred Nobel Zuckerberg was struggling with the unintended consequences. So I saw kind of a direct line between the nineteenth century. Innovators and today's technology giants both of them created brilliant world inventions but they also sometimes fell short in thinking about how their creations could be misused. That's why I think you're just a perfect guest for us not only because we've just had this whole sequence about Nobel's life which we're going to get to but you know it's a big theme of this show that connecting past stories to the present day. That's a lot of what we do with these kind of interview segments. I think that's a really important property of your work. I mean how much given the technology does change so much. I mean it's almost the definition of technologies. It's constantly changing. How much can we draw on the lessons of the past to make sense of the present or near future innovations? That are coming. Well I would say a lot. More than we do not to say that there are exact parallels between the two eras in the eighteen hundreds and in the present but there are a lot of things that echo or that are common between them and we have a tendency to believe that everything we're experiencing today is completely unprecedented and that's not true so finding the balance between understanding the history and seeing how people dealt with new technologies in the past and then the things that we're facing today that's very important to me and frankly stephen that's one of the things. I love about your show because it does put things in context. Thank you very much. That's very nice. You say but there is so much news in the technology space and by definition is you know innovation is just constantly driving us to new places But you know there's a lot from the past where we have gone through similar patterns in a way right where we see for instance. In this case we see technologies designed for one purpose at ended up getting utilized in all these kinda surprising ways. Some of them not particularly positive ways That that's an endless pattern. The history of technology that people invent something for one reason and then other people use her for entirely different reasons so trying to be able to project forward in thinking about how these tools will get exploited. I think is a really important skill to have. And that's why your work. I think so valuable as well. So let's let's start. Let's talk a little bit about Nobel right so our listeners have just heard three episodes telling the story of Nobel's life and he's such a such a fascinating configure in this in this period on so many levels. I think what drew you to him. Oh you talked briefly about that. Famous quote of his which is kind of mutually assured destruction before the atomic age. In a way it was there anything else about his career that you found particularly fascinating. Oh Alfred Nobel is just a fabulous study inhumanity. His life was full of stark contradictions. He came from very humble origins where they were scraping to have enough to eat. But then at the same time. He became one of the most successful entrepreneurs and business people and inventors ever but he had a business that grew faster than any had any business had before but it also led to the first wave of modern terrorism which was horrifying and he was a really strange person and obsessive workaholic. Who's really private? But he was also multi-lingual he was a writer. He loved poetry and literature. I just wanted to figure out whether Nobel had regrets and remorse on the one hand but I also like everyone else admire the great legacy of the Nobel Prize that he left behind this. This was an unusual set of episodes for us because I actually wrote them. Normally we have other wonderful writers who come in and I just play the parts but but I but I wrote this because I was so fast it with novell to and it Kinda relates to another project that I'm working on as well and you know one of the things that we wrestled with a lot in the story was to what extent Nobel did take responsibility for both the initial kind of body count from his invention just from accidents. You know the first wave of NITROGLYCERIN. All these people were just accidentally blowing themselves up and then post the invention of dynamite. Once it got adopted by the terrorists how much Nobel kind of recognized that he was partly responsible for that and whether that weighed on him. Do you have a read on that? That's one of the hardest questions because I think he was very complicated in how he felt. I don't think it was clear. Remorse versus clear pride in his invention. I think it was ambivalence one of the things that people who have written biographies of him in the past argued is that the Nobel prizes came strictly out of his remorse and it's definitely true that he regretted the innocent people who died because of dynamite and other explosives but he also made a lot of money for more and he sold explosives other than dynamite. There were extremely useful to the military and extremely important particularly with the artillery of the first World War and killing hundreds of thousands of people. So you know. His remorse was only to a point. He believed he actually had developed something. That was a stabilizing factor. And he you know. He thought that his explosives were so horrible that they would make war impossible so there's both sides to his story and I I don't think anyone's ever going to completely resolve that the thing we really focused on in in our telling was the relationship with Bert of funds. Sutton are like that that she she seems to have really had the the the major influence in steering them towards the Nobel Prize and of course she ends up winning the fifth. One or something like that that. That's such a fascinating relationship to the two of them. Yes he was in love with her earlier in his life when she was hired to be secretary but she ran off and married the son of a noble Viennese family which is why her name was von Suttner but Nobel kept in touch with her over the years but even when he endowed the prizes he had a sceptical view of humanity a one version of his will stipulated that the Nobel prizes should end in thirty years because after that if the international system wasn't reformed that humanity would fall back into barbarism. And Wow for US looking back at the two world. Wars that followed. That's a chilling thing to say but anyway it's probably von sudden who suggested the piece price too no go. We get support from simplisafe with all the uncertainty in the world. Feeling safe at home has never been more important. That's why I wanNA talk to you about simplisafe home. Security simplisafe has made it easy to finally get comprehensive protection for your home. There's no technician or sales person that needs to come and disrupt your house. You don't need to pay any outrageous monthly fees or sign a two year contract. You gotTa love that instead. Just order it online. Set it up yourself in under an hour. That's how fast it was for me and your home is protected. Twenty four seven with emergency dispatch for break ins fire and more offer just fifty cents a day. We're not the only fans of simplisafe here at our show. Us News and World Report named Simplisafe Best Overall Home Security of twenty twenty and right now when you head to simplisafe dot com slash innovations. You'll get free shipping and a sixty day risk-free trial that simplisafe dot com slash innovations to make sure they know that our show sent you from simply safe and all of us here. At American innovations were wishing you safety and good health introducing into America. A new podcast from NBC News and MSNBC. It's a show about politics about policy and about the power. Both have in shaping the lives of the American people each week host Tremaine Lee helps everyday. Americans share their stories as together. We face a health crisis that is unprecedented. In the modern era he's joined by a team of NBC News journalists to make sense of this extraordinary moment in American life search for into America wherever you're listening right now to subscribe new episodes premiere every Thursday and stay tuned for a special preview at the end of this episode. So let's talk now more squarely about the argument in your book. I think we should start with right. So with dynamite. You have this tool that is invented that gives people doing big engineering projects. This amazing new kind of power where they can blast your way through a mountainside to make a railway tunnel with far fewer resources because the stick of dynamite at such a compact little explosive turns out unfortunately that also makes it incredibly well suited for terrorism. You can have one person in a cafe somewhere. Wants to blow up a bunch of civilians and you can do it with a a weapon. That's just sitting there in your coat pocket so were there any other groundbreaking technologies around this period. The terrorists user that had kinda similar citizen initiated destruction. Not really no other technology compares to dynamite. There were a lot of changes in firearms that made them somewhat cheaper and more broadly accessible. But you still had to know how to use firearms and care for them and use effectively. That usually meant some kind of professional training. Usually in the armed forces and the ideas that the anarchists and the nationalists in the social revolutionaries used that drove them when they used dynamite had been around for decades but it was being able to have this amazing power this symbolic power of using dynamite. That really started modern terrorism. As we know it today you know using a knife or a firearm. The feeling was that any common criminal could do that. If you use dynamite then you made a symbolic impact. And you're a revolutionary. Not just a common criminal. I thought it was fascinating. How much dynamite. The actual brand of dynamite became integrated into the slogans of all these anarchist groups and radical groups. You know they're just like there's so many we we briefly in the show kind of quote from like three or four of these big rallying speeches or they're like the state may have their machine guns. But we've got dynamite was doing so just imagine Alfred Nobel. No please do you have to use the actual brand. Don't bring me into this. You know it was just such a crazy but they were called the dynamite club. That was one of the terms of them that the press gave him. It's just it's a fascinating story and there's a big theme in your work which I think is is something that has come up on American innovations over the past episodes. We've done on many different topics. Which is this idea of? Cultures alternating between periods of open technology in and close technology. Tell us a little bit about what that means. Kind of open innovation models versus closed. Kind of top down miles in the context of Nobel's time but but also in our time. Sure your first thing just stipulate. Is that these. Things are never absolute. So it's a matter of which kind of innovation is predominating but open technological. Innovation is when there's popular access to clusters of new technologies that anyone can experiment with and so you have individuals and private groups and ordinary people who can buy them used them distribute them and also invent new purposes for them new forms of them Bring together new surprise combinations of them and and these open technologies spread via commercial processes. You can buy sell them. Use them combine them and change them so today we have an open. Technological innovation period that began in the nineteen ninety s when the Cold War ended and the US lifted the lid on secrecy and control in particularly national security investments. But really to understand what it means to have an open period of innovation. You have to contrast it to what we had most of the twentieth century. Exactly as you say Stephen Moore top down more controlled during a closed technological revolution. You've got military or scientific or governmental elites who can limit the availability of new technologies so think about stealth technology or nuclear technology. Those things are expensive rare. They're difficult to buy or even even difficult to find out about. They require high levels of expertise. They're protected by things like security classifications or copyrights j Robert Oppenheimer working away secretly in a lab with a bunch of scientists building the nuclear bomb but then at the end of the twentieth century. The United States consciously shifted from closed innovation open innovation and virtually all the major technological changes. That are happening now are driven by publicly financed basic and applied research. That was at one point. Close in the fifties sixties seventies eighties. And that it was consciously shared in the beginning of the nineties. I think for our listeners. Like the easiest way to to think about the distinction is along the terms of you've just described like on the one hand you Alfred Nobel inventing dynamite like literally parts of it in his kitchen. Were on a boat in his in his home lab and it's more or less one guy I mean there you know. He had some helping obviously scaled up but like the core ideas he was really doing as a solo innovator and its technology that while he does sell it to large companies and to some extent military's it's a technology that circulates quickly into the hands of other kind of end users. Who figure out new things to do with that in the end so you. That's the kind of the open model and the clothes models you say I think Manhattan project is too great example right. It's very expensive. No one knows it's happening other than this inner circle and today I mean despite all of our fears about terrorists getting access to a suitcase nuke the output of the Manhattan project really is only the property of a handful of large nation states. Seventy years later and so those those two polls I think that really useful way of thinking about the two approaches and as you say overlap and every period is a mixed to some extent of them but some periods are dominated by one or the other and so now we shifted more into this more open model and we have a whole host of things we have you know artificial intelligence and robotics and three d printing all of these things that are being pursued by you know some big corporations and supported by the government. But there's a lot of kind of end user innovation happening and and partly that's exciting right. That's the a lot of great things coming out of that. But as we've seen there are also dangerous so in that kind of soup of new technologies. What are you the most worried about? I guess well any technology that's accessible cheap. Simple to use transportable. Concealable effective can be bought off the shelf and is not cutting edge. Any of those kinds of technologies today are potentially able to be turned to lethal uses. So all the obvious ones are three D. printing robotics autonomous vehicles facial recognition technology internet of things. They all fit that description. But I think the one that we're not paying enough attention to synthetic biology only the most primitive versions right now of crisper cast nine are widely available although you can buy them for junior high classroom or work on them. And in a you know makers movement the most primitive versions of the crisper technology aren't going to change the human genome but synthetic biology as it evolves through its waves of innovation truly can alter the human genome and you know when it comes to the future of humanity. What could be more important than that so just so our listeners have to worry about. Walk us through how you could imagine. Synthetic biology crisper technology getting into the hands of the wrong people and being exploited for some kind of harm. What what what might just a scenario look like well? One of the things that could happen would be to use gene editing to create a new virus. Some people are spreading false rumors about the current pandemic as having been created synthetically. It's at least feasible. Not now but in maybe in the future that people with nefarious intent could try to create a bio weapon synthetically. I was just reading yesterday. Actually that I believe the genome sequence for both the smallpox virus and the H One n one influenza virus was the source of the pandemic of nineteen eighteen. Both those things are like open source out there. People know the code right the instructions for building these things. We can't technically build them yet but that is clearly coming and so the idea that someone might kind of deliberately engineer. Bioweapon like that. That's a real issue. And you know I think one of the things that is going to happen in the wake of the cove in nineteen African Robe Technology. It's a reminder that low probability events with massive implications require our focus. Exactly right like what you're talking about here are threats that the likelihood that someone would do this might be pretty small but if they did the consequences are so momentous that we have to imagine we have to kind of project them forward and is that like kind of cultural muscle that we have exercised enough. Well Stephen exactly what you say is is what I'm concerned about. You know going back to synthetic biology just for a minute. This is a tool that has potential and and are already is making strides in solving deep genetic problems. That we've had in cystic fibrosis genetic illnesses. That with the use of gene editing we can potentially save thousands and thousands of children from a horrible disease. I really hesitate only to emphasize the negative. I'm actually very very much in favor of smart technology. But it's very common for new technologies to be created by brilliant innovators who then don't WanNa pay any attention to the politics you know. There's this feeling that you know. I'm an inventor I'm a scientist. I'm an engineer Let the politicians deal with that but unfortunately we know from the big broad historical context that you have to face the negative consequences because humanity is going to have both. It's always going to have the most wonderful uses but also the most dangerous uses and we have to control for that and controlling for that means using smart regulations having consumers be involved building self restraint among the tech companies. There's a huge range of things that we have to do. And we can learn from what happened with the end of the nineteenth century with dynamite. How they dealt with the dangers of dynamite to have you feel about drones thinking about you know technology set clearly have military use already in the sense that there are you know really high tech Johnson. The military uses but drones more in the hands of smaller solo operators or terrorist networks. And things like that. Do you think that that's a significant threat that we're going to be wrestling with over the next few years? Oh we already have. There is a significant threat. Because all you have to do with a quad copter especially if it's one that's sturdy enough to carry a decent sized camera. All you have to do is switch it out with an explosive and you gotta reasonably if not lethal at least very intimidating weapon and so we've already seen that with Isis. Isis was using duct tape and very primitive stuff. We're not talking about first-wave innovation but once you get the second or third wave innovation you've got groups like the Islamic state who can carry out attacks throughout Iraq and they they were killing people sending them to the emergency room About one hundred per month there during the time of their caliphate so when they were trying to protect themselves against the Iraqis and the other allies. So it's it's not anything new using UAB's in various ways is already being tested and we just have to build better measures to prevent that. How serious do you think? The threat is in terms of drones with commercial. Air always struck me as kind of strange like the worry about a drone and a seven thirty seven like they seem to be such different sizes that it wouldn't wouldn't affect it but I know there is a lot of concern about people piling Jones around airports. Is that a potential weapon. Now that it's harder to actually do that kind of nine eleven exercise of taking on a plane by getting into the cockpit. Do you think that drones will be used in that way? Is that a potential threat. And that's a that's an existing that was actually happening in in Great Britain. I believe it was Gatwick Airport where they had drones that were spied from the cockpit of the Year of craft. And you know if you have a collision with a drone unit. Lot depends upon where where you collide with. You know if it's being sucked into the the jet engine. That's a pretty serious problem. You know these are. It's not as serious as having an explosive inside the body of the plane. I'm not trying to overstate the threat. But there's been widespread concern about drones that are flown in the in the vicinity of your airports. And that's actually against the law. There are also limitations on how high you're supposed to fly your drone but there have been a lot of cases where pilots have seen drones. Right out the window of their aircraft Despite the current limitations in the United States and in Europe particularly you. If you're stuck at home these days you probably don't think much about Internet privacy on your home network fire up incognito mode on your browser no one can see what you're doing right wrong even in incognito mode your online activity can still be traced. That's why even when I'm at home I never go online without using express. Vpn Express VPN. Make sure your ISP can't see what sites you visit instead your Internet connection is rerouted through express VPN secure servers. Which means everything you do is an honest and can't be traced back to you. They also encrypt one. Hundred percent of your data with the best in class encryption. So your information is always protected. Use the Internet with confidence from your computer tablet or smartphone express. Vpn has you covered on every device simply tap one button and you're protected. Protect your online activity today with the VPN that I trust to secure my privacy visit express VPN dot com slash innovations and. You can get an extra three months free on a one year package. That's E. X. P. R. E. S. S. VPN dot com slash innovations one more time express. Vpn DOT COM slash innovations to learn more? The last thing I talked to you about is in a sense what we can do. I mean as you said you. You know you're a believer in the power of open. Technological innovation and that there are a lot of solutions that are positive that come out of these things you know that takes us the question like how do we steer society towards those positive outcomes and do the best we can to prevent the the negative ones one of the things? I I found fascinating. Is there a couple of programs like this? I think but Stanford in the last couple years started teaching kind of technology ethics class in as part of the kind of computer science program because Stanford Computer Science programs just total feeder for Silicon Valley and and all these people if they actually graduated wrestling would just drop out there startups. But you know. They spent through the traditional way. Is like you teach people how to do computer science and engineering. And you don't think about those secondary or tertiary effects of the thing that you're inventing Or the tool. You're building the software APP that you're creating and one of the things they're trying to deal with this and say. Hey you actually are responsible for the way that people end up using the tool you bring into the world and you need to think about that and that in many ways is you know. I think that's part of the problem with facebook had is at Soccer Berg. Just kind of he went into it with a sense of like what could be go wrong. If you make people more connected and didn't run this kind of scenarios about how it could go wrong so that that's encouraging to me but is there is a more we can do to build on that. Well that's a very important initiative and I think it needs to be nationwide. There's an enormous push toward getting more people into stem and that's crucial. That's a good thing but if you don't have every computer scientists robotics engineer every person who's building a new technology also have a course in ethics and I would also argue history. I don't think you're going to have smart technologies that are safe for humanity. And eventually we're going to be driven toward that so I think it's inevitable and I'm trying in my own university to push more and have more teaching about ethics for the computer scientists. So that's that's definitely where academe needs to go but there are bigger things that have to happen because you know technologies that have a societal impact. You really can't get around having a societal response. It's not like there's a shortcut silver bullet you have to build policy so with respect to policies that would be useful for us today therefore different levels that they have to happen at one. Is The consumers. Individual people need to demand safer products and also the ability to choose whether or not say a product is connected to the internet or not and to make sure that that you know your refrigerator still works well when it's not connected as a refrigerator that is so consumers need to get into the game they need to have a better understanding of what the risks are and then secondly at the national level. We need to build more standards and regulation. There's a ways to go in educating Congress about new technologies but they've always been behind the major technological innovations. That's nothing new and I don't think it's a balance between privacy and security when it comes to privacy protection because at least in Cyberspace. Privacy may be security and then technology companies. You know there has never been an industry. An innovated industry that has fully self regulated itself. No major industry ever house and in fact Alfred Nobel after the British regulated dynamite. He was thrilled because they were clear. Standards laid out for him to follow. He made much more money in the UK as a result and finally international cooperation. We we have to push forward international discussions on cooperating and things like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity for example I think we should treat human generated medical data and the human genome as part of a shared human heritage You know surely the pandemic demonstrates how important that is Audrey Kurth Cronin. Thank you so much for joining us. We love the combination of kind of historical perspective but actual practical applications and solutions for the present day. And and the coming future. I know our listeners will check out your book. Power to the people. Thanks for being on the show sped. Pleasure Stephen Thank you. Audrey Kurth Cronin is the director of the Center for Security Innovation and new technology at American University in Washington. Dc. She also wrote the book power to the people how open technological innovation is arming. Tomorrow's terrorists from wondering. This is American innovations. If you like our series please give us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe where available on Apple podcasts spotify. Npr One and every major listening APP as well as at wonder DOT com. If you're listening on a smartphone tap or swipe over the cover art of this podcast you'll find the episode notes including some details. You might have missed American. Innovations is hosted by me Steven Johnson for more information on my books about science history and innovation including my new one coming out may twelfth enemy of all mankind. You can visit my website at Steven. Berlin Johnson Dot Com our producer for this episode. Is Audrey Note? American innovations produced by Natalie Shisha executive produced by Jenny Lower Beckmann Marshall Dewey and Lopez. You're about to hear a preview of into America. It's a show about politics policy and how Americans are dealing with the unprecedented health crisis presented by the corona virus. This week we're hearing how music is bringing people together from a youth choir Seattle. That's uniting their voices online singing or listening to music is a really great way to still feel connected even in this time when we're super disconnected always music is important. It always makes you feel good tour. Turn concert livestream for folk singer in Nashville man there booking a lot of different artists at different levels in their career in China distribute the money really equally among everyone. It's very much coming from a perspective of. Let's help everyone and don't forget to dance. It's almost like you're thirsty when I realized how thirsty you start drinking water right and you realize how much you need that exactly like. That's how I felt. I'm tr- MAINLY MSNBC correspondent and host of the podcast into America. Thanks for listening search for into America wherever you're listening right now to subscribe.

Nobel Alfred Nobel Audrey Kurth Cronin Stephen United States Nobel Prize Isis Center for Security Innovation America Steven Johnson facebook American University Washington Alfred Nobel Zuckerberg Youtube director
Get thee behind me, tech: putting humans before social media

Ideas

54:08 min | 1 year ago

Get thee behind me, tech: putting humans before social media

"This is podcast. Ah Welcome to ideas I na Iot. We're colonizing human attention in humans have become the media and the reason why it's so hard to do anything about this the reason why it's so hard to really talk about this intelligently it's because the developers are doing ah essentially children they are college dropouts they come up with a good idea and they leave school they leave the place where they could learn the economics the history the sociology the Social Justice the ethics digital theorist Douglas Rush Cough is a professor but he's not an ivory tower type yes. He's a prolific thinker and author but his raw material comes from and shapes our everyday lives in in twenty thirteen. He was named one of the world's ten most influential thinkers by MIT. He's point terms such as digital natives and viral media. Yeah he also made the popular documentaries generation like the persuaders and merchants of cool for P. B. S.. His urgent new new manifesto on the effects of digital technology is a book called team human in it. He argues that the Technological Revolution Shen that was supposed to liberate and transform humankind has turned into something else. He's concerned that we are now calling izing ourselves else that we have become a commodity that changes how we understand ourselves and our relationship to others and rush cough says we he must then reaffirm our identity as social beings in December twenty nine th Douglas Rush. Cough gave the keynote speech at the Fourth Waterloo Waterloo Symposium on technology and society. The symposium is convened by the Center for Security Governance. Here's Douglas Rush. Goff speaking at the ball oh silly school of international affairs in Waterloo Ontario. It's an honor to be here and to talk about social media you in particular I go back and forth between being somewhat optimistic and techno pessimistic and I realized it really has nothing to do with the technology at all. It has to do with how I feel. The human organism is doing it anyone moment or another. Sometimes I feel like doc are sometimes. It's really enhancing us and sometimes it's working the other way and it can. Obviously it could do both but I think it's not just we as users who determine how technology turns out I think it's also we as as developers I and we as investors. I really do believe that. Technologies are biased. They have afford ince's no you could say guns don't kill people people kill people. Yes but guns are much more disposed to killing people than say pillows are although you can can use a pillow to kill people and I'm sure it's been done many times. It's just not not what they lean towards when you look at a pillow you're not thinking. Kill right you're thinking something else. The sad thing to me is how little the people who seem to be. The most responsible for our technological art technological development are thinking about the real social impact of the technologies that they're developing if we're not thinking ahead to what is the impact of this technology. Then what are we building the tech for. Well we're building it just to make money tomorrow or today right but not even looking at what does that mean in two weeks you you know I know so. Many people developing technologies that they won't let their own kids use so many folks in Silicon Valley and they're wealthy guys building building all these technologies and using whatever addiction routines from they know from behavioral finance importing them into the APPS made for fourteen or fifteen year old girls else but then when you talk to them about their own kids all they go to Rudolf Steiner school and I don't let them touch any of this stuff and I guess I was reminded most sadly of that when I was invited to do a talk recently that I thought would be. Maybe not a talk like this not an actual talk about. What should we do here? But a talk doc for business people about the future of digital technology and all so I was prepared to do a talk to try to bring them home to team human you know and attorney get them to to adjust their business plans towards more pro social ends and while I was waiting in the green room kind of psyching myself to go on for these wealthy guys. Five men were brought in to the Green Room with me and it turned out there was no talk at all. There was nowhere for me to go. They just sat around the table with me and started peppering me with questions about the digital future so they asked Bitcoin or theorem virtual reality or augmented reality. Eight right like I'm supposed to tell them which thing to bet on to invest on with their money and then finally they got around to their real question which was Alaska or New Zealand right. They wanted to know where to put their doomsday bunkers. Here's for when the event whatever. It is the climate catastrophe or social unrest or electromagnetic pulse or whatever it is that brings everything down. Where do we put the bunker jonker and we spent the rest of the hour on the question? The soul question. How do I maintain control of my security force after the event because my money will be worthless? So why are they going to listen to me and we went through all of these almost walking dead like scenarios right it. It was nuts and I couldn't help but think you know. Here are the wealthiest most powerful men who I've ever been in the presence of Five Live Tech Billionaires right these are these are the winners yet. They feel utterly powerless to impact the future. The best they think they can do is earn enough money to somehow prepare themselves for the inevitable inevitable collapse of society that they themselves are bringing on. But it's like how can I build a car that drives fast enough to escape from its own exhaust. Just as if you're never gonNA come back around on the other side of the planet and be and be smack in the middle of it right so for them. The digital title future is really about about control or escape right. They want to leave us behind. They're trying to get off. They're trying to get on their rocket. Get are in their bunker. or or transmute into some other kind of species and leave the unwashed poor masses behind. They're not bringing us along and for me. It's as as a nine thousand nine hundred eighties cyber enthusiast. It really becomes A. What have they done to my song? You know what what have we done. How did we get here? Digital Technology is going to be about the unbridled the capacity of the collective human imagination now it was a deeply social phenomenon that was the that was the the whole point. I mean you can look at the. You know the stories about the origins of the Internet and arpanet and whether it was funded by the Pentagon to create this you this network through which research scientists would be able to communicate even in the event of a nuclear war but the real role of the Internet in these scientists lives was for them to exchange gossip with each other but the network may have been built for high important military Defense communication but they were sharing their opinions about star Trek episodes and recipes for pot brownies. And things like that. That's what what was going on on the Internet on the early Internet was just people talking. It was social. It was so social at the military. Didn't even know what to do with it. They didn't want it anymore they offered to. At and T.. For a dollar an at and T. said no we don't want it. It's just people talking to each other's money to be made here now and then you know so we got the Internet we got the DOT com boom came and people like me. I was saying no no. This is a social medium. Actually and I can take I was I wanted to be calling the internet social medium a social. I didn't mean it like facebook social media. I mean this is a social medium. We had the DOT com boom and and the DOT COM crash while the dot com boom was going up. I started talking about social media saying. Don't worry the DOT com thing won't work because the Internet is a social medium radium and then when the dot com crash happened people like me. We all celebrated the Internet fought off another infection rate. It was it was. I was the military. Ah We got them off there so we can all talk and play now. Business came and they want to sell things. pets.com this DOT com. We got rid of that and it's social again and and then it seemed like social media would be US reclaiming that people reclaiming the neck but of course you know social media ended up pivoting over over into a business as well. And that's sort of what what I want to talk about what I want to talk about tonight. But if you're going to look at the fundamental the mental biases of digital media of early Internet media if you look at the early applications on the net before the worldwide web came and kind of turned it into television it was something called RC. which was the Internet relay chat? It was it was chat. It was just a little chat but it was. It was real time texting in groups. There were there were bb S.'s. That was called US net. which was the original sort of? BBS's and they were just bulletin boards where people people share and it was. It was interesting because you would you. Would you would sound so smart in those usenet groups. You really would sound smarter than you do in real life. I mean the imagine that the Internet was a place where people sounded smarter than they do. In real life you will refereed to meet the people you talk to online. You afraid great to meet them in real life. Because you can't sound like that all the time and so I wrote this book. It was one thousand nine hundred ninety one. I wrote a book. Book called Siberia Siberia life in the trenches of hyperspace for Bantam and they cancelled the book in One thousand nine hundred ninety two because they thought the Internet would be over over by one thousand nine hundred ninety three when the book was supposed to come out and in the letter from the editors explaining why they thought the net would be over. She said well you know look could. CB Radio member CB radio citizens band radio the radio the truckers had in their trucks. Kids got a hold of them when we started using them. Breaker breaker and talking into each other and it was the big thing for like two years so they figured the net because it was just a social medium just people talking to each other that it would die also also really fast. But I was excited. I mean the book ended up getting published. Luckily and I was arguing. That what the Internet would really do is kind of provide remedial help for a society that had been de socialized by television television. We know tried to make us consumers. Television just talk talk to us and at us there was no way to talk back to a TV except to go to a store and buy thing they wanted you to buy. The function of Television was to sell mass-produced mass-produced goods so it seemed that the Internet would allow us to turn what had become a monitor into a portal. Now you could reach through. You weren't watching Lucy or mash or friends. You were the content you were creating the content with one another and I. I even didn't like the people who kept saying that content is king. And that's what's GonNa make the the net content. No contact was king. That's what made the net so exciting to those of us who are playing with it. There's someone else out there. There's someone else I remember the first time you've got your parents online and they're like I'm here on the one hand it's like a but on the other hand it was like welcome. Oh come you're showing them a new place. It was space and environment that we were creating together it was not medium it was not net flakes. It was not about getting your netflix streaming. Through your computer it was about expressing yourself and somehow instead of evolving into a more in more complex and usable and social environment the Internet and social media in particular has become perhaps the greatest threat threat we've ever seen to individual cognition and collective coherence. It really is it is it is unsettling it is. It creates a sense of disease in US Again Anti Tech. I'm just anti certain applications of Tech. You think about out the those that we used to play with things like the well or use net groups and the way they were used was the Internet was a was a thing I think it was a specific place. I mean some of you aren't old enough to remember but there were these things called modems. which you'd plug your computer into a modem and the modem into your phone line you were connecting one multibillion dollar telephone industry with a multi-billion communication computer industry through this little thing called a modem so you would you turn on your computer plugged into the Modem you would dial in to a compuserve? AOL or some or the well you would island. You would download the conversation. That was there. You would unplug from the Modem. You would read the conversation overnight in your own time you I would think about how you were going to craft a response you would then write your perfect paragraph. We're you sound like Christopher Hitchens you could do. Were important people out. There might read this then you would go back on the computer plug it in go back online. Talented thing upload your thing sticking their chest by mail and you'd wait three days as to see how people would respond so it was the net because it's an asynchronous medium was used to help us put deeper consideration into our conversations stations and have a higher level higher level conversation will. Now we've turned the internet into an always on environment the Internet's in your pocket buzzing interrupting interrupting you. Every time somebody tweets about you or send you a social media message or mentioned something or the CNN or CBC or. Someone thinks that there's a story that's important enough. You end up living in this state of perpetual emergency interruption that used to be endured only by nine one one operators and at least they were paid and they took medications to live through it and they only did it three or four hours a day. We live in that state constantly. It's the state I'm calling you know president shock or did your friend yet where there's multiple instances of you actually operating at the same time. This is ideas on. CBC Radio One Sirius Xm and on our end in Australia. I'm Ed and you're listening to Douglas. Rush Gough author and digital theorist speaking at the Fourth Waterloo symposium him on technology and society. His latest book is called team human. So we're not using tech anymore more. We're not consciously going online to do something I think. The dynamic has changed from people using technology to technology using people that we are being operated on. We are being we. We are doing tech to people. They don't even mean it. Just the awful way it's the orientation we have. It's the human is the object. Not the subject of human is the thing that we're operating. It's like I I'll share this with. You actually came to understand this when I was watching a show called the real housewives of Orange County. You all get that here and I have to watch it because my wife watches it when we go to bed so I have to watch it but I'm watching it. As a media theorist right so so I'm looking at this show and I'm trying to figure out why there's so many communication problems between these women. Right they have the same socioeconomic background they speak the same language from the same region. They live in the same culture. Why do they always misunderstanding? Each Other. I saw this one episode. Where one of them says Oh? I'm taking my daughter in for cancer. Test Tomorrow Laura and the other one said Oh. I'm so sorry to hear that. And then they show the first one sitting on the bench during the confessional later on the on the little stall and she was saying you know. I just didn't believe her. She said that she cared but she didn't the reason why she didn't believers these women have so much botox injected into their faces that they can't make facial expressions that are consonant with the things that they're saying this woman. Oh my daughter has cancer and the other one says Oh. Oh I'm so sorry to hear that. So what have they done. But they've used technology to try to lock down their faces at age. Twenty nine. What they think is the appropriate age to be but they've made themselves unavailable to the moment that they're actually in so they use the tech to make themselves more social but they've actually made themselves less truly social less humanly gently social less ultimately list actually available right? They treat they've done tech to themselves rather than using tech to connect connect or to express themselves. That's a misapplication of technology and IT. It exposes this fundamental reversal. That I'm looking at and it's what McLuhan your McLuhan was talking about the whole time with media is this reversal the figure and ground of subject and landscape. Now we are doing tech to ourselves. You know the easy reversal of figuring ground like another example would be education so education is we all know. Public Education occasion was originally a way to give the coal miner away to be able to read a book and appreciate it when he got home from work. Or to be able to read the newspaper paper and participate meaningfully in democracy. It was it was a testament to the dignity of the worker and now what is education. Education is an extension of work. Now we think of education as a way to train kids for the workplace. We have the principals of schools and the presidents of colleges. Meet with CEOS to find out. What do you want from the worker of tomorrow? What should we train our students? Should they learn. Xl should they learn blockchain blockchain. What do you want do they python or javascript? What do you want from them so edge? Public Education becomes away for corporations to externalize. It's the cost of worker. Training onto the public sector rather than was originally intended was was the opposite of work. Compensation listen for work. Not an extension of work that's the reversal of figure and ground. School becomes education becomes the opposite of what it was supposed to now with technology. I've been looking hard for. What are the real reasons why social media and digital media digital media as it's a whole why have they come to reverse like this? Why are they working against what seemed to be their original purpose their original ethos ethos? I mean if you're like me you knew the kids who went out to to go to Silicon Valley in the late eighties early nineties on these crazy kids. These were not pocket. Protector Geek. Computer people. These were grateful dead heads. These were acid taking weird fantasy role playing rave dancing facto stole worshiping magicians. Why were they going out there? It's because they understood stood that we were creating a new reality. We were going to build something together. And in some cases people who took psychedelics and kids were the only people capable capable of thinking this way without going crazy. The only people who were capable of hallucinating a reality into existence. That's how wild it was I used to when I wrote my first book. I went out to San Francisco. Spent got a couple of years there and I go see people work at Intel during the day and come home to Oakland at night scratching. The peyote off a cactus and tripping on I mean these were the same people so they really saw it as a an extension of human evolution. Shen as the next stage of whatever humanity is going to be at because it was network it seemed like it was going to be some kind of a new super organism. The people that people were going to somehow network together into this new conscious practical like thing and we were all waiting to see. What is this going to be like? What is this new this new collective being going to be like but the reason why? I think that didn't happen and the reason why that's not happening not did everyone. I would want it to happen. Maybe not everybody would but it sounds fun to me but I think there's two fundamental traditions that we've got to interrogate interrogate in order to move past them one of them. Is You know what we now call. The engineering mindset knowing the engineering mindset. Is it's really just a nice one when it's phrased this way is just. Let's just solve problems. That's what engineers want to do. They see something. It's a problem Tom. I'm going to solve it but the the problem solving ethos of the modern engineer comes from some really old ideas about out science and control that we're born really in the early renaissance. There was a guy named Francis Bacon. WHO's really the father of empirical thought the father of causing effect science that we that we understand today really kind of materialist? Science and when Francis Bacon talked talked about science what science would do he said. Science will allow us to take nature by the hair hold her down down and subdue her to our will to interesting image nature to take her. It's not just subdue nature uh-huh control nature. It's taken by the lock by the hair and hold her down and subdue or two are so he's got a rape fantasy as the potential future of science. That's that's his model of it. That's a scary to me that that's what they're looking right. It was a bunch of males early scientists in the renaissance. They look at nature and women and darkness in the woods and magic. And all that stuff. And we're GONNA use science. Descend how cast a light on that and control it and make it all really predictable predictable the same way. My billionaires want the stock market to be predictable the same way they want to know what's is going to happen blockchain bitcoin. This just let me know what to bet. On Digital Theorist Douglas roscoff author of twenty books including his latest pissed team human. You're listening to ideas on. CBC Radio One across Canada across North America on Sirius. Xm In Australia on an RN and around the world at CBC DOT CA slash ideas you can also find ideas on the CBC listen APP and wherever you get your podcasts. I'm signal I-I-IT In his latest book team. I'm Human Douglas. Rush cough argues that as human beings. We're now at odds with the innovations that we originally thought would benefit us. Were now how struggling to cope with autonomous technologies financial markets with a mind of their own and weaponized media team. Human is also also the name of Douglas's podcast an ongoing effort to recognize as he says that being human is a team sport. The podcasts strives to highlight highlight. Those things that bring us together and identify what drives US apart. It aims to redefine and cultivate what it means to stay human in digital relate. We return now to Douglas Rush Cough speaking to the Fourth Waterloo Symposium on society and technology at the ball silly school of international affairs. There's then the science of Francis Bacon you quantify defy everything if you can't quantify it it doesn't exist and this is a works in certain neighborhoods of Science Ryan works in certain neighborhoods of engineering but it's a vast and and and comforting over simplification of Reality Right. Not Everything can be quantified. Their stuff are maybe it can be. But there's stuff that we haven't quantified no matter how much you quantify there's always factors you're leaving behind and and then you look at digital digital as sort of as the next great leap of this of this scientific thought and in digital you have to quote ties everything or it's gone. It's like quantifying things quantifying though means it's either here or here you have have to pick exactly which quantum state it's at you know so it's like a dvd or a CD music compared to analog music analog on a record is a continuous Chris Sound in digital. It's discreet right you. Have you have many many many samples but there's this sample and that sample this sample and that sample. It's like the snap to grid and a design program. You put something it's here or it's there it's here or there you can add resolution so then it's here here here here but it's never never in that weird middle place that Weird Limo Inbetween Place. It's like the ticks of a clock. Everything's on one of the ticks. But what about the space between clean those texts where I would argue real life. Those limited places where real life happens so we end up living in a world with these in quantum systems basically a symbol system and a symbol system slowly replaced as what we thought of as reality when a kid is listening listening to an MP threes song on this ear buds not listening to music. That's listening to an algorithm. Make approximation of the song designed to fool the ears into thinking. They're listening to the song but they're not hearing. They're not hearing the music. They're hearing a representation of the music. Music Imitation of the music. So digital has a very particular quality to it that that requires us to quantify everything to figure out not just a quantity of the thing but exactly what what what category it's going to fit in whether it's a a human being or a way of life and the second main thread the second main tradition that I think has hurt. Our ability to use digital appropriately is the market system. We can't go into a full history of capitalism but for for our purposes here we had in the in the late Middle Ages which is a really interesting time. I keep looking right back to right before the renaissance right before the renaissance assange. Was this interesting moment in history right before. The Renaissance was before Francis Bacon when we had all sorts of alternative understandings and and scientific methodologies lots of folk sciences that. We're real lots of folk navigational systems. That's of other ways of looking at things in and we had the Commons in the in the late Middle Ages. A lot of interesting things but late Middle Ages it was really when we made the shift from a local market base system that was just beginning in Europe after feudalism after the Crusades when all the men had gone on out to war and they'd come back and opened up these trade routes we had the beginnings of a peer to peer economy. Something that looked a bit like burning man in every European city at our town even they would gather and they were traded their goods back and forth and they had local currencies that they would use. That weren't interest-based currencies. They were like grain based currencies conceive or poker chips basically they would be issued in the morning and they might expire by the end of the day or they were issued in January and they would slowly lose value over the course of the a year and these were monies that were made for trading. It was it were optimized for the velocity of money if if your money loses value over time what are you going to do with it. You're going to spend it as much as possible. So the whole economy and those late Middle Ages and I really a couple of hundred years after the crusade led to a huge rise reason wealth among the peasants the peasants became the bourgeois. They became the middle class and they were really happy about it. But who wasn't the aristocracy. When the peasants got wealthy when the peasants became a middle class the aristocracy got relatively poorer so they invented two things to prevent to stem this rise of the middle class? One of them was the corporation at the time they called the chartered monopoly. The charter monopoly said that mark if you were in the shoe business you can't in the shoe business anymore. Unless you're my friend unless I give you the charter I'm the king. I'll give you so I'll give I'm gonNA give him the charter. I forgot your name already Marcel Marcel. I'M GONNA give them ourselves a charter on shoes so now you as a shoemaker. If you WANNA work in the shoe industry you've got to work for him. An employee this is went employment was born. There were no oh employees before they were slaves and their workers they were people that are crafts people. Now you're not allowed to be in the shoe business unless you have the charter. He's cut the charter. So you've got to work for him the second I mean that was great for me. 'cause now I'm going to get a kickback from Marcel. And it's great for Marcel. Because you've competition right. That's what led to British east India Company Company and all of these great companies that went around the world extracting things the second thing they came up with was central currency they made all those local currencies. All those poker chip Kersey Orissa legal. And now if you want to transact you've gotTA borrow currency from Central Treasury at interest. What does that mean? It means you have to pay it back at interest. Yes you have to pay back more than you borrowed so if everybody needs to borrow money in order to transact but they have to pay back more than they borrowed great for whoever has money because I can make money simply by lending out my money but what does it mean for all those people borrowing. It means they've got to find additional money somewhere. So thanks to this new kind of currency that was invented vented for me the aristocracy to maintain my stranglehold over the economy. The economy now has to grow in order to be okay. The economy cannot stay. Stay still because you've got to pay back the bank so what I've really done is i. Financial is the economy now. The economy is no longer about serving the people people in the economy or at least it's no longer only about that now. It's also at least about paying back the person who's given the a mechanism for the economy to work. You've got to pay back the banks so the bank exists to pay back the economy and in order to do that I mean the economy you had to grow and expand. This is what fueled colonialism this is why we had to go to all those other countries and enslave their people and take their stuff by we just sort of white western European culture not to understand sort of in game theory. It's like the economy moved from an Ebay economy to a pay pal economy. Right where instead of the main money being made by the people trading the stuff on Ebay. Now it's being made by the company that's allowing for the transactions that's that's fostering the transactions between the people and. That's come right through to this day. It's it's a form of abstraction really mean today in finance the more abstract you become the more money you make you can have a company you make a certain amount of money but you can have stock. You can make more money than the person who's actually doing the work. How do you make make more money than the person with the stock? By derivative. How do you make more money than that person? By derivative of that derivative each derivative compresses. Time right the stock you. You don't have to do the work you can just by the profit if you don't want the stock today but you want the stock thirty days from now by a derivative of the stock thirty days in the future and compress that thirty days into the now and the way we know that this abstraction that this `financialisation works is the New York Stock Exchange. This is what we were just talking about before. The New York Stock Exchange in two thousand thirteen was purchased by its derivatives exchange. Do you understand what that means. The New York Stock Exchange it was. I don't think it was it was it was it was it was purchased by its derivatives. Exchange The New York Stock Exchange which wasn't abstraction of the market which was already an abstraction human needs was purchased by it's own abstraction and. That's what happens when you take a piece of a Uh an essentially abstract marketplace and put it on a digital infrastructure right the digital is what's allowing it to sort of just spin out of control and combined right so when you take these these two understandings of the world this Francis Bacon dominator mentality along with this particular brand of of of colonial capitalism. And you get what. The native Americans indigenous people called Wacko. It's interesting that the native Americans when Europe came over and just started decimating things things and carrying down forest and killing things on necessarily the native Americans actually didn't blame the humans who had come at first. They assumed homed that white people had a disease a spiritual disease that they called Waco that made them destroy stuff a kind of a cannibalism that just that made them do that and they thought maybe we could be healed of this now and wet. Echoes spread and colonialism worked right colonialism. Don't work right up until about the end of World War Two when all the countries that we have been colonized India and Rhodesia and all these places where now wait a minute minute right. They finally were pushing back and when they pushed back and the war was over a really interesting essay was written by a guy named Vancouver Bush and nets of kind of we tech people like van every Bush. She wrote an essay called as we may think where he theorized about the first computer and it was a great idea. This idea for a me-mexican how how it would work and it would store our memory and all that but then Bush was a guy who was in charge of computers during the war and he wrote this essay for the Atlantic as a way of arguing. Eisenhower power that you've got to keep developing computer technology because even though we don't need it for the war we need it for the economy we can't common is is other places anymore. They're pushing back. We can't take more stuff from them. We can't pull out more minerals from then. We need a new terrain a new environment. A new landscape deep to colonize and computers would give that but the thing that we decided to colonize with them is our own minds. We're colonizing human men attention. The ATTENTION ECONOMY IS IS CYBER MEDICO. If you will we are colonizing ourselves at this point this is why you finally see you know rich white guys talking about. Oh No. Something's wrong here. Whenever you see rich white guys talking about social justice justice? It's because they've realized oh no now. It's coming for me right. I came to the cab drivers when I said nothing because I'm not a cabdriver right but now everybody sees it oh I get it I get it humans to become the medium and the reason why it's so hard to do anything about this the reason why it's so hard to to really talk about this intelligently because the developers who are doing it essentially children they are college dropouts they come up with a good idea ear and they leave school they leave the place where they could learn the economics history sociology social justice the ethics and instead of transferring parental authority onto a professor who may at least have their their best interests at heart they transfer parental authority onto a venture capitalist some some Silicon Valley Guy in a sweater and how ever great their idea. This idea might be as soon as you take the money. What will the venture capitalists have you you? You've got a pivot away from that. Great Idea and towards whatever's going to give him one hundred extra turns. I was friends with with Evan Williams one of the founders of twitter way back when and I saw his face on the cover of the Wall Street Journal the morning that twitter went public with the number four point three billion under under his face and on the one hand I thought wow I know a billionaire this is cool. He's rich and the other hand. I thought this poor guy is right. He took four point six billion dollars. How was he possibly going to pay that back with twitter? Twitter quarter after quarter. We find a look. Twitter only made a billion in dollars this quarter and it's considered an abject failure by Wall Street because it's peaked at around a billion dollars a quarter. Imagine calling grandma and saying Oh. I made one hundred forty character messaging urging happen. I make a billion dollars a quarter on it. She should be happy right. Anyone should but he can't be because he's gotTa pay one hundred X. So what are these companies have to do. Do they have to pivot away from their social function. I used to and I still do. Love twitter in many respects it was it was less total ising than many the other social media platforms. But what do they do. Then what does it mean to pivot. Well there's some some ways in which then they're they're forced to or they decide to use the technology again against the human beings who are using it entire division at Stanford called Capitao Elegy and it's run by a nice enough guy J fogg who means well but what kept policy is is exactly what it sounds like. It's division that teaches developers how to capture capture human beings in a piece of technology. How do I make a piece of technology more addictive? And how do I use technology to alter people's behavior the kept college would you department is where they learn to take the algorithms from Las Vegas slot machines and put them into our news feeds. or It's where they came up with the streak feature. You're on snapchat that gets twelve year old girls addicted to make sure the chat every single day so they don't break that these are the folks that know how to go down into your brain stem and trigger. You're you're a big delay by any means necessary really appealing to that reptile brain. Because that's the one that will do the automatic stuff but do you really want your reptile brain tweeting for you know. We've got a reptile brain tweeting now in America this is ideas on. CBC Radio One and online at CBC DOT CA slash ideas and on the CBC less map. I'm Nola and you're listening to Douglas. Rush Cough author of team human speaking at the ball silly school of international affairs. Your smartphone gets smarter smarter about you every time you swipe it and you get dumber about it and if you want to get smarter about it and open it up and find out what it's learning about you what's algorithms are doing. You're not allowed to because it's algorithms are protected in black boxes proprietary black boxes. It's against the law. These are trade secrets just like the way that voting machines chains in America work. Those are proprietor. We're not allowed to know proprietary. Isn't that a great way to do public public elections right or look at the experience of social media nothing against against facebook in particular. But what do you think what they're sitting talking about in the in the boardroom is how are we going to help. People will make and maintain better friendships. I rest my case they take data from your past best. What you've done in order to put you into a statistical bucket and then do whatever they can to get you to behave consistently with that statistical bucket so if they know say eighty percent accuracy that I'm going to go on a diet in the next few months what will happen my news fetal start to get magically? It will start to things like hey doug you're looking pretty fat or what happens if you eat too much cholesterol or what happens that now are they trying to get me to buy a particular. It product know what they're trying to do is to make sure that at least eighty and ideally more than eighty percent of people conform to their statistical profile. The object of the game is to get that eighty percent to ninety percent up to ninety five percent. It's that one percent of people who aren't going to do the thing that they're statistically supposed to do. They're the Pesky ones there the problem. They're going to do some weird new strange novel human thing. We got to get them to fall in line right but that twenty percent. Those are the interesting ones to me. But we're living in a digital media environment that's trying to shave off that twenty percent that anomalous list unpredictable behavior. That doesn't work with the numbers. We are auto tuning human beings and we have an aesthetic of auto to music music. That really is quite constant with that. Isn't it I mean. What would James Brown do? An Auto Tuned World James Brown reaching for the note or coming down and in over the note. That's his soul that's literally soul. I don't talk about Saul because it sounds to religious although I believe in the soil but we won't talk about that Eberstadt of leaving the salt but we won't go there but there's just call it not the sole but sole I. What happens if you if you auto tuned James Brown? We're D- soling soling our music. We're D- soling our culture. We create technologies that are designed really to isolate and alienate. Each one of of us. Each of us seeing a different news feed a different set of youtube videos. A different a different set of Google search I results each of us is seeing a different world through digital media. It used to be the problem was we have two who different perspectives on the same thing right now. We have different perspectives on different things. So how can we ever forge consensus when the targets targets themselves are moving. We're all getting different stories. It's impossible to share perspectives. And maybe worst of all the problem with using digital media as promised with trying to engage with other people as you don't have the resolution really to forge genuine human connection. You can have a skype conversation with somebody and I do them all the time for business stuff and you talk to my editor. And they're nodding in the I agree that's great good piece. That was good and I'll get off and I'll say he said it was a good piece but why didn't I feel that back to the buttocks. It's because I can't see if this pupils are getting larger or smaller as he's taking me in I I can't think my breathing rate to his. I don't see whether it's skin is flushing. I can't I can't use the five hundred thousand years of painstakingly Bob mechanisms uh-huh for social rapport. They're all they're all muted or or they don't work in a digital media space so I get off the phone. You get off the phone with somebody you get off digital media with somebody and they say the agreed with you but your heart didn't feel at the oxytocin didn't go through your blood the mirror. Neurons didn't fire and do you say to yourself. That's because the technology didn't allow me to establish rapport. No because you're in reptile brain. All you know is that person didn't agree three with me that person. I don't trust them. They said they agreed with me. But I don't really feel it so now you're not going to distrust the tech. You tend to distrust the other person and this feeds back into the development of new stuff. Right we're living in an environment that does not engender trust between people that alienates and isolates us. That shows US each a different picture of the world and then we continue to develop it using that as the basis of you as the starting place the here all these people. That don't agree with me that I don't trust so we end up with an ethos in Silicon Valley that human I'm in beings are the problem and technology is the solution that somehow we can fix people with this stuff and even the most well meaning of them so they'll develop but wellness APP wellness APP. I mean that's nice right so now you have an APP to help me feel better from all the other apps I'm using right. It's like I come the side effects of my of my antidepressant. Now I gotta take this one to go to sleep and then that other one to go to sleep the next morning to get up. The next morning I love those guys. And they're very well meaning. They started something called the Center for humane technology which is all designed to mitigate these effects facts but even think about the construction the center for humane technology. When I hear it I think about like what it says? On those on eggs made from cage free chickens gins like these are humane. These chickens are treated humanely from birth till when we cut off their heads and feed them to you. You know so it says if humane technology is somehow somehow we're GONNA treat human beings as humanely as possible while we extract their data and manipulate their behavior with with financial techniques. And I would think you know. That's not that's not the answer. The answer is not to be humane. The answer is to be human being human. What what we're learning at this end stage of digitally accelerated? Capitalism is that nothing in nature actually grows exponentially nothing in nature grows exponentially cancer and cancer. Kills a tokes yet. We have digital technology that every business plan is supposed supposed to grow exponentially and marketplace where things are supposed to grow exponentially and it just doesn't work so you end up with these kind of crazy singularity people in Silicon valley the go no it does work it does work digital technology and the market can grow exponentially as long as we evolve beyond on the human form into the machine. I got an a debate. With one of the famous transhumance types and he was arguing that human beings are about to to to move to migrate into the digital realm that we're going to be uploading consciousness and go there and and if we don't at at least the machines will develop enough intelligence that they will surpass us right. It's a very very kind of an atheist. View of consciousness where consciousness is the result of an emergent phenomenon of complexity so just as matter got so complex that we got conscious digital. Don't matter we'll get so complex. Machines will get conscious only since the machines are smarter than us. They'll evolve beyond us and our only real job at that. Point is to Pashto Hashed past the Evolutionary Torch to our digital successors fade into the background with humility and accept are inevitable extinction and I was on that panel and I said no human beings shouldn't have to accept our extinction. Human beings are special different. Human beings are quirky and strange. We live in the limited place between different things where we we can contend with ambiguity. We can sustain paradox over time. We don't have to resolve everything to a one or a zero like a computer. We can stay in that weird middle place and enjoy it. We can watch a David Lynch movie not understand what it means and still experienced. -perience pleasure what is that and I dare a computer to do it. Human beings deserve a place in the digital future and he said Oh aw rush KOPF. You're just saying that because you're human hubris and that's when I said fine okay guilty as charged. I'm on not human and I meant to sort of joke at the time team human as opposed to team machine but the more I thought about it the more I realized being human is a team sport so anything that brings us together as pro human anything that's trying to isolate and alienate us from one. Another is working against us. That there's there's a collective elective thing going on here and then I reread my Darwin and it seems like Darwin is not arguing that evolution is a battle of survival between individuals. You read your origin of species. He's marveling chapter after chapter. He's amazed at the way. Species communicate and cooperate and collaborate with one another to ensure mutual survival. That evolution is the story of how things collaborate with each other. I was taught taught in middle school. That trees compete for sunlight and the big tree shades out the little tree. And then the little tree withers and dies turns out. That's not true at all. I mean. Read the secret life of trees as it turns out the big tree. Well it's getting sunlight passing nutrients through the soil which is alive. It turns out Francis Bacon. It's living matrix which is alive and nutrients cancer passing from the big tree to the little tree through a network of mushrooms that are taking a service fee for the transaction. They give it to and then when the big tree loses its leaves in the winter the little tray which is usually an evergreen passes nutrients back to the big one right. That's not that's not competition for survival. That's a different evolutionary story than the one we end the right wing. Libertarians are trying to justify to us the digital the digital age. I think I believe I believe can retrieve the medieval sensibilities that we left behind in the last renaissance. I mean it's a whole other book but I do believe we are in the midst of a renaissance a leap in our ability to contend with dimension. Rebirth of old ideas in a new form and what we retrieve in digital renaissance is the digits gets. That's what it means. That means. We're getting our hands back into things it means we're not just consumers where producers it means we're makers that means we're actually participating mattress actress spectating. That's the digital difference now. So instead of using technology to optimize human beings for the market. Ed which is really what we're doing with digital tech. Today we can optimize technology instead for the collective human flourishing. Okay thanks a lot what you've been listening to. Douglas Roscoff author of team human giving the keynote address at the Fourth Waterloo Symposium on Technology and society the symposium is convened by the Center for Security Governance and takes place at the ball silly school of international affairs special thanks to mark Cetera and the Center for Security Governance for making this recording possible technical production by Danielle deval. Our web producer is Lisa you so senior producer Nikola the executive producer of ideas. Kelly and I'm Nulla I-IT For More C._B._C.. PODCASTS GO TO C._B._C.. Dot C._A. Slash podcasts.

Francis Bacon Digital Technology Silicon Valley Human Douglas US CBC cough Douglas Rush twitter Center for Security Governance facebook Fourth Waterloo Symposium Europe Douglas roscoff MIT Ed professor
Global China's advanced technology ambitions

The Brookings Cafeteria

28:42 min | 7 months ago

Global China's advanced technology ambitions

"Hi this is worse before it. And you're listening to the Brookings Cafeteria podcast about ideas and the experts who have them. I'm back today for another special episode focused on Brookings Global China's series Global China project will be launching a new series of papers in the next couple of weeks flooring China's technology policies and the influence of its innovation drive on the United States. And the rest of the World Brookings partnered with Georgetown Center for Security and emerging technology and several of the papers in this series and. I'm really thrilled to have to cease at research fellows and authors of new papers here with me today stay come on and REMCO sweat food guys. Thank you so much for joining me. This is my first remote episode for the cafeteria. So you guys are guinea pigs as we go into the rave new world so we're all engaging in a little bit of innovation today. We're going to be talking today about two issues that have been important topics in the bigger conversation about. Us Chinatown Competition. This really heated up in the last couple of years and bringing my talk about semi conductor technology and detect talent competition. I thought it'd be interesting to talk to the two of you together because while the issues are really different. They are both areas where the. Us has really enjoyed advantages traditionally but we're China's working really hard to catch up so safe. I wanted to come to you first. Your paper looks at semiconductor manufacturing equipment. And you talk about how China is working to catch up to the US in this area. Can you walk us through? What advantages the? Us has how much progress China's made and why this matters and why it's such a big conversation right now. That's lutely. Yeah so there's a number of that's involved in making a computer chip so here I'm really just going to focus on manufacturing stack which happens at chip factories also called a chip FAB. It's the most important for our purposes so China's global share and chip FAB capacity worldwide. Is now in the range of about fifteen percents not a huge number necessarily but this is doubled in just over a decade so they're rising fast capacities almost entirely though at an older technology levels and they can just make out of the chest that are less powerful but some of that capacity is getting more advanced if China can achieve the ability to make fairly advanced tips on its own say huge concern for the United States in the south is because China continue says just developed military. Ai Systems supported surveillance activities or to design hypersonic or nuclear weapons. Really any current or future military technology will in one way or the other depend on ships. Which I'm here in virtually all technology. But here's the key points to operate a chip FAB. You need dozens of pieces of complex. Expensive equipment was called. Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Industry China's entirely reliant on imports from three countries for the most advanced types of equipment that the United States Japan and not just as one example of school calls odorless Agassi tool costs about one hundred twenty million dollars for one unit. This is the tool. That's used to draw a tiny circuits on the computer chip to run a single advanced chip factory. You need multiple. Photolithography tools on top of many other schools is trying to have the US domestically produced schools. They probably can't do any mass production of computer chips at all. Even if they manage is within the next five years will probably be extremely OL- technological capabilities. Maybe even multiple decades old so the bottom line. Here's China can relatively advanced shifts locally but needs four inputs to do so great. Thanks Graeme Communist. Turn to you for a second. You talk in your paper about high-tech talent and China's strategy to cultivate more talent. And you talk about three priorities. The Chinese government has identified domestic education. How attract oversight sees Chinese talent and then how to attract foreign talent? Can you talk about some of the steps? That China has taken in each of these three areas. Yeah so trying to started reforms in all of these areas at about the same time that it was opening up its economy really entering good development trajectory that is still on on the domestic education front. A lot of the reforms that research seeing the fruits of today started in the nineteen nineties and the most recent plan the medium and Long-term Education Plan for twenty ten to twenty twenty really spelled out in detail some of the targets but they were hoping to achieve in the last decade and this year we should be seeing more targets coming out for the next decade. The University and Higher Education Plan are what we looked at most since that required domestic capacity at the university level is really required for high-tech talent competition. The most recent plan is double World Class University project. That's really aimed at some of the most elite universities in the education sector. We're seeing a lot of reforms at the university level but it's also really comprehensive for overseas talent. There was opening up in nineteen seventy eight in the nineteen seventies. We saw the first wave of Chinese. Researchers students going abroad and the hope in the beginning was that a lot of Chinese researchers would determine the broad and then come home. That didn't turn out to be the case. And so since the nineteen nineties or so we seeing an expansion of policy from only focusing on having talent go abroad getting training and coming back to also having talent go abroad and what they call serving the country by multiple means there's also strategy the bases strategy where basically people status abroad but they also help the domestic science and technology ecosystem by doing short term visits and things like that then on the attracting international talent so non-chinese talent. There is a lot of more recent efforts since two thousand seventeen. We've seen several immigration reforms trying to make the sort of Chinese employment system a little more acceptable to foreigners. There's a lot of issues there still but we're seeing a lot of attempts there and then just like with overseas Chinese talent. We're seeing a lot of incentive packages being introduced to try to bring people in so things like start up money for a lab helped with getting your kids to good schools and things like that so across the education and concerted international towns like they're receiving a lot of effort there. I think it's important to distinguish between plans and so across all of these areas. We've seen a lot of plans and things that look impressive on paper. The results in all of these areas have been mixed especially in terms of attracting international talent. So some of what looks impressive on paper might not impractical amount to a great success. That's an interesting point this issue of international talent. This has been a big issue for the US government for US Tech Company's two. And you talk about it in your paper and you sort of hope that there's a real inherent tension here for the US in thinking about how to protect the domestic technology base but also how to attract top international talent and it's been an issue in particular in the U. S. China relationship lately. Because I've been a lot of concerns from the government about potential espionage and implications sending technology know-how back to trying to that might have knows hurry applications but then on the other side tech companies really needing a lot of that talent so you talked a bit about what China's trying to attract talent. How is the US been dealing with this sort of tension? Yeah I think the government is really still trying to find a way to balance these concerns. I don't think there's a clear answer yet. The three areas where we seeing most discussions so far are one on the visa side. How do we do screening to try to minimize risk? The second area. Where there's been discussion is expert controls and trying to maybe manage where you maybe don't WanNa give access to Chinese talent. There's this category expert controls called deemed experts. Which is basically about transferring information that is potentially export controlled into the head of someone who is not a US citizen even if it happens. Us soil is still considered an expert. So that's one of the tools where people have been saying. Well maybe we should use this a little more to try to control what Chinese talent even Chinese talent based in the US can get access to and then the third area we've seen a lot of action from science agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Where it's really at more of an emphasis on transparency. So if you're a US scientist or applying for these grant you have to fill information about your affiliations. And who else is sending you and there? We seen a lot of cases of people hiding for example affiliation with tiny town programs and those people now being prosecuted more than they used to be. Charlie probably the most famous case there. So that's really the three areas where we've seen a lot of action but it doesn't really amount to a comprehensive strategy yet and I think other countries have they seen the US to Australia's been an early leader in this as well but other countries are looking to the US. And I'm thinking. What are the policy tools? I could be working there. And are starting their internal debates now but both in the US and abroad. It's still pretty early days. It's been fascinating in this space in tech talent more. Broadly in the whole competition. Is that policymakers are really trying to wrestle. With this idea of how much do the advantages the? Us attack in the tax base. Come from the fact that we've had a very open transparent kind of tech ecosystem. How is trying to maybe taking advantage of that? And so what does that mean? How much do you actually need to poke controls and protecting advantages versus maintaining openness and innovation that you think helps the United States in the long run? I WANNA come back to you for a second on this. One of the arguments you make in your paper is that you say that. Basically only a handful of these shifts provocation factories can actually profitably operate at the state of our level. And so what you have. Policymakers are wrestling with is how to protect the fact that they have advantages in this sort of state of the art fabrication right now and they're basically need to decide are these fabrications factor is going to be in the US partner democracies or they're going to be in China so what kind of policy solutions do you think the US and other allied countries need to be looking at to retain the advantages. They have in this space right now. Who are headline proposals? Here is who apply. Strict controls on the advanced equipment used to operate shit fats. Which as I mentioned earlier as a major bottleneck China this way Chinese chipmakers wouldn't be able to build the dance troupe. Fast make their own checks and because of this China would remain reliant on imports so a little bit of background in the industry. Explain why this would work to actually. We've seen massive consolidation in the chip industry in recent years. Not Long Ago. There were dozens of chipmakers operating chip. That's the state of the art. Now there's just three if the American company Intel the South Korean Companies Samsung Taiwanese company. Emc A number of reasons for this chief among them is the rising costs of construction of these factories as well as the expense of the purchase of the equipment that goes into the secretaries because of these expenses and most advanced chip fabs are now in the range of twenty billion dollars to build. This makes them. The most expensive factories ever built another piece of it is the economies of scale. Basically these factors become much more efficiencies if they're very large and then a final factor is just a central importance of talent industry. The implicit know how that comes along with decades of experience and you know actual property that goes with that so these factors have forced companies to drop out. And now you have these companies that remain at the state of the art so to get around this China's heavily subsidized as much as forty percents of their fabric news. Also approach thousands of engineers from engaging massive IP theft from Taiwan's leading chip industry so against market forces. They've been able to reach the technology great. That's about five years behind the state of the art with some limited capacity at that level still China's pretty far from painting enough chips out capacity to serve even domestic market. Currently these still import over three hundred billion dollars just for your largest import even more than oil China. Continue THEIR EFFORTS. China's top chipmaker SMS E. Nay Succeed in reaching the state of the art may even begins to start displacing top chip makers and themselves union come to see which that's currently held by companies like Intel Sam GMC. That's China's chips are heavily relies on imported equipment from the US Japan and then other ones export controls. I'm this equipment can prevent China from building any more advanced ship that capacity surf global chip demand. You chip probes will still be built. We'll just be built elsewhere in democracies at the state of the art rather than in China you put the companies but just get replacement business from these inaccuracies and then as well. China would remain reliance on imports of computer. Fix An obvious question that comes up is will China be spurred to develop its own equipment industry? Maybe it would be quite a formidable test. You think extremely challenging for them to localize their equipment industry in the foreseeable future. They'd have to retrace the work of firms and survive in ultracompetitive industry for decades literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of effort and expertise. So one of the things that you saying here in acknowledging that China is still behind the US in this area right now is that actually the US should want China to stay in that place and have to be dependent upon US allies for chip import. Why what kind of leverage does that actually create advanced computer chips basically underpinned all advanced technology any type of advanced military technology benefits from state of the art chips. This includes military air. I systems hyper sonics. If their weapons if China remains relying on imports spend United States and it's allies can venues and use an end user export controls to manage the terms under which accesses these chips. So there's a few ways you could do this. One proposal would be the United States in allies to be presumptively vigilance about Chinese state actors actors with close ties to the Chinese government. Companies that are trying to set up supercomputers or large events computing facilities data centers. They're likely to be used for military. Applications or actors involved in human rights. Violations bottom line is China's reliance on democracies. These chips could preempt the development proliferation of many dangerous technologies also preempt armed services and finally global stability democratic values. And like now one of the things that you say is that in. Exporting chips to China democracies should only be doing it for people commercial purposes but one of the challenges. Here is a lot of time. I hard to tell in China what the actual end use will be because a lot of time. There are dual use technologies. They have offensively civilian purposes but could also be used to abuse human rights or for military purposes. As well I mean this is sort of a classic problem of what China does with a lot of its surveillance technology. So given that challenge. How policy makers actually make sure that if they are still exporting chips to China there is some ability to understand whether the end user minds with our values. You're absolutely right that the right balance. Here's challenging you obvious upside surprise export controls on computer churches or reduce chance. These chips can be later. Used military systems in ways that conflict with democratic values. That sad their major downsides to overbroad controls for one computer just broadly necessary for so much technology that has contributed to games in the standard of living and welfare and Chinese citizens in recent decades goals. Here is not to put a dent in that progress. Quite the opposite. The goal here is to promote democratic values and even writes things that Chinese citizens could stand some benefit from if the Chinese government is not able to employ technologies ailing. They're hearing apparatus like advanced enabled surveillance systems another downside means US chipmakers like Intel amd the invidia in Holcombe get about one quarter of the revenue even as much as two thirds of their revenue from the Chinese market access to large parts of the Chinese market there are investments and International. Competitiveness will be significantly impacted if we continue expert ships for civilian uses. It means that the Chinese commercial sectors technically subsidizing. The chip industry democracies even if the Chinese government is trying to subsidized authoritarian counterpart as far more money in the commercial sector for chest and there isn't government spended right downstairs and there's no precise solution. The principles laid out earlier. Hopi vigilant about obvious state military and uses and users talking about the United States in satellites should keep close watch on private companies in China. For example export controls can be vigorously enforced if private companies are found to be collaborating with the Chinese military. They should be entity lists and deprived of any experts at all from democracies even the risk of being discovered itself the strong incentive for Chinese companies to avoid collaborating with the military and to engage in ethical uses of the advanced Technologies Inc. computer chips so Remco. I'M GONNA turn to you for a second because you talk some similar issues and your paper in terms of how the US needs to think about controls in less export controls more thinking about visa policies. And you really say that. America's ability to not just attract retain. Chinese talent is an advantage that the US has over Beijing and that the US needs to be careful about adopting really broad policies. Similar to what safe was just talking about. That could actually put that advantage at risk. That seems like a different argument to me than the one that the trump administration has been making perhaps a slightly different calibrated policies than what we're seeing right. Now what's your analysis of the current administration's approach on visas for Chinese talent and are there any specific policies of proposals? You think should be revisited. That are counterproductive. Yeah it's a great question and I agree that there's a lot of overlaps with some of the problem faces talking about and then in the town space. I think an expert controls. This is a longer debate and people have kind of seen both sides of this for Weiland. So that's a little bit more established and I think in the town. State people are still trying to navigate. This it's a little newer so the conversation is still a little bit more messy. I think this is really a tough issue. In the trump administration is perhaps the first one that has sort of tried to publicly grapple with it in a very big way. I think a lot of the people within government right now really have a good sense of these trade offs which is why I think there are not really clear. Sort of negative policies yet in two thousand eighteen. We saw perhaps the broadest proposal early in the year consideration and basically dining all Chinese students conversation in the Oval Office at the time and it was basically decided not to do that but that it was a serious conversation if significant I think since then there's both a recognition that under reaction is risky but also recognition. That overreaction is risky. The way in which overreacting could be risking I if you don't have enough talent at home with that usually does is force companies to set up facilities abroad including in China. I think when you look can be space which I know that. Facebook says things like we just basically go where the talent is where we are last because talent is so scarce so if you reduce the amount of Chinese talent in the United States and that might reduce the risk of technology transfer somewhat but at the same time that means companies are going abroad and that increases the risk of technology transfer. Someone is that a trade off you WANNA make. I think nobody really knows or has done analysis. Yeah second has the paper especially as we were just talking about. There's competition between different developed countries for Chinese talent as well so it might just be that move the problem elsewhere if the US acts unilaterally and the only way to avoid that is really to coordinate with allies and partners and US has taken some small steps in that direction. The State Department has over the past two years organized the multilateral action on sensitive technologies conference which is kind of exploring this with about a dozen allies and partners. But I think there's really a recognition. That overreaction is risky and there should be taken to try to avoid that at the same time. Underreaction Golfer risky. So we're still trying to figure out how to strike that balance you asked about specific policies. That would be counterproductive. I think one of the things that certain parts of the trump administration is considering is cancelling or otherwise that are restricting the optional practical training program. Which is a program that part of student visa that allows students who stay in the United States and work for one two three years after they graduate. This program is not as well known as for example H. One D. visas but there are now about two hundred fifty thousand students roughly each year. Who Use this program which is about two and a half times the size of the program and this is a program that was created through regulation not through Congress. So that's actually something administration could roll back if it wanted to. I think that would be a really big mistake. And we don't really know what the state of that conversation right now but that would be an example of I think incredibly broad measure similar to sort of banning Chinese students. I think talking about balance really requires a more targeted approach. Remco what strikes me about. The talent competition in particular is a lot of the conversation right now is about how to handle Chinese students and Chinese and that makes sense and there are important policy issues to be considered here but part of the reason that the US needs talent from abroad is that in some cases. We don't have as much of the talent as we probably ought to at home. That's a bigger problem in a much more fundamental problem for. Us policymakers so China has made this enormous push on cultivating talent on promoting innovation from the top down as a national strategy. What would it actually pay for the US to do the same kind of thing? Yeah it's a great question. I think people in the town policy conversation and talk about it as we need to protect and promote I think. The conversation is really focused Protection question is how do we protect our technology but it hasn't focused as much on the question of how do we promote growth in the US ECOSYSTEM? You can slow down but at the same time the US slowed down. That's not giving you much of a competitive advantage. I think they promote strategy would have to overarching element one immigration reform. I think it's important to build out. The domestic talent pipeline but ultimately China is about cripple the size of the United States and continue to improve its domestic system you the. Us CAn't compete with American Thailand alone and immigration reform is really key I think to attracting and retaining national talent if accused of the US already so one of the things that you mentioned before but we have good statistics on how many international students stay in the United States Chinese PhD. Stay at a rate of about eighty five to ninety percent in most fields. That's immediately after grudge meeting and then five to ten years out. Eighty percents are still in the United States for Indian students which is the second largest country of origin. It's about the same but structural issues with the immigration system are making that a lot harder so right now if an Indian for example would apply for permanent residency. The protective wait. Time for them is about forty. Two Ninety depending on your assumptions about how the immigration system evolves that unless there are major changes that just becomes untenable the second piece if I'm immigration forums is a domestic peace so making sure that there are more Americans for example going to Graduate School. If you look at the semiconductor sector actually sample of this if you look at the American University's sort of graduate pipeline in related field. There hasn't been an increase in the number of American graduate students since Nineteen Ninety so the last twenty or thirty years all the growth that. Us universities in those fields have come from international students. I think that is something. That policymakers probably WANNA think about. How do we change that? I think how you do. That depends a little bit on the field because labor markets really vary a lot across different technical fields the life sciences for example look very different from semiconductors but broadly be speaking immigration and domestic policy are going to have to be the two pronged approach stuff. Us takes. I like that sort of ideas both protect and promote and it seems to me like that's actually a great frame overall for the kinds of debates and conversations that we're having around technology because he's trying to competition isn't going away and most certainly there is an aspect of this with the United States. Needs to think more about how it does protect its own advantages but it also has to be thinking not just about how you protect what you already have but how you grow the pot how you create and promote new advantages so I really appreciate that aspect of the conversation. We'll save Runco. This is fantastic conversation today. I hope that everyone will go. Read your papers and the rest of the papers in the new global China's cities that are coming out because they're fascinating and for someone like me who hasn't been a time in the tech based I learned so much from reading them and I'm sure other people will as well thank you guys again for joining the conversation muster having it from the podcast and with that we're going to wrap up on Lindsey Ford and this is another episode of Brookings Cafeteria the Brookings Cafeteria. Podcast is the product of an amazing team of colleagues starting audio engineer. Gaston Reverend and producer Chris McCarron Bill Fining Director of the Brookings Institution Press. Does the book interviews and those at Baylor Eric and provide design up support. Finally my thanks to Camilla Ramirez and Emily Horne for their guidance and support. The Brookings Cafeteria is brought to you by the Brookings podcast network which also produces dollar and since the current Antar events podcasts. Email your questions and comments to me at BC P at Brookings Dot Edu. If you have a question for a scholar include an audio file. I'll play it in the answer on the air. Follow us on twitter at policy podcasts. You can listen to the brookings cafeteria in all the usual places visit US online at Brookings Dot. Edu until next time. I'm Fred Dude.

United States China China Chinese government Brookings Global China Brookings Cafeteria Intel Semiconductor Manufacturing Eq US Tech Company Global China Chinatown Competition Georgetown Center for Security Ai Systems Japan Graduate School American University Emc
Ep. 29: Government Whistleblower Gets Suicided?

The Michael Cheney Show

23:46 min | 10 months ago

Ep. 29: Government Whistleblower Gets Suicided?

"The Michael Chaney show pumping unlicensed liberty and financial freedom directly into your eardrums. Here's your host and Arco Capitalist Michael. Cheney Hello Michael Chaney here and welcome to this episode government whistle blower gets suicide. Yes In my senior news told me likely. You probably haven't seen the news because the story has been very deep deep deep down On very very few News channels. It's just not getting out there funny how that happens isn't it? We're going to talk about the apparent suicide of Philip. Haney today quite a serious topic. But will lighten the mood. Have one of these opinion grill. Go Okay okay. That's enough of that. And so yeah. We've got a light mood a little some of these topics a little bit heavy and this one is no different Philip Haney. If you don't know this guy. He was a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and in the early two thousands. He was basically sad with profiling. People finding terrorists finding links between various organizations and trying to stop terror attacks bicycling connecting the dots. If you like. And he's been referred by many as a whistle blower on the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama Administration as some people. Lauding him as kind of like this right wing hair on anti Muslim guy as with all these things. I'm not bothered about the harsh. I'm not bothered about the person. I'm not really focused on the person's belief so you know ethics or morals were looking here at government involvement in this case. Oh it's this is not a political thing always in the Obama Administration. Terrible well yes. It was every administration is terrible because it's government right so this is not a right-wing thing this is a government overreach government trying to cover up stuff saying okay now as you won't find this story really very many places at all. I had to do a lot of digging on this at two on earth and really to get to the bottom of it in fact you'll only find it pretty much on Fox News and some as ASEM right-wing meteorologist because they've kind of latched onto this guy Claiming that it was this you know anti Muslim guy and he was basically just trying to have a witch hunt against Muslims. Generally which from my research does not seem to be the case but anyway you know some of these organizations are likely to attach himself to things but anyway on Fox News it was. It was literally the bottom story on the entire Fox News site and it came after such groundbreaking stories as by twelve drops off. Pit Bull Puppy at shelter. Leaves heartbreaking note. Not Talking about a guy that used to work in Department of Homeland Security apparently committed suicide. He's blowing the whistle on numerous things that we'll get into the detail of he's been found dead on says on the suspicious circumstances at best was going to talk about that of some quote some information. I found from his family members about the case and yet even on Fox is is like is like right the bomb after story about a boy dropping off his dog after a story on the with the following headline police dog killed in line of duty to be honored with custom painted. Casket Guy Guy. Yeah they used to work for. The government is being killed in suspicious circumstances. He's a whistleblower bar it's more it's more newsworthy. Their police dogs being killed. And it's been given a painted casque common guy. Does that tells you as much as you need to know about the government as else doesn't it then even Ryan Newman Confirms Daytona? Five hundred crash gave him this injury. That news story WHO's given even higher prominence than This apparent suicide so anyway what was what did Filippini do. What was the whistleblowing? What did he discover? While his background? He studied Arabic culture and language. He used to work as a scientist over. The Middle East and say became a founding member of Department of Homeland Security in two thousand two initially worked as a CB peak customs and Border Protection Officer after that he was then promoted to its advanced targeting team waited always work on trying to find terrorists and find links stop tax specialized in Islamic theology tactics of global Islamic Movement. He he knew his start. Basically spend a lot time over in the Middle East read. The KARANI studied the language. You is soft so Six years into his job a department of Homeland Security so this is now in two thousand nine. The agency deleted a bunch of his files. They said well. We'll get with deleting a bunch of these files Yukon you know taking these people out with system taking the people out of the dice. And he was like Whoa. I mean these guys got terrorist links. We need this information to connect the dots and said no no would elites in it so in an article on the hill so this published in the hill may the fifth 2016. Haney said the Department of insecurity it ordered him and I quote to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database. The Treasury Enforcement Communication System Tax. Now this happened in it seems to waves. Two thousand nine was the first wave in what he calls. The first purge why delete more than eight hundred records and he believes that that could have stopped. Having those records still in place could have stopped the San Bernardino attacks that was on Seconds fifteen when fourteen people were killed. That was the married couple Assad Rizwan Farouk touchscreen me Who went and shot up an office workplace killed fourteen people and he also believes the information could have stopped the Orlando attack which killed fourteen people as the attempt by Omar Mateen now during an interview for the Center for Security Policy. This was on the thirty first of May Twenty Sixteen. Haney said and I quote the mosque that side for ruch was paw of the TUB Ligi Jemma Network. The administration deleted sixty seven records out of the system that I worked on as a component of the case and you went basically says these records weren't deleted. It was plausible. That ferrick would not have been able to travel and the Tashkin Malik would never have been given a visa and then we would have stopped the attack. He says so kind of crazy. The the the information that was deleted out of a system that would never any charges or anything against him. They were trying to at some point. They were trying to investigate him. So the the the department itself was trying to investigate him. Everything was dropped was never any charges made was retired. You know on honorably. There was no dishonorable discharge or anything like that. Those you know that going on and yet they deleted all this information which he was claiming could have helped prevent these attacks now on Christmas Day. Two thousand nine. I don't even remember. This is not a Nigerian. Tara applaud is Nigerian Muslim. Tried to blow a per jet plane passenger plane travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit or two hundred nine hundred people board and this Guy Omar Faruk Abdul Matala had explosives in his underwear which he tried to detonate if this one so ridiculous. Yeah it's just crazy. Tried to detonate explosives by caught. Fire filed a data file torture explode and he was tackled by passengers whose handcuffed and now he's serving four life sentences in eighty x. Florence known as the the Alcatraz of the rockies it's the supermax prison in Colorado but after that attack of see was fortunately it was foiled on because the exposure didn't work properly otherwise two hundred ninety people would have been killed in the air but after this attack President Obama basically kind of through the intelligence community under the boss for its failure to as he said connect the dots he said and I quote. This was not a failure to collect intelligence. It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had so Haney in response to this and again this is a piece published on the Hill said and I quote. Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security. Where I worked that. His condemnation cause of c talking about Obama's words is words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material. The actual intelligence we've collected for years and raise those dots. The DOTS constitute the intelligence needed to keep American. Siphon the Obama Administration was ordering they'd be wiped Hawaii. It's insane and this is an incredible it kind of story. It's an incredible thing that's happened as aces. It's easy to fall into the trap of blaming the Obama Administration is armor and say bombs will govern K. We need to focus on the government's doing this. All the time doesn't matter for left if they're in the left if they right Democrat Republican whatever this is how governments operate they manipulate the information they disseminate to the public. The also manipulate the information. There's only intelligence community gathers as in this case deleting records crazy. Haney went onto say after leaving my fifteen year career department finance security. I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America's counter-terror strategy our leaders willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness and consequently our vulnerability to devastating mass casualty attack. So that's what he said in two thousand sixteen also released a book in Two Thousand. Sixteen talking about this cold. See something say nothing. And the kind of things he was talking about was for example after the Omar at Martine Attack In Florida. The government decided to release the transcripts of the calls. He made calls to nine one one during the attack. Kind of you know. State his message and why he was doing. I'm doing this because I want you to stop bombing are trays and he pledged allegiance to Isis and they redacted they they basically censored in these released transcripts any reference to isis any reference to Islamic terrorist groups so the government was basically trying to wash their hands that this was any kind of terror group. They came out and said well. No there were. There was no evidence at this point. The there were any links to terror groups. We feel maybe don this last minute and claimed allegiance to Isis or whatever so we were taking the hour but think about it from from public point of view if you see these transcripts and has no reference to Isis. There's no reference to Alan. You Know God is great and everything else. No reference to Muslim extremist groups Muslim terror organizations. Then you're going to think well. Maybe he was just a nutjob. Then maybe maybe this is about some mental health or maybe this is about some guy you know. Just going crazy with guns or whatever it removes your ability to really see the truth to see what's actually happened. This is what the guy said. Let's say what the go. Let's tell people what the guy said. That's what he said us. Why why is that? He was doing it. That's hygienists allegiance to we need to. We need to put out a Shouli chilly that needs to be out there not heading away through political correctness because it might somebody's feelings that's the truth of what was said. Why was that redacted? Why was that not not put out publicly so these kind of things as well as what was going on during this? This time of C. Haney was You know at loggerheads with the Obama Administration. The government was at the time was China's site on this is all about language and word and you know you can't be cooling. People you know terror organizations extremist Islamic groups. If there's no evidence there we it's all about the wording but it wasn't about the would it was about the actions that were being taken on the data that was that was established and again the government using language and either redacting language censoring language or changing exceptions. With the words they use so the public perception is is taking a certain way. We see this every day is. This is no shot. This is not. This is not news to us. Bought when we get into the details of this guy so children among. We're GONNA talk to you about the. I'm going to get into the details of his testimony. Tiny's testimony exactly what was removed. Also GonNa talk about circumstances of his death. It really shows you how deep into everybody's lives the government can get even its own workforce and people at supposedly on that side by can manipulate what said what's interacted. Almost what's Held true really is pretty shocking. We'll be right back after this short message. Okay so as we are talking about today. Government overreach is everywhere. The government is always trying to put you down and they try to you know. Get into your head and stop you from doing what you WANNA do. There's only one way really. You can get out of this and that is by getting the an camp cookbook of course get over to an CAP. Cookbook DOT COM. And I'll show you a bunch of ways to stop taxation dead in its tracks had to prepare any shit hits the fan situation and how to stop government. Overreach is all in an cap cookbook. Get your copy for free right now over and cap cookbook. Dot Com okay. Welcome back when now talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee so Haney actually gave a testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee and I want to get into the detail of that because if you do manage to find any of the new stuff on this you won't find this kind of detail on a lot of digging our in house and hours of digging on this have the the actual transcript so. The title of this testimony was willful blindness. Consequences of agency efforts to deemphasize radical Islam and combating terrorism. Now this was in June. Twenty eight twenty sixteen at two thirty on that day on his want to go through just a couple of things that Haney said is quite detailed. The whole report by just want to go through a couple of things again. This guy who's been found dead. WanNa talk about circumstances of his death in a moment but when you hear some of the things that kind of revealed hit you might start to as he would say. Connect the dots about what's actually happened. So on August the thirtieth this is him. Kind of this is not. This is from the The actual tested the the chronology of what happened so on August. Thirty two thousand eleven. The Tube Ligi Jim. Art Project was approved by the Department of Homeland Security. That's simply Jemma is a Muslim movement. It's not a terrorist organization that has been linked to terrorist activities in the past but there was a project south to investigate this group and people apart that crew so that was on August thirtieth two thousand eleven November Fifteenth Twenty Eleven. Haney says I began a temporary duty assignment at the National Targeting Center. A short time lights. I'm assigned to the advanced tugging team where I work exclusively on that simply JEMMA project which is quickly upgraded to an initiative I e a global level. Okay so he's been a scientist project to look at. This particular group then gets kind of increased in importance by May Global Case K. Saas November twenty eleven then March Fifteenth. Twenty twelve seven lawyers and three administrators meet with management personnel at the National Targeting Center to express concern for our focus onto blegium which is not a designated terrorist group because we may be discriminating against them simply because they are Muslims and thus violating their civil rights and civil liberties as per freedom of Information. Act SO as March of two thousand twelve laws of steps and he said well now you got to be Catholic because you know they could be against that civil rights and civil liberties to investigate in them then June to July twenty twelve. It says I'm kind of reading directly here from the committee. Report the TJ initiative. That's the gym. Initiative is quote taken in another direction brackets a government speak euphemism for being shut down? This was done. I'm still quoting here. This was done. Despite the fact that nine months we had conducted twelve hundred law enforcement actions. I was formerly commended for finding three hundred individuals with possible connections to terrorism and twenty five percent of individuals in Guantanamo Bay had known links to to Bleed Jamaa. So it seems. We're always say here. That he was on this project. Trying to find Tarazi found a bunch of links. He was even commended for finding those links. A lot of people in Guantanamo Bay. Who were you know? Also hotlinks to to this organization and yeah it says. He was commended for finding three hundred people. The the hub. These possible connections terrorism. So and yeah it was shot down okay so you joined us as with all these things. The street stories. There's his story the other side and is the truth and we'll probably never know the truth. But let's talk about the circumstances of death to see if that gives us a little indication as to what may have happened here. According to the Amador County Sheriff's Office Haney I quote. Haney appeared to have suffered a single self inflicted gunshot wound. Okay right it was sixty six years old in November. Twenty nine hundred Broadway. Haney contacted the Washington examiner about plans to publish a sequel to his books. They had a second book in the works. It was going to release it I believe in May the twenty twenty and promotes all the way up until the election. So he was working on that he was also engaged to be married. Which Juta will take place later this year? Interesting according to carry tickets in the Washington examiner the author was and I quote recently in contact with top officials about returning to work for the Department of Homeland Security. Okay so this guy's got a lot of irons in the fire has got a new book. Coming out is engaged to be married about going back and Stein is job again. You connect the dots on giving information here in a piece on the true pundit. I found this literally just before I hit record here. On this episode they interviewed his stepmother Judith. Haney and she said and I quote no one in the family believes it suicide with his history with the government and everything is very very suspicious. She went on to say no one in the family believes this is a suicide. I mean he was enjoying doing talk radio and was working on another book and was excited about that with his history with the government. It's very suspicious and with this kind of situation. We realize we may never know the truth about what happened. That's something we all know and live with but it is still early. She goes on to say he was found in his car on a gravel poff shoulder offer of highway forty nine in northern California. I saw where they are saying on the Internet that he was found in the woods or he was shot in San Francisco. That's just not the case may rumors spreading and we need to correct them Apparently she also said that Phil. Haney had suffered a single gunshot to the chest and the he'd only been missing for hours and not days as previously reported by other media outlets. So I don't know I'm I'm not a detective. The guys away to get married. He's got a new book in the works. He's maybe look into sties job again. This is not a guy that's on the end of of despair. You know he's not looking at you. Know whole life in bleak in. Whoa is me and this is I. Don't see any way to turn. This guy is a law things on the horizon. A GUNSHOT WOUNDS. A shotgun wound to the chest to the chest now again. I'm no expert. I'm not committed suicide many times. If I've got a shotgun I WANNA do it with a shotgun you can. You can bet your bottom dollar not pointing it at my chest. Kay I'm going Kirk. Cobaine style getting this thing done a chest injury that seems weird E- even to me with my lack of suicide. Experience Seems Weird so I dunno as you join the dots. You join the dots. This guy probably had a lot of enemies in the state in the deep state in the government. What's happened here? He's spoken out his. He's got another book coming out. We'll never know as as always with these things we'll never know the story will die along with the man But at least you know I'm trying to put the word out there to at least raise the question. Mark of what's happened here and again. It's just another example of the government getting involved rewriting history to us any stand also trying to prevent a future history from taking place perhaps by eradicating somebody that could reveal even more troops and blow the whistle yet again on government screw ups on government trying to do things which infringe against our freedoms and really achieve heaven knows what kind of ulterior motive for themselves at the cost of everyone else. So that's this episode. I will see you on the next episode. You've been listening to the Michael. Chaney show create your own wealth and protected against taxation turmoil and tyranny over at Michael Jamie Dot Com.

Philip Haney Department of Homeland Securit Obama Administration Michael Chaney founding member Fox News scientist Omar Mateen Middle East Obama Guy Omar Faruk Abdul Matala Treasury Cheney Guantanamo Bay Washington examiner Fox News Center for Security Policy Daytona Fox

Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - The Christian Science Monitor Daily

The Christian Science Monitor Daily

13:05 min | 3 weeks ago

Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - The Christian Science Monitor Daily

"Welcome to the monitor daily. Podcast tuesday november tenth. Thanks for joining us. I've marked jacksonville. And i'm jessica mendoza. There was a moment. When emily harrington did not think she would make it hanging from the three thousand foot granite wall of el capitan in yosemite. She was bleeding from the head and had just spent more than thirty minutes on one difficult pitch and failed about ten hours later after more than twenty one hours on the rock miss harrington last week became the first woman to free. Climb the golden gate road of el capitan in one day. I just had one of those attempts where it was an out of body experience like. I can't believe i'm still holding on. I can't believe i'm still holding on. And then i was finished with the pitch. She's now the force woman to climb el capitan day. Lynn hill was the first using a different route. In nineteen ninety. Four and her success began with controlling. Thought as you struggle. You see your mind start to go. She told gripped a climbing magazine. You can either keep persevering or you can kind of mentally give up. Ms hill persevered because she was determined to shatter limits imposed on women. It's really important to know that it's possible because it's the mind and belief that drives us. She said that same belief drove miss harrington. I chose it exactly for that reason. She wrote on instagram impossible. Dreams challenge us to rise above who. We are now to see if we can become better versions of ourselves now. Today's stories are first story. So just how important are presidential transitions. With the trump administration refusing to concede the election. The us will find out. The two thousand election offers clues president. Donald trump has yet to concede the november third election to former vice president. Joe biden who major media have projected as the winner in addition president trump is encouraging legal challenges to the vote counts in key battleground states. The trump administration is also blocking routine actions that would facilitate transition to a biden administration. Trump officials cite the delayed transition of two thousand as precedent. But in two thousand. The presidential election was microscopically close in one pivotal state florida that election involved a recount and ultimately the intervention of the supreme court. This year a few key states have posted close results but nowhere near as close as florida in two thousand. Barring unforeseen developments mr biden will the presidency in january for now however the trump administration is preventing the biden team from accessing federal funds placing transition personnel and government agencies and beginning to process incoming personnel including security clearances. Implications for national. Security can be especially profound. Rebecca listener is a scholar at georgetown university's center for security studies and co author of the book. An open world. She says this is shaping up to be the most fraught transition in modern history. The story was reported by linda feldman and no robertson in washington for the monitor. One of joe biden's first big foreign policy. Plans is to convene a summit of democracies the idea points to how he might steer america on the world stage eager to underscore multi-lateralism over america. First president elect joe biden plans to immediately reverse a number of president. Donald trump's withdrawals from international accords in organizations. He's expected to move on day one of his administration to rejoin the paris. Climate accord in the world health organization and to lift mr trump's muslim travel ban. Still mr biden steam. That america is back is likely to go only so far. Including with america's closest allies. These have learned over the last four years that as german chancellor angela merkel said they can no longer rely on the us for security europeans. Were clearly pleased with mr biden's election but they're also wary of any suggestion that transatlantic relations will simply revert to their glory days. Now that mr trump will be out of the picture thalia bella. Visiting fellow at brookings says europe has changed its perspective on the us overall. The era of european ni- with the us is over over the past four years and a little bit before the interest on the two sides of the atlantic have been diverging and the bridge is a little bit longer across. The story was reported by however franken. Hershey pennsylvania monitor the world has a wishlist for what it hopes joe biden might do as president. Here's a glance at what it looks. Like much of the world exhausted disappointed and confused by four years of donald trump's presidency. Read asya relief on the news. That joe biden had won the us election. Many foreign governments are looking forward to calmer and more predictable relations with washington. But that doesn't mean they won't be lining up to press mr biden for the policies. They would like to see the white house adopt. They all have their wishlists. For the president-elect some were leaders have high hopes that the next president things have been so difficult for beijing. Recently that matters can probably only get better for the chinese authorities on the other hand. Mohammed bin salman saudi arabia's de facto. Ruler must fear the worst president. Trump has been a special friend. Mr biden says riyadh's human rights record makes it a pariah. Nobody expects mr biden to make foreign policy a priority when he has the copay nineteen pandemic and economic crisis to deal with at home but when he does look up from domestic affairs and casts his eye around the world. He will see a lot of people trying to catch his attention. This story was reported by peter ford in paris for the monitor for the second time in four years election day looked a lot different from what pollsters had predicted. This explainer looks at what's gone wrong. And whether it can be fixed most opinion polls show democrat joe biden leading president donald trump by a wide margin in the runup to the november third election. Mr biden's winning margins in battleground states proved to be much narrower than predicted similarly many democrats in congressional races underperformed their polls critic say the polling industry has failed to learn after. It's mrs in the two thousand sixteen presidential election accurate polling rests on two critical calculations the makeup of the electorate and which eligible voters are most likely to vote these calculations allow polling agencies to weigh the responses to surveys and make projections one big challenge the propensity of to respond to polls isn't equally distributed. Democrats may be over overrepresented. As trump voters with low levels of social. Trust are harder to pull. This may have contributed to a low estimate of turnout by republicans who are less likely than democrats to vote early by. Mail michael tro got a research professor. Emeritus at the university of michigan compares it to a cake recipe in which the ingredients are listed correctly but their proportion is unknown. He says the portion of the recipe. That was early. Voting was too large. This story was reported by simon mark for the monitor. Science is usually about proving things but this story shows that sometimes amazing things happen when scientists simply release their inner eight-year-old when she first saw it. Francesca curtain thought someone. Kwang a prank. The chemistry professor at memorial university in the canadian province of newfoundland had been experimenting with mussel shells trying to produce a road. D- i instead. She discovered something far. Weirder the blobs that appeared in her solution were made of calcium carbonate. That's the same hard and brittle material that protects muscles but this substance was spongy and pliable. Dr curtains says we did have a lot of fun in the lab acting like kids because we hadn't come across anything like this before trying to figure out what it was and what we can do with it. Dr curtin says the material may prove useful for clean ups or biomedical purposes and it arose from an often overlooked ingredient. In science serendipity pure fossil is director at the max planck institute of collides interfaces in potsdam germany. He says it's curiosity that wants us to understand. Why and how it works. But then knowing why and how it works you can quit to use in other contexts. And of course you never know before you do the study. What is going to be useful. The story was reported by eva. Botkin wacky for the monitor Now commentary from the monitor's editorial board on russia's peaceful response to aggression russia. Just do an about face and embrace a core principle of the international order on monday it brokered a settlement to stop one former soviet state azerbaijan from forcibly taking moorland claimed another former soviet state armenia in a brutal war that began september twenty seventh moscow even sent troops into the disputed area known as nagorno-karabakh to help. Keep the truce what makes the settlement interesting. Is that russia a country that used force twice in the past twelve years to change. The borders of neighbouring states stood up to john's aggression. This could be a moment to celebrate moscow's apparent respect for the sovereign equality of other countries. Even as it had practical reasons to intervene russia's many reason for peace along its borders may have awakened it to the global imperative for the inviolability of national borders now in ending another country's aggression through diplomacy it has projected the force of peace instead of the force of war. It may have decided that the world's most important norm is worthwhile. That's a wrap for the news. You can find the full length versions of these stories in today's issue or at cs monitor dot com slash daily. Thank you for joining us today. And a reminder that tomorrow is the veterans day holiday in the united states. So we'll be offering you something a little different. Look inside our efforts to push innovative new ways of storytelling. Your regular daily will return thursday. Today's christian science spiritual perspective contributor shares in times like these overcoming polarization in anger may seem like an uphill battle but each of us is divinely equipped to express more of the compassion and brotherly love that bring progress. You can find the column in today's issue or at cs monitor dot com slash daily. You want to give a quick thanks to our staff including today's audio production team jeff. Turkmen abraham echo and jessica mendoza. This podcast is produced by the christian. Science monitor copyright twenty twenty.

mr biden trump administration Joe biden Donald trump mr trump united states jessica mendoza emily harrington three thousand foot twenty one hours Mr biden Lynn hill Ms hill miss harrington four years Rebecca listener georgetown university's center biden linda feldman no robertson
An Open World

The CSIS Podcast

26:21 min | 2 months ago

An Open World

"I'm Bob Schieffer and I'm Andrew Schwartz of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and this is the truth of the matter. This is the podcast where we break down the policy issues the days since the politicians are having their say, we will excuse them with respect and bring in the experts many of them from CSIS, people who have been working these issues for years no spin no bombast no finger-pointing just informed discussion. Today's episode of the truth of the matter I'm flying solo as Bob Shieffer is a town. I want to welcome Rebecca Listener to the truth matter to talk about her new book with Mira Rap Uber an open world. Rebecca is a non resident scholar at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and she's an assistant professor at the Naval War College Rebecca Welcome to the truth of the matter. Why this book now is this a foreign policy response to President trump or would you have taken this on regardless of whoever was president for first of all thank you so much for having me. It's really a pleasure to be here to join for this conversation and I ought to give the requisite disclaimer, which is that everything I say here, I'm just speaking my personal capacity not behalf of any of the institutions with which I am affiliated. This is a great question. So I'm here to talk to you today about an open world how America can win the contest for twenty-first-century order, which is a book coming out with mural rap. And this book makes the case that the US needs to re imagine it's foreign policy for post pandemic and potentially post trump world before it is too late and merely actually began this book together in the immediate wake of the twenty sixteen election when it was already clear to us that Donald Trump, himself was more an Avatar than an architect of the major upheavals that were affecting the United States both domestically and internationally, and even if Hillary Clinton had won in two thousand, sixteen she to what faced the same set of challenges. Adverse global power shifts that were rebounding the United States disadvantage, rapid technological change amidst innovation, and also growing domestic political dysfunction at home, and so this book always said out to really address in debunk two pieces of conventional wisdom. The I was the idea that Donald Trump himself was solely responsible for the collapse of American influence in crisis in American foreign policy and international order and second. The idea that the United States could somehow revert to business as usual once Donald Trump would leave office in twenty, twenty, one or twenty, twenty, four so. Those long term trends that I just mentioned are book actually anticipated the foreign policy emergency that the United States now so clearly faces because Kobe has illustrated are central thesis with tragic clarity. The American foreign policy that we have for the past several decades on the so-called liberal international order that it has sought to sustain are simply not suited to twenty-first-century challenges and a new approach is needed. So the subtitle of the book of Horses how America can win the contest for twenty-first-century order, but the titles and open world? What does that mean exactly in your title? So an open world refers to the strategy that are book seeks to put forward, and that is a strategy that allows the United States to secure its most vital national interests even though it has lost economic and military primacy. So what an open world means is that countries interact with each other terms that are open and transparent. That means that all states ought to be able to make free independent political decisions that states should join together to cooperate in open and transparent international institutions that are modernized for twenty first century challenges and that the Global Commons of C. N. face remain open to access in penetration. It therefore opposes the possibility of domination of any major global regions by a hostile state or set of states. It opposes foreign interference in domestic political processes, and it opposes the possibility that foreign countries might close off vital waterways or information space is to outside access and enumerating all of those objectives. It becomes clear that there's really only one country in the world that can achieve that kind of closure and that country is China. China has the capabilities increasingly to dominate parts of its region in. Asia. But it also has the ability to close off information spaces, for example, by controlling the digital infrastructure that countries around the world will use for their telecommunications. So, an openness strategy seeks to foreclose that possibility that China would either close off its region or close off waterways or close off vital information bases, but it doesn't seek to prevent China from having any influence at all. So it accepts the reality of a more powerful China and the need to live alongside it C- cooperation where mutual interests dictate but fundamentally that the United States must lead in the pursuit of an open world. So physical space examples would include, of course, the South China, sea something the Americans aren't very familiar with right now is the Mai Cong Delta issues. Of course, we have the belt and road tell us about the information spaces. So this is a really important question because historically, we've thought of sears of influence in primarily geographic terms, and that was certainly the framework that was used during the Cold War, and before we've always talked about wanting to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by a hostile adversary. But in the twenty first century territory just doesn't mean what it used to and for China to exercise its power overseas. Perhaps it will seek territorial land grabs like in Taiwan. Perhaps, it will seek to close off these vital waterways. Both of those things you know I would be of grave this interest to American, foreign policy, but it also has the possibility of creating closed. Spheres of dominance in information spaces, and that could come about because of Chinese control of five g technology. For example, that it's building overseas and by controlling that type of digital infrastructure, China will have the opportunity to potentially siphon off data and information for its domestic governmental use to potentially suborn local government officials and exercise other forms of coercion. So when we're talking about the types of dominance that American foreign policy needs to guard against in the twenty first century, we can't just think in physical terms we also need to thank in technological and commercial terms because that's the type of great power competition that we're actually facing. It's not just a Cold War Reebok's. You talk also in the book about domestic factors facing and ending the US role in the world what do you mean by that? Why is our so-called domestic dysfunction so dangerous for US foreign policy. Domestic dysfunction is so dangerous for American foreign policy because it's causing the United States to operate well below its own capacity, not only at home but also overseas, this is because we're spending too much time and attention on problems at home and not being able to devote attention to abroad, or it's not just about focusing inward. It's about the ways in which different types of domestic divisions are undermining America's capacity to act internationally. So let me give you through two key trends. The first has to do with partisan polarization. which is a long term trend that has been worsening over time and it has many pernicious consequences but some of them operate very specifically in the foreign policy space. For example, the wide Gulf that separates Democrats and Republicans can prevent the development and execution of long term strategy that defends American interests and values. It can lead to dramatic swings in American foreign policy whenever the White House changes hands between a Democrat and Republican I'm perhaps most gravely it allows irresponsible decisions on the part of political leaders without any electoral recode. And we've seen this and the implications of this more recently with foreign election interference where adversaries like Russia have keyed in on these divide that separate Americans from each other they've exploited them to try to undermine our democracy but the fact of partisan polarization has actually made the Republican Party reluctant to crack down on this foreign meddling because Russia intervened in support of their own political leader Donald. So that's very great but that's only one type of division that is hobbling American foreign policy. The other division is the one that separates Washington from its domestic innovation based on its technology sector in Silicon Valley, and for decades, the US government has underinvested in research development in basic research. It's now far below where it's Cold War levels were and that has led technology companies to actually chase foreign markets and chase profits overseas rather than aligning themselves with the American interests and the types of opportunities we should be seeking as a nation. Meanwhile, the US government has also allowed its own technological knowledge to atrophy and underregulated. It's technology companies. So this two trends come together I think with the Kobe pandemic, which actually shows that these domestic dysfunctions in this domestic underinvestment is even worse than we knew. You see that there are paltry federal medical equipment stockpiles, poor state and local capacity. There has been a really ineffective attempt to launch a technical contact tracing program and the very public health response itself. The wearing of masks has become politicized so. I, think this amounts to consistent picture, which is the United States that still remains quite mighty by many metrics. It still has the largest GDP in the world. By some measures a predominant military still has dollar dominance, but it's performing tragically below its own capacity because it is so hobbled by these divisions at home. So you argue in the book that major international forces were already reshaping US foreign policy before the pandemic, how're power shifts and technological change transforming geopolitics and you're telling so American privacy was already waning before the ED pandemic as West East, power shafts, and technolgical change or fueling China's rise an undermining US led international order that simply no longer reflected the global distribution of power. So China is a key player. In this story, its economy is already the world's largest by some measures on his expected to continue to grow its military has expanded in. Parallel with its astronomic economic growth and it rose within the US lead order. But it now seeks to revise that order to reflect its own power and preferences, and just a minute ago. You mentioned the South China Sea which is a really good example of how China is now trying to remake the Asian regional order by effectively trying to turn the south China Sea into a Chinese lake. Meanwhile, the existing order has become rapidly outdated because of technological change which in many ways require forms of international governments that have just not been forthcoming for example. There are no meaningful global rules to address cyber activity like norms around attacks on states, critical infrastructures, electrcity grads that Internet remains vastly under govern. For example, there are no agreed upon global rules about protection of your personal data when you use foreign own apps like tech talk on your phone and also a and automation, what are the global guardrails to govern the use of autonomous weapons in conflict? So these two trends actually intersect with each other because as technology becomes essential theater of great power competition between the US and China we're going to see. China tried to write the global rules that protect its own model of Tacna authoritarianism and also advanced its own commercial interests globally. So to prevent that from happening, the United States needs to mount an effective strategic response will tell us about the openness strategy that you're advocating. That's part of the response, correct? Yes. Absolutely. So that is the response and openness strategy recognizes in many ways, and for the reason that I just mentioned that the US led international system is already under duress bite to prevent the total collapse of international order and the proliferation of. Greater disorder that might come if the United States treats from leadership it inside advocates that the United States towards a more disciplined, more realistic forward looking approach to leadership. So what that means in practice is moving away from some of the post Cold War frameworks that have really dominated American foreign policy making for the past several decades and in particular this idea of liberal universalism, which is to say the idea that the United States can and should spread its own liberal democratic model to all corners of the world. It's now become clear that there are. Very, powerful authoritarian rivals who have participated in the US let order who exists within it. But who are not themselves liberalizing and openness strategy is clear eyed about the challenges are and seeks to remake American foreign policy and also remake the international order in a way that takes those challenges seriously. So in terms of what that actually means for policy dictates broadly speaking three-part agenda. The first is American renewal. The need to reinvest in the American people. The American economy in the democracy by trying to bridge those very divides that we just discussed between the. Tech Sector in the federal government and the extent that it's possible. The polarization that divides Americans of different parties from each other. The United States needs to prepare itself for international competition in this new age by really reimagining American foreign policy in a way that really moves away from the over militarization of American foreign policy that we've seen over the past several decades and elevates diplomacy public private partnerships and a new approach to intelligence collection that really leverages America's in domestic innovation in new ways, and also to lead in remaking a modernized international order because. Just protecting ourselves at home is not gonNA be sufficient. So the US needs to lead in time to build new governance for these emerging technology spaces in needs to try to modernize the global trade regime also needs to lead on these borderless challenges like climate like global health pandemics where some great power cooperation may actually be possible to has this different though from past American grand strategy you said that you know this is a different approach than we've taken in the past several decades. How is it different than passing American grand strategy in foreign policy. So the idea of openness has echoes in past American Grand Strategies to be sure and in fact, at the end of world, war two as SDR articulating his vision for a post war world, he used the idea of openness. The problem was that shortly thereafter, the Iron Curtain descended and much of Europe behind the Soviet sphere and it became an impermeable close sphere of influence that no longer could be accessed by the United States really commercially or militarily. So that was really the death of the openness vision in Cold War era. And then once the Cold War ended the US actually sought something much more ambitious than openness. It had these ideas, these aspirations of liberal universalism, the idea that on his openness, but actually liberalism was going to be in ascendant and that its rise was in many ways inexorable and that was the that drove Fukuyama, for example, to pronounce the end of history that ran aground as we've seen quite recently and is no longer a feasible model for American foreign policy and what we can hope to achieve in the world. So now the US has a pretty stark choice. Donald. Trump. has offered an alternative vision of what American foreign policy could be. It's one that rejects many of the core principles of openness that embraces closure, embraces nationalism it embraces walling America off from the world in all sorts of different ways that would be a mistake and it's hard to imagine a trump administration even in a second term implementing some version of an strategy but there is an alternative there is a version of American leadership that rejects that types. Of Closure, a nationalism that also rejects the sort of nostalgia that would like to see US revert to those immediate post, Cold War, liberal universalist ambitions, and instead articulates a new way forward that returns to these principles of openness that have animated. American. Foreign policy in the past that have never been fully realized. So is it sort of a hybrid or how are you taking into account the new realities that we're facing yet trying to preserve the liberalism of old? So. I think the most instructive way to differentiate an openness strategy from what's come before would be to compare it to the Obama administration because of all the recent administration's that is the one that probably comes closest what we're talking about but is still in many ways different. So it's important. I understand that the United States position is profoundly different today than it was when Barack Obama took office twelve years ago. At that time the US still was the world's sole superpower, but we're not anymore. So an openness strategy needs to really recognize that reality in needs to reject any kind of nostalgia and needs to chart a new force. So what does that mean? It means that looking at the power shifts looking at the technological change looking at the domestic dysfunction, we need to have more focus and we need to have more discipline. So Obama administration as you know sought to. Change the revealed in Libya through armed military intervention that type of armed regime change is not something that openness strategy would do precisely because it prioritizes in the international system but does not seek to change the character of other regimes and try to make them look more liberal than it therefore means that we don't attempt the types of Iraq war styler, Libya style regime changes that we've seen throughout many post-cold-war presidencies in the past at the same time, they're important distinction. About China policy because an openness strategy really focuses Washington on the threat of closure but accepts the reality of Greater Chinese influence whereas the Obama Administration did not act strongly enough in response to China's early attempts to close off parts of the South China, sea. An open strategy would actually take a much tougher line at the same time and the Obama Administration declined to participate in a I B, which was a multilateral attempt by China to propagates new development institution but an openness strategy would try to engage with AIB and try to make it more open, more transparent and more consistent with principles of good governance. So. By really establishing the bright line of what constitutes closure that must be resisted but also what constitutes growing Chinese influence, which is just a reality of the world that we now live in the open strategy departs in pretty significant ways recognizing that the world of twenty twenty is really a far cry from two thousand nine let alone two, thousand, sixteen, or Nineteen ninety-one. So America's in a very different place now than when Brock Obama was president and president trump's foreign policy has been very much in America I looking inward. That's been reflected in his trade policies in his posture with our allies and we could go on and on. It's not so easy to turn the switch on and off between administrations as we've seen in our history so. President trump leaves office. How does the strategy get implemented without completely up ending everything that's happened before it. So to my mind, the greatest challenge that faces the implementation of an openness strategy asked trump says in November is the mere fact of the multi-front crises that Abidin administration would face coming in. So for better or worse, it's actually quite easy for American presidents to change foreign policies. It's an area in which the chief executive has considerable prerogative. So things like rejoining the Paris climate agreement or rejoining or renegotiating the JC away. Those things are actually fairly easy for a new Biden administration to do but the harder thing I think will be for them to confront what is public health crisis and economic crisis and a racial justice crisis that will all be landing on. Their desks the very day that they walk into the White House and to try to find this space to do the type of long-term strategizing that would be required to really seize the opportunity that the United States has to take this vast global moment of destruction and try to turn it into a moment of creation. That's really interesting. I've got one last question and this is the tough one because you finished your book before Kovac's really reached our shores and as I was going through the book I was wondering and I'm sure a lot of your readers are going to wonder does Kovic Change your conclusions, such a great question and the perfect place to end. So yes. This book was completed before the COVID. Really over but nevertheless, I thinks that it's analysis stands up quite well because the coca crisis is actually both accelerated and accentuated many of the trends that we highlight in the book. So we knew that great power competition and these long term power shifts we're going to make U S China relations more competitive, but couvin has actually made that rivalry sharpen much more quickly than we would've expected. We expected that to play out perhaps over the next decade and instead you've seen the vitriol turned out very. quickly, as a result of the Kobe crisis, similarly, we knew that partisan polarization was hindering American foreign policy for all the reasons that we talked about earlier but to see the way in which it has hobbled the united. States Public Health Response and even inflected debates over whether Americans should wear masks in the workplace or around their towns that has become a highly partisan issue and it has made it much harder for the United States to get Cova under control. So that is to say that we. Did. Expect that the United States is going to face a really challenging twenty-first-century environment and Kobe has shown just how challenging it is but I think cove. It also shows that there is still some very significant elements of American advantage. The US dollar remains quite strong. The US military remains quite strong and no other country has emerged as a leader that can operate in the absence of the United States, which is part of why we've seen such a lacking global crisis response to Kobe and so the. Opportunity to build back better from this wreckage really does lay in front of us and it's a question of whether the United States is going to seize that opportunity, and if it does the of this book is at the best way to do it is to pursue an openness strategy openness strategy that is forward-looking that is clear eyed about the threats that American America thesis, and that also departs from some of the mistakes and also the misguided assumptions that have guided American foreign policy in the past. Thank you so much rebecca for this really fascinating discussion and I know that our listeners are going to go out and buy not just one but two copies yearbook because if you make a great gift and you know people really need to read this because it's the next thing in foreign policy. So really appreciate your time today. The book is an open world how America can win the contest for twenty first century order by rebecca listener and MIRA rap hooper. Thanks so much for helping us get to the truth of the matter about urinalysis. Thank you so much. It was really a pleasure talking to you. If you enjoy this podcast, check out our large suite of CSIS podcasts from into Africa, the Asia Chessboard China Power Aids, Twenty Twenty, the trade guys Smart Women Smart, power and more. You can listen to them all on major streaming platforms like ten spotify visit csis dot org slash podcasts to see our full catalog.

United States America Donald Trump China CSIS president Taiwan Rebecca Listener South China Center for Strategic and Inter Bob Schieffer twenty twenty Kobe South China Sea Naval War College
Pete Strzok on 'Compromised'

The Lawfare Podcast

1:21:12 hr | 2 months ago

Pete Strzok on 'Compromised'

"The fact of the matter is. Russia. Intervened in our election two, thousand sixteen. The specific intent to hurt Clinton and help trump one. To. The trump campaign knew. They were trying to do that. And welcome the assistance and free at assistance was provided notwithstanding the stumbling around by members of the campaign and whether or not. You're actually able to affect wait a close coordinative relationship doing that. With the fact of the matter is that belief in an election that was that close hand two, thousand sixteen. The Russian assistance to trump caused the result that occurred. I'm Benjamin with us, and this is the law fair podcast September Eleventh Two, thousand and twenty. Peter Struck served in the FBI from nine hundred and ninety six to two, thousand eighteen, and eventually became the deputy head of the counterintelligence division where he supervised among other things the Russia investigation both at the FBI and waiter under Robert Mueller. His new book is called compromised counter intelligence and the threat of Donald. J? Trump. And I sat down for an extended conversation over zoom sponsored by the town. Center for Security Studies Part of the Walsh School of Foreign Service. It's a wide ranging conversation covering Pete's own history covering why he still thinks the president is compromised by the Russians taking questions from students and others in the live audience and responding to criticisms of the way the Russia investigation was conducted. It's the law fair podcast. September. Eleventh Pete Struck on compromised. So I wanNA start and then depart from the area, which is unfortunately to associated with your name, which is the subject of cats, messages, and I want to clear the deck of this subject, and then not come back to the rest of the conversation because it is a thing that a huge number of people know about you and I, it is a subject that is well discussed elsewhere or badly discussed ad nauseam elsewhere and I don't want to spend too much time on it. I do want to ask you to. Address. There are one hundred and eighty five people watching this live. There will be a lot more later a certain percentage of them will say, why should I listen to anything? Pete struck has to say about anything he sent a lot of text messages and some of them included the one of included the words insurance policy and one of them promise that we will stop it meaning the election of Donald Trump and he's biased as the inspector general couldn't promise me he wasn't. And why should I listen to anything he says, and so my question is. What do you have to say to the person? Who says that? I think a couple of things I mean I understand that question in the first thing I want to make clear like I deeply regret sending the text messages. I think it's quite clear that I had no idea whatsoever in that they would have been turned into the weapon that they were and it's absolutely clear if I had to do it again that's nothing that I would have done because I regret the way they've been used to harm first and foremost my family but also the FBI and the work that the good work that the other stood and so I have a lot of regret for that and I understand why that was done. But at the same time I would point out too that like every FBI agent and analysts and employ we all have personal opinions and the culture of the FBI's that is left at the door, the culture of public servants or that personal political opinions simply don't play a role in the job that we do. In. This is something that's been born out by countless investigations. They've been to inspector general investigations that have gone through every single text every email every conversation that I had every document that I wrote every person scores of interviews going back my entire career with people all of which came back with exactly zero. There was never any evidence whatsoever that any of my personal beliefs played a role in any decisions that we made. It's not surprising I. Mean I, know that myself and I also know that the FBI so. To the extent that people are concerned I understand that but I'd ask you to take a look at the record, not only the record assessing me in my actions and the lack of any improper sort of influence. And then also keep in mind if you're still skeptical when you look at Sixteen, two thousand sixteen in particular, take a look at the record of what happened renew things at the time and I'm sure we'll talk about this a little bit with the things we knew about trump at the time we are investigating members of his campaign head, those become public there would have been horribly damaging to him and they never did not made enough or anybody else on the other hand. The things are going on with the investigation of secretary. Clinton's emails did become public did in fact harm her candidacy in certainly the reopening the case in late October a details well. So when you look at the scope of this behavior, I can understand how people might have concerns, but then take that next step and take a look at all the work that's been done. All the evidence is there and it's very clear that these things that may and everybody else like every American. We've got opinions but she said that at the door when you do your job and that's the record that's out there books title. is a provocation. The book's title is compromised. When you open the book, it becomes clear that you are actually arguing that the president is compromised in the sense that people. mean the word when they're talking about the Russians, having something over the president. So my question is in what sense are you arguing that the president of the United States is in fact compromised by the Russians When I say that I mean is that there is within the president's reasoning in his motivations. Things that are hidden that the governor Russia holds over him. That causes him whether directly or indirectly to do things that are in his interests and Russia's interests and not in America's national security interests unpack that a little bit I recruited people for twenty years for the FBI. There are a variety of ways that looks on the one hand. It's what people think of when they think of a spy Robert, Hanssen its outer James Sitting a people we've recruited me our Beijing. People who know that they're working with a foreign power they understand the tasking that they get their responding to that tasking they're talking covertly they're doing any number of things that you think of when you think of a spy. On the far end of the opposite end of the spectrum, there people who are doing things or maybe helping out in little ways that they don't even know that they're dealing with, say an FBI agent or somebody who is working for the s are for the Ms. So within that range when you think of somebody WHO's engaged in the intelligence relationship with a foreign power, it can look a lot of different ways. I think trump falls in the middle and the I say that is because of primarily financial reasons in in financial entanglements, but it's not limited to that. But when you look at the kind of interactions going back decades between trump and his business interests and Russia particularly things in Russia that aren't particularly savory rather that's organized crime money whether that's things in dealings link into the government Russia. There are hidden relationships there that just by nature of the fact that they are concealed. If they were to come out, they would hurt trump. He knows that the Russians know that and to maintain that lie that lies the thing that gives Russia, the leverage over trump they are exerting in doing that in a way that is causing him to place his own interests over that of the United States. Okay. So that is an interesting theoretical argument put flesh on it. What are some examples of things that? Reflect Russian leverage over trump and how confident can we be point that you're making? To their several things that I can talk about you have in the broad scope of things. A lot of this is of course classified and it's appropriately classified and there are many reasons from. Endangering sources to things that are potentially still under investigation or ongoing a topic of an investigation or that have been disproven for all those reasons that it would be inappropriate to talk about that with the fact that matters even setting aside all that material. If you go to the Mullahs report into the recent Senate Intel report, almost thousand pages long bipartisan in nature time and time again there now, things that are known to the public which point exactly to this, for example. On the campaign trail in two thousand, sixteen president trump a campaign stop said that ensure the American public that he had absolutely no business dealings with Russia that he his his finances were clear that there are no a interactions there that be any cause for concern that simply they didn't exist at the moment he saying that Michael Cohen and others are actively pursuing a deal for trump tower in. Moscow. So in trump says that. Americans presumably taking medicine word trump knows that he's lying when he says that. Latimer Putin knows full. Well, that is not true that in fact is pursuing deal in. Moscow, we had some wind of it at the. FBI. But the point is as soon as trump says that he's placing his credibility on the line to the American people. Putin and Russia know that they can immediately shoot that down that. If they come out and say, no, you're pursuing. You've had your have had all these meetings in contact about this deal in Moscow. That's another lie if they were to do that, that would cause him amidst damage and so to maintain that lie they suddenly instantaneous that have leverage which they can exert. To do or not do to speak or not speak in a number of ways that are favorable to Russia and not. Advantageous to the United States. So let me kick through a few other examples of similar leverage. One is that it is now a matter of public record that the president sat in the oval. Office, with the Foreign Minister of Russia and the ambassador of Russia and boasted that he had fired that nutjob Jim Comey and relieved a lot of pressure on himself vis-a-vis Russia as a result of that story held for. Seventy two hours or something. So it was a short. Term Bit of leverage. But that would be another example of what you're talking about. Yeah. Absolutely and I mean look you can go through and I need to be careful because I don't want to when I say things that are in the public domain what I'm not doing either confirming or denying that the stuff I'm talking about is in fact, the subject of what's going on or what I was aware of going on when I was in the FBI. But when you look at things like everything from his relationship with Turkey particularly. vis-a-vis the Kurds in Syria you know he is as Turkey a by a Russian surface-to-air missiles as the US withdraws out of Syria, leaving an opening for others to come in and become players whether it's Turkey weather Russia when you look at all the various activities of licensing that's going on between activities in Azerbaijan or around the world, the question you need to ask is when a president refuses not only to divest himself of his interest in. These foreign financial matters, but also refuses to be transparent about them. We all think about that from government ethics perspective you know you need to divest yourself so that you're not doing anything government official that's going to blind your pocket. But from a counterintelligence perspective, there's entirely different host of concerns. There it isn't you know are you going to be making money because the secret service has to pay in inordinate amount to for rooms that Any trump property. The question is do these financial realities that exist hide things that are known and are being participated in by any number of foreign governments that an intelligence service can use to leverage, and again it's one thing if you're a Washington Post reporter trying to dig into the hotel receipts, you can do a lot. But imagine if you're the Russians imagine if you can tap phone calls, imagine if you can intercept emails, imagine if you can. Covertly infiltrate somewhere in place the microphone, we can collect a conversations that are going on in the background. Imagine if you can recruit people imagine if you can take place assets into the orbit of trump to get to this information that he is so desperately trying to hide. Obviously, they can do that. Obviously, they're very good at it, and so all that information that you're trying to hide in the hands of a foreign power is extraordinarily an extraordinarily powerful tool to use. All right I'M GONNA. Ask You a question that is conceded Lee unfair and. I'M GONNA ask you to project onto a lot of other people but if we had here. Twenty. Senior FBI counter intelligence. Officials. How many of them would disagree with the formulation you just gave Few to none. I mean, look did this for twenty years Puppy six six administrations worth about the Democrats and Republicans learned and came up and were tutored by those who came before me who did the same thing going back generation after generation after generation It is fair to say that in my experience and the experience of those people who trained me that we have never seen the president but the amount of counterintelligence vulnerability is that which exists in the White House today and it's not close I mean, it is exponentially different. You may go back to early days our republic fund presidents who had entanglements with the register with the French can't speak to that because I'm not an expert but. I don't think there's anybody who has worked this area of counterintelligence or broadly intelligence. I mean why that body people to officers in the CIA or or elsewhere there's nobody who's going to look at what trump is in that facts around him and particularly flip that and say give me a foreign power that the US is trying to target that we wouldn't welcome that sort of person in those vulnerabilities in our ability to get inside that. What about the current leadership of the FBI. So if I. Took Chris Wray and put him on this screen. and took Dave bow ditch the deputy director and put him on the screen and you could magically compel them to answer truthfully and in A. In a fully open fashion not dodge the question and say. Is. There any serious question in your mind that what Pete struck is saying I know you fired the guy I know you don't like him and wish he'd show shut up and go away. Is there any serious question in your that what he's saying about ongoing counterintelligence vulnerability in the White House is true. What would they say? Look I. Don't think there's any objective intelligence professional that disagree with anything that I said. For the bureau's leadership here like real their leadership within the US government. There is intense unrelenting pressure from trump is his White House to bend the norms of objectivity and independence that have always been a hallmark of the American government. So I think they I don't want to speak to them. I'm not them, but I've what I've seen from the outside. They're very much in the same position as the secretary's very soon apartments leadership of other elements in the US intelligence community of trying to maintain the ability to do their core mission to maintain the ability to work independently in the face of a constantly vengeful president who's trying to extract decisions which benefit him, and so when you start the problem is when You start entering into some sort of relationship where we are bargaining the minute you start bargaining your seat and ground. You're giving up things whether it's turning over things to Congress that have never been given up before whether it's producing the type of witnesses at a low level that have never ever ever been done in district the FBI's because you're trying to. Protect the greater. Good as you constantly fighting retrograde battle. At some point you look down and what's left will protect is nothing that everything has been given up and so I can't imagine the pressures that senior leadership of of FBI or anywhere else or under. But at that environment is just highlights the damage that trump is doing to our government right now. I WanNa talk about the mechanism of influence because you've described the spectrum from. You know a witting. Bought agent. Law Bill Hayden in Tinker Tailor soldier spy right who is actively. Away the story you nobody's GonNa to read those books anymore. You just gave it away. Spoiler alert bill too late now. But I'm you know so you got your Bill Hayden. Or Richard Robert Hanson's on the one hand. You've got your totally useful idiot who is not actively working for anybody but is just doing things that are convenient for a foreign intelligence service may because of actual sincere commitment on the other hand there's no leverage, but there's just a series of CO extensive Interest that. Dovetail, and therefore is the person is useful. You've situated trump somewhere in the middle where there is leverage that is a source of possible coercion or of ongoing coercion but you don't think there's a handler who's giving him instructions. So I'm interested in your sense of the mechanism by which the compromised figure. Acts in support of the adversaries interests rather than. His own nation's interest in the absence of some guiding hand handler. That's an excellent question and it's one that I don't have a status factory answer for only look there's some things where it's clear that he knows if he does certain actions that that's going to provoke Putin or make him angry and that his since will be not to do and that in my mind explain some of these questions about you know why hasn't he said anything about the bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan? Why hasn't he spoken out about the attempted assassination vomited a domestic political opponents Putin why is he still refusing to say anything about Russia? Ramming one of our military vehicles in Syria injuring any number of of servicemen that desire simply not to anger Putin explain some of it. But what I have a much more difficult time explaining it some of these one off things that are very esoteric nature nor early on shortly about a year after Montenegro join. NATO. He made a comment in the context of saying I. Don't know why we should necessarily come to their defense under the mutual defense provisions of the NATO alliance because they're you know they're very aggressive people and I don't want to start one or three well. Made this point elsewhere there's no doubt I think in anybody's mind listening to this. If you gave a map a crime that donald trump, he couldn't find monitor on a map so that it is very small it to be fair that's true and in the middle. So it's it's hard to kind of understand it start. But so for things like that, there are curious areas where it doesn't seem clear that the nuanced. Nuanced decisions which geopolitically benefit Russia and not the United States which are you know frankly outside the level of understanding that we've all come to know expect from our president. There is a question there about where that's coming from I don't think you know when he talks to Putin does Putin give him broad strokes of what he wants to doesn't want I'm sure they talk about that's what leaders discuss when they when they have conversations each other areas that they're each trying to advance for their for their own countries. But that kind of when I see my new show that. Don't. Aren't consistent with my belief of what his understanding of international affairs are. It makes me wonder and I don't have a good explanation for that, and that's one of those things that clearly is what you investigate in a counterintelligence investigation which you seek to understand how and if there is a channel by which these sort of ideas are being put forward in taken up by in this case the president. Okay. So the skeptical listener to this would say. Pete struck is creating a conspiracy theory where there and of course, that is the job of the counterintelligence agent. To imagine the worst and then assess it. But there is a simpler outcomes razor explanation which has or a potentially simpler, which is Donald Trump is. A Putin loving. He's all you know he has been really interested in Vladimir Putin since at least two thousand thirteen when he goes to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant and his passionately interested in getting a meeting with Putin. He's like a middle school. A. Middle School or trying to get a gate has Putin called yet. So he's he has Putin thing. He also never backs down off of anything. and. So the wide he refused to criticise Russia is the same as why the answer to that is the same as wide as he refused to. You know denounce the David, Duke because people want him to. Right. So he's obstinate he in a kind of narcissistic way and he fears looking weak and he hates our allies and so I can explain a lot of the things that you're attributing to promote based on something am not sure it's more innocent, but it's more character logical unless circumstantial and so my question is why is that not an adequate explanation? Why should we jumped to compromise by the Russians rather than satisfy ourselves with because he's an obstinate asshole. His the totality of the evidence points to a different more concerning conclusion looks longest walk us through there yet absolute. You understand the totality so isn't the first thing I'd say is the FBI job is to investigate. We are not starting out by passing judgment beginning things Jim. Baker the former general counsel of the FBI said an investigation is a question. You don't go in there knowing what happened or why there's something concerning that rises to sufficiently predication to open a case because it is concerning because it meets the threshold of potential harm or damage our you know to the national security, the United States. So every time we go in, we're looking at the entire range of options it could be something absolutely. Inconsequential or legitimate to something that is horrible in various but one thing the FBI isn't it's not the federal, bureau of it's nothing don't worry about it. Our job is to investigate until what we're doing at the time when we were looking in seeing these increasing repeated events that we couldn't explain but not only that on the intelligence side seeing information that indicated time and time and time again, this repeated clandestine. Between elements of his and the government of Russia that the governor Russia was clearly involved in that it was hidden. So we knew from the first day and it was always in our minds on a hope still in the minds of people in the FBI today trump is the elected president has the responsibility for carrying out US foreign policy. He made no secret on the campaign trail that he wanted to change the relationship between the United States and Russia. Campaigned on it. That's obviously his mandate as President United States just like Nixon went and opened up China if he wants to come in and take a new tack with regard to the US relationship with Russia, if he doesn't want to anger them, because he thinks that will be a better route to reestablishing a better relationship. That's entirely legitimate that isn't ever something that the FBI is investigating seeking to investigate or seeking to influence our focus was always on what are the Russians doing and specifically, what are the Russian intelligence services. Doing, what are they trying to achieve and why on earth is at when we're looking at them in the context of Russia's intelligence services in national interests to retirement time. Again, see all these members of the trump campaign. Later people moved over into the administration engaging in these in relationships that are not part of any normal governmental, diplomatic or executive type action, and that's the cause of concern and that was the avenue by which the FBI poached it again. Because we investigate something in the counterintelligence context, the best majority of things we investigate we close after disproving that there's a problem we look at it established at something's legitimate or appropriate are a of times that we just don't know it gets closed. So the goal is not are you shouldn't see this as. We opened a case therefore, there was something bad in. That's the conclusion will you should take away as we opened all these cases which is concerning to begin with because there was such a broad background concern. But as we went through in advance them, we kept saying more and more, and that's why you end up with a campaign finance chairman in jail a deputy, our campaign manager, a deputy campaign manager jail, a former national security adviser played pleading guilty to lying about his relationship with the Russians a foreign policy adviser pleading guilty to lying. To the FBI about his relationship with the Russians a attorney general whose investigation for lying to the Senate in his confirmation hearings about his relationship with the Russians. These aren't empty concerns. These are things that are going on where people are deliberately obfuscating in hiding their relationship with Russia. So as an investigator is a counterintelligence person when you see all these tangible things just across the waterfront, all serious, all bad all legitimate that gives you a broader concern about the kind of totality of everything that's going on that I think is the basis for. The the and that's the backdrop. That's the basis for kind of saying. Okay. Well, as we think about trump, how we think about it is set against all of that background. So I don't want to give you a chance to focus in because I don't want to dive into then pivoting talk about about trump in the context of that. Right. So let's talk about how you think about trump in the context of that. So you guys ultimately open a counterintelligence investigation against the president at the time of Jim. Comey's firing. It then gets folded into the Muller investigation. And you get deployed to the mall. Our investigation. For that purpose and in your account. There is. Muller's investigation is kind of crafted as a criminal investigation. There is in Muller's accounted description of how these in counterintelligence leads were handled, which is that they were effectively kicked back to the FBI. And there. As far as we know, they disappeared what do we know and I'm GonNa get to the Senate Intelligence Committee report in a moment. But what do we know about what happened to these counterintelligence matters as opposed to the criminal matters once Muller's shop was established and once this investigation was open against the president. Well. We don't know much and that's good. You shouldn't much. Those are the sorts of things that should be carried out and classified environment outside of the public eye and being pursued with the full weight of the FBI in the rest of the US intelligence community. What I'm concerned about is when I hear Director Muller testimony saying, well, you know these leads were we had people embedded in those leads were sent back to the FBI. So when I when I went over reopened the case as you mentioned on the president shortly after director Comey was fired in part of that investigation involved a counterintelligence component to understand. The nature of his relationship with the government of Russia from an intelligence perspective. Setting up the special counsel team. I was very aware of the fact that a Muller's not going to do that. The for variety of reasons, special counsel regulations focused very much violations the law they don't address envisioned intelligence activity or counterintelligence activities. So that's outside from the job that's outside the scope of his authority. If you look at his appointment order is also it looks expensive but when you look at that from a legal definition perspective. It's pretty limited and you know to the extent of saying things that I looking for links between the Russian government and members versus Rengel. Let's walk through that because you know there was A. It's been a while since I've looked muller's mandate but my recollection of it is basically had a three part. It was a three part thing right? It's crimes committed. In Russian intervention in the campaign and any collusion or coordination on any on the part of any person with that right? The second is obstruction of the investigation, which is inherently criminal and the third is. Any other crimes that come up in the course of investigating this. So all three of those are by their terms, kind of limited to criminal activity not focused on counterintelligence vulnerabilities is that what you're referring to here it is, and then let's go beyond that. So again, it's not that's absolutely accurate. So the focus is on crime and criminal activity, but it's even within that context narrow. So if you're looking at contacts between the government of Russia, let's set an example Oliveira Pasta who's An oligarch very heavily involved in. You know the Rusalka Russian aluminum enterprise. Is he a member of the Russian government. No, he's not. Is he an element of the way that Russia exercise state power now? Yes, he is clearly. With some sort of devolution of what the Russian government is in today's Day and age is not simply that org chart with the Kremlin sits at the top and you have all the various ministries and components of the government exercising state power. You have oligarchs doing that you have organized crime figures on the periphery doing that you have members of the intelligence community that are floating in and out of the orbits between these various centers of power. So if you say Russian government. Well then you're not talking about Alexander, Pasta, you're not really talking about people who work with around him guys like constantly clinic or are all these people who have nebulous connections to what we think of as Russian state power, and so it's even more limited than that, and certainly as you start thinking about it a criminal context, but a counterintelligence. That's absolutely outside the scope of that appointment order. So yes, that's the short answer is that was very much the in all those ways that the work, the appointment order of, Mahler. Would limit that effort and they kind of the final of those three factors that had point too about why he wouldn't be expected her didn't think he would do that. See I work is Just. He is a prosecutor by training. He's an attorney. He was directed the FBI look. He gets now I gotTA say, I. Counterintelligence I find that explanation I mean I know Bob Mueller was a legendary prosecutor and all that, and he's a homicide prosecutor in the local district after you know after the Bush administration's the head of the criminal. Division. He, also ran the FBI for twelve years including the counterintelligence division and if anybody could have been special counsel. With the possible exception of Jim Komi Louie Freeh could have been expected or bill webster could have been expected to understand the counterintelligence equities of this situation. Surely, it was Robert Swan Muller oh I agree I completely agree I think he understood that I think has since was that his mandate both because of the regulations which him a special counsel as well as by his appointment order meant that he could not do that and was not going to do that and so there was an understanding that you know talking and he do. I mean we had discussions about this I talk about. It with him I talked about it with the senior members of his team that there is this need to counterintelligence work, and certainly the response was and the agreement was yeah. That's entirely within the FBI's. That's entirely within the mission sets to the FBI people that are here kind of seconded to the special counsel's office. You know we're going to work with the attorneys and prosecutors to Billy's criminal cases but at the same time, particularly with the analytic core, we're going to look these counterintelligence issues that are coming up and figure out what they look like. Now, the problem with that is. The way the team was structured. We had groups of prosecutors and Agents and analysts end forensic accountants, and these number of people broken down by targets who had a group know Andrew Weisman was was the lead attorney with a bunch agents, which I'm not GonNa name focus on Paul Medford, Rick Gates, and all the people that came out for that. We had another prosecutor Genie again with some other attorneys and agents who were looking at Michael Cohen a lot of the Russian related stuff we had Brandon Van who is investigating Mike. Flynn. But all the point is the structure of. The team were agent attorney analysts teams focus on people in the violations of their law. So the superstructure was that if you're going to build of comprehensive intelligence picture to understand the totality what's going on in Russia is doing, that's not the best structure to do that, and so what I was struggling with up until the time I left the team back to the FBI was how you effectively do that. In the context of the way I that molars office is structured but to how you make a cycle out of that because it's not when I hear Oh, we city leads to somebody. I'm glad that happened but that's not an entirely satisfying answer because in my mind should happen is that team that should be coming back and saying, Hey, thanks this lead but by the way we think. A, making this up John Smith who was connected to the campaign. We really think we are seeing evidence of a concerted effort by the SVR to target him based on what you gave us. Can you ask people that you're interviewing in the context of these? Proffer agreements to ask about X. Y. and Z, or completely different than that trying to understand it going out to say a foreign liaison intelligence service and saying what are you know about John Smith and not just letting that sit in the FBI but then bringing that back into the special counsels work because that's where all these cases were. There isn't some parallel investigation that I know of there wasn't as the time I left. Going on at the FBI and when I hear you know former deputy director, any McCabe saying, oh, my expectation was more was going to do all that while it was my expectation to not so much smaller but the FBI people on the team are going to do it. So my huge worry when I hear any say that is that after I left. This problem not problem this question never gets sufficiently addressed and solved, and as a result, there's kind of it dies on the vine and I. Am I sort that absolutely not could there be great comprehensive. See our going on right now at the FBI as I said I hope there is there is I would expect not to hear about it because that would be appropriate but I am very much worried that the reality is there's a gap it was something that people thought the other was doing and it's the kind of comprehensive look. It just was never fully examined. So, as the person who I think coined, the term, the counter intelligence gap as you know, that's a point that I have some sympathy with I though want to suggest that there's a little bit more evidence for it than simply the evidence of absence are the odds the I agree with you that if it were being done were being done in a super competent way, we wouldn't know about it but I want to offer a piece of. Evidence that it wasn't being done or rather to one is that Adam Schiff has written in a letter that in his oversight capacity, he is confident that it hasn't been done I, and the second is that the Senate Intelligence Committee in their report says that they don't think it's been done and so my question is how confident are you that? If if something like this were being done, the oversight committees would at least be aware of it. I would hope in ordinary times at the intelligence committees would add a minimum know that there was something being done. Look you know I was on the other side of the Intelligence Committees for twenty years I understand. The the frictions of oversight by the Intel Committees in the executive branch civically the FBI I know full. Well, the FBI and concerns that Congress is not always the most locked tight when it comes to protecting classified information and a certain. Yes. We you guys open when you guys open this investigation. What was the first thing you guys did open up and brief the gang of Eight? So for those don't the gang of. Eight that's the speaker of the House the Cinema Charity leader, the minority leader in the ranking members of the top Democrat. Republican. Both the House and Senate, as well as the top Democrat and Republican from both of the Intel Committee of each chamber and went up there deputy went up with a the deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and sat down and essentially said, hey, you know she thinks we open the case on the president. We opened the case in the Attorney General Awhile back and then the Stephenson were pointing special counsel and brief them on some of the cases that we had open and answered. Sat there answered each and every one of their questions went through to the amount wanted to talk about it to the amount. They had concerns with through each of those cases again, including a counterintelligence obstruction case the president of the United States where Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan and Congressman Nunez and I forget I think it was. Senator Berg read the Senate Intel Committee all of them are in that room listening asking any single question they want having an answer to their satisfaction not one of the objected not one of them said, you don't have enough to do that. So there was this effort to sit there and a legitimize what the the idea were doing, but to to expand that not only notifying congress to give them the chance to go on the record and expressed any sort of concern and there just wasn't any at the time. So. Let me try to summarize everything. We've discussed standing on one foot. In a sentence. Massive unprecedented counterintelligence vulnerabilities for a campaign. And for a presidential administration and very low confidence that the counter intelligence equities. Have actually been investigated to a satisfying degree is that a fair summary? I. THINK THAT'S Certainly by certainly by the executive branch, look I, haven't read I've I've read some Of the Senate Intel report and I've read summaries of it. Clearly they. You know they'd be amended because I think as a bipartisan product that came out that every from Senator Rubio to senator burned others all Republicans signed off on it is a to their credit and that they were able to get that record out in a bipartisan basis. But again, when you're looking at a Senate investigation, their tools, they're investigative tools, their ability to leverage the resources of the US intelligence community are much much less than somebody like the FBI or the the music might be able to do. So I think it's fair to say that. The confidence that a very thorough comprehensive look to understand what happened from his perspective utilizing the entire weight and capabilities the united. States government that the doubt that that occurred in my mind is significant. And yet to transition to the subject of the SEI report, the degree to which the. Report validates. Some of your concerns seems to me to be substantial because in addition to the issues that you guys investigated they describe. To a much greater degree by the way than I expected to see a prior financial and physical dealings between Donald, trump himself and Russian entities and Moscow business people, and apparently women who. Was not the P. Tape, but it was. I don't know fifteen percent of the P. Tape, right? I mean it's a it's a it's stuff that. You could really imagine being a leverage in addition it describes with a confidence that Muller did not describe the relationship between Paul Manafort and Constantine Kalinic as an ongoing business relationship between the campaign manager and a Russian intelligence officer. The claims that this bipartisan report makes do not diminish. Your anxieties on a counterintelligence front is that fair? I. I mean I think they heighten them. Again keep in mind from from the start for all the naysayers out there. This is a report who all the Republican senators of the intelligence community signed and put their name to adopting those conclusions adopting. Let's say this adopting those facts, there were different opinions of what it meant at the end the and I think Marco Rubio said, it clearly displayed there was no collusion or something you know looking outside and said there you know zebras falling from the clouds or something but it it is nothing but concerning it makes me worried if you want to under if you're looking at trump's financial exposure and they clearly did a very detailed look at that. But that doesn't even scratch the surface of what might exist I mean I was thinking you take a look at the office of government ethics form that you have to fill out on your financial interests in one of trump's intrigued the office. This over I think is over five, hundred fifty or so limited liability corporations things where he had either a controlling interest or some sort of directional control over if you're trying to understand whether somebody has. Financial exposure whether they are laundering money whether they're doing anything with her hidden financial entanglements. The prospect of understanding what the trump financial empire looks like from a counterintelligence perspective in vulnerabilities is a staggeringly complicated endeavor and I don't know that anybody could be I or anybody. Yes. It would be a massive undertaking. No, and there's no way. There's no way that would be quiet and that's part of what also gives me concern about whether or not. It's been done to the FBI have tools in its investigative arsenal where we can obtain data quietly records quietly under seal. Of course we do. Is there any way on earth that we could have anybody could have done that? In. A manner that would not have leaked out and that would not have immediately led to trump and others around him screaming and litigating to prevent that from happening I mean look what's going on now with everything from his tax records to the czars accounting records I mean across the board, he was fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from being produced I. Have No doubt that would have occurred in the same way with any sort of executive branch investigation the absence of any outcry the absence of any sort of media reporting to me indicates that probably wasn't done. All right. I want to go to audience questions momentarily but before I do I I wanted. Just tick off a few of the specific cases. That resulted from this. One of the. Constant criticisms of the Russia investigation including by some people who are in the audience is that the individual cases were just not as interesting or impressive as you guys think and so one person who clearly believes that as Bill Bar who moved to dismiss the Flynn case George Papadopoulos has been on a kind of victory tour having obtained his felony conviction and You know there's a there's a sort of sense in a lot of conservative media that a what you actually racked up was a bunch of a process crimes I- obstructions of the investigation be unrelated felony activity like I don't think anybody doubts the seriousness of the Paul manafort allegations, but they're not about `intervention in the in the election right and then indictments of Russian actors for their activity but that it actually doesn't amount to a whole lot. You know it doesn't amount to a mosaic that tells the story that were depicts the picture that you're describing here and so. In the more extreme dismissals of this, you know you have people who call it including the president, the Russia collusion hoax. But in this extreme formulations, you have people who just say okay. So they indicted a bunch of people and a bunch of people pled to you know lying, it's not a pretty picture, but it doesn't amount to what Pete struck says it amounts to or what you know Jim Coma thinks that amounts to or for that matter Ben with thinks it amounts to my question is. Why are they wrong? Why shouldn't we understand this as you know? Some gifters did some gifting. Let's leave aside whether General Flynn was railroaded or whether he was a after was griff Ding you guys got some scalps, but it doesn't amount to the big deal that you would write a book called compromised about in other words. The whole matter is a bit less than the sum of its parts, your thoughts I think that's upside down I. Think you have to look at this all those individual action specifically in the context of what happened starting with Russia in. This is something that director Muller was very precise about to hide the message. The fact of the matter is Russia intervened in our election twenty sixteen, the specific intent to hurt Clinton in help trump one. To the trump campaign knew. They were trying to do that. And welcome the assistance and that three that assistance was provided notwithstanding the stumbling around by members of the campaign and whether or not. They're actually able to affect choate a close coordinated relationship in doing that. But the fact of the matter is that my belief in an election that was that close as we had in two thousand sixteen that the Russian assistance to trump. Caused the result that occurred. And you know a thousand other things to to. Including right about this that you know my beliefs that aren't the bureaus actions with regard to Clinton also played role in it. But when you've got an election that's swings on eight thousand votes between Wisconsin Michigan and Pennsylvania, in the sum total. There is no doubt in my mind that Russian efforts and aid played a deciding factor in what happened. And so from that as your perspective, which has to be the perspective of a attack that. His unprecedented in our history is not just interference. It's active involvement that then when you step back and you look at all these players who are interacting in saying again. All of them. In having clandestine relationship with Russia that takes on a much more significant counterintelligence concern. In view of the context in which that was happening. So yeah, was George Popadopoulos just stumbling around running out to you know a Greek government employees who he also told about the offer of assistance than others and didn't really know what the Hell and couldn't remember what he did or didn't tell the people. Absolutely, that's possible. But the fact of the matter is that he heard about the Russians having material that would be damaging to. Clinton. And Obama and that the Russians had offered to assist the campaign coordinating that release before anybody knew that the Russians hadn't hacked into installing the emails that were there. So either clairvoyant, are there actually was contact their knowledge there. So if you go through person, you go for him to the actions of Metaphor and you know Mike Flynn and Robert mainly just go down the list. The fact of the matter is a they've all pled guilty to found as are most of them. And be almost felonies at the end of the day aren't just Oh, you know you you. You violated the crosswalk Jaywalking. They all come back to this lake to the government of Russia. And the behavior of the government Russia in attacking our elections and helping to install the candidate that they favored and so there's no way that I think anybody can look at this admittedly very complex tableau of information there and not conclude that this was one of the most stunning intelligence operations for the Russian perspective in the history of our bilateral relationship it just is immense and it's concerning and it's still concerning. All right. We've got a lot of questions in the queue. I'm going to try to over the next thirty minutes get through as many of them as I can and toward that end. Pete I'M GONNA ask you to keep answers relatively brief. From Eric, woods who is a recent Georgetown CSS Allom what words of wisdom do you have for those looking to do public service and such polarizing and partisan times. Diamond, we need good people now more than ever. I don't regret for a minute the time spent in the army and the time is spent in the FBI is the most rewarding work I could ever imagine and I know my classmates who went into the military when the department state and went into the intelligence community almost to a person say the same thing there is no higher calling in my opinion and now more than ever others work to be done and what we face in bringing. Back and repairing some of the damage that's been done over the past four years we absolutely need good people apply. Whatever your eventually I love the FBI had put yet a recommend the FBI to anyone, but they're in a number of opportunities in Divan and renamed you. All right I got. I. Got a I have not asked you about the president's attacks on you. But in the context of that answer, it seems like a pertinent question The president has tweeted about you hundreds of times you describe in the book personal security issues that are serious enough that when the FBI arrested says are Sayek who was the guy who sent pipebombs to a bunch of people you gotta personal warning that you were on his radar screen and you needed to check your packages very carefully you have been publicly. And humiliated by the FBI brass how can you not be a little bit more hesitant in your urging somebody to go into a career in public service? It's look it has the opposite. Impact I don't know if that says what that says about me, but I think the goal is Under attack. That you love when you see something under attack, that is so critical to. WHAT MAKES OUR DEMOCRACY? What it is you know professional government, a government that is free of nepotism irs freeze. It can be the role that we as a people rely on our government to do from protecting us to providing for us. When you see that under attack, it makes me WANNA do nothing more than to Marshall people to help 'cause. So look all those things are horrible either inexplicably horrible I can't talk to you about. Everything from the fear to the anger that this lies essentially being placed on you and your image and the constant onslaught it's terrible and it. Certainly people in my level. When you look across the board at, you know others whether it's you know. Colonel Alex Feldman are best vitriol these people in government who have suddenly found themselves at the you know the crosshairs of the president on their back. Treating in treating those folks in ways that no administration has done in the past it's awful and there's no easy way to try and explain how awful it is but still despite that. That makes me want to do is stand up more and encourage others to stand up more to get involved. So that's that's the reason why I'm telling everyone who can go the government to go go to Public Service John Gentry asks on no mention has been made of the steele dossier. There are accusations that there is evidence that Russian intelligence fed the anti-trump steele dossier. What is your response? Yeah. So I mean more broadly how does the steel material fit into this story and and to what extent are you now concerned and were you then concern that Russian disinformation was feeding that information? Look I. Still information is a great example of what the FBI gets on a daily basis from sources. You know whether it's intelligence information, the national security side or whether it's something that you know a snitch. Talking about some gang provide about what's going on. Every time we get information in the FBI particularly on the Intel side, we know that there could be a bunch of things going on a bunch of motivations there. We fully understand it could be disinformation it could be flat out made up false material. It could be something that somebody's trying to give to us because they have an ulterior motive that it might partially beach. True. They're also to get us to do things in shape or sculpt what we do or don't do because that information. So. All those concerns automatically attached in the intelligence that comes in still material was no different and when we received that material, it was immediate was self apparent that it was coming from a variety of sources. We quickly were able to determine that scene was using primary source who in turn had a lot of sources not exclusively to the sub stores with a lot of sub sources behind it until we put a lot of effort into explaining and thinking and looking into all this questions I just noted. Again that's not unusual but one of the issues on try and keep this short is. Win, that became public. It seized the public immagination and it became this kind of thing where people either they were very quickly polarized and they either saw that as an absolutely truthful tale that represented a horrible horrible. Just recruitment and worse the president or they were convinced all complete nonsense that there was no truth whatsoever. Until proving or disproving steel almost became the test of whether or not. There's any counterintelligence concern about trump and so as it became apparent, certainly the steel material you know I still to this day believe what we initially while I was working with it through early seventeen of analytic effort. Mostly, there is a little bit that we confirm could confirm. It was a little bit. We could disapprove, but there is a whole host of material Balkan material. Maybe we simply didn't know whether it's accurate or not, and so as the recent reports came in, that were casting doubt on it. Some people try to flip that and say see, look, this is all nonsense and therefore it's none of it is credible and because one source somewhere from a foreign government says they heard this might be disinformation more. Okay. That makes a Lotta Sense. I would expect to see that no, they didn't say a was and they didn't say that we prove that it was subsequent investigation but when you have a tremendous number of partisan political actors. Who have very little training intelligence or how the counter intelligence community works and bets information with a bunch of Parma motives to skew undermined the truth. The still material really served as it began getting public to really detract from. What we're doing and keep in mind steel had nothing to do with Mike Flynn. It had nothing to do with George Popadopoulos. It talked about manafort allowed in the context of being a conduit between the campaign in Russia would didn't do. We didn't use that in the prosecution of Manafort the financial crimes and things like that. They were looking at Manafort that didn't that wasn't part of the steel material. So when you look at what the Muller effort did, but the special counsel's office did the steel material was almost amendments, but it took this outside. In the public dialogue because the public knew about it the reality what we're looking at it I'd WanNa, call it a side show, which was very little small chunk of the entirety of the effort that we're looking at but to the public, it was everything and still if it was true while then Kat, it's horrible and if it isn't true or we can't prove, it will then clearly that demonstrates there's no problem here and that's just those the wrong way to dialogue and and it was problematic that way. And of course, it also got conflated intentionally with the advent of the investigation with which it in fact had nothing to do. On Jeremy Done Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington examiner rights can mr struck clear up what seems to be a contradiction in his time line of how the crossfire hurricane investigation began. He writes the Australians were prompted to contact the US about a May two thousand sixteen conversation with George Papadopoulos following trump's Russia. If you're listening comments in July of two, thousand, sixteen but Muller and Horowitz say that's I inspector general Horowitz say US was contacted by the friendly foreign government on July twenty, six, two, thousand, sixteen, and trump's comments were not until the next day July twenty seventh two, thousand sixteen. ANY ANY HELP FOR MR? Dunleavy. Absolutely. So I got the wrong. So I was writing my book without the benefit of the notes on the FBI had those and the report had not been issued. What happened was there was a big dump through wikileaks. That's absolutely as edgy report describes it. They. saw that prompted their memory of the conversation and then they began the process of contacting US overseas and getting that information to us. My recollection is and the reason I mentioned that conversation about trump speech Russia Russia are you listening when we finally in the counterintelligence division got that lead from the friendly foreign government us at the same time that trump was making those comments which were really concerning because they dovetailed exactly with trump asking for Russia's assistance trump asking for. The the the Russians hack in and find those emails or finery meals whatever their techniques and that came at the same time. So there is a little era i. know some people are scrubbing timelines for details in the scoping headlines around him. But that was a you know an honest mistake a lack of recollection that then after I had submitted my book to Pre pub review, all this information came out afterwards. So hopefully that clears it up. Adam pettus writes my question is as follows considering the events of the past several years and how they pertain to institutional independence and existing whistle blower protections, what additional legal protections and restrictions if any would you consider necessary to mitigate the potential chilling fact of inappropriate executive branch influence over future investigations? Really tough question I mean obviously an issue that is going to be before we absolutely have to address because things and as you know is noted, these normative behaviors that have guided presidential authority have been broken down on the way that we haven't seen in recent history. I think that certainly we need to look at. Ways to insulate and isolate. The professional bureaucracy and I say that with a capital in a good way from political patronage. We have any number of things like the Hatch Act, which have been just robustly ignored if not outright flaunted violations of by this administration. So there are things that are in place that could be strengthened to. We are maintaining an independent professional civil service. I. Think that's probably the first place that had start. But I mean those are policy questions that As you know as a student of government as American citizen I don't know that those are certainly FBI questions, but I do think when you look at the FBI. One of the traditions that has served the very well is the idea of a ten year term for the director, the directors, the only political appointee in the FBI, and that provides and preserves a certain amount of independence that is very important for what the FBI does. Of course like everything else trump trampled at. He fired a director Comey for for baldly would he admitted Parson motives? He did it to get the later the Russian investigation off his back but I I would start looking at. The existing laws that exist to protect this objective professionalism. into prevent enroll back and he's sort of encroachment on you know return to a patronage system within our federal government. Amanda Rifkin writes can Mr Struck talk at all about the Russians recalling Ohio? Kaluga N- from embassy in Washington in the summer of two thousand, six ten, which is in the steele dossier but up press reports confirm it and if there is any relation to get collusion. Yet I can't come in on that at all I mean clearly, there was a lot of recording this fall squarely in that area that. Either GonNA regurgitate rubbers in the media and by doing anything else I'M GONNA fall into a path either confirming or denying stop that is not not appropriate for me to do so sorry about that. Alina Greco rights if the FBI and the US couldn't stop Russia from doing this or seemingly prevent in the future. Why would any other smaller country not just given to Putin in other words? Isn't this a massive victory in Cold War Two point zero and from this point of view shouldn't the FBI? US when the political winds change, investigate and prosecute. Thank you for your service. Because there's a two very big questions that role than. The person is absolutely I think when you look at what the US is done under trump and kind of pulling back to a more isolationist stance and not only that but any refusal to push back on Russian actions and there was a recent. UK Meteor reporting about how prime minister may had sought trump's help in standing by the UK when they were trying to push back on Russia having just attempted to assassinate a lawful British resident a Russian former Russian on British soil, and tried to stand up to send a message and trump saying well, we don't want to take the lead on this that has with Gatien's which are very deep in very profound. Causes everybody around the world who looked at the US to leadership towards protecting Western democratic ideals to question whether or not. The US is actually there and so if you're bouncing alliances, you know we're we're the idea of throwing. A allies weight behind the United States to lead again, not not a military power block but to lead a set of ideas of democratic ideas if you're the UK or France or Germany or any emerging Republican, the Baltics anywhere else around the world if you no longer can count on the United States to stand for those democratic ideals. You're much less likely to do any number of things when it comes to Russian aggression, and so you know I don't want to get on the political science international theory discussion sidetrack but they're profound profound ramifications not just now. But for a long time on, that are going to need a lot of work with regard to what the FBI should do. I. Mean Look I am fully of the. Beliefs that what Russia did end still doing is one of the greatest from their perspective intelligence successes in the history of our nation, we owe a torch and we don't understand what happened. We have not gotten to the bottom and fully explored the ways that they did that from a counterintelligence perspective is absolutely essential that we take the time to go back and look and understand what happened. What the gaps were that allowed that to happen and make sure we're position to not have it happen again. So absolutely, thank whoever the next administration is it may need to wait for years in four months instead of four or five months we owe it to ourselves on national security to go back and understand what happened. It's absolutely essential. It would be it'd be like Pearl Harbor happening and just not not taking any look at how that. Massive attack occurred. Adam Klein asks I was curious what you believe are the best ways to safeguard American civil rights and prevent inappropriate profiling amidst an increasing counter intelligence focus on China. And I WANNA combine that with Matt Gilbert's question which reads how do you see China leveraging president trump's compromise or do you see that at all? Is there an argument to say that in balancing the risks this compromise is a lesser risk than may be an administration that would allow or even attract more overtly negative power balance moves from China. This both excellent question so Let me take the last. Well, let me remind me the remind me the first because I want hit that I for life. So the I I I guess the The second one is has China. Interact with the with the potentially that's. Starting diving. And the first one is in the course of responding to China's. Civil Liberties like how to. Protect people civil. No So look I think the that's. A great question went both ways in my head on him with regard to civil liberties in the protection of the last four three and a half years have clearly demonstrated that we need to write our rules with the worst case scenario worst-case actors. In place, it is not sufficient to have a regime of regulation in privacy expectations rules assuming good faith in good intent I think you need it's become clear that we need to be doing things to make sure that there is robust oversight. I look and know Benue in the personal subject of intelligence activities new into these department homeland security, which cry out for a much more robust regulatory regime and looking at how the government is interacting with things that should be protected speech. That debate has been there I mean we as a nation, go through it time, and again, we debated it in the aftermath of the Vietnam War in Watergate, but the church in Pike Committees we went through a lot of discussion and debate post nine eleven about whether we need to shift more towards security. So this is an ongoing sort of pendulum as a very healthy part of the American process and we are at one of those kindle measures right now looking at. Some of the things that the government is doing particularly with regard to some of the civil activity in the US that I think is opportune time to sit there and assess what that right balances. We need to do it thoughtfully, we need people to be able to sit down with different perspectives across the table from each other and have a very reason debate about it. You can congress do that right now I don't know they have to they need to with the president. and. So the answer is it must have those discussions now more than ever unto the second question about China I. Would I think long term channel is the significant counterintelligence sites the United States I think China has. Existed as a as a nation is a power for Millennia and are very comfortable exercising that power through these persuasion whether that's you know monetary. And it is absolutely my expectation in my experience they're very good at doing that within the United States. So I don't think you know when I look early on, there was a lot of Keeps us in the in the open sort of classified Rita there's a lot of media reporting that was talking about some activity by elements of. Selling trump real estate people claim to be connected to real estate dealings whether is investment opportunities that would gain. To integrator otherwise have favorable status come into the united. States. There are opportunities that environment for intelligence services to take advantage of So I would absolutely expect the Chinese or whereabouts are very talented doing it and I I know I know they were very active in remain active in the a counter until a threat within the United States. Absolutely that. Plays into the first question that the FBI never want nobody ever wants to be targeting someone simply because they're Chinese student are researcher whoever the case may be any more than we do on based on the other protected class I'm sure a very comfortable where we do that are there occasions where that mistakes happened? Yes but in my experience when I saw US investigating. An academic link to China or somebody who was not a full blown intelligence option station that the embassy it was based on legitimate reasonable reasons for doing that investigation not just targeting because. Are Other Victoria Murphy writes if these counterintelligence investigations have not been done, do you think it is because they fell through the cracks or because some authority bar ray perhaps trump himself disallowed. I mean, again, this is speculation so you have to take everything here. With a little bit of by not knowing and guessing what it was and also GonNa, limit myself because it's not really fair to speculate. I think the expectation when we set it up from the leadership, the bureau, which at the time was the acting director. McCabe and his leadership. With the National Security Division was that I got people Muller's team the do it. When I was removed There's a lot going on I. mean there were Daiji investigation was in full Out investigative mode trump was on the warpath. Ultimately Acting Director McCabe was fired when director came into operated and have a background of what was going on a lot of people who are in the bureau's executive management assume that everything's being handled by the special counsel's office. So there was this. Under belief that you know the other was doing it and which kind of progress with time I think it is absolutely the case now. Who on earth? Is going to win when I hear the attorney general saying that this was spying on presidential campaign in the based on a very slender read in. The unjustified. That's nonsense. I would ask any objective American. Whoever you are whatever your political persuasion. Take out the name trump and take out the name Russia and put in some random candidate and random hostile foreign power and ask yourself if there's any circumstance where you would not want the FBI investigating that and I don't care who you are whatever end of the spectrum the answers absolutely want the FBI look into that I can't help but think that absolutely the statements coming out of the Attorney General in particular do have a chilling effect and impact on certainly not the willingness of FBI employees who are. Brave and smart an independent and what to do the right thing every single day. But when you have that leadership climate in place, there's no way even if you want to do something this is going to have an impact on your work. Sarah Cope asks as current SF s senior focusing on behavioral science and its influence on conflict. How can we protect our democracy at this juncture? As trump spearheads a radicalization process through his attacks on speech and democracy it feels like fighting a hydra for every head cut off more seemed to grow. I think keep faith I. Mean I I grew up overseas mostly lived through three coups a. On three different continents. In the one thing that I always looked to and saw an American. Still see in America, is underlying basis of up leaf and what we stand for. And I don't care again I could sit down with the most partisan member who probably gates guts in, and we can find a way to this one hundred things that we love about the country. And that is consistent whether you're talking to somebody on a big city in the east coast to a little tiny town in the middle of the rush on that common ground is what we have to look at that common ground is what constantly gives me hope? That we are going to find a way to re identify and come together over those things that we share because those. Are the core things of what makes America America and that is how we're going to find a way to move past this era of division and the other and find a way to start rebuilding some of the damage has been done. A professional question from Sandra Essex in thinking about George Town and a masters degree preparing for a career in the FBI or CIA. How would you describe the advantages in preparation for those careers? So great question I. Think it depends on which to do because there's a very different career paths. They have a lot of similarities from the perspective of the guy was the deputy human resources division. I think there. Are Lot of in the national security environment at the FBI. Tangible things that is in area studies focus whether that is. A history type of focus, which gives you a deep understanding of certain cultures whether that's China whether it's Russia. If you're looking at those areas of emerging threats or emerging threat is a bad word to use in the context of educational environment but if you look at those Players in the international environment that are going to pose a competitive relationship to the United States, having an understanding of this country's history in their cultures or will serve you well. Anywhere in the government, certainly foreign language ability is extraordinarily important certainly. Cyber skills, knowing how to code being conversant with it systems understanding what the entire cyber threat environment is our high demand areas so Those are the sorts of things that have encouraged to pursue pick something you love because ultimately. Work, they call it work for recent. So find something you like indicted and find something that's going allow you to do that. And to give the last question to Margaret Mainzer and then reserve the rest of the time. However, little to wrap up Margaret asks how have you managed to keep so elevated and professional while having the President Dump on you. So aggressively in constantly, what self care did you benefit from? Sometimes I feel like you know what's the analogy of the duck seems to be like kind of placidly moving across the pod will nathe the future going nuts. It's been tough. I mean you know? I have had the extraordinary for my family and I. Don't deserve their support they've been strong and justice source of tremendous strength that has been wonderful and remarkable and our friends. And certainly discounted the goodness of colleagues and people who know who understand you know a that all this nonsense and be that you know, no million US for who we are have been extraordinarily beneficial but all the things in some of this is getting older to Justina kind of exercising eating less than six more meditating all the things that go into it. You know at the end of the day comes to. An understanding that you know what I would tell you is you can weather things you never thought you might be able to do and the strength that you have inside is greater than you know. and. So if I can show, anything would be that that they're in their plenty of people. Who've you know what I'm suffering is is nothing compared to? What mini around America do on a day in day basis so you know hopefully you know. Serves as a source of strengthen. Positive message, that way. The book is compromised counter intelligence and the threat of Donald J trump the author is pete struck known on the cover as Peter. Pete. Thanks so much for joining us today and. Good. To have you in the public domain. It'd be here Ben. Thank you. The law fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Thanks this episode to the folks at the Center for Security, studies at Georgetown for hosting this event and providing us with the audio you need to do your part to promote the law fair podcast. So tweet US Cher US on facebook up vote us on read it Pinson Pinterest and share US on other social media, and of course, leave us a reading or review wherever you found us. You can get law fair Merch at the law fair store DOT COM. Our audio engineer this episode is Zachary Frank of Goat Rodeo. The l'affaire podcast is produced and edited by Gen Paci Howell and our music is as ever performed by Sophia Yan and as always thanks for listening.

FBI Russia Donald Trump president United States trump Pete Struck Vladimir Putin Robert Swan Muller Senate Clinton Moscow special counsel Russian government Richard Robert Hanson attorney executive General Flynn Senate Intelligence Committee
The State of the U.S.-China Relationship

The Lawfare Podcast

1:02:07 hr | 3 months ago

The State of the U.S.-China Relationship

"So. On the one hand, you know Beijing may see. An opportunity with US relative power in decline generally, and US distracted by covid nineteen more specifically. On the other hand China faces enormous challenges especially on the domestic front. Slowing growth a massive debt overhang and some pretty tough choices ahead in terms of taking the painful steps needed. Avoid the so called middle income trap. which may help to explain at least in part the fear of domestic instability. Add to that the Chinese government's desire to deflect attention from its own bungling of the pandemic in the early days and the subsequent economic impact for China, and for the global economy. You know. So I tend to think it could be some of both. Insecurity compounded by arrogance. Leading to and overplaying of China's. I'm Scott are Anderson, and this is the Law Fair podcast for August twenty. Fourth Twenty. Twenty In recent months relations between the United. States and China seem to reach a new Loewe as disagreements over trade tech human rights in the coronavirus have led the two sides exchanged increasingly harsh rhetoric. Just weeks ago Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when so far as to suggest the decade-long experiment of US engaged with China had been a mistake but this heightened tension, just a bump in the road or new direction of one of the United States is most important bilateral relationships. To discuss these issues I sat down with an all star panel of China watchers including to ruin shopper of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology L.. Konya of the Center for new American Security and Rob Williams, executive director of the. China Center at Yale Law School. It's the law fair podcasts for August. Twenty fourth. The State of the U. S. China relationship. Before we start about the current state of the U. S. China relationship. I WANNA go back a couple of years. Turn give us a little bit of an orientation to what that relationship looked like when the trump administration inherited, what were the major concerns at the Obama Administration dealt with and what state did it leave them when it handed the ship or the range of the ship over to the trump administration Thanks got I don't think the relationship between the United States in China was on an even Keel in twenty sixteen in twenty seventeen. You had some near term agreements on climate at on cyber theft as you must realise no. But if you look at the human rights situation there as house developing whether and of laying the groundwork for what's happening now in changing or the decimation of human rights are if you look at acceleration of China's industrial policy in the commanding heights of technology unwanted technology transfer securities series situation in the. South China Sea year the beginnings of the uptick in political interference Taiwan and whole range of other issues. I. Think tensions were on the rise, and for that reason I think you had a pretty vigorous debate in the Obama administration particularly toward the end and shift in the posture toward China overall if you look back around twenty six. So I think the. Reckoning shift was well underway before the election in two thousand sixteen and we were going to see one we're gonNA see some form of. No matter who won the election in two thousand sixteen So, from the outset, China was a major focus for the trump administration i. think we can all think back to what was the first sort of infamous summit a president trump hosted at quote unquote winter, White House of mar-a-lago was with Chinese President Xi Jinping and really set the tenor of a lot of relationship. made it a real focus and their personal relationship real focus and a lot of that had to do around discussions focused on trade often to the exclusion it seemed at times of other issues. Rob Can you tell us a little bit? What was the trump administration's initial approach to the U. S. China relationship? Why was it so trade focus and how did other she's fit in and how have that focus on trade changed and evolved over time Yeah well, it's great to be here. Scott It's hard to characterize it as a single approach. As with many other issues, there's been a fair bit of inconsistency between President trump and his advisers who themselves have argued for different approaches at different times I mean just for example, you know you had the national security strategy in the national defense strategy which were published in in two thousand, seventeen, eighteen in those marked. Of Pretty decisive shift in articulation of the approach to China. At least by the national security bureaucracy around president trump. Those documents. And other on statements from the administration explicitly now, for the relationship is one of strategic competition in at least rhetorically seem to dispense with the notion that. Our objective should be to incentivize China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system you know to use the famous. Bob. Zelic formulation. But at the presidential level, the story has been much more mixed. So coming into office A, you know, as you suggest, president trump clearly wanted to deal on a number one trade. In number to North Korea, and he was willing to put a lot of other issues to the side or to get that you know whether it was human rights issues like, Sanjiang at Hong Kong or security issues like China's expansion is in the south. China Sea. And of course, he was firmly opposed to the idea of working with allies on the trade deal in part because he saw many of those allies as part of the problem on trade, not the solution. To even still you did see a lot of movement beneath the presidential level. We had investment screening in Export Control Reform enacted in twenty eighteen in debt up protecting strategic technologies. Fall by series of measures targeting hallway in its role in building five G. Telecom infrastructure. Also saw Congress in the president relaxed dod authorities around Cyber Activities Partly in response to China's cyber intrusions networks, and then a whole range of counterintelligence actions by the FBI in Department of Justice. So this made for kind of disorderly approach where the president and his advisers didn't always seem to be on the same page in that was compounded. I. Think by the fact that trump approached his overriding priority getting trade deal with China. In. A way that was often inconsistent with the prescriptions of us, trade representative and others. Namely he focused disproportionate attention on the bilateral trade deficit instead of on the structural issues, regarding things like market access and intellectual property protection that date back to you know the Obama, administration of course. In terms of how that played out. There were the two rounds of tariff-escalation in twenty eighteen. And, another one may twenty nineteen after talks broke down. But after the negotiations resumed last year, we wound up with this phase trade deal in January just before the covert outbreak in Yarrow's how the trade negotiations can ultimately failed, which is interesting because many would argue today that. This deal we have may be one of the only remaining stabilisers in the relationship. That being said, you know the deal was actually pretty limited in scope it was billed as a kind of stepping stone for future deal. In some of China's commitments in this phase one agreement. Really. regurgitate previous promises. Beijing. Have made in settings like the WTO and the g twenty. Were they kind of package steps China was already taking toward opening certain sectors of the economy, which is happening to some extent by the way under the new Foreign Investment Law, in implementing regulations that went into effect this year. But the phase one deal did not directly address really thorny issues like cyber theft, industrial subsidies, or market access for US technology companies. What does have are some pretty ambitious promises that China will? To years purchase an additional two, hundred, billion dollars of American goods beyond what it imported twenty seventeen. So it looks an awful lot like. Trade. With targets I think many people considered unrealistic even before the pandemic. But again, not as much addressing structural concerns that go back. Many years now, I mean, just bring us up to today with the economic hit from the pandemic China is only met maybe a quarter of its purchasing targets for this year, and meanwhile we're seeing a bilateral escalation across a whole range of issues. Some of which. You just mentioned responsibility for covert Nineteen South China Sea Hong Kong Xinjiang Hallway. Recent actions against TIKTOK WE, chat? Bliss goes on in. Let's face it between the political campaign season in the economic crisis were facing. They're still a lot of volatility. There is supposed to have been a mid-year progress review on the phase one deal the president. Has Sort wavered on this saying I don't WanNa Talk China right now and and claiming to have called off that meeting but you know. announced. That they're still engaging on trade in set to have that progress review with Chinese counterparts. In the coming days perhaps by the time. This podcast airs in any event that that may offer some glimmer of hope for US businesses in another wise, very rapidly deteriorating bilateral situation. But I don't think many people expect a major turnaround in US China relations at least between now and November. So against the backdrop of this ongoing economic discussion, which has been a major focus really at the president and certainly the rhetoric around the U.. S. China relationship, we've seen at least two major human rights developments arise in the last year or two and these are particularly challenging for this administration, which has traditionally really emphasized national sovereignty and autonomy over. A heightened scrutiny of human rights conduct by a number of states including China. Let's talk about the first one of those else and that is in relation to Hong Kong and the crackdown of the widespread protest movement that emerged in response to centralize Chinese control, and now the emergence of a new security law that really amps up that control and central Chinese authorities a lot more control over what had been a traditionally, much more autonomous city. How is the trump administration responded to these developments and how they fit into the broader bilateral dialogue in recent months? Thanks for the question and glad to be back on the podcast and certainly the situation in Hong Kong is really tragic right now, there's no other word for it to see despite all of the activism and vigorous protests in incredible organization. The trump administration a- has started to treat Hong Kong as if it were any Chinese essentially or as we've seen. Trump's. Hong Kong happens to be attached to China so to speak which is A. Tough from certain standpoints in his words, and that is geographically accurate Certainly an increasingly the case politically as well as we've seen the imposition of the national security law and really troubling implications for the people of Hong as well as for any. Any company or enterprise operating within Hong Kong given its status and centrality as a financial hub and. The official designation of the US government that it will. As Secretary Pump said a treat Hong Kong, one country one system and and started to rescind measures had recognized. Its special status I think is really reflects a break in US policy and just as of August nineteenth, we've seen the US withdraw from a series of bilateral deals that had given Hong Kong's special status in terms of extradition and taxation. and. This as well as the prior sanctions that a targeted a number of senior officials in Hong Kong in within the Chinese system including chief. Executive. Carrie Lam are primarily symbolic but due at the very least a. Display the displeasure of the US government and yet it's. Also troubling to see how some of the measures that are being introduced in response will. Will have some damage in terms of how we think about American engagement with Hong Kong and one measure that I think is uncalled for and has been soundly criticize with good reason is the cutting off of the Fulbright Program to China into Hong Kong given that this has been really critical mechanism of exchange and. Source of US soft power arguably, and at a time when the US trying to relationships Oh for often when circumstances in Hong Kong so fraught, there are considerations of. Of. Safety perhaps but also compelling reasons to sustain exchange not to cut off these academic engagements with China as well as Hong Kong and. Going forward. It is tragic and alarming to see that we're at a point where a number of activists from Hong Kong and protesters are starting to think about leaving a perhaps permanently and seeking asylum in one measure that the government has yet to introduce but should should consider an and hopefully there could be moving on this. The trump administration again reasons for skepticism perhaps are are would be welcoming those who do have no choice but to leave Hong Kong. This point to the United States as refugees and think that is certainly warranted given the crackdown and. Rounds of arrest you've seen already. The trump administration. Has responded and has introduced these measures but there aren't great options the end of the day. And the second kind of major human rights challenge on top of Hong, Kong and way one that's poses in the way more even more challenging circumstance arguably by some semesters at least is, of course, what's been happening in China's western Xinjiang region where there is credible evidence that Chinese authorities have been operating effectively what many would call concentration camps where they're forcibly relocating hearts of the local Muslim weaker population indoctrinating away from their religion and Cultural Heritage using them for forced Labour Rob. Let me ask you about this particular challenge. How is it that the trump administration and other US institutions with a bearing on the bilateral relations? Well, I congress reacted to this. Are we seeing it play into a permanent shift in our sort of relationship or is this just another sort of bump on the road that eventually is going to fade more into the background as horrible as it may seem? Well assuming the reporting we have is accurate. It's not just concentration camps and indoctrination. but also you know population reduction measures like forced sterilization. which amounts to a form of a demographic genocide in I don't use that term lightly. In terms of the trump administration's response over the past year so. We have seen a series of steps in October of last year. The State Department imposed some visa restrictions on Chinese officials related to send young. Since then. US Customs and Border Protection has taken action at least three times to seize goods originating from Xinjiang in enforcement a longstanding ban on the import of goods made by forced labour. There's legislation on the hill right now that could expand those authorities as it relates to preventing forced labor in companies supply chains. And in May of this year, the Commerce Department added. Nine Chinese entities connected to abuses out in Santiago to the entity list in with that does is to restrict the export of of US origin items they're subject to export controls. restricts. Their export. To entities in activities. Contrary us, national security, or foreign policy interests. Exporting to one of these entities requires special license in the exceptions are quite limited. And then in June congress passed the Wieger Human Rights Policy Act president trump signed that into law in that legislation is interesting for the first time. It calls for sanctions on a member of China's Polit Bureau, which is a powerful body that oversees the Chinese Communist Party. Scene Zhang's Communist Party secretary Chen Twin Gua who was previously in the same role in Tibet. was founded under this statute as being responsible for Gross, human rights, violations. So. There were some more sanctions rolled out in July. So cold being twin, the young production and Construction Corps I think the last I looked there was something like thirty seven Chinese entities connected this young on the entity list in that number could very will grow. In terms of. The Chinese government's response to all this. It's been fairly measured. Beijing, of course, denies the allegations of human. Rights Abuse. But has been far from transparent with the international community on its activities continue. In Beijing hit back with some retaliatory sanctions against several members of Congress. Including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. As well as the congressional. Executive Commission on China. But you know that was largely symbolic not really escalation. I do think INS important to note however you know yes these US policies are being rolled out. But as recently as June president trump himself said in an interview that he had held off on sanctions because he was trying to get a trade deal. So this kind of gets back to your. Earlier question. In around that same time that he made the head admission former national. Security Advisor John Bolton's book came out alleging that trump had personally expressed approval of the internment camps to seating pain. So again, a lot of action here, but also a lot of contradictions in the trump administration's approach and I think that has opened the door for criticism. That US government statements have concern over human rights in Saint John are being driven more by opportunism. Than by principal. Having said all that I. Don't think it's an issue that is going to just a bump in the road or fade into the background regardless of what happens in the upcoming presidential election. To Rob's point you know about. The some degree of distance between what president trump is reportedly said about Jinjiang to she's Jinping on the other hand what the administration has done in terms of rolling out sanctions in taking other. Measures I think it's absolutely right to worry about the ways in which some of what has ruled out by the administration could be back on the basis of you know some other trade agreement or something like that because prison trump's views on human rights are pretty clear to. To. All of us that being said though you know I do think it's interesting to see if you if you were. Put in a bunch of people who agree actually on the shape US China policy she take. Some. Might take a view that the relationship is inevitably going to be more rivalries. Others might say we have to preserve more space for cooperation if you ask them what we do in response to what's happening in Hong Kong and especially in John. Generally. They'RE GONNA they're not going to disagree when you say should we will have more sanctions on more sanctions on particular officials on businesses that are enabling what's happening to they're all GonNa agree and I think it's important for us to step back in just about the momentum that that is going to take on. I. Don't see any way around it. I have I agree with them that we need to take all these steps but but I think increasingly. You know what's happening in general in Hong Kong and the human rights portfolio, which in the past in some ways was a piece of the relationship that in some ways was managed is now I, think a drive, the relationship and particularly in ways that I think Beijing doesn't fully comprehend and So I think that's a shift in the way that in the in the place that human rights is taken in the overall relationship and moving toward being a driver. That's really fascinating I. WanNa come back to that. Line of thinking. But before we do I want to run through one or two a kind of recent developments because against this backdrop where we've seen this collapsed or lease severely hindered trade and economic conversation, we've seen to really serious human rights development through human rights crises a lot of ways these none of these really seemed to be the straw that broke the. Camel's back in terms of the broader tenor of the U., S. China relationship instead of anything that precipitating event to this increasingly round of hostile rhetoric we've heard in recent weeks has been the COVID pandemic and this odd game of reciprocating comments accusing one side accusing the other of causing the pandemic or aggravating with their actions often with limited evidence or support support them. To. Let me turn it back to you. Why is it that the pandemic seemed to be the precipitating event the tipping point towards this much more open confrontational rhetoric between the two sides at least from the view of observers such as myself is this, just a convenient excuse does it have to do with the domestic pressure? Both parties particularly trump administration is under or is there an actual broader reason why that has become the focus of such a heated part of this relationship now as opposed these other big issues that have been kind of sitting in the wings the last several months. Yeah well. There's no doubt about the degree to which. You know the politics of this are incredibly salient and. Lose for good reasons in some cases. But I I do think it's important to note that it's not just the US in China right that have had covert is kind of a a spur to two more rivalry. Your stepped up tensions We've seen this elsewhere also Certainly in Europe where the turn. On Five G. The turn in the UK. In particular has come after covid. I think some of that is is has to do with the way that China's GonNa Pal. It's post Cova. Diplomacy. Laid bare some of China's intentions in ways that had not been aired I think to a lot of people. It's grabbed a lot of some parliamentarians ride seen now inter-parliamentary Union get more traction in the aftermath of covid. So I think there's something about China's conduct post Cova. That's really done this. Obviously, you know the dynamic with India's well with the border clashes another. Example of that. That'll being said you know if if we were having this conversation back when phase one of the trade deal was inked and you said it is you know, do you think that the sentiment that was expressed at the signing of phase one was going to extend through the election I would have said absolutely not there's no hate that the trump administration is going to not find a way to make try to put China from center in the election because I think the presents us that worked well for him back in two thousand sixteen is GonNa find a way to do it again. And Ratchet up attention to some degree. Used in the election. So I obviously was not anticipating being cove in that way but I thought we were headed for something along those lines. No matter what. Also the something bad here. I'm sure. Yeah. Great points to run an. Just say as well that. To some degree the way the geopolitics of the pandemic has played out. Really. Creates. Reasons to question fundamental assumptions about the viability of cooperation between the US, and China even on the most critical of issues and it has been profoundly disappointing to see both governments competing were once one would have hoped that the stakes were high enough to engender some kind of cooperation at the very least and an even the fact that one's name once pandemic preparedness or prevention ideally in the first place was looked to as A. Bright Point perhaps or a promising arena for us, China engagement, and yet we've seen that really undermined on both sides and as the trump administration has eliminated programs like predict that were intended for the purpose. And undermine US scientific engagement with China including support. It's a China CDC is we've seen which. Could have perhaps a contributed to greater American awareness of the risks in emerges of a pandemic in the first place. Certainly, there is much much blame on Cuba side for the failure to cooperate. With China in any meaningful manner when the stakes for the country and the world are literally existential in some respects but at the same time, it's As we've seen the Chinese government has really looked to this crisis and disruption in terms of geopolitical opportunity in ways that are not a do really question whether there is a genuine commitment. To. Do global goods in a sentence or how cynically regard statements from Beijing espousing that. So for instance, the fact that we've seen Chinese hackers targeting. Just about every American Company and Research Institute that is working on a covert vaccine or treatments even. Even as at the same time encouragingly and heartening Lee, there has been relatively functional clebration on American and Chinese scientists, and now the framing of the fight for vaccine as a race and a contest instead of a complex endeavor where we'd hope to see greater coordination again is it is disappointing but perhaps predictable and given reason events, but even some of the recent accounts reporting that China is seeking to. Condition. Access to a vaccine onyx. Geopolitical aspirations including some of the linkage of its outreach in response to Kovic to the notion of a health. So growed is. Again troubling in some respects but difficult for the US to critique respond when we've also seen bad behavior by the US government and a really a failure to step up. So there is a vacuum that the lack of American strategy leadership has left where it's. Really staggering to see that. In this vacuum China has in some respects stepped up they have stepped up in a way that I think is. Again. As we've discussed revealing of their intentions in some respects in revealing of a desire to lead in a way that. Ties very closely back to promoting national interests and. I think at the end of the day what where I think we'll see the long term ramifications of the pandemic going forward is the extent to which at the end of the day. It has been a test of models and systems of governance or at least that is how the Chinese Communist Party has seen it at home and how they've characterized this crisis on the world stage and. The US so far has failed on many fronts and this is really A. A reckoning with many systemic problems we have to resolve, but also is inextricable in terms of foreign policy as this reinforces Beijing's capacity to. Promote its model, promote its health silkroad, promote its alternatives even if they may be heavy-handed and. Counterproductive in respects backfire as we've seen some of the growing concerns about how Beijing's handling the response to the pandemic. The. US. Has certainly been critical and with good reason of some of these steps as have China's neighbors. Countries around the world that are. Observing the wolf war diplomacy and opportunism in in the wake of this crisis yet yet. So long as the US is failing to produce a compelling alternative at home or or or diplomatically, we have really limited capacity to to start to change the game and start to move forward. Elsa as we've seen this heightened rhetoric around Kovic happening on top of these other developments, we've also seen it enter, and in some ways trigger a new phase. In another ongoing debate, we've had this tension over China's glowing role in the global telecommunications and technology sectors in a variety of ways percolating for a number of years is really came to a head over while away and five G. in the last few years it's still an ongoing debate. Now. We see this new phase of pretty aggressively targeting APPs tied to China Chinese owned APPs like Tick Tock? Had We chat to the point that the president using pretty exceptional legal authorities to try and work his way essentially into the phones of every thirteen year old in the country to take these apps off of them would again is it that? has led to this sort of phase is just this just another sign of this escalation on multiple fronts of the relationship and effort to build pressure on China. Were there something very specific about these technologies and a lot of these other fronts on the technological debate that we've seen this administration pursue? That is of genuine concern. So. Well there are genuine concerns in play in in some respects US government measures have been a course correction that is belated in and can be justifiable All of these actions are being carried out in a manner that is so clumsy, and so poorly rationalized that it becomes incredibly counterproductive and undercutting the administration's own objectives as they as they described them and start by saying that a unique feature of the US China relationship at least until recently has been the coincide ends of. Military rivalry and geopolitical competition with quite high degree of economic interdependence and technological entanglement. So to speak among the American and Chinese innovation either systems where American and Chinese companies and researchers were quite engaged and when we've started to see other measures to. Impose. Different restrictions on that some warranted given peercy tech transfer tactics that range from the. Legal to the outrageous and criminal, but when it comes to. thinking. About some of these latest measures with regard to absent platforms in particular. I have hated the word decoupling with a passion because I think it is. It's an abstract. There is no clear sense of what the desired end state is sometimes coincided with the this rhetoric and policies that are sort of wielding these authorities as Cudgel, without a clear. Rationale or strategic objective behind it but I think to some degree if we consider the coupling to be sort of the increasing divider divorce. So to speak of the American and Chinese Innovation Information Ecosystems in particular when it comes to how the US Internet and Chinese Internet looking increasingly dissimilar from each other arguably that did start in Beijing when American companies were excluded initially. So there has been there have been asymmetries and a lack of reciprocity in terms of the in terms of the restrictions in place and the fact that while. had been quite open and hopefully can sustain openness to the extent. It's beneficial love. The Chinese government had long since in the past started to view American companies as Trojan, horses for US values and interests as well as the. Risks of espionage especially, the wake of Snowden back in two thousand, thirteen, a an episode that I think had quite a bit more impact than was realized appreciated at the time in terms of capitalism China's drive for indigenous innovation and to develop substitutes alternatives for American companies and technologies but. The irony is that. Indigenous innovation or the notion of a state exercising sovereign control over its iber is increasingly becoming a shared feature of us and Chinese approaches in ways that undermine American advocacy for Internet freedom or for more of A. Democratic Paradigm for governance of of Technology and the Internet as we know it. So these measures of wouldn't comes to the particular executive orders that we've seen rolled out the bans on Tiktok and we had these can be justified but again, the administration has done a very poor job of making the case. For why this is genuinely security threat and why this is necessary and and also had that the rationale of using emergency authorities at a time when there is a much more urgent national emergency in play does make the seem almost farcical when mean whether we're looking at tiktok minute especially in the context of informational. Operations interference, as well as the Chinese military in Communist Party of experimenting with the use of social media for four propaganda for establishing discourse power manipulating global narratives. There is rationale to be concerned about TIKTOK. There is certainly evidence that it has. been far from transparent and in the workings of its Algorithm it censorship or alternatively promotion and propagation of content. It is certainly a factor of risk and given by dances. Despite its attempts to sustain independence the extent to which it's been forced to cede to party priorities when it comes to operate within China that does raise questions about its global activities. But again I think. To start with this ban. While, there had been a process behind with Jiffy and otherwise the as always. There's a tweet or a statement that that undermines the case for this being a coherent measure when it comes to. Claims or aspersions that this could have been intended to. Its value especially in the context of sales trump claiming that the US should get a cut of any sale and also the possibility that cannot be discounted that some of this was A. tiktok teens hurting trump's feelings with regard to the rally and to the extent that that may have. Had any any bearing on this decision again does take what is a Real and serious debate about how we think about freedom of expression for an APP that has become part of the. US discourse and activism relative to the concerns about having a foreign companies subject to the authority, even potential coercion of a foreign government so far within the US in that regard when it comes to our our discourse are expressions. So I think it remains to be seen how this plays out whether there is a deal or an alternative for a credible distance between TIKTOK and China under American auspices that that will be interesting to watch play out. Does at the end of the day seemed to be something of a lashing out at. Chinese companies. Without a clear strategy or coherent rationale behind it in ways that do raise concerns that measures that could be. Awfully. Away, his calibrated to the actual security concerns are instead appear to be getting caught up in verse political incentives. Turns out here. Thank Scott and and you know I. think else's laid out really well, the parade, a process fouls that we've seen. In the last several weeks on this front. But but I do think that we you know we have to face up to this kind of pretty fundamental challenge, which is a China's laid out a very clear. Vision of Internet's sovereignty. They laid out a pretty clear vision of up for. The world of platforms, and so the question for us is how how do we maintain a free and open Internet while? China's going to keep our platforms out at the same time hoover up as much data as possible. Our certainly make sure it's available to them whenever they wanted and then combine it with all kinds of data that's been. Stolen through multiple hacking efforts that have been pretty well documented and. There I, think you know I'm I'm somewhat pessimistic that there's going to be. A equilibrium in which we don't see some degree a bifurcation in question is really going to be how do we go about it in a way that maintains the free open Internet for Free Societies and protects the data insecurity and privacy of users in those societies in the supremely our allies and partners and by all means, we should be doing together with those allies partners ending that's at the top of the diamond list of what the trump administration has failed to do. But the fundamental dilemma is one that's not gonNa go away. In this budding relationship with this sharp elbows, these exchanges, this heated tension, some experts have pointed to the fact that this is not just an American phenomenon. This is as much a change in the Chinese posture, and in fact, the emergence of by some accounts at least of a more aggressive Chinese vision or philosophy of foreign policy, which is called a Wolf Warrior posture off I believe a television show or movie in China Rob. Can you tell us? Is there truth to this? Are we seeing a real shift in the Chinese approach to these sorts of issues and that's contributing to this tension or is there a response much more reading the room in regards to the trump administration's approach the relationship? Well Beijing certainly being more sorted both at home and abroad. In terms of the bill of particulars. We see a very heavy handed crackdown in Hong, Kong. Following a Napkin of the National Security Law the atrocities seen young that we've talked about. To, ruin mentioned the recent clash along the disputed border with. India. which resulted in the death of of perhaps twenty Indian soldiers. You know bullying of neighbors intimidating Taiwan. With military exercises and other activities. Sinking of Vietnamese vessel in the south. China Sea. Spreading, disinformation around covid nineteen and on and on and on the I can't speculate. What goes on inside the heads of Chinese leaders but from the outside, the assertiveness seems to me possibly driven by kind of paradoxical and dangerous mix of both Hubris and insecurity. On the one hand, Beijing may see. An opportunity. With US relative power declined generally. In the US distracted by covid nineteen more specifically in recent months. On the other hand, China faces enormous challenges especially on the domestic front with slowing growth a massive debt overhang. And some pretty tough choices ahead in terms of taking the painful steps needed. To avoid the so called middle income trap. which may help to explain. At least in part the fear of domestic instability. He added that the Chinese government's desire to deflect attention from its own bungling of the pandemic in the early days in the subsequent economic impact for China and for the global economy. Not to mention the public health impact, you know. So I tend to think it could be some both. Insecurity compounded by arrogance. Leading to an over playing China's hand. I'm not entirely persuaded by the argument that we're seeing a dramatic shift in China's foreign policy or at least not. So dramatic that creates. The inevitability of new Cold War dynamic. But I do think that China's increased wealth and power mean. Even, largely, continuous Chinese, foreign policy. Applying, the very considerable means China now has at its disposal. Is. GonNa, be unsettling in potentially destabilize. So. That requires some fresh thinking about how the US can work with allies and partners, and also with China you know to help shape Beijing's incentives in a very complex global environment. So this all these developments, these trends all led to a pretty exceptional set of remarks by Secretary of State Mike. Pompeo a few weeks ago outside the Nixon Library particularly symbolic location for the remarks because of course, Nixon was the architect of the normalization strategy towards China bringing China into the Community of nations effort to move towards a more normal relationship with the United States and providing a bounce of union during the Cold War. But we saw secretary of State Pompeo essentially say that that strategy was. A mistake or something close to it and begin to argue that China's resistance to international norms. China's general posture was instead 'cause for very different approach something that sounds a lot like regime change although I don't know if it would quite that far to ruin. What you re supposed to make of these remarks is really just a sign of a complete shift in the American tactics at least from the trump administration's views or is this really just another ratching rhetoric that symbolic but doesn't have many substantive locations. I saw secretary pump is speeches a capstone capstone to the series of speeches that the senior administration officials had given on. China. Over the preceding months and it was also a Capstan I think kind of on the administration's China policy and kind of preface the same way that the White House strategy document was for the series of actions that. Keep. Unfolding over these weeks I expect to continue probably well toward the end of the year, even potentially after the election. as well. Know on the question of engagement. This is not just the trump administration. That's kind of delivering a Eulogy for Engagement of in You have folks like Orville Schell writing about the depth of engagement as well or ill being a long time China scholar. Someone who played a role The early stages of engagement as well until I don't think that's unique to the trump administration pronouncing the end of engagement engagement as it was conceived of for several decades I. Think you know the the main challenge you for Secretary Pompeo was a bit of the. CCP style double-speak where on the one hand there is vaunting of the free world, but the administration was if anything. Made the free world a bit more brittle whether it's sections in. Eastern. Europe. Or whether it's what the President Xi Jinping of John. So on a it's kind of hard to take seriously some of the arguments about standing up for Democracy for human rights to the free world given the administration's record. On on the question regime change is interesting in he walked right up to the line. He did not call for regime change I think even have suggested that that was not to ministrations policy but. The challenge there is that the demands and I think this is not just going to be for the trump administration made this would apply to a new administration as well as. Some of what Beijing is doing on. So many fronts robin also had been discussing with us today are so are are so inimical to US values in US interests that what we I I think that Washington is going to be looking for is a fundamental change in the character of the regime. So we may say it's not the regime itself, but the character of the regime is what's kind of posing all of these challenges. I think that's GonNa be an enduring challenge welby on this administration. True that really sets us up well for what I want to be our closing question which on a direct towards all of you today, and that is what should we be looking forward to in terms of the new trajectory Thursday new trajectory for this relationship we know the trump administration has set out this coarsely rhetorically at least with these Nixon library remarks although we'll wait to see what actually manifest to is are we should We expect one particular path on the trump administration and substantially different from from a potential Biden administration or are we now at the stage where external factors our interests are simply pushing the United States to this more confrontational or at least competitive posture with China, and that's going to be a feature regardless of who the president is or who the policymakers are guiding US policy towards. China else let me check that question towards do i. I don't know if I have a great answer because I am about as confused about what's happening in. DC as I ended up what's in Beijing these days if not more so. for all that we've seen these articulations of strategy from the crowded ministration. There are just simply is a discrepancy in contradiction between. Rhetoric and reality and such A. Bizarre dichotomy as well between these thundering condemnations of the Chinese. Communist. Party, which up to a certain point are warranted and justified given as we've discussed the human rights situation quite aggressive behavior by Beijing on the world stage and otherwise yet these also rather. Lettering equis for lack of a better way. Of phrasing, it references to admiration of Shi, Jing pain, and seemingly a desire at least on the part of the president to get along and choose seemingly in some cases. Endorse Xi Jinping's actions and decisions with regard to Hong Kong and Xinjiang allegedly, and some cases as has been reported. So there is this a duality or tension and US policy in that I, think does reflect the fundamental lack of coherence when it comes to. Our country is mentioning right now and I don't think any of us can think or talk about foreign policy or national security without recognizing the gravity of what is happening at home right now and the talk of great power competition. In lofty and abstract terms when we are still in the midst of a pandemic, that has proven absolutely devastating in ways that it didn't didn't have to be clearly given how. Other. Nations and other democracies have weathered at much more successfully. We are seeing a reckoning as well with systemic racism that is long overdue and badly needed as nation including. Including arguably as pertains to our ability to live up to our values and principles at home and exercise any moral authority. Let alone soft power on the world stage end in one were action is badly needed and were hope we're starting to see some progress towards. Towards Justice and? The radical reforms that may be necessary to right those wrongs and we're, and we're also seeing efforts by the current administration to degrade and undermine the fundamentals of our democracy and it's hard to claim that we are. Engaged in this existential competition against a regime that authority -Tarian when we're seeing a president to traffics in some of the same tactics again. I think to the extent that this is a systemic competition or a contest of models. For any viable strategy for sustainable approach we have to start with trying to rebuild our own country and our own democracy first and foremost, and I think only from a position of strength or recovery can we think about? Competing and recalibrating on so many critical in the U. S.. China relationship because competing while we are on such shaky footing is just not going to be viable in in any sense. You There is an overly simplistic narrative out there suggesting that there is a kind of bipartisan consensus in Washington on China. In reality, to my mind. To the extent, there is a consensus it's largely one of diagnosis, but not of objectives or the strategy and policy tools appropriate to achieving those objectives. It's hard to predict what a second term trump administration might. Prioritize or do you know under a binding administration? Think something's probably won't change all that much. You know for example, you know Biden would likely remain skeptical of China's economic practices particularly around. Intellectual Property Market Access. Some of the other issues we discussed. You know they'll probably be continued efforts to restore diversify at least some supply chains. And reduce economic interdependence in certain strategic sectors. But the approach to dealing with those concerns. Would almost certainly be much more multilateral in engage allies and partners leveraging our common interests as opposed to alienating those countries. You know think of tariffs on Canadian aluminum or or holding up appointment of judges at the WTO Appellate Body. To ruin mentioned secretary Pompeii remarks in the Nixon. Center speech about bringing the free world together. I think it is. Tragically true that this administration has undermined at least to a considerable extent, the US ability to do that. Through the American first rhetoric in approach so you know I would also expect to see. Under a President Biden probably more measure tone rhetorically with respect to China more of a coherent interagency policymaking process. That is. Less contingent on the whims or dealmaking instincts of the President I. Think we'll see. More, emphasis on human rights concerns at the presidential level particularly with respect to. John In. Hong. Kong. I think a President Biden would be less keen to. Sever, people-to-people relations of through immigration visa restrictions of various kinds that in my judgment have. Not, been particularly effective Finally Vice President Biden has made in some of his statements and writing he's made global cooperation on. Climate Change. Impediment Response and a central pillars of. His foreign policy agenda in that suggests to me that there would be. Some guardrails in limits on the extent to which like different administration would go whole hog into cold war-style confrontation. But the big picture you know in some ways, the entire ballgame as one of my colleagues recently put it when it comes to dealing with China is working with allies and partners and through multilateral institutions. And just. One final note on that that doesn't mean. Cajoling them into signing on sale to US positions you know it's necessarily can involve I think some elements of compromise the challenge I think is GonNa be crafting a Pro Ch-. For example, the Elsa was referring earlier to data protection issues in digital trade standards on that very a thorny set of questions finding a unified approach that's In, creating an incentive structure for all countries to to join that club. But doesn't get watered down to the least common denominator. Acknowledging the political realities that We're not necessarily unified on all these issues here in the US, much less with our European counterparts or partners in the Pacific. So that kind of. Of questions which these recent actions against Tiktok and we chat really bring to the forefront. Illustrates for me that no matter who wins the election there are some really big and important challenges ahead. Toronto give you the last word. I agree with a lot of what Elsa in Rob said, particularly the point about them with allies and partners. In in addressing the China Challenge, just a few things that I think are going to be pretty constant. No matter who wins. One is the primacy of the. The interest of maintaining a stable U., S. China relationship. Obviously, we don't want. We don't want conflict to militarize conflict China, but the idea that the top priority is maintaining comedy in the relationship those days are over. Fundamental interests. Clashed to such a degree that think that's GonNa Change Notre. Who's White House come? Next year the second I think there's a there's sometimes this dichotomy of. We just need to run faster worry less about China. I think you're GONNA see combination you're going to see we're going to be running faster and we're going to we're going to. Help we'll build a bipartisan consensus on making the investments to do that, but we're also going to be pursuing competitive strategies including issues like export controls hopefully with our allies alongside that a domestic investment and reform. I think. That's that's true even on the cooperation agenda. So I think sometimes we can play a little bit distinction between public goods in cooperation in operation can be a means to achieve public goods. But on the other hand that this is something on working on with some colleagues, now is to make the case that sometimes securing public goods may require leverage in some degree of coercion. Climate challenge that we're going to be facing What China's doing with a road initiative in terms of its spree of cold building coal coal plants. The delta between the climate reality faces with coastal cities and the and the policies it's pursuing is huge and there may be a lot of room for public pressure I think even in pursuing public code like like a sustainable climate and finally I just say you know one of the things I hope we can do is shed unrealistic expectations on both sides because I think they're actually. Dangerous you know I I've here from Beijing now murmurs about a reset If Biden wins I think that we need to be. So both sides about the competitive in even rivals nature of their relationship now, and that if we do that, we're actually going to be much better off than we. We have you have a chance of a at a more stable relationship than if we are unrealistic expectations about what could actually change in the relationship at the stage. Well we will have to leave the conversation there Robert Williams Elsa Kanye Tarantula for joining us today on the offer fair podcast. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Thanks so much Scott. They'll offer podcast produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Please take a moment to rate and review this podcast on Itunes spotify or wherever you might be listening. This podcast was engineered by Frank Goat Rodeo and edited by Gen Patchy how our music was performed by Sophia. Yen? As always, thank you for listening.

China US Beijing trump president Hong Kong Chinese government Chinese Communist Party China Sea China Sea Hong Kong Xinjiang H Hong US government South China China Center Rob Williams Scott It White House President Xi Jinping
An Immigration Backfire?

The Indicator from Planet Money

08:36 min | 4 months ago

An Immigration Backfire?

"N. P.. R.. Everyone Cardiff and Stacey here this is the indicator from planet money. On June twenty second president trump issued an executive order to restrict certain types of immigrants, temporary foreign workers from coming to the US. Now, this order applied to future immigrants not to people who are already here or those would already been approved to move here and the rationale given by the president was with so many Americans out of work right now, he did not want more people from other countries competing with Americans for the available jobs and the executive order was consistent with the president's broader agenda of limiting immigration to the US Maggie. Peters is an associate professor of political science at Ucla and she says, there was one thing about the executive order at that she found really surprising unlike. The trump administration's earlier changes to immigration, which largely focused on restricting. So called low skilled immigration this new executive order also targeted visas for highly skilled workers and specifically is Maggie explains the order suspended knew each one B visas those are the visas often go to foreign workers in the US tech sector. The government had previously begun scrutinizing H. One B. Applications more than it had before that made it more complicated to apply for them but this order temporarily suspends granting H. One BS altogether with just a few exceptions. But when you think about the H. One B. Workers who are coming into the tech sector, that's not exactly the population that we think about who've lost their jobs right now. If. We think about any group the tech sector has pretty quickly moved to being able to work remotely. The other show, the economics of immigration during a pandemic that his devastated the US economy will restricting high school immigration actually leave businesses to hire more American workers or couldn't potentially backfire. Support for this NPR podcast and the following message come from Pinna Pinna is the only audio streaming service for kids through to twelve with original podcasts, audiobooks, and more all address and screen. Frey keep your kids engaged all summer long with entertaining and educational audio content. The whole family can enjoy from comedy to sci, fi and mystery to adventure. There's always something new to discover. Pin is free to try for thirty days visit Pinot DOT FM, slash NPR to start your free trial today. Maggie Peters is the author of trading barriers immigration and the remaking of globalization. She says that thrill long stretches of US history going all the way back to the eighteen hundreds. American. Businesses cared a lot about attracting more immigrants to the US. That's because businesses needed to workers. We had a huge manufacturing sector we were becoming the leading manufacturing power in the world. Agriculture is still needed a lot of labor. So we still have a lot of people coming to work on farms or start their own farms. The economy is obviously. Now if businesses want to find more workers are restricted from hiring immigrants, they have a number of options for how to get certain jobs done and one option yes could be to hire more American workers. Instead, that is the option that the trump administration hopes businesses will go for when it restricts immigration and in some cases that could happen but very often hiring American workers could require paying higher wages than the businesses would have paid to an immigrant or a business could. Be Pursuing immigrant workers for their specific skill sets, which might be harder to find in the US and so in those cases, businesses could choose other options which they do have especially because the economy is so much more technologically advanced than it used to be, and the options has become increasingly appealing to businesses in the tech sector is just a go ahead and hire the immigrant workers that they wanted to hire in the first place, but to let those workers do their. Jobs in a different country outside the US and this has been a lot easier recently because the online tools that make remote work possible have gotten so much better and so many more people are using them and having this option is one of the reasons Maggie argues restricting high-skilled immigration will not necessarily lead to more jobs for Americans. In fact, she says, for some businesses, it could even lead to fewer jobs in the US and so he moved your company to Toronto. Or move some of your production to Toronto. You'll get higher those immigrant workers, and then you would probably lose jobs here because you're not just thinking about the the couple of tech workers. You're also thinking about all the support staff and all the people who are in the restaurants in the park and all of the janitors and all of that other staff that because people are no longer in that building in Silicon Valley there now Toronto you're just don't have the same jobs. At, the moment there are so many people out of work in office parks and in restaurants anyways that we might not see the effect just yet but those effects could become more obvious more pronounced later on when the economy returns to normal and from an Economic Sam Point Maggie argues immigrants or not as workers they're also consumers who buy things like new houses and cars and furniture in groceries, and all of the other things that go with moving to a new place and so if those immigrants. Are, moving to another country, it could mean less demand in the long run for the product sold in the US that could also lead to fewer jobs for American workers who make and sell those products. In the last few years, we have a lot of examples of businesses in the US that are hiring a lot of the same immigrants they wanted to hire. They are just hiring them to work north of the border in Canada candidate runs a program to accept highly skilled immigrants called expressed entry. Two thousand seventeen and two, thousand nineteen the number of people who had been living in the US and then were accepted through express entry into Canada increased by seventy, five percent, and all of that increase was from people who were not us. Citizens in other words highly skilled immigrants in the US were moving to Canada to work there instead and other research looked. At. What happens when the US makes it harder for foreign workers to get an H. One B. Visa that visa that allows highly skilled foreign nationals to work in the US temporarily, and what happened is the big multinational companies typically ended up hiring more workers at their foreign affiliate offices especially, in Canada China and India, and that one thing that we've seen the. Canadian government to try and benefit from the Canadian government was running ads and Silicon Valley. Basically touting that they have relatively easy visas and has the data suggests some US businesses have already been taking advantage of this option to hire workers and have them work from another country because it's just easier that way then fighting through the new immigration restrictions in fact. Maggie says there's a chance. The pandemic could actually intensify these trends because a lot of companies are now experimenting with their employees working remotely anyway, and so as we get used to more people not working together in an office but working online, it becomes even easier to have people in other countries work for you, and so companies might increasingly see this is a potential. That why? Why even bother with an immigration system that costs a lot of money in this tedious really think. It's just easier to either hire everybody virtually have an office in Singapore have an office in Canada and all those sorts of issues, and so that is just one more way that the pandemic were in May will end up changing a fundamental part of the economy in lasting ways. Of course, we won't know for sure until the pandemic. And the normal times return knock on wood as normal as there's times where before. Special, thanks for this episode of former producer Camille Peterson who contributed a lot of reporting for it. Thanks also, Zachary Arnold of Georgetown's Center for Security Emerging Technology for the numbers on the express entry. program. We also cited to work economist British Lennon on the effects of H. One B. Visa restrictions will post links to all these works on our show notes at NPR dot org slash plenty. This episode was produced by Britney Cronin Indicators Editors Patty Hirsch. The indicator is a production of NPR.

US Maggie Peters NPR Canada executive president trump Cardiff Ucla Toronto Pinna Pinna Stacey associate professor of politic Canadian government Frey Silicon Valley Zachary Arnold Singapore British Lennon producer
Trumps final battle with China

Axios Today

10:01 min | 2 weeks ago

Trumps final battle with China

"Today's episode is sponsored by united health group. Good morning welcome to axios today. It's monday november sixteen. I'm nyla buddhu. Here's how we're making you smarter today. How may i bring silicon valley in the pentagon together plus why investors are excited about airbnb going public first. Trump's last battle with china is today's one big thing. President trump has ten weeks left in office in that time. We can expect to see him. Continue to crack down on china to try to cement. The administration's contentious foreign policy relationship with beijing. Bethany alan abrahamian is accuses china reporter and has the scoop on what the trump administration has planned. Hi bethany high nyla. What are some of the policies. Were thinking we're going to see here. In these final weeks of the administration in these last two months. What trump administration officials are really trying to do is lock in some of these harsher tougher measures that the trump administration has really become known for in their relationship with china the administration officials who are in charge of crafting. Trump's china policy are going to place a big emphasis on after chinese government officials and entities and companies that are deemed complicit in china's human rights violations and in threatening. Us national security. Were also going to see some public statements from john ratcliffe. Who's the director for national intelligence revealing some of the things that chinese government officials and perhaps intelligence officials have been doing in the us to meddle in our politics. I wonder what you think about how you would sum up president. Trump's legacy on china and the administration's legacy on china president trump brought to an end the period of engagement that characterize the u. s. china relationship. From let's say the late ninety s up until twenty sixteen which was americans and multilateral institutions really welcomed open trade with china hoping that these kinds of connections would influence china to become more similar to democracies and what trump has done is very much put an end to that idea into those policies and put the us and china in a frame of great power competition. I do want to say though that it was also china itself. That did this. I mean xi jinping very much views the us through the lens of great power competition and so in some ways you could say that president trump has simply brought us policy in line with how china views the world. but then he. We've been talking a lot about how we view. The relationship with china and how president elect biden will view the relationship with china. What is the feeling in beijing about. Joe biden winning the election. Chinese leaders know that president biden in comparison with president trump may present some short term gain to china however in the long run. They're made me some long term pain for china because president biden and his team are very focused on rebuilding america's relationships with its allies and on working through multilateral institutions to create and strengthen democratic nominee that beijing would prefer were eroded so president biden presents a different and potentially more severe challenge to beijing. Bethany alan abrahamian activist as china reporter. Thanks bethany thank you so much nyla. We'll be back in fifteen seconds with airbnb. Pandemic success story fact. Housing insecurity can harm people's help. That's why united health group has invested five hundred million dollars in affordable housing. Just one way they're leading the development of the next generation helps us back to axios today. Airbnb is likely to make the paperwork for an initial public offering public this afternoon. And that makes it set to be one of the biggest filings of the year. Reuters estimates the company could be worth as much as thirty billion dollars in his host of the exorcist. Recap podcast he's also a business editor at axios. And he's here with the scoop. Good morning. Good morning if you were not paying attention to the market or you don't know anything about ipo's what is to you the most interesting thing about airbnb and what we're going to see this week with it. The most interesting thing about airbnb is that it has survived this. It seems the pandemic better than have the company's trying to disrupt namely the hotel companies. Airbnb problems this year had layoffs this. Ipo is coming much later than the company had hoped. But compared to hotels airbnb seems to be thriving so when we think about sort of this gig economy door dashes also supposed to go public later. This year. I wonder what you think these two. Ipo's will tell us about the role. These types of companies will play in the tech economy of the future. These were both questionable business models as far as silicon valley and particularly wall street were concerned and the fact that they took the punch and seem to have got off the mat and started punching back. I think it's going to be something wall. Street's gonna take a real hard look at in view very positively. Dan primack rights pro rata newsletter and has also hosted the axios recap podcast. This afternoon. they'll be looking at the travel industry. And how airbnb fits it last week. President trump staged a massive shakeup at the pentagon changes the washington post described as wiping away decades of military experience in these waning days of the trump administration when we look to president elect by then one transition team appointment that stands out. Is eric schmidt. He's the former. Ceo of google and for the past. Four years he's been in charge of the defense innovation board in independent organization that recommends emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to the department of defense. Brainwash is the future correspondent for axios and has been reporting on this first of all the whole idea of ai in the military. Probably seems maybe alarming to people. So i wonder when we just say artificial intelligence in the military. What does that mean. I completely understand that people get alarmed. Your thoughts go to terminator in killer. Robots but usually. We actually talked about a i in the military. You're seeing the ability to process. Data incredibly fast provide analysis much faster than humans could and in doing so augment. The ability of human service people in the military to do any number of things might be logistics. It might sometimes eventually be on the dow's base where you're actually using help identify using visual recognition potential targets out there. Is it possible for the department of defense to do this on. Its own or does it need the help of private tech to create the innovation that it wants to department offense absolutely needs the help the private sector when it comes to which is somewhat unusual in history military technology you you technology emerging out of very well well-funded military research and then maybe eventually makes its way into the practice. Enter the internet francis or gps. In the case of this twins totally reversed the release depending on private sector companies. Because they're the ones who were unquestionably taking lead on the stand the best talent they have the best resources and they've been focusing on the so if this is going to happen you're going to have to have that civil and military fusion and i think he's going to continue in the years ahead key. Part of this as you said is the talent. What does that look like when we think about silicon valley in working within the defense industry. What our attitudes about that like. So over the last few years you had a few instances where in companies like google for instance where you had been policing. We don't want to do work for the defense department. But a new circuit that came out last week from georgetown center for security and emerging technologies. Found that once you actually survey a you find a majority of them. Either feel positive or neutral at working with the dod ryan. Walls writes the axios future newsletter. This sounds of golf are a big deal to the fans or so they tell me. Here's all the master. Sounded pre pandemic usually golfers play alongside packed sidelines full of clapping and cheering chance. It's also usually in april but because of the pandemic started last thursday and had a much different field. At least a subdued atmosphere. Didn't hold back. The players. dustin. Johnson still one on sunday by a record twenty under par five shots ahead of the rest of the field. Today you can reach your team at podcasts. At axios dot com or find me on twitter at milo blue and we'd love it if you leave us a review and helps others find us. Thanks for listening. Stay safe and we'll see you back here tomorrow morning fact. Housing insecurity can harm people's help. That's why united health group has invested five hundred million dollars to help build homes for families in need because having a safe affordable place to live has been proven to help high-risk people stay healthier visit you hd dot com to see how united health groups doctors nurses technologists data scientists care advocates and more are leading the development of the next generation health system.

china trump administration chinese government united health group Bethany alan abrahamian airbnb beijing nyla buddhu President trump biden bethany high nyla Us john ratcliffe Trump president biden five hundred million dollars pentagon thirty billion dollars trump ten weeks
Olive Branch, Turkey Leg

Slate's The Gist

29:27 min | 2 years ago

Olive Branch, Turkey Leg

"What you're about to listen to may include some potty talk. Then again, it may not. I hope it does though. It's Friday, October twelfth, two thousand eighteen from sleet. It's the gist. I Mike Pesca. Let's talk Senate races yesterday. I started with Beto and cruise now onto a race that's actually really close Martha mcsally and Kirstin cinema from the state of Arizona. Two women running against each other kinda rare happening now more than ever. There are six Senate races this term between two women before. Now there were only sixteen all time. Six is true technically, but you know, it includes New York where Kirsten gillibrand is going to beat someone named shell Farley, or as I thought it was Chile. Kiev achie- Farley. And I would say Jill LeBron's going to win by forty points. At least I could tell you more about shell Farley, but shell Farley doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, good job, New York state Republican party. She has fewer than four thousand Twitter followers. Again, bang-up job stayed party by the way as someone who mostly votes democrat, but has voted for Republicans on the local city and state level in the past. It is a good thing, not a bad thing for Republicans to have a state party with some semblance of functionality. Seriously, the two party system works better for each party when there is another party. Okay. New York state politics aside, let us talk Kirsten cinema and Martha mix. Sally both have run triathlons. How about that Martha mcsally? That name sounds like she is solved some crimes alongside encyclopedia Brown cures, thin cinema combines and edgy spelling of Kirstin with one of America's favorite forms of art cinema. Has the opportunity to be the first openly bisexual member of the Senate because she is as CNN says, Congress's first openly, bisexual, woman, I get openly, but why the qualifier woman, this would imply there was an openly, bisexual, male member of congress. I did some research and I found out there wasn't, but here's what I did find that Stewart McKinney a Republican of Connecticut who died in nineteen eighty-seven was according to Wikipedia actively though not openly bisexual. It's not quite know what that meant. I did some research, so Stewart McKinney died of aids in one thousand nine hundred seven, and that was the moment when his active though not open. Bisexuality did become open in a disturbing way. Here's a headline. Imagine this headline today. This is from nineteen eighty-seven. The New York Times. Headline friends say McKinney had homosexual sex, friends and political associates of Representative. Stewart. McKinney said today that the Connecticut Republican new died Thursday of an aids related infection had had homosexual relationships. Now, the news value of this was clear and it's in this graph today. Some associates of Mr. McKinney say, they feared that attributing his illness to blood transfusions. That was the explanation at the time without saying, he may also have been exposed to the aids virus through homosexual. Sex could mislead or frightened people who have had or maybe in need of transfusion. So I get all that it was a time of uncertainty and fear in the times does a good job of laying the facts and what percentage of transmissions came from what type of activity. But then they included his wife's part. That's why we say bisexual, he was still he was still married to his wife, Lucy who was very, it seemed at least imprint forward. Looking about this doer told me he wanted his death to focus attention on the need to find a cure for aids, not on the causes. But the last word in this times article with the weird headline was from the director of the and. Lesbian task force in Washington. Jeffrey Lee who said, I don't think it's anyone's business, whether Mr. McKinney was or was not a homosexual. There seems to be a subtle homophobia underlying all the curiosity, a suggestion. He would be somehow less innocent if he got the disease because he was a homosexual rather than as a result of a transfusion. Yes, I agree with all that except maybe the words subtle on the show today. I should feel about the very same Senate race. We were talking about Arizona and how the sartorial history of Representative cinemas being brought to bear. But I, I see Barunholtz is an actor and comedian known for his time on mad TV and in his big role in the Mindy project. And now he has a movie out that he stars in that he wrote and directed. It's all about the idea of a family thanksgiving during a time, very much like our own, an acknowledgement of the horror that that may entail. Here's I'd Barunholtz up next. Casper is asleep brand that makes expertly designed products to help you get your best rest one night at a time. The casper the original casper mattress combines multiple supportive memory foam for a quality sleep surface with over twenty thousand reviews and an average of four point eight stars across casper, Amazon and Google casper is becoming the internet's favourite mattress. So I mentioned the original, there are two other mattresses, the wave and the essential, the essential, streamline design at a price that won't keep you up at night, especially with that cool body temperature. In the way features a patent tended premium support system to mirror the natural shape of your body. You'd be sure of your purchase with Casper's hundred risk-free sleep on it trial, get fifty dollars towards select mattresses by visiting casper dot com. Slash gist and using just a checkout. That's casper dot com. Slash gist. And promo code gist for fifty dollars toward select mattresses terms and conditions apply. You might know my guest Ike Barunholtz from such projects as the Mindy, but now he is out with a new movie. And when I say out, written directed starring it is called the oath and let's start here. Hi, how are you? Brother. Thank you for having me. Absolutely. Let's start here. I want to paint exactly when and where it takes place could be somewhere in the future could be somewhere in the present, but a kind of earth. One simulation, I call it not so much a dystopia as a diss. Isssue Opio dismiss Pia. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's basically if you can imagine a world in America that's politically divided where they've not mandated, but they've how suggested that the the people sign a loyalty oath and obviously half the country more than half countries as this ridiculous. This fascism and the other half the country says, it's not a big deal. I think it's like the pledge of allegiance. So my story is all about this American family, the week of thanksgiving altogether. Or a house all freaking out about this looming government crisis and the proverbial shit. It's the family. The government. They're calling patriots oath state-sponsored initiative to have a Merican sign a loyalty waiver to the president deadline for signing is the day after what is happening in the country will boy that conversation for the next three days. These motherfuckers bring up the oath gonna lose my mind. Now, obviously, there are so many rich veins to explore with our current moment and families and how an individual person relates to the government. But you invent this thing, this plot device of the oath. Were there interational where you weren't sure what you were going to use as your way into kind of talk about the moment in a tangible way and give it momentum and give it a deadline and all those good things movie depends on I early on thought about the concept of loyalty and what it meant. You know, obviously this movie if we had a president, Hillary Clinton right now, this movie would not be here right now. It was very much inspired by the current climate in our current president, and I knew that he was obsessed with loyalty and I wanted it to be something that you could make a case that it's relatively innocuous that someone could be like, it's just like the pledge of allegiance. It's fine. It's just say it's just words just were also, like I know a lot of people who have Barack Obama was like. Today's national loyalty day, and I want us to all stand up and take an oath. I think a lot of people in our side of the I'll be like, oh, great, sure. Great. I don't know. So people would be saying who kidnap Barack Obama? Yes, definitely. They would, but but making a noxious of you can make a case for, but also make it, you know, dangerous enough that people could be like, this is the beginning of something really bad. Right? And so I really always kind of knew that loyalty was going to be kind of one of the main primary concepts of the film. Right? So with those ideas, I could think of a number of John raise the film could be it could really be kind of an end of the world dystopia thing. It could be a Sifi twilight zone. Monsters on mulberry street. The enemies us kind of thing, but it's a comedy. I have seen comedies about distort his like Shaun of the dead. Yeah, Ideo, Crecy and the the end. This is the end. This is, yes. So usually though here's the thing, the stakes, there are the end of the world here. The stakes are discomfiting, but not the. End of the world, but still you're playing you keep the comedy going, but also make clear what the stakes are. It seems hard. It seems hard to marry the genre of the light hardness of the John rea- with the seriousness of the moment and not lose either. I think you know, initially I always knew from from gecko that it was going to be a different movie. And I think if I went the pure comedy around, I think people would say, well, look, you're, you're, you sit, you're setting up all these very real issues to us right now that we're dealing with and you're not giving any gravity on the flip side of that. I think if I was like it's just a very serious thriller. I think people they will now missing all the humanity in the heart and stuff. And I will say, I do think by the end of the movie, the stakes do become the end of the world, you know tendency, he says, died the end of your personal university life and death. So I wanted to kind of trick people and learn them into be like the stakes are just getting through thanksgiving without fighting. And then by the end, it's like, what are you going to do to protect your family? Will you do the make the ultimate choice? So we really. We wanted to kind of just tease people a little bit and get them comfortable. Like, can you believe how much families fighting and then by the NBA like, oh, my God is gonna kill him. Did you always want your character? You're always going to star in it? Yes, you did. You always want it to be a mixed family because you can't really talk about likley or ethnic. No. I mean, ethnically, you can't really talk about two thousand sixteen without acknowledging the role, that racism. I will be honest, I initially I've been a huge fan of Tiffany haddish and says, saw in the movie. And when I I saw I was like, she's so good. She's so tough real. I want her to be my wife. So right when I start worrying about thinking of a move and you'll live. I would like to be don't get me wrong. I love my wife and maybe moved to Utah, figure it out, sister wife thing. I knew that it was going to be a husband and wife this story and right away. I had Tiffany's face in my head and before I even knew I'm going to get her. The character of KAI was Tiffany. And then I did really fit the purview of the kind of ideallic progressive couple in two thousand eighteen. So it was really Tiffany. I that unlock that for me and she had bailed, I still probably would have made it a black woman because at that point you know the part of all into, you know this, this, this kind of picture perfect, progressive family, so, but I will say it was really just me being a fan of Tiffany's that unlocked that and made that kind of part of the story. And who plays your kind of dick brother who looks like he either does or wants to live on a golf course. That is my real brother, no way that's John barren halts my brother who's an actor. You know, for years I seen him do plays, and he was great and he's on NBC sitcom, I knew, look, there's a lot of actors I can cast, but we have. So much history and it's like two years, no one you hate and love more than your sibling. Right? So there are moments in that movie where he's like legit pissed at me, like as a person for every shitty thing I've ever done to him, so to to kind of nab him and let the producers let me cast him as a real coup because it gave us to such deeper bond. You know, the younger brother kind of, you know, looking for love feel slighted, make sense that he would kind of drift towards that. And then this girl Kurt, we had this this, this kind of Tammy Laron. Character is the one who gonna pull him more to the right. You know what I mean? Someone's already got their foot in the pool, and then you have someone just pull them in and then there emerged and they can't get out. So they really kind of feed off of each other. It's a really good dynamic. Tell me what are type do you think your character is? Because I saw a lot of the classic sitcom dad, the put upon dad, who maybe as the an wanna insult you well done sitcom, but maybe as the heart of gold. But you know, kinda screws things up as he goes about trying to execute his life's plan on the other hand. So there are elements that on the other hand, the thing. That maybe you could argue, you screwed up is like it hearing to this principle of not signing the oath, which is actually a really high minded principle. It is, and I wanted to really show a conflicted character not just for him, but also for the audience, looking at locking alive, very much based off me. I was obsessed and still getting a little bit better, but I was way too plugged in way too obsessed with what was going on. There's a Lert interrupt news alerts completely consumed by. But I think if I presented Chris, the character as the most progressive character in the movie who's ultimately proven right by the way. That's the thing remember that his whole thing is like they're gonna come to the house when they show up. But if I presented him as being right, and he was noble and behaved well, yeah, and was able to physically handle the guys that would kind of come off as like porn for us. Right. And I think for satire, if you're not kind of shining a light on on everything, think you're missing some opportunities. So. I wanted to kind of take, you know what I feel about a lot of liberals which is couldn't agree with them more on the policies. They have every right to be terrified and worried and panicked of what's happening. Sometimes there's some bad behavior for me like some some of my dear friends who even weren't even like hardcore Trumpers when we discuss politics, I would go to ten right away, like really mean things right. The worst motives and and read into maybe an unoccupied comment, an innocuous and pulling in the fight with them right. We sometimes. Scene in the movie. My brother just gives a look to his girlfriend instead of just moving out in my life. I pin him down what? What does that mean? What did you say to her? Because the thing is you may be real life and your character is right, but it's hard to stop from being righteous that I wish I thought of that line. But in the movie like he's right, but not righteous and he, he wants to be, you know what I mean? Like it's just, oh, that's so perfect. But I think you know, the movie really just kind of takes how the current political climate combined with the way we intake all the news. Now, whether it's, you know, like God bless my parents, but watching MSNBC all day. I love MSNBC nonfiction is toxic, but also the way we imbibe the nonfiction, there's a toxic is there is. And when you take the other side of the aisle where they're consuming media too, but it's all bullshit. It's like groups cure conspiracy theory, stuff that's even more dangerous. And I think the character of abbey's just like me just far in there. Yeah. Now I'm. Gonna ask you a couple questions and listeners could skip. This gets into spoiler e territory this. So major scene in the movie is when Tiffany says to you, for a lot of legitimate reasons, should just sign the oath. She's really worried about her daughter, and I think in that moment, you don't really hear her as a wife and mother. It's about your righteous stance. Yes, I, what I'm saying is I have fallen into that trap like, I have this idea. I know the ideas right then someone I love says something that confounds it, and it's hard to get off the idea immediately and just relate to the person on an interpersonal one hundred percent, one hundred percent and on a on big issues with some of my relatives in Ohio who are listening to Republican and dammit there in the swing state. I, I know, but the good news in my parents live in Ohio and they are working with indivisible and they are trying to get a high of blue again on my God. Yeah, absolutely. Part of that is like if my wife and I have a slight. Disagreement on something, and we are very politically aligned. But if I'm super fired up about it and she whether it's playing devil's advocate or just trying to get more information, I right away go to that place that you go to where I'm like, how can you think that how can you? Like I said, one time, like if I was gonna say, like the top five American villains of all time, I put Paul Ryan on there and he said, it's crazy shit. She's like, well, I don't think he's. I mean, I hate him. He wasn't a slave. Exactly. Because what he's done is he's been perpetrating this fucking Horatio Alger on steroids American dream. That's like poisoning the minds of people. They have to be so obsessed with money, and I went into this, Blake, it's all sudden it's like, you point this serial killer. Exactly. And you take the husband and wife relationship and all of a sudden it's just like a ugly panel on, like, I don't know. Fucking Bill. Maher is a bully and we bully a little bit. I bully a little bit. And what happens is the people either they fight back or they kind of just slowly desensitize start tuning you out and both are both are bad well makes you drawn your resources like these days this period and I'm not inherently anxious person, but I do find that this external news that we wouldn't be debating unless maybe we were birther or it does call on all of our reserves. So like when you or maybe I have a fight with a loved one, we, we have to remember first principles or remember what's important, but it just comes up so often in relation to the news in a way it never has during our life. And that is kind of ultimately the takeaway, the movie, and this is a tough ask for some people which is like my hope, movies, people see it in first and foremost, I want you to be entertained. I want you to laugh. I wanted to be scared shit because this is such adrenaline was pumping during the action EC. It gets you and I want people to kind of like the excited and happy that they watch this movie. Right. Okay. But the bigger message and this is again, a tough ask for some people is we have these external forces that are weighing down on us and they're making our lives very difficult and and ultimately we don't have nearly as much control over them as we'd like, right, we can vote. Everyone's got a vote. If you don't vote, you're gonna ask, but we can donate money. We can volunteer. We can affect change in a personal level, but these things right. We can't let them permanently sever our relationships with our friends and family. You want to block a fucking dick on Twitter. Great. You got a co who's you can tune them out a little bit, but what I know a lot of people who win these commerce. Nations come up. What they do is they're just like my uncle just want. I'm not gonna talk to many more. I'm not gonna talk to him anymore, and I understand that. And I'm not telling you if you have an uncle who's a violent racist. Okay, great. He's gone, but some of our old has not violent violent racist day. They may be support, Donald Trump who is a racist, but instead of just cutting the cord, I encourage people have these conversations because guess what your aunt Janet who likes Donald Trump and if you just can't talk to her about politics or at all. That's one less a good opinion. She's going to hear then she's only going to hear from Ann Coulter or Fox News or whatever the hell. So what I'm trying to get people to do is not cut those cords because we're already in a bubble forever. Right? And if we don't, if we Heather, the bubble get smaller and it gets thicker. And as you know, from any history, that's when the shit really gets bad. So you know, all we can do is have our beliefs in. No, that we're right. Because I believe you're right, like I hear you. I know you are right, and and we know that they are wrong. But I, I, if you can talk to them and at least try to permeate, they're kind of shelves. They put on the fake news shell if you can get through that, and they can see a little bit of humanity out of the of how much it hurts you of how you as a father can say, how can you do this? How can you do this? Or might my son's girlfriend's Latino? How can you hurt her? If they can get a little bit of that empathy out of you making register their brain. And hopefully when they go there to the ballot box, whether it's this November two years, they can say and no one's looking ask. Grew vote for this. Warren baronets new movie is called the oath. He wrote it, he stars in it, he directed it. Tiffany. Haddish is also in it if that gets you going to her. Thank you. Thanks so much. Now, the spiel the Arizona race is heating up because it's our Zona, but also because of to choose of decades past this race, pits Republican, more excel who commanded an air force squadron inev- ghanistan against Kirstin cinema. Mcsally has a legitimately impressive record in the military and also a record of standing up to bullies standing four herself. She successfully sued the State Department while in the military, it was mixed. Sally v Rumsfeld for the right to leave the air force base in Saudi Arabia without wearing a burqa or as they call in Saudi Arabia and abaya. She will probably be a voice in the metoo movement to if elected because she was the victim of college track coaches, sexual predation, but we know her democratic challenger current US Representative cure Ston cinema will be strong on those issues. And if our Zona is worried, she is a strong supporter of the US military, she is voted for every military appropriation Bill. She has. Had the chance to, but that's what she actually did in congress. When she had a say in appropriating billions of the citizens tax dollars. What about the things she did when she had no power or vote, the mkx Sally campaign wants voters to know that her actual votes on the actual issues aren't really as important as what happened fifteen years ago when she was in law school while we were in harm's way in uniform kyu-son cinema was protesting us in a pink Tutu and denigrating. Our service politic act rates that is mostly false. The false is that there was no evidence of any denigration. The mostly is that she really did wear the to to well, I gotta say this, I'm no expert in women's attire. I don't quite know where poofy skirt attached to a bodice stops being poofy skirt and starts being to to, but this why mostly false is a fair assessment. The woman does seem to have worn a to seems like. A big deal to the mic Sally campaign so CNN press the Republican on the claims about the two. I would ask something like now Colonel mic, Sally, how is protesting against a war that went on to be extremely popular by the way and to a large extent poorly executed. How is that? If so, facto a denigration. But obviously there's a reason I'm here in CNN is there. Here's what they asked. Some women are looking at that as a bit of a cheap shot that you put her in a two two, and you're playing on these gender issues that is not a cheap shot at all. I am not getting this. I am. I for the record mic. Sally did not take the lob softball. Here's what they said. That is the truth. She's in a Tutu. I uniform. You guys get to decide. I didn't put her in her to that is her to to. Mic, Sally just said, well, I'm a warrior and she wasn't CNN, and this is part of the normally excellent Kafe file. That's the Andrew Kozinski site really, really pounded cinema on the exact talking points that MC Sally would like to see emphasized. One headline Cureton cinemas antiwar activist passed under scrutiny as she runs for Senate another Arizona, Senate Kirstin cinemas antiwar group blasted US terror depicted soldier as skeleton in two thousand three fliers the reference to the year two thousand three when she was protesting. But you know, over two thousand young American men and women would come home from that war and bodybags. So was the skeleton really so scary that years later, it would discredit her remember before you answer take into account the fact that she was wearing a two at the time in Stevens reporting, they did dig up some interviews that cinema did with a radio. Uh-huh. Host who was a nine eleven truth her. The cinema campaign says she didn't know that this guy was a non eleven truth her when she did his radio show years ago. And while I loathe nine eleven truth is I think CNN is doing a disservice to the full picture of cinemas actual views when it comes to four fronting some ancillary association with the truth there because you have a lot of evidence of years and years of voting and being pro military, how pro-military wealth, the center for security policy, which is a Washington lobbying group does one of these scorecards where they give every member of the Senate and the house of representatives grade. And it's very hard to be centrist these days. Most Republicans get a hundred percent score from the center for security policy, and most Democrats get zero or a single digit score. In fact, if you break it down by thirds of the five hundred thirty five members of the Senate and congress exactly. Sixteen, we're in the middle third where literally centrists on military issues and curious cinema was one of them go even further. There is a group called the council for a livable world. The council for a livable world promotes policies to reduce eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, and to minimize the risk of war through lobbying and helping elect support members of congress who share a goal. So in other words, center for security policy are hawks council for a livable world are doves a high score from the council on a livable world means that you are antiwar guess what Kirstin cinema gets the lowest score among Democrats. Now, it's hard to put this in in an ad a give you that vote for Kirstin cinema because the council for a livable world says she is the most opposed to a livable world, or if you want to frame it based on the mission statement, which says, again, it promotes policies to reduce an event. Really eliminate nuclear weapons, and to minimize the risk of war you can say, vote for Kirstin cinema sheet is the democrat, least likely to minimize war. Anyway. The point is she's pretty much a hawk in her actual voting record. I can understand why CNN thinks that is news worthy to highlight that she has this association with the truth or the equivalent would be when a Republican goes on the Alex Jones show. And yes, that deserves scrutiny. But if the Republican were a member of congress, who scored to be the least likely to buy into conspiracy theories that should be reported that should count more than the interview? He did if the council for the banning of juice boxes that make frogs gay gave that Republican their lowest score, put him on its lily pad of shame or whatever you would think that would be important to wouldn't you the latest polling in Arizona diverges a bit. The most recent polls show cinema and have been showing cinema with two or three point lead, but there was one that just came out. Yesterday that shows Mick Sally up by six. Maybe it's part of the metoo backlash that Republicans are touting is a real thing, but you have to wonder if it's good or bad from Sally's chances. If there is a meet you backlash. I mean, the cavenaugh hearings were last week will the anger at protesters, even if it Israel and it did affect that poll, will that anger still be going on in three weeks when the voting comes or maybe we're getting this whole thing wrong. Maybe it's all going to come down to a Tutu only time and possibly Zydeco hit will tell. That's it for today. Show pure, be enemy and Daniel Shroeder just producers ask you not to us with their Ascot's. Raphael senior producer of sleep podcast has, but one humble request issue with her MU Steve lick ties executive producer of sleep podcasts. He asks you to tamp down the inclination to tinker with his Nehru jacket. The gist don't Dicker with my Dicky per Deborah, do Peru, and thanks for listening.

Mick Sally Senate Arizona Stewart McKinney Congress CNN Kirstin cinema Tiffany aids Martha mcsally Kirstin Tiffany haddish America US Tiffany Connecticut Casper Republican party
Thursday, May 28, 2020

Up First

12:54 min | 6 months ago

Thursday, May 28, 2020

"On more than one hundred thousand people have died from the coronavirus in the US. That's getting closer to double the number of Americans who died during the course of the Vietnam War. How did we get here over these four months? I'm Rachel Martin with David Green and this is up I from NPR news China officially has broad power to criminalize political protest in Hong Kong. A new law threatens the city's autonomy. So what does that mean for? China's relations with the US and in Minneapolis last night demonstrations violence and clashes with police. This comes after George. Floyd died after struggling to breathe with police officers neon his neck mayor Jacob FRY is calling for an arrest. Why is the man who killed George Floyd not in jail? Stay with us. We have the news. You need to start your day your support for this podcast and the following message come from Nord. Vpn A leading VPN provider. Secure your Internet traffic on six devices at the same time visit nor to be peon dot com slash up first and use code up first to receive seventy percent off and one month free more than one hundred thousand. Americans have now died from covid nineteen. It took barely four months for the US to reach this horrible marker and there are still so many unanswered questions about how this country became the global epicenter of the pandemic with less than five percent of the world's population the US has the largest number of cases and accounts for nearly a third of all known corona virus fatalities. I WANNA bring. Npr's health correspondent Rob Stein. Who is with us? Rob Can you just put this number into perspective? Well you know it's a staggering number under thousand is almost triple the number of people who died from the flu all year this past year and about as many as die from opioid overdoses and suicides combined in an entire year and the coronavirus has now killed more Americans than those who died in combat in every war since they Korean War and many experts. Think hundred thousand is probably an underestimate I spoke with. Thomas ingles be about this. He runs the Johns Hopkins Center for Security. He says it tragedies like this. It's sometimes easy to forget that human beings are behind these numbers. It's a really sad milestone for the country. I think we need to step back and just remember that. That's one hundred thousand lives are lost as one hundred thousand families that are grieving and this is important. Sad Day for the country you know it means that the US has recorded nearly one point seven million cases now which means the US has by far the most covid cases and about a third of all the deaths and we should talk about how quickly this has happened right. Robin this is just a appear to for like four months. I mean it talked about how we've gotten here yet. It's amazing how quickly too many people died in many public health. Experts say the country you know might have been able to save a lot of lives officials. Just recognize the magnitude of the threat sooner and acted more quickly and aggressively the country kind of wasted a window of opportunity to keep the virus in check by failing to rev up testing quickly enough and deploy other crucial public health. Weapons that have worked for other countries like rapidly. Isolating sick people in quarantining. Anyone who had contact with them to block the virus from spreading. Is there a sense that the country has some control over the spread of this virus now? Or ARE WE GONNA. Watch this Steph. Told us just climb so you know that's an important question. Sadly this actually may just be the beginning. Still things are looking better cases and deaths have been dropping overall nationwide which is a good sign but there are still thousands of new cases in hundreds of new deaths being reported every day and some places. Thanks may still beginning worse. We'll but despite that I mean we're seeing a lot of the the country open up so I mean broadly where. Where do you see this going from me? Yes so the country is opening up but the viruses still there and most people are still vulnerable so the fear is people are kind of fed up and I think the worst is over. Here's Richard Besser. He runs a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It's very easy for people to get cavalier and say you know what I'm going to get this. Infection is not going to be much of a problem. I want to get on with my life in danger and that is capable. New outbreak could easily erupt like wildfire flaring around the country throughout the spring and into the summer cozy many thousands more deaths especially in places where there still isn't enough testing and not enough healthcare workers. The worst could move in from the coast to more rural parts of the country where there aren't as many hospitals and intensive care beds and even if things do slow down over the summer what about the fall when schools reopened and the flu hurricane seasons hit things could get very bad very quickly all right that is NPR health correspondent Rothstein. Thanks rob you bet so. China appears one step closer to having near total control over Hong Kong right today. China's legislature approved a plan that is going to suppress the session public protests and basically any act that it sees as a national security threat ahead of the vote. Us Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo said Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China but he also said that the US stands with the people of Hong Kong. And we have impairs. Emily Fang in Beijing. Emily morning. David can you talk about exactly what happened today? What China prove here Beijing. All makers voted so that a smaller group of lawmakers can draft and pass the actual law now if passed this law would effectively end hongs limited autonomy Hong Kong as you can imagine as once again in turmoil there were protests over the weekend and yesterday they were more protests over a different law actually a law that have passed criminalize making fun of China's National Anthem. More than three hundred people were arrested including some very young teenage schoolchildren. What I in terms of the meaning of this I mean obviously it could chains life in Hong Kong autonomy. That's an important word. And and what could ending that mean four Hong Kong and its relationship with the United States? It's very important distinction if Hong Kong is no longer truly autonomous it's special trade status with the. Us could end that. Status Exempts Hong Kong from basically all financial restrictions export controls sanctions the. Us currently puts on mainland China. And it's what's allowed Hong Kong to be in part a global financial hub. Here's Assistant Secretary of State Steve. It's still well talking about this decision process now ongoing about whether to take away that status. We're going to do this in a smart way in a way that takes care of the things that people we care about. What same time letting Beijing though that? What they're doing is contravenes. What they agreed to do back ninety seven still well as talking here about the international treaty struck in Nineteen ninety-seven between the UK and China which was opposed to allow Hong Kong to maintain some autonomy until twenty forty seven. Which has not happened. But I mean trade between the United States and Hong Kong is is a big right revoking. That special status could be really significant. Yes it could hurt. Hong Kong's status as global financial hub. Because it will be more difficult to do business there. The real question now is whether this is going to deter Beijing to call off its moves to control Hong Kong and likely it will not Beijing has called the American bluff. China is betting that main cities like Shanghai engine. Jen will overtake Hongkong Business. Capitals and certain multinationals may choose to stay in Hong Kong anyways because they prefer Beijing's order rather than the chaos of further protests. I mean wasn't this already quite a moment in in US China relations because of the coronavirus and lots of other things. Yes I do not exaggerate when I say that this has been an absolutely crazy week for international relations. They might be the worse eighteen eighty nine. Which is when China killed his own citizens during the Tenement Square massacre yesterday the House of Representatives passed a bill that could sanction Chinese officials over China's persecution of Muslims. Trump is expected to sign that bill into law two. Us senators are proposing to ban all visas for Chinese Grad students in stem fields and the two countries continue to go at each other about who handled the pandemic of this novel corona virus more badly so things are not looking up and peers. Emily Chang for us in Beijing. Thanks Emily thanks David. I hear some sound from video. Shot last night by. Cnn's Sarah site ner on the streets of Minneapolis police using tear gas to disperse crowds. The fires there was looting. All this follows the death of George Floyd. A black man was arrested in Minneapolis. A white police officer had his knee on Floyd's neck. He was heard on video saying he couldn't breathe. The officer persisted and Floyd died. Four officers involved were fired and Minneapolis. Mayor Jacob FRY is calling now for criminal charges Holly Bailey reports for the Washington Post and she is in Minneapolis Holly High. What if the streets of Minneapolis felt like it's been chaotic For most of the day yesterday it was a peaceful protest outside. Minneapolis is third police precinct. Which is just a little bit south of downtown. That's where the four officers. Who have been fired for their involvement in the altercation with George. Foy were based but then yesterday afternoon. It took a darker turn. Police were visible. They were on the roof of the precinct building and they were firing rubber bullets and tear gas to sort of control a crowd around that building. But in the meantime several businesses around that area including a target store An Aldi grocery store cub foods scores. Shoe store autozone. They were looted. People were seen you know rolling carts down the street full of merchandise There were people. Just it was just complete chaos And there seemed to be a little attempt on the as part to stop it. Oh interesting what will. What is the city's plan to deal with? What's happening at this point? Essentially the police chief Mikhail Arredondo had said yesterday that they at the police has been walking this tightrope between not wanting to infringe on the rights of people who feel traumatized after what has happened in the city after George poids death and want to protest at. There's I imagine there's going to be a lot of scrutiny. Today and what? The police response has been last night whereas walking this line of trying to let people protest but at the same time not protecting businesses As chaos really unfolded last night. It sounds like though that that we might see the National Guard. Come in with. Where does that stand? Well Mayor Fry last night as this unfolded has has has said that. He's asked the governor Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to bring in the National Guard. They've asked for reinforcements from other police. Departments in the region to start have helped tamp down some of the cast as they figure. It's going to get worse before it gets better right talking about another night of protest On the streets of Minneapolis after the death of a black man in police custody Holly Bailey reports for the Washington Post and she is there a holly thanks so much. Thank you and that is up. I for Thursday may twentieth. I'm David Green and I'm Rachel Martin. Start Your Day with us here tomorrow. And since the news doesn't stop when the podcast ends follow us on twitter at first for your daily round above the most important stories of the Danny. And if you want more. Npr News. We've got a radio show you might like it's NPR's morning edition. You can find it on your NPR station. Go to stations DOT NPR DOT org. And if you want podcast and local news all the latest headlines You can actually take. Npr everywhere you go if you use the NPR one could find it in your There's no getting around it. The coronavirus pandemic has upended everything and daily decisions. Made by the White House and Congress will radically impact the human and economic toll to keep up with the latest join us on the NPR politics. Podcast will cut through the noise and let you know what decisions are being made and how they affect you.

Hong Kong China United States Minneapolis Beijing Npr George Floyd Hong Kong David Green NPR Jacob FRY Hong Kong flu George Rachel Martin Emily Washington Post covid Holly Bailey
The White House Blames Iran For Tanker Attacks. Where Are Relations Headed?

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

49:11 min | 1 year ago

The White House Blames Iran For Tanker Attacks. Where Are Relations Headed?

"Support for this NPR podcast comes from spectacular failures a new show from APM that explores the biggest flops and business history, the first episode tells the true story of a Christian theme park sunk by fraud and scandal, fine spectacular failures wherever you listen to podcasts. From NPR and WB. You are Boston Meghna chocolate bardy, and this is on point. What is the Trump administration's ultimate endgame with Iran containment renegotiation of the nuclear deal regime change? Well, those questions. Need answers as tensions between Washington and Iran ratchet up today. Iran announcing that it's within ten days of reaching limits, from the two thousand fifteen nuclear deal on non weapons grade uranium enrichment. And of course, late last week, the Trump administration quickly, blaming Iran for two attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman. So this hour on point, what is the Trump administration strategy as tensions escalate with Iran. And you can join us what do you make of those tanker explosions is the Trump administration right to point, the finger almost instantly at Iran, or when you hear members of the international community, pushing back and offerers of one of the tankers themselves calling the claims into question? Do you worry that the Trump administration is laying the groundwork for war or? Is he Ron further provoking response when it says it's ramping up uranian enrichment? Join us anytime at one point radio dot org or Twitter and Facebook at on point radio. All start first today in Washington with David Larter naval warfare reporter for Defense News. David, welcome to on point that you haven't me. So first of all, talk to us a little bit more about what Iran just announced that it's, it's within a few days of breaching, those limits on the two thousand fifteen or set by the twenty fifteen Iran nuclear deal on uranium enrichment. What did Iran say, specifically? Sorta Ron said was I think that gets largely to the point where Ron said was that they were going to increase the limits, reach the threshold within the few days of the limited of enriching uranium and, and I guess the point here is that the with uranium it gets to about twenty percent enriched, and that's good enough to operate a nuclear actor, but you can get the threshold is, is getting from, you know to that twenty percent once you get higher than twenty percent. You need to get up to about ninety percent for you out weapons grade uranium. So that's why it's kind of a big deal but the, the jump to twenty percent is less difficult than going from twenty percent to ninety percent if that makes sense. Yeah. So that's, that's what they're threatening to do. So obviously the world and the United States, and everyone is particularly concerned about them getting at twenty percent threshold because getting to weapons grade is, is a lot simpler. Twenty percent on so and this announcement even though Iran said it was headed down this path for quite some time the announcement today that they're within, you know, a couple of days comes right after those recent attacks last week in, in the Gulf of Oman. I'm wondering if now the members of the international community, who are still part of the Iran nuclear agreement, namely, European nations, if they're feeling a sense of urgency to renegotiate with Iran reset the terms of the agreement, what are what are members of the international community saying? So this is an interesting point. And I think what we need to see is where the members of the international community are partly this all kind of fits into a strategy that Iran seems to be executing that drives a wedge between Washington and its traditional European. How is the European allies did not support? Trump's Trump administration declaring the. The US was not going to abide by the Iran nuclear deal anymore. And they did that for a number of reasons partly, I think inside the administration. They felt that Iran wasn't, you know that, that are on the deal was not changing Ron's behavior internationally. It may be abiding by the individual provisions but they didn't change their behavior. And then there was just the political considerations, anything your predecessor does just can't can't have been can't be as good than the things that you would do and administration after ministration sorta falls prey to this, and because it wasn't ratified by congress. It's not law. So we didn't have to abide by it was just kind of an executive agreement. So the all that to say, France, and the other major powers, they didn't agree with us pulling out of the, the US, pulling out of that agreement. So Iran seems to be putting pressure on Europe to say, hey, we're having this issue with Washington. Get your friend in line or maybe just break. The European allies off altogether over this issue to try and get them into around quarter to oppose Washington. And I think Iran is operating. Not with you know, they don't have super strong hand to play against the United States. They don't pose an overwhelming military threat on their suffering under the ongoing economic sanctions. So trying to break up the alliance structure between the US and traditionally European allies makes a certain degree of sense. Interesting. Okay. So given that context let's talk more David about what happened late last week with those two attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Amman. Of course last week secretary of state Mike Pompeo, very quickly saying that it was the assessment, quote of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the attacks. Here is what the secretary of state said on Sunday on Fox News doubling down on that assessment. It's unmistakable, what happened here, these were attacked by Slavic Republic of Iran, on commercial shipping, on the freedom of navigation with the clear intent to deny transit through the strait. This was on the Gulf of monster of the straight of removes. There's no doubt. Intelligence committee has lots of data lots of evidence. The, the world will come to see much of it, but the American people should rest assured. We have I conference with respect to who conducted these attacks as well as a half a dozen other tax throughout the world. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo just yesterday on Fox News. But David Larter has the Trump administration presented any of this additional evidence that the secretary is talking about we're in, we're well into finger-pointing land at the moment, the, the trumpet miss, so what are the reasons why this all makes people very uncomfortable is because we haven't seen a lot of the evidence. We've seen a surveillance video of some people in a boat. Looks like they're removing a mine or could be a what the navy terms, eight mine like objects. And, and that seems to be the most compelling evidence at how we know who those people are in the boat are in fact, they're actually doing. We don't really know that. And obviously, the reason this makes everyone. Comfortable is because the you know, the run up to the Iraq war. We were told one thing about weapons of mass destruction, and it turns out, or any number of reasons that I don't think it's helpful to relitigate on this program that turned out to not be the case at least not right now anyway. But the so the I think the point you made here is that the US government saying intelligence says X is not the bar anymore. We get that it's not necessarily the populace of our country or the UK, or anybody European allies will accept and it, they do need to present more of what they have if, if there's going to be any action taken beyond just the sort of war of words that were right now. David, your point taken about not re re-litigating the Iraq war. But it absolutely as you mentioned is part of the context, you're, but how not just in the United States, but the international community is reacting to the Trump administration's claims. I mean. In, in addition to that, we have let's be honest, doubts in the international community, and even here in the United States about the veracity of a lot of things that come from the Trump administration due to the president's own sort of casual relationship with the truth. And we also have the Japanese operators of one of the tankers that was attacked saying, no, we don't we don't think it was a mine. You know, one of those limpet mines, it might have been a bullet or something flying through the water. Can you tell us more about that, right? And I, I read that over the weekend, and that certainly is a wrinkle you would think that the operator would have spoken to his crew and got their best assessment. And so, I guess, to, to the larger point here that we still don't really know there's a lot of confusion and if, if, if there's a conclusion of draw, I, I don't want to say that I can't sit here and say 'cause I don't have any information when one or the other to say that Mike Pompeo and the intelligence community assessment is, is wrong or. That they're being dishonest. But just that it may have been a little hasty to come out a day, the day after or within a few twenty four hours to say, oh, it's our assessment that we this, it would have been more helpful, I think to put your case together and lay it out. I mean I'm reminded of the, the this. I don't wanna make a bra abroad comparison to an episode of such consequence. But if you'll remember during the Cuban missile crisis, the Kennedy administration, where they wanted to accuse Russia, putting their the, the missiles, the nuclear missiles in Cuba. They put their case together. They got the intelligence together, and they presented at the United Nations, you know, it was it was quick, but they had a thorough argument. Right. So that may been not fully thought out because what I heard when I heard my talk was is the assessment of the US government, and even in the clip you just played. He was basically referencing. Ng Americans can rest assured. Well, again, to the original point, I don't know that the American public or our allies our place to take assurances from US government officials without a lot of evidence weighed out. So I think that's just the, the, the nature of, of our post Iraq war world where we're just a little more skeptical of what the intelligence community says, we really need to see it. Well, David Larter is naval warfare reporter for Defense News speaking to us from Washington, David. Thank you so very much. Thank you. All right. Well, I won't joy I wanna bring into the conversation now treat a Parsi joining us from Washington treat it is founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council, an adjunct associate professor at Georgetown university's center for security studies. His latest book is losing an enemy Obama Iran, and the triumph of diplomacy treat a party, welcome to you. Thank you so much for having so it's been several days. Now since Mike Pompeo's first assertion. That Iran was behind these tanker attacks. Do you believe him or do you remain skeptical? I remain skeptical because as your previous guest mentioned, we have not seen the evidence and if I could just make one small correction to the excellent points that he was making Pompeo never claimed that this was an intelligence assessment. He said that this was a government assessment. There's a significant difference between the two. Well, he said he said in this just to be clear. He says it is the assessment of the United States government right that the law is Islamic Republic over on responsible for the attacks. And then he says this assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons use their level of expertise needed, but a government assessment is very different from an intelligence finding intelligence finding come with several different degrees of confidence. And it's following soon stunt Sanders government assessment is essentially just his opinion for him to say that, that opinion is based on intelligence is still not following the same standards. So he's playing with words too. I fear confuse and. Be a bit deceptive towards the American people here. We'll treat a parcel. We just have to take a quick, sixty second breaks standby for just a moment. We are talking about ever increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran. And what the Trump administration's real end game is here. We'll be back. This is on point. This podcast and following message are sponsored by xfinity. Some things are hard to control like over caffeinated co workers other things are easy to control. Like you're in home wifi with xfinity, X fi, set WI fi curfew change your password, and create user profiles all with the x fi app. Another reason why xfinity is simple easy. Awesome go online. Call one eight hundred Finnity or visit a store to learn more restrictions apply. When you're paying for college on your own. There's a lot to balance tell get through it all NPR's life, get talked to the real experts students finding side hustle that works for you and works for your schedule's, usually, beneficial life gets new guide on how to pay for college apple podcasts or NPR dot org slash life kit. This is on point Meghna, Chuck regarding we're talking this hour about escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran. Especially in the wake of those two tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman just late last week. We've got comments coming in here on lying. Jaso Turner on our website on point radio dot org says for countries like Russia and China. Nice new American intervention in the Middle East. Just fine. It will lead to social rifts in America, it will lead to the US wasting, even more of its treasure on geopolitically questionable conflict, and someone calling themselves north of the border says it's time like these when presidential trustworthiness is most crucial. So now what? Well, let's listen to what the president himself said on Friday morning, the day after those tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. President Trump was on FOX and friends to discuss the attack and Iran's alleged role in it. He cited that video that was released by the government claiming to show members of Iran's revolutionary. Regard removing an unexploded mine from the side of one of the tankers. Well, Iran did do it. And you know they did it because you saw the boat. I guess one of the mines didn't explode, and it's probably got essentially Iran written all over it. And you saw the boat at nighttime to take a mind off, and successfully took the mind off the boat and that was exposed and was about that was them. And they didn't want the evidence left behind. I guess, they don't know that we have things that we could detect in the dark that worked very well, President, Donald Trump on Friday on FOX and friends just the day before on Iranian state, television supreme leader Atallah homini described in a meeting with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abay about he responded to the language from the US government. And here's how many speaking through a report an interpreter. I have no response to Trump's message. I tell you some words, could I'm not giving him any message because I don't consider him worthy of even exchanging messages. That's Iran's supreme leader. Ayatollah Ali, how many and joining us now joining us from Washington is treat a party founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council and adjunct associate professor at Georgetown university's center for security studies. So treat a the before the break, you were talking about reasons why you remain skeptical about the US government's claim. I mean, is it just based on what they haven't shown, so far or the idea that it's an opinion? What, what if further evidence were to come out? Well, if further evidence comes out on one can actually draw the conclusion that what they're saying, correct. And then, of course, different situation, but we have to keep in mind that we're talking about an administration as you yourself, put it that has a very contentious relationship with the truth. But you also have key. Vigils and his administration, such as John Bolton who played a key role in lying the United States into a war with Iraq. He has been advocating war with Iran for more than twenty years. And this seems to be his best chance, yet to actually actualize that dream of war with Iran, some mindful, the very clear intent of the administration at Lee, certain individuals important individuals in the administration towards war. I think it is quite important to have a healthy degree of skepticism until further evidence is actually presented taking anyone's word at face value at this point. I think would be mistake, whether it would be to say that you on is innocent or to say that the Ron is guilty. I think we need to have evidence because this literally is a matter of Warren peace, and so then tells more give us your insight on the timing of Iran's announcement today that it's within that ten day window of superseding the limits on. On uranium enrichment imposed on Iran by the twenty fifteen nuclear agreement. I mean is this simply rods making this announcement because they are within ten days of it, or is it an additional provocation? Give us the view why they said this today. I'm afraid unfortunately they probably are about ten days. This is a very unfortunate situation is exactly what we should not want them to do. But unfortunately, it's also a very predictable thing that they would do mindful of the fact that the Trump administration violated the deal year ago, walked out of it has been punishing countries for abiding by the United States is essentially in violation of UN Security Council resolution on the nuclear deal. So it is completely unrealistic to expect that the United States can leave the deal violated deal, punish countries that are adhering to the deal, and that on top of that, the Rani's would remain inside the let some point it was clear that they would. Leave. And that's very, very bad thing. But this brings us back to the larger point this is a fabricated crisis. This is completely unnecessary. This was a resolve issue. Donald Trump came in through pressure from the Saudis, and these rallies, and others, an unresolved, this conflict and here we are now almost on the brink of war for what this deal was working, Irani's, where adhering to it entire world was in support of it with the exception of three countries. The IRA International Atomic Energy agency that is refereeing. The deal had now issued fifteen reporting, the Rani's are living up to the so we should not be here in the first place. If Donald Trump had not withdrawn from this deal, we would not be facing this crisis. Well, as we mentioned a little earlier members of the international community, notably Germany, and Japan are distancing themselves from the Trump administration's accusations against Iran saying that they need more evidence about surrounding the. Tax on the other hand, though, Britain's Foreign Secretary. Jeremy hunt was less sceptical here, he is speaking to BBC's radio four on Friday. We have no reason not to believe the American assessment on our instinct is to believe it because they're our closest ally, and we all very worried about the situation in Iran, because the moment both sides in this dispute think that the other side doesn't want wall and the risk, you have is, then they do something provocative, that leads to catastrophic consequences that one's intended treat. A party is the foreign secretary there, his is his assessment of the right, one that both sides, the US Iran presume, that the other doesn't want war, so therefore, they may be pushing so hard based on that presumption that they could tip over into war. Well, first of all, I think it was really interesting, a, how he opened it up is our instinct to believe the America. He didn't say that he believed that because he had seen any assessments or any real intelligence findings, and keep in mind, that was also Britain in Europe back in two thousand and three that supported the United States mistakenly when he came to Iraq war. So this per se is not terribly surprising on the point that both sides, assume that the other one doesn't want war. I'm not so sure if that's the reality, I think the Ron's do believe that at least some elements in the Trump administration do want war. And, but Nevertheless, I think they appear to have reached a point in which to thinking that the current situation is only weakening them the United States is paying no cost for violating the nuclear deal and his only amassing more leverage against Yvonne, and eventually will attack any way, potentially, and as a result, it lies in their interest to now start threatening the Europeans and saying, if you don't offer us, the economic incentives that you promised at your obligated to offer as. As a result of the nuclear deal within ten days. The Rani's are going to start breaching some of the limits on the Iranian enrichment that they can have. It's interesting, though, that they say that this is reversible which it is that they will go back to inside the dealer, soon as Europeans live up to the I think that signals that they're ultimately, not looking for actually leaving the deal. They're looking to essentially ensure that the Europeans offer them, what they were promised in order for the deal to be able to have some viability inside of your on. I see. Well, let's go to a caller really quickly, go to Dolores who's calling from Waterford, Pennsylvania Dolores. You're on the air. I'm I'm not a mid east expert. There is just too much controversy. And I think everything here is subject to scrutiny. My understanding is that in at the urging Israel United States pulled out of the GP away. You have Christner's relationship with NBS an MBA has his own agenda. There's the Saudis are certainly not trustworthy. Have Bolton who thinks bomb everybody and anybody who's not in lockstep? With the United States have prepared who's long been opposed to the JP away. So I think you know, there's a huge power struggle going on here and United States is being sucked into something that hill, we really shouldn't get into, and I don't understand why would Iran bomb a Japanese tanker when prison Shitsu Ave is in Tehran. I mean, this is not the first time they not states would stick to Iran. They did it in the fifties, when you know there was overthrow Muhammad day that resulted in his assassination in the rest of history. We'll Delors thank you so much, we call lots of interesting questions there. We'll try to take them one by one, but in order to do that. Let me introduce into the conversation will Mark Grech joins us from Washington. He's a senior fellow with the foundation for defense of democracies. Former director of the Middle East initiative the project for the new American century and Middle East specialist at the C as director of operations real Mark. Correct. Welcome back to on point. Pleasure mega so first of all, respond to Deloris is sort of bigger question about the she's concerned that the United States is being sucked into a potential conflict with Iran, given the competing interests within the region itself, you mentioned Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. I disagree with that. I'm and I don't think the United States is being sucked into anything. I think that Trump administration came in and quite correctly determined that the JC O makes wis cheese look, solid. And they took issue with it, and they walked away from. There was not a treaty President Obama could have submitted that and made the argument of before the US Senate, he chose not to and executive and the president withdrew from it, which is, here's an titled to the United States often walks away from executive agreements. So you know I in evidently because around got so much out of the JCP. Oh, it was going to be quite cranky. When it was revoked by the United States, and the administration has taken what I would just describe sort of as a light containment approach to the clerical. Regime. It is using sanctions quite aggressively much more, effectively than many people thought yet it is quite restrained on the ground is not taken issue. Really with Ronnie, and imperialism and potato or the vont, minus the few hundred soldiers, which are sort of blocking their land route and Syria. So I would expect the administration to maintain its present approach. I don't think it's going to be toured. There is I would certainly disagree with three treat on many things, but the certainly is a chance that the clerical regime will, in fact, protest the administration, probably secretly at I try to restart some type of talks that could be railed. If we do have a military conflict in the Persian Gulf, and I do think that the US navy, eventually will have to take issue with the revolutionary guard corps units that put down these minds because we are the Garin tour. Or free navigation in the Persian Gulf, treat a party. Would you like to respond to that? Well, I to the point that the caller made. Yes, NBS has said that he has Jared Kushner in his pocket being then y'all himself was bragging that he's the one who managed to get Trump to leave the agreement. So which statements of that kind coming out of them and their interest in this is very, very clear. They were opposed to nuclear deal, not because of any particular details of the deal. But rather because an agreement with Iran on this issue would reduce the US's involvement against Iran. It would resolve some of the tensions between the US and Yvonne, but not all of them, but it would actually allow the United States to not be so bogged down in the Middle East and be able to focus on other things, whether it's crisis in Asia, or things at home, and they don't want that they want the United States to have a strong military dominance in division, and essentially Protech. Them protecting maneuverability and, and they're very beneficial position politically in the region. So any agreement that actually would allow the United States to slowly? But surely escape itself out of the Middle East is something that they would be in disagreement with and crisis of this kind that brings the United States back into military conflict in the region, or on the brink of it is exactly, what helps them be able to achieve their objective of having American hegemony in the Middle East, which they will then live under the protection of so the motivation of those countries, I don't think really is on the question and their influence over the Trump administration seems to be quite significant as to the issue that roll raised about the nuclear deal and saying that the Rani's are cranky because the got so much out of, frankly, Iranians have got an almost nothing out of it. It's surprising to a lot of observers that the Ronnie. Has remained in the deal for a full year, even though they actually got none of the benefits and part of the reason I think, right now that they're not particularly deterred by European threats that they would start sanctioning, Iran is because those sanctions are completely irrelevant Europeans right now at hearing, the American sanctions, very angrily, of course and grudgingly. But as long as they're hearing to the American sanctions, they're essentially is no reasonable trade between the US between Iran and the EU and as a result, the Europeans have lost their leverage. They've already stopped buying Irani. No they closed down the airports for Iran in airplanes at cetera. So the Trump administration has taken away any leverage Europeans. The only leverage the actually have remaining is, if they start essentially standing up for their own independence, and agreed to adhere to obliga- shins. They have on the deal in which they would be trading with Iran and keeping that the alive, that would put them in yet another conflict with the Trump administration, you know, the plenty of tensions between the Europeans and the US right now. Now, from everything the Paris agreement that the Trump administration would roof from two to other matters. I think that's part of the thing that they're afraid of they just don't want to have a conflict with the United States. So. Let me turn back to you here for second because everything that both of you said, we could we could parse through them in, in extreme detail. But I did want to ask you that we had you on the show, you know, a couple of months ago when when tensions started to build in the Gulf of Oman. And then you had said that you, you, you, you're pretty sanguine about the US, Iran not tipping into military conflict. But here now if I heard, you correctly, you just said that you do believe that the United States navy may eventually have to intercede or take care of business with the, the revolutionary guard in the region here. So it has your position changed on that has the posture from Washington become more bellicose that you're, you're now, are you saying that military conflict is a little more likely. A well I mean, I don't think the United States is become more bellicose. I do think the slum Republic is become a tad bit more stupid. I mean, I do think the, the, the clerical regime has no desire whatsoever to have a straight on conflict with the United States. They know that would be suicidal. So they attack on the periphery thing Gaijin mining operations in the Persian Gulf. They tried to conduct terrorism and Europe, you know, they tried to blow up a meeting of dissident group in Paris. It was throated by French internal security. It's way of punishing the Europeans for being doormat for the United States. So I mean they try to strike around the periphery they tried to deny responsibility, hoping the United States won't hit them at the same time. They try to scoop spook the Europeans spooked the Japanese of some that they'll engage in some pressure tactics against the United States. I don't think it work. However, it must be said that, if they mind the Persian Gulf, the US navy will respond to that we are the guarantor free navigation. So if they act in such a stupid manner than I can expect a response. Well, direct and depar- see standby, we are talking about ever increasing tensions between Washington in Tehran. And what the end game is or should be here. We'll be back. This is on point. Hey, it's been an Ameri, and we're the hosts of endless thread, the show, featuring stories found on the website Reddit, but you don't have to be a redder to enjoy the kinds of stories. We tell like a couple experimenting with non monogamy or boredom that may have predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor. Subscribe to endless threat on apple podcasts or wherever you listen. Hey, it's Peter sago. So you're listening to this NPR podcast because you want to be informed, you want to learn something you wanna be a better citizen great. We're all for that. I should listen to more podcasts myself. But what if you need a little break, what if that little voice in the back of your head stop saying, do this? It's good for you and starts with spring for jokes and rude noises. Well, then you want to check out wait, wait. Don't tell me the NPR news quiz. It's the show that let's your lizard, brain enjoy itself for once you can be serious. Again later. New episodes, dropped Saturday's listen until your friends. This is on point. Meghna Chuck regarding we are talking this hour about Washington and Tehran and increasing ten. Mentions between the United States in Iran. Treat a parsley joins us today he's found her, and former president of the National Iranian American Council, and an adjunct associate professor at Georgetown university's center for security studies. Well, Mark correct is also with us. He senior fellow with the foundation for defense of democracies. Let's listen to a little bit of what speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi said about rising USA Ronnie intentions. She was on CNN's freed Zaccaria GPS on Sunday. We have absolutely no appetite for going to war, or to be provocative to create situations of that might evoke responses were mistakes could be made. You know, it's countries exerciser leverage. They threatened they this, or that, but there could be mistakes made, and that's a very dangerous thing. Nancy Pelosi there on Sunday. Alex is calling from Madison, Wisconsin. Alex on the air. Hi. My question is in regards to Saudi Arabia's possible, and the alleged attacks. In the Gulf of Oman. I think it's important to remember that we have an ongoing conflict in Yemen with Iran and Saudi Arabian, gauging proxies, and Saudi Arabia, definitely stands to benefit from any kind of US engagement with Iran, and I just wanted, what this panel thoughts on that were for your call rule. Microclimate start with you on that. Your sponsor Alex. Well, I mean, as a general rule, I try not to go down conspiratorial wormhole. I don't think the notion that the Saudis are taking speedboats that look like the revolutionary guard corps speedboats are traveling around the Persian Gulf, and blowing up tankers is credible. I don't know of anyone in the US navy who believes that. I don't know anyone in the French or British admiralty who believes that. So I, I don't think that's likely now is certainly true that the Saudis would like to see the United States. Let's take a harder line against the Islamic Republic. They were certainly upset by a President Obama's attempt to withdraw from the region, and to use the nuclear deal, sort of as a decent interval for our retreat. But I just it's just not credible to suggest the Saudis or behind this. So I mean point taken about perhaps, it's not credible to suggest the Saudis or behind this to the degree that you mentioned. But about Saudi credibility as a whole. I mean, this, this is a government or at least through Mohammed bin soman, who you know, they hacked to death of journalist in one of their consulates in Turkey than lied about it, multiple times until they were forced to, you know, not fully admit it. But, but the truth, eventually came out, so Saudi credibility isn't, you know, isn't perfect right now in the eyes of the, the, the Saudis, the particularly crown prince soman is obviously a very rash, young man, and he has been proven to lie. But again, you know the Iranian regime has aided and abetted the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, yet, I defy you to find a statement by either for ministers. The reef. Or president RoH Hani where they own up to that bloodshed respond to that. Well in regards to the Saudis potentially being behind this. Of course, it is at speculative as saying that it's the Rani's mindful that we don't have any evidence that video action doesn't show anything. We don't even know if it's a minders being removed, but perhaps, more importantly, as you pointed out in the program earlier on the ship. According to the people on the ship were not attacked by minds. They were attacked by something from air. So the premise of Mark's argument that the Saudis would not be pretending to be I Reggie see, folks on a boat is premised on idea that the boat, we saw was I are, and that was the and, and that the video hasn't evaluated in this, and we don't know that yet, but we do know this. We know that the former secretary of defense of the United States, Bob gates told the French Defense Minister in twenty ten that the Saudis are trying to fight the Iranians to the last American that they were doing. Everything they could to push the United States into war with Iran awarded. They themselves cannot fight, so they want the United States to fight it for them. They want young American men and women to die for the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. We do know that as a fact in given that we have to be extra cautious about all of these different things at the administration is putting out right now. We need to see solid evidence because we may be going into water has nothing to do with defending America and everything due to defend some dictators in the Middle East. So rule return back to you on this, because, you know, a lot of focus is put on John Bolton for example, and his years, long street apart pointed out years, long, call for regime change in Iran. But we shouldn't we also be focusing on the fact that one of the loudest, and most prominent voices in this moment, and rightly, so as secretary of state of the United States of America is Mike Pompeo, who. Himself back in two thousand fourteen before even the Iran nuclear deal was put into place, he called for breaking off talks with Iran and instead launching air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. I mean he too has been fairly hawkish on Iran. Well before he became a cabinet member of the Trump administration here. So, so tell us what evidence, do you see rural that, that influential members of the Trump administration aren't seeking anything other than regime change in Iran? Why I suspect the John Bolton. I mean John Bolton is usually true to his word. I think John Bolton is still seeking regime change it or on. And I believe that Michael Pompeii. Oh, if he could choose would probably go in that direction, too. They just don't use the phrase regime change. Now, the president of the United States. I don't think is on the same page there. I think he really does believe in his powers of negotiation in would like to have a different nuclear deal. What the dimensions of that nuclear deal would be? I don't know. But I mean I have to compliment both bulletin Pompeo since they together with the author of the twelve point speech, that pump Heo gave in may which essentially got rid of the notion that you can have a, any type of nuclear deal. Without looking at Ron's regional behavior. I mean that is essentially reverting to the argument that George Shultz made with the Soviets. And I think it was the correct one that you cannot separate things things. They have to come together. Now, you know where this is going to go? I don't know. But I know that what the administration has done is they've deprived. The Iran regime, billions of dollars of hard currency, and I think that was a very commendable approach, so treat a party, there are some who are saying, we're wondering some analysts that have been reading, Hussein, because of what real Mark just pointed out about the, the deprivation of cash, and also the sanctions on, on Iran, more broadly that, if again, I underscore big if, if indeed Iran is responsible for these recent attacks in the Gulf of Amman that it's the it's Tehran's way of saying, well twenty percent of the oil that the. World relies on passes through that those, the straight of Hormuz. So we too can exercise a little bit of pain on the international community any legitimacy to that. Certainly the Iranians of actually explicitly said that if they can't sell their all no one else can. So there's clearly motives that the Rhonda's can have reasonable motives, that would point the finger to Iran, as being the culprit, but motives is not the same thing as conclusive evidence and Evonne is not the only one with mortar. We just talked about Saudi Arabia, who does have a motive in an interest in fabricating, something that would cause the United States and Yvonne to go to war with each other, but that's also not evident. So what would need to do in dissertation in order to avoid walking into yet another endless war in the Middle East that will destroy not only that region. It will spread extremism in the region. Exactly as Iraq war. We saw the emergence of ISIS as a direct consequence of. The invasion of Iraq. But also the all the problems that it causes the United States at home in order to avoid that we need to really take step back and make sure that we actually have proper evidence. But on the idea that the is want to inflict, some pain, on the international community for them not getting their economic benefits from the nuclear deal. I think that is a fair assessment of what the Rani's are thinking and problem doing something. But I think they're doing that by making these threats about breaching some of the limits on the nuclear program because that is reversible that has more of an upside for them very little of that, downside. And as they own statement said wants to Europeans are backing compliance with the deal. The Rani's will go back into compliances. Well, so seems to me that if that's what they wanna do, that's better way for them to be able to protest and, and use them leverage against Europeans rather than actually attacking Japanese tanker at the very same moment that the supreme. Leader. Rerun is actually sitting in a meeting with the Japanese Prime minister to sounds a little bit too weird. Let's go to Brenda who's calling from Portland. Maine, Brenda you're on the air. Hi, thank you for taking my call. I just want to say, first of all, I think that the Trump administration in the GOP are itching to go to war before an election. The GOP the Republicans always argue. Oh, we're in a war, we can't change it ministrations at this point. I don't believe a whole lot that comes out of this administration. I think there's a lot of warmongering going on. But I also I wanna know about congress. How much does congress have an input into this? Will brenda? Thank you for your call rule, Mark. Would you like to answer Brenda? Well, one, I don't think the Trump administration is particularly bellicose just the opposite of that actually I think the president sometimes sounds like Obama two point. Oh when he talks about the Middle East. What is surprising is that on this issue he has he actually goes in the other directions, so I'm skeptical? Now, also I have to say the GOP in general, I mean, one of the great mistakes that President Obama made with the JCP. Oh, is that he failed to actually take it to the Senate? I think the strategy the Ben Rhodes worked out, which was essentially screaming rock Vietnam. At every single moment, sort of like, what treated as might have been successful in the Senate. And you might have spooked Republicans to actually agree to that to the deal, even though it was very bad deal. I don't think that's true. Now, I don't think the Republicans have any desire the congressional Republic. Cnn's to have another war in the Middle East, though. I do think there is a consensus inside of the Republican party that the JC peo- is simply unacceptable. Quick question here, which I should have asked this plainly to begin with. Do you think the United States should engage in military action against Iran? Why think if the Russians are, are putting down minds in the Persian Gulf US navy has to respond to that without a shadow of doubt. Meaning, what would the response be oh, you take a helicopter gunships in you eliminate those, I are Jesse naval vessels that have been training for decades deploy minds, and by the way, they also use high-velocity low caliber cannons to attack shipping. So I would go after them to make crystal clear that any type of action like that will incur a rapid and severe response. I think in retrospect, the administration made a mistake, when they had the tankers ships attacked off of Jarrah that they didn't then engage in a military operation against the sea. Confidence. Do we have that, that wouldn't escalate then into a much larger military conflict because I don't well, it's possible. I don't think I think history tells us with the Islamic Republic they don't wanna go there. So, you know, when the Ronald Reagan decided to destroy most of the surface fleet of the Iranian navy in nineteen eighty eight. After it had put mines down the struck US vessel. They did not escalate in fact, it was a contributing factor to the Ron's giving up in Iran Iraq war respond to that. Because I imagine many Americans are saying, how can the United States government have any sort of confidence of containing the reaction or response, or consequences of escalated military acted in the Middle East, given the Iraq war? What will this is how you actually sell a big war? You pretend that you're just selling a small war, because people know that the American public is not in the doesn't have the appetite. For big war. So you just presented as look with just going to strike a little bit here. And then mentioned something to happen in nineteen eighty six when identity sixty Ronnie's were six years into the war with Iraq. Iraqis had been using chemical weapons against Iran for several years with the blessing of the United States Ronnie's were in a much weaker situation. I think it's quite instructive suggest see what happened about three or four weeks ago when Trump who, who else says, is not Billy coast tweeted that he would put an official end to Iran and moved some warships to the Persian Gulf. Then we saw that Iranians were starting to put missiles on ships Bolton took this as evidence that the Rani's were preparing an attack on the US to Trump. But it seems like actually spooked Trump a little bit because Trump had been led to believe that Iran is like Syria. You can just strike would a couple of Tomahawk missiles won't do anything return. Whereas in reality, the Iranians were actually preparing to fight back. And defend themselves, if they were attacked, which then directly means it is not going to be a small war, if there is any form of attack the likelihood that it will escalate into a very, very big were much bigger than what the awkward is, is quite significant. And that's again, why we have to not only take a step back and be very clear about what the evidence is. But we also have to treat those who learned us into the rock war in the first place such as on Bolton. We have to take everything they say in any administration, they serve in would a tremendous amount of salt. Well rule Macri have a minute left to go. Here you were in, in strong support of the Iraq war in the early days. I mean, respond to what treat a party says, what, what has has your opinion on the US's ability to control the dynamic in the region changed at all? Since then, why think that if you're in going to engage in containment, if you're going to guarantee freedom of navigation, the Persian Gulf, you may have to use military force. I mean this is this one. This is not something that's terribly complicated. Now you can run from that. You can decline to, to to serve that role in the region. I think you will regret it quite quickly. But if the United States ha is going to guarantee freedom of the gavitt Gatien, if it's going to guarantee the free movement of oils, through the Persian Gulf, you may have to use force. If the Islamic Republic is willing to use force in, you are not then they win you lose. Well, Mark senior fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies thank you so very much for joining us today. My pleasure to parse, the founder and former president of the nationally Ronnie in American Council adjunct associate professor Georgetown University center for security studies and author of losing an enemy Obama Iran, and the triumph of diplomacy. Treat a Parsi. Thank you. Thank you so much. Folks on point radio dot org, and let us know what you think about what's happening in the Gulf of Oman, again, on radio dot Ord. I made me talk regarding this is on point.

Iran United States Trump administration president President Trump Middle East Washington Gulf of Oman Iraq Ron Saudi Arabia Persian Gulf John Bolton Mike Pompeo NPR David Larter adjunct associate professor Europe National Iranian American Coun
To The Brink And Back Again: The State Of U.S. Relations With Iran

Diane Rehm: On My Mind

28:39 min | 11 months ago

To The Brink And Back Again: The State Of U.S. Relations With Iran

"I it Diane. What brought the wells? They run to the brink hand. What comes next began? When president trump ordered the assess nation of iranian-made your General Qassim Suleimani and ended when Iran retaliated with a nonfatal missile strike against military base in Iraq? The deteriorating relationship between the two countries leaders started long before the assassination and as my guest says will not end with this moment of de Escalation. Paul Pillar is a former CIA national national intelligence officer. His nonresident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University. And the fellow at the Quincy Institute spoke with him Friday morning. Paul pillar take us back. How did we get to the the place where in the US differences with the Islamic Republic of Iran of course go back to the outset of that regime For decades ago but I think for present purposes looking at this awful spiral of escalation. We go back two years ago. Two years ago the Iranian regime was abiding completely by the Iran nuclear deal the joint comprehensive plan of Action The Iranians were not sabotaging ships in the straighter removes removes or attacking Saudi oil facilities or firing missiles at Iraqi bassus our embassy in Iraq was not being stormed and it was about as quiet as things get in the Persian Gulf and then in the spring of twenty eighteen the trump administration decided to renege on on the Iranian nuclear deal mainly because it was the major foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama and as with the other measures this current president president seems to want to do the opposite of or to undo anything his predecessor. Did you know the JCP away the nuclear deal Has served a role in foreign policy that the affordable care act has served a domestic policy. That's the main reason. What about the influence of Sheldon Adelson? In that regard Mr Adelson has been a major influence on trump and all missiles cares about seemingly is to keep the united estates in line with the Israeli government. And there's no question that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has always strongly supported anything that castigates around that isolates relates Iran and that continues a state of tension between the US and the Iranians in short to keep Iran as a pariah that serves a number of political purposes for the Israeli government including trying to enhance their own relations with the Gulf Arabs. And making sure that for the United States there isn't any other supposed- was it friend in the region other than Israel so yes that was a major influence as well so we come to the present day when the United States under under the direction of president trump decided to assassinate one of the rollins top generals. Why well well? That's still a good question in terms of why and why. Now I think lots of things play into this including the impeachment and political situation here in the United States people talk about wag the dog scenarios. And I think that might be part of it. But it's probably more just the The overall influence of the hawkish elements within the administration ration- I would single out Secretary State Pompeo in particular in that regard. We can't blame John Bolton anymore because he's not a wrong but really diane. This was probably the the biggest single step in all the escalation since the trump administration declared unrestricted economic warfare in Iran. This is the kind of thing that the United States had done in the past. But since the nineteen seventies when the issue became kind of a scandal when things came to light about you know exploding cigars trying to killed Fidel Castro. That sort of thing and in the seventies President Ford is the one who signed an executive order prohibiting. Assassination this was not some common terrorists. This was as you point out. An extremely major figure in the Iranian regime by some estimates may be second only to the supreme leader and shaping Iranian policy in the Persian Gulf region. A senior military leader and to assassinate someone like that is simply not something. I'm that A great nation like the United States ought to do or should do an nor has done over the last four decades. What's so interesting is the way the president has now characterized the response from Iran to that has has nation as they stood down? Well let me characterize the response from Ron. I think it was a very carefully calibrated response. They had to do something fairly promptly to meet the internal demand for revenge. Something visible something as obvious as a as a missile strike but they also did it in a way that did not cause. US casualties if they wanted to kill Americans or Iraqis. For that matter at the two bases they wouldn't have done it in the middle of the night. When people were bunk down their barracks they would've done during the middle of the day when people around outside working and so on they probably would have caused casualties that way so they wanted to reestablish deterrence to use use that term to satisfy the desire for revenge by Iranians but to give trump Away out a an exit ramp. Why because the Iranians don't want to escalate into all out war? Certainly an all out war is not something they would win. Unfortunately originally president trump although he did accept the no casualty outcome of that missile strike as a basis for not ordering still more. US Strikes Reichstag. Iran said nothing in his statement the other day that suggest. He's really willing to deescalate. So what we have is a pause in this escalation relation. We don't really have a step down the ladder of escalation since the president was still talking about sustaining maximum pressure. He was even talking about putting on more sanctions. That raises the question. Whether there's anything left to sanction in Iran that the United States is not already sanctioned but he still talking about escalation not deescalation. And I'm I'm sure there are voices inside the Iranian regime. Today that are saying it was a mistake to have as nonlethal response as the Iranians did. Because because look what trump's doing he's just pocketing it and then talking about more Economic Warfare Secretary Pompeo and others suggest it that there were good reasons that there were plans underway on the part of the Iranians to do devastation. And that's why the attack was taken now and yet. No one's come forward with any legitimately understandable understandable information about what those attacks might have been. Well we we haven't seen such information and those couple of other points. Diane we ought to make what about you know that that rationale one is solely money was a very senior figure. He wasn't a trigger man. He wasn't the person who was going to plan a bomb. So if in fact there were your plans afoot behind an imminent attack there would still be operators out there all set to carry out the attack and instead we've just given the Iranians more motivation to do so and the second point is if it's really plans will of course the Iranians were planning attacks. That's what militaries do and They would be irresponsible from their own point of view not to do it given all the you know threats that they're hearing from the United States. I can assure you that today as we speak in the Pentagon and at Central Command there are plenty of plans being updated to attack Iran. But that obviously is not a reason for anyone to try to assassinate a senior. US General Planning as what the military organizations do it does not equate to an imminent attack. And we certainly didn't to avoid or prevent an attack by assassinating a senior figure to the response said Iran ahead on those bases we knew about those attacks planned attacks two hours before hand reportedly so and if so that would be another facet to the Intention of the Iranians not to kill people but to send the message to give a demonstration of what they could do but not force president trump into a situation -tuation in which he would feel obligated to strike back yet again with a higher level of escalation as far as military tax. Ron Paul what can they do at this. This point what my day due to continue perhaps in one way or another to keep deep edging forward with their own strength. They're not gonNA fly back and take it the Ron Johnson. Right now they won't and what we Auto remember is even though we should be grateful for the pause it. We're in now and that the Iranians did not force president trump into a situation where he would would be launching airstrikes the next day the economic warfare continues and the Iranians have made it quite clear they are not gonna sit still for that ever since last spring in other words coming up on close to a year now the US administration's policy has been to try to bring Iranian exports to zero as the main means to try to cripple the Iranian economy. The Iranians have said quite explicitly. If we can't export our oil it's GonNa be hard for other exporters to sell their oil to that was in large part what the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities last September Abreu was all about a demonstration of exactly that point well as long as the economic warfare continues and as long as the. US policy is to try to cripple Burundian economy and keep running exports of oil two zero. We can expect more of the same in response from Iran. Americans and Canadians audience are now saying that the plane that crashed came down because of an Ronnie and missile. I saw hit or do you hear. It's almost certain that was the case. I think it's highly unlikely that Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada would have made the announcement I mean he did. If Canadian authorities had not been quite confident that that was the case. And we shouldn't be surprised that there would have been sufficient intelligence to determine this this given that this took place at a time and a place namely Central Ron in the midst of this crisis in which you can be certain that all the US and other intelligence collection capabilities including ones that can detect small missile. Firings would have been aimed at that spot. it's no surprise. Also that the Iranian running authorities are denying this since it would be a huge embarrassment. But I think what we're seeing is a tragic byproduct of confrontation at an accent accent and an accident but an accident. That happens because in this case probably you had air defense people keyed up on a hair trigger trigger basis. What this reminds me of Diane was Iran Air flight six five five which was shot down by a US worship in nineteen eighty eight in in the last year of the Iran Iraq war? That was an accident tube but that was also one. That would not have occurred if we hadn't had an armed confrontation and very high tension attention between the United States Iran. And you wouldn't expect that. The Iranians would admit to such annex. And no they wouldn't wouldn't although at at some point if forensic evidence is allowed to get in the hands of Canadian or Ukrainian authorities. They can't keep denying it Forever either take. That evidence will eventually get to the KHANATE. In ten Ukrainians. That's hard to determine the Canadians Ukrainians have been told old they can have access to the site but in terms of You know whether they will have direct access to the flight data recorder and that sort of thing at at this hour still undetermined determine now a quick break And we're back here. Here's the rest of my conversation with poll pillar. He is a former CIA national intelligence officer. He's currently nonresident stint senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and fellow at the Quincy Institute Paul but for this says nation. The people of Iran were rising up against their leaders because of the economy because they didn't have enough food. What is the escalated economic pressure? Going to mean the ordinary Iranian does have a lot of reasons to be unhappy about the state of economic affairs in Iran which is in large part due to the sanctions for the US but also due to mismanagement and other economic mistakes expire the Iranians themselves and yes. We saw that in the demonstrations in November which were in response to a reduction of fuel subsidy which is still. It's still heavily. Subsidized is in Iran. That's the sort of thing we've seen in other countries when fuel our food subsidies have been reduced or eliminated but one thing that The strike on Sulejmani in particular her has done has been to unite Iranians more than anything else. In the last few months has the hardliners have had the upper hand ever since maximum pressure pressure started Ronnie the president's and Zarif the foreign minister who negotiated the Iranian nuclear deal have been discredited in the eyes of many Iranians. WHO Say A? We told you so. You shouldn't have negotiated with those Americans. Look what happened well now not only do the hardliners. Have the upper hand but we've seen Iranians of many any political stripes and we saw that in the huge crowds morning Qassem Suleimani Uniting in a way that they weren't before and that's very unfortunate Side effect of the assassination operation as well speaking of those united. I thought not a was fascinating. The optics President trump statement with all those general standing behind him with with all of their ribbons and brass metals. Showing very clearly on television are all of them in agreement and with that percents tactics. I doubt it Diane. But we've we've had from the very beginning of this administration. A very strong emphasis by the White House is on these shows of unity You may recall that initial cabinet meeting early in the administration in which Trump went around on the table and everyone was supposed to voice his or her fealty to the president This is the sort of thing we're used to seeing a place like North Korea Yes this was one more You know show for the cameras of apparent unity but I would be very surprised if The thoughts in the minds of those be medaled Generals was the same in fact. We've we've gotten reporting and the New York Times had this story a few days ago that when the Pentagon presented to President President Trump options for you know how to respond to these latest altercations in Iraq that the option of assassinating Sulamani was in their whereas the one of the extreme options part of the old Washington bureaucratic game present. The boss with three options and two of them are extreme on different ends. And you're you hope and expect expect going to choose the Middle One. Well to the consternation of those who prepared the options Trump reportedly chose the extreme one. which was the assassination operation so in in the long run? What can we expect as a result? this assess nation where I think we can expect more as we talked a moment ago. that the Iranians are not going to sit still even without the assassination because of the economic warfare going on so fudge. It they going to do. What options options do they have? Well they have a lot of options and I think Right next door in Iraq. There are more of them. The the the talk you heard I think is is Very much to the point of of how some of these militias in Iraq that have been supported by Iran and are associated with Iran Can do a lot of damage to the US personnel still there. Whether it's our embassy or our troops are still there and really. There are many other options in terms of irregular asymmetric operations as as the term often often goes which gets into terrorist possibilities against US military and diplomatic personnel. Any anywhere in the world really so we haven't heard the end of this and we are today even though the Iranians in the immediate aftermath of the missile strike on the Iraq basis said this concludes. That's what the Foreign Minister Her said you know. This concludes our response to the money killing. Now we are hearing more mixed messages from some senior Iranian security and military later officials that Strongly suggested really didn't conclude it so in addition to the felt need to strike back for all the economic sanctions. I think we haven't heard the end of the story with regard to responding to the Imani assassination. How liable are the Iranians to seek out targets in this this country? I don't think that's the most likely thing they're gonNA do barring further. US military attacks ax on Iranian interest. I think we'll probably see things overseas but we cannot ruled out and look at the logic if we can call it that that the administration is used to justify the Suliaman assassination as you pointed out. They haven't come up with Really much information about so-called imminent attacks but the other line we've heard particularly from Secretary of state. POMPEO is well. This is somebody who had blood on his hands. You know a things he did in the past never mind. What's imminent well if that? What is the the metaphor that is going to be applied to a senior military or political figure? We need to be very careful about how it could be applied back to our own people you know though much of that American blood on Suimon as hands was shed in Iraq as part of the Iraq war which the United States started as a war of choice an offensive war ordered by a US president commanded by US generals the closest. Thank to a truly tit for tat. Response by Iran to the SUI noni assassination would be an assassination of a senior US military or political figure especially really one who has been associated with operations like the Iraq war. I mean you and I could come up with prominent names and Who who ought to be concerned about their personal security garrity these days I would not rule it out as I say? I don't think BEC- because Iran is not looking to see this confrontation escalate anymore They will continue tin. You to Hold that particular powder dry but I think we really need to worry about exactly. What a true tit for tat response bonds to that Sulejmani killing would be and we're talking about assassination of of well known and admired? US figures including possibly here in the United States. What do you make a congressional action so far? Well I'm I'm struck particularly by Senator Lease Republican of Utah Response is to the so-called briefing. They got he was extremely displeased about it. And I think that jives with what you and I were talking a few minutes ago about That there just hasn't been information in coming out That suggests there really was intelligence about some imminent terrorist operation and particularly A. I think Senator Lee was one of those who expressed his displeasure about it being told in effect by the senior administration briefers you. You shouldn't even question this. You shouldn't debate going to war with Iran on someplace like the floor of the Senate because this could give comfort to our enemy and and this was a direct affront to the role of the Article One branch the US Congress in deliberating about something as serious serious is going going to war against a foreign power I'm not surprised that it got some strongly negative reactions. Not only from the Democrats but at least from a couple of the Republicans like Senator Louis in a number of people who suggested that indeed. This was a political move on the part of the president to distract from the impeachment. That has already occurred in a house. Do Do you believe that it could have an effect on the thinking Those in the Senate well well On that question particular where we're talking about. Just the reality of this extreme Party loyalty that has kicked in on so many other issues both foreign and domestic mastic. We've seen seen a little bit more Departure from it on a couple of these foreign policy issues Morrison domestic. So I I would not Bent my I bet my rent money on more Republican defections in that particular issue. But we should Dance since you bring up the the wag the dog scenario. You're one of the pieces pieces of evidence. I think that that suggests that this was in the mind of Donald. Trump is that back during The the President Obama's Obama's presidency trump was saying I think this was particularly during the the twenty twelve reelection campaign he he said several times. that President Obama might do exactly that sort of thing so start a war with Iran as a way of rallying the flag Around him. So Oh he could do better and and win the election so we know the Donald Trump has was already thinking in these terms and it's not much of a stretch to suggest that he's thinking in those terms today especially after he's been impeached. What does Donald Trump want from Iran? Great question if you apply it to the whole the trump administration. You'RE GONNA get different answers if you're talking about different individuals. I think what Donald Trump most wants is not a war and he wants a deal. He's always been talking talking about a better deal than what Obama God and If he ever were to get a new negotiated agreement which would cover nuclear issues even if it were not much different born at all from the deal that he trashed he would as he's done on trade issues for example proclaim it as much much better and far better than what Obama always able to get. That's what he most wants. There are other people who have been in his administration. I think that was true of John. Bolton now departed I think it's probably true of secretary. Pretoria Pompeo who are much friendlier to the idea of escalating into a military confrontation now Bolton was quite explicit in calling for bombing are on so it's been a very muddled message from this administration in terms of exactly what the end game is or what the desire is but as far as donald trump is concerned. He bills himself was a dealmaker and he would like something that he can bill as a better deal with Iran than his and. We don't know exactly what that better deal would consist. Well I I the the this is. This is the one endgame exit that that I would strongly point to and that is essentially a reinstatement of the nuclear deal but with with enough changes just enough changes so that the president can say yes is a far better deal. That's basically what he did with NAFTA where he said you know? It's it's the worst deal ever. And then he comes up with his own version of a North American trade deal which was minor tweaks on Nafta and this is the best deal we've ever had. Well he he can operate the same way If we could somehow get the diplomacy started with this issue with Iran. And if there's a way out of the that's the way it reminds me that we heard justice morning that president trump heads sent birthday. Greetings to the leader of North Korea. It's remarkable how Iran despite being denounced repeatedly as a bunch of Authoritarians of course by by this administration and Eddie does depart from a good democracy in many ways as we know that it's the one regime that is described as thorough -tarian whose leader does not have the affection of our president Category which includes Kim Jong UN and Vladimir Putin and detail in the Philippines and our two one and Turkey and others speaking of all all those other leaders to what extent does the assess nation. Ebbs Hula money. Give them an upper hand and the whole global foreign policy realm well. I don't know about upper hand but I I we do need to worry about the broader wrodwar effects of something like the assassination operation. Not just on what the Iranians will do But what these other regimes will do a North Korean indeed is one that has in the past Under the father or grandfather of of the current leader conducted assassinations of foreign foreign leaders. That the North Koreans once tried to kill off the entire South Korean cabinet when they were visiting and Burma back in the nineteen eighties. They've gotten out of this but if the united estates has gotten into the practice of assassinating born leaders senior leaders regimes that they don't like That is has all but a green light to the North Korea's of the world to get back in that game themselves and we've noticed statements from from The Putin regime in Russia that have called attention to how big a departure this was murdering. That was their word. You know murdering a foreign leader And this is a that. This was something that the United States had done. That other countries weren't doing so yes. Those other regimes have taken notice and we ought to worry about how they're going to respond. Paul Heller thank Ncube and that toll for today find us on facebook and twitter send. That's an email the our podcast at WMU Dot Org are theme music composed by Jim Bromberg. And I'm Ben. Landsberg Wunderle show is produced by Rebecca Kaufman in Dallas. In Brody our engineers. Is this week. Our Kenny Parag and Nadal eight-year-old lip kirk. Thanks for listening all. I'm Diane Ris.

Iran president United States Donald Trump Iraq Diane Ris Trump President Obama Islamic Republic of Iran Secretary Pompeo President President Trump Persian Gulf CIA President Ford Paul Pillar North Korea nonresident senior fellow Ron Quincy Institute
The Second Trump-Kim Summit, With Sue Mi Terry

The President's Inbox

00:00 sec | 1 year ago

The Second Trump-Kim Summit, With Sue Mi Terry

"Welcome to the president's inbox. He see for podcast about the foreign policy challenges facing the United States. I'm Jim linzie director studies at the council on foreign relations. This week's topic is the upcoming Trump him, summit and noise Vietnam. With me to speak to discuss. President Trump's second meeting with North Korea leader, Kim Jong UN is Sumi dairy, Susie senior fellow for career at the center for security international. Studies better known inside the beltway CS I s SU served as a senior analyst on Korean issues at the Central Intelligence Agency. She was director for Korea Japan oceanic affairs on the staff of the national Security Council. I under President George W Bush and then under President Barack Obama in suicide been the deputy national intelligence officer for East Asia at the national intelligence council was also a national intelligence fellow here at the council back in two thousand ten in two thousand eleven sue. Thanks joining me today. Thank you for having me. Okay. All eyes are focused on annoyed this week. President Trump is going to meet with President Kim. So let's begin at the big question. I what's at stake the summit meeting. A lot is as stake particular. Because after the Singapore summit, I think pre much of an agreement by everyone that it was not a success for summit except for President Trump except for President Trump, President Trump says there's no more nuclear threat from North Korea. But almost everyone agrees that it was not a successful summit. We have no concrete steps toward integration. Singapore. Only really produced an aspirational statement. There's no agreement to if this Hanoi summit produces something like what occurred in Singapore, which is pretty much nothing. I think there were show that were not really headed in the right direction. I think a lot is riding on this Hanoi summit. I wanna come back to that big picture less, but we can sort of start off slow just some sort of basics. First question is Warri meeting Hanoi. Why not go back to Singapore or something significant about meeting Vietnam? I think I they wanted to meet in Asia, just because chairman Kim Kim Jong UN does not want to travel too far. As is he's already writing a train taking a train to. Maybe you can explain that from because he's taking a train from North Korea through China into the border with Vietnam. This is a train that travels, maybe sixty miles an hour. Top speed China has advanced train technology transit go a lot more rapidly than that. When Kim went to the Singapore summit he flew on Chinese plane. Why taken an old armored Korean train to get to know because he doesn't want to fly on Chinese train? It's embarrassing for him to do it for the second time to really show that he does not have the plane that he can trust. They will take him to Vietnam. So I think he's relying on the train and he can say, hey, my father did this. My grandfather did this. So he kind of was family tradition. It's a family tradition. Although I have a sneaking feeling that that is more of an excuse because John that does not have field of flying like his father did. In fact, he's playing aficionado. He likes planes. We suspect that he's own plane is kind of old Soviet model. He doesn't trust that income of Justice. Reliability. So he's taking the train. We'll give an apparently they're no spare parts for his presidential plane, given it's forty years older older, I understand his hesitance to one set foot on. Absolutely. And I think if you have to sort of put on or so this bullet proof limo that he likes to take. I understand that you might have to even you can even fly directly to fit. So for these kind of considerations. His taking the train. This is why you had to Asia, it didn't he didn't want it to be European Switzerland or somewhere else, and I think six they've done Singapore. You want to do something different and Vietnam has some sort of significance from US's perspective to show North Korea. Look old enemies began partners. I look what we none has achieved. So I think that was sort of the reason behind choosing Hanoi. Why not make it even easier logistically and have the meeting either in let's say soul or somewhere in northern China. I think both China and South Korea would have liked that whole. It's it's I think Kim Jong. Going to go this whole, anyway, I'm not sure you've on the Trump administration's part that we wanted to go to whole ordeal, or even Pyongyang. We that was probably date is better to have a neutral country is a better location. Third-country location was better. Okay. So both sides have reasons not to want to do it on the Korean peninsula. President Trump is going, and I agree with you at where you open that most everybody. I know who studies this issue said that the Singapore summit didn't settle anything. It is true. As the president has said repeatedly that the North Koreans have not flight tested ballistic missiles or tested a nuclear device, but they can clearly continue to improve their technology in the lab related to test it in likewise in some sense. It was November twenty ninth of two thousand seventeen President Kim gave a speech about completing the state nuclear force, and that was sort of his tipping off. We've done enough. So we're pretty sure these weapons work in the North Koreans. Haven't downsized their nuclear force. I suspect all the people around President Trump. No that mean secretary. Coats, director of national intelligence coats, testified to that up on Capitol Hill. So what do you think the Trump advisors are hoping to accomplish in Singapore? Where do they specifically looking for? They will hoping to get more out of North Korea starting with a declaration of their nuclear missile program. But I think Trump what does that mean a declaration of the quite simply give us a declaration? What do you have what do you? So even Kim Jong is serious about immigration is the starting point to say, hey, here's this of the things that we have here in North Korea. But North Korea has not been willing to do that. So they haven't they haven't come out and said we have six of this. Five thirty nine field. Not even an incomplete declaration, which should we won. We won't even start off with an incomplete declaration is fine. But we don't even have that. I'm just curious because you were in the intelligence business. Why would you as an intelligence analyst one here from the North Koreans about what they have because they would indicate to us that Kim Jong UN is actually serious. What hasn't some sort of intention to Tina Kalis because we don't believe that. That's the case. So a good starting point would be, hey, if you gave us a reasonable declaration that will believe you it's more credible that you actually want to dwell on that word reasonable, you would deem as an intelligence analyst declaration reasonable because you're already have a sense or believe you have a sense of what he has. Yes. We do have we don't now North Korea has over program covert program. There are things that we don't know. But at least put on the table declared the things that we think we suspect what we know. So we we know if it's a reasonable declaration or. But I think Trump's advisors. No, they're not going to get that. This is why everybody's been sort of lowering the bar in terms of expectation President Trump himself knows that I think that's why he Lord expectation when he said listen as long as they don't test. I'm in no rush whatsoever. This just recently that President Trump has said, so I think people know his advisors know that we're not gonna get too much out of this annoy cement, okay, so you would be surprised than if the North Korea's came to the table in Hanoi and said, here's our declaration. I think you'd be extra surprise if they normally put a declaration table, it more or less matched up with what US intelligence services think the North Koreans have but presumably President Kim has a desire to want to keep this negotiation going on right by should even presume as a question. What's in it for President Kim, if he's not giving anything up what is he hoping to accomplish what he's going to give just enough to prolong this negotiation process because he's looking for. Alexei of sanctions he's looking for things. Like peace declaration. They were formally and the war. Maybe he could even get further down the road and get a peace treaty. And if it can get us forces out of South Korea. That's great, and what he were offering this summit, and I think there's going to be actually deal. It's not gonna be a good deal. But it's going to be a deal because North Koreans are going to offer couple sites like the Poon Gary nuclear test site that they already are shut down to say, hey, inspectors can come in. And check that out or so, hey, satellite launching facility, which they've also said they're going to dismantle there's hey inspectors can come in and check that out, and then they may even offer to dismantle five megawatt reactor and young nuclear facility, and that's just sort of enough for President Trump say, wow, look at all this. And if there's a piece that choloratite, the we which United States is prepared to give now that is enough to make a joint statement to sort of enough to say, look, this is a success story. This is a victory for us to testing anymore. There. Giving a couple of syllables. It sounds pretty good. Okay. It's one of those things where it sounds good. But this no real they're there because they're more than happy to give up those concessions because those concessions don't mean anything aging facilities. Anyway, it's like a painting a used car to sell it if we're expensive price. So these are not even if Kim Jong intense to give this facilities, you can argue whether they're really valuable they were old facilities anywhere aging that Kim didn't really value them. So what do you think President Kim wants at the end of the day? I mean when I watched the heads of the Houston community testify up on Capitol Hill earlier this month. What I heard them say is he wants North Korea to be achnowledged a nuclear power that is he's not going to give up his nuclear weapons in that. He's an essence trying to normalize North Korea's status in that sense time works for him because longer this negotiation with United States goes on the weaker the sanctions against North Korea likely to be in the better equip. The North Korean nuclear arsenals. I absolutely agree with that. I think Jones goal is still to gain international acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons power responsible nuclear weapons power if he can get North Korea to Pakistan. That's good enough for Kim. I think by negotiating with the United States and by Prentice facilities, for example, this three facilities. So, hey, and even young nuclear reactor this going to drag out for next two years the rest of the Trump administration and north Chris still has up to sixty nuclear warheads intercontinental missiles of medium range missiles, the show range missiles and just by getting rid of these facilities. We're going to take two years. Then you have a new administration that comes in. And eventually North Korea's thinking is by dragging this out. They're going to buy time. And they're just going to will it to happen where the international community accepts North Korea's nuclear power. And I think honestly, we're on that path. I'm going to draw a little bit now because I might even frame it more strongly, which is that that's the inevitable desk. The nation. Just in the sense that that time to have stopped North Korea's nuclear weapons program was years. Maybe decades ago it's been an issue that several administration democratic Republican struggle within got nowhere and over the time North Korea's so slowly pushed ahead, it'd now clearly has nuclear weapons likely in the Billy to hit at least parts of the continental United States with ballistic missiles, my says, everyone agrees that a military attack on North Korea to sort of forcibly and the North Korean nuclear capability would leave to grave war with catastrophic consequences. So it seems like president Cam holds a lot cards. He does. And I think we are you're right. I think we are on this path. And I don't think we can do anything to really stop it when we were pursuing maximum pressure policy. I mean, there was any follow two thousand seventeen now with all the summit diplomacy. Look what Kim Jong is doing his also he met with president moon. Jane, president of South Korea three times he met with shipping. Four times. Now, he's gonna go to South Korea. He's going to go to Russia meet with. Puttick working with a lot of paths. Now, he's normalizing himself. Now, he looks normal leader of a normal country. And right now what we're looking at a freeze proposal frizty or even down the road. Even if there's a deal on intercontinental ballistic missiles, we're still having all the nuclear warheads that's going to be still left in North Korea. All the show range medium range missiles, so I just don't think I almost inevitable. It does mean that we should stop but trying or trumpet as a policy to seek integration. But realistically at North Korea is gaining is going to get their achieve Kim Jong. It's going to achieve that goal of gain. International acceptance of North Korea's nuclear weapons power at least publicly President Trump remains community preventing just that outcome is talked about the denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula. Presumably is what he's gonna try to do or the end is going to push when he's in a noise, and you've mentioned moments ago a couple of things that may be on the table as part of that talk about reducing or retrying US. Troops from the Korean peninsula. You've mentioned potential peace treaty because the agreement that was signed back in nineteen fifty three was a an armistice sent some sense temporary halt, not a formal peace treaty. Can you sort of walk us through these these issues that are on the table in why offering them may or may not be a good thing for the Trump administration to do in this meeting at the likelihood of President Trump announcing that he's going to withdraw US troops from South Korea. Is it that their likelihood has gone down? Just because now we have a special measures agreement with South Korea. How many troops we have in South Korea? What is a special measures agreement, and why are you choosing South Korea? We have about twenty eight thousand five hundred American soldiers in South Korea special measures agreement is a permanent sharing agreement between states in South Korea. President Trump insisted that South Korea. Now, double what they've been paying about. Which was about eight hundred sixty million dollars a year to one point six billion just came to an agreement on about nine hundred thirty million dollars. A year of the South Korea should be paying to solve case for US defrays, the cost of your and South Korea deal for us. Yes. But so because now there's a deal is in Washington, but it's only one year deal. I don't think President Trump is going to necessarily put US presence in South Korea on the table for negotiation with congenital that said today's long time to be meeting with with Kim. And I'm afraid that President Trump is going to promise Kim that us troop withdrawal is possible under his administration in the near future. And this is a legitimate concern. Because just think about his decision to pull out of Syria without consulting with his advisors, which led to secretary Mattis resigning think about the fact that the Trump administration Trump talked about pulling out of NATO, which is unthinkable and President Trump has always consistently questioned. Why we need to presence in places like South Korea, and Japan, he said, South Korea which country, and this kind of believed that he has this is not something that just heap live recently. This is something that he. Actually lived in for many many years before he even became president Bolom ask you a question. How would you answer President Trump because the certainly loss Americans would say, yeah. Cream war happen? Well, really longtime ago in case of probably majority of Americans before they were born. So why not bring American troops home and send them to Fort Bragg or Fort Hood or Camp Lejeune? I was that's fine. If North Korea gave nukes, but without North Korea. T- neutralizing is very dangerous because now we are leaving which means we're also taking use extended nuclear umbrella that we have over South Korea with us what that means is South Korea will remain under threat from North Korea north can't lack male South Korea because North Korea will be the only country that has nuclear weapons, it will also lead you could possibly envision on the different government. Maybe a conservative government south crow, which does not have as troops anymore. If there's no commitment from United States to protect South Korea with nuclear extended umbrella, South Korea could also make a decision to pursue nuclear weapons. So imagine in that scenario, what would you penned two wooden? Japan than say, hey, both Koreas are now nuclear power Japan could pursue. They're not talking about regional proliferations, a rematch the leaders in Beijing would not be especially happy with the idea of nuclear armed Japan. Absolutely. So now have regional proliferation. Artie turns posture towards North Korea is less and less really be honest. We're also in South Korean not only to deter North Korea. Just our presence matters with our relationship with China to this will be also handing China victory. So for Hosa reasons premature withdrawal of us forces from South Korea is a bad idea, particularly when North Korea has not seen eqalised, and I'll just note that as you mentioned we have this special measures agreement basically a deal in which South Korean subsidize American troop presence in South Korea. So those American troops came home. The South Koreans are no longer subsidizing him in the American tax payer is going to pick up the difference. But I also want to ask you about a Peachtree because then we heard a lot about potentially the president is going. Offer or maybe even agree to a peace treaty prison will be something that the United States Senate would have to sign off on his traditionally does with peace treaties, but why would offering up a peace treaty for a war that ended seven decades ago or nearly seven decades ago be a bad thing. I I think piece that Croatian were conversed before peace treaty. Peace declaration, would probably be something that Trump agrees in Hanoi. What? So what is what's different in a peace declaration declaration is is symbolic statement. The war is over. It is not legally binding, whereas in peace treaties, legally binding document that has to be approved by congress. But even piece that glow ration- there's a risk for prematurely declaring peace because you cannot walk back from once you declare it. And then you can argue that it's a slippery slope between piece Craciun to peace treaty expedite their momentum towards having peace treaty, which is legally binding document. Now once you have a peace treaty would naturally lead to. American public and South Korean public questioning the rationale behind why we are spending money why we have troops there. If there's a peace treaty. There's no more North Korean threat. There is no war. Why are we there? So you can see the public naturally questioning that and under America policy. I mean, if president I can see President Trump wanted to put out the truth because we just talked about earlier this has been something that has been seeking for many years. Now, this is something that he actually believes in America's interest. And I would imagine it would have a ripple effect across the globe in effect other American alliances NATO and others. I would measure if you looking in southeast Asia where whether is great concern about what China's rise means for those countries that a peace deal prickly one. That's rush. Peace steel peace agreement North Korea would send a signal that don't count the Americans maybe Asia now China's to have and in the region, I think Japan is actually the most concerned about this even concerned that they were even be a p. That Croatian, and they'll be very concerned if there's a peace treaty. This would that mean if the US poor trips out of South Korea has security impact to Japan. This is kind of interesting. This whole recent controversy over whether prime minister Ave our action nominated President Trump to for noble peace draw price because Japan, actually is not depends not happy in the direction. They were going with North Korea. Right now, they were very sort of aggressive. I guess when we was when we're presenting this maximum pressure policy. They liked it. They like Trump one point. Oh north. Rocket man, right. That was a little too much pressing maximum pressure in terms of sanctions on trying to get China to the mall in central Japan actually was for it. And now, they are very paranoid that President Trump could next week declare peace and give away too much to north vanish from the vintage point of Tokyo. Their concern is that the president will do things that not only doesn't take into account. Japan's interest will actually actively harmed. Japan's or haven't right? Absolutely. And I think eventually Japan is also worried about a deal where you says, okay. We're make a deal with Krantz on intercontinental ballistic missiles because those are the ones that directly threatens mainland United States. But the problem is their leaves six hundred show ridge, medium range missiles that directly targets Japan. So that doesn't help Japan freezing the'll does not help Japan. ICBM the old not help to pan peace declaration, Peachtree does not help Japan. So Japan is dairy concern right now. I'm sure struck by how you describing. Japanese relations on this. Because there was a lot of talk early and Trump's presidency that prime minister obey hits of unlock the code of dealing with Donald Trump. They were good bodies premise Ave famously gave then President-elect Trump golf club. That was either gold player at a gold, Ed. And I know when I was in Tokyo talking to senior Japanese officials they were very proud that they had sorta figured out how to work with the president. And apparently Trump in Ave continue very good personal relationship. You're telling me is that the presence policy. Choices are going contrary where Japan wants to go. I want to ask about the flip side of it. Which is there was a lot of talk about how President Trump didn't have a good relationship wasn't some pot on a personal level with president moon. However, it seems that President Trump is making decisions that seem to making president moon, quite happy. Can you sort of explain what's happening on the US Korea side of things? Yes. Absolutely. I know that the South Koreans were initially very there were there were agitate. Dated kind of upset because he seemed like a prime minister Ave and President Trump just hitting it off. They had the chemistry. Prime minister is supposedly funny and they play golf and president moon does not play Goff. He's actually personally wise. He's not this kind of funny. Funny guy, his kind of a more serene mellow person. So the South Koreans were very angst ridden about prime minister obvious relationship with President Trump. But yes, absolutely. It somehow doesn't look like they're kind of chemistry translated into any kind of policy to help Sapan. So South Koreans feeling pretty good. There are still anxious about what's going to happen with the second summit because president moon has put all his eggs in this North Korea. Basket economy's slowing down unemployment, South Korea, folks, are not terribly happy for wholesome reasons, South Korea. But if he makes progress on North Korea front he thinks he will he will have domestic support in. He'll be he'll be fine. But if this does not go right this North Korea policy, then he's going to be a problem from president moon to so South Koreans are. Anxious about how he's going to play out so far they are. Now, they're pretty confident that president moons relationship with President Trump is is so far, okay. Considering lack of chemistry and considering the fact that our president does not play off. We'll explain this to them because I agree with what you've just laid things out. And I was struck in two thousand seventeen that the trend line in US-South Korean relations seem to be sort of building to a potential conflict in the president talked about fire and fury. Little rocket man, in my sense was to my chips to soul that devices around president moon, did not like this at all publicly. They made great efforts to prevent any public riff from going about. And we really seemed as two thousand eighteen opened that we were really headed to a confrontation with North Korea. Then we have President Kim give his New Year's day dress in which he intimates are opened up the possibility of attending the Olympics, president moon as best I can tell without bothering a call Washington speak to the president. Says we're more than happy to take you up on that offer and in doing so president moon public praised on Trump. But it wasn't obvious to me that President Trump's reaction was going to be great job gopher because he'd previously criticized his own secretary of state or even raising the possibilities negotiations. So what happened at lead lead us from Donald Trump of fire and fury. The Donald Trump of we love each other talking about President Kim, I think absolutely invite with the whole filing fury phase of rhetoric Rackemann on a suicide mission totally threatening to destroy North Korea. Dad, spook South Korea's more than any other country. I think South Korea was just extremely nervous about that. That's why president moon decided to he actually played. A KIRO imprint everybody together because he's the one he extended that invitation to Kim Jong UN to participate in the punk town Olympics, the beginning of twenty eight and he really president moon and his advisors maneuvered at. So that is sort of intermediary, or you know. You know, sort of the intermediary war sort of going to North Koreans saying at US might be interested in meeting and the coming to the United States, telling President Trump, the kidneys interest in Minnesota. They had to play carefully. But the South Koreans. No doubt about it. Played a very key role on bringing this diplomacy because from president winds perspective, they had no choice. President Trump was talking about threatening war on the Korean peninsula as we head into this summit meeting. What advice would you give people listening to the podcast about how they can tell whether this was a good meeting or a bad meeting or other particular things you should they should be looking forward to or looking for in terms of the readout from the meeting to give you a sense of whether or not we've made real progress because I assume again in most situations both sides come out and say positive things because it's high stakes diplomacy. It's not unheard of. But rare to go out and mealy say didn't work it's all over. But what we will be listening to get some sense of whether made real progress or. Or we sort of run into the series of pitfalls. You laid out earlier. I think we need to go beyond the appearance this time beyond the photo up, and we got a sort of peon conjunction taking a selfie industry of Singapore. Singapore produced force blinds, basically, those an aspirational statement, we really got to put some meat in this something more concrete as I said for me, I know that I'll be looking for if North Korea would give some sort of declaration of their program agree to some sort of roadmap and time line of how things are going to go beyond just offering this kind of facility they were going to close down. Anyway. So I need some concrete tangible things not just you know, only thing. The only thing in Yunessi North Koreans put something something concession Fianna. Aspirational statements saying they're committed to working towards denigration of the cramped peninsula. I mean, what is me working towards I worked a lot of things. I don't accomplish I worked towards trying to save fit, and you know, guess eight hours of sleep, and I don't accomplish there. So we need to go beyond working towards we need to have an agreed upon definition on teen. Graduation time lying, man. I think that would be an important thing. Accidentally are we because North Korean still insisting that in criminal? The impetus means South Korea immediate use represses in South Korea US extended nuclear umbrella in South Korea. This is queens. I say we use the same. Whereas we don't necessarily mean the same thing by them. Absolutely. Okay. On that note, I'll close up the president's inbox for this week. Again. My guest is been Sumi, Terry. Sue is a senior fellow for Korea at the center for security international studies here in Washington DC. Sue, thank you very much being here. Thank you for having me on we subscribe to the president's inbox, apple podcasts, or you. Listen in levers review. They help us get noticed and improve the show opinions express in the presence inbox of solely those of the hosts our guests, not far which takes no institutional positions. Today's episode was produced by call this senior producer, Jeremy Sherlock, the inestimable. John Fletcher was recording engineer special. Thanks to Corey Cooper for his assistance. This Jim linzie? Thanks for listening.

President Trump North Korea South Korea president President Kim United States Kim Kim Jong UN Kim Jong Trump Japan Singapore Hanoi China President George W Bush Singapore Asia North Korea
Wednesday 20 February

Monocle 24: The Briefing

29:49 min | 1 year ago

Wednesday 20 February

"You're listening to the briefing. First broadcast on the twentieth. February two thousand and nineteen on monocle twenty four. Halo unto welcome to the briefing coming to you live from studio. One here at Midori house in London. I am Marcus heap. Coming up on today's program can European nation. Still rely on the mice of the US military in the age of Donald Trump also heads Russia's strange relationship with Belarus and more British politicians leave their party over Brexit. This time they are conservatives and North Korea's leader prepares to embark on the ludicrously long trained, right to Vietnam, we discussed the world's best railway journeys all that right here on the briefing with me. Mark was hit me. The senior US Democrat Nancy Pelosi gave a surprise news conference that the NATO headquarters in Brussels yesterday, the speaker of the house of representatives going to exit Donald Trump by saying that the US remains fully committed to the transatlantic relationship. Let's get more on this weird for retired British General, Sir. Simon male Siamese regular contributor here on monocle twenty four and he joins me in the studio. Welcome to the broker good. You I tell us more about the message Nancy Pelosi was sending to other NATO countries. Will I think she said today encouraging message I was listening to her her news news conference, and as you quite rightly pointed out, this was a ten percent of the Senate or the congress had come over for the Munich security conference, which is which is a huge a huge demonstration affirmation of the strength of the transatlantic link. And as you said, it is not a bipartisan issue, Republicans and Democrats absolutely United in sharing the values of the of the transatlantic link respect for the European Union. But a huge understanding that NATO remains absolutely central to all values and offering an absolutely central to America's sense of its own leadership role and security, well, Shona she wasn't speaking on behalf of president's Donald Trump. Well, I think I think don't the way Donald Trump says things can often lead to misinterpreted, and and a deep beyond helpful. But some of the things that Donald Trump has said, I think absolutely carry weight, which is that the Europeans have taken a huge peace dividend since the end of the Cold War. And although the security situation has changed dramatically. Sadly, even in Europe with the with the sort of revulsion of Russia. The Europeans have not responded to that by matching there. Their own defense spending, and it some and I think he reflects eight an irritation by the American taxpayer and voter the the Europeans don't appear to have so much stake in their defenses the Americans do so the two messages do need to be dovetailed. But I was very encouraged other the legislature of the United States was so forthright about about its commitment to the NATO line send the transatlantic link topic of Bobby offer relief is this message for say European NATO partners. Well, it should be a relief. But what it shouldn't do is allow them to, you know, just an excuse to go back to what I would call normal jogging. I genuinely think the Germans have been really quite agree GIS in, you know, the the the importance of European security to their own prosperity and safety the amount that they've managed to build a highly successful economy in society, really on the on the back of the American security guarantees, and I think, you know, security does cut both ways. America has a leadership role. It is the price you pay leadership, but we should all be lean in a little bit more. We are matching the warm words of policy and her bipartisan team and meeting. Some of the justifiable criticism of Trump, even they often coached in rather. Abrasive terms so issue over money does remain. And it sounds like you think it has to be interest at some point. I think it does have to be addressed. I think you know, if we've got serious politicians who are statesman as well states women, as well, we have a genuine threat, we have a range of threats which are not as Nancy Pelosi said BI polar they are cyber they are human trafficking in they'll the external borders of of of of Europe, we have built ourselves very, comfortable, welfare state and hell serves all the way across western Europe. And we have neglected the responsibilities of securing securing that that very comfortable lifestyle with a genuine ostensible commitment to our security, and of course, it's not just money. It is capability. It's what you get for that money. Anybody can spend money badly. What do you expect from the future? Then a how other relations between difference NATO members? How is that going to off? Well, it's very unhelpful things like the French ambassador being withdrawn from Italy. These are two very very important NATO members that are very important European powers in the European elections again to be a be difficult. Brexit, obviously comes into it. Merkel's position is undermined Macron's is leading us so charged for greater integration and new European defense structures. Be catches it in terms that seem to encourage those Americans who are more I- solutions to pull away. So I didn't think we we we've got a very good political environment in the European side of the transatlantic link at the moment, and we're not, of course, help by words coming out of the White House. So as I say, this was important what an ANSI place, he said in the fact that it was bipartisan and Representative very large body of the American legislative show. What do you exp x from Donald Trump from? Presidents from the future is become quite clear that that's even though he may see the necessity off NATO at the same time. It looks like he's not exactly a fan of many international organizations. How much damage could he do to NATO by himself? Yeah. Well, I think I think a lot because you can get into the bloodstream certain new assumptions are under the Cold War. And then the decades followed the Cold War. There was still an assumption that NATO represented the defense arm of liberal democracy. And they those those values of which we the European nations. Rather said we made an assumption about American leadership and American leaders largely reflected a something in the in the body politic of America that enter the understood that responsibility when any relationship comes under stress, it's quite easy to forget the earlier assumptions, and it becomes a nigga lean match, and then people begin to sort of full back on, you know, assumptions in in. All all communists are under stress in defense spending should be higher. I think in people's minds than you know, welfare or or or or health, and it's quite easy to get out of the the the natural habit of of american-european cooperation across across the the transatlantic with American leadership being assured in a given given us all that confidence. That was sir. Simon mayo. Thank you very much more joining us here in the briefing. It is almost twelve eight here in London. The president of Belarus. Alexander Lukashenko has made over choose to Russia in recent days suggesting that the country is cute unite. So what exactly did he mean? I'm joined on the line by Ben let sock with a researcher at the center for security. Studies says ET h zero he's also an expert on Belarus. Welcome to the program. Begnaud? What do you think is going on over here? Why is President Lukashenko soak into United country Russia high Marcus high from Zurich it is a bit? Puzzling. Isn't it to the statement? It's an old Saint to say for a country's president standing next to the president of its vast large involves Lima powerful neighbour Russia, so by the mid Putin and basically saying, well, our two countries could unite anytime, we unite tomorrow. But then we should listen to what he said afterwards, which is basically that if our pop. Relations if Russians and Belarussians are ready for it. And by that he means much more. And if we look at the video when you made that statement, we very much see that from his gestures from his state of vegetation that this was probably not a statement that was previously prepared and Alexander Lukashenka's, quite notorious among these aides and advisors for deviating from prepare note. I think that was was the sign of it and other occasions Lukashenka said something very different, which is basically that sovereignty sacred bellarusse will never be split into regions, for example and United with Russia. And this whole statement that he made fed into an ongoing debate. That is quite alarmist. Almost panicky includes for example, of Washington Post article saying that there is a threat of Russia, invading, Belarus, and that there's this theory that Putin because he is barred from seeking other termi twenty twenty four could become. Resident of new country that unites Russia and Belarus, which sounds like a very neat plan. But I'm quite sure a majority of ten million Baru sins, and particularly one Belarussian Alexander Lukashenko would very much disagree with that plan. Exactly. So so it sounds like you don't believe that these two countries going to unite anytime soon. No, absolutely not. I mean, we can look at what he actually meant by these statements, which were very hasty and probably without without much cont context, he is in this ongoing negotiations at the moment he was in Sochi for the third time to meet with Ladimir Putin to negotiate energy terms between the two countries. As a matter of fact, bellarusse is very very dependent on Russian energy subsidies. They re-export petrol and petrochemical products to the west, and that is a very important source of hard currency, and these are the negotiations that are currently ongoing and Russia is not really ready to keep subsidies at currently. Levels. So they have basically for Belarus to integrate more with Russia in this very vague union states that connects the two countries as an exchange for these ongoing subsidies, but this is a recommendation is poll theater almost takes place every year when the negotiate these prices and levels of subsidies. So we shouldn't take this as a sign just from these few statements that those countries will unites anytime soon if that Russia will invade better Reuss if it doesn't agree with higher levels of integration. What what what is the relationship between Belarus Andros, your obviously Belarus needs Russia for an umbrella of reasons. But how do you think the people of Belarus themselves feel about Russia? That is actually very interesting. I think people have been roofs are very much supporting the status quo and surveys and polls actually support that. And the status co is that these countries are allies and are more closely aligned than. Russia is with any other country. So there's only as speller is a founding member of all Russia, led integration projects, for example, the Eurasian economic union or the studio which is like military alliance, but they depend on each other very much. So around fifty percent of Bill Russsian trade is with Russia and people feel very close as well. Up to seventy percent of better Russsian, speak Russian at home, not the Belarussian language, and they consume media from Russia, and so on and so forth. But and this is where many of these superficial nalysts Garang, in my opinion, one should not deduct from that that any kind of union between the countries or emerge is likely or that people would approve of that if we can trust polls. They basically say that round five percent of better Rusen people now want to unite with Russia and around seventy seventy five percent of very much supportive of the. Current state of integration, which includes freedom of Pete persons. It includes freedom of labor and a lot of trade bar. They will not want to integrate further let alone one to integrate through violent means, for example, if Russia invades they would not support that is though despite its Bill Russian precedent, Alexandra Lukashenka suggesting that the country is good to unite. The vast majority of Belarus would be against. Yes. If we say against it's kind of hard to perceive, how they will behave in a certain scenario, for example, if there's an armed invasion, how many people pick up arms, we do not really know that, but we can assess that not only popular opinion is against further integration or even a union, but also the political elite and Lucretia and could self he wants to remain president of a sovereign country. He does not want to become governor of some Republican the Russian federation. And this is this whole sa- holds true for the political elite around him. They have their positions to have. All kinds of assets and wealth to defend and they do not want to become part of Russia, also because it's perceived as in a way like the worst version of Belarus, Belarus is almost famous and quite respected for being less corrupt that inequality is lower the infrastructure is in a better state than in Russia itself, and the people who had very very much aware of that and will not be tempted by an integration into Russia. That is only gar kick where unemployment is higher. Why the political situation is much more chaotic that is involved in territorial disputes? And so on people very much prefer stability and look Shankar kind of guarantees the stability to his people as well. As to the vast majority of political and economic elite about it was the Ben Lord sock from the center for security studies that e h zero thank you very much. Now here is what else is making news today. Iran's president hurston Ruhani cysts ten Shuna speech. We in Tehran and Washington are at their lowest air before a number of decades animosity between the US and Iran has intensified following Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from an international nuclear deal with dare on the White House says Donald Trump will nominate Jeffrey Rosen Niners, the next deputy US attorney general the latest reshuffle in the Justice department comes as it faces considerable scrutiny over its Russia investigation. Rosen's nomination must now be confirmed by the US Senate and India's prime minister Narendra Modi has broken with governments protocol to personally welcome Saudi Arabia's crown prince Mohammad bin Salman to his country in India. It is customary for a junior official to receive a foreign dignitary at the airport. But Mr. Modi decided to do it himself. This is the briefing on one hundred twenty four. It is almost twenty one sixteen in Tokyo, twelve sixteen here in London and similar sixteen. A m in New York City. There has been a major development in British politics this morning, the political commentator and regular monocle twenty four contribute to lands. Bryce joins us now lands. What is the latest? Well, the latest news is the independent group of those who are leading the the main artist former new independent group. Their rent's in swelled overnight by one more labor. Empey is joined and then dramatically this morning by three conservative is less the governing conservative party and announced sitting with this independent group. So that all antiquated the will moderate MP's, but the strength of that group has now increased significantly because they're not all from one part. What have we heard? From these three MP's who have now left the conservative party their criticism, which will come as a surprise to anybody knows them. I think is that the Tory party is now being dominated by a people known as the European search group, they're the extreme, Brexit tears. Don't seem to have any problem with Britain crashy out of the European Union without a deal and Beth incerned is that this relatively small group of NP's in Westminster is dominating conservative, politics, and has forced the conservative government to leave the center ground and to go off in a right wing direction. So they say it's their duty to represent their constituents interests and to remind the conservative party that it used to be a Madrid. Party itself an account succeed. If it continues to move into right with direction, how big of a blow is this for prime minister. Theresa may. Well, it's a false. It's embarrassing. And of course, it so difficult in terms of the actual particularities of MRs may trying to get a deal through. And so it it doesn't make a huge amount of difference. These were always rebels. They voted against the government in the past. I've been very very explicit about their views. They've been out campaigning longside Fulmer labor members were now in this independent group for a people's votes of putting any deal back to the people in another referendum. So in terms of the very difficult and. Thickest they problem. She has having the judge in the house of doesn't make huge difference alert significantly. If you put together the labour and Tory. Former labour and Tory members joined this independent and now have more members of the house Commons than the Democratic Unionist Party was provinces most government except that. I was just going to ask how big force these now eleven independent MP's in the center of British politics can be well, I mean eleven as by themselves can't normally will the huge amount of influence, but of course, with no party having an overall charity at then they are in position to be a very big irritant both of the parties and make it more difficult for them to get a majority for anything. They're hoping I think that the numbers will grow. And there is on the vicar of thirty six if they were to get more than thirty six hundred and that's not impossible. Things are going the name with them, the third largest party in the house of Commons, and that gives them guaranteed questions actor prime minister's questions once a week, and that will make a real force to be recommended. Do you think any of these resignations can make a difference? When you look at what's due to happen in the end of March Brexit. No because these MP's have made their views on Brexit, very clear. They would have voted the same way had they remained in their all partisans. They will vote now Abbott. What it will do? I think is strengthen the resolve of those who think that party loyalty isn't the most important thing when it comes to resolving the country's future and by putting their own careers on the line because it's quite a risky thing to do to leave your party when you have a nice, comfortable majority. And if you stuck with it and swallow differences with your party leader, she probably get reelected reasonably comfortably. It's a big deal to do that. And by sticking nets out in this way, showing the kind of leadership that they have that. I think it will strengthen the resolve of other centers in politics. Whether they're in elected office all day individuals who are simply looking to somebody to represent their views, just binding Lassie. If I could ask you to look into your crystal ball, our given see are we going to see? Many more resignations. I definitely see more resignations. Just how many will depend on on. How one how does? The station's go visit in these last few days, but also how the party leadership's respond to the reservations of happened already and the moon, both Prime Minister Theresa may. And the lady the Jeremy Corbyn of more or less said, I'm right there wrong, and I'm going to stick to the way, I've always been doing things, and if they if that doesn't change than the likelihood of Moore's nations, I think is very high price. Thank you very much for joining us here in the briefing. We're off to Paris. Nowhere tributes have been paid to the I enjoy and Karl Lagerfeld who died in the city yesterday following a short illness. I'm joined on the line by Monaco's fashion director Daphne has our Daphne. What does the passing of Kaleida felt me for the French fashion industry is slightly end up an era. We were expecting that. He was going to disappear soon every fashion shows we were wondering if he we come out. But at the end, it was always they're always always looking good and always traveling. I mean, we knew there was a lot of rumors that he was not going well, but until last could your show, very recently. We wouldn't imagine that this kind of character will disappear once it's funny because he was H T five. Years old almost we will never know. How old he was? And this is not very important his age as always been a mystery. A secret was lying one or two years all the time on his edge. But as I said, it's not important for this. Character was totally timeless. But it's a big shock in the industry, of course, and miss about. This marks ember from era on that's something overheard. Elsewhere as well, why is that? Well, you know, it was is the only Hashim designer who has worked for more than sixty years in the business, and this is unique in the twentieth century and twenty I also he had known designers like sallow Hong Christiane your balance Jaguar who has already disappeared. But he was also a the period in you also the new generation such as a Disley man or Jack, moose he was totally well in this generation too. So. So he managed to pass the different periods of Russian with. No, no problem with being very modern. He's always been you as a real special character e was the only person who's been able to have a job in two different houses such as Chanel since nineteen eighty three and also attended nowadays. Nobody would give a fashion director to job at the same time. You also had his own label. It was able to do so many collaboration with Coca Cola. The Bobby matter. The Gillette, you also did a book diet book, and he has never been tacky. Only choice was where always respected, and you can wonder why it was so respective, and I think the answer is because he was a learned man, highly culture as inventions Lagerfeld's was was doing a lot on. He was working for a couple of companies. At least what does he's stiff. No, man. For sure what's happening in that company. Well, you know, he had a contract lives at Chanel. Everybody was always betting who's gonna be the next fell who's going to replace it at the at the top of this biggest fashion house, and we've heard so many names from alcohol Berra's to magic hubs and then head Disley Manan and more recent he Phoebe Fito, but it's been announced yesterday by Beckham O, owner of Chanel house that Beijing media would take over the house, which is nuts. A big surprise has. She's been working with tau for thirty years. He was telling about her. She was he's right hand and left hand. And for the less couture show when he didn't turn up because he was not well at all she came out. So we could bet she would replace him. I shouldn't director definitely has in Paris. Thank you very much for joining us here on the briefing. And finally today Spro chrome Kim Jong on will travel to Vietnam by train four next week's summit with Donald Trump. And it got us thinking, what are the world's best rail journeys, I'm joined unaligned by the trust sports writer and broadcaster. Christiaan Wolmar welcome to the program Christiane. Let's talk about your favorite journeys in just a minute. I I I have to ask from you. Do you have a theory? Why do you think Kim wants to spend two and a half days in a train instead of just flying Vietnam because he feels safe in the train doesn't he? Flying represents some dangers certainly a few political leaders who've been bumped off in the train in the plane crashes. So I and it'd be much more difficult to actually do that in a train the dictates. I think that the track is guarded all along his route for Sunday for North Korea. So. He's always he's always liked trains. He was actually educated in Switzerland. Where of course, they have the best trains in the world. So one could understand that he feels better with them knows about place to learn to appreciate greats rain Switzerland's Christian talk about those great journeys. What do you think are some of the greatest routes around the world? Well, that's the differentiate between the the most beautiful which I would say things like the trip up to Machu Pichu in South America or the my favorites. Which is they grace express up in the heights of the bernita mountains in in in Switzerland up to some mo-, it's a divorce on that. I absolutely stunning with the train journeys are may maybe the greatest engineering. Chiba? It's which I actually be very boring, but you know, going between England France and a tunnel. That's fifty kilometers long. It's pretty astonishing going along five thousand seven hundred and fifty miles from Moscow to Vladivostok on the siber- and not necessarily very scenic because there's an awful lot of Birch trees and no enormously interesting countryside by it's a fantastic achievement. Ten they just take six and a half days. So it gives you a chance to put your feet up. What are some of the greatest trains than if you want to if you want to pump yourself and guess bull proper luxury can you recommend some routes? Well, there are some companies now, I mean, they all. Luxury provision by normal railways has lots of these larger thing of the past. You know, it it. It's almost difficult to get dining comedy trains across the world compared with the old days. But what things like the vent is simpler, orientation express, which is a luxury trained that actually doesn't quite follow the original route of the express by actually goes around Australia and Germany and France in a luxury train. There's also simple in India that do that as well maharaja expressive alike, where you get pampered by, you know, lots of meals and the like, and I personally traveled on the golden eagle which does. Company that does several luxury toes, but you know, what I actually prefer just hopping on a normal train and enjoying the delights of beating cutter random people. And and sitting there for a day or two rather than being on the luxury train, which which takes you away from the normal railway experience. That's a very good point Christine warmer. Thank you very much much winning us here in the briefing. Today's broker was produced by Reese, James century searched by healing fan terrorism out of our studios on each of was mainly Evans. The briefing is back tomorrow at the same time. I am Marcus hippie. Thanks for listening and by phone now.

Russia Donald Trump Belarus NATO president Russia America London Nancy Pelosi Alexander Lukashenko prime minister United States European Union Simon mayo Europe MP North Korea US Senate Representative
Fighting covid-19: A tale of two countries

Post Reports

27:06 min | 7 months ago

Fighting covid-19: A tale of two countries

"This post reports podcast is brought to you by Patriarch on the covert nineteen crisis. Is making it clear that creative system is broken serving advertisers over artists on Patriot creators to build a more sustainable income source and their fans get access to exclusive community and premium content through monthly memberships. Have your Creator or simply loved one checkout patriotic dot com now and change the way art is valued from the newsroom of the Washington. Post all the Obama stemming from the Washington Post reports Martinez powers. It's Tuesday today. What lockdown looks like in Jordan a controversial approach in Sweden and the new guidelines causing drama in Canada? Pm? We knew the sound of silence. This was the same alarm that will be used in case of war and last for about five minutes. My name is Sama someone I work in the IT sector. My name's mob announcing them civil engineer in a manner of so almost every night at seven PM. These sirens go off across the entire country of Jordan announcing the beginning of the curfew. I'm Lena Mohamed. And I'm a producer for post reports asked the sirens. We hear the sound. Aman telling us that can't go out anymore because the down has become the situation is not fun. It's not to be taken lightly. And whoever thinks about bypassing below will definitely face the low there will be consequences so ever since the beginning of this pandemic. I kept a close eye on Jordan just because I have a lot of family who still live there and I noticed that it was not what I was experiencing here in the US. It wasn't like you know maybe social distance may be don't may be put on a mask. Maybe don't don't go out in public unless it's necessary. Meanwhile in Jordan remarkable but gum enacted an emergency law that restricted citizen's rights and deployed the army to enforce it awesome Wa. Had Three so it was clear you are going to stay in your home and if you leave. We're going to arrest you and I think that's the thing that a lot of Americans don't realize I mean all of us are like we're ready to be off locked down and feel like we're being caged but compared with a lot of countries in the rest of the world like what America's doing it's pretty like quarantine late and there are a lot of places like Jordan that have these really strict measures in place where it's literally like you cannot step foot outside of your door for most of the hours of the day you know. It's always sobering to call my friends or family back home. It really puts things into perspective. I mean obviously we're experiencing similar feelings in similar situations but measures taken here just not as restrictive the quote unquote lockdowns. That you as governor has put into place are much more lax than what we're seeing in other parts of the world. So how restrictive are these measures? Jordan had one of the most serious lockdowns in the world's in place and it still does to some extent so in the beginning they had a total incomplete curfew. You could not step foot outside your house Very quickly the government realized that that was Too much of an ask from its so at ease those restrictions a bit. Then they had a partial curfew where you could walk to places Go to your local supermarkets. Get your essentials be? We still couldn't drive and then when they finally allow driving it was based on your license plate number actually so if your license plate number was an even number you could only drive it on even numbered days of the month and if your license plate number was an odd number than you could only drive it on the days the month except for Fridays. Those days have a complete curfew so you cannot leave your house at all and then there were other provinces so for example one of Jordan's hot spots was actually the province of with the government. Did there was completely locked off that province and imposed a total and very strict curfew on the entire province and to what extent are these really restrictive measures in Jordan. Actually working like what are the numbers on the number of covert infections? There in the number of people who've died. Yeah so if we're looking at the numbers it actually appears to be working in. This is a country. Roughly the size of Indiana with a population of just over ten million and so far they have a little over six hundred confirmed cases in only nine best so just for reference here in the US. The death rate from cove in Nineteen is twenty seven point thirty seven for one hundred thousand in Jordan. It is point zero nine per hundred thousand and so the the people that you talk to. Did they draw a direct connection between look the government? Took it really seriously. They made us take it really seriously. And that's why our infection rate is a lot lower than other places that are comparable to Jordan. Yeah I spoke to Dr as what Hoodie Boulos. She's a consultant at the National Center for Security and crisis management. That is the government body that is sort of heading the response to the corona virus and she attributed Jordan's relative success to its strict lockdown along with other things like getting on it early enough though widespread testing that they have available as well as the contact tracing teams that they have just out in the country randomly testing groups of people. I told the prime minister. This organism does not give you distinct. Clinical anything I consider myself very smart. Doctor I will not know. Who is the patient who has go without the tests? You have to get us the tests and that's what's the first thing that we said. He made. Sure we have and His Majesty made sure we brought the testing in very large amounts to Jordan the communication especially by the minister who really has to be given credit the administrators that she's talking about is the Jordanian health minister. Dr Agitated and muddled hold onto swain. Doctor side is basically the Jordanian answer to Dr Anthony Fauci. Yeah even bill. He got his magic and the is very effective. He did also make sure that they knew. He has the backing of also the medical community in the form of of this committee. This mixed agreed defers to the country. Because this way you bring the implementers with the Oth- advisors and that has been a great help in Jordan. Would after side did well is that he was able to bridge the gap between politicians and scientists and so early on who brought scientists to the table to be able to make decisions alongside the politicians in regards to the other thing. The doctor said well is he was a good communicator as he had attended on as well when people listen know what's happening it has helped a great deal for the public to accept. And that's really major Jordan succeeded and he was as doctrine described him. He was a great leader in the public. Just loved that about him so much so that his nightly briefings became a must watch in Jordan. Nickel daily Melatonin Kahlil Euclidean elated. All out. He explained everything. And there was a clear path ahead. Eden Eden is an. Hey this is gonna be hard but the only way out of this is for everyone to work together. Was there any pushback about the fact that they were putting in like sweeping rules that could restrict people's movements in the name of this public health crisis? There actually wasn't it's interesting. I spoke to a political activist. There added his name is does Awada and how actually thinks that what the government is doing is great and I asked him to come live that they're giving you like the right. Numbers will not run and told me he said. I'm usually very skeptical of the government and of things that the government tells us but for the first time in my life like I believe our government. I showed him Site for me to hear that from you know someone who's typically considered the opposition in Jordan. Immune that was very telling so after talking to these different people and officials about what's happening in Jordan. What do you think are your big takeaways of why Jordanians have been pretty okay about this? I think ultimately it comes down to freedom and liberty and how each person defines that you're pinning individual liberty against public health when you're pitting individual good for assist communal good in a country like Jordan. It appears to be that. The communal good was winning out and so the question is how much are we as a country as a community willing to sacrifice our liberties to suppress this outbreak and in Jordan? That answer seems to be very different from the answer here in the Lena Mohammed if he producer for post reports we'll sweeten among the democracies in the West And certainly among European countries has stood apart from what we've seen take place elsewhere. My name is Isham thuerer. I'm a columnist on the posts foreign desk. Where Right the daily column? Today's worldview international affairs Sweden among the West Democracies has taken conspicuously. Different approach hasn't pursued the same kind of mandatory lockdowns and quarantines that other countries in Europe. Certainly have it hasn't shut down schools at least for kids under the age of sixteen in the same way that we've seen in the United States and it's it's maintained a semblance of normality more so than in other countries people are going out and about people are still convening in. Restaurants gatherings of under fifty people are still allowed to take place but the all happening in a context where every sweet has been given guidelines about social distancing and many are actually following them. Paradoxically given how Sweden essentially a social democratic state use conservatives love what they're doing Sweden with once praise by the for its lavish welfare state. But the Times. Well they're changing tonight to assess what we're now told should be our model Sweden. They see it as wonderful alternative where schools are open. Businesses are open. The mortality per capita in Sweden is actually less than France less than Italy less than Spain less than Belgium less than the Netherlands. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul brought it up in a hearing with Anthony Fauci but basically. I don't think there's anybody arguing that what happened in. Sweden is an unacceptable result. I think people are intrigued by it and we should be the Swedes. Have not impose the same kind of quarantines and lockdowns on their society that their neighbors have and that other European countries have had They haven't closed down businesses. They haven't necessarily enforced social distancing in the way that every other country around it has and so it's more measured and relaxed approach has appealed greatly to conservatives and others elsewhere who are skeptical of these lockdowns in the first place. And I would point out that. That's kind of ironic. Because I feel like it's pretty rare to see conservatives like holding up Scandinavia as a model for what we should be doing in the US but but it really does seem like people are tapping into this idea. That Sweden is doing it right in that. Everyone else is going to crazy and being excessive. Sweden's more. Moderate approach is what we should be adopting everywhere. Yes it also helps that. There's been a flurry of media coverage and TV stations. Going there and taking video of these sunny streets in Stockholm full of people attending bars and sitting in parks restaurants. Not particularly no name is Isaac. I'm twenty two years old and I'm enjoying a beer and a son. My friends here in Stockholm jeers but of course the reality is a bit different. First of all Sweden doesn't necessarily see itself having arrived upon some kind of solution yet to the corona virus Swedish officials including their top public health. Experts believe that the experiment the Dave embarked upon is suitable for Sweden Swedish society in general. But it's not necessarily a template that can be transplanted elsewhere. What they've anchored their strategy in is trust in the fact that ordinary. Swedes are going to follow the government's social distancing recommendations that is there's a kind of voluntary buying into social distancing that's taking place that doesn't need to be enforced with harsh punishments fines policing and so on this long term thing on the on the no scalet doing. Sweden is much more sustainable. Understand the Sweden state epidemiologist has essentially become the face of the government's response to the crisis. But here we have a lot of trust between the police politics and the agency levels and we keep on having a constant dialogue. And what's best to do in the situation with Sweden with with the possibilities have here to diminish the impact on Public Health Fair in this pandemic William. Winning really important thing about what's happening in Sweden is that it's not about saving the Swedish economy a lot of the ways in which the outside world and especially people in the United States have viewed Sweden strategy is as an economic one. Look they're not doing the same lockdowns as us. You must be better for their businesses. That is it's hard to tell. If that's the case Tweeden's tourism hospitality sectors are free fall. The country is forecasting the same scale of GDP losses that Germany and the United States are and no Swedish official who talks to you about the strategy. The day of pursued frames it in economic terms. And then I think it's also important to look at how many infections and deaths there have been in Sweden. How do their numbers? Compared to other countries and specifically other countries in Europe not well obviously Sweden has not seen the same scale of of crisis as countries in southern Europe like Italy or Spain but it is the worst performer in Scandinavia and among the Nordic countries. What they do say what. Public health officials in Sweden do say is that this is a long struggle against the virus and the strategy today of embarked upon one of its side effects is that they believe that. They're going to build her immunity in the Swedish population. Faster than we may see it. In other countries that have enacted stricter lockdowns? They believe that perhaps a third of the population of the Swedish capital Stockholm obviously the biggest population center in the country male already contracted the virus and are producing antibodies for the virus. Now of course. This is a rather complicated and controversial debate taking place among scientists who are weighing the effectiveness and the The cost of Herd Immunity Strategy Swedish officials also say that their goal was not herd immunity. But that this may be a consequence of the more relaxed approach that they've taken so you talk to Carin all starter is Swedish ambassador to the. Us what did she have to say about whether or not what is happening in Sweden right now should be held up as some kind of success story was pretty adamant that this is not some sort of perfect solution. They have arrived upon that. This is not a template that can be imposed elsewhere baseball recommendations or measures and legally binding measures. We can live. Not the speech purview and presumably that of the Swedish government that she represents is that this is a strategy. They're taking now. That works for the systems and societal structures that they have in place but that they may review if things get really bad what they have in place right now and Sweden as all of a sudden told me is not some kind of normal status quo. They're not partying and celebrating. Most people are embracing social distancing. Most people are avoiding public spaces and they've seen big setbacks their economy but the the advantage Sweden has compared to other places is that there's a pretty strong social safety net there. Everyone tweet works there. Stay at home parents so if we would have down. And they can't good for the younger kids. We have probably twenty to thirty percent of the healthcare workers and of course the the Swedish amassador recognized as well that Devon failures in that strategy and in particular they failed in their countries nursing homes where the virus really took a pretty deadly toll. The vast majority of deaths in Sweden are of people over the age of seventy everyone issue something so the efforts that taking right now are focused on testing from my medical workers as well as shoring up and supporting their nursing homes. They have already seen a huge hit. I think it's clear that what's happening in Sweden is not like an open and shut success story and they're saying that themselves but to the extent to which people are thinking that what is happening there is something that should be applied in other countries or particularly in the US. I mean there's just so many things that are different about Sweden than here. The fact that they can just recommend to people that they stay home and people will generally listen which is not. I think the case here in a lot of parts of the US But also when it comes to healthcare and the fact that Swedes are on average healthier than Americans have fewer of the CO morbidity. Is that American tab that affect whether or not you can survive getting corona virus and have better access to healthcare. That's absolutely true. And that's one of the reasons why the Swedes themselves are. Pretty insistent that what they're doing isn't necessarily applicable to the United States. You don't see in Sweden at the same time. The kind of vociferous partisan debate that you're seeing here in the United States over lockdowns over the handling of the crisis in Sweden actually Even though the ruling government is a minority centre-left Coalition. Dave taken essentially a back seat to this and the country's independent public agencies are leading the line and passing down the instructions to the Swedish public. So it's a huge difference in terms of the kind of civic consensus and buy in that you have in Sweden compared to say a place as polarized as the United States and then on top of that absolutely you have a healthier society as it is and society where they've fast-track sick pay and strengthened unemployment insurance in ways that have guaranteed that people who are potentially sake but feel like they have to work will not have to work and put others at risk and there is also as you said a level of discipline. Societal buying that simply does not exist in the United States. Right now Shantha War covers foreign affairs for the post. He's the author of the Today's World View newsletter and call him road between Torquay solutions loss. Creative gigs and shrinking ad revenue the covert nineteen crisis. Making it clear that the system supporting creative people is broken. Patriotic offers a better way. We hope creators make up lost revenue and build more sustainable income source by offering a monthly membership to their fans intern fans get access to exclusive community and premium content and the chance to become and now one more thing from reporter. Amanda Coletta and Canada New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador are two provinces in eastern Canada that have made strides in flattening the curve and last month officials in both of those provinces decided that as part of their society begin to re-open a very rapidly in both cases that they would allow residents from one household to form a to household bubble or double bubble as they call it in. Newfoundland and Labrador with residents of another household. This policy has created a surprising amount of drama. My name is Karen Ford on forty two years old and I read in Sackville New Brunswick which is in Atlantic. Canada immediately. Went back to junior high school thinking about how you ask somebody to be on your team or that. An like waiting chosen to the anthem team regarding to advance in non minority going with someone else. So I thinking of about a friend's son described it while instead there's a lot of friendships that are going to be lost over this. So each household can only pair up with one other household both of the households have to agree to be in a mutually exclusive relationship and choice is final so if you hang out with the members of the other household for a few days and you find that you're actually regretting your choice. It's too late. There's nothing you can do about it. it's not like the bachelor. Where if you pick your final choice and you decide that actually prefer the runner up you can get the producers to go and find her and bring her back for U. Sometimes have tension created with the our families especially with children or oath partners have extended family that they could go visit. I'm sure that a long standing family grudges have been started over much less in some cases. I friend who had not doubled with anybody else because they don't want to offend family members so they find it easier to not be with anyone rather than create that kind of family tension and I think even sometimes friends the same thing has happened have paired up with from for fear that they may defend somebody else. I also want to be clear that it's not necessarily a Canadian innovation. New Zealand has also been talking about household bubbles and expanding your household bubbles as a ghost through the various stages of its reopening plan the English Channel Island of Guernsey also implemented the two household bubble and various parts of the world are talking about creating bubbles or groups of friends that will be and exclusive as they look to reopen the economy their societies. Amanda Coletta covers Canada for the post that's proposed reports. Thanks for listening today. We WanNA shout out listener Beth. Va He left a five star review of post reports on Apple podcasts. She said that ever since she started working from home in mid-march post reports has been her morning. Go to you. Thanks Beth if your listener. Who wants to help more people find our show? Leave us a rating and review on your podcast APP. I'm Martine powers will be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post. This post reports podcast is brought to you by Patriot. If your podcast youtuber musician writer illustrator. If you're a creative person of any kind or simply loved one. Now is the time to check out. Patriotic DOT com. Now is the time to join. The millions of fans and creators who are changing the way art is valued.

Sweden United States Jordan Jordan government Canada producer Washington Post Jordan a Stockholm Dr Anthony Fauci Times Washington Europe Obama Lena Mohamed Amanda Coletta Aman engineer
Edition 2028

Monocle 24: Midori House

24:09 min | 1 year ago

Edition 2028

"You're listening to Molecules House view first broadcast on the twentieth of November Two Thousand Nineteen monocle. Twenty four this is Nicole House severe coming up. Today is very provocative and mecom must have been Viraphong was saying and how it would be perceived there are major issues with NATO for example with its relationships to the EU and some very structural issues that NATO has not really discussed in recent years. And maybe that's what McCoy's hinting pointing out with NATO summit in the UK looming we ask how Emmanuel macron salty comments to. The economists have played with the rest of the alliance. My guests fluorine ugly and Bennasar. We'll discuss that and the days of the news. Including what Switzerland's president early Mara might be hoping to get from a meeting with Russia's President Vladimir Putin and and we've countries turning down the event have the Olympic rings lost their luster plus London New York. Tokyo and Paris are in that order. The most comprehensively sensitively attractive cities in the world so says the Global Power City Index Twenty nineteen what emerges is a fascinating picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the world's all cities. We'll unpack the global power city indexes latest findings. I'm Andrew Malone Monaco's house few starts now welcome to the show and joined today by Bennasar researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Zurich and Florian Egli Vice President of the foreign policy. Think tank for us both. Join me today from monocle. Twenty Four Bureau in Zurich. Now we are a couple of weeks away from the next NATO summit being held here in the UK in early December among the attendees who may have reason to wonder how warmly he will be welcomed. French President Emmanuel Macron. He's fellow leaders of NATO countries will still be wondering bring quite how to absorb. The interview macron Sprang on the Economist recently in which he accused the alliance of suffering brain death and expressed some views on E. U. Enlargement and dealing dealing with Russia which bristled against conventional wisdom somewhat. Begnaud first of all. What do we think macron actually meant by brain death it? If it's very provocative and mccomb must've been environment it was saying how it would be perceived he tried to be more precise and kind of paddle back just a tiny mini-bear at a recent conference in in Paris on security where he said that he just wants to provoke discussion essentially. It's important that things as we hold dear needs to be questioned needs to be reformed and so on but do not think that this one quotes of NATO being brain dead will be any software as is obviously there are major issues with NATO for example with its relationships to the EU and some. I'm very structural issues that NATO has not really discussed in recent years. Maybe that's McCoy's inviting out. And in that he would be correct. There's I think three major challenges today for NATO one is obviously Russia and certain NATO members who are more comfortable with Russia and others who are very much opposed to any any kind of a posh mall and the second one is Turkey in a fairly interventionist war in Syria and and NATO members wonder whether they have their the security guarantees in place and whether they need to be used to defend an aggressive Turkey at some point and a third one is another thi trump obviously questioning all kinds of multilateral framework. So McCoy wants to trigger a debate about these kinds of things. It's very productive if he just wants to bash NATO and doesn't really offer an attorney tentative We may end up in more trouble than we already. Fluorine as Benaud mentioned trump is clearly a factor in macron's thinking king. He's attempting to make the point. That under previous presidents a certain amount of complacency has taken root NATO about the US guarantee of of Europe security but is he also thinking perhaps about the UK and how reliable analysis veteran might proved to be not merely on the other side of Brexit. But quite possibly on the other side of Brexit and led by Jeremy Coleman is looking at a NATO to which the only actual reliable nuclear partner turns out to be France. I'm not sure if that's actually the reflections are if defection go go go that far you know in a sense. I perceived macron statement. That's kind of a a therapist groomed. You know it's a very broken relationship by feel what NATO has been doing over the past years and everybody has sold of. I've been you know like muddling through and now at least somebody steps up and clearly names a problem so that's typically therapist role and the second thing that that the smart therapist does which clients also done is. He doesn't say you know this is a go or no go. This is stop and go that we have to decide absolutely really now. But he says this is going to be very long Discussion and he mentions the time horizon of ten years so if you take a time horizon of ten years as relevant decision frame then you know it becomes a bit less important whether Jeremy Corbyn wins election or not or Also I mean looking at at at the other side of the Atlantic of course things changed quite massively or could change quite massively next year depending on whether trump secure curious assessment term. We're not now. If he's not to secure a second term than I see the promising future for a NATO and I think it will would be very premature to Kind of have a fundamental debate on to are not to be for a NATO Because it's just a very uncertain situation at the moment as as as Benner said and and I think the second t-that begnaud mentioned to trump is kind of the key sort of destabilizing advising factor behind all this I think dealing with Russia dealing with an ally Turkey that that engages actively in Syria would all be easier if the euro US alliance were actually watertight. So I think a lot depends on on the US elections. And I think therefore the reflection is is kind of a very extent quite quite a bit into the future and not just to next year or a day or UK elections begnaud one of the ideas or solutions that president macron was proposing within that ten year framework that flurry and mention. There was the idea of some sort of constructive reengagement with Russia From where we are now given that a lot of things can happen in ten years including perhaps somebody other than Vladimir Putin being president of Russia is that still kind given naive way to think is Russia. Basically should we think of Russia's NATO's internal antagonistic or is there another way that the the relationship might evolve. Well this is obviously the tough one and nobody really knows the answer to that and that includes people in the studio And I wish we did Russia's undoubtedly a major challenge and wants to be this challenge. It kinda wants to this nemesis of NATO because it has never been funded nature to begin with based on the Cold War. Experience obviously was when NATO was the Soviet Union's major adversary but also based in the nineties. NATO kind of persisted listed and Russia never really found a place in some kind of European security architecture because these institutions of the Cold War were more or less perpetuated and Russia Now claiming out of position of strength decided to be outside of this To kind of face them in a way to have its own Eurasian Russian identity our civilization So this is kind of by defaulting of feeds into this nationalist rhetoric. That we see out of the Kremlin and to engage Social Russia is. That's the problem first of all very tricky. It's engaging all kinds of conflicts where it doesn't want to settle whatsoever doesn't want to compromise `promise but second it's necessary nontheless. European security will never be without some kind of involvement of Russia and the Baltic states Poland. Oakland or Ukraine. Obviously will never feel secure if there's not some kind of very pragmatic arrangement with Russia and past years since invasion and annexation of of Crimea. We haven't really seen productive moves to make this happen. But also because the Kremlin hasn't been willing to compromise so any kind of re engagement of Russia or easing of sanctions is well the way to go in a way because those are diplomatic tools have to be used to to foster European security thirty at the same time the Kremlin gives us a really hard time to move anyway to awesome. Because they're very much still involved in Ukraine even though there's a bit of dynamics dynamics now with Ukraine's new president very little willingness to compromise on any of the fundamentals and that's basically Russia saying we won't fear of influence Lind's wants to be a major power. We want to be distinct from everyone else. We don't just want to be European country and as long as there's no willingness on that end engagement will be hard and there may be under Putin just as much as under some kind of unknown success Begnaud just before we move off the thought of of President Macron. Do we understand fully why he was so against Elevating North Macedonia and Albania to e you succession talks That's kind of hard to tell I guess like accession overall is if we asked European populations in all kinds of countries that will be low of skepticism towards accession of such countries that are still perceived as small corrupt and so on even though they've made progress in recent years on for example the anti corruption legislation this may still not be solidified enough and obviously European countries will ask just similarly when it comes Mr Nato accession as well. What's the added value to us if we add more countries to the club So I kinda see McCoy's coming from in in a way but at the same time what he wants to to make is the real point that there's no accession of of new members. There's no major debates in Europe without Paris consent which is true. Abyss enlargement is is a consensus decision. But at the same time he kind of really wants to make a point of this independent French foreign policy. See that at the same time can have some kind of a leading role in Europe. And I think that's the kind of statement that MCI really wants to make and it's not really about North Macedonia so one could always we feel sorry for them that that's kind of an example set on their backs Bennasar and flooring Egli. Thank you both for the moment we will have more from you shortly. Here is as Monaco Ben. Ryland with some of the other stories. We're following today. Thank you Andrew. The social media giant twitter has accused the UK's Conservative Party of misleading the public. It it follows the rebranding of unofficial Tory party account which was to make it. Look like a fact checking service during a televised leadership debate the account then and reverted back to its original form after the contest polls have opened in a referendum which could see the creation of a new federal regional state in southern Ethiopia opium. It's widely expected that the plebiscite will pass. which will mean that? The SUDAMA ethnic group will be able to take decisions of issues such as taxes education education and security and California is taking its fight for the right to clean air directly to come and you factor as governor Gavin. NEWSOM has announced announced that state agencies will hold their purchases of new vehicles from major automakers for more on that story over to MONOCLE DOT COM and sign up to our daily email email bulletin the monocle minute. That's what's making news. I'm Ben Ryland back to you Andrew. Thank you Ben. This is molecules house view. I'm Andrew mullets to with me Bene- Zog and and flurry and Egli. Well let's stick with the subject of European outreach to Vladimir Putin Swiss president intends to attempt exactly that on a visit to Moscow this this week according to the Kremlin press service. The pair will discuss key issues concerning the future of cooperation between Russia and Switzerland as well as some pressing global problems which all sounds like terrific. Fun flooring what is President Mara hoping to accomplish here in this sort of cheap political framing of werstern Europe. I never never quite sure whether Switzerland is in there or not and we're kind of choosing which issue is worth being in there and witches riches. You isn't and and actually sort of getting along quite well with that strategy. What I'm most worried about Concerning visit but perhaps not visit in and it's in itself but actually roddy to whom we're extending as part of Swiss foreign policy is I'm wondering in how strategic all of this and whether the the Swiss Foreign Ministry actually has a clear plan you know what the what is the aim aim and what is the potential gain of these of these endeavors because to give you an example. China has launched the belt and roads initiative quite recently. The in Switzerland was one of the very first Western countries to endorse it and kind of did so with some economic pretexts were extremely unclear whether Swiss companies are actually going to benefit from this which is the same case in Russia. I would argue and but lent to Chinese really a kind of very important stem that this is serious eareas trustworthy neutral and western. Switzerland is actually proving of this and and so there is there is much more symbolism indies acts. I would say then Switzerland sometime comprehends and and in some sense. I fear that this is a bit a similar roots that we're taking here In president our deciding to talk and to to Russian President Putin that this this visit will or I assume be used from Russian side as quite as symbolic act and quite a meaningful X. whereas for from a Swiss perspective. It's Kinda depicted as yes you know there. There was a long-standing invitation. It was lying around now. We're taking up on it. We're going there. We can with an economic delegation. And we're trying to open markets for Swiss Chris Companies. And if we get a chance we're going to talk about some human rights issues as well right and I'm just I'm just this kind of spasm between those two viewpoints points is kind of worrying for me and I'm wondering whether there is actually enough strategic considerations in these in these moves. This is not the first controversial visit that President Incident Mara has undertaken. He's also been to consult with Saudi Arabia but is is it a difficult thing for Swiss president to do to establish themselves as a meaningful foreign policy presence. They don't get very long in the job They do not indeed. There's like a rotating presidency of one year After one year. which is it's more of a of an added title to one of our seven federal councillors that former government so this president thing his mostly towards the outside but it doesn't represent like any dominant position in Switzerland so it does change indeed like who visits as president these kinds of countries his And that makes any kind of strategy through these visits quite quite tricky but still symbolism is there is Florian said this is a president visiting another president particularly these delicate days and as you hinted that Andrew The previous visit of forty hour to Saudi Arabia caused some controversy as well as there's another visit earlier this year in the White House With a fairly embarrassing into view of president powder on CNN for example so he doesn't really have a good track record of these visit at the same time in his defense. I think Looted earlier. It is important to talk to major powers also to Russia because that's the only way the only kind of engagement we have not talking to each other is not possible. And Switzerland's Sunday's maybe in a bit of a delicate position because it represents Russia in Georgia and Georgia and Russia because of their bilateral dispute sue. Switzerland is by this very nature. I an intermediary in a way and can have more direct channels of engagement and dialogue. But this hats has to be utilized of course so we can't just just talk about business opportunities for Swiss banks. We also have to talk about human rights issues political issues and Ukraine in particular. And one. We'll have to see you whether these topics are really addressed adequately and whether or not economics is the first and second and third priority. Okay well here here could could be an interesting option right so if clear strategy if this visit would be to kind of take a mediating role as Switzerland is an has quite successfully. I would argue been doing between Georgia and Russia. Something along these line might be might be necessary in the future in the Ukraine conflict and and certainly all western European countries do not qualify for this and that could be an interesting strategic line of thought. But I'm just. I'm just struggling to see this well. Finally on today's news panel. We will have a quick look at the increasing unattractiveness of the Olympics a prize for which cities used to complete now increasingly seen as a plague. They they wish to flee the latest idea for making the whole thing seemed less of a hassle for toast is a deal with airbnb to provide accommodation for Olympic staff and tourists. Although given that some cities want airbnb even less than they do the Olympics. This may not have been thought all the way through Begnaud. Let's frame this in terms of Switzerland in which hasn't hosted a winter games since San Moritz in nineteen forty eight. I know see on has been for a few more recently than that but does anybody in Switzerland really miss hosting the Olympics. I think with confidence. I can say that not really given these latest. These latest games that we've seen and actually there's a record of that I'm not not just claiming here They're popular votes on for example whether some money should have been granted to four such bids or four first infrastructure projects in several villa accountants. And usually they don't end up. Well the population says No. We don't really want this. This is too much attention. This is too cumbersome to many white elephants it does not really add add value plus. Obviously people already know Switzerland. People already know US first ski resort. So it's rather the kind of obscure places. I suspect may need advertisement. Let's face it mostly. It's authoritarian countries bidding for it and I think the the twenty twenty two winter Olympics bid went to Beijing. Beijing was quite telling The the only other real contender was Amati Kazakhstan which does mountains nearby it's gorgeous. I was there this summer but they they don't really have the facility but not retiring government that is willing to pour all kinds of hydrocarbon resources and money from that into such games. Two two Swiss. These people like probably flurry and I here in the studio. This is not really attractive and flooring. Do you think there's something to that that more and more cities have now just seen through the Olympics and realize that it's an enormous build up in an immense expense and such benefits as you may accrue tend to be fleeting. Yeah I completely agree three with Benno. I think if you if you were to let people vote on whether they host you Olympics or not. I struggle to see many places that will host you Olympics. I indeed struggle to see the future. You're of the Olympics so so I think I'm afraid it is really quite questionable. What the real benefit of Olympics are and then this extreme example? I mean on Hidalgo. The mayor of Paris who hosts twenty twenty four Olympics. is already waging of war. I would almost say against Airbnb so this this is kind of just another another thing into into the wrong direction and to be honest you know. One of the very few advantages of Olympics Games aims may be if you're really facing austerity where governments are not willing to spend you have very sensible infrastructure projects that cannot get realized unless yes in the framework of Olympic Games as for example East London has done to some extent successfully. I think that might be one of the one of the pluses but But I really struggled to see many advantages flurry Egli and Bennasar. Thank you both in a moment. We'll hear a little bit more about a new index determining the power of cities not you're listening to multiples house view. Do Stay tuned. This is Monaco's house few. I'm Andrew Andrew Miller and finally today the Global Power City Index reveals. Its big hitters. London New York Tokyo and Paris are are in that order the most comprehensively attractive cities in the world so says the Global Power City Index Twenty nineteen a detailed report compiled by Ed Morey Memorial Foundation's Institute for Urban Strategies A tokyo-based think-tank the annual index has been ranking more than forty cities since two thousand and eight looking at seventy indicators covering everything from business the environment this year four new cities were at including Melbourne and Dublin and New Category Korea scrutinized among them tourist attractions nightlife options and public transportation use. The report is overseen by a Committee of Urbanism Professors from around the world and chaired by Hazel Tech neca Japanese economist and retired politician. What emerges is a fascinating picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the world's Cities Tokyo is miles ahead when it comes to restaurants but could improve. Workplace Flexibility Soul is great for our indeed but poor liveability New York scored highly on economic indicators but fell short on skilled workers as talents shifts to other cities and countries. London has the potential to stall with Brexit brexit uncertainty while Perez is on the up after winning the twenty twenty four Olympics European cities such as zero and Stockholm lead away on environmental all issues while Asian cities overall fared less. Well on green matters at yesterday's launch press conference second guess said it was up to the national government to tackle tackle issues such as lowering corporate tax to boost the capital's economy China to a ski as the impact of it somewhat sluggish economy and ongoing trade. You are with the. US is being felt in cities the world over in other words. It'll take more than when you see policies to shore up city strengths and address their weaknesses but walls Monaco's view on the Global Power City Index. And that's all for today show. monocle uncle's house view is produced by Augustine. Much Larry and research by Yolene Goffin jacker move hop an to me. A studio manages was Steph And Jack Jewish coming up twenty hundred brand new edition addition of the entrepreneurs. The House view returns at the same time tomorrow. Eighteen hundred London. I'm Andrew La. Thanks for listening.

president Russia NATO Switzerland President Putin NATO Russia Paris Emmanuel Macron UK President Mara Olympics McCoy US Andrew Andrew Miller airbnb Andrew Malone Monaco Europe EU
House lawmakers debate historic impeachment vote

PRI's The World

45:30 min | 1 year ago

House lawmakers debate historic impeachment vote

"The following was recorded at six. PM Eastern time. The House debates the case for for impeaching president trump. The view from the left Donald Trump has been and remains a threat to our national security. A clear danger to our democracy and wholly L. E. UNFIT to serve as president of the United States. And the right process. We saw leading up to it. Today was a complete charade. It was a close post process and unfair process to rush process. Also traveling with the family is tough enough but for parents of children with autism passing through airport security security can be super stressful. It didn't understand why he needed to touch it. Didn't understand why his five or toys will be taken away from him. That's changed at a London airport. Thanks to his mom. I'm Marco Werman those stories and more today on the world I'm Marco Werman. This is the world it started at nine this morning and it continues at this hour debates in the House of Representatives over two articles of impeachment mint concerning the president of the United States. Donald Trump. We have a lot of other stories to get to today. But this is the biggie. The World Matthew Bell is going to start us off These debates are not done yet. Are They Matthew. That's right there as we speak been going all afternoon actually started this morning. Thinks were pretty cordial. In the beginning there was opening debate about the rules for today's Today's proceedings that took up the most of the morning but they didn't actually debate the rules because those were decided yesterday in a long session in the house Democrats it's an Republicans both used that session to start laying out the foundations of their positions against foreign against impeachment. That's where things got more and more contentious as the day went along so what stood out for you so far some of it was the formality. The clerk for example read aloud the full text of the two articles articles of impeachment These are of course the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. Then there was Nancy Pelosi the house speaker. She was there to set the the tone for the Democrats. We gathered today under the Dome of this Temple of Democracy to exercise one of the most solemn powers that this body can take the impeachment of the president of the United States. Pelosi win on to say that nobody comes into Congress to impeach president but she said that there was no recourse I because so much is at stake. If we do not act now we would be derelict in our duty is tragic that the president's reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice. What we are discussing today is the established fact that the president violated the constitution is a matter of fact that the president is an ongoing threat to our national security and the integrity of our elections the basis basis of agonized? So all afternoon Marco members of each party have been taking turns to give short statements. There one to two minutes each and we could to have a full house. Vote this evening math if you had to put your finger on themes in the statements from both the Democrats and Republicans what did you hear. So for the Republicans Lukens. They continued as they have to attack the impeachment process. They say it's unfair it's unbalanced it's not worthy of serious consideration. Here's ranking member. Doug Collins from Georgia from the very moment that the majority party in this house one the inevitability that we would be here today with only a matter of what date they would schedule it. Nothing else the closest thing I heard today in the way of Republican criticism at all of President Trump's actions came I'm from will heard from Texas. He said the only thing that trump though seems to be guilty of in all of this is bumbling foreign policy. Today we have seen rush process. Divide our country today. Accusations have been hurled at each other questioning one another's integrity today. A Dangerous Precedent Senate will be set impeachment becoming a weaponized political tool. What did you hear from the Democrats? The Democrats again and again have been coming back to the suggestion. Yes John that president. Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine represent a threat to American national security and a threat that is ongoing. Here's Sheila jackson-lee Democrat from Texas. I president trump violated his oath of office by placing his personal political interests above the national interest by scheming aiming to coerce Ukraine into investigating a potential election opponent. Second President trump betray the nation by Interest by withholding the congressionally agree agree three hundred and ninety one million dollars to a fragile ally against a very strong foe. Russia third the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by the president was to enlist a foreign country to help in the twenty twenty election. These acts are constitutional crimes and abuse of power. The truth is the president. I did ask for a favor. Those were his own words. Sheila jackson-lee Democrat from Texas there. Matthew we've got the final House vote coming as early as tonight. But where do we go from here. You know the vote. The vote is not likely to be a surprise. We've known for quite some time that the president is probably going to be impeached in this vote on a party line decision but I think today was still consequential because this was a a moment for all of the House the People's houses they call it all of the members had outta chance to say how they're gonNa vote on impeachment and then explain to the American public why they were going to vote that way more unimpeachable on the show tomorrow Mar the world's Matthew Bell. Thanks a lot thanks marco. So how is today's impeachment. Vote being covered in other parts of the globe for that. We turn to the world's Sarah Birnbaum the first place I looked what was the UK. We've certainly been covering brexit. Maybe they'll return the love relatives of four soldiers killed in Nineteen eighty-two Hyde Park bombing with this is the BBC's ABC's one PM newscast the top story is about a high heart bombing lawsuit was an okay fast forward. Fifteen thousand nurses are on strike in Northern Ireland. INDISP- next story. Nurses Strike Tony Blair urges about Tony Blair the US Lower House vote hot impeachment on whether to impeach President Trump and the first woman to beat a man in a world. Don't do and a story about a darts champion. I've got to go back to that one later. So so impeachments there. It's the fourth story down but still and I should note that later in the day the BBC's twenty four hour news channel did switch the blanket coverage of impeachment and other news channels dipped in and out of it. Okay what about Russia. It's played a recurring role in the trump presidency. I asked reporter. Charles Charles means in Moscow to do a little googling for me just looking here at the Echo of Moscow website this is pretty well regarded website that covers covers all sorts of issues both internationally and locally here in Russia Top stories from the news feed here are bringing on January. This is one of the Duma just passed a law or the third reading of Law about dealing with garbage from Moscow. That's a big issue here. We've also got a story about about the closing of of hospitals healthcare issue. That's important here as well. We've got a story about forty citizens from Israel that were detained at the Moscow Moscow. Airport Domodedovo Bill is not even the one White House story here is really excellent valves the the gas pipeline. That's going from lots of different stories. They're none about impeachment. Charles did eventually find something on Russian state TV impeachment consequentially nine meet him title. Says this report starts out with a pretty accurate summary of what's going on video and then it cuts to a reporter in DC. So here the reporter says it's obvious that this telephone call with Ukrainian President Lansky was a pretense an excuse to impeach impeach trump and that the so called whistle blower was an instrument to harm the president. Charles says this is pretty typical impeachment coverage for Russian state TV. Okay last stop on our world news tour South Korea. I went there because they recently impeach their own president popcorn. Hey in two thousand seventeen and actually removed her from office so I figured maybe there'd be an interest in the American impeachment process to find out. I called up reporter Jason. Strother insult Hello Hey Jason. It's Sarah. How late is it there? It's just shy of one a. m. your good man Jason your good man. So is trump and impeachment being covered in South Korea. No I just looking at all the headlines. Here in South Korea The impeachment. What's going on back in the? US It just. It doesn't rise to the top not with North Korea threatening missile tests. So there you have it it it turns out. We're not the center of the universe. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going back to watching impeachment coverage for the world. I'm Sarah Birnbaum impeachment around the world is not one size fits all the. US Constitution says impeachment is triggered by high crimes and misdemeanors other countries are more flexible in Honduras. For example the president can be impeached for negligence in ability or incompetence then there's this scenario in the. US President trump could be impeached but not removed from office. That would not happen in South Korea. Where impeachment triggers an election within sixty days and of course? There's the parliamentary system of government in Britain. The prime minister has to reckon with members of parliament. Who can call a vote of no confidence? We saw that plot last winter when Prime Minister Theresa may survived a no confidence vote only to step down on later in the year. So all of this goes to say the American way is not the only way William Taylor. You'll remember him from last month's impeachment testimony honey as the top US diplomat in Ukraine. He was a key witness during the public hearings. I wrote that withholding security systems in exchange for help with the domestic political. The campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believe that then and I believe it now. Taylor came out of retirement last spring to lead. US diplomatic efforts in Ukraine after president trump recall the US ambassador. Marie Ivanovich now Taylor is reported to be leaving his temporary posts in Kiev in just two weeks. The post of ambassador to Ukraine has never been more controversial. And it's a role that our guest Steven Pifer knows. Well he was the US ambassador to Ukraine from Nineteen Ninety eight to two thousand and Ambassador were keen to know what Taylor's departure might mean for Ukraine for the US and for relations between the two. What he thinks? Well let me start out by saying I think that the fundamentals of American American policy towards Ukraine are going to continue. That won't change. And there's also a very capable deputy chief of Mission Christina Connecticut the embassy and so she will become the shortly after ambassador. Taylor departs but symbolically. It's not good. We won't have somebody on the ground in cave ambassadorial title and the State Department. It should have been able to prepare for this. They knew when they appointed ambassador Taylor that he was limited by law to how long he could bleed and cave and and although there's been talk that there's a retired army general in line to be the next ambassador Ukraine the department could and should have pushed his paperwork right through to get him nominated. It'd be for ambassador. Taylor departed so until this exceptional year How would you characterize? US relations with Ukraine. Like what are the fundamentals on mantles of the relationship. The relationship goes back to the nineteen nineties in the sense that there's an American objected to see Ukraine develop a stable independent independent democratic state with robust market economy and growing links with the West. And that really has been the guide star for American relations with Ukraine over the past twenty five years and unfortunately since Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine by seizing Crimea in twenty fourteen and then provoking and continuing this conflict in Dunbarton eastern Ukraine. A big part of American policy has been to bolster Ukraine's ability to stand up to Russia. So what have been the big fluctuations situations in US policy. What most wars you? The question is for the last two and a half years. Does the president support this policy and this has always is led to a degree of nervousness in Keiv they see a support of US policy but they see indications that the president may disagree with it in terms of for example his outreach to Russia when he talks to Putin it doesn't seem like he pushes back against Russian aggression in Ukraine and he still encourages a his private motor Rudy Giuliani Juliani. Who has just in key ten days ago to go on this wild goose chase looking were jerked on A potential rival Mr Trump in twenty twenty there. There are some genetics though. From what you're saying from the Obama Administration that still continue. What would you single out from? Trump's overall approach with Ukraine. That you think has been good or productive. The relationship well there has actually been. I think. Some enhancements of where the Obama decision was growing so for example there have been additional sanctions applied against Russia for aggression aggression against Ukraine over the last two and a half years and in one notable change is the trump administration did agree to provide lethal military assistance in the form Burma Anti Armor missiles to the Ukrainians. So that's been a positive development in the relationship but again there's a lot of continuity there. The question just is in key. Is the president fully on board with that policy and that creates nervousness. As does what's happened in the last three months in Washington with the question of impeachment Steven Pifer I former ambassador to Ukraine. Also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Thank you for your time. Thank you for having me. You're listening to the world. I'm Marco Werman you're with the world picture this you're in an unfamiliar place with strict rules that you don't always understand. There are flashing lights. Loud music strange smells plus people are zipping all around. You was suitcases hurrying to catch their flights for people with autism. Airports can feel overwhelming and one airport in the UK is trying to change that. Here's Brenda Salinas. Eleven Year Old Ryan Cook is the official junior autism ambassador at London's Gatwick Airport. He's about to take off onto beanbag chair. A Ryan is playing with his family in a sensory room in the airport that that can accommodate eight people. It's a specially designed player area with soft furniture and soothing toys like this interactive screen scene where he can make fireworks. Maria Cook is Ryan's mom I wouldn't change him for the world but I changed the world for him and you know if these wonderful guys here at Gatwick us. What we're doing one Ryan was three? He had a bad experience at airport. Airport security runs. Nate's not recognize at the time and it really did Unravel into court and unpleasant experience for for the staff and for us because wrong. Ron couldn't understand what was going on this whole security search side of things it's very invasive. You know and he didn't understand why he needed to touch it. Didn't understand wise five toys. Were being taken away from him before Ryan was born. Maria used to work as a security officer at Gatwick so she knows how important it is but she. She thought she could work with the airport to design a more compassionate system for people like Ryan get done and let me help. Walk us through the Weihan. Now we can get the search by using a we who's particularly process you know if rank and see the MOMS being tickled and his toys being tickled. Then we take a Ryan Ryan and that's how we got through it. Maria talked to her former colleagues and she inspired the airport to reexamine how it supports. Passengers with hidden disabilities disabilities such as autism and dementia. Jack Big Allstone. Silk is Gatwick accessibility manager. We have statistics suggest as many as consent of the UK population of air travel because of disability. The airport created special lanes for people who need more time to get through security and in two thousand sixteen. It started giving passengers with hidden disabilities the option of wearing greenland yards with some flowers around their necks key messages that our staff are trained to notice these ninetieths recognized and see what they can do. Offer their help to the person's wearing the lineage. Last last year Gatwick became one of the first airports in the world to open a sensory room. There are also ones in Pittsburgh Atlanta and in Ireland more more than fifteen hundred passengers have used one in Gatwick in the last six months. The UK's national autistic society says it's seen an uptick in businesses like like supermarkets and football clubs building sensory rooms but development manager Daniel Katie says what really makes the difference is staff training. The fundamental part of all of this work is understanding staff training. And they've been working on this and they have been spreading that understanding throughout the stove network and then they've introduced the lanyard when Ryan is traveling through the airport. Now all the special accommodations help decrease his anxiety. It helps us family start their holidays on a relaxed note. A hidden disability assistance program is basically giving people. They're human rights back you know. Why shouldn't people be? I would go on holiday so this assistance program is enabling people to do got a regular activity that so many other people take for granted yet up until now I would never have been detained yet. Wake is encouraging other airports and in public places to recognize the Sun Fatherland Yard as a universal symbol so that passengers with hidden disabilities and their families can have Easier journeys the whole way through Ryan is ready to move on for the world. Brenda Salinas Gatwick. Airport one more airport note in Lithuania. The Vilnius Airport unveiled a special holiday tree this year. It's covered scissors box. Cutters lighters and blades confiscated items from passengers at security. There's even a fake gun attached to a single bullet an airport spokesperson. Says if you don't want your belongings to wind up on next year's tree check out the baggage requirements before doing you're packing. We've got an Arctic blast coming to Boston down under though it's a different different world. Here's the World Bank. A Hillier Crikey mate. Australia reached its hottest average maximum temperature ever on Tuesday. Here's here's Diana. Ed With the Official Bureau of Meteorology for Australia. Southern and central Australia will swelter with temperatures eight to sixteen degrees above average each. That's eight to sixteen degrees centigrade across the nation. It was nearly one hundred and six degrees Fahrenheit and some of the country saw temperatures up to one one hundred and thirteen degrees for context that's hotter than Death Valley California in June. The Heat wasn't the only problem. Smoke will become a a significant issue for populated areas. This will combine with severe to extreme heat wave conditions to have a large impact on people's health. Australia's bureau of meteorology algae is expecting temperatures up to one hundred and eighteen degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the country by Friday. Now you can't blame a few days of extreme heat on climate change but climate scientists have warned of a long-term warming trend in Australia and more bad news comes with the heat wins will also strengthen often leading to significantly elevated fides. Ain't just across the southeast one. Australia is finding a silver lining. The heat forget shrimp on the Barbie. It's it's time for pot roast in the trunk. Stoop and Jelly lives in Perth in Western Australia. He placed a slab of pork inside a baking tin inside his car. Car for around ten hours Penjeli posted pictures of the cooked me on facebook to prove his ingenuity. The heat wave comes as Australia. Battles a severe ear drought and bushfire crisis. Everyone is talking about it except Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison. He's on vacation acting prime minister minister. Michael McCormick says let the man relax. Everybody deserves a holiday. Everybody deserves the right. He's kind of the Nice size condemning. They'll probably gonNA holiday to inside. I deserve to as well. At least he's consistent. Australia is expecting the heat to break this weekend for the world. I'm being Kailua tomorrow on. The world will return to the latest impeachment news and it's global impact is Congress takes up the historic question of impeaching. The president will hear from people who are watching the American democratic process unfold from faraway including some American experts in Europe from the UK to Ukraine. And whether you're listening today from far away or right here in the US tell us what you think about the impeachment proceedings. Give us a shout on twitter. Where at PRI? The world controversial new law in India discriminates against India's Muslims. That's according to civil rights groups and the UN abuse like a nightmare to be almost lemon the because every day every day since Mr Moody assumed power in two thousand fourteen is an attack on the Muslim identity in this Guy Indian. Protesters are fighting back as coming up on the world. I'm Marco Werman this is the world we're a CO OH production of the BBC World Service. WBZ'S BOSTON NPR X.. Today was another day of protests in India police in the capital Delhi fired in the air to push back doc an angry crowd of thousands. They're protesting a controversial new citizenship and immigration law from the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi civil rights groups as well as has the United Nations. Say The law discriminates against Muslims who make up fourteen percent of India's population protesters fear that Modi's pro-hindu policies threaten India's very nature as a secular inclusive democracy journalist and author run A. You will be protesting again tomorrow in Mumbai the home of Bollywood. You have plus nineties from the Indian film industry who are speaking out for the I. Try not the Indian film industry actors have not really known to be political. They didn't make any controversial statement and it will go against the government of the day but they also have this time decided to come out on the streets to protest which is interesting because I saw the other day that there were some some Muslim students in Delhi who were upset that Muslim Bollywood Stars were not speaking out but they are. Now that's why this was unexpected and very heartening to see understands shoulder to shoulder with fellow Muslims the BJP the ruling party has a stated goal of Hindutva. What is the right so the balance ideological body of the beach is Russia Swayamsevak Song which drives a lot of pets inspiration from Nazi Germany? The other says believes in Kim supremacy. It believes that after the partition of India if Pakistan was created for Muslims than Muslims should be treated as second class citizens and the concept of secularism should be removed from the constitution. So ever since this government has come to power it has been taking decisions to appease the hindu-majority and citizenship essential amendment. Bill is is like everybody's been calling it at a distraction from the economic failures. It does not. It is basically a project of Moody's Fascism so that I do too is basically a country which will be for Hindus. Hindu will have been allowed the first take two older sources in the country. The government in Delhi says it remains committed committed to the democratic ideals of India and that that law is intended to help minorities in neighboring countries. What makes you skeptical? Well if if the government of the day is indeed concerned about the prosecutor minorities in neighboring countries. Wiser that only Muslims have been singled out to not be given citizenship. I mean command Mars also. Neighboring country was going. Your community and the Indian government has called Winky as a security threat to the to the idea of India so Hindutva Vaa the Kashmir status being revoked earlier this year citizenship and immigration law that discriminates against Muslims for you as a Muslim in India. Rana were you afraid of right now. It feels like a nightmare to be Muslim in India because every day every day since Mr Moody has empowered in two thousand fourteen protein is an attack on the Muslim identity in this country. Where when Mr Modi's not indulging in a dog whistle? He's giving speeches that conflict Indian Indian Muslims with Pakistani. It is a humiliating experience to be a Muslim in India. Right now it is intimidating. Many of us are privileged. Muslims who you know who hav glover sources to leave the country tomorrow if if one way to guesstimate but eighty percent of the Indian Muslim population lives pillow poverty line and they have been living in fear. We had eighty percents rise in hate crimes against Muslims moving twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen where Muslims who unleashed on suspicion of eating beef Muslims Lynch on suspicion of marrying a Hindu girl so every day there is an attack on religious identity. So it's become difficult to to live as a Muslim as self respecting Muslim. In Democracy Ellison story in the multi has controver it. has this been a constant tension in your life in India run. I mean did you have like Hindu friends in school. Yes of course I mean I was theresa's up in a in a very cosmic order society but very early on in life. When I was about nine years old Bombay rides took place and me and my family? He had to leave overnight because writers that are House. One of the biggest anti-muslim riots in the country so start to ninety two very early age in my life I I was going to decide entity as much as I did. Not Want to So you became very very of various stood as Muslim in the country and the beaches and the right-wing have been fueling this anti-muslim Nelson the partition of the country. In Ninety seven so we had to be still have some of of my closest friends are non Muslims but every day in your life you you see discrimination because of your sunny so as a Muslim personally personally and as a journalist I have seen the discrimination from close quarters but despite that me and many like many Muslims like me police are fade into and the secular democracy. Many non-muslim has come forward to protect us in the times when you need them stated time like this. I mean when the countries protesting you see there are many non. Muslims could out in the streets to protect the interest of fellow Muslims in the country. And that's very heartening because despite the hate that the leadership has been trying to spread in the country there are still some saint. Louis journalist and author run a UBE speaking with us from Mumbai Mumbai. Thank you very much. Thank you so much in central Europe. The mayors are fed up the mayors of Budapest Prague Bratislava's and Warsaw the capitals capitals of Hungary the Czech Republic Slovakia and Poland signed what they're calling a pack of Free Cities Sedan. Zip is the mayor of Prague Declaration flirtation that be sure to come values like democracy freedom rule AFL tolerance and openness and this is also connected to the fact that we all get our freedom and democracy back in the year nineteen eighty nine. Prague Mayor says the pact is a way to tighten historic doric and geographic bonds. Hip says the four mayors are trying to solve problems facing many cities around the globe. Climate Change Social Stratification caring for an aging aging population and a crisis in affordable housing. And he's not confident that the populist governments at the national level have the solutions we have to be were of the fact that there are many challenges nowadays in the city so for example the housing crisis and the problem. Is that if we will not not solve these problems issues. There is always a risk that some populist will came with some very simple and very wrong solution into the problems so it is basically also an auntie populist fact we would like to address this through the positive way as is. There is a very similar historical geographical context our cities the four mayors pushing the European Union for more direct funding to sit it is federal governments. Typically get the money but the mayor say their federal governments are trying to squeeze their city budgets. They argue it's because the capital cities are largely filled with people who oppose the populace national governments mayor Zip said cities like Prague are not fuelling an urban rural divide and the rise of populism. He said Cities like his are the engines of economic growth for the entire country. This fall people in Venice tried to go about their normal lives. sloshing through deep deep water flooding is increasingly frequent problem in the city of canals. A flood control system called once promise to solve Venice's water issues but it's been delayed for years mired in corruption from Venice. BBC's Italy correspondent Mark Lowen reports on tomorrow's Muslimeen experimental experimental electromechanical model. It also refers to Moses no yes because Venice has to be saved against the sea. Monica Ambrosi works works on one of Italy's most ambitious and controversial engineering projects in its history. The Marseille floodgate system barriers built at the three inlets to the Venice Venice Lagoon to protect it from ULTA or high tides. When we have to raise up the gates with Pamper Sir Air through these pipe and sold they raise up floating then when it's finished the event of high tide? We extract the air through that pipe. So they lowered down in their initial position. This underground tunnel twelve meters below the sea level feels like goes on forever. It's four hundred twenty meters long flanked by cables pipes and wires. Construction began sixteen years ago. It was due to finish in two thousand fourteen. But that's not being pushed back to twenty twenty two and it's been a den of legal problems. Thirty five. People were arrested for corruption in relation to the projects including the former mayor of Venice. The the problem is the target and government considers most too big to fail. Monaco ballet is an anti Muslim activist. Why does he see the project as the problem? Not The solution and these paths even if the most is not working already totally rusted and destroyed then there are some financial objections concerning the maintenance and then lost the lister all like climate change issue because the rays celebral who totally take out of the game assisting link motza which is very old old. In terms of design the floods threaten some of Venice's most famous autism the Glass Blowers McDonnell Fabiano Ahmadi filmed as he entered his workshop dot night the water reaching just below the furnace millimeters from destroying everything pretty. I'm here. She had really hoped hoped the floodgates save us from the high tide. We can't go on like this square Venezia's tourist heart bore the brunt onto the floods and inside the Byzantine Basilica. The damage is clear. The Flood Water reached the Thirteenth Century Mosaic Floor of the basilica standing standing in front of one part here with chose to peacocks and they had to be covered with fabric. Goal was because the individual stones of the mosaic. Were ripped away by the force of the water. That's a job for thousand years the C. Made Venice the heart of a powerful empire. Now in just one hundred years projections say. This city could sink. Moss as floodgates may stop that at stake whether Venice survives or becomes just an underwater theme before awful the BBC's Mark Lowen in a waterlogged Venice. tis The season to approve the Pentagon's annual defense budget aged and that has happened this week. The Senate voted eighty six to eight to pass a seven hundred thirty eight billion dollar budget. William Heart Tongue is director of the arms insecurity. The project at the Center for International Policy. He says the budget is a mixed bag for the military. There was a lot of policy provisions taken out which were very important but but in terms of funding they increase the F thirty five Combat Aircraft Twenty aircraft. Even though it's head many technical troubles and some people feel it may not be ready for prime time. They took money out of training. They're always saying the Pentagon they don't have enough money for training they authorized Donald Trump space force although they reduced the spending they. They said that they can't add new people. But it's off to the races in terms of this notion of six armed force. Yeah and just remind us what the Space Force is supposed to be. President trump trump with support from vice president pence and others wants to have a separate military service known as the Space Force which will put defensive interceptors in space will manage all space ace military procurement and operates sort of the way the marines operate with respect to the navy. So it'll be a new armed force. It will have some supervision from the Air Force what policy provisions were taken out that. Got Your attention while there's been a lot of congressional concern about the Saudi Warren Yemen and the use of weapons and military support in that humanitarian catastrophe so there had been provision in there that would stop. US military support in terms of logistics also stopped US sales of bombs being used in the war for that was stripped out. There was a provision to say no military action against Iran without Congressional approval that was also stripped down. There was a provision that would have deregulated aided the expert of firearms. They were going to try to block that. And that provision also came out so a Lotta progressive elements which were what got many Democrats to vote for it for very high level level of spending. Didn't make it into the final bill when you look at the Authorization Act. What regions of the world seemed to get the most attention in terms of where military aid is going? Well it's a little opaque at this point a lot of it comes through the State Department authorization so my belief is that the pattern is going to be fairly similar to what it has been so so that would be the bulk of going to Egypt and Israel and then followed by places like Jordan the Afghan security forces military to Iraq those will absorb the vast majority of the military aid. Some things in the bill seem odd considering its funding defense. There is a provision that will include a path to citizenship for many Liberians begins living in the. US There's also funding for the border wall with Mexico. How'd you both of those things end up in the same bill? That's funding defense. Well the defense bill has become sort of a Christmas mistreat in the sense that people put on provisions that are directly related to defense. Because it's considered a bus pass bill. It's passed for decades in a row. And so you can get it on that bill. It's less likely to be vetoed so people a sneak in provisions that aren't directly defense related and of course the border wall. The president is pushed heavily to take money money from the Defense Department to put into building the wall yet. There's an increase in tobacco. Purchasing age from eighteen to twenty one did that get in their same kind of scheme. Yeah just basically weekly parochial interests in the bill is also large that not all members are aware of everything. That's a voting for so overall William when you look at the contents of the National Defense Authorization Asian Act. What conclusions can you draw about? US priorities right now. Well I think there's a conflict in what the priorities should be particularly between the Democratic House in the Senate in the president. The houses pushing for less interventionist policy in also some caps on the nuclear build up the president of the Senate Leadership WanNa go full all speed ahead so I think what it tells us that there's not a consensus on how to go forward and that may not be resolved until after the twenty twenty elections. William Heart Tongue is director of the armed security project of the Center for International Policy. Thank you thank you. The most dangerous place in the world for U N peacekeepers is Molly in West Africa and and it's only getting worse spreading across borders. The violence has been driven by extremists a few weeks ago. Terrorists in Mali shot down a helicopter killing thirteen French soldiers. The largest loss of life for the country's military nearly four decades French President Emmanuel Macron was supposed to meet with African leaders to discuss French troops in the region and what's is being done to fight terrorism but after militants in neighboring Niger. Attacked a base. There killing seventy one soldiers macro postponed. The meeting Ali tuned car is founder and Director Director of the Center for Security and Strategic Studies. In the Suhel I asked him why there's been an increase in terror attacks zone own numbers. There are a number of reasons why among them. There's the question of a weak state presence in certain villages. Film was the Lasalle Alka. Slow me on. When you're in this hell which is made up of share molly Keane Foucault? There are different villages today with civil insecurities that because the state it can't assure an efficient way to distribute basic social services such as access to education water is to support diplo around delivering justice. That's fair and acceptable to all communities. It's because of these difficulties that violent radical groups have been able to form local local basis in these insecure communities. The shortage of natural resources has that local governments to favor the installation of certain radical groups in some villages in Mali this year and for Kina Foucault. Of course the state is present in these places you can see the presence of the military courts but there are different actors in charge when it comes to security resources and basic social services these actors these security forces don't necessarily benefit from the support of communities for the simple reason that the community doesn't share information they have on radical groups deficient. That's either because they're afraid of reprisal from these radical groups or because because the community views these security forces as ruined and corrupt. What concerns you the most Mr Takada get them? But let's just say the group is The Susan quickly across the most worrying part of the situation in the hell is when you listen to French. President Emmanuel macron elite and the French Minister of Armies Florence Parlay. You'll realize that they apply the same universal solutions across the entire country. But this ignores the unique situation of each the village and community. There's no contractualization or consideration into the individual circumstances and that's what worries me. The last thing of concern is the responses made the issue so far African leaders notably heads of African states and the G. Five Suhel need to be included in these decisions with France about combating terrorism careers no participant is supposed to be the way France has been offering in the Suhel hasn't been defined by Africans infantilism effect inspected. We have to stop going to fantasize Africans Africans need to be associated with different elaborate strategies and then carried out by foreign forces notably the French storm employer ficus in this way I think we can combat the rights of terrorism more efficiently more quickly. Eilly took messy beaucoup a poll a set onto the feel all they took our is founder and director of the Center for Security and Strategic Studies in the Suhel the political unrest in Mali. Ali has also changed things for one of the country's better known groups of musicians. The band to Nari Win the blues from the Sahara laid by Dr Eggs. The indigenous nomads of the desert to Nari is celebrating their fortieth anniversary this year. But political unrest means. They only play gigs outside of Mali. One of two nerlens members was even kidnapped has on October Hami with the band says when the extremist gain the upper hand in their region they crack down on all forms of artistic expression while he knew it was a big big problem with the music. A lot of people people play music in our town now. We don't play as we did before in public. We have to hide even now. It's not like before too narrow and originally formed as a band to play for community unity events in their village in northern Mali. Then they became popular all over the country in the language of the Torah to Nari one means the people of the desert's in some of the band members are pushing seventy life on the road isn't easy but to Hami attributes the groups passion and energy their heritage INVESCO. Okay well we maintain our health because we were have always looked everywhere. Twenty eight years on the road and I'M NOT TIRED TO NARI wins new album. I'm a jar is especially close to its art Cooley. She knew We've gone through lots of problems in Mali which was not mind when we were recording talks about peace peace and about the Torah trying to find unity to says. It's a way to show the world that the Torah people are united. This track is called tycoons it opens with the question. Why are men so divided GonNa and you know the saying a picture is worth a thousand words? Well a terra cotta pot might be worth even more the back story here. Archaeologists uncovered an enormous Roman shipwreck off the coast of Greece. But things got weird. The ship itself was missing over the last two thousand years. It had almost completely disintegrated but the cargo is intact thousands of terra cotta pots. Were on the sea floor in the shape of a boat they added in very good condition. And they keep the shape the oval shape of the boot. That's archaeologist George Farren Tinos from the University of Patras in Greece that that's shape of the parts on the ocean floor gives us some clues about the fate of the ship and his final journey. Here's Faron teens again. We think that the boat went went down not Jin storm but probably adjust Something happens with down slowly slowly all all the way down to the chief law. There's even a way to get a look at what's inside. Archaeologists can scrape samples from the pots and use. DNA technology to figure out what what was once inside them. Farren Tino has a few thoughts about that I that wine or olive oil or Bali which and sometimes the Roman sure laxest shosh made the from Sheldon Right. All you need is pasta. The record significant not only for the quality of its artifacts but for its size. It's one of the four largest Roman shipwrecks ever found in the Mediterranean. It's a hundred and ten feet long and contains about six thousand pots. That is a lot of sardined sauce. And that's going to do it for us today. We'll get back on the impeachment story tomorrow along with news from around the globe from the Bill Harris Studio at W.. GBH Here in Boston. I'm Marco Werman. We'll see you tomorrow. The world is a CO production of W. G. B. H. Boston Austin the B._B._C.. World Service and Pierre.

president United States President Trump President Ukraine Marco Werman UK India Russia Australia Democrats Ryan Ryan Mali Congress William Taylor Texas London BBC