9 Burst results for "Stephen Walt"
American Scandal
"stephen walt" Discussed on American Scandal
"Pragmatic manner? What I think needs to happen is two things. First, you need to have a more wide ranging and open debate on just what America's role in the world should be, what policies have worked what policies have failed, how can we do better going forward? Not have the debate just be between a and B but really widen it in some respects. And I think there's some indications that that is that is starting to happen. Second, you have to build a new blob in a sense of up from the grassroots. You need to get young people starting out their careers who move into different institutions moving into think tanks. Moving into academia, moving into positions in government where they can acquire some experience, but who can bring a new set of ideas and a new perspective. And I think the most encouraging thing is that they do have a different view. If you look again at the opinions of Gen Z and gen X and gen Y on how they view international affairs, they worry more about things like climate change than they do about international terrorism. They do, in fact, care about a set of issues that are going to affect their lives going forward. They bring a different perspective and the key is whether or not we can move them into positions of growing responsibility without socializing them into these old patterns of thought. So that they don't feel they have to just accept all the old think in order to have a successful career. So finally, to bring us around to the topic of this series that we're concluding here. What specific lessons do you think we might be able to learn about the CIA's meddling in Iran during the mid 20th century? Is there any lesson that we should have learned that we can apply today? Sure. There's at least two or three. So American foreign policy during the Cold War had a number of very positive features and a couple of huge mistakes. The positive features was our effort to build a set of global institutions that have worked remarkably well. Institutions like NATO, the bretton Woods financial arrangements are support for the United Nations over the years, et cetera. These were all developments in the early Cold War that paid off very well for the United States. Where the United States failed during the Cold War was largely in the developing world where our fear of communism or fear that it would somehow become contagious in that part of the world, led us to intervene in lots of places that we didn't understand and almost always with unhappy results. Iran is one example, much of Latin America at various points and obviously Vietnam as well. So when you intervene in another society, when you pose a political solution on another society, society that you probably don't understand very well, it will almost certainly have consequences that you don't anticipate. The United States may have gotten a reasonably loyal ally in the Shah of Iran, although he was not by any means a perfect ally while in power. For some years. But eventually, of course, when he fell, what was left was a society that was deeply hostile to the United States and blamed them for many misfortunes. And that, of course, now has been a problem for the United States for 40 years or so. The second thing you'd learned from that is it reminds us that different countries have their own national narrative. When Americans think about it wrong today, they think about the fall of the Shah. They think about the Iranian revolution. They think about the hostage crisis, they think about crowds chanting death to America. When Iranians think about the United States, they think about the 53 coup, America interfering in their politics, or they think about the support that the United States gave to Iraq during the Iran Iraq War with hundreds of thousands of Iranians died. The point is that we tell each other a different narrative about the past and then when we try to figure out a way how to get along, we're bringing an entirely different view of the other to it. It's no surprise, therefore, that we've been unable to unwind this deeply hostile spiral between Washington and Tehran, despite occasional attempts by both sides to do this. Well, Stephen Walt, thank you so much for joining me today on American scandal. It's been a pleasure. Nice talking with you. That was my conversation with Stephen Walt, Professor of international relations at Harvard's Kennedy school, and the author of taming American power and hell of good intentions. From wondering this is episode four of America's coup in Iran from American scandal. In our next series, we look at one of the most explosive trials of the 20th century. In 1968, protesters descended on Chicago in the lead up to the Democratic National Convention. Their goal was to push back against Democrats and their support for the Vietnam War, but after the protesters clash with local police, prosecutors indicted 8 of the activists charging them with federal crimes, a trial that followed would capture the nation's attention, while becoming a symbolic battle about the future of America. Hey, prime members, you can listen to American scandal, ad free on Amazon music, download the Amazon music app today, or you can listen ad free with one plus an Apple podcasts. Before you go, tell us about yourself by completing a short survey at 1° dot com slash survey. American scandal is hosted, edited, and executive produced by me, Lindsey Graham for airship. Audio editing by Emily birth, music by Lindsey Graham. This episode was produced by alona minkowski, our senior producer is Gabe riven. Executive producers are Stephanie Jen's, Jenny Lauer beckman, and Marshall Louis for wondering. Whatever you're saving up for. A CD from sandy spring bank lets you grow your savings at a guaranteed rate. Right now, earn interest at 4.5% APY on an 8 month CD special, or 4.25% APY on a 14 month CD special. Learn more at sandy spring bank dot com slash CD specials. Minimum opening deposit to earn the annual percentage yield is $500 for the 8 month CD special and $2500 for the 14 one CD special. Member FDIC.
American Scandal
"stephen walt" Discussed on American Scandal
"In 1953, the CIA launched a covert operation that sent shockwaves through the Middle East and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for decades. The target of the mission was Muhammad mosaddegh, the elected prime minister of Iran. Mosaddegh had risen to power promising to strengthen Iran's democracy. He was a staunch proponent of core democratic principles, like the freedom of the press and fair elections, but mosaddegh had broader ambitions, too. He sought to nationalize Iran's oil industry, which for years had been under the control of the British. And as he began carrying out his large scale reforms, leaders in Washington grew concerned. American officials believed it was only a matter of time before Iran fell under the sway of communists, lending greater regional influence to the Soviet Union. So with the blessing of America's top officials, the CIA launched a coup, aiming to replace most attack with a prime minister who seemed more aligned with western interests. The CIA led a campaign that include bribes, staged riots, and the manipulation of the Iranian press. And ultimately, mossadegh was forced to step down. But many have argued that in the end, the CIA's coup undermined America's self interest, that it damaged America's standing as a global leader. Inciting American interventions like this operation Ajax in Iran. Some critics have been calling for a radically new approach to U.S. foreign policy. My guest today is Stephen Walt, political scientist and Professor of international relations at Harvard's Kennedy school of public policy. Walt has written extensively about foreign policy and as the author of books including taming American power and the hell of good intentions. In our conversation, we'll discuss the moral dimensions and political costs of U.S. interventions around the world. And we'll take a broad look at the ideas that have shaped American policy over the last century. Our conversation is next. Everyone knows that putting money aside and savings is really important. But then what? Should you keep your savings locked in the CD for a higher rate or keep them liquid in a money market? Can your checking account help you save two? Or is it about creating the right combination? We believe real banking is a conversation. Let's talk about the savings options that are right for you. Learn more at sandy spring bank dot com. Member FDIC. Even the rich is a podcast from wondery that tells the jaw dropping stories about the tumultuous lives of the world's elite. From the greatest family dynasties to pop culture superstars. Listen to even the rich on Amazon music or wherever you get your podcasts. Stephen Walt, welcome to American scandal. Nice to be here. Thanks for having me. Now let's start this conversation by discussing a strange term. But one that's gotten increasing attention among people in the world of foreign policy. The term is the blob, and the definition of that is not incredibly self evident. Could you begin by telling us what it means? Sure. Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, used the term. And it is used to describe the range of institutions, organizations and individuals that work full-time on foreign policy questions, a primarily in Washington. So it's not just the formal institutions of government like the Department of State or National Security Council, but it's really referring to the surrounding penumbra of think tanks, lobbies, academics, media who weigh in on foreign policy and try and shape what the government does. And roads use this rather disparaging term because he was trying to express the frustration the Obama administration felt that every time they tried to do something, they would face opposition or resistance or carping from the blob. And it captured what I think a lot of people understood about the foreign policy establishment and that's why it caught on. So there were some in the Obama administration that had this disparaging nickname for the group. What is the critique of this gathering of individuals and institutions? Why are they there to begin with and what problem do they pose? Well, the central problem I think that he was referring to and it's the one that others, those of us who have been critical of the foreign policy elite, is first of all groupthink that this is a set of groups and organizations that you might think are always contending with one another, but in fact, agree on lots of questions. There's a lot of conformity. And in fact, if you paint outside the lines, you suggest something that might be slightly outside what is considered orthodox or acceptable. It's not likely to advance your career. I think the second concern is that this is a group that over time has become largely unaccountable. That it doesn't want to hold each other to account because of course similar things might happen to you down the road. There's not much debate within the blob on core principles on what America's role in the world ought to be. And among other things, that means the same policies keep getting repeated, even when they don't work very well, the same people keep getting reappointed, even when they fail. In a sense, again, this whole community doesn't hold itself accountable. And as a result, we tend to make the same mistakes over and over again. Well, let's look at some recent history to see if we can't examine some of the mistakes that are perhaps perpetuated by this group think or this over reliance on core principles. Over the last 100 years, what has been an overarching theme or approach to U.S. foreign policy? Well, I think until the end of the Cold War, a few sort of begin with when the United States became a great power, roughly 1900, right up through the end of the Cold War, the United States actually tended to rely on a pretty hard nosed realist approach. There was sort of an idealistic veneer where we talked a lot about democracy in American values. But American leaders focused very heavily on the balance of power on countering real adversaries and were not overly sentimental or overly idealistic about it. After the Cold War, however, I think things changed a little bit, suddenly the United States was in a position to try and project its values onto others without really worrying about what the consequences might be. And you've got a somewhat more ambitious and somewhat different approach to foreign policy that hasn't
American Scandal
"stephen walt" Discussed on American Scandal
"Make sense of the Iran hostage crisis. But that was largely because very few new America's role in bringing the dictatorial Shah to power. But the Iranians who stormed the U.S. embassy were well aware of operation Ajax, and some believed it was only a matter of time before the United States attempted another coup, a possibility that the Iranian radicals believed justified taking drastic action. The hostage crisis was a turning point in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran and fostered decades of animosity to counter its new adversary. The United States began offering military support to Iran's enemies, and that included former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, whose country went to war with Iran from 1980 to 1988. At the same time, the United States faced increasing opposition from Iran's allies. The country's revolutionary leaders inspired many throughout the Middle East, including the founders of the Taliban, afghanis, who would later offer refuge to Osama bin Laden, as he planned and carried out the attacks of September 11th, 2001. The architects of America's coup in Iran believed their mission would advance America's interests and national security. But many find ample evidence to suggest there's an unbroken chain of events that begins with the 1953 coup precipitates the 1979 hostage crisis and continues today with strained relations between the United States and Iran defined by suspicion and distrust. From wondering this is episode three of America's coup in Iran from Americans camp. In our next episode, I talk with Stephen Walt, a political scientist and the author of several books, including taming American power and the hell of good intentions. We'll discuss some of the damaging consequences of America's foreign interventions and why critics are calling for the U.S. to adopt a new role in the world stage. If you'd like to learn more about operation Ajax and America's coup in Iran, we recommend the books all the Shah's men by Stephen kinser and the coup, 1953, the CIA and the roots of modern U.S. Iranian relations by ervand abrahamian. This episode contains reenactments and traumatized details. And while in most cases, we can't know exactly what was said. All our dramatizations are based on historical research. American scandal is hosted edited, executive produced by me, Lindsey Graham, or airship. Audio editing by Mali ba sound designed by Derek parents, music by Lindsey Graham. This episode is written by Hannibal Diaz, edited by Stephen Walters. Our senior producer is Gabe riven. Executive producers are Stephanie Jen's, chaining allow our beckman and Marshall Louis for wondering.
Between The Lines
"stephen walt" Discussed on Between The Lines
"Stephen Walt, a columnist at foreign policy magazine, and Professor of international relations at Harvard University. Up next, our Australia's neighbors in Southeast Asia, ready for orcas. Well, bipartisanship in Canberra is rare, but one key area where labor and the coalition find agreement is orcus. That's the military in technological partnership with the U.S. and the UK. Here's the prime minister in praise of August recently. August is about the future. It further formalizes the common values and the shared interests of our three nations have in preserving peace and upholding the rules and institutions that secure our region and our world. That was Anthony albanese at the national press club on February 22. Now, the centerpiece of August is a commitment to produce top quality nuclear submarines for Australia. They could operate to meet China's massive military build up. And to help secure air routes and sea lanes in international waters. Now the poles, they show overwhelming public support for closer cooperation with Washington, which could strengthen our defenses and build up the tech industry. Yet regional concerns most notably in Southeast Asia, they still work below the surface. Susannah Patton is director of the Southeast Asia program and project lead of the Asia power index. That's at the lowy institute in Sydney. And Peter Jennings is a former senior defense official and the longtime head of espy in Canberra. That's the Australian strategic policy institute. Susanna Peter, welcome. Thank you, Tom. Hi, Tom. Susanna, when August was announced in September 2021, Southeast Asian states were caught by surprise, tell us more. Well, everyone was caught by surprise by the orcas announcement in 2021. But for some Southeast Asian countries, they were not so happy with the announcement, Indonesia, and Malaysia, in particular, the foreign ministers put out statements of concern, they were concerned about both the possibility of regional tensions being escalated by the kind of investment in military capability that we're seeing through August. But also about the risks of nuclear non proliferation. Now, of course, other countries in the region had a different response in the Philippines in particular was quite publicly positive. They're probably interested in joining some of those kind of tech sharing agreements, although not at that high end. Singapore was a little bit ambivalent. Some people read the prime minister's comment as being positive, but I think it's sort of reserving judgment.
Between The Lines
"stephen walt" Discussed on Between The Lines
"That together and you end up with a very toxic mix of politics, even without throwing in social media Fox News and all that other stuff. I think those big forces are behind much of the dysfunction that you now see in the American political system. And unfortunately, nobody has a sort of quick, easy push the button and it's all solved type solution for it. My guest is Harvard professor Stephen Walt, one of America's leading foreign policy realists. Steve, let's turn to Ukraine. Now, you were at the Munich security conference recently and you found a mismatch between what government officials were saying in public and then what they were saying in private. First, tell us about the divide between the west and the rest with respect to Ukraine. This was really striking at Munich and there's actually some interesting public opinion data that's been produced that supports this. If you were a member of the transatlantic community, Europe or America, you know, Ukraine is the most important issue overwhelming focus there at the conference. It's seen as the fulcrum of the 21st century of the fate of humanity is going to be determined by the outcome in Ukraine. And absolutely the Ukrainians must win because everything is hinging upon this. That was kind of the rhetoric you heard from most people in the sort of NATO bubble, if you call it that. For the rest of the world, you know, again, to oversimplify the global south. And nobody was defending Putin or Russia, but Ukraine is not seen as the most important issue, not the only issue. Certainly not the one that's going to determine the 21st century. They just don't believe that the fate of humanity is going to be determined by whether Ukraine or Russia ultimately controls the Donbass. And there itself interest, right? India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, do not want to sever all their ties with Russia for a combination of economic and political reasons. The global south thinks that the west is being deeply hypocritical that, you know, they welcome Ukrainian refugees, but they wouldn't welcome refugees from Syria or from sub Saharan Africa or from Afghanistan as well. The west sort of dribbled out aid for COVID vaccines, but was willing to pour a $150 billion into Ukraine. So when people from the west from the transatlantic community start talking about how important Ukraine is and how everyone around the world has to get on board, the rest of the world shakes their head and says, you guys just don't get it, do you? I can just imagine many people asking for understandable reasons that with Russia's invasion of a sovereign independent state, surely the rules by liberal international order is at stake and all nations west all the rest have an interest in upholding those rules. People might agree with that intellectually, but the immediate response you get from outside the transatlantic bubble is that this is rank hypocrisy. But first of all, these rules of the rules based order were written by powerful Western countries for the most part, not by India and not by states in Africa elsewhere.
Between The Lines
"stephen walt" Discussed on Between The Lines
"Ivy League universities and you've been teaching at Harvard for many decades. They do remain global intellectual trendsetters. The U.S., as you've mentioned, it remains military the most powerful nation in the world, and then of course there's the energy independence, America is energy independent, pretty much for the first time in 50 years, whereas China. It's my GP competitor, is still heavily dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Stephen Walt. Yeah. Well, I think that all of that's true. And it means the United States is actually in very good shape and something Americans should bear in mind that relative to those other major powers were remarkably secure. We have all of the things we need for continued prosperity in the United States is still I think an innovation engine in lots of different ways. So all of that's true and it means Americans should exhale, relax a little bit, not worry too much about what's happening in the rest of the world. Our fate will be determined primarily by what we do here at home. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean the United States can tell everybody around the world what to do. You know, and that we can't take the interests of other states into account, particularly on those issues where they care more than we do in part because it's happening, say, right next to their country as it was for Russia in Ukraine. The United States is in very good shape, will retain a lot of influence around the world, but it's no longer going to be quite as unconstrained as it was back in the 90s, and we've learned, I hope, through events like Iraq and Afghanistan that trying to remake other societies and doing a lot of social engineering in countries we don't understand. It doesn't work no matter how powerful we are. All fair points and you mentioned here at home, and that raises the question, does the problem here have more to do with culture? I mean, if you think about it, the Americans are usually renowned for their optimism. But in recent times, particularly since the invasion of Iraq, America's been, how can I put it internally consumed by self doubt? A culture crisis perhaps that stems from expectations about the country's future that no president is likely to meet. Plausible? Well, I think it's plausible and it's deeply concerning for people like me. I do think it has some roots that are actually more what's happening in the country than what's happening outside. I mean, first we've had the tremendous increase in economic inequality, rich getting substantially richer, poor not rising up and of course middle class hollowing out. Second, we have the gradual change in the racial composition of the United States, where we are no longer going to be an overwhelming white majority country. That white Americans are still going to be the largest single group if you look at that, but not 80% of the country as it was true for much of our history as well. So you combine that. And of course, it was appealing to people who didn't like those changes. It was part of Donald Trump's political success. People who were threatened by these big changes add to that the rather pernicious short term self interest of our political class. And I think Republicans have been worse than Democrats on this score, but both parties are to blame to some degree. And then finally, the role that money plays in American politics, which is has gotten to really absurd levels.
Between The Lines
"stephen walt" Discussed on Between The Lines
"There. I'm Tom Switzer and this is between the lines. Well, with the collapse of Soviet communism and the end of the Cold War, the accepted wisdom held that the U.S. had enjoyed a moment of uni polarity. American global leadership and American century. Indispensable nation. A pax Americana benign global hegemony. These became the buzzwords of the U.S. foreign policy establishment in the 1990s. And then after the 9 11 terror attacks, the rhetoric became Billy cos. American outrage over the terror attacks, the mental habits of global hegemony, American exceptionalism, all this gave U.S. leaders a clear overriding sense of mission and purpose in the world. However, presidents Obama and Trump, though of course I expressed themselves in different ways, they wanted to redefine the U.S. role in the world in a way that recognized U.S. limits in an increasingly multipolar world that would not conform to American expectations. These days, though, the Biden administration is striving for a unipolar world that my first guess is no longer exists. So why is America too scared of a multipolar world? And where does Ukraine fit in here? Stephen Walt is a columnist at foreign policy magazine and Professor of international relations at Harvard University. Steve, welcome back to the program. It's great to be with you again, Tom. Why has the U.S. been loathed to abandon a position of unchallenged promise in the world?
WMAL 630AM
"stephen walt" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"The Republican purge continues in the Maryland General Assembly gets to work or ahead, seven o'clock and then you mail W m E L F M. WOODBRIDGE, Washington Now more than ever depend on 105.9 FM. W M A L A Cumulus station news Now double your mail news. It's seven. Good morning, everyone. I'm John Mathews. Prince William County School Board Chairman Bob or Latif told mornings on the mall yesterday he was frustrated that more kids aren't back in class. Rooms. I have made the argument that we should have been in by now. I will continue to make that argument this evening. So he did, and the school board followed. Voting to get all students back by late February is covert metrics and vaccination rates for staff allow it. The board move forward over the strong objections of Superintendent Stephen Walt, who noted that no one has received a shot yet and they won't start receiving them until the end of the month of the earliest. Walt had proposed to keep most students out until mid to late April. Montgomery County School Board again voted to delay the return to in person learning this time until March 15th. But school Superintendent Jack Smith did seem to leave the door cracked for possible earlier return the vaccination program. It may well have in effect, because our staff members are being accelerated right now as we speak by the state, and we're working with our our local health department. But the final decision is up to the M C. P s school board, which has been loath to reopen schools, the border magical Mission. Confirm no later than February. 23rd whether a safe return to in person learning to begin on March 15th 2021, Barbara breath W E MAIL and W M a l dot com More than 70 people have been arrested and 170 more have been identified as suspects in last week's mob attack on the capital as the federal prosecutors resolved to bring hundreds of Rioters to Justice D. C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's encouraged by that pleased to see that they're looking at very serious crimes. Somebody needs to be held accountable for the death of a United States Capitol police officer is certainly for the assault on the Metropolitan Police Department. Hauser told CNN. She has 58 city officers who were injured not just physically but mentally and spiritually as well. Police in Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William County's air joining together to investigate each other's critical cases involving police officers that result in death or injury. This clear, transparent.
Between The Lines
Kishore Mahbubani says COVID-19 won't stop China's rise
"These days for China there's been an economic slowdown a trade and technology war with America. One of the few issues of bipartisanship in today's Washington then there have been protests in Hong Kong global criticism of Beijing's treatment of the Muslim minorities not to mention Western anxiety about the role of Y in those five G. networks and don't forget the allegations of Chinese interference in sovereign states across the region. Add to this. The outbreak of corona virus or covered nineteen and silently some pundits and they mainly in the West. They're asking whether we're witnessing communist China's Chernobyl moment what do you think well one distinguished intellectual who profoundly disagrees with all this skepticism. He's my guest today. Kishore Mahbubani is distinguished fellow. The Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore a former ambassador to the UN twice and a former foreign secretary of Singapore case. Your has risen several influential books on Asia and the rise of China the lightest one is called has China won the Chinese challenge to American Promessi as published by public phase in New York Keisha. Welcome back between the lines. My pleasure there'd be back now you've heard all these. These dial warnings about China and as I say they mainly come from listeners. What do you disagree well? I think it's absolutely certain that the return of China to his place as the number one economy in the world cannot be stopped because from the year one to the eighteen twenty or eighteen hundred of the last two thousand years the two largest economies of the world were always those of China and India so the past two hundred years of Western domination award. History have been an aberration. All aberrations come to a natural end and China's return cannot be stopped. And that's absolutely set. You say in your book that if Xi Jingping does not put in place San Succession mechanisms. America could win this geopolitical contest and bear in mind just a couple years ago. She overturned legislation on. Term Limits for presidents essentially might himself later for life. Some of these critics say that. How does that promote good governance for China and a sound succession mechanism? That will allow China to Rosza Unabated well I would say that the history of China has taught them when they have strong central government. The people benefit a lot. When this week government they suffer a lot and you look at a hundred years of humiliation. That China's suffered from the first opium war of Eighteen. Forty two right until the establishment of the People's Republic of China in nineteen forty nine. The main reason why they went through one hundred years of humiliation was because they had weak central government so what Xi Jinping has given to China is once again very strong central government this is an asset for China. I think he's going to be around as Vita for a long time. And as long as he's around. I think China will do very well. Okay will you say that this geopolitical contest that's broken out between America and China? That will continue marathon. Rice does that mean that Beijing and Washington a doomed to confrontation. Well the the reason why. I'm producing my book now. Has China one his precisely because I want to avoid a confrontation in my. I think it's absolutely unnecessary for the United States and China to get entangled in this confrontation because at the end of the day the primary goal of the United States government is to improve the wellbeing of the American people than the best way to improve the well being of the American people especially in this call. The crisis is to work with China and not work against China but of course unfortunately the United States has other goal and is the primary goal of the United States is to maintain primacy in the global order. Then that will lead to confront To leading American proponents of containing China. John Shaw. The University of Chicago Have Stephen. Walt whom you quoted approvingly in your book about the perils of American Hubris and exceptionalism but on China I disagree. They say I've been guests on this program and I've made this point Measham and casual. They say that a rising China does indeed threaten the regional status quo and Washington moreover will and should go to great lengths to ensure that China does not dominate the Asia. Pacific your response. Well I think the question is whether or not they can both live with each other In the region if if the United States by the way you know all the countries in this region many of them one the United States will remain strong player in this region. I think it'd be good for the region to have United States. Remain as strong Leah. By United States can remain a strong player without on fronting China. He can remain a strong player by working with China In in in many critical areas. And frankly if you ask the countries in the region What they would like to see they would like to see a strong China and they would like to see a strong United States. But they don't want to be forced to choose within China and the United States and we'll get to this question about choosing later on in the show but I want to stick with America. There is a consensus in the region. That America should stay but Foreign Affairs magazine. This is the Distinguished New York Journal to Achieve. Contributed this month. It faces a range of top. Foreign Policy Thinkers. They're all weighing on whether or not the. Us is in the process of global retrenchment The cover of Australia's leading Foreign Affairs Journal. This month is is called can trust America So Am I right in saying you? Don't think American showing any signs of withdrawing from Asia. Now I see no signs at all America retreating from the region and And I think that very strong as you know policy in America is to some extent made by the president but is also made by the deep state and the deep state has a very strong consensus that they got to remain very strongly Industry region. So I don't see an American of withdraw anytime in the near future but I do I do argue that the United States has got to behave differently. With China net once had One tenth the size of China's of America's GNP retailers but today China's be GNP BB. Dems is bigger than the United States. So you behave differently. Was this animal. What about that? Animals DASA more assertive. Now in your book and you listening to Katia Mahbubani. We're chatting about his new book. Has China one in your new book as show you dedicate a chapter to the question is China expansionist and you say basically China wants to respect global rules and norms but let's face it. It has ignored the ruling from the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration. That was at The Hague in two thousand sixteen. The high concluded for those of you listening who've forgotten about this this is four years ago. Chana's conduct around the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly islands it was illegal and let's remember Beijing has continued to build up a military prisons on artificial Alan's at drive out local fishermen and in the last few months case. Short Sean has been bullying Indonesia over the Natuna islands. How is all this respecting global order? Well you know one point. I emphasize said there were people talk of benevolent. Great Powers Turn Benevolent Grid. Power is an oxymoron. So as you know the United States today has not ratified the law. The Sea Convention. So in in some areas as China emerged behaving exactly the United States. The United States would never accept going to a tribunal to judge whether or not the United States valid or invalid claiming any area in that respect. China is behaving like the United States by just as the United States. Most of the time respects most international rules and conventions China. Also most of the time respects most of international rules in confections in many ways. China's behavior and America's behaviour is very similar in the international arena. Your critics would say that. China's maritime climbs a contested by the Philippines Malaysia Brunei Indonesia Vietnam Beijing has antagonized nations log New Zealand Australia with cyber attacks and and political interference. Nightside casual these. Not Diplomatic Wins for president. She hasn't he made some big mistakes. Well I it's it's it's interesting. It's always the rest. That is screaming very loud on this South China Sea When was the last time you heard a very strong statement from militia All of all of Philippines On the South China Sea. Why you're seeing behind. What is happening behind the scenes is a lot of diplomacy that is not reported in the Western media. Now I cannot comment on the side of the tax on Shelia and New Zealand but I I believe it was Edward Snowden revealed to us that if you live in today's world you can assume that anything you put up. There is being monitored completely by the National Security Agency of the United States. So I think what the world needs is new conventions in the cyber area and the world should work together do agree on some set of rules for what you can or cannot do in terms of cyber hacking spoke with the New Zealand professor. Anne Marie Bridie last week on this program and she told us about three investigations into Chinese interference in politics that a currently underway in New Zealand. But we WANNA go there now and finished your point. I was quite struck by a law in in your book. He sure well. You talked about the Chinese reluctance to conquer Australia quote. Future historians will marvel at the fact that even though Australia is geographically close to China. It was physically. It was physically occupied in conquered by far more distant British forces absolutely true. I mean if China was an expansionist power wrenching. Her travel all the way to Africa. He could have easily gone to Australia. Additional Australia. Remarkable accident of history. That Australia was colonized by British forces than not Chinese. I mean future. Historians will marvel. The anomaly visits Tom Switzer. On our in 'em I guess is Keisha Mahbubani the former foreign secretary of Singapore and President of the UN Security Council. He's now a distinguished fellow at the National University of Singapore. We're talking about his new book. Has China one now for some of Iran's listeners in Venice Matas whether your overstating China's rise and I WANNA put to you this very rule weakness in limitation surely because many analysts They argue that there's a ticking bomb in China it's low birthright and the aging population and this is the argument that will reduce the workforce and could potentially break social security system. How would you respond to those critics? Oh that's absolutely no question. That China faces a lot of serious Internal Challenges. Because you know it is to instill a developing country It's CABBIE DYING IF I get it right. It's still about ten thousand dollars. One-sixth debt of the United States has a long way to go before it becomes fully developed country. And that's precisely why China wants to focus on its internal development and not get dragged into an all-out geopolitical contests with the United States. So you notice that China wherever possible is trying to avoid getting entangled with the United States even though the United States clearly is challenging the United States challenging the United States charging China In many