tv Former Secretaries Kissinger and Albright Discuss U.S.- China Relations CSPAN December 19, 2016 2:12am-3:48am EST
>> michael o'rielly, fcc commissioner talks about how it might change. he is interviewed by the senior director for communications daily. >> cyber security is getting a particular amount of attention right now with what happened in the last few months starring the campaign. >> i think it is a very important issue and the congressmen have been very aggressive on trying to find a solution. the fcc role is limited by the statute that governs us. while light do believe the government has a role to monitor and potentially provide additional fixes in the space, they are not authorized by the law for us to do. announcer: watch "the communicators" monday night at on c-span two.rn
>> now, former secretaries of state henry kissinger and madeleine albright. the national committee on u.s.-china relations hosted the meeting. it is about 90 minutes. bob. >> alliance steve from uh >> i am the president of the committee and i am pleased to welcome you. the 50th anniversary of the -chinaal committee of u.s. relations. we have been educating americans about chinese and chinese about american for 50 years. from ping-pong diplomacy until today we have sought to strengthen the bilateral
relationship by fostering changes -- exchanges and informed discussion. this year we have gathered secretaries of defense, secretaries of commerce, and u.s. trade representatives as well as national security advisers. gather u.s.e will secretary treasuries, pay, commanders, and we will hold a inilar program like tonight china where i will interview chinese leaders, many of whom are alumni of our programs. , it is am truly honored one of the great honors of my life, to be joined by two former secretaries of state. legends.living for what they accomplished during their tenure's. dr. kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state in the next in hand ford administrations and was
instrumental in the reestablishment of relations with china. he has spent 45 years helping leaders on both sides navigate this important bilateral relationship. we especially appreciate your being here today because on friday we all saw you on television with president xi jinping and we know you might be jetlagged after that. we also know you recently visited trump tower so we hope to hear more about that. laughter] christ national committee has been pleased to have you serve on our board of directors now for more than 12 years. today is the 20th anniversary of secretary albright's nomination undersecretary of state president clinton. having served -- [applause]
>> having served four years of u.s. ambassador to the u.n., sheep became the first woman to serve as secretary of state and at that time, the highest-ranking woman ever in the united states government. a hero went to my three daughters. heroine to my three thehters, she worked at 1997 transfer of sovereignty over hong kong. we have been fortunate to have secretary albright serve on the board of directors for seven years. before beginning, you want to thank our sponsors, the chinese center, mastercard, and sidney austin for funding this program. i would especially like to thank the china center for providing this incredible center.
for those must not in person with us -- for those not in person with us today, this morning in new york it was overcast and drizzly. we worried that we would not have this spectacular view. but the day turned into a bright blue sunny day and we watched this incredible sunset and my hope, as corny as it may sound, is that that will be relations in the future. it may be cloudy now but it will clear up and be sunny in the coming years. [applause] but certainly not least i want to thank both secretarial bright and secretary kissinger for joining us today. you have both contributed to world peace in ways too numerous to enumerate. if i started to list all of your accomplishments we would not have time for any questions. so i just thank you for being
here. let me start with the question for secretary kissinger. >> can i just interrupted and say how happy i am to be here with you and with my good friend kissinger. you mentioned today was the 20th anniversary. well, dr. kissinger was the first person to call me when i was named secretary of state. and he said, madeleine congratulation you will do a great job but you have taken away my one unique characteristic of being in immigrant secretary of state. and i said, no henry. i do not have an accent. ] aughter and applause >> so we will even go further back than that to 1971, there had been no contact at that point between the united states in china for 22 years. what kind of major go to china? what did you seek to accomplish
and what lessons from that visit can we apply to today's u.s.-china relationship? i know you could write a book on that, you probably have written a book on that, you have written a book on this. but we'll try to keep it to five minutes. saykissinger: let me madeleine at night go in different parties but we are close friends. we have never looked at the politics as partisan politics. and, one of the strong elements of the u.s.-china relations is that a succession of american presidents and chinese leaders have followed a fundamentally been a course that has great achievement now. in 1971, what made me go of course was that president nixon
asked me to go. ] huckle enteredinger: we had office with the attitude that we would want to improve relations with china. specifically that we would try to bring china into the international system because to think of it in the national order without china was a contradiction of history. but, each country had its own set of problems. we had the vietnam war, china had the cultural revolution. so it took a while to establish contact, it took about three years to establish contact in very complicated ways.
the major decisions that therede was were constant clashes between the chinese and the soviets at the chinese-russian order and we looked at a map and we came to the conclusion that russia probably was the attacker and most of these circumstances. and so we had the problem of deciding if these two countries get into conflict, where should the united states be? and very early, even before we had been in china, we decided that it was not in the american interest for china to be defeated in such a conflict.
so out of this grew a series of moves which culminated in 1971 to china.visit in my first meeting with prime had -- i was reading a statement to him and i said, "and now here we are in this us." ious country to and he said, may i interrupt you for a moment? what is so mysterious about china. and i said something, i forget what it was and he said, "ink about it will stop there are 800 million of us and we are not mysterious to each other." that we that lesson was
ought to learn of each other's thinking and motivations and i think this was advice that was important to take and which is still valid today. >> that more understanding, understanding their motivations and their understanding hours. dr. kissinger: i think the chinese culture background is different than ours. therefore, the way it is howrtant to understand china looks at problems. >> secretary albright, similar question. obviously you are secretary of state just as china was joining the wto. talk about the relationship at that time and kind of what lessons you learn from that experience that are applicable
today. secretarial bright: i was in the carter administration working for dr. brzezinski and the national security council so i was there for the normalization and watched what had an fact organized way to follow-up on what dr. kissinger had done and proceed with normalizing the relationship and i was sitting outside the situation room and constantly sing different people going in and then all of a sudden this wonderful moment came with normalization coming to the united states. i think that what was very important was we were determined to kind of first do story of bringing china into the system. i think that was a very important part. when i was at the united nations i sat there with my chinese
counterpart, part of the issue was we could never get the chinese to purchase a paid in discussions unless it had something to do with interference and an internal affairs so you see the same people all the time. we got to be very good friends. so i finally gave him a little blue ball so he could practice getting strong and putting his hand up in order to become part of the discussion. and then i established a very good relationship with the prime minister in terms of talking about more then just our talking points always. i wanted to have a strategic discussion. so i do know when of the issues that was so important was how to bring china into a normal trading relationship will stop the clinton administration worked very hard on that by really.ermanent pn pr because whenever we were doing the renewal on the msn it was
basically pulling up the plan to see if it was growing. a great source of air tatian. the first step was to do the pnt normal ring them into a part of the administration. this was an idea of putting them into the international system. we thought it was mary and it made it possible for some of the rules of trade to be enforced internationally, not just in a bilateral way. so i think it is all part of the same story of trying to make sure that china was respected and part of a functioning international system and that i think certainly was the view that president carter had, president clinton had, plants -- president obama has had. it is something went to consider, they are the number two economy and they need to be part of a functioning
international system. next it work? did china's -- work? sec.did it albright: the thing i always on so interesting about china, by the way, any of us know that any format has a set of phrases that they have. the chinese do. it is a principle and consistent position. everything was a principled and consistent position. the bottom line, there were times that there were issues. they also want to be seen as the world's largest developing country. it is a little hard to be the number two economy in the world and still talk about being the largest developing country. so those are a little bit of the arguments. and then there are specific cases, obviously.
host: dr. kissinger, do you think secession by china to the wto worked for china? dr. kissinger: yes, i do. i think the fundamental issue whether china and the united states could achieve parallel objectives. it was never going to happen that we would have identical views on all of the issues. whether we has been could achieve a low objectives. now, are there situations in theh the chinese had got better of some negotiations? undoubtedly. trueit may even equally be
the other way but having china as part of the international economic system is better than having a trade war between the united states and china. within that general proposition i would hope that improvements can be found and improvements should be found and maybe even systemic discussions could be held. fundamental objective which was to treat china as a member of the international system was very crucial. ,hen we first opened to china chairman mao did not really want economic relations with any foreign country. in 1976, the trade between china was lessnited states
than the trade between the united states and honduras. so one has to see this within the context of the rapidly expanding, almost exploding thereic relationship and is room for improvement but it was a good thing. back to thatcome in a moment but i think because we're sitting at one world trade , the epicenter of the 9/11 tragedy come i think we're actually today celebrating the rebirth of this area. i mean, that we can come here and hold this event i think is really terrific. what is the role of fighting terrorism in the u.s.-china relationship. what is it and what should it be.
are albright: i think we clearly threatened by terrorism in a number of different ways and we have similar issues in terms of those who feel there is something about what we are doing is wrong. what i think the role is, frankly is to share information. the question is that we have more and more today, what is information and how is it gathered questions. i think we could cooperate. while we don't think of you see as much as terrorism, there has .een cooperation on that the chinese have been very helpful on that. they also of many very -- they also been very helpful. it is not how you deal with the and but how you prevented in the first place and i think those are the issues we can work on together. trying to figure out what the roots of it are.
and you might think this is pushing it but i think the fact that the chinese are now participants and u.n. peacekeeping operations also helps in terms of looking at areas because i think we, on the issue of stability generally i do think there is help while the only problem, frankly is that we groups that certain we think are terrorists, they do not think sun people they think are terrorists we do not think so but they are not the only country we have some disagreements with on that and i do think ultimately that whenever the right word is, civilized countries of the world, have to figure out how to ride information and try to ourselves of that. kissinger? dr. kissinger: there are terrorist attacks within countries and there are
on the wholeacks now theional system underlying tendency of terrorism the stateo destroy a system and to create a universal wouldate to which all then be subjected. but that has been the manifestation that we have been most exposed to. so the chinese do not have the that we haveissues had in some of the countries although there are parts of china where that issue has been
very important. so we and china both have at least two common objectives. one is to prevent the spread of terrorism around the world various countries and secondly to try to create an international system which makes it more and more difficult for terrorists, particularly to have a common interest in inventing terrorists from acquiring geographic territory so that they can link their activities with acting like sovereign states. this is where the isis problem is very important and why evolution of some parts of can be of grave
concepts acquaints -- of great consequence. madeleine albright mentioned the issue of pirates. in terms of the general havetives, we and china parallel objectives. how to apply them in specific that is a subject that has to be explored and discussed. i think there has been considerable progress made in those discussions. orlins: is there any evidence and wouldn't make any sense for north korea to work with china and iran to support isis? to we have any evidence that is the case question mark if you ever heard of anything like this?
dr. kissinger: what's this? mr. orlins: china working with north korea and iran for isis? dr. kissinger: inconceivable. sec. albright:. actually does not support isis. mr. orlins: in the world of fake news, this is being talked about. [laughter] mr. orlins: the elephant is in the room secretary kissinger. what did president xi say to you on friday. what message do you convey to him and what message did you youey -- did he convey to this market is a secret, only we in the room will know. [laughter] i had a memo i was going to read from but the
security people took it from me when i came in. [laughter] my kissinger: i obviously, point of view has been frequently published. fact, the united states and countriesthe two whose tensions could spread around the whole world. whose conflicts could make any solutions very difficult and whose cooperation is needed for peace. so it is important for the united eight and china to be transparent -- for the united states and china to be transparent with one another about their object is and strategies. in the world, we are both major apt toes and we are both
step on each other's toes because of the magnitude of our efforts but we must not permit a situation to arise like the one that led to the first world war in which an accumulation of to aations finally led crisis that was no different from many crises that had been solved. and one day they could not manage it. so the united states and china have to try to decide a way by andh they can cooperate and by which people can work for carbon objectives. fundamentally, there has been significant progress made in every administration. and whenever a new administration comes in it is a
concern that may be it will take a different course. me, in thee forgives early clinton administration, president clinton tried to deviate from the established pattern but within two years he realized that the established -- and hes based on became one of the strongest supporters of this way of international relations. so, that is the spirit in which i have talked to every chinese president. i am sure that madeleine has followed similar approaches and there are specific issues that
require special attention but i believe this is needed now, at the beginning of a new administration and i am hopeful that it will develop. sec. albright: let me just say, i have told chinese friends not to pay attention to things that candidates say about them. said "thelinton had butchers of beijing," but once not speakcted he did about it very much, he took a different approach. i think the chinese have gotten used to some of the things our elected officials have said, vice i am concerned about what in just happened because it some ways raises questions about all of the things that henry did
and terms of the shanghai communique and the one china policy. presidentin fact what clinton was saying was that people had been arrested or mowed down by tanks which did -- with our values, i think america's always have to stay and i always had to whenever i met with the chinese was to explain our human rights policies and issues to do with tibet which is a little different than kind of questioning for seeming -- i mean i have no idea what happened i only know what i read. but basically questioning the issue of what our relationship with taiwan is. the question is, as part of president carter's normalization, we did have the taiwan relations act that was part of the agreement. but the question is, what was the intent of the phone call.
mr. orlins: dr. kissinger, did president-elect trump ask you to go to china? [laughter] mr. orlins: did he ask you to deliver a message to the chinese? kissinger: no. i was, of course, aware of some of his thinking and he knew that i was going but i was not going as a residential emissary. i was going on a trip that i had planned many months earlier. -- orlins: were you asked surprised that he accepted a call? do you think that is in the productiveund in u.s.-china relations?
dr. kissinger: i was one of the drafters of the shanghai communique and so there are that promises of clear obligations and i will not separate my views from the shanghai communique and from the established procedure. moment also that at this i have been very impressed by the calm reaction of the chinese. that adership suggests atermination to see whether calm dialogue it can be developed.
but there is no question that the policy of opening to china has been based on the premise of the one china policy. mr. orlins: does this, excepting a call when he is not yet president, i would argue that what our prohibition is about official contact and since he is president-elect and not yet president, that actually is not an official contact. no? that is ager: well, good way to describe it. [laughter] -- orlins: sense that it since i look to avoid
confrontation that is the way i choose to describe it. i look to the secretary of state in taipei and i know since i worked in the state department there are prohibitions. i said wait a minute, you're not supposed to be here. he's a, i have been named but i have not taken off yet. i am not official. so there is precedent for that kind of contact. so what do you think after that , the president-elect was out a tweet after he criticized and i had to write it down to have it precise. "did china ask us if it was ok to devalue their currency, making it hard for our companies to compete? heavily tax our products going into their country? the u.s. does not tax them will stop or to build a massive industrial complex militarily in the middle of the china sea? i do not think so! the does that mean for
u.s.-china relationship? dr. kissinger: i think it is madeleine's turn. [laughter] mr. portland's you didn't expect to get easy questions from me? dr. kissinger: look, it is obviously obvious what my views are. at the beginning of the new administration that is finding its way, i go into every one of these issues. one china policy. i believe it has to be preserved. i believe our dialogue should be calm and focused on long-term objectives. thisi do not think at me toit is important for
second-guess every move that may have been made. sec. albright: it is a statement of fact that the most important relationship we have is with , diplomatically speaking when they are complicated, you say it is multifaceted so it is definitely multi-faceted. i think what we have seen is through a variety of administrations beginning with president nexen and henry kissinger, we have developed a way of talking to each other and it is very well, kind of patterned and there are certain of diplomacy, by virtue of talking about it you have to put it yourself into the other
person's shoes. the point is how to develop the right parlance here. i know it takes a while to kind of sorted out but in the meantime what i have found, and i have traveled abroad a lot since the election, is trying to explain to anybody, chinese or -- i was born in czechoslovakia so i went to progress away to say, stay calm. i agree with henry. they are learning. at the bottom line is, tweeting has not actually been a foreign policy tool before. mr. orlins: but it did not used to be an election tool, either. sec. albright: but the big question is how technology is used these days. but i do think also the number of issues we have with the chinese weather through the strategic and economic talks or military to military talks really do depend on relationships and having all the
information. let me just say, the transition. -- the too short and transition time is both too short and too long. the latter is more fun. people in this country are talking to each other and somehow forget that foreigners are listening to them or hear what they are saying. that hope, i really hope my good friend henry kissinger has a very strong influence on president-elect trump. [applause] mr. orlins: that is shared. sec. albright: you are the only hope. mr. orlins: lets go from one sensitive issue to another sensitive issue. sec. albright: you were the only
senior american to visit north korea. sec. albright: my you were the only senior american to visit north carolina. -- mr. orlins: you were the only senior american to visit north carolina. you almost were able to make plans for mr. clinton to visit. president-elect trump is also talking about having discussions directly with jim sherow moans kim jong un. does that tell you -- what does that tell you about his idea? sec. albright: we had had a lot of talks with the north koreans throughout the clinton administration.
there were breakdowns with them. a lot came up in the united nations, we had the agreed framework and a number of different ways and then president clinton had asked us because things were not moving and anyway to do a complete review of korean policy and he asked former secretary of defense bill perry to do a review. and then we had some meetings president about fork in the road time. negotiate about missile limits or we are going to take some action here and they chose negotiation. what happened was, they chose the number two man in the united states to come to the united states and invited president clinton to go to north korea. we were in the oval office antes at, i might come at some point but first secretary albright has two go. the truth is we knew very little about him.
another to see. with the sunshine policy, they had spent some time together. our policy said kim jong-un was crazy and eight pervert. he was not crazy. [laughter] there,bright: when i got they put me in a guesthouse and because we did not have an embassy there with no idea what was going to happen. i first got ensure action i had to go see his father also. it is very hard when you are trying to pay respect to somebody not to bow to low because that is disrespectful and not to kind of pay no respect. once i had agreed to do that i went back to the guesthouse and all of a sudden i get a message that the dear leader would see me. so we in fact had a meeting and press conference and it was something out of the 1950's,
really. i have standing there next to him and i see we are the same height. i knew i had on high heels and then i looked over and so did he and his hair was a lot happier than mine. puffier than mine. we had amazing talks in terms of our limits. there were a number of different agreements made and began, it was one of those strange times, the northgrief for koreans but the bottom line is many americans work confused about the election of 2000. he certainly was. when i came back, i briefed colin powell about what we had done. he was very interested and what we had done and then the washington post that headline "how to continue clinton policies." he was hauled into the white house office and told no way.
so the north koreans had reason to be confused. by the way, dennis rodman and all of the basketball stuff is my fault because there was one other thing we knew about kim and-il, he liked basketball michael jordan. basketballim a autographed that he put in their holy of holies. we need to either get some version of the six-party talk. we need to talk to them. i do think that is a very important part in decide that having a nuclear north korea is dangerous for the chinese. we have to do it with the chinese. they need to understand that they do not want a nuclear-armed north korea either. i think that within some kind of a multilateral context it is talk.ant for us to mr. orlins: but what president-elect trump seems to be suggesting is a one-on-one
kim jong-un. sec. albright: if it comes to that, it has to be really well-prepared and the bottom line is we do not know enough about kim jong-il and and the question is, who does the one-on-one and how they understand each other. at some point, we have to talk to them. the situation with iran is quite similar but different. there certainly were a lot of took place. mr. orlins: do we know if in president obama pause conversation with president-elect trump that there has been reference to a real was north that threat korea? sec. albright: we were told that. mr. orlins: secretary kissinger, if president-elect trump asked you should he meet directly with -- new -- an
dr. kissinger: korea has played china-american relations. it got us into a war in 1950 that neither side really wanted. north koreanshe attacked south korea, they thought it would be an easy victory. statesn when the united came to the assistance of south korea and moved north, china for itself compelled own historical reasons to intervene. so you cannot separate north korea from china-american relations. basic objective for the immediate future has to
be to remove nuclear weapons from north korea. there is no maneuvering that can make nuclear weapons and north korea tolerable. because china will feel threatened. japan will. every country in the region will feel threatened and they are working on weapons that can reach the united states. they have shown a total proliferation. of course you could say if north korea is prepared to give up nuclear weapons and wants to exist as a separate state, it is not for the united states to question its existence beyond the point where they threaten us. is, in mykelihood is
opinion, that if north korea gives up its nuclear weapons it will be a regime that will disintegrate. it is the only thing they have achieved in their history as a national effort that is a demonstrable success. theherefore, it raises question of what happens if north korea disintegrates. which incidentally is a question a regime so because can maintain itself by brute force for some time but sooner or later something may happen that raises the issues. in my opinion, that issue of survival, that arises, into an unprepared international community in which there have
not been discussions of what to contingency, it has the possibility of a very dangerous escalation. important for is the united states and china to come to some understanding. not just about removing the nuclear weapons but about the evolution of korea after that. and that in turn will involve in a continuing and subsequent negotiation. a threatense, korea is in the military sense but it is
also a threat in the long-term sense. many invasions of china have .ome through korea china will never be in different to the evolution of korea. but to the needmportant of building area into an international framework. now, who should negotiate with who? i think it is too premature in this administration to discuss this in a realistic fashion.
and it is not likely that it can be one dramatic movement of negotiations that takes care of this. administration has to be organized and people have to be given a chance to consider that, rather than to go into that statement. >> i do think people need to be aware of how these kinds of jobs happen in the first place. henry just mentioned all the stakeholders in this that have some interest in it.
but there are multilateral iousings where var people sit, six party talks at a table, but there are breakouts from that where people can be pulled aside and have some beginning of some bilateral discussion. said,y agree with what he the leaders get together because it has to come in this context of what the region is like. the thing that has happened is the united states has two allies, south korea and japan, who do not exactly love each other. we have responsibilities there. shifting. keeps it is going to require a way of us having these discussions with the chinese within that larger context and i personally think there needs to be some kind of
multilateral talks that, as it happened, when we were in office , evolve into something, not just flat-out get them together because the preparation for this is going to be huge. but i do think it is one of the biggest threats out there for exactly the reason that we have got somebody that we don't know who he is and he does have scientists and people know how to develop this stuff. >> you made reference to the changing kind of geopolitical landscape, especially the philippines. let's talk about the south china sea, which has been an irritant in the u.s.-china relationship and president-elect trump referred to it in his tweet, the chinese building these huge military establishments in the middle of the ocean. how do we fix it? what do you suggest to the president-elect that we do? and what do you suggest to
president xi that he does? >> i think we have an interest in having freedom of navigation. and by the way, i get so tired when people say, what are we doing in the pacific? i always say, the united states is not monogamous. we are both in atlantic and pacific power and we belong in the pacific and we have very great interests there and navigation and trade routes are very important. i think that we have not gotten involved in the question of sovereignty, but i do think we are concerned about the navigational aspects and the right to fly and those things have to be worked out. the chinese cannot unilaterally decide. and the philippines, again, leadership does make a difference. what had happened was the international court had ruled on this and then the new president
of the philippines has somehow changed his mind, but the bottom line is that there is a way to do this, but the problem is the united states is not a signatory of the treaty, which puts us in a somewhat weaker position arguing for some of the rules that the international system has put down. but we depend on freedom of navigation and we have to insist on it. signitary. cigna and but we have not ratified. more of their trade goes through their than ours. >> this is an example of the different ways culturally the
two countries look at it. the idea of the dotted line and of the chinese claim up to the dotted line, this was made by some emperor 300 years ago when the idea of freedom of navigation and so forth was not developed. it was maintained by every chinese government. fact, the current authorities in taiwan have the same view about the significance. on the other hand, the united states' position on freedom of the seas has been developed over a long period of time.
so, if one tries to settle this in absolute terms, it will probably be very protracted and difficult. hand, wen the other have experience in the china communique, and the evolution of the various agreements that were made between the united states and china following the shanghai communique by the administration's of both parties. the two sides can find a way of living with disagreements on the nature of the issue and postponing the final solution in a way that is tolerable to both
sides. i think that's the approach that should be sought now. ofthe economic architecture the pacific was the obama administration was sought to the craft it through the transpacific partnership. that died as a result of the congress not wanting to pass it, but president-elect trump has set on day one he will withdraw america's signature from it. what is the economic architecture of the region going to look like, and what should it , from an american perspective, be crafted to look like? countries decided tpp is not what we want. what should we be suggesting to
president-elect trump? >> i think there is the question about the architecture, not just economics, but the architecture of the region. i'm so old that when i was in college we talked about the southeast asia treaty organization. there is always this kind of attempt to have some kind of architecture. i think from a perspective of national security, tpp was offering that in many ways, 12 countries coming together. part of the problem is it did not deal with the economic situation of the workers. i can see what the problem is. i do think the united states .ade a mistake the banks the chinese or setting up. important and it would have made a difference if we had been enthusiastic about it, instead of standing aside.
i do think that we need to see what -- by the way, i think a iint to add about culture, have gone to china a lot. more, they are talking about the fact that they have not been respected properly internationally. road idea,he one it is a very expensive program they are interested in. the question is how they can go about their economic infrastructure without in fact, having it be contradictory to what we might want to see in the region. the chinese now are saying they their labortheir -- is too expensive. they are no longer, even though they say they are, the largest developing country. i think there is to be a better way of trying to find the structure that might not be tpp,
but is based on the concept. now, the chinese are taking over what we have left on the table. i think that will cause issues for the is to ration. >> do you think we will see this regional comprehensive , as china is creating with the tpp-like. it does not really have the protections. it is more of a tariff agreement. >> a number of american leaders have said that america has vital interests in asia and that we are, in a way, an ancient power. actually, president xi in a number ofat
his statements. so, the strategic purpose of tpp, or of something like tpp, symbolize and formalize some kind of structural relationship between the united countries those asian that want to have this relationship. anybody'st be in interest, either china or the united states, to see the world breakup into regions of groupings, in which each conduct themselves like national states with much greater consequences. of tpp wasic concept important.
specific conditions met everybody's concerns. important.was >> the national committee spent a lot of time looking at chinese investments in the united states and u.s. investments in china. controversial, i think there is a consensus that investment is basically good, that it is job grading. if president-elect trump was sitting here, i think he would say, yes, investment creates jobs. is a reasonable theory to come up with that president-elect trump will conclude what president obama could not conclude, which is the
bilateral investment treaty? it could look to a business person has a low hanging fruit and job creating. it would be a way to lay out a constructive foundation of the new administration. the obama administration was this close to getting it done. if that is something that you think could be in the caucus? tweet thathat you read is what he thinks because there would still have to be a certain amount of adjustment on a number of different ways of looking at it. in auestion is whether negotiation on a bilateral tweeting -- >> investment treaty. open sectors, so china will open investments to u.s.
and the u.s. will agree not to discriminate against china, but we do not anyhow. >> but i think there is a overlay of this having said certain things about how the chinese are treated. i happen to think it is a good idea for the chinese to invest in the u.s. there are many infrastructure things that need to be done and don't run into the problem and are worth doing. i think it is also worth americans investing in china. the question is whether the atmosphere that has been created , whether, if in fact, we go for a bit at this point. >> kissinger, anything on that? idle think it is useful for
me to go into what should be the immediate negotiations, particularly within the economic , which the secretary of assigned when we were both cutting. argument was an argument against universal suffrage. [laughter] we were talking about the economic infrastructure. let's talk about the security infrastructure. there has been discussion of japanuating u.s. bases in ,nd in south korea
restructuring how they are paid for. that going to do to the existing security architecture? and is the architecture need to be changed because it is overly reliant on cold war thinking anyhow? >> let me just say, i teach at georgetown and i teach a course where i say foreign policy is some country trying to get you to do what they want. my course is called the national security toolbox. one is the tool and obviously, the military tool, which is not just the fighting forces and a number of aircraft carriers, but in fact, the bases and how they are used, who is on them, how they really enable us to have a presence in some countries. i do think that some of the
things president-elect trump has said generally about what our allies have to pay or not pay, whether it is nato or in asia, i think we do need to have a more cooperative approach to it. but we want the bases and we consider it important. i think that blackmailing allies is not a great idea and we know what our national interests are in asia. it's kind of a two-way street. they need us and we need them. but i think people need to think of basis as part of our toolbox. by the way, there was a story in that said theight chinese need a smaller and more effective military. they are also having questions in terms of how the money is been generally, how did they use
the tool because we all had the same toolbox. >> an alliance always has a particular assumption about the nature of security that is inherent in other alliances. it is inevitable that as time goes on that there are periodic reconsiderations of what the proper balance is within an alliance and also, what the proper relationship is of the alliance to countries that are not part of the alliance. i consider it natural that such andussions have taken place one will have to evaluate it in thes of the nature of
assessments that are made. what should not happen is that one ally makes it conditional and the other countries, the is something that is a very last resort, but i tell you, we are here in a very complicated situation. when i agreed to this, we were going to discuss the basic relationship between china and the united states. firm,ition on the is , and manyained articles, including a long interview in the atlantic. it has now become a discussion of specific statements that are being made.
that is a much more -- i just do not want to participate in that part of the discussion. repeat.illing to i believe the united states and china must have a close and .riendly relationship the peace of the world depends andhe ability to do this many principles have been established to achieve this. it happens to be that this was said at a moment where nobody knew the outcome. >> nobody predicted what was
going on. >> i would think normally madeline and i agree on the essence of these issues. whether we agree on every tactical point is not so important. let me just say, we definitely do agree on the overall issue and nobody has done more for the u..s.-china relationship than hendry kissinger. by the way, when he was still the vice premier, we had a meeting with all the people and he was explaining how he felt about the united states and that he had spent time here and wanted to know what we had learned over the 35 years and what our relationship was. then, as we were leaving, i said to one of the others, being in a meeting with henry kissinger and
the chinese is like being with a demigod. and the other person said, "leave out the demi." [laughter] >> but i do agree. i think the problem that we have, and i do not blame henry for not wanting to comment on this, but i am however, free. been said that have cannot totally be erased, which is something i said initially. we forget how much foreign countries listen to what we are saying and what it looks as though there are going to be some quite different approaches .o things when he talked about a nuclear rise to japan i think we have to understand what the effect of it is, whether you can just lot it
out from the consciousness of the people we are dealing with. i do think we have to be concerned about the importance of the u.s.-chineseout from thes relationship. i think it is absolutely essential. ,here are so many aspects to it so i hope there is a learning process here. but how you erase what has been said, i think, if i were going on the other side into a discussion i might say, what exactly did you mean by that? i think it is hard not to consider it. >> i understand. asked to go to the trump tower. [laughter] >> one of the bright, shining hina relations.-c was the agreement between president obama and president xi on climate change. that was the view of many in the , that this was an
example of america and china jointly leading the world and issuese myriad of global , if the united states and china could cooperate on them we would have a chance of solving them. if we don't cooperate, then we are doomed to failure. climate change was kind of -- the obama administration did a great job of ultimately signing the paris agreement. what do we do going forward? >> during the clinton administration we tried to deal with this. and one of the issues was that it was unfair that developed countries have created the whole environmental must and the developing countries were going to suffer. we spoke to the chinese a lot about leapfrogging with new technologies and yet, that continue to be an issue. i do think what has been done on climate change is remarkable and
the paris agreement is quite different, in terms of the various requirements of it. the fact that the chinese and president obama were able to do this is her markable. i think it be most unfortunate if it were not followed up. there is an article going around today that vice president gore, it was mr. climate change, had a meeting with ivanka. because that is apparently what she is interested in. i think that is great. and i do hope there is progress on climate change and that those people who think the earth is flat and don't believe in climate change actually are not the ones that influence president-elect trump and that he really continues with it. >> this does not relate to recent news. after both of you served, the
strategic and economic dialogue was created as a mechanism to strengthen u.s.-china relations, to build at various different ministries and agencies in the united states that have many cabinet members going and many ministers from china come. is this, from your perspective, is this an effective method? should it be continued? to have a dialogue on these issues, it is very important. the evolution of these institutions is that they usually begin with a group that is small enough to have an effective dialogue and then it
gradually expands and then, itreasingly the outcome of is influenced by the communique. so, they begin working on the communique before the even meet. so, i would say there is a pretty good size of membership that permits an effective dialogue. geaexample, what is now the g5 with only three people permitted in the room. now it is a very large group. dialogues andide
focusing on issues. what i think is needed is one to keep the basic idea of the dialogue going and and focusing on issues. what i think is examine needer the size of it some trimming, or whether they ?eep it as a symbolic subgroup but the concept is useful and should be continued. >> i think if you be continued for a number of reasons. of reasons. one is we know in our government and also other governments things are not just contained in box. so the strategic and economic go together, the military. the other part is we have a tendency to talk about how the leaders of the country along. the bottom line is if it is nice to have that personal relationship, but it has to be carried out by bureaucracies in
both other countries. is a way that some other people within the institutional structure can get together, and in smaller groups to drafting or whatever but it does provide a useful mechanism. we do it with some other countries in terms of getting various ministries together. i think the important part here is how a lower-level official begins to work together under the leadership of the leaders. i hope it continues. >> we have an illustrious audience here. let me open the floor to .uestions right here in the front. and please, identify yourself and keep the questions short. >> i work for the secretary of mandarin. >> identify yourself. a passenger.i am
the secretary of mandarin, you said, don't pay attention to what is being said but something happened after the election day such as, the treaty opposed from taiwan. and we do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. to be honest, for the chinese , once concerned, are the exports. so, in your view, how do the police called issues enhance the
relationship between china and america? say, i thinkto campaigns are one thing, but once the person has been elected makes yous i said, may question where this is going. i do think it is important for president-elect trump and his people to know the reaction that it has created. i think that what will be important are the other people that he chooses in the government and how they will look at it. i have to tell you at this moment it is unclear. the most important thing now is for everybody to stay calm and not to, i believe, that the the u.s. chinese relationship.
whether it is economic, military , security, is the most important relationship. and therefore, make decisions based on a lack of information. it is very dangerous. beijing is not overly insulted by what was said , or that people are thinking this is the policy. we do not know what the policy is yet. >> let's see. right here? >> i am a reporter with the chinese news agency. doctora question for kissinger.
my question is, some people say the phone call was just a diplomatic number by the president elect due to his lack of knowledge. >> i think secretary kissinger has made it clear he does not to talk about those issues that you are raising. so, let's move on to the next issue. >> my question is, some people think it might be mr. trump intentional move to test china's spotlight. china's reaction could be read as weakness, leading into more provocation and bullying. my question is, how would you deal with that? >> look, i have tried to explain .o this group i have now seen 10 american
administrations and i believed , the bigof them challenges to america has been the division of our country on many different walls that i honestly something everyone issue is the foreign-policy issues. so i do not think it is to the beginning of the newly elected administration we now elaborate on all the points that can be which we can be divided. china spent three days in and i believe that it is possible to have a creative relationship between our two countries and really, you should not look for tricky questions to make me say something that it is
clear i don't have any intention of staying and that is contrary of the current necessities. i believe what i have said. there are americans who have on this problem, who have the same view. known will make our views and i think it is important to present an opportunity for this concept to be developed. if it does not develop, and we all have to make our decisions.
as far as the u.s.-china ilationship is concerned, there is hope they will be pursued. therefore, you, ladies and gentlemen here, as you take my view seriously, asian focus on the and see what points we can .ind they give us concern . it was not considered to be, in such a particularl period. there are regions more
concerned. that is my fundamental point. be massaged by an equation. >> may call on a non-chinese person. hello. my name is daniel burke and i work with lyndon larouche. my question is for dr. kissinger. has agreed with you that the u.s. and china must cooperate. he is emphatic that they could cooperate on the one bill-one road policy, that this would be a clear way to rebuild the united states' collapsing economy. further, he said we could work
together on space science and the development of thermonuclear fusion. and they wondered if you had any comments? >> i have never thought of linda context,in a singular but let me just say that i do think there are ways that we can cooperate. i think one of the issues out there right now also is cyber and various problems that are there and various possibilities. the question is how our two great countries can cooperate in a way that requires a certain amount of trust. i hope very much there is some pursuit of collaboration in a number of different fields, but i do not think we can underestimate what some of the difficulties are in that kind of cooperation. road, one the one bill concept is an important
idea and i think that china and the united states can and should find a way of talking about it. it is one of the issues in which cooperation probably -- it is possible. so, i think that is my contribution. >> last question, graham. last question right here. >> thank you very much. i am from american express. now we are celebrating 50 years of the national committee. what do you think the top three or five things we should be looking to celebrate at the 70
year anniversary? 20 years from now. >> a very good question. first of all, many of our students learn to speak chinese. we have more and more educational exchanges. we understand each other's history and culture and that our work internationally is actually not in competition, but in cooperation in terms of, to pick up on the one bill-one road. in terms of infrastructure, which brings people together. understanding how dependent we are on the changes in the climate, each other. dropped we do, in fact, the fact that we are enemies when we actually have to work together.
, buter of us will be here i do think that we need to look forward to that kind of a relationship. >> what was the precise question? >> 20 years from now what could we celebrate in the u.s.-china relationship? >> i think 20 years from now we will either celebrate a creative cooperation, or a degree of tension which will be spread by forcing every country to make a choice, which would lead to confrontations. application is to accept the cooperative and post that same proclaimed in the administrations of both parties.
that is what i expect. >> a perfect note to close on. let me ask before we close, let me ask secretary albright about those. she is famous for her pins. these are monkey pins. >> it is the year of the monkey and i have already bought my rooster for next year. [applause] >> i want to think secretary kissinger and secretary albright for getting so generously their time. secretary kissinger not only has given us this evening, but a week from thursday will be honored by the national committee with its lifetime for theent award contribution to the u.s.-china relationship. [applause] >> my advise to president-elect trump would be very simple.
watch this video. [laughter] [applause] >> henry kissinger was asked again about president-elect donald trump in an interview we heard on cbs' "face the nation." here is a portion. phenomenonrump is a foreign countries have not seen. so, it is a shocking experience to them that he came into office. at the same time, an
extraordinary opportunity. i think he has the possibility of going down in history, i think, as a very considerable president because every country now has two things to consider. perception that the previous president, are the outgoing president, basically withdrew america from international politics, so they had to make their own decisions of their necessities and secondly, that here is a new president who is asking a lot of unfamiliar questions and because of a combination of a partial the in's, one could , that something
remarkable and new emerges out of it. i'm not saying it will, it is just the next ordinary opportunity. >> today, states count their electric'ctor's votes. we have live coverage, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern. tuesday night at 8:00, jerry greenfield talks about creative and responsible business practices. the idea that we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont, that forced us to look for other markets. >> wednesday night, dick cheney and leon panetta on the future of the defense department under donald trump. >> i think the challenges are very great and i think we have unfortunately, over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threads. during thatving
time when there are a lot of flashpoints. a new administration will have to look at that kind of world and obviously, defined policy. we need that in order to do with that. but then, develop a defense policy to confront what kind of work. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the career of mike pence. >> amidst the shifting sands of culture and law, we have stood with the freedom of religion, ge,ortance of marriage. , elect. this week in prime time on c-span. lorettaney general lynch talks about her tenure as head of the justice department.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on