♪ >> this is al jazeera these are the top stories, texas police admitted they made the wrong decision by not immediately entering a class a right gunman had barricaded himself in, security officials have been criticized for waiting before confronting the killer, 19 children and 2 teachers were killed in the assault. the governor of texas greg abbott expressed anger at the way police handled the shooting, he said he was misled by the response, that a school resource
officer engaged the gunmen outside the building. >> the information i was given, turned out, in part, to be inaccurate. i am absolutely livid about that. here is my vacation. -- my expectation. that the laws for -- law enforcement leaders that lead the investigations, the texas rangers, the fbi, they get to the bottom. >> america's biggest gun lobby held a major convention despite criticism over gun violence in the u.s., former president donald trump and senator ted cruz were among those speaking. we are up-to-date with our top stories, ward news -- more news after inside story. ♪ [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language]
most serious long-term challenge the international order. anthony blinken said that as he unveiled the biden administration strategy to compete with china's rise as a global superpower. he insisted washington does not want a new conflict, but he said under president xi jinping, the communist china -- chinese party is becoming more oppressive abroad. territorial pursuits in the south china sea and accusing beijing of sting with russia and the invasion of ukraine. >> we do not seek to block them as a major power, stop china or any other country for that matter from growing their economy and advancing the interest of their people. we will defend and strengthen the international law, agreements, principles, that maintain these securities, protect the rights of sovereign nations, and make it possible for all countries including united states and china to coexist and cooperate. china is the only country with
the intent to reshape the international order and increasingly the economic, double medic, military, technological power to do it. beijing's vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world's progress over the last 75 years. >> they denounced the remarks is typical disinformation denigrating beijing. >> the international order and international -- have clear definitions. safeguard the international order based on national law and the basic norms regarding international relations underpinned by the printable of the u.n. charter, china is committed to upholding all of this, to accuse china of posing a long-term challenge the international order, if that is?
-- if that is not fake news, what is? >> the u.s. and regional allies like australia say that would fuel tension. president joe biden's recent comments on taiwan also angered asian, he said the u.s. would respond militarily if the -- the island was attacked. he later walked back to comments. the human rights records -- alleged abuses in changing. mohammed: let's go ahead and bring our guests, from maryland michael d swain, director of the east asian program at the quincy institute is responsible -- force possible statecraft. martin, author of the book, when china rules the world, and henry, the founder of a think
tank. thank you for joining us today. henry, let us start with you today. secretary of state blinken said, put simply united states and china had to deal with each other for the foreseeable future. that is why is the most complex inconsequential relationship that we have any in the world today. first of all, how does china feel about the relationship with the u.s.? was china expecting this speech from secretary of state lincoln? -- secretary of state blinken? henry: yes, thank you, i think it was kind of expected. it was also a surprise as well. we were thinking after the biden administration, a year and a half, we should be making some progress on relations. still, what we did not expect,
secretary blinking -- blinken made china number one major rivalry for the u.s. and a threat to the global system. i think it is not really correct. china's rise is good for the global economy and most of the global government systems. china has been contributing over one third of gdp growth. china's success is really to embrace colorization, also bring countries to globalization. u.s. and china should view each other as cooperation, of course we have healthy competition. not really making it a threat. making it as an enemy.
as secretary blinken put it, competing. that is not what we expect. he mentioned clement change, the pandemic -- climate change, the pandemic, any areas they can agree. not just the rivalry of each other. mohammed: michael, as we heard from the secretary of state, as he was in bailing the strategy to compete with china he was also accusing beijing of undermining global security. from your perspective is that criticism justified? michael: i think that criticism, like with many criticisms leveled by both china and the estate at each other there is an element of truth to it. it is inflated, extorted, exaggerated, and ways that are not healthy and bring forth the kind of zero-sum thinking both
sides increasingly have towards the other. china is a concern to that state and to other countries in certain ways. the biggest concern, as i often tell people is not of specifically china's threat to the west or other countries, is the threat that is posed by the interactive worst casing zero-sum dynamic that is increasingly coming to the fore between their actions of china and the united states and some countries of the west. it is driven by these gross, large, simplistic narratives that do not account for the different complex and crosscutting interests that the countries face. is that narrative that is a threat to the global order. mohammed: and the speech he outlined washington's grievances with beijing, saying china is more aggressive at home and
abroad. why deliver this speech now? housing to begin does it -- how significant is it? what does it do with the relationship that is already at a record low point? martin: i think it is a speech we have been expecting for some time. a bit belated, actually, the biden administration setting out its position on china. i think, in that sense, we could see it coming. what does it suggest? it suggests that, now the key question for the u.s. government's relationship with china. which it sees as a rival. the problem is the subtext of this speech. is, how does america hold onto
its number one position in the world? can't sustain that position? -- can it sustain that position? the whole burden of the argument, in various fields, how does america do this? the tone of it and places is actually quite welcome. particularly the backend of the speech where he suggest areas they can cooperate. the heart of it, is about china's challenge to the position of the united states. i would like to endorse one point that henry made. this is a caricature of china's relationship with the international system. china has absolutely committed itself to the international system, seeking to join it, then
after joining it has been a very strong proponent of it. always says, in a very reasonable way that it has been a great beneficiary of it. this is not an accurate presentation of the situation. what i would add to that, is, of course let be realistic about this. when you get the rise of a country the size of china and the speed the transportation -- transformation is taking place is bound to change the world in profound ways and no one can do anything about that. that is a reality. that is the great historic trend of our time and will continue into the future. mohammed: one of the ways this speech has been interpreted is that the u.s. is essentially saying, while we want to china to rise we also want to make sure that china is doing so within the parameters the u.s.
has set. if we can extrapolate that more, one example would be, china has invested heavily in the asia-pacific region. where as western nations have not been investing is heavily. does china see it as arrogant or other countries say do not want china encroaching on those territories? saying we want to see china do well only if it conforms to our standards? henry: that is correct. the real situation, look at those india pacific economic framework just reported, most of them are labors of china. almost all of them are large partners with china. how can u.s. come out, from the far pacific and say, let's get
together and not allow the biggest economy in the region? just like, the obama administration decided -- also have that similar function. transcends its join it and let's work together -- china said let's join into endless work together. they build up all those security and military alliances and drive up every countries military budget. we have the nato expansion, south korea trying to join nato intelligence, we have the focus on the military summary. -- submarine. we should pursue this economic organization [indiscernible]
. the china european investment treaty, is more economic cooperation. not really trying to build up circles, preventing or blocking countries like china which is already the largest economy in the region and also whether the rising economies. mohammed: we know that the u.s. has not been happy with china's stance when it comes to russia's invasion of ukraine. how much does china's reaction to that invasion, and how much does china's close relationship with russia play into all this? >> i think that ukraine war and russia's attack on ukraine has reinforced the notion that the
framing of the global order today should be democracy versus authoritarianism. here we have examples of an aggressive authoritarian state threatening a democratic or because i'd democratic state -- quasi-democratic state. people look at china, china's a authoritarian state, taiwan is a democracy and china has designs on taiwan. they will do the same the russia did ukraine. you get the deepening sense of this alarming threat posed by these types of states when in fact, the calculations, the stakes involved, the interests involved in these two cases are quite different. it is a gross simplification and
a distortion of the reality to simply apply what is going on ukraine to the chinese today in taiwan. it has, of course, in some ways, reinforced the image of china and russia being aligned with each other. they are in certain respects. china has not come out and full throat of the endorsed the nato position about the nato -- nature of the war even though china very much opposes invasions of sovereign countries by other countries. china, however does not want to come out openly and reject russia. it does not also want to come out and fully endorse what russia has done, support russia, and try to prevent the west from pressuring russia. >> michael brought up taiwan. this is playing a role right now when it comes to the u.s.'s relationship with china, had president biden in his recent
comments with taiwan, they angered beijing saying that the u.s. respond militarily if it was attacked. the white house later walked back those comments, how much has it upset beijing? henry: is quite upsetting, president ching and president biden have been talking virtually for quite some time. every time he says he respects china, they abated by the one china policy, when he talks to other people it sounds different. that really makes china kind of difficult to understand. what services a good reminder to the people, whether nato, u.s., russian, china, sovereignty and territory.
when territories divided, that is good because it gives international condemnation. taiwan is recognized by 60 countries or more as a part of china. is part of china. china national solitary -- sovereignty and territory should be respected same as ukraine. the u.s. can hold that console not against ukraine, but should not apply that to the taiwan situation, respect for sovereignty and territorial china. the u.s. is not really doing well. that has caused a lot of upset. and international criticism as well. mohammed: i knew touched on this in a previous answer, is what we are hearing from the biden administration, whether is this address from the secretary of state or president biden's remarks with regard to taiwan, does that signal a new policy towards china?
or are things more or less the same? is the stance that the buy demonstration team towards china right now close to the stance -- the biden administration is taking towards china close to the stance of the trumpet ministrations?? -- trump administration? >> i would say yes, there are differences of tone. whereas is been striking about the biden administration is the extent to which it more or less inherited the trump position on china. it does not exaggerate quite the same way trump did, but basically we are witnessing a consensual shift in american politics towards a new antagonism towards china. i do not think we are in a new cold war, yet. it certainly has aspects of
that. as michael said earlier on the danger of this kind of situation is that the more -- different situations could it suggest more extreme views, more extreme conflicts. you get this slippage, we have witnesses say number of ways. slippage towards a more greater antagonism between the two countries. i'm afraid to say this, but i think this will go on for a long time. in fact, in some ways, one of the interesting things about it is not new. is that america is sort of preparing itself for the long haul relationship to this, for example the emphasis on the importance of improving american competitiveness, economic capacities, and lots of different areas. the truth is america has
savagely neglected these types of questions for a long time. any long-term strategy america has come of this has to be at the heart of the matter. basically china has been taking the u.s. to the cleaners when it comes to this kind of thing for the past 20 years. mohammed: i saw you nodding to quite a bit what martin was saying. michael: i would make the point for the trump administration, there policy towards china was chaotic. you had different messages think that by giving people at different times. president trump riffs as he wishes. the policy was not clear in many ways, except for having a heavy ideological tinge, and had a trade balance tinge to it based on a very simplistic view of global trade. was also not very strategic. where the biden administration
has altered that approach is they have come -- become more organized. not fully strategic, they are more organized and that they are looking for coalitions and groups of other countries to strengthen their relations with other countries, allies and others in order to develop a broader kind of strategy for countering china. the problem with that, underneath all of this, as others have alluded, is the assumption that there is not much point in engaging with china. we know who the chinese are, defined in very stark terms, almost an existential threat in almost every area. we can cooperate with them in areas of a strong common interest like climate change. if you are in a zero-sum relationship with the chinese
with confrontational competition, it can influence rightly areas you need to cooperate. plus, what this statement, a look suggest is that because you cannot talk to the chinese because it does not serve any purpose, the chinese will not respond in good faith. therefore you cannot engage directly with the chinese on truly divisive issues. you just discount that as a basis of conversation for chinese and work on try to -- that is the problem with the biden strategy. mohammed: michael talked on something you mentioned a previous answer that the secretary of state did say in his or marks there are areas where the two countries should work together including the climate crisis, combating covid-19. from your perspective, where are there other areas the two countries feel they can work together constructively right now? henry: yes, i agree with what michael said. the narrative that is going on
in both countries is damaging the relationship and probably also dampening the confidence to cooperate in the future. there is so much to collaborate. in addition to what he said on climate change in others, infrastructure, for example, china is in the -- is the leading country in the past four decades, transforming the whole country, making two thirds of the global steel railways. they have five to 6 million 4g and 5g stations across the country, we see that president biden proposed an infrastructure plan, the eu has announced a global gateway, so why not work together? strengthen the world bank. let's get the banks that share
the same leg which to work together. -- same language to work together. also, absolutely, we have the post-pandemic and post ukraine war, is having you plan on infrastructure to help them. let's try something similar to work together so we can really not obsessed with our differences. blow that out of proportion and then we had to fight each other in the end. mohammed: we have run out of time. throughout the leave our conversation for today. thank you to our guests. thank you for watching, you can see the program again anytime on a website al jazeera.com and for further discussion on our facebook page. you can also join the
♪ eric campbell: germany is letting go of coal. europe's biggest economy has closed its black coal mines without sacking a single worker. now it's phasing out the brown coal it burns for electricity. but climate activists say it's still not enough. we find out why a country built on coal believes coal's days are numbered. and we join a raid with young activists fighting to stop