Speaker 1: Now on Overnights, Professor David Flett analyzes the important events
Speaker 1: of the week. Oh finally, some insanity shall prevail. How
Speaker 1: are you good, Professor?
Speaker 2: Well, there you Phil and how are you.
Speaker 1: I'm very well. I'd like to talk to you about
Speaker 1: a lot of things. We're pretty much on the same
Speaker 1: page with this article. Another great one you've written in
Speaker 1: the Spectator enriching Beijing flirting with Tehran. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: that certainly.
Speaker 2: Well. The government, the Australian government, which is led a
Speaker 2: hard lived leader. He comes from the hard left, was
Speaker 2: the American's the far left, and he is breaking away
Speaker 2: to some degree from American policy. And I'm not surprised
Speaker 2: that he is obviously not prepared. He doesn't want to
Speaker 2: go to the White House. He knows he'll be he'll
Speaker 2: be in difficulties there when he appears before the President.
Speaker 2: And this idea of slipping it in on the sidelines
Speaker 2: of the G seven was never a good idea. There
Speaker 2: would never be enough time to deal with the problems appropriately.
Speaker 2: But he just doesn't want to see the President. And
Speaker 2: I'm sure he's delighted by the fact that the President
Speaker 2: has gone off. Do you believe that Okay, right, that's
Speaker 2: my view. I don't think it's at all disappointed. I
Speaker 2: think he's delighted because the last thing he wants is
Speaker 2: to have to face the President, and he's going to
Speaker 2: try and cover it with peripheral matters. But the President
Speaker 2: was going to really come to the very important issues,
Speaker 2: particularly of the fact that we are just not attending
Speaker 2: to our defense, we've let it run down terribly, and
Speaker 2: that this is a government which shows a real sheepishness
Speaker 2: in relation to Beijing. I think they're very happy to
Speaker 2: be the quiet tributary state Beijing and not disbehave in
Speaker 2: any way. And we saw that when the Chinese Communists
Speaker 2: came with their navy and started a firing exercise in
Speaker 2: our waters in our economic zone. That didn't tell us
Speaker 2: about it, and we had to rely on a civil
Speaker 2: aviation pilot to tell us that this was going on.
Speaker 2: And then they went round the country where they obviously
Speaker 2: were conducting an intelligence operation in relation to our ports
Speaker 2: and what we're doing. And it's extraordinary when you look
Speaker 2: at the situation in relation to climate change, and I
Speaker 2: must say once again we said we're having a very
Speaker 2: cold winter for a world in which the climate's supposed
Speaker 2: to be warming, and we've had a very moderate suhow
Speaker 2: we don't have the heat waves that we used to have.
Speaker 2: But there's an obsession with this. But scientists to support
Speaker 2: the view that man is contributing to climate change all agree.
Speaker 2: Nobody challenges the puposition that what we're doing is not
Speaker 2: going to change the climate in the slightest. We're spending
Speaker 2: this enormous amount of money, We're running down industries. We're
Speaker 2: changing what was a cheap and reliable grid, We're changing
Speaker 2: that to something which is expensive and something which is unreliable.
Speaker 2: And nobody's benefiting except for a few people who are
Speaker 2: supportive of this, particularly those in the political class who
Speaker 2: are behind candidates and who are making a lot of
Speaker 2: money out of renewables. But the only organization which is
Speaker 2: profiting from all this enormously is the Communist Party of China.
Speaker 2: It's extraordinary, And why are they doing this. Why do
Speaker 2: they take the view that we must be very quiet
Speaker 2: and say nothing when the Chinese navy behoves provocatively. We've
Speaker 2: just got to accept all this. And then, in relation
Speaker 2: to what's happening in the Middle East, they've pulled away
Speaker 2: very much from American policy when we were asked to
Speaker 2: provide a ship, not because the Americans needed a ship,
Speaker 2: but because they wanted it is a multi national fleet
Speaker 2: to go there and deal with the hootsies, who are
Speaker 2: terrorists funded by Tehran. The government refused to send one,
Speaker 2: which is the first time I think we've done anything
Speaker 2: like that. And we're pulling away from Israel. We seem
Speaker 2: to be treating Israel. Israel is the hostile country, whereas
Speaker 2: everybody knows, and Trump has been the one to work
Speaker 2: this out, that America and Israel can't allow Tehran to
Speaker 2: have atomic weapons because they're very open a gender is
Speaker 2: and they now that in the maxims, the slogans that
Speaker 2: they pronounce regularly, death to Israel and death to America.
Speaker 2: And we know that this dangerous, quite insane regime will
Speaker 2: do terrible things if they get nuclear weapons, and they
Speaker 2: seem to be intent, or there seem to be intent.
Speaker 2: They are intent on getting them, and Israel cannot tolerate
Speaker 2: that because as Netanyo who said, they had one holocaust
Speaker 2: in the previous century and they're not going to have
Speaker 2: another holocaust.
Speaker 1: You know, I was thinking about the other day too.
Speaker 1: Just moving back to China. I saw this story Orrancy
Speaker 1: and End's website. China's aircraft carriers send message in the
Speaker 1: open Pacific for the first time, and bigger and more
Speaker 1: powerful ships are coming. It's just there on a website
Speaker 1: like it's hidden.
Speaker 2: Yes, And the leader has made it very clear that
Speaker 2: he wants to know by twenty seven whether the Chinese
Speaker 2: forces are in a position to take Taiwan.
Speaker 1: Well, that seems to be the date that's bandied around
Speaker 1: a lot too, because a lot of people have said,
Speaker 1: you know, under the cover of darkness, with this current distraction,
Speaker 1: that you know, we can look at that. But I'd
Speaker 1: heard twenty twenty seven bandied around a few times.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, several times. And it would be an obvious
Speaker 2: thing to do if you were going to do this,
Speaker 2: to do it when the United States is engaged heavily
Speaker 2: in the Middle East, that would be the ideal time.
Speaker 2: But as I've been arguing that column for a long time,
Speaker 2: there is an axis which is Moscow, in Tehran, Beijing,
Speaker 2: and Piangyang. And that axis is an axis which is
Speaker 2: completely against our concepts of Western civilization and democracy and
Speaker 2: the rule of law. It presents a very rival view
Speaker 2: of the world, and it's something which goes completely against
Speaker 2: what we believe in.
Speaker 1: So what do you think is going on? Then? For
Speaker 1: the last month, the Chinese aircraft carriers operating closer and
Speaker 1: closer to us and further from their own shores. Are
Speaker 1: they testing their technology testing the waters start?
Speaker 2: Without doubt they are, and they're testing what they can
Speaker 2: do in the event of the struggle. And the news
Speaker 2: has come out recently that communication devices have been found
Speaker 2: in solar panels and turbines and even electric cars, which
Speaker 2: would allow those engaging to turn off the power to
Speaker 2: these things, and that they're also have been looking at
Speaker 2: the ways in which we communicate with the rest of
Speaker 2: the world. Jim Moole and warned that if there were
Speaker 2: an invasion of Taiwan, we might not know about it
Speaker 2: because we might find that our communications with the world
Speaker 2: have been turned off, which would be very easy to do.
Speaker 2: But you know, when you don't you have the ships
Speaker 2: that can cut through these things. There have been cases
Speaker 2: which have occurred in Europe where cables have been cut.
Speaker 2: They think by well they know by Russian vessels that
Speaker 2: these powers are considering. They're contemplating the ways in which
Speaker 2: they should react if there is a breakouts of hostilities
Speaker 2: concerning for example, concerning Taiwan, as there have been breakouts,
Speaker 2: as there is a continuing war in the Ukraine, there
Speaker 2: is a war in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: And as you've said time and time again on this program,
Speaker 1: but of course on your articles as well, that Albanisi
Speaker 1: and the government just seemed to be turning a blind,
Speaker 1: iron ignorant i to this.
Speaker 2: Yes, they just don't seem to accept that these are
Speaker 2: the serious problems. Well, what we've got now is this
Speaker 2: ridiculous idea that they're calling both sides to de escalate
Speaker 2: and go into negotiations. There was a stage in the
Speaker 2: Second World War when the principal powers came together and
Speaker 2: they said, what the position is of the West in
Speaker 2: relation to Germany and Japan was unconditional surrender. There were
Speaker 2: going to be no negotiations. There was going to be
Speaker 2: no way in which there could be any any conditions
Speaker 2: imposis by either powers. They would be just they would
Speaker 2: have to be absolutely defeated, which of course they were.
Speaker 2: There is a time in struggle when that happens, and
Speaker 2: President Trump, probably against the wishes of Israel, insisted on
Speaker 2: sixty days in which Tehran had the opportunity the choice
Speaker 2: of voluntarily stopping the development of atomic weapons or having
Speaker 2: it imposed on them, and on the sixty first day,
Speaker 2: Israel attacked because Israel cannot tolerate Tehran having nuclear weapons,
Speaker 2: because they know that these will be exploded over Israel
Speaker 2: and be worse, probably than what happened in the Second
Speaker 2: World War.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about history repeating after this, you don't mind
Speaker 1: holding on a moment, certainly so just before the break,
Speaker 1: we were talking about history repeating. You know, it feels,
Speaker 1: it feels for the casual observer that here we are
Speaker 1: staring into the abyss. And I mentioned that to you
Speaker 1: off air when we were having a channel moment ago,
Speaker 1: and you said, well, you know, nineteen fourteen. Are we
Speaker 1: looking at some kind of repeat of history that goes
Speaker 1: back to then back to nineteen fourteen.
Speaker 2: It is possible. There's no requirement that this will happen,
Speaker 2: there's no there's no promise that this will happen, but
Speaker 2: it could happen. And if the resistance is such that
Speaker 2: a number of powers in this axis of evil decide
Speaker 2: to act together, then there could be a well, I
Speaker 2: suspect that they won't. I suspect that, as with the
Speaker 2: fall of the regime in Syria, Moscow will remain silent
Speaker 2: because they're over committed. In relation to the Ukraine. I
Speaker 2: doubt that the Chinese Communists will have been very careful
Speaker 2: since since Korea and Vietnam. When they were defeated effectively
Speaker 2: by another communist country in Vietnam, they realized that their
Speaker 2: armies weren't weren't tried and tested, and that's why they
Speaker 2: went back and they've they built up their armies, but
Speaker 2: of course they still know that they haven't yet been
Speaker 2: tried in the field. But they have advanced remarkably in
Speaker 2: ensuring that they have the latest of everything in relation
Speaker 2: to their weapons. They've been very good in getting the
Speaker 2: necessary intellectual property, often taking it from the United States
Speaker 2: and then using it and with their very good scientists,
Speaker 2: developing it even further, so that they are very much,
Speaker 2: very powerful in relation to military matters, and they do
Speaker 2: it more cheaply than the West does. They do it
Speaker 2: without the problems that you have in the West of
Speaker 2: environmental considerations and the need to have the approval of
Speaker 2: various levels of public authorities, and they're able to take
Speaker 2: advantages that are just not available to us.
Speaker 1: So, if you're going to draw a parallels between nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 1: has the spark that ignited the conflict already happened or
Speaker 1: is this still a possibility.
Speaker 2: I think we've gone further than ever, or further than
Speaker 2: at any time since the Cuban affair. Remember the Cuban
Speaker 2: affair where the Russians were establishing bases in Cuba.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Christie, if I think that was wasn't it?
Speaker 2: That's right? Yes, And they could reach the United States
Speaker 2: with weapons there if they installed the missiles and so on,
Speaker 2: And Kennedy issued an ultimatum, and the Russian ships continued
Speaker 2: to approach the United States. The world watched in horror,
Speaker 2: and fortunately the Russians turned around, they pulled their forces back,
Speaker 2: and the Americans made some concessions in Turkey, they reduced
Speaker 2: some bases there, and the Russians did not proceed further
Speaker 2: with the very dangerous basis that they were going to
Speaker 2: build in Tuma.
Speaker 1: Well, because the solution to that was Kennedy offering them
Speaker 1: to not have a loss of face. Are we in
Speaker 1: a position where we have diplomatically the opportunities to do
Speaker 1: that now?
Speaker 2: I don't think the Iranian mullers are worried about face.
Speaker 2: I think they are worried, however, that they've been reduced
Speaker 2: remarkably by the ingenuity of the Israelis. The Israelis have
Speaker 2: really been able to destroy, as they say, decapitate a
Speaker 2: lot of the power in Iran. They've been apparently instructed
Speaker 2: by Trump not to kill the Supreme Leader, which obviously
Speaker 2: is within the within their you know, they could do
Speaker 2: that because they have done some remarkable things. And remember,
Speaker 2: for example, when they used or they use all of
Speaker 2: the mobile phones of those who were acting for the
Speaker 2: regime and they use them as bombs.
Speaker 1: That's right, the blackberries and the pages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, the pages, and this was this was a
Speaker 2: remarkable thing. And the fact that they have been able
Speaker 2: to penetrate into Iran, They've been able to get into
Speaker 2: places and have people eliminated who are running these affairs,
Speaker 2: that has really shocked the Iranians. The government in Iran
Speaker 2: is very unpopular. We foolishly, under Carter pulled the rug
Speaker 2: under the Shah. The Shah was an authoritarian leader. He argued,
Speaker 2: he said, well, this is the only way you can
Speaker 2: rule Iran. You've got a rule it with a certain
Speaker 2: degree of strength, but he really advanced the country. And
Speaker 2: when you look back on films and photographs of life
Speaker 2: in Tehran at the time of the show, women were
Speaker 2: dressed completely in the Western style. They were looking very
Speaker 2: attractive and up to date. They were taking part in
Speaker 2: life and being involved in businesses and other activities. Since
Speaker 2: this crowd of muellers have come in, they've turned everything
Speaker 2: back to something belonging very much to the past, and
Speaker 2: they are really hated, seems as far as I can
Speaker 2: see from what I've been reading, by the Iranian people
Speaker 2: and their hold over the country's weakened. And it's a
Speaker 2: question as you said earlier, to an extent of face,
Speaker 2: not that the regime worries about it, but face before
Speaker 2: the Iranian people, and if they're seen as being weak,
Speaker 2: this will only encourage Iranians to take action against them.
Speaker 1: So do you think that this is what this is
Speaker 1: all about, then regime change? And if that's the case,
Speaker 1: I mean previously with Iraq and Afghanistan that didn't go
Speaker 1: down too well.
Speaker 2: No, I think that if they do that well. For example,
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan, the Americans handled it very badly. As you say,
Speaker 2: there was a move to bring back the king and
Speaker 2: restore what was the old system of running Afghanistan, which
Speaker 2: is what they did. But they rejected that and established
Speaker 2: bulli in place people who should not have been running
Speaker 2: the country, and it certainly didn't work. And a similar
Speaker 2: thing happened in the Iraq. They're not very good.
Speaker 1: No, well, there was never a contingency or an in
Speaker 1: game or any kind of plan. From what I could gather, the.
Speaker 2: Old powers from Europe are much better at this. The
Speaker 2: British work and the French were by bringing in people
Speaker 2: from the existing ruling class and ruling through them. But
Speaker 2: the Americas just allowed anybody to come in whom they
Speaker 2: thought might be a good rule of the country, and
Speaker 2: they weren't the sort of people that should be doing that.
Speaker 2: We saw that in Vietnam, we saw that in Iraq,
Speaker 2: and we saw that in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Well, history just repeats itself on that, doesn't it, over and.
Speaker 2: Over And although no power, particularly the British, was able
Speaker 2: to take Afghanistan, the way they ruled most of India
Speaker 2: and many of their colonies was through the existing ruling class,
Speaker 2: as did the French, and that worked very well, and
Speaker 2: quite often it produced a better form of government at
Speaker 2: the time, because it allowed for the modernization of the
Speaker 2: country and the elimination of practices which weren't acceptable in
Speaker 2: a modern society. Of course, for example, in India they
Speaker 2: got rid of suti, which was that there's an obligation
Speaker 2: on the widow to jump on the sumial power of
Speaker 2: the man who died, and that so offended the British
Speaker 2: they made us illegal, and it was of course obviously
Speaker 2: very good for the women of India.
Speaker 1: The article in the Spectator this Thursday, it's called enriching
Speaker 1: Beijing flirting with Tehran. Let's talk again next week if
Speaker 1: we're still here.
Speaker 2: And I was very interested in Keith Suter's comment about
Speaker 2: the Shah.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, there was a quote from you once again
Speaker 1: where there are no guarantees. I liked that quote too,
Speaker 1: you've given us because that applies to everything I think
Speaker 1: he does.
Speaker 2: Indeed, quickly, thank you, David, Thank you.