1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,680
Speaker 1: Well on the subject of the world sitting on the

2
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:05,400
Speaker 1: edge of a knife. We're joined now by Neil Ferguson,

3
00:00:05,400 --> 00:00:09,120
Speaker 1: the Millbank Family, Senior fellow at Stanford University's Whover Institution,

4
00:00:09,600 --> 00:00:13,880
Speaker 1: to talk about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. Neil in

5
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 1: terms of throwing a backet of kerosene on a smoldering fire,

6
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,279
Speaker 1: or where does this trip rate? Well, I wouldn't try

7
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:24,319
Speaker 1: this in the backyard this summer, let me put it

8
00:00:24,400 --> 00:00:30,600
Speaker 1: that way. Obviously, there has been a succession of visits

9
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:37,440
Speaker 1: to Taiwan by US political figures. This goes back along

10
00:00:37,479 --> 00:00:41,720
Speaker 1: the way. I know it's hard to remember that far back,

11
00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:45,080
Speaker 1: but Gingrich did this back in the ninety nineties. But

12
00:00:45,159 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 1: what striking is that there's a kind of continuity from

13
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to the Biden administration where there have

14
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:57,959
Speaker 1: been visits have been increasing symbolic importance. And this is

15
00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:02,640
Speaker 1: the biggest and from Chinese mantage point, most provocative that

16
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 1: has been former Secondary State Mike Pompeo went, but he'd

17
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:09,960
Speaker 1: stepped down as Secretary by the time he did that.

18
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 1: To have the Speaker of the House of Representatives going

19
00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 1: to Taiwan is a pretty big poke in the eye

20
00:01:18,440 --> 00:01:21,880
Speaker 1: of Cajon Ping, and especially as it's now very likely

21
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: that Nancy Pelosi is going to meet with the Taiwanese president.

22
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:27,960
Speaker 1: So I think it would be very surprising, indeed, if

23
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:31,319
Speaker 1: the Chinese didn't stage quite a lot of fire works

24
00:01:31,360 --> 00:01:36,039
Speaker 1: of a military variety to signal their disapprobation. That means

25
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:40,399
Speaker 1: jets flying in and around Taiwan. It might mean some

26
00:01:40,760 --> 00:01:44,399
Speaker 1: maritime activity as well, and I think this will certainly

27
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 1: make some investors quite nervous, but I'd be pretty surprised

28
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:51,520
Speaker 1: if it escalated all the way to war. In other words,

29
00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:53,920
Speaker 1: there's kerosene on the barbecue, but they're not about to

30
00:01:53,960 --> 00:01:56,240
Speaker 1: blow the house. Neil, give me a sense of the

31
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:58,920
Speaker 1: timing here, provide a little bit of insight. We know

32
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 1: that she has been struggling with a COVID situation, the

33
00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 1: economy is week, We get that the Party Congress comes

34
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,240
Speaker 1: in October. Is there a sense of vulnerability that you

35
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:15,359
Speaker 1: suspect the US censors right now? It's hard to answer

36
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:18,960
Speaker 1: that question, to be honest, because I don't really understand

37
00:02:19,200 --> 00:02:23,680
Speaker 1: why the Biden administration is being so confrontational on this issue,

38
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,440
Speaker 1: and it's not as if this just came from from nowhere.

39
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 1: Three times President Biden has seemed to change the US

40
00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:33,960
Speaker 1: position on Taiwan, only to have his own staff walk

41
00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 1: it back. At the Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin talked pretty

42
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:42,040
Speaker 1: tough on Taiwan last month and the month before, so

43
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:45,320
Speaker 1: did Secretary of State Li Lincoln. So there's not there's

44
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 1: not a lot of logic to this in my mind.

45
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,880
Speaker 1: From a strategic point of view, the US surely has

46
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:53,760
Speaker 1: its hands full with the war in Ukraine. It's also

47
00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:56,720
Speaker 1: clear that in the event of a showdown over Taiwan,

48
00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: the U s would be in a much more difficult

49
00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: position than in previous Taiwan crisis. The Clinton administration, in

50
00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:07,359
Speaker 1: the end could send two aircraft carrier groups and that

51
00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:10,360
Speaker 1: was the end of that. That would be a much

52
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,640
Speaker 1: riskier thing to do today, given how much more sophisticated

53
00:03:14,760 --> 00:03:19,120
Speaker 1: Chinese weaponry has become, and that reality is that the

54
00:03:19,240 --> 00:03:23,000
Speaker 1: Chinese have missiles that can sink aircraft carriers now, which

55
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,280
Speaker 1: they certainly didn't back in. So I can only conclude

56
00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:30,519
Speaker 1: that this is being done partly for domestic political reasons,

57
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 1: because Team Biden still thinks that being tough on China

58
00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:39,920
Speaker 1: is political box office in the United States from a

59
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: strategic point of view, doesn't make a lot of sense.

60
00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:45,840
Speaker 1: I'm beginning to wonder if if maybe there's a little

61
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,360
Speaker 1: bit of wag the dog going on here with the

62
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:52,320
Speaker 1: midterms coming up and and the public, the United States

63
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:57,560
Speaker 1: public has become steadily more hostile towards China over the

64
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:01,680
Speaker 1: last few years. I can't think of the explanation than this, though.

65
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: It's a very risky thing to do, given, as you

66
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:07,600
Speaker 1: rightly said, how weak Sijin Pings position seems to be

67
00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:12,320
Speaker 1: right now, the economy stolled zero COVID policy basically unsustainable.

68
00:04:13,240 --> 00:04:17,159
Speaker 1: Party Congress still some months away. There's a risk here

69
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:20,200
Speaker 1: that the Chinese decide, well, you know this, this can

70
00:04:20,240 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 1: be domestically advantageous to US. Two. So let's just take

71
00:04:24,520 --> 00:04:27,360
Speaker 1: the US on and take this to the brink. That's

72
00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:30,359
Speaker 1: the concern that I have in terms of taking it

73
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:32,400
Speaker 1: to the brink, and the logic behind what the US

74
00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:35,440
Speaker 1: has been doing in China has been flying more and

75
00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:38,479
Speaker 1: more sort ease around Taiwan. The saber rattling has just

76
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 1: been growing ever louder. Was it really tenable for the

77
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:47,479
Speaker 1: US to just do nothing? Well, as you rightly say,

78
00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:51,200
Speaker 1: This has been escalating for a while, and I've no

79
00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:56,280
Speaker 1: doubt that the Chinese spokesman would say, well, you know,

80
00:04:56,320 --> 00:05:00,120
Speaker 1: the US has been ramping it up, calling a to

81
00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:05,240
Speaker 1: question the One China policy implicitly, if not explicitly. My

82
00:05:05,600 --> 00:05:09,880
Speaker 1: own senses that if you look at the strategic options

83
00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:13,559
Speaker 1: open to the United States, if China were to launch

84
00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:17,240
Speaker 1: amphibious invasion and it were to be successful, it's not

85
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:20,000
Speaker 1: clear to me that Taiwan would be able to resist

86
00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:23,760
Speaker 1: as effectively as Ukraine has resisted Russia. And it's very

87
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:26,760
Speaker 1: clear to me that the United States would struggle to

88
00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:30,599
Speaker 1: supply a Taiwanese resistance, and it would certainly struggle to

89
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:35,039
Speaker 1: get a significant military forces to the scene on a

90
00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:39,120
Speaker 1: sufficient scale to undo the successful invasion. Every war game

91
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,240
Speaker 1: in recent years that the Pentagon has conducted on this

92
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:48,960
Speaker 1: scenario has ended with a Chinese victory. So pushing for

93
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:52,320
Speaker 1: a showdown over Taiwan where you don't have a credible

94
00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:56,560
Speaker 1: military strategy doesn't seem to me to be great geopolitics.

95
00:05:56,680 --> 00:05:59,599
Speaker 1: It might be good domestic politics, but it's pretty risky.

96
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:01,800
Speaker 1: Duo was it now? I don't think the Chinese will

97
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 1: call Biden's bluff because I think they're quite risk averse

98
00:06:05,320 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: and know that it would be a very, very big

99
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:11,160
Speaker 1: undertaking for the People's Liberation Army to launch an invasion

100
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:14,920
Speaker 1: of Taiwan. I think both sides at some level are

101
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:19,600
Speaker 1: just beating their chests and bluffing, playing to a domestic

102
00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:23,320
Speaker 1: audience in both cases, and pretty anxious to avoid a

103
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:27,040
Speaker 1: real conflict breaking out. That said, the Guardian was reporting

104
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:29,960
Speaker 1: today that Britain's House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is

105
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: planning a visit to Taiwan, probably November or early December

106
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:36,120
Speaker 1: of this year. Do we need to take a step

107
00:06:36,200 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: back and put this within a larger context. Well, I'm

108
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,920
Speaker 1: not sure how much that will really move the needle.

109
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:49,839
Speaker 1: From a Chinese vantage point. There's a tendency at the

110
00:06:49,880 --> 00:06:53,720
Speaker 1: moment in London to try to be more hawkish than Washington.

111
00:06:53,800 --> 00:06:57,880
Speaker 1: Whether it's Russia or China we're up against. I think

112
00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:01,360
Speaker 1: the bigger question is do we want to re enact

113
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:05,800
Speaker 1: the Cuban missile crisis over Taiwan if we're in Cold

114
00:07:05,800 --> 00:07:08,960
Speaker 1: War two. This is the nearest thing that I can

115
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:12,520
Speaker 1: imagine to the most dangerous moment in Cold War One,

116
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 1: and my advice to the United States and indeed to

117
00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:19,560
Speaker 1: China is don't go there. It's too risky that to

118
00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: to to run the risk of a showdown over Taiwan

119
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:28,320
Speaker 1: when both sides have such formidable firepower. Jimster Readers, who

120
00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:31,040
Speaker 1: knows what he's talking about, wrote a book imagining what

121
00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 1: a war between the US and China would look like.

122
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 1: He dates it in four. I really hope that that

123
00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:39,960
Speaker 1: it's that far out. It could happen sooner than that.

124
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:43,520
Speaker 1: In my view, it would be a calamitous event, not

125
00:07:43,680 --> 00:07:46,520
Speaker 1: just economically but obviously in terms of loss of life.

126
00:07:46,560 --> 00:07:48,280
Speaker 1: So I would say, if you're in cold war, to

127
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:52,120
Speaker 1: skip the Cuban missile crisis, go straight to detent. It's

128
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: safer that way. Neil, always a pleasure. Thank you so

129
00:07:54,760 --> 00:07:57,000
Speaker 1: much for spending so much time with us. Neil Ferguson

130
00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:02,240
Speaker 1: is a Millbank Family Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

131
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:05,800
Speaker 1: We're looking at Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan here on

132
00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:06,760
Speaker 1: day Break Asia