WEBVTT - How America's China Trauma Strains Alliances 0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:06.960 China's expanding economic power and projections it will surpass the 0:00:07.160 --> 0:00:12.200 US as the pre eminent commercial power have preoccupied people 0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:17.440 for years. But what about the idea of America as 0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:21.720 a kind of rogue state in its decline, lashing out here, 0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.920 lashing out there. That's not a perspective you run into 0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:29.720 every day, even in the Trump era. But as the 0:00:29.760 --> 0:00:34.600 Trump administration rolls on, more and more countries and world 0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:39.440 leaders might come to see America as the disruptor rather 0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:53.400 than the stabilizer. Welcome to Benchmark. I'm Daniel Moss, the 0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:58.000 columnist at Bloomberg Opinion in New York, and I'm Scott Landman, 0:00:58.120 --> 0:01:02.920 an economics editor with Bloomberg New in Washington. America as 0:01:03.080 --> 0:01:08.760 the economic and political renegade rather than the status quo 0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:13.480 is a pretty new concept, but Bob Carr says it's 0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:17.520 one we should take seriously. He's a former Australian Foreign 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:22.960 minister and longtime student of US history and politics. He's 0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:25.560 the author of a new book, Run for Your Life. 0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:29.760 Bob joins US from Sydney, where he's Director of the 0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:35.360 Australia China Relations Institute at the University of Technology, Sydney. 0:01:35.640 --> 0:01:39.400 Bob thanks for joining us. Mike, pleasure, Dan and Scott 0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:41.520 By pleasure to be talking to you. You've had a 0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:45.000 long career in government. Before serving as Foreign Minister, you 0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:47.600 are a Premier of New South Wales for ten years, 0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:50.960 which for our American listeners is a little like being 0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:55.240 both governor of New York and California combined. I should 0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.600 also stress from the outset that you're no anti American 0:01:58.720 --> 0:02:03.880 rabble rouser. But what has America traditionally meant for you. 0:02:04.600 --> 0:02:09.480 We've seen America traditionally as a great sources of democratic values, 0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:16.760 and America's had a proud and mobile, even if inconsistent 0:02:16.840 --> 0:02:21.320 or patchy record evalivating human rights. I mean, there've been 0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:25.160 moments when I have thought, I guess twenty years ago, 0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:28.600 that if there's going to be a dominant power in 0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:33.160 the world, then it's it's good that it's America. Then 0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:39.280 came two shocks to that happy, rather optimistic view of 0:02:39.280 --> 0:02:42.920 American power, and Mike, one was the invasion of Iraq. 0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:47.720 In the absence of any concept of international law or 0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:51.359 any consensus in the West, the invasion of the Iraq 0:02:51.880 --> 0:02:55.120 was a huge disrupting influence. The other one was America 0:02:55.200 --> 0:02:59.560 deciding under Bush, that would really vacate leadership on on 0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:04.040 client to change that. That really got me thinking about 0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:07.320 the US. And of course under Trump, both those concerns 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:11.919 has been magnified. Let's go back a little further, Bob, 0:03:12.280 --> 0:03:16.040 I learned about Chester A. Arthur at my eleventh grade 0:03:16.240 --> 0:03:19.560 US history class. I can't recall all the details, but 0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:24.679 can you tell us what is the Chester A Arthur Society? 0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:28.120 In the early eighties, Ion a group of friends formed 0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:32.360 the Chester A. Arthur Society to have dinners and to 0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:38.760 test ourselves with a paper on some aspect of US 0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:43.280 presidential history and a series of sometimes quite challenging trivia 0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:49.680 quizzes about about US the details of US presidential history. 0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:52.720 It was great fun. Do you still have the meetings, Bob? 0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:56.520 Or have you ceased them? In disgust? We ceased them 0:03:56.520 --> 0:04:00.520 and George W. Bush because it was you got to 0:04:00.560 --> 0:04:06.480 celebrate the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. If 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:10.680 all this pageant simply lead to the disasters of the 0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:13.840 George W. Bush presidency, it would be utterly impossible to 0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.880 hold them now. I mean, I've discussed with friends who 0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:21.120 like me, have been so fond of American history, the 0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:27.880 hollowness of any any celebration of this great feast for storiography, 0:04:28.000 --> 0:04:31.000 when it all seems to lead to the degradation of 0:04:31.360 --> 0:04:37.200 a Trump presidency. How you can extoll the shrewd, level 0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:42.039 headedness of Eisenhower's to term leadership of America, Let alone 0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:46.840 Franklin Roosevelt's leadership in depression and war when in the end, 0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:50.920 let alone Abraham Lincoln in the end, when it all 0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:56.200 devolves on a brabel rousing populist in Donald Trump, And 0:04:56.520 --> 0:04:58.320 without any sense, I might add, and I think this 0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:00.680 is an important point, Dan Scott, without had any sense 0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:04.400 of an imminent recovery, none of us believes, no, no 0:05:04.680 --> 0:05:07.760 friends of America. It was wild friends of America. Looking 0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.039 at the Trump presidency from Australia, I think there's going 0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:16.920 to be a return to liberal internationalism. China's ascendency in 0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:21.680 this context isn't really a new idea. What are people 0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:25.800 failing to grasp about the current moment. There are two 0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:31.960 new elements in perceptions in Asia, and that is that 0:05:32.080 --> 0:05:39.159 the China's economic rise is robust, and China's on a 0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:42.720 trajectory whereby two thousand and thirty it'll have an economy. 0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:47.200 According to an official Australian government assessment published in our 0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:52.360 Foreign policy white paper out late last year, we're the 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:56.000 Chinese economy will be twice the size of the US economy, 0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:58.320 and I think that's a trauma for many Americans to 0:05:58.480 --> 0:06:02.760 contemplate no longer the as largest economy. And the second 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:07.120 thing has been the Trump presidency. Across Asia, the consensus 0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:12.240 has formed that you cannot rely on America. It's behavior 0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:15.080 is going to be uddly, unpredictable. Do you think with 0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:18.120 regards to China, is it really the fact that China 0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:22.799 is getting that big you think is threatening America? Or 0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:25.919 is it the fact that China's economy is becoming so 0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:29.560 much more sophisticated. I mean, it used to be all 0:06:29.600 --> 0:06:33.839 about sweatshops producing cheap clothes and shoes and that sort 0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:36.280 of thing. They still do a fair amount of that, 0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:39.839 and yet the economy has evolved so much that you 0:06:39.920 --> 0:06:45.000 have technology powerhouses like Ali Baba, ten Cent that are 0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:48.680 being mentioned often in the same breath as American giants 0:06:48.720 --> 0:06:53.680 like Facebook, Amazon and so on. All of that's true. 0:06:53.680 --> 0:06:56.159 Another way of putting it is that when Joe Biden, 0:06:56.560 --> 0:06:59.200 Joe Biden used to say, he said to me, China 0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:02.320 doesn't innovate. Well, that that can't be said today in 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:04.440 view of already have pointed to China is a great 0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:08.320 source of innovation and in many respects has already overtaken 0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:12.040 the US in innovation. And I think that makes it 0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:16.080 even harder for American aggress I noticed in the New 0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:19.560 York Times there's hardly any coverage of this, of China's 0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:24.240 transition to an economy based on services and based on consumption. 0:07:24.720 --> 0:07:28.800 The Chinese have already pulled off that transition. And as 0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:30.640 I look at the pages of the New York Times 0:07:31.720 --> 0:07:36.000 every day, and it's it's almost stubborn failure to cover 0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:40.240 what's happened in China. I think there's that there might 0:07:40.280 --> 0:07:46.080 be a latent American jealousy or distaste for what China represents. 0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:49.360 And I can understand that China's pulling off this economic 0:07:49.400 --> 0:07:53.880 transition without using the democratic means that we we'd all 0:07:53.920 --> 0:07:58.880 prefer to see China using. It's it's becoming a predominantly 0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:03.920 middle class nations, becoming by international tests, a rich country, 0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:10.800 and without permitting more political freedoms. And this is this 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:15.480 upsets the The rule book contradicts the rule book and 0:08:15.800 --> 0:08:20.320 the expectations that all US Democrats have had. American declinism 0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:23.400 is nothing new, As you're well aware, the country has 0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:28.600 a long history of reinvention. Can it do it again? Yes, 0:08:28.920 --> 0:08:31.200 that's got to be admitted as a possibuilding and other 0:08:31.240 --> 0:08:35.440 possibuilding is that American decline is attenuated, it stretches out. 0:08:36.200 --> 0:08:39.040 None of us knows, None of us knows what form 0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:43.079 American decline will take. But we ought to be focusing 0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:49.240 with laser like concentration on the political crisis. There's a 0:08:49.360 --> 0:08:52.959 political crisis in Washington that is seeing the character of 0:08:53.040 --> 0:08:56.960 the two great political parties transformed. Just think the Republican 0:08:57.000 --> 0:09:02.480 Party is becoming a party opposed to immigration and opposed 0:09:02.520 --> 0:09:06.520 to trade. It's also becoming the first choice, the first 0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:12.280 preference the white working class American males. The Democratic Party 0:09:12.320 --> 0:09:15.000 looks more and more like an alliance of America's rich 0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:18.559 living on the East and West coast and its welfare 0:09:19.280 --> 0:09:23.720 dependent classes. Now, these these are big shifts, and the 0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:29.719 bonapartism of Trump has produced this change, and that represents 0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:33.000 nothing short of a political transformation in the US. But 0:09:33.040 --> 0:09:36.439 it's only one measure of the way America has changed politically. 0:09:38.360 --> 0:09:41.120 You could have a second career as a political analyst 0:09:41.200 --> 0:09:44.400 on one of the American television networks. I think with 0:09:44.520 --> 0:09:47.160 what you just said. But what you were just talking 0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:50.760 about reminded me of a quote that I saw that 0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:53.600 got some wide play back in when you were the 0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:56.960 Foreign Minister, and you said something along the lines of 0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:02.320 America was one budget deal away from restoring its global 0:10:02.400 --> 0:10:04.720 pre eminence. Do you think it's going to take a 0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:08.000 lot more than one budget deal or one election even 0:10:08.080 --> 0:10:12.559 now to get back to that level. Yeah, I don't. 0:10:12.679 --> 0:10:18.840 I don't think America can return to the liberal internationalism 0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:23.000 that was once synonymous with its power and might. I 0:10:23.080 --> 0:10:27.040 just can't see that happening. I think Trump is the 0:10:27.040 --> 0:10:32.800 most transformative president since lb J or Franklin Roosevelt. He's 0:10:32.840 --> 0:10:37.000 the most successful demagogue in American political history. He's a 0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:41.120 true bonapartist, the leader above party, above faction. And the 0:10:41.160 --> 0:10:44.600 fact that the Republican Party is shackled to him rather 0:10:44.640 --> 0:10:47.839 than the relationship being the other way around, him being 0:10:48.120 --> 0:10:51.600 a product of the Republican Party and its values. All 0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:57.360 this counts greatly. And I can't see the Democrats under 0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:02.760 any the candidates for presidency that are now now imaginable 0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:08.360 beating him in two thousand and twenty. I see him 0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:11.880 as a a two term president. Certainly that's the most 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:14.720 likely outcome. And I think America will be changed utterly 0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:19.079 by eight years of Trump and the Republican leadership that 0:11:19.120 --> 0:11:23.480 will emerge after him very different from the Republican leadership 0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:26.200 at the Bushy Earl let alone. What was there before 0:11:27.160 --> 0:11:30.280 George W. Bush and before the Tea Party. How do 0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:34.360 you get from the sense of political crisis and political 0:11:34.520 --> 0:11:41.800 trauma to security threat. I think the political crisis in America, 0:11:42.000 --> 0:11:45.439 and that for once the term crisis is not is 0:11:45.520 --> 0:11:51.280 not hyperbole, is of significance precisely because it's changing America's 0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:55.560 international character. America is tearing up the rules on free trade. 0:11:56.640 --> 0:11:59.000 The next step can only be withdrawal from the World 0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:02.079 Trade Organized Nation because it's not adhering to the rules 0:12:02.080 --> 0:12:08.280 of the w t O. America is looking down, dusting 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:16.240 off its allies like Canada, like the Europeans. America is 0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:22.240 saying alliances don't matter to us anymore. America seems to 0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:26.400 be treating a North Korea and a Russia with more 0:12:26.440 --> 0:12:30.599 respect than it's treating Germany or the United Kingdom or Canada. 0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:35.840 You can't pawn the crown of global leadership and then 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:38.800 buy it back at the old price. If there is, 0:12:39.200 --> 0:12:42.120 in a stunning reverse all the election of a president 0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:46.120 who wants to abandon the key tenants of Trump's leadership, 0:12:46.640 --> 0:12:48.560 then he or she is going to find it very, 0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:53.480 very hard to rebuild alliances, to re establish respect because 0:12:54.440 --> 0:13:00.880 during the eight years of Trump and during whatever follows Trump, 0:13:01.600 --> 0:13:06.839 the world Asia, for example, but the Europeans as well, 0:13:06.880 --> 0:13:10.800 again to be making their own security arrangements. Australia might 0:13:10.840 --> 0:13:17.600 be the most rusted on and the most unquestioning of allies, 0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:21.000 but I suspect even Australia I would need to take 0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:24.160 account of what appears to be happening in Southeast Asia, 0:13:24.200 --> 0:13:29.880 that is, the Ten Nations of Asigan reach in its 0:13:29.960 --> 0:13:35.400 own way accommodating Chinese power and counting on America to 0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:41.560 be utterly unreliable. But let's talk about China for a moment. 0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:45.240 I spent three years in China as an economics editor 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:49.480 in Beijing. It is an impressive place, but it also 0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:53.239 has its weaknesses that you might not be visible from 0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:57.640 a long distance. And there's this idea that China supports 0:13:58.040 --> 0:14:00.800 free and fair trade. They talk about a lot, but 0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:04.080 it seems like it's something that could be challenged. But 0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:08.480 to me, at least, China does talk about free and 0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:12.520 fair trade, and maybe isn't the one that's trying to 0:14:13.320 --> 0:14:16.880 ratchet up the tariffs like the Trump administration is. But 0:14:17.160 --> 0:14:20.560 let me ask you, is China kind of getting a 0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:23.840 free pass right now for all of it's you know, 0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:27.800 the many kinds of violations they've been accused of in 0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:31.000 the economic arena for many years. Are those being kind 0:14:31.040 --> 0:14:33.960 of looked over just because America is being such a 0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:37.320 bad actor. Yes, I think they are getting a free pass. 0:14:37.960 --> 0:14:40.080 And I think if there's a defense to be made 0:14:41.120 --> 0:14:46.040 of Trump's aggressive behavior on trade, it might be this 0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:50.880 that it will greatly strengthen the hand of the reforms 0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:53.320 in China. The people who do want to see the 0:14:53.400 --> 0:14:56.600 Chinese economy open up, who do want to see a 0:14:56.680 --> 0:15:03.000 burst of economic liberalization, It could well be that they 0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:06.560 get the upper hand, and faced with the provocation and 0:15:06.600 --> 0:15:10.040 the challenges of all the Trump's doing on trade, that 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:16.840 we see China introduced market based reforms at a faster 0:15:17.000 --> 0:15:21.480 rate than the Party, and the government has promised to 0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:25.760 introduce that would be good for the world, would be 0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:30.080 very good for China. Already, China's got a smaller public 0:15:30.160 --> 0:15:33.600 sector in terms of the percentage of its workforce employed 0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:37.440 by government, including state earned enterprises, than many countries in 0:15:37.440 --> 0:15:42.600 the Western world, including Australia. But imagine if in response 0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:47.280 to Trump reformers really forge your head in China. It 0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:51.440 talked about the Asian countries making their own accommodation with China. 0:15:52.560 --> 0:15:56.280 Why has the issue of China become so politically toxic 0:15:56.480 --> 0:16:01.120 in Australia of late Yeah, I think the government of 0:16:01.160 --> 0:16:05.080 Australia tilted against China from early two thousand and seventeen, 0:16:05.760 --> 0:16:07.920 so it left people like me running a think tank 0:16:08.120 --> 0:16:12.240 as I am on Australia China relations saying, as I've 0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:16.560 been saying very recently, we more or less had it 0:16:16.720 --> 0:16:21.320 right as an American ally running a pragmatic China relationship 0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:24.840 back under the prime ministership of Tony Abbott, the Prime 0:16:24.840 --> 0:16:30.120 minister immediately before our current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. So 0:16:30.240 --> 0:16:35.480 we've gone through a period of shock and trauma because 0:16:35.520 --> 0:16:38.720 of the rapidity of China's rise. It's been a shock 0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:45.440 to the inherently pro American defense and security establishment in Canberra. 0:16:45.560 --> 0:16:49.960 It's just been a shock. It's been China's economic influence 0:16:50.000 --> 0:16:53.400 in the region to our north and China's success in 0:16:53.480 --> 0:16:57.920 its assertiveness in the South China Sea. I think Chinese 0:16:57.920 --> 0:17:02.960 behavior too has contributed to the the way views of 0:17:03.040 --> 0:17:07.320 China have turned have turned negative among the Australian leadership. 0:17:08.160 --> 0:17:11.360 China lifting the two term limit that applied to its 0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:16.240 its president is the biggest element in that. But while 0:17:16.840 --> 0:17:21.840 the Australian leadership has moved to a more entrenched or 0:17:21.840 --> 0:17:25.679 more flamboyant any China position, at least in terms of rhetoric, 0:17:26.359 --> 0:17:29.360 I mean we haven't repealed repealed our free trade agreement 0:17:29.359 --> 0:17:33.720 with the Chinese, public opinion has moved in the opposite direction. 0:17:33.840 --> 0:17:37.800 The highly respected Lowing Institute, our leading foreign policy think tank, 0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:42.480 produced a poll three weeks ago that showed the percentage 0:17:42.480 --> 0:17:47.040 of Australians who see China more as economic opportunity than 0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:51.160 security threat went up in the last year. It now 0:17:51.200 --> 0:17:55.359 sits at In fact, over the last two years, I 0:17:55.359 --> 0:18:00.119 think it's increased by five percent. So Australian views of 0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:04.840 China's economic potential in terms of mass public opinion have 0:18:04.920 --> 0:18:09.480 actually strengthened listen inclined to see China is a geo 0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:13.359 strategic threat then a couple of years ago, but which 0:18:13.359 --> 0:18:17.200 to me is very interesting now. Bigger than any class 0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:20.440 between China and Australia would of course be one between 0:18:20.640 --> 0:18:24.359 China and the United States. And this topic has gotten 0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:28.680 some attention lately because Graham Allison, a scholar at Harvard, 0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:32.640 published a book about the Thucidities trap, which is when 0:18:32.880 --> 0:18:38.400 one great power threatens to overshadow another conflict typically not always, 0:18:38.440 --> 0:18:43.160 but but typically is the result. Now with China going 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:46.840 down a more authoritarian path, like you mentioned, America being 0:18:47.000 --> 0:18:50.959 fundamentally reshaped by the age of Trump, how have these 0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:54.359 odds of such a conflict increased over the past year 0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:58.119 or two. Well, you can say that the China and 0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:00.520 the US has moved into a trade war. You can 0:19:00.560 --> 0:19:03.359 say that that has got elements of a Cold war, 0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:08.960 especially with America reclassifying the way it regards China and 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:12.520 seeing China as a strategic rival instead of a partner 0:19:12.640 --> 0:19:18.040 or a competitor. That's a huge challenge for Australia. But 0:19:18.680 --> 0:19:21.679 to conservative Australian politicians in the last twenty years have 0:19:21.680 --> 0:19:26.560 actually addressed it. Alexander Dana, who was Foreign Minister in 0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:29.600 the Howard government said in two thousand and five in 0:19:29.680 --> 0:19:34.760 respect to the prospect of a clash in the Taiwan 0:19:34.840 --> 0:19:40.040 Strait that and wouldn't apply, that the security treaty between 0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:42.879 Australia and the United States would not drag us into 0:19:42.880 --> 0:19:46.280 such a conflict, and that made a lot of people 0:19:46.760 --> 0:19:54.320 pay attention. And again in two thousand and thirteen or fourteen, 0:19:54.640 --> 0:19:57.400 the Defense Minister in the Abbott government said in respective 0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:01.720 conflict in the East China Sea that it was most 0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:05.000 likely that the Answers Treaty would not apply. In other words, 0:20:05.000 --> 0:20:07.680 and a conflict between China and Japan with the US 0:20:07.720 --> 0:20:13.840 intervening on behalf of Japan, Australia's obligation to protect its 0:20:13.880 --> 0:20:16.760 allied the US would not apply. We would not be 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:19.720 dragged into it. And you got away with that comment 0:20:19.800 --> 0:20:25.400 without any blowback in Australia. So there there two signals 0:20:25.440 --> 0:20:29.359 that really stand out that even on the conservative side 0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:31.640 of Australia, it would be seen as not in our 0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:37.240 national interest to enter a conflict between China and the 0:20:37.359 --> 0:20:40.680 United States. Only stores in the wind, but I think 0:20:41.280 --> 0:20:45.919 people in the U s state department focused on game 0:20:46.000 --> 0:20:50.320 playing about these sorts of eventualities would have to take notice. 0:20:51.000 --> 0:20:54.280 That's Australia, I guess, is the most serious and rusted 0:20:54.320 --> 0:20:59.359 on American ally in the Pacific, apart from Japan, giving 0:20:59.359 --> 0:21:02.320 a strong cig no that in a show down between 0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:05.040 the U S and China it would have to consult 0:21:05.200 --> 0:21:09.040 its own national interests. One of the arguments advanced for 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:13.040 why a conflict between the US and China is unlikely 0:21:13.320 --> 0:21:16.760 is that their capital markets and their economic systems are 0:21:16.840 --> 0:21:21.320 so enmashed. What's your perspective on that argument. Yeah, I 0:21:21.359 --> 0:21:25.320 support that argument. And there is now some critical assessment 0:21:25.400 --> 0:21:29.920 of Graham Allison's notion of the vicidities trap emerging, among 0:21:30.000 --> 0:21:32.199 other things, people pointing out that it's it's got no 0:21:32.359 --> 0:21:37.800 historical residence in East Asia. It's a bit of historicism. 0:21:37.840 --> 0:21:40.560 Because some things have happened in the past, these same 0:21:40.600 --> 0:21:42.159 things have got to happen in the same way in 0:21:42.160 --> 0:21:46.960 the future. So I'm basically optimistic. I think a clash 0:21:47.000 --> 0:21:52.680 would be disastrous for both powers. I am worried about 0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:56.960 the War Party in the United States at work in Washington, 0:21:57.080 --> 0:22:00.879 as advisors and commentators and think tankers moving around the 0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:05.399 circle of power, and I wouldn't hesitate to make the 0:22:05.440 --> 0:22:10.400 same point abount hawks in Beijing, but that simply puts 0:22:10.440 --> 0:22:13.760 an obligation on the rest of this to cause in 0:22:13.880 --> 0:22:18.280 realism and a bit of Kissinger style realism on the 0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:22.640 part of the the US is needed to avoid an 0:22:22.680 --> 0:22:26.639 ideological cold war approach to China, which sets us up 0:22:26.720 --> 0:22:30.719 for the inevitability of some conflict. Bob, let's finish on 0:22:30.800 --> 0:22:34.600 a slightly different note, talk about some of your days 0:22:34.840 --> 0:22:39.040 in the government. One typically here's the bemoaning of the 0:22:39.040 --> 0:22:42.840 age of social media, how it's become almost impossible to 0:22:42.960 --> 0:22:46.760 govern these days, you know, to properly develop policy, to 0:22:46.880 --> 0:22:53.040 sell it to an increasingly distracted electorate. You lead Australia's 0:22:53.080 --> 0:22:57.000 biggest state for ten years. What do you think of 0:22:57.040 --> 0:22:59.679 that argument? You're I come out of a different era, 0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:04.439 out of the era of newspapers, a time when people 0:23:04.720 --> 0:23:08.840 on buses and trains going to work were devowing newspapers, 0:23:09.280 --> 0:23:11.400 and an era when people watch the free to wear 0:23:11.480 --> 0:23:15.320 TV news at night, and you can sell a message 0:23:16.200 --> 0:23:21.440 by appearing on the front pages and on the TV 0:23:22.760 --> 0:23:26.919 captual summaries of the day's events and throughout the day 0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:31.440 on that wonderful medium radio. Everything's been shattered, everything's been 0:23:31.480 --> 0:23:34.919 broken up, but politicians are pretty unconvincing when they complain 0:23:34.960 --> 0:23:39.000 about it. If the rules have changed, you've simply got 0:23:39.000 --> 0:23:42.880 to change with the rules. And that means, if necessary, 0:23:43.200 --> 0:23:46.280 putting the twenty four hour media, the social media to 0:23:46.480 --> 0:23:50.440 your use, if you've got a good record, if you're 0:23:50.480 --> 0:23:55.560 listening to the public, if you can pitch your case, 0:23:56.600 --> 0:24:01.560 the new media rules should not disadvantage. In fact, I'd 0:24:01.640 --> 0:24:04.160 enjoy the challenge of being back in it again, being 0:24:04.200 --> 0:24:07.080 able to to take that new rule book and to 0:24:07.160 --> 0:24:09.399 make it work for me and for the government whose 0:24:09.520 --> 0:24:12.119 workers in charge of Or you could just take the 0:24:12.160 --> 0:24:15.200 new rules and take advantage of them as much as 0:24:15.200 --> 0:24:18.359 you possibly can and become president of the United States. 0:24:18.680 --> 0:24:22.120 You did once fantasize about being a senator, didn't you, Bob, Yeah, 0:24:22.160 --> 0:24:25.240 I did. That would have been nice. I thought i'd lead. 0:24:25.480 --> 0:24:28.680 In my book, I share a fantasy that I'd lead 0:24:29.240 --> 0:24:33.480 the six Australian states in the American Union. There would 0:24:33.480 --> 0:24:38.480 have been some disadvantages, some disadvantages applying to that, of course, 0:24:38.680 --> 0:24:41.760 we would have had to live with America's gun laws. Bob, 0:24:42.080 --> 0:24:44.400 Thank you very much. For joining us. It's been great 0:24:44.440 --> 0:24:47.200 to have you good Dan, It's been my honor. Thank you. Scott. 0:24:51.560 --> 0:24:54.159 Benchmark will be back next week. Until then, you can 0:24:54.200 --> 0:24:56.960 find us on the Bloomberg terminal, Bloomberg dot com or 0:24:57.040 --> 0:25:00.919 Bloomberg App, and podcast destinations such as full podcasts of 0:25:01.000 --> 0:25:04.000 Spotify or wherever you listen. We love it if you 0:25:04.080 --> 0:25:06.639 took the time to rate and review the show so 0:25:06.760 --> 0:25:09.719 more listeners can find us. You can also find us 0:25:09.720 --> 0:25:14.040 on Twitter, follow me at Scott Landman. Dan You're at 0:25:14.520 --> 0:25:18.280 moss un the School Echo, and our guest is at 0:25:18.440 --> 0:25:22.840 Bob J. Carr c A r R. Benchmark is produced 0:25:22.840 --> 0:25:26.880 by Top Foreheads. The head of Bloomberg Podcasts is Francesco Levie. 0:25:27.080 --> 0:25:28.840 Thanks for listening. See you next time.