WEBVTT - Former MI6 Head Talks China Security Risks, Trade War Fallout

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:01.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, of course, it's a story where we continue to

0:00:01.720 --> 0:00:05.440
<v Speaker 1>bring you coverage of throughout the program this morning. A

0:00:05.440 --> 0:00:09.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg editorial published this week, though has a stark headline,

0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.799
<v Speaker 1>a trade war with China could lead to real conflict.

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>It warrants that although the cost of the US's trade

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.239
<v Speaker 1>war and the trillions of dollars, the cost of escalating

0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>with China could be much higher amidst all the tariff chaos.

0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:24.880
<v Speaker 1>Just to highlight some other stories on the security issues

0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:27.360
<v Speaker 1>that we have seen this week, the Wall Street Journal

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:29.840
<v Speaker 1>reporting that Chinese officials applied to the US they were

0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:33.320
<v Speaker 1>responsible for recent major cyber attacks, The UK's head of

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:36.640
<v Speaker 1>the military made the first trip to Beijing in ten years,

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:39.599
<v Speaker 1>and Ukraine's president VLAs Mayr Zelenski claims to have captured

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:43.360
<v Speaker 1>Chinese nationals fighting for Russia. So, beyond the economics, how

0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>is the world shifting in response to the Trump administration's

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:49.920
<v Speaker 1>policies To discuss, we're joined by Richard Dilove, the former

0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 1>head of MI six in studio. Good morning, Thank you

0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:55.400
<v Speaker 1>very much for being with us. Should we be more

0:00:55.440 --> 0:00:59.280
<v Speaker 1>concerned about the trade war resulting in a real war?

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 2>Well, that's taking a big leap. In my opinion, I

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:08.840
<v Speaker 2>think at the moment, the trade war doesn't imply let's say,

0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 2>strategic military conflict with China. I think China themselves are

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:21.319
<v Speaker 2>keen to avoid that sort of escalation. Okay, The elephant

0:01:21.319 --> 0:01:23.839
<v Speaker 2>in the room in the background is how the Chinese

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:27.400
<v Speaker 2>will in the medium to long term behave over Taiwan.

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:33.520
<v Speaker 2>And we talk about a Taiwan crisis all the time,

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:36.280
<v Speaker 2>but I think the likelihood is if the Chinese want

0:01:36.319 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 2>to pressure Taiwan, it's it's an issue of a blockade

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 2>rather than any more serious military initiative. And in recent weeks,

0:01:47.880 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 2>the Chinese have been quite aggressive in terms of exercising

0:01:51.760 --> 0:01:55.320
<v Speaker 2>off the Taiwanese coast, I mean, demonstrating the way that

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:58.880
<v Speaker 2>they could line up naval and other forces to blockade

0:01:58.920 --> 0:02:01.880
<v Speaker 2>the country. So I don't, you know, I think that's

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, everybody is in the media making dire predictions

0:02:09.320 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 2>about how this could escalate, and at the moment we're

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:16.880
<v Speaker 2>still in the world of optics rather than outcomes. We

0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:20.639
<v Speaker 2>really don't know where things are going to end. And

0:02:20.760 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 2>I would expect myself people step back from the brink

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:28.960
<v Speaker 2>if we get into more deterioration. I mean, I would

0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:31.959
<v Speaker 2>predict eventually a negotiation over tariffs with China.

0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Where we at this moment in terms of international relations,

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:41.720
<v Speaker 1>they seem to be shifting. What's your big takeaway from that, Well.

0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:44.800
<v Speaker 2>Of course they're shifting. I mean we've been we've been

0:02:44.840 --> 0:02:47.240
<v Speaker 2>talking about the end of packs Americana for a very

0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:49.920
<v Speaker 2>long time, and I guess the arrival of the Trump

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.799
<v Speaker 2>administration has finally blown up the last remains of that.

0:02:54.360 --> 0:03:00.920
<v Speaker 2>So we have no structured international security set, which we

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.799
<v Speaker 2>have rested on very heavily in the past and has

0:03:03.840 --> 0:03:09.920
<v Speaker 2>given let's say, stability to global markets. But let's face it,

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 2>since two thousand and eight, since the banking crisis, we

0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 2>have had a situation where political decision making has been

0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 2>more important than I mean, the political decision making has

0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:29.079
<v Speaker 2>driven economic considerations, and I mean we've had that through

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:32.560
<v Speaker 2>the banking crisis, through COVID, and we've now certainly got

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:35.120
<v Speaker 2>it with the Trump administration. I mean, this isn't a

0:03:35.160 --> 0:03:38.080
<v Speaker 2>new phenomenon. It's a trend in international affairs which has

0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:41.320
<v Speaker 2>been developing very significantly over a longish period of time.

0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:47.240
<v Speaker 2>And I'm surprised that everybody is so surprised when we

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:50.680
<v Speaker 2>had pretty clear predictions that this is the direction things

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:51.360
<v Speaker 2>were going in.

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:55.840
<v Speaker 1>I appreciate your more measured tone perhaps on some of

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 1>these headlines, but I wonder are you more pessimistic about

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>the stable world order now than you were before January?

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:10.720
<v Speaker 1>How much has your view, given your experience at six

0:04:10.920 --> 0:04:13.600
<v Speaker 1>shifted on how safe a world we're living in.

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:20.280
<v Speaker 2>I'm really in two minds as to how to answer

0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 2>that question, and I'm not going to give you a

0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 2>clear cut answer either way. I just don't think we

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:30.560
<v Speaker 2>yet know. Look, the big problem in international relations is

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:36.000
<v Speaker 2>really how to accommodate the relationship with China and the

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:40.039
<v Speaker 2>United States. That is the sort of existential question to

0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:42.280
<v Speaker 2>which we don't have a clear answer.

0:04:41.880 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 1>And that's for everyone. It's not just those two countries

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 1>interacting with each other.

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:49.960
<v Speaker 2>No, No, this is about global security and it's not

0:04:50.040 --> 0:04:53.040
<v Speaker 2>the Cold War because we have intertwined economies. I mean,

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:58.920
<v Speaker 2>our economic engagement with China is massive. But we've created

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:03.800
<v Speaker 2>a situation which I think Trump is reacting to, where

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 2>we have treated China as a normal training partner, the

0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:11.479
<v Speaker 2>terms on which they entered the WTA as such that

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 2>China has been treated very favorably. What the Trump administration,

0:05:15.680 --> 0:05:18.159
<v Speaker 2>whether you like it or not, and he's doing it

0:05:18.240 --> 0:05:20.919
<v Speaker 2>very aggressive, is to I think, trying to create a

0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 2>more level playing field, but to get from where we

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:28.720
<v Speaker 2>are to where many would like to be. I mean,

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 2>I interestingly, if you go back to the first Trump administration,

0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:38.320
<v Speaker 2>he created a new attitude, a new policy towards China.

0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 2>Biden didn't change that. He carried it on, and we

0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 2>are now into a further escalation. And there's nothing particularly

0:05:47.720 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 2>surprising about this. Okay, the tariffs have been massively disrupted, disruptive,

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 2>they've been suspended for ninety days, but not with regard

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.080
<v Speaker 2>to China, and that I think shows you what the

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:06.040
<v Speaker 2>core of the as it were objectivists there is an

0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:09.080
<v Speaker 2>objective is to try to change the nature for the relationship.

0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:13.080
<v Speaker 2>I mean, Trump has achieved things that you have. I mean,

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:15.839
<v Speaker 2>he's made that the Europeans pay for their own defense,

0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 2>which is a very positive step. And he's also you know,

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:28.880
<v Speaker 2>exploded the rather ineffective way that we've handled commercial relations

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 2>with China. But I mean, I don't think any of

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.360
<v Speaker 2>us expected things to happen so fast and in such

0:06:35.440 --> 0:06:39.040
<v Speaker 2>an extreme fashion as they're happening now. And you know,

0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 2>we're at this point of extremism, but we don't know

0:06:42.560 --> 0:06:45.480
<v Speaker 2>what the outcome will be. Will there be a negotiation

0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:49.280
<v Speaker 2>with China? Probably yes, in my opinion, because both sides

0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:51.120
<v Speaker 2>at some point will need it.

0:06:51.480 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 1>How does Britain insert itself into that global conversation because

0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:58.719
<v Speaker 1>there you know, last week we were talking about Britain

0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:01.560
<v Speaker 1>being spared the worst of Donald Trump's tariffs.

0:07:03.279 --> 0:07:06.320
<v Speaker 2>Have this We're in a sort of in between situation,

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 2>and we are quite fortunate because you know, we sit

0:07:13.520 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 2>independently outside the EU now, so we can follow our

0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 2>own foreign policy decisions and we have still a privileged

0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:27.520
<v Speaker 2>relationship with the United States. So maybe we have a

0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:32.239
<v Speaker 2>constructive role to play, but it's a role of soft power.

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:35.960
<v Speaker 2>There's not much hard power that the UK can exercise

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:36.880
<v Speaker 2>in this crist.

0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you see that relationship with the US demonstrably changing

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:43.760
<v Speaker 1>as so much as changing in terms of the US

0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 1>relations with the rest of the world.

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:50.720
<v Speaker 2>We don't know yet. I don't think yet it's degraded

0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 2>in the way that people are saying. I think we

0:07:53.080 --> 0:08:00.280
<v Speaker 2>still have the special relationship intact, and the UK is

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:04.480
<v Speaker 2>treading very carefully at the moment, and I think is

0:08:04.560 --> 0:08:07.679
<v Speaker 2>hopeful that it will do some sort of free trade

0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:09.920
<v Speaker 2>deal with this administration, which it wasn't going to do

0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:12.040
<v Speaker 2>with the Biden administration and wasn't going to do with

0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 2>the barmber either.

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.560
<v Speaker 1>What about the intelligence community and all of this as well?

0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:22.080
<v Speaker 1>We've had revelations, we're talking about the you know, leaks

0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 1>from messaging apps technology, the risk of cyber attacks? Is

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:31.239
<v Speaker 1>the position more precarious now? And where are I suppose

0:08:31.240 --> 0:08:33.320
<v Speaker 1>European readiness to deal with those sort of issues?

0:08:34.600 --> 0:08:39.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, I would separate Europe. I mean I would separate

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:41.760
<v Speaker 2>the EU out of this at the moment. Are you

0:08:41.840 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 2>talking to me about the intelligence relationship between the UK

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:48.120
<v Speaker 2>and the US, Because if you are putting the emphasis there,

0:08:48.280 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, five eyes is fine. It's institutionally strong. It's

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:57.080
<v Speaker 2>been through many crises since the original agreement between the

0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 2>US and the UK and nineteen forty seven, you know,

0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:04.040
<v Speaker 2>the UQSER agreement, which was basically a sick entreaty, and

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:09.600
<v Speaker 2>that still functions, it still works, and it's still very important.

0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:20.160
<v Speaker 2>The issue of let's say, the intelligence relationship between UK, Europe, Europe, EU,

0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:23.800
<v Speaker 2>United States. These are quite complicated issues and this is

0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:28.400
<v Speaker 2>a you know that you can't make generalizations, you know,

0:09:28.440 --> 0:09:31.040
<v Speaker 2>which are sweeping about the quality of where this has

0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 2>got to. It just doesn't function like that because all

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 2>sorts of issues that the professionals have to consider, like

0:09:37.800 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 2>source security, what's shared you know, what classification you use

0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:44.680
<v Speaker 2>in an intelligence exchange? I mean I I you know,

0:09:45.320 --> 0:09:47.240
<v Speaker 2>I'd need half an hour to explain it all of you.

0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:52.680
<v Speaker 2>But five eyes is probably in better shape than people realize. Okay,

0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 2>you know, and I've got to read the article I

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 2>write in The Spectator three weeks ago. It explains it

0:09:56.840 --> 0:09:58.479
<v Speaker 2>in some detail further.

0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:00.839
<v Speaker 1>Reading for our listeners. Thank you for Imutuated Journal, for

0:10:00.920 --> 0:10:02.200
<v Speaker 1>joining us. Formerhead of m I six