Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, it's a story where we continue to
Speaker 1: bring you coverage of throughout the program this morning. A
Speaker 1: Bloomberg editorial published this week, though has a stark headline,
Speaker 1: a trade war with China could lead to real conflict.
Speaker 1: It warrants that although the cost of the US's trade
Speaker 1: war and the trillions of dollars, the cost of escalating
Speaker 1: with China could be much higher amidst all the tariff chaos.
Speaker 1: Just to highlight some other stories on the security issues
Speaker 1: that we have seen this week, the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: reporting that Chinese officials applied to the US they were
Speaker 1: responsible for recent major cyber attacks, The UK's head of
Speaker 1: the military made the first trip to Beijing in ten years,
Speaker 1: and Ukraine's president VLAs Mayr Zelenski claims to have captured
Speaker 1: Chinese nationals fighting for Russia. So, beyond the economics, how
Speaker 1: is the world shifting in response to the Trump administration's
Speaker 1: policies To discuss, we're joined by Richard Dilove, the former
Speaker 1: head of MI six in studio. Good morning, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much for being with us. Should we be more
Speaker 1: concerned about the trade war resulting in a real war?
Speaker 2: Well, that's taking a big leap. In my opinion, I
Speaker 2: think at the moment, the trade war doesn't imply let's say,
Speaker 2: strategic military conflict with China. I think China themselves are
Speaker 2: keen to avoid that sort of escalation. Okay, The elephant
Speaker 2: in the room in the background is how the Chinese
Speaker 2: will in the medium to long term behave over Taiwan.
Speaker 2: And we talk about a Taiwan crisis all the time,
Speaker 2: but I think the likelihood is if the Chinese want
Speaker 2: to pressure Taiwan, it's it's an issue of a blockade
Speaker 2: rather than any more serious military initiative. And in recent weeks,
Speaker 2: the Chinese have been quite aggressive in terms of exercising
Speaker 2: off the Taiwanese coast, I mean, demonstrating the way that
Speaker 2: they could line up naval and other forces to blockade
Speaker 2: the country. So I don't, you know, I think that's
Speaker 2: you know, everybody is in the media making dire predictions
Speaker 2: about how this could escalate, and at the moment we're
Speaker 2: still in the world of optics rather than outcomes. We
Speaker 2: really don't know where things are going to end. And
Speaker 2: I would expect myself people step back from the brink
Speaker 2: if we get into more deterioration. I mean, I would
Speaker 2: predict eventually a negotiation over tariffs with China.
Speaker 1: Where we at this moment in terms of international relations,
Speaker 1: they seem to be shifting. What's your big takeaway from that, Well.
Speaker 2: Of course they're shifting. I mean we've been we've been
Speaker 2: talking about the end of packs Americana for a very
Speaker 2: long time, and I guess the arrival of the Trump
Speaker 2: administration has finally blown up the last remains of that.
Speaker 2: So we have no structured international security set, which we
Speaker 2: have rested on very heavily in the past and has
Speaker 2: given let's say, stability to global markets. But let's face it,
Speaker 2: since two thousand and eight, since the banking crisis, we
Speaker 2: have had a situation where political decision making has been
Speaker 2: more important than I mean, the political decision making has
Speaker 2: driven economic considerations, and I mean we've had that through
Speaker 2: the banking crisis, through COVID, and we've now certainly got
Speaker 2: it with the Trump administration. I mean, this isn't a
Speaker 2: new phenomenon. It's a trend in international affairs which has
Speaker 2: been developing very significantly over a longish period of time.
Speaker 2: And I'm surprised that everybody is so surprised when we
Speaker 2: had pretty clear predictions that this is the direction things
Speaker 2: were going in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your more measured tone perhaps on some of
Speaker 1: these headlines, but I wonder are you more pessimistic about
Speaker 1: the stable world order now than you were before January?
Speaker 1: How much has your view, given your experience at six
Speaker 1: shifted on how safe a world we're living in.
Speaker 2: I'm really in two minds as to how to answer
Speaker 2: that question, and I'm not going to give you a
Speaker 2: clear cut answer either way. I just don't think we
Speaker 2: yet know. Look, the big problem in international relations is
Speaker 2: really how to accommodate the relationship with China and the
Speaker 2: United States. That is the sort of existential question to
Speaker 2: which we don't have a clear answer.
Speaker 1: And that's for everyone. It's not just those two countries
Speaker 1: interacting with each other.
Speaker 2: No, No, this is about global security and it's not
Speaker 2: the Cold War because we have intertwined economies. I mean,
Speaker 2: our economic engagement with China is massive. But we've created
Speaker 2: a situation which I think Trump is reacting to, where
Speaker 2: we have treated China as a normal training partner, the
Speaker 2: terms on which they entered the WTA as such that
Speaker 2: China has been treated very favorably. What the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: whether you like it or not, and he's doing it
Speaker 2: very aggressive, is to I think, trying to create a
Speaker 2: more level playing field, but to get from where we
Speaker 2: are to where many would like to be. I mean,
Speaker 2: I interestingly, if you go back to the first Trump administration,
Speaker 2: he created a new attitude, a new policy towards China.
Speaker 2: Biden didn't change that. He carried it on, and we
Speaker 2: are now into a further escalation. And there's nothing particularly
Speaker 2: surprising about this. Okay, the tariffs have been massively disrupted, disruptive,
Speaker 2: they've been suspended for ninety days, but not with regard
Speaker 2: to China, and that I think shows you what the
Speaker 2: core of the as it were objectivists there is an
Speaker 2: objective is to try to change the nature for the relationship.
Speaker 2: I mean, Trump has achieved things that you have. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's made that the Europeans pay for their own defense,
Speaker 2: which is a very positive step. And he's also you know,
Speaker 2: exploded the rather ineffective way that we've handled commercial relations
Speaker 2: with China. But I mean, I don't think any of
Speaker 2: us expected things to happen so fast and in such
Speaker 2: an extreme fashion as they're happening now. And you know,
Speaker 2: we're at this point of extremism, but we don't know
Speaker 2: what the outcome will be. Will there be a negotiation
Speaker 2: with China? Probably yes, in my opinion, because both sides
Speaker 2: at some point will need it.
Speaker 1: How does Britain insert itself into that global conversation because
Speaker 1: there you know, last week we were talking about Britain
Speaker 1: being spared the worst of Donald Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 2: Have this We're in a sort of in between situation,
Speaker 2: and we are quite fortunate because you know, we sit
Speaker 2: independently outside the EU now, so we can follow our
Speaker 2: own foreign policy decisions and we have still a privileged
Speaker 2: relationship with the United States. So maybe we have a
Speaker 2: constructive role to play, but it's a role of soft power.
Speaker 2: There's not much hard power that the UK can exercise
Speaker 2: in this crist.
Speaker 1: Do you see that relationship with the US demonstrably changing
Speaker 1: as so much as changing in terms of the US
Speaker 1: relations with the rest of the world.
Speaker 2: We don't know yet. I don't think yet it's degraded
Speaker 2: in the way that people are saying. I think we
Speaker 2: still have the special relationship intact, and the UK is
Speaker 2: treading very carefully at the moment, and I think is
Speaker 2: hopeful that it will do some sort of free trade
Speaker 2: deal with this administration, which it wasn't going to do
Speaker 2: with the Biden administration and wasn't going to do with
Speaker 2: the barmber either.
Speaker 1: What about the intelligence community and all of this as well?
Speaker 1: We've had revelations, we're talking about the you know, leaks
Speaker 1: from messaging apps technology, the risk of cyber attacks? Is
Speaker 1: the position more precarious now? And where are I suppose
Speaker 1: European readiness to deal with those sort of issues?
Speaker 2: Well, I would separate Europe. I mean I would separate
Speaker 2: the EU out of this at the moment. Are you
Speaker 2: talking to me about the intelligence relationship between the UK
Speaker 2: and the US, Because if you are putting the emphasis there,
Speaker 2: you know, five eyes is fine. It's institutionally strong. It's
Speaker 2: been through many crises since the original agreement between the
Speaker 2: US and the UK and nineteen forty seven, you know,
Speaker 2: the UQSER agreement, which was basically a sick entreaty, and
Speaker 2: that still functions, it still works, and it's still very important.
Speaker 2: The issue of let's say, the intelligence relationship between UK, Europe, Europe, EU,
Speaker 2: United States. These are quite complicated issues and this is
Speaker 2: a you know that you can't make generalizations, you know,
Speaker 2: which are sweeping about the quality of where this has
Speaker 2: got to. It just doesn't function like that because all
Speaker 2: sorts of issues that the professionals have to consider, like
Speaker 2: source security, what's shared you know, what classification you use
Speaker 2: in an intelligence exchange? I mean I I you know,
Speaker 2: I'd need half an hour to explain it all of you.
Speaker 2: But five eyes is probably in better shape than people realize. Okay,
Speaker 2: you know, and I've got to read the article I
Speaker 2: write in The Spectator three weeks ago. It explains it
Speaker 2: in some detail further.
Speaker 1: Reading for our listeners. Thank you for Imutuated Journal, for
Speaker 1: joining us. Formerhead of m I six