Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. I want to start
Speaker 1: with the meetings that took place over the weekend in Geneva,
Speaker 1: and I'm curious sort of how you look at the
Speaker 1: way they unfolded and the outcome of them. Do you
Speaker 1: see it as a positive step the agreement that has
Speaker 1: come to.
Speaker 2: Well, First of all, I start from a first principle,
Speaker 2: and that is that China's been the largest and most
Speaker 2: important disruptor in the global trade system for about three
Speaker 2: decades right now. There's a reason why the United States
Speaker 2: and many other countries around the world have placed terrafts
Speaker 2: on China. China's manufactured exports in particular, is because China's
Speaker 2: been dumping them around the world below the cost of production,
Speaker 2: and it's been a killer for jobs both in the
Speaker 2: United States historically in the last several decades, but also
Speaker 2: around the world. You have a situation now where Turkey
Speaker 2: and India and Brazil and Colombia and Mexico and Canada
Speaker 2: and the United States and the European Union have all
Speaker 2: put tariffs on China. So I have a degree of
Speaker 2: sympathy for the situation that President Trump and his team inherited,
Speaker 2: which was a situation that we left when I left
Speaker 2: in mid January as ambassador to China President Biden a
Speaker 2: year ago I made twenty twenty four placed one hundred
Speaker 2: percent tariffs on Chinese evs, fifty percent on semiconductors, twenty
Speaker 2: five percent on lithium batteries.
Speaker 3: So the root of this problem.
Speaker 2: Is China and Chinese trade policy. The Chinese are trying
Speaker 2: to act now. You sought in the statements over the
Speaker 2: weekend from Vice Premier Hurly Funk is that they're the
Speaker 2: innocent party, that they're the victim of this trade whereby
Speaker 2: President Trump would in fact, and that they're the responsible party,
Speaker 2: when in fact the reality is quite different. I think
Speaker 2: it's important to set the stage having said that these
Speaker 2: are going to be very very difficult negotiations over the
Speaker 2: next ninety days. I think in the end, self interest
Speaker 2: and logic will prevail. Both sides need and agreement. Was
Speaker 2: encouraging to hear Treasury Secretary Scott bess And say that
Speaker 2: they had agreed in principle they don't want to couple
Speaker 2: these two economies. Last year, we had a six hundred
Speaker 2: and forty two billion dollars two way trade relationship in
Speaker 2: goods and services with China. China is our third largest
Speaker 2: trade partner. About a million American jobs depend on trade
Speaker 2: with China. Upwards of twenty million manufacturing jobs in China
Speaker 2: depend on trade with the United States. So neither country
Speaker 2: can afford to sunder the economic ties and the millions
Speaker 2: of interactions that our private sector has had with the
Speaker 2: Chinese economy over the last forty years.
Speaker 3: And I think in the.
Speaker 2: End there will be a trade agreement, but getting there,
Speaker 2: I think is going to be extraordinarily difficult.
Speaker 1: During your tenure, you were trying to, if I may,
Speaker 1: rehabilitate a relationship that had worsened during the first Trump administration,
Speaker 1: develop conduits for communication, re establish economic and security ties.
Speaker 1: When you left that post, could you've envision this turning
Speaker 1: out the way that it has in terms of how
Speaker 1: the rhetoric has been ratcheted up, the tariffs have been
Speaker 1: put in place. Is it the worst case that you
Speaker 1: envisioned or worse yet?
Speaker 2: Still, I certainly did not anticipate one hundred and forty
Speaker 2: five percent American terrafts on China or one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty five percent Chinese tariffs on American goods, and the
Speaker 2: trade war that has resulted effectively led to a trade
Speaker 2: embargo as of the past week, when no ships were
Speaker 2: sailing with goods back and forth, when manufacturers couldn't export
Speaker 2: to each other's countries, and you see the significant shortage
Speaker 2: of goods that traditionally are important to both economies. So
Speaker 2: I didn't expect that to happen at all. And that's
Speaker 2: the most important thing happening in the global economy right now,
Speaker 2: which is another reason I think that eventually both sides
Speaker 2: have to agree to a deal to calm global markets.
Speaker 2: We're the two largest global economies, so we have a
Speaker 2: profound impact on the health of global economy. But we
Speaker 2: also need the global economy to be functioning in a
Speaker 2: rational and stable way. There's so much at stake. I
Speaker 2: didn't see that happening. I think few people saw that happening.
Speaker 2: You remember Canada, Trump pledged sixty percent tariffs on Chinese goods,
Speaker 2: and people thought that.
Speaker 3: Would be a revolution.
Speaker 2: Will one hundred and forty five was a revolution of
Speaker 2: a different magnitude. And I think, you know, we're not
Speaker 2: anywhere close to being out of the woods. If the
Speaker 2: levels now are set at thirty percent tariffs on the
Speaker 2: American side imposed on China and ten percent by China
Speaker 2: imposed on the United States. Those are historically high levels,
Speaker 2: and a lot of trade will not be able to
Speaker 2: take place. It just simply won't be economical for people
Speaker 2: to be importing manufacturers at that level. So this is
Speaker 2: an urgent crisis. I assume this is going to be
Speaker 2: one of the highest priorities of the Trump administration and
Speaker 2: of the Chinese government. But I hope that cooler heads
Speaker 2: will prevail, and I do think for the long term
Speaker 2: here health of the US China relationship.
Speaker 3: Trade's a major part of it.
Speaker 2: And a decoupling of a two global economies, of the
Speaker 2: two economy, let me say that again. Sure, a decoupling
Speaker 2: of the US and Chinese economies would have profoundly negative
Speaker 2: consequences for both. So getting this right is going to
Speaker 2: be very important. Trade negotiations normally take a year or
Speaker 2: two or three. To try to compress this level of
Speaker 2: complexity in the ninety days is going to be a
Speaker 2: real negotiating challenge, but it has to be done.
Speaker 1: You know, well, the difficulty of establishing dialogue between these
Speaker 1: two countries. The Treasure Secretary talks a lot about a
Speaker 1: consultative mechanism. It's called it the Geneva mechanism. Going forward
Speaker 1: here and establishing kind of regular communication. What's the going
Speaker 1: to take to make sure that happens. We don't yet
Speaker 1: know when they're next going to talk or they're next
Speaker 1: going to meet.
Speaker 2: I think self interest is going to dictate a fast
Speaker 2: paced of these negotiations over the next ninety days. Both
Speaker 2: sides have committed to this consultative process, and it has
Speaker 2: to happen at a very high level. In China, the
Speaker 2: decision maker below President Xi Jinping is Vice Premier Huli fun,
Speaker 2: the head of the Chinese delegation, who met Secretary of Bessant.
Speaker 2: Secretary of Vessint has a I think a good reputation globally,
Speaker 2: and he's the logical person to lead, along with James
Speaker 2: and Greer, the US trade representative from the American side.
Speaker 2: So the right people are going to be involved, but
Speaker 2: it's going to have to be at a really quick pace,
Speaker 2: and it's going to have to be done with a
Speaker 2: lot of alacrity and a lot of determination to get
Speaker 2: to the to get to the finish line.
Speaker 1: A minute ago, you spoke about how China is portraying
Speaker 1: not just the talks, but the way that this trade
Speaker 1: war is unfolding. And I'm very curious sort of.
Speaker 3: How effective you think that is.
Speaker 1: Do they walk away from this feeling like they have
Speaker 1: the upper hand. Do you think the world views them
Speaker 1: as having the upper hand in these negotiations.
Speaker 2: Well, the Chinese are the Chinese press, the nationalist press,
Speaker 2: and to an extent, the government of China have been
Speaker 2: have been saying that they held out, that they stood strong,
Speaker 2: and that they faced up to the American tariff threats
Speaker 2: and they did not blink. And they've been trumpeting that
Speaker 2: line in the Global South. President she just hosted most
Speaker 2: of the major leaders from South America at a major
Speaker 2: summit he's been making. He made a trip in Southeast
Speaker 2: Asia to the Asian country. So they clearly are signaling
Speaker 2: to the United States, you're not going to bully us.
Speaker 2: We have other options. You've seen a big increase in
Speaker 2: Chinese manufactured exports to their neighbors in the Southeast Asian
Speaker 2: Organization ASIAN and so they're very definitely standing up has
Speaker 2: become a nationalist, nationalist issue. When Vice President JD. Vance
Speaker 2: referred to the Chinese as peasants an unfortunate term under
Speaker 2: any circumstances.
Speaker 3: But that really lit a fire in.
Speaker 2: Chinese social media, which is a force in Chinese society.
Speaker 2: So yes, the government of China is trying to portray
Speaker 2: itself as the steady, solid country that stood up to
Speaker 2: the United States. I think that China needs a deal too.
Speaker 2: There's a reason why the Chinese met with Secretary Vessant.
Speaker 2: The economy is slowing down. If they grew by five
Speaker 2: percent in twenty twenty four, well most economists would say
Speaker 2: they probably grew by less.
Speaker 3: They're facing lower.
Speaker 2: GDP growth for the next five to ten years. They
Speaker 2: have a property crisis that continues to linger.
Speaker 3: They have a consumption problem.
Speaker 2: The Chinese people are not consuming in a rational way,
Speaker 2: sitting on their money because of the uncertainty of the
Speaker 2: investment environment in China itself. They have strength in the
Speaker 2: Chinese economy and normous strengths, but they also have these weaknesses.
Speaker 2: China could not afford a sustained trade war with the
Speaker 2: United States. That's why they were at the table, and
Speaker 2: that's why they've agreed to a deal in ninety days.
Speaker 1: What did you learn being there about that country's capacity
Speaker 1: to whether something like this so you're saying they couldn't
Speaker 1: sustain it long term, But give us some site into
Speaker 1: how they had been preparing for a moment like this
Speaker 1: one where there would be this kind of geopolitical test.
Speaker 2: I was in China, of course, during the presidential election,
Speaker 2: our presidential election of November twenty twenty four, and as
Speaker 2: soon as President Trump was declared the winner in that
Speaker 2: election and prepared to take office, the Chinese began to
Speaker 2: prepare for a trade war. They saw it coming. They
Speaker 2: had listened to Candidate Trump. They've did a lot of
Speaker 2: remobilization of their supply chain to try to stock up
Speaker 2: on minerals and on technologies that were important to them,
Speaker 2: and they expected this. They also have an authoritarian system
Speaker 2: of government, and so it's one man rule, and President
Speaker 2: Hijinping whatever he says goes. He prepared the Chinese people
Speaker 2: for a long struggle with the United States. And you know,
Speaker 2: China is like the United States. People are patriotic about
Speaker 2: their country. I would say there's a highly nationalist element
Speaker 2: in Chinese social media and their undreds of millions of
Speaker 2: Chinese involved in Chinese social media. So this was a
Speaker 2: moment where the leadership said, we have to stand strong
Speaker 2: and defend our country and they think they've done that.
Speaker 1: Do you have a clear sense of what the US,
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration wants this relationship to be like.
Speaker 1: I detect kind of a change in rhetoric where you
Speaker 1: have the US Trade Representative Jamison Greer a few days
Speaker 1: ago County getting very negative terms, and then President Trump
Speaker 1: after this deal was announced saying that the relationship is
Speaker 1: very good. What does the US want this relationship to
Speaker 1: be like?
Speaker 2: At this moment, I think we have not seen a
Speaker 2: full explanation or articulation of what President Trump wants to
Speaker 2: do writ large in China policy. Because it's the most
Speaker 2: important relationship that the United States has around the world,
Speaker 2: it's also the most complicated and problematic for the United States.
Speaker 2: I do sense as I listened to Secretary of Rubio
Speaker 2: Secretary hag Seth, that they on issues where the Biden
Speaker 2: administer was very strong, agree that we have to stand
Speaker 2: up for our policy to inhibit a Chinese invasion of Taiwan,
Speaker 2: that we have to stand up against what the Chinese,
Speaker 2: the PLA, the People's Liberation Army is doing to try
Speaker 2: to intimidate the Philippines and the South China Sea or
Speaker 2: Japan in the East China Sea, that we have to
Speaker 2: be supportive of India in its border struggle along the
Speaker 2: Himalayas border disagreement with China, and certainly have to oppose
Speaker 2: what the Chinese have done to be such an important
Speaker 2: source of microelectronics and dual use goods for the Russian
Speaker 2: defense industrial base as they prosecute this war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So on the national security side, it seems to me
Speaker 2: there's going to be continuity with where President Biden and
Speaker 2: our team left off. I think the bigger question mark is,
Speaker 2: and we're seeing it play out in real time right now,
Speaker 2: are on tariffs. On the future of the economic relationship.
Speaker 2: I was involved heavily involved with the American business community,
Speaker 2: with the American farm and ranch and fisheries community. You know,
Speaker 2: we have tens of thousands of American businesses doing business
Speaker 2: in China. It is our third largest trade partner. A
Speaker 2: lot of American companies depend on either importing or from
Speaker 2: China exporting to China, and so I think there you
Speaker 2: obviously have to follow the comments of President Trump. He's
Speaker 2: a very transparent leader, and he's very transactional, and he
Speaker 2: has always spoken about President Xi Jinping with a great
Speaker 2: deal of respect. He's been very solicitous of him. So
Speaker 2: it seems to me that President Trump is heading in
Speaker 2: a direction on economics to be more closely engaged and
Speaker 2: to continue a full throated economic relationship between the two countries.
Speaker 2: I actually think that would be a good thing if
Speaker 2: we continue to trade with China and try to carry
Speaker 2: on this level of economic activity. At the same time
Speaker 2: that we have to compete with China both on technology,
Speaker 2: whether it's AI quantum computing, biotech, or in some of
Speaker 2: those national security issues that I talked about, where the
Speaker 2: PLA has been extraordinarily aggressive and we have to find
Speaker 2: a way to deter them.
Speaker 1: Fentanyl is something that you worked on quite a bit
Speaker 1: when you were there. A point that you made, if
Speaker 1: I remember rightly, is sanctioning China on that front isn't
Speaker 1: going to be enough. There has to be some kind
Speaker 1: of collaboration when it comes to security and getting US
Speaker 1: law enforcement more involved in making sure that the chemicals
Speaker 1: involved in the preparation and manufacturer of fentanyl can't do it.
Speaker 1: Do you have a clear sentence on this specific topic
Speaker 1: of what the Biden administration wants They do talk about
Speaker 1: it a lot clear that it's something that they want
Speaker 1: to negotiate over these next ninety days and beyond, what
Speaker 1: are they hoping will change When it comes to the
Speaker 1: production of fentanyl.
Speaker 2: I think President Trump's been right to say that fentanyl's
Speaker 2: one of the top issues in this relationship because death
Speaker 2: by overdose in the States is a public health crisis.
Speaker 2: That's the majority, it's the leading cause of death of
Speaker 2: Americans eighteen to forty nine. The facts are that the
Speaker 2: majority of the precursor chemicals that make up the synthetic
Speaker 2: opioid come from the Chinese black market, not from the
Speaker 2: Chinese government, but the black market in China. So China's
Speaker 2: an authoritarian country, has an authoritarian government, it has the
Speaker 2: capacity to stop the flow of these precursor chemicals. President
Speaker 2: Biden made this a top priority. Over the last year
Speaker 2: and a half of the administration were able to convince
Speaker 2: the government of China to arrest fabricators of these precursor chemicals,
Speaker 2: to shut down online platforms. We began to expand our
Speaker 2: law enforcement cooperation, and I think the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: accepted that and now try to take it further. And
Speaker 2: I think their right to do that. You know that
Speaker 2: the thirty percent tariffs on China right now as it
Speaker 2: was of May fourteenth, ten percent of the recarp tariffs
Speaker 2: that are placed on every country, twenty percent are for feentanyl,
Speaker 2: And I think that is a good reminder of the
Speaker 2: Chinese there's going to be a price to pay if
Speaker 2: they don't cooperate with the United States on this major
Speaker 2: health crisis that we're facing.
Speaker 3: So I think it's a major priority for President Trump.
Speaker 1: The US is going to have a new ambassador in
Speaker 1: Beijing soon, David Perdue has been confirmed.
Speaker 3: I wonder if.
Speaker 1: You've spoken with him, exchanged messages with him, and what
Speaker 1: counsel you would give him about the role itself and
Speaker 1: how you found the ways in which you found you
Speaker 1: could be the most successful successful.
Speaker 2: Well, I have spoken with him, and I told him,
Speaker 2: and I said publicly actually on American and social media
Speaker 2: on x that I congratulated him on his appointment, that
Speaker 2: I'd help him in any way I could, and I
Speaker 2: wish him the best of success because we have so
Speaker 2: much writing on this policy with China that we've got
Speaker 2: to be successful, and I'm rooting for his success. I
Speaker 2: think he's very well placed to be. He worked in
Speaker 2: business in Hong Kong and Singapore. He's been to China
Speaker 2: as a member of the Senate. He was on Foreign
Speaker 2: Relations and Armed Services committees, which are the two relevant committees,
Speaker 2: two of them for China, and has a clear sense
Speaker 2: of what he wants to do. So he's going to
Speaker 2: go out very soon and he's going to take the
Speaker 2: reins of the embassy that I left in mid January,
Speaker 2: and I do wish him well.
Speaker 3: It's a tough job. I found out. It's not for
Speaker 3: the feint of heart.
Speaker 2: We have with China the most competitive relationship of any
Speaker 2: country in the world, if you think about it in quadrants.
Speaker 2: China's our leading competitor for military influence and military power
Speaker 2: in the Indo Pacific, our leading competitor on the major
Speaker 2: technologies AI, biotech, quantum computing that will form the basis
Speaker 2: of the future of the global economy. Our third largest
Speaker 2: trade partner with which we have a very problematic trade
Speaker 2: and teriff relationship. And obviously, and maybe this is the
Speaker 2: most important part of it, we believe in human freedom
Speaker 2: and human rights, and the Chinese government does not practice that.
Speaker 2: There are major violators of the human rights of their
Speaker 2: own people, and so there's so much writing on this relationship,
Speaker 2: and the American ambassador has to be the point person
Speaker 2: in competing with China and helping to strengthen the American
Speaker 2: position on those issues. But at the same time, and
Speaker 2: this makes it so complicated, David, is that China's our
Speaker 2: largest and strongest competitor, but there are certain issues where
Speaker 2: China is one of our most important partners. We're the
Speaker 2: two stewards of the global economy. We're seeing that play
Speaker 2: out right now in the tariff issue. On climate change,
Speaker 2: we're the two leading emitters of carbon and so President
Speaker 2: Biden felt very important to work with China. If we
Speaker 2: want to do anything about fentanyl, we've got to work
Speaker 2: with China to make that happen. So I always thought
Speaker 2: it was it wasn't a fifty to fifty balance. I
Speaker 2: actually thought I spent about eighty percent of my time
Speaker 2: on the competitive edge with China about twenty percent non
Speaker 2: cooperative matters.
Speaker 3: And that I thought was the right ratio.
Speaker 2: But that makes for a very complicated relationship where you've
Speaker 2: got to both defend and push and resist on one hand,
Speaker 2: and then you've got to stretch out your hand to
Speaker 2: work with them and shake their hand on the other
Speaker 2: that's the reality of being the American ambassador to China.
Speaker 2: So I wish now Ambassador Purdue former Senator David Perdue.
Speaker 3: Well, I think he's a very good man for this job.
Speaker 1: Wrapping up before I kind of pull back and ask
Speaker 1: you some broader questions, I wonder how you felt about
Speaker 1: the relationship between the US and China when you left.
Speaker 1: And I mean nothing by this, but do you ever
Speaker 1: think that the work that you've done has been squandered
Speaker 1: or is being squandered as a result of what's happened
Speaker 1: over the last few months.
Speaker 2: Well, I arrived in China, was sworn in in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one, and arrived a couple months later hawkish about
Speaker 2: the relationship on national security grounds because China is this
Speaker 2: very competitor impinging on a lot of American interests in
Speaker 2: the Indo Pacific. And I think I left China more hawkish.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I saw the reality of the relationship and the cynical
Speaker 2: nature of the government of China, and of the duplicity
Speaker 2: on some issues of the government of China, the fact
Speaker 2: that we would make an agreement and then it wasn't honored,
Speaker 2: and that was very much true of the Trump Phase
Speaker 2: one teriff Agreement of twenty twenty, which we inherited, China
Speaker 2: was obligated to spend several hundred billion dollars in purchases
Speaker 2: of American agricultural products. Didn't get close to that. I
Speaker 2: monitored that very carefully when I was ambassador. So I
Speaker 2: think this is a long term structural rivalry. We're the
Speaker 2: two strongest economies, the two strongest militaries, were the two
Speaker 2: countries with the greatest global reach. We're competing for global power.
Speaker 2: I don't think that will change no matter who's president,
Speaker 2: and so we've got to steal our else for the
Speaker 2: next decade or two to a historic competition with China,
Speaker 2: and China right now is stronger than any adversary of
Speaker 2: the United States has ever faced in the history of
Speaker 2: the United States, going back to the Revolutionary War, including
Speaker 2: the First and Second World Wars, including the Cold War.
Speaker 3: The Soviet Union in.
Speaker 2: Its heyday was not as strong as China is today.
Speaker 2: And so we've got to face that competition. But here's
Speaker 2: the catch. We've got to do it in such a
Speaker 2: way that we don't end up in a war, because
Speaker 2: a war would be catastrophic for the world and for
Speaker 2: both countries. Obviously, given the power of both of our countries,
Speaker 2: that makes for an enormously complicated relationship. And there's no
Speaker 2: other alternative but to be engaged with the Chinese leadership,
Speaker 2: to talk to them, as Secretary Vessent did this past
Speaker 2: week on the teriff issue, but on a thousand other fronts.
Speaker 2: Be engaging them and talking to them so you can compete.
Speaker 2: We can cooperate where we can, but we avoid a
Speaker 2: conflict which in the future would be an absolute catastrophe.
Speaker 2: That makes for a very difficult and complex job.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you how international fears have changed.
Speaker 1: And I've been traveling in recent months. I was in
Speaker 1: Brazil for the G twenty and kind of noticed in
Speaker 1: real time the way that long standing relationships were changing physically.
Speaker 1: Different countries were meeting with other countries in the way.
Speaker 3: They might not a before.
Speaker 1: I covered the election in Canada, and of course before
Speaker 1: Mark Karney won that election, he reached out to kind
Speaker 1: of solidify or re establish relationships that had with other
Speaker 1: allies besides the United States. There seems to be a
Speaker 1: message from this administration Washington that there can be bombast
Speaker 1: and heated rhetoric radically increased tariffs, but then you can
Speaker 1: flip the switch back and things can go back to normal.
Speaker 1: And drawing on your experience as a diplomat for many decades,
Speaker 1: do you think that that's folly or that that's act.
Speaker 1: There will be no damage done and things can go
Speaker 1: back to the way they were. When it comes to
Speaker 1: a relationship that the US has with its allies.
Speaker 2: I think we're at a moment of great transformation in
Speaker 2: the global power picture were alliance is shifting very rapidly.
Speaker 2: You see that China and Russia, in Iran and North
Speaker 2: Korea and Venezuela and Nicaragua are kind of all working
Speaker 2: together authoritarian dictatorships, and they're working together to try to
Speaker 2: cut down the power of the United States, reduce it
Speaker 2: in the world, and of our democratic allies. And I
Speaker 2: always felt working for President Biden, one of our strongest
Speaker 2: suits is that we have reinforced our alliances, our alliance
Speaker 2: with NATO and the European Union countries, our alliances with
Speaker 2: Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Thailand and Australia,
Speaker 2: five military alliances that are the bedrock of our power.
Speaker 3: And as I left China.
Speaker 2: One of the lessons that was very clear in my
Speaker 2: mind is that in this day and age, despite the
Speaker 2: fact that we are still the strongest power in the world,
Speaker 2: you do need friends and allies in the world, and
Speaker 2: that we are so much stronger politically, diplomatically, militarily and
Speaker 2: economically if we think about working closely with allies. And
Speaker 2: I do think that's the greatest mistake that President Trump
Speaker 2: has made in his first four months in office.
Speaker 3: What has he done.
Speaker 2: He suggested that Canada repeatedly should be the fifty first
Speaker 2: state of the United States, and you can see how
Speaker 2: Canada and Canadians have reacted to that made He's been
Speaker 2: heavily critical of Denmark for its two century rule in
Speaker 2: Greenland in an attempt to convince the Danes to hand
Speaker 2: over Greenland, and the Greenlarners have a lot to say
Speaker 2: about this and are resistant to the United States.
Speaker 3: Here are two NATO allies.
Speaker 2: That are among the strongest and most faithful allies the
Speaker 2: United States has had, and yet he has driven them away.
Speaker 2: And at the same time, the trade war. If Donald
Speaker 2: Trump had faced China down but had not placed high
Speaker 2: tariffs on Japan South Korea, the European Union, Canada, and Mexico.
Speaker 2: All those countries would have been on our side.
Speaker 3: Of the table have the same trade and tariff.
Speaker 2: Problems with China that we do, but they weren't compelled,
Speaker 2: they weren't interested in doing that once they were placed
Speaker 2: under the same tariff regime that China was placed under.
Speaker 2: And so I fear that the administration really has a
Speaker 2: blind spot.
Speaker 3: They think the United States can go it alone in
Speaker 3: the world. We can't. We need other.
Speaker 2: Allies to support our power across every dimension of power.
Speaker 2: I started as an intern in nineteen eighty with the
Speaker 2: State Department, for That's how old I am forty five
Speaker 2: years ago this summer. And that's probably the fundamental lesson
Speaker 2: I learned when I was ambassador at NATO, when I
Speaker 2: was under secretarist for Condoleeza Rice, is that despite our
Speaker 2: enormous power, and I'm proud of that and want us
Speaker 2: to build our power base, we need friends and allies
Speaker 2: in the world. And so that's an own goal by
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. It's one that they've got to reverse
Speaker 2: if they hope to be effective, because the Chinese are
Speaker 2: forming a block, and that block with Russia run in
Speaker 2: North Korea is a strong block. You need something to
Speaker 2: counter it. It's called NATO, and it is called the
Speaker 2: East Asian Allies.
Speaker 1: We talk a lot in business and economics about American exceptionalism.
Speaker 1: I know that that's a phrase that's used in international
Speaker 1: fairs as well. And there is the sphere in some
Speaker 1: corners that it's waning where it could go away.
Speaker 3: Is that a real fear that you have as well?
Speaker 1: Kind of picking up what we were talking about about
Speaker 1: the relationship with allies alienating allies. Do you worry that
Speaker 1: the uniqueness of the United States is in jeopardy?
Speaker 2: America is an exceptional country. It's exceptional because of the
Speaker 2: way we've acted around the world. We've built ourselves around
Speaker 2: the world. We're the country that promised free trade and
Speaker 2: fair trade with the rest of the world, not high
Speaker 2: protectionist barriers. We're the country that created NATO and created
Speaker 2: our East Asian alliances that are so important to American
Speaker 2: power in the world. But now we are letting those
Speaker 2: alliances atrophy because we're not interested in leading some of
Speaker 2: them anymore. And at home, of course, we're the epler
Speaker 2: of Bazunim country. Every single American has an immigrant story.
Speaker 2: My story is two of my grandparents immigrants from Ireland,
Speaker 2: my dad's parents, and that story has been replicated a
Speaker 2: million times over in our society. I'm against illegal immigration
Speaker 2: in the United States. We have to protect our borders,
Speaker 2: but we have to keep our door open to legal immigration,
Speaker 2: particularly young people who want to be business small business owners,
Speaker 2: who want to go to our universities. And we have
Speaker 2: to keep our universities open to foreign students. But look
Speaker 2: at the climate of fear produced by this administration. The
Speaker 2: Trump administration on university campuses foreign students who worry about
Speaker 2: being expelled from the country before they can take a
Speaker 2: final exam. People who are in this country legally as
Speaker 2: Green card holders, and yet they're somehow rounded up and deported.
Speaker 2: This is the lifeblood of America. The Statue of Liberty
Speaker 2: is one of our most famous symbols for one reason.
Speaker 2: You know, we welcome people from around the world, and
Speaker 2: they've made us stronger in waves of immigration. And I
Speaker 2: think even in political science great power terms, we are
Speaker 2: the second youngest demographically of all the great powers in
Speaker 2: the world. India is the youngest, but only because of immigration.
Speaker 2: Our birth rate is not much higher than China and Japan,
Speaker 2: South Korea, Europe, But it's higher because of immigration. I
Speaker 2: see that this university, what immigrants and what are immigrant
Speaker 2: students and refugee students contribute to this university. And I
Speaker 2: really worry about a closed America, denying and shutting off
Speaker 2: what has made us great. One of the primary elements
Speaker 2: that's made America great is that. So there's so much
Speaker 2: that can be done to unravel and weaken a great
Speaker 2: power like.
Speaker 3: The United States.
Speaker 2: And we've got to reinforce some of these better angels,
Speaker 2: as Lincoln put it, call on the better angels of
Speaker 2: our nature to remember what made America great?
Speaker 1: Can you recognize the State Department today? You can spend
Speaker 1: forty five years in government service. Is it recognizable to
Speaker 1: you given the cuts that have taken place, the priorities
Speaker 1: of it. How different is it from the place that
Speaker 1: you first went to forty five years ago?
Speaker 3: David, I answer it this way.
Speaker 2: I spent a lifetime in government at the State Department
Speaker 2: in White House, serving in Washington and overseas. Every government
Speaker 2: agency can be subject and should be subject to reform.
Speaker 2: There is waste, a fraud, and abuse in every government agency.
Speaker 2: You need perpetual reform but taking a slip to USAID
Speaker 2: and firing eight thousand people in one week, without a thought,
Speaker 2: without a plan, without actually knowing what you're tearing down.
Speaker 3: That was a huge mistake.
Speaker 2: Treating nonpartisan civil servants, military officers, foreign service officers as
Speaker 2: if they are disloyal because they work for President Biden. Well,
Speaker 2: they also work for President Bush. They've worked people like
Speaker 2: me work for both parties. We take a note to
Speaker 2: the Constitution to be nonpartisan. But the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: not appointed a single foreign service professional ambassador since it
Speaker 2: took office. They've appointed lots of political appointees, but nobody
Speaker 2: from the ranks of our serving career diplomats. Seventeen of
Speaker 2: our deputy chiefs of mission are number two officials in
Speaker 2: embassies who were assigned to these jobs and getting ready
Speaker 2: to go have been told they're not going. And many
Speaker 2: of them, if not all, of that group, are women
Speaker 2: and people of color. And so there is a crisis
Speaker 2: in our civil service right now.
Speaker 3: And if these.
Speaker 2: Cuts continue the way they are, and if the denigration
Speaker 2: of our civil servants continue, you're losing You're losing a
Speaker 2: great group of people who just want to serve the
Speaker 2: country and want to do it in a non partisan way,
Speaker 2: and they will be non partisan. When I left China
Speaker 2: and held my last staff meeting, I told my staff
Speaker 2: in our very large embassy in Beijing, you need to
Speaker 2: work for President Trump as faithfully as you did for
Speaker 2: President Biden. You need to work for my successor, Ambassador Purdue,
Speaker 2: as faithfully and as hard as you did for me.
Speaker 2: That is the Foreign Service and US government way. And
Speaker 2: I think the Trump administration has been extraordinarily destructive of
Speaker 2: this tradition we've had in this country now for about
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty years of a professional civil service,
Speaker 2: not a political spoils system. What we had in the
Speaker 2: nineteenth century, professional civil service that would serve the country
Speaker 2: and serve any president that the American people elected.
Speaker 3: That's what's at stake.
Speaker 2: And I think when the pendulum does swing back at
Speaker 2: some point, we're going to have to create USA, recreate USAID,
Speaker 2: recreate the Voice of America, recreate Radio Free Asia. These
Speaker 2: are journalists who we employ to tell the story of
Speaker 2: the United States, in the case of China, to several
Speaker 2: hundred million Chinese listeners of VOA and Radio Free Asia.
Speaker 2: So enormous damage has been done by this very cynical effort.
Speaker 3: Doge to tear down all.
Speaker 2: These institutions and not replace them with anything of value.
Speaker 1: But you're confident that that force of gravity will swing
Speaker 1: the pendulum back, that we will be able to do that.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't recreate them.
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody can predict when reason will prevail
Speaker 2: again and logic will prevail and sanity. But it has
Speaker 2: to because I think future administrations, future presidents will look
Speaker 2: around at their government and say, where are my diplomats?
Speaker 2: Where are my aid workers? How do we run vaccine programs,
Speaker 2: global health programs, literacy programs that we ought to be
Speaker 2: doing around the world because of Americans are generous people.
Speaker 3: Where are my diplomats? Why do I not have any diplomats.
Speaker 2: With thirty or forty years of experience? Well, they were
Speaker 2: all fired, summarily kicked out in the first couple of
Speaker 2: weeks and months of the Trump administration. It's a true
Speaker 2: national crisis.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go out on a limb and imagine
Speaker 1: You've kept in touch with folks at the embassy in Beijing,
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of focus has been on
Speaker 1: what these cuts have been like in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: But for a major embassy like that one, What have
Speaker 1: they meant for the way that it operates.
Speaker 2: I can't speak for my team at Embassy Mission China.
Speaker 2: I left just before January twentieth, and our tradition is
Speaker 2: you don't when you leave, you leave, you don't get involved.
Speaker 2: And obviously the Trump team had to come in and
Speaker 2: run that. So I can't speak for them, but I
Speaker 2: can speak for a lot of people who've been laid
Speaker 2: off in Washington, and a lot of people who are
Speaker 2: thinking now seriously of leaving. These are people whose lifelong
Speaker 2: ambition was to work for the Treasury Apartment or the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: or the State Department or the Commist Department. They just
Speaker 2: wanted to serve our country. But they're being treated like
Speaker 2: second class citizens, and they're facing massive layoffs of the
Speaker 2: type that we've never seen before in the history of
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 3: Nothing like this.
Speaker 2: The wholesale destruction of federal government agencies in some cases,
Speaker 2: and the almost irrational downsizing of the numbers of others,
Speaker 2: nothing like this has ever happened before in the history
Speaker 2: of the country. Because it's not smart and it's going
Speaker 2: to weaken US. I can tell you who's really happy
Speaker 2: about this the government in China. They are competing with
Speaker 2: US diplomatically for how many embassies and consulates east of
Speaker 2: US have. They are hiring new diplomats at a pace
Speaker 2: that we can't manage, and that matters around the world.
Speaker 2: It matters in our ability to be effective as we
Speaker 2: compete with them in every part of the world.
Speaker 1: I'd like to close by asking you what you're telling
Speaker 1: students here who are here at the Kennedy School here
Speaker 1: at Harvard to learn from your experience, to learn an
Speaker 1: art of diplomacy that has been practiced and perfected for
Speaker 1: many decades. There must be many students here wondering if
Speaker 1: the path that they predicted would be there has been
Speaker 1: foreclothes that there's no ladder the likes of what you've
Speaker 1: described before. You could start as an intern at the
Speaker 1: State Department and work your way up to heading the
Speaker 1: largest mission in the US.
Speaker 3: What do you tell them?
Speaker 2: I'm telling students here at Harvard, but students I meet
Speaker 2: from across the country.
Speaker 3: Hang on, hang on to your ideals.
Speaker 2: It's a good thing to want to spend your life
Speaker 2: serving the United States of America, your country. It's a
Speaker 2: good thing you want to be in the public square,
Speaker 2: what Teddy Roosevelt called the arena of public service, and
Speaker 2: that I'm just convinced that future presidents of either party
Speaker 2: are going to want to rebuild our capacity to have
Speaker 2: a fully fledged State Department and US Agency for International
Speaker 2: Development so that we can be effective in the world
Speaker 2: and defend ourselves and prepare yourselves, study hard, and don't
Speaker 2: leave that dream behind of public service. Because what a
Speaker 2: tragedy would be for our country if young people in
Speaker 2: this country felt, well, I can't serve in the federal
Speaker 2: government because I'm not welcome as a career official in
Speaker 2: the federal government. We need non partisan Americans out there
Speaker 2: representing us without any regard to party allegiance. That's what
Speaker 2: we have in the federal government service and in the
Speaker 2: US military.
Speaker 3: That's the oath of office that we all take to.
Speaker 2: Defend the constitution. It's not an oath to the president
Speaker 2: of either party. It's an oath to the Constitution that
Speaker 2: we will be non partisan. That's an enormous asset, and
Speaker 2: if we let it wither away in this administration is
Speaker 2: doing that, it's going to do enormous damage to our country.
Speaker 3: Lastly, what is this like for you personally?
Speaker 1: Somebody who has served for presidents from both parties in
Speaker 1: a very non partisan way, to find yourself asking students
Speaker 1: to hold on calling for the return of these regilations
Speaker 1: and in so doing, I guess being seen probably by
Speaker 1: some as acting in a partisan way. It's going against
Speaker 1: what this administration is doing. It must be a very
Speaker 1: foreign feeling for you to have.
Speaker 2: Well, what I'm advocating is not partisan. I worked for
Speaker 2: Republican presidents as well as Democratic presidents, and as a
Speaker 2: Foreign service officer, career diplomat, my oath was to the Constitution,
Speaker 2: it was to the country. So in advocating for a
Speaker 2: strong diplomatic corps in the State Department, for a strong USAID,
Speaker 2: for a strong military, I think that's patriotic. It's not partisan,
Speaker 2: and not everything has to be about politics.
Speaker 3: And one of the great strengths of our.
Speaker 2: Country is a federal government workforce that is not about politics.
Speaker 2: But they're being politicized now, they're being penalized. They're being
Speaker 2: told that they can't be trusted because they work for
Speaker 2: President Biden. All of my colleagues work for senior colleagues
Speaker 2: work for President George W. Bush and his father before
Speaker 2: it as well as President Clinton and President Obama and
Speaker 2: President Biden, all of them work for President Trump in
Speaker 2: his first term. There was no mass layoff then, so
Speaker 2: why the change now. I think it's extraordinarily shortsighted for
Speaker 2: the United States government to be heading in this direction.