WEBVTT - US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Talks Gaza Deal 0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:06.760 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. 0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:09.800 We have a lot to get to, but let's start 0:00:09.800 --> 0:00:14.280 with breaking news on Gaza. There's reporting that Israel and 0:00:14.360 --> 0:00:18.080 mediators have agreed to a draft and are awaiting Hamas's response. 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:21.919 It seems like we're close, maybe closer than ever. We've 0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:24.880 also been here before. What's different this time? 0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:31.000 Well, first, I think the accumulating pressure on Hamas has 0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:35.560 been really considerable. They have had their military formations destroyed, 0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:41.360 their top leader taken out, their main proxy allies badly decimated, 0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:45.599 and their sponsor Iran weakened and distracted. So I think 0:00:45.640 --> 0:00:48.320 the pressure is building for Hamas to come to yes. 0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:51.640 I think Israel also has achieved a huge amount of 0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:54.480 its military objectives in Gaza, and therefore they are in 0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:57.480 a position to be able to say yes. So there 0:00:57.560 --> 0:00:59.920 is a distinct possibility that we can get this deal 0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:03.520 done this week before President Biden leaves office. But as 0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:05.880 you say, we've been here before, We've been close before 0:01:06.319 --> 0:01:08.720 and haven't gotten across the finish line, so I can't 0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:12.720 make any promises or predictions. But just this morning I 0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:15.039 was on the phone with Brett McGirk, who has been 0:01:15.080 --> 0:01:17.560 basically camped out in Doha. He's been there for more 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:21.640 than a week working the details within the framework President 0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:24.680 Biden set out last year. I spoke also this morning 0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:27.400 with the Cutty Prime Minister and with one of the 0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:31.160 key Israeli negotiators, and there is a general sense that 0:01:31.240 --> 0:01:34.440 this is moving in the right direction. The question now 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:38.240 over the next short while is can Hamas get to yes? 0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:40.560 Can we get to a final agreement, and then can 0:01:40.600 --> 0:01:42.440 we begin implementing in the coming days. 0:01:43.160 --> 0:01:44.160 It's there for the taking. 0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:48.440 So the question is now can we all collectively seize 0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:49.160 the moment and. 0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:49.840 Make this happen? 0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:53.840 Vice President elect JD. Van said yesterday it will probably 0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:55.960 get done a day or two before you leave office. 0:01:56.000 --> 0:01:59.800 Do deadlines like this specific deadlines help or hurt them 0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:03.600 a botiations? And does rhetoric like the one employed by 0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:08.079 President elect Donald Trump? Is it useful to get Hamas 0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:08.800 to yes? 0:02:09.320 --> 0:02:13.040 I think deadlines can serve two functions in a negotiation. 0:02:14.080 --> 0:02:17.960 When they're imposed by one party, frequently a deadline can 0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:20.000 make the other party think, hey, if I just wait 0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:22.880 till the last minute, they'll give me everything. If they're 0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:26.520 imposed by the mediators, if the Americans, the Cutteries, the 0:02:26.520 --> 0:02:29.760 Egyptians all basically say let's focus the mining, get this 0:02:29.840 --> 0:02:32.680 thing done. I think they can have a positive impact, 0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:35.440 and so I think the pressure building here towards the 0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:39.440 end of President Biden's term has been considerable and that 0:02:39.440 --> 0:02:42.960 that will help contribute to a positive outcome if we 0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:45.960 can generate that final yes from both sides. 0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:48.120 At the same time. 0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:51.000 This has been a circumstance in which President Biden gave 0:02:51.040 --> 0:02:55.360 direction shortly after the election to me, to Brett and 0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:58.000 to others on our team. Work closely with the incoming team. 0:02:58.080 --> 0:02:59.679 Make sure we have a united front, we have a 0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:02.200 core native message, and we have tried to do that 0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:04.440 over the course of the last several weeks, as has 0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:06.680 the Trump team that's coming in. I think this is 0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:09.000 not a partisan issue. This is an American issue to 0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.440 get our hostages out and all of the hostages out, 0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:15.160 bring the fighting to an end, and surge humanitarian assistance 0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:18.000 into Gaza. And I think it's how a transition should operate, 0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:21.640 and it's consistent with President Biden's worldview about his stewardship 0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:22.400 of this country. 0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:24.960 So you don't think any of the fiery rhetoric coming 0:03:24.960 --> 0:03:28.520 from the incoming team has actually changed anything at the 0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:29.440 negotiating table. 0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:32.359 I have been struck by this phrase about all hell 0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:35.280 to pay or all hell will break loose, because if 0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:40.000 you're a Hamas fighter sitting in Gaza, I think it'd 0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.520 be fair to say that you have been seeing hell 0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:47.360 rain down on you for fourteen months. The total smashing 0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:53.320 of Hamas battalions, the killing of the top three leaders 0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:58.760 Sinwar dave Issa, among others, and all of the other 0:03:58.800 --> 0:04:02.440 ways in which your entire broader network has been badly 0:04:02.440 --> 0:04:05.880 degraded in your sponsor has been so badly weakened. So 0:04:08.680 --> 0:04:14.000 the amount of firepower and pressure military pressure brought to 0:04:14.040 --> 0:04:18.000 bear on Hamas has been pretty dramatic over the course 0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:21.120 of the past fourteen months. I think it's the accumulated 0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:27.640 effect of that, combined with this looming period of transition 0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:30.640 from one president to another, that has created a circumstance 0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:31.760 where we could get to a deal. 0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:36.720 You've spent the last year plus on the Middle East. 0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:39.359 Safe to say that's probably not the region that you 0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.760 thought coming in would be taken up taking up a 0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:46.200 lot of your time. How much has that taken away 0:04:46.200 --> 0:04:48.600 from your priorities? And that no Pacific and other regions 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:51.760 in the world, or has it look. 0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:56.160 I really think one of the things history will look 0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.440 back on in the Biden administration and see quite clearly 0:05:00.160 --> 0:05:04.600 is that even as we've dealt with two substantial geopolitical crises, 0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:09.360 Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the outbreak of this conflict 0:05:09.400 --> 0:05:13.520 in the Middle East beginning with Hamas's brutal massacre of 0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:18.680 Israelis on October seventh, that through all of that, we 0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:20.880 have never even for a second, taken our eye off 0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:23.520 the ball with the long term competition with China, and 0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:26.920 we have taken a series of actions in supporting alliances, 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:30.919 protecting technology, investing in our sources of strength that have 0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:32.560 left us in a position at the end of four 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:37.000 years where we have dramatically improved America's position in the 0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:40.080 long term competition with China. And we've done so while 0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:43.000 managing the relationship so it doesn't tip over into conflict, 0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:45.800 so it doesn't make the headlines every day the way 0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.840 the Middle East and Ukraine does. But the record and 0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:52.440 the reality of the US China dynamic in twenty twenty 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:55.560 five compared with twenty twenty one, especially against the expectations 0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:58.640 in twenty twenty one, I think is quite a remarkable 0:05:59.080 --> 0:06:02.040 record that president can take a great deal of pride in. 0:06:03.040 --> 0:06:06.039 Let's talk about China for a second. You guys announced 0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:10.200 a new rule this morning on new limits on sales 0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:15.159 of advanced AI chips. Can you explain to us where 0:06:15.200 --> 0:06:19.320 did that rule originate? How did you get here? Yeah, 0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:20.120 what's the backstory? 0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:23.760 So it originated from a basic reality, which is that 0:06:24.000 --> 0:06:28.280 the United States has to pursue two core objectives at once. 0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:31.760 The first objective is for the United States itself to 0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:36.800 maintain the lead when it comes to frontier AI technology, 0:06:36.839 --> 0:06:39.839 and that that technology should be developed in the United 0:06:39.880 --> 0:06:42.680 States and our closest allies and not offshore to the 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:45.400 rest of the world. And second, we want the world 0:06:45.480 --> 0:06:50.080 to run on an infrastructure of American technology. We want 0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:54.120 data centers around the world that are powering AI applications 0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:57.800 with American technology and not with Chinese technology or any 0:06:57.800 --> 0:07:00.320 other technology. So how do you achieve both of those things? 0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:03.359 That was the question presented to the key departments and 0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:05.360 agencies of the US government, and so over the course 0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:07.920 of many months, we worked on a rule that could 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:08.919 help us achieve. 0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:09.760 Both of those objectives. 0:07:10.240 --> 0:07:13.520 On the one hand, ensuring there were protections around the 0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:16.440 highest end compute capability, So we were building that out 0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:19.240 in America in our very closest allies, and on the 0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:23.440 other hand, making sure that we had predictable and clear. 0:07:23.320 --> 0:07:25.920 Rules for the export. 0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:29.800 Of high end computing capability so that other countries could 0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:33.480 reap the benefits of American technology without getting diverted to 0:07:33.520 --> 0:07:35.080 our competitors and adversaries. 0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:37.320 That's the rule that we produced. 0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:40.000 And it really stems from I think one of the 0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:46.160 most critical national security imperatives of the next generation, which 0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:49.760 is how we make AI work for us rather than 0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:53.800 against US and America Maintaining the lead in AI as 0:07:53.800 --> 0:07:56.440 opposed to seeding it to China is going to be 0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:58.880 decisive in making sure that it works for us. When 0:07:58.920 --> 0:08:01.280 we came into office in twenty one, there were a 0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:03.640 lot of people who said it's going to be China. 0:08:03.480 --> 0:08:06.960 Not the US who leads the world in AI. We 0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:08.040 are in the lead today. 0:08:08.480 --> 0:08:12.640 We're determined to protect, preserve, and extend that lead, and 0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:14.200 that's the hand we're going to pass off to the 0:08:14.240 --> 0:08:15.080 next administration. 0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:18.720 Right so you're on your way out. The deadline for 0:08:18.840 --> 0:08:22.280 this rule is very far in the future. So you 0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:26.480 punted that, what are the consequences if the Trump administration 0:08:26.640 --> 0:08:27.960 doesn't implement this rule. 0:08:28.880 --> 0:08:32.319 So I would take issue with the word punt. What 0:08:32.360 --> 0:08:35.040 we did is set out a comment period of one 0:08:35.120 --> 0:08:37.120 hundred and twenty days. And why did we do that. 0:08:37.360 --> 0:08:42.199 We did that because a rule of this significance needs 0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:46.920 comment from industry, from civil society, from other stakeholders, so 0:08:46.960 --> 0:08:49.240 that we make sure that we get this balance I've 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:53.760 just described right, And so we are rigorous and systematic 0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:56.880 and thoughtful about having a process that allows that comment 0:08:56.920 --> 0:09:00.160 to come in, allows the new team to digest it 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:03.720 and then make whatever adjustments are necessary. Now, obviously it's 0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:05.320 going to be up to them how they want to proceed, 0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:08.400 and they may have internal debates the same way we 0:09:08.440 --> 0:09:11.520 had internal debates about exactly how to calibrate the rule. 0:09:11.880 --> 0:09:15.240 I would expect nothing less, but I would be surprised 0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:17.920 sitting here today if after one hundred and twenty days 0:09:17.960 --> 0:09:19.840 they looked at the landscape as we've looked at it 0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:22.000 and said, you know, we really don't need this at all. 0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:23.360 Let's move on to other things. 0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:27.200 Because the more you study this question, to me, the 0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:29.280 more critical it is that you have a rule of 0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:33.880 this kind. The details to be worked to be able 0:09:33.960 --> 0:09:36.040 to secure the objectives. 0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:36.199 That I laid out. 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:40.440 Everything you've been doing on the China Tech competition has 0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:43.040 been under the umbrella of small yar at high fence. 0:09:44.480 --> 0:09:47.640 Obviously it's a very dynamic landscape. So how do you 0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:52.080 ensure that regulations stay up to date and you don't 0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:56.679 unnecessarily make the yard too wide or the sense too tall. 0:09:57.080 --> 0:09:58.640 Basically by showing our homework. 0:09:58.800 --> 0:10:02.960 I mean, we put out our first semiconductor rule in 0:10:03.000 --> 0:10:05.000 October of twenty twenty two, and when we did it, 0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:10.880 we said, the technology is moving very rapidly, the development 0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:15.120 of high end chips, their relative amount of power and 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:18.679 compute capability is evolving. So we're going to have to 0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:21.360 update this rule, and we did. We updated it in 0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:24.800 twenty twenty three. We've updated it again in twenty twenty four, 0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:27.040 and we expect the Trump administration will keep doing that. 0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:29.600 So a degree of predictability that there will be constant 0:10:29.600 --> 0:10:31.040 iteration and update is part of it. 0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:33.520 And then displaying why it. 0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:36.679 Is that we chose the parameters that we chose in 0:10:37.640 --> 0:10:40.640 excruciating detail, which not that many people read. I know 0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:43.080 you do and some of your colleagues at Bloomberg do 0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:46.120 a lot of people don't, but we are putting it 0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:48.360 all out there in a totally transparent way, and we're 0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:52.720 not just being transparent publicly. I have spent hours, if 0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:55.680 not tens of hours, sitting across the table from my 0:10:55.800 --> 0:11:00.520 Chinese counterpart Onongi, talking through why we're doing what we're 0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:03.320 doing with respect to the small yard high fence approach, 0:11:03.679 --> 0:11:06.240 what we consider in the yard inside the yard, and 0:11:06.240 --> 0:11:11.160 what we consider outside the yard, and explaining the rationale 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:13.960 and the logic behind it, because we've got nothing to 0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:16.680 hide here, We've got nothing to apologize for. This we 0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:19.920 believe is core to America's national security, and we are 0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:23.720 going to continue to have a degree of transparency on 0:11:23.760 --> 0:11:25.560 it through the end of our time here. And I 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:28.000 would expect the incoming team will pick up where we 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:31.640 left off because this very much has a strong bipartisan backing. 0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:34.360 It's the kind of thing that I think can be 0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.040 carried forward in a new administration, and I would hope 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.360 that it would be on that. 0:11:40.640 --> 0:11:43.760 You know, obviously, all these rules take months and months 0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:48.520 to come up with. There's tons of lobbying from all 0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:51.600 sides to shape what the final rule or final outcome 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:55.040 looks like. How worried are you when you say that 0:11:55.080 --> 0:11:57.480 the Trump administration will carry this forward? They might night 0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.679 not like the yards and fences that you put up, 0:12:00.760 --> 0:12:03.200 or they might also be more prone to negotiate with 0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.760 companies one on one. How worried are you that corporate 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.880 lobbying could undo some of this framework that you set up, 0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:14.480 given how many tech billionaires are in the president elect's 0:12:14.559 --> 0:12:16.679 orbit might serve in the administration. 0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:18.880 You know, I think you'd expect that after four years, 0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:22.680 I'd be very hard bitten, maybe quite cynical, about just 0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:26.679 about every element of American politics and policy. I actually 0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:28.920 I have to tell you that my experience in working 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:33.320 through our technology and national security policy has been pretty hardening. 0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:35.960 I've spent a lot of time with a lot of 0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:41.560 tech leaders, the CEOs of major technology companies big tech, 0:12:42.240 --> 0:12:47.400 the innovators and entrepreneurs in small tech. And there are exceptions, 0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:52.240 none of which I will name here, But by and large, 0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:56.880 people accept the basic proposition that the United States needs 0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:02.000 technology controls for the most exquisite technology Jesus national security applications, 0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:05.200 and the debate is over the details. So I have 0:13:05.360 --> 0:13:08.559 not found a deeply cynical game being played on this 0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:12.960 By and large, I think it has been a robust 0:13:13.000 --> 0:13:16.400 and rigorous give and take. But it's interesting to see 0:13:16.480 --> 0:13:23.440 that American technology leaders have publicly said we need a 0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:25.680 kind of small yard high fence, or we need something 0:13:25.720 --> 0:13:30.400 along these lines. So I think we've built some momentum 0:13:30.400 --> 0:13:32.640 behind this notion. I think it's going to be hard 0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:35.720 to entirely knock that off. Course, I think Congress is 0:13:35.760 --> 0:13:38.560 invested in it. I think the national security community across 0:13:38.600 --> 0:13:42.559 the aisle is invested in it. So can I say 0:13:42.880 --> 0:13:45.680 I'll go to sleep at night every night totally confident 0:13:45.720 --> 0:13:47.120 that this will be carried forward in the way that 0:13:47.160 --> 0:13:47.840 I'd like to see it. 0:13:47.840 --> 0:13:48.679 No, I can't say that. 0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:52.520 But among the initiatives that the Biden administration has really 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:55.120 powered and pioneered over the last four years, this is 0:13:55.160 --> 0:13:58.319 one that it would come as some measure of surprise 0:13:58.400 --> 0:13:59.880 to me if the new team threw it. 0:13:59.840 --> 0:14:00.480 Out the window. 0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:04.600 Your colleague Common Secretary Gina Armando told my colleagues at 0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:06.839 the Law Street Journal that quote, trying to hold China 0:14:06.920 --> 0:14:10.320 back is a fool's Errand do you agree. 0:14:10.520 --> 0:14:12.520 I don't think it's the right way to think about 0:14:12.720 --> 0:14:15.400 what we are doing, The right way to think about it. 0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:16.679 For me, is just common sense. 0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:20.200 If we have a very high end technology that has 0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:23.880 deep national security applications, we don't want it to be 0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:25.800 sold to a country that can use it against us. 0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.960 That has been true throughout America's technology policy. Now in 0:14:31.000 --> 0:14:34.880 the Cold War, that meant basically a total technology blockade, 0:14:34.920 --> 0:14:39.280 indeed really a decoupling of the US and Soviet economies. 0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:42.720 That's not what we need today, which China we are integrated. 0:14:42.760 --> 0:14:47.000 We should continue to have trade, normal intercourse, even on technology. 0:14:47.280 --> 0:14:49.520 That's why we have a small yard high fence. The 0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:53.280 goal here is about meeting somewhere in the middle between nothing, 0:14:54.040 --> 0:14:56.560 no restraints, which has never been a part of the American 0:14:56.560 --> 0:14:59.600 form policy. We've had export controls for decades and the 0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:02.920 kind of Cold War style technology blockade we had. You've 0:15:02.920 --> 0:15:06.480 got to meet in the middle. That is not fundamentally 0:15:06.480 --> 0:15:10.360 about holding anyone back or containment or anything like that. 0:15:10.480 --> 0:15:14.920 What is about is common sense, the common sensibility to 0:15:14.920 --> 0:15:16.960 look at the American people in the eye and say, 0:15:17.400 --> 0:15:21.240 for certain critical technologies, we are not going to allow 0:15:21.280 --> 0:15:22.680 them to be in the hands of people who you 0:15:22.760 --> 0:15:23.640 use them against us. 0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:24.640 That's how I look at it. 0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:29.560 That can succeed, I would submit, is succeeding. But I 0:15:29.560 --> 0:15:31.680 think the other half of what Secretary of Romando is 0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:35.800 saying in that comment is our main purpose and the 0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:39.119 main thrust of our effort should be investing in ourselves. 0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:42.320 And that's been a core feature of the Biden administration. 0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:45.720 Investment in our industrial base, in our innovation base, in 0:15:45.760 --> 0:15:49.960 our supply chains, and in friend shoring. We have made 0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.440 I think substantial progress on that front. But that is 0:15:52.480 --> 0:15:55.680 a generational project, and I hope that in every dimension 0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:58.240 that is carried forward. I have some concerns based on 0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:00.680 the rhetoric I've heard about whether those investments will be 0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:02.560 carried forward, but I think they are profoundly in our 0:16:02.640 --> 0:16:03.320 national interest. 0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:08.160 Our investments without export controls. The right approach, though, is 0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:12.840 one really is our investments more important to leading. 0:16:12.880 --> 0:16:15.360 If all you have our export controls and that's it, 0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:19.120 and you're not making the dramatic investments in the sources 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:22.840 of our own innovation and industrial capacity, then you're not 0:16:22.880 --> 0:16:25.200 going to succeed. And that's why President Biden has paired 0:16:25.200 --> 0:16:26.080 the two of them together. 0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:30.040 Your overarching approach on China, as you mentioned, has been 0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:33.880 to responsibly manage the relationships so that competition doesn't bear 0:16:33.880 --> 0:16:37.440 into conflict. Over the last four years, but also more recently, 0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:43.640 we've seen major hacks of US telecom systems, critical infrastructure, 0:16:43.640 --> 0:16:46.880 and of course there's still continued support by Beijing for 0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:50.600 Russia's war. Would you say that your approach to China 0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:53.440 has been successful or did Beijing take advantage of the 0:16:53.520 --> 0:16:55.600 US and your willingness to talk? 0:16:56.720 --> 0:17:00.000 So first, for me, the question is, in a long 0:17:00.120 --> 0:17:03.760 term strategic competition with China, are in a position of 0:17:03.800 --> 0:17:07.879 confidence and capacity? Are we in a stronger position in 0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:10.000 that competition than we were four years ago? 0:17:10.359 --> 0:17:11.720 I think it's not even a close call. 0:17:12.320 --> 0:17:15.040 The United States is in such a stronger position today 0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:16.800 than we were four years ago, and that is a 0:17:16.960 --> 0:17:21.080 mark of unalloyed success in the relationship. But then there's 0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:24.240 a second thing, is are we careening towards war with China? 0:17:24.800 --> 0:17:27.240 I think the last thing the American people want is 0:17:27.280 --> 0:17:30.240 a massive war with a nuclear earmpower. And we have 0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:33.159 also succeeded even as we have strengthened our position in 0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:37.040 the competition, in stabilizing the relationship, managing it so that 0:17:37.080 --> 0:17:39.439 it isn't tipping over into conflict. I think that is 0:17:39.600 --> 0:17:43.080 also an unalloyed success. When we came into office four 0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:47.880 years ago, the common prediction was that China's economy was inevitably, 0:17:48.000 --> 0:17:51.240 intelluctibly going to be going to surpass the American economy, 0:17:51.480 --> 0:17:55.439 maybe as soon as twenty thirty. Now there's a genuine 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:57.159 debate about whether it will ever happen. 0:17:58.400 --> 0:18:01.120 When we came into office. 0:18:00.240 --> 0:18:02.120 People said it's going to be China, not the US 0:18:02.160 --> 0:18:05.200 who leads the world in AI. That's not the case today, 0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:08.160 and we should work to ensure it isn't the case. 0:18:08.400 --> 0:18:11.480 When we came into office, we did not have this strong, 0:18:11.640 --> 0:18:14.840 robust network of alliances and partnerships in the Indo Pacific 0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:17.359 that we have now built, which allows us to have 0:18:17.520 --> 0:18:20.200 much stronger deterrence in that part of the world. Again, 0:18:20.240 --> 0:18:24.960 another success China is hacking the United States. They were 0:18:25.000 --> 0:18:28.320 doing so in previous administrations, they're doing so today. And 0:18:28.359 --> 0:18:31.320 some of these recent hacks, the Salt Typhoon hack, are 0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:33.960 dramatic in their scope and scale, and we take them 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:38.680 deadly seriously. There's the espionage part of that, like Salt Typhoon, 0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:41.800 and then there's the potential that China would actually use 0:18:42.080 --> 0:18:46.280 cyber means to physically disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure in 0:18:46.320 --> 0:18:49.520 the United States, and we've sent a clear message to 0:18:49.640 --> 0:18:52.639 China's leaders that if they did that, if they actually 0:18:53.160 --> 0:18:57.439 took a physically destructive cyber attack in the United States, 0:18:57.480 --> 0:18:59.919 that there would be severe consequences. I'm not going to 0:18:59.920 --> 0:19:02.439 go into the details of those conversations, but they have 0:19:02.560 --> 0:19:05.879 been consistent and sustained over time, and we're going to 0:19:05.880 --> 0:19:08.720 have to continue to deter China from doing that because 0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:11.800 we have seen them setting up or positioning to be 0:19:11.880 --> 0:19:13.960 able to do that in the future, and it's something 0:19:13.960 --> 0:19:16.200 the new team will have to continue to work on deterring. 0:19:16.600 --> 0:19:21.399 Let's move to the EU. Over the last four years, 0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:24.600 you've spent a lot of time trying to negotiate with 0:19:24.640 --> 0:19:29.560 them on some trade related issues like a global steel arrangement, 0:19:30.119 --> 0:19:33.439 something on large civil aircraft. None of these came to fruition. 0:19:33.600 --> 0:19:37.000 All have been now punted because the deadlines were long 0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:41.199 to the new administration, which is not you guys. Do 0:19:41.280 --> 0:19:43.479 you think the EU missed an opportunity to work with 0:19:43.520 --> 0:19:46.159 you guys on China trade given they're going to come 0:19:46.200 --> 0:19:51.040 in and have a much more adversarial counterpart in two weeks. 0:19:51.400 --> 0:19:52.000 Well, I think. 0:19:52.280 --> 0:19:54.439 To answer your question, we have to start from the 0:19:54.440 --> 0:19:56.760 beginning of the Biden administration. Just a few weeks before 0:19:56.800 --> 0:20:00.920 we took office, Europe and China signed a acid trade deal, 0:20:01.119 --> 0:20:04.600 a comprehensive agreement on investment that was right at the 0:20:04.680 --> 0:20:06.879 end of the Trump administration, and to me, that was 0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:09.959 a mark of not paying attention to the EU and 0:20:10.000 --> 0:20:13.120 working with them on a common approach to China. Today, 0:20:13.400 --> 0:20:16.639 that comprehensive agreement on investment is on the shelf, it 0:20:16.720 --> 0:20:20.359 is not enforce In fact, what the European Union has 0:20:20.400 --> 0:20:23.480 done is moved into a much more convergent position with 0:20:23.600 --> 0:20:27.000 us when it comes to China's economic abuses. You saw 0:20:27.040 --> 0:20:31.000 that in how we came together with the G seven 0:20:31.160 --> 0:20:34.320 to describe a common economic approach. You saw that in 0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:39.000 living color with the imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric 0:20:39.160 --> 0:20:43.199 vehicles just a few months ago. Now it is the 0:20:43.240 --> 0:20:48.800 case that we have our own pretty limited trade issues 0:20:48.960 --> 0:20:50.879 with the EU that we've tried to manage. 0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:52.040 On civil aircraft. 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:54.040 We actually took a big step forward with the Boeing 0:20:54.080 --> 0:20:58.640 Airbus settlement on steel and aluminum. We have continued these 0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:01.159 tariff rate quotas, but have not come up with the 0:21:01.200 --> 0:21:03.600 comprehensive agreement we should have. Do I think there was 0:21:03.640 --> 0:21:04.800 a missed opportunity there. 0:21:04.840 --> 0:21:06.200 I do do. I think that's. 0:21:06.160 --> 0:21:08.840 Entirely on the EU. I mean that's two parties trying 0:21:08.840 --> 0:21:11.119 to come to agreement. We didn't quite get there. I 0:21:11.119 --> 0:21:13.719 think as we look forward, that's something we should drive towards. 0:21:13.960 --> 0:21:16.000 The single biggest thing though, that I think the US 0:21:16.040 --> 0:21:18.000 and Europe need to work together on in the next 0:21:18.040 --> 0:21:22.440 four years is a high standards critical minerals marketplace, so 0:21:22.480 --> 0:21:26.560 that we are not dependent on China and giving them 0:21:26.600 --> 0:21:29.760 the capacity to choke off critical minerals that are important 0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:33.399 to our national security. And that's something that I have 0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:36.040