 Okay, we're back. We're live for the four o'clock rock the four o'clock rock is think tech Asia And it's with Brad Glosserman who's the executive director of Pacific Forum CSIS welcome. Thanks. Good to be back Let's talk about the South China Sea. Oh, yes, let's you know It's so many things are happening there and it seems to be kind of an intersection of issues and everybody's being sort of drawn In and the question is whether it's overstated or understated or what? So the court and the Hague ruled against the Chinese. They didn't show up. They didn't deny jurisdiction It I mean to the obvious to the ordinary person it sure sounded arrogant And now they're going to disregard the result How bad do they look just on those facts alone? The the atmospherics are pretty bad as a public relations victory I would or as a public relations problem. It's it's um It's nasty. I mean if you care about public relations and the Chinese apparently don't Apparently don't and I would say however that they do and I think we'll discuss that a little bit more when we get into the solutions to this Yeah, well, why why did they do this? I mean, what were their internal issues which this I mean No, well first, you know pave over some some islands and second, you know I tried to assert some kind of control and thirdly, you know reject the court and the Hague Alright, I mean we don't have a map a map of the south we will soon And and I mean what you end up with is is a a the South China Sea which as a Chinese admiral said a couple of months ago It's called the South China Sea for a reason. It's our sea It's also why the Filipinos call it the West Philippine Sea and and and as silly as that may sound That the Chinese actually use that to some degree for the basis of their historic claim that they that this sea has Historically been controlled by China has been part of Chinese sovereign territory and they have a map with nine or eleven dotted lines That I stensibly identify what the Chinese claim is now That map is a particular issue of itself in the famous you shaped the tongue They call the cow shape type shape tongue or the cow tongue or the whatever the line is It's not clear what that relates to but the fact of the matter is the court has ruled that that historic claim Doesn't in while it sounds nice and may be a wonderful For for egos and for national narratives and as a legal basis for asserting a claim means nothing But everybody knew that right no, I think that there was a Chinese really sincerely believed that I think the Chinese Do really sincerely believe that I think that you know And this addresses a larger set of issues that we can talk about over the next 24 48 hours as we continue the show Which is about the nature of course of the Chinese claim to its place in the region And that is that the Chinese believe yes that they are the Middle Kingdom and that therefore they do have an outsized claim to influence and Not only this territory but the territory this in dispute with Japan and the East China Sea in territory this in dispute with With Korea further to the north so and I think yes They would they would claim that history is on their side and history matters and that if history does not matter And that if international law does not take that into account problem, isn't the Chinese claim the problem is International law that they could have made that case They could have made that case Affirmatively they could have gone to the Hague and and and try to convince the judges all of whom were fair men You are making assertions in there that the Chinese would challenge every single one And I guess the argument would be that the Chinese would say no We have not submitted to the jurisdiction of a tribunal. We do not need to actually challenge or have this result. I mean Countries that hold territory Typically do not agree to jurisdiction because if there is a genuine basis for a claim if the court is prepared to hear the case That means there's a sufficient doubt about where the outcome will go and if that's the case why bother It's yours and if they're not if you think you're the stronger party of the two It makes a heck of a lot more sense for you to just hold on and deny jurisdiction They haven't really had control, you know, sure they call the South China Sea sure there was this dotted line But they haven't physically had control until now. Well, I mean they've had some control And I mean, you know one of the arguments that the Chinese have made which you sort of alluded to a few minutes ago It's precisely this notion that these territories have been in dispute for the last well for a long time And since the 1970s the other disputants and there are five other governments that claim to have Have problems either with the Chinese with others and that's Malaysia Indonesia the Philippines and Taiwan and Brunei That these governments various ones have taken over the islands have built fishing Shacks that they call them but in fact look a lot more like that in some cases build hotels They've taken tourist trips out there They have asserted sovereignty and the Chinese claim is that we're late to the game that we are in fact only now Beginning to do what these other countries have done Disregarding of course the size and scale of the renovation and reclamation activities that the Chinese who said so so the argument is To mind you again the Chinese position in this like so many other things is We have largely been an observer and an outlier in the creation of the international order whether we're talking about leave international law International institutions norms and regulations for behavior We did not have a say in creating what these rules were and yes We have benefited from them, but the fact of the matter is now We're in a position where we believe this order should better reflect our interests And that's what they are asserting in a variety of different ways in a variety the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank the rules regarding representation in the World Bank the IMF the creation of the BRICS the G20 the Working with Russia on on various issues. It's all about a larger conception of how International order works and feeling that it needs that this order needs to be Reconfigured to better reflect China today and Chinese interests stand up China. Yeah, that's what's happening, isn't it? I mean everything they're doing and they're building aircraft carriers and they're doing aggressive negotiation aircraft carriers I mean, I'm sorry. This wasn't happening 20 years ago And in building an aircraft carrier, they joined an elite group of countries like Spain and Italy. I'm sorry Yes, Spain Italy and Thailand Who are we to say they can't have an aircraft carrier and mind you I was in a meeting a few months ago We're a Chinese through that in my face 15 years ago, one of your Americans told us we can't have an aircraft carrier Who are we to say who can and can't have an aircraft carrier? No, we can't but we do what took them 15 years to do though It did and and truthfully buying or an aircraft carrier Which they did retrofitting it and sending it out to see is not the same as having a functioning aircraft carrier They're still probably eight ten years at least away from having it work in the way that it's designed to yeah, I mean, you know this this There's a really basic question here that and I've framed it in the context of this international order Which is fairly abstract, but if you want to put it in the crudest simplest form It would be China like Russia Believes that it is a great power and as a great power It has certain imperial prerogatives and that is it gets to be the big dog in the neighborhood And what that means in practical terms is that smaller countries on the periphery of China and on Russia Do not have complete sovereignty They do not get to make the decisions that they wish to make Unfettered by an outside country so the Chinese believe That in a territorial dispute Chinese interests weigh a little bit heavily more heavily just as in Russia They believe that the Ukrainians don't get to pick which international organizations. They're gonna be members of because they're bigger and We as Americans have called, you know this the Monroe doctrine and we've argued that We in fact get to be the hegemon in in in our particular sphere of influence and the question that we need to be asking is To what degree do we believe that China and Russia are entitled to similar attributes and similar You know positions relative to the countries near them now mind you countries like Japan South Korea to stick to or the Philippines or any of the other countries in the periphery We like to believe in that their democracies and that their size and relative echo of their relative economies Isn't a big deal and so we have to allow them full sovereignty and make the decisions Mind you of course the fact that they are inclined to side with us doesn't weigh into this But nonetheless, that's the essence of the kind of the issue that were that that were debating its manifest destiny kind of thing Um, yeah, except we're saying that in English. I mean, that's the problem, right? I mean, I'm not sure how you jungle I'm not sure what the phrase is in Chinese or Russian and that's precisely the issue Yeah, I talked to a Chinese national a few days ago about this and you know, he said no It's we have a historical claim. That's it. Yes I mean, I think a lot of people in China buy into this completely Understandably so I mean at first of all because that is what they're taught I mean is we are looking at this from outside the Chinese frame of reference and and I was in a meeting I was running a conference in Tokyo about two weeks ago And I had several Chinese very articulate very thoughtful one in fact had a PhD from University of Hawaii And I find them to be I I rarely agree with the endpoints of his conclusion But the logic to that is is always impeccable and I I like disagreeing with this man And his comment was you know, we need to avoid selective listening We have to quit engaging in a conversation with people where we only hear what we're ready to let them say, right? Either they confirm our biases or they agree with us and in the larger set of issues and it's it's true And we're doing this they're doing this to us and we're doing this to them. Yeah, now What about Xi Jinping? I mean, is he motivated to become you know to advance this manifest destiny? Has he got some reason to you know, build islands and aircraft carriers and and take the position that the world court has no authority Well, I mean is something happening in China that makes him do this Of course there is Penetrating insights from Pacific Forum CS and Greg Wasserman in particular I mean first of all, I don't know Xi Jinping what I'm what I am Can can tell you is the product of study is the product of perhaps conversations with people that are far better China experts than I maybe some people that have even been there are among his advisors I mean, this is a man who like any national leader does not rise to the pinnacle of national leadership in any country unless you believe in that country and he believes in all of the I think the enormities of China as a As a Middle Kingdom as a great power as a country that represents an extraordinarily lengthy history the embodiment of civilizations everything the dreams aspirations urges of 1.1 million people the economic energies of the second largest economy and all of the the the resulting Attributes of power that flow with that. He believes in his country and he believes that it deserves to be treated better But on a political side Does he also believe that he'd be better in better condition politically with the people of China a billion plus? If he you know establishes greater foothold outside the country I I'm not sure that there's a there's not I don't think that the logic works that way I think that what he believes is is that he is asserting Chinese interests But as he sees them and as the majority of people see them now We can ask questions about Processes and we can ask difference about means and ends I think he like every other Chinese leader would agree that the notion that China should be the greatest power in Asia Perhaps a and certainly one of the three great powers in the world. No one would issue take issue with it the question is as Where do we agree China is where would this leadership sees the Mao Mao era Deng Xiaoping? the post Deng era and Xi Jinping let's and I think he represents something of a Distinction very much a different sort of leader than Hu Jintao and Zhang Jimin tougher more aggressive Yes, but more in the sense that what you'd seen is a move away from charismatic leadership Since Deng had left office and in theory the diffusion of power through the bureaucracy through technocratic leadership And instead since she has come back to office. We're seeing a consolidation of power So I think that what we would differ is perhaps what is the appropriate characterization of where China is today on that? spectrum power Where is China in? Relation to other great powers the United States in particular perhaps other regional countries and then truly given that what is the appropriate means to Further advance and to advance those interests. I think every Chinese leader, you know Deng Xiaoping had said we have these disputes with these countries We do not have the wisdom to settle them now Let us put that off and for another generation that's smarter than us And I think what Xi Jinping has said, okay, we're smart enough or we're strong enough. It's time. It's time It's our time, you know and and remember the Titans of memory serves. It is our time Brad Glossam and it's our time to take a break and we're gonna be right back back after the short break Aloha everybody. My name is Mark Shklav. I'd like you to join me for my program law across the sea on think-tech Hawaii comm aloha Aloha, I'm Shantel Seville host of the savvy chick show on think-tech Hawaii Now we are on a mission to help young women and girls achieve their dreams and looking forward to sharing with you One episode a month where young women or a girl will share her dream or ultimate goal with you and hope that we can all Get together behind her to achieve that goal. Look forward to seeing you there Aloha, my name is Carl Campania and I'm the host of think-tech Hawaii's education movers shakers and reformers I invite you to come watch our show on think-tech Hawaii comm You can also see our shows on YouTube as well as you can Google search those Appreciate the time. I hope that you do join us as we learn About education about the educational system here in Hawaii what the challenges are what the benefits are and How much our kids are learning so thank you. Hope you join us Bingo, we're back with Brad back Lawson in Pacific Forum CSIS run across the street. We're talking about China We're talking about decisions and strategies and common sense Making sense of the South China Sea issue, you know How important is this to people care to people in this country care to people in Europe care? I think I know the answer people around the world care But that's a really good question. I you know interestingly an hour ago I was being interviewed by the Beijing correspondent of the Spiegel, which is the German magazine Trying to make the exactly the same case. You know he called me up saying sort of saying We have to convince the Europeans why Asia matters and why why impact is of significance I mean for Americans, I think it matters and I think this is this is probably a point that I've made in previous conversations if not I should have and that is that If you I mean I presume some of your readers or listeners or in the audience has been paying some attention to the Republican convention and I mean what are they I think you're gonna assume that And we're seeing a lot of anger and I think we're seeing a lot of fear and I believe and I that At the root of all of this So much of the anger and the fear and the uncertainty that that is driving decision making whether it's here Whether it is in Europe center is a sense that people Jay that look like you and me white guys with let more or less hair than usual, but Are who are used to deciding the rules of the game are less empowered as in the past and thus We are living in a world in which we are no longer assured of our superiority in our place in the hierarchy And thus we are trying to come to grips to a world in which we have to actually share decision making with other people That don't there are women Are not necessarily Caucasian Etc. And I think all of that together is a is a great driver of This attitude so yes, we should care because this is the future of the world. It is far more distributed power far more distributed influence and and That's the nature of a world that we have to be more comfortable in and so I think that's why it matters Yeah, it's changing and I agree with you that's what Donald Trump is working off people being afraid That the US position isn't going to be as good, you know tomorrow as it was before make and make America great again I think there's a lot of implications to that But one of them is making America great in you know in global power and we seem to be we seem to be losing power Except if you actually look at the surveys and you know, there's a Pew survey They came out the Pew research group which did do this is probably the best polling Organization in the world if you look at where we are in terms of American power and respect worldwide We're doing a heck of a lot better than we did I mean the Obama administration as despite its ups and downs has actually seen a Real crescendo in views of the United States over the past eight years of his administration I mean what we're living within a world in which there are far more complexities to decision-making and into shaping outcomes and that You know, we like to believe in a simpler time when we got to tell everybody we the Americans got to tell everybody What an outcome how the world would work and the truth of the matter is while that's a comforting 1950s view of the way the world works. It really wasn't accurate. We never got to pick the outcomes of In international events, I mean mind one word Vietnam Right, I mean this little pipsqueak country that managed to defeat us in a war and and there are numerous other events where we were forced to Ignore no matter that we had the largest and most extraordinary military machine in the world The fact of the matter is is that we were unable to dictate outcomes in in these events my belief as I engage that The thing that will most Consolidate and I think send a message to the world about the ability of the United States to once again lead And I think our leadership at this point is still very clear people look to us to get things done in ways that no other country can and truthfully saying that makes me a little uncomfortable because I Think that that puts undue burdens upon it on on Expectations frankly what we expect of ourselves as well But I think the most important thing that we could do to genuinely reshape perceptions of American power and influence in the world Would be for us to actually start making agreements in Washington and getting some things done It is precisely talking about Congress pretty much, but but Congress and the executive Okay, yeah passing a budget getting rid of sequester people look at artificial constraints They see paralysis. They see a quagmire. They see a political system that by and large is dysfunctional World sees that yes, not just in this country No, I'm talking about the world It is precisely because they see us unable to make decisions and to act on them and to follow through with them that if a President dares to do something that he will be or she will be you know hemmed in will be will be pulled at will be pulled down Destroyed for peripheral issues or maybe the non-issues that they see that as a sign of weakness and a sign of continuing Irrelevance we need to demonstrate that we can in fact unite for a national purpose other than a horrific attack on the net on the On the nation's homeland in ways that allows us to move forward and to again exercise influence. That's a great, you know aspiration But it's another show about whether that can happen. How life can happen. We got to do this again Let's let's turn to the dear Spiegel Let's turn to Europe, you know We talked to our correspondent in Brussels on the other day make that yesterday and she said well people in Europe are not Following this they don't care. I think it's right and and so that you know that means that the stage This is all on a stage kind of a world stage The stage doesn't reach them and for that matter doesn't reach a lot of people in this country either So we have the diplomats and the State Department guys who are really interested in this But but but the world isn't interested and the world is not going to tolerate the use of force The world is not going to allow a big argument here. Is it I I could take issue with Practically every clause in this and I'm only because I mean The world does take issue with this because if you again look at what's going on in in the political discourse in this country We'll make America great again. That's about Bending the world to our will. Yes, you know and that that is about economic development all the way to minute let's see our Unemployment rate is down to below five percent. We're actually growing pretty well the debt's been I mean the economy is doing pretty well. I mean most people look at the numbers They talk about their own individual circumstances and they seem to be fairly optimistic yet the country's headed in the wrong direction So there's this weird disconnect and at the same time a disconnect between the fact that in fact they're complaining about trade So Asia does matter to them Except then it doesn't they don't see it. That's a problem. And so I mean and that's among Americans if we want to talk about Europe I mean I'm sorry look continue your riff on on forces and to be used except mr. Putin sent his little green man into Crimea. He sent them into the Ukraine. You've got a fairly forcible you I mean we still now we've suspended the deployment or the withdrawal of forces from Iraq probably doing the same with Afghanistan I mean there are still Attempts to deploy forces and to use them in ways that would you know Right now. I mean what is the Trump message? We're not respected. We're not strong enough. It's pounding the table about doing You know things that seem to be assertions of national power whether they're legal or not It's another matter But my point is is that people still seem in the abstract to favor that so I again need okay I'll go to this though. Okay. I make you secretary of state Actually, I think you should have been secretary of state a long time ago Brad I make you secretary of state in the next administration coming soon And I again I'll say as I said earlier in which case there will be a rush of people to move to New Zealand like that What do you what do you recommend to the president whoever he or she may be um? That's a really good question because again to me the questions of American resolve really need to be Are demonstrated by affirmative action in you know the bank shots, right? They have to do with Americans mustering the political will Demonstrating an agreement and sense of purpose and and for all of the frustrations and passions that are being there They're in play in the election to this year I am not convinced and I do not believe that the outcome of this election will lance any of those boils I mean, I think that they will all fester for at least another four years So we have a problem there. So let's put that aside. I would argue that what we need to be doing, of course is demonstrating American capacity to lead and lead in in ways that that and Lead in ways that are leadership. We need to be putting together Domestic coalitions or I'm sorry international coalitions diplomatic coalitions that address problems So let's focus on the South China Sea What it means is that we need to be getting all of the countries that are both directly and indirectly affected by This decision to call out to to demand the respect for the rule of law to respect for the tribunal We need to have preferably organizations like Ozion, which frankly while is Largely impacted has yet to demonstrate the solidarity and unity of purpose to make a statement against this So that doesn't speak well of Ozion It doesn't surprise anyone and I mean the truth of the matter is that you have countries that have by and large Probably been bought by Chinese interest, but that's a fact of life Yeah, so you would like to have the demonstration of solidarity there You would like to see I think other organizations the EU come forward as well and and demonstrate So I think you have the diplomatic front. Obviously This is a very contentious statement, but I think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership the trade deal it needs to be I It needs to be passed it needs to be passed because Europe or Europeans Asians look to the United States and really see this More importantly than anything else is a demonstration of commitment to the region I was in a meeting in Singapore a few weeks ago and asked what is it that you want us to do in the South China Sea? How is it that we will demonstrate committee or commitment or credibility that you will be guaranteed that the Americans are in this for their Long run and they said forget the South China Sea past TPP that shows us that you're committed to this region to Leadership etc. And that's not a popular answer Obviously that ties into the political piece because what what's happened on the economic side is we've been really good about making it easy for people With money to move capital and we have not done a damn thing for all the workers. They're dispossessed We need to pay real attention to handling that the negative effects of these trade deals and the final thing in Contrarily of all this once we've amassed this incredible front against the Chinese and we have a wall of diplomatic Indignation and demands for respect for the rule of law. We back off We've got to give the Chinese some space to have to be able to work out In a way that saves face that allows them to claim a victory that they can find the win-win solution That Beijing says it wants to do with its neighbors. What do you mean back off? I mean was that just let go no I mean well I think what it means is is that you don't try to force the Chinese into a corner admit the ruling was was was a You lost admit that it was a mistake Don't you know save faces as the same would go and there's a diplomatic formula for this that needs to be worked out Primarily between Manila and Beijing and what it would just consist of is providing the Chinese the opportunity To negotiate over joint development that allows them to pull back that allows them to claim that they have not been Defeated that they can claim victory in some way that they advance their national interest that they will then serve well Chinese people in the China and China as a country and yet not look as though they have been beaten We talked to Michael Davis who's a law professor at Hong Kong University Teachers international law wrote an article about this in in the South China Morning Post Mm-hmm, and what he said was this is a great time to treat the whole Confluence as a platform for negotiation sure of course, you know How you negotiate that what you say what arguments you make the negotiation is that's complicated But what do you think about that put them all together in a room? I would like to make that to think that that would work that it works for us But the Chinese position is is that these these disputes all need to be resolved bilaterally because that in fact Positions China in every dispute the Chinese are the greater power and the smaller sure but nevertheless It's a political reality. So you have to I think you you There's another set of negotiations about a code of conduct in the South China Sea Which have been underway for over about 20 years probably and you had in 2002 a Declaration on a code of conduct and since then The move was to create this code and it's been stalled and every time there's a problem where the Chinese look to be Beaten up internationally. They kind of create some new momentum I think the trick would be to create the momentum the multilateral discussion that you're talking about Needs to be about the COC this code of conduct that you pursue But that's a broad set of principles to govern the way countries react the particular bilateral disputes have to get handled Frankly one-on-one with China and x y and z and hopefully you had the principles from the code of conduct Informing the Lord do these smaller more discreet negotiations and the Chinese Recognizing that it is in fact in their national interest to forge deals that genuinely do constitute win-win solutions for both So behind the scenes it's multilateral, but out in front. It's bilateral. Yeah, um, it's a multi-layered game Yeah Complicated we live in complicated and changing times That's why you and I are always gonna be in business when I you know what I get out of this though Is you wake up in the morning? America and you look in the mirror and You see China and China is looking back at you That's that's creepy on just so many different levels. I'm I look in the mirror in the morning. I just see me and that's that's enough to get me motivated. Oh my god Yeah, he's a little with me. Well, that's Brad Glosserman. He's the executive director of Pacific Forum CSIS and honors us to join us and talk about the South China Sea. There'll be more. Thank you Brad