one of the most influential and

controversial thinkers in the

world he is known as one of the world's

leading experts on economic

development one of the most famous

political

scientists in

history we're talking about moral and

political principles here I would

suggest that all four Wars could be

ended quickly great power politics is

now back on the table if we are anything

as a world Community we have to

implement what we've

[Music]

[Applause]

said I'm excited for this panel we're

going to talk about foreign policy uh we

have I think two of the most interesting

imminent renowned thinkers about foreign

policy uh professor John mimer from

University of Chicago and Professor

Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia so great to

have you guys here

today it's uh it's a it's a big world

and there's a lot of things happening so

let's just jump into it um the big news

over the past week was that Dick Cheney

endorsed kamla Harris for president I

think for people who see the world in

partisan political terms this might have

been surprising but I don't think that

you guys were that surprised by that do

you see an underlying logic to this um

Jeff why don't I start with you

I think it's obvious there's basically

one deep State party uh and that is the

party of Cheney uh Harris Biden uh

Victoria newand my colleague at Columbia

University now uh and uh newand is kind

of the face of all of this because she

has been in every Administration for the

last 30 years she was in the Clinton

Administration wrecking our policies

towards Russia in the 1990s she was uh

in the Bush Administration Jor uh with

Cheney uh wrecking our policies towards

NATO enlargement uh she was in uh then

the Obama Administration as Hillary's uh

spokesperson first and then making a

coup in Ukraine in February 2014 not a

great move started a war then she was uh

Biden's uh uh under Secretary of State

now that's both parties uh it's a a

colossal mess and um she's been Cheney's

uh adviser she's been Biden's advisor

she she uh and uh makes perfect sense

this is the reality uh we're trying to

find out if there's another party that's

the big question and John what's what's

your thought on that do you see any

difference between uh Republicans and

Democrats no I like to refer to the

Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedle

D and Tweedle du

there's hardly any difference I actually

think the one exception is that uh

former president Trump when he became

president in 2017 was bent on beating

back to deep State and becoming a

different kind of leader on the foreign

policy front but he basically failed and

he is vowed that if he gets elected this

time uh it will be different and he will

beat back the Deep State he will pursue

a foreign policy that's fundamentally

different uh than Republicans and

Democrats have pursued up to now and the

big question on the table is whether or

not you think Trump can beat the Deep

State and these two established parties

uh and i' bet against Trump John um and

Jeff but let's start with John can you

actually Define for us for me I don't

understand when people say deep State

what it is I almost viewed the term

comically we have one of our friends in

our group chat who we called Deep state

who is he's deep State he's really in

the Deep state but we say it as a joke

but for maybe the uninitiated what does

it actually mean what are their

incentives who are

they Jeff maybe you want to start or

John you want to start yeah I'll say a

few words about it when we talk about

the Deep State we're talking really

about the administrative State it's very

important to understand that starting in

the late 19th early 20th century uh

given developments uh in the American

economy it was imperative that we

develop and this was true of all Western

countries a very powerful Central State

that could run the country and over time

that state has grown in power and since

World War II the United States as you

all know has been involved in every nook

and cranny of the world fighting Wars

Here There and Everywhere and to do that

you need a very powerful administrative

State uh that can help manage foreign

policy but in the process what happens

is you get all of these highlevel

bureaucrats middle level and lowlevel

bureaucrats who become established in

positions in the Pentagon the state

department the intelligence Community

you name it and they end up having a

vested interest in pursuing a particular

foreign policy and the particular

foreign policy that they like to pursue

is the one that the Democrats and the

Republicans are pushing and that's why

we talk about Tweedle D and Tweedle Dum

with regard to the two parties you could

throw in uh the Deep State as being on

the same page as those other two uh

institutions yeah there there's a very

interesting interview of Putin uh in

figuro in

2017 and he says uh I've dealt with

three presidents now they come into

office with some ideas even but then uh

the men in the dark suits and the blue

ties and then he said I I wear red ties

but they wear blue ties they come in and

explain the way the world really is and

there go the ideas and I think that's

Putin's experience that's our experience

that's my experience which is that

there's a deeply entrained foreign

policy it has been in place in my

interpretation for many decades but

arguably a variant of it has been in

place since

1992 I got to watch some of it early on

because I was an adviser to gorb and I

was an adviser to yelson and so I saw

early makings of this though I didn't

fully understand it except in retrospect

but that policy has been mostly in place

pretty consistently for 30 years and it

didn't really matter whether it was Bush

senior whether it was Clinton whether it

was Bush Jr whether it was Obama whether

it was Trump after all who did Trump

hire he hired John Bolton well the uh

pretty deep State uh that was the end of

they told you know he explained this is

the way it is and by the way Bolton

explained also in his Memoirs when when

Trump didn't agree we figured out ways

to trick him basically so well and what

what are their incentives is it war is

it self-enrichment is it power is it all

three is it some or is it yeah is it is

it just is there a philosophical

entrenchment or is it just this inertial

issue that like once a policy begins

it's hard to change and the system's

just working with 10,000 people working

towards it

you know if I were lucky to sit next to

the world's greatest political

philosopher which I am um he'd give you

a good answer which is that the right

answer which is if you want to interpret

American foreign policy it is to

maximize power uh and uh he gives a John

gives a an explanation of that we have

uh some differences but I think it's a

very good description of American uh

foreign policy which is is that it's

trying to maximize Global power

essentially to be Global hegemon I I

think it could get us all killed this is

because it's a little bit delusional in

my mind but uh not not the I not not his

interpretation of their idea but the

fact that they hold that idea is a

little weird to me but in any event

that's the idea and every time a

decision comes inside that I've seen I'm

an economist so I don't see security

decisions the same way but every

decision that I've seen always leans in

the same direction for the last 30 years

which is power as the central objective

so Clinton faced an internal

cabinate really debate should NATO be

enlarged is this this is a post Cold War

phenomenon that it's well I'll I'll let

John take that just two very quick

points first of all I do believe that

the people people who uh are in favor of

this foreign policy uh do believe in it

it's not cynical they really believe

that we're doing the right thing I've

met them yeah no yeah the second point I

would make to you and this sort of adds

on to what Jeff said Jeff said power has

a lot to do with this and is a good

realist I of course believe that but

it's also very important to understand

that the United States is a

fundamentally liberal country and we

believe that we have a right we have a

responsibility and we have the power to

run around the world and remake the

world in America's image most people in

the foreign policy establishment the

Republican Party the Democratic party

they believe that and that is what has

motivated our foreign policy in large

part since the Cold War ended because

remember when the cold war ends we have

no rival great power left so what are we

going to do with all this power that we

have what we decide to do is go out and

remake the world in our own image so

that's a that's a values point of view

though right that there are values that

they hold dear that that many do hold

dear that

liberalism democracy does ultimately I

believe I've heard this reduce conflict

worldwide that there's an importance

that we've never seen two democratic

nations since World War II go to war and

that there's a reason why we want to see

liberalism kind of breed throughout the

world and it's our responsib ability for

world for Global Peace to make that a

mandate let me step in for one moment

okay sure very quickly and by the way

I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm uh what do you call

it where you pull the spirits of the the

voice of others but I'm I'm just trying

to channeling channeling that's the word

I want to be very clear I am forever

thankful that I was born in a liberal

democracy and I love liberalism but the

question here is do you think that we

can run around the world imposing

liberal democracy on other countries and

some cases shoving it down their throat

doing it at the end of a rifle barrel

and my argument is that's almost

impossible to do it almost always

backfires think Iraq Afghanistan so

forth and so on and secondly you begin

to erode liberalism in the United States

because you build a deep state right and

you want to understand that a lot of the

complaints here about cracking down on

freedom of speech and so forth and so on

are related to the fact that we have

this ambitious foreign policy those two

things go together in very important

ways what an let me let me disagree just

a bit uh because we agree actually on

the behavior and I've learned I'd say

most of that from you that it's power

seeking truly John in my work 40 years

uh overseas I don't think the US

government gives a damn about these

other places I I don't think they really

care if it's a liberal democracy if it's

a dictatorship they want the right of

ways they want the military bases they

want uh the state to be in support of

the United States they want NATO

enlargement I don't I know You' you've

written and there are some who believe

in stateb

building God if they do they are so

incompetent it's

unbelievable

but Professor s know I I'll give you an

example if I put just one one

example I'm I'm a friend with one of the

only

PhD Afghani Economist senior person in

the US um Academia over the last 30

years you would think that the state

department if they were interested in

State Building would ask him one day one

moment something about Afghanistan never

happened never happened not even one

question never happened he asked me can

you get me a a meeting with the

department they were completely

uninterested this is this is about power

you're too idealistic

John they don't care about the other

places they may feel we should be

whatever we want free and so forth but

Freedom I've been I've seen my with my

own eyes the coups the overthrows the

presidents democratic presidents LED

away they don't care at all this is

Washington

be a realist come on Professor mimer

I when we talk about power um there are

other people in the world who are trying

to accumulate power we live in a

multi-polar world right now and they

have in some cases very nefarious or bad

intent um and they do not have democracy

so it's one thing to you know tell uh

people in Afghanistan you need to evolve

you know to be a perfect democracy like

the one we have here I think we all

agree that's unrealistic and insane um

and not practical but what about the

free countries of the world uniting

together to stop dictators from invading

other free countries is that Noble is

that a good use of power and a good

framework for America to evolve too no I

don't think so uh I think that what the

United States should do is worry about

its own National interest uh in some

cases that's going to involve aligning

ourselves with a dictator uh if we're

fighting World War II all over again

it's December 8th

1941 you surely would be in favor of

allying with adol not with Adolf Hitler

with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union

against uh Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany

sometimes you have to make those kind of

compromises uh as I said before I love

liberal democracy I have no problem

align with liberal democracy but when

you begin to think in the terms that

you're thinking you end up uh with an

Impulse to do social engineering around

the world and that gets you in all sorts

of problems well what I'm proposing is

when dictatorships invade other

countries then we take action it depends

maybe def defend them so it depends yeah

of course I mean when Russia invades

Ukraine basically what you're saying is

you want to go to war on behalf of

Ukraine against Russia are you in favor

of that no I would say diplomacy would

obviously be what we'd want to exhaust

but if they do roll into other fre

countries I think there's an argument

for the free countries of the world to

get together and say two dictators we're

not going to allow

this could I come in

here could I clarify a few

things look uh first of all

um almost all the time that we intervene

it's because uh we view this as a power

situation for the us so whether it's

Ukraine or Syria or Libya or other

places even if we Define it as defending

something believe me it's not about

defending something it's about a

perception of us power and US interest

and it's in objectives of us Global

hegemony and if we analyze the Ukraine

conflict uh just even a little bit below

the surface this is not a a conflict

about Putin invading Ukraine this is

something a lot different that has to do

with American power projection into the

former Soviet Union so it's completely

different second if we decide were the

police which we

do you can't imagine how cynical

we use to justify our actions

we used the cynical B that

we're defending the people of Benghazi

to bomb the hell out of Libya to kill

moamar Gaddafi why did we do that well

I'm kind of an expert on that region and

I can tell you maybe because sarosi

didn't like Gaddafi there's no much

deeper reason except Hillary liked every

bombing she could get her hands on and

Obama was kind of convinced my secretary

of state says go with it so why don't we

go with the NATO Expedition it had

nothing to do with Libya it un it

Unleashed 15 years of chaos cheated the

UN Security Council because like

everything else we've done it was on

false pretenses we did the same with

trying to overthrow Syria we did the

same with conspiring to overthrow Victor

yanukovich in Ukraine in February 2014

so the problem with this argument is

we're not nice guys we're not trying to

save the world we're not trying to make

democracies

we had a committee by the way of all the

luminaries you could mention but they're

The neocon Crazies but they're

luminaries the committee for the people

of

Cheta are you kidding do you think they

even knew where chn is or cared about

Chia but it was an opportunity to get at

Russia to weaken Russia to support a

jihadist movement inside Russia to do

this is a game but it's the game that

John has described better than any one

in the world it's a game of power it's

not that we're defending real things if

you want to defend real things go to the

UN Security Council and convince others

because the other countries are not

crazy and they don't want Mayhem in the

world but we play game so they say

that's a game Iraq which was obviously a

game before we went in it was a

obviously Co and Powell could not move

his lips without lying that day

obviously and so they said no but if

we're real about our interests then you

go to the UN Security Council and then

it's not just on us it's actually then a

collective security issue uh Professor M

if we were to take Jeffrey's position

here um that we are exerting power for

the sake of you know our reputation and

in fact to weaken dictatorships if I'm

if I'm summarizing correctly here um is

that not a good strategy to weaken

dictators around the world who might

like to invade other countries is there

is there a frame Fring in which you

could see that being um for you know a

world where democracy and people living

freely has gone down in our lifetimes is

that not knowable is there not a

justification somebody could make for

I'm not saying I have that but I'm just

trying to steal me on the other side of

this is weakening dictators and despots

a good strategy it depends uh well let's

talk about the the two that we have you

know uh Xi Jinping I think you wanted to

get to eventually and then Ukraine and

Putin are these people worth trying to

you know uh contain or even weaken well

in in terms of China I'm fully in favor

of containing China okay so containment

check it's containment I'm not

interested in regime change I'm not

interested in trying to turn China into

a democracy not going to happen yeah not

going to happen we tried it actually and

I thought it was foolish to even pursue

a policy of Engagement toward China with

regard to Russia I don't think Russia is

a serious threat to the United States

and indeed I think the United States

should have good relations with Putin

it's a remarkably foolish policy to push

him into the arms of the Chinese there

are three great powers in the system the

United States China and Russia China is

a peer competitor to the United States

it's the most serious threat to the

United States Russia is the weakest of

those three great powers and it's not a

serious threat to us if you are playing

balance and power politics and you're

interested as the United States in

containing China you want Russia on your

side of the Ledger but what we have done

in effect is we have pushed Russia into

the arms of the Chinese this is a

remarkably foolish policy and

furthermore by getting bogged down in

Ukraine and now bogged down in the

Middle East it's become very difficult

for us to Pivot to Asia to deal with

China which is the principal threat that

we face

[Applause]

can I

think David could I just say uh 2/3

right

perfect so you gave him a b or B plus a

minus I always give him an A minus

inflation I just wanted to add a

footnote which is that China's also not

a

threat it's just not a threat I mean

we're going to get to it ch ch China

China's a market it's uh got great food

great culture uh wonderful people a

civilization 10 times older than ours

it's not a threat well as an economist

can you talk about the impact of a cold

or hot conflict with China from an

economic perspective given the trade

relationship yeah it would wreck

California for one thing it would

destroy the economy that you guys are

making completely this economy has been

the biggest beneficiary of China's rise

probably in the whole world so it's

crazy maybe if you're worried if you're

really worried about about whether uh a

worker in Ohio has a particular job on a

particular assembly line then uh you can

be anti-china if you're worried about

the tech industry about California about

peace and the future you should be

pro-china that's all so why is it become

so Universal to assume that we are

already in a state of conflict with

China on not just party lines but like

almost any Spectrum you could kind of

like

consider said it exact right and he

predicted it better than anyone in the

whole world in 2001 he said when China

becomes large we're going to have

conflict because that's John's Theory

and it's right as a description of

American foreign policy that we are for

power they are big therefore they're an

enemy they're an enemy of our aspiration

to Global City tra City let let's let

John jump in here do you want you want

me to is it okay if I talk about this

yeah yeah I mean I think um I think that

um what's interesting I mean you and

Jeff I think arrive at similar

conclusions about Ukraine uh but

different ones on China right because

Jeff is an economist and I think sees

the world in fundamentally positive some

ways based on the potential for trade

economics basically whereas you see the

world as more of a zero sum game based

on the balance of power why don't you

just explain that difference I okay uh

it is very important to emphasize David

was saying that Jeff and I agree on all

sorts of issues including Ukraine and

Israel Palestine but we disagree

fundamentally as he just made clear on

China and let me explain to you why I

think that's the case and then Jeff can

tell you why he thinks I'm wrong

uh it has to do with security whether

you privilege security or survival or

whether you privilege prosperity and

economists and I would imagine most of

you in the audience really care greatly

about maximizing prosperity for someone

like me who's a realist what I care

about is maximizing the state's

prospects of survival and when you live

in an Antarctic system and in IR speak

that means there's no higher authority

there's no night Watchmen that can come

down and rescue you if you get into

trouble and this is the International

System there's no higher authority in

that anarchic world the best way to

survive is to be really powerful as we

used to say when I was a kid on New York

City playgrounds you want to be the

biggest and baddest dude on the Block

and that's simply because it's the best

way to survive if you're really powerful

nobody fools around with you the United

States is a regional hedgemon it's the

only Regional hedgemon on the planet we

dominate the Western Hemisphere and what

China has begun to do as it's got

increasingly powerful economically is

translate that economic might into

military might and it is trying to

dominate Asia it wants to push us out

beyond the first island chain it wants

to push us out beyond the second island

chain it wants to be like we are in the

Western Hemisphere and I don't blame the

Chinese one bit if I was the National

Security advisor in Beijing that's what

I'd be telling XI ping we should be

trying to do but of course from an

American point of view this is

unacceptable and we do not tolerate peer

competitors we do not want another

Regional hedgemon on the planet in the

20th century there were four countries

that threatened to become Regional

hegemons like us Imperial Germany

Imperial Japan Nazi Germany and the

Soviet Union the United States played a

key role in putting all four of those

countries on the scrap peap of History

we want to remain the only Regional

hedgemon in the world we are a ruthless

great power never want to lose sight of

that fact and the end result of this is

you get an intense security competition

between China

and the United States and it revolves

around the concept of security not

Prosperity what you just very quickly so

what you see beginning to happen is that

it's in all domains where the

competition takes place especially

high-tech we do not want them defeating

this defeating Us in the Hightech War we

are competing with them econom ically we

are competing with them militarily and

this is because the best way to survive

is for us the United States of America

to be the only Regional hedgemon on the

planet so Jeff let me let me set it up

for for Jeff here so Jeff I you and John

I think agree that the the game on on

the board is power seeking I think what

John is saying is there are smart ways

and dumb ways to pursue power

that containing China is a smart way

what we're doing in Ukraine is a dumb

way whereas it seems like you're saying

that all power seeking behavior is bad

that's not the game we should be playing

we should somehow opt out of that is

that is that kind of where you're going

it's a it's not a bad way to say it but

I would I would put it in in another way

I read a very good book uh John's

um and and

John described

I'm going to quote him but he can quote

himself afterwards he he he said that

the regional

hegemons uh don't threaten each other

actually why because we have big ocean

in

between

I deeply believe that China is not a

threat to the United States and I deeply

believe the only threat to the United

States period in the world given the

oceans given our size and given the

military is nuclear

war I deeply believe we're close to

nuclear war because we have a mindset

that leads us in that direction we have

a mindset that everything is a challenge

for survival and that escalation is

therefore always the right approach my

view is a little bit of prudence could

save the whole planet

so why I don't like Ukraine is that I

don't see any reason in the world that

NATO has to be on Russia's border with

Ukraine I was as I said gorbachov's

adviser and yelton's adviser and they

wanted peace and they wanted cooperation

but whatever they wanted they did not

want the US military on their border so

if we continued to push as we did we

would get to war John explained that

better than anybody we're now at War and

even this morning there is further

escalation blinkin has said well if the

Iranians give these missiles then we

will give missiles to hit deep into

Russia this is a recipe and then we had

Bill Burns the CIA director say last

week an absurdity that he knows but Cia

directors never tell the truth if they

do they lose their job but he said don't

worry about nuclear war don't worry

about saber rattling my advice to you is

worry a lot about nuclear war and so be

prudent you don't have to put the US

military on Russia's border okay and my

advice to Russia and to Mexico when I'm

going to Mexico tomorrow I'll give them

a piece of advice don't let China or

Russia build a military base on the r

Grant not a good idea for Mexico not a

good good idea for Ukraine not a good

idea for Russia not a good idea for

China not a good idea for the United

States we need to stay a little bit away

from each other so that we don't have a

nuclear war by the way I do recommend

another good book and that is Annie

Jacobson's nuclear war a scenario it

takes two hours to read the world ends

in two hours in the book uh and uh it's

a very

persuasive guide that one nuke can ruin

your whole day as they say Jeffrey can

um uh my my strong advice on this

therefore is recognize China first of

all is not a threat to the United States

security big oceans big nuclear

deterrent and so forth second we don't

have to be in China's face what do I

mean by that we don't have to provoke

World War III Over Taiwan that's a long

complicated issue but this would be the

stupidest thing for my grandchildren to

die for imaginable and I resent it every

day when we play that game we have three

agreements with China that say we're

going to stay out of that and we should

and then China would have no reason for

war either

China and then on the economic side let

me just reiterate because I was asked

yesterday and there was some surprise

was it good to let China into the the

WTO I said of course it enriched all of

you by the way it enriched me it

enriched this country it enriched the

world including enriching China that's

normal economics is not a zero sum game

we all agree on that I believe that

security doesn't have to be a zero sum

game either we can stay a little bit

away from each other and China does not

spend its time beon in America being a

western hemisphere hegemon they don't

that's not their greatest interest to

bring down American uh Power in the

Western Hemisphere Jee what about the

energy hold on let's let John respond to

this just very quickly most of you have

probably never asked yourself the

question why is the United States

roaming all over the planet interfering

in every country's business it's in part

because it's so powerful but it's also

because it's a hegemon which means we

have no threats in the Western

Hemisphere so we are free to roam the

great danger Jeff if China becomes a

regional hedgemon and doesn't have to

worry about security conc then they

behave like us yeah then they behave

like us exact but my point to you Jeff

is let's prevent that from happening by

preventing them from becoming a regional

hedgemon we don't want them to have

freedom to roam you were talking about

them putting military bases in Mexico

that's our great fear it's not my great

fear they have no interest in doing so

because they don't want to get blown up

either so they do seem to have a big

interest Jeff in Africa India Russia and

they

are China has a

major um military bases there oh well

they're building nuclear power plants in

trade and they're building de difference

in favor of that let's go compete that

way I'm all in favor of that but Jeff

that's cuz they're not a Regal hegemon

yet yeah if you try to prevent them from

being a regional hegemon we're going to

end up in World War I because as you say

yourself that this can absolutely spill

over into war I don't want it to spill

over into war on the theory that maybe

someday they behave differently that's

not a good theory for me so so so that

part so John can we contain China

prevent them from becoming a regional

haimon without Direct ly defending

Taiwan I mean isn't that where the

rubber meets the road no it's not just

Taiwan I mean one could argue there's

sort of three flash points in East Asia

that you folks should keep your eye on

one is obviously Taiwan two is the South

China Sea and three is the East China

Sea and I think David that the place

where a conflict is most likely today is

not over Taiwan I could explain why I

think Taiwan is not a serious problem at

the moment or for the foreseeable future

the South China Sea is a very dangerous

place we could end up in a war for sure

even if we did not defend

Taiwan uh so Taiwan you don't want to

overemphasize I agree with I agree with

Jeff that we definitely don't want a war

and we certainly don't want a nuclear

war and he is absolutely correct that

there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war

breaks out of any sort between China and

the United States many of us in the

audience remember the Cold War and this

was an everpresent danger in the Cold

War but my argument is that this is

inevitable because in a world where you

don't have a higher authority and you

care about your survival you have a

deep-seated interest as any state in the

system to be as powerful as possible and

that means dominating your world um

there is one uh player on this chess

board that hasn't come up yet and then

maybe we could skate to where the puck

is going you know when you talk about

the South China Sea okay sure South

Korea Japan Jaan Australia all those

major players there they're just a

couple hundred million people but then

China is in population decline she

apparently is self-destructing in terms

of trade seems like uh containment is

working pretty well there because of the

all the self-inflicted wounds but the

fastest growing country fastest growing

economy the quickest to develop is India

and they seem to have a very pragmatic

approach hey they'll buy cheap oil from

Putin and they are their own sovereign

country with their own point of view

Would we not be really well advised over

the next 10 to 20 years to make that our

priority and India's role in this how do

you look at them well we definitely view

India as an ally right it's part of the

Quad which is this uh this rubbe

Goldberg type Alliance structure that we

put together in East Asia that includes

Australia Japan the United States and

India and India is smartly maintaining

its good relations with Russia the

Indians understand like Jeff and I do

that the Russians are no great threat

but from India's point of view the real

threat is China right right and there

are two places where India cares about

China One is on the India China border

up in the Himalayas where they've

actually had conflicts right and there's

a real danger of War breaking out the

second place which is maybe even more

dangerous not at the moment but will be

over time is the Indian Ocean because

the Chinese are imitating the United

States they not not only want to be a

regional hedgemon they want to develop

power projection capability so the

Chinese are building a Bluewater Navy

that can come out of East Asia through

the Straits of Mala through the Indian

Ocean to the Persian Gulf and once you

start talking about going through the

Indian Ocean the Indians get spooked and

that's when the Americans in the Indians

come together okay let's think of this

from an engineering point of view if we

could um

why are the Chinese developing the Navy

because for 40 years I've read essays on

all of the choke points uh in the South

China Sea the East China Sea the Indian

Ocean against China that's our policy

choke points look at the malaka Straits

look what we can do here first island

chain this is American strategy can we

keep the Chinese submarine out of the

Pacific Ocean First China first island

chain and so forth so of course they

react they're rich they're going to

build a Navy so that they can get their

oil on which their economy runs can we

be a little bit sensible with them and

decide how we're not going to have choke

points and then we don't have to have a

nuclear war which is really going to

ruin our day that's the point we can

think a little bit we can understand it

from their perspective we can understand

it from our perspec perspective

deconfliction by the way I don't believe

India is an ally India is a

superpower India is going to have its

own very distinctive interests thank you

it's not going to be an ally of the

United States I happen to like India

enormously and and admire their policies

but the idea that India is going to Ally

with the United States against

China in somebody's dream uh in

Washington because it's another delusion

in Washington because they should get a

passport and go see the world and and

and understand

something but Jeffrey if they these are

my fa students in Washington right now

cuz they didn't listen to their

Professor Jeffrey we're we're making our

iPhones in India now is that not

significantly important say again we're

moving iPhone production maybe Cooper

you're into economics here and that

impact you you got Apple moving out of

China you've got Japan funding people

leaving China to Vietnam and to India is

that not the solution here as we

decouple from China it seems like they

come back to the table we had XI

jingping kick all the Venture

capitalists all investment out of China

he got rid of all the education startups

and then whatever two or three years

later he's in San Francisco asking all

of us to invest more money and saying

where'd you go okay first of all uh

invite me back 10 years and we'll see

how smart all these decisions are

because uh Shing it's incred no I'm

talking about yes we've moved to India

that's our great Ally and then then

we're going to have other other issues

okay you I think you said that XI

jinping's trade policy is uh implo self-

imploding or something it seems like

there's a lot of self-inflicted wounds

when you it's not let me explain what

the wounds are okay the wounds are the

United States deliberate policy to stop

you from selling things to China and to

stop China buying things from you that's

not self-inflicted this a clear wait

minute just to say let me say please

because it's very important for the

economy of the people in this room this

is a decision that was taken around

2014 to contain China and it's been

systematically applied since then and

it's not a surprise that Biden

kept all the things that Trump did and

added more and now Trump says I'm going

to do all the things that Biden has kept

in place and I'm going to do more this

is not a self-inflicted wound the United

States has closed the market to China

okay is that smart no it's not smart is

it leading to uh is it by the way

recuperating American manufacturing jobs

zero it may shift them a bit it make may

make things less efficient it may may

make all of you lose a bit more money or

not make as much money but is it going

to solve any single economic problem in

the United States no way let

me John let let John spicy I I just want

to ask Jeff a question on

this uh my argument is that this is the

way the world Works yes I know and it is

and it is but if I'm describing how the

world really works how do you beat me

the the reason is you've described a

world you've described I think better

than any person I ever read or know how

American foreign policy works I think

it's likely to get us all blown up you

you not and you title not not because of

John but because he made an accurate

description of a profoundly misguided

approach which

is power seeking even if you're safe as

a regional hegemon you're never safe if

another Regional hegemon does what you

do no you can't allow that to happen so

you have to metal every single place in

the world this now all I'm saying wait

let me just finish because it's

important that it is important to

say try this in the nuclear age you

don't get a second chance

so this to me is the most definitive

fact of Our Lives which is we are now in

a war direct War direct War not proxy

war direct war with Russia which has

6,000 nuclear warheads I can't think of

anything more imbecilic than that aside

from the fact that I know step by step

because I saw it with my own eyes how we

got into that mess because we thought we

had to medal up to including putting

NATO into Georgia in the caucuses of all

places and Ukraine so we made that

because we have to medal because we

couldn't let good enough uh stand if we

do the same with China there will be a

war but it's not like reading about the

Crimean War or World War One or World

War II that's my difference this is a

fine theory that explains a lot of

things but damn if you can make chat GPT

or you can make Optimus or you can make

all the rest we can avoid nuclear war so

just do a little bit better than saying

it's

inevitable all right

so we only have a minute left so I want

to give it to John I just want to ask he

had a question I know but we only have a

minute left and it's we got to add five

minutes this is the best panel I've ever

been on in my life can we just add 10

minutes minutes we got to add 5 or 10

minutes the best panel is this the best

panel ever I feel like calling a respond

wa wa before okay we got 5 minutes so

before before we leave this topic John

your book is called the tragedy of great

power politics you clearly understand

the tragic aspect of how great power

rivalry great power competition can lead

to disaster what Jeff is saying is we're

now in the nuclear age and it's going to

lead to nuclear war so do we have to be

on this path or is there way off of it

two points in my heart I'm with Jeff in

my head I'm not with Jeff I wish he were

right but I don't believe he's right to

answer your question head-on I believe

that there is no way out we are in an

iron cage this is just the way

International politics works and it's

because you're in an anarchic system

where you can never be sure that a

really powerful state in the system

won't come after you and inflict A

Century of national humiliation on you

so you go to Great Lengths to avoid that

by trying to gain power at the expense

of another power and that leads to all

sorts of trouble can War be avoided I

like to distinguish between security

competition which I think is inevitable

and War which is where security

competition evolves into war I think War

can be avoided and we were thankfully

successful in that regard during the

Cold War and hopefully that will be the

case uh in the US China competition

moving forward can I guarantee that no

uh does this disturb me greatly yes but

again this is just a tragic aspect of

the world let me just ask one because

we're a little bit I know we were going

to try and talk about Middle East for a

good chunk of this so I just want a

scenario uh uh propose or kind of give

you guys a scenario get your reaction

because it is kind of what feels to be

the most imminent uh theater of conflict

uh the West Bank um the the Israelis are

buttressing the settlements there's a

lot of checkpoints things are getting

very tense they're running raids and

it's becoming a very difficult place to

live for Palestinians and there's a real

concern that the West Bank collapses and

Israelis and Israelis but there's a real

risk that the West Bank collapses and

turns into a real conflict Zone if that

happens the jordanians are sitting right

there and they're not going to let

Palestinians get slaughtered they're

going to have to do something and

they're such a strong Ally of the United

States does that trigger a

theater of response where what is Saudi

going to do are others going to be drawn

to the region does the collapse of the

West Bank or the the the conflict that

seems to be brewing in the West Bank

become this kind of Tinder Box for

everyone showing up and getting involved

and um uh and create some sort of

regional issue that we get drawn into in

a bigger way can I start and have John

have the last word uh you know I I work

uh each day at the UN um and discuss

this issue with ambassadors from all

over the

world there is over the last 50 years a

a an agreement on what would make for

peace and the agreement is uh two states

uh maybe with a big wall between them on

the 4th of June 1967 borders with a

state of Palestine

being the 194th UN member state and its

capital in East Jerusalem and control

over the Islamic holy sites and that is

international law the international

court of justice just reaffirmed that

the Israeli settlements in the West Bank

are illegal uh the uh international

criminal court uh uh is likely to find

or icj is likely to find that Israel is

in violation of the 1948 genocide

convention

which I very much believe it to be in

violation so my own solution to this is

Implement International law two states

build the wall as high as you need to

build but uh you give Palestinian rights

you establish a state of Palestine you

stop the Israeli Slaughter of

Palestinians you stop the Israeli

apartheid state and uh you have uh two

states living side by side Israel is

dead set against that uh the entire

Israeli political uh governance now is

dead set against that hundreds of

thousands of illegal settlers in the

West Bank are dead set against that

smotrich benir Galant Netanyahu are dead

set against that so my view is it has

nothing to do with what Israel wants it

has to do with enforcement of

international law so I want to see this

imposed not because Israel agrees to it

but because it is imposed and there is

one country that stands in the way of

imposing this not Iran not the Saudis

not Egypt not Russia not China not any

country in the European Union one

country and one country alone and that

is because of the United States of

America and the is Israel Lobby somebody

wrote a very good book about that too

that I know uh the best book ever

written about it by John uh uh and um

that's what stops the solution that

could bring peace and I believe we

should bring peace because not only

would that bring peace to the

Palestinians and peace to the Israelis

but it would avoid potentially another

flasho that could easily end up in World

War II let me answer your question about

escalation potential the jordanians

coming in uh Israel faces three big

problems aside from problems with

centrifical forces inside the society

one is the Palestinian problem which is

both in Gaza and in the West Bank it's

one two is Hezbollah and three is

Iran I think there is virtually no

chance of what you described happening

which is if the Israelis were to go on a

rampage in the West Bank similar what

they've done in Gaza that the jordanians

would come in or the Egyptians or the

Saudis they simply don't have the

military capability this is a scenario

where the Israelis completely dominate

so in terms of escalation with regard to

the Israel Palestine problem I don't

think there's much potential Hezbollah

is a different issue uh but mainly

because it's linked with Iran right and

Iran is the really dangerous flasho

because as you know the Russians are now

closely allied with the Iranians the

Chinese are moving in that direction as

well and

if Israel gets involved in a war with

Iran we're going to come in in all

likelihood remember when the Israelis

attacked the uh the Iranian Embassy in

Damascus on April 1st on April

14th the Iranians retaliated reciprocal

response yeah but but we were involved

we were we were forewarned weren't we

yes we were forewarned but the point is

that we were involved in the fighting

right we were involved with the Israelis

with the French the British the

jordanians and the Saudis we were all

involved in the fighting so this gets at

the escalation problem now to counter

the Iranian escalation scenario the fact

is Iran does not want a war with the

United States and the United States does

not want a war with Iran and it's the

Israelis especially Benjamin Netanyahu

has been who has been trying to sort of

suck us into a war because he wants us

the United States to really whack Iran

weaken it militarily and especially to

go after its nuclear capabilities

because as you well know they are close

to the point where they can develop

nuclear weapons so the Israelis are the

ones who want us to get involved in a

big war with Iran that's the escalation

flasho and The $64,000 question is

whether you think the United States and

Iran kind of loting can work together to

prevent the Israelis from getting us

that that question will be answered

based on the next who who who leads the

next Administration well if you believe

that it matters who leads the next

Administration that's

true take it out thank you let me just

say Jeffrey and John now I know why saxs

will not stop talking about you too this

was the most amazing panel of the event

so far are give it up for Jeffrey Sachs

and John Mir shimer all

right wow