the place you call home. and that's part light, it's where we call home as well. that's why sparklight is working around the clock to keep you connected, we areoing our parts with easier for y to do yours. >> is part light provides c-span -- sparklight provides c-span as a public service. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span's washington journal every day we take your calls on the news of the day. we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we will take a closer look at china and the growing economic and political influence in the world. tomorrow, scott kennedy, from this honor of strategic international studies will talk about how it is impacting the u.s. economy.

and the top school of business professor, talks about stricter banking regulations following the collapse of silicovalley bank. watch washington journal live at 7:00 easrn, on c-span or c-span now are fe mobile video out. join the discussion with your phone calls, febook mments, text and tweets. >> each day at this time we are taking a look at aspects of china and particularly what it means for u.s. policy, today w are talking about military, we will look at economic and other issuesater this week. but today the topic is military, and to guess are joining us today, elbrie colb, he served in the trump administration as the depy secrery for strategic development. and a visiting professor from brown univeity, lyle goldstein

thank you for your time. what are china's capabilities and what does that mean for the united states? >> china is certainly moving forward on the military front fairly rapidly across the board. board, there is hardly an area of military development where you n say china is not moving forward. it's quite impreive as a military analyst just to take one detail. we are confronted with new military innovation almost daily. i came across a i wasn't aware of. i was worried about the generation before that, the supersonic weapons. yj-21 is a hypersonic weapon which is a ship to ship missile.

the united states navy does not have either supersonic or hypersonic weapons. it's not true in every area but this is clearly an area where china is not just ahead but substantially ahead. guest: building on that, ihink you asked abouthe chinese capabilities and the chinese had a military a long time ago that was a psant army and heavily focused on ground warfare. they evolved one that is very focused on resolving the taiwan issue. they have moved beyond that. they are increasingly develop forces for what's called power projection that looks like the american military. people say they are not tilting aircraft caricatures just carriers but they are and nuclear powered submarines. they are not ready to challenge us in the south pacific but there going that way. they are spending a significant fraction in the open source of

what we spend. they probably estimate didn't -- underestimate their numbers on the get more bang for their buck because their labor costs are lower. we are looking at the first peer superpower military since the soviet union it's an unprecedeed peacetime military buildup. host: when the pentagon looks at capability, these are the numbers. do the numbers sound right? this was from the defense departnt and if they are right, is there more concerned there? guest: i might disagree a little. i am a little less worried about power projection capabily as we take the grtest sbol of our protection is aircraft

rriers and we outclassed them. they may be just getting ready to fish off which may be in the range but the first two carriers are qui weak d nuclear forces are far ahead of them. i don't consider this a big worrbut i am somebody who has me to believe that china has a substantial nuclear deterrent already. they are finishing off the job of putting the icingn the cake for mutually assured disruption. we have to be cautious with the crisis in china because even if it's taiwan or south china seas, it could escalate to the nuclear level. we have to play this extremely cautiously. guest: i think we ould treat the chinese with the us -- utmost gravity. i think we need to have strength to deal with that, draw air

defense perimeter and that should include taiwan. that's the best way to get the stabit the s. strategic command tified the congress recently that the chinese now exceed the numb of icbm launchersnd at's only one criterion, but 's significant. for a long time, people said th were never going to build a nuclear triad but that's with they are doing. they may be cooperating with the russians to get the stuff you make nuclear weapons out of. i think they are not where they need to go or want to be put they are clearly on that trajectory and we can see where that is going so we cannot ignore the problem so we need to prioritize this. host: if you want to ask r guest any questions, here's ho you can call us --

the chinese president made a speech yesterday and of it was translated andid ts -- >> a great wall of steel that it's capable of safeguarding national sovereignty and -- does this is speak to intention, how do we interpret it? x i look at mostly the capabilities that they are building because, they are building a military to seize taiwan and they are practicing attacks against what are carly

japane forces. we do not have to speculate on this great wall of steel, i think that thehrase that xi jinping used,as somhing like a great wall of blood and down. really chilling rhetoric. i think he has made it clear that he is turning china into going back into, i don't want to exaggerate the point. it was a link to the great rejuvenation, and the other thing i wanted to underline was that they wanted to underline a threat. -- people who take a tougher line on china as i m tend to say they are desperate. no, he said recently in the wall street journal that china is being strangled. he used the term suppressed. i don't speak chinese but that's the way it was translated in the press. some conductor sanctions etc.

they are feeling threatened. this is a dangous situation and a dangerous situation in the coming years. not something that is a long-term problem like 2045. in my zone -- in my view, we need to combine real strength militarily so that xi jinping and the chinese leadership do not see an opportunity to strike. we need to be careful how far we push them and provoke them. this is a balancinact that i'm not sure we have beenavigating well lately. >> mr. goldstein? >> i have areas of agreement with rich here. he has written that we do not wa to overstress ideology or get into some great ideological struggle here. he has also mentioned i know th we do not want to trigger the curity dilemma here. but i feel that u.s. and ina retions are in a very dangerous spot. you know, this is not merely rhetoric on thchinesside, there is a fear aninsecurity there.

partly, this is because the scenario that's bere us. the taiwan scenario is right in their front yard. it touches tir core ierests. because of this, they are considering it quite possible that a war will eak ou i do not know if americans hav grappled with that fac and here is where mr. colby an i disagree quite strongly is that the u.s. should defend taiwan. i think that has to be outside the perimeter. this is not good ground, probably the worst place to take on chi. have all the advantages. so we should use data to our advante and defend japan and the philpines. you can realistilly defend in depth. in depth. otherwise, wwill be dragged into it, like which is a kind of family quarr.

the huge distances are against otherwise we will be dragged in conflict which at the end of the day is a kind of family quarrel. the lance is against us, the asymmetry of will. they care about this a lot more than we do. d again, going back to the nuclear risk that is you could certainly see it. i agree with a lot of this. the way i look at the taiwan situation is very much in america's interest that it not forcibly subordinated to china. it makes sense in a vacuum but the reality is that government should be in place like coco -- tokyo and manila and these countries are looking very carefully at how the u.s. backs this up. taiwan is also very militarily valuable a the chinese would

have access to the -- the specific -- the pacific. they are not existential interest. 70 out of a hundred is what i think of so the key thing is to laser focused on the defensive taiwan and draw out the costs and risks. the thing that we have going for us is what's kept taiwan free the past 70 years which is -- ways -- which is it's hard to launch an air assault invasion. adolf hitler dominated the european continent but he could not get across the water so we can do it we have to focus and haven't been focusing enough. they say they are focusing on this. if we end up in a situation where we are can held to redraw taiwan because we are ill prepared, it will be more dramatic and more dangerous and

re extreme the steps we will have to ke to compensate for it. in many people's minds, they are thinking 1941, the japanese bombed us but we can aays churn up the industry and overpower them. in 1941, japan was 1/10 the size of the american economy and now it's -- and now china is an economy of considerable size. we could be not only in real trouble but irredeemably so. host: before we take calls, how are you funded? >> we are a nonprofit funded from u.s.-based individuals and resear of the u.s. government and take money from u.s.-based foundations and we are focused on preparing the united states and alliaes for partnerships with europe. host: how are you funded?

>> the same except we don't take money from the u.s. government. we are privately funded but all u.s.-based funders. host: let's start with alex in california, independent line, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have two comments. the first comment is that when commentators talk about taiwan, they never talkjapan is defensiy have a large number of islandste go to war depends on the american people. it's quite easy for beijing to figure on american ambiguity by conducting a whole. -- conducting a poll. why hasn't the beijing governme or milary conducted

a poll to a the america people whether they are willing to go to war over taiwan? if they are not, that basically means beijing is free take taiwan by force. guest: i think the caller hints at this very grave asymmetry of will. i don't think there was a poll that asked americans if they knew where taiwan was on a map. his strong majority could not find taiwan on a map. there is a t of islands out there. this one is especially close to china, about 90 miles ross. it really is quite reasonable that americans generally do not want to go to war for taiwan. the more threat the china part is heightened, there is more going on. raises the number but until people are really getting killed

, thousands of americans dying every day in a war, that could get much worse. this could have escalated to the nuclear level. could be on par with world war ii so when americans consider that they should consider various alternatives which is engaging taiwan and the philippines to draw a redline. the american people have a lot of common sense. i'm not sure about the washington elite. we should recognize this is a bridge too far. japan is defensible and they have a largeumber of islands and a fine self-defense fighting machine. if they have to take on china, they will be ready and we can help them but drawing the line over taiwan is areat mistake

americans understand that. guest: the polling that high have seen -- that i have seen says there is support among the american people to defend taiwan. this is no -- by no means a positive directly to the issue it's kind of abstract. the attackn the philippines in 1941 was launched from formosa.

wusan is roughly 100 miles from taiwan. these are very tightly coupled in all the issues of disnce that apply to taiwan also applied. the one area agreent -- up agree bit is that the chinese expect the united states to come to taiwan's defense but i'm not sure we have t option of cutting off taiwan because chinese seem to be preparing for a larger cflict and would attack u.s. and japanese bas. whether or not, this will be a larger conflict, god for bid. guest: i have to disagree. china does not want to fight the u.s., that is clear. while they are preparing to do so, the opening moves in the taiwan scenario would be taxing

taiwan proper and doing the best to avoid using forces. wenow we don't want to go to war with cheney -- with china either. i think there is a sense that taiwan is a trampoline and china will jump on the tmpoline and leapt to japan and the philippines. i think this is very mistaken. there is no evidence for that. every day on chinese military media, they will threaten taiwan because that is a civil war left over from the cold war. americans don't realize that the official title of taiwan is the republic of cha. this should hint that this is a long time civil war.

it's not true of the philippines or japan. there are no seris territorial disputes between japan and china in the philippines. to call taiwan a trampoline on par with japanese aggression in the pacific war i think is mistaken. they speak chinese in taiwan. they don't speak chinese in the philippines. we need to treat taiwan as an isolated case. i think we realize it probably not defensible but that doesn't mean we don't have a good defensible position. guest: i didn't use the word trampoline, you did.

we could live in a world in which the arguments were in -- were compelling that the military old up is limited. that's not the world in which we live. look at the military bases they ilt bend taiwan. some are larger th the district up columbia. the military they are building is clearly for power projeion. look at where the u.s. government is looking for bases, indian ocean, south pacific and even the atlantic coast of africa. in theory, we could live in a different world that's not the world we are living in. host: up next is our democrats line. caller: good morning to all three of you. i'm listening to your best and i would say mr. goldstein has the most reasonable take on the issue of taiwan.

i think the chinese consider taiwan as part of their country. for the united states to get involved in their internal affairs, they been able to put up with the rhetoric that i don't think they will put up with the military interference in taiwan. i understand united states will send so units to japan. the issue should be lef to china, not the united states.

guest: >> i don't think we want to -- i think mr. colby has made this -- and moreover not now b

nobody in the right mi would suggest that the u.s. military would try to defend hong kong. this is not very different, unfortunately. i would li to return to the point about -- i think that the call is absolutely right. a civil where -- a civil war that carried over from the cold war. look at the documents, the u.s. recognizes that taiwan was part of china. and the national palaceuseum in taiwan, go on to the website, and they brag about having 700,000 chinese relics. the most incredible collection in the world. it's true. but that is partly because again this was a civil war, these relics were on the mainland. so we should recognize that.

look, the u.s. has been trapped in civil wars going back to vietnam. afghanistan, iraq, let's not get embroiled in another civil war. let's draw a redline with our treaty allies japan and the philippines. >> one in washington and one in calirnia about china and its military in respect to our military. it was the defense department yeerday, the assistant to an secretary kathle hicks talked about thbudget being planned to release to congress, particularly words she had directed towd china. i want to play you what she had say and get your response. >> our goal is to deter because competitn does not mean conflict. we must have the combat credibility to win if we must fight. so first and foremost, this budget is a procurent budget. it puts the thumb on the scale in favor of game changing possibilities tt will be delired not just in the near term but in thlong term as well.

our greatest meare of success and the one we use around your most oftens to make sure the prc leadership wakes up every day considers thrisk of aggression and concludes today not the day. and for them to think at today and every day between now and 2027, now in 2035, now in 2049 and bend. ho: thawas from yesterd. the wall street jourl highlights wherehe money is going. whenou hear that lk, what does it say about china but how we are preparing against them? guest: i agree that we are not at all prepared for a war in the taiwan straits. i think there is a real possibility that we would lose such a war. unfortunately, we would have two quadruple our defense it and it

might still not have adequate arms because of the distances involved. china can bring more firepower against the islands than we could possibly. this is 8000 miles away from the united states. we need to have a strong defense but instead of spending more and more, we should choose a more rational defense line and spend more wisely. i work for the navy for 20 years d you do not need a huge number of big guns. we should move away from that. they are not viable for atta submarines and we don't have enough area we don't need to spend more money, just more wisely. guest: i thought the comments from deputy secretary hicks were excellent. it shows a rear area of bipartisanship. this is the kind of thing i was trying to push as well and i want to commend her not only for the focus on china but they have taiwan is there scenario.

she said in the long and near term. we cannot just prepare for 2040, we have to be rey for 2027. the question here is implementation. does the budget follow through? my perspective at this point, we are facing a peer superpower since we became a world power. if the first time refacing a genuine peer economy. it was noted that china is in the lead in many areas area my view is that we need a fundamental change. what i see so far is that artman of defense is doing a lot. -- the department of defense is doing a lot and there are good things hpening to deal with a generational challenge from china whether or not you think we will defend taiwan but we

will have to have more fundamental change. last time i was here, we were talking about the industrial base. there has been talk about this and some changes but that will not do the trick. we need significantolitical investment, top-level signing from the president down saying this ia nationalriority. i haven't seen that yet. host: two guests joining us for this conversation. anthony in pennsylvania, republican line, you're next. caller: hello, thanks for taking my call. i'm really mystified and how it could be possible that a fighter jet can fire a million-dollar missile and miss a balloon. number two, maybe you could comment on this, the balloon

that flew over our country, how come they could not bring it down intacbefore it flew all over the states? host: did the chinaalloon shoot down change the relations with china? guest: i don't think it changed very much. in my view, this probably was some sort of mistake and i think china should be embarrassed about this. chinwill do more and more surveillance and chinese surveillance has been improving. i think they he 24/7 coverage with a satellite aray and they watch everything which is why i'm concerned. i don't think we want to be

overly concerned. they do see using balloons in a conflict over taiwan but balloons flying over the united states, i don't think that is part of their plan. we have to be careful about threat inflation and balloons are actually white hard tshoot down. i think we should have gotten it earlier. host: how has this changed perspective? guest: for people who watch china closely, it was not that surprising but it has an impact on the man in the street perspective. it drove home that china does have global in -- ambitions and the ability to operate in our own skies in a way that people said i think of it as half a world away and that's a corre inferencer take away from what happened. sometimethe missiles are not engineered must necessarily r

taking down a balloon. it's not something e air force has been practicing a lot. as the northcom commander has pointed out, this has revealed gaps going on. host: this is t indepdent line, od morning. caller: i think some people are a danger to this country. what is the basis for this false narrative we g, this hysteria about china? these are the same people who lead us into several warthat we lost, and dennis then we didn't do well, libya, we didn't doell, iq was st. now they are telling us they can manage china. frankly after what happened afghanistan, a lot of guys should've been fired and there ould have been in rest and

they should have gone to prin. why are we pulled into this crusader is him? theris an element of racism anhave this narrative of china is painted. you want us to spend the liens of dollars on war weapons. weent fothose same weapons and we coul've one in afghanistan. now we must retoolnd spe more in taiwan. the raise a good point. you ask americans to fight taiwan on the map and they cannot find afghistan either. we wake up every day, not worrying about chinese -- knocking on the door. we worry abo sending her kids to college worry about o can afford housing, we worrabout the job market and if we have enough savings to last six months. i wish this country would fos on domestic issues.

host: we got your point. guest: we have a pretty left-wing biden administration. look at whathe national security advisor said. they are saying china is the biggest challenge. it's not threat inflation. take it from them. it's thsimple fact is the largest military old up in a generation or more. that's just the reality and you look at what the chinese have created in terms of social capital scores and what they did in hong kong and tibet. that's the reality. i suggest you look at my personal record for myiews. i opposthe iraq war in the

intervention in syria and libya. i agree with you that a lot of people responsible for those wars should not listened to. that would hopefully give me more credibility because i'm not a waonger. i want to avoid a war. the united states did not follow your line of thinking in the cold war. we avoided war without the capitulation of western europe. your last point is very on point. this is about american prosperity. this is not about something going on in taiwan. we clearly see what china's ambitions are. they want to make the world and onomy centered around themselves. if you're worried about your economic prosperity, you need to be worri about china because if they succeed in their grander ambitions, forget about the

things you're talking about. that will be a world dominated by beijing. guest: the caller brings up some good points. we have blundered into civil war after civil war, afghanistan, iraq and going back to vietnam. how did we get into vietnam? we were trying to can chain -- contain china and quell chinese influence in south aa. the last cold war ended in a favorable way. let's not forget that i believ we lost 60,000 young americans in vietnam war and let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of americans wounded. this is not a desirable out come. we need to realize china's gains are limite we need to realize this idea

that china is trying to take over the world is patently false. look at africa, they have a military base in africa but they have not used for some large-scale even though they been there for a long time. they are mostly building roads and railroads and making money but africa is by and large improving. there are problems with any kind of major development around the world. china's names are limited. we have to keep our powder dry and keep a strong defense and perhaps we have to draw some redlines. we have a very strong and defensible position. we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves to try to defend taiwan and getting crazy about each move that china makes in the asia-pacific let's imagine if china tried to defend cuba or somewhere in the caribbean against the united states. it wld be ridiculous.

this defensiveaiwan is quite ridiculous. at some level, is a guns and butter question. we try to defend taiwan, americans will be worse off because we need to triple our defense budget guest: i neglected to address thpoint about racism. the countriewe are working with, we don't want to be dominated the chinese or east asians. countries like indiin sou asia. if there is racism involved, it'a dismissive aitude about the chinese. i t the chinese very serious with the numrs and i've had long experience th the personally. am concerned. this is an extremely important

country. there is often a kind of soft ids the chinese -- older pele in washington think the chinese are still riding around on bicycles or something. that is the farthest thing from reity. i think it's the opposite of being cist. guest: i appreciate that y take chinese capabilities very seriously. i think there is a racist compent too many in washington. there is ts kind of yellow peril fear which is behind some ofheir issues. on japan, it seems that japan is quite inexperienced in the way geopolitics in international affairs go. there is a lot of bad blood between the chinese and the japanese. have to look athis

subjectively and realize japan is white defensible. security interts in pan and china align whiteell. they want to trade and build infrastructure. we should be working to bring tokyo and beijg together instead of stimulating more bitterness. it will require some kind of reconciliation but the idea at china's inking of invading japan is detached from reality. therefore, jan is defensible and not really threatened. japan is choosing to spend a bit more that is reasonable and they should share the burden of some kind of adjustment i think they spent 1% of gdp which is far lower than america. we a paying much more and are worse off than defending someone

else. host: let's hear froricharin maryland, go ahead. caller good morning, i don't think the chinese are afraid of austlian submarines or america being a thousand miles away. what they do have respect for and the guy talked about japan, historically speaking, fly equipping japan is the linchpin for the asian basin would more than get china's attention. i think would give them a little hard earned the fact that the only ally they have over there is the one they bought which is north korea. two equally arm and equip japan under their umbrella, the philippines could him in and even taiwan. could possibly get under that on

brel and it wouldn't violate our one china policy. i think we need to try to convince the japanese to step up , be the linchpin for the whole curity of that area and i assure you, having done so for doing so, it would take all the fire out of the chinese dragon and the tiger would be distemper. st: thank you very much. there was an announcement sterday from president biden on the nuclear submarine sale to australia and here's part of his sponse from yesterday. [video clip] >> our unprecedented trilateral cooperation i believe is the strength of the long-standing ties in our shared comtment of ensuring the io pacific remains free and open, prosperous and secure, to

provide opportunity for all come hehared commitment to a future rooted in our common values. that's the objective united states shares not only with the u.k. and ausalia but shared by her friends in the region, her friends in the pacific island and other treaty and close partners. there is one overriding objective whic is to enhance the stability of the indo pacificmong ridly shifting global dynamics. host you can respond t that, i believe it's three submarines to australiay 2032. guest: ipplaud the president for bringing attention to e undersea issue of submarines. they are the most potent part of our toolkit out there in the pacific. i am glad for that have long

advocated for larger submarine flee i think are something like tack bts and i woun'mind seeing like 100. i don't think thbudget needs to increase. we need to rejigger that and spend less on airpower because the airbases are so vulnerable and i think the carriers also. i applaud the president for focusing on submarines but not to mystic about it. there too complex and too slo australia is a long way. from china. i don't think this deal would appreciatively chae the china calculation. they might react and build up in a huge way to respond to what they see as an undersea threat so we don't under estimate them. while i don't agree with the thrust of the calle i don't

think japan can te a lead here. i think japan eds to spend more. americans have been bearing an unfair burden and that should be readjusted substantially. i don't think japan is under a grave threat it's not a huge adjustment. the u.s. is in a very favorable position in the asia-pacific and that won't change because japan is strong and will be strong, australia is strong, india's strong, vietnam a song, south korea strong. we havto figure out what we are worried about. we had powerful allies that will remain so. the more we spend on their defense, the less they will. we should be quite limited in our objections. i don't think china wants to invade india, australia or any of these countries. we don't want to exaggerate the

threat generally. guest: everything you say leads to us defending taiwan. the philippines is not that far from taiwan. you said the stopping power of water is the same concept. that logic applies to china. mao cared about taiwan but he couldn't get added. the chinese have the ability to project amphibious forces but also the philippines and japan or south korea but the u.s. is in a great position but taiwan should be sensible. i agree that jans our most important ally here. they are movintoo slowly right now.

i would like to point out that japan is a fraction of the size of china economically and it has had a capable military but underdeveloped one. they have a long way to go. i agree that they need to step up in concert with our efforts. it's very encouraging and shows a connection with the auralians. i think it involves a lot of moving pieces and it's not clear how much additional capability wi deliver. we want more submarines but the problem is our defense industrial base, maintenance capability is below what we need the plans for the australians to help improve that situation.

there is a lot of moving pieces in the one thing we must be clear about is we cannot allow this to compromise the elder of our own u.s. submarine base. these are among the crown jewels of our military. we have to be confident about them and i think the australians are our best ally but this is high-stakes and cannot mess this . i don't want to say through gold were -- i don't want to say it's rude goldberg. guest: you can talk aut japanese defense. i brought up the historical issue because when senhower led air forces across the u.s. channel in 1944, he didn't have a giant force of missiles were 1000 helicopters. he didn't have google earth or drones but there are fundamental differences between leaping 100 miles an leaping 500 or 1000

miles. to cquer japan, it would require immense effort. china would have t have five or 10 times the defense. budget it currently has the same with the philippines. the philippines is a gigantic archipelago and there defense is totally feasible but taiwan is different. it's 100 miles from china at the small island and the geograp is notavorable. thmountains would create a fortress in taiw are on the wrong side taiwan is incredibly vulnerable and china can do things like you can fly and attack helicopter across the straight no problem and then cycle it back five times into the fight. it's very easy to wield those capabilities it becomes more difficult at 500 or 1000 miles.

japan and the philippes are more defensible. that doesn't even mention the issue of will. china says it's getting ready to attack taiwan every day they have the will and the intention. there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that for japan or the philippines. guest: i don't think the chinese will annex the philippines or japan but they want to do something all along the lines of what we did in iraq and vietnam and cambodia which is a use of their military to impose a more friendly government. not only uld they have access to taiwan but they have huge bases in the south china seas th undermine your point. they are specifically designed to project per. we have to look at this as a dynamic situation. countries in asia are wondering

whether it's prudent to stand up to china. they don't want to have another vietnam. they want -- they don't want to live under chinese domination. guest: it's reasonable for countries that way back when we had problems with mexico and we learned to live with each other. that's the nature of great powers. the philippines is not in great danger and neither is japan. ultimately, the u.s. has the power to defend them extremely well. it's simply not true with taiwan. if you look t the chinese relationip with his neighbors, even countries far weaker and not defendant by th u.s. in ntral asia, china has quite

go relations but there is no evidence to suggest that cna is seeking this regional hegemony. they are not necessarily a threat tthe essays. = >> we did nothing to stop them to put outposts in the south china seas. guest: the islands in the uth china sea agree that it's more troubling. they are very extensive. there has also been a fair amount of restraint on our part. there was a time u.s. leaders were asked what they are going to do about it but they said they don't want to go to war.

china at se reasonable and important interests. all their oil comes across the south china seas and they have submarines operating in the area and they want to protect the. china has acted with summer straight. they could have put defenses into these islands but they have not done that they have acted with a little bit of restraint. we need to keep a lid on tensions there and avoid escalation. u.s. ships and aircraft continue to circulate through the south china seas buthere is no imminent danger. this is mostly about a contest in the south china seas about oil and gas resources and fisheries. should the u.s. get involved in world war iii over fisheries? i don't think so.

we have fishery conflict with canada. guest: there is a good article in the wall street journal over the weekend. it shows a massive failure of u.s. policy. they say china has effective operational control of the south china sea during peace time japan and the philippines and australia identify china as a big red. it's about how a great power behaves. china is a rising superpower is just human nature and structural to expect them to expandt's not ectly ninunder the marxist leadership. this is not franin roosevelt this is a much different complexion.

asia is going to be the future of theorld. when we talk about our economic prosperity, the future of everyone's economic prosperity is going to be about asia because that's the world's largest market and at the chinese control that market area which they want to do, they will have a dominant position here because american companies will be put out of business and everything wl circle around china. they got social capital and they will use data and ai. it's happening in china were peaceful have social credit scores. our best course is to be strong and forceful and clear and don't mess with us. it's clear what r perimeters army understand the chinese and respect them. we are not racist and from that position, i think we can find most anything that we have to strength our position rst. guest: i think our position out

there is very strong. we continue to have the strongt armed forces on the planet we have strong allies. we want to maintain stability in the taiw straits. if we adhere closely to the one china policy that is an esntial comprise that nixon and kissinger orchestrated in the 70's, th's the bedrock of u.s.-china relations and we's should seek to maintain it. we should not try to enter into another civil war nor should we think about world war iii over some kind of fishery dispute or dispute about drilling. i ree that we can avoid bankru ourselves and wonder into catastrophic war which has the danger of nuclear

escalation. host: the director for asia in gauge meant. -- for asia engagement. >> on wednesday testifying on civilian and military -- and the jrotc program. watch a live coverage at 3:00 eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app. or online at c-span.org. >> c-span campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat tohe presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail

with announcements, meet and greets, and events, campaign 2024 on c-span networks. c-span now, our free mobile video app. and anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> president biden announced an executive order on firearms, and the need to increase background checks promote firearm storage and curb gun violence. speaking from monterey park, california the president also honored the victims of the mass shooting that took lace there in january. d acknowledged t heroic actions of the man who disarmed the gunmen. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]