Podcasts about indo pacific strategy

Today, Morgan, Martha, and Jess unpack key takeaways from the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where Secretary Hegseth reaffirmed the Indo-Pacific as a U.S. priority—but also told regional allies that they need to take more responsibility as America turns inward. Meanwhile, China continues its campaign of aggression, and Europe is slowly waking up to Beijing's threat—with President Macron calling for alliances against “spheres of coercion.”Can the U.S. credibly claim leadership in the Indo-Pacific without a coherent economic strategy? As allies grow wary of Trump's tariff-first approach and the perception of the U.S. as a destabilizing force grows, will they begin shaping a regional architecture that leaves America behind?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out the sources that helped shape our experts' opinions. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/hegseth-warns-asia-allies-that-china-threat-is-imminent-00378700 https://www.axios.com/2025/05/31/rubio-trump-china-students-tariffs-rare-mineralsFollow our experts on Twitter: @morganlroach @marthamillerdc@NotTVJessJonesLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @faultlines_pod and @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/28BJTk4tG4E Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of #TheGlobalExchange, Colin Robertson sits down with Hugh Stephens and Stewart Beck to discuss their piece published in policy Magazine, "Canada's Pacific Pathway: Building on the Indo-Pacific Strategy". // Participants' bios - Hugh Stephens served at Canada Missions in Hong Kong, Beijing, Islamabad and Seoul, and was Head of Mission in Taipei. He was Senior Vice President Public Policy for Asia Pacific for Time Warner for a decade, based in Hong Kong. - Stewart Beck is the former President and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. He was previously Canada's High Commissioner to India, Consul General to Shanghai and postings in Taiwan. // Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson // Reading Recommendations: - "Canada's Pacific Pathway: Building on the Indo-Pacific Strategy" by Hugh Stephens and Stewart Beck - The Leopard by Giuseppe Di Lampedusa - Citizens of London by Lynne Olsen // Music Credit: Drew Phillips | Producer: Jordyn Carroll // Recording Date: May 22, 2025 Release date: May 26, 2025

This week Mike speaks to Congressman Ami Bera, who represents California's Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Bera is a senior Democrat serving as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They discuss the role of Congress in determining U.S. Indo Pacific Strategy.

Despite shared democratic values and growing trade ties, the EU continues to treat Taiwan as a “second-tier partner”, prioritizing economic engagement over political or security commitments. The EU's balancing act between Taiwan and China remains a central challenge, with diverging views among member states complicating a unified approach. In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social), welcomes back Dr Laia Comerma, now also a postdoctoral researcher under the Hans van Baalen scholarship. They talk about Laia's policy paper A second-tier partner? Taiwan in the EU's Indo-Pacific strategy, an ELF publication. This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.

This week Mike joins Mira Rapp-Hooper, a political scientist and expert on the Indo-Pacific who formerly served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania at the National Security Council, White House. From 2021-2023 she served as Director for Indo-Pacific Strategy at the National Security Council, where she was responsible for the White House's Indo-Pacific Strategy.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Mr. Ivan Kanapathy joins us to discuss what Donald Trump's second administration's Indo-Pacific strategy may look like and the ways in which Trump redefined the U.S. relationship with China during his first term. Mr. Kanapathy shares that a second Trump administration will likely show high continuity from his first and speaks to how Trump will have to deal with a more aggressive China this time around but that many of the measures the Trump administration put in place during his first term have served to weaken China throughout the last few years. Mr. Kanapathy provides his assessment that the Trump administration will likely maintain many of the same objectives from the Biden administration, specifically in prioritizing U.S. security and prosperity as well as maintaining strong relationships with our allies and partners. However, he shares that Trump will likely place a larger emphasis on reducing freeriders and on leveling the planning field through increased burden sharing. Mr. Kanapathy shares his thoughts on Trump's proposed economic policies towards the region and his view that Trump's tariffs on China during his first administration were highly successful in diversifying U.S. imports and making goods from allies and partners, rather than China, more attractive. He explains his view that the U.S. needs clearer leadership and a more concrete strategy towards China that includes a model of deterrence without assurances. Finally, Mr. Kanapathy explains that the next administration should seek positive sum competition with China, rather than cooperation, and explains that rather than mil to mil cooperation, leader level meetings will be more effective.   Ivan Kanapathy is a senior vice president with Beacon Global Strategies. From March 2018 to July 2021, he served on the White House's National Security Council staff as director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia and deputy senior director for Asian affairs. From 2014 to 2017, Ivan worked at the American Institute in Taiwan, representing U.S. interests and advising on military and security issues in Taipei. Earlier in his career, Ivan spent a year studying in Beijing and traveling throughout China, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia as a U.S. Marine Corps foreign area study fellow; he later led the development and implementation of the service's global security cooperation strategy and policies at the Pentagon. As a naval flight officer, Ivan accumulated 2,500 flight hours, served three years as a F/A-18 weapons officer and tactics instructor at the U.S Navy Fighter Weapons School (better known as TOPGUN), and deployed to the Middle East and Western Pacific five times, earning several combat awards and decorations. He holds a MA (with distinction) in East Asia security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School, a BS in physics and economics from Carnegie Mellon University, and an AA and diploma (with highest honors) in Chinese – Mandarin from the Defense Language Institute. 

Summary Lieutenant General Anthony Crutchfield (Ret.) (LinkedIn, Wikipedia) joins Andrew (X; LinkedIn) to discuss his time as the Deputy Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command. PACOM covers 52% of the globe.  What You'll Learn Intelligence The role of intelligence in military operations Ethical dilemmas in command decisions Reflections on the impact of mentorship and outreach  The importance of remaining aware in today's pervasive world Reflections The challenges of leadership Hard work, determination, and resilience And much, much more … Quotes of the Week “I worked hard at everything I did. If somebody asked me to do a job, I didn't say, ‘That's not my job,' I didn't complain. There were places that I was sent that I didn't want to go, but I went – And I didn't complain about it…I did the best that I could and it was recognized.” – Anthony Crutchfield. Resources  SURFACE SKIM *SpyCasts* Leading United States Central Command with General Frank McKenzie (2024) CIA Director, Defense Secretary, Gentleman with Leon Panetta (2024) David Petraeus on Ukraine & Intelligence with the former CIA Director & 4* General (2023) Intelligence, Special Operations, and Strategy with Michael Vickers (2023) DEEPER DIVE Books The Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st Century, K. F. McKenzie (Naval Institute Press, 2024) Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine, D. Petraeus & A. Roberts (Harper, 2023)  Strategy in Crisis: The Pacific War, J. T. Kuehn (Naval Institute Press, 2023)  Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific, R. J. Haddick (Naval Institute Press, 2014) Primary Sources  U.S. Defense Infrastructure in the IndoPacific: Background and Issues for Congress (2023) Pacific Partnership Strategy (2022) Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States (2022) *Wildcard Resource* PACOM is, by far, the largest geographical combatant command. The smallest, on the other hand, is the U.S. Central Command. Listen to our interview with General Frank McKenzie, 14th commander of CENTCOM, here!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

News

News

News

News

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   FULL TRANSCRIPT Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which these events occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze these events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issues before us are, what are the three steps leading to war, and what's the real story behind the so-called Uyghur genocide or oppression in China? My guest today is a peace activist, a writer, a teacher, a political analyst, KJ Noh. KJ, welcome to the show. Speaker 3 (01:22): Thank you. Pleasure to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:24): So in talking with you yesterday, you had expressed this concept that there are three steps leading to war. You talked about an information war, you talked about shaping of the environment and provocation. As we look at what's transpiring between the United States and Russia, as we look at what's transpiring more specifically between the United States and China over Taiwan, walk us through these steps and how these steps apply to where we are today. Speaker 3 (02:03): Yes, this is exactly what is going on. So the first thing to understand is that before the US goes to war, there is an information campaign, which we can understand as both manufacturing consent and stirring up people's emotions to demonize and to other the opponent. And so we see that very, very clearly in China. That's been ongoing for many years now. But if you look at all the polls, everybody is convinced that China is a threat. So the first step is information warfare, which is the pre kinetic sube dimension of war. The second dimension is shaping the environment. The US never likes to go to war without shaping the environment first. So in order to do that, it wants to weaken the adversary and it wants to bring as much force to bear as possible against its opponents. So we see that right now with the United States. (03:08) It's created a vast set of alliances against China, Aus Jaas, JAAS, the Quad, NATO plus, and then you can see that there is the first island chain, which it has completely militarized, and it is prepositioning supplies, materials, troops, all along it, including troops, right on Gman Island of Taiwan, which is less than three miles from the mainland. So you see the constant shaping of the environment. Also, you will see preparations for war in terms of massive military exercises. You see this in Korea, which spent 200 days out of the past year in constant military exercises. You see the military exercises all over the Pacific, which are essentially nonstop. And then the last step is the provocation. That is you want to provoke the other side to fire the first shot. You want to wrong foot them so that then you can build on all the demonization and the ally building that you've created and then use that as a ally to start the war. (04:25) And we see these provocations happening more and more frequently. We see the provocations by the Philippines against the Chinese overtaking their boats, trying to cut them off and seeing if they'll get rammed. You see the provocations on the Korean peninsula where there's this constant in your face provocation against North Korea, threatening to decapitate, sending the message to Korean troops to shoot first and report later, shoot, first report later. And you see the provocation, as I just mentioned, in Jinman Island where you have US special forces troops parked permanently three miles away from the Chinese mainland. Imagine if the PLA stationed Chinese troops on Key West or Galveston Island or the Farone Island just right up against the nose of right up against the US coast. Would that be considered provocative? I would think so. And so essentially we see all these three steps happening, the information warfare, the hatemongering, the shaping of the environment, the very, very deliberate shaping of the environment for war, and then the constant provocation. So this is why I think that we have to be very, very careful that it will just take one small misstep in this minefield for something to go off, and that will create a chain reaction that will affect the entire Pacific. Wilmer Leon (06:06): So we saw in the seventies, we saw Nixon go to China. Henry Kissinger helped to orchestrate that entire process and a development of a reproach mon with China. And one of the objectives of that was to be sure that China stayed on our side of the equation as the United States was still involved in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. When we got to, I think it was the Obama administration, that's where this whole idea of the pivot towards China started to manifest itself. What, first of all, do I have my history? And then secondly, if so, what is it that or who was in the American foreign policy elite that decided that this pivot needed to take place? Speaker 3 (07:09): Yeah, that's a really, really good question. I have to go back to a little bit of the history. You absolutely are about Nixon. Nixon tried to peel China off away from the Soviet Union as part of their Cold War strategy, and then they engaged with China, and then they dumped Taiwan, which previous to that had been considered the legitimate China, but they were always hedging, so they always kind of had their foot partially on Taiwan because they didn't want to give it up completely. Wilmer Leon (07:43): They who Speaker 3 (07:44): The US establishment didn't want to give it up completely as a US outpost. And so they always kept a little foot in there. And so this is what they call strategic ambiguity. But the official line was the one China policy. The Shanghai communicates essentially there's only one China. The PRC is the legitimate government of China. Taiwan Island is a part of China, and any issues between Taiwan province and China are to be resolved amongst themselves. The US is going to withdraw troops, it's going to withdraw arms, and it's not going to be involved. That was the agreement, and that was the foundation of the relationship between the US and China. All of that is now completely dissolved. It's gone. There is no defacto one China policy anymore. But who started this war? That is the $64,000 question. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, the NeoCon Mino, Greece, he wrote a document called the Defense Planning Guidance Document, and essentially it was declaration that the United States would be the uni polo global hegemon, regardless, and at any measure, uni polo global hegemon simply means that it would be the boss of the world and it would take any measure, it would go to war, et cetera, as necessary. (09:12) This document, the defense planning guidance document, became the project for a new American century. The project for a new American century was unquote disavowed, but it's simply mutated, and then it was picked up again by a group of people at Center for a New American Security. And those two words, new American, they are not a coincidence. The CNA or Center for New American Security is a kind of a reestablishment of the neocons who started pen A. And so you see this entire chain of ideology continuing from Wolfowitz and the people around him, the neocons around him, the Cheney, Wilmer Leon (09:57): Dick Cheney, Speaker 3 (09:59): Yes, Wilmer Leon (10:00): Richard Pearl, Speaker 3 (10:01): Richard Pearl, all of these neocons, they simply bequeathed their legacy onto a younger group of neocons, the neocons who are associated with the Center for New American Security. Wilmer Leon (10:13): In fact, let me jump in. I'm sorry. Just really quickly on the pen side with Wolfowitz and Pearl, I think Scooter Libby, when George HW Bush was in the White House, that crew came to him and wanted to promote all of this rhetoric. He referred to them as the crazies and said, and this is from Ray McGovern who was in the White House at the time with the CIA said, get these crazies out of here and keep them away from me. And I think it was George HW that by pushing them out, that moved them to Form P NAC and all of that. Speaker 3 (11:02): Absolutely. And remember, these crazies also wanted to go to war against China in the early two thousands. So it was actually, and Wilmer Leon (11:12): They also wanted Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They sent, and folks, you can go and look on the, you can Google this and you can pull up the letter and see all the signatories to the letter. They sent a letter to Bill Clinton when he was president, asking him to invade Iraq. And he said, no, Speaker 3 (11:35): Exactly. And then nine 11 happened, and the Pen Act document actually said, we need something like a Pearl Harbor in order to be able to trigger our plans. And so then conveniently, nine 11 happened, and then Iraq was invaded. But anyway, these crazies never went away. They went into various think tanks, but one of the key think tanks is CNAs, which is an outcome. It's a kind of an annex of CSIS itself, one of the deep state think tanks. And starting 2008, they drew up a plan for War against China specifically. There's an organization called CSBA, which is, it's a kind of a think tank. It's a procurement and strategy think tank associated with the Pentagon. And it was once again, related to another deep state think tank inside the Pentagon that does long-term strategic planning. And they came up with something called Air Sea Battle, which is the doctrine of war against China. (12:48) So since then with Air Sea Battle, air Sea Battle is actually, it's derived from Air land battle, which was the doctrine of war against the Soviet Union, which is why it has a similar resonance to it. And that itself was derived from the Israeli doctrine of war from the Yom Kippur war where they did massive aggressive strikes deep inside their opponents infrastructure. And that became Airland battle. Airland battle was never used against the Soviet Union, but it was used in Iraq, in Kosovo, et cetera. Colloquially, it's known as shock and awe. And they created a shock and awe version for China called Air Sea Battle. And that was developed in earnest starting around 2009. And then remember 2012, the US declared the pivot to Asia. So this is the Obama administration. They essentially declared in so many terms that we are going to make sure that China does not develop any further. (14:06) We're going to encircle China, we're going to station troops in Australia. It was declared in Adelaide. We're going to encircle the entire, essentially it was a plan to encircle China all along the first island chain from the corals to Japan, to Okinawa to Taiwan Island along the Philippine Archipelago, and then all the way to Indonesia. This very, very deliberate plan to encircle and to escalate to war against China. 2008 and 2009 was really the turning point, because it was the time of the change. It was the global financial crash, and the people who engaged with China, they engaged with China under the conceit that China would essentially be absorbed into the US capitalist system. That is, it would become a tenant farmer on the US capitalist plantation. Wilmer Leon (15:11): That's what they tried to do with the Soviet Union. Speaker 3 (15:13): Exactly, exactly. Wilmer Leon (15:15): Under Gorbachev, Speaker 3 (15:16): Exactly right. Yes. So we would become a tenant under the global US capitalist plantation, or it would collapse. That was what they believed. And then in 2008, the Western Catalyst financial system collapsed on itself, and it turned out that China was not going to collapse. It was actually incredibly strong, incredibly resilient, and they actually had to go hat in hand to China to beg for support, in order to prop up the system and then to do a controlled demolition on the backs of the working class here. And so when that became clear that China was not going to collapse and it was not going to be subordinated, then the DCAS came out and explicit doctrine of war started to be prepared. This is what I referred to as Air Sea baffle. So that doctrine of war was created inside various think tanks, CSBA, and then supported by css, CNAs, et cetera. (16:18) And then when the Obama administration transition, those plans were simply kept alive with CNAS, and some of it was incorporated into Trump's strategy, but Trump had neo mercantile tendencies, so he was not as aggressive as they would like him to be. And then when Biden came back, the pivot to Asia was rebranded as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and it's gone full tilt since then. So we see this constant escalation, as I said, the information warfare, the shaping, the environment, the exercises, the alliances, the prepositioning, and then we see the constant provocation. So we are well on the way to war. Henry Kissinger said that we were in the foothills of a cold war. No, we are high up in high altitude and very, very close to kinetic war. Wilmer Leon (17:14): I think I said when I made the reference to Russia that that's what they try to do with Gorbachev, but I think it was Yeltsin to Gorbachev is where all of that financial intrigue was taking place. And I think it was Gorbachev who realized the danger on the horizon and shifted the game plan on the United States, which is why one of the reasons why Gorbachev Gorbachev had to go leading us into where we are now with President Putin. But that's another, I hope I have again, that history, right? Yes, (17:50) Absolutely. So with all that you've just laid out, and before we get into some of the specifics about the info war, as all of this is going on, what we also have is the de-industrialization of the United States and the offshoring or outsourcing of American manufacturing to China. So how do you, on the one hand, offshore or outsource your manufacturing, particularly as a capitalist economy, going to China in search of cheaper labor to make more profit, but then at the same time, you're planning to go to war with the people that are manufacturing a whole lot of the stuff that your country consumes? Is that a good question? Speaker 3 (18:53): Yeah, no, it's absolutely valid. I mean, it's a very, very good point. That's the core contradiction. The US has outsourced Wilmer Leon (19:00): Needs, and by the way, the country that you go to buy your bonds so that your economy can stay afloat. Speaker 3 (19:07): Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. So not only has China financed the United States and supported or propped up the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but also the US exported its industrial base to China because it thought that it could simply exploit the hell out of the Chinese worker at the cost of the US worker, Wilmer Leon (19:33): The sick man of Asia mentality, and we can just play these Chinese people for fools. Speaker 3 (19:38): Exactly. Exactly. So exploit the hell out of them, make a killing, and then eventually China would be completely absorbed into the US capitalist system, or it would collapse, right? It was either collapse or be absorbed. This is what Bill Clinton believed. So that was the plan, except that China developed on its own terms, and it showed that not only is it possible to develop that it doesn't have to become subjugated to the west, to the western institutions, that's when the daggers came out. But now there is the contradiction that on the one hand, the US wants to go to war against China. On the other hand, it's significantly, it's so deeply enmeshed with Chinese industry and the Chinese economy that it is not easy. And so it's trying this very delicate operation of what they refer to as de-risking, but it's really decoupling, and they're trying to separate themselves from China as you would try to separate conjoined twins. (20:43) Except the problem is that China has the beating heart, the beating heart of the industry. So if you separate that out, then you're going to give yourself a lot of problems. And so they have not thought this through, but these are people who are not known for their clear thinking. As I said, they're neocons, they're neo neocons, they're crazies. They are drunk with power. They do not want to give up their power and their dominance over the planet, certainly not to China, and they would rather end the planet than see the end of their hegemony, of their dominance. And that's the really dangerous moment that we're in. I've referred to it as a drunk who as the bar is closing and your credit cards are being rejected, you've struck out with everybody. You're just spoiling for a fight, a fight. You're not going to go home without a fight. And that's currently what it looks like right now. Wilmer Leon (21:44): So the first element of the three that you mentioned is the info war. So we're being told that President Xi is an authoritarian. We're being told that China has stolen American manufacturing secrets and has exploited American manufacturing processes. We're being told that China is trying to take over Africa. There are a number of stories that get repeated ATD nauseum, very little if any evidence to support them. But this is the info drumbeat that you keep hearing on M-S-N-B-C and CNN and Fox News. So let's start with the G is a authoritarian, and he's the dictator of China. China is a communist country, and therefore everything is evil that comes from China. Speaker 3 (22:48): Yeah, I mean, this is warmed over Cold War rhetoric. It's essentially a red scare plus yellow peril, right? I mean, we've heard this stuff before. I mean, if you go to China, you realize that there's nothing authoritarian about it. Actually. You feel much freer and much more at liberty to do what you want and to be who you are than you do here. It's not at all an authoritarian state. It's simply the US plasters, the label authoritarian against any country that it doesn't like and where it's usually planning to go to war against. So that is a very, very clear signal. I mean, just from a kind of statistical polling standpoint, the Chinese government is the most popular government on the planet. It ranks in the 90th percentile, and this is Wilmer Leon (23:42): High 90, I think 96 was the last number I saw, Speaker 3 (23:47): Something like that. Yes, certainly in above 90 percentile. And this is from Harvard University, correct? With longitudinal studies. So clearly they have the trust and the full faith of its people. Wilmer Leon (24:01): Repeat that, because most people, when they hear, I know this, when I say that to listeners or if I'm in conversation and I say, well, when you poll the Chinese people, they back their government at around 96%. And of course, the response I get is, well, of course they would, because that's Chinese polling, and that's Xi telling them what to think. And if they don't do what Xi tells them to do, then they wind up missing. Speaker 3 (24:30): No, no, no, that's sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's good. It's what people think, but first it is not Chinese polling. It is US polling, it's Harvard University doing this over a longitudinal study, I think over 10. It's over a decade, maybe 15 years long. And so it's us polling, not Chinese polling. The second thing is that over 150 million Chinese travel abroad every year, they travel all over the world. They go as tourists, they go as students, et cetera, and then almost every single one of them goes back home. You would not get that in an authoritarian state. You think that if you live in a prison or a concentration cab that you go free and then you come back of your own volition? No, that's not possible. It's absurd. So as I said, the Chinese travel all over the world, and then they simply come back because that's where they want to be. (25:34) So this notion that Chinese are authoritarian, that it's an authoritarian state, nobody's allowed to do anything that's completely fault. It does contrast, for example, with the east block where it was very, very difficult to travel abroad, and once when people did travel abroad, they did defect. That much is true. That is certainly not the case with China. As I said, 150 million people travel abroad and then go back home. So that is a lie from top to bottom. I mean, of course you have a few people who defect. I think the defection rate from China is about the same number of people who defect from the United States. So if you want to, oh, really? Wilmer Leon (26:16): Yes. Speaker 3 (26:16): Okay, Wilmer Leon (26:17): I didn't know that. Speaker 3 (26:17): Yes. So it's about the same. So it's a kind of a net zero. So anything that says otherwise is usually an exaggeration or a misconstrue of the actual numbers Wilmer Leon (26:30): To this idea of authoritarian, and I was just thinking about this as you were talking. I think one of the great misnomers is the conflation of a planned economy versus an authoritarian government. I don't think I'm off base to say that China is very, very focused on planning its economy, and that makes it very nimble. That makes it, in my opinion, easier for the government to shift as world economic dynamics shift. Also, because it doesn't have predatory capitalism in China, corporations in China and the Chinese government that owns corporations, they reinvest their money into their economy as opposed to into stock buyback programs and high executive compensation packages. Hence, we wind up with a lot of technological advancements coming out of China, which to a great degree is what is scaring the hell out of the United States government. Yeah, Speaker 3 (27:49): You're absolutely right. Yeah. So the Chinese system is planned, but it's planned in a very rational way. Most of the leaders are unlike the United States, most of the leaders in the US are lawyers or failed business people in China. Most of the leadership are scientists and engineers, and they go through an incredibly complex vetting process where they have to show their capacity and show their ability over and over again before they even reach to the level of becoming a city or a province governor. And then from there, it just gets harder and harder. So you really make sure that the top people are leading. And then there's a system where there's a constant process of feedback and consultation with the people. So the government makes sure that it's doing what the people wants. And so it's planned Wilmer Leon (28:42): In political science. That's the Easton model, I think James Easton model of the feedback loop, how effective governments are supposed to function. They implement policy, they get feedback from the populace on how that policy is being implemented. They then translate that into better policy. That's the eastern model of called the policy feedback loop. Speaker 3 (29:18): Yes, exactly. There's this policy feedback loop, and once again, as I said, the Chinese leadership are scientists, so they do this thing called a trial spot. What is when they have a policy, they try it out in one city or one area, and if it works, then they scale it up and they try it again in a larger province on a larger scale. And if it works, they scale it up even further, et cetera. So it's a very kind of scientific method that they use called trial spots where they're essentially using the scientific method and a vast system of feedback and consultation in order to see if something works or not. That's why they're, for example, creating sustainable cities, sustainable energy generation, mass transit, et cetera, all sorts of public goods. But the problem with this is that the Western concede is that if it's not liberal capitalists, that is if you don't let the capitalists do whatever they want to, this is an infringement on freedom, and that's the framing that they use. (30:23) If you don't let the predatory capitalists do anything and everything, they want to, you have infringed upon their freedom. And so that's where this authoritarian trope comes from. The thing to notice once again is as you do this extensive planning, what you get to do is you build out the foundations, and those foundations are in public health and in public housing and infrastructure and transportation and education. Once you build out all of those foundations, then you can build up real human capacity, and then you build up a real powerful economy. And so for example, if you look at the 20 largest corporations on the planet, the majority of them are Chinese. But the other thing about those large corporations is the majority of them are state owned corporations. That is to say they're owned by the people. For example, the largest banks in the world are Chinese banks. (31:25) How much do the leaders of these banks make? Well, they make probably they wouldn't make enough to rent an apartment in San Francisco, maybe two times, three times max, what their average income of their average worker is, as opposed to Jamie Diamond, who makes 18,000 times what his lowest workers make. And so it's a very, very different system where you bring up the highest most qualified people. At the same time, you do not reward them for greed. You do not reward them for, with exorbitant pay, essentially, you give them a decent salary, not an exorbitant salary, but a salary, which is good enough for a decent level of standard of living in China. You may give them an apartment and you may give them, there may be a canteen where they can get discount meals, but that's about it. But it's understood that you are going to really work to improve your country, serve the people, serve your countrymen, and then make a better society. (32:39) And you see this real kind of whole society effort to improve the country, which is why over the last 30, 40 years, wages have flatlined in the United States, but wages in China have gone up anywhere five to 10 to 15 times for your average worker, for your average blue collar worker. I mean, they see their lives improving, and also you see the bottom being lifted up where they essentially ended poverty. You go to China, you will not see any slums. I mean, it's kind of astonishing. You go to almost any city in the world, you will see homeless. Or if you don't see homeless, you will see slums in China, you will see neither. And in the past few decades, they brought 850 million people out of poverty. 850 million people were brought out of poverty. This is the world's greatest economic accomplishment in the history of the world. (33:43) And essentially, they show that poverty is a policy choice. You don't have to have poor people. The Bible says the poor will always be with us. No, it's not true. It's an ideological choice, and you can end poverty in a country, and for all of these reasons, by showing that a planned economy where there's reasonable and systematic feedback can have deliver better results. This is why this example is why the western liberal elite class feels the need to destroy China because it cannot have that example, cannot have an example, which puts the lie to the massive exploitation and mystification and deceit that this system is built on. The suffering that we undergo on a daily basis is not necessary. Wilmer Leon (34:45): I want to go back to the point. China has brought 800 million people out of abject poverty over about what? The last 10 to 15 years Speaker 3 (35:03): Over the last, I would say over the past 40 years. Okay, 40 years ago, China was poorer per capita than Haiti. Wilmer Leon (35:14): That's poor. Speaker 3 (35:15): And now there's no comparison, right? Wilmer Leon (35:17): The United States has on the upper end, in terms of what the government numbers are, not 800 million unhoused, 800,000, Speaker 3 (35:32): Yeah. Somewhere in that range. Wilmer Leon (35:34): And so me being from Sacramento, California, you go to north side of Sacramento near the American River near the Sacramento River, people living under bridges, you go to Oakland, people living under overpasses, you go to San Francisco, people living under overpasses, people can't even afford the middle class in San Francisco, can't even afford to rent an apartment that people that work in San Francisco can't afford to live in San Francisco. Okay, pick a city, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia. Pick one. You see people standing in the medians of intersections with signs and cups begging for money. 800,000 people homeless in the United States. We can't fix it, but China brings 800 million people out of poverty. Folks do the math. Speaker 3 (36:37): Yeah, I mean, it's pretty astounding. I mean, the 800,000 homeless is probably an under count because it's hard to count. Wilmer Leon (36:44): Sure. That's why I said it's a government number. Speaker 3 (36:47): Yes, it's a government number. But even without looking at the homeless, think about the fact that 60% of the people in the United States do not have $500 to their name. That means if they get a flat tire, if they need to change their tires, fix their car, or get a parking ticket, they are in real trouble, right? I mean, there's just no margins. And so the vast majority of working people in the United States are struggling, and they see no light at the end of the tunnel at the same time that they expect their children to have even worse conditions. No longer housing is no longer, nobody can think of housing anymore. Now its cars are no longer affordable. Right? When I taught in community college, I was told that 80% of the students were housing insecure. When I taught, most of the students would come to class and they couldn't focus because they were hungry. (37:52) I mean, you have adjunct professors living out of cars. So this is the level of ridiculous, absurd maldistribution of wealth that you can do everything right, work your rear off, and still end up with nothing, just barely be treading water if even that. And on the other hand, you have a country like China where if you work, you will see your life constantly improving from year to year. On average, your worker has been seeing their wages increase 8% every year for the past 20, 30, 40 years. I mean, that's astounding. Wilma, have you had an 8% increase in your salary for the past 30 years? Wilmer Leon (38:45): Can't say that I have. Speaker 3 (38:48): You must be doing something wrong then. Wilmer Leon (38:50): I can't say that I have. Let's move to element number two, shaping the environment. What are the techniques and what are some of the tangible elements that we can point to in terms of shaping the environment? Speaker 3 (39:05): Okay, the first thing about shaping the environment is creating alliances. So the US is creating multiple alliances. That's alliance between the United States, Korea, and Japan. I refer to it as jackass or jackass. You see the alliance between Australia, the United States, uk, to prepare for war, nuclear war against China, Aus. You see the Japan, Philippines, US Alliance, and the South China Sea jaas, which is once again unthinkable as it is with Korea, that the colonial dominator, Japan would be creating a military alliance with the colonized. But all of this is mediated and midwife by the United States. And then you see NATO coming into Asia. So already when the US does military exercise in the Pacific, you see the LFA flying over. You see NATO exercises. You see that Korea is linking up to the NATO intelligence system, B-I-C-E-S, bcs. And that Taiwan is getting the link 16 tactical data link, which allows the US to create a common tactical and operational picture of the Warfield in order to create what they refer to as a transnational kill chain. (40:29) That is, you're using all of these countries for combined joint all domain command and control. It's simply one large military machine, all of these different countries together. So that's one part of shaping the environment. Another part of shaping the environment is pre-positioning troops, pre-positioning material, and also doing these constant military exercises and escalating to industrial war footing, which is what they are talking about. They're saying the US has to shift immediately to an industrial war footing. Certainly South Korea and Japan are already expected to do this. The plans to use shipyards in Korea for to repair us battle damage, and then the constant escalation into what I refer to as the third offset. The third offset is that China has the capacity to respond. If the US and the US has over 300, probably close to 400 bases right around China, China has the capacity to fire missiles and keep the United States at bay. (41:50) It has the Don Feng missiles that are very, very precise. And the US offset to that has been to disperse its troops all around the first island chain, prepare for island hopping, prepare for Ace agile deployment, and essentially to attack China through diffused, distributed, dispersed warfare. All of this is preparation. And then the other way, which is traditionally the environment is shaped, is through information warfare and economic warfare, trade warfare, tech warfare. The idea is that you are going to try and try to create as much disruption inside China itself, create as much descent inside China itself, and also try and degrade its economy before you go into war. Ideally, you want to level sanctions on it before you go in, but in the case of Russia, for example, they will level sanctions after the war starts. But the idea is to degrade the economy and the will to fight, and the capacity to fight as much as possible so that you enter into the battle with an unfair advantage, an overmatch. (43:12) The analogy that I sometimes think of is that when a matador goes into the ring to fight a bull, what they've done is they've drug the bull, they've starved it, they've beaten it, they've dehydrated it, et cetera. And then you go to war, and then you have this theatrical presentation of how you've dominated the bull. In the bull fight, usually the US tries to do this kind of degrading before it enters into war. So for example, it sanctioned Iraq for a decade before it blew it up into smithereens, et cetera. So you see all of these things happening in terms of the hybrid war, the preparations, the alliances, the exercises, the prepositioning and the military preparation. Wilmer Leon (43:58): In fact, the sanctions regime that you've just talked about as it relates to Iraq is exactly what the United States has been trying to do with Russia, has been trying to do with Iran has tried to do with China. And what the reality that the United States now finds itself dealing with is that sanctions regime has forced those sanctioned countries to establish relationships amongst themselves and relationships amongst themselves. So they've entered into trade agreements. They've entered into the bricks, for example, the Chinese development Bank. There are a number of elements now where China and Russia have developed trade agreements, have developed defense cooperation agreements. So really what the United States has done through this sanctions regime is really shot itself in the foot because what it thought it could do with economic pressure and other types of sanctions has actually created a much bigger problem than the United States ever could have imagined. Speaker 3 (45:15): Well, I mean, the US has sanctioned what something close to one third of the countries on the planet or something approaching that. I mean, the idea is that it's simple. A sanction is like a siege. It's like you're building a wall around a country. The problem is if you build a wall around a country, you're also building a wall around yourself, and eventually you're walling yourself in, which is what the United States is doing here. And so with the financial sanctions, with the trade sanctions and economic sanctions, essentially it's strengthening China, Russia, Iran, and the countries of the global south, and it's weakening itself. And so that is the contradiction there. But they don't understand that, and they think that they're still capable of destroying, for example, Russia. I mean, they still believe that they almost brought Russia to its knees, and it's just a matter of applying a little bit more pressure. They're not reading the situation directly. But yes, this is what they want to do, and they consider this to be part of shaping the environment. Wilmer Leon (46:24): And one quick example of that is the whole chip sanction where the United States figured that it could cripple the Chinese economy from a technology side by prohibiting China's access to high processing chips. What did China do? They figured it out. They make their own and better than the ones that they were getting from Taiwan. And an example of that is the Huawei made 60 telephone. A lot of people in the West think that the iPhone is the greatest phone on the planet. No folks, it's a phone that we can't get in the United States. It's the Huawei mate, 60 plus, which not only is a cell phone, but is a satellite phone as well. Speaker 3 (47:15): Yes, it's an extraordinary piece of technology, incredible engineering, and it just goes to show that when the US tries to sanction China or even a single Chinese company by putting it in a choke hold, and its CFO, China just responds with even greater strength and better technology. So it's not happening. It's not happening to an individual corporation, and it's not going to happen to China in general, which is why the US wants to pull the trigger on war. I think there's a part of the NeoCon elite that are so desperate, they see that kinetic war is the only thing that it's the only Trump card that they have left. Wilmer Leon (48:00): And I've been saying for a while to Jake Sullivan and to the Secretary of State, to the President, be careful what you pray for because you might get it even with the hypersonic missile technology. I want to say that, what was it last year or about a year and a half ago, the United States War gamed against China 25 times and lost 25 times. Speaker 3 (48:38): Yes, each time it lost and it lost faster, and then eventually they had to deposit all kinds of hypotheticals that didn't exist in order to give themselves some kind of pretext of winning. Clearly, if they do the math and if they do the simulations, it's not going to work out for them. But the really dangerous thing here, and I'll be very, very honest here, the dangers is that because the US no longer has overmatch and none of these offsets work, it's going to go back to the final first offset, which is mass a bigger bomb, which is to say that they're going to go nuclear on this war and going nuclear against another nuclear power is a very, very bad idea. The US is doctrine of counterforce, which essentially argues that in order for us to prevail, we have to strike first with nuclear weapons. (49:30) That's the idea. It's not counter value. Counterforce. We strike with nuclear weapons first. We knock out as many nuclear targets as possible, and that way we come out ahead and we can shoot down anything that's left. This is the US nuclear position, the nuclear posture. And this is very, very dangerous because it's clearly an act of madness. But as I said before, the ruling, ruling elite, the imperial elite believes that they signal that they would rather see the end of the world than the less than the end of their power, than the end of their domination. Because for them, the end of their domination is the end of their world, not the end of their world, but the end of their world, and they're very happy to bring down the rest of the world with them. Wilmer Leon (50:21): Provocation is the third. We've talked about the info war. We've talked about shaping the environment. And now the third element is the provocation. And we are seeing this play itself out damn near daily, right before our very eyes. And thank God that President Rai in Iran, that President Xi, that Kim Jong-un in North Korea and President Putin, thank God that these are sensible, sensible people that are not reactionary and engage in knee jerk responses to provocation. Because if they weren't as thoughtful as they are, we'd be in a much, much different world circumstance than we are right now. Speaker 3 (51:12): I agree with you. I mean, I think it's the sober sanity of US opponents, which is keeping the world from exploding into war. Just as during the Cold War, it was Russian officers who understood US culture and for example, understood that when there were signals of a nuclear attack being launched, they also understood that the World Series was happening at the same time, and they thought it was unlikely the US would launch a nuclear attack during the World Series. But this is predicated on the idea that you have cultured intelligent, calm people who are able to make clear distinctions. And we see that in RACI and President Xi and President Putin, who are very, very measured in their responses. And they're not seeking war. They're seeking diplomacy and peace. And you can see that there is a constant attempt to provoke them and to demonize them and to trigger war, but they understand that time is on their side, and these are the mad thrashings of a dying empire, and their approach is not to engage. (52:34) The problem is that the provocations become even more extreme, more and more extreme as they become more and more desperate. And there's another piece of the information war that I didn't touch on, but I think it's worthwhile touching on, is one of the key tropes of information warfare is that the other country is a threat to the people of your country. Not simply a threat, but an existential threat, A WMD type of threat, a genocidal threat. We saw that WMD type of language when it was alleged that Covid was a Chinese bio weapon, which somehow was being paid for by the United States. So that doesn't make any sense that research was being funded by the United States. So how is the US funding that research for China to attack us? Nobody seems to be able to explain that piece, but so they're WMD type allegations, and then the China is genocidal in intent, and this is most commonly demonstrated by the allegations of a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Now, just to go over the facts, there Wilmer Leon (53:51): Is, wait, wait a minute. Before we get to that, I want to touch on one thing you mentioned not firing the missile. And I want to say that that was a Russian technician, Vasili arch, about what, 65 years ago, who was looking at his radar screen, saw what most would've perceived to be an incoming nuclear missile from the United States on his screen. And the protocol was you got to push the button. And he, to your point, said, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense right now. This might be a mistake, and thank God he was right. It was a mistake. I wanted to make that point because you kind of glossed over that point. But it's very important for people to understand how perilous the circumstances are that we're in today. Speaker 3 (54:55): Absolutely. I mean, there were so many close shaves during the Cold War, and they're even more now, and the world owes a debt of gratitude to vestly ov. I think he's one of the unsung heroes of world history, but we can't rely on the fact that there will always be a vasili arch of a patient measured, well-informed, educated person on the other side who exercises prudent caution. There's no guarantee of that. And everything that we are doing on our side is simply escalating the danger that that will not happen and that this could end in a nuclear conflagration. Wilmer Leon (55:41): Final point on that, then we'll go to the Uyghur issue. And that is, that's one of the points that President Putin was making about NATO and why his perception was a uk, a Ukraine in NATO means NATO missiles in Ukraine, which means his response time to a message of incoming would be cut more than in half. And he was saying, we can't do that. You can't put these missiles on my border and cut my response time from 16 or 17 minutes down to seven minutes. That means if my system say incoming, I got a button to push. I don't have a phone to pick up. I don't have questions to ask. I got a fire on receipt. Speaker 3 (56:37): Absolutely, yes. Launch on warning, Wilmer Leon (56:39): Launch on warning. Speaker 3 (56:41): Yes. And that's exactly the danger. And this is why this was so important that by bringing NATO right up into Ukraine, the Soviet Union, well, Russia lost all of its strategic debt that it had no cushion with which to make a rational decision. And that is a very, very dangerous thing to do against a nuclear superpower that you have designated as an official enemy. So yes, it's absolutely correct, and this is both the danger and what we are seeing replicated in against China. Once again, the US used to have nuclear weapons in Taiwan Island. Right now, they're probably preparing more nuclear weapons, certainly the tomahawks that are being prepared for Japan or nuclear capable, they can carry nuclear warheads. And if you take US troops and place them right three miles from China's mainland, I mean, you've essentially said that you either have to preempt the attack or you are going to be annihilated. So that is the danger here. Wilmer Leon (57:58): The other great myth, one of the other great myths is the genocide of the Uyghurs and the oppression of the Uyghurs who are a group of Chinese Muslims in a region of China. And also if they're not being genocided, then they're being put into reeducation and concentration camps. Where did this myth come from? Speaker 3 (58:28): It was started by a guy called Adrian Zant, working for the victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is extreme far right organization, fascists, Nazis, anti-communist, who essentially have it on their banner head to destroy communism. Adrian ZZ himself believes that it is God's mission, his mission from God to destroy Chinese communism. And he essentially pulled those figures and those facts out of, pardon my French, his rear end. And so initially, so Wilmer Leon (59:07): Actually French kg would be ass, he pulled those data, excuse my French, out of his ass. Speaker 3 (59:14): I think the French word is true or football. Wilmer Leon (59:20): But Speaker 3 (59:21): Yes, the BBC asked him to do the research. He said, I can't do it. And then they offered him more money, and then suddenly all of a sudden he was pulling numbers out of his rear end. Apparently there were perhaps a few dozen people that were interviewed. A small percentage of them said that certain things happened to us, and then they extrapolated that, and all of a sudden we have 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 5 million, 7 million uighurs either in concentration camps or being genocided. Okay, Wilmer Leon (01:00:00): So how does that jive with the population of Xinjiang, which I think is the western part of China, which is where these folks are supposed to be. Speaker 3 (01:00:09): There are about 12 million Uyghurs. And so if you had even a million that had been disappeared or in concentration camps, you wouldn't have a functioning society. You would have almost every adult male in prison. And that's certainly not the case. 200, 250 million people visited Xinjiang last year, and it was fine. The people in Xinjiang were doing fine. It's a vibrant, multicultural society that is thriving and happy, and anybody can go there. You and I could go there. Anybody listening to this podcast could go there tomorrow. You don't even have to. A visa. China allows Americans to go to China without a visa now for a short period of time, and you could go immediately to Xinjiang and see for yourself. But essentially the fact is there is no Chinese genocide happening in Xinjiang because there's not a single shred of credible evidence. Let me emphasize that. Not a single shred of credible evidence. This is the only genocide in history that one has no deaths. Nobody can point to a body, no refugees. Wilmer Leon (01:01:24): Well, that's, they've been disappeared. They've been taken up by the mothership, and I guess they're floating around in the nuclear. I mean the, what do you call this? The nebula Speaker 3 (01:01:38): In the fifth? Wilmer Leon (01:01:39): Yeah, they're in the nebula somewhere, Speaker 3 (01:01:41): Right? Right in the fifth space, time war somewhere. But look, there are five Muslim majority countries. China has borders with 14 countries, and Xinjiang itself has borders with five Muslim majority countries, very porous borders. If there were any credible oppression, you would see massive refugees going to all these countries right next to it. But it's not. Instead, what you see is preferential treatment of the Uyghurs. For example, they were exempt from the one child policy. They had two, three, sometimes more children. They received preferential treatment in school, admissions and employment. The population has increased sixfold since the start of the PRC, and the life expectancy has increased 150%, and you can look high and low and you will see no hate speech and no tolerance of hate speech against Muslims, and no messages or rhetoric targeting the group whatsoever. In fact, the organization of Islamic Corporation, which represents the rights of 2 billion Muslims in 56 countries, commended China for its exemplary treatment of Muslim minorities. (01:03:00) So this is completely and totally fraudulent. There are 24,000 mosques in the region. People live their own lives, they speak their own language. And then here's the contrast, or here's the test case, because when you want to make a proposition, you also want to make a test group against that. Okay? In Gaza, there is a real genocide happening, either sheer unspeakable, barity and atrocity, the daily massacre of men, women, children, infants, starved to death, unimaginable privation and starvation and suffering, and compare that. And nobody can get into Gaza, right? Nobody can get into Gaza. Anybody can get into Xinjiang any day of the day or night. So really this fraud about Xinjiang being some kind of genocide, this is as much a signal of the dying empire as the real genocide in Palestine, it's foundationally mating, and it's a foundationally violent lie, but it's the other side of the same coin that is you are enabling and covering up a real genocide while you were fraudulently concocting a non-existent one. But the thing we have to understand is the invention of a false genocide cannot cover up a real one. Those of us on the right side of history, we know what to believe and we know how to act, and we know who's responsible, who's covering up what and why they're doing it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:53): And the United States is also trying to foment another genocide in Haiti. So there's a false one in Xinjiang. There's a real one in Gaza, and there's another one on the horizon in Haiti, and thank you United States because it's our tax dollars that are fanning the flames and funding all three kj. No, my brother. Thank you, man. I really, really, really appreciate the time that you gave this evening and for you coming on connecting the dots, because as always, kj, you connected the dots, man. Thank you for joining me today. Speaker 3 (01:05:39): Thank you. Always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. Wilmer Leon (01:05:43): And folks, I want to thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below. Go to Patreon. Please contribute. Please, please contribute because this is not an inexpensive venture to engage in. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one, peace and blessings to y'all. Announcer (01:06:40): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

In this episode of GTI Insights, GTI Program Manager Marshall Reid and GTI Intern Daniela Martinez interview Dr. Stephen Nagy, a professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies at International Christian University in Tokyo. In a wide-ranging discussion, Dr. Nagy shares his perspectives on Canada's new Indo-Pacific Strategy, sub-national collaboration with Taiwan, and prospects for increased internationalization of the Taiwan Strait.

How is the Indo-Pacific Strategy going? Mary-France LaLonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The discovery and revival of a lost Christmas Carol from 1933 Dr. Tegwen Roberts, Barnsley Museums' Elsecar Heritage Action Zone Officer How to make your own high-quality skin care for the holidays Marie Rayma, Creator of Honeybee & Me and Author of “Make it Up: The Essential Guide to DIY Makeup and Skin Care” What is the long-term impact of local restaurant closures? Ian Tostenson, President of the BC Restaurant and Foodservices Association How is the Indo-Pacific Strategy going? Mary-France LaLonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence Why is the VAG exhibiting fraudulent artwork? Richard Hill, Canadian Art Curator for the Vancouver Art Gallery Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of The Global Exchange, Colin Robertson is joined by Goldy Hyder and Jeff Nankivell to discuss the status of Canada's Indo Pacific Strategy one year on. Participants' bios - Goldy Hyder is the President and CEO of the Business Council of Canada - Jeff Nankivell is the President and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson Read & Watch: - "Flashman: A Novel", by George MacDonald Fraser: https://www.amazon.ca/Flashman-Novel-George-MacDonald-Fraser/dp/0452259614 - "For All Mankind", https://tv.apple.com/ca/show/for-all-mankind/umc.cmc.6wsi780sz5tdbqcf11k76mkp7 Recording Date: December 1, 2023. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on Apple Podcasts! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs) and Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Joe Calnan. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

Kingshuk Saha and Manoj Kewalramani discuss the evolution of the Canada-India crisis and discuss how it has not only impacted the bilateral relations between both countries but also has cast a shadow on Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy. Do check out Takshashila's public policy courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/courses We are @‌IVMPodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram. https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts/ You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/featured Follow the show across platforms: Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Gaana, Amazon Music Do share the word with your folksSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As we explore the evolving nature of South Korean foreign and security policies, we ask whether the country is emerging as a more significant international actor. South Korea's foreign and security policies have traditionally been defined by regional interests and, above all, the unresolved conflict with North Korea. However, in recent years, South Korea has expanded its foreign policy horizons. In 2022, it adopted its own Indo-Pacific Strategy. Seoul has also backed sanctions against Russia in support of Ukraine's independence. In addition, it has actively supported the G7's coordination of the response to the war, and the South Korean president has attended recent NATO summits. This new foreign policy direction is divisive domestically. In this episode, host Neil Melvin asks Professor Ramon Pacheco Pardo, Head of the Department of European and International Studies and Professor of International Relations at King's College London, about the nature of South Korea as a foreign policy actor. How should Seoul seek to position itself in the rising confrontation between the US and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other?

Today we're going to discuss a helpful solution to the simple reality in our busy world that it is difficult to build a culture of understanding of any challenge unless those involved in addressing that challenge have a similar foundational knowledge of it.As in most complicated issues, addressing the rise of the People's Republic of China suffers perhaps more than most from this lack of a foundation to build off of.Our guest today is Dr. Alessio Patalano who along with his fellow contributing editors Catherine L. Grant and James A. Russell published this summer through Georgetown University Press, The New Age of Naval Power in the Indo-Pacific: Strategy, Order, and Regional Security, that brings together a variety of authors' works to outline an framework in which five "factors of influence" explain how and why naval power matters in this pivotal part of the world. Alessio Patalano is Professor of War & Strategy in East Asia at the Department of War Studies (DWS), and Co-Director of the Centre for Grand Strategy (CGS) at King's College London (KCL). He specialises in maritime strategy and doctrine, Japanese military history and strategy, East Asian security, and British defence and foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific. His book on Japan titled Post-war Japan as a Seapower has redefined the study of the country's post-war history, whilst his work on Chinese maritime coercion remains as a reference in the field.At CGS, Prof Patalano leads the King's Japan Programme and the newly established Indo-Pacific Programme. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (FRHistS), a Visiting Professor at the Japan Maritime Command and Staff College (JMCSC), and an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies, Temple University Japan. Prof Patalano maintains an active policy role collaborating regularly with think tanks and government institutions. He is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and is Sir Herbert Richmond Fellow on naval strategy at the Council on Geostrategy. He is also visiting fellow at the Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre (RNCSS) and non-resident fellow at the Royal Australian Navy Seapower Centre. In 2022, Prof Patalano became the first specialist advisor on the Indo-Pacific to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the UK Parliament. In 2023, he became also the first academic to be awarded a Commendation of the Ambassador of Japan to the UK for his outstanding contribution to the advancement of UK-Japan ties in defence and security. Prof Patalano is an active media commentator and writer (Nikkei, The Spectator); he collaborates on international documentaries, and is also regularly involved in military education, developing and delivering programmes on East Asian affairs.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3270000/advertisement

What does South Korea see as its role in the Indo-Pacific? How does it view the nuclear threat from North Korea?And what are the opportunities that the Australia-Korea relationship presents for regional security and stability? In this episode of the National Security Podcast, Dr Go Myong-Hyun and Dr Lee Jaehyon from the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, join Professor Rory Medcalf to discuss South Korea's Indo-Pacific strategy and its implications for regional security and stability. Dr Go Myong-Hyun is a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Dr Lee Jaehyon is a research fellow and director of the Center for ASEAN and Oceanian Studies at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Professor Rory Medcalf AM is Head of the ANU National Security College. His professional experience spans more than three decades across diplomacy, intelligence analysis, think tanks, journalism and academia. Show notes: Asan Institute for Policy Studies Strategy for a Free, Peaceful, and Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of KoreaANU National Security College academic programs: find out more We'd love to hear from you! Send in your questions, comments, and suggestions to NatSecPod@anu.edu.au. You can tweet us @NSC_ANU and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on future episodes. The National Security Podcast is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Canada's role in the context of U.S.-China strategic competition is significant, given its historical relationships with both countries. While Canada normalized relations with China in 1970 and sought to strengthen the Canada-China relationship over the decades, its recent Indo-Pacific Strategy takes a much firmer stance than seen in the past, referring to China as a “disruptive power” that disregards international rules; nevertheless, Canada also recognizes that China will have to play an essential role in solving global challenges. When it comes to relations with and approaches to China, where do American and Canadian strategic interests and priorities overlap? Where do the United States and Canada see things differently? What are the main factors driving these dynamics? In an interview conducted June 22, 2023, Diana Fu, Gordon Houlden, and Pascale Massot discuss Canada-China relations and areas where the U.S. and Canadian Indo-Pacific Strategies converge and diverge. About the speakers 0:00-5:51 U.S.-Canadian policy comparison 5:51-14:27 Canada's reaction to Beijing 14:27- 24:50 China-Canada cooperation  Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy: https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/assets/pdfs/indo-pacific-indo-pacifique/indo-pacific-indo-pacifique-en.pdf  Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy: New initiatives and resources: https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/11/canadas-indo-pacific-strategy-new-initiatives-and-resources.html Follow Diana Fu on Twitter: @dianafutweets Follow Gordon Houlden on Twitter: @GordonHoulden Subscribe to the National Committee on YouTube for video of this interview. Follow us on Twitter (@ncuscr) and Instagram (@ncuscr).

On this episode of The Global Exchange, Colin Robertson speaks to Hugh Stephens and Phil Calvert about the Indo-Pacific Strategy and its implementation Participants' Biographies: Hugh Stephens is a CGAI Fellow and a Distinguished Fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. https://www.cgai.ca/hugh_stephens Phil Calvert is a CGAI Fellow and a Senior Fellow with the China Institute of the University of Alberta. – https://www.cgai.ca/philip_calvert Host biography Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, https://www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson Read and Watch: Canada's New Indo-Pacific Strategy: A Critical Assessment by Hugh Stephens – https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/IPT6-IndoPacificStrategy.Stephens.pdf Canadian diplomacy in Southeast Asia: challenges for the coming decades by Phil Calvert – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11926422.2023.2186451 Bangkok Wakes to Rain by Pitchaya Sudbanthad – https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/566672/bangkok-wakes-to-rain-by-pitchaya-sudbanthad/ Canada and China by Bernie Frolic – https://utorontopress.com/9781487540883/canada-and-china/ Listen to our episode with Bernie Frolic – https://www.cgai.ca/a_journey_through_canada_china_relations Recording Date: 8 May 2023. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on Apple Podcast! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Charlotte Duval-Lantoine. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

How will Canada engage with partners in the Indo-Pacific? What does its new Indo-Pacific Strategy outline for the years ahead? And how does this document shed light on the nation's strategic outlook?In this episode of the National Security Podcast, Jonathan Berkshire Miller and Paul Chamberlain join David Andrews in conversation to examine Canada's recent Indo-Pacific Strategy, its interests in the region and what it aims to achieve.Jonathan Berkshire Miller is Senior Fellow and Director of the Foreign Affairs, National Security and Defence Program at the Ottawa-based Macdonald Laurier Institute. He also holds concurrent roles as Senior Fellow at the Tokyo-based Japan Institute of International Affairs, and the Asian Forum Japan.Paul Chamberlain is a PhD candidate at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at The Australian National University. His research is on the role of navies in statecraft in the Indo-Pacific. David Andrews is the acting Policy Manager at the ANU National Security College. Show notes: Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy ANU National Security College academic programs: find out more We'd love to hear from you! Send in your questions, comments, and suggestions to NatSecPod@anu.edu.au. You can tweet us @NSC_ANU and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on future episodes. The National Security Podcast is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Indo-Pacific is rapidly becoming the global center of economic dynamism and strategic challenge. Encompassing 40 economies, more than 4 billion people and more than one-third of all economic activity worldwide—what happens in the region will play a critical role in shaping the future of the international order. Recognizing the importance of the Indo-Pacific region to global peace and prosperity and Canada's national interests, the government of Canada released in November 2022 its own long-anticipated Indo-Pacific Strategy. This long-term plan includes ambitious, interconnected objectives to promote peace, resilience and security; expand trade, investment and supply chain resilience; invest in and connect people; and build a sustainable and green future. As a Pacific nation, Canada shares 25,000 kilometers (more than 15,000 miles) of Pacific coastline, robust trading relationships with economies across the region, deep people-to-people ties and a rich history of cultural exchange. Through its Indo-Pacific Strategy, funded by an initial investment of $2.3 billion over five years, Canada will work to further deepen relationships with regional partners that have been built through decades of government, private sector, security and civil society cooperation, and advance Canada's overarching priority to be an active, engaged and reliable partner in the Indo-Pacific. Join us for a thought-provoking discussion examining the role and significance of Canada's enhanced engagement in building a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable Indo-Pacific region. Rana Sarkar, Canada's consul general in San Francisco, and Yves Tiberghien, professor of political science, Konwakai Chair in Japanese Research, and director of the Center for Japanese Research at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, will hold a fireside chat exploring this new horizon of opportunity, as well as the importance of the Bay Area as an international cultural, commercial and financial hub and vital gateway to the Indo-Pacific region. MLF ORGANIZER Ian McCuaig NOTES An Asia-Pacific Affairs Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Mike and Jude are joined by Kurt M. Campbell, Coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs in the National Security Council, and Mira Rapp-Hooper, Senior Adviser on China at the U.S. Department of State's Policy Planning Staff.  They begin by discussing educational and professional experiences that build the groundwork for successful careers in international relations.  They then discuss the recent one-year anniversary of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, noting that the approach reflects the recognition of “a new strategic era” in the region. They underline the Strategy's focus on alliances and emphasize the importance of promoting broader regional engagement and shared interests beyond the framework of competition with China. Next, they discuss the implications of China's evolving diplomatic approach towards the United States and regional partners. They conclude the conversation by exploring recent narratives of China's overreach, and how U.S. strategy might react to a course correction in Beijing that would present China as a stronger, more reliable partner in the Indo-Pacific.

Dr. Kim Beng Phar discusses the dynamics of what is really happening in China and how that is going to impact the Military, Diplomatic, Geo-Political and Economic relationships.  Phar Kim Beng, Ph.D.,  https://www.drpharkimbeng.com/ is the Founder CEO of Strategic Pan Indo-Pacific Arena; and Echo Strategic Insight. He is a former Head Teaching Fellow (Fall 2018- Summer 2021)who has received numerous teaching and writing awards at Harvard University, while concurrently serving as the Senior Writer for The Straits Times, Singapore, while also awarded the Earnhart Foundation Fellowship. Prior to that, he was the Visiting Fellow of the Japan International Institute of International Affairs, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Although his advanced research had always focused on Track 1; Track 1.75; Track 2 and Track 3 Dialogue. His Ph.D. at Meiji University Japan was on "Origins of the ASEAN Regional Forum 1993/1994 and the Dawn of the Indo--Pacific Age in 2017. He is able to distinguish the difference between Freedom of Indo-Pacific Ocean and Indo--Pacific Strategy, with the latter having more martial elements under the sea and in space. Phar Kim Beng, Ph.D., is an Associate Fellow of Edx.org; United Nations University's International Leadership Academy in Jordan; Salzburg Fellow in Austria and advises the chairwoman on the Reform of Resilience.

Jonathan Berkshire Miller, senior fellow and director of foreign affairs, national defense, and national security at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss Canada's first Indo-Pacific strategy and the implications for its allies.    Mentioned on the Podcast   “Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy [PDF],” Government of Canada   For an episode transcript and show notes, visit us at: https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/canadas-indo-pacific-strategy-jonathan-berkshire-miller

We want to warn listeners that segment one talks about suicide and may not be suitable for all listeners. If you'd like to skip it go to 23:37. If you're struggling with mental health please connect with a crisis responder to get help without judgment: Call 1-833-456-4566 / Text: 45645 (4 pm – midnight ET). In this episode, host Mattea Roach, and panelists, Karen Restoule, Jaskaran Sandhu, and Arshy Mann, unpack the controversial expansion for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) set to change on March 17, 2023. Also, Canada is trying to re-establish itself on the international stage after announcing its Indo-Pacific Strategy in Beautiful British Columbia. Does Canada's future lie in the Indo-Pacific?Host: Mattea RoachCredits: Aviva Lessard (Producer), Noor Azrieh (Associate Producer), Tristan Capacchionne (Audio Editor and Technical Producer), André Proulx (Production Coordinator)Guests: Karen Restoule, Jaskaran Sandhu, Arshy MannBackground reading:Canada will soon allow medically assisted dying for mental illness. Has there been enough time to get it right? in The Globe and MailMedical experts call on government to delay expansion of MAID for mental illness in The Globe and MailCall to Action re:March 2023 MAiD Expansion by the Society of Canadian PsychiatryCanada launches Indo-Pacific Strategy to support long-term growth, prosperity, and security for Canadians by the Government of CanadaCanada's Indo-Pacific Strategy by the Government of CanadaCanada's Indo-Pacific strategy sees China as a ‘disruptive global power' in The Globe in MailSIKHS WEARY OF INCREASED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN WAKE OF CANADA'S INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY by the World Sikh OrganizationCanada's Indo-Pacific strategy ‘long overdue,' shows ‘radical change' on China: experts by Rachel Gilmore from Global NewsSponsors: Douglas, oxio, Athletic GreensIf you value this podcast, Support us! You'll get premium access to all our shows ad free, including early releases and bonus content. You'll also get our exclusive newsletter, discounts on merch, tickets to our live and virtual events. You can listen ad-free on Amazon Music—included with Prime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Manoj Kewalramani and Kingshuk Saha analyse Canada's Indo-Pacific Strategy in this episode. They discuss why the Indo-Pacific pivot to global geopolitics and Canada's challenges and opportunities in the Indo-pacific region. You can follow Manoj Kewalramani on twitter: https://twitter.com/theChinaDude  Check out Takshashila's courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/ You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app. You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/featured Do follow IVM Podcasts on social media. We are @IVMPodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram. https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts/ Follow the show across platforms: Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Gaana, Amazon Music Do share the word with your folks!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 What are some of the details of the Indo-Pacific strategy? Guest: Anita Anand, Canada's National Defence Minister

The sheer number of people, and the corresponding economy, within the Indo-Pacific region is reason enough for every nation to have a coordinated, focused strategy for trade in the region. The need for a strategy may be clear, but the shape it takes, and the urgency with which it is prioritized varies by country. Canada,... Read More

Another series of headlines from our friends at CyberTalk.orgWhat is purple teaming and why is it useful?One easy way to secure your Android6 simple & straightforward Cyber Monday fraud prevention tipsCanada advances cyber security via Indo-Pacific Strategy

China threat in focus as Canada comes up with its Indo-Pacific strategy & Rishi Sunak declares 'it's the end of golden era of UK-China relations' — Watch episode 1121 of ThePrint #CutTheClutter where Editor-In-Chief Shekhar Gupta decodes the latest developments & why Xi Jinping's China is in focus.

Anita Anand, Defence Minister; Michael Chong, Conservative MP; Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP MP; and Harjit Sajjan, International Development Minister.

The Trudeau government has unveiled its long-waited Indo-Pacific Strategy – and Xi Jinping is not going to be happy with it. The 26-page document outlines the government's plan to boost military and cyber security, protect Canadian critical minerals from Chinese state-owned enterprises and discusses enhanced relations with Taiwan. But that's the least of China's problems right now, as protesters take to the streets in large-scale numbers to oppose the government's strict Covid Zero measures. The world is watching as scenes not witnessed since Tiananmen Square in 1989 start to unfold. Plus, British Columbia-based credit union has launched Canada's first-ever “carbon tracking” Visa card. Is this something consumers actually want? Tune into The Daily Brief with Anthony Furey and Jasmine Moulton! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Defence Minister Anita Anand discusses the defence components of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Plus, former Canadian ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques and the Power Panel weigh in on the strategy and the protests currently gripping China. And Kasra Aarabi, Iran program lead at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, on polling of Iranians' attitudes toward their country's regime.

Thanks for tuning in to this Friday edition of RealAg Radio. On today's show, Lyndsey Smith and Kelvin Heppner of RealAgriculture join host Shaun Haney for the RealAg Issues Panel. The trio discuss: Indo-Pacific strategy pieces being announced; Sollio and Olymel and its financial struggles; and, Machinery dealers and right to repair bill. Thoughts on... Read More

Thanks for tuning in to this Friday edition of RealAg Radio. On today's show, Lyndsey Smith and Kelvin Heppner of RealAgriculture join host Shaun Haney for the RealAg Issues Panel. The trio discuss: Indo-Pacific strategy pieces being announced; Sollio and Olymel and its financial struggles; and, Machinery dealers and right to repair bill. Thoughts on... Read More

The At Issue panel discusses the federal government's new strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. Plus, Doug Ford backs down from using notwithstanding clauses again after massive pushback. Is this the last we'll see of the notwithstanding clause in Ontario? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne, Elamin Abdelmahmoud and Althia Raj.

Six months in, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol still treads a careful balance on some policy matters. Veerle speaks with Ms Saeme Kim, Korea Foundation Visiting Fellow in RUSI's Indo-Pacific Programme from 2021–2022. Saeme explores the policy continuities and changes in the Republic of Korea (ROK) from former President Moon Jae-in to current President Yoon Suk-yeol, outlining the country's soon-to-be-launched Indo-Pacific Strategy and some bold new endeavours with partners like the US. As tensions with Beijing and Pyongyang remain, greater cooperation with partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific could come at a cost in Seoul's own immediate regional environment. Despite this, a more outward-facing and networked South Korea with expertise in specific subregions and policy areas is likely to materialise. The UK, in particular, stands to gain from working more closely with Seoul, and Saeme offers a few ideas in this regard.

Nov. 9, 2022 - Former Canadian ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques talks about Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly's speech about the upcoming Indo-Pacific strategy. Plus, British Columbia Health Minister Adrian Dix talks about the state of federal-provincial health-care funding talks.

The headlines are almost scary these days: China and Russia together engaging in massive military drills — including live-fire exercises in the Sea of Japan — the US sailing so-called 'freedom of navigation" operations through the Taiwan strait, Taiwan boosting its defense budget in anticipation of a Chinese attack. The tensions are high since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to visit Taipei this summer in a sort of declaration of defiance against China. Is the US asking for something it can't readily finish? China military expert and author Lyle Goldstein thinks so. He talks to us this week about the strategic dynamics in the Pacific, and the potential consequences of American hubris. In the second segment, Kelley and Dan discuss "The Rise of the Liberal Hawks" — the latest attempt by the Atlantic magazine to smear anyone who doesn't agree with the company line.More from Lyle Goldstein:How Beijing Is Changing Its Rules Around Taiwan — Defense One, 8/16/22The US should keep a cool head over China's courting of the Solomon Islands  — The Hill, 4/27/22The new Indo-Pacific Strategy is too shallow — Defense News, 2/24/22 Stop counting warships. China's special-operations forces are Taiwan's real problem — Insider, 1/22/22 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit crashingthewarparty.substack.com

Almost 18 months into his presidency, Joe Biden's approach to Asia is coming into focus. The administration has instituted new economic, security, and diplomatic policies to bolster U.S. involvement in the Indo-Pacific, providing clues to its priorities through high-profile events such as the publication of its Indo-Pacific Strategy in February and Secretary of State Antony Blinken's speech outlining its China policy in May. Amid an economic slowdown, the war in Ukraine, and the closely watched leadup to the Chinese Communist Party's 20th Party Congress, how would Beijing respond to the latest developments in Washington's stance toward Asia? And can Washington finally find a way to keep up with China's growing presence in the region? During a live recording of the China in the World podcast, Paul Haenle sat down with Evan Medeiros, Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies and the Cling Family Senior Fellow in US-China Relations at Georgetown University, to explore the Biden administration's approach to Asia. This discussion is the first of Carnegie China's 2022 Distinguished Speakers Series and is available to be viewed on the Carnegie Endowment's website. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/06/16/distinguished-speakers-series-evan-medeiros-on-u.s.-china-competition-event-7894

Host Marshall Kosloff is joined by Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson's new China Center, Miles Yu, and Distinguished Fellow, Ken Weinstein to react to the Biden administration's new China strategy and refreshed comments claiming the US would defend Taiwan. China will use all means necessary to gain and maintain regional power, but what is on the table for the US response, and what should be? Yu and Weinstein analyze what the Biden administration's recent comments mean for our relationship with the CCP, and how Xi Jinping is really looking at Taiwan in light of lessons learned in Ukraine and values established from a long line of communist dogma.

Dr. Amy Searight is a leading U.S. expert on Southeast Asia and U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific region. Dr. Searight served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia from 2014 to 2016, before which she served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, USAID, and on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff. Today, Amy is a senior associate for Asia at CSIS. On this episode, Amy offered a preview of the historic U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, which U.S. President Joe Biden will host in Washington on May 12-13. In addition to expectations for the summit, we discussed the challenges facing ASEAN, its members' views on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy and economic framework, China's relations with the bloc, the Philippines election, and more.

Dr. Amy Searight is a leading U.S. expert on Southeast Asia and U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific region. Dr. Searight served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia from 2014 to 2016, before which she served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, USAID, and on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff. Today, Amy is a senior associate for Asia at CSIS. On this episode, Amy offered a preview of the historic U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, which U.S. President Joe Biden will host in Washington on May 12-13. In addition to expectations for the summit, we discussed the challenges facing ASEAN, its members' views on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy and economic framework, China's relations with the bloc, the Philippines election, and more.

Southeast Asia is home to more than 600 million people and the region generates over $3 trillion in economic activity per year. As a critical hub in this increasingly dynamic region, Singapore stands out as a leader in economic development and political stability. In this episode of the China in the World podcast, Paul Haenle speaks with Lam Peng Er about the current state and future trajectory of China-Singapore relations. The interview covers Singapore's stance on the war in Ukraine and its special but awkward relationship with China. Haenle and Lam also discuss Singapore's strategy for navigating growing U.S.-China competition and assess the United States' new Indo-Pacific Strategy as well as its potential impact on Southeast Asian geopolitics.Dr. Lam Peng Er is a Senior Research Fellow at the East Asian Institute (EAI), National University of Singapore. He is the author of Japan's Peace Building Diplomacy in Asia: Searching for an Active Political Role(London and New York: Routledge, 2009). Dr. Lam is an executive editor of the International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (A Journal of the Japan Association of International Relations published by Oxford University Press) and Asian Journal of Peacebuilding (Journal of the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies, Seoul National University).

Jack Maxey and Vish Burra are joined by Steve Bannon, Jay Kansara, and Dave Ramaswamy for a special episode of War Room: Pandemic to celebrate India's 74th Anniversary of Independence. Calling in is Indian Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya (Bangalore South) to discuss the growth of the US - India relationship, especially in terms of the Space Force. Also calling in is Lawrence Sellin to discuss Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Jack Maxey and Vish Burra are joined by Steve Bannon, Jay Kansara, and Dave Ramaswamy for a special episode of War Room: Pandemic to celebrate India's 74th Anniversary of Independence. Calling in is Lawrence Sellin to discuss Indo-Pacific Strategy. Senge Sering calls in to discuss the importance of Gilgit-Baltistan. Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina calls in to discuss his experience as the founder of the US-India Caucus.