tv Inside Story LINKTV December 31, 2021 5:30am-6:01am PST
♪ anchor: hello again. france is banning both non-essential travel from the u.k., which has reported a record number of covid-19 infections right second day. on the african continent, and omicron variant have driven up infections by 83%. vaccine policies have contributive to the threat posed by the new variants. >> the strategy of vaccine hoarding, the strategy of maxine
nationalism -- vaccine nationalism or vaccine diplomacy has failed. the new variant has demonstrated this. my hope is that companies understand that from now on, we need to have an equitable way to advance the pandemic for we will all be victims of it. anchor: rescue operations underway after a super typhoon made landfall on the heat inside of the philippines. tens of thousands are being moved to emergency shelters. officials say 10,000 villages are in the projected path of the typhoon. there remaining 12 american and canadian missionaries kidnapped by a gang in haiti have been released. the group was abducted in october after visiting an orphanage near the capital. in chile, campaigning is ending ahead of sunday's presidential runoff election. the far right candidate finished
on top in the first round, he has overtaken his left-wing opponent but only by a slim margin. in australia, five children have been killed after a dust of wind -- gust of wind swept up a doncic counsel. four more are in critical condition. facebook banned seven companies which it says were operating as surveillance for hire. it is sending notices to 40,000 people, the social network believes were targeted by malicious activity. politicians, journalists, and human rights activists were affected. you are up-to-date with the headlines. i will be back with more news after inside story. stay with us. ♪
>> tensions with the west push russia and china closer together. their leaders hail what they call a model of cooperation in the 21st century. the u.s. and its allies are suspicious. is this the start of a new cold war for global leadership? this is inside story. ♪ welcome to the program. the u.s., europe, and their allies often portray russia and china as threats to global peace, they cite examples including rossa should build up along the border of ukraine and china scrapped down on human rights in hong kong. moscow and beijing accused the
west of destabilizing their countries by imposing sanctions and interfering in domestic affairs. xi jinping and vladimir putin reinforced at that point in a virtual summit on wednesday. they pledged to cooperate on trade and security and to respect each other's interests. >> a virtual summit and show of solidarity, the president of china and russia spoke for more than an hour on wednesday, hailing their close ties. >> the world has entered unprecedented changes with the pandemic in the last century. china-russia relations have withstood the test. >> historical traditions of a mutual understanding have allowed us to take our relations to the next novel. reporter: trade between china and russia exceeded $115 billion this year, a new high. the leaders pledged to increase cooperation on energy.
beijing already relies on moscow for much of its minerals and natural gas. plans are underway for nuclear power stations. they are coordinating on efforts to further space exploration and scientific innovation. chinese analysts say the relationship is stronger than it has ever been. >> the two countries support each other in their core interests. when it comes to china's core interests, those are territorial integrity and sovereignty, development, and security. reporter: the meeting comes as both nations face criticism for their policies at home and abroad. russia, for a buildup of troops on its border with ukraine, and china, for increasing military activity near taiwan. >>, and interests as well as common grievances brought china and russia closer together. both race -- both face rising tensions with u.s. and its
allies as well as accusations of human rights abuses and both have been supporting issue other on the international stage. reporter: officials in washington have underscored a military threat from russia and china. putin and xi say there will -- say they will work closely when it comes to security. >> the u.s. is completely focused on great power competition after they left afghanistan. there is a short window of opportunity that moscow and beijing see before the u.s. military gears up for this power competition and they are trying to exploit that. reporter: the leaders are known to share a personal bond. several countries declared diplomatic boycotts of beijing's 2011 x -- beijing's winter olympics by vladimir putin has confirmed his attendance, the only major leader to do so so far. ♪
anchor: joining us from oslo, a professor of international relations at the university of south waste -- southeast norway, and an editor, and the director of the program on pills building -- peace building and rights, and from london, the director of the china institute at a university of london. i would like to begin with steve and london. this is not quite a declaration of a new cold war but it is an unprecedented declaration of a property of agreement between russia and china. what is that based on? >> is based on a lot of common interests at the two countries share at the moment. they share tensions with the united states and they want to make sure that they will prevail and not the united states.
they share a common objective of making the world safe, so that the world will be safe for putin and xi jinping. they also share the issue of, in the case of russia, ambitions over ukraine and in the case of china, ambitions over taiwan. there is a lot for them to work together and we should also not forget that xi jinping is reviving [indiscernible] as the ideology in china which makes him much more better disposed to former soviet countries that are returning to authoritarianism. russia is one of them. anchor: what are the russians getting out of this? >> they are getting what they see as an anti-hegemonic partner, someone to help them
develop some alternatives. the partnership expands in many areas. they integrate their economies, coordinate political positions, and also have some degree of military cooperation. the main thing russia would get from this is what they never had before, because they were never invited into the west or to be part of europe after the cold war, so now they think they found an alternative, instead of knocking on the door of europe for another 30 years. this is the main thing they need. it has two components. one is it is a genuine interest, they both have an interest in cooperating, but also a huge component is also to inoculate themselves from u.s. pressure, both military and economic. so it has already been seen since the global financial crisis, china and russia believe
the current position of the u.s. is untenable so you need an alternative as the u.s. trade balance keeps going down, debt spirals out of control, it's inflation now also seems to be enduring. they have been seeking an alternative. the fact that the u.s. also uses it economic instruments of power as a weapon against russia and china intensifies this need to cooperate further and insulate themselves from what they see as american economic coercion. anchor: david, you heard what both our guests had to say, this is a great deal for both of those countries. the u.s. was able to exert some influence over russia. china, perhaps less so. here we are, two big countries getting together. what is the united states' position? can it do anything? >> call it what it is, an axis
of purities, these are two countries that ignore their rule-based international order that evolved during the 20th century. they aggress against sovereign states. in this case, pressure threatening ukraine and china is threatening taiwan and other countries. anchor: if you're talking about threatening different countries, the war in iraq was illegal. that was by the americans. let's be careful. >> i thought we were going to be talking about russia. anchor: we are, what i want to be fair. talk to me about the american position then. >> the united states invaded and occupied iraq illegally to the detriment of the iraqi people. i have no are committed with that but we are talking about today, aggression by china and russia not only against sovereign states but also
domestically as the cleansing of muslims, uighur, russia's denial of freedom of expression, it's assassination of political opponents. the current challenge to the world order is not in iraq, it is with china and russia ignoring the international rules-based order and aggressing against neighbors and their own citizens. there in lies the great challenge. anchor: steve, you used the words authoritarian regimes. david used the word tyranny. what is it? what is this coming together? >> if we are looking at china, is not totalitarianism today, it is a new form of very strong and effective authoritarianism that uses technologies to give it
near totalitarian control, but not the old-fashioned totalitarian control. it has systematic abuses of human rights, so it is a problematic government in that sense. but i don't think we should confuse by using any terms that would describe china as if it were in the maoist era were russia and the stalinist era. anchor: glen, you are shaking your head. what is her disagreement? -- your disagreement? >> i think it is a mr. presentation. on the china side -- misrepresentation. on the china side, the format which china and the u.s. agreed on is the one china policy and it is the u.s. who is acting to chip away at the one china
policy by pushing taiwan towards secession. this is what the chinese are reacting on, saying they will intervene if they go down that path, and the same is true in europe, it is nato that has been expanding towards ukraine and russia has said it will only intervene if the proxy regime in key have attacks -- kiev attacks us. which it can only do with the united states. the partnership is about some commitment to threats arianism, i think that is an unfair representation. i would agree that they both oppose the world -- the rules-based international order. china and russia insist that the international ball has to come first in accordance with the u.n. charter. the international order is an orwellian concept, it is not
include rules, it suggests that u.s. can interfere in domestic affairs, it can topple governments, as long as it is legitimized under human rights and democracy promotion. they insisted that u.s. has to stick to international law. on this point, i agree. anchor: is there an opportunity for the west, for america to retool its way of thinking about russia and china? >> we live in a multipolar world, we have to recognize power is diffused. russia and china have legitimate national interests, but those interests are ill-served through domestic human rights abuses. when we speak about international law, we think about the universal declaration of human rights, we think about international humanitarian law. the struggle we face today is between the rights of states and rights of people in those states
to realize their full potential. clearly, china and russia are champions of sovereignty and they put states rights ahead of the rights of individuals. is that the world we want to live in? is that a formula for development, peace, and security? those kinds of abuses will ultimately backfire and destabilize russia and china in the u.s. should support victims by expressing solidarity and developing policies that push back against tyranny. anchor: when you are talking about pushing back, you sound a little like [indiscernible] wanted to push back the tide. we are talking two big countries who the u.s. has had a tense relationship with because it cannot as easily influence it as it can the european union, the u.k. when you say push back, what are the tools to push back with? >> there are many tools at the
disposal of the u.s. and international community, including sanctions against individuals, trade restrictions, we have the global act which imposes economic and travel sanctions on corruption and human rights abuses. there are rules that allow opposition to tyranny. the u.s. needs to play by those rules, it should not roll over and allow tyranny to prevail. it should push back and make sure that tyranny does not win the day, that invites and freedoms prevail. anchor: steve, whenever there has been sanctions against china, whenever there are international tools have been put in place against china, china has turned around and said, we are too big, this is not going to affect us. they are now even bigger with this agreement with russia.
will they use that power responsibly, will they now have a most pathetic heir to the international community? >> china will push back and push for its own way. when the chinese talk about international rules and orders, they would like it to be the chinese rules and chinese order. they talk about the international robust were as american rules and american order. they would like to replace that by their own versions of it. the more powerful they are, the more they will do so. i think what the united states needs to be thinking about is not a pushback in old-fashioned, cold war way. we are any new world, we are dealing with different competition between china and russia on one side and the u.s. and other democracies on the other side.
we have to prove to the rest of the world that democracies are still more beautiful than what the chinese and the russians send to the rest of the world in terms of their governance and in terms of capacity to deal with the pandemic, which the chinese and russians would say democracies and americans are not doing very well with at the moment. anchor: sink question to you, every time the west has used sanctions and other tools against russia, russia has hardened its position. now is it going to be softer because it knows it has more power under this agreement or is it going to get harder? >> russia the way it sees it cannot go anywhere. the issue of ukraine is seen as an existential threat. if american weapons are in ukraine, that is considered unacceptable.
they are not going to enter any pressure on this area. the first rule of economic sanctions, if it is too harsh, the one who sections builder without you. that is what we see with russia and china. that is what this summit was about. they are seeking a new economic architecture and that will have three pillars. the first is the industries in which they are seeking preparation, high-tech industries, in order not to be reliant on american digital platforms. also for the russians, not to be dependent on exporting energy to the europeans. the second pillar would be the transportation corridor stared -- corridor was. -- corridors. russia is more modest but also developing his arctic corridor in partnership with china as
well as other initiatives. the last would be this financial architecture, which means russia and china should stop using the u.s. dollar, they should stop using u.s. controlled development banks, stop using the swiss payment system, so they begin to decouple away from this. they have been quite successful to some extent. in to 15, 90% of trade between the chinese and russians were in dollars. by 2020, this was reduced in half. more pressure, more sanctions the u.s. pushes on the russians and chinese, the more they will continue this partnership because this is an initiative to live without the u.s. since it is seen as unreliable. anchor: during my research for today's show, i was speaking to a bunch of people -- this is me speaking to people, is by no means a scientific -- people in foreign affairs. the term cold war cap coming up.
-- kept coming up. is that helpful framing for the u.s. or do we need to say, it is a new world order? >> the economic reliance on slave labor. that u.s. will not buy products with slave labor is practiced in production. this is not just about the u.s. versus russia and china, it is about the west and the european union and countries that believe in human rights and democracy opposing that are radical regimes of russia and china. the u.s. has joined with the eu and other countries to pushback multilaterally on the kinds of practices that we see in russia and china. it is a scary world where slave labor and tyranny become routine. it is important that the west opposed that. we can do that to braddock -- we
can do that diplomatic enter consensusbuilding with russia and china if they will have it but if they persist in their ways, there is going to be a cost to pay for them. the u.s. and the west will also pay a cost. anchor: is china worried about that cost? >> i don't think china needs to worry about what the americans are pushing at the moment. in china, it has a leader who is incredibly confident in himself and in the direction of which tribal -- of which china is going. they have good questions about that direction is the good one, but he is very confident that he is right. he is not worried about the american pushback. he is devoting resources, redirecting the chinese economy
to counter what the americans are doing. i think the americans need to be more imaginative if they are going to win this competition. it is not just a direct confrontation with china and the united states, it is about winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world, for americans to win, it has to show that it is genuinely better. anchor: i want to point this points to glenn. you are talking about a decoupling of the u.s. dollar but that has been replaced mainly by the euro and other currencies, that is still the west. russia still has a debt mechanism with the west. that is going to be a problem, no? >> is a gradual process but the dollar has been the key priority. you are correct. when they reduced reliance on the dollar, it also entailed
increasing use of the euro, but also more use of domestic currencies. that is also the path china and russia would like to go, to increase use of domestic currencies, not just replace the u.s. dollar with euro. it is a process. it has come a long way. the idea that this is only about values is a misrepresentation. russia has excellent relations with south korea, japan, israel. the common denominator is nato, a military blog expanding on its borders. anchor: sorry, we are running out of time and i want to come to david. what i have heard from all three of you is entrenched positions when it comes to describing the west, china, and russia. they seem very bullish. do you think this kind of
bullishness is the right way forward? >> the bell road initiative burdens countries with that, it ignores environment the standards, that is not going to win parts and minds. when it comes to nato, is a coalition of countries with shared values. nato is not looking for a dispute with russia. but according to the north atlantic charter, members have to subscribe to minimal standards of human rights and democracy. that is why turkey and hungary are in trouble. anchor: very quickly, i need to come to the other guests. they think this bullishness is helpful? >> i think bullishness on all sides get us into more of confrontations of the same. i think we need to move beyond this to find ways forward that would be more beneficial for the world, not just one's own
position. anchor: do you think this bullishness is helpful? >> know, everyone needs to take a step back and find some new cooperative arrangements. i think this is a path towards the economic or actual war. anchor: i want to think our guests. -- thanks our guests and you for watching. you can see the program again by seeing our website. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. from me and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪
o o @8@8@8 woman: when we talk about memorials, do we keep themp? do we ta it down people tnk this a yes ono answ, but it really convertion. won: this ral manticiz so muchbout westerculture,ut there all nds of pple missg and rrativesissing. woma i thinkontextuazation is key rath than prend thathis interptation othe past neveexisted, weeed to qstion grd naatives a think aut where they comfrom andhy they ntinueo be tol