Tony Blinken Back to China: Begging Bowl in one Hand & a Knife in the Other!

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Very, very excited to be with you today given the nature of the topic, and I couldn't wait to just come on the air and share with you my own assessments, my own analysis, and highlight the fractured and ill-conceived American foreign policy It's on display right there with Blinken going to China. So this very, very embarrassing is not a laughing matter. It's very concerning as to we couldn't accept the truth as to how the global order is changing, and we're still thinking we are the masters of the world. This is what's problematic. So, so before I'll get into all this, let me say hi to some of you. And some of you has been signed, signed on earlier, and so I wanna, I wanna just say hi and highlight the, my appreciation to you guys for really, really keeping the conversation on the chat very civil. I am very, very thankful to you for keeping it that way. I'm very appreciative. Uh, Holman, as always. Willie, good to see you. Uh, David K, good to see you as always. Hamad City. Um, who else here? Uh, Coach Ohoye, as always. YT, good, good afternoon or good morning to you, uh, as well. Amanda Jane from West Canada, west coast of Canada. Good to see you, Amanda. And sorry to see what is becoming of Canada. I am floored to find out now that it's sad. It's really sad. I hope Canadians It's their country, they can do something to change it. Francis Tango, as always, greatly appreciate you, uh, being here. Uh, John Smith, uh, New Zealand, good to see you. Wong KC, good to see you. Truth Seeker, good to see you as always. Lucio Delgado, as always. Uh, Trevor Norman, good to see you here. And Macian Dorcier. Phil, as always, from Ottawa, Canada, good to see you. Phil Dunkley, good to see. Timeline Dunkley, I'm sorry, good to see you. Julio Mendez from Puerto Rico, here he is, good to see you, man. That is so nice to see somebody from Puerto Rico. I've always wanted to go there, so never get a chance to do so. Zoom 2035, good to see you from Seattle. Paul Motsima, good to see you. And Reynaldo Lazaro, good to see you all. Isabel Malida Jensen. Good to see you as always. All right guys, let's get into the topic because we got a lot to cover on this, uh, and I am gonna provide you my own analysis as far as the how we, how we can interpret something like this under the geopolitical lenses because there is significance into all this, not in a good way for the US. And the question will be is what China's gonna do. And this is what we're gonna get into the conversation here today. I will be here to answer 2 or 3 questions from you, so just prepare your questions ahead of time. So, uh, before I'll delve deeper, let me remind you, on Friday I'm gonna have a conversation with Dr. Pascal Lothars. He is a, a faculty in Temple University and Kyoto University in Japan. So I will be having a conversation with him. He's into the IR, international relations, uh, uh, field, and something he and I, we can sort of, uh, I used to teach, uh, international relations for graduate programs, uh, for the master's degree, that is. So, so we have a lot to talk about, and, and I look forward to my conversation with him. Also want to let you know, without disclosing name yet, I am in, uh, talks with the Undersecretary of Defense. I'm gonna bring him on the show here. You will, you will know who it is later on. And yet you wouldn't want to hear a different perspective from someone who's been around. So, and, and I'm working on this one. So, all right guys, today's topic, what are we talking about? Uh, we talking about— actually, Amanda mentioned that she likes the title of the Begging Bowl in One Hand and a Knife on the Other Hand. I had to request permission from Rebecca She's the one who granted me the, the, uh, permission to use that, so I want to use it because it's befitting. Literally, it's befitting. We're looking at Tony, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, going to China. Oh, it's almost like it's a perfect description. There is one bowl on one hand, okay, asking for money. Please buy our treasury. Please provide us money, please, we are over trillion dollars in, in, in over 100, 100 days or so accumulating more debt. On the other hand, there is a knife in the hand that will stab China in the back, you know, it's befitting. So I decided to go ahead and put it on the title for that song. And this is what I'm gonna be addressing today because the importance of it, the optics, as I said And like I said earlier, I read the articles and I'm going to share the links with you to highlight to you the wording that, oh, the US is going to China to talk to the Chinese about peace in West Asia, talk about other issues including narcotics. Oh, hold on a second, hold on a second, hold on a second. If you want peace, why didn't you agree to allow China to broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine? That's to me hypocrisy of the highest order. That just doesn't make sense. If you want peace, why didn't you sort of support China's efforts in the Middle East or West Asia, that is? Because we all saw China succeed, or succeeded, that is, in bringing the two arch-enemies of West Asia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whoever thought I didn't see that coming. I'll admit it, nobody did. If anyone in Washington saying, oh, we saw that coming from the Chinese, you're lying. Nobody saw it coming. Why? Because we didn't expect something like that to happen, yet the Chinese have been working on it for years and years and years. So now you have Mr. Blinken going— which, by the way, I saw his interview Or the press, uh, uh, interview when somebody asked him about the Geneva Conventions, if it is applied. He refused to answer. What kind of diplomat are you? You couldn't take the heat? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Simple as that. So, so here is the thing. The State Department mentioned, uh, this past, uh, 2 days or so that Blinken will be going for his second visit to China. This is in less than one year. You know, you know, guys, I've learned something. The optics of it— you going back to the country that you've been bashing, you're going back to the country that you are begging for money, you're going back to the country that is surpassing you, surpassing you technologically and in other domains as well. And all this Tony is going to both locations, Shanghai and Beijing. So as a matter of fact, the official trip started today. That's why I wanted to do it right away. It's going to be for 3 days. Of course, the conversation will have to be part of— part of the visit will have to be conversation with the, uh, the Mr. Wang Yi, the foreign minister for China. I don't know whether President Xi is going to grant him an audience or not. What do you guys think? And I'm going to ask you directly, should President Xi grant an audience to Tony Blinken? Please answer in the chat box, uh, yes or no, because it's very important. And I'd like to, of course, know your input, but also it's important to the optics of it. Now, we all saw that President Xi granted a brief meeting with, uh, what's her name, the Secretary of Treasury. The second thing we're gonna have to think about, who's gonna be— I wonder who, who received Tony Blinken upon his arrival. And I'm gonna look into this as soon as I'm done here. So this is one thing I would like to— but I do want to have your input about whether, in your opinion, President Xi should grant an audience to Tony Blinken, Secretary of State. Uh, Hamad Sidi, you say no. Uh, uh, Christine, uh, Coser, you said no. Thomas Wong, you say no. John Smith, no. Uh, Steve, uh, Steve 2012, no. Yan Hawkor, no. Uh, H0, uh, T Channels, In the word of Jimmy Dore, Anthony, Anthony, that's a funny one. Wonky, see, no, Losio Delgado, no. So you guys get— you got the— I got the points, you know, it makes perfect sense. Why should presidency? But there is a counterargument to that, which this is the reason why I asked you the question, because I have to provide you both sides of the argument, and we're here to learn from each other. The counterargument to that is Diplomatically might not bode well for the Chinese. Now some say, no, who cares about what— I, I see your point, but from a diplomatic protocol, and that will be only for one reason and one reason only. And this is what I put in my questions for you, which I, I'll share with you here right away, by the way, before I forget. What is the main reason for Tony's trip? To China. Second, will Tony achieve any strategic objectives on the trip? Which, by the way, so far State Department is saying, oh, we want to talk to the Chinese about Western Asia peace, we want to talk about the Taiwan Strait, we want to talk about narcotics. Uh, yeah, I don't know. Excuse me. I don't know if those are strategic. The— when you think about strategic, you think about your own national interests. Global peace is not at the hand of the US alone, or anymore. Why? Because the world has shifted from a unipolar to multipolar. The US might be in a position to do this some 3 decades ago, not anymore. So this is why I put the key word there, any strategic objectives. I don't think so, so far I can already, but I already wanted to ask you the question. Third question, how will China respond? And the fourth one, will China demand something in return? And this is where I wanted to tie the question that I asked you whether President Xi should grant an audience to, uh, Secretary of State Tony Blinken. The optics of it, most of you said no. And I can see your point, but I am also thinking on the other side of the argument diplomatically and what will be in it for China if something like that, because photo ops is very important. The fact that here in the US the media will report, oh, Mr. Blinken met with President Xi and so forth. Yeah, the optics of it. It's almost like I feel that Western audience is going to say, see, we told you China needs to talk to us. Yeah, we usually— they'll, they'll flip that upside down, which is a lie, you and I know. And the fourth question, that's what I ask: will he be asking for money from the Chinese? Another word, will the money be on the table? He's a Secretary of State, he's not a Treasury. But apparently the Treasury Secretary didn't succeed. What makes us think that just because Mr. Blinken is gonna go, the Chinese say, sure, we'll buy your— excuse me— we'll buy your treasuries, we'll, we'll lend you money, and so forth? Which is like an arrogance on our part. And this is where that description of a bowl in one hand and a knife on the other, it's, it's befitting. I, I couldn't ask for for something better than that. So, and this is where the idea of how this is going to move forward— well, I don't know. I don't know if it will be any, uh, sort of, uh, strategic success in this trip. If you noticed, and I'm gonna share these images with you and you'll get the idea of it. So, oh, I forgot to share two things with you, by the way, guys. Oh, I'm gonna do with headlines. Very, very important. Sorry, I have to do this because it's very important. It's not reported here. I came across it overseas. Here's the first one, which is a shock— shocking to the West and to me. You know, what are you looking at? You're looking at a delegation from North Korea is traveling to Iran. This is what's been reported from Pyongyang. That's today. The same day Tony Blinken is going to China, a delegation from North Korea is headed by the international trade minister is currently visiting Iran in a rare public report. I was aware of certain trips that weren't disclosed at all back then. This is why, if you guys remember when I shared with you way back when I did the video about Iran and Israel exchanging whatever, And I said, my, my word, you're gonna see Iran's fingerprint into the certain advanced missiles if Iran decides to use that one. Well, here it is, you know, North Korea now is in Iran. So, uh, North Korean official Central News reported that Foreign Economic Relations Minister Yun Jun-ho left Pyongyang Tuesday by the air to Iran and no further details. You can read between the lines, Mike. My word on it, the key is going to be is the cooperation on the missile technology, no matter how you look at it, because it's a win-win for both, for Iran and North Korea. Uh, second topic I want to— second headline, that is— that is very interesting and why I advocate for the punishment of corruption. You all know what it is, right, guys? You know, and I don't wave away from that. And it's not like I'm this heartless guy. No, you know, I, I forgive, I, I whatever. But for something like this, no, you need to be after church. You all know what it is. Well, here is what happened with this guy. Who's this guy? This is Timur Ivanov. He's the Deputy Defense Minister in Russia, you know, Sergey Shoigu, the defense minister. This guy here, Timur Ivanov, is his deputy. And this is what FSB just arrested. Why? Because he got caught in corruption. He's been in possession since 2016 because he's the one in charge of property, okay, management, housing construction, and mortgages at the Russian Defense Ministry. Why on earth would you go and steal money and get involved in corruption and so forth? So if convicted, he's gonna have to spend 15 years in prison. I don't know if they're gonna send him to Siberia or not. This is what I'm saying— why waste it? Take care of the guy on Sunday after church. Straightforward. So, and the third, the third headline that is very important for you to know This is the foreign minister of Jamaica. The state of Jamaica— Jamaica, rather, announced today the recognition of the state of Palestine, making it now the 142 countries around the world to recognize Palestine. Of course, we refused. We vetoed that at the UN. UN is useless. I am in favor of getting rid of the UN, getting rid of the Security Council altogether, And you know what you do? Let countries manage their own. Simple as that. Because it's not fair, it's not right. Uh, the, the UN, the UN is toothless. I've been saying this for years. The UN is toothless, and it can't be in New York. It has to be in some other neutral country. Well, not neutral. So anyway, this is what I wanted to share with you guys because I found it very important for you to know what's going on, because it's not been reported right here. So, so let's go back to our topic. You know, as I mentioned, Tony Blinken, Secretary of State, going to China, second trip in a year. So, and his trip now put forth many questions. As geopolitical analyst, I'll be asking— this to me is the exposure of the failure of our foreign policy. We don't have any. We haven't had any for the last 4 decades or so. That's why I'm not surprised. So, and by the way, guys, I promised you last time, you remember, I promised you I will get you the information about the human rights reports by the State Department. Well, I got it, and I'm going to read it to you word for word, and I'll put the link for you. Here is what it says. Right off the bat, and this was, by the way, uh, uh, uh, what's the word, uh, sort of, uh, compiled on April 22nd. It was, uh, put in the State Department publication on yesterday and released at night. So that's when I get to— here's what it says: Beijing is continuing— this is quote— Beijing is continuing to commit genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uyghur and other Muslim minorities in its western Xinjiang province, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in a report published ahead of his planned trip to China. The State Department's annual human rights report, which documents abuses recorded all over the world during the previous calendar year, repeated language from previous years on the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, but the publication raised the issue ahead of the delicate talks, including the war in Ukraine, global trade, between the top diplomats of the Chinese and his counterparts. End of quote. Where is Gaza? Where is the atrocities? Where is the violation of international law? Where is the US veto that challenges the right the human right, or violates human rights for decency of an average ethnicity. It doesn't matter what part of the world. Where is all that? Yet the focus was on Xinjiang. And this is again why I find the title befitting: one bowl in one hand asking for money from the Chinese and a knife on the other hand. And I told you last time, guys, I said, Mike, my word, my instinct is telling me that it's gonna be the human rights issue in China first, and we are sending the Secretary of State to China. I just— it, it's beyond me. It's beyond me now how Western leaders show how incompetent they are. You are bashing, you are bashing a country and yet going to beg for money and help. That just doesn't make sense. At least refrain from doing that. Even though in my opinion that will be hypocrisy. You either be this or that. You can't be wishy-washy because that's what it is. You don't— you, in this case State Department, you don't want to negotiate with the Chinese on an equal footing because you still think you are at the top when in reality you're not. The global order has changed. So when you read a report like this It makes you just wonder. And that's right there beside— I know some will, will be, uh, it will, it will be outrageous to even read something like this, and yet nothing is mentioned about Gaza, what's taking place there. So that's, that's plain double standard. That's hypocrisy. That's— but it's more than that, guys. It's more than that. It is the failure Sometimes you as a country can be exposed, sort of it becomes hollow in the middle. There is nothing there because you've been exposed because of the failure of your standing, of your policy, of your foreign policy, that is. This is exactly what I see. Let alone we don't have competent politicians anyway. That's why I was like, uh, and again, I found myself wondering, is President Xi going to grant an audience to Tony that he approved the report? To me, if he were really a good diplomat and statesman, you know, you step forward and I say, hold on a second, you know, why are we pushing this instead of that? This is not about favoring one country over another. No, it's about what's right. Even in the diplomacy, you still have to do what's right. You want to negotiate with country, doesn't matter which one, you negotiate on a good faith. But you don't come with this arrogance of I am better than you, I am higher than you, I am this, I am that. Oh, you leave your ego at the door. Because you all remember, guys, you remember the first meeting in Alaska when the Biden administration took a powers. I watched that, I was like shaking my head. What an embarrassment. That was the first word that came to my mind right there at the moment as I was watching. I see it's embarrassment, and it is now an embarrassment. First we had to send, uh, uh, Janet there, you know. Come on. I mean, you are telling African countries that China's putting you into that trap, and yet you go into China asking for money. This is hypocrisy. But again, it's the failure. It is the failure of our foreign policy exemplified in this kind of approach. This is when you realize a country has nothing to show for as far as its international relations. It's just the status. Well, the status doesn't cut it anymore because the world has moved on. Yes, we all saw when this guy went over there too, as well. You know, you start to see now Western leaders crawling— yes, I use the term crawling— all the way to Beijing. The incompetent Scholz is going for what? For when the guy can't even take stand. Then you're gonna have an upcoming trip of this, this week, another weak leader. She flipped in no time and pulled out of the BRI because she was pressured to. So you can't trust all of them. They just— they don't have— they don't have the competency to truly read the geopolitical landscape the right way. And this is why I am like questioning, what will Tony tell President Xi? When will he tell him that presidency doesn't know? Most likely, uh, as one of, uh, let me see if I can pull it up here, if I get it. I had, uh, I don't know where I put it. Uh, yeah, one of our, uh, member of the community by the name Salvatore, uh, Catorci, he wrote, and I quote, request the Chinese, the top leaders, visit to the United States from this date forward. Another word which I can see the point. If you want to visit China as a diplomat, you need to request permission from the Chinese government. It's their country, you know. That's like when for us Americans, if you want to go China, you need to have visa. Simple as that. Yeah. So, and this is to me where that the double standard of it, it does not bode well. We don't know that we are shooting ourselves in the foot, embarrassing ourselves. And this is why now he's saying he wants to go there to talk to China about Russia's Ukraine conflict. Well, hold on a second. Aren't you the one supporting what, what the incumbent Biden, uh, say when they want to— when they blocked China from moving forward with the proposal of resolving the Russian, uh, Ukraine conflict? We're the one who blocked it. And right after that, we we gave the order to the incompetent BoJo— you all remember him, Boris Johnson— to fly all the way to Ukraine and, and, and, uh, sort of pressure, uh, the comedian Zelensky not to agree to any kind of talk. So, so it ain't just, uh— and the fact that also the trip comes after the talks between President Biden and President Xi A similar visit. It was the same way. I mean, now the Chinese, by now they have learned how the Americans operate. First, you send Treasury. Second, you send the Secretary of State. Third, you pass legislation for allocating billions of dollars to Taiwan. And fourth, you send the delegation from Congress to Taiwan. That's just I don't know if there is another word for hypocrisy, guys. That, that's just the way I see it. So, so what Mr. Tony Blinken wants, which in my opinion— and I got nothing against the guy, I met him personally face to face when I was in Iraq. He was coming there at that time. He was still the National Security Advisor to the Vice President Biden at that time, and I met him. He was brief encounter. Hi, how are you? How's everything? Good, and that's about it, you know. And, and it didn't strike me as someone really solid when it comes down to his understanding of global affairs and so forth. And I'm like, I don't know what kind of advice you're providing, uh, uh, uh, Biden, let alone Biden even. His, his, his, he's done for anyway. So, so here is the thing now. The, the, uh, Tony is saying Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State— you give him title also— Uh, wants to talk about the broader West Af— West Asia, or Middle East, that is. Wants to talk about, uh, Ukraine and Russia. Wants to talk about Iran and Israel. Wants to talk about trade. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You are going for 3 days, okay? You don't have a good standing with the Chinese, and you think out of arrogance you're gonna accomplish all this? I just don't get it. I don't get it. To accomplish this, do you have any idea how many meetings you have to have? How many encounters you have to have? How many talks and negotiations you have to have? And let alone, you have to have humility when you meet with others. You don't come with this arrogance of, 'I am better.' I ain't gonna cut it. That's what I'm saying. What will be the strategic objective? Zero, nothing. And the success will be nothing but a photo op. You know why? Because it's going to show up here as we are pressuring Chinese. Remember, presidential election is coming up here in the US. So I, I, that, that just, uh, uh, so if you are to take let's just take one among these topics. Take your pick— Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, Middle East, Indo-Pacific, trade. You— let's just pick one, and I'm gonna pick one here: the Indo-Pacific, or the Asia-Pacific, or the Pacific theater as a whole. So let me just pick that up. So if you are to go and hypothetically— we're gonna play a scenario Let's say I am Tony Blinken and you are presidency, and I'm coming to you to talk to you about the Indo-Pacific. What am I going to say? What am I going to say? Don't send your navy to South China Sea, right? Your response to me will be, well, wait a minute, Tony, aren't you the one that is fomenting more tensions here? Aren't you the one that now pushing Philippines over the cliff? Aren't you the one that's sending weapons to Taiwan to to foment more tensions, what do you think we need to do? Well, I'll come to you, I'll come back to you and say, well, wait a minute, President Xi, we are advocating for peace in the Pacific theater. So you, as President Xi, you're gonna come back to me and say, well, we saw how this works out in Afghanistan, we saw how this works out in Iraq, we saw how this is working out in Syria. We see how this working out in the Ukraine. So what's going to be left for Tony to say? What would I have to say as a role of playing a role of Tony? I'll be embarrassed because there is nothing to say. And what makes it even worse, and I read the statement, by the way, from the State Department, here is what it says, and I'm gonna put it in quote. Blinken said, and I quote, will raise clearly and candidly our concerns during the talks, uh, uh, in, in China. End of quote. Clearly and candidly. Well, first of all, there is no clarity, because to me the clarity is, if you are to say I am talking to you in a clear manner, I am providing you exactly what I I'm doing as far as either trade, economy, economics, foreign policy, whatever. But the fact is, we are telling the Chinese we want to work out a peace here in this part of the world, and yet we are pushing the Philippines into opening more bases, okay? And we are pushing South Korea, we're pushing Japan, we're pushing, uh, we put in weapons in Taiwan and so forth. I mean, now we are thinking about placing medium-range missiles nearby in China. How do you think Chinese going to perceive this? And let's go with the hypothetical— what we will do, what we'll do if the Chinese go ahead and place medium-range missiles in Cuba. And this is when I see that double standard. It just doesn't make sense for what they're talking about. So even the State Department, when they broke What is the agenda for that? Well, the first one they had is the Ukraine-Russia war. What do you have to say about this? We are just allocating $95 billion legislation, $65 billion out of it's going to Ukraine. What for? Ukraine is done for. Ukraine, but it's done for, you know, the conflict exposed. It exposed the weakness of NATO as a whole. So when they said, well, Biden is growing, or the administration or the government, whatever term you want to use, is growing increasingly, uh, concerned in recent months about the Chinese support for the Russians' defense. Well, wait a minute, how do you think other countries feel about what we are doing? All the weapons that we've been sending, which by the way the Russians destroyed most of the tanks, destroyed everything. So I just don't get it. And to me, this is where the lack of pragmatism is. You, you have in, in, in foreign policy, when you provide, uh, uh, an insight, when you share a strategy, when you do whatever, you have to take into consideration how this might be perceived by the other parties, because they don't think like you, they don't see the same way you do, they don't approach the problems the way you do, or the challenges or conflicts. And this is something we, we lack. We don't understand. And the reason being because we never wanted to accept that the dynamics have changed when it comes down to China, in this case. Because that's what we're talking about. China of 40 years ago is not the same as China today. When China's economy grows, to me personally, as one who've been following this for a while, it became clear to me that the next step is going to be, uh, uh, in the other way. When its economy grows, the next step is going to be the military. It's no different than what we did after World War II. So why is it right for us and wrong for them? And this is why, uh, so I, I appreciate what the author of this article— his name is Matthew Lee, he's an Associated Press diplomatic writer who wrote this— but there are certain aspects of it that I, I disagree with. So I, I kind of, uh, don't get it. So if we are to think in terms of, uh, talking about peace Let me share one thing with you guys because I need you to see. And I get this, uh, through my, uh, my Twitter feed, and I'm gonna share it with you because you need to see. It's nothing classified. It's, it's— if you know where to look for the information, you'll find it. Yeah, check this out, and I'm gonna enlarge it here for you guys, for you to see. Oh, bummer, it's not clear. Okay, I'm gonna read it to you. No, not all of it. This is about US military interventions in foreign countries since World War II. First one, 1946 in Iran. China, 1946— between 1946, 1949. Greece, 1947, 1949. Italy, 1948. This is when we rigged the Italian elections, by the way. It was the first operation of the CIA. Uh, Philippines, between 1948, 1954. Korea, 1950, 1953. Iran, '53. You all know what happened in 1953. What happened in Iran in 1953? Let me see, guys, because I like to have your input. I want you to, uh, uh, be part of this conversation. 1953, what happened in Iran? You all should know by now. Let me see. I know it takes a while for this to show up here. Uh, uh, let me see. Wow, we got, we got a lot of viewers here, guys. That's why I'm scrolling through to see, uh, uh, 1953. All right, let me see here. Yeah, you guys, you guys got it. You, you know what it is. 1953, uh, the Shah. Yeah, it's not just the agency by itself, it was MI6 also. So, so you, you guys got it. And let me just briefly continue here. Brief, just a— Vietnam 1954, Guatemala '54. Lebanon '58, Panama '58, Haiti '59, Congo '60, uh, then Vietnam again in '60s and so forth. Cuba 1961, '62, Laos '62, Ecuador '63, Panama— you guys get the idea. Fast forward to today, more on today's, like, recent, uh, contemporary time. Macedonia 2001, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, uh, then Haiti 2004. You guys got the idea, you got the idea. So when Tony Blinken is going to be talking to the Chinese about peace, uh, you, you, you're just embarrassing yourself. You're just embarrassing yourself. So now there is another issue they're going to be talking about according to State Department, which I, I just frankly, I don't know where this coming from anyway. This has to do with the supply of the synthetic opioid. Well, hold on a second, hold on a second. Let's use history as our guide. You're all familiar with the Opium War, right? Who introduced that to Chinese back then? Well, the same arguments I'm going to make here in the United States as to what happened in the 1970s. Who introduced drugs in Southern California. So, and to me, if you are to say we want to talk to the Chinese about peace, whatever, stick to your point, specific one. Because, pardon me, as I mentioned earlier, accomplishing all this on the agenda in 3 days, there is no way. These things take time, takes compromise, takes some mutual respect, takes some mutual understanding, takes reciprocity in, in, in, in, uh, in consideration. You can't force your way in by saying, hey, you're gonna have to do what we're gonna tell you. That era is gone. While China might not respond forcefully because it's not part of their culture, they might stay quiet, calm, but that doesn't mean they're gonna be subservient to what you are ordering. You can do that with Germany, you can do that with France, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand— you got the idea— Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. You ain't gonna do that with the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Russians, now the Niger, Mali. Even now in chat, I just got a word in chat in Africa They are asking the US to leave. Yeah, they just, uh, so, so when, when, when I read the statements from the State Department saying we're the rivals, you know, what rivals are you talking about? It's the wording, guys. This is what I wanted to address, this, because something I'm very familiar with. I've been dealing with those kind of issues for over 2 or 3 decades. So you kind of acquire the knowledge over the years and becomes a— so when you read a paragraph that starts with the rivals are at odds, let's first hold on a second, take a step back and define what rivals are we talking about. You know, China is not rivaling the US. China is building. And I don't speak for Chinese government here. I'm speaking what's factual. Simple as that. Technologically speaking, we can compete. So who's gonna be in a rival with whom? So when they start the rivals at odds on numerous fronts, including Russia war in Ukraine, Taiwan and the South China Sea, North Korea, Hong Kong, human rights, and the detention of American citizens, is just a mismatch of the priorities. I don't know who's advising Tony Blinken. This is what I'm saying. And again, uh, uh, it pains me, it pains me to see what is happening to my country. I speak this way out of love for my country. I know some misinterpret all this, you know, I'm talking negative about America. Come on, guys, to those who saying so, stop this nonsense because this is the reality. We're seeing how we approaching foreign policy not in the right direction, not in the right way, because we still think we are the masters of the world. We're not. The world has shifted from unipolar to a multipolar order, whether we like it or not. So when we are going to talk about Hong Kong and human rights and Taiwan, what are you doing? What makes you even think and consider that the Chinese will be even receptive to this? And this is why, again, I asked the question earlier, in your opinion, do you think President Xi will grant the audience to Tony? Because if he's gonna— he, President Xi, in this case, grant him to be hearing this nonsense, it's a waste of time. So, and, and the idea of the United States and China also are battling over trade and commerce issues— no, they're not. It's the US that is creating all this. You all remember when Trump was the president, wasn't he the one who said we're gonna issue tariffs on the Chinese? Yeah, you might wanna— I bet you this, guys, it would have been different had we sent somebody who is, uh, sort of competent and talk to the Chinese. Let's say, let's, let's figure out this, you know, or if we can work out a compromise of sort instead of coming with this attitude, we're gonna impose tariffs on you. That's like that superiority mentality. It ain't gonna work. And look where we are right now. We even went ahead as far as imposing sanctions on Chinese, uh, not so quiet chips. What did they end up doing? Building their own. I don't know if you guys saw the commercial from Huawei, the phone. The chips in it, home-based, produced inside China. They didn't need outside markets. So, and when they're talking about the imports on the Chinese tariffs on steel and all that, you won't be able to survive economically without access to the Chinese market. And this is where ASEAN comes in for them to start to think. I, I am curious to see what the new prime minister of Singapore The David— I'm gonna do a video for you guys. He's gonna take over soon, uh, what, what kind of approach he's gonna be approaching. Because it is my belief that when it comes down to ASEAN, they're gonna have to figure out— and so one of you guys suggested you might want to send some delegations from ASEAN to Philippines to get Marcos Duterte on the right track. He's losing his mind, which is— I see the good approach to something like this. So now the State Department already stated that the talks between President Xi and Tony Blinken, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, are expected. That's, to me, is arrogance. That's how I look at it, because it is arrogance. What make you assume and think that the Chinese gonna have to agree to meeting Tony Blinken? I'm curious, and I can't definitively say no, it won't happen, or it will happen. For me, literally, if I am to just take step back and think, if I were advising, I'll say hold on, no, don't do it. What for? And that's the way I see it. So, so we all know on April 7th, Janet Yellen was there asking, uh, uh, uh, for money, right? Now you get the Secretary of State. Soon, I don't know who the next delegation from Congress is going to be going. You guys got the idea. This is exactly what's, uh, uh, even, even the conversation between the defense ministers of China and the US took place right after Janet Yellen's trip. I found it very interesting. What will they be talking about anyway? So I, I just don't get it. I don't get it for how we're gonna be thinking in terms of, no, we're gonna go and just tell the Chinese ABC and D, and by the way, China, well, we need, we need some money. Why should China give us money for it? I know there is a tactic and strategy into this. Let America sink into more debt. I was just talking to a neighbor of mine who's been involved in Washington on some capacity, on a kind of— we knew certain elements and all. He's already mentioned to me that, you know, he's considering leaving altogether. And someone who's been around the world, So like I did, we traveled around over 30 countries or so. So, and you know what was his favorite place? Indonesia. So makes me just wonder. And he did tell me that a lot of, a lot of Americans moving. So, so it's just the idea of, of the arrogance of, uh, and especially when it comes down to Middle East, the Pacific theater, and the South China Sea. We foment tension, but we expecting China to say, sure, whatever you, you, you, uh, you propose. And if we are to manage this so-called rivalry, wouldn't it be better to do it through competition, not fomenting tensions? Wouldn't it be better to do it by producing scientists here, students that will be focusing on math, science, and, and engineering? Wouldn't that be better? Sadly, our education system, you all know. I'm sure you guys heard what just happened in, uh, Columbia University in New York. So education system is done for in America. That's why I'm like, I'm keeping my options open as far as teaching overseas. That, that's just how, how I see it. So So the idea that, uh, the US, uh, strongly condemn the Chinese military exercises— well, wait a minute, how do you think the Chinese feel when, as, as we speak right now, the US and Philippines are conducting naval drills? That's going to be till May 10th, far away from the Philippines water. How do you think the Chinese feel about that? So when— state— that's why I'm saying, guys, anytime this kind of reports come out, remember this, remember this: unless you have someone you trust will provide you an assessment and analysis, it's going to be only for domestic consumption. So the wording of it— and this is why I want you be careful when you listen to this kind of stuff from whom, whatever. Be aware of whom you are listening to. No offense to anybody. Qualifications matter. Understanding the depth of what geopolitics is all about matters. So when you read statements that the US has strongly condemned the Chinese military exercise, you need to understand the, the depth of something like that. So uh, threatening Taiwan. China never threatened Taiwan, to my knowledge. China was— China's not gonna do it. How can you invade your own country? That just doesn't make sense. But for domestic consumption is very important. Remember, we just allocated $25 billion— uh, I'm sorry, $16 billion, to my knowledge, to Taiwan, $25 to Israel, and $65 to Ukraine. So that just doesn't make sense. So when the US State Department saying, oh, in South China Sea, the US and others have become increasingly concerned by provocative Chinese actions in and around disputed areas— disputed areas against whom? Yes, there is the miscommunication or misunderstanding or whatever term between Indonesia and China. Okay, Vietnam and China. But guess what, guess what, guess what? I just had a picture— I wish I could have kept it— of President— of Foreign Minister Mr. Wang Yi with Prabowo in Indonesia during his last visit. What was the purpose of it? Is to figure out how we can work this diplomatically. No need for a third party to be involved. That, that, that's to me common sense. But when you read the statements emanating from State Department advocating that language, you have to be very careful. You don't consume just all of a sudden. This is where analysis comes in. Analysis from someone who understands the ins and outs of what the dynamics, uh, the dynamics are. So, and, uh, and if this is not enough for you, I'm gonna add one more thing. And the thing is, how do you think Chinese— now that Tony is already in China— how do you think Chinese felt about the trilateral summit that took place in Washington between Japan, Philippines, and the United States? That, that just— and this is once again, guys, I, I feel Personally, whatever we doing right now on the global stage is a, is a failure, is a reflection of our failure in understanding how to approach, one, how to navigate, two, and how to resolve miscommunication, misunderstanding, conflicts, whatever term you want to use. All what we doing reflects that failure. Straightforward. It's not about bashing my country. It's not about— I'll say it because if my country was doing right, I would say so. But when my country does wrong, I'll say so. That's like in your family, you know. Let's say you have a member in your family, your son, your daughter, your, your first cousin, whatever, somebody who's messing up. What you're gonna do? You're gonna talk nicely the first time. You put dots on the letter and you move on. Because if you don't do anything, that means it exposes your failure in addressing that particular issue. This is exactly the way I see it. I know I'm simplifying it. Geopolitical matters are very complicated. This is not an easy resolve. And this is why when I read the agenda, oh, Tony wants to talk about Middle East, uh, Ukraine-Russia conflict. South China Sea trade and this and that. Really? You must be this overconfident that you're gonna achieve this in a trip of 3 days. That's to me is arrogance, simple. As I, uh, and all this taking place at the same time when you are considering the changes that happening in that part of the world. No, we look at now, and again, this is one of the reasons why I had to share the headline with you, especially the first one about North Korea's delegation in Iran. It's not a coincidence. And remember, remember, remember, remember the way Iran retaliated on, on against, uh, Israel. It was a very limited strategically calculated and confined, because the, the target that Iran's drones have hit, it hits outside the civilian population, civilian, uh, uh, infrastructure, and so forth. It was a base. Even the significance of the target sends a message. It was a military talk. And this is what I want you guys to get out of this trip, because— and again, that analogy of one bowl in one hand asking for money and a knife on the other. Perfect. I still do not know, and I'm gonna look, uh, uh, uh, read up on it tonight just to see if, uh, presidency did indeed grant an audience, or will. I don't know when. Tony is there for only 3 days, so we'll see. We'll see. All right, guys, I am gonna check out some of your, uh, questions here, and that's all I have to say, because like I always say, if I don't have anything of substance, I get off the air. So I wanted to share this with you. Uh, first of all, I want to remind you, or Remember to join me on Friday for my conversation with Dr. Pascal Lodes from Japan directly. He teaches there, uh, in, in, in Japan. So, and, uh, I'm following up, uh, with the Undersecretary of Defense. Uh, it's not a recent one, by the way. This, this individual's been— so he served way back. So, uh, I hope he will agree to come on the show and we'll have him here soon. Uh, thank you all for your support. It means a lot to those who, uh, send in some donations through PayPal. I'm very grateful, and I do want to, uh, say thank you briefly here because it's the right thing to do, as you all know. Let me pull it up here because I like to say thank you. Oh, there was a— there was something else I needed to share with you about the, uh No, it's the same thing. It's the same thing. It was about the US arguing against China's support or trade with the Russians, at the same time the US passing a bill providing large amount of aid to Ukraine. What would you call that? And by the way, before I forget, it's official now. That I just read the article yesterday. I should have put up a picture for you. It's official now that the trade between Russia and China hit $260— $240 billion. All of it is done outside the US dollar, officially. That says the story right there. This is the failure of of our policy, the sanctions, the fermenting, uh, the, the, the fermenting more tensions and so forth. It's backfiring. And the Europeans, which are useless— like I always say, Europe is like the little kid that never grows up and is always in constant need of discipline and guidance. So, so that's what it is. So, so I want to say thank you to all who support the channel, guys, and I'm going to take a question or two because I do have an interview, uh, in Washington with an entity there that's going to be soon, in about 15 minutes. So, but I wanted to answer one question at least from you, or two. So let me, and let me see, first of all, I didn't get a chance to look up, uh, I'm gonna go all the way up. We got a lot of viewers today, so good to have you all here, guys. I truly enjoy having you here and interact with you. So, all right, let me say thank you to, uh, For All of Us. Thank you so much, truly appreciate your super sticker. It means a lot and I'm very grateful to you. Thank you so much. Uh, the other person is— oh, Francis Tango, as always. Question, Dr. O, you know what I understand? They say that China is going to fail with the economy and grow. Uh, what are the Western PM doing in China? Yeah, it's hypes. It's nothing but hypes, Francis. I've, I've heard from analysts right here in the United States saying that the Chinese economy is going to collapse, which to me, I was just shaking my head. It might slow down, it might do whatever, but collapsing? You can't just use the words loosely like that. And let alone that the recent stats about China's GDP for the first quarter are one beyond expectations, reached about 5.9%. Of course, it's not the double digit it used to be, or it's not even the 9%, but at least IMF was saying, oh, we might anticipate the growth of China's GDP by about 2.9%, whatever. 5.9%. So that tells me right there. So, so yeah, uh, no, it's nothing but a hype, Francis, and I won't buy into it. So, so thank you so much for your super sticker. Let me see, uh, a question or two from you quickly here, and before I sign off. All right, I'm scrolling down, and much appreciate you guys for keeping the conversation civil right here. It means a lot, it means a lot. So, oh, Trevor, Trevor Norman, thank you so much for your Super Sticker, truly appreciate it. Uh, let, let Blankley— interesting— meet President Xi in Xinjiang and let this, the, the, uh, septic tank see the truth. Hey, that's not a bad idea. Literally, all joking aside, sometimes this is how you send the message. Take Tony Blinken to Xinjiang so he can see himself. Because I've been reading in Western here that there are the camps and million people are in camps or whatever, which we all know turns out to be a lie. So I agree with you, Trevor. Yeah. I hope the Chinese do it, but he's going to be only in Shanghai and Beijing, 3 days. This is what I'm saying, all the hype about the agenda won't amount to nothing. The trip in itself will not be a success. Mike, my word on it. Thanks again for your, uh, super sticker, Trevor. All right, let me see here, uh All right, uh, what's it, uh, Dave Grosby, let's not forget Serbia. You're right, and he was in that list. I'm gonna post it for you guys so you see since 1946 all the way, and you see Serbia is part of it there too as well. All right, let me see, uh Uh, Rash Eshar, that's interesting. Please buy our worthless bonds. Yeah, yeah, who's going to be want to do this? Uh, Athene Wu, good to see you as always. Let me see here if there is a question. And by the way, I will have— I'll open up a question, uh, for you on Friday with my guest, so prepare some questions about international relations because that's his background. Uh, TNT, good to see you as always. You wrote, China takes care of its people, the US should take care of theirs. I, I couldn't agree more, TNT, spot on. Because what the government is not disclosing is the number of homelessness that is now going up. I was just talking to someone yesterday where, where things are headed. So you're absolutely correct, you're absolutely correct. So Uh, let me see here. And I was even surprised that all of a sudden Tony Blinken will be going to China. What for? What for when we are not even communicating, uh, uh, sort of, uh, frankly, honestly? We're saying one thing and doing another. There is no way of building trust And if I've learned anything about the Asian culture, it's trust. That's, that's just straightforward. And not just Asian culture, I mean, with fellow humans, you betray that trust, it's over. Yeah, do we make mistakes? Yes, of course, but not like this. Not like this. So, so that, that's to me, till we, till we have competent people in charge of our foreign policy. We don't have any. Uh, TNT, Dr. O, where are you moving to? Who know— who knows, who knows. I am in conversation right now. No decision has been made yet. But I also— I know for a fact that the United States, a decade from today will be far different than I'm seeing. The cost of living here went up by about $11,423. $11,423 for the same thing we used to get a year before, or even before Biden took office. $11,000 to some families, that's a lot. But can you imagine? You'll be fine living overseas with that kind of money. Because who needs the extravagant 5,000 square foot home and all that? All that stuff is nonsense, you know, nonsense. So I am considering that. Uh, I don't know the location yet. I'm gonna have to reach out to my contacts. I do have contacts around the world, and I'm gonna go from there. But one thing I want to do is I want to teach overseas, because I don't want to waste my knowledge that I gained over decades, and I would like to share that in a setting, a university of sorts. Uh, I want to say thank you again to— for all of us. Thank you so much. Truly, truly appreciate you. Hi guys, I'm gonna sign off here because I am short on time for my next, uh, uh, uh, interview that I'm going to be doing. I look forward to seeing you on Friday, and once again, thank you all for being here. As always, Remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.