U.S. & China Remain at Odds on Numerous Issues!

All right, hello everybody and welcome. Good to see you as always. We're very excited here with this specif— with this specific topic that we're gonna be talking about today. So I didn't want to wait till the end of the week because the end of the week will have something else will come up on the global stage and most likely will be addressed As a matter of fact, I have a topic in mind for the weekend, for the upcoming, uh, weekend here, and I will talk to you about it because it has some really sort of link to geopolitics, economic, uh, and also global dynamics. So in general, in any event, uh, like I always do, guys, please make sure to let me know that you can hear me, uh, because I want to make sure of this. I don't assume I learned my lesson. That's one thing. So, so welcome everybody. Uh, first of all, if this is your first time, uh, uh, watching this channel here, please make sure to, uh, subscribe and, and smash that notification button so you'll be notified every time I upload a new video or do a live stream unexpectedly like this. So you will be notified of all this. So, so like I said, uh, uh, our topic today will be about the ongoing trip of Antony Blinken. I think today was the second day, tomorrow is the last. It's a 3-day trip. I'm not going to focus on those formality stuff, whatever. I'm going to focus on the content of the trip, meaning whether it has substance or not. And one of the questions you're going to ask yourself, and I'm going to ask you, if you can share your answer with me on the chat box, that would be great. Whether do you believe the, uh, Secretary of State Antony Blinken's diplomatic— or trip to China is a diplomatic success or a failure? And whatever your answer you have is, why do you think that is? That's just something to think about. So the other question, which you don't have to answer it, you just— this is thinking outside the box— is How should we, all of us, put this trip within the context of— or, or how this trip will fit in within the context of US policy of containment? You all know that the United States wanted to sort of contain China. We've, we've said this in certain statements before. I've, I've argued against that, first of all, because the containment policy will fail anyway. Second, you better be in a— you are— you, the United States in this case, be in a better position to cooperate than to try to contain China. Containment is not going to work. This is not back in the '70s where we used to be, or like what we had with the Soviet Union back then. It's a different era, it's different, uh, time and, and all that. So this is what we're gonna be, uh, addressing today. So before I move forward, I always like to see where you are. Oh, thank you very much, Steve. You said the sound works very good. Thank you so much. Uh, Nadia Yvette from New York City, good to have you here. Yeah, if you will be kind, guys, and just type in where you are joining me from. I know it takes a while for for it to show up here. I don't know why, but just that's how the system is. So anyway, we're not gonna waste energy on something like this, so we're just gonna focus on what's key factors here. So yeah, later on, if you will be kind, uh, if you can just type in, uh, uh, where you are joining me from. Uh, Hung, good to see you too. I'm gonna wave to you. That's the— so, uh, uh, but today since I am not gonna be doing, uh, the tour around the world because this came unexpectedly, so I had to read up on few things before I'll come on the air here to share this because like I always say, your time is very important to me and I wouldn't want it to be wasted. So, but I didn't have enough time because by the time I do other stuff, it just— time flies. So this is why it's so important to use it wisely. To those who spend time wasting their energy on nonsensical stuff that have no value, they have no benefit, uh, it's not worth your time. Don't waste it. Don't waste it, because life is too short. We're just passing through here, guys. So, okay, let me see. Oh, Steve from UK, good to have you here. Uh, Ronnie, y'all from Hong Kong, good to see you. Good to see you, Ronnie. Uh, uh, Nadia from New York City. Uh, hello from Vancouver, Raymond Lee. You know, I'll be in Canada next month, so, uh Uh, what else? Who else? That's about it here so far. So, all right, this time around, as I said, guys, I'm not gonna do the tour around the world, but I'm gonna share a health tip with you. And, and this way gives us time for everybody else to join us here because it takes time. So I don't want to start on the topic right away because by the time someone will join us, we'll be missing the key information. And I would like all of you to have access to that. So, all right, what we're going to be talking about, health, health tip today. I thought about when I was overseas, uh, uh, especially in Morocco, because I went to Morocco after I went to Poland, Ukraine, Germany, France, then Morocco. So, and again, I didn't forget, I will do a live stream for you to do an update about all those trips and what I saw and the people I talked to and all that stuff. So, and I'll share some photos and images with you on all that. So, but one thing that is very common in Morocco, you will notice when you go to the flea markets over there, is that they, they have now stands for cane sugar. Now, there are those who say, well, the cane sugar, it's better than regular sugar. Uh, it is true to a degree, but like all other types of sugar, it's usually linked with a negative sort of health effect. And, and you think about just the basic stuff, uh, uh, uh, weight gain, that's one, uh, you can expedite type 2 diabetes, okay? And the third major one is the heart disease. You know, sugarcane or not, it's still consuming too much of it is going to lead you to the same outcome. So it— yeah, yes, it offers few calories, but it has few nutrients too, because cane sugar doesn't have any health benefit as some might think. You know, I know in some parts in the Caribbean I know in some parts in Africa, especially in Morocco, like that. And I know in some part in Asia, they do depend— not depend, but sort of cane sugar, it's very, very sort of common there. But you, whatever part of the world you're in, you have to be aware of that. It's sugar after all. So as long as you consume it in moderation, cane sugar can be part of a healthy diet. I'm not denying that. Did I try it over in Morocco? No, I didn't. So just because anything sugar on that quantity, I stay away from it. So, and the raw, the raw cane sugar is often marketed as a healthy alternative to regular sugar, but there is no real difference. That is my point to why I wanted to do this health tip for you. There is no real difference between the regular sugar and the sugarcane, you know, both are identical in terms of— here is the key— in terms of chemical composition, they are identical and sort of made out of sucrose. So you find the sucrose in the regular sugar, you find sucrose in the sugarcane or cane sugar, whatever you want to call it. So, so consuming high amount of the, of the raw cane sugar, you know, can contribute to some health issues. The first thing you will notice is the weight gain. That will be. And also this, of course, anytime, you know, there is a, a weight gain, what comes with it is chronic conditions like heart disease, like diabetes. So, uh, yes, and speaking of this, by the way, uh, as I told you last time, I am in the process of figuring out how I will be sharing with you these health tips in a better setting than just me doing these tips. I was even thinking about, uh, making maybe a channel just for this. What do you guys think? Just let me know if you would like, really, because once you do a channel It's commitment, you know. I have to devote time, I have to devote research, I have to— I'm willing to do it if this can help us all learn about and stay in good health, you know. And I'll have someone else with me doing this who is very, very knowledgeable in this field, you know. I don't want to spoil it for you, I want to keep it a surprise, but I am in the process of you know, along with some other individuals working on this, because it's not an easy thing, you know, especially when you are sharing knowledge with others. I have to make sure, you know, not only the accuracy of the information, but, you know, how this— how you guys could benefit from this if you're going to be spending time listening to what I and we have to share with you. So, so I'm thinking about this one, and let me know if you guys would like I need to create a channel just for this. So the bottom line for cane sugar is good source of calcium. Keep this in mind. Iron, magnesium, and potassium. Those are good. I'll repeat them. Calcium, iron, magnesium, and potassium. But it's still, still, remember this, still relatively high in empty calories and lacking nutrients. So that is very important thing for you to know. When you see stand of, uh, uh, cane sugar, just think twice about whether you want to consume that or not. So anyway, that was my health tip for today. Let me jump into the topic and let me take a look, see if any join me, uh, here from— oh, here is Aritoro from Cape Town, good to see you. Cape Town all the way. Wow, good to have you. Uh, let me see who else here from, uh, oh, Alfredo Amora from Macau. Good to see you. I have a good friend from Macau right here in where I live. So Macau, wow. Yeah, Joss Joplin from Philippines. Good to see you. Uh, Percy Mueros, I hope I pronounce it correctly, from Kenya. Good to have you here. Uh, let me see who else here before I'll jump in. Uh, oh, oh, Gary, Gary Hayden Ray from Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Good to have you. I wonder about South Africa because, as you may know, guys, we've— I mentioned this before, uh, whether Africa still go— South Africa rather, still going to be holding the, uh, 15th BRICS Summit, the upcoming one, or the 20th. Oh, I couldn't even remember. So because China offered to host it instead of South Africa, so I'm gonna keep an eye on this, of course, but I will do a a live stream for you and let you know. Uh, oh, Quasi Bee is a new member of the channel. Good to see you and hello to you as well. So, uh, okay, let me see here who else. Okay, from— oh, oh, Jyoti Pranav from India, Bangalore. Good to have you here. Uh, Zeus from— greeting from Mississippi. That's my neighbor. Good to have you here, man. Appreciate it. So Hong Tua from China. What part in China, Hong? So, uh, David K from Chicago. Good to have you here. Uh, let me see, and that's it here. So let me jump on the topic, guys, here. So because we got a lot to cover, let me share one picture with you first. Before I'll delve deeper into all this, uh, here's this picture here. I want you guys to tell me what are you seeing. Yeah, you know, I, I— somebody who understand the human behavior, yeah, Elizabeth will be good to do explanation about this one. What do you guys see in this picture? And this, by the way, that's the meeting between Antony Blinken and President Xi, which, by the way, last time I said there is a possibility— I said there is a possibility that Secretary of State Blinken might meet with President Xi. Believe it or not, this decision of meeting with President Xi was made to the last minute, and I will tell you why as I get into the explanation. So, so if you can type in as to what you see in this picture, that would be great, and I will share it with the rest of our viewers here in the community or in the chat. So, all right, let's talk about, uh, the trip in itself, which, as I said, uh, Secretary of State was on a 3-day trip. He's still now his second day there, still have one more day and should be back. So, but here is the thing, I've already checking out the statements coming out of the Western media, especially here in the US mainstream. And I— it came to my attention one article was published by none other than Time magazine. And you know what they titled the article? Xi hails progress made by Blinken's China trip. Well, hold on a second. First of all, there is no progress to begin with. You know, let's not manipulate the masses who do not understand or have an in-depth understanding of the really, the fundamental issues between China and the United States. So when the article comes like this and say, Xi, President Xi, that is Xi, hails progress made by Blinken China trip. It's a lie. There is no progress. As a matter of fact, like I put on the title, China and the US are still far from even seeing eye to eye on the core issues. And you will see why, and I'm gonna tell you why. So first of all, here's the thing for why Blinken, uh, Secretary Blinken went to China to begin with. Well, his argument, or the issue is, uh, uh, the statement rather issued by State Department indicating that, well, we want to repair the relationships, that's one, open the door of communication, that's two. Okay, then how can you assume that the Chinese will agree to whatever you're saying without addressing their core issues that they see the tension with the United States is all about. You know, that's because to me it becomes like, uh, one way or, or one direction, not a, not a both-way directions here. You know, it's almost like, oh, it go— the communication will only go one way from the United States to China, and we are not going to open the path from China to the US as far as communication, because that's what it would mean. You know, and this is why I'm like, the titles that's been given now on— and I've been reading this morning, that's what made me decide to come on the air and share this with you right away, because you're gonna be seeing— I'm sure you'll be seeing videos, and I'm gonna do a recorded video for you about this topic because that will be slightly different from part of what I'm gonna cover on this, if you feel like if you want me to do that for you guys, because I do— there are some things that sometimes I forget and it comes to me later. In a recorded video, I will be able to express this for you more, uh, in detail, per se. So the idea that, uh, uh, why I said is one communication, you look at it just into the concept of how the, the, the agenda went. And what do I mean by this? It's because, of course, we've been given the idea of the high-stakes meetings in Beijing of Secretary of State when he is in China. You know, we give it this grandiose— yes, there are high stakes, I'm not denying that, but let's get to the fundamentals. You know, and it's in the fundamentals where we can say, for example, oh, the trip was a diplomatic success. But if those fundamental issues are not addressed, then the trip is a failure, which what I see so far. Yeah, I still have tomorrow. I don't know what's going to transpire between now and then, but I've already sort of reached my conclusion, and I'm not jumping to conclusions. I reached it based on so far what I've read, so far the meetings that took place. That's what I based it on. Well, the two days of meetings so far, two days of meetings that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had with, uh, the high-ranking officers inside the Chinese government, it's very interesting how we went He went in order of ascendancy, from the bottom to the top. You know, you meet with the foreign minister, you meet with the chief diplomats, then you meet with presidency, which is exactly what happened. You know, in this case, Wang Yi and Qin Gang, uh, those are the two ranking officers in the Chinese government, one being the high diplomats and one being the foreign minister, then the meeting with presidency. Now this is about the image of it. Oh, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken held meetings with, uh, with the high-ranking officers and so forth. That's not the key. The key is when you look at— okay, now we're looking at it upward. Let's look at it downward. What do I mean by downward? And what do I mean by this? I mean the timing. And the timing of it— the first meeting with the foreign minister took about 7.5 hours. The second meeting with the high diplomats, one, took about 3 hours. And the third meeting with the presidency took half an hour. What does it tell you? I mean, you don't have to be genius to figure this out, you know. And this is what, for me personally, my opinion, why I reached the conclusion that the decision was made to the last minute for President Xi to meet with, with Secretary of State. And the message that was into that even for 30 minutes. Because like I said, again, look at this picture, and again, you see the image right there. Look at the hands, and it tells you right there, okay? You look at this picture here, again, the, the— as we always say, picture is worth a thousand words. You, you, you just see Uh, so the idea, the idea of the 7 and a half hours, 3 hours, then 30 minutes, that tells me one thing, especially about the last meeting with President Xi, that President Xi is giving a nod to sort of open the communication. That does not mean he is agreeing to what the United States is saying. Because basically, if you are to think— and, and by the way, here is one thing that might shock you. Would you believe that Congress is now wanting Secretary of State when he comes back to appear before Congress for a hearing about this trip? Which means what? That means nobody is on board with this trip. To begin with. You have hawks inside the government, or Congress that is, especially it's going to be from the Republican Party, you know, that they don't want to see any sort of, uh, uh, uh, agreement being reached with China. No, they want to maintain the status quo the way it is, which means fueling more tensions regarding the Taiwan Strait, which means fueling more tensions by, by expanding now NATO all the way to not expanding, I should say that term, by starting to increase NATO's footprint in Asia, by expanding the military bases in Philippines. Yeah, there are those elements inside Congress that they want that. That's why they want a hearing of, uh, uh, they want Secretary of State Blinken to appear when he comes back. So it shows you right there, the right hand doesn't communicate with the left hand. So how can we talk about 'Oh, we want to, we want to, uh, sort of open communication with China,' when in reality they are those behind the scenes that wanted to really cement or push for the containment policy of China. That's the way I see it. So, and that's why I translated the meaning of President Xi, not the other two, with President Xi It's about giving a nod, because one thing that I believe is going to happen inside China, and we might not hear about— we all know certain information doesn't get out from within the government in China— is that there might be a quiet pushback against President Xi, believe it or not. You know, I'm not saying that the, uh, uh, uh, the individuals who might express this quietly, you know, they just looking at it differently. So, and this is why I came to the conclusion, well, maybe because President Xi wants to give the nod that it will be okay to move forward despite what the US is, was, and still doing. What am I referring to here? I'm referring to the trade war. I'm referring to tensions in Taiwan. South China Sea, all the other stuff that you are witnessing in, in Asia. As a matter of fact, now the US, now we are dealing with a big issue now. It has to do with the microchip, because you'll remember we blocked any sale or transfer of technology. China went ahead and started build its own, and now it's backfiring on us. This is why I said earlier the containment policy will fail by— at any level. We won't be able to contain China. That, that time is gone. There is no way. There is no way. So, and the question for you becomes, based so far on these two days, and I'm assuming you read a little bit about what was going on and all that, So how would you rate the success or lack thereof of Secretary Blinken's trip to China thus far? So let me repeat that. How do you rate the success or lack thereof of Secretary Blinken's trip to China so far? So, and here is the thing, like I said earlier, State Department issued the statement that the Secretary is going to China to reopen an effective, uh, path of communication with China, you know. But China might be reserved a little bit about that, with good reason. How can you— like I always say, how can you expect me this is just as an example, to sit down with you and have a conversation when we are not on an equal footing. Because you coming with that attitude of, oh, I am here, and me will be sitting with you at this level here, well, that doesn't bode well. So all I'm gonna do is I am not gonna sit down with you to begin with. Simple as that. It's because, believe it or not, We need China more than China needs us, and I will challenge those who say otherwise. And I look at this from an economic perspective. That's what led me to say what I'm saying. So, so the idea, uh, uh, the fact that the long conversations of the Secretary with, Kang Gong and Wang Yi, you know, 7 and a half hours and 3 hours versus 30 minutes. And 30 minutes in a setting with a head of state can go in no time. By the time you say, hi, how are you, how's everything, where your economy is going, and all that, 30 minutes is over. So you have to say what you have to say. That's almost like when, uh, usually the American president receives the daily, uh, the Presidential Daily Briefing, the PDB, what we call PDB. Usually the person who briefs the president about it sometimes is the CIA director, sometimes is the top analyst in the agency. You know, it depends. Uh, they don't have time because there's only about 5 minutes. That's about it. So you don't have to say, how are you, Mr. President? How are you feeling today? They don't care for that. Here are the key issues that's going on you need to know about. Okay, any questions, sir? And that's it. So that's why I'm saying, I'm saying 30 minutes in this meeting between Secretary of State and presidency, it's, it's, it's a symbolic number no less. That's the message that presidency is sending to the US: will be willing to talk, will be willing to sit down at the highest level, on the presidential level here, with the assumption that it will be on an equal footing. But what happened this far in this meeting, okay, it was just symbolic, no more, no less. Why? Is because the issue is still the same. There are those analysts who are saying, no, no, no, no, diplomacy is succeeding and all that. I say no, diplomacy will succeed when you achieve your goals. So what goals did Secretary of State achieve? Okay. And what goals did China achieve with this? I would say none on both ends. And that is why I am leaning towards saying no, the trip was nothing but a, just a window dressing, if I may use the term. China didn't want to lose face because they already, when they shut down the meeting of the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin with the, the defense minister of China, General Li Chengfu, China didn't want to press too hard because that's another subtle way of China how it's showing, uh, that it can be graceful in— well, sure, we can say no when we need to say no, but we will compromise if we need to. And that's again why I was convinced back then that if any trip by Secretary of State to China might not include a sit-down with presidency. This is why I believe, and I could be wrong, guys, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. So, uh, uh, uh, that the decision of presidency to meet with Secretary of State was made to the last minute. 30 minutes, it's not a good sign. That, that, that's what's led me to that. So, so the establishment of the channel of communication can be made just because you went to a country, you visited a country, you shook hand with its president, and that's it. All of a sudden we have— we are on good terms. No, because the fundamental issue is still there. Did the issue of Taiwan came up? What I mean by that, meaning the US fomenting tensions on the Taiwan Strait, you know, you know, the Secretary of State Antony Blinken said to the Chinese, yes, we made, made sort of a misjudgment, you know, it was an error, you know, because sometimes you question authority, you don't question the authority as far as its authority, but rather you question its judgment. So the judgment about the Taiwan policy from the US perspective— could, for example, the Secretary of State say, well, you know what, we made a mistake by sort of pushing too much? And could China also say, well, you know what, here is one of our core issues that we need to address? I don't think so. These issues have been resolved. You know, look no further than one Congress. What Congress is planning on doing, conducting a hearing about Secretary Blinken's trip to China, which means they weren't in support of the trip to begin with. So if you are not— you as a, a lawmaker, not in support of your Secretary of State, the chief diplomat, that is, uh, or the high-ranking diplomat— the chief diplomat is the president in our case, in this case— that means you are not agreeing with any communication channels being opened. That's the significance of it. So when we start to hear those statements, you know, communication open and all, it's nothing but a bravado, no more, no less. And this is why, again, I was asking myself this question: could President Xi sort of get a pushback from within? It's because there are also hawks inside the Chinese government. Don't get me wrong here, there are those who do not want to sort of— how much can you compromise? And one thing about diplomacy is when there is a compromise on both ends, not just one party. This is why I said earlier, communication cannot be one-way straight, it's two-way straight. That's just the way it works. A successful diplomacy, uh, an effective diplomacy. So, uh, Secretary Blinken does not have the personality for— you know, as I always say, give him the proper respect, he's the Secretary of Defense, uh, I'm sorry, Secretary of State. You know, uh, do the qualifications match that position? I don't think so. It's no different than the president. Our president. It's no different than the vice president. It's no different than some members of the cabinet, you know, lack of qualification. And you call spade a spade. You can't sugarcoat this kind of things because the welfare of a nation depends on the key strategic decisions. Yeah, you can't be thinking emotions when it comes down to issues like this because the survival of a country depends on that. So, and this is why I do believe that the conversation, why it took so long with the, with the, the, uh, Wang Yi and, and, and Mr. Kang, it's because both sides were sort of reiterating, repeating their positions. You all remember that meeting that took place in Alaska and how We were like doing this to China, which is not a smart way. That doesn't bode well optics of it. You are hosting a guest, and that is not how you talk to a guest, despite differences, despite— let alone you are in a diplomatic setting. And this is why I see the idea, uh, uh, this, this kind of repetition of the talking, uh, past each other, uh, it's not gonna work, you know. Even though there are some analysts already, and I read some and I disagree with that, some already from some think tanks in Washington, DC, and saying, oh no, no, no, no, no, Secretary of State was able to sort of make America's possession clear to the Chinese? I don't think so. I don't think so, because the Chinese already know what America's position is regarding the Taiwan issue. Because to the Chinese, it will be a double standard on part of the Americans, because we signed the three communiqués as far as One China policy. So if you are— you, the United States government in this case conducting yourself that way, that means we disregarded that policy. And with— well, if we are disregarding this policy, we have not declared it openly and publicly. Well, you can't be conducting foreign policy in double standards. That's a double, double edge, you know. You can't do that. It's because who's gonna believe you anymore? And we already experiencing that. This is why, and I can't say this enough, and again, it's not about criticizing my country, don't get me wrong, guys. It pains me, and I'll say it, it pains me to see where my country is headed. But also, I don't shy away from calling it out when it needs to be called out, that they are unqualified diplomat deciding on the fate of my country here. There are ineffective leaders that pushing up on the cliff, and there are a president who might not be qualified to truly understand the dynamics and being allowed to be pushed by some entities behind the scenes that could lead us to some disaster outcome. There will be no point of return from— that is what I'm talking about. So if those analysts are saying, oh, Secretary of State made America's position clear, I don't think so. I don't think so. This is why I don't see the success of this diplomacy. You know, because the issue is still there. And I'm not saying they can be resolved over 24 hours. That is not what I'm saying. I know better. You know, I've been around. That's, that's it. But it's— you can just tell who you meet with, the time frame. Those are, those are hints. As to what lies ahead. So, so they agreed to talk. Yes, they did. And this is why I'm saying, uh, some analysts are saying, well, they are resetting their positions, that's all it is. But that's just resetting your positions. So what? It's because if you are to reset your position, this is far— that are far apart. You know, that means there is no agreement. We have not reached any agreement. We have not come to a consensus. We have not— I'll take just the example of Taiwan, you know, the One China policy. Well, if we are to reposition or restate our positions, you know, did both sides end up agreeing that, for example, the One China policy will be honored? No, you know, and that's to me why those analysts are wrong. You know, you can't, you can't just justify, uh, for whatever to say, well, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you have to call a spade a spade. That's the bottom line. It's because possessions, uh, when you reset your possession, whatever, and they are far apart in both quality and quantity. That just, you know, doesn't bode well. I'm gonna give you a quick example. Wang Yi says, and I quote here, let me get the quote because that's his word, the US-China relations is at a low point, but the root cause 'Is the US having a wrong perception of China?' End of quote. I see the logical in that argument or the statements. It's because, and I've said this before, as a matter of fact, uh, I've always argued this, that I think the misperception in the West about China is we don't understand. You know, I don't claim to understand it 100%, By the way, guys, let me just put this on a record. I am not claiming that I have this 100% understanding of the Chinese culture. I, you know, I'm in the process of researching stuff, and I, I'm already overwhelmed by the amount of information. Because you're gonna have to— for me, in the case of when I write books, you're gonna have to provide an objective assessment that takes in the case of China is challenging because you have to present that argument within the context of the 5,000-year history. You know, you can't just, you know, comb over that and say, here it is. No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't cut corners, and I will not cut corners, even if it takes me 10 years to write the book. Be it so. And this, just to bring it to this point, is because some of us in the West we don't have a better understanding of the Chinese culture. And this is why that perception for the Secretary of State to think he's going to China, oh, I'm going on this high-stakes trip and everything's gonna be hunky-dory. No, it doesn't work that way. Because if it is the case, you would have at least come to some sort of consensus regarding the key issues that alien the relationship between China and the United States. That's why, uh, uh, so this is what Wang Yi said. Let's, uh, let's read, uh, or, or, or just talk about what Secretary Blinken said. And I got his quote as well because I gotta present both sides of the argument and let you guys reach your own conclusion. It's not my conclusion. I have my own, but I will not reach one for you, and you all know this. So Secretary Blinken, essentially his main point was that, uh, sort of— and I'm putting it not sort of, I'm gonna put it in quote here the way it is. Here's the quote: we need to manage competition through open channels of communication to ensure competition does not veer into conflict, end of quote. So I'll let you reach your own conclusion about just the impact of those two statements from both sides, one from Wang Yi and one from Secretary Blinken, and how that, if you relate it to the core issues, where do you see it. What do you think? Yeah, let me, let me take a look at some of your answers here to make sure we can at least share some. Uh, let me see here. Yeah, it, it just— I find it very sort of, uh, it's not balanced. That's, that's the way I— the, the term that I use when it comes down to diplomacy and so forth. The, the approach is not balanced because we are going with one agenda or one thinking and versus how it needs to be addressed and so forth. All right, anyway, I don't see it here. So, so that is the idea of why I do believe— and as I said earlier, I am gonna do a recorded video about this one here because, uh, I'm gonna add some other points in a different setting here. But, but just so far, for you to put this in perspective, you know, like I said, the Times Magazine saying, see Hell, progress of Blinken's trip to China? No, no, presidency didn't have any progress whatsoever. Just because he granted the meeting, that does not mean— as I said, all it means, at least for me, and again, this is my opinion, it's just a nod as far as we can consider moving forward into conversation. Because what, what point will it, uh, when will it make sense? Uh, and for you, just for you as an example, let's say you are in a conversation with someone, okay? And that other party, uh, it's not even willing to, uh, sort of, uh, truly listen to your concerns, let alone take that into consideration or take into consideration your interests, you know, what incentives do you have to continue the conversation with that party? I don't think so. There is not— there's none, you know. There are even those who say— I remember one tweet that somebody respond to something I posted, they said, you know, why is China wasting its time? It's because that notion for us is the containment policy. You know, it's common sense. You're gonna have to think in terms of reality, you know. Like I said, 7.5-hour conversation, then 3-hour conversation, then 30-minute conversation with the descending or, or sending from the hierarchy in the Chinese government. Then as far as the time descending from 7, 3, 2 30 minutes, you know. And if all this time, and yet the fundamental, the fundamental issue is still there, I won't consider this a success. Success is— I don't say you have to agree right away, that's not what I'm saying— but a success at least when you are putting this point of differences as far as, as, as far as what Elin the relationship between China and the United States and come to an agreement to at least frame those issues within their proper context. I'll take the example of the Taiwan issue. You frame that issue within the proper context of the One China Policy because— and the three communiqués that we signed on to that— because that was our— when you sign on a contract, what does it mean? You honor that. So that's what it means. In this case, it will become questionable. Here we are signing contracts and all that, but we're not honoring its clauses. What does it say about you? What does it say about your credibility? So yeah, you can talk, but if that talk doesn't lead to an outcome that can benefit both, then what's the point? And this is what's at the heart of diplomacy. Yeah, diplomacy was never about winners and losers, you know. This is what some are mistaken, you know, great diplomats, you know. No, it's not about that. It is about ensuring that your strategic interests, you know, while they are moving forward, you have to take into consideration the other party that will play a role into the securing of what the strategic interests are all about, meaning you have to consider their strategic interest as well. In another word, that's called cooperation. We don't seem to be doing that. So how can you qualify the talks as being successful? No, no. And, and again, I am— one thing that I am surprised at, and I'll say it because I didn't expect it, and I still hold my conviction to that. Uh, I didn't expect that President Xi will grant an audience to Secretary Blinken. I didn't expect that. So, and again, that's why I'm leaning towards that decision was made to the last minute. It's no different, just in the other way, uh, when the decision was made to not have the talks with the Secretary of Defense during the Shangri-La La dialogue, because that decision was made to the last minute. The presidency's meeting was with Secretary Blinken was made to the last minute. And again, I could be wrong, but, but that's how I see it. So now the big question that looms large about all this is, how do you think Asian nations are now thinking? And by the way, why am I bringing this up? Of course, I have to— it's a segue to one other key topic that I'm going to be releasing a video on, and I'm going to give you a heads up. This one has to do with Japan, okay? Be on a lookout for a video that I'm going to be releasing. As a matter of fact, that video, I might end up doing a live stream on that topic because it's very, very, very important for the world to know, know what the Japanese government doing versus what the people's what, what the people want are two different— on two ends of the spectrum. You will be shocked and surprised to find out what I'm gonna disclose with you, or to you rather, when I release that video. So, uh, speaking of a video, by the way, I do release the videos early on for the channel's members, uh, so And by the way, I did promise you that once we reach 100, uh, members, I will do an exclusive Q&A for just the channel members. So that's up to you guys. I, I, I am very grateful for your support, uh, for the channel. Should you decide to become a member or support, whatever you want, uh, it's just gonna It's just for you to know, I give you my word, and I'm a man of my word. I only say what I'm going to do. So I promise you that once we reach the first 100, I am going to do an exclusive Q&A for you in which I answer whatever question you have, and there is no time limit to it. I'll stay with you whenever there are questions. So, uh, so yeah, just be on a lookout for this video that I'm going to be releasing, uh, soon, in few days. Uh, it's because when I came across that information, I was very surprised. I didn't expect it, and I confirmed it, by the way. So I confirmed that information. So the question, just to tie it back to our topic here, the question that we need to ask now is how Asian countries, all of them, whether ASEAN or, or, or, or other countries, uh, are looking now at this issue— not an issue, but rather at this trip. How are they qualifying it or, or assessing, uh, what should we do now that the United States Secretary of State came over all the way to China? So, so in your opinion, what do you think? Like, for example, ASEAN countries is going to do, or other countries that are not member of ASEAN. The whole— when you take Asia as a whole, where, where do you— besides Japan and South Korea, of course, because, uh, governments say one thing but the population wants something else. So, and this is where I see, uh, I am more leaning towards— I don't see the success of this, you know. It will be amazing if they could they, the United States and the, and, uh, China, uh, resolve their differences sooner than later. Because here's the thing, and I'm gonna say it here, the possibility of former president, President Trump, coming back to power, it's a possibility. It is a possibility. And we all know how the trade tariffs started to beg— how the trade war with China started to begin with. We all know how the withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran nuclear program, came all about. How we all know the idea of why there are no progress on these two fronts. And if the former president ends up winning the election in 2024, we all know what the outcome is going to be. So, uh, I usually don't get involved in the, uh, you know, I'm not in support of either party, uh, because like I always say, Americans, if you are an American watching this, you really need to wake up. Most Americans do not know that the system, the political, has been controlled by both political parties for the last 150 years. I've said this so many times, and I usually repeat it because it's so important for people to know. This is why we are not seeing any third party, and it will never be a third party till the system is changed, because the system is where the corruption is. There are smart people out there, there are good people that will make a good president, but the system won't let them, won't allow it. So what you end up having to do is to revamp the entire system altogether. I'll give you just quick example, especially for, uh, my American viewers here. If you are an American watching this, look no further than the tax system. And I know it's a conversation that goes away from this, but one day we will talk details. But just to highlight this to you, you look at the tax system, you know, who's taxed the most in the American society is the middle class. You know, the millionaires and billionaires pay zero. The lower end, the poor people, have nothing. And I understand that, and I will support that. They have not— you know, if you don't have money, you don't have money. End of story. Uh, but the bulk of the population is in the middle class, and yet that's the one that is taxed heavily. Well, do you blame the current government? No, no, you don't. It's because the system is set up that way, fundamentally has been set up that way. And if you go back to the beginning of America— and this is what I'm going to be doing in a government course that I'm going to be teaching soon to highlight those really intricate issues that most universities in the United States will dare to address, because that means you are raising awareness among— this is why I wanted to grow this channel, guys. That's the whole objective of it. You're gonna have to raise awareness among people, you know. If this is my contribution to humanity, be it. And that's what I want, because if you have knowledge, like I always say, If you have knowledge and you're sitting on it, then you are useless to humanity. Yeah, I'll say it, you know. Or if you have knowledge and you are misusing it, then you are a disgrace to humanity. And you all know what I mean by that. You know, I don't shy away from saying stuff like that because it's the truth. And the truth shall set you free, as they say. Anyway, I'm gonna wrap this up, guys, because I don't like to just rumble. If I have something meaningful to say, I'll talk. If I don't, I'm done, because your time means a lot to me and I respect it. So I truly appreciate you guys for being here. So let me take a look if there are a question or two. And I am gonna have to go work on, uh, there's a topic that I am working on right now that you need to know about. So I will work on it and release the video for you guys. All right, let me go back up to the top all the way and see, and, and see where some of you are joining me from. Wade from St. Louis, good to see you. Josie Hawk from Antarctica, interesting. What about in Antarctica, if you will be kind and just, uh, uh, if you feel comfortable enough to disclose the location? So, all right, let me see who else joining me from. And I know I already said some of you earlier, like Mississippi, UK, uh, New York City, uh, Canada, Vancouver, that is. All right, then I'll answer a question or two and that's it. I'll wrap it up. And, and as I said, uh, I will do one for you guys, uh, towards the end of the week Uh, I have a topic in mind that you, you need to know about. And again, the whole objective of all this, guys, it's just, uh— oh, Techno Ganga from India, good to have you. Uh, the idea of for you to be aware of what's going on. And again, just to present a different perspective, because there are a lot of people out there, they're just talking nonsense. So, and then I kind of— I, I, I just don't hold the back on stuff like that because it's not right. It's not right. If you have something of value and accurate information, then you share it with people. But if you're just making things up, that's not good. Okay, let me see. I'm looking, guys, through here just to see if they are— I'm And like I always say, guys, please, if you have question, just put Q so I know it's question. Uh, okay, let me see here. Oh, Part-Time, good to see you. Part-Time, it's Part-Time Thinker. Part-Time Thinker has been, has been with me for quite a while, even on this and the other channel. So I thank you so much for your continued Yeah, Quasai B, you're absolutely correct. It's uni-party here. It's sad. It's really sad. You will think, you know, we live in so-called democracy. No, that's why I, I'm, you know, I start to feel comfortable saying democracy is an illusion. You know, democracy is serving the elite, not you and I, the average people. So that's— or, or others for that matter. Because— oh, Hong Wong, I want to say thank you so much for your Super Sticker. I, I truly appreciate you for that. So both American parties are backed by the same people. You are absolutely correct. You know, you hit the nail on the head for this. And this is what some Americans do not understand, is the reality of it. You know, till you read the system of that You know, uh, here we go, and I'll give just an example. President or not— and again, I'm not pointing fingers at President Biden— president or not, if you break the law, you're no different than any other citizen. So you will go through trial, you will go through a fair trial, then you will be judged by the jury that's selected from the population. You're not above the law. And what we are witnessing in our system is that there is one set of laws for the upper class and one set of laws for everyone else. So if now, which I am sure you guys heard about the, the bribe corruption that the President, uh, uh, Biden's son was involved, and even President himself has received some money through that, you know. And again, I am not pointing fingers at the, at the president. All I'm saying is if those allegations prove true, then that's it, end of conversation. You go through the legal process by being put to trial and go to jail if you break the law or end up taking corruptions or whatever, you know. And this is where the fundamental issue that most Americans, because they are being distracted, they don't understand, you know. Like I always say, an average citizen is worried about what's for dinner. Do I have anything to eat tonight or not? They're not going to be paying attention to these kind of issues. So what ends up happening is that the elite class end up working with Congress behind the scenes to enact the laws that will ensure the protection of those elites, while at the same time everybody else is paying the price. And the tax system is an example of that. So thank you so much for your super sticker, truly appreciate it. Okay, let me, uh, Stefan Toronto. Okay. Oh, let me say thank you to Johan de Celancio. Thank you so much for your, uh, super sticker. Keep up the good work, Dr. Dave. You are most welcome. It's really people like you guys. And again, I am not saying it to be Mr. Nice. I am not that type. I am what you see. This is why sometimes I see those nonsense comments, not in here but on chat, you know. It's just so stupid. But at the same time, it's because they don't like hearing the truth. So, and I'm not gonna waver from that. It's because I feel there is the responsibility and duty towards you guys. You are giving me your time, and your time means a lot to me. So it won't bode well for me psychologically if I sit back after this live stream is done and all that, and I sit back and ask myself, did I give 110% to the viewers that sat in front of that camera watching, or whatever, whatever you guys watch this stuff from, sitting for an hour and listening to what I have to say. Did I give them 110% or not? That's the question that I ask myself. So, and because of you guys, people like you, this is why I don't have a million viewers, because I will not have a million viewers because, you know, people are not made for this kind of stuff. Majority— I shall not generalize, you know— what people want is the silly stuff. It's because that's the mind level. I'll say it straightforward, is the intellectual level what it is. They can't comprehend these things, so it's easier to watch kitty cats playing and subscribe to that than subscribing to a channel like this. And yet they don't realize that they are being just manipulated, you know, psychologically. That's just how it works, you know. And don't get me wrong, there are some good channels out there that have 500 million subscribers, whatever. I'm not denying this, you know, it's just not for me. So, and for my viewers here, I want to make sure to protect you How I protect you is by ensuring that the information you are getting from me is worth your time. That's how I look at it. So thank you so much for your Super Sticker. I truly appreciate it. All right, let me see what do we have here. Okay, I see quick question here from Cheesecake. You know, question. Cheesecake, by the way, has been a member, has been, uh, been a subscriber for the channel for quite a while, so I do thank you for that. Uh, what's the insight on Apple moving its operations away from India? As a matter of fact, I am not gonna answer that, not that I don't want to, it's because I was thinking about making you guys a video on it. So what do you guys think? Or I'll answer it now and I won't do the video on it. So because there are some issues that needs to be addressed, and again, it was one comment that I saw once about me talking negatively about India. Well, that, that's a weak argument, whoever put that in. And I usually don't disclose the names, and I, I don't even answer those anymore because it's waste of my time. But that is a weak argument, and it tells me right there, you know, when somebody couldn't see the argument for what it is, it's not worth the time. You know, I have nothing against India, and as a matter of fact, when I say things, it's for the sake of opening the eyes of those politicians in India to the real issues. I am sure they do understand that, but it's sometimes nice for it to come from an outside outsider looking in. That is the reason why. So, but I have nothing, nothing against India. So, so, uh, but if you want me, I'll answer this. The reason being because it has to do with infrastructure and the quality of the product. So that is the reason why Apple moved its operations out of India. You know, it's not about just cheap labor, it's about the quality of the product. And of course, the lack of infrastructure. So, and also this sends a message that no matter how you slice it, no matter how you look at it, you, you in this case, the collective West, will not be able to, uh, sort of think that, oh, we don't need Chinese market. No matter how you look at it. As a matter of fact, as we speak right now, at the time I'm doing this, there is a delegation from China going to the EU. Makes you just wonder, you know, I wonder which country extended the invitation to and why. And could this— and again, this is where being an analyst comes in— could this be tied to what French president just expressed as far as his interest for his country to join BRICS? You think about it. Okay, let me move one last more thing here. And all right, I'll answer last question from, uh, Quasi B. Question: Dr. O, is it possible for China to blockade Taiwan of only the weapon deliveries from the United States? No, no, because if, if it does, then that means China is wise enough. This is again to tie it back to our talk today. Why President Xi granted the audience for Secretary of State is to give a nod that it will be okay to further the talks. China understands it's not time to fight fire with fire, and China's diplomacy doesn't work that way, at least so far of what I have learned about how China navigates those kind of incidents. And I'm talking about the last 120 years or so, but again, that's what I found out so far in the research that I'm, I'm doing. I, I, I can't speak of 3,000, 4,000 years ago. I can only speak of recent history. Of usually I always do go 100 years, uh, or century, that is. So now what China could do, and I don't even see China doing this, what China could do is to put the blockade on an economic aspect. But how can you expect a country to do this for its own citizens. No matter how you look at it, Taiwanese— I know it's, it's sensitive for those who say, well, those are not Chinese, whatever, you know. We all know Taiwan is part of China. We agreed to One China policy. Yes, there is the Hans, or they're over the history. That's no different than What I found very interesting, how come we are saying the same thing, we are saying this about that, but we are not saying the same thing about Okinawa? If we only know the history of Okinawa, and that's what prompts me to do the video that I'm going to be releasing for you. You know, if you look at the history, Okinawa was never part of Japan, you know, and I had to ask, uh, uh, uh, What's his name? Dr. Ken, uh, uh, Kenneth. You know, he is knowledgeable of Chinese history. He's a scholar of Chinese history. I'll trust his judgment. So, and last time I interviewed him, I asked about this particular issue. Said, yeah, the historical aspects of it. Ken Hammond, Dr. Hammond rather, not Ken Hammond, Professor Hammond, or, or Dr. Ken Hammond. Uh, yeah, that's the same arguments. So, so I don't see China doing that. This is why China wants to resolve this peacefully, and I am one in favor of that. Military tensions is only gonna get out of control and the outcome will not be pretty. China is aware of that. That does not mean China is scared of the US, whatever. And for us, we are saying, because there are now voices inside Washington saying, oh, we're gonna come to the defend of— to the defense of Taiwan. We're not. Didn't we say the same thing about Ukraine? Look what's going on right now. So it behooves Taiwanese to think You know, that's like what South Koreans and the Japanese governments been sold, that we will come to their defense when there is, and if there is, and I hope it will not be a military conflict. We all know who's going to be at the front line, not the Americans. It will be the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the South Koreans, the Filipinos. Then the US will be there. That's just how it's going to be. So, so I don't see them stopping that. But also, the US can only push so much till it will get a push back from China at some point. And, and when you're going to see that is when there will be some advanced systems being, uh, uh, transferred to Taiwan. That's why we want the conflict to keep going, so we can sell weapons. All right, guys, I hope you find this very informative, and I thank you very much for your support for being here. And again, sometimes I will come on the air, uh, unexpectedly. This is why if this is your first time here, just make sure to subscribe and hit that notification button, because that's the only way you will know. And the reason why I kind of drag the talks a little bit at the beginning by sharing some other good information is to wait for others to join us, because that's just how YouTube is. There's nothing I can do about it. So anyway, I be on a lookout for the next video that I said is going to be released about Japan, and I look forward to seeing you next time. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.