tv CSIS Discussion on East Asia Summit CSPAN November 9, 2018 12:34pm-1:53pm EST
about you or include an attachment that you had previously sent. that is a recent trends what the current doctrine, that's been current and long-standing doctrine under u.s. law. >> a question over here. >> my name is michael geoffroy. i'm here as as a private citiz. either question, given comments about, no other areas to expect private industries -- [inaudible] the fact roughly 85-95% for critical infrastructure 5% of our critical infrastructure is in private hands, how do you square the disconnect between the privacy regimes that are popping up like gdpr with the private sectors responsibility share information to protect itself, whether it be in the area of sharing a cybersecurity threat or sharing financial information, anti-money-laundering speedy you can see the rest of this on my at our website c-span.org. we believe it and go live to the
center for strategic and international studies for a preview of next weeks east asia summit in singapore. we are joint as is just getting underway. >> so i'd like to just begin. my name is colin quinn. the director for new media here at csis and i'll be moderating today's press briefing. thank you all for coming. i just wanted you a quick note for housekeeping. we will be transcribing this discussion, so if when you are asking a question is going to identify itself, that will make it easier on you. we would then be sending that transcript later on today. let me introduce my colleagues will be speaking today in this order. to my left, matthew goodman, senior vice president and our simon chair political economy, also senior vice chair for asian economics and he was accorded for the apec and east asia
summit including the g-8 and g20 in the obama white house. to his leftist left is amy seae senior advisor and director in southeast asia program at csis. bill reinsch, senior advisor and wadwani chair in u.s.-india policy state. and chris johnson senior advisor chair and china says at csis and joints on the phone is victor cha was a senior advisor and korea chair at csis. we will all be hearing from them today. to start us off, , matt, please. >> thanks, calling. vice president pence heads off this week into asia for the annual trek of summons, that's the reason the organizing principle of the trip, he's going to the east asia summit, the u.s.-asean summit and the apec, asia pacific coordinators
meeting. you will be in the region for about a week. this is something president normally does but president trump opted not to do this trip and ask vice president pence to do the trip. to me the over arching theme here is that the vice president is going to face some skepticism from particularly allies and partners in the region. those of a current sort of three areas of skepticism. one is concerned about some of the statements and actions the top administration has taken, criticism of allies, skepticism about multilateral approaches like the things that are going to be done in these summits, new interest in china policy following vice president pence his speech in early october that was quite strong in tone
particularly and southeast asia. there will be questions about that and concerns about that. and then the withdrawal from the transpacific partnership from the paris climate accord i think of raise questions in the region. of course the use of tariffs against allies as well as against china are a source of concern then there are certain questions about north korea policy that the vice president will encounter in places like japan for example, which has some different interests there. in addition to the shared interest about proliferation and missile development. i think there's some of the specific issues japan has questions about. that's one set of or one reason for the skepticism the vice president will have to address. the second reason for skepticism is the free and open indo-pacific strategy which was the headline that president
trump announced last year on the same trip when he was in vietnam and he the speech at the apec ceo summit i used this phrase and open indo-pacific strategy which is now been fleshed out to some extent by other administration officials including secretary of state mike pompeo in a speech to use chained in late july. there are questions about the content of the free and open indo-pacific strategy. the headline resonates well in the region but the details are unclear at best and there are some concerns particularly on the economic and trade side where because of the withdrawal from tpp and its non-replacement by another credible regional trade strategy there are questions about that. use the vice president trying to address those things by fleshing out some of the points that were raised in the pompeo speech like digital connectivity which was a specific item that the secretary of state mentioned,
infrastructure, energy. these are areas you should expect to see some discussion of by the vice president when he's there. the third reason for skepticism or questions is a fact it's the vice president and off the president. because as you probably heard us on this panel said before, in asia 80% of of life is showing up, and then watch this stuff carefully, particularly in southeast asia. he's going to face those headwinds, but the other way to look at this is there's a real opportunity for the vice president to try to flesh out some of these points and convince folks that the approach, the united states is committed to the region, and it's free and open indo-pacific does have content and that essentially the u.s. is there for allies and partners and so i think there's a big opportunity here but a lot of attention will be paid to this. let me just say one word about the japan stop because mike green couldn't be here today. you have me to wear a kilt to
represent him but, unfortunately, mine is at the cleaners. i think mike would say the purpose of the japan stop is to reassure japan of the u.s. commitment to the light and so the light will be central there. there will be an interest in discussing for the vice president discussed with prime minister abe north korea, china, regional security issues, maritime security issues. i don't think there's going to be much entrée. vice president has been reluctant to engage even in the formal process that was established between him and the finance minister and deputy prime minister. because we are in the cooling off timeframe on the bilateral trade agreements, there probably isn't going to be too much discussion of trade. one of the highlights of the stuff that's interesting is the vice president requested and got a joint press availability with primers of a which is unusual
thing because it's not a protocol match but the japanese gave the vice president that, so that's probably the public thing to watch on the japan stop. with that i will pass it on down the line and sort of roughly chronological order so amy. >> so from japan vice presidential travel to singapore for two of the major asean asia summits. the first will be a u.s.-asean summit where meeting with ultimate of the association of southeast asian nations and the major event is the east asia summit which brings together the can asean members as well as eight other countries, china, japan, south korea, australia, new zealand, india and the united states and russia. singapore has been chair of asean novitiate so it's hosting the east asia summit and their then to big priorities for asean this year. a lot of the news coming out of
these meetings is going to be focused on these two issues that asean is going to meet as a grouping before the singapore contains the east asia summit. they will focus on the south china sea issues. their discussion with china over negotiating a draft code of conduct. there's been some modest progress towards negotiating a draft. still has a long way to go. there's a major disagreements but this is something asean has been pushing for for over two decades. and china has been very reluctant to move forward. some momentum began to build and 2016 after the arbitral tribunal made an award that was very favorable to philippines and it sort of brought china back to the table, those there's been a lot of work by singapore to try to push this code of conduct closer to conclusion. so there's now a single draft text that would be the basis for further negotiations that was
announced during the asean china summit in august. and so there will be some talk about that but we don't expect any further announcements and assessing its still a ways off. for the united states the main concern is that the text does not come that the draft code of conduct that emerges does not impinge on the rights of third parties. the united states has been very supportive of the idea of asean in china concluding a a code of conduct but it has strongly suggested a code of conduct should be binding to all parties. the concern is there's language inserted by china according to reports that would seek to limit u.s. presence in naval exercises and energy exploration without the consent of all parties which would include of course china. that's unlikely to make it into final draft but it's quite possible vice president pence will make some messaging around that. the second big issues on the
trade front. of course against the backdrop of having six of the tpp 11, the conferences and progressive transpacific partnership newly renamed now have ratified that agreement as of now it is slated to come on board by the end of issue december 30. there's been a lot of focus also against the backdrop of inserted that u.s. trade policy and the growing tariff skirmish between the united states and china. there's been a little bit more political will to try to push forward the broad regional trade agreement called the regional coverage of economic partnership which includes all of the asean countries plus sixth additional countries, australia, new zealand, china, japan, south korea and india. basically all of east asia summit countries minus the united states and russia. singapore has tried hard to use its chairmanship to push this agreement towards a substantial
conclusion. india has been holed up all along really reluctant to get significant concessions in particular because next year is an election year for prime minister modi and there's been disagreements take her with india but even with some of the members about the level of ambition for tariff liberalization and other trade rules. it looks like they will not get quite the conclusion they want to be able to announce at this meeting and it needs this trade agreement probably drag on into next year and likely beyond. but there would be a lot of discussion about that as well. as matt said, vice president pence will be giving a speech at his next stop at apec. in his engagement with his asean counterparts and other bilateral meetings that he will have at the east asia summit and his intervention at the east asia summit. i think the countries in the region will be looking for a reassuring message that gives a little more detail about with
free and open indo-pacific means for the u.s. commitment and vision for the region. there's some concern about u.s.-china policy, the coin,, intensification of use china strategic rivalry. on the on the one hand, countris appreciate a strong u.s. presence, security strategic presence in the region to balance against overly assertive behavior from china but they also are quite concerned about the prospect that tensions might really escalate into something more serious. the recent close encounter of u.s. navy destroyed with the chinese naval vessel caused a lot of concern in the region about tensions rising in the south china sea. and countries most important do not want to feel like they are forced to choose between partnership with the united states and partnership with china. i think it's an opportunity for vice president pence to give a reassuring message along those lines that the free and open pacific come free and open indo-pacific is a stretch about maintaining an open, inclusive
architecture that is supportive to everyone. >> well, my task is to talk a little bit about aipac and trade, editor that much to say. expectations are low, and they probably won't be fulfilled anyway, so -- [laughing] i can be brief. [laughing] some of the important elements have already been mentioned, better than i could do. the vice presidents role has been without one. he is a major speech at the ceo summit which is in parallel to the leaders summit and he will try to do exactly what matt and amy said which is try to reassure people about the continued u.s. commitment to the region. that is one of east asia summit
words versus deeds. as matt pointed out, the president pulled out of tpp his third day in office and probably more important has not really replace it with anything material. replace it with the name of a strategy but they haven't, no meat on those particular bones. so i think he will probably say the right things, and try to provide some resurgence. in that sense i suspect a different company one the second when he spoke at the hudson institute several weeks ago. whether the other countries will be reassured are not i think it's less clear because the united states position on the ground at least on the economic front continues to suggest lack of a strategy. so we will see how that plays out. the conference itself, the fee is harnessing inclusive opportunities come embracing the digital future, apec strength
over the years has been the promotion of regional integration largely through the development of what might, by consensus of what might be characterized as best practices in the select areas. these take a long time. it's a little easier than trade negotiations because they are best practices and goals and principles rather than enforceable outcomes. but even there, they take a long time and in the digital space are likely to take a long time because it's clear already that a number of the participants, particularly china and the united states have very different views of how the internet should operate and how the internet should be governed. and i think you will probably see reflection of that in the discussions at apec. one of the things that apec is done in the past which i hope to be able to advance at the summit and also next year in chile is
there cbp are cross-border privacy rules which are basically a construct for trying to encourage companies to adopt consistent and harmonize privacy rules. this had made some inroads. countries are signing up to this and to the extent the summit can again for the exercise both this time round and in future choose that will be a good thing. it's not really compatible with the chinese approach to the internet in particular although apec all the members have subscribed to this in the past. so where this goes will be interesting. i don't expect a lot of excitement but to the extent that they can make steps in this direction of furthering the utility of this would be a good thing. in addition there's been some talk they will be able to put out, that is published, someone
may been working on which is -- i've had to try to forget information about it, services trade restricted index. this is not unique. the oecd did this, the wto secretariat did this. the world bank is than the. >> these are exercises that are attempt to identify trade restrictive practices in the interest of greater transparency and in the interest of hopefully eventually leading to negotiations in various fora that will tend attempt to put e limits on the practices. the fact a apec is doing this. if they can get agreement to put it up publicly that would be even better. there's a long way from that to actually accomplish something in terms of eliminating some of these practices but i think what apec has been good at over the years is successions of small steps that eventually to something and this would be i
think this would be a good example of that. you will also see the standard rhetoric that comes out of every one of these things about regional integration as importance of the free trade agreement for the asia-pacific. this has been a goal for 20 years at least. i suspect, i think we are not much closer now than we were in the beginning. i think it is useful that they continue to restate it and continued to maintain a commitment to it. even though the steps towards actually achieving it remain fairly far away and even though the main focus now in the trade area is elsewhere, the of the negotiation, and the question of turning the cb tpp into an actual operating agreement. it's one of things that overlays this whole exercise. will go into effect now decembed
the requisite six nations and by then i think the one or two more. and i think from an american standpoint to the extent that that is deeper than our signs of income to the extent it will become operational and a viable entity, regional trade agreement in the asia-pacific area, even without us is a good thing and hopefully we something that we will come back to at a later date. so i think that is the landscape. don't expect too much. i don't expect anything terrible and that may be the best we can hope for. >> as you can understand it's hard to get everyone in the room at the same time and so with whatever called on the phone, victor cha who is coming up on -- victor, if you could join us
and say your piece. >> sure, calling. thanks. so on korea there is no stop in korea on the way to apec, but vice president pence will meet the south korean leader there. in the case of korea they have d just come off your in washington, the annual security consultant meeting so i imagine that there will be reformations some of the decisions reached there on suspension of exercises, on delineating conditions and procedures for transition. the one thing that still is a result is a special measures agreement which is the burden sharing agreement between the kaushik agreement between united states and south korea for u.s. military forces in korea. this is an unusually difficult
negotiation. this happens every four or five years. this one is unusually difficult because i think come i think basically the president wants korea to pay for everything as opposed to something that is roughly a 50-50 split in the past agreements. but, of course, the main topic of discussion because it's only topic of discussion when it comes to korea these days is north korea. the trip by secretary pompeo to north korea -- to meet with kim jong chill in york was canceled. the clear that cancellation is because of logistics or because of substance, if it's logistics is logistics but if it's substance, my guess is we really are approaching the point where the rubber has to hit the road on both sides. for the north korean site it means actually putting some facilities on the table for declaration and inspection by
iaea inspectors on the ground and from your side it's the north korean demand to lift sanctions if north korea is going to take those sorts of actions. what's been i think of discussion has been a satellite, the main satellite launch facility, a nuclear test site and, of course, the old nuclear complex. i think the midterm elections actually may be a good thing for korea policy in the sense that there will be many more demands of the administration for transparency with regard to come very close and high-level negotiations that have been really only within a small circle, not people on the hill have been briefed about this at all so i imagine that will be many more calls for the administration both an open or closed sessions to come and brief more on the policy.
and there will be more scrutiny of any agreements that are reached between the administration and the north koreans on things like verification, inspections pixel in a sense the midterms are actually a good check against ensuring that donald trump doesn't take a bad deal with north korea. but my understand is they are still uncommon for a second trump-kim summit, sometime in the early in the new year. it's not clear if there would be a fourth kim of mont summit before the end of this year, but as donald trump says, it's not to worry because now we are plenty of time when it comes to north korea. there's no real rush for some reason. and we will have to wait to see when this pompeo kim jong chill
meeting to skillet. i will just leave it at that. >> thanks victor. if you can hang out the be great but i know you've got time commitments. back in the room, rick, please take is what. >> india is on health relevant to this conversation. they are of course primers a motive will be there for the east asia summit but they're not a member of apex will focus mostly on relations these but not so much on the apec meeting itself. modi has six months left in office at fort half years in office. we had some idea on his broad economic and security approaches and what that means for the relationships across asia. on economic you've got a bit of a two track train, very pro-investment. the most pro-investment prime minister think we've ever seen from india and using dramatic rise in the business rankings lifting restrictions, domestic reforms to make it easier to do business there. but that there is quite a bit
with what you see in terms of the approach to trade policy. as reluctant as india has been on trade liberalization over the years, prime minister modi's is probably less interest in trade integration that is most recent predecessors did you see an increase in customs duties, you've seen in the air walking away from existing and pending trade agreements. they are the slowest wheel of the bunch in terms of moving that forward and i think in agreement that has china at the table, india would be very reluctant to conclude because it is a primary driver policymaking entity right now is this massive trade deficit in half with china. ..
you see them practice with japan, i think india deprives jack japan of strength and you see interesting examples where with vietnam, with indonesia, there are a little bit of spark there as well but nothing fairly substantive but some small parts in terms of deepening security partnerships with other members in east asia but nothing terribly robust so in practice the government will talk about these policies but intangible ways of measuring it, it comes up prettylacking . i suspect that as moti talks about wishes, desires, delivers remarks it will be similar to what we heard the speech atshangri-la earlier this year .
centrality, free and open partnership for all, similar themes there. i'm going to be watching more closely the bilateral that moti has with vice president pence. the bilateral andwind has choppy waters . the relationship between the us and india has been strengthening and we had our inaugural 2+2 dialogue with the secretary and defense and state travel to india two months ago and came up with a number of important substantive agreements. that's well and good but most of it is technology sharing, practice, things like that. we don't have to operationally much happening yet but the trade relationship with india has taken a downturn in the last eight months or so. the united states is threatening to revoke gsp benefits because of anti-trade measures india has taken. india's looking at counter trade tariffs, india was
added to the treasury departments watchlist and the treasuries indicated they may be taken off before too long but there's a variety of problem issues that have arisen in both sides, the us is also talking about changing visa regulations which could impair their regulations because india is the number one place high tech workers come from so choppy waters on the trade front and so far the good things on the security front have remained in the silo and fairly protected but you don't know how long that can last so the bilateral will be interesting because it looks like our trade later are supposed to have a meeting last month or this month, that's good getting postponed and delayed so this is one more opportunity to see if we can hold off on any dramatic actions to impair trade relationships while we tried to figure out small steps to resolve it so i'll leave it at that and over to chris >> thank you rick.
it's often unusual when we have these press briefings for the china issued to come up last but i think it's appropriate in this context the cause in some ways as monty python would say, china is not appearing in this film and at this meeting and that makes sense because president trump is not going, president xi will be going and there's no way he's going to meet with vice president pence and all the action would be on the g 20 meeting in argentina so that when what i've been asked to focus on. i suspect however that there will be prospects from vice president pence's trip in the region. it's striking that the fact sheet the white house put out today indicated one of the main messages the vice president will be highlighting is that efforts at authoritarianism, aggression and disregard for other nations sovereignty in the region will be opposed only by the united states. i don't think he's talking about indonesia, that's my
guess. he's talking about china and i raise that because so much tension on the trade conflict , sometimes we forget there's a pretty serious deterioration in the strategic relationship going on as well this is likely to fuel further the greater injection of strategic instability into the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world so that's something that then becomes a real focus for when president trump and president xi sit down with each other as much as the focus will be on trade and so to look at the dynamics there, where did this strategic instability come from, i merrily come from a series of actions from the administration and most notably the vice president's speech that hedelivered here not long ago .and particularly the key line in there where indicates that taiwan by choosing democracy has made the right choice, complicit in that is that china has made the wrong choice and that its authoritarian system of government is illegitimate. that is a very serious thing
for the united states to be saying at the vice presidential level and it's causing alarm bells to go off in senior leadership circles in beijing so i find it striking that today we are having around the diplomatic security dialogue between the us and china. it talking that the chinese approach to how to manage the forward conversation was to have that meeting first before any further trade discussions. that tells me that the disorder in the strategic, the broader overall critique relationship is of much greater concern to the politburo and the tit-for-tat elements of the trade war and so that i think very noteworthy administration continues to understand that brass better than it does. aware what might be beheaded? strategic issues probably will come up in the bilateral between trump and xi but we
rarely if ever see president trump make any mention of the strategic issues. he doesn't refer to his own national security trash strategy, doesn't talk about china as a competitor practicing predatory economics, talks about how they're ripping us off but he doesn't seem to address those elements of dimensions of the relationship too much. i think i think part this idea that he has a unique relationship with president xi, a friendship and he trying to maintain and the rest of the administration can take a lot of these noises but he doesn't do that. the other parties his real focus is the trade issue and how to manage that with china. so the real question i suppose is will we make a deal of some sort at this meeting in argentina? the first question is to understand as the united states wants to make a deal and that's a very hard question to sort out. i think we're seeing right now kicked off by the presidents to last thursday
about his conversation with president shinzo abe, there's another round of what i call inside the ministration gymnastics occurring, you know the players, we had secretary nguyen, mister kudlow and a few others lined up on one side sort of advocating for some deal. and ambassador like kaiser, mister navarro has chaired earlier today. and others opposing but that deal, sort of like what victor was saying on north korea. so it's going to come down to president trump. and then there's the question that no one seems to be asking which is does president shinzo abe wanted you? there's an assumption that chinese you want some sort of deal. i think we have to acknowledge the possibility that mediate don't or at least not under these conditions. if you look at these comments president shinzo abe has been making, domestically about self-reliance , authority and technology, these sort of things, it's not just pure
propaganda at some level that he believes that. unless the conditions are right his point of view, i'm not sure you want to deal so that leaves us in a position where the best we can hope for is what you might call a framework agreement to emerge and what do i mean by that? i think it's a decision by both sides that let's bring the temperature down a little bit, particularly on the strategic side but also the trade side by freezing existing tariffs in place, perhaps rolling back some if the chinese see market access opening because we're running out of time before the meeting and the decision by the residents at their level to empower their respective appropriate people to start off what would be a cop and prolonged negotiations because there's a serious issue quite i'd like to turn to your questions, we also have some of your colleagues on the phone and i'll be coming to you as well .
class thank you. this long with mtv. i want to follow up a couple questions on china, for a midterm election just finished, so do you expect any change in policy from the administration towards china with respect to trade policy or do current policies continue and also, what is the strategic security dialogue between the us and china do you expect anything can come out of it? any thing solid out of it? >> thank you. on the midterms, there was a lot of perception i think in china earlier on that perhaps
the democrats had a big win and the house changed hands and maybe the senate as well, perhaps president trump would be willing somehow or that there might be a relaxing of pressure but my impression is the closer we got to the election the less and less a believe that. and a lot of americans told them look, this is not the case and i think what we're seeing here in dc and i think it's important to emphasize in washington if you visit other parts, you don't see this dynamic is a fundamental ground shift in the way that people think about china and so the democrats in a lot of cases now found a lot like their administration opposite numbers. and so i don't think we're going to see a particular lessening and typically when the president loses the ability to move domestic legislation at home, they start to look at foreign policies for their achievements so i would expect the president to be thinking more about that going forward and china is going to be a fundamental focus.
on diplomatic insecurity, expectations are low. some degree back the meeting is occurring is a benefit. and that's primarily because of course we had a postponement of what was supposed to be around this dialogue and beijing a month ago the mere fact they're sitting down to have this orthopedic discussion is helpful. i don't think we should expect any tremendous initiatives, in some ways the chinese main objective was to get counseling on an opportunity to meet with the president, it doesn't look like that will happen. so that's probably going to not be well received in beijing. >>. >> thank you, peter nicholas, wall street journal. to elaborate on something earlier, will this be perceived as a snob on the part of some of the nations at the summit and is there anything by presidents can say or do try to make up for this?
>> i think there's two schools of thought about vice president going into the president, one school is not a big deal, it happened before, we've attended summits, they said carried to the two summits, usually these were last any cancellation because of the method crises or some kind of crisis the fact that from announced this far in advance is different but no big deal. another part of that argument is these meetings are not all that critically important, it's not like a big outcome emerged from the discussions on the ground, they are very scripted, kind of tedious usually so most presidents don't particularly enjoy sitting in and the third aspect is looking at president trumps recent behavior in various moments from the g7 summit, some people think it's better for the vice president to go, it's less disruptive perhaps, less risky in terms of those
kind of dynamics. i think our view, certainly my view is that it really does matter at a time when the administration is trying to put forward the in office as a premier tricky vision and us foreign policy and trying to make a case that this is a region of rate strategic importance to the administration, the fact that president trump will be there will be perceived i don't know as much of the snow but that the united states is not estimated to the region as other countries because all theother leaders will be there , the only other exception being president putin. russia is not as important to many of these countries as the unitedstates is , having the president shall so having the president not show up will send a message that will undercut the seriousness with which countries in the region will take us long-term commitments in this accordion and the pacific that they
have a spare amount of skepticism about. it could have the vice president show up, could he do something to overturn that? i suppose it became not only with a reassuring message which i think you will have but with a big basket, a hefty deliverable that tries to show the united states is really going to put skin in the game and commit to some things. that would be one thing but we don't anticipate that because there are not deliverables on the table. there's not big security deliverables, there's a little more funding but there's no big security initiatives to announce so i think there's going to be somediscipline there . >> inspector, can i add something on what amy just said? and aipac is all about the
picture. it's about that picture with all the leaders and the whatever funny garb they are wearing and the number of people in the room have been to these things and based on protocol, the vice president is goingto be at the end in the back somewhere . while shinzo abe xi will be standing next to the house or something. i've been part of the administrations where they haven't shown up to so i think amy is right . he will be there and there are small things they will be doing but the overall message is going to be this disinterest is not a priority . that's not good given the broader context of what's happening in asia. >> can i follow up one question?
on president obama we saw pitted to asia which got a lot of attention. how confusing must it be for some of these asian countries to see president trump not even showing up after the proclaimed he was going to make a visit? >> it is fair to point out that president obama did miss one of these summits in 2013 in bern i and in asia but that was in the midst of a budget crisis and shutdown. he did send carrie and attend all the other summits on his watch. president bush had a perfect attendance record for apec during his eight years in office though i think the free and open info specific more than attempts to reassure the region of this region remains strategic priority for this administration as well and out of the gate, the administration did a good job in some ways of engaging saudi asian leaders . for visits to the white house by four southeast asian leaders in president trumps first year in office.
vietnam, singapore, thailand and malaysia. followed by president trumps are a long trip to the region to attend most of these summits. this year, it seems like that momentum has left off and has led to some questions in the region and kisses him about how important is this region really to this president and this administration. >> not to belabor this on picture! having tried to get multiple presidents to put on silly shirts, i'm very, i totally agree with victor that that is a critical issue. that's not front and center but it's going to be noticed if we're not there but the other point i wanted to put is the point that chris made about it seems like there's a bit of a contradiction vice president and white house are signaling that they intend to come out with a reassuring and positive message and they're not going to explicitly mention china area and they're going to try to not force people to make that
choice but as amy mentioned, but as chris said in the press release from the white house, the statement about authoritarianism, aggression and solvency is so clearly aimed at china. it's just going to put a real point of access on the new, not new but it's definitely now going to be a clear signaling by the administration since the speech at the hudson institute that we have this long sound particularly in china and that we're going to be taking a approach that is really forcing that choice for people in the region when i wrote about this the other day when we had the us ambassador to the wto here, he was talking a couple weeks ago about the fact that there is no middle-of-the-road anymore. you have to pick alane .
and you pick china or pick the united states and that overall combination of all that is going to raise real concerns and questions in the region and so to sort of undermine what i think the administration is simply trying to do in signaling through the free and open in the pacific at their connection this region. >> in terms of picking sides, president xi is not only going to a but holding a meeting with other bio nation leaders which i think will get a lot of attention and then he's going on to the philippines for a state visit so at a time whenwe are asking countries to choose , president xi is going with his bag of goodies presumably to the philippines and again we arenot showing up . >> that an important amplifying comments because the vice president not going to talk about trade were not very much and in asia, economics issecurity.
so if you're not playing on the trade issue , you're not playing. >> christian. >> to bring this back towards the pan, i know michael's not here you mention that vice president pants is not doing the formal trade engagements that it set up with also and i'd like to comment on, there was an article today on comments last year and how much that actually is going to influence. >> i'm not going to do that one. i would just on the first part of what you said, you know, my president pence was reluctant to be the principal person responsible, i think for any particular policy issue. he was trying to take the joe
biden approach of being in the advisor on everything and he didn't want to do i think the vice president for example what he did with the reorganization there so i think vice president pants after the armed with this to join the prime minister who wanted that high-level engagement was never a comfortable arrangement and the dialogue, economic dialogue about those never really had much in it. and it's now been effectively subsumed by the bilateral trade talks which they are still debating what they are actually doing here, whether we are doing and fta or a trade agreement or i don't know what we're going to call it, but there is disagreement about that. and i think that just pence does not want to engage on that stuff but it's much more about that and that controversy you mentioned, again, i'm not going to go there but.
>> if i can follow up on a more practical note, the potential trade talks with japan, who is removed emerging as the voice on that? >> bomb like kaiser no question. like kaiser seems to be clearly in control of the trade policy agenda or operationalizing the approach from here. he has opinions aboutit turns out about trade policy . but i think why kaiser is clearly operationally in charge and he's the one rolling out strategies with japan and the eu and this bilateral issues of subsidies and state enterprises and digital technology. and is clearly the one for the nafta renegotiation.
question about the japan thing is again, i was joking about the title but serious point is i think it's unclear whether the us really wants to drive beyond the core issues which i think the eight president trump and bob like kaiser have with japan whichare twofold . there's agriculture market access and they're getting a lot of pressure i think from pork exporters who see australia and that eu will get favorable treatment in japan under these respective agreements and they want bad market, it's a big market for them so that thing that unionization clearly needs to address. and japan is ready to do that. at the same level, it's already gone for the policy and the other problem which is much more difficult as this has been at the center of our economic and trade relationships for years and what i'm going to do isi'm going to turn to bill because he had better caught on that
. >> matt is right, like kaiser is going to be the one that ends up, he had a statutory responsibility . he has a relationship with congress which is protected role in trade policy. going to be spending a lot more time with the ways and means committee in the next congress and is in this. democrats out this administration on process. i have allowed them not to have policy but there's not enough consultation, not enough transparency so expect lotsof hearings and letters , lots of meetings and they're mostly going to be with robert and he will be in charge. i think this particular negotiation, will end up being about quotas, if you look at what the president talks about, it's deals. talk about agriculture with farmers and it to be an important issue because
obstacles to the us agricultural exports in japan remainsignificant . dropping out of ppp made it worse. not only are we not getting the benefits of tpp, we are being replaced in the marketplace with the european union so the smart thing to do is to try to get some of, but i would bet a decent amount of money that is not going to end up reading about those and it is fair to say the government as figure that out and is concerned about it. >>. >> thank you, south china morning post, maybe a question for chris, i wondered how someone how you envision the featuring the summit either on the agenda for the us or other parts of the country, particularly in light of the fact that it seems to be a move from china to increasingly legitimizethe program . i was wondering with high
profile partners like japan. >> i think it will definitely feature probably more in the background, maybe in the foreground, but the administrations been pretty clear in connecting the programs credits or economics. i know they see them as one that messages likely to continue and to be fair, i think it's that serious problems with the tracks as they been described that result from these projects and that's a big issue in next neighborhood so maybe i'll have him comments as well but i don't expect either the vice president or president trump to directly mention it to xi, i expected to be somebody as any statements, i guess the one thing i'm working for which is important is every now and again you get a little hit that the administration is
considering coming out and posing as opposed to describing in the background, i personally feel that would be a significant mistake was as we've all been discussing, they know we have these infrastructure needs but you're not playing . >> this is one of the areas that prime minister moti has been more comfortable talking about our interest. india was the first major country to come out and oppose the silk road and it's something they point and it most other countries almost a year before they caught on there. prime minister moti's feet in shangri-la, same kind of thing so they probably help keep that drumbeat alive. as chris was indicating, there's examples in their neighborhoods where they seen the result of this and that they are they got busy economic corridor and we got our reports coming up, a
little commercial likelihood and that's going to be a major commercial in that area so india will keep the spotlight alive on this one even if they are. >> one word on that, just i agree with chris the trump administration came out and propositioned him in this way rather than just describing concerns about it, it will be pretty isolated, aside from india, prime minister moti and all the other countries come on board and supported it. you see prime minister shinzo abe in a certain way embraces even though of course trying to raise the standard to high-quality infrastructure development, but certainly not opposing it. australia has been very supportive in ways and southeast asia, you're going to continue to see a lot, president xi goes to the philippines for a state visit, there's a lot of expectations are going to sign the memorandum from understanding for a belgian
road initiative with china. malaysia course, new minister has expressed a lot of concerns and dropping deals with china, but even he doesn't want to walk away from the economic cooperations and investments from china would be a very isolating move i think. >> again, the byline i think, there's one other point where i hear all of that but i think it would be a very serious blunder, but the good news is and to the inefficient credit, the works to push the congress build and the acronym for which i can't remember but it's basically the supercharged opec which doubles as opec and allows them to do more of the things that a japanese equivalent can do in terms of infrastructure and finance and i think that's a significant thing which will give the vice president some credibility as he's got an alternative year and there
separately command in the region for the us to play in this case. i was in me unmarked earlier and you heard all the time that we're not eager to fall into the embrace of china for the us is not offering any. they offer something, we glad we thought though i think this is actually, i would say it's not going to be taught without explicitly but it's going to be one of the most important implicit scenes throughout this trip that china is out there with this sort of economic diplomacy and economic coercion and the us is, is the us offering something that's a credible alternative or not is a big questionthroughout this trip . >> i'm going to break from the room for a second and just ask our colleagues were on the phone. trish, if there's questions on that and could you please start them off. >> certainly, we have a question on the phone lines,
press áone and we will open the lineup instantly, voice of america. >> i have a quick question, why is president trump before the midterm election, he also talked to the reporters, the media about there would be a new deal with china. is there anything going on on that part? and the other question is about taiwan. it seems that the taiwanese who has attended the apec meeting could communicate or talk to the us officials and that china had not protested or complained about that. what's behind this kind of
thinking? >> i think was the first question will there be a deal? as i mentioned in my opening discussion, i think there's some movement headed in that direction. there's some concern. i will have to see what some level i interpret mister navarro's comments because i have been reflecting what people have about the potential for a bad deal and china is maybe trying to create a firebreak in some degree, i don't know what the thing to focus on is probably the best that we can hope for is this idea of a truce. the idea of some sort of comprehensive deal and i think i should have mentioned earlier, there's a general understanding in all the administration and in the us vicinity to that this is not something where the two presidents should be having a
handshake and it's an incredibly complex issue with details and things that have to be worked out. one person said what i like about it it is think about this about the wt expression on steroids, that's was going to have to happen. the way happy feet structural issues andbilateral economic trade relationships and that's not going to happen in november 30 . on taiwan, i think i don't know anything specific.i think that there might be an opportunity. i would expect the vice president probably to alert from direct representative as was consistent with us policy. but it's interesting as you point out, china is more toned down approach to chinese representation. >> we have a narrow answer on the taiwan situation so if taiwan does get a seat in apec on the name of chinese taipei, they also have a seat
and this is something that was agreed too many years ago under a different sort of regime or different sort of attitude in beijing about taiwan. apec is a strictly economic forum so they always make that point and for these meetings always sit down with us officials and says remember, apec is an economic forum and that's all we talk about. and taiwan, all they believe you participate, the president of taiwan did not attend, this is a much more juniorofficial or something, it's not a friend of the president or something . and beijing watches very carefully those interactions between the american delegation and taiwanese authorities and so there watching, but be tolerated or negated. they might not have tolerated it the question came up today, i'm not sure they would as enthusiastic about havingtaiwan there but it's a
big important economy . >>. >> on the first question, one thing i can guarantee with certainty is it's going to be a brilliantly successful meeting. one of the best ones in history. just like the summit with him john. and it will probably have a similar outcome and agreements to have a negotiation. and i suspect they will each appoint somebody important. and there will be many people like chris who are much smarter than i am trying to figure out what the significance of whoever china appoints is, on our side it will probably be lightheiser. the president has created a situation on trade where there's only one decision and that's him. everybody else can say whatever they want but in the end, the president has gotten immersed into the details and
fell free on a number of occasions to undercut this lies so it's hard to predict what's going to happen and we're a little bit on the 30 of the day. several of us here went through this exercise in the spring where he announced to the surprise of everybody he wanted to instruct his staff to look into rejoining hee hee and we geared up to figure out how to do that and in the last 40 hours, then he popped the balloon. so right now, we're heading towards successful meetings for sure. but i think it's great that there's so much detail, so many issues that i can't imagine that they would reach an agreement that has any meaning in what, one meeting and one dinner or whatever it's going to be they will start wheels turning back believe that, assuming the president actually stayed willing to go down that road. >> sean donovan from
bloomberg news. the follow-up, i haven't heard you say that the vice president is going to meet with frank, should we expect the meeting of any kind, even with someone lower on the chain? >>, sorry, i mean us trade. >> i was wondering i guess if you get from a broader view, if you take together the us withdrawal from hee hee and his new bilateral approach, and then coupled with the us china trade conflict and i think what is seen by some as this desire by some factions to force companies to move out of china and break the supply chain without the tpp which i guess was supposed to create a hub for supply chains how do you see that
affecting economic architecture, i guess. >> the political architecture. >> it says a little bit on how companies respond to what the president is trying to do. if you hypothesize, not everybody agrees with your analysis of what our policy is . i think you're right, but i need to say that not everybody agrees with that. let's hypothesize, what we have in the united states government is trying to do is encourage companies to lay from the chinese economy. has, two kinds of i think a number of impacts on regional architecture. you guys have the architecture but on the regional economy, to the extent the administration is successful, companies, and their instruments is terrace
and the other instruments is retaliatory tariffs in response to our which creationist double blow for some companies, so what you're going to see i think our american companies looking around for other locations. not everybody, as i had another context, if you build another plant in sinn fein, you're not goingto turn off the light and open a new one in austin next week . if you're in the t-shirt business, maybe you can move fairly quickly and easily so not everybody is going to do the same thing, but you'll see a direct away from china in order to avoid the tariffs, the obvious place to look is elsewhere in the region to the south. you will also see probably faster chinese companies trying to do the same thing . and i think that's one of the things that the governmenthas to worry about . then relocating for the same
purpose. produces potential beneficiaries elsewhere in the region as people gravitate. i think cptpp will have the same effect over time. trade is about developing global value chains and if you're going to have a regional trade agreements, it's better to be inside the chain and outside the chain. if you're inside you can take advantage of it tariffs status among parties. it is not as big as 12 but it's still significant, japan is there, australia is there and get bigger in my view. there's a lot of incentive movements on the chain so the countries that are already in , inside the region, the countries that are already in will benefit from people moving and i think architecturally going to encourage other countries to
join area and eventually, possibly including china . that's well down the road but they're not stupid about this. as they see companies moving to take advantage of these rearrangements, that's the thing they're going to be thinking about. so i think long-term it has architectural implications. medium-term it has your economic implications and there will be other countries in the region willbenefit . >> you mentioned political packs and regional trade architecture. i completely agree with bill in terms of the supply chain affects and a commercially driven supply chain affects are one way architecture forms but the other way is through the political agreements and i agree with bill that cptpp will be significant and other countries will take a look at it and start to join, there's already a few countries have expressed interest so will start to see that discussion happen but our staff is
another one could have another big political impact in the sense that if our step does come online, is 15 countries at nearly 40 percent of the world gross domestic product and half the world's population. it's been rightly criticized for being much thinner in terms of the rules and liberalization another free trade agreements, especially cptpp but it's bass in terms of its scope and it means all of these countries are in the room together discussing trade rules. trade immigration and not create a mechanism they can continue to have those discussions don't conceptually create more of a sense in the region there are a lot of countries working together towards trade cooperation and economic integration and the united states is not in that room either. i do think i could have a big political conceptual impact over time as well area . >> and i throw in a month you monkeywrench or a policy question on your behalf which is, because when you talk
about our step, the question is being raised and i'm hearing it from others about whether this so-called poison pill provision in the new nafta that says that basically it's one of the parties start negotiating with a nonmarket economy which is not indonesia, china in other words, then the other parties, right to pull out of the agreements, substantively not a big deal for other reasons but the others in the region are saying well, does that mean if we do and are separate deal that we're going to be somehow at risk so the us has thrown another monkeywrench into this calculation that i'm not sure how that's going to affect the ultimate.in that india is going to be the bigger factor into whether it gets done or not but it's another? in this whole conversation. >>. >> what you guys think about the prospects for inclusion.
they say every year were going to get it but i heard that japan might be willing to accept lower ambitions but india obviously is scared about the correlation. what do you think about rcep? >> they're playing along, they're going to meeting they clearly don't. they won't sign a substantive agreement. they will sign a non-substantive one or you got to throw them out.those are the options when it comes down to india. >> you don't think after the election there might be a little more? >> from their policymakers perspective, a look at trade learned how the administration does get a broad number, imports and exports. we are driven off the wall on a trade deficit which is 2 1/2, three percent. and he is eight percent. in the eyes of three percent
of india's gdp is the size of the trade deficit with china alone these are primary policy drivers that i don't think i'm actually in the last, the first three years of apec you saw the trade deficit but this last 12 months it started to increase and its oil which is always have been. metals, but consumer goods, electronics and things from china is a big driver so i don't senseof selection that changes you much . >> on japan, japan is probably top priority is to try to dissuade the united states to come back to tdd, but japan also is very focused on rcep so you're right that they are willing to some degree to accept a slightly lower level of ambition because were two reasons, typically they very much for the idea of getting india into a trade agreement and includes the rest of the
region. for them, india is a balancing economic partner as well as strategic importance and secondly, rcep would meet new trade agreements with pauline between japan and korea where there's no trade agreement and japan and china so even from this perspective, japanese negotiators and businesspeople do see it as very meaningful to create one set of rules of origin for the entire region because from a japanese perspective that's helpful for their regional production. >> not to spend much time on the points but japan is the one country that anybody can push india into a positive mindset is japan. japan is underwriting a huge chunk of immediately and for shorter projects . infrastructure corridors like the delhi mumbai porter and this is this whole thing about helping india to become more competitive. the area where it's maybe agriculture is weaker but manufacturing is pretty weak so if anybody can try to coax
india and controlindia into agreement that is the absolute water is agreement the government signed in history, japan is probably the one place and doit but only if they're willing to play hardball . we will reduce our infrastructure , it would be a less relevant partner in developing infrastructure if you don't come into the deal i don't know they're ready to go to the math on that bus for them the relationship is important or other reasons other than getting rcep done but it that is the one country if they decide to focus attention can manage better than the united states or any other place ontrade deals . >> if there's anything more, i want to thank everyone and personally thank our round the panel of experts. thank you for taking the time to sit with us. we will be sending out a transcript of the event later today, so please take a look at your inbox for that if for any reason you need to get on our mailing list ,
presidential historian doris kearns goodwin talks about herbal leadership in turbulent times about the key moments in the presidencies of abraham lincoln, theodore roosevelt, fdr and lbj later and pulled her on her book resistance is futile. tv in prime time it's a knife on cspan2 at eight eastern. join c-span veterans day live at 4:30 a.m. eastern for the 100th anniversary of the end of world war i with french president emmanuelle micron speaking at the arc de triomphe at 7:30 a.m., washington journal is live on he's been in american history tv on c-span3 for a special calling program about what was hoped to be the world to end all wars with guests, loyola university professor john mosher the georgetown university history professor michael casey . at 9 am on c-span, live coverage of president and first lady melanie from world
war i ceremonies in paris, then at 11, the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns live from arlington national cemetery area and our live veterans day coverage continues at 5 pm eastern with the liberty awards honoring former president george w. bush and laura bush on american history tv on c-span3, historians never the 1921 film documenting the journey of a world war i soldiers remains from france to arlington national cemetery. at 6 pm, we visit the music argonne american cemetery in northeastern france the final resting place for over 14,000 americansoldiers and at 8 pm eastern , president from world war i ceremonies in paris sunday, veterans day on c-span, and american history tv on c-span.org 23. >>