Skip to main content

tv   Wall Street Journal CEO Council Discussion with John Bolton  CSPAN  December 4, 2018 2:17pm-2:30pm EST

2:17 pm
the elephant in the room. we all know it. so i wish i could tell you a success is right around the corner but i can't honest i will say that. >> on that note -- [laughter] >> yeah, let's think of something cheerful to say. >> senator, thank you very much, we appreciate you, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> this morning at the wall street journal ceo forum national security adviser john bolton sat down with editor with the newspaper, we will show you about ten minutes from it until we break away to take you to the u.s. senate live at 2:30 p.m. eastern. [applause] >> good morning, thank you very much, john, thank you very much ambassador for being here this morning. you just got back from buenos aires from g20 meeting, it looked like a good and
2:18 pm
productive discussion between president trump and xi jinping and the president certainly -- president trump described it in kind of 1938 peace in our time. >> i wouldn't say that. [laughter] >> maybe not the right analogy, can you explain exactly what this deal does actually represent and what the chinese have agreed to do? >> well, this is an extended discussion about the nature of the relationship between china and the united states, the focus of the conversation dinner was largely over trade issues, but we do view this as fundamental strategic question and how china takes steps to correct what we have seen consistently as their abuses of the world trade organization, their theft of american intellectual property, their forced technology transfer, their cyber-attacks and espionage against american companies, all of which contribute to the trade deficit
2:19 pm
but all of which as well represent fundamental on willingness to adapt to a rule of law for doing business. this is going to have a major effect on the relationship, so while a lot of the headlines are about increased purchases of agricultural products which is all to the good, we don't see the american future being a third-world country supplying natural resources and agricultural products to china. what we need to see is mayor changes in behavior, structural issues, if you will and these negotiations, the president enters optimistically but nobody is under any illusions about how hard they would be. >> we have 90-day suspension of proposed increase in tariffs, what actually did the chinese pledge to do because seems like misalignment of some of the things that have been said, for example, on car tariffs, the president said that china agreed to reduce or lift car tariffs but the chinese didn't say
2:20 pm
anything about that, what are the actual pledges from china that you got from china that they will achieve or try to achieve in the next 90 days. >> they talked about significant improvement in purchases, fentanyl under control substance under chinese law, they have to follow through on that, exports of fentanyl are extremely dangerous narcotics amounting to tens of thousands of deaths a year and if they implement that and crack down on fentanyl producers is major step forward. i don't view this necessarily as an agreement that will say china will increase purchases of american products by x hundred billion dollars and we will lower tariffs. we have to look at other things we might do. just as an example, we are all concerned about the theft of american intellectual property, so how about a rule or policy that says there will be no
2:21 pm
import into the united states of any products or services that are based on the theft of american intellectual property. so that's not a tariff question, that's a way of defending an intellectual property from the united states. i think it's an idea that should be considered, we may have some authority in that area already. we may need additional legislation but this is what we are talking about. this is dollars and cents are obviously deeply implicated in it but the structural issues that will be discussed over the next 87 days now are, i think, far and away the more important issues. >> how do you see the long-term strategic relationship? seems to have been kind of staple of u.s. policy for at least the last 20 years, clinton, bush and obama administrations that bringing china into the world economy, into the international community was a good thing, helping the chinese economy grow was a good thing, the u.s. would benefit from that, the world would
2:22 pm
benefit from that and perhaps we overlooked some of the excesses and some things that the chinese were doing. do you share that view that the u.s. has a lot to benefit from a strong vibrant china in asia but also in the world? >> look, our view of indo pacific region excludes no country but if you read the national security strategy that the trump administration put out almost exactly a year ago and i can cap this without fear of being accused of patting myself on the back because they wrote it before i came in the administration, it identifies a number of problems with china some of which we have discussed here but makes the point precisely that for years american policy was based on the assumption bringing china into the wto would increase pressure to conform to international norms and trade and business areas, that has obviously not happened. we had decades of people who said the modernization and economic growth of china would
2:23 pm
produce increase political freedom and more representative government, that hasn't happened either. so i think one reason donald trump has not plus the chinese, has not accepted wisdom going back to nixon administration, we are now having to look at a lot of other options on china but is there a path forward where we could have truly free and reciprocal trade with china, sure, they need to do a lot of behavioral change however. >> how would you characterize as rival, competitor, what term what would you use? >> strategic, competitor and adversary in others, doesn't necessarily mean that there's a trap here, some academics have said, i think every -- i think every situation is unique but the fact is china has done a lot of things not just in the
2:24 pm
economic area as in the case of stealing intellectual property but let's look at the south china sea now where contrary to commitments that they've made in to barack obama, that's exactly what they are doing. we talk in the middle east of the parties making facts on ground, the chinese here are making the ground on the south china sea and putting naval and air bases on it. at one point i think they said to president trump these are just housing projects, well, yeah, housing projects for the people's liberation army and the people liberation navy, that's not how you get peaceful negotiation and resolution of territorial disputes there. we have a poll question if we can pull that up, we have it? if we don't, we will move on. here we go. a nice cheerful way to start the
2:25 pm
morning. will u.s. and china find themselves at war sometime in the next 20 years, please fire up apps and so far john 100%, that's -- you're not adversing -- >> i haven't answered that question. >> that's actually pretty 50-50, people think we will find ourselves at war in china for the next 20 years, how do you respond to that? >> obviously our strong desires to avoid it but i don't think it rests with us. i think it rests with china. poll question i would have asked for ceo's and other executives here is how many of you -- let's do it, how many of you believe in free trade? okay. how many of you believe that free trade means allowing the chinese to kick us around, steal your intellectual property and not respond to them? come on, show of hands. >> how many of you are willing to tell shareholders that
2:26 pm
ripping intellectual property, no problem. if there's going to be free trade, they will have to live by it and doing things like forced technology transfers, discriminating against foreign companies and the court system, the whole range of investment decisions isn't free trade either. >> let's move on because you have a lot on your plate. north korea, the president announced back in the summer that he and leader kim had fallen in love. i'm going to guess you don't quite share those emotional feelings? >> look, the president has established very strong personal relationship with kim jong un. i think i have a relationship with kim jong un. he said it at lunch, you and i have to take a picture together because i'm going to take it back to north korea and show it to my hardliners and tell them you're not such a bad guy. so you know -- >> did you say the same thing to him that you would take picture back to here? >> sure. [laughter] >> so look, we are going to
2:27 pm
pursue this if the north koreans follow through, president trump will deserve the nobel peace prize and opened the door for them. now they have to walk-through it. that's what we hope to make progress on h in the next meeting. >> but they haven't so far? >> they have not lived up to the commitments to far, that's why i think the president thinks another summit is likely to be productive. >> so there will be another summit even if they haven't shown any indication of meeting the commitments to denuclearize? >> they are going to discuss this and look at the commitments that were made in singapore and have discussion about how they will accomplish those commitments and until that happens there's not going to be any release of the economic sanctions. >> when will the summit be? >> i think shortly after the first of the year, january, february. >> moving onto another hot spot, russia, russia continues its aggression, i think most people would agree against ukraine, last weekend we saw the seizure
2:28 pm
of ukrainian vessels in the strait and continuing war going on, russia is continuing to provoke and continuing to stoke that. what can we -- what can the west do, what can nato do and the united states do to deter these repeated acts of aggression? >> well, i think the president made it very clear that we found what happened unacceptable. he canceled a meeting with president putin that putin very much wanted. in fact, before g20 he had me call my russian opposite number and say, look, the release of the ships and the crew is very important here, this meeting is in jeopardy unless that happens, they didn't do it and putin had discussion over dinners basically saying the same thing.
2:29 pm
we need resolve on the part of european friends, keeping sanctions in place over annexation of crimea but this kind of behavior makes it difficult if not impossible to see progress with russia on other fronts and that's -- that's something that i think the president has made clear in his conversations with european allies as well. >> but -- >> all of this wall street journal conversation at will also share some of that later. the senate has gaveled in and postponeed to be member of regulatory commission, cloture vote then. later this week, following house action short-term two-week spending bill to extend funding for the federal government past friday's midnight deadline, averting shutdown until ce


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on