0:03 Now, let's cross to Katrina Yu who's
0:06 joining us live from Beijing.
0:09 Katrina, Trump is expected to be in
0:10 China at the end of the month, but in
0:14 that article, he's making possibly a
0:16 veiled threat, at least pressure on
0:18 Beijing to try and help him. I mean,
0:26 >> I don't think it's going to go down.
0:28 Well, in the article, Trump mentioned
0:31 China is one of the beneficiaries of oil
0:32 being shipped through the straight of
0:34 Hormuz. That is correct. He also said
0:36 that China gets about 90% of its oil
0:37 through the straight. That's not
0:40 correct. It gets more like 40%, but it
0:43 is still a substantial amount. Now, as
0:45 far as we know, that visit by Trump to
0:47 China is still going ahead. In fact,
0:50 over the last two days, today and
0:53 yesterday, Chinese and uh US officials
0:54 have been meeting in Paris to discuss
0:57 potential outcomes for that visit that
0:59 Trump is expected to make. Um, and the
1:01 Chinese side and the US side said that
1:03 was constructive and positive. So, we're
1:05 yet to hear any official response to
1:07 this uh Financial Times interview, but
1:10 if that meeting or that summit were to
1:12 be cancelled, it would indeed be a blow.
1:14 This has been months in the making and
1:16 the whole point of this visit is to
1:18 stabilize the relationship between the
1:20 two biggest superpowers to prevent a
1:22 long list of disagreements from
1:24 spiraling out of control into a wider
1:27 conflict. And there's a lot of stake at
1:29 lot a lot at stake for both the US and
1:32 Chinese economies. On the agenda was uh
1:33 were a few trade agreements, the
1:36 discussion about the export of rare
1:38 earths from China to the US and
1:40 technology exports from the US to China.
1:42 of this were p to be delayed or
1:44 postponed indefinitely. That would be
1:47 bad news for for uh the companies
1:49 operating in both countries. And it does
1:51 show how volatile this relationship
1:54 between uh Washington in Beijing is.
1:56 China has made no promises that this
1:58 meeting is going ahead and actually
1:59 there have been reports that China has
2:01 been a bit frustrated about the lack of
2:04 forward planning from Washington. But so
2:07 far as we know um officials here on both
2:09 sides are planning for that trip to
2:11 happen. Now Katrina, one thing we do
2:13 know about Donald Trump is he's very
2:16 very good at threatening nations. Now if
2:20 he does uh threaten to delay or cancel
2:23 even the summit, what does China do then?
2:30 >> Well, I think it's very unlikely that
2:32 China is going to do what Trump asked,
2:34 that is to send some material help to
2:36 help keep the street of Hormuz
2:37 unblocked. I think there are three main
2:39 reasons for that. First, Chinese
2:41 President Xiinping does not have a
2:44 history of capitulating or following any
2:47 Trump's any of Trump's orders or
2:49 coercion or threats. And we saw this
2:50 last year with the long-running trade
2:52 dispute when Trump hiked those tariffs
2:55 up to over 100%. China just said fine
2:58 and it hiked uh tariffs up in kind. So,
2:59 I think that's the first thing. The
3:02 second thing is that we know that China
3:04 has been one of the biggest critics of
3:06 the US and Israel's war on Iran.
3:08 condemned those uh those attacks that
3:10 happened when negotiations were still
3:12 underway. China's foreign minister has
3:14 said time and time again that force is
3:15 not the answer. It's urging for
3:17 deescalation and return to the
3:19 negotiating table. So it's quite
3:20 difficult to imagine that Beijing would
3:23 send firepower to that region. And
3:25 third, I think the last reason is that
3:27 when you look at the Chinese oil that is
3:30 trans uh being transiting through the
3:32 straight of Hmus, there are some reports
3:35 that Chinese ships are still uh being
3:37 allowed to pass and that is because
3:40 China is in a very friendly and positive
3:42 partner for Iran. It's the biggest
3:43 trading partner, the biggest buy of
3:46 Iranian oil. So there are reports albeit
3:48 unconfirmed that Iran is still allowing
3:51 Chinese shipments to pass through a few
3:53 to pass through the straight of Hormuse.
3:54 So that would reduce even further
3:56 Beijing's motivation to send some
4:00 warships or uh do whatever Trump said to
4:02 keep the straight of Hormuz unblocked.
4:04 >> That's Katrina you live for us there
4:06 from Beijing.
4:08 Now Andy Mock is a senior research
4:10 fellow with the Center for China and
4:12 Globalization, a think tank that's based
4:15 in Beijing. He's also a professor at the
4:17 Beijing Foreign Studies University and
4:20 he joins us from Beijing. Uh Andy, this
4:24 was completely predictable and totally
4:26 avoidable. The the shutting of the
4:28 straight of Hermoose was going to happen
4:32 if this escalated. But does this give
4:35 China an opportunity to re to reassert
4:37 itself assert itself as an alternative
4:39 to the US when it comes to a power broker?
4:44 Well, I think you're certainly right
4:48 that the US uh walked into, you know, a
4:51 morass or a quagmire. And there's an
4:53 American phrase, you know, uh fafo,
4:57 right? Uh mess around and find out. And
4:59 I think it really uh again, for whatever
5:02 reasons, is finding itself entangled in
5:05 a situation that's very very difficult
5:07 to extract itself from. And I think the
5:09 best way to understand maybe how China
5:11 is viewing this is uh there's a very
5:13 famous saying I believe attributed to
5:16 Napoleon uh never interrupt your
5:19 opponent when he is making a mistake. So
5:22 I think that from that perspective uh
5:24 certainly while the US is tied down I
5:26 think while it's a navy which was
5:29 originally under tremendous stress and
5:31 you know one way I've heard it put is
5:33 while the US military the tip of the US
5:36 military spear is sharp the shaft is
5:39 brittle and I think we are seeing that
5:41 play out as well. So that certainly
5:44 distraction uh certainly I think is in
5:46 China's interest. And then I think
5:50 finally uh China's uh approach to this
5:52 really has been uh to any kind of
5:55 conflict is uh to resolve it through
5:57 mutual discussion uh respect for
6:00 sovereignty versus any sort of uh direct
6:02 military intervention. So I think it
6:05 does seem as we heard Katrina just say
6:08 too that it seems unlikely that China
6:11 would intervene in the way that Trump is
6:14 President Trump is hoping for.
6:16 >> But President Donald Trump puts a lot of
6:19 stock in personal relationships and he
6:21 does have a relationship. We don't know
6:22 if it's good or bad, but he certainly
6:25 has one with Xi Jinping, and he's going
6:28 to use that publicly to put pressure on
6:31 China to try and help out. His biggest
6:33 card he's got at the moment is
6:35 cancelling the summit. What does that mean?
6:37 mean?
6:40 Well, I think that's an interesting uh
6:42 approach because certainly I think from
6:44 the Chinese perspective again, it
6:47 recognizes and respects the bilateral
6:50 relationship uh between China and the
6:53 United States. But I think also uh as
6:56 we've seen over the last year or so, uh
6:59 China also uh exerts tremendous leverage
7:01 over the United States. It's not just
7:03 the rare earth metals, it's the Boeing
7:07 aircraft, it's the uh soybeans uh sold
7:10 by American farmers. So I think while
7:12 certainly personal relationships matter
7:14 in diplomacy, just as they say in
7:16 Hollywood, it's not show friends, it's
7:19 show business. And I think that's even
7:22 more true of diplomacy. Well, talking of
7:25 diplomacy then it has China has a very
7:28 very good relationship, a good working
7:31 relationship with uh Iran. It supplied
7:34 technology to Iran just before the the
7:37 war uh happened. What's the state of
7:39 relations now between Iran and China?
7:42 Because China hasn't stepped up in
7:44 perhaps the way a lot of military
7:46 analysts thought they might. Uh but
7:48 again if you look at what China has done
7:50 in previous conflicts you mentioned that
7:52 earlier China doesn't really get
7:58 >> Yes I think that's absolutely right man
8:00 and I think again this is a very
8:03 profound difference I think in approach
8:05 to diplomacy that is more than just
8:07 tactical but again I would say it's it's
8:10 philosophical as well. Uh I also want to
8:11 mention I think a very very important
8:13 point here that's not perhaps well
8:16 appreciated. So, China of course through
8:19 uh rare earth metals actually provides
8:23 critical inputs uh into patriot missiles
8:26 etc. So this is uh one area that I think
8:29 the US is acutely aware of. But at the
8:32 same time uh because of its uh
8:36 manufacturing supply chain for uh drones
8:38 uh its components it is also even though
8:41 perhaps not at the state level uh
8:44 actively supporting Iran in this way but
8:47 certainly uh I think you know again uh
8:50 providing critical inputs through market
8:54 mechanisms uh to Iran to continue this
8:57 conflict uh to defend itself from this
9:00 aggression from the United states uh and
9:02 Israel. So I think this dynamic I think
9:04 is also uh very very important to appreciate.
9:06 appreciate.
9:08 >> Uh but Andy, what is the relationship?
9:09 You just mentioned Israel there and that
9:11 was going to be my next question. Is
9:13 there a relationship between China and
9:20 >> Right. Well, you know, again, I think
9:22 China's approach is first of all uh not
9:25 to take one side over the other. And I
9:28 think we see this very clearly uh in
9:30 West Asia or the Middle East and that it
9:32 believes in the importance of uh
9:35 relationships uh with all countries in
9:37 the region. So it's not just the GCC
9:39 countries. It's also as we're talking
9:43 about today, it's Iran, uh it's Israel.
9:45 So and I think this is a very different
9:49 approach to how the US uh approaches diplomacy
9:51 diplomacy
9:54 in this region. And I think again we're
9:55 seeing the negative impact on this. So
9:58 it's not only the short-term oil
10:00 disruption, the impact it might have on
10:02 global economies including the United
10:04 States. Uh but this may actually
10:07 irrevocably uh damage uh the trust that
10:10 in particular the GCC countries uh have
10:13 in the United States. So I think again
10:16 uh there are I think very high cost to
10:19 the US approach of uh taking one side
10:20 and I think these are becoming more
10:24 visible with this uh recent uh action.
10:25 >> Andy Mark Trump
10:27 >> administration. Andy thank you so much
