All-In 峰會 2024 John Mearsheimer 辯 Jeffrey Sachs

All-In 峰會 2024 John Mearsheimer 辯 Jeffrey Sachs

John Mearsheimer 和 Jeffrey Sachs | 2024 年 All-In 峰會

John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFtyDy_Bt0&t=1021s

All-In 峰會
All-In Podcast, LLC
1 Letterman Dr, Suite A3-1
San Francisco, CA 94129
電子郵件：[e-mail], [e-mail]

2024 年 All-In 峰會 - 9 月 8 日至 10 日 - 洛杉磯，加利福尼亞州

這場為期 3 天的獨家活動將與 All-In Besties 一起在世界最盛大的會議上“全力以赴”地討論技術、市場、經濟、科學、政治和社會問題——兩天的真心話和三晚的社交和狂歡派對。
(0:00) Sacks 介紹 John Mearsheimer 和 Jeffrey Sachs
(1:10) 什麽是 Deep State Party，他們的目標是什麽？
（13:35）美國應該利用其實力對抗獨裁者嗎？
（21:45）中國威脅：避免升級為核戰爭
（35:47）印度的作用日益增強；中國所受的傷害是自找的嗎？
(46:45) 中東衝突與和平之路

介紹
約翰·米爾斯海默和傑弗裏·薩克斯是世界上最具影響力和爭議性的思想家之一，他是世界經濟發展領域的頂尖專家之一，也是曆史上最著名的政治學家之一，我們在這裏談論的是道德和政治原則，我認為四場戰爭都可以迅速結束，大國政治現在又回到了桌麵上，如果我們作為一個世界共同體有任何作為，我們必須執行我們所說的，我很高興參加這個小組，我們將討論外交政策，我們有兩位最有趣的即將到來的著名外交政策思想家，芝加哥大學的約翰·米爾教授和哥倫比亞大學的傑弗裏·薩克斯教授，今天很高興你們能來這裏，這是一個大世界，有很多事情發生，所以讓我們直接進入它，嗯，過去一周的大新聞是迪克·切尼支持卡姆拉·哈裏斯擔任總統，什麽是深層國家黨，他們的目標是什麽？對於那些從黨派政治角度看待世界的人來說，這可能令人驚訝，但我認為你們對此並不感到驚訝，你看到其中的根本邏輯了嗎，傑夫，我為什麽不從你開始呢

傑弗裏·薩克斯
我認為很明顯，基本上有一個深層國家黨，那就是切尼的黨，哈裏斯·拜登，維多利亞·紐，我現在在哥倫比亞大學的同事，紐，是這一切的代表，因為她在過去 30 年裏一直在每一屆政府任職，她在克林頓政府，在 1990 年代破壞了我們對俄羅斯的政策，她在布什政府，喬爾和切尼一起破壞了我們對北約擴張的政策，她首先在奧巴馬政府擔任希拉裏的發言人，然後在 2014 年 2 月在烏克蘭發動政變，這不是一個偉大的舉動，引發了一場戰爭，當時她是拜登的副國務卿那是兩黨，呃，這是一個巨大的混亂，嗯，她一直是切尼的顧問，她一直是拜登的顧問，她，呃，呃，這完全有道理，這是現實，呃，我們正試圖找出是否有另一個政黨，這是個大問題

主持人
約翰，你對此有什麽看法，你認為共和黨和民主黨之間有什麽區別嗎？

約翰·米爾斯海默
不，我喜歡把共和黨和民主黨稱為 Tweedle D 和 Tweedle du，幾乎沒有什麽區別，我實際上認為唯一的例外是，前總統特朗普在 2017 年當選總統時，一心想擊退深層政府，成為外交政策方麵的另一種領導人，但他基本上失敗了，他發誓，如果他這次當選，呃，情況會有所不同，他會擊退深層政府，他將推行一項與共和黨和民主黨根本不同的外交政策到目前為止，擺在桌麵上的大問題是，你是否認為特朗普可以擊敗深層政府和這兩個老牌政黨，嗯，我打賭特朗普贏不了，約翰和傑夫，但讓我們先從

主持人
約翰，你能為我們定義一下嗎？我不明白人們說深層政府是什麽，我幾乎把這個詞看得很滑稽，我們群聊中有一個朋友，我們稱他為深層政府，他是深層政府，他真的屬於深層政府，但我們把它當作一個笑話，但對於可能不熟悉的人來說，它實際上意味著什麽，他們的動機是什麽，他們是誰，傑夫，也許你想開始，或者約翰，你想開始

約翰·米爾斯海默
是的，我會說幾句，當我們談論深層政府時，我們談論的實際上是行政政府，了解這一點非常重要，從 19 世紀末 20 世紀初開始，嗯，鑒於美國經濟的發展，我們必須發展，這對所有西方國家都是如此一個非常強大的中央政府可以管理這個國家，隨著時間的推移，這個政府的權力不斷增長，自第二次世界大戰以來，眾所周知，美國一直參與

全世界每個角落都在打仗，要做到這一點，就需要一個非常強大的行政國家，它可以幫助管理外交政策，但在這個過程中，你會看到所有這些高級官僚、中層和低級官僚在五角大樓、國務院、情報界等機構中占據一席之地，他們最終對推行特定的外交政策有既得利益，而他們喜歡推行的特定外交政策正是民主黨和共和黨正在推動的政策，這就是為什麽我們談論 Tweedle D 和 Tweedle Dum 時，關於這兩個政黨，你可以把 Deep State 也算進去，因為它和其他兩個機構是一致的，是的

Jeffrey Sachs
2017 年，在 figuro 上對普京進行了一次非常有趣的采訪，他說，我已經和三任總統打過交道了，他們上任時甚至有一些想法，但那些穿著深色西裝、打著藍色領帶的人然後他說我戴紅領帶，但他們戴藍領帶，他們進來解釋世界的真實麵目，還有他們的想法，我認為這是普京的經驗，這是我們的經驗，也是我的經驗，即存在一種根深蒂固的外交政策，在我看來，這種政策已經存在了幾十年，但可以說，自 1992 年以來，這種政策的一個變體就已經存在了，我很早就看到了一些，因為我是戈爾巴喬夫的顧問，也是耶爾森的顧問，所以我看到了早期的製定過程，盡管我並不完全理解，隻是回想起來，但這項政策基本上已經持續了 30 年，無論是老布什，還是克林頓，還是小布什，還是奧巴馬，還是特朗普，特朗普雇傭了誰，這並不重要，他雇傭了約翰·博爾頓，嗯，相當深層次的國家，嗯，這就是他們告訴你的結局，他解釋了這就是事實，順便說一下，博爾頓也在他的回憶錄，當特朗普不同意時，我們想出了各種辦法來欺騙他，基本上是如此之好

主持人
他們的動機是什麽？是戰爭嗎？是自我致富嗎？是權力嗎？是這三種動機嗎？是其中的一部分嗎？還是隻是哲學上的根深蒂固？還是隻是這種慣性問題，就像一旦一項政策開始實施就很難改變，而整個係統都在為之努力，有 10,000 人為之努力

傑弗裏·薩克斯
你知道，如果我有幸坐在世界上最偉大的政治哲學家旁邊，我就是，嗯，他會給你一個很好的答案，也就是正確的答案，如果你想解釋美國的外交政策，那就是最大限度地發揮權力，呃，呃，他給出了約翰對此的解釋，我們有一些分歧，但我認為這是對美國外交政策的一個很好的描述，即它試圖最大限度地發揮全球權力，本質上是成為全球霸主，我認為這可能會讓我們所有人都喪命，這是因為在我看來這有點妄想，但呃，不是我，不是他對他們的想法的解釋，而是他們持有這種想法的事實對我來說有點奇怪，但無論如何，這就是想法，每次我看到內部做出決定時，我都是經濟學家，所以我不會以同樣的方式看待安全決定，但過去 30 年來，我看到的每個決定總是朝著同一個方向，那就是以權力為中心目標，所以克林頓麵臨著內部內閣的真正辯論，北約是否應該擴大

主持人
這是冷戰後的現象嗎？

傑弗裏·薩克斯
我讓約翰來回答

約翰·米爾斯海默
首先，我隻想說兩點，首先，我相信那些支持這項外交政策的人確實相信它，這不是玩世不恭，他們真的相信我們在做正確的事情，我見過他們，是的，不是的，是的，我想向你提出的第二點，這有點補充了傑夫所說的傑夫我說的權力與此有很大關係，我當然相信這一點，但同樣重要的是要理解，美國是一個自由主義國家，我們相信我們有權利，有責任，我們有能力在世界各地運作，按照美國的形象重塑世界，外交政策機構中的大多數人，共和黨，民主黨，他們都相信這一點，這在很大程度上推動了我們自冷戰結束以來的外交政策，因為記住，當冷戰結束時，我們就沒有對手的大國了，所以我們要用我們擁有的所有力量做什麽呢？我們決定出去，按照我們自己的形象重塑世界，所以這是一個價值觀觀點，雖然他們珍視一些價值觀，但許多人確實持有這些價值觀

dear that that many do hold

John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFtyDy_Bt0&t=1021s

The All-In Summit 
All-In Podcast, LLC
1 Letterman Dr, Suite A3-1
San Francisco, CA 94129
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]

The All-In Summit 2024 - September 8-10 - Los Angeles, CA

This exclusive 3-day event will be "All-In" on technology, markets, economy, science, politics, and society with the All-In Besties at the World's Greatest Conference — two days of realspeak and three nights of networking and outrageous parties.
(0:00) Sacks intros John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs
(1:10) What is the Deep State Party, and what are their goals?
(13:35) Should America leverage its power against dictators?
(21:45) The China threat: avoiding the escalatory path to nuclear war
(35:47) India's growing role; are China's wounds self-inflicted?
(46:45) Conflict in the Middle East and the path to peace

intros John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world he is known as one of the world's leading experts on economic development one of the most famous political scientists in history we're talking about moral and political principles here I would suggest that all four Wars could be
ended quickly great power politics is now back on the table if we are anything
as a world Community we have to implement what we've said I'm excited for this panel we're going to talk about foreign policy uh we have I think two of the most interesting
imminent renowned thinkers about foreign policy uh professor John mimer from
University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia so great to have you guys here today it's uh it's a it's a big world and there's a lot of things happening so
let's just jump into it um the big news over the past week was that Dick Cheney endorsed kamla Harris for president I What is the Deep State Party, and what are their goals?
think for people who see the world in partisan political terms this might have been surprising but I don't think that you guys were that surprised by that do you see an underlying logic to this Jeff why don't I start with you 

Jeffrey Sachs
I think it's obvious there's basically one deep State party uh and that is the party of Cheney uh Harris Biden Victoria newand my colleague at Columbia University now uh and uh newand is kind of the face of all of this because she has been in every Administration for the last 30 years she was in the Clinton Administration wrecking our policies towards Russia in the 1990s she was in the Bush Administration Jor uh with Cheney uh wrecking our policies towards NATO enlargement uh she was in uh then the Obama Administration as Hillary's  spokesperson first and then making a coup in Ukraine in February 2014 not a
great move started a war then she was uh Biden's uh uh under Secretary of State
now that's both parties uh it's a a colossal mess and um she's been Cheney's
uh adviser she's been Biden's advisor she she uh and uh makes perfect sense
this is the reality uh we're trying to find out if there's another party that's the big question 

主持人
John what's what's your thought on that do you see any difference between uh Republicans and Democrats 

John Mearsheimer
no I like to refer to the Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedle D and Tweedle du there's hardly any difference I actually think the one exception is that  former president Trump when he became president in 2017 was bent on beating back to deep State and becoming a different kind of leader on the foreign policy front but he basically failed and he is vowed that if he gets elected this time uh it will be different and he will beat back the Deep State he will pursue a foreign policy that's fundamentally different uh than Republicans and Democrats have pursued up to now and the big question on the table is whether or not you think Trump can beat the Deep State and these two established parties uh and i' bet against Trump John um and Jeff but let's start with 

主持人
John can you actually Define for us for me I don't understand when people say deep State
what it is I almost viewed the term comically we have one of our friends in our group chat who we called Deep state who is he's deep State he's really in the Deep state but we say it as a joke but for maybe the uninitiated what does it actually mean what are their incentives who are they Jeff maybe you want to start or John you want to start 

John Mearsheimer
yeah I'll say a few words about it when we talk about the Deep State we're talking really about the administrative State it's very important to understand that starting in
the late 19th early 20th century uh given developments uh in the American
economy it was imperative that we develop and this was true of all Western countries a very powerful Central State that could run the country and over time that state has grown in power and since World War II the United States as you all know has been involved in every nook and cranny of the world fighting Wars Here There and Everywhere and to do that you need a very powerful administrative State uh that can help manage foreign policy but in the process what happens is you get all of these highlevel bureaucrats middle level and lowlevel bureaucrats who become established in positions in the Pentagon the state department the intelligence Community you name it and they end up having a
vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy and the particular
foreign policy that they like to pursue is the one that the Democrats and the Republicans are pushing and that's why we talk about Tweedle D and Tweedle Dum with regard to the two parties you could throw in uh the Deep State as being on the same page as those other two uh institutions yeah 

Jeffrey Sachs
there there's a very interesting interview of Putin uh in figuro in 2017 and he says uh I've dealt with three presidents now they come into office with some ideas even but then the men in the dark suits and the blue ties and then he said I I wear red ties
but they wear blue ties they come in and explain the way the world really is and
there go the ideas and I think that's Putin's experience that's our experience
that's my experience which is that there's a deeply entrained foreign policy it has been in place in my interpretation for many decades but arguably a variant of it has been in
place since 1992 I got to watch some of it early on because I was an adviser to gorb and I was an adviser to yelson and so I saw early makings of this though I didn't fully understand it except in retrospect but that policy has been mostly in place pretty consistently for 30 years and it didn't really matter whether it was Bush senior whether it was Clinton whether it was Bush Jr whether it was Obama whether it was Trump after all who did Trump hire he hired John Bolton well the uh pretty deep State uh that was the end of they told you know he explained this is the way it is and by the way Bolton explained also in his Memoirs when when Trump didn't agree we figured out ways to trick him basically so well 

主持人
what are their incentives is it war is it self-enrichment is it power is it all three is it some or is it yeah is it is it just is there a philosophical entrenchment or is it just this inertial issue that like once a policy begins it's hard to change and the system's just working with 10,000 people working towards it 

Jeffrey Sachs
you know if I were lucky to sit next to the world's greatest political philosopher which I am um he'd give you a good answer which is that the right answer which is if you want to interpret American foreign policy it is to maximize power uh and uh he gives a John gives a an explanation of that we have some differences but I think it's a very good description of American foreign policy which is is that it's trying to maximize Global power essentially to be Global hegemon I I think it could get us all killed this is because it's a little bit delusional in my mind but uh not not the I not not his interpretation of their idea but the fact that they hold that idea is a little weird to me but in any event that's the idea and every time a decision comes inside that I've seen I'm an economist so I don't see security decisions the same way but every decision that I've seen always leans in the same direction for the last 30 years which is power as the central objective so Clinton faced an internal cabinate really debate should NATO be enlarged 

主持人
is this a post Cold War phenomenon that it's well 

Jeffrey Sachs
I'll let John take that 

John Mearsheimer
just two very quick points first of all I do believe that the people people who uh are in favor of this foreign policy uh do believe in it it's not cynical they really believe that we're doing the right thing I've met them yeah no yeah the second point I would make to you and this sort of adds on to what Jeff said Jeff said power has a lot to do with this and is a good realist I of course believe that but it's also very important to understand that the United States is a fundamentally liberal country and we
believe that we have a right we have a responsibility and we have the power to
run around the world and remake the world in America's image most people in
the foreign policy establishment the Republican Party the Democratic party they believe that and that is what has motivated our foreign policy in large part since the Cold War ended because remember when the cold war ends we have no rival great power left so what are we going to do with all this power that we have what we decide to do is go out and remake the world in our own image so that's a that's a values point of view though right that there are values that they hold dear that that many do hold
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
上述已經翻譯
dear that liberalism democracy does ultimately I believe I've heard this reduce conflict
worldwide that there's an importance that we've never seen two democratic nations since World War II go to war and that there's a reason why we want to see liberalism kind of breed throughout the world and it's our responsib ability for world for Global Peace to make that a mandate let me step in for one moment
okay sure very quickly and by the way I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm uh what do you call it where you pull the spirits of the the
voice of others but I'm I'm just trying to channeling channeling that's the word I want to be very clear I am forever
thankful that I was born in a liberal democracy and I love liberalism but the question here is do you think that we
can run around the world imposing liberal democracy on other countries and
some cases shoving it down their throat doing it at the end of a rifle barrel and my argument is that's almost
impossible to do it almost always backfires think Iraq Afghanistan so forth and so on and secondly you begin
to erode liberalism in the United States because you build a deep state right and
you want to understand that a lot of the complaints here about cracking down on freedom of speech and so forth and so on
are related to the fact that we have this ambitious foreign policy those two things go together in very important
ways what an let me let me disagree just a bit uh because we agree actually on
the behavior and I've learned I'd say most of that from you that it's power
seeking truly John in my work 40 years uh overseas I don't think the US
government gives a damn about these other places I I don't think they really care if it's a liberal democracy if it's
a dictatorship they want the right of ways they want the military bases they want uh the state to be in support of
the United States they want NATO enlargement I don't I know You' you've written and there are some who believe
in stateb building God if they do they are so incompetent it's
unbelievable but Professor s know I I'll give you an
example if I put just one one example I'm I'm a friend with one of the
only PhD Afghani Economist senior person in the US um Academia over the last 30
years you would think that the state department if they were interested in State Building would ask him one day one
moment something about Afghanistan never happened never happened not even one
question never happened he asked me can you get me a a meeting with the department they were completely
uninterested this is this is about power you're too idealistic
John they don't care about the other places they may feel we should be
whatever we want free and so forth but Freedom I've been I've seen my with my
own eyes the coups the overthrows the presidents democratic presidents LED
away they don't care at all this is Washington be a realist come on Professor mimer
I when we talk about power um there are other people in the world who are trying
Should America leverage its power against dictators?
to accumulate power we live in a multi-polar world right now and they have in some cases very nefarious or bad
intent um and they do not have democracy so it's one thing to you know tell uh
people in Afghanistan you need to evolve you know to be a perfect democracy like the one we have here I think we all
agree that's unrealistic and insane um and not practical but what about the
free countries of the world uniting together to stop dictators from invading other free countries is that Noble is
that a good use of power and a good framework for America to evolve too no I
don't think so uh I think that what the United States should do is worry about
its own National interest uh in some cases that's going to involve aligning ourselves with a dictator uh if we're
fighting World War II all over again it's December 8th 1941 you surely would be in favor of
allying with adol not with Adolf Hitler with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union
against uh Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany sometimes you have to make those kind of compromises uh as I said before I love
liberal democracy I have no problem align with liberal democracy but when you begin to think in the terms that
you're thinking you end up uh with an Impulse to do social engineering around
the world and that gets you in all sorts of problems well what I'm proposing is when dictatorships invade other
countries then we take action it depends maybe def defend them so it depends yeah of course I mean when Russia invades
Ukraine basically what you're saying is you want to go to war on behalf of
Ukraine against Russia are you in favor of that no I would say diplomacy would obviously be what we'd want to exhaust
but if they do roll into other fre countries I think there's an argument for the free countries of the world to get together and say two dictators we're
not going to allow this could I come in
here could I clarify a few
things look uh first of all um almost all the time that we intervene
it's because uh we view this as a power situation for the us so whether it's
Ukraine or Syria or Libya or other places even if we Define it as defending
something believe me it's not about defending something it's about a perception of us power and US interest
and it's in objectives of us Global hegemony and if we analyze the Ukraine
conflict uh just even a little bit below the surface this is not a a conflict about Putin invading Ukraine this is
something a lot different that has to do with American power projection into the
former Soviet Union so it's completely different second if we decide were the
police which we do you can't imagine how cynical
we use to justify our actions we used the cynical B that
we're defending the people of Benghazi to bomb the hell out of Libya to kill
moamar Gaddafi why did we do that well I'm kind of an expert on that region and
I can tell you maybe because sarosi didn't like Gaddafi there's no much
deeper reason except Hillary liked every bombing she could get her hands on and Obama was kind of convinced my secretary
of state says go with it so why don't we go with the NATO Expedition it had nothing to do with Libya it un it
Unleashed 15 years of chaos cheated the UN Security Council because like
everything else we've done it was on false pretenses we did the same with trying to overthrow Syria we did the
same with conspiring to overthrow Victor yanukovich in Ukraine in February 2014
so the problem with this argument is we're not nice guys we're not trying to
save the world we're not trying to make democracies we had a committee by the way of all the
luminaries you could mention but they're The neocon Crazies but they're luminaries the committee for the people
of Cheta are you kidding do you think they even knew where chn is or cared about
Chia but it was an opportunity to get at Russia to weaken Russia to support a
jihadist movement inside Russia to do this is a game but it's the game that
John has described better than any one in the world it's a game of power it's
not that we're defending real things if you want to defend real things go to the UN Security Council and convince others
because the other countries are not crazy and they don't want Mayhem in the world but we play game so they say
that's a game Iraq which was obviously a game before we went in it was a
obviously Co and Powell could not move his lips without lying that day obviously and so they said no but if
we're real about our interests then you go to the UN Security Council and then it's not just on us it's actually then a
collective security issue uh Professor M if we were to take Jeffrey's position here um that we are exerting power for
the sake of you know our reputation and in fact to weaken dictatorships if I'm if I'm summarizing correctly here um is
that not a good strategy to weaken dictators around the world who might like to invade other countries is there
is there a frame Fring in which you could see that being um for you know a
world where democracy and people living freely has gone down in our lifetimes is
that not knowable is there not a justification somebody could make for I'm not saying I have that but I'm just trying to steal me on the other side of
this is weakening dictators and despots a good strategy it depends uh well let's
talk about the the two that we have you know uh Xi Jinping I think you wanted to get to eventually and then Ukraine and
Putin are these people worth trying to you know uh contain or even weaken well
in in terms of China I'm fully in favor of containing China okay so containment
check it's containment I'm not interested in regime change I'm not interested in trying to turn China into
a democracy not going to happen yeah not going to happen we tried it actually and I thought it was foolish to even pursue
a policy of Engagement toward China with regard to Russia I don't think Russia is a serious threat to the United States
and indeed I think the United States should have good relations with Putin it's a remarkably foolish policy to push
him into the arms of the Chinese there are three great powers in the system the United States China and Russia China is
a peer competitor to the United States it's the most serious threat to the United States Russia is the weakest of
those three great powers and it's not a serious threat to us if you are playing balance and power politics and you're
interested as the United States in containing China you want Russia on your side of the Ledger but what we have done
in effect is we have pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese this is a
remarkably foolish policy and furthermore by getting bogged down in Ukraine and now bogged down in the
Middle East it's become very difficult for us to Pivot to Asia to deal with
China which is the principal threat that we face [Applause]
can I think David could I just say uh 2/3
right perfect so you gave him a b or B plus a
minus I always give him an A minus inflation I just wanted to add a footnote which is that China's also not
The China threat: avoiding the escalatory path to nuclear war
a threat it's just not a threat I mean we're going to get to it ch ch China
China's a market it's uh got great food great culture uh wonderful people a
civilization 10 times older than ours it's not a threat well as an economist can you talk about the impact of a cold
or hot conflict with China from an economic perspective given the trade relationship yeah it would wreck California for one thing it would
destroy the economy that you guys are making completely this economy has been the biggest beneficiary of China's rise
probably in the whole world so it's crazy maybe if you're worried if you're
really worried about about whether uh a worker in Ohio has a particular job on a
particular assembly line then uh you can be anti-china if you're worried about the tech industry about California about
peace and the future you should be pro-china that's all so why is it become so Universal to assume that we are
already in a state of conflict with China on not just party lines but like
almost any Spectrum you could kind of like consider said it exact right and he
predicted it better than anyone in the whole world in 2001 he said when China
becomes large we're going to have conflict because that's John's Theory
and it's right as a description of American foreign policy that we are for power they are big therefore they're an
enemy they're an enemy of our aspiration to Global City tra City let let's let
John jump in here do you want you want me to is it okay if I talk about this yeah yeah I mean I think um I think that
um what's interesting I mean you and Jeff I think arrive at similar conclusions about Ukraine uh but
different ones on China right because Jeff is an economist and I think sees the world in fundamentally positive some
ways based on the potential for trade economics basically whereas you see the
world as more of a zero sum game based on the balance of power why don't you just explain that difference I okay uh
it is very important to emphasize David was saying that Jeff and I agree on all sorts of issues including Ukraine and
Israel Palestine but we disagree fundamentally as he just made clear on China and let me explain to you why I
think that's the case and then Jeff can tell you why he thinks I'm wrong
uh it has to do with security whether you privilege security or survival or
whether you privilege prosperity and economists and I would imagine most of you in the audience really care greatly
about maximizing prosperity for someone like me who's a realist what I care about is maximizing the state's
prospects of survival and when you live in an Antarctic system and in IR speak
that means there's no higher authority there's no night Watchmen that can come down and rescue you if you get into
trouble and this is the International System there's no higher authority in that anarchic world the best way to
survive is to be really powerful as we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds you want to be the
biggest and baddest dude on the Block and that's simply because it's the best way to survive if you're really powerful
nobody fools around with you the United States is a regional hedgemon it's the
only Regional hedgemon on the planet we dominate the Western Hemisphere and what
China has begun to do as it's got increasingly powerful economically is
translate that economic might into military might and it is trying to
dominate Asia it wants to push us out beyond the first island chain it wants to push us out beyond the second island
chain it wants to be like we are in the Western Hemisphere and I don't blame the Chinese one bit if I was the National
Security advisor in Beijing that's what I'd be telling XI ping we should be trying to do but of course from an
American point of view this is unacceptable and we do not tolerate peer
competitors we do not want another Regional hedgemon on the planet in the
20th century there were four countries that threatened to become Regional hegemons like us Imperial Germany
Imperial Japan Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union the United States played a
key role in putting all four of those countries on the scrap peap of History we want to remain the only Regional
hedgemon in the world we are a ruthless great power never want to lose sight of
that fact and the end result of this is you get an intense security competition
between China and the United States and it revolves
around the concept of security not Prosperity what you just very quickly so
what you see beginning to happen is that it's in all domains where the
competition takes place especially high-tech we do not want them defeating
this defeating Us in the Hightech War we are competing with them econom ically we
are competing with them militarily and this is because the best way to survive
is for us the United States of America to be the only Regional hedgemon on the
planet so Jeff let me let me set it up for for Jeff here so Jeff I you and John
I think agree that the the game on on the board is power seeking I think what
John is saying is there are smart ways and dumb ways to pursue power that containing China is a smart way
what we're doing in Ukraine is a dumb way whereas it seems like you're saying that all power seeking behavior is bad
that's not the game we should be playing we should somehow opt out of that is that is that kind of where you're going
it's a it's not a bad way to say it but I would I would put it in in another way
I read a very good book uh John's
um and and John described
I'm going to quote him but he can quote himself afterwards he he he said that
the regional hegemons uh don't threaten each other actually why because we have big ocean
in between I deeply believe that China is not a
threat to the United States and I deeply believe the only threat to the United
States period in the world given the oceans given our size and given the
military is nuclear war I deeply believe we're close to
nuclear war because we have a mindset
that leads us in that direction we have a mindset that everything is a challenge
for survival and that escalation is therefore always the right approach my
view is a little bit of prudence could save the whole planet
so why I don't like Ukraine is that I don't see any reason in the world that
NATO has to be on Russia's border with Ukraine I was as I said gorbachov's
adviser and yelton's adviser and they wanted peace and they wanted cooperation
but whatever they wanted they did not want the US military on their border so
if we continued to push as we did we would get to war John explained that
better than anybody we're now at War and even this morning there is further
escalation blinkin has said well if the Iranians give these missiles then we will give missiles to hit deep into
Russia this is a recipe and then we had Bill Burns the CIA director say last
week an absurdity that he knows but Cia directors never tell the truth if they
do they lose their job but he said don't worry about nuclear war don't worry about saber rattling my advice to you is
worry a lot about nuclear war and so be prudent you don't have to put the US
military on Russia's border okay and my advice to Russia and to Mexico when I'm
going to Mexico tomorrow I'll give them a piece of advice don't let China or
Russia build a military base on the r Grant not a good idea for Mexico not a
good good idea for Ukraine not a good idea for Russia not a good idea for China not a good idea for the United
States we need to stay a little bit away from each other so that we don't have a
nuclear war by the way I do recommend another good book and that is Annie
Jacobson's nuclear war a scenario it takes two hours to read the world ends
in two hours in the book uh and uh it's a very persuasive guide that one nuke can ruin
your whole day as they say Jeffrey can um uh my my strong advice on this
therefore is recognize China first of all is not a threat to the United States
security big oceans big nuclear deterrent and so forth second we don't
have to be in China's face what do I mean by that we don't have to provoke World War III Over Taiwan that's a long
complicated issue but this would be the stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die for imaginable and I resent it every
day when we play that game we have three agreements with China that say we're
going to stay out of that and we should and then China would have no reason for
war either China and then on the economic side let
me just reiterate because I was asked yesterday and there was some surprise
was it good to let China into the the WTO I said of course it enriched all of
you by the way it enriched me it enriched this country it enriched the world including enriching China that's
normal economics is not a zero sum game we all agree on that I believe that
security doesn't have to be a zero sum game either we can stay a little bit
away from each other and China does not spend its time beon in America being a
western hemisphere hegemon they don't that's not their greatest interest to
bring down American uh Power in the Western Hemisphere Jee what about the
energy hold on let's let John respond to this just very quickly most of you have
probably never asked yourself the question why is the United States roaming all over the planet interfering
in every country's business it's in part because it's so powerful but it's also because it's a hegemon which means we
have no threats in the Western Hemisphere so we are free to roam the
great danger Jeff if China becomes a regional hedgemon and doesn't have to
worry about security conc then they behave like us yeah then they behave like us exact but my point to you Jeff
is let's prevent that from happening by preventing them from becoming a regional
hedgemon we don't want them to have freedom to roam you were talking about them putting military bases in Mexico
that's our great fear it's not my great fear they have no interest in doing so because they don't want to get blown up
either so they do seem to have a big interest Jeff in Africa India Russia and
they are China has a major um military bases there oh well
they're building nuclear power plants in trade and they're building de difference in favor of that let's go compete that
way I'm all in favor of that but Jeff that's cuz they're not a Regal hegemon yet yeah if you try to prevent them from
being a regional hegemon we're going to end up in World War I because as you say yourself that this can absolutely spill
over into war I don't want it to spill over into war on the theory that maybe
someday they behave differently that's not a good theory for me so so so that part so John can we contain China
prevent them from becoming a regional haimon without Direct ly defending Taiwan I mean isn't that where the
rubber meets the road no it's not just Taiwan I mean one could argue there's sort of three flash points in East Asia
that you folks should keep your eye on one is obviously Taiwan two is the South China Sea and three is the East China
Sea and I think David that the place where a conflict is most likely today is not over Taiwan I could explain why I
think Taiwan is not a serious problem at the moment or for the foreseeable future the South China Sea is a very dangerous
place we could end up in a war for sure even if we did not defend
Taiwan uh so Taiwan you don't want to overemphasize I agree with I agree with
Jeff that we definitely don't want a war and we certainly don't want a nuclear war and he is absolutely correct that
there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war breaks out of any sort between China and the United States many of us in the
audience remember the Cold War and this was an everpresent danger in the Cold War but my argument is that this is
inevitable because in a world where you don't have a higher authority and you care about your survival you have a
deep-seated interest as any state in the system to be as powerful as possible and
that means dominating your world um there is one uh player on this chess
India's growing role; are China's wounds self-inflicted?
board that hasn't come up yet and then maybe we could skate to where the puck is going you know when you talk about the South China Sea okay sure South
Korea Japan Jaan Australia all those major players there they're just a couple hundred million people but then
China is in population decline she apparently is self-destructing in terms of trade seems like uh containment is
working pretty well there because of the all the self-inflicted wounds but the fastest growing country fastest growing
economy the quickest to develop is India and they seem to have a very pragmatic approach hey they'll buy cheap oil from
Putin and they are their own sovereign country with their own point of view Would we not be really well advised over
the next 10 to 20 years to make that our priority and India's role in this how do you look at them well we definitely view
India as an ally right it's part of the Quad which is this uh this rubbe
Goldberg type Alliance structure that we put together in East Asia that includes Australia Japan the United States and
India and India is smartly maintaining
its good relations with Russia the Indians understand like Jeff and I do that the Russians are no great threat
but from India's point of view the real threat is China right right and there are two places where India cares about
China One is on the India China border up in the Himalayas where they've
actually had conflicts right and there's a real danger of War breaking out the
second place which is maybe even more dangerous not at the moment but will be over time is the Indian Ocean because
the Chinese are imitating the United States they not not only want to be a regional hedgemon they want to develop
power projection capability so the Chinese are building a Bluewater Navy that can come out of East Asia through
the Straits of Mala through the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf and once you
start talking about going through the Indian Ocean the Indians get spooked and
that's when the Americans in the Indians come together okay let's think of this from an engineering point of view if we
could um why are the Chinese developing the Navy
because for 40 years I've read essays on
all of the choke points uh in the South China Sea the East China Sea the Indian
Ocean against China that's our policy choke points look at the malaka Straits
look what we can do here first island chain this is American strategy can we
keep the Chinese submarine out of the Pacific Ocean First China first island chain and so forth so of course they
react they're rich they're going to build a Navy so that they can get their oil on which their economy runs can we
be a little bit sensible with them and decide how we're not going to have choke
points and then we don't have to have a nuclear war which is really going to ruin our day that's the point we can
think a little bit we can understand it from their perspective we can understand it from our perspec perspective
deconfliction by the way I don't believe India is an ally India is a
superpower India is going to have its own very distinctive interests thank you
it's not going to be an ally of the United States I happen to like India enormously and and admire their policies
but the idea that India is going to Ally with the United States against China in somebody's dream uh in
Washington because it's another delusion in Washington because they should get a passport and go see the world and and
and understand something but Jeffrey if they these are
my fa students in Washington right now cuz they didn't listen to their Professor Jeffrey we're we're making our
iPhones in India now is that not significantly important say again we're
moving iPhone production maybe Cooper you're into economics here and that impact you you got Apple moving out of
China you've got Japan funding people leaving China to Vietnam and to India is that not the solution here as we
decouple from China it seems like they come back to the table we had XI jingping kick all the Venture capitalists all investment out of China
he got rid of all the education startups and then whatever two or three years later he's in San Francisco asking all
of us to invest more money and saying where'd you go okay first of all uh
invite me back 10 years and we'll see how smart all these decisions are because uh Shing it's incred no I'm
talking about yes we've moved to India that's our great Ally and then then we're going to have other other issues
okay you I think you said that XI jinping's trade policy is uh implo self-
imploding or something it seems like there's a lot of self-inflicted wounds when you it's not let me explain what
the wounds are okay the wounds are the United States deliberate policy to stop
you from selling things to China and to stop China buying things from you that's
not self-inflicted this a clear wait minute just to say let me say please
because it's very important for the economy of the people in this room this is a decision that was taken around
2014 to contain China and it's been systematically applied since then and
it's not a surprise that Biden kept all the things that Trump did and
added more and now Trump says I'm going to do all the things that Biden has kept in place and I'm going to do more this
is not a self-inflicted wound the United States has closed the market to China
okay is that smart no it's not smart is it leading to uh is it by the way
recuperating American manufacturing jobs zero it may shift them a bit it make may
make things less efficient it may may make all of you lose a bit more money or
not make as much money but is it going to solve any single economic problem in
the United States no way let me John let let John spicy I I just want
to ask Jeff a question on this uh my argument is that this is the
way the world Works yes I know and it is and it is but if I'm describing how the
world really works how do you beat me the the reason is you've described a
world you've described I think better than any person I ever read or know how
American foreign policy works I think it's likely to get us all blown up you
you not and you title not not because of John but because he made an accurate
description of a profoundly misguided approach which
is power seeking even if you're safe as a regional hegemon you're never safe if
another Regional hegemon does what you do no you can't allow that to happen so you have to metal every single place in
the world this now all I'm saying wait let me just finish because it's important that it is important to
say try this in the nuclear age you don't get a second chance
so this to me is the most definitive fact of Our Lives which is we are now in
a war direct War direct War not proxy war direct war with Russia which has
6,000 nuclear warheads I can't think of anything more imbecilic than that aside
from the fact that I know step by step because I saw it with my own eyes how we
got into that mess because we thought we had to medal up to including putting
NATO into Georgia in the caucuses of all places and Ukraine so we made that
because we have to medal because we couldn't let good enough uh stand if we
do the same with China there will be a war but it's not like reading about the
Crimean War or World War One or World War II that's my difference this is a
fine theory that explains a lot of things but damn if you can make chat GPT
or you can make Optimus or you can make all the rest we can avoid nuclear war so just do a little bit better than saying it's inevitable all right
so we only have a minute left so I want to give it to John I just want to ask he had a question I know but we only have a minute left and it's we got to add five minutes this is the best panel I've ever been on in my life can we just add 10
minutes minutes we got to add 5 or 10 minutes the best panel is this the best panel ever I feel like calling a respond wa wa before okay we got 5 minutes so before before we leave this topic John your book is called the tragedy of great
power politics you clearly understand the tragic aspect of how great power
rivalry great power competition can lead to disaster what Jeff is saying is we're now in the nuclear age and it's going to lead to nuclear war so do we have to be on this path or is there way off of it two points in my heart I'm with Jeff in my head I'm not with Jeff I wish he were right but I don't believe he's right to answer your question head-on I believe that there is no way out we are in an iron cage this is just the way International politics works and it's because you're in an anarchic system where you can never be sure that a really powerful state in the system won't come after you and inflict A Century of national humiliation on you so you go to Great Lengths to avoid that by trying to gain power at the expense of another power and that leads to all sorts of trouble can War be avoided I like to distinguish between security competition which I think is inevitable and War which is where security competition evolves into war I think War
can be avoided and we were thankfully successful in that regard during the Cold War and hopefully that will be the case uh in the US China competition moving forward can I guarantee that no does this disturb me greatly yes but again this is just a tragic aspect of the world let me just ask one because we're a little bit I know we were going to try and talk about Middle East for a Conflict in the Middle East and the path to peace good chunk of this so I just want a scenario uh uh propose or kind of give you guys a scenario get your reaction because it is kind of what feels to be the most imminent uh theater of conflict uh the West Bank um the the Israelis are buttressing the settlements there's a lot of checkpoints things are getting very tense they're running raids and it's becoming a very difficult place to live for Palestinians and there's a real concern that the West Bank collapses and Israelis and Israelis but there's a real risk that the West Bank collapses and turns into a real conflict Zone if that happens the jordanians are sitting right there and they're not going to let Palestinians get slaughtered they're going to have to do something and they're such a strong Ally of the United States does that trigger a
theater of response where what is Saudi going to do are others going to be drawn to the region does the collapse of the
West Bank or the the the conflict that seems to be brewing in the West Bank become this kind of Tinder Box for
everyone showing up and getting involved and um uh and create some sort of
regional issue that we get drawn into in a bigger way can I start and have John
have the last word uh you know I I work uh each day at the UN um and discuss
this issue with ambassadors from all over the world there is over the last 50 years a a an agreement on what would make for peace and the agreement is uh two states uh maybe with a big wall between them on the 4th of June 1967 borders with a state of Palestine being the 194th UN member state and its
capital in East Jerusalem and control over the Islamic holy sites and that is
international law the international court of justice just reaffirmed that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal uh the uh international criminal court uh uh is likely to find or icj is likely to find that Israel is in violation of the 1948 genocide convention which I very much believe it to be in violation so my own solution to this is Implement International law two states build the wall as high as you need to build but uh you give Palestinian rights you establish a state of Palestine you stop the Israeli Slaughter of Palestinians you stop the Israeli apartheid state and uh you have uh two states living side by side Israel is dead set against that uh the entire Israeli political uh governance now is dead set against that hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers in the West Bank are dead set against that smotrich benir Galant Netanyahu are dead set against that so my view is it has nothing to do with what Israel wants it has to do with enforcement of international law so I want to see this imposed not because Israel agrees to it
but because it is imposed and there is one country that stands in the way of
imposing this not Iran not the Saudis not Egypt not Russia not China not any
country in the European Union one country and one country alone and that is because of the United States of America and the is Israel Lobby somebody wrote a very good book about that too that I know uh the best book ever written about it by John uh uh and hat's what stops the solution that could bring peace and I believe we should bring peace because not only would that bring peace to the Palestinians and peace to the Israelis but it would avoid potentially another
flasho that could easily end up in World War II let me answer your question about
escalation potential the jordanians coming in uh Israel faces three big
problems aside from problems with centrifical forces inside the society one is the Palestinian problem which is
both in Gaza and in the West Bank it's one two is Hezbollah and three is
Iran I think there is virtually no chance of what you described happening
which is if the Israelis were to go on a rampage in the West Bank similar what they've done in Gaza that the jordanians
would come in or the Egyptians or the Saudis they simply don't have the military capability this is a scenario where the Israelis completely dominate so in terms of escalation with regard to the Israel Palestine problem I don't think there's much potential Hezbollah is a different issue uh but mainly because it's linked with Iran right and Iran is the really dangerous flasho because as you know the Russians are now closely allied with the Iranians the Chinese are moving in that direction as well and if Israel gets involved in a war with Iran we're going to come in in all likelihood remember when the Israelis attacked the uh the Iranian Embassy in Damascus on April 1st on April 14th the Iranians retaliated reciprocal response yeah but but we were involved we were we were forewarned weren't we yes we were forewarned but the point is that we were involved in the fighting right we were involved with the Israelis with the French the British the jordanians and the Saudis we were all involved in the fighting so this gets at the escalation problem now to counter the Iranian escalation scenario the fact is Iran does not want a war with the United States and the United States does not want a war with Iran and it's the Israelis especially Benjamin Netanyahu has been who has been trying to sort of suck us into a war because he wants us the United States to really whack Iran weaken it militarily and especially to go after its nuclear capabilities because as you well know they are close to the point where they can develop nuclear weapons so the Israelis are the ones who want us to get involved in a big war with Iran that's the escalation flasho and The $64,000 question is whether you think the United States and Iran kind of loting can work together to prevent the Israelis from getting us that that question will be answered based on the next who who who leads the next Administration well if you believe that it matters who leads the next Administration that's true take it out thank you let me just say Jeffrey and John now I know why saxs will not stop talking about you too this was the most amazing panel of the event so far are give it up for Jeffrey Sachs and John Mir shimer all right wow