c our first guest is jamil jaffer from george mason university law school and founder here to talk about things concerning china when it comes to the economy and national security. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> a little about the institute. where does the funding come from and what positions do take when it comes to china? >> we get our funding from the george mason university and family office foundation. our view on china if we acknowledge the real threat that china presents to the united states. an economic threat and internationalan security threat and to behr clear pedro the leaders of the house said they are hearing a couple of days ago that this is not about the chinese people and not not about chinese-american spirits about the chinese communist party that brutalized som' people and turned over a million uighurs to

xinjiang in china's nationals with police stations that threaten them and their families back home if they don't toe the congress party line. this ise not about china the chinese people is about the communist party and their bad behavior at home and abroad.in >> mike gallagher described this existential struggle. is that rhetoric or is it rareality? >> unfortunately this reality. it's not a struggle that we were calling for, to struggle to the present of the night saveded mae clear, they want to see competition with china but we as a nation want to see competition with china and we don't want comfort. that being said they are threatening taiwan and engaging bad behavior around the world. there's no of potential to help russia and iran produces a significant problem and even though we try to convince them it's better to collaborate and

work together economically they continue to threaten americanth allies around the globe. >> youd you you describe the things altogether but what does that mean for the administration to try to handle not only specifics but the overall relationship that china has the guide states? >> it's a real challenge.t: parvus the notion that hits our economy is impossible if the reality is it doesn't matter that much if we buy goods in the form of clothing from china. what does matter is we rely on china for critical minerals. or our fighter jets and the like. pharmaceutical and medicine. american people learned during the pandemic that we rely on it. countries where china does get getting conflict with another nation whether taiwan or others

in the region are with us that we are not reliant upon the chinese come as party. >> you talk in a recent op-ed he wrote that there were things goingst on with china well befoe the tangible things we have seen over the last few weeks. can you talk about the background and how it's manifested itself in manifested itself and does that change the perspective that people in china today? >> pedro it's the challenge of china to talk about this pandemic. and turning into economic prowess and power overseas. they have telecommunications here but they are only generation of routers. it was a cisco router. they took the information and

put it on the and innovated on top of that. it's an engine for the chineset' economy. it's not just intellectual property is the fact that they have constituencies and educational can amply stations we do know about until this year not just america. countries around the p world. the spy balloon said that we get shot down over south carolina over 40 nations have chinese spy balloons we have now learned. the administration even during the biden administration without the white house knowing about it. these are huge issues that we as a nation asked how do we ensure we have an economic relationship with china but also help them understand their behavior at home in their effort to export home will not stand when it comes to our allies and

partners. >> our guests and if you want to ask him questions concerning china and its practices in the relationship with the relationship with united states 202-74-8000. t democrats 20. an independents (202)748-8002. you describe those things going on for while it seems like the congress of the white house shrugged their shoulders and say okay this happen and what can we do about? is that an accurate assessment or how would you go about changing that? >> i will say the administration in the biden administration have been leaning on china. they have pursued trade sanctions against china so it seemed forward-leaning activity. both administrations have accused china of genocide when it comes to this and it's not just. and buddhists. there's an ongoing effort inside of china to repress political

dissidents religious people and the like and they are trying to support that overseas. these chinese economic diploma programs always have strings attached with loans and debts to developing nations. they don't realize what's happening is they are getting domesticwh jobs. the chinese communist party is bringing chinese labor to build these efforts in these foreign countries and this death makes them rely on china that they can afford to pay back. these are issues not just inside of china and not just on the periphery of china. around the world and they are affecting us here atat home. >> the intellectual property the chinese threat to our supply chain and now these critical rare earth minerals is a massive miproblem. >> the ranking member from the

house in what he wants to see the committee and we will hear from him and get your thoughts on that. >> first we must always always protect american values and interests. second, at our best this committee can help us as americans to up our game as the people for example through investments in technologies of theor future, workforce improvements and by fixing weaknesses and our economy such as our supply chain hinder legal immigration system. third, we must practice bipartisanship and avoid anti-chinese or stereotyping at all costs. we must recognize the ccp wants us to be fractious, partisanra d >> mr. jaffer that last pointg e made from what is on the first hearing can this be a bipartisan effort that works? >> this may be the one spot in congress where everybodyer can

agree. you see russia krishnamoorthi almost no daylight between the two of them about how important this issue is and the threat t that china poses and we can't give in to this idea businesses about racism or threats to chinese americans are the chinese people. this is about the chinese communist party and its bad behavior for john people and allies and partners in the region and it's a real threat that it poses to the united states and our economy and our national strength. there's no difference between the members of that committee. >> our first call from canada dominic in ontario. hello, go ahead. his thumb and neck in ontario canada, good morning. >> hello. i'm trying to understand this why we are as trying to start war with china, with china.

you will find a circuit board or a piece that has made in china on it if you look in your house. you can't go to war with a country that uses all your stuff. >> i think dominic is exactly right. we don't want to go to war with china. chairman gallagher and ranking member kircher more they made it clear. i don't think war with china is eminent. that being said the fact of the matter is it's china sending hundreds of warplanes a week into taiwanese territory into their airspace. china that's withheld semi-conductors and personal equipment from the u.s. during the pandemic and they were real questions that we saw just this week from the department of energy and the national lab about where the coronavirus originated from weather was a

lab leak or a natural -- i tend to believe in a lab leak. but it's hard to imagine you're right they are investigating the edges of what began the pandemic and it wasn't lab leak. a biological weapon. there were studies and research is hard to imagine that the virus began there and happened to come from animals. it seems highly unlikely given the circumstances. >> what you think about the department of energy in their thinking on this? >> you have different agencies coming together to make an assessment and only two have said theye believe is a lab leak is most likely theory but the fbi and department of energy want to know if it's plausible for investigations and want to know the science around this

stuff. they have low confidence. the way the intelligence committee works they make an assessment. we learned this after the war misstep in the 9/11 failure. how confident are we in our assessment? if their view that it was a lab leak and that's the more likely. and the other agencies the cia an all source intelligence agency they haven't taken a position or decided a lab versus natural. there some that believe isge a natural champ -- transfer to humans from animals that. at the end of the day my view is the wuhan institute of virology there are coronavirus is at that laugh that are within as few% of the virus self of the pandemic.

it's hard to ignore that it's on the ground. >> was here here from alan on the republican line in michigan. hello, hyde. >> hi can you hear me pedro? >> you are on, go ahead. >> concerning the virus it doesn't matter it was in the lab or came from the cage. the chinese government was in wuhan and they allowed worldwide travel in country travel in china so it doesn't really matter if it came from that or the lab. both sides of the aisle allowed a communist country with the world trade organization but that was democrat or republican that was both sides of the aisle. talk about that and roads program or whatever the chinese are calling it in south america

with which i a lot of time and. they have a lot of potential downof there. and i'll wrap it up here real quick. we are feeling ourselves. we are not a sovereign nation and the borders not secure at all. the meantime they are spending tons of money in south america in doing the roads program which you can explain better than me and they are going to gain more and more control. russia tried to do in the 70s but they couldn't afford it. the chinese can afford it and we are still buying all the goods you are talking about. said alan in michigan you are putting a lot out there for a guest. >> is right it doesn't matter where the virus came from because the chinese allowed to spread after knowing it was there and that's a huge problem. alan is exactly right this effort around the globe for china to spend dollars to build

capacity in these countries. its capacity for china for critical minerals and natural resources in oil for their economy and the best part of their effort is not about the nations is about china and itss opportunities and this is a real challenge. alan is right we have dropped the ball on south america and latin america. the anniversary is coming up in just few months and we allow the chinese into her backyard and allow them to operate their bit that was a mistake. and alan c. is about the concern of the border but the end of the day were talking about what utchina is doing in his right to focus in on these key issues. >> malik joining us from west virginia on the independent line go ahead.

>> you act as if the united states is not the -- of the world. and i'm going to relate this to the alt-a crisis protection of -- has increased at the same time the opioid epidemic came about in this country. if they don't like what china is doing get out. they are a sovereign nation. and to be so gamely as to think think -- is completely and you're sitting here talking about south america. we don't have a right to tell these people what to do or where to go. we need to take care that people in this country and stop --

>> thinks the lake. >> malik raises an important question. there's no question that china is a sovereign nation and there's no question that we can tell countries in south america matter what to do. i wasn't suggesting that but what i'm saying is there's a choice for countries to make but it can take money from china or work in the united states in this hemisphere and build those trade relationships that have been the backbone of democracy and freedom that malik is right to highlight around the globe for the last 50 or 60 years and maybe longer. that is a stark choice in malik is right. china was involved and he afghanistan. we were attacked on 9/11 residing under the protection of taliban in afghanistan. we don't want to go to war with

afghanistan and the decision to go to iraq and whether saddam hussein was doing things, this is not about afghanistan is about american safeguarding americans in and our national security and the fact is in a bipartisan way capitol hill the american people are starting to recognize to his point that china is a threat to our national security and again is their behavior. we are looking to get into war with taiwan. if you look at it the white house are trying to do what they can to avoid him for taisha. it's china that sending fighter jets and bombers into our airspace and it's china. stole billions in joint of dollars in total from the american economy. there there's a series of legislation just to give you a flavor of some of them one would

activate certain sanctions and the taiwan nondiscrimination act would require taiwanese membership of the monetary fund and the protect taiwan at that would protect chinese representatives and it goes on from there but to the taiwan issue what china best choices does america have? >> a lot of americans are saying why does it matter what happens in taiwan? let's not worry about what happens in china. if they invade taiwan so be it. the theory -- the promo that terry is not to about taiwan it's about thes semi-conductors that we get from china and taiwan. the vast majority of semiconductors that goes into every phone in every car and microwave that the caller is talking about are made in taiwan

handed china and if they dominate that supply they can govern our ability to operate. we have a supply-chain problem on semiconductors from taiwan and from china so that's why it matters and it's not just economics. ifgh china invades taiwan do we think they will stop there? they will invade taiwan and they will be good? we have never seen any authoritarian regime whether back in the day stalin whether it's the chinese leadership the russian leadership they will not be satisfied with at taiwan. we havewe seen tibet and the porter services with india. will be drawn into conflict. the best thing to avoid american lives being lost in this economic debacle is to ensure that china does not invadein

taiwan. it requires an adversary to believe that they do something we will respond and believe it honestly. if we take the position we take him to forward to be a red line and then we don't do it that won't work. that doesn't deter anybody. it happens when they are strong in her view is strong and resilient and we are willing to stand by their word. >> jamil jaffer at the national security as it did the founder of -- in michigan democrats line. >> hi. i had some concerns about his comments on china because a lot of the businesses here in the united states are moving over there to cut costs and havehe cheaper labor because they don't

want to pay american workers their due wages are fair wages. it's much cheaper for them to go to china and to exploit their labor contracts with the government to operate there. additionally on the taiwan front war with china in defending taiwan is one we cannot win both militarily or economically mostly due to the fact that the chinese military can operate in the region for moree efficiently than our military cann do. a good piece of evidence for this would be a recent piece from the pentagon and various simulations they conducted the u.s. military lost.

so i think it would be advantageous to do things that put our country at risk. >> thanks color. >> he is exactly right that we talk about the american economy and our reliance on china and the export of our jobs to china that's a huge problem. american companies are funding their oppression happening in china against leaders and and against udus. we are funding chinese threats against taiwan but it's because we are investing money and sending jobs over there is so he's exactly right. those jobs should be here in america and if we have them overseas we should happen to rely upon where we have trade agreement and that's why this is so important. it's important to call out the real economic challenges and do what daniel saying which is

bring those jobs back and when it comes to the military point that daniel made he's exactly right as well china is building a 400 deep water navy that will be 25% larger than the american navy brig production today. their nuclear would be triple the size and much larger than u.s. and russia. they were about to triple it and we are doing largely nothing. we are worried about how to build the volume. we need to get ahead of that into daniel's point about the chinese being able to operate against taiwan is precisely because we don't have the forces in the region. precisely because we haven't supply the power we need to the real threat that china poses they discounted at some level.

they don't have the equipment needed so we need to make sure they have the w right equipment. daniel is right we don't want to get in a word or we have losses or we could pretend to lose and i don't think we would but we could potentially lose in the best way to win that war is by having to turn to the region and making clear to china if they did invade taiwan we would respondd forcefully and that's why it's so important we have forces there and we have the force here in the united states to carry out that. >> david ignatius has a column in the "washington post" is the best thing. present by good to in talking about these issues isno in diret conversation with the chinese leader.t would he think about that strategy? >> i don't disagree. that conversation is to be backed by the person has to be clear about his position. he has to be very clear. he's gone on television a couple

of times and said very clearly america would defend taiwan militarily if needed. the problem as every time the president said it two or three times every time he says that within minutes the white house staff comes out jake sullivan and people from the national security council they will supply thewa taiwanese with weapons. there's a difference between american troops in taiwan and dweaponry. so whicho is that? is that the president or his staff? we know the president is making the choice. he needs to be clear with president xi. we will defend taiwan militarily and if you crossll that line you better believe we will do it. the problem today is if that the chinese were to invade taiwan tomorrow we wouldn't be there in time to beas successful or bluer successful it would come to a

huge cost as daniel pointed out earlier. by having forces there it's giving the taiwanese the capabilities that and they need to defend themselves as well alongside of her forces. that is what will deter bad behavior and david ignatius is right. unfortunately given a red line and our abandonment of the british allies and their ivana the frustration of failure to take the fight to the russians and ukrainians beginning off the conflict and our churches exit from afghanistan we are viewed around the world as they should be as the fiercest political adversary and the strongest allied forefront. >> the piece in the nation if you want to readad it on line yu can find it on line. los angeles on the independent line. >> good morning. two points but he said something

about afghanistan and obama, whatever. he was given refuge in afghanistan but the plans start with the 16 who started in saudi arabia. it wasla the largest military ad in history. that's. the second thing before nixon became president china was one of the barokez countries in the world. it wasn't until we imposed affirmative action that did job started pouring out of this country and the unions became banned. we are creating our own problems and we keep financing destruction. it's. >> think you color. >> he's from my hometown and he's exactly right. one of the challenges is we in a bipartisan way president nixon and democratic presidents alike

across-the-board for 20 or 30 years that we could reform china and if we opened up china to capitalism in the global economy can we create a one china policy that china would be reformed and we would be communism or they would be a more western version of communism. obviously that didn't happen. politicians across the aisle were wrong. they took capitalism and made it their own and created economic bet stoler -- they are an authoritarian regime. talk about if you don't have the party line you can't get on buses or use public transportation. they had surveillance of their people. china makes our surveillance look like amateuran hour. there is no rule of law.

they conduct surveillance through huawei or tik tok and gathering of that data. the american government does that too. we do it with federal judges at appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. we can debate if it's good or bad but the chinese governmentde communist party, judge jerry executioner. there's no wind between where the chinese government operates or chinese government operates, they do it all as a communist party so there's no real comparison. and paul is right we allowed it happen. they have brought over a billion people live in poverty and they the done it on the backs of system is corrupt the system that rewards a communist party leadership in a system that

represses its own people. even though there've been millions looked out the poverty they don't offer mobility and at the end of the day it's a repression of regime that's exploited abroad. b from albany on a republican line, bill, go ahead. >> thank you. mr. jaffer thanks for being on and i agree with you and it's refreshing to hear someone speak so honestly about this. for years asso he said the unitd states and as far as trading with china they just let things go and for example all of our pharmaceuticals and our ingredients 97% of them are made in china. if they wanted to stop sendingst us pills the daily pills that people survive on they could do it. that's a matter. they can do things from within and they keep can take control

of wall street now to prove that happens is all the administrations beforehand like him or hate him boisterous or not president trump said to china okay you will pay tariffs and pay your fair share and we will bring our industries back to the united states. that was startingdu to happen ad then look what happened. wuhan, gain of function research the worst virus in history hits us and stops everything in its tracks and stops trump from being reelected. >> okay. >> pedro bill is right we have becomena -- the pharmaceutical precursors. the question is are we willing to do what it takes to bring

that back to them as they and bring it to our allies and partners for their partners in europe or asia. in the western hemisphere. the challenge i think pedro that we face that bill highlights is it's not just pharmaceutical. you thinkk about critical minerals and the e. v. revolution and what we need for their tesla or their vault or whatever it may be they require things like nickel and cobalt. i work with u.s. metal. d the problem of course is 96% were 90 plus% of the world -- comes from africa. so imagine to china if china -- tomorrow we won't feel the fine cobaltmo anymore. we can't build betters the need for the electric revolution and if our economy turns off of gas

powered cars in the next 10 or 15 or 20 years what are we going to do? this is a huge problem. and by the way cobalt is one small example. we have all kinds of rare earth metals. not that they are that rare it's hard to get out of with environmental rules and even though they might be paid for parts in parts of the world if china controls the processing that's a huge problem. what i think is great is now it's clear they will be a bipartisan solution and if they get wet legislation through that committee and the committee to work with them with congressman gallagher and krishnapa morrissy working across the island figure out a way to get legislation through. >> one of those bipartisan

efforts may not happen in the house foreign affairs committee. the committee itself has legislation which would ban tik tok of united states through what he think about that? >> i think congressman mccaul who leads the foreign affairs and that he is right. this is the right thing to do and let me tell you why. a lot americans say why does s anybody care if there's a chinese application that has videos of my kids dancing. why does that matter? i will tell you why. the amount of data that tik tok gathers like who your social network is and the games and things you arehe interested in batalona is not that interesting. but you combine it with the huge credit card data that we know the chinese government is involved in and thing of the chinese government has huge amounts of data that every single security clearance that thee american government -- and

you train it on that data and look at where people go where they travel to and who they stay within what hotels they stay in their credit card records their security background checks on where they live and where they grow. that's a very powerful tool to assist in what people are going to do next and how they behave and how they act. today it may be tik tok. tomorrow may be the us military. that's why it's so important. why can't we jeff: tik tok an american company and it then it will all be find? it doesn't work that way unfortunately it's not just social media. people complain about how her -- imagine if the american companies cooperating with the rule of law in our judicial system of the chinese control company. >> gregory meeks the ranking

member had the statement a the lng thing republicans fear banning an app used by 100 millioncans infringing on their freedom of expression. he goes on to say that biden administration has existing authorities have privacy concerns with the app. you may want to explain. the cfius is a committee on foreign investment has. any time a foreign company buys assetse united states they can review it under certain circumstances and this is a case where a long time ago tik tok got lot of traction in the united states. even though that transaction was a longan time ago cfius under te trump administration began and whether was appropriate in an effort to push tik tok out.

worth noting to congressman meeks point i respect his view the trump administration sought to ban tik tok executive board that biden administration is conducting a review on that executive order the still ongoing. they recognize the reality of the threat. to say somehow bending tik tok would be like burning -- the old days of american book banning this is not the same thing. let's be very clear we arere talkingki about a government controlled data collection tool with american authors. they are not the same thing. again with all due respect to congressman meeks these are not the same thing in comparing the two is like comparing apples to donuts. >> jeff in michigan in dearborn on the democrats line hi thanks for waiting. >> good morning pedro, love the

jacket. >> thanks, go ahead. >> corp. despise their workers so t much they'd rather send thr production to china giving up 51% ownership with access to the chinese market to materialize. who signs up for that? >> one of the things we haven't talkeded about yet is what china requires any western many in the chinese market. they require them to engage in relationships joint partnerships with chinese companies and part of theit intellectual property d inside of china. it isn't simply about economic development for china so they can get access to intellectual property and build companies around that. it's a population that they could sell to.

c it never actually opened up the chinese market in an effective way. unfortunately you see problems happening in europe and you would think the europeans would -- we need to work with niceties and americanto collaborate in what china poses to the global order in a democratic system in our capitalist economy. they look at american companies and say you need to restrain american companies. they are too big andnd too powerful. these rapidly innovating companies are the engine that will allow the europeans at us to win this conflict with china. there's this partnership that were working on that needs to be emboldened. we need to work together in the same a is true of the allies in the indo pacific reason japan australia and india.

they are recognize the real threat that chinalo poses. the world's largest democracy is where my family is from. i think there's an opportunity with china and india with a common cause to recognize the real challenges. >> of you mormons withh her des, this is from florida the caller is on the independent line from florida. hello. >> hello. canst you hear mayo clinic k.? >> yes, you are on. gogo ahead. >> if you comment and a question about the chinese financial aspects of united states because of the choice o of dollars in government bonds which is part of our deficit. i am a combat wounded vietnam

veteran and we have fought the chinese in korea and we fought them in vietnam as well. a lot of people don't know that. my question to you sir mr. jaffer on the one hand it was suggested that the united states should enforce the monroe doctrine and shortly after that after our caller called then you agreed with the caller that we should not be telling south america what to do. with all due respect that is a contradiction in kenya clarify that and finally how much money as george mason university received from the chinese? think you kindly and have a nice day. >> thank you for your service as a combat wounded war veteran. there's so many like that is served their nation overseas and here united states of thank you for that and think you've are calling out what might be a potential contradiction on one hand and not telling her allies

and partners in latin and south america what towh do. that version could t involve as dictating conditions. we shouldn't do that. we should talk to them about the benefits of working with united states and working with the western alliance and in the hemisphere and recognize that there threats of china poses. we shouldn't tell them what to do and the monroe doctrine version could be. and it's not what i meant by that so thank you for calling that. i can tell you the national security school doesn't get a single penny from any foreign government or foreign company we would never take a penny from them. and we disclosed this on our web site but it's all foundation funded by a-9 parfitt 501 c3. simon national security our

guest is the founder of the nationalhe security institute of george mason university law school, jamil jaffer thanks for your time. >> thanks pedro.