U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns on U.S.-China Relations

NEW YORK, June 6, 2024 - Ambassador Nicholas Burns delivers remarks on the state of U.S.-China relations and discusses related issues with Orville Schell, vice president and Arthur Ross director of the Asia Society Center’s on U.S.-China Relations. (58 min., 56 sec.)
Subscribe for more videos like this: AsiaSociety.org...
---
Support Asia Society today: AsiaSociety.org...
---
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay connected: asiasociety.or...
---
Facebook: / asiasociety
Instagram: / asiasociety
Twitter: / asiasociety
LinkedIn: / asia-society
#asiasociety #asiasocietynewyork #uschinarelations

[@iamactor]

While you keep selling weapons to Taiwan, you want us to cooperate with you? Are you kidding?

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

What is the problem of US selling weapons to Taiwain? Does the mighty China fear the little Taiwan? (I think it is/must be clearly the other way around) After China made over 45 years a giant step forward based on its own ability but with strong support of technology/knowledge/.... transfer from the West, China dared to become with Xi Jinping leadership aggressive in several ways that are the hell on earth for US/Western people. To contain China's aggressiveness somehow US has and is showing currently it also can be aggressive (neither technology access nor machine access for advanced semiconductors, custom tariffs). China has now time to re-consider its aggressiveness/targets and depending on China's decisions as well as US/Western thinking the situation will develop either in a way that is fruitful for both or the West becoming more and more aggressive to contain Chinas increasing aggressiveness. Your democratic relatives in Taiwan do enjoy a quite confortable life (US had no objection on them to become the world 90% supplier of advanced Semiconductors), but on dictatorships like Russia you can see how US/the West thinks and acts (the damage caused by dictatorships in WWII was huge) and Xi Jinping is obviously favorizing a strong communist party (or Xi Jinping) dictatorship for China. I am not sure China is willing to go to a democratic model as Taiwan, because only in such case I see a return to the cooperation as in the past possible. In case of a communist party dictatorship controlled mutual benefit interaction should be possible.

[@tianyizhang2581]

@@friedhelmschroter8124They didn’t afraid of Taiwan but the U.S.. political decisions and even ideology confrontation are not the real matter that both countries care; what they care about is how to make the biggest possible profits and stop the other make profits. In my view, what happens now and what might happen in the future could be zero-sum games.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@tianyizhang2581 1) The communist party has formally fixed as final date for the inclusion of Taiwan the end of Xi Jinping rulership (I understand 2035). No person in the West can see/understand how communist-China can succeed on this inclusion in a peaceful way seeing no willingness in Taiwan to give up democracy, the level of living standard they have reached being a member of the West. This leaves as only possibility the enforced inclusion (war) and communist-China shows daily that it seems to be committed to this by naval and airplane exercise around Taiwan. Taiwan is the 90% global share producer/supplier of today's strategically most important product, advanced Semiconductors. The West is so afraid of the situation that they just decided to spent huge money (about 50 billion) to set up production in US and Europe that will strongly reduce Taiwan share and where it is clear that this investment and more money is lost/from profit point senseless, because production in US/Europe is more expensive than current production in Taiwan. Because the West is extremely afraid (the loss of 90% of advanced semiconductors would be a global catastrophe) they are forced to do things they would never have considered if communist-China would not have become as aggressive as US sees it and Europe is slowly following suit. 2) Above purely logical decisions are indeed superimposed by several kind of ideologic confrontations. A) US strongly prefers human rights, freedom of speech and individual freedom. In contrast communist-China continuously empowers communist party control by violating human rights, limit freedom of speech and individual freedom more and more. US is very confident its preferences are superior, because they have an about 200 years track record in which the world has reached an incredibly high wealth and the US allies at least since the end of WWII, when US imposed a rather stable democracy on Europe, do enjoy a long time of peace. During WWII US has fought 2 extreme dictatorships and this experience including getting a quite good understanding of how dictatorships do work resulted in their basic decision democracy is in today's modern world the better/much more stable system (I agree to this, but democracy also demands a highly educated electorate, because persons with low education tend to decide by feeling and have less clear view on the not always the truth telling politicians). I do understand that in contrast Chinese tend to see dictatorship rather positive, because they experienced under dictatorship an incredible improvement in wealth (however I think this incredible improvement is rather based on US support, because democratic Taiwan-China has reached a considerably higher level than dictatorial China). And Chinese should in their thinking/judgment also consider the Mao period, where the realization of ideologic targets created a lot of harm. B) US strongly prefers democracy. They may tolerate dictatorships that do act neutral, but they do actively fight dictatorships that show aggressive actions. In several respect it is not at all understandable why US has first approached/invited China, set a positive mood to bring up China and continued this positive mood long time despite suffering not acceptable trade deficits. My only explanation is as follows: At the start US wanted to have with China an additional power to contain USSR+Warsaw Pact. Later US enjoyed a nice life with sometimes considered crappy, yet cheap Chinese products. China has fought a civil war communism - capitalism that resulted in mainland China becoming communist and Taiwan becoming capitalist. On Hongkong democracy crash down a few years ago communist China reconfirmed boldly that it has no intention at all to consider democracy. C) It is normal that every country does strive to its best. This applies for sure also to US and on many US actions it is not easy to understand what is targeted by US for the best of the global order and what is target for US first/America getting some advantage. In my understanding in most concrete cases you will come to the conclusion that both targets are intertwingled in a complex way, this means one is able to see in the same US action a) US is maintaining the world order and b) US is targeting its advantages. Being the global hegemon since WWII there is increasingly the danger the hegemon does increasingly act as dictator in bad direction for US first, because hegemon = only 1 country is a dictatorship. I am not sure what will be the final outcome, but I am sure at this moment quite a lot of Chinese people (like you) do overestimate the strength of China. China will not become the new global hegemon, but if China finds some way to change current negative Western mood at least to a reasonable neutral or slightly positive mood China will surpass the US. If China continues its aggressive way (worst case would be inclusion of Taiwan by force), the West will do everything to harm China as much as possible and this means China would have reached what is called a Pyrrhic-victory (may succeed to include Taiwan, but will lose a lot of wealth in total have lost). Zero-sum has only a diminishing small chance in this extremely wide range of possible results.

[@michaeljiang960]

@@friedhelmschroter8124 No problem of US selling weapons to Taiwan and China can't do much except yelling. Also no problem of China selling anything to Russia and the US can't do much either except yelling.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@michaeljiang960 I see it somehow different. US selling weapons to Taiwan should be no problem for China, as these weapons are sufficient only for defense/no real danger for China. In this situation I am asking myself, why is China yelling at all? China selling to Russia is contradicting US targets to reduce Russian military power and make Ukraine win against Russia. US is not only yelling, but applying sanctions. China selling to US/Europe has reached a new status. In the past US/Europe did the white collar work and China the blue collar work which was considered advantage for both sides despite US suffering a trade deficit far above any reasonable value. In the last 2/3 years China is showing in some product areas that it has catched up to do the white collar work also. I see this for example in Huawei having become the global market leader for G5 Base Stations. The most recent example is electrical cars where China is at least partially more advanced than US/Europe. This leads now to the danger, that substantial amount of workers/engineers may lose their job, because China still being on a rather low wage level in comparison to US/Europe. This has/will not only result in yelling, yet the relationship will completely change and both sides have to learn what is reasonable what not. On strategic targets China got even classified as an enemy resulting in US disallowing China access to the most advanced Semiconductors and this is a huge problem for China and not easy to overcome if at all. On Huawei Base Stations US made great efforts to kick out Huawei also by applying pressure on its allies not any more to order Huawei. On the electrical cars US has applied absolutely prohibitive 100% import duty not only on Chinese cars produced in China but also on Chinese cars produced at US's free trading partner Mexico. This is for me in total no yelling, but extremely harsh actions. On electrical cars Europe has also announced the introduction of import duty, yet only in the range of 10 to 30% depending on manufacturer and if I understand Europe has given China now some months to negotiate a new way of working together (selling products to each other without the danger of causing social unrest by workers/engineers losing their job) as the import duty will become valid only in a few months. Comparing the rather moderate EU stance on trade only you should understand that the much more harsh US stance is intertwined with US having changed its view on strategic targets to China as being an enemy and this is primarily associated to China's target on Taiwan "full inclusion", this means democracy crash down latest 2035 by war (nobody does see a chance Taiwan to agree "full inclusion" by free will).

[@sulandelemere]

Difference in opinion over what’s happening in Xinjiang and Tibet? Does he mean the rising living standards and dual language education? Could it be combating terrorism? Does the U.S. have any good examples of how it dealt with terrorism - Afghanistan, bordering Xinjiang was that a success? Maybe by difference of opinion, he means China should eradicate the people of these regions like what happened in North America? While this was a human rights tragedy of the past, does the U.S. behave more righteous today? Has it learnt from its colonial settler past and human rights tragedies of Iraq and Libya to name but two.

[@chriswong9158]

@@DDDrumpf Those Israeli bombs are not Made in China, but by a peaceful Nation call USA.

[@Andy-P]

Your comments would make a lot more sense if they were said in the 1870's

[@sulandelemere]

@@Andy-P In what way?

[@Andy-P]

@@sulandelemere what happened to native North Americans. Could be called genocide back then but now?

[@sulandelemere]

@@Andy-P respectfully, we still call it genocide today. If your point is that the U.S. (the elites that control the U.S.) have learned from past mistakes then this is wrong. The invasion of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - the destruction of Libya and Syria. These are just the more publicized wars and aggressions that constitute the greatest crimes of humanity post WW2. There is no other country that comes close to the destruction, death toll, and misery inflicted on humanity by the U.S. Obviously, I’m not blaming people for not waking up to this material fact - it takes a huge propaganda machine to cover up or neutralize these atrocities (usually in the form of presenting geopolitics as a simple battle between good and evil). So powerful is this machine that I even believe the U.S. ambassador is probably personally acting in good faith.

[@trustmeiknow1]

The Ambassador argues the US hasn’t changed its policy, the Chinese have. This is rational. China has grown. It has changed. The US is no longer a hegemon. The problem is that it consistently continues to act like one.

[@sheilawade433]

China modernized with US backing, while pirating patented US technology, then switched to a non-rules based rival paradigm, it seems. Americans consumers have sustained China's rise by purchasing cheap products made by the repressed workers in Chinese factories while deregulated corporate profiteers price gouged. Americans have good will for the Chinese people, but their leaders are exploiting them for an agenda that will not benefit them in the longterm. Xenophobic nationalist factions are reverting to past mistakes that will not likely lead to a better future for their children.

[@Andy-P]

thucydides trap. China will have to defeat America to take the crown

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

The ambassador argued China has changed to become aggressive! (I do agree) Why do you think China should be allowed to act aggressively without any negative consequences? (because China has grown?) Do you understand that the US has quite a bunch of allies? Economically/GDP-wise the sum of all these allies is larger than US, but militarily they are small. Seeing all these allies you have to think in China - US+allies and US+allies is a power that China cannot match, even in 20 or 40 years. This means even though GDP-wise China may in some time in future pass US (I see this not guaranteed, but if Western mood would get again to positive from current negative the chance is high), US+allies does stay the hegemon (only if US would act strongly bad on its allies this will change, but there is few sign for this and the allies stay, because US military might gives them protection). And seeing some of US actions and thinking very critical I would like China to become a 2nd force so that both need to agree which should avoid catastrophically wrong actions like NATO inviting Ukraine to beome a member. However only when China is acting in good intention and on Ukraine China did in my recent thinking not act in good intention, because instead of pushing NATO to give Russia a guarantee that Ukraine will never become a member China stood silent waiting Russia to succeed on its invasion (which even nearly all Western persons expected at the first day).

[@jrz8156]

You must be Adolf Hitler’s script writer in your previous life. 😂😂😂

[@jrz8156]

You must be the script writer for the supreme leader of the Third Reich, in your previous life.😅

[@LEOLIU-i7h]

if u treat everything based on ideology and political system, it is obviously prejudiced.

[@sakcee]

shut up ccp bot

[@windyelm5450]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns alleged China has changed a lot and became more aggressive. He needs to look from a different perspective. You simply cannot expect China to act the same way when they were relatively weak. When China becomes stronger, they sure will take steps to protect their core national interests, on issues like Taiwan, south China sea, etc.… So, the problem is not China has changed, it is the US has not changed its way to deal with a different, a lot more powerful China. Looking back, when secretary Blinken said to Chinese side in Anchorage that the US wants to talk to China from a position of strength. Yang responded: “in front of the Chinese side, the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength. The U.S. side was not even qualified to say such things even 20 years or 30 years back, because this is not the way to deal with the Chinese people. “

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

You should take note of following huge difference between China and US: US has taken its power during and after WWII to i) create a better world, carry global responsibility (first create a global order and then maintain this global order over 80 years in a lot of decisions and actions) beside of ii) fighting for its advantage. China has no history on i) and is an infant in thinking about global responsibility, but has started recently to proceed more aggressively on ii) fighting for China's advantage. From US perspective China can in this re-positioning related to huge change in power a) either integrate in the US created and up to now mainly by US maintained global order -and reform it slowly to match the Chinese view- or b) China can rebel to impose at least locally China's order. I believe US would accept China going way a) but China going way b) is not acceptable and several of China's recent aggressivity has to be interpreted as China going b). The great question in my view is now, will China change its way direction a) for the sake of trade advantages or does China want to continue is current direction towards b) which will result in my understanding in Cold War 2 (in worst case even in local hot wars).

[@hyuxion]

The question is: how many U.S. government employees can speak and understand Chinese? Without knowing your adversary, effective competition is impossible.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

US persons are in the lucky situation that they are native english speakers while most other countries persons more and more get used/agreed to speak some english as the global bridge language. 300.000 Chinese as students in the USA (where they need to speak english), but currently only if I remember correctly less than 100 US students in China would give some wrong image about the communication possibilities assuming communication would be possible only in Chinese.

[@Andy-P]

First understand China is the adversary, and many cases the enemy.

[@hyuxion]

@@Andy-P first understand China is a reality, it is not going away because USA does not like it. Then make decisions based on rational reasoning. There are many countries that US does not like in the world, live with the reality!

[@Andy-P]

@@hyuxion China is real, not going away. I do make decisions based on rational reasoning. Agreed US does not like some countries. So what is your point?

[@hyuxion]

​@@Andy-PI apologize if my comment came across as offensive. I intended to refer specifically to American politicians. My point is that Nicholas Burns seems to regret the US decision to allow China to join the WTO two decades ago. However, that decision is in the past. Today, the US should focus on dealing with China from a practical standpoint rather than an ideological one. China has been governed under the same system for seven decades, and this has not prevented the US from cooperating with China in the past. Instead of attempting to contain China to subject it to US power or engaging China to change its political system, why not interact with China as an equal member of the permanent UN Security Council, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter?

[@moyoyo7575]

永远傲慢自我为中心自嗨的安格鲁撒克逊人

[@chriswong9158]

Henry Kissinger Quote: “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” China PRC still treat Mr. Kissinger as a friend.... China PRC has no interest in Burns... How does USA not understand.

[@Andy-P]

USA does understand. It understands very well. USA doesn't have to do what CCP say

[@Rbb0828]

That Kissinger excerpt is the literal antithesis of the fuller quote and what was being said. He was warning against actions that would leave that message -“fatal to be an ally” here’s the context: Henry Kissinger said in November 1968, after Richard Nixon was elected U.S. president but before he took office: "Nixon should be told that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu (South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu-ed.) before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

[@BCSTS]

@@Rbb0828 Thank you for context.....makes a huge difference in understanding quote !

[@Rbb0828]

@@BCSTS you’re welcome 😌

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

I got extremely confused by your Kissinger quote, because what the words say is in complete contradiction to what I can see (being a democracy/friend brings you a prosperous wealthy and peaceful life, while American enemies like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, ... do suffer considerably). Why do you bring here such strongly wrong/misleading partial quote, while the full quote brought by @rbrookeb shows that your partial quote is if not completely wrong, then at least only valid in a very special context. Do you understand that saying "China PRC has no interest in Burns" reveals an extremely arrogant behavior/thinking, something Chinese often do blame on US? Burns is the embassador of US and in this function 1) he primarily does not express his personal thinking, but rather what the US decision makers have set as official US policy and 2) he reports to the US government details of what is ongoing/said/discussed in China to support new/revised US decisions. Basically Burns = the US government and your sentence has the meaning, China has not interest to speak to US, but simply does what it wants. A bluntly arrogant way!

[@ray911abc]

a new railway connecting china and europe is planned to be constructed. the starting point in china side is in xinjiang province. that's why us began to care about xinjiang

[@Andy-P]

What is going to be on the train? EU and China about to enter a trade war

[@rudykhoo7149]

Agreed with one china policy but their actions cannot honour the agreement. Agreed not to advance one inch towards USSR but their actions cannot honour their word.

[@yewlinchen6666]

How do US & China compete peacefully when we see arm twisting by USA?

[@MuffinManUSN]

25 Minutes things get a little spicy. Loving the passion yall

[@Beeyousel]

All are based on Western countries view and interests.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

Wrong, ambassador Burns only represents/speaks for the Joe Biden US government (he is not allowed to/should better not speak anything else, like his personal opinion or any other country opinion). In the case of US-China conflict the points brought up by the ambassador are same as most Western people/country thinking.

[@WWLooi-js8rl]

Master Cheng Yen of the famous Tzu Chi Foundation (Taiwan) has mentioned a few times, if the U.S. does not wake up, there won't be peace in this world.

[@tianyizhang2581]

American politicians are far smarter than you thought. They were assessing the costs of being a real enemy to China mainland and being a real enemy to Taiwan. Thats why American congress always pretended they didn’t hear Taiwanese voices and insists on one-China policy

[@ruudalonso]

Can you imagine how hard it is to debate with a propagandist where he is always right (US) and the counterpart is always wrong.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

Sorry, but the point of politics is not to debate and or to judge, but to decide the way into the future and if necessary to apply POWER to realize such decided way. If 2 countries have same opinion about one specific question into the future, no problem at all. But usually 2 countries have different opinions and in such case the more powerful opinion quite often prevails, but the deviation may also continue if not too large. In reality however there is a multitude of points open to decide on the way into the future and on some of these multiple points there may be agreement, on others there may be smaller or larger deviation and on some points there may be opposing/not at all matching opinions and the overall result is an extremely complex thing which gets summarized/simplified to positive, neutral and negative with resulting decisions/actions of the more powerful country.

[@WilliamMacLeod-en3pm]

It’s my understanding that the Chinese minister of defence is a political appointee and not equivalent to the US SECDEF so it’s weird to hear him described as the leader of the PLA

[@Kukura001]

China's Ministry of Defence is in fact the ‘foreign ministry’ of the Chinese army. The Minister of Defence is merely a spokesman, with no powers or subordinate bodies. In peacetime, politically and administratively, the PLA is under the jurisdiction of the Central Military Commission of CCP. In wartime, the PLA is under the command of the Joint Staff Department.

[@ggc7318]

​@chuatj, no one cares what Xi Xi Pee says too 😂

[@ggc7318]

​@@DDDrumpfget lost wumao!

[@ggc7318]

@@DDDrumpf is that all you can say? "Ha, Ha, Ha " ?

[@ggc7318]

@@DDDrumpf wumao when are you coming to USA illegally ?

[@jwchen6952]

Kishore Mahbubani or Jeffrey Sachs would have asked better questions of Ambassador Burns. GaoKao in China requires an English Essay for entry into college. We should require a Chinese language essay for the SAT or ACT here in the USA. Perhaps Kurt Campbell Dep State Sec can change his statements concerning what Chinese Nationals can learn in US Universities.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

In my thinking ambassador Burns presented very well the Joe Biden government view (which is in general supported by the majority of all Western people, however on details I think deviating opinions exists or may even prevail outside of US). If some other moderator would have asked better questions is for me not really important, as ambassador Burns possible answers are simply strongly limited (he represents/is Joe Biden US government only!), you should have catched it when some interesting questions got blocked by him. In my understanding English is commonly considered to be the global bridge language, I cannot understand why you want to change this or add to this mandarin? I am not sure what you mean by changing what Chinese can learn in US universities, yet I do understand many Americans/Europeans are not willing to go into difficult technical studies while many Chinese are still eager to learn which in my view will result more and more Chinese doing such work in Western companies, also in top position. In how far a protection of advanced knowledge can be in long term any advantage is unclear, because China has in my view the capability and is on the way to reverse this situation. How far this will realize needs to be seen, yet China's speed of catch-up on high technology is breath taking and while the block on the most advanced Semiconductors has a high chance to become effective I see less chance in other areas. And if China would retaliate in future by blocking the West to have access, what was gained overall?

[@oka2046]

Why can't China be stronger? So any strong/assertive position from China is viewed as a negative.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

I don't think the US was/is worried about China getting stronger. US got angry when with the take over of Xi Jinping China started to become aggressive. This aggressiveness was found in 1) China crashing down the democratic freedom that existed in Hongkong from the British rulership. To crash down this freedom China/Hongkong issued a new law that puts any person who is criticising the Hongkong government even only verbally to go into jail for many, many years (this law resulted in freedom of speech being disappeared and nobody daring to say any critical word or even going to public protest/demonstration as you can see regularly in democratic countries). This crash down of the democratic freedom does violate also the treaty the UK had signed with China -the stop of democratic freedom was fixed much later, may be around 2050-, this means China intentionally violated a contract it had signed/was bound to for the sake of ???? (I never understood) 2) China does claim all South China sea to 100%. This includes all island, this means China wants to steal several Islands from the other countries that are located on the South China sea and have islands more close to them than these Islands are to China. And China does not only act by verbal claim, but sends out it ships to push away these other countries fishermen or military ships. 3) China has set a concrete time date for the inclusion of Taiwain into China and this inclusion is obviously intended to be done by military force with a complete crash down of the democracy Taiwan has/applies (because similar to Hongkong, the people living in Taiwan do prefer democracy which resulted for them in a quite wealty live -more early and higher than in China-, a live that they prefer, this means they would fight back on an military attack). To show how concrete its inclusion intention is China does react diplomatically extremely harsh when other countries politician go to Taiwan (especially US ones) and China is permanently running military trials by airplane, ships etc. around Taiwan. 4) China has formed some form of alliance with Russia. And for US this is contra-productive, because US thinks Russia has invaded Ukraine to take it over/get it under its control, but US categorically denies the point that NATO (and EU) have behaved in a way that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine to avoid Ukraine becoming a NATO member and to appease the civil war on Ukraine's donbas region that was ongoing since 2014 and had caused 12/13000 persons dead with massive damage (I guess without this categoric denial despite clear logic/facts for it best summarized/explained by John Mearsheimer they would have to conclude that they have some main responsibility for this war which would be a desaster like their 2003 invasion to Iraq). 5) China has cracked down some of its private companies to strengthen the control the communist party can do/exercise and is strongly working to suppress freedom of speech/thinking by Internet control and policing/putting into prison for long time people who speak out/about items the communist party wants to suppress. For US this is same behaviour as dictators are showing, yet China does it smarter and by its power much more stringent than a dictator could do this suppression (as a result of this suppression I understand a certain number of Chinese have left China to live in other countries). Into this category also falls what has happened strongly and is ongoing moderately in Xingjiang. In US what has happened in Xingjiang. would not have been possible, because the US by its constitution is not allowed to limit a persons freedom unless this person has committed a crime. For an US person getting knowledge about what has and is happening is like hell on earth, even if China may have some reason as aligning Moslems which is more moderate than US killing ISIS. 6) By its strength (size, education level and cost of workmanship), but also by government subsidies China is targeting to dominate in future more market segments than it does today. The US has decided to actively counteract this will of China by applying limits on technology access/transfer especially on Semiconductors and using custom tariffs to allow much higher paid US workers to keep their jobs or get a job. And in contrast to China's believe it was strong enough to challenge US, I think China will recognize especially on the Semiconductors that it may not be able to achieve what a combination of sientists and workers in several Western countries continue to improve continuously. And if to my surprise China will succeed I guess China will ultimately recognize it had paid a punitive price/effort. On the custom tariffs I think China will understand that some control is necessary, because US/Europe cannot compete when even their simple workers out of social reasons/the general cost structure do earn several 1000, while a worker in China my today earn only 1000 in combination with China on production technology/efficiency being close or on par with US/Europe. In conclusion: The US is not worried about China becoming stronger (the prove is Taiwan where US allowed Taiwan to get an incredible 90% global market share on the most advanced Semiconductors), but the US hates China to progress towards communist party dictatorship, oppress its neighbor countries, targeting inclusion of Taiwan by war. By showing strong aggressiveness based on a certain strength China had achieved because the West has 50 years ago decided to integrate it into its democratic community by transferring huge amounts of technology to China, China has lost with Xi Jinping taking the lead this support of the West to a large amount. Where exactly the new equilibrium will be, is partly also determined by China, its willingness to be aggressive and its way of rulership (especially for US dictatorships are a no go. Hitler's NazI "dictatorship", Japan's Military "dictatorship" caused globally and also the US huge harm and US sees this continued in a long row up to the Russian "dictatorship" with the war against Ukraine.)

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

There is some truth in your words as mentally speaking it is always difficult to accept that somebody else succeeds to degrade you to position No.2. This mental acceptance gets even lower, when you strongly supported this someone else to become strong and one key and absolutely neccessary cornerstone (but there are others) for China's success since 1970 was US good mood on China. Good mood requires that China behaves on major points as US would like China to develop into the future. This was somehow the case until about 2010, but then China more and more developed in a way not in agreement with US and after having seen no change on this contrary to US desired development despite clear warnings to China US finally took hard decision and changed from positive to China to a certain level of hostility on China and targets now to contain China, because US doesn't like to run again in a war like WWII, where 2 quite powerful countries expanded their terror regimes over other countries. To avoid China expanding its potential terror regime US is now determined to contain China. If this hostile mood is motivated by the mental fear to become No.2 or by the danger of China spreading terror over at least some part of this globe is not really important to answer (my guess is both items are strong pushers for the change in US mood, but I am unable to say which is the more dominant one), because it is only important to what kind of decisions in US, but also Europe and the rest of the world China's recent behaviour/development direction will lead. Just for your impression: I have heard a US senator saying Japan has decided to double its military spending until 2030. If true, is this based on Japan planning to attack China, or Japan fearing an attack by the also militarily permanently getting stronger China? A little different in Europe. Here the Ukraine war forces Russia to invest heavily in its military. Europe now fears after the Ukraine war finishes some time in future attacks by this militiarily strongly strengthened Russia on other European countries more to the West and there is great discussion about drastic increase in military spending, yet the high social spending does not really leave room, money is tight. A huge problem Europe created for itself sticking to the idea that Ukraine should become a NATO member! (an absolute nonsense for me that already caused a lot of harm and more to come) Not clear if this can be of any relevance, but on Taiwan-China US had no problem Taiwan to become the 90% producer globally for the most advanced Semiconductors, the strategically most important global product generating already today more turnover than oil and expected to grow to much higher levels in future. Taiwan-China in contrast to mainland is democratic but also of quite small size, this means unable to built up a real threat. You can discuss for yourself which of both facts, small size or democratic was the dominant one for US to allow Taiwan's 90% dominance. The correction of this critical dependence on Taiwan is now factory set-up in US and Europe and for both locations Taiwan's TSMC is beside Intel setting up the new factories. So TSMC will continue to compete with Intel for success while if TSMC would have been a China company there would have been today no OK/support for investment in US and Europe. In other words I am not sure how US would have reacted in case China would have decided by 2010 to develop into a democratic way and would in this political organization surpass US economically (to surpass US militarily China will need several decades if China ever wants/is willing to spent such huge money). But I am quite sure that European (and other country) support for US in such case would be close to zero.

[@garyhuang2625]

The US ambassador to China referenced mutual defense treaty and strong military deterrence, a learning from D-day. This is not comforting. The only good news is that he didn't say pre-emptive.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

In my understanding mainly China geostrategic decisions brought US to change mood on China from positive since about 1971 to first neutral than negative and recently even a certain level of hostile. China getting addressed by a certain level of hostile mood from US is indeed no comfortable situation, especially as the situation is highly complex, in my opinion US took wrong decisions around Ukraine to get a NATO member and this wrong decisions makes the total situation such complex that it is nearly impossible to resolve, to bring back to normal. The major good news I picked-up was, US will continue to issue a huge number of students visas and US has also an interest that more US students are studying in China (unclear is if US is actively doing something to reach the target of 8.000 instead of currently on 800 Americans studying in China). I interpret this student news in the way US has not yet given up the hope China to change course. What China would be ideally expected to change got clearly addressed, yet what China is willing to change is up to China internal decisions, at this moment US just makes clear to China the past time of only yelling/barking is gone, US does now act/is biting.

[@garyhuang2625]

@@friedhelmschroter8124 US has used many reasons for hostilities towards China. Fundamentally, their differences lie within their culture and they each sit at the opposite end of the table. Frankly it would be beneficial for each side to take a couple of steps towards the middle and learn from each other. I believe the humble man will succeed.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@garyhuang2625 Can you please make a short list of what you consider as "hostilities" and please add a view words for each reason you see. I don't need a long text, but based on the words you provide me, I would like to do some more deep research for my better understanding, because in such conflicts it is necessary to go quite into the details for clear understanding (for your info, I have just loaded the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on Philippines versus China dated from 2016 which is a 480 pages PDF and just from the number of pages you can easily understand how complex the situation is - US want to apply this verdict, but China rejects it and for certain sovereignity questions China has the right to reject, but ....). (Up to now my list of hostilities only includes following 2 items: 1) US blocking China from the most advanced Semiconductors and 2) US imposing 100% import tariff on electric cars. On both I could not assign a clear reason on China except US wants to act hostile, US will show China who is the master on this globe) I don't believe misunderstandings out of cultural differences are THE REASON for the hostilities, but I can imagine such misunderstandings to play a minor role (only idea out of gut feeling: 20%) while the majority (80%) is most probably several geostrategic decisions by China are in conflict with US. Your proposal, both sides to calm down and then to find a compromise is not really helping, because on geostrategic decisons there is very few possibility for compromise (your are deciding either for or against but the compromise a little for and at same time a little against is not really working). Take the case Taiwan. Either you are doing a peaceful full re-unification (will of US) or your are realizing the full re-unification by force/war. I cannot imgine in this case how a compromise can look like, because a little war cannot be a little peaceful. On the case of 100% import tariffs for electric cars I agree your idea, it would be easy to find a compromise, but this point is not at all important for US, they do look mainly into the geostrategic decisions China has taken. Take another example, the relation established between China and Russia with the clear intention to help each other when fighting against US or getting fighted by US. Such decision your are either taking to fight against US or not to fight against US. Your compromise, to fight a little against US but at same time not to fight a little against US does not make any sense. And in above a little in detail consideration you can run along all the conflict items and I think your compromise idea is seldom possible to find. I clearly understand that in some cases (for sure) bad/wrong US action did force China to decide as it did, yet on other points I see no such bad/wrong US action, but China willfully rebelling against the US imposed global order. And US has now simply decided China dared too much rebellion, now it is time to show the rebel who is the global master and I don't believe China is the global master. I think China needs to reform the global order somehow, but on the 2 possibilities a) open rebellion causing direct conflict is not so good, better is b) basically accepting the US imposed global order but within the details rebelling/reforming, looking for China's advantage.

[@michaeljiang960]

All we did are correct, all they did were wrong, all their faults.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

Sorry, but such wording is a judgement, however politics needs to decide how the future shall look. Each country has certain reasons why it will decide either or another way and it is important to know/understand IN ADVANCE how another country will react in case of either or in case of another and what the embassador did was bring were certain examples with an explanation of why what has been decided/acted or changed US mood on China. Politics is not about judgement, but about POWER and how to exercise it. If 2 countries/sides have different opinion about a certain subject, their respectic power will strongly influence the outcome/final decision on such different opinion.

[@saeedshafqat1830]

Interesting, informative, insightful in providing American perspective on China and the how the US views China as strategic rival and would sustain this rivalry in the future.

[@renfrewwu168]

I think the hermetic principle of saying “all truth is but half truth” applies here. My opinion is that the speaker is very poise and well spoken. Great presenter, but hasn’t presented himself to fully understand the Chinese sides by being in their shoes. It takes a lot for someone to be able to balance different views. I think Mr. Burn still carry a great deal of preconception and bias which is understandable.

[@Nw-n6w]

Speak with truth in honour to the universal karma law US. Hope to see a better sincere humane and not a hypocrite government in US.

[@marylaistirland6864]

I don’t agree

[@MegaSuehan]

This is a very good example of American wolf-warrior diplomacy.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

Sorry, but I fail to see in embassador Burns' words any wolf-warrier diplomacy (here you should stick to persons who actually think or do behave so, or to acts where US did act/speak so). In my view embassador Burns quite well presented not his personal view, but the view/position of current US administration under Joe Biden. In my case I agree many points he brought up, have somehow different opinion in the details of a few points and I am in full opposition when he dared to call Russia/China/Germany and France in 2008/most of Southern Hemisphere countries "NOBODY".

[@MegaSuehan]

@@friedhelmschroter8124 When an ambassador is so arrogant as to say " We don't want to live in a world where the Chinese are the dominant country.". Well, what he doesn't know is that the majority of the global south also do not want to live in a world dominated by the US.". His also a liar spreading lies about the Chinese economy and about Xinjiang Uighurs, Xizang, Hong Kong and Taiwan. He is now in China for more than 2 years and he can't even produce any solid substantive proof of any oppression or 'genocide'. What he says are all western narrative. As an ambassador, you don't keep spreading propaganda and lies about your host country. You don't see the Chinese ambassadors in the US or other host countries keep trashing the host countries. The Chinese ambassadors normally say things which are in response to western propaganda, mainly defensive in nature. However, what the US ambassador says or does is offensive.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@MegaSuehan Thanks to detail your Chinese view, which improved a little my understanding about the nature/reason of the conflict US-China. I agree, Burns saying your quoted sentence is not a way to avoid conflict, but it describes in my understanding the US/West view quite well/exact and for sure you should reply as what you wrongly assume/describe as Burns doesn't know. And in my personal image the reality is, when you would ask both the same number of Western and Chinese people do you like to live as a free choice in US/West or in China a majority would chose US/West and not China (unless such reasons as language, family and social contacts are considered). Also if you would ask all people worldwide, do you like to live under an US global order or a China global order I assume a majority will tend to select the for sure not ideal yet rather well known US global order, while there is no idea at all how a China global order would look like, because in relation to US China is a minimum of 80 years late (US started to think in global order around WWII). There is basically no example how China would decide/act on certain global order problems. A huge problem for example for Europeans who may be forced at some time in future to decide either ... or ... To simplify: To protest is easy, yet to do better is in nearly all cases extremely difficult Based on my background knowledge I have not detected any lie! You would need to get more conrete allowing me to comment or learn facts I didn't know yet or even revise my postion on certain items of my background knowledge. On the Uighurs he bought up the human rights violation and there is no way China can deny these (China government is not denying, but blocks the claim by stating this is an internal matter and they are right, yet China has to accept it gets criticised on it). In addition China could easily counter claim for example citing Guantanamo or the lie based US invasion into Iraq which created ISIS onto which US acted by killing, while China's action on the muslim Uighur was rather oppression for a strong change of mind in advance of anything like ISIS could have occurred. Hongkong is also a matter China cannot deny. The last points of freedom remaining from the UK rulership got crashed by force to align Hongkong society 100% to mainland. On Taiwan the diplomatic and military terror China does apply is also not possible to deny. I do not see any genocide in or by China and also no such claim by the embassador (if you can advise the time I will re-check what he said). For oppression the Uighurs, but also Tibet's resistance to accept rulership by Beijing and what happened in Hongkong are undenyable facts. In addition Western journalists working in China clearly sense that they are observed and hindered to look into certain aspects Western people like to claim. Western journalist have also a tendency to contact and speak to persons who are critic and rebel against the China internal order and you find within this very very small group of people a lot of examples for oppression up to going into jail for having been the lawyer who defended such rebels on their legal case in court -this is at least the assumption when such people suddenly disappear. Another case that became popular is a Chinese playing international tennis tournaments and who said most probably by mistake something critical about China/Chinese politicians causing a strong reaction of China on her (for Western people not possible to understand, in US free speech is such a high good, that nothing you say will have any kind of consequence, you can even call the president a liar while in Europe the free speech is slightly limited, because calling somebody a liar you must have court acceptable proof, otherwise you get a minor -money- fine). Yes, what the embassador said was only the view of the Joe Biden US government (neither his personal, nor the Donald Trump view or the view of all Western people). However I can confirm you that most Western people do agree this view, what the embassador said. It is not the job of an US embassodor to present a deviating view by China or anybody else. And what the embassador said does get permanently confirmed to China by new US actions/decisions wherever something needs to, can be decided or acted on up to revision of previous status. Your opinion of what Chinese embassadors are doing is wrong. They do act in similar way (each embassador has its own personality causing some deviation), yet as embassador you have no choice because otherwise your country or the country you are working in will "kill" you (fire/replace you or declare you a person non grata, this means the embassodor would be forced to leave China). I agree, that non-US embassadors are more rarely "aggressive" and that Chinese embassadors may tend to speak more through flowers, in the sense that US is THE POWER that can bite all others quite strongly in case of conflict, meaning nobody has interest in an open conflict with US, while US is forced (and enjoys to a certain extent) to be quite often in conflict to maintain the global order.

[@susanpang1173]

Ambassador of America,stop talking rubbish , get the evidence from the Fact.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

For which facts to you miss the evidence? Please get concrete then you may get some advise where you can find such evidence. For me the ambassador very well explained what the Joe Biden US government does think about China (did not talk any rubbish). One may agree or have different opinion, yet on what ambassador Burns said the only importance is that each sentence/word must be in agreement with Joe Biden US government thinking.

[@RandyAbraham-xf5qp]

I enjoyed this discussion and always enjoy being informed by Ambassador Burns about our most challenging relationship, with China. I wonder if he felt that the Obama administration’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership represented a serious effort to advance our interests in the Asia Pacific region, and if he feels that our withdrawal, under Trump, represented a strategic retreat in the face of Chinese expansionism and Russian adventurism?

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

While I basically agree to Ambassador Burns comments on China I complete disagree with his absolute denial that NATO bears responsibility for Russia to invade Ukraine. Burns should be fully aware that Germany as well as France objected the US intention to invite Ukraine/Georgia to become NATO members. Does Burns really think Germany and France are I qoute "nobody". And this US adventurism to invite these countries has led now to the miracle objective that Ukraine (a military nobody) shall win against the 2nd largest atomic might. Don't you think that US adventurism would be the better description for such situation compared to Russian adventurism? And that the US likes "adventurism" you should have seen on the 2003 invasion of Iraq and elsewhere. Crash down of the Trans-Pacific Partnership showed indeed that US is not really an Asia Pacific country as Burns in a weak way argumented by citing Hawai, Alaska, some tiny Island and California. I believe the Trump retreat is rather based on reduction of trade deficit. However, US is involved in Asia Pacific by its allies Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and in some distance Australia and US wants/strongly targets to be involved in the development of this region, because it will become the future global core of economic activity seeing the ability of rapid development and the number of people (China + India alone = 3 billion, this means roughly 10x US). China has a 1000/2000 years track record of no will to expand and I don't see that this has changed. In this sense I am wondering how you speak about "Chinese expansionism"? China is rather setting up protection (the great wall) and does clean up some disputed areas. Some of the conflicts with US are originated in the fact US setting up a wall of military bases and allies around and as close as possible to China. If I would be China i would also push US away, the same way US pushed USSR away during the Cuban missile crisis, because US has a long long track record of being hostile if something/somebody is not to its pleasure.

[@whiteface8745]

He did a good job to paint China as the troublemaker

[@tengchuankhoo6585]

Is this the same Nicholas Burns who is a diplomat for hire linked to the Cohen Group?

[@MegaLeeJB]

I see many shops selling vapes in China, certainly in Shenzhen... I've also seen various ppl using them.

[@andywalker7547]

Keep up the good work! From Sydney AUS. 🌏

[@Santeh60]

Is that good work? I can't understand what's their purpose as ambassador. Isn't it to foster good relationship between countries? After all these years, why is there so much bitterness in the American hierarchy?

[@andywalker7547]

Its tough work and its not easy but we need to connect/talk/and do the best we can. Theres 2 big tigers in the room and we just need to get used to it. Also, lets be honest anyone including myself in the comment board for this video couldn't do a better job in a 1000 years. Peace out ( no more responses from me)

[@ecaterinanicolaescu4462]

Good dey❤❤

[@johnhuan2417]

if you have any questions and interrupt us you will be escorted out

[@privatemalone8282]

Oh No. China is beating us to our game we have played over the tens of years. Boo hoo hoo.

[@LouisFobb-zs9hv]

Excellent!

[@tipupakoro5729]

The dude is precious in his bs. lol

[@ChangGengLai]

The American version of wolf warrior. Interesting.

[@daniera7635]

Nicholas Burns, what a remarkable human being...Keep up the excellent work in protecting our global democracy. You have my full support from Melbourne.

[@patriciabray5726]

The exchanges programs and the increase of students is positive for a new generation in both China 🇨🇳 and the US. Having been involved in hosting and housing the Ping Pong Team and then inviting a delegation from the All China Women's Federation to join the first anniversary of the "The Fourth UN Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace women are moving around the world in their communities on health, against violence and corruption, economic opportunities to name a few! Enlighted Men are working together with women 😊

[@edwardallangabor850]

We are extraordinarily fortunate to have Ambassador Burns as a leader in building sustainable bridges for the future. Al

[@tylert9875]

This is the problem, too many intellectuals with cushy jobs pushing an ideological stand that does not work anymore. 😅

[@isaia273]

Two American presidents and one vice president have visited Croatia and Russian president was not once here. So who started the war? Putin was in Slovenia and Serbia but not in Croatia. In previous incarnation Russian national anthem was composed in Croatia and so many other songs. Us insisting on Christianity is debilitating and harms humanity but it harms Croatia the most. Confucius and Lao Tzu are incarnated in Zagreb and were sent to China on the mission. Mao Zedong is also here, reincarnated. And this is his land of origin. Croatia used to be in Yugoslavia, so presidents did not come to Zagreb. But since we have been independent, they have been coming. And the fact that Putin did not visit the fraternal Slavic country speaks against the USA. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Western puppets and destroyed the Soviet Union, but Putin is something else and deserves to visit us. That is my wish and I am certainly not alone among Croats in this wish.

[@Jacket_Men_shorts]

Thanks Ambassador for his time and perspective, just have one question, what prompted them to support an Autocracy i.e. China back in 2000 but not a democracy such as India which is their natural ally...I know China had better growth prospects and more dollar value for American companies but you don't disturb the world order even for a trillion dollar...We Indians know the America isn't a saint but on flip side is its better to have a 200 yr old democracy exercising control rather than a decade old autocratic country like China which has an ambiguous dream of Make China Great again, what a blasphemous mistake by USA think tank, sorry for that

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

The decision on China was already taken around 1970. Once this decision was taken it is extremely difficuclt to change course on such decision getting more and more power out of itself, this means getting incredibly large. India is in my image strong, yet I think you underestimate how much importance for China's succes did give the society structures inherent in Chinas DNA for centuries while in India the US disturbed/destroyed quite a lot. Consider also Chinas will and exercise of the 1-child strategy for me another key reason for China's success, because when you give birth to many children you tend to use them as slave workers while in case of only 1 children you push this to achieve highest possible income, this means highest possible education. In total, India is strong and will become stronger simply based on its huge population and ability to speak english (if I would be Modi I would decide English to become the only language in India). Yet in a direct competition India-China on same conditions my guess is, India would lose, would have no chance to be better than China. Anyhow, the basic decision to support other countries for cheap product supply to the West was politically already taken (a too high dependence on China is not good in case of any real conflict or in the sense of blackmailing), yet this decision still needs to get filled with life and in democracies it is not easy to get companies to realize such political will, if it is associated with huge effort or financial losses. And you should also be aware that the fact India is buying Russian oil will bring you in a similar conflict situation with US as China faces.

[@agriculturemachinedanhua3209]

ambassador is a good ambassador as Blinken

[@adriantan5807]

U get an ambassador to talk. What do u expect? Ra ra ra. That’s all.

[@whatsthat163]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns is an excellent ambassador. He articulates very clearly his country’s position and it’s very fair comment and not belligerent at all, unlike some other country’s spokesmen whose aggressiveness is so revolting

[@whatsthat163]

It’s easy for people to get carried away with partisan, diametrically opposing positions. But just let’s see what’s actually happening and going on-China’s behaviour simply scares its neighbours and heightens the danger of conflict with some of them, and with the US as a result. China insists that virtually all the sea belongs to it, citing historical apocrypha, repudiating the UN tribunal’s finding in favour of the claims made by the Philippines under the Law of the Sea. And very recently, Chinese ships have resorted to lasers, ramming and water cannons to keep Philippine ships away from the disputed shoals in the South China Sea. What logical conclusions would third parties to these actions draw?

[@whatsthat163]

I’m just looking at the situation in the South China Sea and the plight of the poor fishermen in Philippines trying to make living, and the last thing they want is some people taking away their rice bowls

[@Kukura001]

@@whatsthat163 Both are in Hague, but the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not an international tribunal and its findings are not considered to be international law.

[@Kukura001]

@@DDDrumpf Both are in Hague, but the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not an international tribunal and its findings are not considered to be international law.

[@Santeh60]

​@whatsthat163, it is necessary you need to step back several steps to learn what happened earlier. Your MSM has been lying to the Western public who reads or sees nothing else except all those big liars & propaganda machines churning out shit for you blinded & deafen public to consume.

[@edwinkwan4343]

All because of over assertion of a poor confidence lad still lost in the shame of the CR

[@StoicRoadCyclist]

He is definitely qualified to be the next secretary of state!👍👏

[@魏梓凡]

很精彩的访谈，非常认可伯恩斯大使的观点，感谢为中国百姓的人权发声。只是奇怪评论区一片倒的亲中反美论调，这些人都哪来的。

[@Kukura001]

Their people will choose and reform their own government, even by way of civil war. But human rights should not be used as a tool for the powerful to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

[@Santeh60]

Writing in Chinese doesn't mean you are Chinese, many axxholes had learned the language to very high level but their soul and mind had been washed clean while in the "LAND OF THE FREE & BRAVE"...believing it is a far better system for the people of China.

[@WWLooi-js8rl]

​@@Kukura001 The U.S. can't even provide the most basic human rights of shelter and a safe environment in their land. Look at all the tent cities and druggies and zombies across urban America. Check out Venice Beach, Kensington Ave to cite just two examples. Where I work, there are people living under the freeway and rams!!

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@kenbehrens5778 Human rights is only part of the story. Another one is freedom of speech and a 3rd key point is personal freedom (the state/your country can only jail you when you have committed a crime). In total this comes to the difference of democracy versus dictatorship. China is a communist party (or Ji Xinping) dictatorship, while Taiwan/US are democracies where regularly different persons become the leader and depending on the choice of the electorate this can be quite different/opposite directions, just compare Biden to Trump. In a dictatorship the leader does change seldom and there does exist the large danger that the dictatorship does terrible things (most prominent Hitler and Japan around WWII). Dictatorships do regularly use oppression of people who oppose their will/direction. You are right, in some areas of US the security is extremely bad. This has 2 reasons: 1) In US everybody has the right to buy a weapon and even if some ill minded person kills a lot of persons there is never a majority of people willing to remove this right, because this is US DNA, when the US was created the cowboy had a revolver and a rifle. 2) US is the most capitalistic Western country and in addition the variety of persons is considerably larger leading to an extreme wide range of poor to rich - in contrast to US in Europe some social security is present reducing the range poor to rich and especially allowing the poor a reasonable life. You are also right on poverty/homelessness. Again this is part of the US DNA, because when the USA got created there was so much land available to everybody as he could manage to work on by himself. This means there was never any need for people who were not able to earn their living to be supported, everybody could earn his living and if he chose not to, then this was his personal decision that has to be respected. In today's industrial world adding the problem of drugs I think it is not any more possible that everybody can earn his living, but US was up to now not willing to change towards European style. Points of evidence: 1) In Hongkong China has crashed the democracy by force (people that were not willing to accept that either left Hongkong, shut their mouth/stopped protesting or got into jail for many years, also the persons that protested while democracy was still present were sent into jail if police had arrested them during democracy time). In Hongkong freedom of speech is dead, because if you say something wrong you will be jailed. In contrast in US you can say everything and neither police nor a judge can send you to jail. 2) China has a Muslim province and I guess to align Muslim live to Chinese way nearly everybody was forced into concentration camps for months. Some pictures were leaked to Western journalists showing torturing. Some of these camps have been transformed into prisons probably for persons who resisted more strongly. Again, such kind of putting a certain religion people into concentration camp is not at all allowed/possible in USA. 3) Western journalists like to contact/speak to people who are critical to China to better understand which are critical items in the Chinese society. It was found that these critical persons disappeared after some news report was published in the West that criticized certain points in China. As a counteraction the Video and Audio content does now get so modified that no identification of such source person is any more available. When somebody got jailed because he did something the communist party didn't like then a trial will follow before the judge decides. For this trial the accused person needs a lawyer. Western journalists liked to speak to such lawyers and it was noted that some lawyers simply disappeared without any reason. 4) I saw reports on a new system where in a computer everthing what a person is doing is stored. This is combined with a face recognition program and access to all cameras. If for example a person passes the street on red light this will be recorded. On the summary record some action may follow depending on what the communist party does target. Such kind of system is against personal freedom, this means you can do whatever you want without the fear that it could be used against you. In Western countries it is explicitly forbidden to the police to take such records. Only after police has presented to a judge clear evidence of crime the judge may issue to the police the OK to do an observation and recording of what the person does with the intent to find a prove for the crime. In conclusion: On human rights/freedom of speech/personal freedom US and China are on opposite/conflicting sides/opionion and the reason for this is China rather being a dictatorship US rather being a democracy. Democracies are slower in taking decisions, but most/nearly all dictatorships have shown earlier or later bad doing (some even extremely bad, on China I cannot see and bad doing in the last 50 years, but this were rather easy times with a huge improvement), while in democracies the total country is active and freedom of speech and personal freedom are 2 paramount points to avoid the bad doing that happens in dictatorships, where people have in their DNA to limit their speech and personal freedom to avoid getting jailed.

[@tracyli5201]

@@kenbehrens5778 There are so many, man. Just go and live in China for a decade, you will understand. 1. No free speech. That's one basic human rights. Any bad mouthing the CCP or the big boss, your online account will get suspended or even banned. Censorship of everything you can see. In worse cases, police will go and find you and take you for questioning. Happened to 2 of my friends already. Certainly no free speech in public. Instant arrest. 2. No political rights. There is zero. No right to vote or get elected. The government is a box. Everything runs through the Party. Nobody knows its balance sheet. Nobody knows how much we are taxed and how tax payer money is used. 3. There are so many violations. No end to this. During lockdown, half billion Chinese are locked at home for months to achieve zero covid. Can't go to hospital for emergency. Can't even buy fever drugs. 4. Invasive surveillance everywhere, both cyber and digital cameras, no privacy whatsoever. Big brother is always watching you. 5. There is no rule of law. There is only rule of the Party. 6. China is a Communist society, where the government is in control of every organization, including religious ones. So there is no civil society whatsoever..... Every dictatorship is similar, one supreme leader on top, be it Hitler, Stalin, Mao, in charge of the entire Party, Nazis, USSR, CCP, and runs over the entire nation.

[@SYLo-h7q]

Kudos to Ambassadoe Burns. My takeaway: Facts! “Other side arguing over basic facts, and the facts are incontrovertible!”. Most times, I feel messages sent over social media or press releases are just for its people living in the country rather than greater world. And many of the comments here that disagree with this meeting and world peace at large, are just trolls of the regime, just like the person that rudely interrupted the Ambassador in the middle of his conversation, she’s abusing Freedom of speech act in the US

[@JonathanBaptista-q9f]

The main problem is that China did not recognize the UNCLOS in the West Philippine Sea . China must follow the International Arbitrary law of the sea.

[@tongwu4667]

Where is west philippine sea？on the moon？

[@smling11]

UNCLOS cannot rule on territorial rights. It can only rule when territorial right is clearly defined. When UNCLOS tried to rule on right, it has ruled against her own existence. The escape clauses and claims of China are clearly submitted whrn China signed on UNCLOS, so UNCLOS either has to throw China out of UNCLOS so making her judgement irrelevant, or accept China submission and excuse herself from territorial ruling as the UNCLOS has no business. No UN body has any rights in defining territorial rights.

[@熙王-b5o]

south china sea,ok?

[@jackychen5578]

How can the law of the sea in 40 years determine the islands I occupied 100 years ago?

[@siewkonsum7291]

US Regime rejected the UNCLOS Charter and refused to sign it since its inception! What BS argument the US is now using UNCLOS to argue its distorted views?

[@ThePrimaFacie]

Pretty great talk, showing our thoughts on what is important. Freedom of thought and to voice ones opinion on what one feels that is important is a part of what makes a nation great. I will not take comments from the 50 cent army, thank you for the vid.

[@papachen5828]

Freedom of thought and voice? What’s wrong with your F eyes and ears? Just look at what happened and is happening in Caza now , 165 journalists at least ～～

[@Santeh60]

After listening for 20 mins into Burn's burning speech, I realised he is no diff from the NEOCONS in the HOUSE. Anything China is bad, anything US is Good. What trash is he blurbing?

[@ThePrimaFacie]

@@DDDrumpf See how your reply isnt deleted nor my comment? I am a citizen not a law maker nor a law enforcer. Even though this it is privately owned company whos web site we are talking on so they are allowed to do what they wish. That being said my right to say and do what I want (within reason and law) are not cut out because some state representative or entity thinks that is not ok. I hope that you can too and I wish for all to be able to in the future.

[@ThePrimaFacie]

@@DDDrumpf You first

[@ThePrimaFacie]

@@DDDrumpf So I should have realized that you are disingenuous and a troll because of your name calling. Ill admit thats my fault also for interacting with someone that has no real want of a discussion but for a dialogue of talking points. Yours is being upset in replying as it seems I offended you before I talked to you. How could that be? Is it cause I called you a name first? How could I? Unless the 50 cents have already been spent? IDK maybe not. Nothing you have said disproves what I have stated. I hope you have a better life and that you love deeper then the hate that you have for what ever it is you do. Best of luck

[@RamilRamirez-t1e]

Nice speech,american ambassador,the world need peace,i love democracy,save our planet earth

[@freydont]

The next Secretary of State.

[@talkeraxe812]

Are U.S. vs. CHINA competition? It's a joke! Wrong vision! Do you know the meaning "win-win"for ccp?

[@talkeraxe812]

No matter what you talk about and/or how you talk, it won't change anything for the ccp's plans and actions. To prepare for the fight!!

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

Can you please concretize which CCP's plans you mean? In my understanding one plan of the CCP is upgrading its army. I do see no real argument against this, because the West is upgrading its armies permanently with much much more money. Another plan, rather a threat is: IN THE CASE TAIWAN DARES TO DECLARE SOVEREIGNITY China will not hesitate to us military force against this separation rebellion. Also here I see no real problem. In Spain the separation trials in Barcelona caused Madrid to act hard to crash them down. Any other plan that you need to consider to prepare for the fight? (in reality China does prepare on the threat of incredible US military might built-up, on which the US has shown in many occasions to not only use it for maintaining the global order, but also for US advantage)

[@TeacherLisaHello]

Scott ritter was not allowed to speak out. Assamge neither.

[@Beeyousel]

Who started the Russian and Ukraine war in the first place?

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

What do you understand as first place? US and the West regard as first place to look only onto the 24. Feb 2022 and to disregard/neglect any other previous items and on this day Russia invaded Ukraine. As US/West result in first place Russia started this war. Russia and a huge part of the Southern hemisphere do look also on what has happened before as "first place". And here you find following roughly following sequence: i) US (against German/France will) imposed 2008 on NATO to invite formally Ukraine and Georgia to become members. As a consequence of this invitation Russia would ultimately lose the for Russia's protection extremely important Crimea which Russia ruled for 300 years and NATO would steal/overtake Sevastopol Russia's important naval base to control the sea in this area. ii) In 2014 the EU influenced the "free will" in Ukraine by verbally expressing support which led to the undemocratic Maidan revolution onto which Russian oriented persons in the East of Ukraine counter-revelutionized resulting in Ukraine civil war in the east. iii) Instead of realizing the Minsk treaty signed by Russia, Ukraine and Germany, France to stop the civil war in the east, neither Germany nor France applied real pressure on Ukraine, but .... As a result enormous damage and killing of around 13.000 people happened until 2022. iv) Seeing not only no support but destructive actions by the West on the problems which occurred with Ukraine's separation from Russia and orientation towards EU Russia decided 2021 to solve the problems by itself. It amassed an invasion army strong enough to invade and cause a political change, but not strong enough to occupy and integrate Ukraine into Russia. Then Russia put its security demand on US/the West requesting a guarantee that Ukraine never will become a NATO member. The reply of Joe Biden on Russia's security paper was "There is nothing to negotiate", Scholz and Macron visited Putin, yet I am not aware of any concrete proposal both made on the by the amassed army very clear security demands Russia did see necessary for it. Seeing this absolut rejection by US/NATO/the West to accept realistic Russian security demands Russia decided to act by itself. This rather long and difficult to fully understand points, shortly summarized by "the US/Wst stubborn insistance to get Ukraine into NATO is the cause of the war resulting in: As Russia/Southern Hemisphere result in first place US/NATO caused this war (leaving Russia no other possibility to invade to end the destruction and killing in the east and change Ukraine policy to never enter NATO). It is always difficult to find easy to understand pictures/equivalencies (my best try): Assume somebody got attacked to get killed and by chance he succeeds to get hold of the attack weapon and kills the attacker. Somebody just joined when the attacker got killed and filmed this scene. By video proof the person who actually defended itself must be convicted murder, because he cannot proof that he got attacked before. This example clearly shows you should not only look on what you think is the truth by seeing a single point or a small part, but you should look also into the history and see if you find any other indication, because in reality the person who killed in above example another person should for sure not be convicted looking from start to end, which is in Ukraine case 1999 (first NATO eastward expansion and Russia's reaction on it) until 24. Feb 2022.

[@say6607]

both sides have to yield some in order to gain some, that's what we call compromise. mr. burns' stance leaves no room for compromise, so it'd be a waste of time for both side to meet and talk.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

In my understanding the time for compromise already passed, because no side was ready to compromise at that time (US changed mind drastically and quite fast and in my understanding China is not yet aware how strong the US -global?- change is, is late to understand and what actual consequences do follow out of the US -global- change still in process). In my understanding US has already switched to some level of hostility. Currently I see no signals to compromise, yet also no clear signals for full scale escalation, this means local hot war or drastic reduction/stop of trade, but the West has already decided generally some level of reduction called de-coupling and meaning that China deliveries shall be reduced to a level that in case of conflict they can be replaced by other countries. This means some other countries will be helped to set-up a production competitive to China and also at reasonable size compared to China. Further reductions may be decided if China more strongly counteracts on the global order. It is never a waste of time for both sides to meet and talk, because China is historically well known to be a strong country/society -confirmed by recent fast and strong catch-up- and it is always better rather to work in agreement, a fair competition than in a strongly hostile environment disallowing all possibilities for win-win situations/regulations/arrangements.

[@ReporterTorizo]

25:57 Does anyone know what happened here?

[@张志强-q1c]

Someone launched a free speech skill but was interrupted

[@kenpeters7127]

It is a mutually foundation building to hear the embasssador reinterate both China and the US want to live in peace .

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

The US government also says about Ukraine they want peace. What is actually happening is something completely different, because first of all the US government want to have Ukraine victory, Ukraine succeeding to throw out Russia of all of Ukraine area including Crimea. You can judge by yourself if talking peace and what is actually ongoing is in agreement. I don't understand out of wich words (may be you can give the time allowing me to check again) you understand China and US want to live in peace, because on the Taiwan issue the point discussed in the West is not if this will happen, but rather when will China invade Taiwan which will then cause US to act in any way. In another video I catched following idea/threat by a high ranking US military person: If China would invade Taiwan US would send 1000s of unmanned submarines and surface ships to make the Taiwan street an unmanned hellscape. Not sure if you understand such hellscape situation as living in peace.

[@sheilawade433]

15:24 The US was indirectly supportive of China during its war with Japan. Subsequently, China benefitted from favored trade status and sponsorship for admission to the UN security council by FDR.

[@user-xy3jh9hp01j]

You should learn more about Chinese history. During the Japanese invasion of China, the United States was Japan's main supplier of steel and oil. Before Japan launched the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States allowed Japan to continue to occupy China in negotiations with Japan, as long as Japan withdrew from Britain's colonies in Southeast Asia. Thanks to Japan's greed, Japan was unwilling to give up Southeast Asia and launched a sneak attack.

[@user-xy3jh9hp01j]

Please note that the United States did not vote in favor of China's membership in the United Nations.

[@user-xy3jh9hp01j]

As for the WTO, China obtained the votes of approval by negotiating with every member and giving up its interests. The United States has never been a generous God, but a greedy vampire.

[@sheilawade433]

@@user-xy3jh9hp01j Let Wikipedia know. That was the source of my comment.

[@mil546]

Thank you, Ambassador, was interesting.