Tiffany Hanssen: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Tiffany Hanssen, filling in for Brian this week. He's off. On today's show WNYC and Gothamist reporter, Jon Campbell is going to update us on yesterday's redistricting hearing. Yes, that's right. Redistricting may be happening again here in New York State, and the stakes are high since the outcome could affect the balance of power in Congress. Plus, it's open enrollment season. Many of you are probably going through this yearly process of trying to figure out the best health insurance plan for yourself or your family.

Elisabeth Benjamin from the Community Service Society will help us, guide us rather through the best options, whether it's through the ACA or an employer-sponsored health plan. Also, do you speak crosswordese? Puzzle nerds? We know you're out there. We're going to be talking your language at the end of today's show. First, President Biden met for several hours yesterday with China's President Xi Jinping at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC Summit in San Francisco. The last time Biden and Xi met was at the G20 summit in Bali almost exactly a year ago.

They've had a lot of ground to cover among the economic and military concerns going on. There was also AI to consider, fentanyl trafficking, and ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Before we get to the upshot of yesterday's sit-down, I want to talk about the state of relations as we headed into yesterday's meeting. Things got pretty tense after the spy balloon incident. You may remember that, February of last year, the US shut down a spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina. Since then, China has paused its spy balloon program.

In February, Biden called Xi out by name in the State of the Union address, and of course, we had Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in August of last year. Joining me now is Daniel Russel, vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former longtime diplomat as well as a member of the Foreign Service in the State Department. He also served in the Obama White House as a special assistant to the president, and National Security Council senior director for Asian Affairs. Danny, thanks so much for coming on the show.

Danny: Thanks, Tiffany. I'm very glad to join you. Thanks for having me.

Tiffany: Yes, we are glad you're here. First of all, I want to dig into this relationship between the US and China as we headed into yesterday's meeting. Things weren't necessarily at historic lows, but relations have been strained. How would you characterize the relationship going into yesterday?

Danny: Well, I think frankly, they have been pretty close to a historic low. I think the US-China relationship, which I've worked on in my career, is as bad or even worse maybe than certainly any time that I've experienced or maybe anytime since normalization. That's part of what made yesterday's meeting, I think, particularly important. There have always been strains in the US-China relationship, and we have radically different systems and value systems and so on, but I think politically or maybe diplomatically, the relationship is almost paralyzed by very deep mistrust by a number of very fundamental problems and disagreements, and it's quite dangerous.

The US and China, for example, are really working at cross purposes on a number of important international issues, North Korea or Russia. We've been pretty close to unable to cooperate on important global issues even though the world needs that and it's probably in the interest of both of our countries. Economically, it's true that there's still an immense amount of bilateral trade. We're deeply interconnected, but both governments are trying to unwind a lot of those connections. They're not calling it decoupling now, derisking is the term of ours, but governments and companies are trying to reduce their exposure to risk. It's true on both sides.

Chinese and Americans are looking to minimize their vulnerability to the economic measures or the economic practices of the other side. Lastly, and I think, frankly, this is very important, we've had years now of extremely hostile rhetoric about the other, about the United States in China and about China in the United States. You can see in polling in the United States, and you can feel and read in, say, the Chinese internet the degree to which public attitudes towards the others have soured so badly.

I think these things combined certainly have brought us to a place where at least my interpretation is that certainly President Biden and I think President Xi Jinping as well want to reduce risk in the relationship to more manageable levels. They are clearly each trying to dial things down a bit, not to make fundamental changes, not to make real concessions, but they both for their own reasons, I think, need time and space to concentrate on their domestic challenges, and neither one of them is looking for a thermonuclear war.

Tiffany: We're talking about the China-US relationship today with Daniel Russel, vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Danny, you mentioned working at cross purposes, there's a paralysis in communication, mistrust, hostile rhetoric. I'm wondering, and this has been puzzling me for a while, and maybe it's just me, but then I don't understand with all of that happening and all of those various prongs, as you describe them, that lead to this near historic low as you would characterize it, why did Nancy Pelosi take the time to go to Taiwan when she did in your view? Was that the right move? I know you can't speak for her.

Danny: I will set aside the question of how American politics may have played into her thinking, but look, there is a very strong conviction among many Americans, and not limited to the United States for that matter, that we have a huge stake in supporting and preserving the democratic society, the 23 million people on Taiwan who have gotten themselves out of a military dictatorship, have built a flourishing, thriving democratic society and culture, it's self-governing. They, by the way, have created a phenomenally successful technology ecosystem that produces the overwhelming lion's share of high-end semiconductors that the world depends on.

This is an important and amazing place. It's a thriving economy. The fact that it's a democracy smack dab next to China, filled with ethnic Chinese people, is a living rebuke to the Chinese Communist Party's claim that only this socialist model with Chinese characteristics run by the Communist Party of China is suitable to Chinese people and the Chinese nation. Moreover, just as in the case of the Ukraine, the threat from a large neighbor, a very, very powerful country to solve "fundamental disagreements, territorial disputes, sovereignty disputes," through coercion, if not through actual military force, is something that Americans and American political leaders strongly oppose.

More broadly, all of the US leaders, whether it's in the executive or the legislative branch, who are thinking about the US national interest and thinking about national security accept that stability, growth, peace in the Asia Pacific region is crucial to America's national security, America's economic future. Showing solidarity with the people on Taiwan, providing a very graphic demonstration that America and American leaders care about Taiwan, that we are not going to turn a blind eye to bullying and coercion, to threats. We don't want to see Taiwan go the way of Crimea or, frankly, the way of Hong Kong.

I think that is the viewpoint and the logic that likely lay behind then-speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to make the visit. Now, I don't think it was a wise tactical decision, and I don't think that what the Taiwan society needs from the United States are these rhetorical gestures. I think they need much more concrete help. Nevertheless, there is a logic, I think, to what brought her to visit Taiwan.

Tiffany: Well, essentially it's about the balance between how to bring to the public discourse, both your frustration, you meaning the US government's frustration with Taiwan policy, and also all of the other positive accomplishments we would like to try to get to with the Chinese government. It's a little bit of a balancing act.

Danny: Yes, it's definitely a balancing act and she decided that the equilibrium needed a little boost in the direction of support for Taiwan. Look, let's face it. The Chinese strategy, Beijing's strategy is to isolate Taiwan and to demoralize the people on Taiwan to create a dynamic in which they are going to give up hope and accept the inevitable. The goal I think that Beijing is trying to achieve is demoralization of the public and the authorities on Taiwan to a point where they give up, where they accept that resistance is futile, and they'll just essentially follow a Hong Kong model.

The antidote to that in part is to instill some confidence in the public and in the government on Taiwan. That know the world is watching, the world really caress, and countries like the United States, and frankly others like Japan, are not prepared to sit idly by if China uses coercive measures, let alone military measures to subjugate Taiwan.

Tiffany: Danny, I want to invite our listeners into this conversation. We're talking with Daniel Russell, vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute about US-China relations. Listeners, what questions do you have about US-China relations? What issues do you feel need the most urgent attention? Is it Taiwan? Is it AI? Is it fentanyl production? Whatever it is, trade, the ongoing wars. We would love to hear from you 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. You can call or you can text us at that number. We'd love to have your question about US-China relations.

Danny, we talked, you mentioned a little bit about the intertwined economies between the two countries. I want to get to that in a minute, but I think we should get to this summit meeting that happened yesterday. President Biden called it the most constructive and productive meeting since he took office. I'm curious if we can talk a little bit about what was on the table or what we presumed was on the table versus what actually got accomplished. Of the laundry list I just went through, was most of that on the table? AI, fentanyl, production trade, all of that was on the table? Or do you think there was more of a refined list going in? We have three bullet points.

Danny: Well, I think actually, Tiffany, that the principle objective of the meeting was for the two leaders to have a strategic discussion about what the heck is going on in the relationship, what the heck is going on in the world, and how are we going to both get through 2024, which is, by the way, a pretty turbulent year for a number of reasons without some kind of catastrophic crisis or problem. Beyond that was the goal of achieving some specific outcomes. Now, it may not be high praise to say this was the best meeting that Biden has had with Xi Jinping since taking office, since it's only the second in-person sit down.

I think the meeting was very important for leaders. These two leaders I happen to know are very well acquainted. They have a long history. They've gotten to know each other quite well. For these two leaders to sit down for an extended period and be able to cover the issues both the areas of sharp disagreement and the areas of potential cooperation is a huge step in the right direction. In terms of the outcomes, the accomplishments, and by the way, the Biden administration put a lot of energy into lowering expectations beforehand. As not to hold this meeting to impossible standards, but they did accomplish some important things.

Resuming the military-to-military channels of communication, I can attest is hugely important. This is a good thing. There are a large number of very powerful warplanes hurdling around Taiwan and the South China Sea, and very close proximity to each other. That's dangerous.

Tiffany: We came from the meeting with a resumption in that military-to-military communication.

Danny: Correct. Now, we should remember that that line of communication is something that the Chinese just switched off in a sit of peak over Nancy Pelosi's visit. In the past, they've suspended these talks at exactly the moment when they were needed. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction. Secondly, the Chinese promise to reign in Chinese exports, to drug cartels in Mexico of the so-called precursor chemicals, the ingredients that go into making fentanyl. That's very, very welcome. I mean, it's also long overdue. What counts is going to be whether they follow through. They've promised a number of things in the past on this issue, but it is a great development.

Tiffany: Sorry to interrupt there, but what is the likelihood that they'll follow through on that, do you think?

Danny: It's hard to say. Generally speaking, my experience has been that when it came to fentanyl, when ultimately the Chinese government assured the US, stated publicly that they were going to do something, they did it. I think in 2019 or so, they outlawed the entire class of fentanyl precursors. That was a step that American officials had been urging them to take for years and they did that but it turns out not to have entirely solved the problem, and they allowed a lot of illegal or unregulated exports to continue. Now, my understanding is they have made a political commitment to send a clear signal to Chinese companies that this is a no-go.

The Chinese companies know the difference when the Chinese Communist Party is serious about an instruction. We will see, and hopefully, they really mean it. There is though, Tiffany, one other thing that I think is worth flagging which is the dialogue that the two sides have agreed to on the risk of advanced artificial intelligence systems in our military programs, and particularly in the nuclear programs. Now, I'm not an expert, but I think what we're talking about is making sure that human beings don't inadvertently get excluded from the decision-making loop when it comes to big weapons, let alone nuclear war.

The US and China are the two advanced AI countries and the two advanced militaries and nuclear powers where that combination is capable of ending life on Earth. Of course, we want the two sides to begin a serious look at how to handle this. It's just the beginning of a process, but it's a desperately needed process.

Tiffany: Well, I wonder, we, the American public doesn't really have a good understanding of what the US military does with AI technology, let alone what the Chinese government does with it. Again, I feel like it's a lot of good rhetoric and I just wonder how we keep tabs on that.

Danny: That's a great question and I absolutely don't have the answer far from being an expert, but every journey begins with the first step. This is a first step. It's recognizing that we have a problem and that it is a shared problem. We should certainly hope that the Chinese side takes this challenge as seriously as I know my former colleagues in the Biden administration do.

Tiffany: Danny, I want to get to some calls here in a second. Somebody called us out a near-low point for China-US relations. Really, this youngster obviously doesn't remember the Korean War. Getting called on the carpet there a little bit. We're going to take some more listener questions and comments coming up after the break. We are talking with Daniel Russell, vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute about US-China relations. Specifically the meeting between President Biden and President Xi that happened yesterday.

Listeners, we will get to you, I promise, coming up after this break. If you're still looking to call us and are wondering, how do I do that? 212-433-9692. You can also text us at that number. I'll say it again, a little slower, 212-433-9692. Join our conversation about US-China relations. We'll be back at it in just a minute.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

It's The Brian Lehrer Show. I'm Tiffany Hanssen for Brian today. My guest is Danny Russel, vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, and former longtime diplomat. Danny and I are talking about US-China relations, and specifically the meeting yesterday, several hours long between President Biden and President Xi, the upshot from that. Danny, we have a couple of texts here I want to get to from listeners. Here's a good one. "In the last 50 years, have mainland Chinese people gained greater economic, political, and personal freedom. Thoughts?"

Danny: Well, first of all, I should clarify that the US has only had diplomatic relations with China, with the People's Republic of China since 1979. That obviously postdates the Korean War, and I was very much thinking about the state of the relationship since it was established diplomatically. Look, over the span of 50 years and under the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese people have enjoyed phenomenal economic growth and the systematic eradication of poverty in most areas to an extraordinary extent.

The story of China's development is a clear success story, and frankly, in a number of respects, the United States and the West had an important hand in it. That's something I've heard Chinese counterparts and Chinese officials acknowledge China has thrived in the US-led UN-based rules-based order thrived by being able to trade with a lot of open markets and open societies. When it comes to political rights, social rights, even the right to relocate yourself and your family within the country or find a job somewhere else, those rights have been seriously constrained.

Moreover, the bargain that seemed to underpin the relationship between the Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party, namely that the people would accept the complete control and dominance of the party, politics, and all aspects of life. But in exchange, the party would deliver on ever-improving economic situation and quality of life. That bargain has become unsustainable because as China has grown and matured, its economic growth has slowed. Some of that is structural. Some of that is inevitable. Some of that is really a function of bad choices and bad policies by the party, but it changed.

Tiffany: I just want to follow up on that. We have a text here. "Does the ailing Chinese economy make their attitude toward Taiwan more pressing and/or aggressive?"

Danny: It guesses about what's going on in Xi Jinping's head. You could argue either side of the equation that since serious difficulties at home with the economy, which have political repercussions, could on the one hand make him more risk averse, more cautious, or conversely could seek him to want a diversion to deliver something of value to the Chinese people that would compensate for non-performance on the economic side.

Right now, all of the indicators are that Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership want to reduce risk in the relationship to a more manageable level, presumably, so he can concentrate on his domestic challenges. One of those definitely is the problems that the Chinese economy is now facing.

Tiffany: I wonder if the problems that the Chinese economy is now facing would overall push Xi more toward dealing with and/or addressing some of his social concerns domestically in a way that maybe hasn't been done in China for a long time, maybe even since, I don't, since Mao, where there's been a real focus on the social issues.

Danny: Well, it's a guess, but my guess is no. The reason is that everything that we've seen from Xi Jinping has been steadily moving in the direction of what I would call securitization of prioritizing security over the economy, security over the happiness quotient of the Chinese people. The conviction that Xi Jinping brings to his role as the supreme leader is that China is in danger from malevolent actors like the United States from the outside.

It's also in danger from within because there are so many different interest groups, so many different ethnicities. To hold China together requires a very strong hand on the levers of power, and that's him, and that's the Chinese Communist Party. Whenever there has been a tradeoff, a choice between tighter security and the benefits of loosening either economically or politically, socially, Xi Jinping has always chosen to tighten, to strengthen the controls.

Tiffany: Danny, I want to bring a caller in. I want to bring Steven in Harlem into the conversation. Good morning, Steven. Welcome to the Brian Lehrer Show.

Steven: Thank you. Thank you for taking my call.

Tiffany: Absolutely.

Steven: Great conversation. Okay. It was touched on before these semiconductors, these incredibly important components, so many of them come out of Formosa, old name. That what would happen to the balance of power if there was somehow a takeover or an acquiescence, or somehow they were absorbed back into Mainland China. We're in this incredible arms race on that level. Also, I'm so happy about the meeting because Xi Jinping has been talking war in the background for quite a while, so now he's talking peace.

I'm very happy to hear that. Of course, Biden likes peace very much too, I hope. Anyway, I just was wondering your opinion on that because so much of the world is dependent on Taiwan for these incredibly important components. Remember we had that interruption and people couldn't get their cars and everything else like that. These incredibly important parts, how many of them, percentage-wise, are coming out of there? That's my question. I'll take the answer off the air. Thanks so much.

Tiffany: Thanks, Steven. Semiconductors, Danny?

Danny: Yes. Well, I'm with Steven, first of all on referring peace over war. It is certainly true that Taiwan, and in particular, an amazing company TSMC produces not only the majority of semiconductors of chips but importantly an overwhelming share of the advanced chips that are powering our most important and our most sophisticated equipment. That's true in the military. That's true in manufacturing. It's true in our computers and our lives.

There's no way I believe that China could take over Taiwan, certainly not by force or even by coercive political pressure that would leave the Taiwan semiconductor industry intact and functional because the secret sauce in Taiwan's unbelievable success in manufacturing chips isn't the equipment, isn't the investment. It's the people and the ecosystem that they have created, supply chains, and frankly, supply chains and education. The level of expertise and engineering skill that's required to run one of these lines is mind-boggling. It's not something that other countries can easily reproduce.

The United States is trying. TSMC and other companies are building these fabrication factories for advanced semiconductors now in Arizona, Ohio, in Japan, but it's a very slow process to train up the people and to get the equipment and the environment that will allow these factories to produce these exquisitely delicate silicone chips. Moreover, just manufacturing the chip by the standard of today isn't nearly good enough. What's miraculous about TSMC is that they keep developing, progressing, and inventing the next generation, and that requires the absolute best of the best in electrical engineering and other scientific capabilities.

Those people would be on the first plane out of Taiwan if China geared up to use military force. There's no way that the Chinese can simply take it over quickly. Now, there could be a much slower process of absorption or subjugation, but that would give the rest of the world plenty of time, I think, to find ways to compensate.

Tiffany: Danny, we didn't touch on nearly everything that we could have, but there's a lot here, that's for sure. We did get to some good stuff today, and we appreciate your time. Daniel Russel is vice president for International Security and Diplomacy at the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former longtime diplomat. Danny, thanks again so much for your time today.

Danny: Thanks for having me, Tiffany. I appreciate it.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.