Source: https://youtu.be/HQbaaN-y7ks?t=2444



that's a very big question which is difficult to answer in a few minutes

let me offer some brief comments though that address the issue that you raised

in my experience in diplomacy the most important factor is not eloquence but precision

in other words you need to use words that accurately reflect both what you are trying to do and what you are criticizing

we live in an open world, other countries are free to criticize how we handle our domestic affairs, and we are free to criticize how other governments handle their domestic affairs. I do not equate criticism with interference in the internal affairs of other countries and that applies to hong kong and to xinjiang

but members of this administration have claimed that genocide is taking place in xinjiang

and i would argue that is the wrong language to use in discussing the abuses that are taking place thelre

there is much more evidence that china is *not* engaging in genocide in xinjiang then that it is

this includes a major speech by president Jiang Zemin on the subject, in which he talked about the dangers of separatism, terrorism and the difficulties of assimilation in Xinjiang

and he recommended ideas for trying to address this problem

and the re-education measures china is undertaking in xinjiang are addressing precisely those types of issues

but there's not a *hint* in that speech that china wanted to adopt genocidal measures

and if you look at the state departments 2019, the latest one available human rights report on china, it does not refer to genocide taking place in xinjiang

it does refer to lots of abuses that are taking place in xinjiang such as forced sterilizations, such as mysterious disappearances

but the report indicates that those same types of abuses are taking place throughout china

they are not only reserved for the Uighur population of xinjiang

so my point is that we are not using the precision necessary for good foreign policy in the ways that we are talking about china

we are leveling charges at china which are not supportable by the available evidence, and this is not good foreign policy

there is much to criticize about china's behavior in hong kong, and in xinjiang, but we have to be careful in the words that we use







on the question of taiwan, this administration has reaffirmed the three communiques

in the three communiques are the essence of the u.s one china policy

which is that we can only recognize legitimacy of one government in china

and that's reflected in the communiques where we recognize the government of the people's republic of china as the sole legal government of china and we affirm our intention to maintain unofficial relations with taiwan

and to enable us to have robust unofficial relations with taiwan, the congress passed the taiwan relations act, which also affirmed the fact that we would consider threats to taiwan as disturbing the stability and peace of the western pacific and a subject that we would be deeply concerned about

it didn't specify exactly what we should do because it said we had to report to congress, and congress would play a role in determining how we should respond

the question is are we observing the ground rules for maintaining unofficial relations with taiwan

this is what the mainland is concerned about

and a vital part of our commitment to this framework for dealing with both mainland china and taiwan is we are deeply committed to a peaceful resolution of the question

well it is clear, and recent developments in mainland china have made it even clearer, that at the moment prospects for a peaceful resolution of the taiwan issue do not exist

but at the same time the framework that we established at the time that we normalized relations with the people's republic of china in 1979 has enabled taiwan without full recognition as an international entity to thrive and possibly prosper in ways that are far better than scores of independent countries

taiwan now has a per capita gdp which in many cases exceeds that of european countries

and throughout most of the last 50 some years tensions in the taiwan strait have been low

now tensions are creeping up and there is creeping officiality increasing in our relations with taiwan

and these are undercutting prospects for maintaining the hope of an eventual peaceful resolution

so clearly to deal with china which has indicated it will use military force to prevent taiwan from becoming an internationally recognized independent entity that we have a stable status quo in the taiwan strait area that is consistent with our commitments in the three communiques

so this sets the limits of what we can do, and we are not doing it at the moment, we have had a non-stable status quo because there has been inching in the direction of greater officiality in our relations with taiwan

so that's why i mentioned that we need to pay more attention to the problem of avoiding nuclear war, because the taiwan issue is directly related to that, and what china is signaling to us in an increasingly forceful way is that there is a line that we cannot cross, and many in china think we have already crossed it

so in other words this is the core issue in our ability to maintain peace and stability in east asia, and taiwan is an important factor but the framework within which we need to address this question has enabled taiwan to prosper in conditions of reasonable security, which is why taiwan's defense budget is still at around two percent of gdp, which is the peacetime defense budget level

it's not in preparation for a potential military conflict, and we have to bear that in mind, so i think that this is an issue that the administration needs to give very serious attention to, because unless it signals that we will have, that we will support a stable status quo in the taiwan strait area, the mainland will try to enforce that, and i think that taiwan is much better off if we are the country that maintains the stability of the framework that we agreed to in 1979, as opposed to letting the mainland take on that responsibility, so this is a core issue in u.s china relations and the administration needs to think very seriously about how to handle