>>Good morning and welcome to Global Perspectives.

I'm David Dumke.

Much has been written and said about the US-China relationship right now.

Today we are joined by a special guest to explain some of that relationship and where it could possibly be going.

Our guest today is the former U.S. ambassador to China, Max Baucus.

Max Baucus also served for 36 years representing Montana in the U.S. Senate.

Welcome to the show.

>>Thank you, David.

>>So where is the US-China relationship going?

You hear a lot talking about strategic competitor, superpower rival.

Where is this headed?

>>It's spiraling down, not up but down.

It's very toxic.

Essentially, neither country trusts the other.

We don't trust Chinese.

China doesn't trust us.

And I think the relationship between President Biden and President Xi is not great.

It's not good.

It's not great.

You know, countries pursue their own interests.

We're pursuing ours.

United States and China is pursuing its own interests.

China thinks it's destined to be a world superpower.

Thousands of years of history.

They think they're put upon the past 200 years by a foreign powers, by the Brits, the Americans to some degree, and then now their time has come.

They're bouncing back.

They've got a bounce in their step and they want to be recognized at least as a co-equal world power.

Now, that's a little bit, if not threatening, it causes anxiety in the U.S. because we're not used to that.

We're not.

We Americans think since World War Two that we're the king of the hill.

You know, the world kind of dances to our tune.

But China has a different view.

China doesn't agree with that.

China was, as a big country, an Asian power, not a democracy, a big, co-equal United States.

So and we don't trust each other.

That's the basis.

So it's not in a good spot.

>>With the United States, you're talking about China's rise here.

And of course, that makes us uncomfortable because the United States has been the king of the hill for some time since World War Two, as you said.

So to have a healthy relationship, should the US accommodate Chinese change?

Should there be Chinese growth and growing influence, or should it be leery of it or somewhere in between?

>>Well, we need to strike a relationship, short term mutual respect, where we respect China.

China respects us.

It's just like any personal relationship.

If you have the other person's respect, then he or she is going to treat you a bit differently than if you don't have that person's respect.

So that's really what it comes down to.

But that begs the question, how do you get respect?

And I think that to get respect, Chinese respect, we're pretty much doing the right thing.

That is, we're trying to build ourselves up economically.

Washington's passed the Inflation Reduction Act infrastructure bills and the competitive competitiveness chip bill to help build up are our industries of the future.

And that's very good because I think that the strongest foreign policy that any country can project is one where its economy is strongest.

If any country has a strong economy, it very much buttresses its foreign policy.

So that's the right thing.

Second, we're working with our friends in the region, especially that is Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea.

They like working with us.

But it's they also have to think about China because they're in the region.

Right?

>>Their neighbor.

>>The neighbor.

So it's gets a little bit dicey.

And we're working with our European allies, too.

And it's and we're especially with our allies to try to prevent advanced technologies like the most advanced chips we got into the Chinese military.

So that's pretty much we're doing.

And I think that's a good approach.

>>You were have been instrumental in the Senate and then obviously as ambassador and working on US-China commercial relations and trade, especially you, you were supportive of China acceding into the WTO.

You've supported a number of trade measures.

You were the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Is that the same route?

Should we still be expanding trade to China or you hear a lot of rhetoric both from Republicans and Democrats concerned about Chinese influence in the US economy.

>>I think the default should be a trade as much as we can, because the more countries trade with each other, the more the standard of living worldwide rises and the more we don't where we're isolate ourselves.

Standard of living, including the states, falls at least does not rise as much.

So the default should be to trade.

Now we have to do it with our eyes wide open.

That is, don't trade with an adversary that's going to take advantage of it.

For example, it's a matter of degree.

It's a matter of judgment as to what does or does not make sense.

One thing is really important.

I think maybe you're going to ask this question later down the road, and that is when I was serving in Beijing, the most important geopolitical matters across my desk was something called the TPP.

That's the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

What's that?

That was basically a proposed agreement by the United States.

And Asian countries, Vietnam, Japan, etc., to work together to trade better, more together to lower trade barriers.

So that would very much help all our countries, help the U.S., help Vietnam, help Malasia, Australia and so forth.

We looked like we weren't going to pass that because domestic politics in the US, especially organized labor, was afraid that's going to take away jobs.

Well, I thought it was extremely important.

Bastards over there in that region, for example, Vietnamese ambassador said, You know, Max, you've got to pass that.

Why?

Well, because we want your presence here.

We want American presence in Asia.

Why is that important?

I asked.

Well, very simple, because we want to play you off against the Chinese.

And if you're here economically and we're trading with you, then it's easier for us to push back against the Chinese.

The Singapore ambassador said the same thing to me.

They very much want our presence economically as well as militarily, especially economically, so they can be kind of counterbalance China against us because they've got to play both sides and they do and they're very open about it.

So I think trade is very important, but you've got to be smart about it.

>>You're mentioning Trans-Pacific Partnership as being kind of a proactive measure the U.S. should have taken at the time.

I want to shift a little, but it's kind of along the same lines.

You know, the Chinese have been very aggressive in belt and road initiatives and some other things.

And there's been a lot of complaints from the U.S. about growing Chinese influence.

And over economies, and particularly in the developing world, but into Europe, into South America, Africa, etc..

But has the U.S. done anything to offer a counter to the Belt and Road initiatives?

>>Not enough.

And I don't know that we have the capacity or the will.

Let's first talk about the will.

We're, you know, a democracy.

That's great.

We've got the best country in the world by far.

But there's a downside.

The downside is we elect new members of Congress every two years, presidents every four years.

So there's not a long term strategic plan in the U.S. as much as there is, say, in China, which thinks very much long term, very much strategically.

They have a long, long term plans.

We don't know the U.S. and it's it's it's a real problem.

And that makes it sort of difficult to get the will to agree to amass a lot of resources.

They carry the resources of China in these regions that the regions basically mean the south countries, the developing countries, Africa, Asia, South America, etc.. And China has put in trillions I mean, trillions of dollars in development in south countries.

Why, you ask?

Well, it's pretty simple.

It's because they need access to resources.

China is somewhat resource poor.

We're Americans resource rich.

We've got we're blessed with resources, America.

We tend to forget that other countries not so.

China, for example, doesn't have any iron, so it's got to import iron ore for its steel.

It doesn't have much oil and gas.

It's got to import a lot of oil, has a lot of coal, but they have to import a lot of natural resources and so they spend a lot of money.

And the countries that have those resources, so they get access to those resources.

Second, they spend a lot of money so they get political influence in all those countries.

They build roads and dams they deal with.

To answer your question, it's tough.

We don't have quite the same willpower because we've got other interests.

Look at what's going on.

You got Ukraine, for example.

Israel.

We spent a lot of money in Israel.

It's just just we don't have the resources and other demands.

And add to that, it's just that as it is, we just don't have as much resources total as as China has.

So what do we do about that?

The answer is, is to be really smart, be aggressive, open more embassies in those countries.

China has more embassies worldwide than does the United States.

We're slowly creeping up almost as many as China.

But they have to we have to know and recognize that China is there for the long haul.

They're very patient, very patient.

And we tend to get distracted.

We have to recognize the threat really is is Chinese patience.

>>What do you say to the criticism?

I mean, you're talking about Chinese as China has a long term strategy on this diplomatically and economically for that, for that matter.

And they're tied together quite well.

And you're saying U.S. doesn't because of our nature of our political system, in part, but also, you know, we have more short term thinking, yet at the same time, we have a responsibility for the term world's policeman.

But the US has been central to supporting Ukraine or central to responding to the Israel-Hamas war or any really global fire spot.

So the criticism of China from the West has been China has become a global power without the global responsibilities.

What do you say to that?

>>There's something to that.

There's no question.

Look, our country founded by our founding fathers to escape tyranny.

We have a wonderful constitution of, you know, Bill of Rights.

Make sure the Constitution passed.

Free speech, free assembly of due process, rule of law.

It's it's it's we are really lucky our four - forefathers put that all together.

But it's a reaction to what they experienced over there in Europe.

Contrast that with China.

China's history is very different.

We're a young country.

What, 278 years old.

Forgot all about that.

China's thousands of years old.

Thousands of years ago, Chinese civilization began in China.

And it's and they feel that their system is the right one.

It's feel that the history of dynasties or emperors controlled China is a good one.

They feel that if if the country's doing pretty well, then Chinese emperor keeps his job.

But if things are going to go south or there's famine or something happens, then he loses his job, gets head cut off, and that but they just feel that's a system that works for them.

They also feel that works for them because they can think long term of one of their key persons that just left now is a guy named (unintelligible).

He sat me down once.

He's a top guy over there.

He says, You know, Ambassador, we're superior to you Americans.

That's it.

Really?

Yeah, we're superior.

Why are you superior?

I'll - he told me two reasons why we're an authoritarian government.

If you're a democracy that makes us superior.

Why is that?

We could have.

We appeal to the South countries.

We could help them develop much more quickly than they could if they were a democracy.

What do you mean?

I asked.

Well, look it.

Look, after we've come the last 40 years.

40 years ago, China was nothing.

Nothing.

Now, look at China.

Huge roads, bridges.

I mean, it just it's amazing.

So if we were a democracy, that never would have happened.

And he's right.

If they were a democracy, it never would have happened.

Now, there are downsides.

Democracy is clearly but never would have happened.

And so they they feel that their authoritarian approach enables them to move more quickly and more long term, you know, fewer rights.

Obviously, you know, if they want to build a road or a bridge someplace that move people out of the way, they don't have it.

They can't sue.

They can protect themselves.

It's just the way it is.

But they feel that their people don't mind that too much because living standards in China have risen dramatically in the last 40 years.

And the Chinese people know that it's kind of plateauing, but they know it.

>>So you're talking about Chinese growth and of course, they're part of that growing influence.

Is it do they want to export their model or do they just want relations with these countries?

>>I think it's more it's a combination because they like their model because it works for them.

They think despite coping disaster for them.

But it's more working to these other countries and they tend to work better with authoritarian countries.

Countries that are not as democratic since the U.S. >>As a U.S. ambassador.

This isn't just isn't just exclusive to China where you were working, but you've been able to view this over over a number of decades, both working in the Senate, working in diplomacy.

But you've seen in the last 15 years some dramatic swings of U.S. policy between President Obama pushing for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, to President Trump, who had a more protectionist model back to more traditional diplomacy under Joe Biden to who knows what's next.

If there's another second Trump presidency, how detrimental is this to U.S. relations with China or any country when you have inconsistent policies or the likelihood that these things will swing drastically?

100 - 180.

>>It's a downside, no question.

It's a cost.

Countries want to see what's going to happen next.

Who's going to be elected president.

Big difference between Trump and Biden and a lot of Chinese.

You know, maybe we like Trump.

We could do deals with Trump.

Taiwan is scared to death that Trump might be elected.

Afraid the Chinese will sell Taiwan down the river.

I mean, it's just so it's a cost.

But I do think, frankly, look at how strong we are still as a country.

Look at our huge tech industry.

These tech companies, Apple, Google, Microsoft, they did that.

China doesn't have tech companies like that.

It's got Alibaba and Tencent, but it's not nearly the same.

Europe doesn't have big tech companies.

They just did develop in Europe.

So we're really, really lucky.

And also we're reacting to what we need to reject the future.

By that I mean building up our economy.

You know, the CHIPS Act, I mentioned Infrastructure Act and so forth.

We're doing stuff.

It's it's it's really pretty important.

And we're working with our allies.

That's pretty important, too.

So I think we're.

It's a cost, to answer your question.

But I still think we have to remember, we're the strongest country.

And look at why do we have an immigration issue?

Why are why is immigration such an issue to the U.S.

I'll tell you why.

Because Americans aren't headed for the door.

They're not live in other countries.

They want to live in America.

Other people want to live in America.

They're coming to America because they know about the opportunities in our country.

We're still trying to long term get to the real question.

Underlying questions.

And our little discussion here was going to be a major, major issue for United States.

And the real question is, how do we manage this relationship?

How do we treat China?

Because we're a little bit more in the driver's seat.

I think then they.

But China is too how is China going to treat us.

And I think that time is going to come maybe a couple, three years from now when Americans realize and the Chinese realize it, hey, neither country's going anywhere they're always going to be there, you know, China's not going anywhere.

Going to be there.

Same with America.

And so we have to not go anywhere.

Let's kind of figure it out a little bit better.

China does not want war.

I get that.

China does not want war.

China does not want war over Taiwan.

It just does not.

Now, maybe 20 years from now, but not today at all.

China does not have a history of military aggression.

They don't.

We do.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam.

And so if we do no Monroe Doctrine in South America, Central America, you know, Chinese out, there's a little bit of border skirmish to India.

That's that's a little skirmish.

They don't have history there.

Their projection of power is not military, is economic.

That's why they're pursuing South Country so much.

But anyway, we have to.

It's kind of corny little metaphor, a construct.

But I think the US-China relationship's a little bit like an arranged marriage, not a marriage based on love.

We don't love each other.

It was kind of an arranged marriage.

The world tectonic plates, you know, here we are as two big countries.

It just happened that way economically, politically.

And so we're here.

So that's.

So it's kind of like an arranged marriage.

So I think the global political forces have arranged this, and we're not - neither country's going anywhere because that could be the worst, because we can't get off the planet.

So the more we can understand, hey, they're not going anywhere.

We're not going nowhere.

Let's see, we kind of figure out a way to deal with this a little bit.

That's as an arranged marriage.

Some arranged marriages works.

Some don't.

But we have to get along with each other.

>>Do you think there needs to be more efforts to four on each side to facilitate understanding?

Because, you know, people get caught in their own narratives and their own rhetoric.

>>Yes, there's no question that's true.

For example, I was six, eight months and a lot of U.S. cabinet secretaries would go to China.

Secretary Mondale, for example, to see Wang Wentao who is a top commerce minister, that a lot of go over and I know it's just in the news last several days, several meetings.

Jake Sullivan, head of NSC, is he meets with their top foreign people, maybe over in Switzerland, maybe someplace else, kind of to get away from the media.

There are a lot of if each side knows, each side knows.

But but today, there's such distrust as that.

It's the presidents, the leaders of each side get a lot of pushback from their people to be tough on the other country.

>>One point you brought up a minute ago, you kind of China's rivalry with India.

And in mentioning what the United States has done, working with allies Japan, Australia, the quad, if you will.

But India has been key to the U.S. strategy.

If there is.

Is there a strategy number one second, how does India complicate things with China?

>>Well, I think India, along with rising power in Mid-East, Saudi Arabia, for example, AUE, those countries really demonstrates how our entry more into a sort of a multipolar world.

Some Chinese like to say U.S. is declining.

I don't think the U.S. is declining, but the U.S. is under a lot more pressure.

And because the world is much more complicated with a rising India and rising I say, Saudi Arabia and trying to do deals with Saudis and UAE, trying to figure out what to do with India is very, very complicated.

And it's it's so I just think that India is going to be a real force.

Its population, I think, is almost already larger than that of China.

It doesn't have the demographic problems that China has, like youth.

I mean, there's a lot of people who will get jobs.

But India is really complicated.

It's a democracy.

But man, oh, man, is it complicated?

Hinduism, Islam, ethnicities.

It's an amazing country, but it's complicated.

>>So you we've we've a few minutes left and I want to kind of shift a little.

You know, your your background is is is interesting.

You you that in 1976 you were first elected to Congress in the House and then you went to the Senate two years later where you had a long and distinguished career.

Then you became an ambassador after that.

Did you like being a diplomat more than a senator, or was it just kind of a different chapter?

>>Well, I feel like the luckiest guy in the world at two best professional jobs.

One represents state of Montana, the U.S. Senate chairman of finance.

There's no better job than that.

A conference.

I tell you, that committee runs most everything.

I've been chairman.

It's jurisdiction over trade, health tax.

I mean, it's just I loved it.

And I try to do the right thing with it all.

And second, representing the U.S. in China.

That's a great job.

Threw myself into both.

Love them both.

Work really hard at them.

Both of them, they're just different jobs, but they're both wonderful.

>>You, of course, were, you know, were in Congress for quite a while.

So you've been there.

You've been active in politics for quite a while as as a Democrat.

But you were not doctrinaire, a party line voter all the time.

You did vote more in line with Montana, which is more conservative than the national Democratic Party, certainly.

How were you able to balance that and how has that changed over over time?

>>Well, those are two separate questions.

The first question, you just do what you think's right and you're able to do it right.

The more you're comfortable with what you're doing and the more comfortable, the more you just spend more time learning and talking to people, especially in Montana, figuring out where are they coming from, really.

And people are really the same.

They want what's best for their family, their state.

And most people are not greedy.

Most people kind of want to work together and balance things out, so you just really work at it.

But your second question is really very concerning because, you know, no question it's politics have become just terrible to toxic, almost debilitating people.

I know why people want to serve in the House these days.

It's just awful.

I mean, if you're Republican, you don't talk to a Democrat and vice versa.

When you're the minority party in a house, you are nothing.

You know, you're just a barely a fleck on a wall.

You have no power, nothing.

It's a it's not that much better in the Senate these days.

Well, it begs the question, why?

What's happened?

What's caused all that stuff?

My view is this is not the answer.

But first of all, when I first served, more members of the Senate were real statesmen, both sides of the aisle.

You know, Sam Nunn, a Democrat, was really a statesman.

And, you know, Howard Baker was really a statesman.

Jack, Jack Danforth was really a statesman.

They're oh, they were just really good, solid people.

But over time, the people that run for office don't quite have quite the same approach or to have people run, think they have all the answers rather than try to work together to try to find the answers.

And after that, there's a I think that is and media technologies have not helped Internet, social media.

It's all siloed.

I think Internet social media reduces attention spans for Americans and reduces critical thinking.

You don't ask questions.

You just accept what you see on your your Instagram, whatever social media, whatever it is.

And it's difficult.

Add to that, I think people are a little concerned about what's happening their lives.

They don't like who's running for president.

They like either Joe Biden.

They don't like Donald Trump.

Most people and they feel this people I talk to, that's what they say.

So they feel, what does Washington care about us?

What's going to hapen to our lives?

And I think that makes it more likely that political figures in Washington can demagogue more to try to get attention.

And that, frankly, I think Donald Trump is coarsened the rhetoric.

Name calling and all this.

And that can lower that as lower the standard as well.

So we have well, what can we do about all that?

We just have to do the best we can, all of us as individuals.

And, you know, remember, voters are in charge.

But I was in Montana represent I tell you, I said I at town meetings and I would said over and over again, I meant it you're that you're the employers.

I'm just the employee.

You know, I work for you and I'm a hired hand and I work for you that I want to remind people of the power they have if they just exercise it so people can do a lot more if they were to take a little extra time and effort to try to make sure the representative is doing the right thing.

>>Even in better times.

Politically, though, it's still hard to champion things like free trade, for example.

Sometimes as a as a Democrat.

>>I don't know.

I, I don't know.

I got very little criticism, frankly, quiet.

And I think partly is because I was home a lot, town meetings, seeing people just getting the pulse and and I put myself in the back.

But I think people I was really trying to I think I think people most people back then pretty much still are not down the line conservative on everything.

Just total right wing.

And not down the line total liberal progressive the kind of the middle that when I was serving the middle, maybe about 70% maybe the middle was down around 60 50% at the extremes a little more powerful.

But if we really try to do what's right, the middle will give you a lot of room because they're thinking, you know, that guy back there?

Yeah.

Is he's listening to us.

He's trying to answer a question.

I may not agree with him, but I could tell he's he's really trying.

He's trying to do what's right and they give you a pretty wide berth.

>>So one one final question.

As we we're running out of time here and that's.

Tell us a little about the Max Baucus Institute.

>>Oh, well, I think that the most noble human endeavor is service service, a family service, the church, synagogue, community, friends of service.

And for me, it's public service for many years.

But now I'm no longer in public office.

My wife, Mel, and I have set up what we call the Baucus Institute.

It's not a think tank to get kids, college aged kids out of their comfort zone, get out and travel.

We send a bunch of kids to Washington, D.C., work at Republican offices, Democratic offices, totally nonpartizan, what your kids, the Climate Scholars, Nature Conservancy, AEI and so forth.

Send a bunch to China, study in China and vice versa.

I mean Singapore a little bit now, too.

I just doing what I can is to get more people thinking about the joy of service.

And that's that's that's my mission right now.

>>Well, thank you very much for joining us.

We wish you well on your mission.

>>Thank you.

>>And thank you for joining us.

We'll see you again next week on another episode of Global Perspectives.