00:00:00
Welcome to another episode of the All-In Interview. I'm really excited to be
00:00:03
joined by uh back to All-In Harvard professor Graeme Allison. Professor Allison, welcome back to AllIn.
00:00:10
>> Thanks for having me. >> We last had you at the uh summit in Los Angeles, so it's great to have a
00:00:16
conversation. A lot's happened since we last got together. For the audience,
00:00:20
Graeme Allison's the founding dean of the Harvard Kennedy School. He's advised
00:00:24
every Secretary of Defense since Kessinger. He's helped dismantle 12,000 Soviet nuclear weapons and his book,
00:00:32
Destined for War, remains the definitive framework for understanding the USChina
00:00:37
relationship. I think it's worth kind of bringing forward some of the things that
00:00:42
have happened in the world since we last met. I'm going all in. >> If you were building a global financial
00:00:53
system from first principles today, you wouldn't build it on 50-year-old legacy
00:00:56
rails. You'd build airwalls. It's the single platform for global accounts,
00:01:01
cards, and payments that treats the entire world like a local market. Stop paying the legacy tax and start building
00:01:07
the future at airwall.com/allin. Airwallix. Build the future. Let's start with Iran. The US and Israel
00:01:17
are in the middle of an attack on Iran and the Supreme Leader is dead, but the regime is still holding on to power.
00:01:24
Where do you think this conflict will take us? And are we sleepwalking into World War II?
00:01:30
>> Well, thank you again for having me back. I You'll have a great podcast. I
00:01:34
enjoyed the summit and I'm sorry we're not there in person to to catch up but I
00:01:40
think >> about a man uh how much to say so this could be a long lecture let me just do
00:01:45
four or five quick points first point most important point is that there's more questions than answers though
00:01:53
there's a huge level of uncertainty currently about what's happening and
00:01:58
about what's likely to happen part of this is Clausitz's famous fog of war, but there's a fog of war that's
00:02:06
actually increased because we got two big fog machines uh adding to the confusion
00:02:13
uh namely Trump and the administration on the one hand and BB on the other and then we got all the chattering class
00:02:21
around this. So I would say why did Trump decide to go to war now? There's six different reasons he and the
00:02:29
administration have given and each one they back out. What's the objective? Uh
00:02:34
there's five different objectives backing around. And when is this war going to end? You know, a day, a week, a
00:02:42
month, who knows? So, it's very uncomfortable to recognize how uncertain things are. And most of the conversation
00:02:50
about it tries to make it more confident. But I think the place to start is there's a huge amount of
00:02:56
uncertainty. Having said that, I'll still give you my prejudices about a few
00:03:00
of the points. Point two, this has been an extraordinary uh demonstration of supreme military
00:03:09
power and supreme intelligence power. US military and the intelligence community
00:03:14
and the Israeli counterparts have been way way way off the charts and I think they should make all Americans proud of
00:03:22
what's been built over this decade of two decades of investment but especially
00:03:28
the past decade. Uh third point, there's no tears to be shed for Ham and Islamic
00:03:35
Republic regime. It's an evil leader, an evil regime. There's no bad thing that
00:03:40
could happen to them that we shouldn't be cheering out of that. So, next point
00:03:45
though, breaking something's a lot easier than building something. And destroying targets is something that our
00:03:52
military knows very well how to do. Building a new regime, regime change is something that we know historically uh
00:04:02
doesn't work very well, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had every word said
00:04:09
that's been said in this case. And we then went in allin and spent more than a
00:04:15
billion dollars of many, many thousands of American lives. And when we went through Afghanistan, the Taliban were
00:04:23
ruling. when we left Afghanistan, the Taliban were ruling. So I would say unfortunately it's against a backdrop
00:04:31
that's hard. The next point slightly more controversial, but I think this is
00:04:36
BB's war. If your reader or your listeners don't remember Mumby Dick, they should go look at it again. Ahab
00:04:42
had this fixation obsession with the white whale and tried to find a way to kill the white whale whenever he could.
00:04:50
For the last two decades, that's been BB's number one, number two, number
00:04:54
three agenda. He's tried to sell that war to uh Obama, uh to Trump won, to Biden, and how he succeeded in
00:05:04
mesmerizing Trump, whom I thought had his number, I'm surprised. So, I'm pro-
00:05:09
Israel, but antiBB in this respect. And I think that uh I understand he's brilliant politically. But I don't think
00:05:18
this uh uh the arguments that were made that uh that Trump has actually repeated
00:05:25
that in was about to attack us. I see no evidence for that. That Iran was about to get a nuclear weapon. I see no
00:05:33
evidence for that. that Iran was building an ICBM that was going to attack the US. I see no evidence for
00:05:39
that. There's many many bad things about the Iranian regime, but not most of the
00:05:44
claims that that were made. So, I I look at this and I hope it turns out well, but I remember that in wars very
00:05:53
frequently, it's easy to get in and it's quite difficult to get out. >> Let me double click on that point. You
00:05:59
mentioned there's multiple reasons that the administration has messaged for doing this, multiple views on what
00:06:04
success looks like, multiple timelines on ending it, and that this is BB's war.
00:06:11
How do you think Trump was motivated to do this? What is the real motivation? And I will ask this in the context of
00:06:19
the big delegation and visit to China coming up next month. Is Trump motivated fundamentally to create leverage with
00:06:26
China and use this as a tool to try and maximize his negotiating leverage going into the Chinese negotiations?
00:06:33
>> That's a great question and I wish that the answer was this was all part of a
00:06:38
grand strategy. That would make me feel hugely better. But uh I try to do Trumpology and I was actually having
00:06:47
dinner last night with Bill O'Reilly, a former student who I think is one of the
00:06:51
better Trumpologists were trying to interpret and we were going back and forth through this. It's easy enough to
00:06:57
see why the window tactically the window in which this attack occurred was chosen
00:07:04
because here you got 40 you got the supreme leader and 40 of the other leaders of Iran out in public. So that's
00:07:10
an opportunity as a target and the best opportunity that's come along. The question is why would you be attacking
00:07:17
them and especially Trump given his uh campaign and his previous views about not repeating the mistakes of the people
00:07:27
that took us into endless windless wars. And I think it's I mean I I think BB is
00:07:32
a magician. I think his single-mindedness uh is impressive. I think his agility in making arguments
00:07:42
and developing arguments is impressive. How he managed to persuade Trump this was a good idea for the US. Now I don't
00:07:52
have a good idea. And I think that uh I think if I listen to the reasons why even the people closest around them have
00:08:00
given or that Trump have given, they don't seem persuasive. Now partly Trump
00:08:05
is erratic. uh partly he sort of you know acts on the basis of instincts uh somehow it
00:08:15
came to him that this was uh you know something that could be done. I think actually BB painted a pretty uh I mean
00:08:23
the upside of this picture if if it's successful and I hope now that we've
00:08:28
gone into it it would be would be redefining security in the Middle East for a generation. So getting rid of the
00:08:36
Iranian regime as the uh BBN company have gotten rid of the proxies of the regime earlier which again since October
00:08:46
7 been extremely impressive could possibly you could saying well there's going to be a whole new Middle East and
00:08:52
if the if the Middle East were all like the UAE uh that would be fantastic uh fantastic for all the human beings that
00:09:00
live there. So I think maybe he got excited by the upside, not quite uh careful enough about the risks or the
00:09:08
downside because it the number of ways in which this could go wrong. You know, if if we woke up tomorrow or today and a
00:09:15
couple of ships have been sunk or a couple hundred of Americans have been killed, this going to have a very
00:09:21
different uh a different image. And you think that this is independent then of the action with Maduro and independent
00:09:30
of the big delegation headed to China for a big negotiation next month. >> Well, I wouldn't say entirely
00:09:38
independent. I would think with Madera. So Trump I think this again this is my whatever armchair Trumpology but I would
00:09:46
say initially he thought tariffs were a magic wand and every leader thinks if you have a magic wand that's fantastic.
00:09:56
He's tried the tariff magic wand and discovered it didn't quite have all the
00:10:01
effects that he imagined on liberation day. Uh he then discovered the American military which genuinely is a huge one
00:10:10
and the Maduro operation was just spectacular. I mean again it's a military and intelligence operation.
00:10:18
Brilliant. No other country in the world could even imagine doing something like
00:10:22
that. And that actually you know makes all of us stand taller. It can also provide a little or historically
00:10:32
encourages hubris and an imagination that this magic wand can work in many other arenas. I don't mind at all the
00:10:40
proposition that every other country should take account of the fact that the US has the most remarkable military and
00:10:48
intelligence community in the world. And that's not a bad backdrop for China and
00:10:54
for a China trip. So, I agree that things may not be completely disconnected, but I think in terms of
00:11:00
the timing, I mean, right now, when is the war going to be over? If you talk about 3 or 4 weeks, we're we'll already
00:11:08
he'll be in China March 29. So, my inclination again, if we were just doing prediction markets, is that he's going
00:11:18
to find a way to declare this over before then because he needs a little time to get his mind set on that. But if
00:11:25
you ask the folks at the defense department or if you ask the people in Israel, they're thinking this is another
00:11:31
month or beyond this award. >> So again, just things I don't think are
00:11:36
quite, you know, in sync. >> Jason's joined us. Professor Allison, it's always a treat to have you on.
00:11:41
>> Nice to see you. It's just amazing to have you on here and to give us this
00:11:44
time. If things were to go extremely well and Iran went from a monarchy to a dictatorship and now in this third act
00:11:54
here in the modern day to a democracy and you actually had a democracy with 93 million citizens in the Middle East,
00:12:02
what impact would that have on the region? We've seen the Gulf monarchies evolve human rights, but they're still
00:12:09
monarchies. You have one other I I guess democracy in the region in Israel, but this could be extraordinary if it was a
00:12:15
democracy. But what would that mean to the to the global chessboard? >> Well, it's a good question. I mean, if
00:12:21
this could occur, it would be spectacular even I think but I would say this is way
00:12:28
way way too ambitious. There's a hundred things that would be wonderful outcomes
00:12:35
better than what's likely that would be short of that. I remember uh in Iraq
00:12:42
after Bush failed to find nuclear weapons which was the initial I would say somewhat cucked up rationale for our
00:12:50
going into Iraq. Kandi Rice who was the secretary gave a speech about well how wonderful it'll be when Iraq is a
00:12:58
democracy and market economy quote radiating stability through the Middle East. So we're pretty good at doing I
00:13:05
have a dream you know in that version. I think that's a way way way stretch. I
00:13:10
would be very happy with a regime there that simply was not about uh building nuclear weapons, was not about building
00:13:19
missiles that threaten the US and our friends and allies in the region, and not about supporting proxies. And if
00:13:27
it's a pretty cruel regime, unfortunately, that's unfortunate for the Iranian people, the Persian people.
00:13:35
Uh when I'm a student of history, I love Persia. You know, I remember uh Cyrus
00:13:42
and I remember uh the Pelpeneisian war. I remember, you know, this is a fantastic culture in history. They've
00:13:48
been hijacked by a terrible, terrible group of people. And if those people can be somehow ousted, you know, wonderful
00:13:56
for Iranian people and wonderful for the world. I I if I were betting it again, I'd say go back to the first point. It
00:14:06
questions uncertainty, finding signals in the noise, extremely difficult. But if I rebuilding it, it'll
00:14:14
end up that the guys with the guns will in some version uh be the next iteration. And uh if they're tamer
00:14:23
and less uh uh determined uh to threaten our interests, will this have been worth it? Well,
00:14:32
again, we'll have to look at, you know, over the longer run. I think the other
00:14:38
thing that we know about wars is that they're unpredictable and that they have
00:14:44
many unanticipated consequences. Now I think as we watch what's happening now
00:14:50
and see what impact does that have on oil and gas prices predictable so you can see and going and going well what
00:14:58
impact does that have on other countries are huge so the number of countries now
00:15:04
whose economies are being disrupted by this impact and therefore blaming us for it. So I had a call from someone in
00:15:13
Taiwan uh yesterday saying wait a minute did anybody think what it's doing for us
00:15:18
since they had about half of their their electricity comes from their natural gas that that is now come you
00:15:26
know now not not coming. Uh if you ask about what is this meaning for I for Ukraine, all the patriots that were to
00:15:37
hope to prevent missile strikes from Russia on Ukraine are now in the Middle East.
00:15:47
>> So that's many more target. So there's just unfortunately it unfolds in so many
00:15:52
so many different directions. Now I don't want to seem too pessimistic about
00:15:56
it because again I think we've been shocked fortunately on the upside by how
00:16:03
uh professional our military has and intelligence folks have been and also how pathetic uh or hollow the Iranians
00:16:12
have been. First day of the attack, I was at the defense department and I gave them a list of 11 things that I would do
00:16:20
and be capable of doing if I were playing the Iranian hand. And uh they seem to be
00:16:29
I mean I I I hardly even want to say out loud, but they they act like a paper tiger.
00:16:34
>> Do you think there's there's more damage that can be done by being more
00:16:40
successful? You know, if we think back to Iran, Iran is twice as many people, 100 million versus 50 million, four
00:16:48
times the land area, a much better equipped military, and arguably the military system, the regime is embedded
00:16:58
in every aspect of industry. So the more successful the United States is in dismantling
00:17:05
the Iranian regime and as was advised by Condisa Rice who apparently was just in
00:17:10
the White House today and advising the president and publicly stated it's time
00:17:16
to finish them off. It's time to go all the way etc. Does that not then leave a
00:17:22
country with no infrastructure, no leadership, 100 million people in tatters, and that's the classic breeding
00:17:29
ground for some of these extremist groups to seize control and seize power and we don't have the resources to go in
00:17:36
and have another multi-deade Afghanistan Iraq problem. >> I'm afraid I agree. Yes, I think the the
00:17:42
uncertainties about that I mean you can do four or five different scenarios for how this might conceivably end it could
00:17:50
end up being an extended civil war in in Iran among the various national groups even some of them possibly seceding. So
00:17:59
again, fairly chaotic. Look like Syria plus. Okay. It could look like Iran or Afghanistan. Well, excuse me. We were
00:18:08
there for more than a decade with unlimited resources. Hardly any constraints on the number of people. And
00:18:15
how did that work out? So I I I say that I'm I'm a small C conservative and
00:18:24
kind of think history is not always certainly not the only guide but is a good place to start. So I'm I'm I would
00:18:32
say nervous. Yeah. >> Is it too late to have a Venezuelan outcome where we've taken out the head
00:18:37
of the snake and we've simply replaced it? The snake can continue operating and
00:18:41
living without too much destructive damage and effect. But it seems like we may be a little too far gone now in Iran
00:18:47
and that to take this all the way might be very difficult to manage. >> Is it too late?
00:18:52
>> If I were again that we're all in the dark and all the uncertainty. So back to
00:18:56
point one, but after that I would say Trump is erratic, impulsive, but he has some coordinates and one of
00:19:06
them is is his power. >> November 3rd is a big day for him. He's focused on that. The economy is a
00:19:15
crucial element of that. That's part of the framing of the of the China relationship.
00:19:22
The impact of this on the economy is already evident. Okay. And could become more evident. The public opinion again.
00:19:32
I think he's I saw today uh uh in the journal that he's sent Higs Higsmith out
00:19:39
to sell the war. >> Mhm. >> Good luck. I'm not sure he can sell. Uh so the
00:19:45
public opinion of this it's about six to four unfavorable >> because they didn't make the case for
00:19:51
the war in advance. >> Uh the impact of this on other parties including parties that we care about is
00:20:01
negative. Uh so I I can easily imagine in the next week even declare if you look at that sheet the
00:20:11
way in which he's left himself room to declare victory at having as you say had cut off the
00:20:18
head of the stake destroyed their milit their nuclear capabilities destroy their
00:20:24
ability to project power or in the defense department we always say destroy or degrade degrade has a lot of
00:20:32
dimensions as you would point out and uh now it's up to the Iranian people to
00:20:39
seize their own government and take advantage of themselves. The difficulty with that will be BB wants to fight on
00:20:45
till the regime is destroyed and that'll be an interesting struggle to see how that goes. Earlier Trump
00:20:53
demonstrated that when he thought it was in American interest he was prepared to
00:20:58
pull BB's chain. So we'll see. This is uh I think in before we move out of the
00:21:04
Mina region a topic that's coming up there's obviously no support for this
00:21:09
war in America most Americans put foreign affairs today at one or two% of their concern economy and many other
00:21:16
issues are are high on their list and he's been pretty clear hey we're not
00:21:20
going to put boots on the ground and then there's this anti-semitic underpinning that's happening in America
00:21:26
that's become pretty acute and you had uh Rubia who we mentioned earlier say,
00:21:33
"Hey, we did this because uh the Israelis were going in anyway and we had no choice." And then they walked that
00:21:39
back. Explain to the audience how we should look at that turn of events where there's a group of people in America,
00:21:47
specifically people in the MAGA party, who believe Trump has betrayed them and that he's captured by the Israeli um
00:21:55
government in some way and he's doing their bidding. I'm not saying that.
00:21:59
That's my perspective, but that is a an undertone that we're seeing and that's
00:22:03
something new in our lifetime. I think >> it it certainly is. So, this is a big
00:22:07
topic, but I'd say when I talk about it, I I I say I'm pro-Israeli and anti-BB. So, is BB is not Israel.
00:22:18
The people whom I know mostly and respect mostly in Israel are the national security barons. the people
00:22:24
who've been the chief of staff or the head of Mossad or the head of Shinbet or
00:22:30
the people that work in that in those structures and they believe that BB is actually destroying the Bengorians
00:22:41
Israeli democracy that they cared about. Or if take Tom Freriedman, it's pretty
00:22:46
hard to accuse him of being anti- is, you know, anti-Semitic. Uh but he's been
00:22:52
I think very clear and very uh courageous in pointing out that what BB's doing to Israel's democracy is
00:23:00
really destroying it and the impact of that on Jewish kids in America. I mean I say this on campus where they want to be
00:23:09
proud of Israel. They uh they deserve to be proud of the country that has been built over these years, but they look at
00:23:17
the behavior of these crazy right-wing settlers and their activities in the in the occupied West Bank or they look at
00:23:25
some of the activities in Gaza or they look at now the kind of unlimited uh uh war without any any even attempt to make
00:23:35
arguments about proportionality and just say, "Wait a minute, that's not the
00:23:40
country I want to be proud of. I want to be proud of of Rabbin's Israel. I want
00:23:45
to be proud of Ahud Barak's Israel. I want to be proud of Benorian's Israel.
00:23:49
And I'm I'm pretty much of that of that persuasion. I think what what uh what BB
00:23:56
risks in this and risked earlier uh with uh citing I mean inter interfering in American politics
00:24:08
in invites push back. So I think this could have a big long-term negative effect both in the Democratic
00:24:17
party and the Republican party especially under under younger people. If you look at the polling for the
00:24:22
under30s on Israel, it's just like shocking. Yeah. >> Can we move to China because I think
00:24:32
that again this is going to be the big story over the next month. You've said
00:24:37
publicly that ousting Maduro from Venezuela could embolden China to accelerate a Taiwan takeover. The CIA,
00:24:46
it has been reported in media, warned Tim Cook of Apple and other tech companies about a possible invasion as
00:24:52
soon as next year. You've separately met publicly with Chinese officials. What's
00:24:58
your view on the likelihood and the timeline of a China attempted takeover of Taiwan and what are these kind of
00:25:05
motivating factors that might make that happen sooner? >> So, uh, let me clarify. I I'm not sure
00:25:11
or I may have been misinterpreted, but obviously the Chinese watch very carefully. They study wars and they will
00:25:18
learn lessons from what's going on here, but I don't think that is a I don't
00:25:22
think the Venezuelan operation other than making them feel envious about the capabilities will impact their
00:25:31
likelihood of attacking Taiwan. So Taiwan number one, I think the likelihood of an attack on Taiwan this
00:25:38
year or next year or even into 28, but let me just do 26 and 27 absent some major provocation by Taiwan or some
00:25:49
other third incident is very low. I put it at about where the where the prediction markets are 5% or
00:25:57
something low. So I'm not counting on that. Second, >> why is that so low? I'm just curious
00:26:03
>> why 5%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Because first they they have a theory of the case of what they call
00:26:11
peaceful reunification and they think things are evolving in that direction. >> The theory of the case is that the
00:26:19
current uh government which is a DPP government currently is is stymied by its opposition in the parliament. So they
00:26:30
can't even buy the arm sales that we previously gave them. There's 11 billion
00:26:36
arm sales that the Chinese have complained about. But Taiwan is the legislature probably won't buy half of
00:26:43
that. Okay. So the current president is struggling. There's going to be an election in
00:26:51
January 28th and they think it's likely that the former party, the KMT, will be
00:26:57
elected. somebody they'll be much more sympathetic to China and to a an evolving relationship. So that's number
00:27:05
one. Number two, the Chinese have been engaged in a a deep deep purge of all of their military leadership. I mean, it's
00:27:15
hard to believe and you read about the paper from time to time that he fired this guy, he fired this guy. He's fired
00:27:22
the equivalent of every fourstar in our whole political system and every combatant commander and every commander
00:27:30
who would be commandering the force commanding the forces over you know to deal with Taiwan. So while they've been
00:27:37
building up that military capability takes a long time to get that back into order in my view. So I would say that
00:27:45
part makes me feel less likely. Third, I think he understands that uh if he were
00:27:50
to do this, there's a risk, not a certainty, but a risk that the US would become involved and that the impact of
00:27:57
that either on China's economy, which he's got to worry about first, then also
00:28:02
on its evolution, would be significant. So, I'm I'm looking for uh and oh,
00:28:09
sorry. Finally in Trump uh he has the most accommodating president uh that China is likely to see with respect to
00:28:18
Taiwan. So Trump has made no secrets. I mean he talks publicly of his views about Taiwan and I think a couple of the
00:28:26
memoirs there's this discussion where he's in the oval and he's talking about
00:28:32
Taiwan and he picked somebody asked him about Taiwan. He picks up one of those Sharpies and goes, you know, on a spot
00:28:39
on the Resolute desk and he says that Taiwan. Then he draws his hand around the whole desk. He said that's China. So
00:28:48
I'd say I'm less worried about Taiwan in the on the on the current path. Now over
00:28:56
the longer run, the Chinese are absolutely clear, she and all the leadership that Taiwan is an inseparable
00:29:03
part of China and how that could be satisfied in a way that allow the Taiwanese the degree or substantial degree of the
00:29:13
uh freedom for both their economy and their society is the challenge that we've been struggling with for a long
00:29:20
time. But the good news is we've been doing this for 50 years and Taiwan has
00:29:26
never seen such a better, you know, such such circumstances. So I say to the Taiwanese friends, you know, basically
00:29:35
don't uh don't screw it up. >> Are we taking the right course of action, do you think? I guess the big
00:29:40
question for for you is what's the strategic imperative to keep Taiwan from falling under direct
00:29:48
Chinese control for the United States and are we taking the right actions to hedge our bets if you will against that
00:29:56
happening meaning onshoring of semiconductor manufacturing but also maybe from a defense perspective and
00:30:01
positioning perspective you can share a little bit about whether we're >> sure that's a big question so first
00:30:09
Scott Bassent, the Secretary of the Treasury, when he's asked about this, he
00:30:13
says the biggest threat that he's ever seen is the fact that 96% of the advanced semiconductors come from one
00:30:21
small island that could become cut off. So TSMC, as you all have discussed before, produces the advanced
00:30:29
semiconductors for essentially everybody of whom we're the principal consumer.
00:30:34
and we prevent them uh shipping this to China. That's a pretty complicated situation to begin with. Uh secondly,
00:30:45
Taiwan is halfway around the world as President Trump says and 90 miles off the shore of China and we're far away
00:30:52
and we have a lot of other things to worry about. So, it's a little bit like
00:30:56
Cuba. So inherently indefensible if China were seriously determined to either destroy it or to take it. Now on
00:31:06
the other hand since the opening to China and the Shanghai communicate there's been an
00:31:14
agreement of maintaining a status quo uh with the US commitment being what's
00:31:20
called strategic ambiguity in which uh the US and China have been committed to Taiwan
00:31:29
internal development is left to its own device and China doesn't use military
00:31:34
force to prevent that but we say Taiwan is there's one China and the only China's capital is Beijing and then we
00:31:44
have a a little bit of ambiguous way to talk about the relationship between Taiwan and China but certainly letting
00:31:51
it evolve in any way that the parties would be prepared to live with. Most people expecting that over time this
00:31:59
relationship will work its way out. And I when I talk to Chinese about it, I say
00:32:04
to them, first, you've never seen 50 better years on either side of the straits. So this has been fantastic for
00:32:12
both societies in terms of what they care about. And secondly, if they look at this situation, if China's
00:32:20
core strategy is correct, which is the inexurable rise of China, and that continues
00:32:28
in another decade or two, Taiwan will look like a fleet and therefore not going to be an issue.
00:32:36
If it if China's main narrative doesn't work, Taiwan is not going to be their biggest
00:32:42
problem. So they should work on the other issues. Yeah. >> If you think about China projecting
00:32:47
influence around the world, how important is it for them to continue to do that? There was recently an objective
00:32:54
I think of a GDP growth in the 5% range. Four to 5%. Is that right? For China, which
00:33:00
>> four and a half to five. Yeah. >> Four and a half to five, which is a
00:33:04
record low in recent history for them. Is it imperative for China to continue to extend geopolitical and economic
00:33:13
influence around the world to grow its economy? You know, going back to the framing of the rising power, do they
00:33:21
still need to do that to keep people happy at home? Or is China going to be able to maintain happiness at home in a
00:33:30
multi-olar world where China and perhaps the US and perhaps some other countries
00:33:36
share influence around the world. This is one you raised and we talked about the last time which is interesting. I
00:33:43
think we agreed. So let me uh just again for people that don't remember start. So
00:33:49
first China is a meteoric rising power. Never has a country risen so far so fast
00:33:56
on so many different dimensions. If you take a snapshot of the year 2000 and the
00:34:02
year 2025 and compare China on any metric of power, it's just dumbfounding dumbfounding. So, a country uh that uh I
00:34:13
have compared it to kind of like a a Formula 1 racing, a country that we couldn't find in our rearview mirror in
00:34:20
2020 or sorry, 2000 because it was so far behind. We have trouble finding in our rearview mirror today because it's
00:34:28
beside us or in many races even slightly ahead of us. So, that's GDP. It was less
00:34:35
than 5% of global or it was less than a quarter the US in 2000. Today by pursing power parity it's
00:34:45
25% larger. In 2000 trading it was uh 5% of global today and we were 15. Today it's 35 and we're 25. If you do advanced
00:34:57
tech in any any arena, take 5G, but my goodness, take EVs. Oh my goodness, take whatever. Okay, so rapidly rising power.
00:35:09
That's essential. That's the infrastructure for their grand narrative, which is the inexraable rise
00:35:16
of China to its natural position in the international order, which they think is
00:35:22
at the top of the pyramid. So they are absolutely determined to be number one in their own arena to begin with and
00:35:30
then after that you know maybe more and they also they have a second the second proposition
00:35:38
there's the inexraable decline of the US and they look at the various parts of
00:35:44
the US and the components including getting involved in unnecessary wars as part of that story that part of their
00:35:52
narrative and That dynamic, the shifting of the seessaw, is what gives you this thusidity and dynamic that we discussed
00:36:01
before, which most often, hard as it is to believe, but most often discombobulates people so much that then
00:36:09
some incident or accident like something that happens over Taiwan leads to a vicious circle of actions and reactions
00:36:16
that drags them into a war after which they think, "My god, how did this ever
00:36:21
happen?" So that's a long story but I would say the economic piece is essential for this and that economic
00:36:29
piece means they want to be the manufacturing work workshop for the world and the foundry for the world and
00:36:35
the supplier for the world. There are two major challenges they have uh I believe one of them is population
00:36:42
decline other is unemployment and the AI that we've seen and what's hitting first
00:36:49
>> could hit them in a major way manufacturing is moving to robotics at an alarming place then you have things
00:36:55
like self-driving which is a major job there uh for for many people so on those two axis when you see the youth
00:37:03
unemployment which I think is 15 or 20% in um locations in China and population decline. Is that she's two biggest
00:37:11
challenges to deal with and and how does that affect this, you know, bipo this uh
00:37:17
uh relationship? >> Good question. And this is more in your space than mine cuz I've tried to
00:37:22
follow. But Elon says there's going to be more robots than people. Okay. >> Yeah.
00:37:27
>> And if you ask him where where are the most advanced robots in the world, the
00:37:32
ones that are kicking his ass or he worries about they're China. So they got
00:37:36
a huge number of robot companies. When I was there in uh last when was I last there in uh
00:37:45
um January I went to see a factory Xiaomi Xiaomi the phone company. Xiaomi 3 years ago decided they would make cars
00:37:57
after watching Apple spend $10 million not able to make a car. within three years. That factory is producing cars
00:38:05
right now and they have a huge demand for these cars. They have three lines. One of the lines is all robots. Okay?
00:38:14
So, they're putting a lot of robots to work. More than half of the working the
00:38:19
factory worker robots in the world are in China. Uh and so some of the people are saying well you know demographics is
00:38:28
going to be not so big a problem because if demographics is only a problem because of workers you know we're going
00:38:34
to have work in fact the American workers are more worried about you know taking our jobs. So that's a now the the
00:38:41
issue of for the uh impact on education they have uh a number of people that have been educated in arenas that are
00:38:51
now no longer you know high demand jobs and unfortunately we have a lot of that too I mean if you look at people college
00:38:59
graduates now that graduated in I don't know DEI subjects they're having trouble
00:39:05
uh getting jobs so I would say uh it's a little they're more similar ilarities
00:39:10
there than differences. The other thing is Chinese have demonstrated a great much greater capacity or readiness to
00:39:17
adopt and adapt to new technologies. So if you look at uh I'm sure you have or you all have probably had him on
00:39:26
Jinsen Wong uh but when he went to China he said gee I think I came to the future
00:39:32
you know that uh uh the people don't you know they don't use not only do they not
00:39:37
use uh uh coins they don't use bills they don't use checks they don't use
00:39:44
credit cards they just have their face and then go through the story >> let's shift round to
00:39:53
what some have described as the longer term playing field which is near the Arctic. Some have argued that much of
00:40:01
the recent push for Greenland by the United States is driven by the military threat coming over the Arctic from
00:40:09
Russia and from China. I'm wondering if you could just help frame for our audience why is Greenland so strategic
00:40:17
to the United States and is this effectively a proxy for defense against China and Russia and why now?
00:40:27
>> Another big question. So let me start with the bottom line. I think the
00:40:33
at least from the judgments of the people whom I respect the most, we can we the US can
00:40:41
get everything we want from Greenland without invading it or owning it. So Greenland has been an important base for
00:40:50
missile defenses, a dual duel base. We had two other bases that we closed, but we can open as many other bases as
00:40:59
we want, and they're very amidable to that. I think President Trump's right to
00:41:03
say, well, yeah, but I don't want a short-term lease on these bases. I would
00:41:08
say a 99-year lease sounds like a pretty good lease to me for, you know, in 99 years, God knows what's going to be
00:41:14
happening. But to the extent that missile defense and uh is part of it, which it is, I would say that's a part
00:41:21
for the naval component. Yes. I think the as uh the Arctic uh melts, you already now have an
00:41:30
opening of sea lanes and the way that the uh the territorial ownership uh the abuters have their
00:41:42
claim to the local and the regional and there the the main claims are Russian and Canadian. We have a chunk from
00:41:49
Alaska and then Greenland would be a piece of that. So, I would say that's relevant. But those sea lanes, uh, at
00:41:57
least for the Navy people I talked to are they're not as important as they used to be because now there's so many
00:42:04
different ways to get it. You're not going to uh try to blockade a a uh, you
00:42:10
know, a a waterway uh, with ships. You're going to do it with smart mines or you're going to do it simply by
00:42:16
attacking the ships on the on the array. And if it's underwater, uh underwater is
00:42:22
pretty much all the same. I mean, it's good to have narrow places and shallow
00:42:27
places for looking for things, but uh so I I I would say I think Trump's uh uh
00:42:35
Greenland venture was more like for fun. plus uh I mean I think one of the people
00:42:42
that knows him well says remember he's first off a reality TV producer and star
00:42:50
so he just has fun starting with a a drama getting people very excited uh letting the tension rise and then
00:42:59
finding a resolution and I think we're on track to a resolution there >> let me push back just on that point what
00:43:05
I have heard is that there's rising socialism in Western Europe. Growing concern that over time as socialism
00:43:14
becomes more of the mainstay in the governing models in Western European nations, those nations fall more under
00:43:21
the influence of China. And as a result, if you think about the influence that China could then have on on Denmark and
00:43:28
on Danish foreign policy, if the United States doesn't secure what it needs for
00:43:33
the long term, and it may not know what it needs for the long term physically in
00:43:38
Greenland today, we only know what we need today. That we're at risk of China
00:43:43
having outsized influence over Greenland tomorrow. And that that's the real reason for the big push today for
00:43:51
Greenland. How does that sit with you and does that align kind of with with what some folks are are concerned about?
00:43:58
>> I have to think about it. I hadn't heard that argument just that way. Again, what
00:44:02
is socialism? It's complicated. Uh certainly the Chinese well yes they're
00:44:07
socialists in some respect. I would say capitalism is I mean they're autocratic
00:44:14
and they're partyled but then their economy is essentially uh fiercely uh capitalist. I mean, you have a uh the uh
00:44:24
on one of the one of my friends glad gladatorial conflict that makes the competition in Silicon Valley look look
00:44:34
tame as the you know as the parties fight each other. Uh so >> because you can't make money because the
00:44:40
taxes are so high. That's another >> and in their case you know they they
00:44:46
they decide they're going into an arena. let's say for example EVs and so they
00:44:52
give uh uh advantages to companies getting started even subsidies and then they let them fight it out and lo and
00:45:01
behold at the end they'll be you know 10 or five but it's fiercely competitive in
00:45:06
the meantime and a lot of guys will get you know trampled along the way and then
00:45:11
those guys are excess capacity and they'll sell things off you know without any concern about the capex they're just
00:45:19
as long as they can stay ahead of the game, you know, selling items or even selling out their inventory. So, I think
00:45:25
the uh I think watching the way watching the evolution of other countries including Europe, I think uh and their
00:45:36
relations with China as well as with us in this game is a very relevant point. And I would say the uh one of the things
00:45:46
that the Trump administration has had trouble with is recognizing that if we're in a fierce rivalry with China,
00:45:54
they got four times as many people. We need to have some allies with heft on our side of the seesaw to keep it from
00:46:03
going the wrong direction. And so, yes, kind of sometimes you need to give your ally a cold bath in order to get them to
00:46:13
shape up, but uh I think uh uh getting Canadians to think of us as an enemy is a great wild idea. uh uh I mean any
00:46:27
treatment that comes to that conclusion and if you take Carney whom I know from when he's a Harvard college kid he's
00:46:34
he's as American as anybody or he was but the idea if you go and threaten a politician's survival that's a pretty
00:46:43
good way to piss him off and if you threaten to take territory from people that's a pretty good way to make them
00:46:52
feel hostile. Uh, so this is an unusual treatment if we're trying to, you know, get guys with
00:46:59
heft on our side of the seesaw. >> At the World Economic Forum, I wasn't
00:47:02
sure if it was Davos or another one of their forums. Were you at the Davos one this year?
00:47:07
>> Sure. >> So, as a total aside, just bringing President Trump's impact, it was two and
00:47:13
a half days of people wondering what he would say when he got there. >> The town shut down as people watched his
00:47:19
2hour standup, you know, delivery. and then another two days of people sort of trying to understand and figure out what
00:47:28
happened there. So there's something >> it was a reality TV show for sure. Yeah.
00:47:34
So he took over this fellow uh uh Mooch who was his communication guy for a week
00:47:42
or 10 days till he got fired in the first administration said on the first night I was at an event he said remember
00:47:48
this is going to be a re reality TV show. was going to start with the claim that we're going to invade Greenland,
00:47:54
which my god, you're invading in a lie. That's a pretty big deal. He said, then
00:47:59
you're going to watch the drama build. When Trump had a chance to speak, he's
00:48:02
speaking this long ring back and forth back. But he then had a just a paragraph in which he said he basically took the
00:48:10
gun off the table. But before that, he was doing a mafioso act. Even some some mafioso lines about, you know, you can
00:48:18
either have it the easy way or the hard way. One of the that's a godfather line.
00:48:22
And so people were saying, "Yes, you know, this what what has been loose on
00:48:27
us." So now you have all this drama. But then he says, "I've decided we're not
00:48:32
going to invade Greenland." You know, he just passes that off. So now the temperature goes down. And now the third
00:48:38
day he does some other institute or board of peace and he says we now have a framework of an agreement.
00:48:47
So uh I think I think half of the time he's having fun. >> Yeah. >> You know it's sort of it does get
00:48:56
people's attention. >> Sure it does. uh you um on a substantive basis shared a framework 8089
00:49:04
and I think it you know I've spent a bunch of time listening to the talk you
00:49:07
gave and and some people's um reaction to it maybe you could share it with the
00:49:12
audience and why it's important. Oh, thank you. I'm glad you So, I think this
00:49:16
is a big idea. So, these are three numbers, each of which is the answer to a question. And if you can remember the
00:49:25
three numbers and you can identify the question to which each one is the answer, you have the big picture about
00:49:33
international security in the lifetime of yourself and even your parents. That is virtually everybody who's alive
00:49:42
today. So the first sity is the answer to what? >> How long it's been since a world war?
00:49:48
>> How many years since a great power war? Since a world war. >> Yeah.
00:49:51
>> Now, whoa, wait a minute. 80 years. This is the longest piece in recorded history
00:49:58
since Rome. This is not natural. This is very abnormal. This is a didn't happen by accident.
00:50:08
This was what the people who founded the international order after World War II were trying to build a new world order
00:50:16
because they had just lived through a terrible World War II simply one generation before they
00:50:22
remembered, hey, there was World War I. >> So if we just keep doing this, we should
00:50:27
expect World War II. >> It should have already happened. If it could have happened at the human missile
00:50:32
crisis. So no great power war. Fantastic. and but a a fragile a work in progress all the time eroding inevitably
00:50:44
for many many different reasons right second 80 how many years >> since we've had a nuclear uh bomb go off
00:50:51
>> fantastic so think about that if you had gone if there had been prediction
00:50:56
markets and you had gone in 1945 or 50 you would have got 10,000 to1 odds against that it's impossible the weapon
00:51:05
that ended World War II two and you're not ever going to see any use of those
00:51:08
weapons in war. Whoa. And then nine, >> the number of countries, nation states
00:51:14
that have nuclear bombs today. >> Fantastic, Jack. Right. Now, how in the world could you have only nine countries
00:51:23
having nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons being your kind of ultimate security blanket. Again, John Kennedy uh in 1963
00:51:32
said by the 70s there'll be 25 or 30 nuclear weapons states cuz he thought that as states acquired the capability
00:51:40
to build nuclear weapons they would do so. Today 90 95 states could have nuclear weapons in a year or two if they
00:51:47
decided to build them. Actually into the 70s Sweden had a serious nuclear program. South Korea had a nuclear
00:51:54
program. Taiwan had a nuclear program. US closed those down, created the so-called non-prololiferation regime
00:52:03
that's accounted for this nine. But I would say again fragile, eroding, not likely to be sustained. So when I try to
00:52:14
do my giving thanks for uh you know things that I should be thankful for, thankful for 80 years without a great
00:52:22
power war. If there were a great power war, you and I, we wouldn't be here and
00:52:27
we wouldn't be having this conversation and all the other issues we have to deal
00:52:31
with. So I would say the 80 the 80 and 9 we should not take for granted. We should give thanks for the work that was
00:52:37
done to to build them and then we should notice what's going to be required to
00:52:42
sustain this. >> And we almost had a 10th nuclear power in Iran. >> We did.
00:52:47
>> And we had the latest two if I'm correct here. You'll correct me because you're
00:52:50
the expert. Pakistan and North Korea and we had that one doctor Khan I believe his name was from Pakistan who was
00:52:57
trying to spread and sell these. So >> absolutely >> did we make a critical error we being
00:53:04
the west even the east humanity the leadership of letting Pakistan and North Korea into this club?
00:53:11
>> Well I mean not not into the club but allowing them to get nuclear weapons
00:53:15
which is right. The Israelis have had a different idea and this goes back uh uh uh to the original attack on Iraq
00:53:27
and Osarok. Uh they I call it affirmative non-prololiferation. So they say we're not allowing nuclear
00:53:35
weapons in our neighborhood. And they've uh destroyed the nuclear weapon project
00:53:40
in Iraq. They destroyed the nuclear weapon activity in Syria when the North Koreans were building a plant there half
00:53:49
dozen years ago. And now they've been the leaders in the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program which we've
00:53:55
participated in. I however I'm uncomfortable about the wars even in Iran. I have to cheer for this because I
00:54:05
fear additional nuclear weapon states and I wish that we had managed somehow. Let's take the North Korean case. I've
00:54:13
even said this to Chinese uh officials. I said, you know, we and you made a terrible mistake. Maybe we made a bigger
00:54:21
mistake to let North Korea get nuclear weapons. But what we should have said to you is, hey, we have an idea. Nuclear
00:54:30
weapons are either good for North Korea and South Korea, or they're good for neither of them.
00:54:37
>> Your choice. And uh that would have been hard ball. But I I think uh uh the idea of having
00:54:46
Kim Jong-un have now more than 100 nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach the American homeland is crazy.
00:54:56
I mean, here we're talking about Iran and what it might be. Excuse me. it takes uh 20 minutes longer from Korea to
00:55:07
get to Boston than from Iran or maybe 25 minutes. So I I think that uh that's a
00:55:15
useful perspective to remind us that we let this thing happen. It's a ticking
00:55:21
bomb as far as I'm concerned. If you ask me what to do about it, I makes me, you
00:55:27
know, cry because Trump in the first administration focused on this problem very very seriously and did everything
00:55:35
that he thought he could and I thought it was a good a good effort even though it was not successful.
00:55:42
But the 20 other ways we've tried to deal with that problem were equally unsuccessful.
00:55:48
>> How does China feel about nuclear proliferation and North Korea having these bombs? Well, I think they feel a
00:55:54
little ashamed at least uh about what happened in North Korea and kind of think, well, that wasn't really our
00:56:00
problem. But now uh when you say, well, if this keeps if things on the current path, well, maybe South Korea or Japan
00:56:09
will have nuclear arsenals in their backyard, they think that's terrible idea, and we would be not very
00:56:15
enthusiastic about a Venezuelan or Canadian nuclear bomb. Yeah. >> So, Dr. Alison, just to kind of wrap our
00:56:23
tour of the world here, come back to the United States. Since we last spoke, there have been a number of mayors
00:56:31
elected in this country that are self-declared socialists or democratic socialists of America, PSA. And there's
00:56:39
a rising populist movement in the United States that seems to be manifesting in many cases candidates that look and act
00:56:46
like true deep socialists and want to enact socialist policies. What is the risk to the United States if this
00:56:56
continues to go the way it's going? And what is the risk to the United States,
00:57:00
do you think, in 2028 if we have a Democratcontrolled House and Senate and a very populist Democrat
00:57:08
candidate that looks like a DSA member? Where does this take us? >> Well, again, good for you all for
00:57:15
thinking of uncomfortable radical questions, but real. Uh, so if you look at the numbers, I I I've
00:57:25
been looking at them lately. They're hard to believe in terms of the split between wealthy and poor or uh rich and
00:57:34
poor. If you look at the who's benefited for the last generation in terms of the
00:57:41
uh 0.01% the 1% the 10% the 20%. Well, that's us and all the people that we know virtually. And therefore when we
00:57:50
say the market is you know third year in a in a in a bull market and my goodness
00:57:57
here it's up 15 or 16% or this 80 or 70% of people this is not part of their
00:58:03
lives and when I look at the numbers about both what I think the facts are and then even more people's perception
00:58:12
uh uh it's just not stable in a democracy if everybody gets a vote. And if uh uh the top 10 or 20% are
00:58:23
taking 80% or 70% of the pie, that's not stable and sustainable, I think. And it's a political invitation
00:58:34
for a populist and demographic demog, that's not reasonable. Uh, so I think that it's not I mean this is beyond my I
00:58:49
mean I I can hardly deal with the problems I I focus on. This one is one that I look over my shoulder and think
00:58:56
gee wait a minute this first this can't be true but then whenever I've been
00:59:01
looking into the numbers lately they look as bad as they appear and then this is extremely dangerous and I would say
00:59:10
yes. And so I haven't heard people talking about plausible ways in which uh you know this could be
00:59:20
addressed and I but I think it's a it's a it's an invitation you know for some more radical ideas
00:59:30
and uh so while I like very much the Trump uh accounts for kids to give them some stake I think that's a that's a
00:59:39
fantastic thing. I I I could probably be persuaded that people even at my level of income should
00:59:48
pay another 10% of taxes or whatever for uh for some more adjustment. I think the
00:59:58
kind of adjustments that are basically putting people on the dole uh or uh support for nonproductive or
01:00:09
semi-productive activity makes me very uncomfortable. Uh I mean unless they're
01:00:15
lame or you know ill or or >> referring to UBI proposals uh people getting a universal basic income that
01:00:22
that takes motivation >> makes me less I like incentive. I mean, I think the the stuff of America has
01:00:28
been the opportunity for people to to be incentivized to invent, create, and create wealth that's benefits for
01:00:36
everybody. But if the if the jam is not getting spread to 70% of the people, that not a sustainable political
01:00:46
situation. And and I think I mean I thought in the in the New York campaign we got to see some preview of a bit of
01:00:55
this and in the primaries you're seeing people going into this space. I haven't
01:01:00
seen anybody with a with a coherent program yet. But I think for serious people thinking about what's good for
01:01:08
the country that's a it's a good one to worry about. >> Does seem free that there's there's a
01:01:14
couple proposals here. minimum wage, maybe some type of a wealth tax. There are things that people are talking
01:01:20
about. We may not all agree with them, and they may be hard to execute, but one of them is for the people at the top. I
01:01:26
think you would agree, Professor Allison, the people at the top have the most to lose here, and they should be
01:01:33
thinking about it. And maybe there's generosity and, you know, maybe giving away wealth in a more thoughtful way
01:01:40
because there's so much wealth in this top 1% 10% that they can't possibly
01:01:45
spend. And so this might be something that that group of people should be thinking a little bit more about.
01:01:50
>> In the State of the Union, Trump called out, you know, Dell and a couple of
01:01:55
other people for having stepped up and say, "Okay, I'm, you know, I'm all in on
01:02:00
this." I would say there something quite or that certainly it got my attention
01:02:06
and made me think maybe I should be doing something different. Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Well, Professor Allison,
01:02:12
you know, they they say that you can measure a man's knowledge and thoughtfulness by his humility. I will
01:02:18
say you have extraordinary depth and you've thought so deeply about so many of these issues that this world is
01:02:24
facing right now and yet you act with such humility and grace when you speak about them. I want to thank you for
01:02:31
that. I want to thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Really appreciate it and look forward to doing
01:02:35
it again in person soon. >> Yeah. Thank you so much on behalf of the audience and just on a personal basis.
01:02:41
This is such a delight and privilege to be able to do with this with you every year or two. And man, I hope we can just
01:02:46
do it every year because it's the highlight of my year when we get to talk. >> Excuse me. It's an honor for me. Thank
01:02:52
you so much. And thank you for what y'all are doing and thanks for thinking of such hard questions. I'll take me
01:02:59
home tonight to think about socialism. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
01:03:03
>> Thank you. >> I'm going all in.