>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL.
A FASCINATING TOPIC. IN MANY WAYS A COMBINATION NOT
JUST OF THIS -- CULMINATION OF THIS CONFERENCE BUT ALSO SO
MANY OF THE HEADLINES THESE PAST YEARS.
THIS NOTION THAT WE HAVE MOVED INTO A NEW GLOBAL ORDER THAT
WILL BE DEFINED BY FUNDAMENTAL COMPETITION BETWEEN MAJOR
POWERS, HOW THAT COMPETITION INVOLVES.
HOW WE CHOOSE TO ENGAGE TOGETHER OR NOT IN RESPONDING
TO GLOBAL CHALLENGES, THAT IS WHAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN THE
NEXT 30-PLUS MINUTES. I WANT TO START WITH TONY, AND
ASK, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MOOD MUSIC OF THE U.S.
AND CHINA AT LEAST, OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS,
WE HAVE SEEN AT LEAST A PULLBACK FROM THE IDEA OF A NEW
COLD WAR. DO YOU THINK ANYTHING FUNDAMENTAL HAS CHANGED OR IS
CHANGING BETWEEN THE U.S. AND CHINA? MR. BLAIR: THE FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER IS,
FUNDAMENTALLY, NO. BUT I DO THINK WHAT THE WEST IS
TRYING TO SEARCH FOR IS THE RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA,
WHICH, AS YOU SAY, WILL BE THE DEFINING RELATIONSHIP CERTAINLY
IN THIS PART OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
IT IS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CHINA IS A POWER, HAS A RIGHTFUL
PLACE AS A POWER. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, AN ISSUE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE, THERE ISN'T A SOLUTION
WITHOUT THE ENGAGEMENT OF CHINA. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS
ANXIETY ABOUT CHINA AS A THREAT. THEREFORE, I WOULD CHARACTERIZE
WHAT I THINK THE WEST IS SEARCHING FOR, AND I DON'T
THINK THIS IS DEFINED VERY CLEARLY AT, BUT I WOULD
CHARACTERIZE IT AS ONE THAT WOULD COME TO MAXIMUM
ENGAGEMENT BUT WITH SUPERIOR STRENGTH.
IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO
ENGAGE WITH CHINA WHETHER IT IS ON CLIMATE OR THE PANDEMIC OR
THE STABILITY OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, RECOGNIZING THAT CHINA HAS
TAKEN A DIFFERENT PATH IN THE LAST FEW YEARS AND BECOME MORE
INTERNALLY REPRESSIVE, MORE EXTERNALLY AGGRESSIVE.
I THINK THE WEST WILL WANT TO RETAIN SUPERIORITY MILITARILY,
IN TECHNOLOGY, AND ON THE ECONOMY. AND MY GUESS IS THAT
ULTIMATELY, ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE MIGHT DISAGREE WITH
THIS, EUROPE, AND FOR THESE PURPOSES I INCLUDE THE UNITED
KINGDOM, EUROPE WILL WANT TO BE ULTIMATELY, IN SYSTEMIC TERMS,
WITH THE U.S.. IAN: MADAM SECRETARY, I JUST HEARD
FROM TONY -- MAXIMUM ENGAGEMENT BUT WITH SUPERIOR STRENGTH.
WHEN HE THINK ABOUT THIS FROM THE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE, WHAT
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS DOING RIGHT NOW, DO YOU THINK
THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DEFINE IT? MRS. CLINTON:
I THINK THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
IS ATTEMPTING TO LAYOUT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN RECENT
MONTHS, WITH THE MOVE TO BRING TOGETHER THE QUAD, AND TRY TO CREATE NOW A VERY VISIBLE
ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONS IN THE REGION TO BE PART OF AN
OVERALL EFFORT TO MAKE CLEAR TO CHINA THAT, OF COURSE WE HAVE
TO COOPERATE. WE SHOULD COOPERATE ON A RANGE
OF ISSUES. BUT WE ALSO CAN'T PERMIT THE
KIND OF AGGRESSIVE MILITARY BUILDUP, THE KIND OF EFFORTS TO
DOMINATE MARITIME NAVIGATION, THE INTIMIDATION OF NATIONS IN
THE LARGER ASIA-PACIFIC REGION. AND WE ALSO HAVE SEEN A VERY
SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT DEFENSE MOVE BY THE UNITED STATES, THE
U.K., AND AUSTRALIA TO BUTTRESS AUSTRALIA AS A STRONG PARTNER
IN A SUPERIOR MILITARY PRESENCE. SO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
IS TRYING TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE THAT WE HEARD PRESIDENT
BIDEN EXPRESS IN HIS RECENT VIRTUAL SUMMIT WITH PRESIDENT
XI JINPING . I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WILL
HAPPEN IN THE REGION WILL DEPEND ON HOW OTHER NATIONS
PERCEIVE THE COMPETITION, AND THAT IS NOT ONLY WITH ASIA BUT
ALSO FURTHER AFIELD IN EUROPE. IN AFRICA AND EVEN LATIN
AMERICA. OTHER NATIONS WILL ALSO HAVE TO
MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO HOW ENGAGE IN COOPERATION WITH
CHINA, WITH THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES, AND HOW THEY
MAXIMIZE THEIR OWN INTERESTS IN THE MIDST OF THIS VERY CLEAR
AND GROWING COMPETITION BETWEEN THE U.S. AND CHINA. IAN:
THANK YOU. WE HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT THE U.S.
IS INCONSISTENT, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN COUNT ON THEM, WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR ASIA POLICY LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT FROM INDIA.
FROM THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S.
HAS BEEN GETTING STRONGER UNDER THE LAST TWO ADMINISTRATIONS.
MR. JAISHANKAR: LAST FIVE. IAN: NO QUESTION.
BUT SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GREAT POWER COMPETITION, I AM
WONDERING, FROM WHERE YOU SIT TODAY, DO YOU SEE THE U.S.
CHINA RELATIONSHIP AS FUNDAMENTALLY MORE PROBLEMATIC
TODAY? DO YOU THINK THE U.S. IS A MORE COMFORTABLE PARTNER
FOR INDIA THAT YOU CAN RELY ON MORE? ? MR. JAISHANKAR: LET ME GIVE YOU A MORE
STRUCTURAL ANSWER. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
U.S. HAS BEEN STRATEGICALLY CONTRACTING FOR SOME TIME.
DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE DECLINE OF THE U.S., I THINK
THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS, BUT RELATIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY,
AMERICAN POWER AND AMERICAN INFLUENCE IS NOT WHAT IT USED
TO BE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR CHINA HAS BEEN
EXPANDING, BUT THE NATURE OF CHINA, THE MANNER OF ITS
GROWING INFLUENCE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE U.S., AND WE
DON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE CHINA NECESSARILY REPLACES THE
OTHERS. -- REPLACES THE UNITED STATES. IT IS NATURAL TO THINK OF
U.S.-CHINA AS THE BIG ONE. BUT THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES,
NOT JUST INDIA, WHICH HAVE COME MUCH MORE INTO PLAY.
THERE HAS BEEN A REBALANCING IN THE WORLD.
I THINK DIFFERENT COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT.
IN ESSENCE, THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED AND BECOME MORE
VOLATILE. THE PLAYERS HAVE MULTIPLIED.
WE TEND TO FIND MUCH MORE LOCALIZED FIXES.
SECRETARY CLINTON REFERRED TO THE QUAD.
IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOME COUNTRIES COMING TOGETHER ON A
CERTAIN SET OF CONCERNS OR ISSUES OF INTEREST. SO THE LONG
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, THE UNITED STATES IS A MUCH -- I
HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE UNITED STATES CLOSE TO 40 YEARS
NOW, MAY MORE. IN THE U.S. IS TODAY A MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE
PARTNER, MUCH MORE OPEN TO IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, WORKING
ARRANGEMENTS, THAN IN THE PAST. I THINK THIS REFLECTS A VERY
DIFFERENT KIND OF WORLD WE ARE MOVING INTO, A WORLD, IN A
SENSE YOU COULD SAY -- THE REAL TRANSITIONS AFTER 1982 ARE NOW
OCCURRING, AND WE ARE HEADING FOR A FAIRLY LONG PERIOD OF
UNCERTAINTY AND VOLATILITY, BUT CREATIVITY.
FOR MY BUSINESS, IT IS VERY CHALLENGING. IAN:
MADAM SECRETARY, I NOTICED IN YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT THE
UNITED STATES IS DOING IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, YOU TALKED
ABOUT THE QUAD AND AUKUS, VARIOUS SUCCESSES FOR THE U.S.,
BUT YOU DIDN'T TALK ABOUT A TRADE POLICY.
WE DON'T HAVE A TRADE POLICY. WHEN I THINK ABOUT TPP AND
RCEP, THE TWO LARGEST MULTI-TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE
WORLD AND THE U.S. IS NOT A PART OF THEM.
WHEN YOU WERE SECRETARY OF STATE, YOU TRIED TO MOVE IN A
DIFFERENT DIRECTION. HOW MUCH OF HOLE IS THAT, AND
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO ADDRESS IT? MRS. CLINTON:
THAT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.
I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED IT DIFFERENTLY A FEW YEARS AGO
[INDISCERNIBLE] I AM ABOUT THAT I WOULD HAVE
ANSWERED DIFFERENTLY A FEW YEARS AGO THAN I WAS GOING TO
ANSWER TONIGHT. BUT THE ANSWERS HAVE CHANGED
SIGNIFICANTLY. WHAT I THINK WE WILL BE SEEING
AS WE ARE NOW AND HAVE EVER SINCE THE IRAQ SHOULD OF THE
PANDEMIC, IS NATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE U.S.
AND OTHERS AS WELL, ARE GOING TO BE REALLY FOCUSING INWARD ON
THEIR OWN INTERNAL PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURING BASE FOR ALL
KINDS OF NECESSITIES. THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUPPLY
CHAIN THAT HAS BEEN REVEALED, FIRST WITH THE DIFFICULTIES OF
GETTING P.P.E. WITH THE PANDEMIC AND WITH THE
BACKLOG OF EVERYTHING, WITH CONTAINER SHIPS BACKED UP AS
THEY ARE, CERTAINLY AT AMERICAN PORTS, MEANS THERE WILL BE
INCREASING PRESSURE INTERNALLY ON THE U.S.
TO BE MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT WHEN IT COMES TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
NECESSITIES. IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A
TRADING NATION, AND IT WOULD BE AN
INTEREST -- BE IN OUR INTEREST TO TAKE A HARD LOOK ON HOW BEST
TO MAXIMIZE THIS RATHER INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT OF HOW
WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPLY WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY,
WITHIN OUR OWN HEMISPHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON LONG-HAUL TRADE, NOT DEPENDENT UPON WHATEVER
DECISION MIGHT BE MADE OR WHATEVER ECONOMIC SHOCK MIGHT
OCCUR IN CHINA. BUT ALSO, GOING BACK TO THIS
IDEA OF BALANCING, AND SOMETIMES BALANCING WHAT USED
TO BE CONTRADICTORY IMPULSES SO THAT WE ARE ENGAGED IN TRADE
BOTH IN A POSITIVE WAY, BUT ALSO IN A WAY THAT TRIES TO
MAKE GREATER ADVANTAGE FOR THE U.S., FOR OUR ALLIES, IN
SETTING UP NEW SUPPLY CHAINS, 18 LOOKING AT NEW KINDS OF
RELATIONSHIPS. I AM NOT SURE THAT EVEN SOME OF
THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS THAT WE ARE NOT IN, THAT WERE
NEGOTIATED 10 YEARS AGO AND LONGER, WILL BE ADEQUATE FOR
HOW COUNTRIES SUCH AS OURS AND OTHERS ARE SEEING THE ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE. TRADE, YES.
BUT TRADE DEFINED AS -- COMBINED WITH MORE INTERNAL
CHANGES IN OUR OWN ECONOMIES, LOOKING CAREFULLY AT WHAT IS
HAPPENING INSIDE CHINA, BOTH SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF
OVERHEATING OR OVEREXTENSION, PLUS SOME OF THE DECISIONS MADE
BY GOVERNMENT AND THE PARTY THERE TO CLAMP ON CERTAIN
MANUFACTURERS TO BEGIN TO BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT WITH
AMERICAN COMPANIES, WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE
NEW FACTS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND HOW BEST TO MANAGE THOSE
FOR OUR BENEFIT AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR FRIENDS AND
ALLIES. IAN:
LET'S STIPULATE ON HOW TRADE HAS EVOLVED.
WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT EUROPE YET.
I WANT TO BRING IN EUROPE NOW. THE U.S.
FROM A MILITARY LENS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
LINES -- DOMINANT PLAYER ESPECIALLY IN THE PACIFIC WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE U.K. FRIENDS, THE EUROPEANS SEE IT
VERY DIFFERENT. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT EUROPEANS
PLAY A ROLE WITH THE UNITED STATES AND NOT WITH THE UNITED
STATES VIS-A-VIS CHINA? WHERE IS THAT NOW AND WHERE DO
YOU THINK IT IS EVOLVING? MR. BLAIR:
WELL, I THINK EUROPE, IN A VERY FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, WILL WANT TO
STAY WITH THE UNITED STATES. AND I THINK EUROPE WILL NOT
WANT TO BE SEEN OR WANT TO START NAVIGATING BETWEEN CHINA
AND THE U.S. AS IF THEY WERE EQUIDISTANT.
HILLARY MADE A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT HERE, AND I AM NOT SURE
-- SHE CAN ANSWER HERSELF, BUT I AM NOT SO SURE THAT HER VIEWS
ARE EVOLVED AS THE FACTS HAVE CHANGED.
IT IS TRUE NOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES
THAT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
BUT WHAT I THINK WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE IS IF THE WORLD
GOES PROTECTIONIST, TURNS ITS BACK ON THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF OPEN TRADE, WHICH ARE A GOOD THING.
IF YOU TAKE BRITAIN HAVING COME OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION -- I
DON'T WANT TO REVISIT WHETHER THE DECISION WAS RIGHT OR
WRONG, BUT THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE HAS BEEN A DROP OF
IMPORTS. 15% DOWN. EXPORTS, 15% DOWN FROM EUROPE.
NOT GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY. ULTIMATELY, I THINK PEOPLE IN
EUROPE WILL WANT TO BE PRAGMATIC AROUND ISSUES LIKE
TRADE. I THINK IN TERMS OF SECURITY,
THOUGH, THEY WILL BE VERY MUCH WITH THE UNITED STATES.
ULTIMATELY. NOT TO SAY THAT -- AND ALL
NATIONS AT THE MOMENT ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT HOW DO WE
KEEP THE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA WITHOUT DEFENDING THE
UNITED STATES? EVERY PLACE YOU GO, LEADERSHIP
WILL TRY TO SAY, GET ME OUT OF THIS ONE, BASICALLY.
WHAT I SAY TO THEM IS, IT MAY SEEM CONTRADICTORY TO HAVE THIS
IDEA THAT THERE IS A DEGREE OF CONFRONTATION, BECAUSE OF SOME
OF THE THINGS CHINA IS DOING, AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU
HAVE THIS SPACE FOR COOPERATION. BUT IN THE END, YOU ARE JUST
TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF REALITY. AND THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT
IS THAT WHEN YOU GET TO REALLY DEEP RELATIONSHIPS THAT GOAL,
AS I SAY, SYSTEMICALLY, THAT ARE ABOUT THE EXECUTIONS OR
COUNTRIES, I CANNOT SEE IT THE U.K. OR THE LEADING NATIONS
DEPARTING FROM THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE.
WHAT WILL BE REALLY INTERESTING IN TIME IS HOW OUR RELATIONS IN
EUROPE,, AND THE UK'S RELATIONS WITH INDIA WILL DEVELOP. I THINK INDIA'S POLICY HAS ALSO
EVOLVED OVER THESE LAST YEARS, BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO THE
MIDDLE OF THIS CENTURY, YOU WILL HAVE AMERICA AND CHINA AS
THE BIG GIANTS, BUT YOU WILL HAVE INDIA AS WELL IS THE THIRD
GIANT. IAN: JAI IS GOING TO TELL YOU THAT
THINGS HAVE EVOLVED. BUT I WANT TO ASK HILARY ONE
QUESTION, GIVEN WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IN THE
U.S., WHETHER OR NOT INFLATION IS VERY
HIGH, DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT FOR THE U.S.
AND CHINA IF THEY CAN MUTUALLY AGREE TO REMOVE THE TARIFFS
THAT WERE ADDED UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? MRS. CLINTON: I THINK, IAN, THERE SHOULD BE
AN EFFORT TO RECONSIDER ALL THE TARIFFS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE HURT US, MAY BE US FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE , PARTICULARLY IN AGRICULTURAL GOODS. SOME OF THEM ARE MORE
TECHNICAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD TAKE IT ALL OFF OR
MODIFY THEM -- I KNOW THAT IS GOING ON.
THAT THERE IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AS WE SPEAK SHOULD TRY
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH WITH RESPECT TO
THE TARIFFS. AND I WOULD PREDICT THAT THERE
WOULD BE SOME CHANGES. BUT THEY WOULD NOT ALL
DISAPPEAR , BECAUSE SOME OF THEM IN THIS NEW REALITY WE ARE
LIVING IN, MAY WELL BE CONTINUED. IAN: JAI, YOU HEARD FROM TONY.
ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THAT, IN A SENSE, HAVE
SHIFTED MOST DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS HAS BEEN AWARE DAILY IS AND THAT'S WHERE
DELHI IS, AND THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO CHINA.
DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF HOW
BADLY THEY HAVE MISHANDLED THEIR BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP
WITH YOUR COUNTRY, WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN NOT ALIGNED,
AND IS NOW A PART OF THE QUAD, AND IS INCREASINGLY
FINDING CHINA AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY ORIENTATION
OBJECTIONABLE? MR. JAISHANKAR: I DON'T AGREE WITH THE WAY YOU
HAVE FRAMED THE QUESTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THE CHINESE HAVE ANY DOUBT WHERE WE STAND ON OUR
RELATIONSHIP AND WHAT HAS NOT GONE RIGHT WITH IT.
I HAVE BEEN MEETING MY COUNTERPART A NUMBER OF TIMES,
AS HE WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED, AND I THINK VERY CLEARLY,
REASONABLY, AND UNDERSTANDABLY. THERE IS NO LACK OF CLARITY.
SO IF THEY WANT TO HEAR IT, THEY WOULD HAVE HEARD IT.
BUT THE ISSUE OF AWARE IS INDIA POSITIONED -- LOOK, SOME OF IT
IS ABOUT CHINA BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBOR AND GOING THROUGH
A PARTICULARLY BAD PATCH IN OUR RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THEY HAVE
TAKEN A SET OF ACTIONS IN VIOLATION OF OUR AGREEMENTS IN
WHICH WE STILL DON'T -- THEY STILL DON'T HAVE A CREDIBLE
EXPLANATION. THAT APPEARS TO INDICATE WHERE
THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR RELATIONSHIP, BUT THAT IS FOR
THEM TO ANSWER. BUT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT CHINA,
BECAUSE IF WE COME BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, WHAT SECRETARY
CLINTON AND TONY WERE SPEAKING ABOUT, THE WORLD IS CHANGING.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT UNIPOLAR. IT IS NOT REALLY BIPOLAR EITHER.
THERE ARE MANY MORE PLAYERS. SO A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IN
TERMS OF REPOSITIONING, WORKING WITH COUNTRIES -- THE TERM WE
ALL LIKE TO USE IS A MULTIPOLAR WORLD -- IS REALLY, IN A SENSE,
IT IS PARTLY A HEDGING STRATEGY, PARTLY PARTNERSHIPS
THAT ARE OFTEN ISSUE BASED. SO YOU WORK WITH COUNTRIES ON
DIFFERENT SETS OF ISSUES. MY SENSE IS, THE LAST TWO YEARS
HAVE ACCELERATED THAT TREND, BECAUSE WHAT COVID HAS DONE IS,
IT HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION THE OLD MODEL OF GLOBALIZATION. WE ARE MOVING FROM A SORT OF
"JUST IN TIME GLOBALIZATION" TO A "JUST IN CASE
GLOBALIZATION?" COUNTRIES ARE PREPARED TO PAY
GREATER FOR A SENSE OF SECURITY. WE WANT A MORE RELIABLE, MORE
RESILIENT SUPPLY CHAIN. WE WANT MORE OPTIONS.
MANY OF US, AND WE WERE INTERNED DURING THAT PERIOD,
WENT -- WE WERE IN TOUCH DURING THAT PERIOD, WENT THROUGH
DIFFICULT ISSUES. IT COULD HAVE BEEN HEALTH, IN
SOME CASES ON FOOD. SO, WE ARE AT MULTIPLE LEVELS
IN A VERY, VERY COMPLEX TRANSITION. THE TRANSITION, SOME OF IT IS
WITH THE RISE AND FALL AND REBALANCING OF POWER.
SOME OF IT IS MANY MORE PLAYERS. SOME OF IT IS OUR CONCEPT OF
NATIONAL SECURITY HAS CHANGED. WE THINK MUCH MORE OF ECONOMIC
AND HEALTH SECURITY, MUCH MORE OF DIGITAL SECURITY.
THE NEED IN THE OLD DAYS, IT DIDN'T MATTER TO US BEYOND A
POINT WHAT YOUR DOMESTIC SYSTEM WAS. TODAY, ISSUES OF TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY ARE MUCH MORE
RELEVANT IN A DATA DRIVEN WORLD. IT DOES MATTER WHAT CHARACTER
MY PARTNER IS, WHO I AM PARTNERED WITH.
THESE ARE ALL NEW FACTORS WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST IS REALLY
TAKING THE WORLD IN A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT DIRECTION, AND
OBVIOUSLY, INDIA WOULD LIKE TO STAY ON TOP OF THIS GAME.
AND THOSE INTERESTS TODAY ARE DEFINITELY SERVED WITH A MUCH
CLOSER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES, MUCH STRONGER
RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE AND THE U.K., WITH A, I WOULD SAY,
REENERGIZING OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASEAN, ESPECIALLY
SINGAPORE. IAN: WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT
HISTORICALLY, THAT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTALLY IDEOLOGICAL
DIMENSION TO THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW, INCREASINGLY MULTIPOLAR
GLOBAL ORDER. MR. BLAIR: THE DIFFERENCE IN THE END, WHEN
YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT WHAT YOUR FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD BE,
AND SOMETIMES IT IS REALLY HELPFUL IN POLITICS NOT TO
THINK AS A POLITICIAN BUT AS A PERSON.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE SYSTEM UNDER WHICH WE LIVE IN THE U.K., I
CAN SEE ALL SORTS OF FAULTS WITH IT, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN
FREEDOMS WITH THAT SYSTEM THAT I LIKE AND THAT IS WHAT I WANT
TO LIVE UNDER. I CAN LOOK AT THE CHINESE
SYSTEM AND REALLY ADMIRE THE EXTRAORDINARY ECONOMIC
PROGRESS, THE ABILITY TO BUILD THE COUNTRY TO LIFT HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, BUT I AM IN NO DOUBT
ULTIMATELY AS A PERSON, FUNDAMENTALLY, I WANT TO LIVE
IN OUR SYSTEM AND NOT THEIR SYSTEM.
THAT IS WHAT UNITES US WITH A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA, BECAUSE
INDIA IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY.
THESE ARE IMPORTANT VALUES THAT ULTIMATELY BIND PEOPLE TOGETHER.
THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR
INTERESTS, OF COURSE, YOU DO, THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
PRAGMATIC ENGAGEMENT WITH CHINA. BUT THE GREAT HOPE THAT MANY OF
US HAD WHEN I WAS IN OFFICE CERTAINLY, THAT AS CHINA
EVOLVED ECONOMICALLY, IT WOULD EVOLVE POLITICALLY, NOT TO A
WESTERN DEMOCRACY, BUT IN A SENSE OF GREATER OPENNESS, THAT
THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN CHINA WOULD SEE ITS FUTURE SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENTLY, YOU HAVE TO BE HONEST ABOUT THAT, IN THE LAST
YEARS, IN THE LAST YEARS, THAT HAS CHANGED.
THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS RE-TIGHTENED ITS GRIP AND THERE
IS A MORE NATIONALIST RHETORIC AND ACTION THAT COMES AFTER THE
CHINESE LEADERSHIP. ONE OF THE THINGS -- AND I
THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR AMERICA, IS THAT AMERICA
HAS GOT TO STILL BE REALLY CONFIDENT ABOUT ITS OWN VALUES
AND SYSTEM DESPITE ALL THE PROBLEMS. AND I KNOW AMERICA
HAS GOT HUGE POLITICAL CHALLENGES, AND HAS BEEN A VERY
DIVIDED POLITICS. AND I HOPE THAT IN TIME, THAT
POLITICS CAN COME BACK TOGETHER, BECAUSE THE WORLD
NEEDS A MORE UNIFIED AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM, BECAUSE IT
NEEDS A MORE CONSISTENT POLITICAL POLICY.
BUT LET'S NOT FORGET, IT IS A GREAT TEST OF A COUNTRY OF
PEOPLE TRYING TO GET INTO IT OR OUT OF IT.
I ALWAYS SAY, IF YOU WANT TO ANALYZE HOW YOUR COUNTRY IS
DOING -- [LAUGHS] -- THE PROBLEM FOR BRITAIN IS
IMMIGRATION. THE PROBLEM FOR AMERICA IS
IMMIGRATION, BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO GET INTO IT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO IT JUST BECAUSE OF A BETTER LIFE,
THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT FREEDOM OF LIBERTY, RULE OF
LAW, THAT PEOPLE ADMIRE AND LIKE.
IN THE END WITH ALL OF THIS, IT REQUIRES A LOT OF HAVING
SENSITIVITY AND INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM IN THE STATECRAFT.
BUT THE WAY THAT I SEE THIS CENTURY UNFOLDING IS
ULTIMATELY BEING ABLE TO STRENGTHEN THE ALLIANCE OF
THOSE COUNTRIES -- AMERICA, EUROPE, AND I WOULD INCLUDE
INDIA IN THIS, JAPAN, OBVIOUSLY, THE DEMOCRACIES OF
THE WORLD -- RECOGNIZING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING PROFOUND
THAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON. THAT WHILST WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH THE RISE OF CHINA AND ENGAGE WITH THEM, WE SHOULDN'T
FORGET THAT THEIR UNDERLYING VALUE SYSTEM IS IMPORTANT.
IT UNIFIES US, AND IT IS WORTH STANDING UP FOR. IAN:
WE ARE A THIRD TO THE WAY THROUGH AND WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT
UP RUSSIA AT ALL. I WANT TO DO THAT NOW.
IN PART, BECAUSE OF THE IDEOLOGICAL POINT WE JUST
DISCUSSED -- IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT WE THOUGHT AFTER '90 MIGHT BECOME ONE,
CERTAINLY HAS IT.
ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE DR. HENRY KISSINGER JOINING US AND HE
STILL SAYS PRETTY STRONGLY THAT THE AMERICANS NEED TO ENGAGE
MORE WITH THE RUSSIANS, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH
CHINA IN THE LONG TERM. HILLARY, YOU TRIED TO ENGAGE
THE RUSSIANS FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGING.
DO YOU THINK THAT BEYOND THE BIDEN-PUTIN MEETING IN GENEVA,
THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE AMERICANS SHOULD BE TRYING TO
BE DOING REALISTICALLY WITH RUSSIA, OR JUST STABILIZE THE
RELATIONSHIP AND MOVE ON? MRS. CLINTON: I THINK PART OF STATECRAFT IS
CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO ENGAGE.
AND I CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN AND EXPECT TO SEE THAT COMING FROM
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. BUT I HAVE HEARD FOR YEARS THAT
RUSSIA WOULD BECOME MORE WILLING TO MOVE TOWARD THE
WEST, MORE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN A POSITIVE WAY WITH EUROPE, THE
U.K., THE U.S., BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS ON ITS BORDER, BECAUSE
OF THE RISE OF CHINA. AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT.
INSTEAD, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY PUTIN MAY
BE TO HUG CHINA MORE, WITH THE HOPE IT WOULD STAVE OFF SOME OF
THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS THAT COULD COME, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR
FAR EAST. BUT RUSSIA RAISES A DIFFERENT SET OF QUESTIONS THAT
I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO START PAYING GREATER ATTENTION WITH. PART OF THE WAY THAT PUTIN HAS
EXERCISED POWER IS THROUGH NETWORKS OF NONSTATE ACTORS.
HE HAS A VERY LARGE MERCENARY FORCE THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING
EVERYWHERE FROM SYRIA TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
HE HAS A VERY LARGE STABLE OF HACKERS AND THOSE WHO DEAL IN
DISINFORMATION AND CYBER WARFARE , BOTH IN AND OUTSIDE
OF GOVERNMENT. HE IS ENGAGED IN A LOT OF
ASYMMETRIC POWER MOVES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE AREAS
THAT NATION-STATES HAVE GOT TO PAY GREATER ATTENTION TO IS THE
RISE OF THESE ASYMMETRIC POWER CENTERS.
SOME OF THEM OPERATE EITHER WITH THE APPROVAL OR EVEN IN
FULL COOPERATION WITH STATE ACTORS, LIKE YOU SEE WITH THE
KREMLIN. SOME OF THEM ARE INDEPENDENT.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE FACING INCREASING CHALLENGES.
THE WAY THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS DEVELOPED, THE INCREDIBLE USE
OF DISINFORMATION IN THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SPHERES
IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. THE RISE OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE IS GOING TO THREATEN NATIONAL STATES, AND
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. ONE AREA THAT I HOPE
NATION-STATES START PAYING GREATER ATTENTION TO IS THE
RISE IN CRYPTOCURRENCY, BECAUSE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A VERY
INTERESTING AND SOMEWHAT EXOTIC EFFORT TO LITERALLY MINE NEW
COINS IN ORDER TO TRADE WITH THEM, HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR
UNDERMINING CURRENCIES, FOR UNDERMINING THE ROLE OF THE
DOLLAR AS THE RESERVE CURRENCY. FOR DESTABILIZING NATIONS,
PERHAPS STARTING WITH SMALL ONES BUT GOING MUCH LARGER.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS NEW ENVIRONMENT THAT WE FIND
OURSELVES IN THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE LAST
MINUTES, WE CANNOT JUST THINK ABOUT NATION-STATES.
PUTIN IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT. BECAUSE WITH HIS OLIGARCHIC
COTERIE, HE HAS UTILIZED MANY NONSTATE ACTORS TO PURSUE
PERSONAL AS WELL AS NATIONALISTIC GOALS.
AND I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BECOME A GREATER AND GREATER
THREAT. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH CHINA IS
GOING TO PREVENT OUTSIDE TECHNOLOGY PAYMENT SYSTEMS LIKE
THE CRYPTOCURRENCY DEVELOPMENT FROM PLAYING A BIG ROLE INSIDE
CHINA, BECAUSE I THINK THEY RECOGNIZE, GIVEN THEIR
NATIONALISM PERHAPS EARLIER THAN OTHER NATIONS LIKE THE
U.S., EUROPE, AND ELSEWHERE, THAT THIS COULD BE A DIRECT
THREAT TO SOVEREIGNTY. SO WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
MAKING DECISIONS AND TRYING TO BE STRATEGIC AND MAKING
ALLIANCES, THERE IS A WHOLE NEW LAYER OF ACTIVITY THAT COULD BE
EXTREMELY DESTABILIZING, AND IN THE WRONG HANDS AND IN NO
ALLIANCES WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE, COULD BE DIRECT THREAT
TO MANY NATION-STATES AND CERTAINLY TO THE GLOBAL
CURRENCY MARKETS. IAN: CRYPTO, THROUGH A GEOPOLITICAL
LENGTH, TELLS YOU SO MUCH ABOUT THE ORIENTATIONS TOWARD THE
GLOBAL ORDER OF THE CHINESE AND RUSSIANS.
THERE IS A LOT MORE OF THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT NEW
TECHNOLOGY SPACES. BEFORE RETURN TO AFGHANISTAN
AND BRING OUR NEXT GUEST, JAI I WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION --
INDIA HAS BEEN BOTH THE EPICENTER OF COVID CASES AND
INCREASINGLY GOING TO BE THE EPICENTER OF VACCINE PRODUCTION
AND EXPORT. I AM WONDERING OVER THE LAST
TWO YEARS, WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED NEW ABOUT THE
GEOPOLITICAL ORDER FROM INDIA'S EXPERIENCE IN COVID IN THE
PANDEMIC? MR. JAISHANKAR: I THINK THE BIGGEST LESSON FROM THAT WOULD BE THAT WE SHOULD
HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB OF BUILDING, OVER MANY MANY YEARS, OUR OWN CAPACITIES AND IN A
SENSE -- AND I PRIME MINISTER MODI, WE HAVE A PROGRAM WHICH
BASICALLY TRANSLATES INTO "SELF-RELIANT INDIA." AT THE TIME WHEN COVID HIT US,
WE HAD TWO COMPANIES WHICH WERE ASSEMBLING VENTILATORS. THERE WERE NO N95 MASKS
PRODUCER -- WE USED TO GET THE MOLDS FROM OUTSIDE AND MAKE IT.
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT. SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS, DURING
THAT, WE HAVE SCALED UP ENORMOUSLY.
TODAY WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT ACTUALLY THE HEALTH
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH HAS GROWN UP IN RESPONSE TO COVID, WE
HAVE RECENTLY -- LITERALLY SET UP THOUSANDS OF COVID TREATMENT
CENTERS WHICH WILL OUTLAST COVID.
YOU HAD A TRANSFORMATION ON THE HEALTH SECTOR.
WE HAVE SHOWN BY A COMBINATION OF DIGITAL TOOLS AND GREATER
PRODUCTION CAPACITIES THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A COUNTRY WHICH
HAS A PER CAPITA INCOME OF LESS THAN $2000 TO ACTUALLY REACH
OUT IN A MASSIVE WAY IN PUBLIC HEALTH.
THE SECOND TAKE AWAY FOR US IS THAT POSITIVE TAKEAWAY, WHICH
IS THAT, IF YOU SEE WHY HAS INDIA BECOME A MAJOR VACCINE
PRODUCTION CENTER? WHY IS IT THAT YOU HAVE SOME
VACCINES, THE SAME VACCINES ARE BEING PRODUCED IN MULTIPLE COUNTRIES, BUT INDIAN PLANTS
HAVE A VERY HIGH AND EFFICIENT RESULT -- I THINK THE QUALITY
OF HR, THE SKILLS ARE THERE, THE PRACTICES AND TRADITIONS, A
LOT OF THAT HAS REALLY BEEN BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THE COVID
ISSUE. IT HAS GROWN. IF I LOOK NOT JUST AT VACCINES,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FARMER WORLD AS A WHOLE, THERE WAS A TIME
WHEN HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE WAS VERY MUCH IN DEMAND OR PARIS AT A MALL -- PARACETAMOL WAS IN
DEMAND. YOU HAD A SCALING UP OF 20X FOR
CERTAIN MEDICINES. IT HAS BEEN A TEST. A LOT OF IT
WAS ABOUT OUR OWN SURVIVAL AND RESPONSES.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE COME OUT OF IT VERY STRONG. STRONG ENOUGH TO BE MUCH MORE
RELEVANT IN GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH NEEDS.
IT IS INTERESTING, ONE OF THE INITIATIVES UNDER THE QUAD IS TO
JOINTLY PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE A VACCINE WHICH WILL BE AN
AMERICAN VACCINE MADE IN INDIA AND THE JAPANESE WILL COME IN
WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE AUSTRALIANS WITH LOGISTICS
SUPPORT. SO AGAIN, FOR ME IT IS BOTH A
DECENTRALIZED GLOBALIZATION, MORE RESILIENT, RELIABLE SUPPLY
CHAINS, MORE TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY, BUT ALSO MORE
FLEXIBLE COMBINATIONS WHICH PRODUCE SOLUTIONS IN PARTICULAR
CHALLENGES. IT IS A VERY GOOD DEMONSTRATION
OF ALL OF IT. IAN: WITH THAT, I WILL EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION BOTH TO SECRETARY CLINTON AND TO PRIME MINISTER
OF AFFAIRS JAISHANKAR FOR JOINING US.
