So I guess my question is, what do you think, uh, that this means? Is there an understanding between the two leaders on Taiwan? How will Beijing interpret Trump's statement that Xi Jinping understands very much how I feel? I'm, I'm, I'm really interested in, in, in, in how this might be perceived by the Chinese side.

Yeah.

I, I think first, uh, my view, uh, um, I expressed in the, uh, interview was not the Chinese side won't raise any request.

Uh, what I meant was China won't raise anything as a bargaining chip to make a deal on, on the US.

Say, uh, if you say this, if you say you're opposing the Taiwan independence, I will give you, I will buy, purchase more soybean.

Something that I don't think that will happen, and that, that did not happen.

And, uh, President Xi's, uh, you know, uh, what he said, the statement you mentioned, I'm not sure, is that a new one? Uh, I, I don't think that's a new one.

And, uh, do you have any thoughts on what could be achieved in this, uh, seven-week period? What, what, what, what could, what, what could we do to build on, uh, this summit that just took place in Washington?

As we look at the upcoming September meeting, what do you think are the top agenda items from Beijing's perspective? And what would China consider as a successful outcome?

Yeah, okay, I will give you my analysis, my personal analysis.

I think, you know, meeting in May proposed that concept, then a framework, we can say.

But it's true that it's just a concept, it's hollow.

So we need a mechanism to implement or to breathe the life of this mechanism.

I think this is my expectation to the September meeting.

I hope the two presidents can put meat on the bowl.

But how do you view the tech competition as figuring under this new agreed to framework between the two sides?

So what's your takeaway of this year's speech, in particular, Peter Hack's, of course?

So, yes, actually I was here last year attending Shangri-La, and we actually talked last year here, too.

And comparing the two speeches, last year and this year, I would say the basic tone are similar.

I think the tone here what he the message he tried to deliver to to the audience is u.s will continue to be here china is a threat or maybe our rival and you need to be i mean the original countries need to invest more so the front free riding time free riding arrow ended and now it's a burden sharing error i think this is the basic tone he tried to deliver a basic message, he tried to deliver to the regional countries, partners and allies.

Well, the difference is, I will say, particularly in the section of China-U.S. relations.

So he started actually from the key term, the constructive strategic stability, he said, raised and also agreed by two presidents, President Xi and President Trump, in recent Beijing summit.

and then he basically said this is i think he said some good word about this framework and he believed that dod or the the ministry the department of defense or department of war is preparing to you know also put the new relation in that framework Of course, he said maybe the main job of the Department of Defense is to provide strength.

What does that mean to these regional countries, countries in ASEAN countries, for example, South Korea, Japan, if China and the U.S. will work to build a long-term stable relationship?

Mm-hmm.

So I th- and also the war in Iran, I think hurts the US credibility.

And many people asking if the US cannot, you know, achieve its goals through military means in Iran, how can we imagine the US pay a, or, you know, launch an even bigger war with countries like China or, you know, other, you know, m- bigger countries? He say, "We are, we are working on that.

We, we don't have problem of ammun- ammunition."

Mm-hmm

... or suspicion from the, from the region.And, uh, at the same time, of course, that also reflects the US, the changing US mindset.

For a very long time, for decades after the World War II, for seven or eight decades, the president from two parties believed that US will achieve its hegemony or, you know, or leadership through building a leading, uh, institution, multilateral institution, and ally is the key in that.

With this institution, US will be a he- institutional hegemony or leadership.