גנרל אמריקני בדימוס בריאיון: כל ההבטחות של סין ריקות מתוכן. מדוע שממשלה כלשהי תחתום איתם הסכמים כשברור שאין לסין כוונה לממשם?

With tensions simmering in Asia between China and Japan and with President Trump hinting at an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, what's been China's role? Retired Brigadier General Dave Stilwell joins us to unpack China's history of empty promises. He's the former U.S. Defense Attaché in Beijing and former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. General Stilwell, thank you so much for joining us. Great to have you back on the show. Now, there's been several headlines recently, especially on China's broken promises when it comes to soybeans, fentanyl, all these other issues or, you know, the previous trade deal under the first Trump term. But talk to us, is it broken promises or is it empty promises? How should we read this? When I was at State Department in 2019, we talked about this and the words matter. And broken promises means there was some intention of following through and then change their mind or conditions change. And therefore, they, in some ways, can't blame them for doing it. These are empty promises. They never intended to follow through with any of these things, right? The best example is Hong Kong, where they, prior to basically ignoring it or tearing it up in like May of 2020, they said, we consider the joint declaration on Hong Kong scraps of paper. So they never intended to follow through with that obligation. Once it became inconvenient. So they will go through, they'll follow through with these things as long as they don't cause them to lose any advantage. But as soon as they lose advantage, they walk away and they back out. We have been too quick to alibi their inability or their failure to live up to their contracts. Too many people have then bought into what they say in agreement, then the good side gives what they're going to give, while the piracy side never gives in return. We've seen this over and over again. So if we regard them as empty promises, we'll be less eager to go sit down at the table and sign an agreement that we know they're not going to follow through. I want to dig into that because right now, you know, in terms of geopolitics, there's the current Japan, China tensions playing out again, if you will. And China's foreign minister Wang Yi is weighing in saying that, you know, Japan needs credibility. There needs to be that. It's a similar phrase that he's used before. He put out a statement in 2024, March, saying China's four commitments to hot topic issues. And in that he says credibility comes before influence. But given China's history here, how should we read China's use of the term credibility? Just pure irony. The fact that they use the word credibility, given their history of never following through on any agreement is just, you know, shocking. But it's typical PRC propaganda gaslighting, where they blame the other side of doing exactly what they're doing. And in psychological terms, this works, it makes the, you know, the side that's being offended, the losing side, rethink what they're doing, and perhaps blame themselves. When the Philippines took them to the tribunal in 2015, the PRC says, Oh, well, we're not bound by that when in fact, they signed documents that says that they would participate in any sort of tribunals, etc. Xi Jinping's comments in the Rose Garden in 2015 with President Obama, saying we do not, we will not militarize those islands and doing the exact opposite thing. Has the PRC been held accountable for its failure, repeated failure to live up to any commitment makes once it becomes bufangia, right, once it's no longer inconvenient. I can give you a lot more examples, pretty much any agreement. Most recently, the agreement with the US side to stop slow leaking the movement of super magnets and rare earth elements. As soon as they signed a piece of paper, they backed out of it. And so my question again, is why would any government sit down with PRC and sign an agreement when we know those are empty promises, there's no intention to follow through. I'd rather just do what we do and make the PRC react to us. Digging into that when it comes to foreign policy, because right now there's, you know, President Trump is saying he thinks the US can get Russia and Ukraine to a peace plan very soon, as soon as perhaps Thanksgiving, right. And on that note, we've seen in the past where China has wanted to be seen as the mediator on the world stage, whether that's Russia, Ukraine, or even, you know, in the Middle East, when that conflict was, you know, at its peak, if you will. Given the history though, here, with these negotiations happening with Russia, Ukraine, how do you see China fitting into them? Again, Wang Yi weighed in very early on this saying, hey, we got this, let us mediate between Russia and Ukraine. And both sides, I mean, just immediately rejected that. Wow, what a slap in the face. What's interesting back to broken or empty promises is 2011 and 2014, Beijing and Kiev, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership that said we will protect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I kept waiting for the Ukraine side to call them on that and say, didn't you say that you were going to weigh in on our behalf, now that your friend Russia is invading? And one, Ukraine has never called them on it, probably because they realized China wasn't gonna do anything. But two, nobody's held the PRC accountable for that empty promise. Why? 2011, it was when the Varyag, they won that carrier, which they claimed was going to be casino credibility. We knew it wasn't gonna be casino. We knew they were developing an aircraft carrier program. 2011, they got the Varyag. In 2014, they were having problems with parts and engineering. And so they went back, had this great powwow, they all shook hands. And they said, again, China will, again, protect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, part of the strategic partnership, that means nothing. So the fact that Ukraine isn't jumping at the chance to have the PRC mediate is explainable by the fact that PRC has been a very unreliable partner. Lack of credibility, and that points to a government without legitimacy. Well, General Stilwell, as always, thank you so much for joining us. Great to be here. See you.