♪.
LARRY: A WE HAVE RARE PLEASURE
HERE, JOINING ME IS ROBERT
LIGHTHIZER, FORMER U.S. TRADE
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION.
I THINK HE IS THE BEST IN THE
BUSINESS.
I’M ONLY ONE YOU WILL TALK TO ON
THE AIR IS THAT TRUE?
>> PRETTY MUCH IT.
LARRY: OAK.
KEVIN McCARTHY, WE DIDN’T TALK
ABOUT THIS IN OUR INTERVIEW
TODAY, KEVIN McCARTHY IS
TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO GO
AFTER CHINA ON EVERYTHING FROM
TRADE AND NATIONAL SECURITY TO
THE ORIGINS OF COVID AND SO
FORTH AND SO ON.
IN YOUR JUDGMENT IS THAT A GOOD
IDEA, SPECIAL COMMITTEE?
>> YEAH, I DO.
I THINK THAT CHINA IS AN
EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE UNITED
STATES.
I THINK IT IS FAR MORE SERIOUS
THAN MOST PEOPLE REALIZE.
I THINK ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS WAS
RAISING THE ALARM ON CHINA.
THEY’RE A THREAT ACROSS THE
BOARD.
A NUMBER OF OTHER DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS GET A LOT OF CREDIT
FOR IT TOO HELPING ON THIS ISSUE
BUT IT IS REALLY THAT IMPORTANT
AND I THINK, EVERYONE HAS TO
MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL DECISION, IS
CHINA A FRIEND OR ARE THEY AN
AGGRESSIVE ADVERSARY WHO WANTS
TO BE NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD?
AND IT IS A PRETTY EASY
DECISION.
IF YOU COULD HAVE MADE IT 10
YEARS, YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE
IT NOW AND ANYONE WHO DOESN’T
VIEW THEM AS AN AS AN AGGRESSIVE
DANGEROUS THREAT IS NOT PAYING
ATTENTION OR IS A KNAVE.
SO WE NEED A FUNDAMENTAL POLICY.
WE NEED IT ACROSS THE BOARD.
THE NOTION IT IS JUST A MILITARY
OR SECURITY THREAT IS NONSENSE.
YOU HAVE TO ALSO TAKE ON THE
ECONOMICS.
THIS CONFRONTATION WILL
ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED BY
ECONOMICS I BELIEVE.
AND BY THE WAY, MOST MAJOR POWER
THREATS REALLY ARE.
THEIR ECONOMY IS CLOSER TO OURS
IN SIZE THAN ANY ADVERSARY WE
EVER HAD IN OUR HISTORY, AT
LEAST FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS
SINCE WE BECAME THE BIGGEST
COULD UNDERTRY, THE BIGGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.
YES IT IS A GOOD IDEA.
BUT IT HAS TO ALSO INCLUDE
ECONOMICS AND FOR ME THAT MEANS
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO HAVE A
POLICY OF STRATEGIC DECOUPLING.
NOT DECOUPLING ACROSS THE BOARD
I WOULD SAY BUT STRATEGIC
DECOUPLING.
LARRY: DOES ANYBODY -- I WANT TO
COME BACK TO THEM IN JUST A
SECOND.
SO BIDEN AND XI MET IN BALI.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
THERE?
I LOOKED, I WANT TO COVER THIS
STORY, BUT I LOOKED AROUND, I
READ THIS, READ THAT, EDITORIAL
OPINION WAS VIRTUALLY NIL.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING OF
SIGNIFICANCE?
>> FIRST OF ALL WE DON’T KNOW
AND I’M GLAD WE DON’T BECAUSE IT
MEANS PEOPLE ARE NOT LEAKING AT
LEAST FROM OUR SIDE.
WE KNOW WHAT THE CHINESE SAID.
THEY GAVE, THEY GAVE AN ACCOUNT
THAT WAS RATHER ROBUST FROM
THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
MY GUESS IS, HAVING BEEN IN A
NUMBER ABOUT THOSE THAT THE,
THAT THE PRESIDENT READ HIS
TALKING POINTS.
THEY PROBABLY AVOIDED SOME OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES THAT YOU
AND I WOULD SAY.
THEY WERE PROBABLY MORE IN THE
NATURE OF SORT OF FRIENDLY, KIND
OF CHATTER.
WE HAVE A TENDENCY NOT TO
STRAIGHT UP CONFRONT CHINA WHICH
WE SHOULD DO.
AND MY REAL FEAR IS THAT COMING
OUT OF THAT THE ANALYSIS FROM
THEIR SIDE WHICH IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, NOT WHAT
YOU AND I THINK BUT WHAT THEY
THINK, IS THAT THERE IS ONE OF
WEAKNESS AND FAILURE REALLY TO
CONFRONT CHINA.
NOW LOOK IT, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN
THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT GET IT,
THAT UNDERSTAND, ARE TRYING TO
DO THE RIGHT THING.
THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE
PRESIDENT GET IT? AND ON THAT I HAVE REAL DOUBT.
AND ON THAT I HAVE REAL DOUBT.
IF YOU THINK OF THE HISTORIC
PRECEDENCE OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT
THEY COULD DEAL WITH A HARD-LINE
AGGRESSIVE DICTATOR AS IF THEY
WERE ANOTHER POLITICIAN, THE
PRECEDENT IS NOT GOOD.
THE CONTEXT IS DIFFERENT BUT
LOOK AT CHAMBERLAIN IN MUNICH.
IF YOU LOOK AT EVEN CHURCHHILL
AND ROOSEVELT AT YALTA, THEY
TOOK THE POSITION YOU COULD TAKE
AT FACE VALUE WHAT A PERSON LIKE
THAT WOULD DO AND IN EVERY CASE
THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED AND IN
MANY CASES IT WAS A REALLY A
TRAGIC OUTCOME.
SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS, DO YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE AN
AGGRESSIVE ADVERSARY.
EVERYTHING ELSE FLOWS FROM IT.
LARRY: TRUMP RANG THE BELL,
YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT IS ONE OF HIS GREAT
ACHIEVEMENTS.
THE BIDENS HAVE NOT CHANGED MUCH
AT ONE LEVEL.
I MEAN, THEY DIDN’T TAKE BACK
THE TARIFFS.
THE TARIFFS ARE STILL THERE.
YOU DIDN’T WANT THE TRADE PART
OF THAT BIG BILL, THE
SEMICONDUCTOR BILL, BUT YOU WON
THAT BATTLE, RIGHT?
WE DIDN’T PULL BACK.
>> THAT’S CORRECT.
LARRY: ON A LOT OF THE
PROTECTION.
WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF YOU
NEGOTIATED THOUGH IN THE TRADE
DEAL WITH CHINA, INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY THEFT, FORCED TRANSFER
OF TECHNOLOGY, TWO ENOURMOUSLY
IMPORTANT AREAS, WHAT’S
HAPPENING WITH THOSE PROVISIONS?
>> SO, THERE IS TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS IN THE AGREEMENT AND TWO,
WHAT ARE THEY PROBABLY STILL
DOING?
I BELIEVE THAT AT A CERTAIN
LEVEL THEY ARE TRYING TO ABIDE
BY SOME ELEMENTS OF THAT
AGREEMENT.
THE SYSTEMICS THINGS YOU’RE
TALKING ABOUT.
CLEARLY DIDN’T DOT PURCHASING
LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT
THE AGREEMENT, TARIFFS STAYED IN
PLACE.
TARIFFS STAYED IN PLACE.
THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL THING AND
WHY THE AGREEMENT SUCCESS FOR
THE PRESIDENT.
THEY’RE MAKING SOME CHANGES IN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER AND THE LIKE BUT LOOK
AT, THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI
TODAY SAID THEIR INDUSTRIAL
ESPIONAGE AND THE LIKE IS
GREATER THREAT TO US THAN ALL OF
THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.
SO THEY ARE A VERY, VERY SERIOUS
PROBLEM.
AND IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD BE
TAKING MORE ACTION.
WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS THING
WHICH I CALL STRATEGIC
DECOUPLING.
LARRY: DON’T MEAN TO INTERRUPT,
MADE ME THINK OF THIS.
WHY DON’T WE THROW TIKTOK OUT OF
THE U.S.?
>> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
QUESTION IN THE WORLD THEY
SHOULD DO IT.
CAN YOU IMAGINE US HAVING A
SIMILAR THING IN CHINA?
IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.
LARRY: IT’S A SPY OPERATION,
INSTRUMENTTY OF THE CHINESE.
>> IT IS SO RIDICULOUS WE’RE
ALLOWING THEM TO DO THAT.
IT IS NOT LIKE SOME SECRET
TECHNOLOGY.
YOU COULD DUPLICATE IT IN A
HEARTBEAT IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS
USEFUL.
THE REALITY THAT ALL WE REALLY
HAVE TO DO TREAT THEM THE WAY
THEY TREAT US AND A LOT OF OUR
PROBLEMS WOULD GO AWAY, PURE AND
SIMPLE RECIPROCITY, IN
INVESTMENT, IN TRADE, ACROSS THE
BOARD.
YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF THESE
PROBLEMS DISAPPEAR, FOR SURE
TIKTOK ALL THE REST OF IT, WE
SHOULDN’T HAVE, WE REALLY
SHOULDN’T HAVE TECHNOLOGICAL
INTERDEPENDENCE THE WAY WE DO.
IT’S A MISTAKE T COMES FROM THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, THE PEOPLE
WHO PUSH IT ARE PEOPLE MAKING
MONEY AND DON’T CARE BUT MORE
THAN LIKELY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT
ADDRESSED THE FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION, ARE THEY AGGRESSIVE
THREAT TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF
LIFE.
LAST MINUTE, LAST MINUTE.
DO WE HAVE SUFFICIENT EXPORT
CONTROLS IN THE TECHNOLOGY
SECTOR?
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
NOW I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WILBUR ROSS
AND YOU AND STEVE MNUCHIN DID
ENORMOUS AMOUNT TO MOVE THAT IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
REALITY WE NEED MUCH, MUCH MORE.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE KIND OF,
CERTAINLY NO MILITARY OR JOINT
USE TECHNOLOGY CONNECTION AT ALL
BUT I WOULD SUGGEST IN
TECHNOLOGY GENERALLY WE SHOULD
BE SEPARATING OURSELVES.
LARRY: BE TOUGHER.
HAVE TO BE TOUGHER.
>> ABSOLUTELY MUCH, MUCH
TOUGHER.
LARRY: YOU WERE THE LEADER ON
THIS.
YOU WERE THE LEADER UNDER LEX
ALLLY ON TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.
WE GOT HUAWEI OUT BUT I FEAR
THERE IS NO FOLLOW-THROUGH.
I THINK THERE IS NO
FOLLOW-THROUGH.
I THINK THE BIDENS ARE DORMANT
ON THIS WHOLE THING.
>> I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT
BIDEN HAS CONCLUDED THAT THEY
ARE A PROBLEM.
I DON’T THINK HE IS CONCLUDED
IT.
THAT IS VERY SCARY.
LARRY: RUNNING OUT OF TIME BUT