Skip to main content

tv   Inside Story  Al Jazeera  November 30, 2020 2:30pm-3:01pm +03

2:30 pm
every year it's a good alternative since there aren't any other christmas markets this year. i think it's lovely, very christmassy. so it could be its own people. i think it's a great idea. i can only recommend it, but it's a feeling an atmosphere, a nice idea, and great that they are allowed to implement a style. it's great. we got into the made. we even soaring fire. i think it's great . it is good to have you with us. hello, adrian. said again, here in doha, the headlines from al-jazeera, ethiopia's prime minister has told parliament that federal forces i think, have not killed a single civilian during the 3 week long conflict into grey region to ground forces . however, dispute this, they also say that they're still facing federal troops near the regional capital. malcolm webb reports from nairobi. prime minister, as we had told, members of parliament that the government side didn't kill
2:31 pm
a single civilian. this is contradicted by the team p.l.s. leaders account. they say that civilian casualties have been high and they say that civilians were targeted in government airstrikes, something that the government side denies. we also heard from the red cross in macquarie, that's the regional capital, the city, about half a 1000000 people. they say that about 80 percent of the people in hospitals there have trauma injuries or they have, they haven't said how those injuries have been sustained. but they will say said that there's a serious shortage of essential medical supplies and a shortage of body bags. the funeral service for the top iranian nuclear scientists musson fox result, has been held in the capital tehran. he was killed on friday. iran's leaders blame israel and say that they will retaliate. indian farmers, blocking roads in a protest against new laws are refusing to move to a government designated venue. pharma say that opens talks with ministers, they say the new laws will hurt crop prices and their livelihoods. china's foreign
2:32 pm
ministry has rejected calls from australia's prime minister to apologize for an inflammatory tweet over war crimes allegations the tweet sent by foreign ministry spokesman. louisianan joel depicts a fake image of an australian soldier, slashing the throats of an afghan civilian a minor. that follows a recent report into the conduct of the stray and special forces soldiers. this story and military has confirmed that it's dismissing more than a dozen soldiers who are accused of killing 39 unarmed afghan civilians prison. this deaths caused by malaria are expected to exceed from code 98 in sub-saharan, africa. this year shows says that could be more than 100000, deaths from malaria in 2020. or you see here al-jazeera the inside story. next.
2:33 pm
the grapes of wrath of china imposes state tariffs on the starting line. in a worsening diplomatic dispute story, it accuses beijing of bullying. so why has their relationship turned so south? this is inside story. hello and welcome to the program. ties between australia and china and ruffling fost beijing's ban some imports and play state customs duties on of the products. the latest is a tariff of up to 212 percent on australian law and china is australia's biggest
2:34 pm
trading partner and says it's a measure against dumping to protect its own wine industry. but australia believes the reasons political. the government has criticised china's handling of 19, as well as its treatment of minority, weak of muslims in june yang. the crackdown on opposition protests and china's decision to die. to impose tariffs on the wine industry is deeply disappointing and disproportionate. and a lot of their recent comments, it would be give the perception that these imposing these tariffs relating to other matters rather than any wrongdoing by the wanted. if that is the case, that would be in contravention to try to strike down the tykes with all my shows that we have free try to greatness and expect to be traded in return. china is blaming australia for the deterioration. i think a straight year should undergo a deep introspection should 1st reflects on whether they have respect to china's
2:35 pm
interests. for some time, some people in australia have been tenuously clinging to the cold war mentality and ideological bias. the repeatedly made wrong statements and actions on issues concerning china's core interests. this is what led to the shop decline in china, australia relations, and what got them into such a difficult state. tensions been building for years in 2017, australia announced laws to curb foreign interference after accusing china attempting to meddle in its politics. a year later, the nation was the 1st to publicly restrict use of the chinese tech giant weiwei, citing national security reasons. and in april australia supported an international probe into the origin of covert 19 that was 1st detected in its chinese city of will. then shortly after china impose tariffs on australian bali suspended beef imports and launched an anti dumping inquiry into australian wine. beijing also
2:36 pm
cautioned chinese people against going to australia, citing racist incidents over the spread of covert 19. let's bring in our guests in beijing, a political analyst specializing in china affairs and in hong kong, pauline, managing director of asia analytic or a research consultancy firm. welcome to you both. i want to start in beijing with 1st. there is this diplomatic dispute. there is escalating between australia and china. australia seems to be playing a political strategy, have beijing is responding with suspensions of australian products affectively a trade war. my question to you is this, surely any criticism of china is simply the cost of doing business and the chinese overreacting here? well, there are a number of issues there. 1st up,
2:37 pm
there was the thing with huawei being, australia never produced any evidence that hallway was fact a security threat. they just simply stated that that's what they believed. and that now there is this just more recently, this chinese company moment. ah, a dairy company in australia and it was, you know, it on the ground. it was not in the best national interest. so i think it's a little difficult for australia to be crying that they're acting only in a political nature, looking out for old people and human rights or things like that when they're in fact engaging in saxon behavior. but i know is, is this rooted in some kind of prejudice towards some sort of xenophobia in fact towards china? do you think? i do think so. i mean there's, there's this, i mean, i've heard been on many shots proper people from developed countries, australia,
2:38 pm
the united states, even in europe, where they said, you know, it's time that china update the international rules. but these are rules that were created in other places. these are not rules that are written, not some rock somewhere and given down by a higher authority. these are simply rules that allowed west to prosper. so, you know, you're having a new all time lateral structure. and this idea that china is simply a child that needs to be taught a lesson is untrue. china has been prospering for the last 40 years. they feel very confident in the system that they've created, especially in view of the financial meltdown. and also most recently their response that both jump health and economics. so the idea that they're going to change that simply because they should be following rules. i think it's doubtful. they saw what happened to pan with the plaza courts. and i'm certain that they're not going to comply with this idea of not coming under to
2:39 pm
a set of rules that is meant to contain the polio in hong kong. this is much more than just a trade war, isn't it? yes, basically i think discussions about the a strangely end china relationship has focused really on, on the wrong things this discussion about who is right, who has produced evidence, who did it wrong? i don't think that that is an approach that is useful in discussing international relations. all countries quite rightly want the best for their own country. so each country will think that it is doing the right thing. so industry rather pointless for anyone to argue about who's right, who's wrong? because that's the more prevalent as such between nations that only interests you have an agreement or you don't have an agreement. so you want, you walk to what's,
2:40 pm
how cute can solve differences and make sure that you know, both of you are, cannot walk away from the table happy. and right now, neither china nor failure a walking away from the table happy because both sides are saying, well, the other side needs to give more. so i think we should not really focus our who's right and who's wrong, but more on why the 2 countries cannot come together. so as to give the other party something to be happy about. and i think that both stand to the fact that this is more than just trade. it's the fact that the whole bilateral relations, i think, is deteriorated. and until that is next, you have been to get the trade easier isn't going to get quarrels about the
2:41 pm
weather. that's interference. all the it's. this is the recent, it's the, the symptoms, not the reason for the thought that you know, it's the illness is that the relationship is bad and this distrust of both sides. and i think that's, that's what's causing the problem. and i know you're shaking your head that i want to response. well, i mean, it sounds all very reasonable that you know, children are playing properly, but you know, you have to look at the sequence of events. quite frankly, austria was spared the worst of the economic recession in 2009, simply because china was, was there there's, there's nothing that mandates that china has to buy things from australia. that's ridiculous. and in terms of, you know, quote equal footing it's nonsense. i mean, quite frankly, australia has taken a political position. if we were simply talking about trade, i would agree with my colleague that it should be about the best interests. but
2:42 pm
once you inject ideology, once you start sending, you know, 5 least one for your needy into disputed waters as part of some sort quadrilateral, defensive act in that hemming in china. these moves can't be seen as friendly. i mean, i can't go up to somebody, kick them in the shins, spit in their face, and then say, hey, that's, let's use intro to mean that it's a little bit ridiculous. this idea that you shouldn't find fault is fine. but in this particular case, it's australia, it's fault. and if you want a fairly balanced view street, jeff province, latest book on this, where he's discussed in a very intense pro australians talking about the realities and the realities are that australia is turning from its head. i trying to politically pressure china when it's dependent on china for its economy. but in the spirits of international
2:43 pm
affairs, global affairs. it's an economic trade relationship at the heart of all of this, like you mentioned, australia was a spared the worst of the financial crisis because china was there. but that doesn't mean that call be a dialogue. our guest in hong kong talked about compromise. i know where is the compromise hit? well, the compromise here is, is to simply act on facts if they want to bot than that's fine that's, that's within their national purview. but they should at least produce some sort of evidence. i mean, you know, that's comment. i mean is just it smacks of races. if you start looking at the number of attacks against asians, not just chinese, simply because this kind of worsening relationship. and you know, this idea that somehow that, you know, white western powers should be dictating the rules. of course it does bring up hackles so you know, this idea that you should compromise
2:44 pm
a compromise should be that there should be mutual respect. china is not perfect by any means and it's true of the christian in many cases. but in this particular case, i mean what australia is joining is literally aimed at provoking china. and then, you know, this idea that they want to cry unfair because china says, look, we don't want to trade with you. i mean, let's get back to it. the issue is simply, china does not have to buy anything from australia. there are other nations lining up brazil, south all the soybean and, and all the iron ore cetera, et cetera, south america's standing by there beef imports from all world. doing so, i mean, and it, why does australia matter china, squire, i mean, the interesting thing is, you know, look at america, australia is blindly following america, this odd situation bringing bolian. heck, i'll make it,
2:45 pm
you make an interesting point. i want her to react to that doesn't seem to be any space to compromise according to our guest. amazing that spirit of compromise you talked about earlier. that seems very far away. well look essentially, i want to go back a bit to whether china has to buy from a stranger. i totally agree with that. i don't know why anyone ever have see the fueling that one country should ever have to do to buy or to sell or to do any to put another country. and a straight is actually, it really don't leverage. as far as i can see, and it depends so much on china, put its exports in the other way round china's global in sports today. i mean, australia accounts for what about 2 percent of china's a global exploit. so australia has actually the commercial leverage
2:46 pm
whatsoever. and it's, it's not surprising to me that china should say, when walt is you, we are going to leverage our markets, our strings to achieve that. so in that sense, i totally agree that is absolutely no reason why china would want to accommodate a scrape. on the other hand, in terms of strategy and relationship, there's something to be said for compromising and trying to get to be to give something to the other party. so that could be a discussion, but polling what i'm hearing from lots of australians. and during my research for the show, i spoke to a number of people who told me very bluntly, that there were very proud of australia's position when it came to china. because
2:47 pm
they said china was acting like a believe that it wasn't listening to the concerns of the australian people. particular when it came to home, human rights within china itself. is it then? just the question i asked on a very beginning in the show is just the cost of doing business. surely if you're going to get criticize, you are going to get criticised, but there's no reason to react like this. well, i think the very practical position that i don't see why any country would want if it could be many countries don't, not because of sheer goodness of heart, but because it doesn't work in the long term by alienating people and getting other people being aware of the queue all the time. so what is wrong? i think with the relationship that perhaps china could do is to be less
2:48 pm
to frugal. its muscle less. yes, you do have more so yes, you do have a market but to fuel and so obviously might not be the best strategy in getting australians to be onboard. and i'm beijing, where we're at right now seems to be a conversation that it doesn't matter whether it's australia or whether it's other nations. when it comes to china. china is a very powerful nation. it doesn't need to listen to other countries. you've often said that actually it does and it does listen to other countries, but when it comes to things like the human rights record, when it comes to the treatment of the week has, is just the way. it's just another way of the international korea community, being able to criticize china is china looking at those criticisms? i'm wondering whether it's worth it, whether it does need to do something about them. well, i mean, i've talked about this before. there's a fundamental difference in how people look at human rights in asia versus
2:49 pm
developed countries in a developed country. human rights starts with the ballot box and it has everything you're with free political expression. but when you go to asia, human rights are about safety in the streets, in your homes, about economic opportunity about having, you know, access to medical care as social services say that. so, you know, and that could be just simply because there are different economic levels. but quite frankly, this idea that you know, china, china feels that it is doing the best for its people. and you know that anyone can feel free to criticize. but you cannot necessarily change people's point of view simply because you want to impose this idea that china has to accept western ways. i find that to be actually quite racial racist. this idea that the white father
2:50 pm
knows best, i mean, quite frankly, i mean, australia is not in a position to really be talking to anybody about how it treats people. i mean, after what happened with the aborigines, you know, the, you know, very, very late. you know, up, you know, anyone doing anything really about or apologize in any kind of meaningful way that changes things for aboriginals? i mean, it's kind of silly. i think i would agree with my colleague that this is a situation where both sides have to cool down. take the ideology out of the equation. if this simply is going to trade trade with each other, but don't tell other people how they should be running their country. i mean, quite frankly, if os, if australia felt that china was trying to dictate what it meant for human rights, what it meant, how they should be running their political system complaining about how you know democracy and capitalism are not producing these governments or the economic
2:51 pm
systems that have been promised by these particular ideas. austrians would be absolutely through the roof. why are you interference in our issues? things like this. so, i mean, there has to be a recognition that it's a multiple of world that there are different paths prosper. and then countries have the right to find them within limits of such obviously you don't want any kind of genocide and things like that. you want forced situations where people are being hurt, coerced into doing things against their personal liberty and interests. so i mean those are issues, but they're not necessarily issues you bring up on a daily basis as you try to fill a part of the country. and this is where beijing is here and thinks they don't feel any kind of understanding from you know, this kind of developed country nations. democratic capitalist nations, claimed that they have to the best in all their american exceptionalism has become
2:52 pm
in essence, a fascist state. that says, doesn't matter how we do it, we're going to force you to become just like us, even if it's becoming just like us is not working, as we've seen at latest election polling, it's a very interesting point. our guest in beijing makes, he talks about american exceptionalism. maybe we are looking at a world where there will be chinese exceptionless and china is very big. it's very powerful. it's not listening to the criticisms given by other countries when it comes to human rights. freedom in the press, etc, our guest said, well, actually human rights mean something very different in china to the rest of the world. are we looking at a country that is so powerful that that really no one can force it to change? actually, i think the minority position that trying to is not really as things
2:53 pm
as the press and the yemeni government should be, of course, if someone criticized and there's a oh, we don't like it. we don't want what you say they did throw out an australian journalist, pauline they did doing a ton of did throw to australian journalists the country for criticizing china itself. it's. they are quite thin skinned. i think of course, they're going to say we don't like this and that, but if 2 countries get along, let's sit the criticism. are we to be the enmity between japan and china before there's they were saying lots of nasty things about each other. now they're getting along. suddenly, it doesn't matter how all the past criticisms were forgotten. so the relationship is current. the criticisms would be out by nothing. i don't really like you saying there's, but if the relationship is bad, suddenly it's all grown up into
2:54 pm
a big deal. think how dare you? precisely. i really don't think china's that instant. and all we often talk about china like it is a monolithic. the chinese government like has a monolithic government like it is coming. it is how it has one opinion by all the dissenting voices when it comes to this issue with australia. other people within china, the chinese government, people's republic of china, saying, actually maybe we should be trying another approach. well, i think the dissidents are, is quite strong. i mean, to try to get 6 people to agree on a restaurant. now try to get 90000000 people to agree on ideology and actually there's always a rainbow ikea's, but the way that the chinese system works is they discuss it at great length for hours until everybody gets on, you know, a relative same page. and then the chairman say, you know, kate seems a consensus. is this a position?
2:55 pm
and that's what they stick right now. if you're part of the discussion and then you go out and say, well, i didn't like that or i supposed to do something else. human essence program is it's not about your opinion, it's about process, it's stop. so this idea that china's is, it is nonsense in terms of australia. i don't think you're going to find many people who are very sympathetic to australia. frankly, beijing is scratching its head just on the stand why australia, which is located in the east is acting like it's an appendage of the united states or what, what, what possible advantage that this had have? i think when you start talking about pragmatics, you know, australia is not going to dictate how china runs its country. and this idea that it should be echoing everything that the us says is nonsense in terms of japan. while i understand, i understand my colleagues client, quite frankly, the animists of us has kind of put the bad feelings with japan on the back
2:56 pm
burner. but i would assure that the feelings for japan have not changed. that is yes, a change, but they've been able to compartmentalize and quite frankly, you do not hear japan going after china on an ideological priests'. this is one of the features that donald trump has brought into the world is the mixing of security politics. so i know we are running out of time. i would like to bring in paul into to take a crack at that statement that you just made that it's time is basically too big. we keep hearing this, we keep hearing this. however, there is a misunderstanding of how the world works nowadays. is that where this is all coming from that state the world has changes, don't know, it's no longer the west anymore. yes, the world has definitely changed in the sense that no country,
2:57 pm
when it's that united states australia are trying to who can afford to to cause itself not to say, well, i don't care what anyone else does. i'm just going to do what i want to do. that's not possible for any country anymore. and i think every country has to come to terms with the fact that, well, it's got to compromise something in order to live with the rest of the world. not just with one other country or 2 countries, but with the whole world as a whole. how you fit in. and i think that hopefully in a few years, everyone will come around to this realise they shouldn't and say, well, we can't have it all. we will have to keep what we really want and at least something on the table for someone else to rape. i want to thank both our guests on it, hang in and pauline long. thank you very much. and i want to thank you guys as well for checking. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website out to sarah dot com. and for further discussion,
2:58 pm
go to our facebook page at facebook dot com for slash a.j. inside story. and you can also join the conversation on twitter. we are at a.j. inside story from am wrong. and the whole team here in doha, qatar. now i you know, afghanistan, the taliban is renowned for its violent repression of women. now a new deal with the u.s. could see the group return to power. one, o one, a still best to gates of afghan women who paid the price for pace on al-jazeera.
2:59 pm
a key figure of the early 20th century arab literary scene and a feminist writer had ever had time. so why did her story and in such tragedy, al-jazeera won't expose the life and why? of maisie arda on al-jazeera so many al-jazeera, london proconsul, entire 2 special guests in conversation people think that racism is having personal vitriol towards black people. and there's no understanding of what systemic racism is. unprompted, uninterrupted success comes with a physician. if you're not upsetting people, you're not saying f 100 meets any oh, there is not a family in britain. i believe that has not been touched by empire studio b. unscripted on al-jazeera revealing eco
3:00 pm
friendly solutions to come back threats to our planet. on al-jazeera. i'm sami's i don and all that, look at the headlines here and i'll just say that i now ethiopia's prime minister has told parliament federal forces have not killed a single civilian during the 3 week long conflict in the region and it insists the army will not destroy the regional capital. after having captured it on the weekend, that as to growing forces say they're still fighting federal soldiers. near micheli, hundreds have been killed and thousands forced to flee to neighboring sudan. malcolm webb has more from nairobi. the prime minister, as we heard told members of parliament that the government side didn't.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on