So, as we're filming this today is Super Tuesday as they call it here in America. Like, Super Poo's Day. Yeah. But, all the matter, they really wanted to call it Super Tuesday, it would be, Super Star Tuesday. Mind it.   Josh! Hey, welcome back to our stupider acts of Corbin. I'm Rick. You can follow us on Instagram, Twitter, for more juicy content. Thank you everybody for supporting us on Patreon, follow us on Twitter, Count and Scarf, and like, buttons. Super Tuesday. Super Poo's Day.  Today, we're doing a movie review. We are? Yes. I actually think I completely blanked on the fact that we're supposed to be doing a movie review. You didn't watch it?  No, I totally forgot. I am so sorry. And all of my, the combination of audition prep, and watching Clint, I totally brain farted on this. I am, I completely forgot. I am so sorry. Today, we're not doing a movie review. Shit. So sorry. So today, we got a new trailer. Damn. Today, a new trailer. Wow. We'll do that review next time, I suppose. So sorry. Today, we got a, I think it's the new Manly Elm trailer. Crap. You'll keep it all fresh in your brain? I don't know. Maybe. We'll see. What are we doing? A new trailer. I think it's Manly Elm. What the? Come on. Unchakalakalakalakan. Corbinized.  I don't think I've done Corbinized in half a year at least. No way I'm going to read all those words. Unchakalakalakan. Right? Is that how you pronounce it? I was following your, your lead. Oh, I don't know. Unchakalakalakan. How would you pronounce it? Actually. Unchakalakokun. Unchakalakokun. Because they say it so fast. Yeah. Unchakalakokun. Well, they probably just say it. Unchakalakokun. Unchakalakokun. Unchakalakokun. With these people. Ules Chamben, Lukman Avaran, Chamban Venod. And it's a Chamboski motion picture. Other than that, I have no idea. This is just for Eliso. I believe it's Manly Elm though, as I said. And so let's just figure this out. I predict if it's not Manly Elm, it's some other industry. Maybe. Yeah. It's a stretch though. Yeah. Roosters, chickens, and old women. Here we go. Poor squirrel. Balayalam. Manayali. Puriyaananallai. That's right. Thruyalli Prasnaan, Naropa. Maraali, this is a good thing. Amalusara hero. He doesn't know about the story. He came to you. He knows, right? What's your name? Frere's and my father's name? Police station. Your mother's house. Who are you? What are you doing here?          What's with your站? It's a large body. Arrogant. Cops. U. Yeah. arrested. I was going to say, I was like, it was giving a little Tarantino vibes a little bit. That looks wonderfully weird. Yeah. It looks very Miley Olly. Great trailer. It looks very Miley Olly in terms of originality and doing different things. It looks great. My fear is that we won't get it at all. Yeah. Note, I know he watches this channel all the time, but note to Daniel Day-Lewis. Come back, man. Just, there's a lot of good stuff being done in the film industry. He's not coming back, but he also said there's nothing good being made. Don't become the grumpy old man that's hiding in a cave somewhere. Come back and join the artistic world, dear man. No, he's never coming back. But yeah, it looked really awesome, didn't it? I would see it just off of that. Yeah, I would too. Did it say when it releases? If it did, I missed it. I bet it. Because I was just, I bet we won't get it. Yeah, unfortunately. I don't even know if it's said. It looks stylistic. It looked very, really interesting. Lot of, obviously, they're building it this way, so whatever you just put on the menu, I hope it's there when we come and we dine, all of that action and stunt work. Lots of gunfire. Right at the get-go, he shoots the squirrel. Talk about letting you know, hey, pay attention, this is what it's going to be like here. Why isn't it coming up when I need to be starring, I don't know, a film was directed by. Rulis Chambani, or Chamban, instead of the name. Yeah, I, it looked really cool. I liked the stylistic choices, the music choices. Why did it do that? Diddley Squad Pal. That's it, right? Angamali Diaries. Did he direct that? No, obviously not. That was LGP. Director. This is his, no, short. He was in Angamali Diaries. This is his first directorial feature. Yeah, actor previously on a couple of things. Here we go again. Good Lord. It's amazing. It's amazing how much that happens. Basically, you just walk up to a studio and say, I want to direct something, and they go, okay, here. Well, the cool thing, I guess, about Mali Alam is, and it's not the only industry that we've seen it, and we've seen it in every industry, but Mali Alam, they're like, do you have a cool story? Yeah. And then Mamoudi might side on. Right. Oh, cool. Mamouds wants to be in my first feature. Yeah. Oh, why did I not know he... Oh, is that who that was? Why did I not recognize that? I didn't recognize. That was him. Chamban Vinod Joss. We've seen many times. Who was she? I recognized her. I don't know. Is she not in the credits there? No, she's not listed. Oh, yeah, no. I don't know. I don't know, man. I could have sworn I recognized her. It looked really cool, really unique, really Mali Alam. March 15th is the release. Sounds like it might be accurate, but I... Will we get it here? Highly doubt it. If we did not get, obviously, Mamouds and that other... The something boys that's also doing incredible. Assuming this is a pure theatrical release and not something that'll be, I would assume it is because it wasn't linked to any platform that's streaming it. So I assume this is going to screens. Yeah, that one that we reacted to the songs of where they were jumping into the water. It was like to the music. We really liked the song. Yeah. It was the rap. Yeah. That film is doing the best opening since 2018 in terms of profit. It can't be as good as Madame Webb. Probably not. No, but a lot of people are sharing that one. Back-to-back sixes with Mamouds and that one. Nice. But once again, we didn't get that at all. Not even 80 kilometers away. Speaking of Madame Webb, I saw a girl on TikTok. She said, I just, I got to go. I've heard that this is the worst movie I've ever made and I got to know why it's so bad. So I'm just going in and I'm going to figure it out. And then she goes in and then you see her right afterward.  I have not seen it. Probably won't see it. No, I won't see it. But anyways, that was great. Let us know what you thought about it. If you're excited for it, which we are next Malayalam film that we should watch. Please let us know down below.


So the first of the six leads is for people to ask themselves what do you really believe anyway and it's really tempting to think that Things are either for you or against you They're either good or they're bad. They're black and white to mention as a really nice example of this Picturing the world the fence is the name of the song and picturing the world is either black or white for me Or against me instead of having shades of gray in between the same thing happens with opinion change That's right. And if an observation is surprising enough. It allows you to to think about to understand what you really believe How what's really important to you now? This is actually what a lot of university courses are trying to achieve Now the second of the six leads is how well based is the opinion that you already hold Now sometimes support for an opinion can't always be based on formal data or experiments that the data may just not be available So personal experience might be the only thing we have to go on. That's exactly right and We obviously are looking through the lens of this personal experience that has been heavily shaped by your Interpretation as we've just seen in the end throughout the episode the way that we see the world may not be the same way That other people see the world and so that personal experience might be somehow tainted In a particular way and so that leads us to the third Lead which is how good is the evidence is is it based on experiments? Is it based on that personal experience? How good are the data? How good is that evidence? What most people do when they're faced with surprising evidence like the large-class small classes They they have this new evidence and then they just disregard it. They just ignore it from that point on Yep, all look for flaws Flaws in the evidence or the data, but even if you do find a flaw You have to ask yourself is that flaw so terrible that you have you can Legitimately disregard this new piece of evidence that you've been given it is is the data so bad that you can just ignore it Like in the large-class small-class example are the experiments that have been done Just so terrible that you can ignore them and continue to to believe what you believe and that leads us to the fourth lead in opinion change, which is Does the evidence really contradict what you already believe? so is there a way of Reframe the issue of stating the evidence in a way that allows you to to to use this new information this new evidence rather than just Rejecting it outright Absolutely, and so given the problem that's in front of you given the evidence that somebody's presented if that's not enough For you to change your mind Change your opinion and what would be enough if if I've just presented evidence or if I've just received evidence That's somehow flawed or somehow insufficient You need to ask yourself if that's not enough what would be enough? Yep And you need to if you can't find any evidence if you can't think of something that would change your mind Then it's really time to be cautious there about the basis of that belief now that leads us to the sixth lead in opinion change which is Is it worth finding out about or is it just a case of why not? Why don't I just continue to believe this stuff? So How much is what's the cost can I just persist in this belief like for example? Should I just take the pill it doesn't cost much and it doesn't taste bad So why not stick with it? That's right So going back to Jane's case if she just took the vial of water and she felt better It's water right. It was cheap. It didn't taste bad. She took it. She got better. So why not just persist in that belief? That one's tricky. I mean yes but we need a caveat on that sixth lead where People can really use that one almost as a get out of jail free card and just say oh well the cost is low And therefore it really doesn't require me to Figure out what I actually believe about it So I'd be cautious with that one, but yes if the cost is extremely low and the payoff is high Yep, why not just go with it? So these six leads are gonna become extremely important now We're dealing with kind of benign kind of examples at the moment But we're gonna be moving into things like ESP paranormal belief applied claims health claims where These issues these opinions that people have might not be so easily dismissible And so I think having these six leads is going to be really useful when people start Examining their own opinions and examining the opinions of other people if you want to change someone else's minds Someone else's mind or their own mind then it's really worth considering these and keeping these in their toolbox and I've asked the mythbusters Exactly about this issue of opinion change both The opinions that they hold or the myths that they test as well as other people's the viewers Opinions that they have and here's what they had to say


I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The first item of business is general questions. Question 1 is from Oliver Mundell. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the restarting of school inspections. Cabinet Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville. HM, I expect inspectors of education will take forward a phased approach to resuming the range of scrutiny activities as the year progresses, given the current Covid-19 pandemic. In carrying out any scrutiny activity, HMIE will take into account the pressures and challenges being faced by schools and settings due to the pandemic. Initially inspectors will visit those in establishments awaiting the outcome of a further inspection following an inspection before the pandemic. Routine inspections of individual schools and early learning and childcare settings will resume later in the academic session from January 2022. The inspectors are, of course, aware of the changing situation around Covid and will, of course, keep their plans under review. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. While it is understandable that inspections were paused during the pandemic, many schools across Scotland have already gone years without inspection under the Scottish National Party Government. Can she tell teachers, parents and young people how often a school should be inspected and what is the maximum number of years between inspections that the Government thinks is acceptable? As I said in my original answer, the plans for this year are very much taken into account the views of the inspectors that we need to be aware that the pandemic is not over and that it is not over in our schools. Our school leaders, our school teachers, are still dealing with the mitigations that are in place and ensuring that the schools are safe for staff and pupils. That is exactly why the inspectors will be taking a phased approach to going through their work. They will, of course, keep their plans under review, as I would expect members to do. I would point out to the member that the number of school inspections that were delivered over the past years had increased in 2018-19, and if it had not been for the pandemic, it certainly was the case that it would have increased still further in 2019-20. That demonstrates our willingness as a Government to ensure that we are supporting schools and inspecting schools and the work of Education Scotland to do just exactly that. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when parents will be permitted to attend school sports to watch their children play. Our priority is keeping children, young people and school staff safe. The guidance on reducing Covid risks in schools is in line with the current advice from the Covid-19 advisory subgroup on education and children's issues. The subgroup keeps the mitigations in schools and ELC settings under constant review. It considered the issue of parental attendance at school sporting events at its meeting on Tuesday 21 September and will provide advice to ministers on that and other issues in due course. We will consider that advice and announce the outcome as soon as possible. I find it incredibly strange that on Saturday morning when my girls were playing football, I cannot watch them, but on Saturday afternoon, when we go to the local running club, they are able to watch them. Why is the difference between a school activity and an activity run by a club? Are parents not entitled to go to both? As I hinted to Jeremy Balfour in my original answer, that is very much being kept under review and has been a most recent discussion within the advisory subgroup. It was also discussed very briefly in Serg this morning. I absolutely recognise the situation that Jeremy Balfour talks about. That is exactly why the subgroup has been assessing the evidence around that. I will consider that evidence in due course once that is presented to me. I will, of course, ensure that we provide an update on that as soon as possible. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its efforts to prevent and alleviate homelessness. I intend to provide Parliament with a progress report on our ending homelessness together action plan next month, one year on from our updated action plan, which renewed our commitment to ending homelessness and rough sleeping and placed a greater emphasis on prevention. We remain focused on our rapid rehousing and housing first approach and will invest an additional £50 million over this parliamentary term to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. We are also committed to a new homelessness prevention duty and the removal of night shelters. Our ambitions will also be aided by our new deal for tenants in the private rented sector and commitment to delivery of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. Cabinet Secretary will be aware that the Dundee housing first pathfinder is set to end on 30 September and the service is being mainstreamed by Dundee City Council with transformed community development continuing to lead on delivery of the service. Can the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on discussions between the Scottish Government and Dundee City Council and its partners regarding the efforts being made to ensure that there is a smooth transition, particularly for those receiving support? Cabinet Secretary? Yes, I can. My officials are in regular contact with Dundee City Council, who are fully committed to delivering a housing first programme in Dundee. The council is investing in their housing first programme by bringing in specialist support staff and other organisations, for example funding positions to deliver a gender and youth specific support and community social workers who will be embedded within the housing options service and support housing first functions. To date, the housing first programme in Dundee has been very successful with 87 people starting housing first tenancies, with the tailored support required to meet their needs, of which 86 per cent are meeting and maintaining their tenancies. Alexander Stewart In 2018, the First Minister pledged to invest in and expand housing first by supporting 800 over a three-year period, but, as of 31 July, only 540 people had received support through the Pathfinder programme. What is the Scottish Government doing to speed up the roll-out across Scotland? As part of local authorities rapid rehousing transition plans, local authorities in Scotland have given consideration to the development and implementation of housing first information gathered from the plans in 2020, indicating that 29 of the 32 local authorities are developing a housing first programme. We will certainly be continuing to work with local government to make sure that that continues to be a priority. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with local authorities regarding spectators returning to watch school sports events. Cabinet Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville As I noted in my earlier response to Jeremy Balfour, the arrangements for attendance at school sports events was considered by the advisory subgroup on education and children's issues on Tuesday. The principal consideration remains the safety of children, young people and school staff, and we will consider the subgroup's advice and respond as soon as possible. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, and I heard very carefully what the reply was to Jeremy Balfour. Cabinet secretary, I know that I am not the only member in this chamber who has been receiving a considerable number of emails from parents right across Scotland throughout the summer. Asking what the logic is as to why their youngsters are taking part in a school match and they cannot, as parents, go to watch that, whereas many thousands can attend football matches and last week's transmit concert, but there does not seem to be any logic. Cabinet secretary, is there any logic in the decision as to why they are unable to attend the school sports events? I have probably not got that much to add to what I said to Jeremy Balfour in that question. We are, of course, listening carefully to the emails from parents that are coming in to members in the chamber and directly to Government on this issue. As I said to Jeremy Balfour, that is exactly why the advisory subgroup has been looking at this issue again. I hope that the chamber would expect me quite rightly to listen very carefully to the advice that comes from the advisory subgroup on this and in all other issues. Those measures are being kept under review since schools have got back. We have ensured that we have kept mitigation measures in place to ensure that we are therefore allowed to take some other changes, for example, around self-isolation and so on. However, we are keeping that under review. I have said to Liz Smith and to Jeremy Balfour that it has been looked at, and I can assure her that when I have that advice, I will respond to that as expeditiously as I can. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. It is really just a point of clarification. Could the cabinet secretary absolutely confirm that the subgroup has looked at this point of public and family spectators at school sports matches? The advisory subgroup looked at a range of issues to do with visitors within the school settings, and that included the aspects around sport within school settings and out with school settings. I hope that that gives the clarification that the member was looking for. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position regarding short-term lets. Regulation of short-term lets is vital to balance the needs and concerns that people and communities have raised with the Scottish Government-elected members and local authorities with wider economic and tourism interests. Over the summer, we held a consultation on the legislation and business and regulatory impact assessment. We are now reviewing the responses to make sure that we get this important legislation absolutely right. We have informed the local government housing and planning committee that we will lay the licensing order in November. By allowing local authorities appropriate regulatory powers through a licensing scheme, we can ensure that short-term lets are safe and address issues that are faced by local residents and communities. Given the contentious nature of the licensing scheme and the Scottish Government's failure to adequately work with the self-catering sector to resolve the issues arising, particularly with regard to rural businesses, can the minister set out how the Scottish Government or local authorities will compensate businesses in many rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, whose livelihoods could be taken away due to a short-term licence being refused on the grounds of overcapacity? I do not accept the member's contention. I believe that efforts have been made to work with the sector. I met the Air BnB and the Self-Catering Association just a few weeks ago, and I have committed to continue to work with them. I do not believe that those are onerous responsibilities. The Bria sets out very clearly that the licensing fee will not be onerous, and local authorities can only recoup the costs of providing their licensing system. The powers that local authorities will have are going to be very important in addressing issues of local concern, which I hope that Finlay Carson will also listen to, because it is important that we hear those local concerns. The legislation is aimed at giving local authorities the powers to use them. They do not have to use them, but I hope that Finlay Carson will appreciate that local authorities should have the powers to be able to address issues of concern in their area. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the devastating impact to housing stock in certain areas of the highlands and islands, due to the high density of short-term lets, needs to be urgently addressed? We know that, in certain communities, particularly tourist hotspots, high numbers of short-term lets can reduce the number of properties available and make it harder for people living and working in the area to find homes to live in, something that I would hope that would be of concern to members across the chamber. That is why we are taking action on short-term lets. We consider the regulation of short-term lets, including legislation, allowing councils to establish short-term let control areas that came into force back in April, and our proposals to licence short-term lets will strike the necessary balance between the concerns that communities have raised with the wider economic and tourism industry's interests. We are also increasing the number of affordable homes and are proud of delivering more than 103,000 affordable homes since 2007, and I have committed to delivering 110,000 more by 2032. The member will also note that Highland Council is proposing to use the short-term let control order for the Badenach and Stas Bay area. I am keen to use control areas for the East Nuka Fife to protect full-time residents and also for workers as well. I am concerned that the argument over the licensing scheme may be holding that up. I am interested in the association of self-caterers idea for a registration scheme that I know that the Government is against, but will the minister reconsider that opposition so that we can get cracking on implementing the control areas? Let me repeat. Councils have had the power to establish short-term let control areas that came into force in April of this year. Edinburgh is already looking at making the whole of Edinburgh a control area. As I said previously, Highland is looking at Badenach and Stas Bay, and it would be good for Willie Rennie and Fife Council to discuss the East Nuka area as well. That is a particular power that will be used by local authorities in areas that they decide in consultation with local people and with ministers. In terms of the registration system, it has been discussed at length. We do not believe that a registration scheme would give the same protections, particularly on the issues of having communal safety standards across all short-term lets across Scotland, which is why we will bring in a licensing scheme, but that will not be onerous and will make sure that it works for both communities, but it is also not onerous for those who are providing short-term lets. To ask the Scottish Government how it will assist schools to support the mental wellbeing of pupils, Cabinet Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville. The mental health and wellbeing of children and young people is an absolute priority for this Government, and we continue to support our local authority partners with £16 million in funding to ensure that every secondary school has access to counselling services. The mental health and schools working group has overseen the development of professional learning resources for school staff, published in June, and guidance to support whole-school approaches to mental health published in August. Those resources help school staff to respond to the range of mental health and wellbeing concerns that young people may experience. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. In Finland, the Government is rolling out a policy in which people presenting with mental health issues will be given access to non-clinical community support within four weeks. In addition to the early intervention of school counsellors, has the Government any plans to increase the use of social prescribing and befriending services? The use of computerised CBT is a parked strategy in assisting young people with their mental health. I thank Gillian Martin for the recognition of the need for a range of support mechanisms to be in place that is wider than counselling in schools. Schools and education authorities already have in place a wide range of resources to support children and young people. They include but are not limited to telephone helplines, seasons for growth, bereavement programmes, educational psychology support, virtual and telephone counselling, advice lines, family support, links to cams and youth work, among others. The work that I set out in my earlier answer complements those approaches that are already in place in schools and education authorities right across Scotland. This weekend, I visited Mikey's Line in Inverness, an organisation dedicated in supporting young people's mental health. It highlighted how critical early intervention is. It is something that this Government has consistently failed on when it comes to mental health strategy. Will the Scottish Government carry out any consultation or analysis to consider the effect of repeatedly isolating children due to Covid-19 on their long-term mental health? Will it tell the chamber what plans it has to utilise early intervention as a means of avoiding such effects becoming more serious? I thank the member for her question and point to a number of actions that are have been and will be in train to support early intervention. That includes, for example, the get into summer programme, which was very successful right across Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government and provided by local authorities. Within the wider transition and recovery plan for mental health and the recovery and renewal fund, there is a fund that is there to transform services with a renewed focus on prevention and early intervention, exactly as the member has suggested that we should.


Months and months and months ago, David Dobrik got exposed by another YouTuber and in my opinion, it was actually for the greater good. What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul where we talk about the problem, but focus on the solution. And if you're new to my channel, sometimes what I like to do is pull different topics from the YouTube community or pop culture or internet culture and try to see what lessons we can learn from them to try to improve our own lives. So if any of that stuff, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell because I make a ton of videos. So yeah, this has been a video that's been on my mind for a little while, like cancel culture is a big thing. It's been going on for a while now and it's it's absolutely ridiculous. I think I mentioned it in another video. I'm thinking about doing a whole video about how cancel culture is one of the reasons why so many people are so anxious in 2019 and probably years to come as well. So yeah, David Dobrik months and months and months ago, he was exposed by another YouTuber and it's probably not the situation that you're thinking I'm talking about. The situation I'm actually talking about is from August of last year and it was from none other than Elijah Daniels.  He's a rapper. He recently got engaged. Congratulations, Elijah. Anyways, so Elijah Daniels made a video around the time that what do they call it drama get in was going on when, you know, it was like Manny Mua and Laura Lee and like Nikita Dragon and Gabriel Zamora and all that stuff was going on and everything.  And he was like, you know, it was like basically what he was talking about, basically what he's talking about is like, like people were losing their minds during that time and it's still something that happens whenever like controversy kind of comes up. Elijah Daniels was talking about how like, YouTubers were like going through their, their old like tweets and everything and deleting anything that might be problematic and all this other stuff and everybody was like freaking out because that's kind of what happened with Laura Lee. Laura Lee's old tweets were like brought up and everything and Elijah Daniels ended up like showing that even David Dobrik, one of the most lovable dudes on the platform, had some, what would seem problematic tweets now, right? Like they would be problematic now, but back then they weren't. I want to explain more of like, more of what comedy was like back in those days.    And the point Elijah Daniels was trying to make was like, the internet used to be a different time, a different place where like, people like just said things and they said whatever and they did things that, you know, they talked and said things that might be deemed homophobic or racist or whatever. Like, those of you who don't know me, like, I'm actually half African American and like, I know this, I grew up in gaming culture, right? Like, I'm a gamer, I've been playing games since I was like five years old, like, original Nintendo, right? Like, that's what I've been doing, that I got into online games and like, in online gaming, like, you know, people toss around, you know, racial slurs, sexist things and, you know, like, and I was on like the football team and the wrestling team and the track team and, you know, in that kind of like masculinity culture, there's like homophobic things that be tossed around and everything. And like, not saying that that's okay, but today is very problematic, right? And it's just fascinating to me because like the title of this video, I believe David Dobrik got exposed, quote unquote, for the greater good because Elijah Daniels brought up a bigger conversation and it's kind of like, so there's this old like philosophical question, right?  Or, but you have the option to pull a lever, it switches tracks and it only hits one person. What do you do, right? And this is something where, where it's just an interesting question and I made a video about the Avengers a while ago about the war between Captain America and Iron Man. And Iron Man is more of a utilitarian, right? Where he looks at just like the most realistic situations and says, okay, this is probably going to give us the best net gain. So like when Elijah Daniels did that, like, I got it, right? Like David Dobrik got like a little bit of flack, but it created a greater conversation and it also made it onto the Philip DeFranco show, like even Philip DeFranco like talked about this story. So one of the things I want to talk about is, is just like this idea of judging people based on their past. I made a, I talked about this, I think in the Shane Dawson video I did the other day, but it's absolutely ridiculous to judge people based on their past, especially when it was like a different time, but people were different as well. Like you look at people like David Dobrik, right? Who's in his 20s, you know? Like he was a teenager not that long ago. I'm a 33 year old man, you know? So 10 years ago, whatever, like I was in my 20s. But also for somebody like myself and why I try not to judge people on their past is I'm a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. I'm coming up on seven years sober in a couple months.  But there's still some things from my past, like, you know, just jokes I've made and things like that, where I'd just be like, like what Elijah Daniels is saying, like, it was, it was a different time. Like one of the most fascinating things to me, I think Ethan from H3, H3 Productions made a video about like kids reacting to Seinfeld, like in 2019 or was it 2018? I don't remember when that video was made. But like just showing how like offended or like touchy like kids were around these subjects of Seinfeld. One of the most like non-controversial shows ever created, like ever created, right? Like if anything, like from back in that era, like Roseanne used like some more edgy humor and like, you know, around that time people were like trying to get edgier and edgier and edgier, right? But yeah, I just think it shows like the time that we're in with this like outrage culture. Like I really feel, I really feel like so many people are just waking up in the morning. And I think it's subconscious. I don't think people intentionally do this. Some might. But we're living in a time where people wake up in the morning and they're looking for something to get offended by. They're looking for it. And here's the thing. Like I'm not a, I'm not a psychologist or anything like that. But I'm a nerd when it comes to psychology, mental health, the way our minds work and everything. And like there's a thing called selective attention theory, right? Where our brain focuses on what we train it to focus on. And when you combine that with confirmation bias, it creates just like a recipe for disaster. So let's say you don't like somebody. You don't like that person, right?  Because of that bias that you already have, your selective attention is going to figure out what things they said that could be taken in an offensive way. Like, oh my God, I cannot believe they said this. Like one of the reasons I love comedians is because they do not give a damn. All right. They just don't care. Like so many comedians, like I listened to a podcast, like I was just listening to the Chris D'Elia podcast and like he's talked about it. I know Bill Byrnes talked about it. Some other comedians have talked about it. Like every joke is going to offend somebody. It's going to offend somebody. And we're such a selfish and self-centered type of species where we only care about our thing, right? Like if you say this thing and offended me, I care about this. You know what I mean?  But then if they made, you know, a joke about something else, I'd be like, that's funny. You see what I'm saying? Like we get offended by things that are personal to us and we care way too much about things that really don't matter. And I really think that context of jokes, like jokes especially, like I am a huge believer where like comedians, you know, they are there to make us laugh at, you know, this sometimes horrendous world that we're living in, this crazy world that we're living in and they're there to bring some light to some serious topics. You know what I'm saying? But kind of the last thing I want to talk about again, like with Elijah Daniels using David Dobrik, you know, to get views on that video, like it was for a good reason. And here's the thing, like there's so many topics that I want to discuss and because of things that happen with me, I'm like, I don't know if I should. But these are the types of things that get my wheels turning like, is it okay, right? Is it okay to talk about this, this one person if it might be able to get out a more positive message for the rest of them? And I think that's what a lot of commentary channels struggle with sometimes. I talked about this a little bit in the I never response video I made, but I think commentary channels struggle with this a bit as well. And I think Leon Lush is probably somebody who recently went through this and it hasn't been talked about. It's something that I noticed though where he has figured out a way to keep doing what he's doing without necessarily like pissing off specific people. But anyways, I am still like my man Tony Stark. I am a utilitarian where I believe like if we have to talk about one thing to get out a more positive message, like I think that's important. I think that's what it is. You know what I mean? But I would love to know your thoughts on this whole topic down below in the comment section, whether it's about like cancel culture or like, you know, the, you know, affect one person to help many other people. Let me know your thoughts on that down in the comments below. Alright, but again, Elijah Daniels, congratulations on your engagement. I have another video planned about David Dobrik and yeah, if you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up. If you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that freaking notification bell, baby, because I make a ton of videos and a huge, huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon. You're all amazing and I will be answering all your questions for the monthly Patreon Q&A this week. Alright, thanks again so, so much for watching. I'll see you next time.


Well, let us start the second session if we if we will please My name is Tom McNar. I teach in the security studies program at Georgetown And I have anticipated this panel in particular with great interest because as sort of your typical American national security analyst I think of China as a rule breaker more than a rule maker And I think it's a stroke of genius to sort of put this panel here So we can talk about the other side of that coin and to do that we have three really Terrific experienced panelists. I'll introduce them in the order in which they're sitting Which is also in the order in which they're they're speaking with the only admonition that we do try to Hold to 10 to 15 minutes, which as I told the panel is it's just impossible. Nobody speaks for just 10 minutes But I'd like you to really give it a try Susan Lawrence Is at the Congressional Research Service where she's an Asia specialist She lived in China for 13 years most of that as a journalist for the likes of the Far East or an economic review Wall Street Journal The US news and world report fluent in Mandarin And I think probably fluent in the way China sees the world and sees itself as well Robert Daley is is the director of the Kissinger Center on the US and China at the Woodrow Wilson Center Came down there just last year from Maryland where he ran the China project, but About 11 years in China Including six directing the Nanjing Center, which I regard as a very special a very special place Again fluent in in Mandarin and has interviewed and translated for interpreted for Several Chinese high-level officials American high-level officials Patrick Klossin like me is not fluent in Mandarin He's fluent in Pentagon ease which is an equally different Tonal language and it's hard because it changes all the time those acronyms just keep getting longer and longer He is now senior director and director of the Asia program at CNAS the Center for New American Security If you look at his longer bio, you'll see he's been a number of places And he's always written very very cogently about US national security in particular about Asian issues so so with that let me turn this over to Susan and we'll get started talking about China as a rulemaker like to start by thanking Georgetown Oriana and USIP for the invitation to be here and I'm speaking my personal capacity and my views don't necessarily Represent those of CRS This panel is on China as rule maker the framing language that you will have seen in the brochure about the conference Seem to assign two meanings to that phrase The first one was China as joiner as participant in the international system epitomized by decision to join most international and regional organizations and The second meaning is China as rule maker in the international system in the sense of playing a leadership role Actively proposing changes to the international order, so I'm going to split my remarks into those two categories Starting with China as joiner China has been an enthusiastic joiner in recent decades making up for time lost as the junior partner in the Sino-Soviet Alliance and in the aftermath of the Korean War China of course joined the United Nations and took on the seat on the national on the Security Council held by the Republic of China Taiwan in 1971 Its membership in international organizations picked up after 1978 It is now joined most UN affiliated agencies the World Bank the International Monetary Fund and so on It began efforts to join the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1986 and Finally joined the gap successor organization the World Trade Organization of course in 2001 Nonetheless for most of the time since 1971 China's often been described as under participating in global governance a 2009 study by the Center for American Progress described China as in the ring, but punching below its weight Chinese scholars have characterized China's role differently as admirably restrained Chinese scholars sometimes seek appreciation for the fact that China has generally not sought to use its UN Security Council seat for example as a way to counterbalance or block the United States One imperfect metric of China's activity Maybe vetoes in the UN Security Council China cast its first veto in 1972 Blocking Bangladesh's UN membership because China considered Bangladesh to be a breakaway province of Pakistan its ally But it didn't use its veto again for 25 years until 1997 When it vetoed a resolution to send ceasefire observers to Guatemala because Guatemala's diplomatic relations with Taiwan And China abstained in the on the 1991 Gulf War resolution allowing the Gulf War to happen They voted for the ultimatum to Iraq leading up to the second Gulf War They voted for resolution 1386 authorizing the international security assistance force in Afghanistan so they China sort of Basically wants credit for not not blocking the United States With that brought with that position But of course, you know the list of vetoes doesn't reflect situations in which China wielded influence with its threat of a veto or Otherwise may have informally influenced the behavior or actions of other members Moving on to China as rule maker Many observers remarked on an apparent gradual shift in China's attitude toward the international system in the last few years a Desire to move cautiously beyond the Deng Xiaoping dictum of Tao Guang Yang Hui this idea that China should keep its head down not take the lead Focus on domestic development and that that dictum has been in place since the fall of the Soviet Union It's still officially there, but there's now a lot of debate about how much China should feel guided by that We're seeing senior Chinese Chinese officials indicating a desire to pursue gradual changes to the international system an example November 2013 last year State Council Yang Jiechi China's most senior diplomat Stated that China wants to quote pursue incremental progress in adjusting and reforming the international system That appears to mean preserving the authority of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization But wanting the UN to renew and improve itself and play a bigger role It means securing a greater role for emerging markets and developing countries in the global system For example the G20 China really likes the G20 reforming the international Monetary and financial systems to give China a bigger role Ensuring a global development agenda that is firmly focused on economic development and poverty alleviation and not on promoting democracy democratic governance China is also engaged in a parallel effort to create new institutions in which China can be a rule maker from the start One example is the Shanghai cooperation organization Its mission is includes big quote moving towards the establishment of a new democratic just and rational political and economic international order Principles of the SEO include ideas like respect for the diversity of cultures, which is a byword for Not pursuing democracy promotion in places like China It's also got a major focus on tackling what the SEO countries call terrorism separatism and extremism and that of course just that that formulation reflects China's Role as a rule maker in this situation China of course uses that phrase The the terrorism separatism and extremism to justify its actions in places like Xinjiang and Tibet and it calls those three things the three evils and Yet, you know the SEO all all of the SEO countries have signed on to that focus and the SEO countries You know Kazakhstan China Kyrgyz Republic Russia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Observers or Afghanistan India Iran Mongolia and Pakistan China is also Seeking to be a rule maker in the context of the Bricks the sorry the Bricks grouping Brazil Russia India China and South Africa It has established the China Africa Cooperation forum and now expanded on we now have also a China Arab cooperation forum and looks like this year There will be a new China Community of Latin American and Caribbean states forum. So basically the three major Regions China is now setting up specific entities for China's relationships with Those whole continents China has also under Xi Jinping is pursuing two very high-profile initiatives which China is portraying as an example of the way that it is beginning to innovate in foreign policy and And and and you know create rules By being the innovator by being the country that putting out these ideas So one is the Silk Road economic belt Proposed when Xi Jinping was in Kazakhstan the other is the 21st century maritime Silk Road Which is leveraging the China asian maritime cooperation cooperation fund which China established That was proposed when Xi Jinping visited Indonesia And I think we're gonna be hearing a lot more about those two initiatives in the months to come They're becoming very high-profile in China Part of the shift in China's approach to the international system is in statements Saying that China is willing to step forward and shoulder greater international responsibilities Which is something the United States has long urged China to do Wang Yi the Chinese Foreign Minister for example last fall Pledge that China would fully and more actively involve ourselves in international affairs and work closely with other countries to meet Intricate global challenges and tackle difficult issues facing mankind. He promised to provide more public goods to the international community As examples of China's provision of public goods China points to its active participation in UN peacekeeping missions Points to its anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden its diplomacy related to North Korea And in August China will be hosting the ministerial conference of the Istanbul process on Afghanistan China's also said it's willing to get more involved with Afghanistan Another area in which I think we'll be seeing more Chinese More Chinese Chinese activity which may lead to more rulemaking is China's pledge to do more to protect protect the interests of Chinese overseas There are now a hundred million Chinese traveling abroad every year 20,000 Chinese companies operating overseas and China is now much more overtly making this part of China's foreign policy agenda And finally, you know part of the shift China is now casting more vetoes in the UN Security Council So from 1997 to the present to remember from from 1972 to 1997 There were no vetoes from 1997 to the present China has used its veto seven times Five times following Russia's lead The last three vetoes in 2011 and 2012 were on resolutions championed by the United States related to Syria, of course But China abstained on the UN Security Council vote on the Crimea issue, which Russia vetoed So I will put that out here. I think all three of us are going to be talking on kind of different aspects of this question Which is which is good and We will then discuss how they all mesh. Thank you It will thank you I'd like to thank Oriana for putting this together and also to congratulate you on the on the structure of the day Which is very enticing as I went through your schedule. I was very glad to I hope have the time to be here to listen to the other Panels as well. It's very good conference When I was given this topic China as a rule maker I had some of the same thoughts Yeah, China hasn't proposed that many rules as such and so I went back as I often do if I'm looking at something in a Comparative context United States and China to etymologies to try to see whether we meant different things in English by rule And the Chinese do by primarily by Guizha because it's often the case when we speak for example of education and jiu You that they're fundamentally different concepts interestingly etymologically Notions of rule and Guizha are quite similar They both come from the idea of making straight and from measurement and delineation Initially now the the processes of rulemaking in the United States broadly internationally and in China are quite different particularly with reference to notions of who gets to participate But what I wanted to focus on and here thinking back to the first panel and professor Wang Zheng's Comments in particular is the degree to which rules are Culturally construed in both the Western and the Chinese tradition. They are not static Rules evolve to reflect changes in values technologies and power relationships and So we tend to I think overall in the United States We tend to describe and to judge the efficacy of rules based on whether or not they form the foundation For human flourishing and for human interaction, including economic interactions Security interactions, etc. Do we do does the rule provide a good and fair foundation from below for human activity? Whereas in China it's more often the case that a rule is seen as imposing order on chaos from above and we often run into this difficulty When we speak of international rules and the question of whose notion of what rules are for is going to predominate So that in some of the examples that that Susan Lawrence just gave of China as a rule maker I think there is a question in some of these institutions these organizations these policies whether we are really talking about rules as such Or as mechanisms for power projection and influence on the Chinese side And so it's tough to make these distinctions all the time, but it's it's worth I think making the effort Earlier you spoke also of the the culturalist lens through which China Approaches these these issues and I think that's correct in the case of rules Rules are also designed to create and to perpetuate a culture And often this function of rulemaking is not explicit But it can be and I'm thinking of course because Georgetown is sponsoring this event with the Institute of Peace We have the rule of Saint Benedict the rule of Saint Augustine the rule of Saint Francis and of course the rule of Saint Ignatius Loyola and this once common now less common notion of a rule is a way of life that enforces a Discipline schedules rituals declarations of faith in order to cultivate certain virtues Certain practices actually the whip that it was used in some of the harsher orders for self-flagellation That was actually called the discipline by the people who used it And so this notion of the rule as perpetuating a set of disciplines and cultures is not altogether unknown to the CCP in Its histories. This is another sense of rule that I would I would like to bring in So rules I think are inseparable from values and from cultural practices Which is one of the reasons that we've had so much difficulty in working with China on this front This week in the States, of course, we've seen this in the US We've been debating rules about affirmative action about land use rights in the Clive and Bundy case so I My last comment on that but I think that in talking to China or with China about its rules a rule maker We need to bear in mind the inadequacy the inconsistency and the changing character of our own rulemaking So what what our China's attitudes toward the making of rules to date? We don't have a whole lot of evidence to go on although it was somewhat encouraging Just this week to have in Qingdao a new agreement reached on a non binding code of maritime conduct conduct It's encouraging what we'll see how it goes We can also look to China's recent international behavior as a clue to its attitudes toward rulemaking and I think that certainly over the past year or so The evidence there has been far less encouraging When we look at the East China Sea and the South China Sea where we have declarations of Interests rather than rulemaking activity And as its power grows another ongoing Indicator of China's attitude toward rules is China's own Domestic laws it is becoming clear I would argue that China's first instinct and preference in Treating problems and people beyond its borders is to treat them as it treats problems and people within its borders This isn't unique to China. It's not really very surprising But that kind of treatment often can threaten Established and emerging international norms that much of the rest of the world regards as essential To the functioning of modern nations and indeed I would argue many of these rules are essential to China's own efforts To develop an innovative knowledge economy And so there's a tension that we see in China and Professor Zhu Feng referred in the first panel to this paradox between a desire to be involved a desire to be integrated the desire to benefit from international rules, which are sometimes at variance with the domestic rules that are very strongly enforced by China that we see a paradox In that China's domestic standards for example treatment of individuals treatment of labor the environment the free flow of information protection of intellectual property rights Chinese attitudes toward the rule of law and the role of law are not commensurate with established international norms and China experiences this as a big problem it describes it as its problem in Controlling discourse why you can it sees very little room to Defend or promulgate its own standards for rules that it sees working for it domestically internationally Because the discursive field is already occupied. It's it's hard for China to step out And that is why I think that what kind of rule maker China will become is going to depend On its ability to resolve this sort of nay. Why you know internal or domestic? international paradox Which is what I understood Ju Feng to be referring to in other words. It is Chinese exceptionalism China's uniqueness which we discussed in the first panel Which like all exceptionalism doesn't meld easily with principles of international law and The attempt to work with China as a co-rule maker is further complicated by Chinese views toward its foreign policy deeply held beliefs among Chinese elites, but also among Chinese people more broadly Which were also referred to In passing in the first panel the belief that China is fundamentally and Characteristically peaceful that it never has and never will threaten a neighbor Therefore incursions in the Scarborough Shoal cannot be threats This is this is that this is the argument is also strongly believed that China also respects nations and peoples and never interferes in the international in the internal affairs of other countries that it does not seek to change the systems of other nations That Chinese foreign policy is always correct and that China is never at fault in International conflicts this makes it this belief which I think is fairly deeply held in China I'm sure many of you have encountered in the past and if you haven't I'd be happy to send you some speeches and articles that Make this point, but this disposition that China is never at fault is always peaceful This makes it more than usually difficult for China to accept international judgments Whether they're from the WTO or for example with the case that the Philippines is bringing About the Spratlys how are we going to reconcile these deeply held beliefs about China's correctness with? international judgments Furthermore China it is believed as a historical victim is incapable of being an aggressor The very suggestion is almost oxymoronic from the Chinese point of view Xi Jinping at Davos in 2014 said that China will never seek hegemony because quote This is not in the DNA of the country given our long historical and cultural background So these just these beliefs about Chinese foreign policy are going to make it as a difficult these ideas of Chinese exceptionalism for it to make and Co-design rules as such on the other hand and those that sort of the Negative side of the equation on the more positive side China is aware that it is changing When I first went to China as a diplomat in the late 80s and I would you know, unfortunately Embarrassingly, you know preach to China in those days about all the things it should do My Chinese friends would say well just a good boy. Trump. This is a process And of course, this is very tough as an American because it's it's so transparently an excuse and It's so undeniably true at the same time So it makes it as sometimes tough to have these conversations But certainly there's a very healthy discourse in among Chinese policymakers and in the universities about the fact That China needs to integrate as had been mentioned It is China is also understandably Uncertain about what it wants and where it is headed I was in a panel yesterday with Jia Qinghua of Beijing University and he made this point That strongly and quite convincingly that one of the reasons for China's silence about its desires and rules is that it Doesn't know thing China is changing Very quickly and we spoke earlier this morning about the need for empathy and this is I think one of the areas where we have to exercise at some of the time So this is this uncertainty is one of the things that is making China a hesitant rule maker It is conflicted and so it rails against the supposed injustices of the existing world order Even as it games that order with great success and increasingly now recognizes that it is a beneficiary and therefore that it's Interested to refine that certainly not to overthrow that order Yunpeng of the China institutes for contemporary international research writes about this in a book I'd recommend called debating China a series of dialogues about major issues in US-China relations and Yunpeng Wrote China itself has not yet made adequate Psychological and strategic Preparations for changes in the international system Therefore quoting but from a separate part of his article China will continue to play the role of constructive participant and gradual Reformer and I don't think that we will see this changing in in the very near term So this question of what China becomes as a rule maker It's really inseparable from questions about China's modernization and integration into a rapidly evolving world generally It's rulemaking I would not expect it's rulemaking capacity to get out ahead of other aspects of the way Kaifeng and its opening policies So in closing how should the US? Faced with so many international problems the need to work closely with China economically and across the board But we're dealing with a China that is that is uncertain Although it's quite comfortable declaring what it doesn't like about the existing rules, but it's uncertain about proposing new rules How should we work best work with China? First, I think that it is incumbent upon the US and other countries to make clear to China that it is welcome as a Participant an active participant in the rulemaking process. We do not expect it to be just a Responsible stakeholder a phrase that to the Chinese means we welcome your rise as long as you play by the existing rules China does have a legitimate interest in Refining those rules for a changing world and I think could have something positive to contribute to them Although it hasn't really begun to do so yet So looking for ways to work jointly with China and to try to listen to China is going to require I think a humility and a patience on our part that doesn't always come naturally Even as we have to insist on upholding certain fundamental principles I think the best way to have these dialogues with China Is to try to focus in rulemaking with China in areas where China? Recognizes that it has equities and where it can come to rulemaking not as a latecomer, but more or less as an equal It's a good idea to start on new frontiers. There aren't so many of those We have them in space And we have them in obviously in cyberspace and the new frontiers for rulemaking come to us now mostly not from geography from but But from technology rules about the human genome for example and how that is going to be treated questions Technology raises privacy questions Internationally that China recognizes as such as it potentially impinging on the rights of individuals These are very good opportunities to work with China as an equal as rule makers where some of the paranoia that was described earlier Can tend to drop away So that's I think there is room on the positive side to work with China as a rulemaker I think it's essential that we do so on the negative side China as has been mentioned has this idea of dog what do we of big country? relations and big country prerogatives that would sometimes Seem to preclude rulemaking in the normal circumstances. We don't always agree with China on the rules for rules We disagree about rules in the first instance and we sometimes disagree about what constitutes a rule should a rule for example on the use of EEZs apply equally to all countries. This is something China has difficulty answering So China as I say to date remains largely silent as a rulemaker because of uncertainty Because it has problems with discourse. I think it doesn't know how to express its desires without sometimes frightening people and also I believe because it sees time as being on its side it sees America as in at least relative decline and China as rising and therefore the later China Declares a rule or makes a deal the better the deal China is likely to get These Chinese attitudes toward rule-based order. I think have serious strategic consequences in the immediate term that we have to deal with But the underlying challenge is for China our cultural and cultures change slowly The CCP's default attitudes toward rules are still based on self-interest Maintaining order maintaining discipline and on maintaining virtues that are idiosyncratic to the Chinese system And as the Benedictines and the Franciscans know that really doesn't work so well Except in the cloister when you're opening to the outside world. It's a little bit tougher and that's where we have to work. Thank you Well, good morning. I'm Patrick Crohn and I'm the senior director at the Center for a new American security And it's great to be back at the US Institute of Peace and with Georgetown University security studies program I've worked at both institutions. They're tremendous institutions and I think today's event shows just how strong their current program is as well I think Oriana asked me to talk maybe a little bit more about the specific security issues we face today I've tried to cover some of the same ground as the two previous speakers who've done a better job than I've done But I will just for the sake of letting you know my outline of an article. I'm finishing Give you at least the punchlines Because I see China as a partial rule maker and a partial rule breaker going back to Tom's earlier point Yes, they break the rules as well and they they they also make them and sometimes they just are not interested in the rules Breaking them or making them When you think I've tried to ask three questions one is what does it mean to be a rule maker and I think one of the points I'd make here is that from an American perspective You'd expect predictability you'd expect Transparency and you'd expect a sense of fairness and without those three qualities of predictability like the nine-dash line Does it apply to land features? Well, maybe maybe not. There's no predictability There's no predictability in this issue. How about transparency? Well, there's no transparency either because you can't really see inside China's decision-making. It's so difficult. There's so many actors I Hesitate to ever say China as a rule maker because what is China and is there A sense of fairness well from a Chinese perspective. Yes, but but it's historically based It's it's and that's so rich as as we've just heard That is very difficult to try to put that in our especially American but more generally Western context So that's why I want to move on to a second question About the scope of rules being made because I think it really is important to differentiate the kind of rules We're talking about and so when we focus on the hard issue the neurologic issues between say US and China on security and between China and some of its neighbors on security Especially the maritime domain, but you can increasingly bring it issues like cyber security. You start to see the pattern of Chinese rule Sort of making and breaking There's no doubt that China is looking at this as a justification for power projection as much as rules I think as Robert just suggested that is to say it's both They're interested in the rules But not if it touches upon and infringes upon what they think our core national interest and that's a loaded term as well Because that could be changing as China Reawakens old maybe old claims not necessarily new claims, but new interests in old claims Is leading to a greater desire for influence over those old old claims Where this new awakened power of China again the nine-dash line also these China see Including the air defense Identifications on can be seen as sort of an extension of China's conscious power projection toward its near seas Not necessarily out of an imperious desire, but what they think is a historical right And that's why this rights movement in China is becoming a more dominant strand of decision-making Influence then then say ideology Chinese clearly prefer bilateral agreements with smaller neighbors then they And they don't they don't want binding Sort of agreements certainly through a multilateral mechanism Those are those seem to be true throughout all their negotiations on security We can certainly talk about this with respect to the Philippines Scarborough shawl in terms of moving the Philippines out They used of course the rationale that the Philippines brought in a Navy ship Which was a very very old American Coast Guard cutter dressed up as the Philippine Navy ship To sort of enforce domestic Philippine law on poaching And that allowed China to justify moving in their civilian law enforcement agency ships and basically control now Scarborough shawl They've also moved in terms of second thomas reef in the Spratlys to stake a territorial claim over submerged feature land feature Which doesn't offer any any territorial claim because it is submerged And yet they're taking on the Philippines on this issue and they're also as Robert mentioned Not participating in the international tribunal on the law the sea arbitration case at least to this point They can do so at any point over the coming months or even years. This may play out through 2016 But they don't really want to get into a binding arbitration through that international mechanism They prefer to deal with this bilaterally between the disputants between the claimants And they want to have The binding agreement bilaterally that favors the chinese sort of point of view In east china sea where you have a bigger power japan Here the chinese made it very clear to me at least in many meetings Most recently in australia last week that they will not sign up to kind of confidence building measures and risk reduction measures that are meaningful with japan until japan makes good on Acknowledging the dispute acknowledging some chinese dispute over administrative control over the senkaku daio islands Islands which now president obama has just clarified US policy, but not a new policy. It's the old policy But he's articulated as president united states to say that article five of the us japan mutual security treaty does indeed cover Territories administered by japan and we recognize that those islands are administered by japan Because when we reverted okinawa and the islands back to japan with a 71 agreement that started in 1972 We said japan you now have administrative control. So that's just a statement of fact It stopped short of saying that's a sovereign claim. It's it simply states the facts according to post-war war two history from a us perspective Nonetheless, it's likely to flout chinese expectations So chinese will compete and will raise up the temperature even more on this issue just as they did with the air defense identification zone Last november where they took a legal mechanism a legal right to have an aid is But they used it when they were not happy with the united states sort of supporting The normalization of japan's defense posture the the two plus two agreement between defense and foreign ministers last october Where the united states basically got behind prime minister abe and said yes We support this and now those statements have become even stronger and more clear In the statements that just came out of the summit meeting in tokyo So you can expect that this writes diplomacy From china this competition this unwillingness to engage in serious hot lines Between japan and china will grow now You're saying but we're just reading these stories about About The code for unplanned encounters at sea cues. Yes. Let's let's talk about cues for just a minute and put that in context So this is actually less rigorous than the binding Regulations that are already on the books that the chinese and americans have signed up to among others The coal regs, um, which uh go back and have a standing in international law That are binding and they apply to military and civilian shipping alike in terms of avoiding These kinds of dangerous incidents cues is voluntary Chinese immediately came out and said by the way they're not only voluntary But they don't apply to internal territorial waters. Well, what are internal territorial waters? Is it the nine dash line? Well, you haven't clarified what you mean by the nine dash line So we don't know so the lack of predictability again is is an ongoing problem and dilemma um Here for china as a rule maker now it does help Symbolically though. So it's a good thing everybody up here I'm sure wants to encourage china to be more a part of the international system We're trying to encourage this kind of rulemaking participation and we're trying to figure out Where's the middle ground? How do you get to the happy medium? But they can't be rules at the expense of others And so that's why this western pacific naval symposium, which is one of the major de facto institutions in the maritime space across the end of pacific region Is an important opportunity for china to show that it is Interested in joining the rules and making those rules. It's a good sign symbolically We're about to host them for the very first time as a participant in the rim of the pacific naval exercise this summer So it was very important for china to join cues before the rim pack But again as I say this is not the incidence at sea agreement between the us and the soviet union the cold war Those were serious professional Maritime documents that apply to surface in air Domains not to submarines by the way. Why u.s. Submariners didn't want any rules In the stealthy sub subsurface. That's another issue altogether. So, you know, there are rules and you know When you make the rules you can kind of make the rules Cover the issues that you want to cover And and the fact is that frankly subsurface surface and air And as I mentioned cyber and space are all going to be more competitive and in in sort of in the years ahead in these issues We you know, we also talked touched on earlier The exclusive economic zone and the interpretations differ between china and the united states when it comes to naval activity within the 200 nautical mile limits China has a minority view on this that's shared by a few other countries that it's pushing But it's doing so within the scope of international law That is it's our chinese interpretation that you should not be able to conduct spine essentially inside our 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone Because unclaws the u.n. Conventional law to see says that you have to pay due regard to coastal countries And the americans and most the other nations who Follow unclaws even though we haven't ratified it Blight on us, but nonetheless, we follow as an executive law unclawed principles and in customary law And we think that no you're allowed to conduct this kind of peaceful activity We think peaceful activity not hostile activity Inside the ez and other countries are allowed to do it within ours As they did during the cold war. Anyway, so this is a long way of saying that China's a partial rule maker. It's conditional. It is seeking power projection as much as rules It's it's seeking greater influence. It's also seeking to keep the outside world the periphery calm by peripheral diplomacy Is is is more important than some of the global rulemaking that the united states is interested in I could if there were time talk as well about some of the cyber I will just mention that it's interested that the multilateral aspects of chinese cyber policy Are with like-minded countries. So the recent agreement that China was pursuing Was with Tajikistan Russia And and one other I've forgotten But the but in any event more like-minded countries on this issue and they've resisted kind of strong us-china cyber rules of the road, but it is a contentious issue It will be hot for dear questions. Thank you very much I just want to Thank the panelists for allowing me to sit here comfortably and not get up with my little two minute sign They they did that voluntarily. I'm not an intimidating person. They just they did that. So thank you very much Which leaves us about 15 minutes for questions And we we have the usual rule that oriana Articulated earlier. I identify yourself first. We have might wait for the mic identify yourself and ask your question Where I can't oh, okay It's presupposes. I can see the hand so put them up Now good. Good morning. My name is rosemary. It's a girl I'm trying to ask about the china Relationship with africa and the rule of law into africa since we are talking about the world How does how do you look at that and the long-term relationship or partnership with africa and china? Looking at business and the humanity and security. How do you look at that and how is How can africa or china? Getting to that relationship looking at a long time because many times china is in africa and they are doing a great job in africa But when it comes to manpower you find they are bringing in their own manpower How do you make that as a rule of law to the african on other on the continent with china relationship? Thank you Anybody We'll go right. Sure. We can all talk a bit on this There's actually been a there was an interesting Project that ran for a number of years that I found quite intriguing It was sort of coordinated by the world bank and Working with the OECD and with an entity in china Basically trying to give china feedback on its involvement in africa So I think there were six african countries involved and there were a series of conferences and the idea was They started by by doing this Big study I guess of china's development and the lessons that it might have for africa And then after that They had these sessions where african countries got a chance to give china some of that the feedback that you're mentioning here, you know about for example Countries wanting to not have china bring in all the labor for projects and actually to use local labor or You know standards of worker safety other issues that you know at mines and so on I mean there's been the series of sort of controversy around some of these issues Um So that was a that I think was a was a useful exercise. Unfortunately the chinese entity that was involved in that wasn't An entity that was sort of in a position to do a lot I guess to change China's approach to some of these issues china is of course very sensitive about the criticism of some of its Its activities in africa The chinese I think sometimes have been accused of sort of neocolonialism which they they strongly Resist that characterization And china actually sees as a real Positive the fact that it goes in without any political preconditions Unlike the united states and other OECD countries Um It's It's also a topic that the u.s. And china are discussing. There is an effort to try to Get china to sign on to some of the OECD rules on development assistance for example And that's been part of the u.s. china's S&ED the strategic economic dialogue. There's a piece of that which has been looking at Development assistance and ways in which china can maybe start merging its practices or not merging but making its practices Accord better with the practices of other countries. So sorry, but robbie you have things to say I would just say that it's as you suggest It's it's changing quite rapidly china is has become a big power. It now has international worldwide interests and as it pursues them It's encountering some of the difficulties that america as a fellow large country has had And so it's having to revisit as you see in the ukraine where it has sacred principles on either side of that dilemma And so it keeps a distance and it Professes, you know these vague principles, but it doesn't get involved because suddenly it's discovering why The united states has always had what it calls double standards Because it has interests in a big complex evolving world with limited information And so china is a climatizing itself to this and you feel it In africa where yes initially china was very proud that for example in the south sudan that That it wasn't It didn't come in with political preconditions on the other hand the foreign minister wang yi I think just in either february or march when he was there did call for You know peaceful resolution. I thought that was a big move. That was a a slight adjustment to this policy I think it was positive. I think we should welcome it So it's it's changing china is discovering the Essential big country flexibility slash hypocrisy double standard if they wanted to call it and there's an acclimatization to that process In southeast asia as well where it's building high speed rail Also using mostly chinese labor the countries That are transited don't feel that they're getting the benefits that they should And so china had this wonderful soft power opportunity because it's it's extending really vital infrastructure in africa or southeast asia But then it doesn't get the south the soft power benefit in many cases because it tends to hold on too tightly But it is learning it's changing Well 10 years ago, and I was working with the chinese government trying to help them on adapting oecd rules They clearly were expressing a strong interest, but at the same time they revealed their Fragmented decision-making that is the bureaucratic politics who was in charge of the development policy The fact that state-owned enterprises might be making a key Sort of exploitation of resources in a country Would be driving policy and they wouldn't touch that But they clearly are interested and I think as robert has just suggested they've made a lot of progress in the last 10 years US policy has to continue to work with both developed countries oecd and developing countries to put pressure on china In a good way Give them incentives to be part of that and of decision-making at oecd and to and to make those rules They're more inclined to go along with these when they see some benefit Because they're not touching in as a general sense their direct core national interest their indirect interest sure about their economy But they see their enlightened self-interest The problem is when you have weak governance in a state and i'm thinking like south pacific islands forget about africa Where it's very tempting for a leader in a south pacific island To say just give me that one big infrastructure project. That's what I want and It's it's hard to get the transparency that you you would Want in an international development project so helping the international community and oecd Can work with developing countries to enforce transparency and raise those standards and I think china will keep keep moving in that direction Thank you How about right here denise Remember to introduce yourself, please Thank you. Don't worry with china the real news agency of hong kong. My question is for mr. Cronin You mentioned that as a rule maker He should be transparent. He should be credible but We often see that as a rule maker the united states policy actually has a lot of ambiguity for example In terms of the san kagu and gao u islands issue president obama just Affirm the u.s principle, but in terms of the detail he Failed short of Qualifying the detail of this issue how to defense the Diao yu island if there's any emergency over there So my question for you is As a variable rule maker how to keep the balance between the policy credit it and the Facibility, thank you Well, this is a panel about china as a rule maker So I'm restrained from spending my 12 minutes talking about the united states and its ability to be a rule maker a rule breaker But sure the united states is ambiguous at time to all policy makers in fact Prefer to have some executive ambiguity and leeway in policymaking if it's possible But at the same time I think the united states is making a concerted effort to strengthen And adapt an international system that we largely contributed to building post world war two And that includes an asia pacific through the united nations But also through institutions like the association of southeast asian nations And sometimes I think that the chinese approach to asian is to see it as a sand castle that they can kind of keep divided And it'll it'll be very weak and they can pick it apart Japan is a tough or not and when the united states sides with japan China's a very difficult position about how to press its claims and its influence The ambiguity you see over the senkaku islands Is the fact that the history is ambiguous I think president obama has done As much as possible for any american leader to articulate clearly what the us interest is He wants a peaceful resolution of the dispute and expects it But at the same time he acknowledges that It is under administrative control of japan and that our treaty stipulates that we will support Territories administered by japan. So he's stating all the facts He's talking about peace. He's looking for cooperation. He's encouraging japan to reach out to china We have a very strong u.s. china strategic dialogue But unfortunately these disputes are not going to be resolved. They have to be managed That's why the united states prefers serious risk production measures But as I mentioned in my talk china prefers to employ a bit of risk here to press its claims And doesn't really want to enter into a binding agreement with the japan in particular with the united states It's a bit different because they see us as co-equal sharing the pacific And they'd like to sort of enforce that principle that idea at least symbolically So it's a it's an important difficult problem china has legitimate claims But we don't know how to adjudicate those and it's not for the united states to say This is definitely japanese sovereignty, you know, but we can say definitely. This is the treaty This was the reversion treaty. This is our policy Um, and by the way, we want everybody to resolve this peacefully So let's make sure we figure out ways to do that Thank you. My name is john kong from china's hashi media We have been talking about rulemaking But I think the other as a very important aspect of rulemaking is rule enforcement So the u.s. Has been able to be a rule maker is partly thanks to its ability capability of rule enforcement So can you talk a little bit about the capability of china of enforce the rules whatever rules they want to make From this aspect to analyze this this issue and also I would like to hear about your Because I'm particularly interested in in in the breaks because I think among all the the platforms that susan laid out outlined their Greece perhaps has the biggest potential as a global Platform for china to sort of become a global player or Or global power compared to all the other more regional ones. So what have you seen? what kind of Vision have you seen that china developed developed through this platform. Thank you First I think we need in terms of china's ability to enforce rules I'm not sure if you mean enforce rules or defend interests that so I think we've got to Keep on the definitions of what we mean by rules and international rules in particular And in terms of enforcement, uh, let's give a very brief answer and then kick it over I think it's it's interesting in a lot of in many cases. We see that the united states and china While both talk a fairly strong Multilateral game both for different reasons are not inclined to give up any sovereignty In order to strengthen international enforcement mechanisms china has your sort of turn to run this this idea The united states again for different notions for different reasons You see this in the senate in particular is not inclined to yield power Which is seen as sovereignty to international organizations for enforcement purposes And this this is something that we have in common I mean just on on enforcement. Obviously, this is a huge issue internally in china This question of trying to enforce anything And that's a problem. I mean it's interesting when we're talking about rulemaking This conference is about rulemaking in the international environment But robert was robert was saying, you know, you sort of start with the domestic environment and then you move out and You know and internally china as we know has tremendous problems with rulemaking and rule enforcement because of issues of overlapping jurisdiction different levels of Of authoritativeness of the different regulations and laws that come out The power of local Governments to sort of push back and pick and choose about which rules they want to follow which ones they don't and so on But when it gets to the international level of I guess is your question about you know enforcing rules that china's made is china then able to enforce And I guess what we're saying is that china hasn't made a lot of rules In the world it's it's sort of gradually cautiously easing towards the position where it would be starting to make more rules But it's not really then china's if it's if something like this the shanhai cooperation organization I mean that's an organization where china has been very active in developing the rules of that organization And You know then enforcing those rules. I think it's probably a matter of the like, you know those countries being like-minded countries and and and and Being committed to the same set of goals. So therefore that maybe isn't such an issue of enforcement Sorry, that's a bit of a waffle Just a brief different point on my concern would be the lack of international enforcement I think there's a dissipation Of enforcement that is the united states has less capacity perhaps less interest In other countries including the bricks have not yet stepped up because of a lot of reasons To this but they will protect their interests. So we see in krania. We see chemical weapons in syria. We see Sanctions not followed against north korean proliferation. There are lots of challenges. How do we enforce the rules? Who's enforcing them and what I worry about is that if there's no enforcement There's a great incentive to break the rules not from china necessarily but from others as we see with russia I think in ukraine You know, I see a lot of hands rising, but it's noon and Lunch calls So let me try and draw this excellent panel to oppose, you know in some ways. I think I've been trying to think of ways to extend orionis marriage analogy and it's i'm just going to drop that Thank you very much But I see this as a transition to this afternoon's panel I mean susan actually did identify some areas where china is making rules and and to go to the marriage This is where the couples go to separate rooms and decorate the room that way they want right the sco, you know The heck with you. I'm going somewhere else Robert I thought was more how hard this is for china and and in many ways as it is for the united states We're both exceptional countries. We have very different but very powerful histories that shape our Approach to the world and then patrick. I think more Expressing the skepticism that I expressed initially about how Difficult this is when the married couple really has to deal with one another. There's just a real a real problem there So so it's a nice transition into this afternoon's Session on china's a rule breaker I am first of all, I want to thank you know We've extolled the beauty of the room the the wisdom of the agenda. I agree with all of that I'd like to thank the institute of peace for electronics that are unobtrusive and work And and even though this is the information age and you'd think that would go without saying it often Doesn't go that way If we're going to continue this marriage metaphor through the day I would like to interject that it was an arranged marriage There was no courtship. We didn't fall in love. We didn't choose each other It was circumstantial and we went to the bridal chamber as strangers and there were surprises And so it's still in unfolding. So I don't know how long how far we want to push this this afternoon's moderator You're entirely excused from picking this issue up ever again Now too Okay, I am enjoying to tell you that to get to lunch it's out back door So you come down and out to the right and those doors are just opening right now. Thank you to the panelists That was excellent


Today we're going to talk about the intermediate value theorem, one of the most fundamental theorems in the calculus. What the theorem states is that if a function f is continuous on a closed interval from a to b, then for all k between f of a and f of b, there exists at least one value of c, that is an element of the interval from a to b, such that f of c equals k. And we're going to look at this graphically in just a second. This is an example of an existence theorem, meaning that it simply tells us something exists. It does not really tell us how to go about finding what we want to find. Notice that there can be more than one such number c. It is not unique. This is also the basis for the location principle, which you probably learned about in algebra 2 or pre-calculus, for locating zeros of a function. It's actually how your graphing calculator calculates the zeros of a function. So let's look at this graphically. So here we have a continuous function f of x, and we're talking about from a to b. What the intermediate value theorem states is that if there is a k value in between f of a and f of b, so let's take a look at this. Here's the x value of a, trace that up. Here you'll see f of a right here, and if we do the same thing over at b, trace that up on the curve, and over f of b is right here. And here's the k value right in between f of a and f of b. So what the intermediate value theorem states is that provided k is in between f of b and f of a, and it doesn't matter which is bigger or which is smaller. That doesn't matter as long as k is in between. It guarantees that there is going to be a corresponding c value, the x value that corresponds to the y value of k, that then lies in between a and b. So hopefully it kind of makes a little bit of sense. If you think about it from a graphical point of view. So let's look at an example problem. Suppose we have the function 4 plus 3x minus x squared on the interval from 2 to 5. We want to verify that the intermediate value theorem applies and find the value of c that is guaranteed by the theorem, so that f of c is equal to 1. Now this 1 is our k value, but we are going to have to show somewhere that's in between a and b, in this case 2 is our a and 5 is our b. So somewhere along the line we will have to verify that. So let's think about what the intermediate value theorem states. It states that we must have a continuous function. Well, f of x is a polynomial function and therefore it is going to be continuous for all x's, so that satisfies that one criteria. Now we also need to show that the k value of 1 is in between f of a and f of b. So let's go ahead and find f of 2 and we'll need to find f of 5. And simply substitute in to find those. We find that f of 2 is 6, f of 5 is negative 6, and obviously 1 is in between. And again, it doesn't matter which is bigger or smaller, f of a or f of b. So what we want to find is the c value, and that's going to have to lie in between 2 and 5, such that f of c is going to equal 1. So if we were to substitute c in place of our x's, we would have 4 plus 3c minus c squared, and that needs to equal 1. Well, that's simply a quadratic that we can solve. We can rearrange it, and that would give us a negative c squared plus 3c plus 3 equals 0. It is not factorable, however, you can use the quadratic formula on your graphing calculator. And you do get 2c values. You get a c value of negative 0.791. And a c value of 3.791. Now remember that c needs to lie in the interval in between a and b. So the other only answer that is really good here is that one. Now let's take a look at a graph of this, and we can see that it actually does work out this way. So here's a snapshot from my graphing calculator of that curve. Right here is 2. I scaled this, so here's 2, 3, 4, and 5. And remember our k value was 1, so here's 1 right here. So what this is telling us is that this would be f of 2, and here's the y value for 5 right here. So our k value of 1 does lie in between f of 2 and f of 5. So we trace this over to the curve. Right here is your c value. That's what we found to be the 3.791, and notice it is in between 3 and 4. So most problems involving the intermediate value theorem can be solved this way.