“This to me, I think, has a practical solution, which is government-to-government agreements that establish full security and transparency around equipment, model weights and capabilities, and that is what we have done in our institutions. MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the UAE, and I believe that this is a sustainable model with a strong technological cooperation with the country, as well as with other countries, which gives the US a list of economic and financial advantages, while the other way is to make it enter the Chinese technological system, which We don’t want it.”

On the types of trade agreements Asian countries want:

“What the countries are looking for, in my opinion, has been more and more. It’s not a kind of broad market. It’s especially important for a country that is thinking about its future economic strategy. So the economic talks that we had with these countries and the beauty of the United States is very close than: Can we lower barriers to market access?”

“Then I will give you some examples. With Japan, they really wanted the hard salt of the MOU to have a path to the benefits of the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act). This was their first brand of inquiry, more important to them than other larger brands. With Indonesia, it’s the same. This is what Indonesia is looking for. In fact, they want to make a high-quality contract for minerals that are very important for the rise of Indonesian nickel to America for the production of electric cars, batteries, etc. with other countries. “

On whether American workers and industries have benefited from past free trade agreements:

“So where did the workers come in? Now you might say, well, the workers are in on it. They’ve got things cheaper, and it’s good for them and, to a certain extent, that’s right, so I’m not against free trade. But it has to have some sense of how the base of US industry, the building blocks here, is stable, and that’s why I think things like the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) and the important minerals agreement with Japan are the logical way to think about free trade going forward.”

On what Mr. Sullivan learned from his meetings with Mr. Xi and Mr. Wang:

“The main thing that jumps out at me is coming out of the meeting with Xi – and it was reinforced in the meeting that President Biden had with Xi, and in the meeting with Wang Yi, but he wrote – which is mine. seeing that when we came into office, the Chinese attitude was: If you want to compete with us, then we won’t agree with you, and we won’t have it both ways. You have to follow our doctrine, which is controlled by competition: We will compete strongly, but it does not mean that we should not find areas of cooperation where we are at the same time that we are competing.

“As we are leaving, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) has taken, not as much as they say, but as the relationship goes, driving the competition. We have found areas of cooperation: on drugs, AI, nuclear risk and climate. We have had continuous communication, including the military-to-military relationship, and we are competing, obviously we are competing strongly, but the relationship has something stable so we are not on the verge of going down. This is a big change in the four years of the relationship it is managed both ways, and it is in line with our relationship management theory that PRC has shown.”