"Trade Wars, Conflicts and Global Governance" panel at Bucharest Forum 2019

so hello welcome to this session on trade wars conflicts and global governance my name is Terry Martin I'm a news anchor with Germany's foreign Broadcasting Service Deutsche Welle and it's my great pleasure to moderate this session day I want to thank the Aspen Institute and the German Marshall Fund of Bucharest for having me so we're talking about trade policy right trade policy is also foreign policy of course it is used as a foreign policy tool sometimes it's used as a foreign policy weapon just ask anyone who lives in Russia or Iran when it comes to sanctions or tariffs and how these affect countries and people and businesses who live there so trade policy is foreign policy so we're gonna be talking about that over the next hour so I've been told to keep this a little shorter I was taken to lunch almost against my will but it was also a fruitful experience I assure you anyway right now we are witnessing a conflict of monumental proportions and we know exactly what we're talking about it was a topic lunch again - it's a touchy topic at these forums all over the world right now and that is the confrontation between the United States and China now to some degree that conflict is a systemic geopolitical confrontation but it's most prominent manifestation right now is the trade war I will call it a trade war some might prefer to call it something else but it is essentially a trade war now that trade war is affecting the world economy already countries around the world governments around the world are already in institutions who track the global economy are already adjusting their their forecasts and it's being felt in different ways peanut butter I love peanut butter we're seeing just a just even in the conflict between the United States and Europe peanut butter is on that list right of sanctioned item so peanut butter is becoming more difficult for me to get in that is a serious thing indeed well so we're talking about the trade war affecting the world economy it's disrupting supply chains in ways I hope we're going to hear more about over the next hour and when you disrupt supply chains a lot of things happen it has a knock-on effect it just it doesn't just affect the businesses involved of course it affects everything that is dependent on those businesses like people who work for example and it creates an atmosphere of deep uncertainty and anxiety which is what we're experiencing right now this whole forum kicked off with the notion that we are still in a even deeper than a year ago into a pattern of disruption and uncertainty and we don't really know where this is going so I'm hoping we'll get a little bit of clarity today not just on the conflict between China and the United States but also on other conflicts other trade conflicts we have representatives from the UK from China and Japan with us I'm going to introduce them right now and we'll get things kicked off just just a one little warning something to have in the back of your mind we will be inviting questions from you towards the end the last 20 minutes or so we want to open it up for questions so you can begin to already ruminate and think about what questions you might want to put to the panelists so let's get underway it's my great pleasure to introduce the three panelists I'll just invite you to come up here in whatever order you wish starting with XI Shinichi naka bye ashie he is director for Japan at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development we also have with us Carrie brown director of the law China Institute at King's College London and and our third panelist coming all the way from China is Jin can wrong is so Dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in China first of all a warm round of applause now we've had a bit of correspondence before we showed up here in Bucharest and I gave the panelists a few questions to reflect on and I'd like to begin by putting the first big-picture question to our panelists and you guys can take about five to seven minutes each maybe to answer these and the big-picture question is what do current trade wars and conflicts tell us about the global economic and political order and about global governance so that's basically the title of our job so you can go wherever you want with that why don't we start right here to my right then if you don't mind dr. Jim thank you miss Mattie and thanks for the host of this event it's a great pressure for me to be here is my first time to be here and I used to be trained as a student of American politics so next year we've got a lot of interview to predict who will be next Preston of the United States for me I think the most important the Challenger for today's would is that we were facing the deficit of a global governance the China benefit from globalization a lot in the past of four decades many people believe China had a one of them country benefit most we appreciate this process but very unfortunately now this process reversed to some extent the fact is that there are more global challenge career now including climate change so that among the demand for global governor's keep arising but on the other side a supplier Alva calvo calmness to some extent that it decreased the one reason is there the u.s. don't want to offer that supply yes stones enough resources but become very selfish right the years Administration now dominant by you know nationalism meronym first by America hi America just like you know give third world political leader right so us still owns resources or they don't want to spend money so us become selfish and you you just feel very strong we are to offer this global governance but you has its problem right you you become weak after the BRICS eat so so test problem used to be we have to say the word a benefit from from the supply of global calmness meaning from us at EU but now we see the supply side they don't want to supply the China wants to so when you talk about the supply you time a global governance Slovo communist they're not supplying okay you see the problem with logic you know demand to keep rising and display very hesitate right china want to join and so we offer the one belt one Road initiative but you guys are very hesitate to support a China when you say you guys you mean you some people even demoralized spirit under all the initiative that's ridiculous that's really responsible for the global governance right so that's so one concern of my the diversity of global governance a second Stephanie relating with us-china relations I have to say now and in the future the us-china relations is mostly important a pilot or the tire for China right we do appreciate that benefit resulted from us-china relations in it passed there for decades after the normalization would benefit a lot we appreciate that but unfortunately us-china relations will enter a quite long bumpy period at least last fall one decade we have to face in this new reality because us now define China as a you know school civil revision is the country and they considered tourism not that important threat but they're you know competition among big powers are now ranking number one and now they have to a diverse very Russia another foot in the grid and China and our current leader right but from long-term viewpoint that they believe idea they're only a diverse range should be China because Russian fell into so-called the resources curve resources trap already right so from long-term view point rushing we're being not that strong economically so they put the China on the very top position of other words way that's not good no good for us China relations right and as we know yes people easy to they're not very good at thinking you know as we're thinking but no good as a European counterpart but they are very good at action right so after they define the China has a revisionist country they immediately launch the trade war actually our official media not used term trade war we use them more emos heartrate friction we are very cautious we don't want to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation so so we see now the us-china relations deteriorated a since spring last year place for the trade friction or trade wall I don't worry that much I tend to believe for next month when we have APEC summit in Chile right we will have a partial tear because what because one-sided China compromise a lot China I really don't want to have a trade war so China did his best to avoid that as I know we compromised 80 percentage but the problem is on US side they want to have a 100% DTF that's a ridiculous we can never get them their choice is zero and eighty all right and I think at a chilly President Trump we accept 80% idea okay because we need diplomatic which victory actually after the three years ruling he can nothing in foreign policy you know North Korea preferred Iran field will is in a third Syria field will cram field zero you know so he need something to show to his audience he he cares something you know so that's why I said as for trade war don't worry okay have a party idea okay thank you I'm afraid I'm gonna have to okay - you were gonna come back to you don't okay okay it's it's not you know this is gonna be a discussion so it's gonna go around and everybody will get time to say so just a quick summary of what you had to say they're the so the China is looking for to Europe and the rest of world for more global governance also from the US but Europe is weak the u.s. is selfish and and China does see the prospect of a deal shaping up us we'll just back away from its 100% demands maybe okay oh very good well okay you want to pick it up from there well thanks for inviting me here it's good to see and thank you for inviting me so I suppose my question no one really which I'm thinking about is is it really about trade you know it seems to me there's a lot of deep structural issues that are coming solar to the surface and and trade is is like a sort of proxy one of them is what is China's rightful place you mentioned the belton road and you know the belton road is the first proactive time for China to really try and spell out what its international role is and it looks like it is it's different things in different places so the belton road in Central Asia is a different thing to the belton Road in India which is obviously you know opposing it in many ways the belton road in europe it is different to the belton road in america which doesn't seem to be a part of it um and I guess the belton road to me is kind of interesting because it's really what does the world look like without America I mean what is not in the belton road the United States I mean most of the United States I know I know I know so you know this this vision is clearly quite a geopolitical one and it's a very big geopolitical one you can't get rid of the politics so I suppose you know that the trade war addresses a huge problem which is what does China do when it's number one you know most projections show in the next five to ten years probably sooner China will be the world's biggest economy in gross terms and I know per capita terms obviously it's not going to be you know it's still way below the levels of the United States but that is a very different world to the one we are in now the first issue is how does United States respond to that and that that's not an easy question because the United States is a proud country that you know likes to be loved and we do love America we do not American love is limitless but you know we believe there's a bit more competition you know so you know that's one issue the second issue is of course and it's not easy to see how China's economic status translates into political status and in fact the problem that we've been talking about in the last day really is the V the V word values and you know I guess the sort of problem is the American accusation against China is that it is engaged with the international system but not really believe in its underlying values not really um I'm not saying if that's right or wrong but that's the American perception and for all the rest of us you're dealing with the world's biggest economy at the moment feeling like it has not been dealt with fairly the world's second-biggest economy feeling like it has not been dealt with fairly and there is no easy way to deal with that kind of that conflict I mean the trade conflict I guess they can do a deal but that conflict is a much more subtle one so I I think your forecasts about a bumpy period is right and I don't think it'll be ten years I think we are moving into a world in which it's it's going to be a perpetual part of the global architecture and once the trade issue if it's dealt with is dealt with there will be other issues there will be a lot of other issues so you know the question sort of underneath that stinking conclusion is you know what is China's rightful place and that is partly what does China think its rightful places but also partly what is the rest of the world going to you know not allow but be comfortable with because if there is resentment on either side about that rightful place then it's not going to work so the geopolitics of consent is going to be absolutely crucial and guess that's a huge debate that we're going through which this excellent conference is also contributing to Thank You Kerry so just again in summary we're talking about in terms of the sign of American trade dispute the trade apart of that is really just a reflection of a larger geostrategic competition that is underway not clear how that's going to go out and it reflects a deeper clash of values which of course raises the question how do you overcome those differences with resolve that one that's a tough one so and also the very final thing is that no one can say to a fifth of humanity that they have to go away so the fact of China the fact of its structure of its population the huge importance of its emerging were in the middle class these don't go away even if you have you know trade friction or trade wars that doesn't go away and no amount of confrontation will make that go away okay genichi thank you I think you're invited Sasa Japan had experience with a fierce trade frictions State starting in the early 1970s I started from the textile sense steel giant motor cars and semiconductors so it was very prolonged right three decades and at certain intermittent 1980s the trade us-japan relations were very frustrated and very high tensions and so the Japan's the United States has changed exchange rate adjustment like Japanese yen must be appreciate if I can see you know US Dollars and in order to mitigate our negative impact on the Japanese economy Japan is Martell policy and fiscal expansion and that led to asset price bubble and the bubble in the past were published cost prolong stagnation with Japan so the Japan went under but still it's a trade tensions continue because the trade deficit over the United States continued and fundamental reason of the traitor sister united state is say too much expect spending in the United States like fiscal expansion or the tax cuts and also the high interest rate to stem the inflation so the high interest rate strong daraa and that caused and so the the investment is too much compared with the saving so but Japan tried to say that was burdened with making adjustment comparable estate to solve the u.s. muckraker problem say Japan expanded fiscal policy and monetary policy that was drawn for from the macroeconomic policy college perspective say China learned the lessons the Japanese lesson so the China was very reluctant to let the exchange rate the renminbi appreciate between friends trade the trade surplus button and the trade deficit of the United States parents said after the accession to WTO in the re 22,000 and that quote subproblem say the from economic perspective that hazard made good reasons and also it come from the global supply chains say the apparent google has the make a lot of profits and the say Japan Germany were Korea export machinery or the important path to assembly so the China was training hub but it was part of the global supply chain and big profit says your US companies enjoy Japanese or Germany so all benefit so but so the breakdown of the global the global supply chains harms everyone economically but so this change has come from say it's a deep-seated the the change of the perception of the China's peaceful rise in the United States the China says that try to increase plays it's a comic by expanding the enjoying the dibbler open trade system so the very careful not to say threatened says a other other countries from the international security point of view but because China became more strong and it was certainly the surpassed economic sites in the near future so the China's leadership became bolder and very assertive says about its sovereignty territorial issue and that and also the it's on the information front the artificial intelligence what cyber security law says China who has a very State West I think that China has control of the data and also and the friends the president simply abolished the two-term limit say that change that China will not converge to the true democracy so that suddenly divisionist view of the United States so the point was closest ally of the United States that it will never be it should never it should have never there has never been a possibility to overtake the United States or threaten the United States militarily but in the current such changing the technology the China will also say threaten the hegemony so that was a main reason for the confrontation and the whole currency that let me be actually depreciated and after the capital flow was relaxed so that's very different say from the Japanese case the maybe the different stages different Chinese emerging market and the demographic is a little bit worrying for the China in 2015 already the working-age population has hit the peak the repression is easing so that might be a break on thank you so much so you have used that word hegemony the the idea of vying for hegemony for dominance in the world economy or world affairs this you know this brings us to the the very difficult question of a contest between major powers now we don't have a representative we this was pretty obvious that we were going to end up talking about the sino-american trade dispute right there or the dispute in in general so we just want to make everyone aware I know that there are other trade disputes other trade conflicts trade Wars going on in this world including one between Japan and South Korea which is a really interesting one to watch but I guess we will focus on the China American dispute for the rest of this just so we're all prepared if you want if someone wants to strain go off into another direction I'm welcome further for that in the audience questions just wanted a little warning them so we've talked a little bit about oh yeah one more thing you mentioned the parallels or lack thereof in the trade dispute between China between Japan and the United States in the 1970s and 80s versus what's going on today it only applies to some degree that we're talking about different global geostrategic tectonics at work here what I'd like to do before we move into the ideas of how this is going to play out that's because I think that's on everyone's mind how is this going to play out is I just want a quick statement from each of you on what do you see being the primary drivers of this conflict starting with you what's making this conflict my opinion is that the US elites they made a big mistake in the past since the end of Cold War the Miss understood the the reason and the result of the end of Cold War the result of at the end of a Cold War is that us get a victory but the reason why do you code will end because the elites in Soviet Union they give up so so that's a very important mistake because of that mistake it confused two things together they're the result the conclusion is there because I win the I am the victory of victorville Cold War so I am win the Cold War so they treat us Russia has a defeated country and become very arrogant abroad and within the United States you know within the United States the élysée especially leasing Wall Street they collect all the money into their pocket but no trickle down to the to the people so then the the Gini index in u.s. is in very serious situation so that's why the people is badly those those people in the in the land that they feel they're losers now they be shifted to populism okay so if I can enter in so that's you know again we want to make these statements brief so just second part of that you've mentioned problem with the u.s. there are two partners in this conflict do you see any any problem maybe on the side of China in being with some responsibilities or should bear any problem if you blame us just because we did too much - good job no oh and here's not accepted this reactor according to the historian selects in Judea he said any country want to have an ego treatment of United States is not only a mistake it's a crime okay let's stop right that's ridiculous so hubris hubris that marvelous Shakespearean word which is just essentially arrogance which is the term you used is responsible for this current trade one maybe you want to have a different view on that carry you sound like the English football team we always get beaten because we're too good it's a terrible power um I was I was so the the the Soviet Union modernism and the influence of the Soviet Union is an important thing because I was standing in Revolution Square this morning you know and the old building in Revolution Square where room Cheska made his famous last speech where he was booed and looking at the old you know the kind of building the the Central Committee that the Politburo of the Romanian come on Scottie and I was completely on my own just looking at this building and then I suddenly heard a load of Chinese and there's a Chinese delegation coming and looking at this building the only other tourists there so I think that shows that there's still a big interesting what happen to the Soviet Union in and so you but also you know countries in the Communist world them and but to your question just really quickly so engagement was a in the 1980s I think for the US and Europe engagement with China was what a gamble but I think the conviction was that it would lead to through economic means to political change which we heard talked about yesterday and that was reasonable and rational and indeed until you know the 1990s I suppose you could say it looked like the drift of history I think it was Clinton or Bush said that you know the kind of the drift of history was going to go that way however it is right that the sort of conditions in China and the very particular model there was always going to be different and it is different and I mean really since China joined the WTO in 2001 its economy is quadrupled and it's sort of not it's followed the economic narrative but not the political narrative so I think that that is this is what we're seeing now really is the end of that phase of engagement well it sounds like a carry that you're saying essentially what dr. Chynn said there about that you know China is just doing really well and maybe the u.s. under underestimated that and it's the what we heard yesterday from the State Department official mr. Boise was that there was a policy of vandal Honda this sort of transformation through through trades that this would have an impact an effect on China while allowing its economy to grow that maybe there would be a transformation with respect to the way the country is run maybe there wouldn't be a one-party communist rule centrally or state controlled capitalism that might kind of move in a different direction that didn't work so I mean it seems like there's a big underestimation somebody underestimated what was going to miss estimated as Bush would say what happened did you want to comment on this to shinichi before we move on to where this is headed maybe for me I cannot point to build a backlash against corporations working like say it's a trump administration break that also like says a free trade is a good thing economically so everyone benefit but those who negatively affected like dignity of work over the Midwest the middle class who worked for General Motors say it's a roaster job because of the rise of China imagine much more generally so that fine right as a political background and probably is a lack of communication was a misunderstanding of the intention of the censor us suspects a China China suspects the United States so the probabilities are Chinese running say in terms of standards existing interest and like friends establish a Asia infrastructure investment bank so they are hunting the headhunting stuff of Liberty who art Bank and so they try to make it it's blending standards as a par with internal standards but some say the at issue is like subsidies who are state-owned enterprises that's an interactive property the protection of the data that's a very sensitive issue and I in that sense say we need to say the China Japan or China us the West Western countries get together and discuss find a solution like debris tea or that kind of discussion we're gonna get into that in just a moment so let's maybe we can just you know close out this capital of you know what's driving all of this it should be there is no American representative here on the panel if there were the Americans would say China is responsible of gross intellectual property theft it's you know artificially subsidizes its companies giving them and dumps on world markets giving an unfair advantage to them and crushing competition coming from other countries it accuses them you know their lot so you know there's a laundry list here of of issues that the US has manipulation of currency this has also come on to the official agenda so there are many many issues here at at stake where America again quote wants to create a level playing field restore a level playing field the reason again no representative the Americans on this panel so I just wanted to lay those out so let's move on to where this is headed how do we see this unfolding and I'd really be interested in getting your views on that there was there's this has been discussed for quite some time and there are some really dire predictions about where this could possibly go already for more than a year many have been talking about the through sister deeds through you have to help me with this through Citadis thank you through Citadis trap this is the perception that an established power in this case the u.s. feels so threatened so afraid of being eclipsed by a rising power in this case China that a war becomes inevitable now do you see things possibly heading in that direction is that is that where this could go do you see potential for that or do you see some way of resolving this to the mutual benefit of both countries and not just those two countries because the entire global economy is dependent upon this getting worked out how do you see this happening and what you know is is there a role for quote global governance and if so where would that come from so who wants to start with them you know three cities this term become popular because Allison great Han from JFK Kennedy School published a book called bond to be a wall is using it again this week yeah yeah yeah become popular but I know Allison very well his intention is to avoid a safety strap he used this time to remind both side that the leader is supposed to be more responsible in order to avoid this war because if china-us really involved the war then that have been means the end of the world because china also owns the assured mutual destruction capability like china do not dimension that and like putting the great right always remind people every day but china really owns their capability you know the u.s. can't destroy in our 10 times i am very sure we can't we can retaliate at least three times okay we don't want that so so open it my opinion is very simple i think the main problem us-china relations that the there was a logic in the elites of united states they made the u.s. yield but they blame China you know that's ridiculous no matter they how they demonize China they cannot China cannot help them treat them self you know they have to treat it themselves so so unless until the weird that is fact that they have to address in their own problem the income gap the hijacked of the politic is by big capitals and this is gonna fix the dispute with China yes that's a real challenge okay works China window will not challenge the Digimon of United States channel not really interested in Africa Middle East Latin America China you're not interested in those areas yeah we're not interesting that you know what we interest that is what a very in Boise area we want to catch our us in GDP first I think that way of achieving let's um in jacket then another challenge is that our per capita catch of the United States and let our people leaving their okay the same leaving stand erect this makes perfect that makes perfect sense you want to have the same living standards that's you know that's an aspiration that's shared I think by people around the world the question is getting back to it is how do we see this playing out carry quickly so the kind of so you've clearly got two players that have profoundly different world views right and you know the kind of strange thing about Chinese power I think um someone wrote about this France was Julianne French philosopher said Chinese power haunts it doesn't act and when you think of what is imputed to giant it haunts haunts wants but doesn't act okay as opposed to thinking as acting but not thinking as I'm exemplifying me so you you kind of have a power which has this huge military but hasn't had combat experience in 79 really with Vietnam you've got a power that I don't think is in the game of trying to change our views about our own system it's not that the Soviet Union it hasn't got a sort of you know proselytizing attitude it's happy with a Chinese world with its exceptional and unique values and a world which is non Chinese and it's interested in particularly issue that bring it benefit from that wider world but it is not interested in that wilder work wider world becoming espouses of Chinese values because they're not Chinese so it's accept any exception Asst it's that's really important to understand I think so so that seems to me that the only future is one where you have a kind of bipolar order I mean not going multipolar because this is profoundly different kind of value system where you have hybridity versus the sort of what Francois Julian also talked about the proclivity from the West to think of universal values and truth with a capital T so that means in essence we're moving from a bungalow to a two-story building and as we know most accidents happen under stairs so we have to kind of you know I'm not gonna start pretty you know do new timeshare now but you know we have to be careful about the stairs but also we have to remember that the only choice I can see apart from that is we live in a ruin because you can't really you know sort of have space so sort of neatly delineate so so I think a bipolar you know world is absolutely viable the only other thing is that capitalism has profound structural problems there's a wonderful book by Daniel Bell not not Daniel Bell in Beijing but Daniel Bell the sociologist and from those 70s called the cultural contradictions of capitalism capitalism has two major flaws one is the institutionalization of envy and two is the worship of the future the future is all better and always better and I think the Chinese sort of socialism with Chinese characteristics has those structural flaws and those are ones that you are in your society going to be hit with and are being hit with now as our societies have been and no one has found answers those issues so those structural flaws don't go away janeshia you see us heading towards a happy equilibrium in this two-story house with hopefully I think that aspirins on the stay on the stairs no one knows but there and certainty but say I think the positive direction is like so we find that I rock like strengthens a fabric EO is a global organization what says a mega digital free-trade agreement like the you know the trans-pacific trust and what was he started by the Obama to station that was a flagship policy of the people to Asia and America but the trumpet research walked away because America first policy and but Japan directed with TPP it happened to wait for the United to come back and currently and also Japan conclude its EU partnership the Japan apart akane partnership agreement say is probably the counterbalance against the say say one country America first policy or something so that kind of the partnership will be under the other largest trading partner trading market so you had very strong kaikoura crowd to shape the future of the world trade regime and i think that kind of in asia also regional comprehensive economic from forming comprising of the asean ten countries South Asia China Korea Japan and India Australia New Zealand and says India will be is rising so that 16 countries trade mega trade also has the potential thank you so an appeal for multilateralism there's some multilateral institutions out there including the EU and ASEAN perhaps other organizations that may have a mediation role to play in helping to resolve this profound dispute let's take some questions starting with it's been yeah chomping at the bit go for it Ahn's idea of deficit of global governance and not least because we've got a plenary session following where we'll discuss some of these issues what role do you see in filling the deficit of countries such as Russia India European Union Shinichi mentioned it now professor Jin you you mentioned putting the great in a sort of somewhat ironic tone of voice which rather makes me rather suspect that you don't really see that much role for Russia in filling this deficit employment didn't identify himself as a Russia specialist among other things but um but so I'm I'm actually wondering how you how you see the role of powers like India Russia the European Union whether they can actually achieve some of the ambitions that Professor I think looking at the future in a new future I think we need better cooperation among China u.s. you and Japan because we benefit from current arrangement a lot basically Russian troublemaker expect too much in very should run country you know any Indian is a short-run country so anytime you want to involve in game in then you have to face in the slowing down of multilateral cooperation you know they're very good at a big troubling you know very good so so to me expect that two players too much I think if we fall I can make some you know cooperation then that's the way to resolve this issue because the reason is very simple we benefit a lot Russian not benefit enough from this arrangement okay sir I am from the Academy of Contemporary China and International Studies I have a question for Carrie we have been talking about deficit - my mind is not only a deficit between China and United States but also between China and other countries definitely trust governance or deficit of trade almost of everything right deficit of the past between the United States and you between you and China between Japan and the United States okay another observation is that what is the root cause of China's latest development over the past 40 years what is the root cause who wins and who loses I think China's developments to a large extent has benefited everything every country in this world so my question for Kerry is that with this deficit of mutual trust especially between the United States and China what kind of role the year you can play thank you [Laughter] it seems we do have a draft agreement so I might be staying here for a while I think the China Seas the EU as a cultural superpower and be maybe not a hard power you know the EU does not act like the United States and it's more complex but I think when Xi Jinping came to Brussels in 2014 he used this you know kind of phrase of civilizational partners which i think is sort of saying the Chinese recognize the cultural power of you you the problem really though that the EU has with America and with many others not Japan probably his knowledge levels of China hero poor so all the issues to Professor Jin and everyone talks about you know um we we don't really know what we're worried about but we're worried about something and so you know what is this if we think there's a threat what is the threat you know because as they just sort of I think I don't think China you know and you know better than me wants to change our minds about ourselves but it probably has things it wants to get its message across about but then everyone wants to do that so I think we need to work out our fears more you know clearly before we you know then sort of get very very planner key and that isn't easy until our knowledge level increases I'm just finally Timothy Brooke from I think Canada excellent psychologist has written a book called China great state about the history of state them in China over the last eight hundred years and he makes a really great point that in the 18th century when missionaries like the Jesuits went to China and others the problem was they got to know a lot about China and China knew very little under the you know the kind of Ching dynasty be very little about the outside world and that's now the other way around you know 200 million Chinese people speak English yet the numbers speaking Chinese in Europe those increasing is low so with that knowledge base it's really hard to deal with a new partner that has different sorts of values and identity and make the right choices so that's really really a tough that's a big quandary so question here in the front and then to you and then back ok if you could keep it brief that would be great yes it will do I will be very brief my name is Policy Center very two short comments first about the trade war and I think that trade war already have produced discontent is about the reform of the WTO so it has already departed I agree with those who say that it's beyond beyond trade war I think it's about leadership and about international recognition leadership for the United State and the whomever comes closer is seen as contender and he has to to be she has to be pushed away in terms of recognition China is in need to be recognized internationally if we go back to hit into history the major decision that reflects this international cognition was in the 70s when the machine replaced the other China in the Security Council at the center stage that was the most important decisions entering the WTO is pretty important too yes absolutely absolutely but we see the result but in terms of geopolitics and in terms of diplomacy I think that coming back and taking over was something that was a breakthrough okay and I think they need that China being recognized as influential but I don't agree with the term agreement we thought it doesn't fit with the culture of China and Asia in general okay thank you very much I'm going to move move on just because we we don't have much time left I've been asked to keep this shorter than originally playing I will try to be very short Alex Martin we'd love second I want to pick up on on professor Brown said about engaging in the international system but not believing in the underlying values so how does globalization move forward because we knew about the rules of the games and we all played by the same game by the same rules but if we don't believe in the rules any longer we cannot move and I do want to make another comment on bipolarity doesn't that mean that we have a white and a black and no shades of gray and that means that the whole world needs to choose one over another in just a final final comment from the gentlemen in the one two three fourth row thank you I'm the Rasta from asthma strategy group I was an ambassador to Beijing between 2012 and 2017 so I had a chance of learning firsthand what was going on there it's unbelievable the valuable lesson two points and which brings to a question it is also linked to what we have just learned about the question about global rules seventy years ago the world order let's agree it is an order I was founded 70 years is quite a long time it's good to try to adapt to new realities twenty years ago we have China in the WTO it's got to have it adapted because WTO definitely is not the same as it used to be before 70 2001 all right the president well actually the Secretary General of the party at the 17th Congress mentioned the role of blazing a path for others to follow it is not ad verbatim quotation a Chinese proposal proposal but it is admittedly built on Chinese characteristics it is this is the Chinese message how does this model how would this model fit the non Chinese characteristic world okay thank you thank you responses who would like to begin so the fundamental issue for the globe the trade war is the accusation from the United States water China is that it has observed the letter of the law but not the spirit so it has complied with the letter of the WTO agreements for instance but not the spirit so I'm not making a judgment on that that is I think the basis of the American complaint and that might be right or wrong on globalization the idea was to have enough space for diversity so China's answer I guess would be as it indigenized Marxism Leninism and socialist with Chinese characteristics it is now practicing the belt road which is Chinese globalization globalization with Chinese become characteristics so I guess the third question you're talking about a world which is black and white you know and kind of very binary I don't I don't I don't think that's the option it's very very subtle you kind of are allowing for the first time in modern history a fundamentally different kind of view of the world to come into our space I think that's potentially hugely enriched I mean intellectually enriching but other seaters of threat but it's not going to go away so I think we have to become literate in different sorts of systems that is not moving from black to white that is basically kind of using different frameworks so the house has got not only stairs but also a couple of listen okay well that's good to hear I'm afraid we're we need to leave the room so just five final comments and you know thank you Carrie and would you like to add anything to that very quickly and as I always said the number one in the National Water key palliative this against number two that's just nature but yes especially good food to beat number two since 1894 yes become the first TV holder in the world immediately he the u.s. dissolved a great Empire the Empire Great Britain and then Germany right and then Japan I'm higher then Soviet empire right very you right so five number two DVD thank you somehow deficient we able to win final comment from you any anything you'd like to add to that better than the road initiative has some attractive for octave nice for the same as in much different countries so he's a quick money and infrastructure but sorry it comes with the ketosis is dead to sustainability so the g20 has adopted courting for the investment take into consideration to the sustainability so that kind of a pragmatic way of the finding consensus will pave the way for with a peaceful prosperous peace and prosperity marvelous conclusion a pragmatic way towards peace and prosperity let's go for that thank you all for being with us today and world war ever falls for our panelists thank you

Channel: Institutul Aspen Romania

Views: 10,900

Keywords: Bucharest Forum, Aspen Institute Romania, Institutul Aspen Romania, Shinichi Nakabayashi, Kerry Brown, Jin Canrong, Terry Martin, EBRD, King’s College London

Id: RKQpvDdrTRc

Length: 57min 27sec (3447 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 31 2019