- 10 hours ago
The US and China remain deeply intertwined economically, yet unresolved trade, technology and security divides have created friction and raised fundamental questions about the trajectory of the relationship. The recent bilateral summit has reset the tone without resolving the underlying structural tensions.
Following the presidential summit, where are relations between the world's two largest economies headed and what should business and policy leaders be preparing for?
Following the presidential summit, where are relations between the world's two largest economies headed and what should business and policy leaders be preparing for?
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:07Greetings. Hello. Welcome to everybody who's here, including those people behind me. It's
00:00:13a wonderful setup, although for, I guess, for the moderator, it's a little bit disorienting
00:00:17to sort of look around. I'm Leslie Vinjamori. I'm President and CEO of the Chicago Council
00:00:23on Global Affairs. It is my first time attending what is a tremendous meeting, so-called Summer
00:00:31Davos. I really found it extraordinary. And what a huge privilege to moderate this conversation.
00:00:38And what I think is fair to say is the most important topic of our time. It underpins every
00:00:45single topic that we talk about here and I think across the world, the relationship between the
00:00:51United States and China, from here to where, brilliantly framed by the organizers. We are
00:00:57live, we are on the record, and we are being live-streamed, which is not surprising given
00:01:04the nature of our guests, who are our speakers, who are tremendous and I'm sure very well-known
00:01:09to you, which means I'll only say a brief word about them, a few words about the topic, and
00:01:15then we'll go straight into the conversation. So Professor Graham Allison, what an honor to
00:01:20have you here. I know it's not your first time, but for me it's extraordinary to be here with
00:01:25you. Professor Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy
00:01:31School. His writings are very well known to you going back a very long time. My first reading
00:01:38of you was on the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was, I don't know, before my PhD even. And
00:01:44we, if that's your first sort of reading, you carry an image and a vision of a person and
00:01:49they loom larger than life, but you have continued to be one of the most thoughtful and productive
00:01:54scholars in the world. So it's true pleasure and honor to have you at this forum and for
00:01:59me personally as well. Margaret Krauss, you've spent decades living here in China. You are a
00:02:05practical expert on the country, on the relationship, on all sorts of things. You are the founder and
00:02:11executive chairman of APCO USA and a dear friend of somebody we hold in common, Dan Glickman,
00:02:20former Secretary of Agriculture. So I have to say that since I'm here today from Chicago,
00:02:24newly. I was 20 years. I didn't live in China for the 30 years. Oh, you didn't. Okay. So you've
00:02:29been in and out of the country for 30 years. And I haven't lived in Chicago for 30 years either.
00:02:41Just
00:02:41but we should all work on it. I was 20 years in London and I've been one year in Chicago.
00:02:46So it's
00:02:47been an interesting journey. You still speak American. And I always spoke American, but my
00:02:52children have, my adult children have three different accents. My husband's British. So
00:02:56there we go. Brief bio. Joseph Luke Nye, otherwise known as Joe Nye. Not the namesake of the famous
00:03:06Professor Joe Nye, but we all do recognize Joe Nye's great brilliance and we miss him. But Joe
00:03:12Nye, we're delighted to have you here. You are chairman, Greater China for McKinsey and Company,
00:03:18based in Hong Kong, correct? So bring a wealth of knowledge and business acumen, we're going to assume,
00:03:26to the conversation. And Zhao Hai, director of international political studies at the National
00:03:32Institute for Global Strategy at the famous Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. So a delight
00:03:39to have you here. Hi. Thank you for being here. Thank you. This relationship, I think we're all sort
00:03:45of taught and we learn and we're immersed in the significance globally for, as I said, pretty much
00:03:53every issue. Most definitely technology, trade, national security. But I think even underlying that
00:04:01there's a basic question at this moment of time of the future of the international, of international
00:04:08order, of international institutions. And there's a real sense that if China and the U.S. can't
00:04:16maintain a stable, productive relationship, that there's a lot at stake for pretty much everybody
00:04:23on the planet in this. And so it is, I think, one of the reasons that we all feel privileged
00:04:28to be part
00:04:29of this conference, but also why we feel like it's so incredibly important to travel to China.
00:04:35Those of you who are in China, I'm sure, to engage in the conversation about the U.S. One comment
00:04:41from
00:04:41me, my organization, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, has been polling Americans for more than 50
00:04:46years very consistently about their attitudes on foreign policy. And what we've seen in the last year
00:04:53is an increasing interest on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, not an equal measure,
00:05:00but both sides of the aisle and independents to have a more stable and productive relationship
00:05:05with China. I would guess, but can't prove, that that follows the change in tenor at the headlines
00:05:12from the U.S. president, which is very different from much of what we heard from President Biden,
00:05:18for better, for worse, but different for certain in the first year of his administration. And one of
00:05:25the worst moments on the polling, and this is sort of across many polls, was coming through the pandemic
00:05:33when American attitudes really hardened and made the sort of underlying, if you think publics matter,
00:05:38context for this relationship much more difficult. So with that said, Professor Allison, you really have
00:05:44a deep understanding in this relationship. And before we start talking about the summit and trade
00:05:50and technology, I would like it if you could help illuminate for us what's really driving the
00:05:55relationship. Some people think it's structural. Some people think it can be managed by leaders.
00:06:01People have a variety of different explanations, but you've thought very, very deeply about this.
00:06:06What are the drivers? How much room is there? How much scope is there for cooperation? And if you would,
00:06:11what's at stake right now? So big questions. Okay. So one of the great risks with professors
00:06:17is, as one of my colleagues said, they speak in 50-minute soundbites. So this isn't a big enough
00:06:23topic for a lecture. Let me just try to do the top of a couple of icebergs here.
00:06:29I was heartened by the summit, and we'll come to that in a second, because it started with what I
00:06:36think
00:06:36is a proper diagnosis of the problem. But the answer, actually, to your question, when President Xi
00:06:42said to President Trump, the question is, are we going to be able to overcome Thucydides' trap?
00:06:48I think that's a right definition, diagnosis, a clear-eyed diagnosis of the problem.
00:06:54So what's the problem? And again, simplistically put, a great contradiction
00:06:59in which there are simultaneously two compelling sets of imperatives. On the one hand, this is the
00:07:08fiercest Thucydide and rivalry of all times. China is a meteoric rising power, and as far
00:07:15as I can see, it's going to continue to rise. China wants to be all it can be, with four
00:07:20times
00:07:20as many people as the U.S. Over time, it should overtake the U.S. in every arena, if it
00:07:25were successful.
00:07:27And if you ask President Xi, would he like for China to be any less than it could be?
00:07:32No. If we were Chinese, would we? We wouldn't, no. On the other hand, we have the U.S.,
00:07:37a colossal ruling power, the greatest global power since Rome, with more reach. The U.S. and Americans
00:07:44believe that their leadership in the period since World War II is what accounted for the international
00:07:51order that we've all lived in. We're now entering the 81st year without a great power war.
00:07:59This is a longer period of peace since Rome. This is not natural. This is an amazing achievement.
00:08:09But it's good.
00:08:09It's fantastic, because the alternative, World War I, people saw, World War II, 25 million
00:08:16World War I, 50 million World War II. World War III should have happened, could have happened
00:08:21in the Cuban emotional crisis. Hundreds of millions of people could have been killed.
00:08:24Today, even, maybe all of us. So preventing, creating enough of an order that we can all survive
00:08:30is a fantastic thing. And the U.S. has played a crucial role in the leadership of that, both
00:08:35in the architecting and the building. Now, unfortunately, today it's a little more complicated.
00:08:40But that's, so you have here a rising power and a ruling power. Thucydides told us, when
00:08:46a rapidly rising power seriously threatens to displace a major ruling power, that structural
00:08:52dynamic creates conditions that multiply, magnify misperceptions, multiply miscalculations,
00:09:02produce conditions in which incidents or accidents that would otherwise be manageable, can trigger
00:09:08a vicious spiral that ends where nobody wants in a war. Think of World War I. Germany rising,
00:09:15Great Britain ruling, the Archduke in Sarajevo assassinated. What does that have to do with
00:09:20anything? In five weeks, all of Europe is at war. So this is extremely dangerous. That's
00:09:28one big idea, Thucydides' trap. And I think that rightly defines the structure of the situation.
00:09:34I would say that's about 75% of the picture. That's a lot. That's a lot. And that's pretty
00:09:38high stakes. That's a very big sort of way of framing the challenge and the challenge for leadership.
00:09:45Right. So that's, and I think, again, part of the reason for being, for my giving high marks to
00:09:51the summit is to the place that leaders need to start is with a clear-eyed diagnosis of the problem,
00:09:59not for fatalism. So it's only 75% of the determination. There's still 25% for agency.
00:10:04Again, in the Thucydidean rivalry, business as usual, diplomacy as usual, statecraft as usual.
00:10:13We should expect history as usual. History as usual would be a catastrophic war. In the last 500
00:10:18years, 12 of the 16 cases that we've seen ended in war. Four, no war. Not inevitable, but that's half
00:10:26of the problem. The other half of the problem, which is also extremely difficult to get one's head
00:10:31around now, is that we live on a small planet in which the two nations are so inextricably entangled
00:10:40that each requires a level of cooperation with the other to ensure its own survival. Well, this seems
00:10:48madness. Actually, there was a term created in the Cold War for this, as you know. Mad, mutual
00:10:53assured destruction. We both have nuclear arsenals. That still remains a reality, in which if, for
00:11:00whatever reason, the U.S. and China find themselves in a war, and it escalates to a full-scale war,
00:11:05at the end of that war, there could be no living Chinese in China and no living Americans.
00:11:10And that was a basis for stability. It is. Kind of a strange basis for stability. As Churchill said,
00:11:17it's like a sublime irony, in which safety is the sturdy twin of terror. So, because it's so horrible,
00:11:28you and I, now, we also know we live in an enclosed biosphere. Our greenhouse gases go into the same,
00:11:34unless we can find a way to cooperate in that space, we may create a climate. We have financial
00:11:39and economic institutions that are, or economies and finance that are so entangled, as we saw in the
00:11:48tariff and supply chain thing, that if we could end up in that, into something that would be so
00:11:56destructive of both. So, on the one, this is, Henry Kissinger, in his last few years, kept calling for
00:12:04what he called a new strategic concept that would be comprehensive enough to embrace simultaneously
00:12:12this contradiction. On the one hand, to be fierce, lucidity, and rivals. China really wants to be all
00:12:18it can be. The U.S. wants to be all it can be. This rival is, you could say, well,
00:12:22let's just all get over it.
00:12:23No, that's going to be fierce. I think the fierce is lucid anyway. At the same time, it's in a
00:12:29world
00:12:30in which if we let business as usual, diplomacy as usual, we have catastrophe. So, we need the
00:12:35cooperation. So, that concentrates the mind. So, we require cooperation. Now, can you hold two ideas
00:12:40in your head at the same time and still function? F. Scott Fitzgerald, the great Gatsby guy, had a good
00:12:46line, and he says, the test of a first-class mind is to hold two contradictory ideas in your head
00:12:52at the
00:12:52same time and still function. And I think that's the challenge for the leaders and for the societies
00:12:58today. So, let me ask you a question. Actually, let me come to Marjorie, and we will come back to
00:13:02everybody on the summit. So, 25, if you accept this proposition, 25 percent is down to all sorts of
00:13:10exchange in order to keep the relationship in a good place. And the win is to also cooperate
00:13:16through managing this competition. Would you say that President Trump and President Xi
00:13:24took advantage of the summit? Was it successful at sort of leveraging or grabbing that scope for
00:13:31cooperation, moving the relationship to, you know, more strategic stability? How did you read the summit?
00:13:37So, as somebody who's been advising companies, both Chinese going out and Western coming in,
00:13:45not just American, I totally agree that what business needed was at least a signal of some
00:13:53stability. And so, I do think that if you're talking, you're not fighting. And that the idea that
00:14:01not only they came together and identified the problem, they started a dialogue, which they are
00:14:07saying will continue for the next year in other meetings. And so, I think that gives you a feeling
00:14:13of hope that there will be, reason will prevail in some way because the alternative is not acceptable.
00:14:22And at least if we can create a framework of stability, I think it allows for other people
00:14:28on a more micro level to be able to work together, to be able to team up, to sell products,
00:14:35to compete
00:14:35on a global market. There's a lot of pieces of this, but it gives you a sense of normalcy that
00:14:43can help for business to function. And if we have enough stakeholders involved in this
00:14:47from the business community, from other communities, then we'll at least have a framework for dialogue
00:14:53at different levels, which will support the political and the more macro level.
00:14:58So, I think it was a very important first step.
00:15:02So, let me come to you, Joe, if I may. Would you, do you agree with this basic argument that
00:15:11it
00:15:11was a good first step? And I guess from the perspective of business, do you think businesses,
00:15:15and maybe you could even break down which kinds of businesses, do you think that they
00:15:19felt reassured? Do you think that there's still just a tremendous sense of the potential
00:15:26fragility, unpredictability, volatility? We know that there are certain very big things
00:15:30at stake when it comes to technology, technology competition, open markets, all the rest of it.
00:15:35But how do the people that you work with, the companies that you work with and advise,
00:15:40how do they react to the summit?
00:15:43Yeah. Well, first of all, I do agree that the summit was a very good thing, right? I think that
00:15:50communication, more understanding, some signaling, I think it's very good. There are many ways to
00:15:54characterize this, but one way to think about it is that the weather is getting better, but the
00:16:00climate will continue to be what it is. And that's a good way to kind of think about it,
00:16:04right? I do think that, you know, we wish the climate can go back to what it was 15 years
00:16:08ago,
00:16:08but, you know, the reality is I think that we're going to be in this, you know, one step forward,
00:16:14have a step back type relationship in some ways. But on the other hand, right, I do think that the
00:16:19signaling is better, right? The communication is better. And if you think about...
00:16:23Can I ask you, better than what?
00:16:25Better than what it was two years ago, better than what it was three years ago, better than what it
00:16:29was
00:16:30when China was uninvestable, when it was everything around China was one. I think what we have
00:16:34learned in the last couple of years is that, look, the world is reorienting a little bit of the trade,
00:16:40right? I mean, trade has continued to grow, but it's not only US-China, right? The game is
00:16:46played out in Latin America, in Southeast Asia, right? You know, so in some ways,
00:16:53you see US-China trade, you know, going down, but you see trade everywhere else, right, coming up,
00:17:00right? So the trade corridors around the rest of the world is actually booming, right? China has
00:17:05more trade corridors with more countries ever, right, in the last few years. And I do think that
00:17:10that's worth noting because I do think that while, right, US-China have this, you know, relationship,
00:17:16I think the rest of the world is trying to figure out, you know, what their relationship with both.
00:17:21But on the other hand, the other contradiction that I want to raise here is on the business side.
00:17:26You know, in some ways, it was very interesting that President Trump came with the business sector.
00:17:32And I would say that those, you know, business leaders have a profound understanding, right?
00:17:38There's no one who knows better what China can provide than Tim Cook or Jason Kwan, right? So I do
00:17:44think that it's very interesting that, you know, the appreciation of what the Chinese supply
00:17:51chain is of what the China's industrial engine can do, of what this actually does to global
00:17:58prosperity. I think it's completely well understood in the business sector, right? If you go into
00:18:04the contradiction in the business sector, I do think that today, there are more collaboration,
00:18:09right, between, you know, many, many, you know, students and business leaders, you know,
00:18:14actually than ever, right? This year, to 2026, I've seen more multinational CEOs and boards having
00:18:23the meetings in China than I've ever seen. But let me ask you a specific question on this,
00:18:28because, you know, the people that joined President Trump were very powerful people. These are not just,
00:18:33you know, they don't spend their time without being very thoughtful about how they're spending
00:18:39their time. So what do you think they wanted from the summit? And did they get it? And then I'll
00:18:42come to
00:18:42you, Xiao. You know, I think the business sector completely realized that decoupling is a far too
00:18:50simplistic way to think about business world today, right? Our supply chains, right, what China is
00:18:55actually very good at, how this Chinese industrial engine is actually far more efficient than anything
00:19:02else we see around the world. I think they all realize that. I mean, today, you know, the Apple phone,
00:19:07right, cannot be what it is today without the Chinese supply chain, right? So I think they completely
00:19:11understand that. And the business sector in their minds, right, they would wish to find there's
00:19:16politics, there's, you know, military, you know, discussions. But the business sector, let's
00:19:23continue, right, on this. And we can live in this world of contradictions, right, where business
00:19:27continues, academics can continue, right? And we can have this rhetoric and other things that are going
00:19:32on because we are all playing to our own, you know, domestic politics, which is completely fine too.
00:19:37I think that's what we want. And I think the summit was very good in doing that. And this today,
00:19:42as I
00:19:43said, this year, I've seen more exchanges between boards and CEOs and leaders in China that I've ever
00:19:50seen before, which to me is a great sign of understanding and communication.
00:19:54Thank you. But it's not, please, please do. And then I'll come to you.
00:19:58Just a reminder for people. So this was not only a business delegation that Trump brought with him.
00:20:04This was the A plus that never, never has been a business delegation ever to anywhere of equivalent
00:20:11sort. You have Tim Cook, sort of the icon of products in our generation. You have the richest man
00:20:20in the world. You have the $5 trillion Jensen Huang with his NVIDIA. You have the person who manages
00:20:31the most money in the world, Larry Fink. So how do you make sense of that?
00:20:37I would say they didn't come by accident and Trump didn't bring them by accident.
00:20:43Although Jensen Huang seemed to have come at the last minute jumping on a plane from Alaska.
00:20:46Not everybody got the message. They forgot about NVIDIA.
00:20:50And I think they may not have even told President Xi until the last minute.
00:20:55Really? Do you really think that?
00:20:57There were no, sorry, there were no chairs for them at the back of the room. So
00:21:00that's just to suggest how it went with the flow. But the fact that they, that he invited them to
00:21:07bring, that was symbolic, I think. And the fact that they came was symbolic. So I think it just,
00:21:11I was just supporting Joe's point. It wasn't just a business delegation. It was like the most
00:21:18powerful business delegation of ever, I think, ever.
00:21:22It was a big signal. It was a big signal. But Xiaohai, so, I mean, I guess it's a big
00:21:27signal.
00:21:28You're very optimistic. I think we all have wanted a landing place. But there's a lot at stake. I mean,
00:21:35this isn't just, you know, let's all work together. This is, some people see this as zero sum,
00:21:39certainly in technological competition, AI. How did you interpret the summit? Was it a,
00:21:46you know, stabilizing moment, with still the fundamental drivers of competition,
00:21:52you know, sort of left open for the next steps? Or did you see it as transformative? Or how did
00:21:58you interpret it?
00:21:59I think it really depends on where do you look at it? Which angle do you look at? If you
00:22:04look
00:22:04from the business angle, and particularly from President Trump's angle, there's this all-important
00:22:09business team, very grand, and everything goes well. Because after that, you have, you achieved a
00:22:15certain level of stability, restore some of the supply chains, the investors' confidence. However,
00:22:22I think President Xi and China approached this from a very different angle. From our sort of
00:22:27international relations, we have levels of analysis. If you look at the opening remarks of President Xi,
00:22:33he actually processed from three different levels. The first is global view. The second is national,
00:22:40bilateral. And the third is people. He always emphasized, you know, both China and US are most
00:22:46important countries. We need to look at this bilateral relationship from historical global view.
00:22:51And I think he's correct, because we have global ramifications. As Joe mentioned, we have global
00:22:58supply chains, global value chains. Everything's interconnected, intertwined. However, I think the
00:23:04question is being asked, but it's not being fully answered. Because on the one hand, I think at this
00:23:11stage, it's no longer pure bilateral two-countries relationship. It's a global relationship that,
00:23:18you know, both countries are raising, or let's say on a certain level raising, but on another level
00:23:24is cooperating on how to make the world better. Which country can provide better framework, better
00:23:29vision, and better structure for the future of the world? Which country? And then in the future,
00:23:34and then collectively, you know, both China, US, and other countries together. I mean, it's,
00:23:39but it is a question, right? So it's not a G2, but also not multi-weight. Yeah. And the other
00:23:43question, of course, is like, yes, we have all this beautiful technology. We have this vision of the
00:23:50future, but what about the people? Because in the United States, I would assume now you've reached
00:23:56the highest level of rich and poor gap. In China, we also have developmental problems. So both
00:24:03countries, I mean, in the world, we're facing probably similar challenges that Professor Allison
00:24:08also referred to. So in the future, I think it's more of a question that we face common challenge.
00:24:15Do we have a common solution? Right? I think those are the questions that are answered. But for now,
00:24:21because of the bilateral summit, and I think there will be a coming summit in this year,
00:24:26the relationship temporarily stabilized. However, from China's perspective, we saw there are still
00:24:33looming dangers in terms of more tariffs, in terms of more technology disruptions, and more kind
00:24:41of restrictions. So I'm not that rosy about the future, because the structural forces are still
00:24:47working. But at the same time, I'm optimistic, because it's not just the China and the US, two
00:24:53actors. There are multiple actors in this world, and they're pushing for bilateral relationship not
00:24:58to fall apart, not to be confrontational, but to be more cooperative and working together to solve
00:25:05common problems. I mean, I want to pick up on that, because it sort of links to some of what
00:25:09Joe
00:25:09said. And you sort of indicated that actually a lot of third party states, which is most of the
00:25:15world, apart from the United States and China, are hedging, right? They're leaning in one direction or
00:25:19another direction, or trying to lean in both directions. And you sort of, you mentioned that
00:25:25trade between the two major economies is decreasing, but overall, it's still very high. That's not really
00:25:30a great situation. That's a pretty, it feels like we have a pretty low bar for what a good summit
00:25:36was,
00:25:36because things were so disastrous coming out of the pandemic. And it's a funny duality. And maybe
00:25:42I'll come to you on this, Professor Alison Graham, if I may. You know, on the one hand, obviously,
00:25:49people aren't saying the word President Trump, but we know that we associate tremendous
00:25:55unpredictability and disruption from the United States leader, i.e. President Trump.
00:26:00And yet, he's the person, he's the US leader that has tried to get to more of a landing pad.
00:26:08Do you feel, you know, if you're a little bit more critical about what comes next, I mean, what is
00:26:12it
00:26:13going to take to prevent this sort of, you know, de-risking, two different systems, China trading with
00:26:20one part of the world, US going elsewhere, and the technological competition not being about the sort
00:26:27of cooperation and openness that we heard from the premier yesterday in a very powerful speech,
00:26:33but being, you know, a much more dangerous game? What is it, what do we now need to see next
00:26:38in
00:26:38order to make that work? That's a great question. And I think we all are, you know, things spin so
00:26:43quickly that we can get confused. And I would say, I sometimes say to my students, if you're not
00:26:49confused, you haven't been watching closely. Because President Trump, in particular, takes pride in
00:26:57being the great disruptor. So he thinks being unpredictable, even creating chaos, creates
00:27:06opportunity for advancing interests. And he also gets bored quickly. He lives half of his time as a
00:27:16producer of reality TV. So this is completely unreal. And half of his time as the leader of the greatest
00:27:25country in the world, having real consequences for the choices. And sometimes I think he even gets
00:27:31slightly confused which one of these spaces, you know, he's in. So all this is what we have.
00:27:43Can I push you a little bit on this one? Because there's also a broader ecosystem within the United
00:27:48States of, you know, Republicans and Democrats, people have views on China.
00:27:52Just for him for the second. So there's one relationship about which there's been a fairly
00:27:59steady line, which is kind of quite inconsistent with the rest of the picture. And that's the
00:28:05relationship with President Xi Jinping and China. After the 145 percent tariffs, and then the supply
00:28:14chain choking, there was kind of an awakening, hey, wait, now I do, I got it. This is a great
00:28:21man,
00:28:21he thinks, a great leader. He's created a great country. It's as powerful as we are for the time
00:28:28being. So I have to treat it differently than I treat other leaders. And so you can see in this
00:28:34recent
00:28:34thing, he did a riff last week. It was almost like an ecomium to President Xi and how wonderful he
00:28:41was and how much he would like to be like him and so forth. So is this Trump in some
00:28:46way? This is.
00:28:48So do you think he can bring the, I mean, the data suggests that he's bringing the American people
00:28:53along with him. Do you think he can bring Congress and the rest of the sort of foreign policy establishment?
00:28:59No. I would say the structure gives you 75 percent of all of the impulses. Okay. So there's going to
00:29:06continue to be increasingly, in my view, suspicion, hostility, and otherwise. The challenge for the
00:29:12leaders is to contain that set of forces, recognizing what the consequences would be, since most of the
00:29:19people who are simply wanting to push the competition don't realize that, hey, wait a minute, but we are on
00:29:25this small planet, in which if it were to end up in the wrong place, we would end up with
00:29:29a catastrophe.
00:29:30So many, many people were critical of President Trump for, quote, backing down with respect to the
00:29:35supply chain confrontation. The question was, excuse me, what was the alternative? Okay. When he started
00:29:43getting phone calls from Ford Motor Company or from the F-35 producers that, in a month, we're going to
00:29:50have to close our production lines. He's thinking, hmm, I think I have a different situation. The
00:29:55Wall Street Journal didn't like that, but excuse me, that he took to be the fact. I would say good
00:30:00for
00:30:00recognizing the facts as the situation is. So I think he's struggling with that, and I think the
00:30:06society will be. So that's why I think at the summit, in the first instance, they began what I think
00:30:13both Xi and Trump will be reframing or redefining the relationship over the course of 2026. They got
00:30:22from great power competition, which is the normal way to describe this, or more precisely a thucidity
00:30:28and rivalry, to a constructive strategic stability as a pointer, not all filled out. They are now going
00:30:37to have another summit in Washington, September 26, I think, or four. President Xi will go to
00:30:45Washington. Then they'll meet on the sidelines of the APEC here in November, and then in December
00:30:56in Miami at the G20. So we may have four summits of these two leaders, something we haven't seen before.
00:31:02And if I were being optimistic, which I'm trying to be, you could imagine by the end of the year,
00:31:08having a landing point that's somewhat better than the way we've thought about the relationship,
00:31:15that would say, hey, we have this complicated situation. We're fierce rivals, and we're going
00:31:19to be fierce rivals. We would like to win in all of these contests, and you would like to win
00:31:23in all
00:31:24of these contests. At the same time, we have these realities that require cooperation, both for our own
00:31:30survival and also for benefits. And we're trying to manage these at the same time. Now, can two
00:31:34leaders do that with the complex governments that they have and then the complex societies? Well,
00:31:41over the long run, Thucydides would say, good luck. Good luck. And good luck, because those are going
00:31:45to also take place, that second one around the U.S. midterms, which is going to affect how President
00:31:51Trump feels domestically, politically bound to spill over into his foreign policy in ways that it's very
00:31:57difficult to read. But there's a whole layer of things going on. How do you think business is
00:32:02thinking about these four meetings, these next four meetings? Before we get to that, I just think that
00:32:06we also have to remember there's the rest of the world. Right. And we're looking at this very much in
00:32:12a bilateral situation. And I think one thing that's happened as a result of all of this and the
00:32:19tariffs and a whole bunch of things is there's been a whole redistribution of how companies are
00:32:24thinking about supply chains, about relationships and governments, thinking about, do they have to
00:32:30choose? Do they have to choose China or the U.S.? And so there's a context out there that also
00:32:36is a little different because the rest of the world, in a way, is rising. You know, we heard yesterday
00:32:41about Africa in 20 years or something. One out of every four people in the world are going to live
00:32:46there. What kind of changes are taking place in this complex world that it will affect
00:32:54the U.S.-China relationship? We don't do this in a vacuum. And I think sometimes because it's two big
00:33:00countries, we tend to be a little tone deaf. But, you know, when you were talking about the trade,
00:33:05that the 25 percent of whatever it was reduction in trade to the U.S. all went like to Southeast
00:33:12Asia.
00:33:12So these, you know, look at what happened with soybeans in Brazil. I think, you know,
00:33:18some of these things just totally changed the context. And I think we also have to evaluate
00:33:23the environment in terms of what's possible and what we want to accomplish at the same time. So I
00:33:29interrupted your question. No, no, no. I'm very glad you brought it up. I've spent many, you know,
00:33:33two decades in Europe having the conversation or listening to the conversation with many European
00:33:38leaders about how they were facing this question. But I kind of want to pick up on something you said
00:33:42and ask all of you. I'll start with you. Do you think that businesses, the businesses that you're
00:33:49working with, that all of you are working with, do they feel more that they have to choose? And what
00:33:55does that actually mean? Okay. So I think you have to bifurcate the businesses also because
00:33:59if you are high tech or you, you know, where there are a lot more restrictions about what you do,
00:34:05you might feel one way. I think nobody can, for whatever industry you're in, nobody can deny the
00:34:12innovation that's going on here. If you're in biopharma, yes, here in China, if you're in biopharma,
00:34:19you can't, especially with the cutbacks on R&D in the U.S., you cannot exist without trying to be
00:34:26part
00:34:26of an ecosystem that's going to define a lot of our medicines for the future. So I think you have
00:34:31to almost look at it industry by industry. If you're in consumer goods, it's a very different
00:34:37question in this market. And then it's price competition and it's things that maybe aren't
00:34:42so affected by the geopolitical things except for the tariffs. So I think the answer is that
00:34:49the companies who have been here a long time, who understand the market, who know that it's been
00:34:53ups and downs. I have this little framework in my head for these companies that, you know,
00:34:58the euphoria of China started with the CEOs going great guns. Then it went to the CFO to rationalize
00:35:05all the money that's been kind of come out of that irrationality. Then now it seems like it's moved
00:35:11to the regulatory side of the house to make sure you can function, you know. And so, you know,
00:35:17what's next after that? And I think, you know, we're kind of inventing the future of that. And I
00:35:23think every company needs to think about its own strategy. And I don't think you can just lump them
00:35:30all together. So, you know, and I think in a way, you know, I know they had to bring the
00:35:35champions of
00:35:35industry. But I think there's an underrepresentation of the people who every day depend on China or
00:35:43depend on, you know, markets. Because now you have Chinese companies going out and they're looking
00:35:49at the fact that you can, there's a greater business opportunity, greater profitability sometimes
00:35:54from going to new markets. So you have all these different competing interests on the part of the
00:36:00companies. So I don't think you can classify business. You may have a different perspective
00:36:06because you are probably dealing with a lot bigger companies all the time. But, you know,
00:36:12I just think that it's hard to say there's one size fits all. Absolutely. And I appreciate the
00:36:19differentiation. It raises a couple of questions. One is whether, you know, symmetry and the
00:36:24success of meetings can actually tackle these. And if not, where are the questions being?
00:36:29The umbrella of stability. That's what I was referring to in the beginning. That affects
00:36:34everybody and it's a good thing.
00:36:50Do you see more stability? If you were going to sort of break down some of the sectors,
00:36:56what are you most focused on? I mean, are you focused on the technology companies and what are
00:37:01you hearing as we look ahead to these next three meetings? Yeah. Well, first of all, I think that
00:37:06being a CEO today is much more difficult than what it was before. And I'll tell you a story. One
00:37:12of my
00:37:13clients who, you know, is in the south, southern part of China doing manufacturing, he said that once
00:37:19upon a time, right, what I needed to do was to focus very much on my factory to make the
00:37:25best,
00:37:26you know, widget at the best price with the best innovation. And the world will gladly take my
00:37:32product. Okay. Today, I got to read the news. I got to figure out like where the trade corridor,
00:37:37I got to figure out what the tariffs are, I got to figure out what the issue, right? Like the
00:37:40way
00:37:40that I need to think about the world is no longer making the best product in my factory at the
00:37:44best
00:37:45price possible. Yeah. It's around all these other things I got to think about that was never actually
00:37:49in the equation before. Of course, as business, right, we are looking at different opportunities,
00:37:55we're looking at hedges, we're looking at ways of how to de-risk, right, the processes. And that is
00:38:00a big, big theme going on. But I'll tell you one of the things that as I think about this,
00:38:05you know,
00:38:05US-China, you know, race, I mean, where are we today? You know, I think that we are seeing,
00:38:11look, US stock market at an all-time high, yeah? I think that, you know, Chinese companies and all
00:38:17this having this revival of this, you know, going global and, you know, raising much more capital
00:38:21than they've ever had before, right? We've seen the tech companies really, so we got to bring tech
00:38:28back in here. Because I do think, if you think about the last 20 years, if you have not been
00:38:33in tech,
00:38:34you've kind of missed out. In the next 10 years, it'll be even more so than ever before. And where
00:38:40are
00:38:40the biggest innovation and leaders in technology today? It's US and China. What I actually think
00:38:46is very interesting to hear, is that this rivalry will create the greatest boom in their own
00:38:53economies for the next 10 years. The question is, if I sit there and I'm in Latin, I'm in Europe,
00:39:00I'm in other places, where does that leave me, right? There is no doubt today that the US tech
00:39:06companies are running ahead, the US multinationals are great companies, the Chinese companies are
00:39:10dominating their industrial sectors, right? In AI, there's open source and there is, you know,
00:39:15the great US companies. Like, where is the rest of the world, right? We could be in the stage where
00:39:21this rivalry, if you think that it is, right, will create two great economies with their sometimes
00:39:28rivaling, sometimes, you know, competing interests, but they will actually be landing in a very good
00:39:35place, yeah? But I think that we might leave the rest of the world behind if technology continue
00:39:40to raise ahead. And to me, that's one of the questions that we have, right? Maybe we'll have
00:39:44Nasdaq all-time high, Chinese companies at an all-time high, but everyone else, right? Not actually
00:39:51being trapped here in some ways and trying to figure out, like, where does that leave us? And that's
00:39:55another question that is a little bit like, are they so far sprinting ahead that leaves the rest
00:40:03of the world behind? And I think that's a question for me. I was going to say, I think it'd
00:40:07be interesting
00:40:08to also see if there's an area of cooperation and what responsibility those two countries feel
00:40:14for the rest of the world, because we do not live, you know, you can't have a successful business in
00:40:20a
00:40:20failed world. Right. Absolutely. Critical point. And can I say one thing about yesterday's speech?
00:40:25Because it was a very powerful message about cooperation. And it is different. Whatever we can
00:40:31say below the headline or above the headline, it's very different from the rhetoric that we've heard
00:40:36from the U.S. leadership in this moment. Do you think, I mean, what is your reaction to that?
00:40:43Maybe I can bring you in. I think the key of yesterday's speech, primarily
00:40:46telling speech is that China's open for business. From Joe's perspective, yes, both sides are
00:40:52competing. There are a lot of opportunities. That's why primarily telling is talking about
00:40:56China opportunity 2.0, not China shock 2.0. And back to U.S. China, I think on the one
00:41:02hand,
00:41:03there's a good sign that coming out of this bilateral summit, because now we can get engines
00:41:08for our airplanes. But on the other hand, I've been talking to many of the businesses in China who wants
00:41:13to invest in the United States. But the regulatory environment continued posing a serious problem.
00:41:20Since the beginning of the year, I was in winter doubles. And back then, the governors of the United
00:41:25States are all talking about they welcome Chinese investment. But then when it really comes down to
00:41:30business, they refer to the federal government and say, we're waiting for their giving the green light.
00:41:35So many of the Chinese businesses, particularly EVs, solar panel, all this kind of new energy,
00:41:41wanted to invest in the United States. But now we have a board of investment. I don't know where
00:41:47does that go, who is going to be in those board. And we're still waiting for the result. But I
00:41:52want
00:41:52to emphasize the difference between this year and last year. Last year, China is the problem. And this
00:41:57year, I think China is either less of a problem or be partial solution. So that's the difference. And
00:42:03those are those problems are generated, created by President Trump himself. So if you look at the list,
00:42:09right, if you read the top of the list, you know, affordability problems, the Strait of Hormuz,
00:42:14you know, all those kind of technology, all those problems are self generated. And now I think China
00:42:19can be part of the solution. That's why both sides can cooperate on many of the top of the list
00:42:25issues that can actually provide benefits for both sides. Let me ask a question about the rest of the
00:42:29world. And I'm going to come to you first. And it's on. So if you're in Southeast Asia, if you're
00:42:34a
00:42:34company or a leader, if you're in Europe, if you're in Africa, and you're listening to yesterday's
00:42:39speech, what is your reaction? So can I do one footnote before that and I'll come to it?
00:42:44As I think that I mean, this is I have so many things to agree with. But I wanted us
00:42:50to do a
00:42:50couple of extra facts to help expand the proposition. Okay, so as Joe said, we all talk about the US,
00:42:59China and trade as if that was the main game. So I have a chart actually that if you just
00:43:07let's
00:43:07imagine the US and China stop trading with each other all together. Zero. What happens to global
00:43:13trade? Answer minus 2%. Sorry, we thought we were the whole game. No, excuse me. There's a great world
00:43:22out there. That's the word. Number two, Joe said, rightly, that the US stock market has been strong.
00:43:28You know, strong, again, compared to what? Okay, so S&P last year, about 16%. How about the Chinese
00:43:36market? How about the Korean market? How about the Japanese market? How about the Taiwanese market?
00:43:43All of them, multiples of that, multiples of that. So again, there's a whole world out there of things
00:43:48happening around the, you know, the pieces. So just a couple of pieces to add to the perspective.
00:43:57So if you're, if you're, you know, because you've very wisely and rightly brought up the rest of the
00:44:02world. It's a big world out there. And if you're watching, if you're listening to, if you're watching
00:44:05Summer Davos, if you're listening to the speech yesterday, you watch the summit, how are you
00:44:09feeling? If you are in, choose your country, choose your continent, Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America.
00:44:18Well, I think Joe said earlier that if you, if you look at the frontier activities, and especially
00:44:27at the bright, shiny object, and AI seems to mesmerize everybody, there's makers and there's
00:44:34takers. And there's the US and China, and then there's others. Just, and whatever's going to happen,
00:44:42you know, the Europeans will create rules, but they'll be too late for whatever, so the,
00:44:49few Africans. I mean, I think the Europeans are more ambitious than that, right? They want digital
00:44:53sovereignty, they want their own. They would like, they would like, but again, if, if they're going to,
00:44:58they, they would like to control, for example, social media. But if they would like to have a
00:45:04smartphone, excuse me, they're going to go to either the US or China, if they were. So I think the,
00:45:10the notion of, at least at the frontiers of science and technology is advancing,
00:45:16the US and China are sort of racing, racing further ahead in those domains. In other areas,
00:45:22I think there's lots of other interesting things happening. And a number of the other countries,
00:45:26for example, if you look, for example, the South Korean or the Japanese part of this,
00:45:31more now in Southeast Asia, you see a lot of activity. So we shouldn't take just the big picture.
00:45:38And I think, but I think, especially the AI mesmerization, because it's so much of the topic,
00:45:46makes, at least the people I talk to in other countries think, wait a minute, we're, we're just
00:45:53almost like on a different planet. Because whatever happened, if I'm going to use a model,
00:45:58I'm going to get it from the US or China, if I were to.
00:46:03I'm going to open it up, I'm going to take a quick set of responses, and then I'm going to
00:46:07open it up
00:46:08to questions. So please be prepared. So, so if you use the makers and takers, I see it a little
00:46:14differently, because a lot of these other countries or economies, which didn't have the resources to
00:46:20develop exactly what has been developed by the US and China, are taking it, adapting it to their own
00:46:26markets. And in some places that have been way behind, they're leapfrogging. You know, they don't
00:46:31have the, the legacy infrastructure. And so you can take some of this AI, and you can be in a
00:46:38remote
00:46:38place in another world, and you can have access to medical solutions that you would never have had
00:46:44access to. So I don't think it's all a negative picture at all. I think that these, these countries
00:46:51are finding their own footsteps, they're resilient, and they care about their own people. So if we can
00:46:59make things that benefit the world, it won't all be one size fits all. And they'll never be, maybe have
00:47:05the resources to do what the two big countries are doing. But they do have the resources to be the
00:47:10beneficiaries of that, and then take it and use it in their own way. And we're going to learn a
00:47:15lot
00:47:16about those applications. And they're going to come back and resonate to make the whole thing better.
00:47:20So I, I'm, maybe I'm just the eternal optimist. I don't know. I like it. And it keeps us moving,
00:47:25because it's, it's important in this world. So please, if you raise your hands as we're getting lost,
00:47:29too. Oh, I'll do a quick one. No, I think that yesterday premieres the speech, I think was actually
00:47:34remarkable in how consistent it was from what he has always been saying. I think one of the things that
00:47:40I
00:47:40think, you can take the Chinese leaders is that they've been very consistent, right? You know,
00:47:43we want more collaboration, we want more business, we want more trade, and we're open for business.
00:47:48Yeah, so I think it's good. The question for businesses outside, you know, for the rest of
00:47:53the world coming into China to do business is not one of geopolitics. I think it's one of competitiveness.
00:47:59The question, are you good enough? When China is a great market, but you know what,
00:48:03there's some pretty good competitors here. And the question for you is not whether the Chinese
00:48:08government allows me to come in, more so that, hey, can you compete against all the other guys
00:48:12out there who may be better than what you have today? And I think that's the question, because
00:48:17I do think that, you know, and I've used this analogy of China, you know, business ecosystem being
00:48:24the world's toughest gym. And you come in here, and these guys are hungry, they're very good,
00:48:28they can beat everyone up, and you come in here, and the question is, what do you have to offer?
00:48:32Yeah. That is the question, right? So we're over business, but you better be good.
00:48:36Well, and the premier did say, hard work, right? It's about hard work. And we know it's about,
00:48:42you know, we know grit really matters. Please.
00:48:45I think what we're seeing is the consequences of deteriorating and fragmenting
00:48:49international system, global trading investment system. And the result of that is the bigger is
00:48:55getting stronger, because you have unified market, you have a very strong leadership. So for the remaining
00:49:01of those countries, whoever would try to win in this game needs to bond together. That's where
00:49:06carnism is talking about. Actually, the middle powers, all these countries, they need to unify,
00:49:11come together, forming a bigger market, so that they can generate the innovation, you know,
00:49:15having the finance that they need to compete in this world. So that's why geopolitics now is
00:49:20fitting into the business considerations. And I think that's why also the China wants to continue to
00:49:27develop and sustain a global system instead of a fragmented, you know, system.
00:49:32I'm just going to add one.
00:49:33I'm going to see who has their hand up, and then, okay, we're going to come to you first.
00:49:37But please, if you each have a quick response, and then we'll come to you.
00:49:40One thing that we haven't mentioned about the premier's speech that I thought,
00:49:43for me, was striking, and this is consistent with his previous speeches, was the appreciation of the
00:49:50role of private actors, of entrepreneurs, and inventors as the drivers.
00:49:57Right.
00:49:57Frequently, when I listen to comments by the Chinese government,
00:50:01they sound like comments by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the US
00:50:06that says, we need to have more affordable housing. We've put out a decree that there should be more
00:50:11affordable housing, and the housings are built by people, given their incentives. So I thought,
00:50:23in both his account of Huawei and also in his commendation of those, that was an important
00:50:31message to send. And I think that was, to me, striking. But you could hear it was authentic.
00:50:37Authentic. Okay. So Marjorie, and I think it's Karen, right? Karen Young. Please, Marjorie.
00:50:41No, I was just going to have a quick parenthetical from the business angle. We've also been talking
00:50:46to our clients in terms of being multi-local. Instead of, we talk about multinational, it kind
00:50:52of says one size. You can go across the world doing one thing. And I think what has happened now
00:50:58is
00:50:59much more granularity to your business strategy as you go. We work in 80 markets, you know, as you go
00:51:05to
00:51:06these places around the world. You have to be multi-local. And you have to appoint somebody to
00:51:10be your secretary of state inside to deal with those things. I love the term multi-local. Okay,
00:51:16please. Thank you so much. Great session. I'm Karen Young from Columbia University. My question's for
00:51:21Joe, and hi. Do you see the Chinese business community coming together as an interest group
00:51:27and pushing the government more for an activist foreign policy, playing more of a mediator role,
00:51:33as we've seen in the latest energy crisis? Is that a pressure point, as you describe businesses
00:51:39having to think about geopolitics? How do they communicate their needs? Great question. Would
00:51:43you like to start, hi? Okay, I'll go first. I think yes and no, because it depends on what kind
00:51:48of business you're in. If you're the business that is under great pressure from foreign states,
00:51:54then you have the interest of pushing for your own government to provide protection, also to provide
00:51:59countermeasures. But then if you're enjoying the current open market, and you wanted to expand your
00:52:04business into multiple areas, multiple countries, then you wanted to maintain an open system. And
00:52:10therefore, you don't want to influence the government to do more, but to do less. So it really depends on
00:52:14what kind of what's the nature of your business. In particular, I think in today's tech world, that is
00:52:20most salient when companies and institutions wanted to push for government actions, because the US is also
00:52:27actively trying to decouple or cutting or limiting the development in China, and therefore requires a
00:52:33response. But otherwise, overall, I think because of the competitiveness of the Chinese companies,
00:52:38they want less government interventions that more. Please, and then we'll come to that.
00:52:43No, I agree with that. You know, I think businesses are very selfish animals. Yeah. So I think,
00:52:47on the one hand, I think that, you know, they would love the policies to facilitate them. But remember,
00:52:52Chinese companies are the most competitive with themselves. Right? So, you know, I do think that
00:52:57we see a lot of the scenarios where the Chinese companies are going overseas, right? And they're
00:53:01competing between themselves. And, you know, the foreign companies are like, what are they doing?
00:53:06Right? So I think that actually, right, they are fierce competitors. So can they get together,
00:53:11have common issues? Of course they have. But they themselves also, do I see that being
00:53:15complete together? No, not a chance. The folks on the plane with President Trump probably compete
00:53:21with each other, too. So it's not so abnormal. Please, Professor. Thank you. When Mr. Trump was
00:53:27visiting China about a month ago, China Daily carried an article. It was, what cooperation can U.S. and
00:53:34China do? I want to mention in half a minute, four points. Number one, make agriculture a part of the
00:53:42solution rather than a problem. Right now it's a problem. Both are very large agricultural country,
00:53:49700 million ton China, 600 million ton U.S. Both creating a lot of ecological problems. The second
00:53:57point they said was, do not give subsidies, but reward farmers, not doing good agriculture, payment for
00:54:04ecosystem services. The third point that article made was, protect prime land, agricultural land,
00:54:11against non-agricultural uses, industrialization, urbanization. And the fourth point was,
00:54:18grow carbon in land as a crop, so that farmers can get income out of it, and at the same
00:54:25time
00:54:25make a solution. This was just a comment, but I think it was a very relevant article in China Daily.
00:54:30Thank you. And you were described as a legend on your panel yesterday on global food security,
00:54:36and after listening to the panel, I fully agree. Thanks for that very important intervention. We're
00:54:41going to take another question here, right at the back. We'll take a few and then come back to the
00:54:45panel. Right, the, the, please go ahead, and then the lady right behind you.
00:54:50Um, I have a question to all at large. Um, what is, there is a huge shortage of capital in
00:54:57the world,
00:54:58with AI, um, data centers being built, and now commodity hoarding and, you know, uh, stockpiles.
00:55:06How is the shortage of capital going to push us, either towards the 75% of gloom and doom,
00:55:12or 25%, and the second point I have is, what about the court?
00:55:18I think I'm just going to stop the one, and then come to the lady right behind you. Thank you.
00:55:21Sorry.
00:55:22So I will go first, or wait for the, uh, guest people. Go ahead, go ahead.
00:55:26Okay, so my question is for, uh, for Professor Allison and Professor Zhao, and I'm CCM reporter
00:55:31from South China Morning Post. And my question is about, I wonder your predictions about the next
00:55:37foreseeable meetings between Mr. Trump, President Trump and President Xi. Like, what kind of improvement,
00:55:43maybe agreements or deals you guys expect, uh, to reach to, for the, you know, the strategic balance?
00:55:50Thanks. So agriculture, capital, and what comes next? Who wants to go first?
00:55:56And we'll take one more from the gentleman here, while everybody's deciding who goes first. Right here, please.
00:56:08Thank you again, Leslie. I'm Yan Shaohua, Associate Professor from the Institute of International
00:56:13Studies of Fudan University. Uh, you have talked a lot about, uh, uh, other countries and regions,
00:56:19or third parties in China-U.S. relations, since I research, uh, teach European studies. So,
00:56:24I'd like to turn the question, turn the perspective on Europe. And there's a question for Professor Allison.
00:56:31Um, apparently there are changes taking place in transatlantic relations. I think the fundamental
00:56:39question is how you assess the nature of that change. I'd like to have your take on that. I mean,
00:56:45it's, it is a fundamental change. Thank you. And in the context of the U.S.-China relationship. Okay,
00:56:50who wants to go first? Choose the one you wish. On this one, I would say the Munich Security Summit's
00:56:56summary this year was right on. Their title was called, uh, President to Destruction. Uh, and their
00:57:04principle proposition was that we're in an era of wrecking ball politics in which there's the great
00:57:12irony that the architect and builder of the international order has become the principle
00:57:19wrecking ball. And I think that's demonstrated very clearly in the U.S.-European relationship. And
00:57:26if you look at the recent polls on the, uh, number of Europeans and their views about America as a,
00:57:33a lie or, uh, or its reliability, you can see dramatically the effect. And you see the very
00:57:40same effect in the governments as they deal with, uh, the current American administration. If you look
00:57:46at the G7 meeting, all of the leaders were just fearful, hoping that they would not come into the
00:57:53crosshairs of the great disruptor. So I think that's a... Or take pictures with them. Please.
00:58:00Would you like that? Marjorie, would you like that? No, I, I, um, I, I guess I'm not aware that
00:58:08there is
00:58:08this huge capital shortage. I think it's a matter, I don't know, um, in my view, it's like, how do
00:58:15you
00:58:15apply the resources we have to the best use? Um, and, and then, you know, where do we go? I've
00:58:23seen the
00:58:23numbers of what it's going to take to deal with some of the huge problems we have out there and
00:58:28nobody has that much, uh, to deal with. But I still think there's sufficient, um, ways to finance,
00:58:35uh, some of the big things we have to do if we, if we can work together. So I don't,
00:58:41I don't know.
00:58:42So the cooperation message. I just don't know. You, you probably are a better expert on
00:58:46this whole idea of macro capital shortages. Is there a question from the side? And if we get ready for
00:58:50these two final quick questions and then we'll come back to the two of you first because this,
00:58:54this group behind me is disadvantaged because I can't see them. Um, and please be succinct because
00:59:00we're coming right to the end. We have need to come to both of you and the others. Okay. Thank
00:59:03you,
00:59:04Leslie, because you look for the third time. So I shouldn't miss this opportunity. I come from a Saudi
00:59:10company, a chemical company. So somewhat I represent that third party. But my question is about
00:59:16to the forecasting to the future, because when I learned from Professor Chang about the previous
00:59:22summit, I have a strong doubt whether this dialogue is a real dialogue. Because when President Xi
00:59:28started that three questions, he was not responded. And then in the end, when he concluded the proposal
00:59:35of a constructive stability, a constructive relationship with a strategic stability, he was also not
00:59:42responded. Okay. So in that sense, I have some doubt for the upcoming summits. And there, I'd like to
00:59:48invite the expert insights on that. That's a great final question for everybody. But one more right back
00:59:53here from the lady. Okay. Thank you. Okay. My name is Julie Wen. I'm from Tsinghua University, China.
01:00:00So I have a question. I'm an expert in Middle East. Right now, we can see many cows in Middle
01:00:05East, right? So I just
01:00:06have one question. Me too. Alison and Professor Zhao, is there any possible for China and the US to find
01:00:12a way out for the country now? I mean, to find some cooperation way? Is there any possible for that?
01:00:20Yeah. In the Middle East? Yeah, in the Middle East. Okay. So we have no time. So we're each going
01:00:25to take
01:00:25one minute or 30 seconds. And just, you know, was the summit for real? And is there a possibility for
01:00:32cooperation? And I guess you have to also maybe tackle the, is there enough capital question? So please.
01:00:38I would say, first of all, it's absolutely real, because both sides has a statement, put out statements,
01:00:43recognizing there's a strategic stability relationship. So I think constructive strategic
01:00:48stability. So that's real. And secondly, to answer your question, I think we can't really predict what's
01:00:53going to happen in September, because US agenda is changing. But for China is consistent. We now have this
01:00:59new concept. But the second step is to really make it true. So realize the strategic stability. And
01:01:06third one is about agriculture. We just finished the conference between US and China. I think the
01:01:10cooperation will continue. But again, we need to, for the next meeting, take down some of the barriers
01:01:15for both sides to cooperate better. Thank you for putting that on the table, please. Yeah,
01:01:20look, you know, I'm actually quite optimistic, you know, when I see this year versus where we were a couple
01:01:26years ago, like, no one would have predicted kind of where we are now. And I'll take this any day
01:01:31in
01:01:31terms of like, where we are sitting here in 2026, compared to where we're in 2023, sitting from a
01:01:36kind of China, you know, global relations perspective, you know, I think that what's
01:01:41actually very interesting is that I don't think those answers will ever be clear, right? I think that we
01:01:46will have to live with ambiguity, uncertainty, and all this. And that's where I think as business
01:01:53leaders, as community leaders, right, we'll just have to think about resilience in a very different
01:01:57way, where there are no clarity, no clear answers, but you kind of have to wade through. I think right
01:02:02now, in many ways, businesses have already, you know, adjusted to new reality, which I think is
01:02:08actually fantastic to see. And I think that we're more resilient than we ever have been, which I think
01:02:13is a great thing for everyone. Thank you. Please. I pick up on that, too. I think that we are
01:02:17more
01:02:18resilient. Because I think the thing that was done is that the summit, it doesn't almost matter how
01:02:25much detail they can answer afterward. It happened. And they made a commitment to keep talking. And
01:02:31things just take a while to progress. I think almost better to have the ambiguity and know that we're
01:02:37out there doing that. And as far as the Middle East goes, I would bet a lot of money that
01:02:42there are
01:02:43discussions behind the scenes where China has been involved in helping to fix the problem.
01:02:49Final comment from you, and I will say, Professor Allison, the optimism I appreciate and respect,
01:02:54and I know it's coming in from a certain perspective. But in your field and my field,
01:02:58we have seen more conflict, more death than we've seen in decades. This is not a great period.
01:03:03And both the United States and China, you know, have some sort of role in all of this.
01:03:08So to the question, was the summit for real? I would say yes. Does the road ahead look promising?
01:03:16Yes. Compared again to what? But if we go back to the fundamentals,
01:03:22the structural reality is 75% of what's happening. Right. So again, left to their own devices,
01:03:30normal, natural behaviors of countries, companies, politics, leaders will lead to history as usual.
01:03:39History as usual will be a catastrophic conflict. If Thucydides were betting it, or if I were betting
01:03:45it today, I would say in the next generation, it's likely that it ends in a catastrophic war.
01:03:51Goodness, really. You can't end on that note.
01:03:54But don't.
01:03:56No. Quickly and end, because we're over time. Quickly, we should go have a drink. No, no.
01:04:01That's the challenge. That's the challenge. There should have been already World War III.
01:04:08It didn't happen, not by accident, not by taking things for granted, because people appreciate it. Building
01:04:14peace is a huge undertaking and requires constant work and requires a lot of imagination and requires
01:04:22dealing with complicated situations. So I think the good news is that both President Xi and President
01:04:28Trump talk about war would be catastrophic for everything we care about. So we have to do what
01:04:35we can, given this great contradiction, to manage this process. And I think they're trying to do that.
01:04:41I think, actually, in laying out this picture of the future, constructive strategic stability,
01:04:49as Wang Yi said, this is not the end of the story. We haven't given you a whole blueprint for
01:04:54this.
01:04:55We've given you a pointer. And we're asking, actually, the broader community, including people like us,
01:05:00the analytic community, or the business community, help fill this in, help make it a reality. So I'm hopeful on
01:05:08that side.
01:05:09Hopeful. And the task has been laid. Thank you so much to everybody. This was a great panel. Thank you.
Comments