Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Odd Laws podcast.
Speaker 3: I'm joll Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2: Tracy, you know, we talk all the time about US
Speaker 2: China relations, multiple times a month, games for obvious reasons
Speaker 2: we need. We usually get it from something resembling a
Speaker 2: US perspective, not always, but I think it's a bit skewed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there is a geographic bias at play, for sure,
Speaker 3: a linguistic one, yes, But you're right, there is always
Speaker 3: a lot going on with US China relations, and especially recently.
Speaker 3: Right So we're recording this on September sixteenth, and we
Speaker 3: have Chinese and American officials gathering in I think it's
Speaker 3: Madrid to talk trade, try to hammer out some sort
Speaker 3: of deal on the tear. By the time this episode
Speaker 3: comes out, maybe US China relations will have changed completely.
Speaker 3: But somehow I doubt it.
Speaker 2: There's going to be some new era of peace. Everything
Speaker 2: is going to be solved, There's going to be no
Speaker 2: more anxiety about trade, A TikTok deal will have been
Speaker 2: made with the perfect algorithm that satisfies everyone everything. No,
Speaker 2: probably unlikely. Probably we are going to be talking about
Speaker 2: some version of this for a long time. I don't
Speaker 2: want say, you know, it's not like our perspectives are
Speaker 2: just strictly US. You know, we talked to Cameron Johnson
Speaker 2: who works in China regularly, so it's not none. But
Speaker 2: we obviously have to change the mix up.
Speaker 3: I admire your efforts at being on partisan.
Speaker 2: Well cross border. You know, we have to still do
Speaker 2: it via zoom obviously. But isn't this a long historic
Speaker 2: trying to try like build build dialogue between multiple sides
Speaker 2: and get multiple perspectives in the hopes of achieving something.
Speaker 3: All I'm gonna say is we need to go to Beijing,
Speaker 3: mostly for the food, but also for in her US
Speaker 3: China dialogue.
Speaker 2: The dream is that in twenty twenty six US Alive.
Speaker 2: It's in Beijing. We're putting it out into the world
Speaker 2: right now, and I hope that we can manifest it
Speaker 2: into existence. Yes, all right, Well, I am really excited
Speaker 2: to say that in these efforts, we really do have
Speaker 2: the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Henry Wong.
Speaker 2: Here's the founder and president for the Center for China
Speaker 2: and Globalization. It's the largest independent think tank in China.
Speaker 2: Someone perfectly placed to talk about all of these topics
Speaker 2: from a Chinese perspective that we don't usually get. So Henry,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for coming on the.
Speaker 4: Podcast, and thank you, yeah that plessure. What is the.
Speaker 2: Center for China and Globalization? Why did you found it?
Speaker 2: What is its goal? And what is this independent think
Speaker 2: tank that exists?
Speaker 4: Yes, we actually founded since twenty two oh eight. Actually, yeah,
Speaker 4: right after the Beijing Olympic. You know, at that time,
Speaker 4: you know, when we watched the Beijing Olympic, the slogan
Speaker 4: for the Olympics then was one word, one dream. So
Speaker 4: I thought that that's actually it's a globalization and Chinie
Speaker 4: actually embarked on a globalization year because I think Olympic,
Speaker 4: Beijing Olympics in two eight was something that China's started
Speaker 4: to read about globally. And so that's where we start
Speaker 4: to found this think tank. At first, I have to
Speaker 4: take all of the savings. You know, I was doing
Speaker 4: all the business before, but we really want to study.
Speaker 4: But I really have found this thing tank that can't
Speaker 4: combine my experience in a government, business and academic and
Speaker 4: also you know, since then, it's seventeen eighteen years now
Speaker 4: and we become one of the top one hundred think
Speaker 4: tank in the world, actually ranked four times in the
Speaker 4: top hundred by the University of Pennsylvania Think Tank and
Speaker 4: the Service Society Program. So, so CCG, you know, abbreviation
Speaker 4: for Santa Ma China is a bridge. Is a communication platform,
Speaker 4: dialogue platform, and also it's a research platform for big issues,
Speaker 4: policy issues regarding US and China, gobal governance, golobal economy,
Speaker 4: and of course goobal migration. So just to name a few.
Speaker 4: But since then we've been doing Okay, we had about
Speaker 4: over sixty seventy people, and we've been based in Beijing
Speaker 4: and Honju and Guangdo, a few places in China, and
Speaker 4: we've been very active. We're doing one hundred event a year.
Speaker 4: We published a dozen books and multiple reports. So thank
Speaker 4: you for asking that.
Speaker 3: So you described the center as something of a bridge,
Speaker 3: and I was reading an Economist article from a couple
Speaker 3: of years ago where you yourself are described as something
Speaker 3: of a go between for technocratic government ministries, Chinese entrepreneurs,
Speaker 3: and foreign embassies in Beijing. So my question is, how
Speaker 3: busy have you been lately?
Speaker 4: We are pretty busy. I just give you a few
Speaker 4: examples for example, last week I was in sham and
Speaker 4: attending September eight the twenty five annual China Investment and
Speaker 4: Business Forum and Export. There the Vice Premier Relifone, who
Speaker 4: is now in Madrid talking with Scott Basin, was there
Speaker 4: opening up that forum, and so I was speaking at
Speaker 4: the keynote speaker at one of the Bricks Summit conference there.
Speaker 4: But also just Friday Santava, China hold another conference at
Speaker 4: China International Service Export, you know, held in Beijing, where
Speaker 4: there's another one hundred some countries come as well. And
Speaker 4: yesterday we had our seventeen's mostly VIP launching, and we
Speaker 4: have attend ambassadors from European, from Japan, from Turkey, from
Speaker 4: many other countries, quite a member from European countries, and
Speaker 4: just yesterday with fifty people I'm represented in China. We
Speaker 4: have a lot of multinational global media. And also of
Speaker 4: course last night I attend relevant riception the US members
Speaker 4: a hold the reception were becoming the new Deputy Head
Speaker 4: of the Mission, mister Gregg, and he actually made an
Speaker 4: action speech there. He said, the China and the US
Speaker 4: relation now rather than in the past. I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: I know that in the past we had a lot
Speaker 4: of a strategic rivalry, but the new head of a
Speaker 4: new deputy head of the US mission here in China
Speaker 4: and said, now we should put a strategic stability. He's
Speaker 4: not talking about strategic arriving now, So it's the strategical
Speaker 4: stability you maintained a US channel relation and Secretary of
Speaker 4: Rubio also said that in July. So it's very encouraging
Speaker 4: to see the thing going on. But that's also shows
Speaker 4: how busy we are meeting all the peoples and talking
Speaker 4: to all the parties and the business too.
Speaker 2: I get that various people might describe an ambition for stability,
Speaker 2: it does not typically feel like it when I read
Speaker 2: the headlines that this is a stable relationship for various reasons,
Speaker 2: particularly the headlines that come out of the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: which strike me as volatile. Setting aside what you hear
Speaker 2: from officials, whether at the embassy or the State Department.
Speaker 2: Does it feel like that is the trajectory, because it
Speaker 2: certainly feels, especially over the last ten years, that when
Speaker 2: I was younger, the relationship felt something more like stability,
Speaker 2: and at these days it's much more about rivalry and
Speaker 2: anxiety about potential conflict.
Speaker 4: That's right, I agree with you. I think that basically
Speaker 4: because of this deterioration since the first Trump administration in
Speaker 4: twenty seventeen and now eight years later, the resion does
Speaker 4: really go down quite a lot already. And because in
Speaker 4: the twenty seventeen the National Security Committee of US has
Speaker 4: put a strategic report and according China a strategic rivalry
Speaker 4: number one, I mean before Russia. Actually, so we see that.
Speaker 4: Since then we had a trade war and the tire war.
Speaker 4: But this second term, somehow I felt well in China
Speaker 4: a bit more, you know, getting used to this kind
Speaker 4: of tariff trade war. And China is also better prepared
Speaker 4: than the other countries because we already experienced in the
Speaker 4: first trum administration. So now I think also china economy
Speaker 4: is second only to the US. The two countries are
Speaker 4: too much independence among each other. And so, you know,
Speaker 4: because geo politically, we are really looking very bad. And
Speaker 4: then I think the consensus on post government is that
Speaker 4: we need to look for some stability because we can't
Speaker 4: change each other. We cannot wepe, you know, delete each other.
Speaker 4: We have to coexist and peacefully. And that's probably the
Speaker 4: conclusion that we're getting there. And so we have to
Speaker 4: seek a common ground and the coexisting even we are
Speaker 4: having a lot of different views and ideas.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned just then the idea of the world's
Speaker 3: two biggest economies being more dependent on each other. Perhaps
Speaker 3: less so nowadays, but over I guess the decades of
Speaker 3: the early two thousands, certainly they grew more dependent on
Speaker 3: each other because of globalization. And this is something that
Speaker 3: I wanted to ask you, which is, what exactly is
Speaker 3: China's definition or understanding of globalization. And I ask this
Speaker 3: because I think in the West it's sort of generally
Speaker 3: thought of as this process of more countries trading with
Speaker 3: each other and again becoming more economically dependent on each other.
Speaker 3: But there's also this sort of social element that's also
Speaker 3: in there, because I think the assumption was always that
Speaker 3: as countries trade more with each other, they're going to
Speaker 3: start sharing, you know, values, whether those are political or social.
Speaker 3: And I'm curious if globalization is thought of the same
Speaker 3: way in China.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that in China because it was a
Speaker 4: late commerce you know, for example, you see the globalization
Speaker 4: in the nineteenth century, which is, you know, Britain invented
Speaker 4: the steam power that led the industrial revolution, in nineteenth
Speaker 4: century and twentieth century. American invented the internet, computers and
Speaker 4: digital and US has led in the twentieth century. I
Speaker 4: think twenty first century Chinese is also you know coming
Speaker 4: up now for example on green power, Chinese leading on evs,
Speaker 4: on the solar panels and also the wind power and
Speaker 4: other sea But in the compalization concept in the Chinese
Speaker 4: mind is really more referred to the economic coorgalization because
Speaker 4: because that's the benefit they're getting substantially. For example, eight
Speaker 4: hundred million people has been lifted out of property since
Speaker 4: China embraced opening up, basically embraced the globalization. And then
Speaker 4: you can see China now is the largest trading nation
Speaker 4: or major trading nation with one fifty seven countries around
Speaker 4: the world. And also furthermore, China is have since the
Speaker 4: opening up in the last forty seven years, China's about
Speaker 4: almost ten million student study the board, I mean almost
Speaker 4: half of that in the United States. So that means cooplization.
Speaker 4: I think there's a.
Speaker 5: Flow of people, flow of talent, flow of goods, you know,
Speaker 5: in connect connectivities fast you know, stock marketing, exchange listed
Speaker 5: with each other, and also business doing. You know, there
Speaker 5: are seventy thousand US company operating in China generating seven
Speaker 5: hundred billion revenues here in China.
Speaker 4: And also you know Apple will make eighteen ninety percent
Speaker 4: of his iPhone in China, and Tesla make fifty percent
Speaker 4: of its evy cars in China, and one Apprecious about
Speaker 4: sixty percent. That's a surprise from China. So I think
Speaker 4: that's probably the colation in China felt the substantial benefit
Speaker 4: probably for both Chinese and as American consumers. They are
Speaker 4: less ideological, but they're more probably on an economic sense
Speaker 4: that globalizations really bring them a lot of a good
Speaker 4: and benefits. Example, since China John A. W Two, twenty eleven,
Speaker 4: Chinese GENIP has gone up thirteen fourteen times. So that
Speaker 4: really I think in the minds of Chinese when they
Speaker 4: talk about globalization, they're really talking about joining economic orbalization
Speaker 4: rather than the global securitization. They don't want to see
Speaker 4: the Arcust, they don't want to see the Quad. They
Speaker 4: don't want to see Camp David of Korea, Japan and
Speaker 4: all those security or NATO move into Asia, that kind
Speaker 4: of militarized globalization. They want to see more economic clublizations.
Speaker 2: I'm a huge personal beneficiary of these students, of living
Speaker 2: in the East Village, where there's been an absolute explosion
Speaker 2: of amazing Chinese restaurants in my neighborhood of New York
Speaker 2: City because there's so many students there. So I'm personally
Speaker 2: very invested in this trend continuing. But let's talk a
Speaker 2: little bit more about the security angle. You've actually written
Speaker 2: somewhat recently that China could play some role in the eventual,
Speaker 2: hopeful end of Russia's war with Ukraine. But we don't
Speaker 2: tend to associate the Chinese government with playing an active
Speaker 2: role in global conflicts not directly near the borders, including
Speaker 2: Israel and Gaza, which we should talk about too. But
Speaker 2: when it comes to something, you know, when it comes
Speaker 2: to the Russia Ukraine war that tends to be focused
Speaker 2: on the Europeans, the role that US will play. Is
Speaker 2: there going to be a point in the near future
Speaker 2: or is there something we're missing where China sees this
Speaker 2: conflict that is far from its direct borders and wants
Speaker 2: to play a more activist role in bringing peace or
Speaker 2: is this something that is only associated with the sort
Speaker 2: of American style, Western led style of globalization.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's probably now the world is. I
Speaker 4: mean I was at Munich Security Conference kickoff meeting Berlin
Speaker 4: earlier this year with the chairman of the Munich Secure Conference.
Speaker 4: The issue the report I was discussing. On that report
Speaker 4: they called multipolarity. So we're getting into multipolar war. I mean,
Speaker 4: China suddenly become one part of of this multipolar war
Speaker 4: and then you can see what happened in the Russian
Speaker 4: Ukraine War. There it's getting nowhere. We had Alaska sammit.
Speaker 4: That's why I published up the Foreign Policy two days
Speaker 4: before the Alaska SAMI. Basically, I suggest that if you
Speaker 4: as a defense secretary, I heard him saying at the
Speaker 4: Munich Security Conference that the one peace making troops coming
Speaker 4: from European countries and non European countries. So what'll be
Speaker 4: by now European countries? So I think that countries could
Speaker 4: be these brick countries from China, India, Brazil, you know,
Speaker 4: South Africa or Turkey, whatever, bricks countries. But basically, again
Speaker 4: you see that when Trump actually after the Alaska talking
Speaker 4: to G seven at White House, put an actor talked
Speaker 4: to President Ship before he's Alaska and talked to Lulah
Speaker 4: talk to Moody and talk to the person of South
Speaker 4: Africa after the Alaska So I think that I recently
Speaker 4: seen macomb proposing that let's have twenty six European countries
Speaker 4: troops placed into Ukraine. But that get very strong reaction
Speaker 4: from Russia that Putting is that okay? For that is
Speaker 4: the case that we regard it as a NATO violation
Speaker 4: or something. So we see that the excuse for Putting
Speaker 4: to start the war is because the Natal troops are
Speaker 4: puaching Russian border. I mean, after three and a half years
Speaker 4: fighted me, you have a NATO European troops there again,
Speaker 4: I mean he will not probably ending that war easy.
Speaker 4: So I think a more extra guarantee for this peace
Speaker 4: making in addition to NATO, EU and and also US,
Speaker 4: let's get China, India, Brazil, those the largest buyers of
Speaker 4: Russian energy product and what else is really an extra
Speaker 4: safe keeping for the for the border. And then by
Speaker 4: having Chinese peace keeping force there, it will really you know,
Speaker 4: make you know, make Russia difficult to violate that peace
Speaker 4: border because you know, China has a lot of influence
Speaker 4: on Russia. Same for India, same for Brazil. So so
Speaker 4: I think that we're in there is this, We're stuck
Speaker 4: in this. You know, Trump says, you know, he started
Speaker 4: to sanction again. You're not going anywhere. But I think
Speaker 4: by adding the China bricks element, we probably see a
Speaker 4: more security piece that's going to happen.
Speaker 3: M What does China actually think its role in the
Speaker 3: world should be? And we talked about its role economically
Speaker 3: and the idea of globalization, but setting aside economies when
Speaker 3: it comes to geopolitical security, be what exactly does China
Speaker 3: want to be?
Speaker 4: Yes, well, thank you, I think. But basically China is
Speaker 4: a large country, of course, but it's basically agriculture culture.
Speaker 4: You know, it's basically you have a five thousand years history,
Speaker 4: I interrupt the civilization. It based on agriculture economy. The
Speaker 4: farmers cultivated along the Yan's River and the Yellow River,
Speaker 4: and the confusion said, if your parents alive, don't travel
Speaker 4: far away, and then you can only cultivate the land
Speaker 4: for seasons that they can grow enough vegetables and wheat
Speaker 4: and grain to feed yourself. So it's really that kind
Speaker 4: of a culture cultivated the culture of China, and they
Speaker 4: are not really a nation on horses or like Mongolias.
Speaker 4: They're going to expeditions or going to have a connalize
Speaker 4: any places. In the mid Dallas there's a Marshall called
Speaker 4: had a big expedition trips beyond almost to Africa. Also,
Speaker 4: you know as young country socialization, they never they never
Speaker 4: stayed anywhere, they never occupy any places. They all returned
Speaker 4: seven times. It was even earlier than Columbia. So you see,
Speaker 4: that is really the culture China has until now, for
Speaker 4: the last forty years, China hasn't started any wars, stand
Speaker 4: any soul journeywhere, or colonize any place, or invaded any
Speaker 4: other country. So I think geopolitically, we had this big
Speaker 4: parade on September third to commemorate in the Second World War.
Speaker 4: But I think China has produced enough deteriories so that
Speaker 4: you know, probably if they are in any hot conflict,
Speaker 4: they have enough defenses to deter in that. So if
Speaker 4: we cannot have a nuclear or hot war to mutually
Speaker 4: assure destruction, then the only thing remains is peaceful competition
Speaker 4: on the economy, on the soft power, on the culture,
Speaker 4: on the people to people exchanges. So I think China
Speaker 4: wants to really see, let's have a level print field
Speaker 4: and let's really compete on the economic China now is
Speaker 4: having seventy percent of Go Go speed, the railway, five
Speaker 4: gen networks of the world, out of the ten largest
Speaker 4: container ports, several of them in China. China also has
Speaker 4: thirteen million college graduate every year, and you know, they
Speaker 4: have a lot of the things that they are doing
Speaker 4: on their own and also on energy installation now They're
Speaker 4: electricity consumption is two point five times of US, three
Speaker 4: times of Europe now and in terms of green power,
Speaker 4: China has produced a fifteen to sixteen million EV cars
Speaker 4: total number will be thirty million, and they have a
Speaker 4: sixteen million charges stations in China everywhere, you know, very
Speaker 4: convenient to charge your EV carnal. So I think, you know,
Speaker 4: they want to public compete in those area rather than geopolitically.
Speaker 4: So I think maybe if China can play some maintains
Speaker 4: on peace keeping would be great because China is the
Speaker 4: largest the peace keeping budget contributed to the UN. China
Speaker 4: is the largest peace keeping sending force amount the P
Speaker 4: five countries, so China can do more peacekeeping and also economically,
Speaker 4: you know, China larned the money initiative about the ROW initiative,
Speaker 4: China just did summit in Tangine where they is so Bank.
Speaker 4: They have a bricks Bank, New Development Bank, so they're
Speaker 4: doing all this kind of economic stuff. I think that's
Speaker 4: how they view the world should be intertwined the more
Speaker 4: economically business wise, rather than we are really divided according
Speaker 4: to the ideological divided according to democracy versus autocracy, and
Speaker 4: divided by you know this this east or West. So
Speaker 4: there's many things. I think China is thinking a little differently.
Speaker 2: You mentioned the United Nations, and there's sort of this
Speaker 2: question about the relevant or the vitality of a lot
Speaker 2: of these Western developed multilateral organizations wto being among them,
Speaker 2: but you specifically in your vision, maybe China's vision, or
Speaker 2: maybe there's distinct Is it's important to breathe new life
Speaker 2: into these organizations or is there a new set of organizations,
Speaker 2: including some of the ones that China has set up itself,
Speaker 2: whether it's the be r I, whether we're talking about
Speaker 2: the Bricks, whether it talk about some of these others.
Speaker 2: Is the future more okay? If we're going to have
Speaker 2: this sort of new style of globalization, we actually genuinely
Speaker 2: need new organizations rather than the husks of the organizations
Speaker 2: that were sort of built out of the Western liberal order.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, I think that's that's quite true. I have written
Speaker 4: to Listen to Me, wrote the book about my dialogue
Speaker 4: with grand Allison, the funding thing of Havard Coundedy School,
Speaker 4: which have become a very good seller in China now
Speaker 4: also English wise. Basically, we find that in our dialogue
Speaker 4: we talk about US China relations as con John tweens.
Speaker 4: You know, we cannot separate each other. You know, if
Speaker 4: we want to separate each other, we end up damage ourself.
Speaker 4: So that's a given. So we should avoid the so
Speaker 4: he hit his trap that Grandma isn't famously defined. But
Speaker 4: also on the other hand, we should also avoid the
Speaker 4: Kinderberger trap, which means that when new rising power starting
Speaker 4: to catching up existing number one power, there's a vacuum
Speaker 4: in the global public goods like when US was taking
Speaker 4: place in UK, there's a lot of a missing linking points.
Speaker 4: You know, we've got big recession in the in the thirties,
Speaker 4: nineteen thirties and things like that. So China actually is
Speaker 4: US is now put a bit back on its policy.
Speaker 4: Now it's become a mega you know, make me first,
Speaker 4: make me great again, and rather than there's no country. Really,
Speaker 4: it's looking at the gob of public goods. So that's
Speaker 4: what China is now. China has not backed on a
Speaker 4: climate change agreement. China strongly support that and China has
Speaker 4: developed a very clime friendly environment now and we reach
Speaker 4: cobon neutral and combon peak ahead of time.
Speaker 2: But just to be clear, these legacy organizations, specifically like
Speaker 2: the U, China feel like these are their bets that
Speaker 2: China is intended to make, that these are going to
Speaker 2: be important institutions or are they fading like many legacy institutions,
Speaker 2: And that the sort of new more stable order that
Speaker 2: you may envision doesn't have to be with a fresh
Speaker 2: set of multilateral international organizations.
Speaker 4: No. I think China is a strong support of existing
Speaker 4: UN system, and as president, she just recently proposed the
Speaker 4: Global Governance institu I mean on five point two or
Speaker 4: three point he was emphasized the UN principal view and
Speaker 4: chant of UN and also we can't help he has
Speaker 4: improved and make it better, but we should not just restart.
Speaker 4: But on the other hand, we see you also getting
Speaker 4: quite a marginalized and there's a be awakening and for example,
Speaker 4: China become a second largest donor to the UN budget
Speaker 4: now close to you has almost no difference now and
Speaker 4: also when US putting out of who, China committed the
Speaker 4: five hundred million US dollars who and when you know
Speaker 4: W two is marginal, China is working with your Europeans
Speaker 4: to do that. But furthermore, I think China is still
Speaker 4: the only public big country, one of the largest economies
Speaker 4: still proposing economic corporations like a Belgium ROA initiative. For
Speaker 4: the last twelve thirteen years, Chinese invest over one trillion
Speaker 4: US dollars for three thousand projects. And also furthermore, China
Speaker 4: has started the China Africa Economic Summit, China and Latin
Speaker 4: American Economic SUMMI, China and US CEO Economic Summit, and
Speaker 4: China Central Asia and China Arab Economic su So it's
Speaker 4: all economy related. And furthermore, and while Persident Trump has
Speaker 4: raised in one hundred some country tariff, China announced they're
Speaker 4: they're going to reduce the tariff of fifty three least
Speaker 4: development country tariff zero for coming to China. So you
Speaker 4: can see the contrast there. So I think China is
Speaker 4: really providing enough public goods to fill some to vacuum
Speaker 4: US is backing off on development on the global sal
Speaker 4: and on the on the US system. You know, Chinese
Speaker 4: US are putting off the UNICO Chinese that was a
Speaker 4: big support of UNISICO, UH and so and so forth.
Speaker 4: So so I think China is doing a lot of
Speaker 4: that kind of activities now.
Speaker 3: When it comes to US China relations. You know, you
Speaker 3: mentioned that your book was selling well in China. I'm
Speaker 3: really curious what is the biggest misunderstanding or the biggest
Speaker 3: concern that you hear from Chinese people on the ground
Speaker 3: when it comes to US policy. And I realized it's
Speaker 3: a little bit unfair word treating you as a spokesman
Speaker 3: for an entire country and China. We don't intend to
Speaker 3: do that, but I'd be curious, like, what sort of
Speaker 3: questions do you get on a daily basis from the
Speaker 3: average Chinese person about America and what it's doing well.
Speaker 4: I think the biggest throwing point basically that the bother
Speaker 4: of the ordinary Chinese that we see the US you know,
Speaker 4: navies coming to Chinese Ivan Street or South Channel Sea
Speaker 4: or quite often we see you know, airplan patrol in
Speaker 4: this part of the world. We never see Chinese aircraft
Speaker 4: or Navy go to Hawaii or go to Caribbean. You know,
Speaker 4: we never see that, but we see the US military
Speaker 4: persons very strong. We had the forty thousand US a
Speaker 4: minitary personnality in South Korea. It's just just neighboring China
Speaker 4: and another I don't know how many, you know, it's
Speaker 4: quite thirty forty thousand public in Japan and we have
Speaker 4: now in Philippine. And then they have also miss cells,
Speaker 4: mid range miss sells place there and also they're going
Speaker 4: to place new missiles in Japan now and South Korea.
Speaker 4: So those of them actually bought because because China felt
Speaker 4: you know, Taiwan is part of China, and certainly the
Speaker 4: people in the USA, oh, China's or democracy. We have
Speaker 4: the defender, but China has a Chinese style democracy. Maritocracy
Speaker 4: also works perfect, you know, not perfect, but at least
Speaker 4: to work well for this most populous country in the world.
Speaker 4: So I think, you know, we all have a different
Speaker 4: governor style. But just because our governor style is with you,
Speaker 4: and then that's why you need to because Taiwan, because
Speaker 4: the reason for the protecting Taiwan is Taiwan is the democracy.
Speaker 4: Say that we have to protect that but I think
Speaker 4: you know, China can also absorbing that. And you know,
Speaker 4: China promised to Taiwan, you know, no tax to be
Speaker 4: given to federal government, a lot of autonomy, and China
Speaker 4: announced that Taiwan Taiwanese will be free to walk in
Speaker 4: the mayland. You know, no visa needed, anything needed. We
Speaker 4: already two million taiwan Is working to mainland, and there's
Speaker 4: half a million husband wife married across the street. And
Speaker 4: then before tai when you know formal person of Taiwan,
Speaker 4: you know, there's six million mayland flooded the Taiwan with tourism.
Speaker 4: Send me the money spending restaurant, hotels. You know, there
Speaker 4: was almost integrated already if not for the four interference.
Speaker 4: So I think the Chinese said, okay, please maybe just
Speaker 4: let us peacefully unified, like like Germany you had the
Speaker 4: you know East Germany, West Germany unified, and let's also
Speaker 4: hope in North Korea sALS Care unified. So basically they
Speaker 4: were really looking for less interference on that. And so
Speaker 4: I think that would be greatly improve in the reason
Speaker 4: because in the communicate that the established three Communicate China
Speaker 4: US have it said very clear US will not maintained.
Speaker 4: You know, we're just named the normal time, no official times.
Speaker 4: But then we see US officials, parliament managary Nazi policy
Speaker 4: keep visiting Taiwan or Taiwanese leaders coming to the visiting US.
Speaker 4: So those in public about a bit of ordinary Chinese.
Speaker 4: But of course again win then of course US was
Speaker 4: a world place man for a long time. But now
Speaker 4: we see many countries also the governt model is not
Speaker 4: working perfectly. We have all the domestic issues, US has it,
Speaker 4: European has it, All the countries has that. But China
Speaker 4: on the other and seems maintain a pretty good status.
Speaker 4: And that's also keep lifting people out of property. So
Speaker 4: I think they should give China some credit for doing
Speaker 4: that rather than okay, is always shown in front of
Speaker 4: the China's those steps, and you have a US parade
Speaker 4: of military muscles all the time, So that's a bit
Speaker 4: of bothered for the Chinese.
Speaker 2: Basically, when you think about China's relationship with the other
Speaker 2: bricks countries, with African countries, with the global South country
Speaker 2: so to speak, have you seen substantive changes in those relationships,
Speaker 2: specifically since the wake of October twenty twenty three and
Speaker 2: the start of the war on Gaza and countries sort
Speaker 2: of rethinking. You know, has this prompted a concrete rethinking
Speaker 2: about you know, you said the US was the global
Speaker 2: policeman and a lot of people have perceived that in
Speaker 2: the wake of this ongoing war. Has there been a
Speaker 2: substantive change the way countries want to have a relationship
Speaker 2: with China.
Speaker 4: Well, absolutely, you can. You know, this show was for
Speaker 4: the first time you see China Asian Summit at the
Speaker 4: g CC. You know, golf countries all came to CM.
Speaker 4: So you had the first China Asian CC Summit. And
Speaker 4: now you can see also the bricks countries expanding that.
Speaker 4: You had the you know, UAE was there, and there's
Speaker 4: a lot of you know, Middle Eastern countries really coming
Speaker 4: to China. You have you also have the s Shaha
Speaker 4: Corporation summit. Recently, you had the Turkey, you had the
Speaker 4: Iranian president. You have a lot of people from that region.
Speaker 4: So I think China's road does play because China, for example,
Speaker 4: a few years ago, China clinched do between Saudis and
Speaker 4: Iranians rather than you know, we're seeing the current chaos
Speaker 4: going on. China also causing the fourteen different fractions of
Speaker 4: Palestinian group had aging Palestinian decoration, and China could publicly
Speaker 4: do more in making a peace promoting peace between and Palestinian.
Speaker 4: China also maintained good religion in the past with issue.
Speaker 4: So I think that sooner or later, probably those countries
Speaker 4: we realize that we cannot really let just what happened
Speaker 4: that gods are the humanitarian crisis that you know, deaths
Speaker 4: of thousands and tens of thousands of people, what happened
Speaker 4: you're living on a daily basis, I mean, where is
Speaker 4: where is the where is the you know, children are
Speaker 4: dying and all these things, so that kind of justice.
Speaker 4: Where is the justice? Now? So of course there's there's
Speaker 4: there's always problem to start with, but I think we
Speaker 4: cannot because a two round doesn't make it right. I
Speaker 4: really think that we should continue to have this international
Speaker 4: moral power that the United Nations Security Council should really
Speaker 4: exercise rather than you know, being vtled all the time.
Speaker 4: So I'm thinking, you know, China public could play more
Speaker 4: role in the future. But that's that's let's solve this
Speaker 4: Quinn crisis. If the if the breaks country peace making
Speaker 4: can happen. Uh left by China and I'm sure that
Speaker 4: model could be applied to other conflicts in other regions.
Speaker 4: China also trying to You can see Prime Minister Moodie
Speaker 4: and the Prime Minister of Pakistan was at the same
Speaker 4: type a few months after fighting in China, and we
Speaker 4: said Armenia and Azerbaijab president coming to sing in Tanging
Speaker 4: as well. So probably China is its building up its
Speaker 4: mediating power and peace keeping power as time goes on.
Speaker 3: M just going back to globalization for a second. I
Speaker 3: think everyone agrees, and you've already talked about this, that
Speaker 3: China has been a huge beneficiary from globalization over time,
Speaker 3: but I get the sense that there is still of
Speaker 3: feeling within China that some aspects of the global economic
Speaker 3: order or trade agreements are unfair to China. How do
Speaker 3: you sort of square that tension and where do you
Speaker 3: think the concern or the worries over unfairness actually comes from.
Speaker 3: And by the way, I could ask this question to
Speaker 3: American officials as well, Like the US is a massive
Speaker 3: beneficiary of the global economic order, and yet the Trump
Speaker 3: administration clearly feels very aggrieved about America's place in the world.
Speaker 3: But when it comes to China, like where does the
Speaker 3: sense of unfairness actually come from.
Speaker 4: Well, there's quite a few actually. You see. One of
Speaker 4: the things that US was treating the pure deficit. That's
Speaker 4: the only reason they started tire for war. I was
Speaker 4: giving a talk just the last April to a few
Speaker 4: months ago at the UN Security Council where they called
Speaker 4: a specially arena meeting in New York. Eighty countries representably
Speaker 4: un participated. Where I gave a speech there. I was
Speaker 4: saying that for example, US only looking at the goods deficit,
Speaker 4: you know, merchandise compasite, but all of that deficit was
Speaker 4: maybe you know, thirty forty fifty percent was produced by
Speaker 4: multinational thirty percent by US. For example, out of the
Speaker 4: four hundred billion deficit, the Trump is a levy on
Speaker 4: China's three hundred some billion deficit. He immediately waived one
Speaker 4: hundred billion because a lot of the companies are made
Speaker 4: goods in China. Apple has to source their iPhone from India,
Speaker 4: but it's not enough, so they have to lift that
Speaker 4: sanctions on those deficits. Anyway, and there's a lot of
Speaker 4: inter time. But also US and joined one trillion dollar
Speaker 4: trade surplus on the service tree. They're not counting that.
Speaker 4: And also the calculation about China's export. For example, every
Speaker 4: every phone we made in China, I've iPhone made here,
Speaker 4: China probably made the labor costs, you know, eighty percent
Speaker 4: was made by multinationals, even cars the same. So why
Speaker 4: is just purely looking at the trade deficit numbers. A
Speaker 4: lot of money was not made in China, was made
Speaker 4: by international multinational companies and they're not sending back to
Speaker 4: the country. So that's why I agree with the President
Speaker 4: Trump to have more investment back to US because multinational
Speaker 4: made a lot of money in China and elsewhere, but
Speaker 4: they should really investment back rather than putting the tax heavens.
Speaker 4: So that's why the Global minimum taps proposed by OECD
Speaker 4: has a great by over one hundreds some countries, but
Speaker 4: it's not practiced yet on that now. So that's what aspect.
Speaker 4: The other spect I could say is the for example,
Speaker 4: US is starting these sanctions on China, for example, forbidden
Speaker 4: the use selling the chips to China, so that is
Speaker 4: really and also they called in the Trump administration, you know,
Speaker 4: high fance, small yard and all those things. And there's
Speaker 4: one thousand and five hundred Chinese companies on the US
Speaker 4: anti the least. I mean, maybe China has a dozen
Speaker 4: or or two dozen of US companies, but compared with
Speaker 4: the magnitude of US, is too much. Too many over
Speaker 4: the security, over use of the security raises to really
Speaker 4: restrict all the Chinese companies on that. So that really
Speaker 4: become a problem. And so that's why China started to say, okay,
Speaker 4: if chips can be the do use goods, right, you
Speaker 4: can say okay, can be used for security or military.
Speaker 4: The same is true for rare earths right, raiers can
Speaker 4: be making for airplanes, tanks, everything. So when China started
Speaker 4: a little bit on that, that US starting to relax
Speaker 4: on the sale of the chips now quite a bit.
Speaker 4: So you can see, you know, morally, it's the same
Speaker 4: reason if US doing things in the first term, China
Speaker 4: didn't respond like that, but now China starting to respond
Speaker 4: like that. So I think that's why we see quite
Speaker 4: a few agreement made by between US and Chinese off issues,
Speaker 4: because China is much resilient now, much stronger. And also
Speaker 4: US has realized if they really sanctioned so hard on China,
Speaker 4: the Christmas shopping sees that we're coming up the shoves
Speaker 4: will be empty, and we could you know, American consumer
Speaker 4: will suffer and then that going to hurt the Trump space.
Speaker 4: That's why we keep extending. They have these seems more
Speaker 4: they talk to each other, more friendly than talk to
Speaker 4: Indian and Brazil and others. So I think they probably
Speaker 4: realized that too. Lott is economy, they can really organize
Speaker 4: each other. They have to fund the ready to collabor.
Speaker 3: The Christmas shopping season is my personal super Bowl.
Speaker 2: Yes, earlier this year, actually not that long ago, Bloomberg reported,
Speaker 2: So therefore it's absolutely true. It says quote officials in
Speaker 2: Beijing verbally encouraged regulatory agencies and local governments to curb
Speaker 2: technology transfers and equipment exports to India and Southeast Asia.
Speaker 2: And there were some stories about Fox con engineers, for example,
Speaker 2: who may have been part of some sort of moving
Speaker 2: the supply chain of those Apple iPhones, the men part
Speaker 2: of the final assembly perhaps to India. And this report
Speaker 2: that Chinese officials may have been pushing back against it,
Speaker 2: I get like rhetorically, the existing system where American companies
Speaker 2: do a lot of manufacturing or in China has been
Speaker 2: incredibly beneficial. Is China totally comfortable with the fact that
Speaker 2: as part of this globalization, some of this manufacturing may
Speaker 2: end up leaving or is you know, US seeks to
Speaker 2: diversify its sources. Is China comfortable with this?
Speaker 4: China, I think it's pretty comfortable now. And that's why
Speaker 4: China is more confident. For example, in twenty nineteen one,
Speaker 4: before covid Us is largest trading part of China, and
Speaker 4: now US fall into the third place or the first
Speaker 4: place now because URCI become the largest place trading part
Speaker 4: of China since the Asset Regional Comprehensive Partnership Agreement. And
Speaker 4: then that is actually happening because you know, Viennam become
Speaker 4: China FAS's largest trading partner now and Indonesia, Malaysia and
Speaker 4: now expanded to Latin American, you know, most a lot
Speaker 4: of American countries. China is the largest trading partner. And
Speaker 4: also with Africa. Now China lifted all the tariff from
Speaker 4: African countries products to come to China. You will see
Speaker 4: a flot of African products coming to China. So so
Speaker 4: I think you know that probably China doesn't mine. There's
Speaker 4: low maybe a little bit labor entires because the labor
Speaker 4: average labor workerforce micro workers ages forty three years old.
Speaker 4: It's getting old China. So there's a lot of shoemaking
Speaker 4: or you know, low low income labor cost jobs went
Speaker 4: to Vienna went to China. Really doesn't mine now. The
Speaker 4: China now is focused on the high end now. For example,
Speaker 4: Chinese focus on the green power transition.
Speaker 2: No curves like there's no curves as far as like
Speaker 2: from your perspective, there's no impulsive the government to curb
Speaker 2: moving some of these more advanced things again talk about
Speaker 2: iPhones and such to a country like India.
Speaker 4: Not really. I think China still encourage the investment for
Speaker 4: example Bui d or you know, c ATL and I
Speaker 4: know quite a few companies still very bullished investing overseas.
Speaker 4: There may be sensitive military or rare stuff that China
Speaker 4: may be question a little bit, but on the general
Speaker 4: I think things are still quite open.
Speaker 3: Is there an argument to be made that China should
Speaker 3: perhaps open its own economy further if you know, it
Speaker 3: actually desires more economic integration with the rest of the world,
Speaker 3: because we're talking about globalization still. But China still has
Speaker 3: capital controls, still has currency controls, still has some restrictions
Speaker 3: on investment and things like that. Should it be more.
Speaker 4: Open, absolutely, I agree with you. I think China should
Speaker 4: be more open, and that's why we've been that's our
Speaker 4: think time role to promote that. For example, we proposed
Speaker 4: people promoting the visa. Now China has you should beatly
Speaker 4: laterally you should visa for forty some countries in our
Speaker 4: European countries, Australia, Japan, South Korea. I urge also you
Speaker 4: recommend China to policymakers to open visa for US citizens
Speaker 4: for Canadia City this coming to Channel Free. But also
Speaker 4: on the trade policy, I think there should be more
Speaker 4: libilization continuously. I note that the government is located to
Speaker 4: that and fifteen five years plan will probably be even
Speaker 4: more open. Of course, there's always rooms to improve. I
Speaker 4: totally agree. And they have opened a financial sector quite
Speaker 4: a long time ago, and as you said, maybe in
Speaker 4: currency they should be more convertible. And also on the
Speaker 4: on the investment in the culture, in the in the
Speaker 4: in the you know, other areas pharmaceutical and now Channa
Speaker 4: also welcome for university come to China to open their
Speaker 4: branches and do it. I'm on the board of a
Speaker 4: Duke Queensland University in China, which is John Vander between
Speaker 4: Duke University and Huhai University. You know, we have so
Speaker 4: many international student there and Yu shang Hai is operating
Speaker 4: very well, so we hope to have more goloble exchanges.
Speaker 4: I agree with you. You know, there's there's still more rooms.
Speaker 4: That's why I think this kind of talk between China
Speaker 4: and US. Now we see tiktoks almost maybe have a
Speaker 4: deal there, and it's great, so we listen, is this
Speaker 4: start we should continuously talk and engage and reach agreement
Speaker 4: and open up further to acm to each other.
Speaker 3: First comes diplomacy through dance videos, Joe, and then comes
Speaker 3: an easing of currency restrictions.
Speaker 2: Well podcast recordings. Just to be clear, you know, obviously
Speaker 2: we don't expect you to be the representative of the
Speaker 2: entire Chinese perspective, Tracy, and I need to establish that
Speaker 2: we do not represent the entire United States and the
Speaker 2: questions that we have. You mentioned the goods trade deficit,
Speaker 2: and of course one of the things is you know,
Speaker 2: obviously China has gotten up much richer thanks to the
Speaker 2: booming industrial sector. The US has benefited from a lot
Speaker 2: of less expensive, more sophisticated goods that AD buys. But
Speaker 2: there is this source of concern, and I say this,
Speaker 2: you know, a couple of weeks after that military prade,
Speaker 2: there is a source of concern that without a robust
Speaker 2: American manufacturing capacity that we can no longer be a
Speaker 2: powerful military country as well. And I know I do
Speaker 2: not believe it is China's role to sort of helped
Speaker 2: the US figure out its industrial capacity questions. Nonetheless, from
Speaker 2: the perspective, does the US concern make sense to you?
Speaker 2: Perhaps there are things that seem unfair, certain technology transfer restrictions,
Speaker 2: seem counter to the spirit of globalization, et cetera. But
Speaker 2: is the US fundamentally wrong to be concerned there is
Speaker 2: more and more of the world's share, however you want
Speaker 2: to measure it of manufacturing of advanced goods somehow become
Speaker 2: centered around China, that that long term weakened the national
Speaker 2: security position of the United States.
Speaker 4: Well, I think we are now more intertwined. Warnow, there's
Speaker 4: quite a bit of the competitive advantage, like Davi Kanto
Speaker 4: mentioned in many years ago. So what I think US
Speaker 4: is still leading. The US is very good at inventing innovation.
Speaker 4: You see Silicon Valley. You CEI. You know, by the
Speaker 4: way Jason Hulk said, the half of the AA talent's
Speaker 4: coming from China. You know, US is a big harvest
Speaker 4: of Chinese talent too, And that's why we're saying several
Speaker 4: million Chinese student went to the United States. I mean
Speaker 4: probably half of them return still have a remain that
Speaker 4: greatly benefited the US economy. So what I think that
Speaker 4: that is really US is good doing zero to one,
Speaker 4: and maybe China is good at one to one hundred.
Speaker 4: So of the world one hundred university top fifty is
Speaker 4: doing the United States. The reason China did allders of
Speaker 4: manufacturing because as I mentioned, China is seventy percent of
Speaker 4: the global speed railway sixty, golo go five, gen networks ten,
Speaker 4: largest container broad seven. They have the infrastructure to so
Speaker 4: this is a value change supply chain for the world,
Speaker 4: not for China. So maybe in Chinese is made for
Speaker 4: the world. I think US only worried about if they
Speaker 4: can make you cannot make big ships or aircraft. Now
Speaker 4: they go to South Korea to do that now, so
Speaker 4: they still find a way to do that. But I
Speaker 4: don't think that you have to depend totally on the manufacturer.
Speaker 4: So if if if we're leaving the pre uh you know,
Speaker 4: the trade war era, you know where we buy so
Speaker 4: much chips from US China China energy depends on the
Speaker 4: import Channa to spend more money buying the chips than
Speaker 4: China importing energy. So now US said they're not selling
Speaker 4: to China, and then the US company losing a big
Speaker 4: profit center and then they are really reduced their antibuddy,
Speaker 4: and China is forced to do reinvent well, and there's
Speaker 4: a lot of waste there. So we see this separation
Speaker 4: is really no good all on security reasons. We should
Speaker 4: not overseecurize and we should really display our own each
Speaker 4: other's a compartit advantage.
Speaker 2: I want to ask one more question about security philosophy. Obviously,
Speaker 2: when Russia invaded Ukraine, the US opposed all kinds of
Speaker 2: sanctions on Russia and tried to constrain its ability to
Speaker 2: trade it all or make any money. Going back to
Speaker 2: Israel's war in Gaza, and you express the horror that
Speaker 2: you see from that and the sort of response to that.
Speaker 2: But China still trades with Israel as the US does
Speaker 2: in the future in a sort of different global world.
Speaker 4: Order.
Speaker 2: Would it ever be part of China's diplomatic arsenal to
Speaker 2: take a more heavy hand in some of these conflicts
Speaker 2: and say, oh, we're not going to trade you, We're
Speaker 2: not going to sell you advanced technology that you need
Speaker 2: to run your economy or run your military, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Because so far, despite the sort of concerns or the response,
Speaker 2: there hasn't been any change in the trading relationship. Could
Speaker 2: it ever get to that point where China views its
Speaker 2: sort of diplomatic commercial power that way in conflicts that
Speaker 2: it's not directly involved in.
Speaker 4: Well, I think China certainly would like to do more,
Speaker 4: you know, like what do you happen on the WHL?
Speaker 4: Chinese already fulfilled its objecations too. I think the key
Speaker 4: is really we need to restore the U and authority
Speaker 4: and principle, particularly US Security Council. Maybe we should also
Speaker 4: reform that too. Maybe we should add twenty members are
Speaker 4: the sixteen to twenty members as associated permanent member of UN.
Speaker 4: And we should really not let the Union Lanto single
Speaker 4: veto be abused. For example, since the founding of you
Speaker 4: and Russia abused use the veto one hundred sometimes twenty
Speaker 4: forty times US, one hundred times China and twenty times.
Speaker 4: We need to really control that. So I think we
Speaker 4: reform you wan to reflect this multipolar world. And in
Speaker 4: the future, if there's any other there's any problem happened,
Speaker 4: let's send the UN Peacekeeping Force to do that. And
Speaker 4: so if the old Security member have a big majority
Speaker 4: and general sample have a big majority, we should make
Speaker 4: that happen. So I think reform this multipolar world. We
Speaker 4: also need to reform you and to reflect that because
Speaker 4: the war is no longer fits. The superstructure does not
Speaker 4: fit the relative today.
Speaker 2: Now all right, Henry Wong, Founder and President for Center
Speaker 2: for China and Globalization, So fantastic to have you on
Speaker 2: the show. Can we do a live odd Lots in
Speaker 2: Beijing with you at some point?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, Pea, welcome back. All right.
Speaker 2: We are gonna as soon as as soon as we
Speaker 2: get off this call, we are going to begin the
Speaker 2: preparations to figure out how we're going to make this happen.
Speaker 2: So great chatting you with you. Thank you for staying
Speaker 2: up late in your time to talk with us, and
Speaker 2: I'll hope to talk to you against him.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Thank you so much, both of you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Tracy. I really enjoyed that conversation.
Speaker 2: It was interesting thinking about, you know, this idea that
Speaker 2: rhetorically there are a lot of people on both sides
Speaker 2: of the aisle who say things like, oh, we need
Speaker 2: to get out of this sort of competition framework, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It doesn't really feel like anything is actually happening on
Speaker 2: that front.
Speaker 3: Yes, one thing that struck me from the conversation was,
Speaker 3: I guess how economic oriented it feels like all of
Speaker 3: Chinese policy actually is. And I suppose maybe that gets
Speaker 3: back to this idea. This is an old idea now,
Speaker 3: but that social contract idea about the CCP, so as
Speaker 3: long as people feel that their lives are getting better
Speaker 3: right than, the CCP has strong support. I think the
Speaker 3: economic focus really came through in that conversation.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, obviously from the US perspective, there
Speaker 2: is this view that you know, Henry is the word
Speaker 2: global policeman. A lot of people would say yes, absolutely,
Speaker 2: and that a big role of the US Navy specifically
Speaker 2: is enforcing the fact or freeing the world for trade.
Speaker 2: Right that part of the reason that the world could
Speaker 2: trade freely, that.
Speaker 3: That's like a public good provided Bible.
Speaker 2: And Opposer has talked about this, and others have talked
Speaker 2: about this idea that these things go hand in hand.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting because so Henry talked about impulse for
Speaker 2: continuation of global trade, including with the US, et cetera.
Speaker 2: They're clearly, to my mind, seems to be less of
Speaker 2: an appetite from China to like, it's not obvious that
Speaker 2: there is a to fill the gap, yeah, or that
Speaker 2: you know, and I guess there's a question like does
Speaker 2: the world need such muscle to trade?
Speaker 4: Right? Does it?
Speaker 2: Could you have a world of trade where there is
Speaker 2: not one entity that has a truly global military footprint.
Speaker 2: I think these are really interesting questions. Henry of course
Speaker 2: talked about, especially in that last answer, restrengthening the UN,
Speaker 2: et cetera, restructure, restructuring the UN exactly. It's not entirely
Speaker 2: obvious to me that these institutions as they're constructed can
Speaker 2: really be revived, even with lots of Chinese money going
Speaker 2: into them. I think that's still kind of TVD well.
Speaker 3: I think this is it right, even if you restructure
Speaker 3: the Security Council so that, you know, you wouldn't have
Speaker 3: one powerful member vedoing stuff all the time. Even if
Speaker 3: people agreed to do things, what is the UN actually
Speaker 3: going to do? Right?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: What is the UAD actually going to do? I don't
Speaker 2: we didn't get into it that much, but like the
Speaker 2: idea of a sort of war, I don't know, bricks
Speaker 2: composed peace keeping force. I bet there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people in the US who would love that. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: let's have peace, let's.
Speaker 3: Have a sea, someone else take care, let's give a.
Speaker 2: Ceasefire in Russia and Ukraine. And also let's not have
Speaker 2: it be particularly dominated by Western peacekeepers shouldering that burden.
Speaker 2: I bet a lot of people in the US would
Speaker 2: love that. I would, you know, head more time. I
Speaker 2: would love to really explore, like what the constraints on
Speaker 2: that actually happening are there? But I thought that was
Speaker 2: a very useful sort of overview of some of these
Speaker 2: questions from the Chinese perspective.
Speaker 3: Absolutely don't explore the constraints, Joe, just take credit for
Speaker 3: solving us China attentions on the podcast in less than
Speaker 3: an hour.
Speaker 6: Shall we leave it there, Let's leave it there.
Speaker 3: This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast.
Speaker 3: I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy.
Speaker 4: Alloway and I'm Joe.
Speaker 2: You can follow me at the Stalwart, follow our producers
Speaker 2: Krmen Rodriguez at Carman armand dash O Bennett at Dashbot
Speaker 2: and Kilbrooks at Kilbrooks. For more odd Lots content, go
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg dot com slash odd Lots. Were have the
Speaker 2: daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you can
Speaker 2: chat about all of these topics twenty four to seven
Speaker 2: in our discord Discord dot gg slash od Lots.
Speaker 3: And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you want us
Speaker 3: to go to Beijing and talk to more people on
Speaker 3: the ground, then please leave us a positive review on
Speaker 3: your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a
Speaker 3: Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes
Speaker 3: absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find
Speaker 3: the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
Speaker 6: Thanks for listening. In e