Douglas PAAL, Assistant Dean, Institute for International Peace Studies in Carnegie
"The two countries (China and the United States) have a growing ideology and hope that we can return to realism in the 1970s and 1980s, whose principles are not entirely satisfactory because we have real needs one with another, so we only cooperate. " On Dec. 8, Douglas Palal, Deputy Dean of the Peace Carnegie International Studies Institute, said in 2018 at the Sanaia Finance International Forum, organized by the Financial magazine, the financial network and the financial think tank.
For the Sino-US cooperation, Douglas Palal believes that both sides should return to realism and know enough about their resources. But today there are still many shortcomings in this mutual evaluation process: the United States overestimates its own strength and underestimates China's stamina, China underestimates the strength of the United States and overestimates its stamina and both sides have to make adjustments.
When we talk about the 40th anniversary of reform and opening, Douglas Palal believes that this is a very good period that needs to continue the path of reform and opening it. The third plenary session of the 18th Kosovo Communist Party has already pointed out the direction. There is hope.
Finally, Douglas Paal said there are many social problems in the United States. From 1820 to 1919 there was a difference between the elite and the low-income class and it took a long time to solve this huge gap. Among them, the United States is also worried about pressure from rivals, but believes that the country should have confidence, and problems that can be solved in the past can be overcome in the future.
The following is an interview entry:
Zhang Yandong: Excuse me, Douglas Palal, the previous paragraph between China and the United States announced a 90-day truce. What do you think about this problem? How do you predict 90 days later?
Douglas Paal: I'm very glad to come back to Sanya, see a lot of old friends, the spokesman just said they were very good and very wise, when I came back to your question, actually, I'm talking about it.
First, we hope to return to realism in Washington, the United States and Beijing, China. Both sides have a rise in ideology, hoping that we can return to realism in the 1970s and 1980s, whose principles are not completely satisfied with one another because we have real needs with each other, we we cooperate.
In China, we saw that the reforms of the 1980s were separated from the party and the government, separated from the government and enterprises separated from state-owned enterprises and private enterprises, to support the development of private enterprises. In the United States, we often talk about the trade deficit. It seems that the trade deficit is easy to solve because the trade deficit has a lot to do with our tax and fiscal policy, but we have to rationalize and analyze our own problems. What does realism mean? Cold war is unlikely, we have a certain period of tension, we can control the past and control, sometimes the people who control it may be better. There are enough resources to understand, but today we have many shortcomings in this mutual evaluation process. I believe the United States has overestimated its own strength and underestimated China's resilience. But everyone can see that China underestimates the power of the United States and overestimates its own endurance. Both sides need to make adjustments.
Returning to the 90-day question, this has begun in Argentina and the problem can not be solved completely, especially when the negotiator who sits on the table believes that our ultimate goal is to completely separate the two economies. That is why we need to go back to realism, not to think about it, and go back to high-tech. For example, Intel Corporation, whose 25% of revenue comes from the Chinese mayor, can be separated from the Chinese market if China's Market Segmentation will definitely hit the United States. Apple is 19% of its revenue from China. How can Apple withdraw from China? Everyone talks about the new Chinese technology companies such as WeChat, Alibaba who own these companies and which shares are traded on their territory, and American investors are punishing them to punish US investors but we will eventually discuss the cost of the Cold War, the confrontation and the cost of separating the Chinese and American economies, which is definitely unbearable. Therefore, today's politicians must begin to address the Sino-American issue in a more positive and perspective way.
This year is the 40th anniversary of the reform and its opening. It is a very good time to go back to the path of reform and opening it. The third plenary session of the 18th National Congress has already listed the paths and some reforms, especially the reform of the financial industry, changed a little, but there are still many places that need reform. During my visit to China this year, the Chinese already know more about Trump than the Americans know about China, and some say Americans have the power to impose such a reform. I began to say that I must return to the spirit of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th National Congress. If this is the case, I think the future is promising. We discussed the issue of the system of social loans – this is the reform in China, not the external pressure, because that is the right way and can be reformed without external pressure. Many things at the Third Plenary Session of the Eighteenth National Congress, what do we hope to see when we arrive within 90 days? It is precisely because of China's own needs to carry out reforms. It is impossible to solve all the problems, there are many problems, but these 90 days are very important. If we lose this window, of course, there will be no cold war, but we will continue to try to bear the costs of both sides. In terms of economy and other aspects.
Professor Chu talks about the Cold War, China's neighbors do not want the Cold War, they do not want their economy to be separated from China, they do not want to be part of China, nor want to be dominated by China but where we can find the middle way. Through this mid-term, negotiations can be carried out well over the next 90 days.
Zhang Yandong: Thank you very much to Douglas Palal. What you mean is that you have to make a difficult decision. Although 90 days can not solve all the problems, but 90 days is critical. When President Shi Jinping speaks of China's further reform and opens, the reform and opening up of our government is repeatedly said, but from the point of view of the Americans, whether Douglas Palal or Steve Orlins, we think our reform is stopped. President Li also proposed that the reform of the banks of foreign banks should be only 2%, and these 90 days are not allowed. "China's 90-day outlook for Americans is on reform, and Americans are hoping." On the runway, what do you think is the most important? What do Americans like?
Douglas Palal: I mentioned the bank right now that I visited Beijing beforehand, had the privilege of communicating with representatives of Bank of America, and I said that the liberalization of the banking sector and President Xi's commitment have changed from the upper limit of 49%. The upper limit of over 50 is currently being met. It can be said that the response speed is very fast. However, no one wants to become a 51% shareholder because Chinese banks have been very weak in the past and have had no international experience. In 2000, I visited a famous Chinese bank and asked them to make money. Stream Analysis? They said that there are 100,000 bankers, but nobody can know how to manage cash flows, but certainly did not want to compete with foreign investment, but today the four largest banks in the world today have China, there is nothing terrible. Even a fully owned bank is fine. From 49% to 51%, from 51% to 100%, sole traders are also possible, and the most powerful interest groups in the United States will surely see such changes.
Question 1: The United States is very confident in the political system over the past 100 years and is very economically strong. Now, in the face of the development of other countries like China, how do US political systems see their political system and cultural confidence? the impact? In other words, many Americans believe that their lives must be better than the lives of the Chinese people. Why has the Chinese people achieved such economic results in an institutional environment that does not think it is very good? How do you rate them?
Douglas Palal: Look at your position in the US economy, and in the past the United States was partially hollow. Many Americans felt that they did not benefit from globalization and that their living standards did not improve. For example, in the Midwest, the United States, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, they think they have lost. They believe that the elite does not talk about their interests, but represents the interests of the elite, so they vote for Trump. Let's get on the throne of the president. So your question is in place. Why are these questions sending Trump to the president's throne? These people think they are marginalized and voted for Trump. They did not trust the future, but they believed that Trump's populism was in line with their situation and was fully in line with the situation they did not take advantage of. Their standard of living has not improved.
That part is true: The more globalized the United States, people who have lost their jobs, including workers in the manufacturing industry and other classes who have done good work in the past but have now lost their jobs. Even today the issue includes Sino-US relations, I feel that this has led to a number of problems, including drug abuse, such as viruses, and so on. In fact, some people use drugs to passively avoid the world and the life expectancy of many people is drastically reduced. White, the life expectancy of US residents has declined in 2017 because many people are very dissatisfied with reality, drug abuse and excessive drug abuse. Now it's about the issue of Sino-US relations. It's not that there are many so-called narcotics that China exports to the United States, which has led to many people who take drugs and excessive drug abuse. I think that Buenos Aires Aires talks about the US dollar. So-called drug-related substances should not shrink exports.
Zhang Yandong: Thank you. Before giving time to give each guest a sentence or two, summarize the relationship between China and the United States and its future.
Douglas Palal: There are also social problems in the United States, there are elites and middle-class low-income people. So it was from 1820 to 1919. It took a long time to solve this huge gap. In 1930, the famous American economist said the Soviet Union would surpass the United States in 1984. Rand's Conta also said Japan would surpass the United States in 2020. In the past there was such a fear. China far exceeds these two potential competitors. I do not think I should be scared especially because the United States must trust. In the past, this crisis has been resolved and the future can be resolved.
Zhang Yandong: China's reform and opening up is not just external pressure, internal controversy, but also re-introducing China to a new level of controversy and conflict. Today we see whether the Chinese people have the wisdom and ability to raise their capacities and continue reforming through reforms and opening up. Take part in international affairs. This forum is over this morning.
(Editor: Wang Yusuo)