Excerpted transcript of CCG book launch

Leading Chinese experts debate the future of globalization and appreciate CCG efforts at bridge-building.

On July 12, 2024, the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) hosted a book launch and roundtable at its Beijing headquarters. The event marked the release of two CCG books published by China Science and Technology Press.

The newly released books, "CCG Global Dialogues" and "The Ebb and Flow of Globalization" are Chinese translations of "CCG Global Dialogues: Understanding Globalization, Global Gaps, and Power Shifts in the 21st Century," and "The Ebb and Flow of Globalization: Chinese Perspectives on China's Development and Role in the World," both published by Springer Nature.

The book release was hosted by Mabel Lu Miao, Secretary-General of CCG

and Henry Huiyao Wang, President of CCG, featuring also Qin Deji, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief at China Science and Technology Press Co., Ltd., and Shen Yonggang, Deputy Chief Editor at China Science and Technology Press Co., Ltd.

The subsequent roundtable featured both on-site and online participants. They are, in alphabetical order:

• Cui Hongjian, Professor at the Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University

• Gong Jiong, Vice President, University of International Business and Economics Israel Branch

• Huang Rihan, Professor at the College of International Relations, Huaqiao University; Executive Dean of the Digital Economy Think Tank

• Li Huailiang, Dean of the Institute for a Community with Shared Future (ICSF), Communication University of China

• Lin Hongyu, Vice President of Huaqiao University

• Liu Debin, Founding Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs and Director of the Institute of International Studies, Jilin University

• Liu Songbai, Professor at the Business School of the Beijing Normal University

• Lu Xiang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)

• Shi Yinhong, Renmin University of China

• Shou Huisheng, Director of the Center for Turkish Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University

• Su Hao, Founding Director of the Center for Strategic and Peace Studies, China Foreign Affairs University

• Tu Xinquan, Dean of the China Institute for WTO Studies, University of International Business and Economics

• Wang Sixiao, Associate Professor at Beijing International Studies University

• Wang Yiwei, Professor of School of International Studies, Director of Institute of International Affairs, Dean of EU Research Center, Renmin University of China

• Xu Hongcai, Deputy Director of the Economic Policy Committee, China Association Of Policy Science

• Yan Haiping, Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University; Director of the Institute for World Literatures and Cultures, Tsinghua University

• Zhao Xiaozhuo, Former Director of the Xiangshan Forum Secretariat.

Below is an excerpt of the transcript of the CCG roundtable. The transcript hasn't been reviewed by the speakers and may contain errors. The full video of the event remains accessible online.

Lin Hongyu, Vice President of Huaqiao University

First of all, I would like to congratulate President Henry Huiyao Wang on the publication of his book. The publication is opportune since it's high time to pay close attention to and deeply reflect on globalization. I come from Huaqiao University, located in Quanzhou, a city known for its international trade during the Song and Yuan dynasties. Quanzhou was one of the largest open ports in the world back then and can be seen as one of the earliest origins of China's openness to the outside world. Huaqiao University carries this historical legacy, which has brought significant prestige to our institution. Our university boasts the highest level of international exposure in China, with a high degree of correlation and alignment with globalization.

I would like to share a few perspectives. I have long worked on Sino-U.S. relations, especially in light of the ongoing U.S. presidential election on which everyone is keeping their eye. I want to share some observations and thoughts from a small angle on how this U.S. election might impact globalization. We know that it is still uncertain whether Biden or Trump will win the election. The expectations may vary from person to person. However, regardless of whether Biden or Trump is elected, it is evident that globalization in the future will be influenced by this U.S. presidential election. The prevailing trend seems to return to a more conservative and protectionist state.

The differences may lie in a few areas. If Biden is elected, my summary of his approach to globalization is limited, multilateral protectionism based on international rules. He still honors international norms and what he perceives as multilateralism, and his protectionist measures are relatively limited. In contrast, if Trump is elected, I believe the future of globalization will face "America First," unilateral, and unlimited protectionism, which threatens to be the main theme of American-style globalization.

To elaborate on this briefly, if there will be a Biden administration, his approach to globalization can be summarized in four points: less emphasis on the market, more focus on manufacturing, small-scale multilateralism, and new standards.

"Less emphasis on the market" means disrupting the previous round of globalization, where the principles of high efficiency and low cost might be overturned with more interventions already evident in various areas. The goal of such interventions is primarily to revive American manufacturing. As Biden believes the previous market-driven globalization focused on consumers to the exclusion of producers, he will regard production as the entry point for interventions.

Biden also emphasizes "small-scale multilateralism," which is marked significantly by the key objective of excluding China. He believes that China has been the beneficiary of the previous round of globalization and that the U.S. must propose new standards.

If there were to be a Trump administration, I see three main changes: higher taxes, devaluation, and tax reforms. Simply put, Trump would overturn the 60-year emphasis on a multilateral trade system based on international rules and adopt a more straightforward nationalist stance.

Under this circumstance, the most direct approach would be to strengthen tax measures significantly. Trump already has preliminary plans to impose tariffs on all products. Additionally, he would work to increase U.S. exports by further devaluating the dollar and adjusting taxes. He is also in favor of globalization. He doesn't want to close off but makes it work more to American development's advantage.

Given the limited time, I have briefly shared these observations on the potential impact of the 2024 U.S. presidential election on globalization. Thank you, Professor Miao, and congratulations once again to President Henry Huiyao Wang.

Huang Rihan, Professor at the College of International Relations, Huaqiao University; Executive Dean of the Digital Economy Think Tank

First of all, I am very pleased to have been invited by CCG to this press conference. Having been involved with CCG for a long time, 10 years to be precise, I have witnessed its continuous evolution over the years. Indeed, CCG has made significant contributions to China’s globalization and the global expansion of Chinese enterprises.

I would like to briefly report on a few aspects. My topic is titled “In the Era of Deglobalization, the World Should Restart Dialogue.” This is something I feel very strongly about. In recent years, CCG has encountered significant obstacles in its globalization efforts, and we have all felt the wave of deglobalization. The international public opinion environment is very poor, and extreme nationalism has severely impacted international exchanges. This includes speaking out to the outside world. Many Chinese professors and scholars have been afraid to speak out, feeling that calling for dialogue with the world, including the United States or Europe, could easily lead to being unfairly labeled within the country.

Therefore, I greatly admire the efforts of President Wang Huiyao and Secretary-General Mabel Miao over the years in promoting dialogue and exchanges. The two books "CCG Global Dialogues" and "The Ebb and Flow of Globalization" carry weight. Frankly speaking, any country that aspires to become a world power must inevitably embrace globalization and become more internationalized—there is no doubt about this. Therefore, I was particularly delighted when I received the invitation to the launch of these two books, as their themes align closely with my own thoughts over the years.

Secondly, the current wave of deglobalization that is affecting global interactions and the global economic recovery requires greater efforts by more people. These two books document the dialogues of CCG's Global Dialogue Series and present the ideas and concepts in the Global Young Leaders Dialogue(GYLD). Over the years, globalization has progressed significantly under the leadership of President Henry Huiyao Wang and Secretary-General Mabel Lu Miao. In my conversations with other leaders of Chinese think tanks, they often express envy of how much President Wang and Secretary-General Miao travel—today in the U.S., tomorrow in France, and the day after in Germany. Many people do not understand how demanding this is, as traveling globally involves not just preliminary visa arrangements but also a lot of preparatory work for overseas interactions and the inherent hardships. Many may think it must be like a walk in the park, but in fact, it is very challenging. I would like to pay tribute to President Wang and Dr. Miao for the publication of these two books.

In May, I met them at the Global Solutions Summit 2024 in Germany. We were in Europe for several days, and it was very evident that think tanks across Europe, whether in France, Germany, or Belgium, are very eager to engage in dialogue and communication with China. Even some think tanks that have been sanctioned by China expressed that they are actively trying to alter China's perception of them, as well as to increase their exchanges with China. In fact, in recent years, China's efforts in international communication have not been extensive and need to be further strengthened. Through these two books—"CCG Global Dialogues" and "The Ebb and Flow of Globalization" —we see the responsibility of Chinese scholars more clearly, and there is a need for more people, including many here today from the academic community, to be willing to contribute their part towards China's globalization and dialogue with the world.

Finally, I would like to once again congratulate CCG on the publication of these two books, and I hope they sell well!

Li Huailiang, Dean of the Institute for a Community with Shared Future (ICSF), Communication University of China

Thank you, President Henry Huiyao Wang and Secretary-General Mabel Lu Miao, for the invitation, and congratulations on the publication and release of their two significant new books.

I have read the titles of these two books and their subtitles and philosophies: one is avoiding the Thucydides' Trap and building a community with a shared future for mankind, and the other is reshaping multilateralism and building a future order, and comprehensively showcasing China’s path to globalization and strategies for major country relations. I very much agree with the ideas expressed in these books.

This leads me to reflect on the stance that global intellectuals should take in the current world. Globalization has brought many benefits. Since the 1980s, globalization has been the most significant key theme impacting human society, without any doubt. Globalization has optimized the allocation of resources worldwide and brought many development opportunities to developing countries.

Of course, globalization has also produced a backlash, as illustrated by the "elephant chart" released by a former Chief Economist of the World Bank, which indicated that the income of the middle class in developing countries did not increase during the process of globalization. For these reasons, there has been a retrenchment of globalization. As the tide of globalization recedes, previously unquestioned beliefs in free trade and market economies have come under scrutiny.

In the past, China set the goals of four transformations: political multipolarity, economic globalization, social informatization, and cultural diversification. At the very least, economic globalization is now facing decoupling. Politically, there is a force pushing multipolarity towards factionalization. That is to say, in the face of the retrenchment of globalization, as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said, the world could potentially split into two camps, each with its own independent trade regulations and artificial intelligence systems, leading to a world divided against itself. Moreover, this division carries a level of danger and uncertainty greater than that of the Cold War era.

In the book, there is a metaphor discussed by Mr. Kishore Mahbubani and Mr. Henry Huiyao Wang, likening the U.S.-China relationship to two high-speed trains that might collide. My understanding is that the retrenchment period of globalization has created a massive chasm, which is clearly driven by the forces pushing for factionalization of the world. Think tanks and intellectuals now face a crucial decision: do they continue to promote globalization, or do they push for further factionalization that could lead to greater division and a deeper rift in the world? This bears on the fundamental principles of intellectuals and think tanks in the world.

I am particularly pleased and deeply appreciate the series of dialogues conducted by CCG and their efforts to promote understanding, communication, and interactions with global think tanks, aimed at avoiding the Thucydides' Trap and facilitating the building of a community with a shared future for all mankind. I applaud their efforts and congratulate them on the publication of their new books. Thank you!

Lu Xiang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)

When discussing globalization, I want to mention that currently, many people still hold a misunderstanding: they attribute the turmoil seen in globalization as a move towards deglobalization, which I believe is a miscalculation. Globalization itself involves global interactions, including beneficial economic and trade interactions, as well as competition among major powers and continuous innovation. The process of globalization represents a continuous exchange of interests among nations and a continuous rebalancing of power.

I heard an interesting perspective from Secretary-General Mable Miao, citing Joseph Nye, who speculated that by 2035, U.S.-China relations might improve. What does this mean? Clearly, 2035 is still anticipated to be a period of intense struggle, perhaps not war but a competition as fierce as war. This is a topic that intellectuals, in particular, are hesitant to confront. Since the early 19th century, when France attempted to unify Europe and was suppressed by an alliance, this struggle continued for decades until 1870 when Germany gained a decisive advantage over France, leading to nearly 40 years of relative peace in Europe. This was followed by two world wars until 1945, and then the Cold War until the 1990s. Peace did not ensue even after the Cold War. The process of reorganizing through war is a global challenge, and reorganization has never ceased, say, just yesterday, NATO made a statement clearly aimed at China.

So it is important not to hastily label any action as deglobalization, as all these actions are currently taking place within the process of globalization. Globalization is not like Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 (Pastoral); perhaps we ought to listen more to No. 3 (Eroica) or No. 5 (Fate), because the beauty of No. 6 is not as easily achieved as one might think. Maintaining peace comes at a cost.

In addition, considering Joseph Nye's background as former chair of the U.S. National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and then a scholar, if he makes such a judgment about 2035, I believe it comes from a reasoning process at the back of his mind.

Why 2035? I don't think he can predict it precisely, but since he holds this view, he certainly has his reasoning behind it, and this reasoning process is undoubtedly a painful one, not a pleasant one. So, seeing so many people interested in globalization, especially with these two new books, I believe they will provide a lot of inspiration and there is much more we can do in the future. Sometimes, sweet talk and exchanges are very necessary, but at the same time, everyone needs to have a brave heart, as it is difficult to tackle strategic issues without one. Professor Shi will speak next, and I believe his brave heart will certainly provide us with better insights.

Shi Yinhong, Renmin University of China

First of all, I'd like to extend my congratulations to Huiyao for his new book sparking such discussion. Strictly speaking, globalization, as an academic term, just describes a phenomenon. What's more profound is the complex political economy behind globalization. What are the drivers of globalization? What are its consequences? What is its feedback? The world not only has wealth but also power; not only is wealth generated, but it is also distributed and reproduced—wealth is reproduced through political, economic, and social processes and various mechanisms. Wars and preparations for war always exist, as do power struggles, national security, regime security, and class security. These are largely independent of globalization in their direct sense. That's the first part of my discussion.

For the second part, let's look at the reality. National security is almost everywhere a priority, surpassing pure economic gain. Strategic high-tech is excluded from globalization. The same holds for the growing segment of low technology and the exchanges of its products. That's because they all are aimed for national security concerns as seen in the so-called restructuring supply chain.

Regional or other trade blocs have to some extent replaced globalization; the criteria for grouping include many things: strategic considerations, political alliances or partnerships, ideologies, similarities, etc., but purely economic considerations based on comparative advantage are conspicuously absent.

Finally, regarding China's ubiquitous economic ties with the developing world, I believe more so-called "21st-century blacklists" might emerge. Coupled with the hedging from China's developed rivals, all these efforts are for their own national independence, national security, and even more. Therefore, I might view today’s globalization even more pessimistically than Lu Xiang.

Lu Xiang : I am not pessimistic.

Shi Yinhong: I am pessimistic.

Su Hao, Founding Director of the Center for Strategic and Peace Studies, China Foreign Affairs University

Thank you, I am delighted to see all the friends present today, especially President Henry Huiyao Wang and Secretary-General Mable Lu Miao. I feel honored to have read these two books and am also very eager to personally endorse the work of our think tank on globalization.

Attending today's event, I have three impressions, which I can summarize in three words: high-end, commitment, and implementation.

This is a commentary on CCG, particularly the two leaders. "High-end" refers to a strategic high ground because CCG does not merely stand at a global level but especially at the strategic high ground of Chinese efforts in advancing globalization. It aligns with China's strategies and also with the major trends in global development. From this perspective, CCG has consistently engaged in research on the development and processes of globalization itself and has conducted global dialogues. This indeed places it at a strategic high point, and I greatly admire this aspect.

The second word is commitment. As we know, over the past decade, globalization has shifted from being a prominent and overt process to one marked by deglobalization and even contraction. Despite this, CCG has steadfastly continued to research globalization, supporting it academically, in policy advisory, and practically. This commitment to advancing the process of globalization deserves our respect.

The third is implementation, because CCG's work involves more than just policy research. Dr. Wang and Dr. Miao have also invited other scholars, including me, to travel overseas. This truly practiced the act of global engagement, as well as facilitated the world’s engagement with China. CCG itself is a practitioner of globalization, which is quite rare. Among Chinese think tanks, CCG is distinctive in promoting the process of globalization in this manner.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly share my personal view. I have always believed that the process of globalization is still moving forward, which may contrast with Professor Shi's pessimistic view. From my perspective, globalization is undergoing a transformation. That is, it is transitioning from a flat form of globalization to a more multidimensional globalization.

Shi Yinhong: When I say I am pessimistic, it might just be a hypothesis. Perhaps it should be so.

Su Hao: In this case, I agree with Professor Shi. Why do I say globalization is flat? There's a bestselling author at The New York Times who once said the world is flat. He wrote the book "The World is Flat" more than a decade ago, and it became a global bestseller. The world was seen as a flat place where industries, resources, and capital, even national policies, were relatively young in terms of globalization.

This is a refreshing expression at the time; however, this expression now seems a bit outdated as we are witnessing a series of deglobalization actions, or rather, a contraction of globalization. I remember being in the United States when the pandemic began in 2020, and there was this notion that the world was regressing back to the 19th century, a kind of forward regression. According to many mainstream views in American think tanks, the world is regressing back to the power politics typical of the 19th century, and many of America's current actions have a tendency toward power politics. This new Cold War, in fact, harks back to the world characterized by Cold War-era bloc confrontations, reminiscent of the 19th and 20th centuries. From this perspective, globalization is seen as a regression, a development in a reverse direction.

However, I personally do not think globalization should be viewed entirely in that way. I believe that globalization is evolving towards a more multidimensional direction, surpassing the flatness. Western countries expanded and exerted their influence in a flat manner to control the Western-dominated world. This globalization is a flat globalization just as viewing Western dialogues through the lens of thinkers like Thomas Friedman. Today, however, there is a collective awakening among nations, including China and many emerging countries, which has led to the formation of various institutional systems such as the BRICS. This also includes Western countries returning to groups like the G7, as well as the G20, which represents a multipolar world platform.

All this gradually creates a world based on regional institutions and forms globalization based on regional integration. In a word, I believe that globalization is undergoing a transformation, evolving from a flat approach to a more multidimensional global structure. This shift has led to a new style of globalization characterized by inter-regional networked cooperation, which is grounded in regional integration.

A key feature of current international relations is the cooperation between regions, such as cooperation between Asia and Europe, and cooperation between Asia and Africa, with East Asia as a core area, extending across all continents and regions. These collaborations vary in closeness, but have all come into being. I have studied at least ten inter-regional and cross-regional global networked structure involving China and East Asia. This structure is based on regional connections and represents a multidimensional form of globalization. From this perspective, I believe globalization is undergoing a transformation that truly meets the needs of today's world development process.

Therefore, to some extent, I disagree with the notion that the United States is reversing globalization. The U.S. is refocusing on its own region, namely North America. This is why they are re-emphasizing the USMCA, with industries returning to the Americas or specifically to North America. Especially with the continuous deepening of the USMCA, this has led to the formation of a new developmental matrix based on regionalization, including not only Latin America and North America but also East Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Europe, Africa, and even the South Pacific.

In this sense, America's contraction is also aligned with the trend of multidimensional globalization. Therefore, I don't fully agree that the U.S. is deglobalizing. Rather, it is adapting to a new model of cooperative globalization.

Tu Xinquan, Dean of the China Institute for WTO Studies, University of International Business and Economics

First and foremost, congratulations on the two new books by the CCG. The last time I attended was also for the release of a new book, "Global Think Tanks (2.0)." I remarked then that CCG is truly a well-deserved think tank, not only because its research topics always revolve around globalization but also because its work is highly globalized. Congratulations once again!

Secondly, I would like to express my appreciation for the book "Dialogue with the World." I have listened to CCG Global Dialogues many times and am one of the millions who have benefited greatly from it. The platform it provides is excellent, and the questions raised in the dialogues, especially those by Henry Huiyang Wang, are particularly insightful and address my own curiosities, offering significant benefits. Having this book now is indeed more convenient.

Moreover, in the current context of major power competition and a certain degree of globalization contraction, maintaining such dialogues is especially important. This is particularly true for China, as it is crucial for the country to keep engaging with the world. From a cultural perspective, I always believe that China is a unique country, and it is essential to have a group of people, especially individuals like Henry Huiyao Wang and Mable Lu Miao, who can conduct dialogues in a way that the external world can understand. This helps the world to better understand China, which is extremely important. Even amidst difficulties and conflicts, maintaining dialogue remains crucial.

Looking back at history, although there have never been periods without wars or various conflicts, these conflicts eventually come to an end because people generally tire of conflict and prefer peace. Dialogue, even during conflicts, is a means of controlling and managing such conflicts. I read about Joseph Nye's viewpoints on U.S.-China competition, that the competition between China and the U.S. is not existential or zero-sum; neither side can eliminate the other. Even after a period of conflict or competition, it will end up in dialogues eventually. Thus, it is crucial to always maintain such dialogues. Domestically, China should also encourage more free and diverse discussions.

Thirdly, there are varying perspectives on globalization. For example, Su Hao believes that globalization is contracting, or that we are experiencing de-globalization. I see the present situation as a fluctuation of globalization, which is natural because nothing progresses perfectly; there will always be fluctuations. During these fluctuations, different countries will adjust their approach to globalization.

I cannot recall which expert mentioned this, but it was pointed out that historically, the leaders of globalization often become its primary opponents. For instance, both the history in UK and the U.S. have shown this trend; the UK returned to the Imperial Preference system in the 1930s, and now the U.S. has reverted to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), withdrawing into its own "shell". In such circumstances, there needs to be a new supporter and advocate for globalization, and I believe this should be China.

China now has the largest global significance, with its manufacturing accounting for 35% of the world's output, even though China's population and GDP percentages are lower, with a 18% account of global GDP. China's significant production capacity necessitates a global market, which aligns with its interests. It is think tanks' responsibility to actively promote globalization, assist the government, and consider ways to foster globalization. Think tanks' exchanges and cooperation also contribute to this forward movement of globalization or at least help maintain certain benefits.

Xu Hongcai, Deputy Director of the Economic Policy Committee, China Association Of Policy Science

First, I would like to extend my congratulations to CCG on the publication of two new books. Second, I want to express my gratitude. Over the past nearly 15 years, I have found CCG's platform to be highly inclusive, allowing individuals with diverse viewpoints to express their opinions. This inclusivity, despite sometimes conflicting perspectives, is rare and valuable. Especially in the current context where globalization faces unprecedented challenges, the significance of CCG's contributions becomes even more evident. The mission and challenges we face in the future will be even more daunting.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to share a few viewpoints. I strongly agree with Professor Su Hao's opinion that globalization has not ceased but has undergone structural changes. This also pertains to China and can be summarized in several aspects.

First, the balance of power between China and the United States has shifted. Three years ago, in 2021, China's GDP peaked at 77.4% of the U.S. GDP but has since dropped to just under 60%, around 59%. However, with the expected depreciation of the RMB, I believe the ratio of China's GDP to that of the United States will increase significantly by 2035.

Achieving China's second centenary goal by 2035 will be very challenging. According to the original 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025), China's annual economic growth rate needs to average no less than 4.7% from 2024 onwards to meet this target in the next 11 years. If China aims for this target while keeping the RMB to USD exchange rate stable or even appreciating, it will be quite challenging to have China's GDP surpass that of the United States by 2035. This year's second-quarter data suggests a 5% growth rate is achievable, but the IMF projects only 4.4% for next year. The difficulties lie within the country, not externally. I will not elaborate further, but this is the first change.

The second change is China's international status. Currently, China faces two non-recognitions: first, developed countries do not recognize China's market economy status; second, developing countries do not recognize China as a developing country anymore, given its substantial economic growth and per capita GDP surpassing $12,000 for several years.

In recent years, coupled with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, global divisions into distinct camps have become evident. The so-called structural changes, in my opinion, are reflected in a new wave of globalization characterized by de-Russification and de-Sinicization. During this process of forming alliances, there has been unprecedented unity among Western countries. The Global South has long been led by India, and although China claims to be a developing country, others do not acknowledge this status. The G7, particularly, has been predominantly led by India, and India's rise poses a significant challenge to China.

Third, there is the so-called "Eastern bloc Axis of Evil," consisting of Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and partially China. Recent NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summits and China's military exercises with Belarus reflect sharp global divisions. Although the SCO is not a military organization, it is sometimes viewed as a quasi-military alliance. NATO's recent declarations concerning China have been particularly harsh.

This trend of forming alliances is a perilous trap. Some individuals with malicious motives are attempting to categorize China within the so-called "Eastern bloc" under an outdated and hostile framework, erroneously painting China as part of the "Axis of Evil."

China firmly rejects this characterization, as China views ourselves as a vital force in maintaining global peace. The politicization and the general politicization trend of international relations have profoundly impacted economic cooperation. Previously, China emphasized that economic and trade cooperation served as the "ballast" of its international relations. However, this situation is now at risk, as evidenced by the sharp decline in trade orders from the United States, Europe, Japan, and South Korea, alongside the alarming rate of capital flight.

Despite China's unilateral efforts over the past year to implement a visa-free policy and open its borders, the world has not responded as positively as China had hoped. Foreign interest in China remains limited, against China's interests.

Looking ahead at the balance of power among major nations, the United States remains the foremost power, followed by China, Germany, Japan, and India. It is highly likely that within the next decade, India will surpass Japan and Germany. With India's annual economic growth rate of 7.8% and a median population age of 29, Prime Minister Modi skillfully navigates international relations. From China's perspective, it must be acknowledged that China's diplomacy lacks flexibility, putting the country in a highly passive position.

The second situation is that although China's position in the top three economies seems to be secure at least for the next decade, with India likely surpassing Germany and Japan, whether China can surpass the U.S. remains in significant doubt. Currently, the U.S. ranks first, with China second and India third. The original goal was for China to surpass the U.S. by 2047. However, Modi envisions the U.S. first, India second, and China third. I think his assumption will not become reality, but there are formidable challenges for China.

The future of globalization and China's further integration into this process present significant challenges. While Mr. Shi is pessimistic about the future, I believe that pessimists are often correct. However, it is the optimists who drive progress. From this perspective, I feel that CCG has a critical role to play moving forward. I am very grateful to CCG, and I am willing to contribute positively in any way I can on this platform.

Yan Haiping, Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University; Director of the Institute for World Literatures and Cultures, Tsinghua University

Thank you, Secretary Mabel Lu Miao, and President Henry Huiyao Wang. My first stop upon returning to China was CCG, as part of the Thousand Talents Program (TTP).

Miao Lu: You were previously a senior professor at Cornell University.

Yan Haiping: I established the Institute for World Literatures and Cultures at Tsinghua University. The foundation of literature and culture is language, and there are thousands of languages worldwide. That's the situation China is in. Our task was to integrate research and teaching, focusing on major and cutting-edge global issues.

I am also the director of the Ministry of Education-supported Base for international People-to-People Exchange at Tsinghua. Tsinghua has also initiated the UK-China Humanities Alliance. Several colleagues mentioned the importance of the human spirit; when the alliance was chosen, it was approved by the State Council, and there were suggestions to include the United States due to my background. However, I had already assessed that starting with the UK would be more suitable when returning to China. Today's challenges between China and the U.S. are indeed more severe. But the English-speaking world, including the U.S. and UK, falls under our mission. We have five publication series and three forum series, which I won't elaborate on here.

CCG's work is truly commendable. Observing the organization's progress after returning to China, especially amidst recent challenges, I have three reflections to share:

First, modernization has always been globalization from the outset, constructing a collective worldwide structure where each country and region occupies different positions. During its modernization, China faced significant disasters but emerged from them. In a sense, as I mentioned at another conference, China's modernization was somewhat passive. Today, looking at from President Henry Huiyao Wang and Dr.Mable Miao's words and practice, I think that China might be at a turning point from passive modernization to proactive globalization. This is a characteristic that could be seen as a mission. Globalization, amid major industrial and new technological revolutions, is always transforming and even changing its attributes.

The second point is form. The form of dialogue, as everybody mentioned, is remarkable. Dialogue is not merely a simple exchange of words; it involves institutional innovation. President Henry Huiyao Wang mentioned "Track II diplomacy," which can have various other names. Such institutional innovation enables meaningful dialogue. The form of dialogue and the effect it achieved, using the example of the China-UK Humanities Alliance, can be illustrated through the concepts of academic, cultural, and teacher-student friendships, ultimately fostering people-to-people friendships. This innovation in institutional dialogue is an innovation from the form of negotiation, allowing it to support proactive globalization. This is my second reflection, which I find extremely important.

Third, these two books have been translated from English to Chinese, and CCG also publishes works translated from Chinese to English. This bilingual capability highlights some issues in the quality of China's cultural capacity. The Italian Marxist and leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who died in prison under fascist rule, said that knowing only one language means understanding nothing. I deeply resonate with this, believing that a high degree of awareness of our native Chinese language is something that can be achieved through dialogue in different languages. The study and practice of various languages enable people to develop a new global mindset and expression, essentially creating a new language. The latest collection published by the China-UK Humanities Alliance, which is also its first volume, is titled "Reconstructing the Humanities."

These three points are lessons and inspirations I've drawn and felt encouraged from CCG's practices. The challenges are extensively immense, and I must commend President Henry Huiyao Wang and Dr. Mabel Lu Miao for their efforts to visit the world during the most difficult times. Tsinghua's faculty and students are also impressed. The experts present today mostly specialize in politics, economics, and diplomacy. I represent humanity. Humanities can really provide a certain language and a steadfast spirit, serving as a reference point for everyone.

Ultimately, in the current struggles, confrontations, and negotiations amid the changing global landscape, the process of navigating through different civilizations, ontologies, values, ideologies, and other political mechanisms, requires a certain level of imagination to succeed. Today, I have learned a lot from the insights shared by all the esteemed speakers. I warmly welcome you all to visit the Institute of World Literatures and Cultures at Tsinghua University as guest speakers. We must also learn from CCG by involving experts from various fields and disciplines when publishing our books, rather than confining ourselves to the humanities alone.

Just to add on, Mr. Shi's said he is a pessimist but also an optimist, which I fully agree with. Two ecosystems are forming, presenting severe challenges but also highlighting the interconnectedness of everything. How we handle these differences is where our optimism lies. Thank you!