Transcript: CCG VIP Luncheon on global supply chains

On resilient supply chains, China’s outbound investment, and economic multilateralism.

On July 24, the Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG) hosted its latest CCG VIP Luncheon themed “Bolstering Trade and Investment to Build Resilient Industrial and Supply Chains Together.”

The featured speakers were

• Zhao Ping, President of the Academy of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade

• Lin Shunjie, Chairman of China International Exhibition Centre Group Limited

• Ji Wenhua, Professor at the School of Law, University of International Business and Economics

• Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief, Foreign Policy

Ambassadors to China from nine countries—Barbados, Brazil, Cyprus, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, and Switzerland, alongside diplomats from Canada, Croatia, the EU, Hungary, India, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Malta, Pakistan, Romania, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Representatives from international organisations and multinational corporations, as well as journalists from media outlets—including CGTN, China Daily, and the South China Morning Post—also participated.

CCG broadcast the event online, and a video recording remains available on CCG’s official WeChat blog. The recording has also been uploaded to CCG’s YouTube channel.

This transcript is based on the video recording and has not been reviewed by any of the speakers.

Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder & President, Center for China and Globalisation (CCG)

Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it’s really a great pleasure to welcome you again to the 15th CCG VIP Luncheon. How time flies. We have already had this run 15 times. Thank you all for taking the time out of your summer holiday schedule to come to this CCG gathering. We’re also quite aware that we are seeing a number of European ambassadors, some of whom are visiting China with EU leaders. So, this is really important. Thank you all for coming.

The CCG VIP Luncheon series, initiated and hosted by the Centre for China and Globalisation, has become an important platform and brand for dialogue and exchange. It brings together diplomats, international organisations, leading enterprises, academic experts, and media friends to share insights on China’s development and foster mutual understanding and cooperation in an increasingly turbulent world.

What is so crucial about the changes between China and the outside world? Today’s luncheon is particularly timely, as it focuses on bolstering trade and investment to build a resilient industrial and supply chain together. We know that we just finished a supply chain conference a few days ago in Beijing, and this discussion follows closely after the successful conclusion of the Third China International Supply Chain Expo, which saw participants from 651 multinational enterprises and institutions representing 75 countries and regions. Such engagement highlights the vital importance of strengthening global supply chains and trade networks in today’s complex economic environment.

I would like to extend a special welcome to our esteemed guests. Today, we are very privileged to have diplomatic representatives from 22 countries, as well as media representatives, multinational think tanks, and our very distinguished speaker. I would like to mention the institutions we have invited today: the Ambassador of Barbados, the Ambassador of Brazil, the Ambassador of Cyprus, the Ambassador of the Netherlands, the Ambassador of New Zealand, the Ambassador of Norway, the Ambassador of Pakistan, the Ambassador of Spain, and the Ambassador of Switzerland. Let’s give them a warm welcome.

In addition, senior diplomats are represented from the Embassy of Canada, the Embassy of Croatia, the EU Delegation, the Embassy of Hungary, the Embassy of India, the Embassy of Kazakhstan, the Embassy of Latvia, the Embassy of Malta, the Embassy of Pakistan, the Embassy of Romania, the Embassy of Turkey, the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, and the Embassy of the United States, all of whom are participating in this very timely event. We’re also honoured to welcome representatives from international organisations such as UNICEF and more.

Further, today’s luncheon features participants from leading companies, including Bayer, Bingbo China, BMW China, ByteDance, Eni S.p.A., MSD China, Procter & Gamble, the Royal Bank of Canada, Tianxiu Intelligent Robotics Group Limited, and NEO. We also have representatives from the media, including CGTN, Chora Media, China Daily, South China Morning Post, The Straits Times, and think tanks as well. Thank you all once again for your support of this engagement. This is a very important and timely discussion, and I truly appreciate all of you taking time out of your busy schedules. I would like to start by introducing the four distinguished speakers we have invited, as we will be having a panel discussion right after this. I will introduce them one by one.

First is Madam Zhao Ping, President of the Academy of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. With a background in economic and trade research at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Ministry of Commerce, she has led over 150 projects for international organisations and Chinese government ministries. Her work focuses on global supply chains, business environment reports, and China’s role in global economic governance. She has actually brought quite a few copies of her report today on the supply chain.

Another speaker is Mr. Lin Shunjie. He is the Chairman of China International Exhibition Centre Group Limited. He has extensive leadership experience in government and enterprises, with expertise in management, international business, and brand development. He has worked with international organisations and coordinated major economic events across numerous countries. He is knowledgeable in industry policies and supports global companies operating in China.

Then, we have Professor Ji Wenhua, a professor of law at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, specialising in international economic law and global economic governance. He holds key positions, such as Co-Chair of the WTO Chairs Programme at the University of International Business and Economics. He was also a former official in the Intellectual Property Division of the Treaty and Law Department at the Ministry of Commerce. He has also published widely.

Last but not least, we have a speaker who has come from very far away. He just arrived yesterday—Mr. Ravi Agrawal, the Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy magazine, a leading global publication on international affairs. He was a former senior producer for CNN and also a producer for GPS, a well-known programme at CNN. He was also the former CNN bureau chief in India. He is known for his insightful analysis on geopolitical trends and foreign policy issues. Under his leadership, Foreign Policy continues to influence and engage policymakers and readers worldwide. I just had a meeting with Ravi, and he mentioned to me that Foreign Policy is doing well and has a very large subscriber base. So, congratulations on that!

Please join me in giving them a warm round of applause and invite them to come to the podium.

Zhao Ping, President of the Academy of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade

Thank you, CCG, for giving me such a great opportunity to share our opinions on the global supply chain. Today, I’d like to take this opportunity to share the key report named the Global Supply Chain Promotion Report, based on the results from the Global Supply Chain Index metrics we released on the third edition of the China International Supply Chain Expo last week. In response to Mr. Wang’s question, the 2025 Global Supply Promotion Report (hereafter referred to as ’the report’), its framework includes three parts: the global sub-report, the China sub-report, and sub-reports on specific industries.

I’d like to give a quick rundown of the global sub-report, based on the latest and most authoritative data from around the world. The global sub-report leverages the global supply chain promotion analysis model we initiated in 2023 to figure out and summarise the latest trends in global supply chains over the past year.

To begin with, the level of global infrastructure connectivity has continued to improve, and the quality and growth of the infrastructure sector in the Global South have been enhanced. In addition, international economic and trade rules pay more attention to the inclusive development of global supply chains. The new WTO agenda focuses on the integration of developing countries into global supply chains, as most of the newly signed multilateral and bilateral trading agreements are led or participated in by developing countries and attach great importance to innovation, green transition, and the development of SMEs, providing institutional guarantees for offsetting the impact of trade protectionism and reducing trade and investment costs.

Furthermore, major economies attach importance to improving the resilience of their own supply chains, but some policies have shown protectionist and inward-looking tendencies, which is not conducive to global supply chain cooperation.

What’s more, technological innovation has played an increasingly significant role in driving the development of global supply chains. The increasing maturity of digital technologies, such as augmented reality and generative artificial intelligence, and accelerated green technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and smart grids, are pushing global supply chains into a new stage of digital, intelligent, and green development. Finally, the inclusivity of global financial services has increased. International financial institutions have introduced a great number of measures to support financing in developing countries and developed relevant monitoring and management platforms. Supply chain finance has further bridged the trade financing gap of SMEs, effectively guaranteeing the security and stability of global supply chains.

Promoting the development of global supply chains has become a common concern of international organisations, major economies, and business communities. This year, based on the Global Supply Chain Promotion Index (GSCPI) and the Global Supply Chain Connectivity Index (GSCCI), initiated in 2024, we have further expanded the scope of global supply chain index research. By developing the Global Supply Chain Innovation Index (GSCII) and the Global Supply Chain Resilience Index (GSCRI) to form an index matrix to comprehensively assess the external environment, connectivity, innovation development, and development resilience of global supply chains. The index matrix takes 2018 as the base period and sets a basic value as one. According to the calculation results of the index matrix, there are three main findings:

First, the values of four indices have all increased, despite the mounting uncertainty and instability factors in the world economy. Positive factors have always occupied a mainstream position, and global supply chains are moving toward a more efficient and dynamic direction. This once again shows that economic globalisation is the general trend of the times and the common desire of people around the world.

Second, the average annual growth rate of the GSCPI, GSCCI, and GSCII was higher than that of the GSCRI and hit historical highs in 2024. GSCRI had declined for two consecutive years since 2022. And although the index rebounded in 2024, it didn’t recover to its level in 2021. GSCRI would also decline when any of the other three indices drop. This indicates that the inherent resilience of the global supply chain is relatively fragile. Its security and stability are still facing huge challenges.

Third, improving the resilience of global supply chains requires concerted efforts by all parties. GSCRI will only rise when all the other three indices increase. This means that only when all factors of the global supply chain’s promoting system work together can the resilience of a global supply chain be truly enhanced. Based on the findings of the report and index matrix, we put forward the following five recommendations: First and foremost, build an efficient and interconnected infrastructure network to provide a more solid external hardware guarantee for the stable operation of global supply chains.

Secondly, uphold the openness and inclusiveness of multilateral and bilateral rules, resolve trade disputes through dialogue and consultation, and provide a fairer, more transparent, and predictable institutional environment for the safe operation of global supply chains.

Next, formulate mutually beneficial and win-win supply chain policies, abandon protectionist and inward-looking mindsets, and jointly promote the diversified layout and safe, efficient operation of global supply chains. Moreover, create a more dynamic environment for innovative development, promote the free cross-border flow of global innovation elements, and inject strong impetus into the quality upgrading of global supply chains.

Last but not least, improve the inclusive and secure financial services system to ensure the safe operation of global supply chains. By the way, the report I just mentioned is here with me today. If you are interested, you can grab a copy just outside the door. Thank you.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Madam Zhao. Yes, a very interesting report. You mentioned many aspects: multilateralism, openness, and the guarantee of the hardware to make sure the supply chain moves smoothly. So, thank you for these highlights of your report. We appreciate that.

Next, I would like to have Mr. Lin Shunjie. He is the Chairman of China International Exhibition Centre Group Corporation. Mr. Lin, I know you manage many exhibitions and expos both inside and outside China. How do you see, from your angle, supply chain resilience? And how can we enhance it in this age of uncertainties? Mr. Lin, please.

Lin Shunjie, Chairman, China International Exhibition Center Group Corporation

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to the stage, and good afternoon, Your Excellencies. I do have a lot of things to share with you based on Madam Zhao’s introduction. I think I will not bore you because we do have millions of interesting stories.

We do a lot of exhibitions, not only in China but also outside of China. We send over 200 exhibition delegations annually to other countries. Before the pandemic, the number was even higher. Of course, we are recovering, but unfortunately, we have met trade war, tariff war. Everything, you know, is very uncertain.

I have to say, this year, we do have some challenges. It’s lucky for me that we have finished all the projects we were engaged with in the U.S. market in the first half of this year. We cannot predict next year. Because currently, the registration from Chinese trade companies is almost zero to any trade fairs in the U.S.—no growth. We do have some registered exhibitors, but I’m not sure if they will really go. It depends on the dialogue. We hope next week, in Sweden, we can see some good outcomes.

So, as you see, my business is closely connected to the international trade and political situation, which means the impact on the supply chain cooperation is very big right now.

I think it’s a good time to talk about international supply chain cooperation because the third edition of the China International Supply Chain Expo was just successfully conducted last week. This expo was hosted by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and organised by my company, China International Exhibition Centre Group. Just a small advertisement: my company is the largest exhibition company. Our name was given by Mr. Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, which made us a window of China’s opening up and reform to the world.

I saw hundreds of global business leaders from 75 countries and regions participating in this Expo. They all conveyed a very strong message that is, in today’s uncertain world, stakeholders everywhere are still actively looking for ways to cooperate, trying to turn challenges into new opportunities. And through many international exchanges, we have clearly seen that the call for stronger supply chain cooperation is growing across the globe. It’s becoming a shared priority for more and more countries.

Since 2023, CCPIT has launched a new initiative—“Thousands of Trade Missions Going Abroad,” which means every year, nationwide, the CCPIT family sends thousands of business delegations to visit foreign countries and seek opportunities for strengthening supply chain cooperation. Last year, 2,249 CCPIT delegations visited 102 countries, and over 50,000 Chinese companies participated in those visits. As part of the “Thousands of Trade Missions” initiative, my company organised Supply Chain Expo roadshows in 45 countries. I personally was involved in many of them, and I witnessed how important the topic of supply chain cooperation has become to all countries. Politicians, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and owners of innovative companies are all very keen to talk about how to make supply chains more stable, more efficient, and more connected.

In South Africa, our delegation, led by Mr. Ren Hongbin, Chairman of CCPIT, met with Vice President Paul Mashatile—he just visited China last week. We talked about how to strengthen supply chain cooperation on green agriculture, clean energy, and digital technology. The Vice President voiced strong support for South Africa-China supply chain cooperation and later made a special trip to China and participate in the third edition of the Supply Chain Expo. At the expo, I saw over 30 South African companies that found opportunities of getting involved in the supply chains of Chinese companies. I know the South African government promoted dozens of projects to attract investments from Chinese companies, who are ready to support South Africa and other investment destinations to extend their industrial chains. So, that’s the purpose of the Expo.

And in Brazil, we met with Vice President Alckmin to talk about deeper supply chain cooperation, the Belt and Road Initiative, and BRICS frameworks. Mr. Alckmin said that Brazil hopes to align more closely with China’s supply chains and encourage local businesses to take part in the Supply Chain Expo. In Serbia, President Vučić met the delegation. He praised China’s role in maintaining stable global supply chains and expressed strong interest in deepening cooperation in key areas.

In Thailand, we met with the ministers of industry and commerce. They all agreed that the need for more collaboration in sectors like smart vehicles, AI, and high-tech manufacturing and saw the Supply Chain Expo as a key platform to advance more joint projects. I think they are very right. Because last week at the Expo, I learned that more Chinese carmakers are planning to set up more factories or authorise more second-tier suppliers in Thailand, which means that instead of purely selling cars to Thailand, Chinese carmakers are more seriously considering building their local supply chain step by step.

Speaking of the smart vehicle industry, I have to say Chinese carmakers have more ambitious plans to expand their supply chains in Europe. In Hungary, CATL and BYD’s cases definitely inspired a lot of Chinese carmakers, like XPeng, a very loyal exhibitor to the Supply Chain Expo. They are developing a very long-term cooperation with European suppliers. I think later this year, they will have something exciting to announce. Basically, I heard from many carmakers that they have strong interests in Spain, France, and Austria. When I met the CEOs of BMW and Mercedes-Benz, they all expressed strong support for such movements of investment. Earlier this year, we also heard very realistic voices from the French, German, and Austrian governments and trade associations when we met them. So, I think it’s the right time for the European Commission to make more positive policies. I hope we can see something tangible later this month. Let’s pray.

So, over the past years, exchanges like these happened very often, I would say, covering all of China’s major trade partners, whether developed countries or emerging markets, resource-rich nations or tech powerhouses. There is a shared view that is, we must keep working together to make supply chains stronger and more resilient. This is exactly why the China International Supply Chain Expo was launched and why it has grown so quickly. Businesses around the world are finding value here. They are discovering new partners, new opportunities, and new confidence in China’s supply chain ecosystem.

As it was the first national-level expo focused on supply chains, the Expo brings together all key links: upstream, midstream, and downstream; large and small companies; research and industry; domestic and international players. It’s not just about showcasing products; it’s about sharing ideas, building partnerships, and turning supply chain cooperation into real actions. As our Mr. Chair mentioned, this year, 650 companies participated in this expo, and 35% of them are foreign companies, and over half of them are from Europe and the United States.

Again, American exhibitors successfully made the United States the number one participating country. I would say American companies like this Expo the most because they understand the importance of supply chain cooperation with China more than others. Like Jason Huang, Founder and CEO of Nvidia, attended this expo, and he described China’s supply chain as a miracle. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, said last year Apple could not achieve its success without those excellent Chinese suppliers. And Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, posted the 95% localisation of his gigafactory in Shanghai. I think these three guys are among the smartest guys in the world. Many of these foreign companies bring their supply chain partners and present together as chain leaders and chain partners. Their displays cover everything from raw materials to advanced technology, from green energy to AI, offering a clear picture of the full supply chain landscape.

The layout of the Supply Chain Expo follows the logic of real supply chains. We group the companies by how they work together, encouraging big players to lead small players, and showing the full process from upstream to downstream. Virtually and horizontally, we showcase supply chain services. Visitors could see how different parts of the chain fit together and where they might get involved in the large companies’ supply chains. At this expo, large companies usually showcase their supply chain systems and standards, setting industrial benchmarks and providing solutions to optimise industrial and supply chains. Like, Apple participated in each edition of the Expo, but they never showcased a single Apple product—no iPhone, no MacBook. Tim Cook just brought us the best suppliers in China to showcase how they produce, what kind of machinery they are using, and what kind of standards Apple is maintaining in China. That opens a big door to other potential suppliers in China. He believes the most complete industrial system in China could support Apple to expand its business in the world.

For innovative SMEs, this Expo also offers a unique opportunity to engage and exhibit together with big companies, potentially integrating into the supply chains of those industrial leaders. And for foreign governments, this Expo, I believe, is the ideal place to see the whole picture of seven industrial chains and attract investment from the best companies, I would say, the right companies to make investments in their countries.

This year, I saw nearly 170 overseas government and business delegations visit my Expo, which helped them identify potential partners and what they need most, and make meaningful connections. As Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng rightly pointed out at the opening ceremony of this Expo, the China International Supply Chain Expo (CISCE) will continue to bring together consensus and strengths for keeping global supply chains stable and smooth.

So, ladies and gentlemen, working together on supply chains is not just important, it’s essential for a better future. We will keep improving this Expo as a platform for connections and cooperation, and we look forward to building more resilient and open supply chains with all of you. I think it’s not only beneficial to my business—my business is very small, just exhibition and conference—but will be conducive to all industries and businesses around the world. Thank you.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Mr. Lin. It’s fascinating to hear that, for example, you mentioned that your company sends 50,000 Chinese enterprises to different countries for expos. Of course, there is a growing trend of more Chinese companies going global to establish supply chains. So, this international movement of Chinese companies going global will likely help build up local supply chains, which will facilitate supply chain integration, rather than just focusing on one place.

I’d now like to turn to Professor Ji. You used to work in both the public and private sectors, and of course, now you are a professor studying this phenomenon. What do you think about the supply chain in this turbulent world? How can we do better? How can we integrate supply chains more effectively? How can we improve them from your point of view?

Ji Wenhua, Professor at the School of Law, University of International Business and Economics

Thank you, President Wang, for inviting me today. This is a very high-level event, and I’m very pleased that I have the opportunity to share my personal thoughts concerning supply chain industries and supply chain resilience and stability issues. A little different from the previous speakers, when I studied this issue, I found a lot of disruptions, turbulence, and confrontations. That’s the reason why we are discussing this issue. If everything is okay, of course, nobody will worry about stability and security. Because a lot of measures have been taken by many countries in the past several years, the whole world is talking about how to handle the security and stability of the issue of supply chains.

I wrote something titled Advancing Multilateral Rules for the Security and Stability of Global Industry and the Supply Chain in a New International Landscape. Because I am a law professor, I always consider what we could do at the multilateral level to address some problems and create a better legal, rules-based environment for the world economy, not only for one country, but for the world. Basically, I divide my presentation into two parts. The first one concerns the current situation. And taking note of the time constraints, I’ll try to be brief.

First, in recent years, the global industry and supply chain have become more complex and politicised. Strategic rivalry among major powers, geopolitical conflicts, technological disruptions, pandemics, and climate-related challenges have all led to the proliferation of various national-level policies and trade measures aimed at so-called strengthening the resilience and security of domestic supply chains. According to my observations, these policy responses and trade actions can be generally grouped into three categories.

The first category involves unilateral and inward-oriented measures. Certain countries have adopted domestic laws and policies that impose trade and investment restrictions on specific foreign products, offer subsidies to selected domestic industries, discriminate against foreign competitors, or strictly implement export controls. I have a long list of such measures. These countries are also conducting security reviews of their supply chains and promoting a form of decoupling from certain specific partners.

The problem is that although these actions purport to reduce external dependence and enhance domestic supply chain resilience and security, most, if not all, of those measures exceed the reasonable bound allowed by multilateral rules. So, these measures are exclusionary and disruptive in nature. They generally violate multilateral rules, increase economic costs for everyone, and exacerbate the fragmentation and instability of the global supply chain. So, that’s the first category.

The second category focuses on regional and minilateral arrangements. Some countries are engaging in small-group coordination through bilateral or plurilateral mechanisms, forming closer links with a selected number of partners or allies in specific supply chains. While these arrangements may enhance stability among participating countries, they also create new divisions in the global trading system by heightening a barrier for non-participants. In my experience, these club-based arrangements tend to lack clear rules, and their effectiveness is indeed limited by diverse national interests and coordination difficulties.

The third category seeks rule coordination and risk mitigation through multilateral mechanisms. Several countries have attempted to leverage forums such as the WTO, G20, and APEC to encourage trade openness and foster global cooperation on supply chain resilience. For example, in late 2023, China submitted a WTO document titled Strengthening the Resilience and Stability of Global Industrial and Supply Chains. China proposed a joint ministerial statement at the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference (MC 13) in Abu Dhabi. But the final outcome of MC 13 incorporated Paragraph 6, which emphasised the importance of open, inclusive, resilient, sustainable, diversified, and reliable global supply chains. A lot of terms self-contradict with each other, but all those elements should be considered in the future when we draft international rules in this regard. Of course, the problem is that these multilateral initiatives remain largely conceptual and have yet to yield any specific operational and binding instruments or disciplines. They are very hollow, and nobody seems to follow them after the meetings. So, that’s the problem we are faced at the multilateral level.

Now, going to the second point I would like to highlight: multilateralism matters. We should try to use multilateral forums to do something because in reality, we are likely to face an extended period during which all three categories of measures will co-exist and intensify, particularly with unilateral restrictions becoming increasingly commonplace. More and more countries are concerned because other countries are taking measures to protect their own security and stability, and they will join this process, take more trade-distorting measures, protect themselves, and hurt others, and others hurt you, which then causes more disruption to the global supply chain.

So, I think responsible countries must not stand by while global rules erode and cooperation deteriorates. In light of the disruptive impacts of the first and second categories of measures, strengthening multilateral mechanisms and promoting rule-based arrangements on supply chain security and stability should be viewed not only as a means of stopping or reversing today’s negative circle but also as the most constructive pathway forward. This is not just preferable; it may be the only viable option left at the end when countries feel fatigued. In this context, I believe that initiating multilateral discussions toward a kind of global arrangement or global understanding on industry and supply chain security and stability is both feasible and necessary. Of course, tangible breakthroughs may be unlikely in the short term, but early engagement is essential to prevent long-term disorder and further economic decoupling.

That said, two critical questions arise. I think you all have these two questions: How should the arrangement be promoted? And what should it include? I would like to propose some tentative measures to address those two issues. First, in terms of the process, I think a group of like-minded, forward-looking WTO members should take the lead. This should not adopt a “wait-and-see” approach. Many countries are adopting this approach nowadays, either for supply chain issues or reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States. “Wait-and-see” doesn’t work nowadays. So, they should launch informal working groups or plurilateral initiatives similar to the joint statement initiatives within the platforms such as the WTO or G20. This would raise the visibility of this issue and build momentum.

Second, in terms of the substance, what could the arrangement include? I propose the following elements. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list because I am a law professor, I always think about what are the concrete bullet points in this proposal. I list seven points: First, on reforming the applicability and authority of existing WTO rules, to highlight their importance. Second, oppose decoupling measures based purely on nationality and economic models, and promote openness and inclusiveness. Those two are not something new. Third, identify acceptable conditions for invoking supply chain stability and security measures. Sometimes you have the right to take some measures to protect the stability and security, but what are the criteria? Under what conditions is that permitted? Possibly, we could use a combined principles-based, exceptions and quantitative thresholds to define in what kind of situations and in which sectors you could take some measures, their impact, and if we have a limit on the impact.

The fourth point: defining supply chain assurance obligations of countries holding dominant positions in key supply chains, and specifying prohibited restrictive actions. Any major supplier of any critical import bears the responsibility because of their dominance. They bear a kind of responsibility toward the world, to some extent, to guarantee the stability of the supply. So, a kind of supply assurance obligation should be discussed. Many countries have such kind of supply chain dominance in particular sectors. If they would like to talk about this kind of obligation, other countries may feel less nervous.

The fifth point: regulating the use of national security exceptions, possibly through a negative list of non-restrictive situations. The sixth point: strengthening legal enforceability. The seventh point: establishing transparency. Of course, rule-making will not be easy, but I think if we succeed, both the world economy and the rules-based trading system will benefit.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the sustainability of international economic cooperation depends on legal rules, political trust, and institutional stability. Only by doing so can we ensure long-term supply chain resilience and stability and avoid the pitfalls of zero-sum confrontations. This is a responsibility that we must all share together, not only one country. That’s my point. Thank you very much.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Professor Ji outlined many legal aspects. We talked about the multilateral system to sustain supply chains, which is somewhat missing, particularly in the WTO. Of course, we have regional frameworks being developed now, which are gaining momentum: RECEP and CPTPP, which is another regional mechanism. The European Union wants to join, and China wants to join. We need to reach a consensus on these supply rules to not overscuritise and destabilise the supply chain.

I’d now like to introduce Ravi. He is a top mind and also the chief editor of Foreign Policy, widely read. So, Ravi, you’ve been watching from where you’ve been in India, the U.S., and the UK, and recently you were in Munich. You mentioned that supply chains are a key issue. We just heard from Lin about companies like Tesla and Apple, which have supply chains in China, and Walmart, which produces 60% of its products in China. So, how can we address this? Should we encourage more Chinese investments overseas, or should we focus on diversifying supply chains?

Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief, Foreign Policy

Sure, all of the above, I think. Thank you, Henry, first of all, for putting together this lavish spread and inviting all of us. I’ll embarrass Henry for a minute. I’ve run into him at Davos, Munich, Doha, around the world. And I have to say, it’s so important to have connections to China in my line of work as an editor and as a journalist. The number of touchpoints he brings to dialogues around the world with China is absolutely invaluable. So, I really thank you for the work you do and the engagement you bring in fora across the world. I’m not a trade expert, so I’m not going to try and act like I am one. And I don’t have prepared remarks, but I’m going to say a few short things.

The first is that we are in an era of backlash around the world. For me, the predominant feeling in societies around the world is as follows: in the last three or four decades, the biggest headlines were more globalisation, more capitalism, more urbanisation, and more technological shifts. When you add up all of those forces together, a lot of good has happened in countries around the world. I should also add more democratisation. All of these forces have transformed the world that we live in, especially in the West. There was an aspirational nature to all of these things, and something has shifted in the last decade or so.

You might be wondering, what does this have to do with trade? Well, it actually is related. We’ve known for a while now that the system—however you define the system—hasn’t quite worked for everyone. If you speak to people in rural communities of any country, anywhere in the world, there is a sense that things aren’t working. There is a sense that there has been too much urbanisation, our societies are hollowed out. There is a sense that there’s too much inequality, our children aren’t getting jobs. There is a sense that whatever my life was, my children won’t have a better life. There are many, many reasons why these problems are occurring.

But one interpretation of it is that there’s been too much trade and globalisation, there’s too much free trade, too much unfettered capitalism. And all of these forces put together have left societies, or certain segments of societies, feeling left behind. You may or may not agree with this diagnosis, but it is a diagnosis that appeals with people who have been left behind.

First of all, everyone likes to be told they’ve been left behind. The reason why I say we’re in an era of backlash is that, in country after country, it’s now increasingly popular to have the rise of nationalism, the rise of populism, the anger and backlash against immigration, the sense that the last three or four decades of unfettered globalisation, capitalism, all the isms I’ve mentioned, that they haven’t quite worked out. Right or wrong, that is the feeling that people in society after society currently have.

This is important because one fine day during the pandemic, people in countries around the world woke up and realised, ‘Whoops, we don’t make our own masks. Whoops, we don’t make our own toilet paper. Big problem.’ And so now, you have country after country looking to nearshore, friendshore, secure their supply chains. This is why we’re in the moment that we’re in, where country after country is imposing protectionist measures. You said at the beginning we shouldn’t have protectionism, but that is the era we’re in, and we’re not going to leave that era for many years to come.

So, the question is, what do you do about it? And I think for all of you who are policymakers, ambassadors, the work that you do, I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that your populations are feeling like the global system, as it is, isn’t quite working. The biggest fear, I think, that younger people have is that their futures will not look like yours. The biggest thing, the biggest trendlines that younger people in all of your countries keep in mind is that the population growth is going to be unsustainable for the next 30-odd years before it turns around. And I’m talking now mostly about Africa. That is going to have an impact, when you look at unfettered migration that is going to happen in all of your countries around the world, which will lead to more backlash, more anti-immigrant sentiment, more anger against globalisation.

The other linked certainty in the next 30 years is a rising acknowledgement of the problems with the climate crisis. It is going to get hotter and more humid in country after country after country, which is going to lead, by the way, to more immigration, much of it illegal.

I think, to move to solutions finally, for anyone working in the arenas of trade, it is important to think, first of all, whatever the rules they are, they need to be followed. There’s a general sense of impunity, especially after the pandemic, that the bigger you are, the more you can ignore the rules. Second, the climate of hostility between the United States and China does no service for most countries around the world. Most countries around the world consider these two economies to be their biggest trading partners. That’s not going to change. For countries that have relied on free trade and globalisation—think of Sri Lanka, think of Lesotho, think of countries that are dependent on tourism and global trade–they have no route to secure their own supply chains. So, when we talk of diversifying or securing supply chains, remember that most countries don’t have that option.

So, what can the biggest countries, the most important countries in the world, do? I personally think one thing, and especially China here, but also the United States, could really focus on is ensuring that developing countries have the means and the finance to green their economies. I mean, I’m blown away by the advances China has made on electric vehicles, on solar and wind. Were China, without restrictions from the United States, able to bring a lot of that technology at low costs to much of Africa, to much of South Asia, to much of Southeast Asia, you would see a transformative effect that would make people rethink the benefits of free trade, that would make people rethink what globalisation actually is and what it can be in the future.

So, really, just to solidify my point here, keep in mind that in the next 30 years, there will be more anger against immigration, there will be more concerns about the climate crisis, and the city we’re all sitting in has actually figured out many of the answers to decarbonisation and to clean electricity. We need to figure out, all of us, how to make sure that those technologies reach the countries that need them the most, mostly in the Global South. That, on its own, will restore faith in trade and globalisation. Thanks, all of you.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Ravi. Actually, you’re right. The world, as we see it, is experiencing globalisation, but we also see some side effects. One of the side effects we’re witnessing is the widening gap between the rich and the poor, which is quite true. That’s why China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and tries to prevent more people from falling into extreme poverty. This is something China started working on earlier. Also, China has recognised that the green revolution is the future. So, I absolutely agree with your point, and I think future supply chains should help in the developing countries, the Global South, and we need to embrace this green revolution.

I think we had a very fabulous opening discussion, but now I’d like to open the floor to Q&A and take any questions from the audience. Please feel free to ask our panellists any questions. This is part of the dialogue where we also engage our guests, representatives from embassies, the media, and multinational companies. So, let’s have the first question. Does anyone have any questions?"

Q&A

Khalil ur Rahman Hashmi, Ambassador of Pakistan to China

Thank you very much, Dr. Henry. Just a quick one, reacting to what Mr. Agrawal said. I think he makes eminently sensible points, but as someone who has worked in the system—I have spent half of my diplomatic career in the multilateral world—what we are confronted today is unprecedented, certainly. It’s rather easy to say, “Follow the rules.” It’s very obvious and sensible. But we are seeing rules are not being followed. The institutions and architecture that were built after the Second World War—it’s obvious. I don’t need to narrate what is happening in the world, whether on the trade side or on the more normative, political, or diplomatic side.

So, my question is: How do we make sure? And the problem is: When those countries which actually frame the rules are not following those, how can small countries, civil society, NGOs, or other think tanks do to make sure the bigger and powerful countries actually follow the rules? The rest will follow, but the most difficult challenge is to make the most powerful countries follow the rules themselves.

André Haspels, Ambassador of the Netherlands to China

Thank you very much for organising this, and thanks to the panellists. We all talked about supply chains, but we also talked—and Ravi did in the biggest part of his contribution—about the uncertainties in the world and the risks that are there. Now, my question actually is: Where are we with the supply chains in ten years’ time? Do we continue to work on global supply chains? I know there are a lot of efforts to bring companies abroad and to bring companies to China, but I also learnt that there are a lot of risks in global trade, in players who don’t stick to the rules, etc.

So, global supply chain is one option, but there are also other options. You could go to a model where there are more regional supply chains in blocs, regional blocs around the world. And you could even go back and fall to an option where there are just national supply chains within China, within Europe, within the United States, within other parts of the world.

So, my question to the panellists, and I don’t know if who feels responsible to reply to it, is: where are we in ten years’ time, given all the uncertainties? What would be your prediction?

Ravi Agrawal

Sure, I can take a quick stab. I will say, on the question of what countries can do. I think around the world, when I spoke of this moment of backlash, this moment of anger, first of all, we have to acknowledge why people are angry; everyone does. Something wasn’t working. So the diagnosis, I think, left and right can all agree that something wasn’t working. Where we cannot agree, no matter who you are, is what the solution is.

I am of the opinion that there are broadly two camps. There’s a reform camp and there’s a revolution camp. There’s a camp that believed the system, the architecture, needed some tweaks and reforms, and then we’d be fine. And there’s a camp that believed we needed to upend the system; we needed to blow it up. My sense is that some countries are in the process of blowing up their systems, and also the global system. My sense is also that this prognosis, this plan to blow up the system, it ain’t going to work. I think in a couple of years, in three or four years maybe, people will realise that revolution could lead to something much worse than reform could have.

This moment is the moment for everyone who believes in reform to actually come up with smart reforms, to come up with a plan, for when the revolutionaries fail, you have a plan that could then be applied. And part of that plan is, first of all, accepting that something went wrong, and then having the humility to say, “I was part of that system that wasn’t quite working,” and then come up with the plan. So, whoever you are, big country, small country, I think that’s really important—a bit of humility about what went wrong, and then a plan, when the time is right, for how we can put in place that plan. That also, I think, answers your question, Sir, about where we are in 10 years. A lot of where we are in 10 years on supply chains depends on the mood of the moment, of whether the revolutionaries are still ascendant, or if the reformists are back. And the reformists, again, if they are back, they’ll need to be back in a way that wasn’t smug, but full of humility in that the system had flaws; we are here to fix it. That’s going to be, I think, the defining conversation globally in the next decade.

Zhao Ping

I’d like to share the trend of globalisation. Although there is a hot discussion about the reshaping of global supply chains, I still trust that globalisation is the mainstream. Many events just in the past years, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the Red Sea crisis, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have made people think about what kind of mode of global supply chain is better. A lot of experts discussed this and gave a lot of predictions about the trend of globalisation, something like regionalisation, diversification, and so on. But, in fact, multinational companies play a bigger role in globalisation. They’d like to allocate their resources around the world, buy materials where things are cheap, and sell their products where demand is strong, just because they want to pursue profit. And that is a very big force for globalisation. Although the policies from major economies have changed a lot, I believe multinational companies will always find the answer to globalisation. Thank you for excusing me because of my tight schedule. Thank you.

Lin Shunjie

Last year, when we visited the WTO, Madam Iweala told us a new concept of "reglobalization." Although the voice of the WTO now is very weak, I have to say, I think that’s a very good idea. We should understand the value of reglobalization. As Dr. Agrawal said, why do we have so many conflicts now? Because there must be some people feeling they are not benefiting from globalisation. Now, we are in a stage where we are making new rules. That’s the reason why so many countries are now in new dialogues of either multinational or regional trade patterns.

One thing I think China can do, and what we are doing now, is to encourage international Chinese companies, when they go global, to take more responsibilities, to help support the investment destinations, I mean those economies, to develop, to extend their local industrial chains. That’s the reason why, again, as I said, we organised this Expo. We want to show the best and strongest supply chain in China, the industrial chain in China, and invite other countries, governments, companies to visit, to talk with these big players in China and invite them to make investments in other countries.

One thing that impressed me very much was in 2023, when I participated in the China-Arab Business Forum in Saudi Arabia. The Minister of Investment of Saudi Arabia, when we met, told me he wanted to visit this Expo. Why? Because he was very eager to know who the key players of the strong supply chains in China were. He wanted to invite those key players to Saudi Arabia. He said, in the past, Saudi Arabia also had lots of big Chinese companies to make investments in Saudi Arabia, but they just saw lots of failure cases. In two or three years, these companies left. Why? Because there was no supply chain system in Saudi Arabia to support these Chinese companies, even no supply chain system in the whole Middle East area. Still, because Chinese companies, unlike Japanese or American companies that have rich experience in going global for over a hundred years. Chinese companies, when going global, only had experience of maybe twenty years, so they are lacking in experience. They were sometimes very brave, and they went and failed and came back. I have seen thousands of such cases.

So, what we should do is, as the minister said, he would like to invite a group of Chinese companies that can connect to each other along the supply chain. Then they will set up industrial zones in Saudi Arabia to support these Chinese companies to develop. I think that’s a very good idea. He said he copied this experience from China’s opening up. Yes, we did that. I think that’s a good model. We can talk with other countries; we can do that. But still, from my Organisation, from CCPIT, what we are doing now is to teach those companies that when they go global, they should share with local suppliers, develop local suppliers, and not do it by themselves.

Just as I mentioned with the cases of the carmakers, there are very different personalities among the owners of those carmakers. Some of them like to do everything alone and never share resources, but some of them are very smart. Like Mr. He Xiaopeng, the CEO of XPeng, he’s a very good guy, he’s a friend to me. He told me after he visited France and Spain that he is very confident in his future profits in Europe. Of course, he believes the European Commission should keep its promise of the tariffs and taxation policy. Consistency is always important to Chinese companies. Many of them don’t trust in the Western system, because it changes so quickly when the government changes, and they waste a lot of resources.

So, as he said, as long as the European Commission can keep the current taxation, he definitely can make profits, and he would like to have the first-tier and second-tier of suppliers in Spain, France, and Austria. He can do that. I think there are hundreds of such companies, and we should support them to share profits, to extend the industrial chains in their destinations of investment. And that’s the whole value of reglobalisation.

Ji Wenhua

Thanks, Ambassador, for the very good question concerning how we can encourage the big powers to abide by the rules. Of course, at the multilateral level, this is a phenomenon that is not a stranger to everybody. Usually, we blame them, and then we try to form a united front to consider new rules. It takes time, and businesses find their ways to navigate the turbulence and make investments.

But I would like to say that many of such kinds of business arrangements indeed will create some problems. For example, if you come here to make an investment and I give you subsidies, other countries will have concerns. We all see a lot of new problems when we want to solve the current problems. I advocate for multilateralism not because it’s the only way, but because it might be the most effective in the end. Of course, countries could do what they want bilaterally, but I don’t think bilateral measures will be able to press others to change their policies.

Back to the reshaping of the global supply chain. My point is that if the reshaping of the global supply chain is based on economic considerations and fair rules, regional blocs are fair enough. But when you’re building such blocs, if you intentionally create rules that unreasonably expel some other trade partners using unreasonable criteria, that creates problems.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Maybe I can share a bit of my thoughts at the end as well. I think the two ambassadors’ questions were excellent. Actually, I think in ten years’ time, I would expect that globalisation will continue, probably in a more inclusive and updated form. The reason for that is you can see in this trade war, during Trump’s second term, it hurt so much to separate the Chinese and U.S. economies. Trump said there was a $400 billion deficit. But when he was going to levy taxes on that immediately, it would waive $100 billion because Apple was assembling 80% of its phones in China, Tesla was making 50% of its EV cars in China, and Walmart was purchasing 60% of its supplies from China. So, it would hurt the U.S. and supermarket shelves would be empty if he pursued that. That’s why we saw so quickly the talks in Geneva and London, and now coming up in Sweden.

What I do see, though, is that this imposing tariffs on every country could still be working. That’s an abandonment of what Biden does with his geopolitical moves, such as the AUKUS pact and Camp David. Now, Trump is even considering turning down AUKUS, but he’s setting up tariff circles, like with Vietnam and Indonesia. So, you can see he still has that economic barrier alliance.

What I see, though, is that China is doing the opposite. For example, recently, the Singapore Prime Minister visited China. He was saying, let’s move the Suzhou Industrial Park model to other countries. Mr. Lin mentioned that these industrial parks are moving supply chains to whole countries. For example, I know an entrepreneur who set up a big industrial park in Ethiopia. He’s a big shoemaker who employs 8,000 African workers, but he also brought in other Chinese suppliers. So, this part of the industrial park is still helping the local economy.

There are thousands of industrial parks in China, especially in special economic zones. These could move their supply chains to other countries to sustain and support local supply chains. This could be a trend in the future.

If they invested heavily—like I was talking to Pascal Lamy, former WTO Director-General, in my office a few months ago—we were discussing why we can’t do JVs with European countries and China. Why can’t we go out together in JVs with Chinese companies’ supply chains to invest in Europe, Africa, and Latin America?

The same goes for companies like Tesla. Let’s replicate the Shanghai miracle in other parts of the U.S. and other countries. That could be the trend in the future if we don’t have too much geopolitical interference. Businesses will always find the best solutions for themselves. So, I think we need to work for this. Businesses will find the best way forward.

That’s why I think I can’t congratulate Mr. Lin enough for the Supply Chain Expo, because there you bring all the businesses together. They want to find solutions like, “Can you come to my place? Or I can go to your place.” Let’s build the new generation of supply chains, particularly to fight climate change, as Ravi rightly said.

There’s so much going on, and it’s great that we have these ideas being thrown around. I think we’re probably running out of time—I know you’re all busy. I would like to appreciate all of you for coming to our event and sharing your ideas, particularly our five speakers. Let’s give them a warm round of applause again.