Transcript: Ravi Agrawal at CCG

Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy talks multipolarity and global governance with CCG President Henry Huiyao Wang.

On July 25, Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, visited the Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG) to deliver a keynote address and participate in a discussion with Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President of CCG. Agrawal also fielded questions from a live audience, including Chinese journalists.

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

On July 24 afternoon, Cai Wei, Director-General of the Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs of China’s Foreign Ministry, met with Ravi Agrawal, who was accompanied by CCG.

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

Zichen Wang, Research Fellow & Director of International Communications, Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to yet another edition of CCG Global Dialogue. My name is Zichen Wang. I work here as a research fellow and Director for International Communications.

Today we have the honour to welcome Mr Ravi Agrawal here in China. He arrived yesterday in Beijing and just concluded another event with CCG at a luncheon. I’ve actually just met him this morning, but I’ve been bestowed the pleasure of introducing him to you, everyone sitting at the audience as well as, you know, watching at your screen and at your phones.

Mr Ravi Agrawal is the editor in chief of Foreign Policy, one of the most influential current affairs magazines in the world. He’s also the host of FP Live, the magazine’s video channel and podcast, on which he regularly interviews world leaders and policymakers. Before joining FP and taking the helm at the publication in 2018, Agrawal worked at CNN for more than a decade, I think, 11 years, in full-time roles spanning three different continents, including becoming head of its New Delhi bureau. He also worked, I think, for three years on the show GPS, which I’m sure everyone has watched. It’s one of the most influential shows on TV on world affairs.

He has shared a Peabody Award and three Emmy nominations for his work as a TV producer, and his writing for FP was part of a series nominated for a 2020 National Magazine Award for columns and commentary.

He’s the author of the book India Connected: How the Smartphone is Transforming the World’s Largest Democracy. And he, I believe, grew up in India, was born in Great Britain, and also went to Harvard University. You know, the combination of three great civilisations and powers in the world.

So, as in the past, our programme today is for Mr Ravi Agrawal to give a brief talk, and then he will sit down and have a brief conversation with Henry Huiyao Wang, the Founder and President of the Centre for China and Globalisation. After that, he will answer questions from the live audience. So we expect the programme to last for maybe an hour and 10 minutes or 20 minutes.

Without further ado, let’s welcome Ravi to come here and give us the talk. Thank you.

Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief, Foreign Policy

Well, thank you, Zichen. Thank you, Henry, as well. Thank you, all of you, for being here. I just want to say I’m very grateful to CCG for organising this lovely event today, but also for all of the work that it does because it creates touchpoints for many of us in the United States and elsewhere around the world to understand what is happening in China, to understand the Chinese perspective and point of view. I cannot tell you how important that role is that CCG plays to build Track-Two diplomacy to give us a better understanding of what is happening in this very, very important country.

It’s a real honour to be here in China. In the short time I’ve been here, I’ve seen how much this country has changed. I’m absolutely blown away by the green transition in China and also the fact that the air is just unbelievably clean in Beijing, which is a lesson and a journey that I hope China is able to share with many other countries that need it, including India, which is a country I was just in a couple of days ago.

So, I’ll speak for a little bit of time, and then I’d love to take questions from you and, of course, from Henry.

We are in a pivotal moment. The world is in a very pivotal moment. And it is a moment of transition. It feels like a moment in which the world order that we are in, the system that we are in, that system is straining and that system might be changing, might lead to a different system entirely.

System changes, systemic changes are not new. If you take a really long span of history, thousands of years, there have been many moments of great change, of changes. If you think of the work of Thucydides and Sparta and Athens, if you think of other transitions between great powers, great wars that countries and empires fought against each other. None of this is new. Wars are not new. Conquests are not new, conflict over resources also not new.

So, what is new about this moment that we’re in? And if I had to venture a guess of what exactly feels new about this current moment, I would say two things. I mean, there are many things, to be clear, but two things strike me as salient things that I’d like to focus on in the next few minutes. Those two things are the scale and size of the global population.

So, we’re a world currently of 8 billion people. We will likely peak at about 9 or 10 billion people in about 25 years before the world population begins to decline. If you look at any other great transition between great powers, whether it’s from the UK to the United States in the 20th century or other transitions in history, obviously, the world population was much smaller in those moments. So, that’s one reason why this moment feels particularly new and challenging.

The other is the fact that we are in the middle of a climate crisis. It is an undeniable climate crisis where, no matter where you are in the world, everything seems hotter. The world is warming up, and that has profound consequences on the planet. It has profound consequences on societies, consequences on movements, migrations of people. Much of the global migration that we’re seeing, whether it’s people escaping countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan or the Horn of Africa or Egypt, which are rapidly becoming unliveable because of the sheer scale of climate change in those parts of the world, the migratory movements from those countries into other parts of the world are all shaping politics. They’re shaping various types of backlashes against immigration. All of that feels particularly new in the scope and scale of what we’re seeing right now.

I said that the system is changing, let me just quickly describe what exactly I mean by the system. And by the system, I mean the world order, the order that 80 years ago at the end of World War II, the United States and the West, more broadly, got together to create the post-Bretton Woods system, which involves, of course, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, all of the institutes that you’re also familiar with. That system of order, that system of rules, of international norms, that system that was created 80 years ago feels more stressed than it has at any point in its history.

And there are many reasons for those stresses, and I’ll come to them in a minute. But what that means, what that stress means in that system, is that all kinds of things are erupting. I mean, it is no surprise that in the last five or six years, we feel, we see that so many different parts of the world have conflicts erupting. You look at Russia and Ukraine. You look at the conflict in the Middle East right now. You look at Sudan, which gets very little attention in the West. I hope it gets more attention here in China.

There are so many different parts of the world that are erupting in crisis, erupting in conflict, erupting in war. A lot of that is linked to a sense that we’re in a moment where the rules don’t matter as much. We’re in a moment where countries can act with relative impunity. We’re in a moment where leaders know that, were they to break the rules, the checks and balances that they were scared of 20,30 years ago, they don’t need to be as scared of them today. We’re in a world where even if the ICC or the ICJ—again, the system that I’m describing—they can put out edicts that leader X or leader Y should be arrested if they travel to country Q or R, whatever it is, there’s a level of impunity. People can do what they want to do. And that is what defines the breakdown of a system.

Now, the question then is, you’ve broken a system. What comes next? What happens next? And I think before we even get to that question, one thing that I’m increasingly convinced of that all of us in my world—the media world, the journalism world, in the policy making world, in the political world—one thing that we all need to understand is the why: Why is the system breaking down? Why is it that people around the world feel as disillusioned as they are, feel as angry as they are, feel like the system itself is rigged? And this is across the board in country after country after country; there is a growing sense that the system doesn’t work.

And part of that is because in the last 30 or 40 years, if you look at the big forces that shaped the world—they are, among others, globalisation, capitalism, of course, urbanisation, technological forces—all of these things put together have not only shaped the world, but there’s a sense that an unfettered version of all of these things have led to a backlash of sorts. So, if you are, for example, someone who lives in rural Ohio, or frankly, any rural part of any country anywhere in the world, the forces that have hit you are something as follows.

One, the local mom-and-pop store that you grew up with doesn’t exist anymore. Now, everyone buys their stuff off of Amazon or Alibaba or whatever it is that the local equivalent is. Jobs, instead of families living for several generations in one place, people feel the need to migrate to bigger cities. Urbanisation is a trend that’s happened in every country. The richer it gets, the more urbanised it gets. Well, that means that local populations feel more and more displaced. They feel that the things, the community, the traditions that underpin their civilisation is breaking apart. You add to that technology, the fact that we all have these smartphones in our hands. That means we can communicate with each other like never before. What that then means as well as you can buy things; you don’t need the old systems in the way that you do.

There’s a lot of good that comes with it, but the bad that comes with it is that community ties are fraying, people feel displaced. There’s been too much change too quickly. And all of that leads to a sense of resentment, a sense of anger among populations, which then leads to backlashes. It leads to populism, it leads to nationalism, it leads to nativism. And it leads to—then finally coming back to the topic that I brought up here—it leads to a breakdown of the global rules-based system that we’ve all been working within for the last 80 years.

Countries, especially after the pandemic, because of the forces of nativism and nationalism and populism, countries feel that they have to, instead of focusing on free trade and globalisation, they need to focus more on local. So, protectionism, and there’s talk of nearshoring and friendshoring and boosting local businesses. All of that is a backlash against globalisation. All of that is an appeal to nativist instincts. All of that also comes along with a breaking of rules—countries feeling like they can’t follow the WTO rules; that’s too unpopular, they’ll get booted out of office. So let’s break the rules.

You add to that the fact that you now have real strains in global order because of conflicts. So there’s Russia and Ukraine, where, for the first time in 80 years, you have a violation of the fundamental rules of international law: Thou shalt not invade another country. That rule gets broken and completely divides and polarises the world. You have the conflict in Gaza right now, which many call a genocide. Some refuse to call it a genocide, but the fact remains that it is an issue that is completely and utterly dividing the world. You add to that other conflicts that don’t get any of the attention they should be getting, Sudan, as I mentioned.

And there’s a real sense globally that the system doesn’t work, the system is rigged. There’s a colour line that determines which conflicts and wars get attention and which ones don’t. There are rules for big countries and a separate set of rules for other countries. And we’re in a system that increasingly looks like the jungle, the return of the jungle.

Now, having laid out all the problems, what is the solution? Is the jungle the new normal? Is the jungle our future? Is the return of history our future? Or are we going to figure out some way of reforming this broken system that I’m describing and figuring out a new system: a new system based on the old one, a new system that is more equitable, a new system that is maybe more multipolar. And therein, I think, lies the fundamental challenge that policymakers of a new generation will have to grapple with.

No matter which country you represent, no matter where you’re from in the world. It is clear to me that the two trendlines, more than any other, that will determine global politics is (A) the size of our global population and where population increases are coming from. The numbers on this are quite clear. You look at the population of a country like Nigeria, around about 200 million today. Projections are that it’s gonna hit 350, 400 million within the next three or four decades. You look at other countries that have rapidly growing populations in other parts of Africa, some parts of South Asia, and it’s very clear where the numbers are coming from. It then also becomes clear that those numbers and partly the unlivability in those countries is going to mean massive migratory pressure in other parts of the world, all of that linked to an unprecedented climate crisis that is very real, that is coming.

And that many of our leaders around the world, in the gerontocracy that we’ve created, where you have very old leaders who don’t understand the fundamental things that drive younger people’s politics. If you’re under the age of 30, the things you’re worrying about are the climate crisis and basic livability and inequality. And those things keep you up at night. They make you realise that the system is rigged. They make you realise that your future is not particularly bright. And it makes you realise that the only way to deal with all of that is to revolt.

So, policymakers, I think, have to really grapple with these realities that I’m describing, the broader trendlines of the climate crisis and population shifts in the future, and figure out what it is that will most appeal to their populations and make it viable for them to continue to be politicians.

As we speak here in Beijing, it is so clear to me that this is a country that has fundamentally figured out how to decarbonise. I mean, if you look at Chinese imports of oil, for example. The latest data shows that it is going to peak in the next year or two, and then Chinese imports of oil are going to decrease. It is so clear that China’s incredible advances in solar and wind and electric vehicles have fundamentally transformed the nature of the Chinese economy.

What the world now needs to figure out is how to use these advances in technology and bring them to the other parts of the world that desperately need it. We still have India, which has not really managed to green its electricity grids. We still have large parts of Africa that have not figured out the solution to a problem that China has actually begun to figure out. That really, in my mind, is the fundamental thing that world leaders need to focus on in the next 20 or 30 years, because without that, it is unclear to me how any other thing that we’re discussing gets solved.

That and a sense of reestablishing what are the rules in a battle between reform and revolution. And if that is fundamentally where we are today—the system is broken, most people seem to agree on the diagnosis—it’s the fix. Is the fix reform or is the fix revolution? It seems like we’re in a moment where the revolutionaries are winning the argument. They’re in the ascendancy. We must get back to a place where the reformists end up having more of a say, where the reformists are able to say, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Don’t destroy the system. The old system wasn’t as bad as you might think, but it did need reform.”

And the only way to have that conversation is with immense humility, to admit where the problems were, and the problems were on all sides. But to admit where they were and then come up with proper multilateral reform ideas—reform is always boring, it is always hard work, but it really is the only way to tweak and fix our system at a time, again, that truly is unprecedented and different from any other moment of global transition between one world power, one sort of world system and another.

So, I’m going to stop there. There were more problems than solutions in my little message, but that’s the world we’re in, and I hope that’s an entry point to be able to have a discussion. I’ll stop there. Henry, over to you.

Zichen Wang

Thank you, Ravi, for your diagnosis of the underlying reasons for a lot of challenges we are seeing today, as well as highlighting the enormous importance of climate change and the ways to address that. And not only address it in China, but also in India and large parts of Africa, across the world. So, thank you very much for the enlightening speech.

The next part of the programme is for a conversation between Henry Huiyao Wang and Ravi. Before it begins, although we’re at CCG, so Henry needs no introduction, but allow me to spill the ink for like 30 seconds. He’s the Founder and President of the Centre for China and Globalisation, one of the leading non-governmental think tanks in China. He was also a counsellor to the State Council, China’s government cabinet, for two consecutive terms. So, Henry is a thinker. He’s the leader of a think tank. He’s, on many occasions, and I think Ravi would agree, the only Chinese face in, you know, the Munich Security Conference, the Paris Peace Forum, the Aspen Security Forum. All these are where all the leading thinkers, influencers, and voices gather together. And Henry is often only the Chinese face over there, trying to not just introduce a Chinese perspective, but also trying to build bridges and help all these foreigners have a better understanding of China and have a touchpoint, as you correctly described.

CCG has always been at the forefront of building bridges. For example, the CCG Global Dialogue regularly features leading thinkers from the United States, from Europe, from across the world. And the CCG is also a frequent inviter of influential thinkers and leaders like Ravi to come to Beijing, to talk to the people, to mingle with the ambassadors, diplomats, to come to meet Chinese officials and non-governmental actors. So, without further ado, let’s welcome them to have a conversation between themselves. Thank you.

Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President of Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG)

Thank you, Zichen, for the introduction. I really want to congratulate Ravi for his excellent opening speech, which is highly relevant and highly impactful because that is probably the root of our problem. You mentioned that the global system is under extreme pressure and strain. And as we know, this year, 2025, is the 80 anniversary of the founding of the UN. So it’s time to reflect, to look at this. And I think globalisation, as we know, will probably change. But of course, the mega trend somehow still continues. I particularly agree with you on this widening gap and also the society strata that is not really well maintained in the last 40, 50 years.

One of the things is that we found that we all have a domestic problem, but then maybe we all say it’s other people’s problem. So, what do we do? Because I know that OECD actually proposed the Global Minimum Tax some time ago, and G20 and some 100 countries followed on that. Also, China agrees on that.

If we can really get this kind of global system so that multinationals, if they make enough money, can repatriate back to support the local social programmes and then do more things, probably that would be a nice [thing]. We’re doing that because we see that multinationalism is the big driver of globalisation, but then we’re missing that kind of governance. And the OECD proposal is not really being implemented. That was a consensus two years ago. Now, it seems to be slowing down.

So, what do you think are the solutions? You outlined so well. Wnd then this global challenge and mismatch, what are the solutions we can find? Particularly, we’re embracing another new industrial revolution, the green transition we’re having now. So, we would like to hear from you. You’ve been travelling and attending all the global events, and leading this very influential Foreign Policy magazine. So we’d love to hear from you.

Ravi Agrawal

Gosh, you know, the solutions are always harder than diagnosing the problems. And it’s strange. We’re in a moment where I feel like everything I said, the left and the right would agree in every country. The diagnosis of the problems is the easy part. It’s the how to fix it that becomes much, much harder.

I think it was the former European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, who once said, we all know what to do, but if we did it, we’d never get elected again. And therein lies the problem. I think there is a kernel of an acknowledgement, a political acknowledgement that the solutions are not politically feasible.

I’ve long felt that most politicians don’t give the people enough credit in that there’s a sense that the people can’t take the truth, that if you tell people the truth, they will make a bad decision, or they won’t be able to take it. And I think if you are of the view that the biggest problems confronting the world in the next 20,30 years are related to the climate crisis. And I think at this point, that for me is table stakes in any serious conversation. You have to be able to admit to the scope and scale of the problem. If you’re to admit the scope and scale of the problem, there’s little confusion then that that should provide a sense of clarity, that that needs to be the organising principle around which we all act. And therefore, if you have a leader who is not being honest about the scope and scale of that problem, to me, it’s surprising that those leaders get reelected.

And part of that, I think, is generational. I think we are likely at a global tipping point where, because there’s little doubt in my mind that younger people get this in their bones. Anyone under the age of 30 generally understands that the climate crisis is existential, that global migration flows are linked to climate change, that many of the parts of the global system that I was describing—inequality, unfettered globalisation, unfettered urbanisation— many of those things aren’t sustainable in the way that they were going. And therefore, I think young people, especially, are readier for truth from their leaders than they’ve ever been before.

And I think the leaders from the left and the right who are the fastest to understand this, who are the fastest to understand that their populations are ready for the truth and they’re ready for radical solutions and that they’re ready for an element of pain as well if the pain leads to radical solutions that could help them, I think the leaders who are the fastest to grasp that about how younger people think will be the leaders who will emerge with intelligent, smart reforms that could fix elements of the broken system that we’re talking about. I think leaders who continue to lie about these problems will just kick the can down the road, but they’re not gonna last. Because ultimately, even in the limited time we have, given the scale of the crisis I’m describing, ultimately, if all you do is kick the can down the road, you will be found out. We have to have that much faith in the way in which people power works.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Absolutely. I agree with you. I think that we’re lacking this unity in confronting those common challenges to mankind. As you singled out, climate change is one of the most pressing challenges for mankind.

And yet, we hear some pulling back on the efforts, like the U.S. recently withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. It’s quite disappointing, I think, for probably many people. But, you know, we were both at the Munich Security Conference this year. I was there when we launched this report. I was part of the panel who launched this report with the Munich Security Chairman Heusgen, on multipolarisation. So, for the first time, the transatlantic conference recognised that multipolarity is a reality. We heard the German Chancellor mention that many times. We heard many European leaders say that many times.

So, we got used to the unipolar world, of course, in the past, and now the question is, how are we going to really navigate this multipolar world? Global governance is falling behind global practice. What do you think of the reemergence of the Global South, like India, China, and the BRICS countries? I would say the G7 is playing a more minimal role now. Even President Trump left early. How do we see the G20? We’re going to have it in South Africa pretty soon, and also APEC in Seoul later this year.

What do you think about global governance, while the UN system and the Bretton Woods system have been really getting more dysfunctional? What are the additional systems that we can build on? AI is also coming up; there’s no governance at all. So, we’re facing a disrupted and disorganised world. What are your thoughts on those things?

Ravi Agrawal

Yeah, I mean, it’s a new world disorder that we’re entering. Look, I think, again, if we acknowledge and diagnose the problems in the same way, the challenge then is: How do you fix it? And I hinted at this in my remarks earlier, but the people who seem to be controlling the moment right now are the people with ideas for revolution.

And while we do need radical solutions, I do think that the radicalism still needs to work within some sort of system. If you speak to anyone who, no matter how critical you are of the UN, which is utterly paralysed in many ways, if it didn’t exist, you would invent it right now, right? So, should we blow up the UN, or should we figure out how to reform it? And I think any sort of dispassionate, sensible discussion will come back to reform. So, inasmuch as the moment right now feels revolutionary, my own instinct is that the revolutionaries aren’t going to win, because, you know, what plan do the revolutionaries have?

I’m yet to see a proposal for a new UN. I’m yet to see a great proposal for a new World Bank or a new IMF or a new system of maritime law or a new system of rules for cyber engagement. I mean, it’s all building off of the same stuff that exists.

And therefore, we come back to reform. We come back to very boring nitty-gritty debates and discussions about adjustments. And really, it comes down to a discussion, Henry, around equality, a sense that, for example, if one of the things that stymies the UN is the Security Council, then really, it’s the five countries with veto power that are at some point going to have to admit to devolving some of that power, to allow for a more inclusive system. And I think that really is the only way forward. And it only happens if these constituent countries have crises within them, and they’re all at different levels, having some variant of a crisis, in addition to the global crisis—whether it’s the climate crisis or wars or inequality or a hunger crisis or a heat crisis.

They will all have pressures from within that will force some sort of reckoning next decade. And I think that really is our hope, that hope of internal pressure that leads to calmer, sensible minds among leaders, new leaders, who hopefully come up with reforms for a tweaked system that is more equitable, more fair and acknowledges a world that looks very different than the world that existed in 1945. I mean, back in 1945, a country like India didn’t even have independence, didn’t have a say. So the post-colonial world is a deeply, deeply different world, where countries that once had no say at all are clamouring for a say. And new leaders, no matter where they’re from, will have to figure out a way to incorporate those voices. Otherwise, our system is going to remain incredibly tenuous.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Yes, that’s true. Actually, we have to build on the existing system. I agree with you, the UN reform is absolutely necessary to reflect this multipolar world, probably.

Now we also see, recently, the coming up of geopolitical tensions. We now have the Russian war on Ukraine, we have Gaza, and the world seems to be riskier. At least we’re seeing war happening in our living rooms every day. It’s scary and really terrifying to say that, being bombarded every day in people’s lives.

So, what are the solutions for that? For example, we see European countries now are going to drive up their defence budgets to 5%. That’s going to impact daily lives. I mean, if you have more guns and powder, then you have less bread and butter. So, how can we secure a more peaceful and developed world? Because, of course, we also have these legitimate worries from European countries. How do you see the prospects of this geopolitical conflict?

President Trump said he wants to be a president for peace. In his inaugural speech, he said he wants to be a unifier. So, I’m thinking, you know, this year marks the 80th anniversary of the Second World War and also the 80th anniversary of China’s victory in the anti-Japanese war. I think there are three key occasions. One is that China is going to hold this victory parade on September 3rd. Then, there’s another occasion, the UN 80th anniversary summit at the UN, and all global leaders will probably go there. And there is another occasion in November at the APEC Summit.

We’ve already seen reports that President Trump and President Xi may meet together, and we may even have them play a bigger role in peacemaking, involving President Putin, President Zelensky, and European leaders. Let’s get a world peace summit, so that somehow we can at least freeze the war, and then gradually figure out a way to get out of this mess.

Right now, I see fatigue on both sides—on Putin’s side, but probably more on Zelensky’s side. But I don’t think any country can sustain such a long war. It’s really very disturbing. So, I hope that by involving China and Global South countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa, maybe we can get extra guarantees for peace.

So, what do you think of the prospect of making peace for this troubled world?

Ravi Agrawal

I like that you’ve been promoting this idea of a grand peace summit or meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi. Look, we’re at the point where any moves towards peace are things that should be cheered on. The question is, first of all, we need a ceasefire as step one. As step two, then you need to figure out: What would a lasting peace look like? Not a peace that is short and then broken, and then we’re back to square one. And that requires guarantee. And the question then is who provides those guarantees? And what form of guarantee would be palatable to both sides?

We know what the Ukrainians have already been asking for. They would like a guarantee from Europe or a guarantee from NATO, which, of course, would require a guarantee from the United States. For various reasons, that’s been quite unlikely on the United States’ side, although maybe President Trump has flip-flopped on that front and maybe he may be more minded, more likely to support Ukraine in the future. On the Russian side of it, it is less clear to me what it would take for President Putin to actually stop the war. It is less clear to me that he will abide by agreements.

And frankly, I think China here actually has immense leverage. It is now well acknowledged that when there were fears that Russia might have used or could use a sort of tactical nuclear device during the war, that China stepped in to sort of really make clear that this was a red line. So, I do think China has immense leverage with President Putin of Russia. And I would love to see China use that leverage more forcefully as a force for good more globally.

Look, I think China could win a lot of international fans were it to play a more active role. You know, the people who like to flatter President Trump to get him to do something, they often say that, Mr President, you could win a Nobel Peace Prize if you do X. And I think the variant of that here in China should be Beijing, were you to sort of push Russia to really stop this war, you could win a lot of soft power and popularity globally. It’s sort of a variant of that because I do believe it’s true that China has this leverage.

You’re right that it would take some variant of a so-called “neutral peace force” involving Chinese peacekeepers, or Indian peacekeepers, or BRICS peacekeepers involved in the mix for Putin to consider something that has a longer-term guarantee. But of course, one would have to keep in mind the Ukrainian point of view and all of this. I like your idea of a summit, a peace summit. But as you know better than anyone else, all the hard work has to be done ahead of time by diplomats who hammer out all the details.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Absolutely. I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in early March of 2022, after the war broke out in Ukraine, where I said China could actively be involved to give an off-ramp for Putin. So, what I see happening now is that I was quite encouraged by what the U.S. Defence Secretary said at the Munich Security Conference and also at the NATO summit. For frozen borders, you really need peacekeeping forces, and peacekeeping forces have to be a combination of European troops and non-European troops.

The U.S. has already said they’re not going to send any troops there. So, if it’s non-European troops, I really think that those BRICS countries—India, China, Brazil, and South Africa—could probably play a role. And actually, China made a peace proposal, a 12-point plan. Then, China and Brazil made another peace proposal, a 6-point plan. China, Brazil, South Africa, and the Friends of Peace and the UN have established this initiative for the Ukraine crisis.

So, I’m thinking now, because it looks like it’s stuck. President Trump has made so many phone calls with Putin, and it goes nowhere. President Trump got frustrated. He said, no, we have to resume the support and everything. So, I think at this point, President Trump probably realised it wasn’t that easy to finish this war and also, for Russia to accept a ceasefire. They would not like NATO or European troops stationed for peacekeeping, because that’s the reason they started this, according to them—that the NATO troops were approaching them.

So, if we have BRICS guarantee, and China, India, Brazil, and other BRICS countries guarantee, in addition to NATO, EU, and U.S. guarantees, probably Putin will say, okay, this is more balanced. And I think China does have a lot of influence as the largest trading partner of Russia. Russia’s GDP went up 4.1% last year, and I think largely because it also had good trade with China.

The U.S. already has a big mining agreement with Ukraine, and Ukraine is a bellwether country for China; we could probably help Ukraine with reconstruction. Then, if we can really freeze or have a ceasefire and have the UN pass a resolution, a Security Council peace summit, we can have a seven-party talk—P5 plus the EU and Ukraine. Hopefully, we can stop the mess there.

Ravi Agrawal

But let me ask you this: Should there be consequences for President Putin? Should he be allowed to return to normal life? Let’s say, in this scenario where you have a peace process brokered by all these countries, is it just back to normal for President Putin? No consequences for having started a war? I mean, I dispute the why. I don’t think it’s just because in his mind, NATO was approaching or a threat to Russia. I don’t buy that thesis. But either way, should he face any consequences for war crimes committed in Ukraine?

Henry Huiyao Wang

Well, I think you raised a legitimate question. The thing is, I do think that European countries are going to have their opinion on Putin anyway, and then NATO, U.S. power. But you see how President Trump has changed a lot, right? I mean, he used to say, we don’t talk, I will fight until the last Ukrainian. Now, they all say they want 30 days of peace—Zelensky said a 30-day ceasefire, and Putin didn’t respond to that. Then, Trump blamed Zelensky for starting a third world war at the White House.

I think the European countries are also largely influenced by the U.S. When they see what kind of trade or ceasefire deal they’re going to get into, the U.S. still plays a big part. But I’m sure Europeans will hold their opinion, and I’m sure the BRICS countries would probably have a somewhat different view.

So, the most important thing is to stop the war, stop the killing, and stop the casualties. Probably that’s also President Trump’s perception. Then we’ll leave that to history to decide, to punish, to do whatever needs to be done. But I think the most important thing is that we should stop the killing of civilians. And I agree with President Trump on that point, the millions or however many thousands of killings—it’s terrible. We need to really stop that.

But I’d like to ask Ravi another question now. You know that we’ve been having this trade dispute, this trade war. In Trump’s second term, it seems China is really standing up to him. Canada also did some retaliation. But then it looks like Trump is toughening up on other countries now. He’s making demands of Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, and even now, Europe.

So, China has reached agreements with the U.S. in Geneva, in London, and then this weekend in Stockholm. What do you see as the prospect of these two largest economies, this trade tariff war going on, and how can we—I mean, it looks like Trump is going to raise tariffs on every country by 15% more. So, do you think the U.S. is really going to benefit, as Trump says, billions or even trillions of revenues being generated? Will this be sustained?

Because I think the U.S., on the other hand, even though they lose a little bit on the deficit, enjoys a huge surplus in services trade, a huge surplus in investments, because all countries are buying U.S. dollars, and all are investing in U.S. stock markets, which are hitting all-time highs. So, they’re benefiting from all these other sources. But then, you can’t get all the benefits. So, they also want the trade deficit eliminated. Do you think that would be a practical solution?

Ravi Agrawal

Well, see, here’s the thing. I mean, it’s a fool’s errand to try and predict what Trump is going to do. And I think, you know, there’s always a sense in other countries that there is some sort of grand strategy in this new White House, a grand strategy on trade or a grand strategy on hemispheric politics. My sense is that there isn’t a grand strategy. I think Trump, in many ways, is a gut-instinct politician. He has a diagnosis of what the problem is. He has a unique understanding of trade in his own way and economics, but I think he’s sort of shooting from the hip, as it were. I think he’s figuring out what to do day by day. And that’s why it’s increasingly impossible to predict where things are gonna land up.

I think for this audience here and everyone watching online, one way I have found useful to try and diagnose and understand Trump is he’s a TV producer. Trump is a TV producer for whom every single day is the equivalent of a reality TV show. And the most important thing in a reality TV show is that the audience has to keep on watching. And for the audience to keep on watching, you need unpredictability, you need drama, you need spice, you need moments in the Oval Office that are unpredictable, that are volatile, that are roller-coasterish. You need suspense. You need outcomes that are tear-jerkers, outcomes that seem positive one day, not positive the next.

Trump understands the ebb and flow of TV. He understands what will keep people’s attention. And invariably, here we are talking about Trump and what might be on his mind. So, I think it’s very important for those of us in the analyst class, those of us who are journalists, to keep in mind that Trump is programming our discussions. Trump is running a show. He’s running a reality TV show. And once you understand that, it becomes easier then to understand what might happen next and how to work with them.

I think a lot of world leaders, for example, have figured out that flattery really works with President Trump. So they show up. I think Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister’s really figured this out. He came to the White House, and he said, look, here’s a letter. It’s an invitation from the king for a state visit, a second state visit. No one’s ever come for a second state visit. This is really special. It really worked. It worked with Trump, you know, and I think other leaders are figuring out that a mix of flattery, special projects, quid pro quo, that works with the president. Ceremony works, pomp and circumstance work.

So, this is not really answering your question about trade and uncertainty, but what I’m getting at is that we’re in for a roller coaster. And we’re in for a lot of flip-flops. And it’s hard to project. Economics will tell us that the impact of tariffs at the level and scale that Trump has proposed is not good. They’re going to trickle down to regular consumers in the United States. It’s a tax on middle-class Americans, poor Americans. The rich can afford it because proportionally the goods that they’re buying affect them less. This is all well-known in basic economics. At some point, if high-level tariffs continue beyond the flip-flops, then there will be a sense and an understanding among the people and in economic data that the trickle-down effects are deleterious for a majority of Americans.

If that sense becomes solidified and popular and shows up in polls, then you might see a big reversal amid the flip-flops along the way. So, impossible to predict; there isn’t enough data right now. But again, remember that Trump is very tuned to polls, very tuned to how people think. And that in turn might be the best way to influence the President—lobby groups, pressure, and ultimately, people pressure. You know, the United States, whatever you might think of it, is a democracy. And in democracies, you know, popular opinion matters.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great. You got a lot of insights there. Thank you for all those good advice. And the final question before we open for the Q&A audience is that you’re a graduate of Harvard, and you were born in London, but you also grew up in India and studied in the U.S., and you’ve made a very successful career at the hub of Foreign Policy magazine. So, what do you think about talent studying abroad? I know that China used to be the largest source of students going to the United States. At its peak, it was almost 400,000 students. Now, it’s down to 270,000. But you went there quite early. You went to the United States.

So, what’s your advice for young people? We have some interns and young people here, and also for the audience around the world. How about cross-cultural experience, learning English, and, of course, you just came back from India—how do young people in India view that? And what about the UK or Europe, or studying in China? Do you think being an overseas student would still be a great experience, something we need in this more fragmented world, for cultural and people-to-people exchanges?

Ravi Agrawal

Look, I think ultimately, continuing from where we were before, people power matters. If you vote with your feet, that is the biggest signal you can give a country and its policy-makers. So if you’re young and Chinese and you have been going to the United States for your higher education, I know your children have studied in the United States. Many Chinese leaders have sent their children to the United States to study. Even the President’s daughter has studied in the United States. Were that to stop, that is a major signal of how you think about where your best prospects are.

I think the fact that so many important Chinese leaders, sort of business leaders, have sent their kids to the United States for higher education is a vote of confidence in the American system. Were that to stop, were that trend to reverse itself, that would be a massive body blow to American universities, but more broadly to America’s standing in the world.

So in many senses, we think of democracy as a national thing. It is also a global thing. If Chinese students stop going to the United States, if Indian students stop going to the United States, that’s about half a million people already, right, annually? Were that flow to stop, American universities will really struggle in a dramatic way, and I have little doubt within a few years, would put immense pressure on the government to figure out a better way to keep attracting international students, most of whom are paying full fees to study at all of these universities around America.

Much of the debate, by the way, in the media is focused on Harvard and Columbia, but it’s much bigger than that. As you all know, America has many dozens, a hundred plus more universities that are excellent. And were they to lose international students as a source of revenue, their futures are imperilled, at least their futures as we know them. That’s one thing.

The second thing is, you know, again, I mean, nothing is static in the world. As China rises, there are gonna be more international students who come here. As India rises, there are gonna be more international students who move there. This flow of students, basically a flow of the future, is the most important form of voting on which countries are gonna succeed in the future.

I think America is in a moment of madness on this particular issue, to make it harder for international students to come in. For many years, America’s secret sauce has been the fact that it attracts people from abroad, not just for its universities, but for this bigger idea of the American Dream, that no matter who you are, no matter where you’ve come from, you can move to the United States and you can make it. I mean, I moved there at the age of 18. I had never been to America before. And I was seduced by the idea of the American Dream. It would be heartbreaking were that dream to be broken, not just for America, it would be heartbreaking for the world because it was an example for the world for what could be. It was soft power at its core.

And other countries aspire to a form of that soft power. We all know this. I mean, Joe Nye’s book, Soft Power, was a bestseller here in China. Everyone wants to figure out how to be popular, how to appeal. This is true of people as much as it is of countries. So, the flow of students, I think, is a great way to think about the future of countries and their potential success.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Absolutely. You’re right—China and India make up half of the international students in America, which is about 1 million. We already have over 500,000 or 600,000 students from these countries. So, exactly. And it supports thousands of jobs and university budgets. This is really relevant.

But I think one thing China has probably learned from the U.S. is that you have a system where, if students study, they can intern, find temporary jobs, and then continue to establish themselves. In contrast, in China, you know, after studying, I know some graduates from Schwarzman College, for example, they want to stay in China, but after studying, it’s difficult for them to find a position. So, I think we probably need to improve that.

Okay, I’m going to open it up for live questions. Any questions for Ravi? We have another microphone here. I know there’s a media representative here who wants to raise a question, too, right? From CCTV? Okay. CCTV is the largest television network in the world.

Ravi Agrawal

Of course, very familiar.

Zhou Fujing, Reporter, China Central Television (CCTV)

Thank you, Mr Henry, and thank you, Mr Ravi. It is a very wonderful discussion. Today, we focus a lot on the global crisis, on the global system. But my question will move us to maybe 80 years ago, and my question is about World War II and China’s contributions.

As we all know, China spent 14 years fighting Japanese aggression and has paid a great and heavy price. So, my question is, do you think China’s contributions at the Eastern battlefield during World War II have been fairly recognised? And why is it important to correctly recognise China’s contribution to World War II? Thank you.

Ravi Agrawal

That’s such a great question. Look, I’m going to speak with a degree of humility here. I am not an expert on the exact role that China played. What I will say is this: History is written by the victors of any particular moment. It is not just China. There are many countries that played an immense, outsized role in World War II, in ending World War II. So you mention China, yes. Russia lost more people than most Western countries put together. It is not something that is acknowledged in Hollywood on popular culture. Think of the colonies at the time. I mean, the British colonies sent millions of soldiers and troops that were fighting in different arenas, in different parts of World War II, again, that are largely unacknowledged. Speak to many people from Nepal, from India, from other parts of the former colonies who will say that they lost family members in World War II that were never quite acknowledged in popular discourse around the history.

And that is something that should be corrected. It is something that ultimately requires funding. You know, if you think about the biggest sources of mass media, Hollywood, which has done many versions of the history of World War II, tends to focus on particular stories, particular domains, particular aspects of World War II that they think will appeal to their audiences. This makes perfect sense, by the way. And the answer to that is China should make movies that focus on its contributions to World War II, and it should popularise those movies not only to the Chinese audience, but to a global audience. And if you make these movies at a higher quality with better graphics and in a way that a global audience can truly appreciate and understand, then it will have the same effect that Hollywood movies have.

And it’s not just China; every country should be doing that. History gets told by the people who tell it best. Now, notice how I’m not doing a right-or-wrong here. I don’t speak for America. I don’t speak for any country. I’m a journalist. I don’t have a side that I fight for. The point I’m making is that every contributor, every country, every culture needs to speak for itself. And sometimes, who gets to speak is determined by who has the resources, who has the ability, and who has the marketing involved. It so happens that we’ve lived through an era where America and Hollywood and Western storytellers have had an outsized role in telling the history of the world. It’s beginning to change, by the way.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Good. Okay. Further questions, maybe? Zichen?

Zichen Wang

So, you’ve talked about many big subjects. I was wondering if you would like to share with us your personal growth experience. You went to Harvard. After that, you wanted to become a journalist at CNN. You were obviously very successful. And you began to lead Foreign Policy, an influential publication at a relatively young age. And my understanding is, you’ve turned around the magazine from losses to actual profitability and higher visibility.

So, as an immigrant to the United States, in your course of travel from a journalist to a leader of a media outlet and public intellectual, do you have anything to share with us? Thank you.

Ravi Agrawal

Gosh, as a journalist, I prefer to talk about things that are other than myself. But look, I will say that, you know, I think what has shaped me personally the most is a sense of curiosity. It is a big, big world out there. And I think what animates me the most, what gets me interested the most, is connecting the dots between different cultures, between different countries, different languages, different histories.

Some of that is obviously a product of my own upbringing. I was born in London. I grew up in India. I ended up moving to America at a fairly young age, at the age of 18. So, in many ways, my life has been shaped on three continents, and I’m necessarily someone who doesn’t quite fit in naturally in any one place. I’m an insider/outsider everywhere I go, whether it’s India, whether it’s the UK, whether it’s America.

And so in being that sort of an insider/outsider, I necessarily have a sort of a take or a stance that, you know, is looking for the cross connections, that is looking for comparisons, that takes any situation that happens in one part of the world and tries to sort of zoom out, way zoom out on the world and make sense of it globally, compare it to other things, whether it’s in history, whether it’s geographically. And honestly, that’s how I make sense of the world personally. And it’s also, I think, a good way for a magazine like mine to try and make sense of the world at a time when we are incredibly polarised, not just intra-country but inter-country as well. And at a time also where the idea and the definition of truth is very much in dispute.

And this isn’t a topic that’s come up yet, but I’ll go there. One of the biggest challenges I think the world faces now is how to define truth, how to agree on a common set of facts, how to believe reality. I really think that at some point, countries around the world, societies around the world, communities around the world are gonna have to figure out how to invest in sources and media that they trust—not governments, not companies, but media organisations that they genuinely trust to report the truth, to tell the truth no matter, how difficult that might be. I believe that can only come if you are a stakeholder.

So, if you are funding that organisation, which is why I think, the media organisations that tend to survive and thrive in this moment—no one’s thriving or surviving—other ones that have subscriptions that are, fairly expensive subscriptions where people pay money for the work that you do, and they feel like stakeholders. That form of sort of direct journalism, direct reporting, where you know who your audience is, you’re communicating with them directly. The audience isn’t a commodity that is meant to be sold to advertisers. Instead, the audience is a valued stakeholder.

I think that relationship is one that we need to see more of in media organisations and countries and communities around the world for us to agree on truth and basic facts, which comes back then, Henry, to everything else we’ve been discussing today—the crisis in our global system, the crisis with climate change, the crisis with conflict, all of these things. We only begin to solve these problems if we agree on the facts, and that, right now, is very hard to do. And I wish that countries, communities, companies invested more in figuring out relationships between people and publications. It’s a very important problem.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great. Okay, last question, maybe. Yes, please.

Shen Shiwei, Reporter, CGTN

Thank you. Good afternoon, Ravi. This is Shen Shiwei from CGTN. I’m also a research fellow and quite active on Twitter (X). I just followed your Twitter too. So my question is about...

Ravi Agrawal

I don’t use Twitter much.

Shen Shiwei

I saw you tweet not that frequently, but you at least tweet something. My question goes to your keynote speech about a broken-down system, global system, especially like the UN and other multilateral platforms are not working that well.

Regarding the Trump administration’s policies, can we say that the Trump administration is actually pushing for the breakdown of the kind of old traditional system, and that they would like to set up a completely new system that could place the U.S. at the centre and better facilitate its interests? Because we see in this recent statement of their withdrawal from UNESCO, they said this platform doesn’t meet “America First.” And also, with Trump’s trade policy, they prefer a more bilateral way, not a multilateral way within the WTO. They don’t have any interest in reforming the system, but [are willing] to push for the breakdown of the system and ask all other partners to negotiate a completely new system. Do you agree with this point?

Ravi Agrawal

Largely. Look, I’m well on the record on this. I think Trump is a wrecking ball to the system. For some people, that’s a good thing because the system wasn’t working. I think for most people, not a good thing, because the system had its flaws, needed reform, didn’t need to be destroyed. And I think that’s sort of a competing set of instincts that will play out over the next few years, and we’ll see which of them holds true over time.

Now, much as though I think Trump is a wrecking ball, I don’t think Trump alone has wrecked the system. I think the system was under strain for many, many years before Trump. I think there were all sorts of things that were going on that led to allegations of double standards, that led to allegations of hypocrisy. By the way, many countries involved in sort of double standards or hypocrisy or not following the rules, that was going on for quite a while.

And then many examples of that, whether it is conflict, whether it is currency manipulation, whether it is trade, you can point the finger in many directions, all of which were straining the global system of rules and norms and creating a sense of impunity. I think Trump has accelerated everything. Trump is an accelerant to that straining of the system. And that is why we’re talking about those strains much more today than we were five years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

Also, America remains a superpower, but it is challenged more than it ever has been by China, of course, but also by other countries, the rise of the rest, as people like Fareed Zakaria have written about. There are just more participants and players and voices in the global system that are clamouring for attention, that are clamouring for a say in how the world order gets run and executed.

And that’s a good debate to have. Again, I mean, coming back to where we started, the question is, did we need to blow up the system or did we need to figure out a way to reform it, to tweak it, to make it more equitable? Obviously, from this discussion, I’m in the reform camp, not the revolution camp. But again, I think this is very much a live debate, especially in the United States. And ultimately, it will take people power to push leaders into one camp or the other and resolve that.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great. So, Ravi, we’re almost coming to the end, but maybe I just have one final small question. You know, as a journalism leader in the United States, we’ve seen that in the last few years, since COVID, China-U.S. journalist exchanges haven’t really returned to pre-pandemic levels. And we really hope to improve that. Hopefully, journalism exchanges and more frequent visits can be facilitated by both sides.

You’ve been going everywhere. As you said, we need more journalists coming to China. China has actually now released free visas for 20 to 40, even 50, countries. So we hope that, particularly between the U.S. and China, we could have more relaxation, so we can have more people like you coming and having more dialogues, exchanges, and better understanding.

Ravi Agrawal

I very much hope so. I think journalism is really important. Criticism is really important. I think people, communities, leaders need to be open to criticism, need to be open to reporting and journalism, need to make it safer for journalists wherever they are. I say this about every country, everywhere in the world. It is really important to let journalists do their jobs. It is really important to give them visas to let them tell the stories they have to tell. I think the people, wherever they are, anywhere in the world, can take it.

Henry Huiyao Wang

I think we have run out of questions. I really appreciate your coming to CCG and giving us a very vivid, lively, firsthand, and frank discussion. Let’s give Ravi a big round of applause. And thank you again for coming to CCG.

Ravi Agrawal

Thank you, Henry. Thanks for having me. Thank you to all of you. Great audience.