编者按：10月20日，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院执行院长、中美人文交流研究中心执行主任王文受邀参加2020年瓦尔代俱乐部年会。作为唯一一位2次在瓦尔代年会发表主旨演讲的中国学者，其发言受到广泛关注。发言全文发布在10月19日《中国银行保险报》，英文、俄文全文分别发布在10月8日瓦尔代俱乐部英文、俄文官网。以下为主旨发言及问答环节的中英文全文及双语视频。
新冠肺炎疫情正在瓦解原有的治理体系，国际权力结构进一步碎片化、分层化、区域化。正如笔者曾写过的一篇文章中讲到，由一个国家或国家集团主导的全球化时代已终结，国际秩序不可能由G2、G7或G20主导，而是有n种力量在不同层面影响或主导着全球不同的事态，即Gn。
换句话说，Gn的力量不局限于传统大国，更有区域强国、国际组织、非政府机构、金融机构、跨国公司、意见领袖、智库、媒体等，组成了交叉重叠的国际权力网络，模糊化了全球权威归属，突破了主权归属权益，削弱了传统政治结构。全球化呈现了比过去更复杂的境况，这其中最重要的就是跨国公司的崛起。
公司的崛起或许是过去8个月人们沉浸在恐怖与消极情绪中的另一面。新冠肺炎疫情让各国政府都受到很大的压力，许多国家因此陷入经济衰退、政治困境、社会混乱，但多数跨国大公司却都从中受益。
《中国银行保险报》刊发版面截图
2020年，全球市值前100的公司规模，80%以上都呈现增长趋势，市值前十大公司增长超过20%。以9月17日为例，苹果公司市值1.9万亿美元，比2019年8960亿美元增长了210%；微软公司1.55万亿美元，比2019年9050亿美元增长了165%。这种增长趋势仍在持续。
相比之下，各国GDP则是另一番景象。根据6月底IMF发布的《世界经济展望》，预计2020年全球GDP增速为-4.9%，此前的预期为-3%；美国GDP增速为-8.0%，低于此前预期-5.9%；欧元区GDP增速为-10.2%，低于此前预期-7.5%。除了中国、越南等少数几个国家外，2020年超过170个国家GDP都将出现负增长。
不可否认，这场1945年来最大的人类危机导致经济增长的K形分化，金融业、美国五大科技巨头（FAANG）、物流、速消品、在线教育利润暴涨；而旅游业2020年减幅79%。奢侈品（包括化妆品、饰品）、文娱体育类持续低迷。
很不幸，国家作为一种组织形态，处在K形的下面半个区间中。全球贸易严重萎缩，根据此前WTO预测，2020年将处于-13%至-32%。各国采购经理人指数（PMI）将长期低于50%的荣枯线下方。
我们不得不思考的一个全新问题是，在危机中，公司的韧性或许比国家更强大。人类历史上至少有3家1000年以上历史的公司，分别是成立于705年的日本西山温泉庆云馆、成立于803年的奥地利萨尔斯堡Stiftskeller餐厅、始于公元900年的爱尔兰阿斯隆市Sean酒吧。有数百年历史的公司更是不计其数，200年以上的家族企业也不少。
但大家想象一下，500年历史以上的国家有多少呢？200年以上的政府呢？或许我们能用手指数出来。
学术界曾关注过公司破产与国家兴衰，但却是分学科讨论，商学界更关注公司运营与成败；而国际政治学界在讨论国家兴衰。但似乎人们都没有讨论过公司、国家作为人类文明的组织形态，到底对人类发展意味着什么？
公司的出现晚于国家，但公司在未来的生命力却越来越强。在当下，那些顶级跨国大公司的市值远远超过绝大多数国家的经济规模，全球市值排名前5位的公司市值都可以排入国家GDP排名的前20位。
国家衰弱一个明显的现象是，市值排名前100位的公司都能挤进全球GDP前65位！而GDP排名65位后的国家经济规模连全球百大公司的市值都不如。换句话说，约三分之二的国家经济规模比不过全球公司100强。
更糟糕的是，全球化推动着国家的“碎片化”。1945年，联合国只有51个成员国，2009年则变成了192个，至今世界上有200多个国家或自称是“国家”但尚未被广泛接纳的国际行为体。冷战结束以后，信息化革命、跨国文化与意识形态传播、航运网络的发达都极度缩短了人与人、国与国之间的物理距离，但是国家分裂却仍在继续。过去30年，苏联、南斯拉夫、苏丹、捷克斯伐洛克、乌克兰都分裂了，下一波可能还有英国、西班牙，甚至在美国也有呼吁州独立的声音。
世界上约有4000个民族，只有一半国家的人口是由75%以上的单一种族组成，约有90个国家人口在500万以下，约有30个国家人口在50万以下，多数超小国家如卢森堡、塞舌尔、多米尼克等经济规模本身就像是一家小公司。
很明显，公司将越来越强大，国家则越来越碎片化。通过兼并、重组、投资，现在已有市值超过2万亿美元的公司，可以想象，不会超过20年，世界最大公司的市值一定超过世界最大经济体的GDP。而那些小国家可能会越来越被公司所控制。
这个问题的思考仍需深入。透过疫情可以发现，在危机时刻中，公司调整与改革的速度明显快于国家。在和平年代，公司进取心也要高于国家。当然，公司的竞争残酷性与更新换代速度也快于国家。
200多年前，法国思想家卢梭就曾思考过“国家的消亡”，后来，卡尔·马克思坚信，国家与阶级都终将消亡。20年前，亚历山大·温特等国际关系学者就曾讨论过“国家会像人一样吗”，他的意思是，国家会不会生、老、病、死？目前看来，国家的确是有寿命的。苏联寿命仅有69岁，南斯拉夫寿命仅有74岁。
从这个角度看，新冠肺炎疫情正在促使人们萌生关于组织治理模式的新思考。从理论上讲，多数公司实行的是精英主义原则下的股权治理、绩效评判制度。谁股权多，谁管理能力好，就由股权多的股东推选来治理公司。多数国家，在过去200多年前的西方选举民主制牵引下，变成了平民主义原则下的均权治理、程序评判制度。谁得到选票，谁能当国家领导人，而平时则需要按程序来做事，程序第一，好坏第二。
从数量上看，好的公司不少，但好的国家却越来越少。把公司与国家相比较，肯定是一个新题目，也是一个受争议的主题。但应该没有争议的一点是，当新冠肺炎疫情启发我们思考人类治理模式时，历史重新开始，而不是终结。
瓦尔代俄文官网截图
主持人：现在我想邀请另一位来自中国的嘉宾，王文院长，从他的角度来看，未来可以做些什么。我特别想听听您的看法，对于正在建立的新机构，以及这些旧的需要改革的机构，像我们讨论的世贸组织，国际货币基金组织。但中国正在全球范围内创建新的机构，包括金砖国家开发银行、亚洲基础设施投资银行等，您怎么看呢？您是如何评价这些机构平台在推进和推动全球化方面的重要性？
王文：好，谢谢您提出的这个好问题。我认为有三点。首先，我们现在生活在一个非常大的危机中我们需要一个领导者，但是现在我认为美国、中国、俄罗斯、欧盟、印度、日本、韩国之间没有足够的合作。这是非常遗憾的。这是第一点。基于这一点，我认为，就中国而言，我们一直主张（其他国家能够）与中国进行合作。例如，在7月9日，我们研究院组织了一个非常大的活动，我们邀请了中国外交部长王毅先生发表了一个演讲。中美关系，他呼吁中美合作。但是，没有任何美国媒体报道他的演讲，美方也没有作出任何回应。所以我觉得这是有点失望的。这是第一个。 二是关于中国的可能性。即使是现在，很多媒体和舆论领袖，他们呼吁中国的领导，但对于中国来说，我们知道自己的力量有限，责任有限。这就是为什么中国尽最大的努力来提供一些选择，一些能源。我们建立了一些新的机构，包括亚投行，金砖国家开发银行。与传统的经济机构相比，那些以中国为首的新的国际组织的力量和能量是非常有限的。例如，我们在5年前建立了亚投行，到目前为止，只能展开二三十年为限的项目，能力仍然非常有限。所以我认为现在的中国仍然是一个发展中国家，中国政府的大部分精力都集中在国内问题和解决方案上。例如，主持人刚提到了中国的中产阶级。我可以和你们分享一个非常有趣的数据，那就是在中国还有数以万计的穷人，有将近90%的人从来没有坐过飞机，还有将近50%的家庭里没有马桶。所以我认为，在中国，我们试图平衡国内解决方案和国际解决方案。至于国内的解决方案，我们尽最大努力集中在，我称之为国内的“三反，即反腐、反污染和反贫困三方面的斗争。在国际事务上，我们强调与美国、欧盟以及其他发达国家和新兴国家的合作。我们需要他们的合作，需要他们的鼓励。但中国不想成为世界的领导。说实话，我们没有设计过，也没有足够的能力，这是我的回答。谢谢！
瓦尔代年会问答互动（中英双语）
主持人：现在有请王文院长，我想问一下您对这个问题有什么看法？
王文：好的，谢谢，我认为有两点。第一点是关于冷战，我认为在过去的三年里，美国总统特朗普想要对中国发起新冷战的策略失败了。所以根据国际学术界对冷战的四个标准的界定，它们都围绕着两个阵营的意识形态对立的竞争和经济的脱钩。因此，中美两国目前的状态还远远没有达到新冷战时期。
所以我经常说这不是冷战，这只是一种媒体之间的一种“骂战”。媒体或一些大人物的公开演讲，或者穷人的不满。所以我认为我们可能被忽视的现实是，中美两国社会一直在悄无声息地合作。今年中美贸易同比增长比2019年要好。赴美上市的中国企业首次公开募股(IPO)总金额超过了2019年的总额，在今年的前8个月。另外正如Ray Dalio提到的，美国资产像高盛、摩根士丹利等，摩根在中国金融市场的持股也比2019年多。正如你刚才提到的中国推动了金融市场改革。习近平总书记一直在强调我们要更加对外开放，中国市场的吸引力越来越大。但问题是也许我们需要足够的耐心，我们需要时间，因为中国这边，如果你能了解中国国内的情况是这样的。 一方面，中国没有足够的金融市场化经验。另一方面，我们需要越来越多的金融专业知识分子。中国在金融市场化是一个非常年轻的国家，这就是我要说的。我们需要时间，我们只需要等待下一步，也许现在中国正在设计下一个五年计划，就是“十四五规划”，也许我们可以提供更多的改革政策，特别是在金融领域。
瓦尔代俱乐部的在线采访（中英双语）
王文：所谓“去全球化”的说法只是当前国际经济、政治与社会互动的一个方面。现实的世界运行远比“去全球化”要复杂得多。一方面，在欧洲和美国，甚至在一些发展中国家，的确存在着抵制全球化的声音与行动，他们推行保护主义、民粹主义的政策，反对移民，甚至还反对跨境合作。“去全球化”折射了发达国家一些人的悲观与消极情绪。
另一方面，国际投资、贸易、跨境人口流动是挡不住的趋势。新冠疫情的确影响了全球化，我称之为“全球化休克”。但我相信，随着疫苗的出现，以及人们学会如何与新冠病毒共处，全球化从休克中复苏是必然的。比如，中国2020年前三季度的对外贸易就已经呈现了正增长。中国提出“一带一路”倡议中非常重要的“中欧班列”也在增长，而且增长的速度非常快。
所以，我的结论是，全球化是谁都挡不住的趋势。病毒、民粹主义、保护主义、特朗普政府可能会使全球化在短期内、在某个领域出现变缓，但终究还是会恢复。我对全球化的未来充满着信心。全球化不会死亡。未来的全球化，不是“去全球化”，而是新的全球化；未来的全球化，不是由美国领衔的全球化，而是由新兴经济体尤其是中国领衔的全球化。
在我看来，中美摩擦会呈现新常态。在未来10年，甚至20年，中美两国可能都会呈现出竞争大于合作的状态，我将其称为“竞合状态”。不过，我相对乐观的是，美国主张对中国挑起竞争，企图压制中国，但中国却希望以合作化解竞争。一个最明显的例子是，过去三年多，特朗普政府几乎每天都在说中国，甚至批评中国，发难中国，但中国最高领导人却保持着耐心与冷静，从未正面批评美国。这并不是不敢，而是没有必要。
中国是一个以合作求发展的国家。中国与过去300年的西方大国不一样，中国不愿意能够军事战争、冲突的方式，获得单边的获益。在这样的国际政治哲学运行下，国际合作仍然会继续。具体一点说，谁愿意与中国合作，中国都会愿意，而与中国合作，会得到相应的利益。我相信，那些跟随美国打压中国的国家，比如澳大利亚、加拿大，最终都不会得利，相反，我相信，他们都最终会选择与中国合作。
具体地一点讲，气候变化、国际规则改革、投资贸易合作、反恐、反洗钱等，世界上有太多问题需要我们去努力做。即使美国不愿意做，中国还是愿意做的。而中国贡献终将会使更多的国家参与到国际合作中来。当然，我们呼吁中美合作。没有中美合作，国际合作会变得更困难，许多国际问题将得不到更好的解决。美国需要有更多的大国责任，美国需要向过去学习，比如第二次世界大战那样。
王文：说实话，我不太喜欢“技术战争”这个词。这个词充满着冷战的意味。我更愿意用“技术竞争”来形容当前的智能革命趋势。
从17世纪以来，人类经历了机械化、电气力、信息化三场工业革命。这三场革命都是由西方国家主导的。现在，人们正在经历的智能革命，中国作为一个东方国家正在积极参与，比如5G技术等，这使西方充满着焦虑感，所以用“战争”来形容这种残酷性。
事实上，无论在疫苗，还是在电子商务，中国主张与世界分享技术优势。科技发展需要竞争，但并不是所有竞争都是零和博弈。中国参与技术竞争，打破西方的垄断，有利于世界的发展。千万不要妖魔化中国的科技进步。
While Companies Are Rising, Countries Are Weakenin
Wang Wen
The COVID-19 outbreak is disintegrating the original governance system, and the international power structure is further fragmented, stratified, and regionalized. As I mentioned in an article I once wrote, the era of globalization dominated by one country or group of countries has come to an end. The international order cannot be dominated by G2, G7, or G20. Instead, “n” forces may influence or dominate different global events at different levels, which we call “Gn”.
In other words, the power of “Gn” is not limited to traditional powers, but also regional powers, international organizations, non-governmental institutions, financial institutions, multinational corporations, opinion leaders, think tanks, and media, forming an overlapping international power network, blurring the ownership of global authority, breaking the ownership of sovereignty and weakening the traditional political structure. Globalization presents a more complex situation than in the past. Among those, the most important one is the rise of multinational companies.
The rise of “the Company” maybe the other side of the horror and negativity that has gripped the past eight months. The COIVD-19 epidemic has caused 30 million infections and 1 million deaths till September 2020. Governments of all countries are under great pressure. Many countries have fallen into economic recession, political difficulties, and social chaos. However, most multinational companies have benefited from it.The market value of large companies increased by more than 80% in the first decade of 2020. Take September 17 as an example, Apple’s market value was $1.9 trillion, an increase of 210% over the $896 billion in 2019; Microsoft’s market value was $1.55 trillion, an increase of 165% over $905 billion in 2019. This growth trend continues.GDP, by contrast, is a different picture. According to the World Economic Outlook released by IMF at the end of June, the global GDP growth rate is expected to be −4.9% in 2020, while it was previously expected at −3%; the GDP growth rate of the United States is — 8.0%, which is lower than the previous expectation of −5.9%; GDP growth of the euro area is −10.2%, which is lower than the previous expectation of −7.5%. Except for a few countries such as China and Vietnam, the GDP of more than 170 countries will show negative growth in 2020.There is no denying that the greatest human crisis since 1945 has led a K-shaped division of economic growth. Profits have been skyrocketing in the financial industry, the Five American technology giants (FAANG), logistics, consumer goods, and online education, while tourism fell by 79% in 2020 and luxury goods (including cosmetics and ornaments), entertainment and sports continue to slump.Unfortunately, the state as an organization is in the lower half of the K-shape. According to the previous WTO forecast, global trade will fall between −13% and −32% in 2020. The purchasing managers’ index (PMI) will be below the 50% prosperity and decline line for a long time.A new thing we have to think about is that companies may be more resilient in a crisis than countries.In human history, there are at least three companies with a history of more than 1,000 years. They are Keiunkan restaurant in the West Mountains, Japan, which was founded in 705; St. Peter Stiftskulinarium restaurant in Salzburg, Austria, which was founded in 803; and Sean’s Bar in Athlone, Ireland, which started in 900 AD. There are countless companies with hundreds of years of history, and family businesses with more than 200 years are not a few as well.But imagine, how many countries have a history of more than 500 years? What about the governments of more than 200 years? Maybe we can count them with our fingers.The academia has paid attention to the corporate bankruptcy and the rise and fall of the state, but they have been discussed in different disciplines. The business arena pays more attention to the operation and success of the company, while the international political science circle is discussing the rise and fall of the state. But it seems that people have not discussed what companies and countries, as organizational forms of human civilization, mean to human development.The emergence of the company is later than that of the country, but the vitality of the company is becoming stronger and stronger in the future. At present, the market value of the top multinational companies far exceeds the economic scale of most countries. The market value of the top five companies in the world can be ranked in the top 20 of the national GDP.An obvious phenomenon of the weakening of the state is that the companies with the top 100 market value can be ranked in the top 65 of global GDP. However, the economic scale of the countries with the GDP ranking lower than 65 is even inferior to the market value of the world’s top 100 companies. In other words, the size of about two thirds of national economies is less than that of the 100 global companies.What’s worse, globalization is driving the “fragmentation” of countries. In 1945, there were only 51 member states of the United Nations. In 2009, it became 192. So far, there are more than 200 countries or international actors who claim to be “states” but have not been widely accepted. After the end of the Cold War, the information revolution, the spread of transnational culture and ideology, and the development of the shipping network have greatly shortened the physical distance between people and countries, but the national division is still continuing. In the past 30 years, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine have all split up. The next wave may be Britain, Spain, and even the United States. There are calls for state independence.There are about 4000 ethnic groups in the world. Only half of the countries’ population is composed of more than 75% of single ethnic groups. There are about 90 countries with a population of less than 5 million and 30 countries with a population of less than 500,000. Most of the ultra-small countries, such as Luxembourg, Seychelles and Dominica, are essentially small companies.It is clear that companies will become stronger and the country more fragmented. Through the merger, reorganization, and investment, there are now companies with a market value of more than 2 trillion US dollars. It can be imagined that the market value of the world’s largest company will certainly exceed the GDP of the world’s largest economy within 20 years. And small countries are likely to be increasingly controlled by companies.We still need to think deeply about this issue. Through the pandemic situation, we can find that the speed of adjustment and reform of the company is obviously faster than that of the state in the crisis. In our era, the company should be more enterprising than the country. Of course, the cruelty of competition and upgrading of the company is faster than that of the state.More than 200 years ago, Rousseau, a French thinker, thought about “the demise of the state.” Later, Karl Marx firmly believed that the state and class would eventually die out. Twenty years ago, Alexander Wendt and other international relations scholars discussed “will a state be like a human being?” What he means is that, will a country live, grow old, ill, or die? At present, it seems that a country has a life span.The life expectancy in the Soviet Union is only 69 years; in Yugoslavia, it is only 74 years old. If the American society continues to split like this, it may be necessary to consider the issue of the United States of America (1776 -?).From this perspective, the COVID-19 is prompting people to think about the organizational governance model. Theoretically speaking, most companies implement the equity governance and performance evaluation system under the principle of elitism. Those who have more shares will be elected by the shareholders to govern the company. Most countries, led by the Western electoral democracy more than 200 years ago, have become equal rights governance and procedural evaluation system under the principle of populism. Who gets the vote will be the leader of the country, and usually needs to do things according to the procedure. The procedure is placed first, but whether the he/she is a good leader or not is placed second.Quantitatively, there are many good companies, but lesser and lesser good countries. Comparing companies with countries is certainly a new topic and a controversial one. But there should be no controversy at all, when the COVID-19 outbreak inspires us to think about the mode of human governance. History just begins again, but not ends.
Now I’d like to turn to our other panelists and ask Wang Wen from china,on his perspectives what can be done going forward and in particular, I wanted to have your perspectives on the new institutions that are being created, so there are these old institutions and they need to be reformed, we discussed about the WTO, the IMF. But what about the new institutions that China is starting to create on a global scale, including the likes of the New Development Bank, the BRICS development bank or the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank etc.How do you assess the importance of these platforms institutional platforms going forward and boosting globalization?
Wang Wen：Yes, thank you, thank you for the wonderful question. I think that three points. First point is that nowadays we live in the very big dangers continue, in a very big crisis. We need a leader, but nowadays I think that we have no enough cooperation among the US, China, Russia, EU, India, Japan, Korea. This is a very regret. That's the first point. Based on these points, I think for China sides, we always call for the cooperation with China. For example, in July 9th our institute organized a very big event and we invited our foreign minister, Mr. Wang Yi, deliver a speech. Mr. Wang Yi talked about very long content about the US and China relationship and he called for the corporation. But no any American media report Mr. Wang Yi's speech and no any response from the US. So I think we feel a little bit disappointed. That’s the first.Second is that you make about China's possibility. Even nowadays, a lot of media and public opinion leaders, they call for China's leadership, but for China side, we know our limited power, our limited responsibility. So that’s why China just tried our best to provide some options, some energies, just to mention that we established a few new institutes including AIIB, BRICS development bank. Compared to the traditional economic constitution, those new international institutions lead by China, their power their energy are very limited. For example, AIIB, we established five years ago, until now only maybe 20 or 30 years projects, the capacity until now is still very limited.So I think that nowadays, China is still a developing country. Most of our energy of our central government, they focus on the domestic issues and solutions. For example, right now Mr. chair you mentioned about middle class of China. I can share you a very interesting data, that is in China there are still many millions of poor people and in China there are nearly 90% people they didn’t take a flight, never take an airline. In China, there are nearly a 50% family they have no flush toilet in their home.So I think that in China we try to balance the domestic solutions and the international solutions. For domestic solutions, we try our best to focus on, I call it as 3 anti, anti-corruption, anti-pollution, and anti-poverty battle domestically. And for the international affairs, we called it cooperation with the US, EU, as well as the other developed countries and emerging countries. We need their cooperation, we need their encouragement. But China do not want to be the big leader of the global governance. Honestly, we have no design and no enough capacity, this is my response. Thank you.Now to Wang Wen，I think you want to comment on this issue，please.
Wang Wen：Yes, thank you. I think I have two points for comment. One is about Cold War. I think that actually in the past three years, the President Trump’s strategy of trying to fight a new Cold War with China was failed. So according to the four standards of the definition of Cold War in the international academic circle. They are all around competition ideological opposition of two camps and decoupling of the economy. So at present the state of China and the U.S. is far from the new Cold War.
So I always said that it is not Cold War. It is a scold war, just among the media. The media or all those speaker as big person, as poor person. So I think that the reality maybe we are ignored that is the two societies between China and the U.S. has been cooperating very silently. The trade between China and the U.S. is growing year on year better than in 2019. And the count of capital IPO raised by Chinese company going to the U.S. for listing in the first eight months this year exceeds the total amount in 2019.Also as Mr. Ray Dalio mentioned that the U.S assets such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley. Morgan also have more holdings in China’s financial market than in 2019. So as you mentioned right now that of course China pushed the financial market reform and nowadays as President XI always talk about that we should open and open. And the China market has more and more attraction, but the problem is that maybe we need enough patience that is we need time, because in China side. If you can understand the China domestic condition is that. On the one hand, China has no enough financial marketization experience. On the other hand，we need more and more intellectuals’ professionals on financial fields, that is very easy to say that China is a very young country’s on financial marketization.So this is what I have to say is that we need time , we just wait for the next step , maybe nowadays in China we are designing the next Five-year Plan, the 14th Five-year Plan. Maybe we can provide more and more reform policy. Especially on the financial field. Is deglobalisation could really happen?
Wang Wen：The so-called "deglobalization" is only one aspect of the current international economic, political and social interactions. The operation of the real world is much more complicated than "de globalization". On the one hand, in Europe and the United States, and even in some developing countries, there are a lot of voices and actions against globalization. They pursue protectionist and populist policies, oppose immigration, and even oppose cross-border cooperation. "Deglobalization" reflects the pessimism and negativity of some people in developed countries.
On the other hand, international investment, international trade and cross-border population flow are irresistible trends. The Covid-19 indeed influence the globalization. But it’s not deglobization or the death of globalization. I call it "shock of globalization". I believe that with the advent of vaccines and people learning how to live with the new coronavirus, it is inevitable that globalization will recover from shock. For example, China's foreign trade has shown positive growth in the first three quarters of 2020. Also on the background of "one belt, one road" initiative, the number of trains between China and Europe has also grown very fast.
So, my conclusion is that globalization is an irresistible trend. Viruses, populism, protectionism and the trump administration may slow down globalization in a short period of time and in some areas, but it will eventually recover. I am confident in the future of globalization. Globalization will not die. The future of globalization is not "de-globalization", but new globalization; the future globalization is not globalization led by the United States, but globalization led by emerging economies, especially China.As Covid lockdown showed it could make significant damage for economies of all regions and nearly all countries. What could become new basis for international cooperation in new circumstances when confrontation between US and China arise?In my opinion, China US friction will show a new normal. In the next 10 years, even 20 years, China and the United States may show a state of competition greater than cooperation. I call it "competiration (competition cooperation)". However, I am relatively optimistic about the China-U.S future. The United States actively provoke competition against China and try to suppress China, but China hopes to resolve the competition through cooperation. One of the most obvious examples is that the Trump government has spoken of China almost every day, even criticizing China and making China difficult over the past three years, but the top Chinese leaders have been patient and calm and never actively criticizing the United States. It's not daring, but it's not necessary.China is a country that seeks development through cooperation. Unlike the Western powers in the past 300 years, China is reluctant to gain unilateral benefits by means of military war or conflict. Under such an international political philosophy of China, international cooperation will continue. Specifically, whoever be willing to cooperate with China, China would like to cooperate with, and cooperation with China will benefit each other accordingly. I believe that those countries that follow the United States to suppress China, such as Australia and Canada these years, will not benefit at last. Instead, I believe that they will eventually choose to cooperate with China in future.Specifically, there are too many problems in the world, such as climate change, international rules reform, international investment and trade cooperation, anti-terrorism and anti money laundering, which need us to work hard. Even if the United States is not willing to do it, China is willing to do it. And China's contribution will eventually bring more and more countries to participate in international cooperation.Of course, we call for China-US cooperation. Without China-US cooperation cooperation, international cooperation will become more difficult and many international problems will not be solved better. The United States needs to have more responsibilities of great powers, and the United States needs to learn from the past, such as that U.S in the Second World War.
Could a tech war be avoided?
Wang Wen：To be honest, I don't really like the words "tech war.". The words are full of Cold War implications. I prefer to use "tech competition" to describe the current trend of intelligent revolution.
Since the 17th century, human beings have experienced three industrial revolutions: mechanization, electric force and informatization. All three revolutions were led by western countries. Now, as an eastern country, China is actively participating in the intelligent revolution, such as 5G technology. This makes the West full of anxiety, so that’s why they use "war" to describe this competitive condition.In fact, in terms of vaccines or e-commerce, China advocates sharing its technological advantages with the world. The development of science and technology needs competition, but not all competition is a zero sum game. China's participation in technological competition and breaking Western monopoly is conducive to the development of the world. I suggest that west media never demonize China's scientific and technological progress.
中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（人大重阳）成立于2013年1月19日，是重阳投资董事长裘国根先生向母校捐赠并设立教育基金运营的主要资助项目。
作为中国特色新型智库，人大重阳聘请了全球数十位前政要、银行家、知名学者为高级研究员，旨在关注现实、建言国家、服务人民。目前，人大重阳下设7个部门、运营管理4个中心(生态金融研究中心、全球治理研究中心、中美人文交流研究中心、中俄人文交流研究中心)。近年来，人大重阳在金融发展、全球治理、大国关系、宏观政策等研究领域在国内外均具有较高认可度。
扫二维码｜关注我们
微信号｜rdcy2013
新浪微博｜@人大重阳