Yao Yang │ China and the United States will not decouple

On the afternoon of December 7, 2019, Professor Yao Yang, a Boya Distinguished Professor at Peking University, Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University, Director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University, Changjiang Scholar Professor appointed by the Ministry of Education, and Executive Dean of the Institute for South-South Cooperation and Development at Peking University, attended the "2019 International Conference on International Trade Relations and Reforms in Globalization" academic seminar jointly organized by the Center for International Finance and Economic Research (CIFER) of the National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University's PBC School of Finance and the Center for Cross-border Digital Capital Research (IDC) of the Institute for Fintech Research at Tsinghua University, and delivered a keynote speech entitled "China and the United States Will Not Decouple".

(Professor Yao Yang delivered a keynote speech)

Professor Yao Yang believes that China and the United States will not decouple for three reasons: first, China is unwilling to decouple, and second, China cannot decouple.Secondly, the American business community is unwilling to decouple;Third, other countries are also unwilling to see the US and China decouple.Regarding the China-US trade dispute, Professor Yao Yang mentioned the four baskets in the "China-US Trade Dispute Initiative" he launched with other economists. The first basket is the "beggar-thy-neighbor" basket, which states that some "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies should be absolutely prohibited.The second basket is for "domestic policies that have a negative impact on other countries," but these policies are negotiable.The third is the "self-protection" basket, which allows a country to implement appropriate self-protection measures when faced with adverse external influences;The fourth is the "multilateral mechanisms" basket.At the same time, Professor Yao Yang put forward three points of view:First, China must uphold its own political system, its own history, and its own culture;Second, the United States needs room for adjustment;Third, China needs to adapt to its new role. China is the world's second-largest economy and a special developing country.Finally, Professor Yao provided detailed answers to audience questions, such as technological decoupling, the influence of the American business community on US government policy-making, and the green transformation of the economy.

The following is a transcript of Professor Yao Yang's speech:

Yao Yang (Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University, Boya Distinguished Professor, Changjiang Scholar):I am very happy to participate in our forum this afternoon. As Professor Ju Jiandong just mentioned, I, along with NYU Shanghai President Jeffrey and Harvard University Professor Dani Rodrik, launched an initiative. Professor Ju Jiandong also participated in our discussion. I will briefly talk about the content of this initiative later.

(Professor Yao Yang's speech)

Today I want to share with you that the US and China will not decouple. Regarding the trade war, I am not a trade professional, so I will just pick one issue that I think is relatively important and also relatively general, namely, "the issue of decoupling between China and the US." This issue has a very large impact on both China and the US.

Why do I personally believe that the US and China will not decouple, and that decoupling is impossible?There are three reasons:Firstly, China is unwilling to decouple, and China cannot decouple;Secondly, the American business community is unwilling to decouple;Thirdly, other countries are also unwilling to see the US and China decouple.

Why is China unwilling to decouple?Let's consider this: the reason why China has made such great progress over the past 40 years is closely related to our opening up to the outside world.

In the first 30 years after the founding of the People's Republic of China, we made great achievements. We achieved great success through independence and self-reliance, but the price was also very high. We achieved such progress by creating a price scissors gap between industrial and agricultural products and by suppressing the living standards of urban residents.However, such progress is insignificant compared to the progress made in the 40 years since the reform and opening up. All our indicators, if we start from 1954, hovered around zero for the first 30 years. The real take-off was after 1978, when our export indicators were only after we joined the WTO.Before joining the WTO, our export growth rate was also relatively high, but compared with the past 10 years after joining the WTO, it is still insignificant.After joining the WTO, our exports increased fivefold from 2001 to 2008. In my view, China's wealth accumulation occurred after joining the WTO.I returned to China from the United States in 1997. At that time, we only had two highways: one from Beijing to Tianjin and the other from Beijing to Shijiazhuang.The wealth we see in China today was basically accumulated over the past 20 years.This is closely related to our opening up. It not only allowed us to export our products, but also allowed foreign capital to enter China. The role of FDI in China during the first 30 years of reform and opening up was very significant.Over the past 10 years, its role has declined slightly, but it is still very significant. The taxes we pay should be more than 2 trillion yuan, which still accounts for a large proportion in China.

On the other hand, the technological upgrading of our country, at least in the past 40 years, has largely been a result of our opening up. I visited Weichai Power, which was originally the Weifang Diesel Engine Factory, an old enterprise established in 1946 to repair military equipment.After liberation, a small diesel engine from Czechoslovakia was introduced. They reverse-engineered it and learned how to build it. This small engine kept them alive for 40 years. When will they take off?In the late 1990s, our country introduced the Steyr heavy truck project from Switzerland. The complete Steyr heavy truck was manufactured by Shaanxi Heavy Truck, while the diesel engine was manufactured by Weichai.We bought the complete set of blueprints, but it took Weichai 10 years to digest the engine technology. Weichai's explosive growth has occurred in the past 10 years, with rapid development.Today, it has become the dominant force in the world's diesel engine industry, mainly in the intermediate sector, except for the manufacture of diesel engines for large and small locomotives.

A simple example shows that the fastest way for us to upgrade our technology is through introduction, absorption, and digestion.We have also seen the country continue to open up, even at the height of the Sino-US trade dispute.We revised the Foreign Investment Law this year, and it should be promulgated in January next year. Our financial sector continues to open up, so we have seen that the leadership is very firm in its commitment to opening up.This is the first aspect.

On the other hand, the American business community is also unwilling to decouple. Many of the news stories we see in China are quite intense because the media is willing to publish them. As the saying goes, if a dog bites a man, it won't be published; only if a man bites a dog will it be published, and some eye-catching news will be published.These conspicuous messages reveal who in the US has spoken out against China today, and who will speak out against China tomorrow.Do such people exist?Of course.Based on my personal experience, I think these people are a minority in the United States. The United States is a diverse and complex society, and the power of the American business community cannot be ignored.The American business community has a different idea from Trump's. Trump wants to use the trade war to force American companies back to the United States and make them create jobs there.On the other hand, Trump also wants to reduce the trade imbalance between China and the United States.However, the American business community has a different perspective:First, we need to do business with China, as the Chinese market is huge;Secondly, we want to produce and do business in China because the Chinese market is huge.Therefore, what they are demanding is actually largely in line with our reform direction.For example, should we change the excessive subsidies we provide to state-owned enterprises? The capital utilization efficiency of state-owned enterprises is at least one-third lower than that of private enterprises. We have data showing that the return on capital is at least one-third lower.Our large state-owned enterprises can easily borrow money from banks at an interest rate of 3.5%. Before the new asset management policy was introduced, they could not spend this money but instead use it in shadow banking, such as through entrusted loans, and earn 7% or 8% with great security.Our state-owned enterprises are wasting our funds; should we change this?What American businesses demand in China is a so-called "level," and in this respect, their demands are consistent with those of our private enterprises.We have said in the past that Sino-US economic and trade ties are the ballast of Sino-US relations, and this statement is still true today. People should not underestimate the role played by the American business community in the United States.

The Trump administration is unique because it is impervious to reason and no one can have a say. The Trump administration cannot stay in place forever, and even in next year's election, there is no guarantee that it will be re-elected.Therefore, we need to further unite and improve relations with the American business community so that they can come to China and benefit from the economic growth of China.Yesterday I saw some figures showing the market share of several major American companies in China: Apple has 19% of its sales in China, Intel 24%, Qualcomm 65%, and General Motors 42%. We are always worried that the US will use chips to strangle us. This is what the US government wants to do, but the American business community will not allow it. Qualcomm has 65% of its sales in China. The chip industry is a high-end industry; without a market, there can be no so-called technological progress.TSMC is investing $30 billion in a new 5-nanometer technology (it is currently working on 7-nanometer). Our Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. has invested 200 billion RMB. The chip industry is a high-end industry; without the market, it is doomed. Only by maintaining the market can there be continuous technological innovation.Therefore, in this sense, the decoupling of American businesses from China is tantamount to them giving up technological progress.

Other countries also do not want to see the US and China decouple. The global value chain is currently a hot research topic, and China plays a very important role in the global value chain. A friend of mine has researched the iPhone and found that China's added value is only 2.6%, with the rest being added value imported from abroad. These imports include companies from Germany, Japan, and South Korea, as well as companies from the United States that supply intermediate goods to Foxconn. If iPhones are no longer produced in China and are moved elsewhere, Foxconn will be greatly affected (Foxconn is a top-ranked company in the Fortune Global 500).Businesses in other countries will also be affected, and it won't be easy for them to find new buyers.

What we are seeing now is, in my opinion, a short-term situation. In the long run, at least in terms of trade, the US and China will return to normal.I would also like to say that in terms of technology, China and the US will probably have their own protections.

In the United States, there is a greater emphasis on protecting their technological development, which is something we probably can't change.In China, we will devote more energy to independent innovation, but not in a closed-door manner. We will continue to pursue innovation in an open way, and we should strive to make more friends. If the United States is not an option, we can cooperate with Europe.However, even in a technologically competitive environment, we are unlikely to develop a technological cold war.For example, with 5G technology, is it possible that a Chinese standard led by Huawei will emerge, while the United States will come up with a new standard? I think this situation is unlikely to happen.These technical standards are not government-led, but enterprise-led. These enterprises understand that if there are several standards, everyone will suffer. Only under one standard can everyone innovate more easily and save more capital.Therefore, I believe that even if China and the United States have their own approaches in the technology field, it is unlikely that they will form two separate worlds.

What attitude should we take to resolve the trade dispute between China and the United States?I'm about to mention our "Initiative on the US-China Trade Dispute," which ultimately garnered 37 signatures, including 5 Nobel laureates. The background to our proposal is as follows:The WTO has been in existence for 25 years. Before that, there was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which lasted even longer (starting in 1946 and 1947), for 50 years, before finally being reformed into the WTO.The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was reformed because it encountered many problems, thus requiring reform.The WTO, too, has been in operation for 25 years, and it has indeed encountered many difficulties, which are caused by the imbalance between the two largest economies, China and the United States. Therefore, we need a new framework. We have put forward four baskets of suggestions for this new framework. This is not a complete framework, but more of a directional and suggestive one. It is to provide a new language for trade negotiations and dispute discussions between China and the United States.

The four baskets are:First, there's the basket of "beggars and neighbors."There are some beggar-thy-neighbor policies that should be absolutely prohibited, such as export restrictions. For example, the United States restricts exports to specific companies, such as Huawei, based on the understanding that Huawei poses a security risk. I think the spokesperson of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave a very good answer. If your logic holds, then no country would dare to buy your Boeing aircraft. If you put something on a Boeing aircraft, we would be completely finished!The plane should stop flying.This reasoning is clearly flawed. Of course, our country has a goal of environmental protection, which is to restrict the export of rare earths. But that won't work either. If we really want to do it, we should treat all foreign companies equally and restrict them all. It's not enough to restrict only foreign companies.Competitive devaluation doesn't just mean that the US is directing us to engage in competitive devaluation; in fact, the US itself is doing it. Although it has a floating exchange rate, it can still influence the exchange rate and devalue the dollar by issuing dollars.Dumping and predatory pricing are both examples of "beggar-thy-neighbor" practices that we must resolutely stop, as they are not permitted within the framework of the WTO.The difference between us and the WTO lies in the second and third baskets.The second basket is "domestic policies that have a negative impact on other countries," but these policies are negotiable.For example, the US security review has a significant impact on other countries. Our country's industrial policies may also have some impact on other countries. Under the TPP framework, these should all be included in bilateral and multilateral agreements to directly discuss so-called policies and ensure that everyone implements them in a consistent manner.We believe that we can start by talking, for example, bilateral talks. If we can reach an agreement, that would be the best outcome. If we cannot reach an agreement, then we can put these policies into the third basket.The third basket is the "self-protection" basket.For example, if an agreement is not reached, the United States will continue to scrutinize our technology under the pretext of security review, including the technology that Huawei itself produces in Silicon Valley. The United States does not allow Huawei subsidiaries to transfer technology to China because of national security concerns. Our self-protection measure is to develop our own independent innovation.Conversely, if the United States says that we are pursuing independent innovation, it may have a negative impact on our enterprises, so we need to further restrict technology exports.Of course, this is not the best outcome; it could be a rather bad one, but at least we are giving two or more countries some room to adjust.The fourth basket is the "multilateral mechanisms" basket (which involves policies of multiple countries).In fact, many issues between China and the United States involve third countries. Under such circumstances, multilateral mechanisms should still play a role.This is the main content of our initiative.Actually, we didn't offer any very specific policy suggestions or anything like that. We're more about providing a directional framework. The most fundamental thing is that we need to give both countries the autonomy to formulate their own policies.

For the United States, on the one hand, they should realize that China cannot become more and more like the United States. China has its own political system, its own history, and its own culture, all of which we should uphold. We believe that we have our own values, including our political system.One point is that the United States should not demand that China unconditionally conform to the United States.On the other hand, China should also realize that the United States also needs room for adjustment. This may sound strange, since the United States is a much more developed country than us. Why does it also need room for adjustment?If you look at the distribution of votes in 2016, you'll find that the United States is already a very divided country.We know that Hillary Clinton won the majority of the votes, receiving 2.5 million more votes than Trump, but she lost because she won too few states. She won the large states on the West Coast and East Coast, but lost the smaller states in the middle, which Trump won. Therefore, Trump won more electoral votes.Why does this happen?Because there are many poor people in the vast Midwestern region of the United States (those places we can't see), there was once an American writer named Michael Moore who wrote a book called...Stupid White ManThis refers to white and poor people in the United States who mainly vote for the Republican Party. Trump's election this time was mainly due to these poor and white people. Why would they vote for Trump and the Republicans knowing that they would not work for them?Because they know the Democrats can't control them, the Democrats have become increasingly radical, spreading their base further and further to the East and West coasts. They've also vented their anger on immigration, and Trump's main argument is anti-immigrant, which caters to their tastes.However, we cannot place all the blame on the poor, because they are indeed hopeless. If you go to the American Midwest and look at the living conditions of the white people there, you will be amazed at how a white person can be so poor. This needs to be addressed.Of course, we don't necessarily believe what many American economists say: that the loss of jobs in the United States is all due to Chinese exports.However, on the other hand, we should also realize that China is the country that has benefited the most from this round of globalization over the past 20 years or so.Shouldn't we rethink this and give the US some room to adjust?

The last question is about China adapting to its new role. Our National Development Institute has a Track II economic dialogue between China and the United States, which was initiated by Wang Qishan when he was the Vice Premier in charge. We have been holding it for more than 10 years, twice a year.In 2011, Wang Qishan told us that China is now standing out from the crowd and its strength has greatly increased. He suggested that we conduct a study to determine what China's share of the world market will be by 2020.Even our leaders after 2008 didn't know why China suddenly became so big.Later, we did a study because when we made our predictions for 2020, we realized that we were a bit overconfident.However, we also point out that China is already very large. An elephant can hardly hide behind a big tree. Our previous so-called "keeping a low profile" approach, even if we wanted to do so, is no longer very likely. The world will not allow you to keep a low profile.There are still people saying that we showed up too early and the Americans discovered us, and that we should have stayed hidden longer so that the Americans wouldn't find us. I doubt that's going to happen.China's influence is too great.Our economic growth has accounted for more than 30% of the world's growth every year for the past decade. If China's GDP drops by one percentage point, the world's GDP drops by 0.26 percentage points, according to research.So, in the past, when the US sneezed, the world caught a cold; now, it's basically the same: when the Chinese economy sneezes, the world catches a cold.

China is already very large, but we have not yet adapted to this kind of growth in size on the international stage.In the past, we were followers of the rules. With reform and opening up, we joined the world system and became followers of the international order, which was relatively easy for us.We've made a lot of efforts to join it and try to grow and thrive within the system, which is basically what we've been doing for the past 40 years.The strategy has been very effective.But today, the world no longer allows us to do this; our influence is simply too great.Although our industries are moving out, China remains the world's factory. Our products are getting better and better in quality, but the prices are still low. That's why Huawei is able to outpace American companies.It's not just Huawei; many other companies are like this too—their products are of very high quality, but their prices aren't that high.In this situation, we need to adjust our mindset.In transitioning from a follower of the rules to someone who adapts to the rule-makers, we should make concessions in some areas.For example, regarding WTO reform, the United States wanted to sabotage the WTO by not paying its dues. Now, there is only one judge left, a Chinese judge. After January 1st next year, the WTO will basically cease to function. The United States wanted to sabotage it.However, we must remember that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Its actions to disrupt the WTO are driven by domestic factors. It needs to make adjustments domestically and force the US to make adjustments that are in its favor.However, it's not that the US is the only country in the WTO. There are also the EU, Japan, and Australia. These countries all hope that the WTO can continue, but they have also raised some demands, such as the status of developing countries, the issue of state-owned enterprises, and the issue of subsidies. Are these issues something we absolutely cannot discuss? Are we a developing country? Of course we are, but we are a very special developing country. Never before in the world has a developing country provided such a large-scale foreign aid program. We also have the Belt and Road Initiative.

Such a developing country is obviously very special. Can we use the wisdom of the Chinese people to both retain what we want and give up some interests that are not so important to us, so that we can win more friends and truly transform from a follower into a rule maker?We used to say that the rules were made by others. Now we have an opportunity. The United States has withdrawn. We have such a good opportunity. How can we seize this opportunity and become one of the rule-makers? I think this is something we need to rethink comprehensively.Only in this way can we determine whether we can do better in the next 30 years.

That's all for now, thank you everyone!

Q&A Session:

Question:Regarding Professor Yao's earlier point about the US and China not decoupling, there is now an argument that a partial decoupling will occur, particularly in the technology sector. This is because many students and teachers have been rejected when they went to study in the US. This actually shows that the US is using a system of personal control to implement its technological protection, especially in the radar and optoelectronic industries.I would like to ask Professor Yao, how long will this last, and what mindset should we adopt in facing the current technological blockade by the United States?

(Audience question)

Question (by Li Xin):Thank you very much, Professor Yao, for your excellent report. My question mainly concerns your point about our increased participation in global governance. Besides the United States, we have many other friends, such as Europe. If we look at the development of Sino-US relations since 2017 or 2018, the United States approved its foreign investment review of China in May 2018, but Europe had already approved its foreign investment review of China in March 2018. In 2019, Japan also followed the United States in strengthening its foreign investment review of China.For example, on issues like China's market economy status, although the United States has been making a lot of noise, it was actually Europe that initially jumped in. As things stand now, the friction between China and the United States may be quite intense.My question is, we are currently in a relatively difficult period, not only in terms of trade and economic difficulties with the United States, but also in Europe and Japan, where we are now in the minority. How can we further open up and gain more support under these relatively difficult circumstances?

Question:Thank you, Professor Yao. We have also seen many opinions and comments about whether or not the US and China should decouple.question:In your opinion, to what extent does decoupling constitute decoupling, and to what extent does it not constitute decoupling (please define decoupling)?question:How does the American business community influence policy-making in the American political arena?Because both the executive and legislative branches have introduced some measures that are very unfriendly to China.

Yao Yang:

Regarding the first question, how do you view technological decoupling? I agree that we will definitely move towards at least partial decoupling in terms of technology.As I just mentioned, mutual distrust in technology is inevitable. The US is no longer willing to give you things for free, at least not in our generation. That may not be the case now. Our generation received US scholarships, but now we have to pay for our own education.Even so, it still thinks you've taken advantage of it and is unwilling to train Chinese students to return to China and compete with them. I think this has already happened. But what I want to say is that for true technological decoupling, it still needs to be like before, with two parallel systems: China doing its own thing and the US doing its own thing, with different standards. Only then can it be called technological decoupling. Otherwise, I don't think it should be called technological decoupling.The third person who asked the question just mentioned this issue. By the way, the worst case scenario is that we simply stop all trade and economic relations. This is the most thorough decoupling. We don't even do trade anymore. Technology decoupling is just one part of the process.

Regarding Li Xin's question, it seems that other countries are also tightening their regulations, reviewing foreign investment in China, and implementing protective measures.I don't think it's fair to say that our space is shrinking; rather, it's more that they themselves are feeling the pressure because China is developing so fast. If China were to buy, it could probably buy the whole of Germany (which is very likely).Faced with this situation, we have protected our own industries in the past. My family all came from Xi'an Electric Machinery Manufacturing Company. I know how this company survived. Now it is a state-owned enterprise under the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. Although it is not very big, it is an extremely important enterprise in our country. It has a complete set of power transmission and transformation equipment. Especially in the 1990s, it was the only one of its kind.If the government hadn't intervened, this company would have gone out of business in the 1990s. But a policy (the Three Gorges Project) saved it. The government stipulated that 60% of the equipment for the Three Gorges Project must be sourced domestically. This policy was essentially tailor-made for our Xi'an Electric Company, and it saved the company.

Actually, we've done it ourselves. I think we shouldn't take it too seriously, thinking that others are going against us. Including market economy status, Professor Lu Feng has also done a study. This doesn't have a big impact on us. It's more about appearances. There's not much substantive impact. Whether they acknowledge it or not doesn't hurt China much. Mainly, there's not much harm in terms of anti-dumping.

How many areas do we collaborate in?The WTO requires that we should do many things domestically, such as the issue of state-owned enterprises. We see state-owned enterprises wasting our funds and squeezing out our private enterprises. Especially in the past two years, our private enterprises have basically had no room to grow. Can this continue?Why don't we simply follow the example of when we joined the WTO and use opening up to the outside world to promote some domestic reforms?If you think about it this way, it's not a problem anymore; it's actually a good thing. It's entirely a matter of our mindset.The American business community has a significant influence on the government. The relationship between the American business community and the government is very close. However, Trump's administration is quite unique. He is unyielding and no one can talk to him. But the people around him, especially Ross Mnuchin, understand the business community. I think they have brought a lot of business to the Trump administration. This power should not be underestimated.

Question:Thank you very much, Professor Yao, for sharing with us. I am also very grateful to Tsinghua University for organizing this seminar. Regarding the decoupling between China and the United States, this is my view: I think it's not a matter of whether anyone is willing to decouple or not, but rather that Trump represents national interests. I now believe that our global monetary system is a zero-sum game. If you lose the current account, you will lose the monetary system.The question is that a zero-sum monetary system cannot support trade imbalances to this extent, so decoupling is necessary.

Question:Professor Yao, I particularly agree with your third point because I am currently working on this in microeconomics. My question is simple: regarding your third point, you said that transforming from a rule follower to a rule maker requires comprehensive thinking to make our path over the next 30 years easier. My question is simple: in the current process of China's green economic transformation, how do you view the challenges and opportunities faced in the process of transforming from a rule follower to a rule leader, and the green transformation of the economy?

Yao Yang:

The first argument is invalid. The so-called imbalance is a long-term phenomenon, not something that just started happening now. It's just that this round is happening in the two largest countries, and on a large scale. But this doesn't mean we have to decouple. If you want to solve this imbalance, a better way is probably deep integration, not decoupling.

Regarding the issue of green development, I think it's a big problem because global warming has become a concern in developed countries. Recently, the European Union declared a state of emergency, indicating that the world has entered a state of emergency.This is how I personally do it. Actually, I have a doubt. If you look at historical data, the Earth has gone through several rounds of warming and cooling.The temperature in our Northern Hemisphere has not reached the average temperature of the past 3,000 years. In other words, our ancestors lived in a much hotter climate. The hot weather was when our civilization was developing greatly, while the cold weather was when we were most unfortunate.Our climate change has destroyed everything. During the Three Kingdoms period, the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Song Dynasty, and the Ming Dynasty, when temperatures were extremely low, we suffered, and our civilization collapsed.Therefore, I suspect that no matter how much humans reduce emissions, temperatures will still rise because we are in a warming period, if this cycle is correct.On the other hand, it is important to remember that an increase in income level requires the consumption of more energy. It is impossible to become richer without consuming more energy; that is simply not the case.China's per capita energy consumption still needs to rise. We now see that energy is not so clean, and the production process of the photovoltaic industry is so dirty. We produce a lot of solar panels for developed countries, and they are clean, while we have become dirty.Think about other developing countries besides China. What will they do? If they don't develop, Africa's population will reach 1.5 billion by the middle of this century and 3 billion by the end of the century. One-third of humanity will live in Africa. If you don't let them develop, can they just focus on developing fossil fuels?Therefore, I think China should participate in the formulation of international rules, which is a very important aspect.If we don't participate and don't speak up for developing countries, the whole world will ultimately suffer.Think about it: if Africa cannot develop, the refugee crisis cannot be stopped, and Europe will be the first to suffer.In this sense, Europe is foolish; it doesn't know how to solve the problem.The best way to solve the problem is to make the African people rich quickly, rather than reducing emissions.On this point, China should still stand firm. At the last Copenhagen meeting, China stood on the side of developing countries, which I think was the right thing to do. We should strive for such development rights.It's not just good for us, it's beneficial for the whole world.

Thank you everyone!