Wang Wei │ The Sino - US relationship has gone through a historical development process from poverty

The following is Wang WeiOriginal text of the doctoral student's speech:

I'll talk about two aspects.

First, regarding the phenomenon. Several years ago, I wondered why the US elected Obama as president (and later Trump). I said then that the US had enjoyed many very comfortable days, especially after the end of the Cold War, and it had virtually no global concerns. But the sudden arrival of a competitor like China, without any rivals, caused a significant shift in their mindset. In fact, I believe the actual turning point in American history might not have been Trump, but Obama. Obama, in a sense, represented the initial populist voters' ideas or actions, while Trump represented the full manifestation of those populist ideas and actions. Therefore, from a historical perspective, it shouldn't be surprising; this didn't just happen today, it's been happening for many years. So this is a phenomenon, and we need to look at it from the perspective of American history.

Secondly, regarding Sino-US relations, this is my perspective. Sino-US relations are actually converging, and this convergence can be explained in many ways. Firstly, China's reform and opening up has led to the adoption of many global rules, including trade rules and governance rules. Secondly, the pace of economic development is converging even faster. So, in terms of the process, I believe this: Initially, the West, especially the US, viewed China somewhat like a poverty alleviation program, as China was still a very poor country. Later, China learned from the West's experience and methods of economic development, particularly in industry. Then, China became a business partner of the US, essentially starting to do business on equal footing. Now, things are different. Both sides have risen to important positions on the world stage. From a company perspective, if you're in a management position, there are only a few people in management, creating a relationship of comparison and even competition. Therefore, there has been a historical development process from poverty alleviation to student, partner, and then competitor. In the first two stages, it was as if I were bestowing favors upon you; you were my beneficiary, my student, so you were someone I cared for. The trade partnership was a balanced relationship, though we were doing business. Now, the US sees it as a completely competitive relationship, and historically, this process isn't surprising at all. It's especially like working in a company; that's the process. Your career path is like that: when you first join, everyone takes care of you, you're a student. In the second stage, you become a key employee contributing to the company, and finally, reaching management depends on your competitive ability. That's the relationship; it's not surprising at all.

That's all for now, thank you!

The following is Dr. Wang Wei's answer to audience questions:

Audience Question:We can see that the power struggle between China and the US is closely linked to the think tanks behind them. Since all the guests have worked in both China and the US, I'd like to ask each of them to briefly discuss the relative capabilities of their think tanks and their American counterparts in dealing with the China-US trade friction and subsequent science and technology education issues.

Secondly, we see that the US strategy towards the world's second-largest economy exhibits a path dependency, similar to its approach towards Japan and the Soviet Union. However, the current context of globalization and technological advancement is entirely different. I'd like to discuss with the experts whether the US might develop new strategies specifically targeting China to avoid this path dependency. This is because China is constantly learning and drawing inspiration from the methods of Japan, the Soviet Union, and Germany.

Wang Wei:Let me offer my initial thoughts. When the US-China trade issues first surfaced, I was concerned about one thing: although the US seemed very irrational, or Trump particularly unreliable, his think tank was exceptionally capable. Firstly, they had already made enough money and didn't need to make more; they were a group entirely focused on national interests. That's the first point. Secondly, they had a spirit of dedication and were indeed highly talented individuals.

I believe the future evolution of Sino-US relations is a calculated process, not something that happens spontaneously like Trump's impromptu tweet. There's a logical framework, a calculated strategy, outlining the initial, intermediate, and final outcomes, and deciding which path to take. I think there's a complete system in place. Do we have such a system? Have we conducted such research? Have we done such analysis? These are the questions we need to ask. But I think we were definitely caught off guard at the time. We didn't expect Trump to be like this—starting as a good friend, then turning around and slapping us in the face. We certainly wouldn't let him slap us again. That's the feeling. So, although we might have felt caught off guard at first, I believe that with the wisdom of 1.3 billion people, it would be strange if we couldn't come up with a good solution. I've always felt that China's understanding of the US is much deeper than the US's understanding of China, and I think that's our advantage.

Audience Question:You just mentioned the stubbornness of people in the American Midwest. I'd like to know what percentage of them are in the entire US? Given the current US-China trade friction, or to put it more bluntly, the situation where the entire US is confronting China, will this stubbornness exacerbate trade barriers between the two countries?

Based on my observations during your meetings these past few days, many guests have offered suggestions. They believe we shouldn't proactively confront the US, as if China is constantly on the verge of war, and that we should maintain a friendly relationship with the US. My question is, if our nation, from the general public to the top leadership, maintains a seemingly positive attitude, will it lead to a situation where neither the people nor the government are prepared for any eventuality, remaining in a state of complacency? Will this put us at a disadvantage in this war without gunfire? And if we were to experience a so-called economic crisis one day, how should we respond?

Wang Wei:To put it simply, let's return to the issue of cyclical government dynamics. The Chinese government is patient and considers future developments, while the US government is impatient because its lifecycle is only a few years. Therefore, China prefers to use a more nuanced approach, gradually resolving this conflict, rather than confronting it with the short-term thinking of the US government. This, I believe, is the best strategy for dealing with this situation.

Audience Question:It seems that when intellectual property is mentioned, everyone's first reaction is either Chinese infringement or that American companies and governments are being taken advantage of. In reality, we know that in both the US and Europe, governments strictly regulate companies with relative or absolute monopolies in technology. I've been wondering whether the Chinese government's antitrust investigations into multinational technology companies are strong enough or weak, or whether they are exercising appropriate regulation.

Furthermore, are Chinese companies also performing poorly in uniting to counter technological bullying by multinational corporations? I actually think the Section 301 investigation might be an opportunity for the Chinese government and Chinese companies. We know that, especially, American multinational technology monopolies severely bully relatively weaker Chinese companies in the Chinese market. However, the strength of corporate resistance and government anti-monopoly investigations is relatively weak. I haven't seen any media reports or cases of any Fortune 100 or even Fortune 500 multinational corporation facing significant counter-investigations in China. But in Europe and the US, such cases are numerous, and multinational corporations face severe sanctions for technological bullying, yet they haven't experienced this in China. And when it comes to intellectual property protection, they always appear as victims, which makes me very uncomfortable. They make so much profit in the Chinese market, raking in buckets of gold, and then they say they've been taken advantage of. I wonder if any of you have relevant data or cases to share on this situation? Thank you.

Wang Wei:There are precedents in China. An employee of a large multinational corporation was sued by Chinese judicial authorities for alleged price-fixing. It's not that the Chinese government didn't do it or couldn't, but currently China genuinely needs Western technology and intellectual property. There's no need to scare away truly high-tech, highly skilled personnel. I think that's the consideration. China hasn't reached the stage where we can do without you, although that day will eventually come. Companies like Huawei and Tencent are close to that stage, even Alibaba. They can say they can do very well without you, or even better. That's why Huawei is so confident; there's a difference. Of course, I think China's reform and opening up has indeed borrowed and learned a lot from advanced Western technologies to achieve what it is today. It's just that the tuition fees paid in the past were small, and now some are being paid back. If something can be done with money, it's actually quite good; we call it "paying to avoid trouble," which is quite nice. Just don't arrest people. Arresting people is a different matter. Fines are acceptable, but arresting people is another story. If the US and European countries went to Africa and talked about intellectual property protection and technology protection, it would be a huge joke, because those countries genuinely need your help, just like China in its early stages of development. At China's current stage, if it's necessary to pay, spending more money to buy the technology is not a problem.