During the Second World Chinese Studies Conference held in October, guest speaker Grzegorz W. Kolodko, former Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, visited Observer Net for a "Mingde Strategic Dialogue" with Wang Wen, Director of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University.
Kolodko is also a globally renowned economist and a key designer of Poland's reform. From 1994 to 1997, he first served as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Poland. From 2002 to 2003, he again served as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of the left-wing government in Poland. He witnessed and experienced Poland's transition and the process of Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries joining the EU.
Kolodko has always had a clear and incisive understanding of the world's political and economic landscape and trends. In this excellent dialogue, he criticized Europe for falling into military expansion when it lost competitiveness, criticized the global protectionist and nationalist ideology of Trump 2.0, and called on intellectuals, academia, and independent media to participate in exposing hegemonism and national self-interest.
In contrast, he expressed high praise for China's economic development and its concept of mutual benefit and win-win development. However, he also politely expressed European society's doubts about China's concept, and his attitude towards the Ukraine-Russia issue was contradictory. To deepen the understanding of Chinese readers, Observer Net has retained these contents. Kolodko also reminded China that to achieve long-term goals, it needs to pay high attention to development inequality and soft power construction.
The following is the transcript of the dialogue organized by Observer Net.
In the studio of Observer Net, Wang Wen, Director of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University, dialogues with former Polish Finance Minister Grzegorz Kolodko. Observer Net
"Closing the border of the China-Europe train is an impulsive decision"
Wang Wen: Hello everyone, welcome to Observer Net and the Mingde Strategic Dialogue. I am Wang Wen, Director of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University. Today, I am honored to invite an important scholar from Poland. He is very wise, has great influence globally, and has written many works. He once served as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Poland, and now is a professor at Kozminski University.
Welcome, Professor Kolodko. I know you have great influence and extensive knowledge. But today we will focus on the international system and international change.
Let's start with your country, Poland. Recently, Poland closed the border ports of the China-Europe train (from September 12 to September 25, which has now been restored, note by the editor). This has had a significant impact on the Chinese economy and the "Belt and Road" initiative. What happened in Poland? How do you view Poland's development and its relationship with China?
Kolodko: I think it was a serious mistake made by the Polish government. Although I cannot be 100% sure, I speculate that it was an impulsive decision that did not fully consider the potential harm it could cause to the Chinese economy and other aspects.
Poland and Belarus are experiencing very tense relations due to two issues. First, there is uncontrolled immigration, where some people use the border between Belarus and Poland to enter Poland first, and then enter the EU. The second issue is the Ukraine war. The eastern border of Poland, including the 373 kilometers of border with Belarus, is quite tense.
But I think the decision of the Polish government to close the border was not very wise, and it certainly was not aimed at China's interests. The Polish leaders knew that this would harm China's interests, because the China-Europe train starts from China, crosses parts of Asia, then goes through Russia and Belarus, and enters the EU via Poland. So, as I said in my comment article, if Poland wants to be the gateway for China entering the EU, it should not close the door. Diplomatic communication should be conducted instead of impulsive politics. Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China indeed visited Poland, meeting with the Polish Foreign Minister. A few days later, the border was reopened. The reason given by the Polish government was that the reasons for closing the border no longer existed. But actually, I think the Polish government admitted this was their mistake in this way, which is regrettable.
When the border port between Poland and Belarus was temporarily closed, a batch of China-Europe train cargo was stranded at the port.
The rise of populism in Central and Eastern Europe
Wang Wen: I agree. But the problem is, in recent years, the policy toward China in Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, seems confusing. For example, not only Poland, but also Lithuania and other countries, have shown an unfriendly attitude toward China. The "17+1" Leaders' Meeting mechanism between China and Central and Eastern Europe is also facing difficulties. As you know, you have had a huge impact on Poland's economic transformation, and many professors describe you as the designer of Poland's economic transformation. Let's talk about the transformation of Central and Eastern European countries.
Kolodko: This is a very large topic. My country Poland is not only seen as a success story in Eastern Europe, but also around the world. If we look at long-term data, since the political changes in 1989, our GDP - the basic measure of economic growth - has doubled, which is a significant achievement from the European perspective. But from the Chinese perspective, it may not be so impressive, as China has developed much faster.
But the first point is that if we hadn't made policy errors in the early stages of the transformation, especially what I call the "shock therapy", we could have done better. I sometimes say that it was more like "only shock, no therapy".
The second important issue is the huge difference between the transformation of China or Vietnam and the transformation of Eastern Europe. The difference lies in that while we reformed the political system during the economic transformation. In my country, whether to do this or that, this debate is endless, they call it democracy. The result is no new railways, no new bridges, no new nuclear power plants, etc. So, some decision-making processes progress slowly, unlike the efficient mobilization democracy in China, and the internal political tensions in the government also slow down economic progress.
So the question is, how do the means serve the purpose? As a development economist, and also from the perspective of one of the key architects of Poland's economic success, the political system should be seen as a tool to achieve the purpose, which is the well-being of the people, sustainable social, economic, and environmental development of the country, rather than the opposite. If economic policies are subordinated to the struggle for power, efficiency will decrease. Because of this, some countries in Eastern Europe have not achieved the level of success they could have reached.
Similarly, the decision to close the Polish-Belarusian border that I mentioned earlier is harmful to China's exports and other aspects. This decision has economic consequences, but it is not based on economic considerations, but on political emotions. So, if decisions are driven by emotions rather than wisdom or common sense, inefficiency and economic mistakes will occasionally occur. And the new issue in recent years is the resurgence of nationalism and populism in some countries in Eastern Europe, which is also unfavorable.
Until recently, the core of the Polish coalition government, the liberal-oriented party, also turned to nationalism. Our prime minister declared that it is time to end naive globalization and implement modern economic nationalism. I say this is a very serious mistake, we should not move towards any form of nationalism. We should move towards further openness, using global technology, goods, and a certain degree of labor exchange, towards inclusive globalization. But at present, xenophobia, nationalism, and populist sentiments are growing not only in Eastern European countries but also in several Western European countries. This is a very unfavorable factor for economic development.
Ignoring Draghi Report Recommendations, the EU Follows the US in Increasing Military Spending
Wang Wen: Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to ask you next. Many Chinese scholars believe that 20 or 30 years ago, after the end of the Cold War, Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries were our models for transformation. But over the past three decades, transformation has not only included economic transformation, but also political transformation. At first, we thought these countries might be very successful, but now it seems... You know, I first went to Central and Eastern European countries, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, 20 years ago, when their development levels were similar to China's. But last year, I went to some of these countries and saw that their economic conditions were not very good. As you mentioned, they have "democracy," but "democracy" has not promoted sufficient development. So, in your opinion, is this the pain of transformation? What is the future of the transformation of Central and Eastern European countries?
Kolodko: This is another complex issue. You must realize that most Eastern European countries are relatively developed countries. According to the terminology and methodologies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Poland belongs to the group of developed economies. As early as 10 or 12 years ago, our per capita GDP (in purchasing power parity) had already exceeded twice the world average. The higher the income, the slower the growth. This is a factor.
However, even so, for example, Poland's economy has grown by more than 3% annually in recent years. However, in my view, the growth could have been faster if economic policies had always been based on knowledge, rather than often influenced by emotions.
The second factor, you mentioned the period after the end of the Cold War. But in recent years, some people say that this was the end of the first Cold War, because now we have a second Cold War. This cold war is initiated by the United States against China, although there is no formal declaration of war. You must realize that most Eastern European countries (excluding the post-Soviet giants such as Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova) have joined the EU, as well as the NATO political and military alliance.
Now, due to the tension within the framework of the new cold war and the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, the tension is more severe than before. We spend a lot on defense. I say "so-called" because even if a country attacks another, it claims it is for defense. Both the current and previous governments of Poland are very proud of this: among the 32 NATO member states, our defense spending accounts for the highest percentage of GDP, and we will increase our defense spending to 5% of GDP.
But our investment in research and development is less than 30% of our defense spending. This is also the case for the entire EU, including these post-socialist transformation countries. If a country's defense spending is more than three times its R&D investment, it cannot achieve long-term economic growth.
More than a year ago, there was a report submitted by the former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Central Bank, Draghi, which proved that the EU, including new members and Eastern European transformation economies, is losing competitiveness to two "new big brothers", namely the United States and China. Draghi and her team recommended significantly increasing R&D investment to enhance the competitiveness of the European economy.
What did we do? We did not heed the recommendations of the Draghi report. We listened to the advice of the U.S. President, increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP. From the perspective of economic competitiveness, this is mostly a waste of money. Therefore, the slowdown in growth is also a result of the second cold war. The question is how to get out of this dilemma. Currently, I am worried that the spiral of military spending will only continue to intensify.
On September 3, Trump met with Polish President Karol Nawrocki at the White House.
"The Western Alliance and the Eurasian Alliance, Europe is a part of both"
Wang Wen: Yes, this is also the idea of many Chinese people - this pro-American policy or transformation, as you said, has a high cost. Now the Ukraine crisis has lasted more than three years. In my view, it may last even longer. This is a huge cost for Poland and other European countries. So I want to ask you, in the long run, what impact will this have on European countries?
Kolodko: Not long ago, the influential British weekly magazine The Economist and its Economist Intelligence Unit published an opinion: Looking forward, the world will split into two parts led by the United States and the East led by China and Russia; and these two worlds will often conflict, sometimes even resorting to military means to expand their influence over the Global South.
I do not agree with this view. You know, the so-called "East" led by China and Russia, due to various reasons such as economic weakness, is actually just China's "little brother". In the so-called Eastern bloc, we also have an important country - India, whose future development will become increasingly important. So I am very concerned about China, India, and the relationship between China and global development.
My view is contrary to that of The Economist. I believe the future of the world is not a conflict between the West and the East, nor is it a friendly or even hostile competition in the Global South to compete for influence, but rather a world composed of two "super regions": one is the Atlantic region led by the United States, and the other is the Eurasian region, where China will occupy the most important position. And Europe is an indispensable part of both. We are undoubtedly part of the Western countries, but we are also part of the Eurasian continent, which is beyond doubt.
Therefore, the clever strategy in the game of geopolitics is that the EU (including Poland) should not be incited by the preferences of the United States to take an anti-foreign, suspicious of China, or anti-China policy, etc. We should not participate in the Cold War and trade wars between China and the United States. We should maintain good relations with North America and China, and work for peace and cooperation, which also includes responding to some initiatives proposed by the Chinese leader, such as the Global Development Initiative and the Global Governance Initiative, aiming to promote inclusive globalization, which is what you Chinese call "win-win globalization". But this is contrary to the interests of the current U.S. government.
You must realize that currently (referring to those countries you mentioned, perhaps Hungary and Slovakia are slightly better, but countries like Poland and the Czech Republic), our policies are largely influenced by American priorities. You know, this is the way of the "new big brother". From my personal perspective, I have a very critical attitude towards this. I think the political leadership of Poland is too submissive to the pressure of the United States.
I can give you many examples. I used to use a Huawei phone. When China proposed to invest in Poland's broadband 5G network, yes, it was China's Huawei Technology, which is one of the top technologies in the world. We were told by the U.S. government: If you accept China's Huawei network, the U.S. will not station troops in Poland. The result is that now we have a U.S. military base in Poland, but we don't have Huawei's technology. Unfortunately, this is an example of how economics and politics operate today. So, when I wanted to buy a new phone, I went to the store and asked if there was Huawei. They told me: Sir, there is no Huawei. Do you know why there is none? Because of the political tension." So you see, some things in the economic field are again driven by political preferences, which contradicts economic logic.
The problem is how to get out of this dilemma, how to get out of the Cold War mentality, and how to get out of this new nationalism and protectionism? Under the context of the current U.S. government (Trump 2.0 era), this is extremely difficult.
I have just published a book on the new U.S. government, which is available in multiple languages. The Trump 2.0 government has a great destructive impact on the world order, even on the U.S. itself. Mr. Trump firmly believes that he will make America great again, even greater, which is a big mistake.
The conflicts we are currently involved in, which are instigated by American hegemonism, will ultimately weaken us, while China will become the winner. Because China has many capabilities, one of which is the ability for long-term planning. Now you are discussing the 14th Five-Year Plan from 2026 to 2030, and the Chinese leadership and Chinese economists regard these five years as another step on the long journey towards a better future. This is precisely what most Central and Eastern European countries, as well as the EU, lack.
Our policies lack a long-term vision, still focusing only on the next election. You know the situation in France. No one really knows who the Prime Minister of France is now, because the government changes frequently. You know, Germany and the UK also have similar situations. If there is a general election this Sunday in the UK and Germany, whether it is Keir Starmer or Friedrich Merz, they will face political crises. So, this is the result of democratic systems sometimes. Democracy is a good thing for many of us, but sometimes it makes economic rationality much more difficult.
Globalization is irreversible, but political globalization lags behind
Wang Wen: A few years ago, you mentioned that today's globalization has entered a new realism period. Just now, you also mentioned the second Cold War. In the past, many Chinese people imagined the world would continue to progress. But now, it seems that the world is going backward in some conditions or some areas, sometimes even getting worse. What is happening in the world today? What new observations do you have about the current state of the world?
Kolodko: I still stick to my judgment: according to my understanding, globalization is irreversible. The biggest problem is that political globalization has lagged behind economic globalization before this wave of protectionism, trade wars, and the second Cold War.
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Poland, Kolodko
We have created an interconnected and interdependent global economy. What happens in China largely depends on the European market, which in turn affects countries even farther away such as Brazil, Indonesia, or Nigeria. Due to the flow and exchange of technology, capital, human resources, and ideas, we are all connected in this global village. However, political globalization lags behind, and there are indeed problems in global governance, institutionalizing rules, that is, redesigning the rules for the global economy.
You know, institutions are very important. This is one of the perspectives from which I look at the "Global Governance Initiative." It is largely seeking answers: how to govern the global economy? We do not have a global government, and we never will. But we do have a global economy. Therefore, the question is how to coordinate economic policies, investment policies, trade policies, and technology policies among regions, countries, and enterprises. After World War II, we established some structures, and after the end of the first Cold War, we established some international structures, but these are insufficient to meet the current challenges.
Then what next? I think we must learn from the mistakes we have made, that nationalism and protectionism are not beneficial for development. Even from the perspective of nationalism, it will cause many problems. If we want progress, we must call for new ways of thinking and new leadership.
As you said before, for many years, we believed that one cannot just dream, but must have a vision. But that is not enough. If you have a vision, you need a strategy. I did have a vision, so I formulated a strategy for Poland. Then, you also need leadership. The problem is where does the leadership come from to improve the global economic and political governance? It's still far away. The situation will eventually get better, but before that, it will get worse.
"We must do everything possible to stop the tide of militaristic expansion"
Wang Wen: Yes. In the past, many Chinese people admired the United States, seeing it as a global leader. Perhaps most countries think this way. But the problem is that now we are very disappointed with the United States. They have lost their global leadership capabilities, abandoned many international mechanisms. What do you think about this? Because I just read your new book "Trump 2.0", in my view, you are the first scholar in the world to deeply observe the phenomenon of Trump 2.0. This book is not thick, but you clearly describe the disastrous impact of Trump 2.0 on the world. What has happened in the United States? What kind of impact will Trump 2.0 bring to the world?
Kolodko: The subtitle of my book "Trump 2.0" is "Global Turmoil and Power Shift," and it largely revolves around this theme. You know, this U.S. 47th president definitely does not understand the complexity of the global economic and political situation, even if he understands a little about contemporary world economy and politics, he cannot accept it, because from his perspective, a strong China is something he cannot accept.
The driving force behind Trump's economics and Trumpism is not only the economic policies aimed at containing China that the president stated. He believes that China's expansion poses a risk to world peace and sustainable development, and I do not agree with this view. Of course, since China launched the "Belt and Road" initiative, many of its overseas activities are not doing charity. Whether it's building roads in Kenya, railways in Poland, or ports in Peru, they are not gifts or charity. But this fits the concept of "mutual benefit and win-win" that China talks about: promoting economic development, while maintaining China's development, without sacrificing others' interests, but achieving a positive synergy with others. This is a win-win situation, which is exactly the opposite of Trump's philosophy (if it can be called a philosophy).
Because he claims, or more accurately, he shouts "America First." Okay, if America comes first, that means other countries should come second. However, many places in the world no longer accept the United States' leadership. People have grown tired of talking about "a rules-based world order," especially when the U.S. government itself does not follow the rules.
This surprised many of us - China and some other countries have become the defenders of the "rules-based world order." Due to the improper behavior of the United States, the operations of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, and UNESCO (responsible for cultural and educational affairs) have indeed encountered problems. So where is the root of the problem? The root lies in the long-standing conflict between two views.
Our ideals are different, and our interests are also different. Sometimes, interest conflicts are confused with ideal conflicts. In the West, they claim they are maintaining democracy and human rights. In fact, they are maintaining the interests of the military-industrial complex and others. That's how it develops. Therefore, it requires intellectuals, academia, and independent media to participate more in exposing this hegemonism, nationalism, and national self-interest.
But this is easier said than done. So I think the situation will change, but it may take several years. Maybe even ten or twenty years, things will return to normal as they did after the end of the first Cold War.
For example, between 1987 and 1998, global military spending decreased by about one-third, and the huge amount saved - approximately $60 billion, which would exceed $1 trillion in today's terms - was redirected from defense and military construction to funding development. Poland was also a beneficiary of this process. And China would not have achieved today's success without the end of the Cold War.
But now, the second Cold War has made things much more difficult. Therefore, we must do everything possible to stop this madness, this irrational tide of military expansion.
From 1987 to 1998, global military spending fell by 30%. The figure shows global military spending from 1949 to 2023 and the proportion of major economies' military expenditures.
The world is big enough to accommodate two different political systems
Wang Wen: But when we observe the changes in the United States, we indeed find that this country is not the one we used to imagine. This is why more and more people are beginning to reflect on the quality of American democracy, repeatedly thinking about the economic advantages of the United States, re-evaluating the marketization of the United States, and we are seeing more of their drawbacks.
We all know that thirty years ago, Francis Fukuyama proposed the "End of History." But now, it is precisely the surprising turning point of the "End of History" and the new history, and the so-called "Washington Consensus" he advocated is ending, is that correct?
Kolodko: History has never ended. The title of Francis Fukuyama's book "The End of History" is cleverly chosen - it's the "End of History" that made him famous. But history is still continuing, because history is a chronicle of conflicts. As I said, this is a natural law, and under the conflict of interests, there must be ideological exchanges. The key is to resolve contradictions peacefully, thus promoting sustainable development. This is completely feasible, but it requires dialogue.
But you must understand that we are now in China. However, in Western Europe - even now, not to mention Eastern Europe either - there is a lot of suspicion about China, and the United States is especially so. If you ask about China's intentions, President Xi Jinping and most Chinese people emphasize peaceful development and mutual benefit. But if you ask Poles, Germans, Americans, or Japanese people, many will assert that "China seeks hegemony" and "wants to impose its will on others." Although no one has accused China of forcing the West to use chopsticks, I would not be surprised if a politician made such a speculation.
The core issue is: what are the real intentions of the leaders of countries with different political civilization systems? To what extent can their agendas be compatible? Reality is often full of contradictions rather than harmony. When all countries shout "America First," "France for France," "Germany first," or "Poland for the Poles," confrontation replaces compatibility. Don't we need a more open, inclusive, and mutually respectful world?
That's why more personnel exchanges are better. I look forward to more Chinese students studying in Poland and more Poles coming to China not only for business but also for tourism. I don't understand why the Polish airline canceled the direct flight from Warsaw to Beijing, and the so-called "economic rationality" explanation is hard to accept - this small move represents the wrong direction.
Perhaps this is the law of development: when prosperity continues too long, some issues lose rational control. The rise of China is undoubtedly an important factor, and Germany, France, and Japan have not fully accepted it, especially the United States. I must emphasize here - please remember this - the Ukraine war has seriously damaged the international atmosphere, and it has become increasingly difficult to talk about peace and cooperation among regions of the world now.
Western countries are losing their monopoly on the interpretation of the path of economic development
Wang Wen: But frankly, I think many Western countries have not accepted China's rise, and a key point, a key reason is the theoretical limitations. Because they cannot imagine a more civilized country rising in their own theories. Now, a few Chinese political scholars believe that China's rise is a process that is more civilizational than that of Western countries. You know, we have not started wars, we have not pursued colonization, we have not plundered other countries' wealth. We just work hard and try to promote cooperation, such as the "Belt and Road" initiative. You are willing to cooperate, we are very happy; you are not willing to cooperate, it's fine, we can wait. So I think China's way of rise is more civilized compared to other countries.
But the problem is that Western theories often use their own experiences and theories to describe and imagine the future of China's rise, thereby generating a sense of threat or anxiety towards China. So I want to ask you, as an outstanding and long-term focused scholar on China's development, in your opinion, do the current Western theories - that is, all social sciences in the Western academic circles - well explain China's rise? Or are they facing confusion or difficulties caused by theoretical limitations? What do you think about this?
Kolodko: Any progress and development, including economic development, relies on ambition. But the problem and challenges lie in that we have healthy ambitions, and sometimes there are pathological ambitions - these two different types of ambitions are the engines that drive different behaviors. The second point is that the mainstream narrative circle in the West has always claimed that only democratic regimes are conducive to development, and authoritarian regimes are not conducive to development.
However, now China, a country that does not meet the Western so-called "democratic" standards, is proving that it can achieve significant economic success without Western-style democracy. This makes the West nervous. We are losing - in fact, we have already lost - the monopoly on the interpretation of the path of economic development. We used to claim that democracy and development are compatible, and non-democratic systems are incompatible with development. Because there are some systems that are not Western-style democracies - not only in China, but also in countries like Vietnam, Singapore, Qatar, or the UAE, which have different political systems, have also achieved economic progress.
But there is an additional condition: it must be combined with meritocracy. The subtlety of the Chinese system - which I call "the characteristics of China," because in my view, it is neither pure communism nor typical capitalism, but a new category - lies in your ability to combine the forces of the "invisible hand" of the market and the "visible hand" of the government in a very unique and successful way.
Therefore, other countries may be jealous and want to imitate. But combining these two forces also requires another element: you need a class of competent leaders. This requires a special culture, a way that is quite characteristic of China. Therefore, countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, or Algeria may be able to draw some lessons, but Britain or the United States will certainly not copy, they will stick to their own path. The problem is whether the future world is broad enough to accommodate different political systems that promote economic development in different ways. I think it is possible.
Unmanned aerial vehicles have become tools of war in some countries, but in peaceful China, they are popular firework performances during festivals.
But currently, it is not the case. Now there are two "correct" things: one is the so-called "political correctness," and the other is "economic correctness." My view is considered "politically incorrect" in Poland. I cannot speak too much about China's merits, because this does not conform to "political correctness" - because "China is not a democratic country," "China may dream of hegemony," etc. But I do not want to pursue this "political correctness," because the current "political correctness" means prioritizing the U.S. and being suspicious of China. This is very unreasonable. Ask yourself, how can you be both pro-American and consider China's contributions to other economies, yet still hold a suspicious attitude toward China during the Trump administration?
Wang Wen: This indeed resembles double standards. You know, if you hold many pro-American views, no one will criticize you. But as a Western scholar, if you say too much pro-China opinions, they will criticize you. This is a kind of double standard. However, you just mentioned a very interesting word, which you created, "the characteristics of China." It's a bit like "the theory of China exceptionalism." This reflects the poverty of Western theories, to some extent, meaning that Western theories cannot well explain China's development.
So looking back at China's development experience. You have observed China's development experience for many years, especially since the reform and opening up in 1978, we have taken our own path, explored our own path, created many development experiences. How do you evaluate China's development experience and its theoretical summary? Are there any new theoretical developments in the study of China?
Kolodko: I think China's stance is different from that of the Soviet Union several years ago, and also different from the stance of the United States until recently. China does not intend to impose its system, values on others, especially not through force. About 35 to 50 years ago, the Soviet Union tried to impose its system on Eastern Europe as well as some countries in North Africa, the Sahel, and the Middle East. In a way, and for a period of time, it was successful. But eventually, this led to the collapse of the Soviet system, the disappearance of Soviet influence, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.
Now the history is different, because history continues, this is not the end of history. So the question is, what is the extent of China's values, China's system, China's leadership's commitment to a multipolar world and pluralism? Is this just a verbal statement, or is it a true political attitude and vision?
Some people say that the Chinese leader has not shouted "China First" as loudly as Mr. Trump did, but others say that although China has not explicitly stated this, the intention is there? I am not sure about this. But I am certain that the Chinese leadership's primary concern is China's future and China's interests, but at the same time, it is also seeking positive synergies with other regions of the world.
Moreover, any policy, including economic policy and defense policy, is essentially about avoiding the escalation of differences into open conflicts. We don't have to fight each other. Even if we cannot achieve a win-win, we can handle the issue in a more rational and peaceful way. However, this kind of ambition must be restrained. We must abandon those unhealthy tendencies and distinguish what is truly beneficial to us from what is only beneficial to others, which is merely manipulating our political agenda.
For example, NATO has always claimed that its military expansion is necessary, arguing that we face the risk of invasion - even if not China, it would be Putin's Russia. Most people do believe this argument. But I don't agree. I think this is nonsense, because to invade another country, two conditions must be met:
First, there must be the intention to invade; second, there must be the capability to invade. I think Russia has no intention of invading any NATO European member states, because such an invasion would not be in its interest. At the same time, it does not have the capability to conquer NATO.
However, public sentiment has been stirred to the point of boiling, believing that we must strengthen our military buildup because this is the only way to ensure security, rather than relying more on diplomacy. Thus, diplomacy is put aside, and impulsive decisions follow.
The issue of closing the Polish-Belarusian border that we discussed at the beginning is a case where the problem of blocking the China-Europe train was not fully considered. It is simply terrible. You know, as a rational person, a professional economist and democrat, I really can't understand why such a pathological ambition can become such a powerful driver behind economic decisions.
Wang Wen: Yes, I think for some Westerners, this is an unnecessary, imagined threat from China. So in China, we are always talking about contributions to the world. Actually, as you know, for many years, especially since 2002...
Kolodko: Sorry to interrupt you. You are talking about China's contributions, about peaceful conflict resolution. But if you go to Poland or the United States, you can listen more. Not every day, but every other day, someone will say "Mainland China will 'invade' Taiwan." This is a different narrative. You are just saying what you believe, while we hear what our political leaders and media people tell us.
Wang Wen: This is a cognitive warfare. Those institutions are almost certainly supported by Western governments. They always demonize China's contributions, which is cognitive warfare. But in our eyes, they are deceiving the whole world. We believe what we believe, and do what we can do. That's why a few weeks ago, I met a senior journalist from a Western mainstream media: he said that for decades, the majority of reports about China in Western media have been completely wrong - they talked about the threat of China, predicted China's collapse, but all were wrong, and China is now developing better than ever. What do you think?
Kolodko: You know, they were indeed wrong, but it takes some time for this to show. The current statements are also wrong, but it just takes time to prove. However, it's interesting that President Trump wanted to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but no one nominated the Chinese leader for the Peace Prize.
Wang Wen: We don't care. We don't care about the Nobel Peace Prize at all. You know, in the eyes of many Chinese people, it's a garbage award, something with Western ideological coloration, which we don't care about.
Kolodko: Yes, that's right. You know, I was joking.
Superpowers can use military power to expand global influence, but China has not done so
Wang Wen: But one thing is undeniable: in the "Global South," there is an increasing recognition of China's contributions.
Kolodko: I have also mentioned in some articles that the issue of the EU's stance in the Sino-US trade war and the Cold War has, to some extent, made the debate between the East and the West, Sino-US, fragmented. The so-called "Global South" comprises 85% of the world's population, and this "civilizational conflict" (rather than "end of history") discourse has made China increasingly respected in the so-called "Global South."
Former colonial powers such as the UK and France, as well as smaller countries like Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, of course, are losing influence in the so-called "Global South." The admiration and support for the "Global North" and its economic model are decreasing.
For example, in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Colombia, or Bangladesh, people show greater interest and respect for China's political and economic model, especially the economic model, because China has achieved tangible achievements. These countries' people, whether businessmen, politicians, or ordinary citizens, have seen China fulfilling its promises, thanks to the "Belt and Road" initiative, as well as the foreign students from excellent Chinese universities.
I have traveled extensively, having visited over 170 countries. Recently, I went to different countries such as Chad in Africa, Tajikistan in Central Asia, and East Timor in Southeast Asia. Everywhere, I can see the presence of China, and the respect for China's influence is much higher than for the former colonial powers of the West, especially much higher than for the current United States. So, part of this global geopolitical rivalry is the struggle for influence in the so-called "Global South."
My view is that superpowers like the West or China may use military leverage to expand their influence in the "Global South." But China has not done so. China is enhancing its influence in the "Global South" through economic, diplomatic, and cultural means. And it's hard to understand why the U.S. government and U.S. leaders still believe that promoting the "Trumpism" approach can enhance influence. Mr. Trump is making the United States weaker, not stronger. Again, I emphasize! His economic and other policies are actually making China relatively stronger. So, this sounds a bit contradictory. From the U.S. perspective, "Trumpism" actually benefits China's development and enhances China's global status.
China not only has world-class technology but also cultivates great pianists
Wang Wen: Last two questions. You have proposed many new terms and new vocabulary about China. In my view, your wisdom and thoughts completely surpass the level of the Nobel Prize in Economics that you mentioned earlier. Perhaps in the coming years, you may have a chance to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, which is naturally good, but...
Kolodko: No chance, because I'm politically incorrect.
Wang Wen: But the problem is, I think if someone in the future can deeply explore the mystery of China's economic experience, successfully summarize or study China's economy, then the possibility of winning the Nobel Prize in Economics will be higher. So my question is, do you have plans to write a new book on China's development experience? Or if you plan to, from which perspectives will you elaborate on China's economy? What do you think about the future of China's economy? For example, by 2035 or 2050, do you think China will become the largest economy in the world, and play a more dominant role in the global economy?
Kolodko: From a numerical perspective, yes. Measured by traditional GDP growth rates, China will maintain a growth rate above the world average, at least twice as fast as the most affluent Western countries. Therefore, this catching-up process will continue, and or sooner or later, China will become the first.
But there are other measures. I think these criteria are much more important for the future world than simple GDP or per capita GDP. China's per capita GDP is still only slightly above 50% of the EU level, but it has already exceeded the world average. Therefore, China will continue to improve.
China will also make progress in the environment, because one of the heavy costs of China's economic miracle is pollution and the degradation of the natural environment.
But now, although China still emits a large amount of greenhouse gases, I think the emission has passed the peak, and the absolute amount is decreasing. And in terms of renewable energy, China is leading the world, which is persuasive for many other countries in the West and the "Global South."
I am also very optimistic about China's human capital. The Chinese people are highly educated, which has driven tremendous technological progress. Many people have not fully realized that in most key technology areas, China has surpassed the United States, Japan, and Western Europe.
A strategic research institute in Sydney conducted a survey comparing 44 technologies crucial for contemporary and future manufacturing and services. In these 44 technologies, China ranks first in 37, while the United States only has 7. Unfortunately, Europe lags behind, and even several EU countries perform worse than the UK or Japan. So, in this aspect, China is also showing strong momentum.
Additionally, one of the major challenges China faces is curbing inequality. The Chinese government is very aware of this challenge and is taking measures, but it is still not enough. This is unsustainable, and it is another cost of China's great economic success. So the question is, when talking about the 2035 and 2050 vision, how to govern the economy to ensure that the income growth of the disadvantaged groups is faster, is crucial.
Then there is the issue of soft power. China faces a more difficult situation in soft power than the West. You have every reason to be proud of the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization. But for Americans, British people, and English-speaking countries, the universal language is English, and it is much easier for them to spread things to the world through English. For people who use Chinese, their culture is great, but it is not fully appreciated elsewhere. So the question is, how will China do in the next few decades? Again, I emphasize, not to suppress others, not to emphasize its own culture to suppress other cultures, but to enrich cultural exchanges.
Before the end of the dialogue, I want to tell you a piece of good news, which many people may not know.
Poland holds the Chopin International Piano Competition every five years. Frédéric Chopin is our Polish genius musician, who created many beautiful piano pieces. The 19th Chopin International Piano Competition is ongoing, and among the 20 semi-finalists, 7 are from China. The remaining 13 finalists include some from the UK, the USA, Canada, and even one from Malaysia, but they all have Chinese heritage. I think Chinese pianists are likely to win this Chopin competition. [Editor's note: On October 27, the champion was Eric Lu, an American-Chinese, and the third place was Wang Zitong (China) and Lü Tianyao (China) who shared fourth place. So, half of the top five contestants are Chinese.]
Pianist Wang Zitong, a Chinese national, won the bronze medal in the 19th Chopin International Piano Competition.
This is part of soft power. Do you know, China not only has world-class technologies such as the sixth generation of the Internet or electric vehicles, but also leads the world in piano. I really appreciate this. Music can also make international cooperation better. Besides stars like Taylor Swift from the United States, Poland has Chopin, and China has traditional music.
Wang Wen: Thank you. Your example is very interesting. You also mentioned some difficulties that China will face in the future, and we are very grateful for your advice. But on the other hand, I must say that as a new generation of scholars in China, our new mission is to focus daily on the difficulties and challenges of China's development. These difficulties and challenges are the new driving forces for China's next round of development. Then we design new five-year plans step by step, overcome difficulties, promote the country's new progress, and achieve the rejuvenation of the nation.
Kolodko: You must understand that the example of Chinese pianists is indeed very important. Because for thousands of people in Poland and the West, this is new information about China - look, China is not only a powerful economy, one of the most populous countries in the world, but they also have great pianists. This enhances people's admiration and respect for China.
It also shows that we have communication methods that transcend national borders, culturally, as well as in economic affairs and politics. Some politicians should learn from those who are dedicated to cultural exchanges.
Wang Wen: Thank you very much, Professor Kolodko. I really enjoyed this conversation with you. We have learned a lot from you, including your support, advice, and wisdom. Thank you to all the viewers of Observer Net and the Mingde Strategic Dialogue. See you next time! Thank you!
This article is an exclusive article by Observer Net. The content is purely the personal views of the author, and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer Net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7569064517619958291/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome you to express your attitude in the 【top/foot】 button below.