新冠疫情將讓2020年的這場美國大選顯得尤為特殊——由於美國疫情不斷惡化，今年大選相較往年，有大概8200萬人將通過郵寄選票的方式來為喬·拜登或唐納德·特朗普投票，這比2016年時多出了將近5000萬人。
郵寄選票的合法性問題本就可能引發美國兩黨激烈鬥爭，進而導致大選不確定性上升，如今30萬張郵寄選票下落不明，大選再添謎團。有美媒分析，如果特朗普堅持通過法律程序質疑郵寄選票結果，世界接下來可能見證曠日持久的法律大戰。
全球矚目的美國大選結果，會如何改變中美關係的下一步走向？未來在疫情應對和全球經濟復甦方面，國際合作還有哪些空間？
“不管誰最終當選，中美雙方仍將會出現真真切切的對抗……我們有必要讓這種對抗不出軌。”10月24日，英國第51任首相托尼·布萊爾在第二屆外灘金融峰會上說。
在和倫敦政治經濟學院副教授金刻羽進行的這場對話中，布萊爾認為，當前時刻全球協調和全球領導力缺失，各國至少要在絕對必要的事情上進行合作。中國作為世界主要領導者的地位和實力不容忽略。尤其在氣候變化和經濟復甦等方面，西方國家必須要和中國合作，才能找到解決方案。在他看來，中國力量的崛起是正當事實，大多數西方人對中國並無敵意，雙方需要積極坦率地進行對話。
“21世紀最重要的雙邊關係就是中美關係。”布萊爾說，而歐洲可以幫助塑造更有成效的中美對話。
他還表示，當今世界政治面臨的最大挑戰是如何更好地掌握並充分利用技術革命，通過技術來實現長期的經濟目標，創造充滿活力的現代經濟。
以下為金刻羽&布萊爾對話實錄
中文實錄
疫情加速技術革命進程，改進國家和公民之間的互動
金刻羽：您一直在致力於為各國政府提供抗擊疫情的建議，督促政府思考對抗全球流行病的戰略，我對您在三個方面的想法特別感興趣，首先是技術。您曾敦促各國政府，利用技術槓桿來對抗疫情，能對此進行詳細的解釋嗎？
BLAIR：我們研究所現在精力都集中在了應對疫情方面，研究各國政府包括英國應該做出怎樣的正確反應。同時也有同事做關於非洲、中東和世界其他國家研究。其中有一件事讓我們印象特別深刻：那就是各國一定要明白，我們正生活在一場技術革命中，這些技術變革在疫情之前就已經存在，但疫情之後這些變革的速度加快了，強度也加劇了。所以我認為我們需要讓各國瞭解到技術變革能給國家帶來哪些好處，這也是我們在疫情過程中學習到的。
比如說我們現在通過網絡進行對話，再比如說大多數的人已經轉為在線工作等一些疫情中出現的一些創新行為。我們需要加快發展快速測試、開發治療方法、疫苗等等。但我認為疫情讓技術具有更廣泛的涵義。比如說在醫療中，積累大量的數據非常重要，充分使用這些數據也很重要。因此，在我看來，當今世界政治面臨的最大挑戰就是這場技術革命，我們要了解它、掌握它、利用它。
金刻羽：我分享一下中國在技術使用方面的經驗。技術實際上已經成為了一個強有力的政策工具，不僅在抗疫和公共衛生方面發揮作用，也在經濟和金融復甦方面發揮了很大作用。中國的技術生態系統非常廣闊深厚，由於這場危機對不同人群的衝擊有很大的不同，而最優的對策就是針對不同群體採取特定的有針對性的政策，我們把它稱為精準施策。通過技術可以做到精準政策的實施。我們可以為醫護人員提供醫療保險，降低出口企業的資金成本，降低物流公司的成本，為不同的群體量身定製政策。我覺得在這個方面中國有很多經驗可以分享給世界其他國家，你也和非洲國家合作過，非洲的技術也有了飛躍性發展。反而是西方發達國家在這方面落後了，還沒有充分使用這些工具，沒有能夠利用這次疫情實現技術的飛躍。
BLAIR：是的，確實如此。這對西方政府和政策制定者來說是個很大的挑戰。在西方國家以及許多發展中國家，政策制定者和變革者分散在兩個不同的群體中，制定公共政策的人和改變世界的人沒有進行對話。而我們的目標之一，就是讓這兩組人開始對話，幫助他們互相理解。
舉個例子，今天的西方世界面臨著巨大的挑戰。我們正在為經濟復甦傾注一切資源，包括支持系統和投入資金等等。為了克服疫情，我們的支出是極其巨大的。亞洲已經投入了數以萬億美元計的資金來對抗疫情，西方為了度過這次經濟衰退，貨幣政策和財政政策正在全面調整。但與此同時，這可能會給我們帶來巨大的債務問題。而且如果通貨膨脹再次出現，屆時我們將面臨真正的挑戰。因此，我們應該研究如何削減成本？如何管理才能使我們的公共服務，比如在醫療保健領域的服務效率更高？
技術是實現這一目標的途徑。如果我們能夠利用好這場技術革命，我們就有機會重新安排國家的開支並且改進公民與國家的互動。所以，在我看來這是一個根本性的變化。我認為目前西方政治所面臨的挑戰是，是否可以重新出現能從長遠角度考慮問題的領導，做出對國家長期有益的決定。而現在的政治環境中，充斥著短期的被動政策。在脫歐後，英國面臨的挑戰是必須要創造一個真正充滿活力的現代經濟，吸引全世界最優秀的人才。而教育體系尤其是高等教育，必須與商業部門互動以便推動技術創新。我認為在某些領域例如生物技術領域，我們有能力做到這一點，但需要大的結構性變革才能確保我們有充分的競爭力。
中國與西方需要在技術競爭中預留合作空間
金刻羽：你提到了全球領導力，這是你的願景的第二個方面，對此你直言不諱。但是當世界最需要領導力的時候，為什麼我們沒看到全球協調和全球領導力？是領導人能力不足嗎？還僅僅是因為缺乏意願？
BLAIR：更多的是缺乏意願，因為對領導力的需求是顯而易見的。我從來沒有遇到過這樣觸及到每個人的政治問題。這次的疫情影響到了每個人，每個人都不得不改變自己的生活和工作方式，以及與其他人的交往方式包括和自己的家人的交流方式。所以，政治領導人難免要先看看自己國家的情況，這是必然的。
但很明顯，既然是全球大流行，既然我們都面臨同樣的重大挑戰，我們的應對方式可能不同，但面臨的挑戰本質上是一樣的：如何阻止疾病的蔓延，控制它，並消滅它？我認為難以置信的是全球協調的欠缺，比如在提升測試能力、開發快速測試、加速治療技術和疫苗的生產和分發、以及分享最佳實踐案例、分享疾病數據等方面。
現在各國雖然有了一些合作但程度非常有限，只是臨床醫生們在一起工作，分享一些工作規程之類，還有“新冠疫苗倡議”之類的協議，把疫苗送到發展中世界。但沒有能夠站出來引領世界的領導者，告訴大家：好吧，儘管我們在其他50件事情上有意見分歧，但抗疫這些事情我們要合作處理。比如在我們國家，快速檢測是控制疫情的一個重要環節，假設世界各大國在這次危機開始時就聚在一起說，我們要鼓勵開發快速、易用的現場測試，我們也許可以將這些測試的開發週期縮短几個月。我不明白為什麼我們沒有這樣做。
金刻羽：那麼在你看來是什麼根本原因導致了這種缺乏全球領導力和協調的現象？中國可以在這裡發揮很大的作用，而且在某種程度上已經發揮了作用，但可以有更多的協調。
BLAIR：我覺得有兩個基本的挑戰要克服。一個是很多國家，尤其是美國，現在變得非常內斂，專注於自己的內部事務。其次坦率地講，你應該知道美國和西方國家與中國之間的關係是一個很大的挑戰。只有雙方都做出改變才有希望讓事態出現轉機，而這件事絕不會容易。
我一直想說的是，我的研究所在最近幾個月一直在寫這方面論文。首先，我們必須認識到我們正處於一個新的世界裡，中國的實力現在已經崛起，這是顯而易見的。中國作為世界主要領導者的地位和實力是無法避免的，也是正當的。無論是從規模、歷史、經濟等原因來看，都應該是這樣。但問題是，很顯然隨著中國的崛起，中國發生了一些變化，西方也發生了一些變化，對抗的氣氛更濃厚了。對這一點我們不能視而不見，正如我們在美國總統選舉中，不管誰當選，雙方都將會出現真真切切的對抗而且雙方都很清楚對抗的具體內容是什麼。我們有必要讓這種對抗不出軌。
第二，雙方會有競爭的領域。技術可能是其中之一，在技術領域將出現真正意義上的中國和西方的競爭，下一代的技術創新將會是一場技術競賽，而且競爭會非常激烈，這些競爭領域雙方都是非常清楚的。
我認為，雙方必須在競爭的同時，預留一些空間，至少要在那些絕對必要的事情上進行合作。比如氣候變化、全球疫情、穩定全球經濟，在這些領域如果沒有中國，我們就不可能找到解決方案。我們至少需要保持足夠的溝通和接觸渠道，才能就這些問題進行真正的對話。
我認為這將需要雙方採取我稱之為戰略的做法。而我所謂的政治戰略，這是我非常相信的東西。我認為戰略不是對一些事件的反應，而是一個框架，在這個框架內你可以穩定地管理各種關係，接受那些會存在真正的對抗和競爭的領域。但正如我所說的那樣，政治家要明確說服公眾：除了競爭，雙方也一定要留出用來合作的領域。
我認為雙方都需要戰略意義上的共情能力。關於領導力的缺乏，我們其實在疫情之前就已經在歐洲等地看到了這種情況。
西方國家需要從長遠利益出發，且能與民眾充分溝通的領導者
金刻羽：西方的一個核心挑戰是統治精英和廣大民眾之間的疏離，而這種隔閡正變得越來越明顯，收入不平等、機會不平等、對全球化或者對技術的政治主張和態度，雙方似乎在所有問題上都無法形成共識，分歧太大而無法達成共識。
除了在面對外部的共同競爭者和共同對手之時，這件事上兩黨可以達成共識。這是一個核心問題，也是民粹主義領導人當選的原因。這在某種程度上也在推動和塑造國內政治以及外交政策，在一定程度上造成了全球協調的缺失。如果他們不能就全球化相關的利益問題達成一致，各國領導人之間的全球協調就會是一個大問題。在我看來，這是問題的根源。
BLAIR：西方社會目前是非常分裂的，分裂的方式，既有經濟上的，也有文化上的。而經濟上的分裂是非常明顯的，因為一部分人已經無法得到自己以往能夠得到的經濟效益。
按照慣例，每一代人的生活都應該比上一代人更好才對。這種代際承諾，已經有些破裂了。其次，雙方之間存在深刻的文化鴻溝和代溝，尤其是圍繞著移民、種族、不平等之類的文化問題。在老一輩的人看來，所有這些東西讓他們覺得自己已經無法控制生活中的變化，另外，在美國人們的收入停滯不前，民眾的憤怒指向體制而體制卻無法很好地做出調整。至於民粹主義者的所作所為，順便說一下，“廣受歡迎”沒什麼不好的，“廣受歡迎”和民粹主義之間是有區別的。我對民粹主義的定義是：利用憤怒，而不提供答案。換句話說，民粹主義者所做的是操縱移民等議題，獲取政治利益，而不準備解決問題。所以問題是我們能恢復嗎？
我們能不能在西方政治中找回那種魔法，重新點燃一種樂觀主義的情緒，這可能才是最重要的。基本上，如果人民變得悲觀，國家就會變得憤怒，這個問題對我來說很有吸引力，當我在世界上最貧窮的國家工作時我發現，那裡的人們對未來的看法，要比在我自己國家看到的樂觀得多，雖然我們的生活水平遠遠高於那些貧窮的國家。西方政治所缺少的就是那種能向人們把問題解釋清楚的領導人物。讓人民明白，我們要面對全球化過程中的挑戰。而且讓人民明白，這些挑戰並不是政府帶來的，而是人民自己帶來的，我們可以克服全球化和技術帶來的挑戰，可以利用這些力量來服務公眾並以此為契機，重新復活那個失去的代際承諾。目前的西方政治界缺少的就是這個。
如果民眾之中缺少樂觀的情緒，改變未來就是非常艱難的。而想要改變未來，我們就需要這樣說：西方不再是世界的主宰，東方的力量已經崛起了。我們必須想辦法來適應這種情況，不要只是自怨自艾，而是要擁抱新的機遇。這些都是很大的挑戰，只有高瞻遠矚的領導才能對民眾說出這些東西。在我看來，一個好的領導人物，不能只去說那些人民愛聽的話，任何傻瓜都能那樣做，獲得人民的擁戴。真正的考驗在於，領導人物需要告訴民眾，為了國家的長期利益。有些艱難的事情需要大家一起來做。
歐洲可以幫助塑造更有成效的中美對話
金刻羽：西方越早恢復這樣的領導能力，就能越快地照顧好人民，解決其社會中的一些基本問題，同時有利於外交政策和全球協調。這就是我所相信的，在這一點上，我們認為中國的崛起對世界來說是一個很好的機會。但是雙方對它的崛起都有疑慮，而消除這些疑慮是非常重要的。所以，對於一個積極參與國際事務的新崛起的國家，你有什麼建議，如何更好地表達自己以及自己的發展軌跡並與世界溝通？
BLAIR：你必須要區分西方的兩種情緒之間的區別。一種情緒是這樣一種理論，新勢力崛起之後，舊勢力就會擔憂，然後就會引發衝突。從歷史上看，這是對的。但當今中國與世界的互動程度極高，即使現在有這麼多關於脫鉤的討論，也無法掩蓋這一事實。我認為，西方情緒不是這樣的。至少就我所知大部分西方人對中國並無敵意。我們承認，中國力量的崛起是一個正當的事實。中國必須決定它要對西方說些什麼，積極尋求機會與西方接觸、理解西方的擔憂，有些擔憂可能源於對中國力量的焦慮。所以，對話才尤其顯得重要。進行坦率的對話是很重要的。
同樣重要的是，我們要保持人與人之間的文化交流。而我反對脫鉤的概念，對我們來說，這是一件非常危險的事情，最好的辦法是在互相尊重的基礎上開展對話，這就是我的願景。西方政治家要有戰略思維，中國領導人也要有戰略思維。我們應該多談，多合作。比如在氣候變化這樣的問題上，雙方應該共同研究解決氣候變化的方法。科學和技術使我們能夠可持續地消費。在氣候變化的問題上，中國做的事情很重要，美國做的事情很重要，歐洲做的事情很重要，但情況是這樣的，非洲的人口將在未來30年內翻一番，民眾希望發展他們想要公路、鐵路、機場和航空公司，他們想要消費。我們不能對那些非洲年輕人說對不起，你不能消費，這樣會導致供應出現問題。我們必須證明我們可以做到可持續消費，這是一個創新和發明方面的挑戰。中國與西方國家在這方面的合作將是一件美妙的事情。
金刻羽：我認為中國已經做好了充分的準備，並且已經在氣候變化方面發揮重要的全球作用。此外還包括可能的反恐鬥爭，以及成為金融系統的支柱。就在這次疫情期間，中國充當了最後保障人的角色。當其他地方的供應鏈和生產能力已經崩潰時，中國仍能向世界提供物資。
下一個問題，你認為中英關係的未來是什麼？中歐關係的未來呢？
BLAIR：我認為歐洲可以發揮重要的作用，確保我所說的戰略框架。另外，我們與中國接觸時所使用的思維和方法論框架是和歐洲一樣的，雖然英國已經不再是歐洲的一部分了。歐洲人不會以任何方式削弱他們與美國的聯盟關係，特別是安全關係。但我認為，歐洲人會希望看到我們有辦法推進對華關係，而不要朝著所謂的冷戰思維的路上滑過去。
我認為歐洲可以在塑造更有成效的對話中發揮作用，我希望如此。而且我認為，英國也在其中發揮自己的作用，這一點很重要。坦率地說，21世紀最重要的雙邊關係，就是中美關係。就算不考慮歐洲，情況也是如此。我認為，對華接觸符合歐洲的利益，具有非常重要的意義。
英文實錄
金刻羽：You have been very busy working with your institute on advising governments, rallying governments, thinking about strategies to fight the global pandemic. So I'm particularly interested in three aspects of your vision. First is technology, you have urged governments to embrace the levers of technology tofight the pandemic. Would you elaborate on this first?
BLAIR：We've really, for our institute, repurposed everything towards COVID, both working on what the right response should be of governments, like my own in the UK, but also working in Africa, in the MiddleEast, and other countries around the world.
And one of the things that has struck us particularly is how important it is for the countries to understand that we are living through a technology revolution. What's happened with COVID is that all those changes that were there before COVID are there now, but with greater acceleration, and greater intensification. So it's even more important, I think, now, for countries to understand what technological change can do for them. And that's what we've learned during the course of COVID.
For example, in the way we're having this discussion now, because people have shifted to doing online working and in large number, we've learnedthrough some of the innovations during the course of COVID, where we've had to accelerate the development of rapid test, the rapeutics, vaccines, of course. But I think it's got a far wider implication. And countries are beginning to understand, for example, in healthcare, the importance of good data, the importance of using that data.So, in my view, the single biggest challenge for politics in the world today, is to understand this technology revolution,master it, and harness it.
金刻羽：Absolutely, let me share a little bit about our experience using technology in China, it's been actually tremendous policy tool for not only fighting the pandemic from a public health perspective, but also helping with the economic and financial recovery. And as you know, China's technological ecosystem is vast and deep. And, you know, this crisis, it's been so asymmetricin hitting different groups of people, And the optimal response is to get the specific policies to specific groups, we call it precision targeting. Technology can do that. We've been giving medical insurance for healthworkers, lowering the cost of capital for exporting firms, reducing the costfor logistics companies, you know, tailoring the policies for different groups.And you can do that with technology.
And I feel that there is so much that China can share in terms of its experience, in terms of that capacity with the rest of the world. you've worked with African countries where they've seen leap frogs in technology, that it's actually the advanced countries in the West, that's a little bit behind that they're not, you know, collectively using these tools, as you say, you know, using this pandemic as an opportunity to make that leap frog.
BLAIR：Yeah, I think I think this is this is True.And it's a big challenge for Western governments and policymakers. one of the things my institute works on is that in the Western countries, and indeed, many of the developing world countries, where in policy makers and change makerssit in two different groups.So the people making public policy and the people changing the world, they're not in dialogue with each other.And one of our ambitions is to get people into that dialogue, and make people understand.
So for example, there's a huge challenge for the Western world today, because we are throwing everything at economic recovery. The support systems and the amount of money being spent on support during this pandemic is enormous. I mean, it's enormous. trillion dollars has been spent in support in Asia, in the West, monetary policy, fiscal policy is being completely reordered in order to try and get our way through this economic downturn. But at the same time, that could cause us enormous problems of in debtedness. And if for any reason, inflation came back in the system, then we would face real challenges. So one of the things we should be looking at is how do we cut cost? How do we manage that to make our services, public services, in healthcare, for example, much more efficient?
Technology is the way to do that.So technology, if we harness this revolution, in the right way, it gives us the opportunity to reorder the expenditures of the state and the interaction of the citizens with the state. So this is, to me, this is just a fundamental consequence. And I think the issue, certainly the challenge for Western politics now, is can it get back to a leadership that's thinking long term, taking decisions for the long term, whilst we operate within an environment politically, which pushes everything towards short term reactive policy?
And the challenge for Britain, post Brexit, is, we're going to have to create in our country, a really vibrant modern economy, in which you're attracting the best minds around the world, and in which your education system, particularly higher education, has to interact with the business sector, to produce, you know, technological innovation. And I think that in certain areas,for example, biotech, we're well placed to do that. But it's going to require big structural change to make sure we are fully competitive.
金刻羽：You mentioned global leadership. Now, that's a second aspect of your vision that you've been very outspoken about. Tell me why, when the world needs it the most, are we not seeing global coordination and global leadership? Is this incapacity? Or is it simply a lack of will?
BLAIR：I think it's, it's more of a lack of will? Yeah. Because the need is completely obvious. And I've never come across an issue politically, which touches everybody. this pandemics touched everybody. Everybody has had to change their way of living and working and interacting with others, including their own families resulted. So it's inevitable that the political leaders should look first at the situation in their own countries. That's a given.
But it is also so obvious that since it's a global pandemic, and since we all face the same basic challenges, we may deal with it differently, but the challenges are essentially the same. How do you stop the disease spreading, control it, and eradicate it? It's incredible to me that there has not been more global coordination over things like, how you develop the most effective testing capability, rapid tests, about how you accelerate the production, distribution of therapeutics and vaccines, and about how you make sure that you're sharing best practice, how you share data on the disease. Now, there has been certain amount of cooperation. But it's been largely on a basis that is your people just getting together, called clinicians working together and sharing protocolsand so on. And, you know, certainly initiatives like the COVAX Initiativeto getvaccines out to the developing world.
But you look in vain for a big, you know, global leadership push to say, okay, whatever our differences around, you know, 50 other things, onthese things, we can cooperate together. We just practicing, for example, because in our country, certainly, it might be rapid testing is an essential part of controlling the disease. Supposing we got together as countries, main countries at the beginning of this crisis, and said, we're going to incentivize the development of rapid, easy to use on the spot tests, we could probably shorten the period for the development of these tests by several months. I don'tunderstand why we haven't done it.
金刻羽：So what do you think, what in your view, are some of the fundamental causes of this lack of global leadership and coordination? And also, of course, China, China could play a big role here and in to some extent it has. But there could be more coordination. So tell me, why do you think that is?
BLAIR：I think you've got two basic challenges to overcome. One is that many countries, literally America, very become very introspective, focused on their own internal affairs. And then secondly, you know, frankly the relationship between the US and China, West and China, you would agree. is a big challenge, because it's going to require to repair this will require changes from both sides. And it's, it's not going to be easy. Now, what I've been trying to say my institute paper on this in recent months, is that, first of all, we've got to recognize we are in a new world in which the power of China has now risen, it's evident, it's obvious.And the power of China and its position in the world as a major world leader, is inevitable and right.It should be, both for reasons of size, history and economy and so on. The question, though, is, obviously is that rise of China's happened, These changes on the China side, the speech changes on the west side, and there's now much more confrontational atmosphere.
Now, I think there's no point to being you know, naive about this. I think this would be true, by the way, irrespective happens in the American presidential election, there are going to be areas of genuine confrontation. And, and those areas are clear that pretty well known to bothsides and, that confrontation is important that it doesn't get out of hand, but it's going to be real.
Secondly, there will be areas of competition. And technology is probably one of them in which there will be a real sense of China and the Westcompeting. You know, the next generation of technological innovation is going to be something of a race, and it will be highly competitive. So those areas of computation competition, they're clear.
What I think is important is also to reserve some space,at least for cooperation around the things that are going to be absolutely necessary for us to cooperate upon, climate change, the global pandemic, stabilizing the world economy, these are areas where there's no way we're going to have a solution without China.And we need at least to keep the lines of communicationand engagement sufficient that we can have a genuine dialogue upon these questions. And I think it's going to require an what I would call strategy onboth sides, and by strategy, I’m a great believer in political strategy, which means not a series of reactions to events, but a framework within which you can govern the relationship in a stable manner, accepting that there are going tobe real areas of confrontation and competition.
But as I say, making it clear of persuading also public that it is necessary to have areas of cooperation，right.
金刻羽：Now, I'm a believer that both sides need strategic empathy, the ability to see from theother side's perspective, and that is lacking. on the lack of leadership, we've kind of seen that even before the pandemic, in places like Europe, one of the central Western challenges is this estrangement between the ruling elites and the broader public. And that disconnection isbecoming ever more apparent, whether it's manifested through income inequality, but also fairness of opportunity, and also political persuasions and attitudes about globalization, or about technology. So it seems like there's nothing they can agree about. The division is so big, there's nothing they can agree about, exceptto have a common competitor outside and a common rival, which also has become abipartisan theme, that is a central problem.
BLAIR：And that'swhat gets populist leaders elected, the popular agenda, that is somehow driving also, of course, importantly, shaping domestic politics, also foreign policy,causing, to some degree, this lack of global coordination. If they can't agree about the benefits about globalization, global coordination among the leaders, that will be a big problem. And that just seems to me like afundamental root cause. So Western societies are very divided at the moment. And they're divided in a way that's both economic and cultural. And the economic is very obvious, because a proportion of the population has not seen the economic benefits that it used to perceive, each generation will always do better in terms of living standards than the last.
So that generational promise, if you like, it's been somewhat ruptured. But secondly, there's a deep cultural divide, and a generational divide. And that services, particularly around issues like immigration, and then also around cultural questions of race, inequality, and so on. And the combination of all these things, of an older generation often feeling they've lost control over changes happening in their lives. And an issue, certainly in the US, of stagnating incomes, the combination has been to produce anger directed that the system and the system has not been very good at adjusting tothis. The trouble is, what populists do,because there's nothing wrong with being popular, by the way, there's a difference between being popular and being apopulist.But I define populism essentially, as riding the anger, rather than providing the answer.In other words, what the populist does, is it takes something like immigration and exploits the issue rather than deals with the issue. So thequestion is, can we recover? Can we get our mojo back in western politics, andit might be critical to that is to reignite a sense of optimism.
Basically, countries become angry when the people are pessimistic. And the problem is fascinating to me, when I'm working in some of the poorest countries of the world, I find more optimism about the future than I do in my own.when we have a standard of living way, way above those poorer countries? what is missing from Western politics is leadership that can explain to people that the challenges we're going to face through globalization,which is, by the way, driven by people, and they're not by governments, it's driven by people, that we can overcome the challenges of globalization, the changes intechnology, and we can harness them for the public good. And in doing so we can revive that generational promise.
That's what's missing from Western politics. And until you get back to a sense of optimism that we can make the future work for us. It's very difficult. And part of making that future work for us is to say, yes, you know,the West is not going to dominate the world any more. And there is going to berising power in the east, it's risen. Okay, China, India in time, and Indonesia, you know, Vietnam, Philippines, these are significant population, these countries are going to be powerful countries in the future, we've got to be,we've got to also find a way of being comfortable with that and thinking,there's opportunities that come with it, not just the loss of place.
So these are big challenges, and they require infarsighted leadership that is prepared to say things, you know, I will say the test of the leader is not when they tell you what you want to hear, any fool can do that and become popular.The test of the leader is how they tell you the difficult things that need to be done for the long term of the country.
金刻羽：And the sooner there is leadership back in the West, the sooner thatthe leadership takes care of its people, and addresses some of the fundamental issues within their societies, the better it is also for foreign policy and global coordination. That's that's what I believe in. But on that China's risehas been, in our view, a great opportunity for the world. But there have been misgivings about its rise by both sides. And it's very important to dispel these misgivings, So what advice would you give a rising nation, keen to be engaging in the global arena, about how to better communicate about itself, and its trajectory, and to engage with the world?
BLAIR：You've got to distinguish between two different sentiments in the West.One sentiment is, you know, all the theories about when there's a new power, the old powers get worried, and then there's a potential for conflict.And you know, that historically, that is true, but the degree of interaction of China with the world today, even with all this talk of decoupling, the interaction is so enormous. Then I think Western sentiment is not,at least I believe the majority Western sentiment, is not hostile,to the recognition that China's power is a fact, that’s a justified fact, China's gotto decide what it is going to be saying to the West. is it going to look for ways of engagement, recognize the West concerns, some of them may derive from an anxiety about the Chinese power, it's important.This is why dialogue is important, it's important to have a frank dialogue.It's also important that we keep cultural exchange between people. And I am, you know, an opponent of the notion of decoupling, I think it's a very dangerous thing for us to do.
The best way is to find ways that we can engage in a respectful dialogue. Yes, that's my ambition. it takes Western politicians with strategic thinking for the course it requires strategic thinking on the part of the Chinese leadership. So we should talk more and do more together? I think yes, you can take an issue like climate change, and really work together on what is the solution to climate change. It's the science and technology that allows us to consume sustainably about climate change, okay.
What China does is important, what America does is important, what Europe does is important. But here's the thing, the population of Africa will double in the next 30 years, that population wants development, they want to consume. Now, we can't say to those, that young African population, I'm sorry, you can't consume, this is going to cause a problem in supply. we’ve got to show how we can consume sustainably. And that's, that's a challenge of innovation and invention. China working with the West on that will be a fantastic thing.
金刻羽：And I think China's very much ready and prepared and already playing an important global role on climate change, on potential fight against terrorism, on being an anchor in the financial system, And just this time, during COVID is acted recently as lender of last supply, being the supplier when the supply chains and production capacities have broken down. So Tony, what do you see as the future of UK-China relations and China’s relationship with Europe?
BLAIR：I think that Europe could play an important role in ensuring that, what I call that strategic framework, and how do we engage Chinais, constructed on behalf of the West. And I think the UK is wiping out that the European Union structure. The UK is very much within that European strain of thinking, if you like. And that doesn't mean to say that the Europeans will want in any way to weaken the strength of their alliance with the US, particularly around security questions.
But the the Europeans will, I think, want to see that we have got away of advancing the relationship with China that doesn't go towards what people, I think, in a very glib way to call, sort of Cold War sentiment.I think Europe can play a part in shaping a more productive dialogue. And I hope so.And I think it's important that UK also plays its part in that. And because otherwise, frankly,the most important bilateral relationship between of the 21st century, which is US and China,is going to take its course without any European influence. And I think it's in the interest of Europe to be part of that dialogue, very important that it is, infact.
