AMNC26: US and China: From Here to Where?

This transcript has been generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors. Please check its accuracy against the audio.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Greetings, hello, welcome to everybody who's here, including those people behind me. It's a wonderful setup, although for, I guess, for the moderator, it's a little bit disorienting to sort of look around. I'm Leslie Vingimori. I'm president and CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It is my first time attending what is a tremendous meeting, so-called Summer Davos. I really found it extraordinary. And what a huge privilege to moderate. This conversation and what I think is fair to say is the most important topic of our time. It underpins every single topic that we talk about here and I think across the world the relationship between the United States and China from here to where brilliantly framed by the organisers. We are live, we are on the record, and we are being I've streamed. Which is not surprising given the nature of our guests who are our speakers who are tremendous and I'm sure very well known to you Which means I only say a brief word about them a few words about the topic and then we'll go straight into the conversation So professor Graham Allison, what an honour to have you here. I know it's not your first time but for me It's extraordinary to be here with you Professor Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. His writings are very well known to you, going back a very long time. My first reading of you was on the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was, I don't know, before my PhD even. And if that's your first sort of reading, you carry an image and a vision of a person and they loom larger than life, but you have continued to be one of the most thoughtful and productive scholars in the world. So it's. True pleasure and honour to have you at this forum and for me personally as well. Margaret Krauss, you've spent decades living here in China. You are a practical expert on the country, on the relationship, on all sorts of things. You are the founder and executive chairman of APCO USA and a dear friend of somebody we hold in common, Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture. So I have to say that since I'm here today from Chicago, newly, I was 20 years ago.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: I didn't live in China for the 30 years.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Oh, you didn't. Okay, so you've been in and out of the country for 30 years, and I haven't lived in Chicago for 30 years either.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: Just because people will expect me to come forward in Chinese and it won't be my thing. No Chinese language requirement today.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: But we should all work on it. I was 20 years in London and I've been one year in Chicago, so it's been an interesting journey.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Do you still speak American?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: And I always spoke American, but my adult children have three different accents. My husband's British. So there we go, brief bio. Joseph Luke Nye, otherwise known as Joe Nye. Not the namesake of the famous professor Joe Nying, but we all do recognise Joe Nyes' great brilliance. And we miss him. But Joe and I, we're delighted to have you here. You are chairman, Greater China, from McKinsey& Company, based in Hong Kong, correct? So bring a wealth of knowledge and business acumen, we're gonna assume, to the conversation. And Chow Hai, Director of International Political Studies at the National Institute for Global Strategy at the famous Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. So a delight to have you here. Hai, thank you for being here. Thank you. This relationship, I think we're all sort of taught and we learn and we're immersed in the significance globally for, as I said, pretty much every issue. Most definitely technology, trade, national security. But I think even underlying that there's a basic question at this moment of time of the future of the international, of international order, of international institutions. And there's real sense. That if China and the US can't maintain a stable, productive relationship, that there's a lot at stake for pretty much everybody on the planet in this. And so it is, I think, one of the reasons that we all feel privileged to be part of this conference, but also why we feel like it's so incredibly important to travel to China, those of you who are in China, I'm sure, to engage in the conversation about the US. One comment from me, my organisation, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has been polling Americans for more than 50 years very consistently about their attitudes on foreign policy. And what we've seen in the last year is an increasing interest on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, not an equal measure, but both sides of the aisle and independents to have a more stable and productive relationship with China. I would guess, but can't prove that that follows. The change in tenor at the headlines from the US president, which is very different from much of what we heard from President Biden, for better, for worse, but different for certain, in the first year of his administration. And one of the worst moments on the polling, and this is sort of across many polls, was coming through the pandemic, when American attitudes really hardened and made the sort of underlying, if you think, publics matter. Context for this relationship much more difficult. So with that said, Professor Allison, you really have a deep understanding in this relationship. But before we start talking about the summit and trade and technology, I would like it if you could help illuminate for us what's really driving the relationship. Some people think it's structural, some people think that can be managed by leaders. People have a variety of different explanations, but you've thought very, very deeply about this. What are the drivers? How much room is there? How much scope is there for cooperation? And if you would, what's at stake right now? So big questions.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: OK, so one of the great risks with professors is that, as one of my colleagues said, they speak in 50-minute soundbites. This is a big enough topic for a lecture. Let me just try to do the top of a couple of icebergs here. I was heartened by the summit, and we'll come to that in a second, because it started with what I think is a proper diagnosis of the problem, an answer, actually, to your question when President Xi said to President Trump. The question is, are we going to be able to overcome Thucydides' trap? I think that's a right definition, a diagnosis, a clear diagnosis of the problem. So what's the problem? And again, simplistically put, a great contradiction in which there are simultaneously two compelling sets of imperatives. On the one hand, this is the fiercest, lucidity and rivalry of all times. China's a meteoric rising power, and as far as I can see, it's going to continue to rise. China wants to be all it can be, with four times as many people as the US. Over time, it should overtake the US in every arena, if it were successful. And if you ask President Xi, would he like for China to be any less than it can? No, if we were Chinese, would we? We wouldn't, no. On the other hand, we have the US, a colossal ruling power. The greatest global power since Rome with more reach. The US and Americans believe that their leadership in the period since World War II is what accounted for the international order that we've all lived in. We're now entering the 81st year without a great power war. This is a longer period of peace since Rome. This is not natural. This is an amazing achievement. But it's good. It was fantastic, because the alternative, World War I, people saw World War II, 25 million World War I, 50 million World war II. World War III should have happened, could have happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hundreds of millions of people could have been killed. Today, even maybe all of us. So preventing, creating enough of an order that we can all survive is a fantastic thing. And the US has played a crucial role in the leadership of that, both in the architecting and the building. Now, unfortunately, today, it's a little more complicated. So you have here a rising power and a ruling power. Thucydides told us, with a rapidly rising power, seriously threatens to displace a major ruling power, that structural dynamic creates conditions that multiply, magnify misperceptions, multiply miscalculations. And produce conditions in which incidents or accidents that would otherwise be manageable can trigger a vicious spiral that ends where nobody wants in a war. Think of World War I, Germany rising, Great Britain ruling, the Archduke in Sarajevo assassinated. What does that have to do with anything? In five weeks all of Europe is at war. So this is extremely dangerous. That's on the one hand. And that's one big idea, Thucydides trap. And I think that rightly defines the structure of the situation. I would say that's about 75% of the picture.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: That's a lot and that's pretty high stakes, that's a very big sort of way of framing the challenge and the challenge for leadership.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Right. And I think, again, part of the reason for my giving high marks to the summit is the place that leaders need to start is with a clear-eyed diagnosis of the problem, not for fatalism. So it's only 75% of the determination. There's still 25% for agency. Again, in the vicinity and rivalry, business as usual, diplomacy as usual. Statecraft as usual—we should expect history as usual History, as usual, would be a catastrophic war. In the last 500 years, 12 of the 16 cases that we've seen ended in war, a four-no war. Not inevitable, but that's half of the problem. The other half of problem, which is also extremely difficult to get one's head around now, is that we live on a small planet in which the two nations are so inextricably entangled, that each requires a level of cooperation with the other. To ensure its own survival. Well, this seems madness. Actually, there was a term created in the Cold War for this, as you know. Mad, mutual assured destruction. We both have nuclear arsenals. That still remains a reality in which if, for whatever reason, the U.S. And China find themselves in a war and it escalates to a full-scale war, at the end of that war, there could be no living Chinese in China and no living Americans. That was.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: And that was a basis for stability.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: It is. A kind of a strange basis for stability, as Churchill said, it's like a sublime irony in which safety is the sturdy twin of terror. So because it's so horrible, you and I… Now, we also know we live in an enclosed biosphere. Our greenhouse gases go into the same… unless we can find a way to cooperate in that space. We may create a climate. We have financial and economic institutions, or economies and finance that are so entangled, as we saw in the tariff and supply chain thing, that if we could end up in that, into something that would be so destructive of both. So on the one, this is Henry Kissinger in his last few years. Kept calling for what he called a new strategic concept that would be comprehensive enough to embrace simultaneously this contradiction. On the one hand, there'd be fierce, lucidity rivals. China really wants to be all it can be. The U.S. Wants to all it could be. This rival is, you could say, well, let's just all get over it. No, that's gonna be fierce. I think the fiercest, lucid anyway. At the same time, it's in a world in which if we let business as usual, the policy as usual. We have catastrophe, so that concentrates the mind. So we require cooperation. Now can you hold two ideas in your head at the same time and still function? F. Scott Fitzgerald, the great Gatsby guy, had a good line and he says, the test of a first class mind is to hold two contradictory ideas in you head at the same and still functioning. And I think that's a challenge for the leaders and for the societies today.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: So let me ask you a question. Actually, let me come to Marjorie, and we will come back to everybody on the summit. So 25, if you accept this proposition, 25% is down to all sorts of exchange in order to keep the relationship in a good place. And the win is to also cooperate through managing this competition. Would you say that President Trump and President Xi, took advantage of the summit, was it successful at sort of leveraging or you're grabbing that that scope for cooperation, moving the relationship to you know more strategic stability, how did you read?

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: So, as somebody who's been advising companies, both Chinese going out and Western coming in, not just American, I totally agree that what business needed was at least a signal of some stability. And so I do think that if you're talking, you're not fighting. And that the idea that not only they came together and identified the problem. They started a dialogue which they are saying will continue for the next year and other meetings. And so I think that gives you a feeling of hope that there will be, reason will prevail in some way because the alternative is not acceptable. And at least if we can create a framework of stability, I think it allows for other people on a more micro level. To be able to work together, to be able to team up to sell products, to compete on a global market. There's a lot of pieces of this. But it gives you a sense of normalcy that I think you need in order for business to function. And if we have enough stakeholders involved in this from the business community, from other communities, then we'll at least have a framework for dialogue at different levels, which will support the political and the more macro level. So I think it was a very important first step.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: So let me come to you, Joe, if I may. Do you agree with this basic argument that it was a good first step? And I guess from the perspective of business, do you think businesses, and maybe you could even break down which kinds of businesses, do you that they felt reassured? Do you think that there's still just a tremendous sense of the potential fragility, unpredictability, volatility? We know that there are certain very big things at stake when it comes to technology. Technology, competition, open markets, all the rest of it. How do the people that you work with, the companies that you worked with and advise, how do they react to the summit?

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: Yeah, well, first of all, I do agree that the summit was a very good thing, right? I think that communication, more understanding, some signalling, I think, is very good. There are many ways to characterise this, but one way to think about it is that the weather is getting better, but the climate will continue to be what it is, and that's a good way to kind of think about, right. I do think that we wish the climate can go back to what it was 15 years ago, but You know what the reality is, I think that we're going to be in this. One step forward, have a step back type relationship in some ways, but on the other hand, I do think that the signalling is better, the communication is better. And if you think about- Can I ask you, better than what? Better than what it was two years ago, better than it was three years ago. Better than it what it when China was uninvestable, when it was everything around China plus one. I think what we have learned in the last couple years is that, look, the world- is reorienting a little bit of the trade, right? I mean, trade actually has continued to grow, but it's not only US-China, right, the game has played out in Latin America, in Southeast Asia, right. So in some ways, you see US- China trade, you know, going down, but you see trade everywhere else, right coming up. So the trade corridors around the rest of the world is actually booming, right China has more trade corridors with more countries ever, right, in the last few years. And I do think that that's worth noting, because I do that while U.S.-China have this relationship, I think the rest of the world is trying to figure out their relationship with both. But on the other hand, the other contradiction that I want to raise here is on the business side. In some ways, it was very interesting that President Trump came with the business sector. And I would say that those, you know, business leaders... Have a profound understanding, right? There's no one who knows better what China can provide than Tim Cook or Jason Kwok, right, so I do think that it's very interesting that the appreciation of what the Chinese supply chain is, of what China's industrial engine can do, of what this actually does to global prosperity, I think it's completely well understood in the business sector, right. If you go into... The contradiction in the business sector, I do think that today, there are more collaboration between many, many students and business leaders actually than ever, right? This year, 2026, I've seen more multinational CEOs and boards having the meetings in China than I've ever seen.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: But let me ask you a specific question on this, because the people that joined President Trump were very powerful people. These are not just, you know, they don't spend their time without being very thoughtful about how they're spending their time. So what do you think they wanted from the summit? And did they get it? And then I'll come to you, Chelle.

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: You know, I think the business sector completely realised that decoupling is a far too simplistic way to think about business world today, right? Our supply chains, right, what China is actually very good at, how this Chinese industrial engine is actually far more efficient than anything else we see around the world. I think they all realise that. I mean, today, you know, the Apple phone, right cannot be... What it is today without the Chinese supply chain, right? So I think they completely understand that. And the business sector in their minds, right, they would wish they find, there's politics, there's military discussions, but the business centre, let's continue on this. And we can live in this world of contradictions, right. Where business continues, academics can continue, right and we can have this rhetoric and other things that are going on because we are all playing to our own domestic politics, which is completely fine too. I think that's what we want. And I think the summit was very good in doing that. And this today, as I said, this year, I've seen more exchanges between boards and CEOs and leaders in China that I've ever seen before, which to me is a great sign of understanding and communication.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Thank you, but it's not, please, please do and then I'll come to you, Shama.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: So this was not only a business delegation that Trump brought with him. This was the A plus that never has been a business delegation ever to anywhere of equivalent sort. You have Tim Cook, sort of the icon of products in our generation. You have the richest man in the world. You have The $5 trillion Jensen Wong with his Nvidia. You have the person who manages the most money in the world, Larry Fink in the blockbuster.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: So how do you make sense of that?

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: I would say they didn't come by accident and Trump didn't bring them by accident.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Although Jensen and Huang seem to have come at the last minute, jumping on a plane from Alaska. Jumping on the planes from Alaska.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Not everybody got the message. They forgot about NVIDIA. And I think they may not have even told President Xi until the last minute. Really? Do you really think that? Sorry, there were no chairs for them at the back of the room. So just to suggest how it went with the flow. But the fact that he invited them to bring, that was symbolic, I think. And the fact they came was symbolic. So I think it just I was just supporting Joe's point, it wasn't just a business delegation, it was like the most powerful business delegation of ever, I think ever.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: It was a big signal, but Xiao Hai, so I guess it's a big signal. You're very optimistic. I think we all have wanted a landing place, but there's a lot at stake. I mean, this isn't just, you know, let's all work together. Some people see this as zero-sum, certainly in technological competition, AI. How did you interpret the summit? Was it a, you know, stabilising moment with still the fundamental drivers of competition you know, sort of left open for the next steps? Or did you see it as transformative or how did you interpret it?

Zhao Hai Director of International Politics Studies, National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS): I think it really depends on where do you look at it? Which angle do you at? If you look from the business angle and particularly from President Trump's angle, this is all important business team, very grand and everything goes well because after that, you achieved a certain level of stability, restore some of the supply chains, the investor's confidence. However, I think presidency in China approach this from a very different angle. From our sort of international relations, we have levels of analysis. If you look at the opening remarks of President Xi, he actually processed from three different levels. The first is global view. The second is national, bilateral. And the third is people. He always emphasised, you know, both China and U.S. Are most important countries. We need to look at this bilateral relationship from historical global view, and I think. He's correct, because we have global ramifications, as Joe mentioned. We have global supply chains, global value chains, everything is interconnected, intertwined. However, I think the question is being asked, but it's not being fully answered, because on the one hand, I this stage is no longer pure bilateral, two-countries relationship. It's a global relationship that, you know, both countries are racing or... Let's say on a certain level of racing, but on another level is cooperating on how to make the world better. Which country can provide better framework, better vision, and better structure for the future of the world? Which country? Not together, but which country? And then collectively, both China, US, and other countries together. But it is a question, right? So it's not a G2, but also not multi-web, yeah. And the other question, of course, is like, yes, we have all this beautiful technology. We have this. Vision of the future, but what about the people? Because in the United States, I would assume now you've reached the highest level of rich and poor gap. In China, we also have developmental problems. So both countries, I mean, in the world, we're facing probably similar challenges that Professor Allison also referred to. So in the future I think it's more of a question that we face common challenge, do we have a common solution? I think those are the questions that are unanswered. But for now, because of the bilateral summit, and I think there will be a coming summit in this year, the relationship temporarily stabilised. However, from China's perspective, we saw there are still looming dangers in terms of more tariffs, in terms of... More technology disruptions and more kind of restrictions. So I'm not that rosy about the future because the structural forces are still working. But at the same time, I'm optimistic because it's not just the China and US, two actors. There are multiple actors in this world and they're pushing for bilateral relationship not to fall apart, not to be confrontational, but to be more cooperative and working together to solve common problems.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I mean, I want to pick up on that, because it sort of links to some of what Joe said, and you sort of indicated that actually a lot of third party states, which is most of the world, apart from the United States and China, are hedging, right? They're leaning in one direction or another direction or trying to lean in both directions, and you mentioned that trade between the two major economies is decreasing, but overall it's still very high. That's not really a great situation. That's a pretty it feels like we have a pretty low bar for what a good summit was, because things were so disastrous coming out of the pandemic. And it's a funny duality, and maybe I'll come to you on this, Professor Alison Graham, if I may. You know, on the one hand, obviously people aren't saying the word President Trump, but we know that we associate tremendous unpredictability and disruption from the United States leader, i.e. President Trump. And yet he's the person, he's U.S. Leader that has tried to get to more of a landing pad, do you feel, if you're a little bit more critical about what comes next, I mean, what is it gonna take to prevent this sort of de-risking two different systems, China trading with one part of the world, US going elsewhere, and the technological competition not being about the sort of cooperation and openness that we heard from the premier yesterday in a very powerful speech. But being, you know, a much more dangerous game. What do we now need to see next in order to make that work? That's a great question.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: We all are, you know, things spin so quickly that we can get confused and I would say, I sometimes say to my students, if you're not confused, you haven't been watching closely because President Trump, in particular, takes pride in being the great disruptor. So he thinks being unpredictable, even creating chaos creates opportunity for... Of advancing interests. And he also gets bored quickly. He lives half of his time as a producer of reality TV. So this is completely unreal. And half of this time as the leader of the greatest country in the world having real consequences for the choices. And sometimes I think he even gets slightly confused which one of these spaces he's in. So, all this is... What we have.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Can I push you a little bit on this one, because there's also a broader ecosystem within the United States of Republicans and Democrats, people have views on China. Just for him for the second.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: There's one relationship about which there's been a fairly steady line, which is kind of quite inconsistent with the rest of the picture. And that's the relationship with President Xi Jinping in China. After the 145% tariffs and then the supply chain choking, there was kind of an awakening. Hey, wait, now I do, I got it. This is a great man, he thinks, a great leader. He's created a great country. It's as powerful as we are for the time being. So I have to treat it differently than I treat other leaders. So you can see in this recent thing, he did a riff last week. It was almost like an aconium to President Xi and how wonderful he was and how much he would like to be like him and so forth. So is this Trump in some way? This is.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: But do you think he can bring the, I mean, the data suggests that he's bringing the American people along with him. Well, that's what your polls are to do. Do you think can bring Congress and the rest of the sort of foreign policy establishment?

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: No, I would say the structure gives you 75% of all of the impulses.

Speaker 6: OK.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: So, there's going to continue to be increasingly, in my view, a suspicion, hostility, and otherwise. The challenge for the leaders is to contain that set of forces, recognising what the consequences would be, since most of the people who are simply wanting to push the competition, don't realise that, hey, wait a minute, but we are on this small planet in which if it were to end up in the wrong place, we would end up with a catastrophe. So many, many people were critical of President Trump for, quote, backing down with respect to the supply chain confrontation. The question was, excuse me, what was the alternative, okay? When he started getting phone calls from Ford Motor Company or from the F-35 producers in a month, we're going to have to close our production lines. He's thinking, hmm, I think I have a different situation. The Wall Street Journal didn't like that, but excuse me, that he took to be the fact. I would say good for recognising the facts as the situation is. So I think he's struggling with that, and I think the society will be. So that's why I think at the summit. In the first instance, they began what I think they both she and Trump hope will be a reframing or redefining the relationship over the course of 2026. They got from great power competition, which is the normal way to discuss, describe this or more precisely, a Thucydidean library to a constructive strategic stability as a pointer, not all filled out. They are now I'm going to have another summit in Washington. September 26, I think, or four. President Xi will go to Washington. Then they'll meet on the sidelines of the APEC, here in November, and then in December in Miami at the G20. So we may have four summits of these two leaders, something we haven't seen before. And if I were being optimistic, which I'm trying to be, you could imagine by the end of the year, having a a landing point that's somewhat better than the way we've thought about the relationship that would say, hey, we have this complicated situation. We're fierce rivals, and we're going to be fierce rivals. We would like to win in all of these contests, and you would like win in these contest. At the same time, we had these realities that require cooperation both for our own survival and also for benefits, and were trying to manage these at the same. Now, can two leaders do that? With the complex governments that they have, and then the complex societies, well, over the long run, Thucydides would say, good luck. Good luck.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Good luck, and good luck because those are going to also take place, that second one around the U.S. Midterms, which is going to affect how President Trump feels domestically, politically, bound to spill over into his foreign policy in ways that it's very difficult to read. But there's a whole layer of things going on. How do you think business is thinking about these next four meetings?

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: Before we get to that, I just think that we also have to remember there's the rest of the world. Right. And we're looking at this very much in a bilateral situation. And I think one thing that's happened as a result of all of this and the tariffs and a whole bunch of things is there's been a whole redistribution of how companies are thinking about supply chains, about relationships and governments thinking about do they have to choose? Do they have to choose China or the U.S.? And so there's a context out there that also is a little different because the rest of the world in a way is rising. You know, we heard yesterday about Africa in 20 years or something, one out of every four people in the world are gonna live there. What kind of changes are taking place in this complex world that it will affect the U.S.-China relationship? We don't do this in a vacuum. And I think sometimes because it's two big countries, we tend to be a little toned out. But when you were talking about the trade, the 25% of whatever it was, reduction in trade to the US, all went to Southeast Asia. So look at what happened with soybeans in Brazil. I think some of these things just totally changed the context. And I think we also have to evaluate the environment in terms of what's possible and what we want to accomplish at the same time. So I interrupted your question. I don't know. No, no, no.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I'm very glad you brought it up. I've spent two decades in Europe having the conversation or listening to the conversation with many European leaders about how they were facing this question. But I kind of want to pick up on something you said and ask all of you. I'll start with you. Do you think that businesses, the businesses that you're working with, that all of your working with. Do they feel more that they have to choose? And what does that actually mean?

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: Okay, so I think you have to bifurcate the businesses also, because if you are high tech or you, you know, where there are a lot more restrictions about what you do, you might feel one way. I think nobody can, for whatever industry you're in, nobody can deny the innovation that's going on here. If you're- Here in China. Yes, here in China, if you're a biopharma, you can't, especially with the cutbacks on R&D in the US, You cannot exist without trying to be part of an ecosystem that's going to define a lot of our medicines for the future. So I think you have to almost look at it industry by industry. If you're in consumer goods, it's a very different question in this market. And then it's price competition, and it's things that maybe aren't so affected by the geopolitical things except for the tariffs. So I thinks the answer is that the companies who have been here a long time, who understand the market, who know that it's been ups and downs, I have this little. Framework in my head for these companies that you know the euphoria of China started with the CEOs going great guns Then it went to the CFO to rationalise all the money That's been kind of come out of that irrationality then now it seems like it's moved to the regulatory Side of the house to make sure you can function You know and and so you know what's next after that and I think you know We're kind of inventing the the future of that and i think every company needs to think about its own strategy, and I don't think you can just lump them all together. So, you know, and I think, in a way, you now, I know they had to bring the champions of industry, but I think there's a under-representation of the people every day, depend on China, or depend on markets, because now you have Chinese companies going out, and they're looking at the fact that you can, there's greater business opportunity, greater profitability sometimes. From going to new markets. So you have all these different competing interests on the part of the company. So I don't think you can classify business. You may have a different perspective because you are probably dealing with a lot bigger companies all the time. But I just think that it's hard to say there's one size fits all.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Absolutely, and I appreciate the differentiation. It raises a couple of questions. One is whether Summitry and the Successful Meetings can actually tackle these. And if not, where would the questions be?

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: It's the umbrella of stability, that's what I was referring to in the beginning. That affects everybody and it's a good thing.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: And it's a good thing. So do you see more stability? If you were gonna sort of break down some of the sectors, what are you most focused on? I mean, are you focused on the technology companies and what are your hearing as we look ahead to these next three meetings?

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: Yeah, well, first of all, I think that being a CEO today is much more difficult than it was before. And I'll tell you a story. One of my clients who is in the southern part of China doing manufacturing, he said that once upon a time, what I needed to do was to focus very much on my factory to make the best widget at the best price with the best innovation, and the world will gladly take my product, okay? Today? I gotta read the news, I gotta figure out like where to trade corridors, I gotta find out where the tariffs are, I gotta to figure out where to distribute, right? Like the way that I need to think about the world is no longer making the best product in my factory at the best price possible, yeah? It's around all these other things I gotta think about that was never actually in the equation before. Of course, as business, right, we are looking at different opportunities, we're looking at hedges, we're look at ways of how to de-risk, right the processes and that is the big theme going on. But I tell you one of the things that as I think about this, you know, U.S. China, you know race, I mean, where are we today? You know, I think that we are seeing, look, U S stock market at an all time high. I think, you Chinese companies and all this having this revival of this, you know going global and raising much more capital than they've ever had before, right? We've seen the tech companies really, so we got to bring tech back in here because I do think if you think about the last 20 years, If you have not been in tech, you have kind of missed out. In the next 10 years, it will be even more so than ever before. And where are the biggest innovation and leaders in technology today? It's US and China. What I actually think is very interesting here is that this rivalry will create the greatest boom in their own economies for the next ten years. The question is, If I sit there and I'm in that time, I'm Europe, I'm other places, what does that leave me, right? There's no doubt today that the US tech companies are running ahead, the US multinationals are great companies, the Chinese companies are dominating their industrial sectors, right. In AI, there's open source and there is, you know, the great US companies. Like where's the rest of the world, right, we could be in the stage where this rivalry, if you think that it is, right will create two great economies. With their sometimes rivalling, sometimes competing interests, but they will actually be landing in a very good place. But I think that we might leave the rest of the world behind if technology continue to race ahead. And to me, that's one of the questions that we have. Maybe we'll have NASDAQ all time high, Chinese companies at all time, high, but everyone else not actually being trapped here in some ways and trying to figure out where does that leave us? And that's another question. That is a little bit like, are they so far sprinting ahead that leaves the reservoir behind? And I think that's a question for me.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: I was going to say I think it'd be interesting to also see if there's an area of cooperation and what responsibility those two countries feel for the rest of the world because we do not live, you know, you can't have a successful business in a failed world, so.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Absolutely, critical point. Can I say one thing about yesterday's speech? Because it was a very powerful message about cooperation. And it is different. Whatever we can say below the headline or above the headline, it's very different from the rhetoric that we've heard from the U.S. Leadership in this moment. Do you think, I mean, what is your reaction to that? Maybe I can bring you in. I think the key of.

Zhao Hai Director of International Politics Studies, National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS): I think the key of yesterday's speech, primarily Li-Tao's speech is that China's open for business. From Joe's perspective, yes, both sides are competing. There are a lot of opportunities. That's why Premier Li-tao is talking about China opportunity 2.0, not China shock 2.1. And back to U.S.-China, I think on the one hand there's a good sign that is coming out of this bilateral summit because now we can get engines for our aeroplanes. But on the other hand, I've been talking to many of the businesses in China who wants to invest in the United States, but the regulatory environment continues to pose a serious problem. Since the beginning of the year, I was in winter Davos, and back then the governors of the United states are all talking about the welcome Chinese investment. But then when it really comes down to business, they refer to the federal government and say, we're waiting for their giving the green light. So many of the Chinese businesses, particularly EVs, solar panel, all this kind of new energy, wanted to invest in the United States, but now we have a board of investment. I don't know where does that go, who is going to be in those board, and we're still waiting for the result. But I want to emphasise the difference between this year and last year. Last year, China is the problem. And this year, I think China is either less of a problem or be partial solution. So that's the difference. And those problems are generated, created by President Trump himself. So if you look at the list, right? If you read the top of the list affordability problems, the straight of the hormones, all those kind of technology, all those problems or self-generated. And now I think, China can be part of the solution. That's why both sides can cooperate on many of the top of the list issues that can actually provide benefits for both sides.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Let me ask a question about the rest of the world, and I'm gonna come to you first, and it's on. So, if you're in Southeast Asia, if you are a company or a leader, if you in Europe, if your in Africa, and you're listening to yesterday's speech, what is your reaction?

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: So can I do one footnote before that and I'll come to it? As I think that, I have so many things to agree with, but I wanted us to do a couple of extra facts to help expand the proposition. So as Joe said, we all talk about the U.S. China and trade as if that was the main game. So I have a chart actually that. If you, just let's imagine US and China stop trading with each other altogether, zero. What happens to global trade? Answer, minus two percent. Sorry, we thought we were the whole game. No, excuse me, there's a great world out there. That's the word. Number two, Joe said rightly that the U.S. Stock market has been strong. Strong, again, compared to what? So S&P last year, about 16%. How about the Chinese market? How about Korean market? How about Japanese market? How about Taiwanese market? All of them, multiples of that. Multiples of that! So again, there's a whole world out there of things happening around the pieces. So just a couple of pieces to add to the perspective. Your question was?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: So if you're, you know, because you've very wisely and rightly brought up the rest of the world. It's a big world out there. And if you are watching, if you listening to, if your watching Summer Davos, if you're listening to the speech yesterday, you watch the summit, how are you feeling? If you are in, choose your country, choose your continent. Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Well, I think Joe said earlier that if you look at the frontier activities, and especially at the bright, shining object, and AI seems to mesmerise everybody, there's makers and there's takers, and there's U.S. And China, and then there's others. And whatever is going to happen, the Europeans will create rules, but they'll be too late for whatever. It's called the, if you're African, so I can't.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I mean, I think the Europeans are more ambitious than that, right? They want digital sovereignty. They want their own. They would like it.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: They would like, but again, if they're going to, they would like control, for example, social media. But if they would to have a smartphone, excuse me, they're gonna go to either the US or China. So I think the notion of, at least at the frontiers of science and technology as they're advancing, the US and China are sort of racing, racing further ahead in those domains. In other areas, I think there's lots of. Are there interesting things happening. And a number of the other countries, for example, if you look, for, example, the South Korean or the Japanese part of this, more now in Southeast Asia, you see a lot of activity. So we shouldn't take just the big picture. But I think especially the AI mesmerization, because it's so much of the topic, makes at least the people I talk to in other countries think, wait a minute. We're just— almost like on a different planet because whatever happened, if I'm going to use a model, I'm gonna get it from the US or China.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I'm gonna open it up, I'm going to take a quick set of responses and then I'm gonna open up to questions, so please be prepared.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: So if you use the makers and takers, I see it a little differently because a lot of these other countries or economies which didn't have the resources to develop exactly what has been developed by the U.S. And China are taking it, adapting it to their own markets and in some places that have been way behind their leapfrogging. You know, they don't have be the legacy infrastructure and so you can take some this AI. And you can be in a remote place in another world, and you can have access to medical solutions that you would never have had access to. So I don't think it's all a negative picture at all. I think that these countries are finding their own footsteps. They're resilient, and they care about their own people. So if we can make things that benefit the world, it won't all be one size fits all. And they'll never be maybe have the resources. To do what the two big countries are doing. But they do have the resources to be the beneficiaries of that and then take it and use it in their own way. And we're gonna learn a lot about those applications and they're gonna come back and resonate to make the whole thing better. So maybe I'm just the eternal optimist. I don't know.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I like it and it keeps us moving because it's important in this world so please if you raise your hands as we're getting lost to

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: I'll do a quick one, though. I think that yesterday, Prime Minister Lee's speech, I think was actually remarkable in how consistent it was from what he has always been saying. I think one of the things that I think you can take the Chinese leaders is that they've been very consistent, right? We want more collaboration, we want more business, we want trade, and we're open for business, yeah? So I think it's good. The question for businesses outside, for the rest of the world coming into China to do business is not one of geopolitics. I think its one of competitiveness. The question is, are you good enough? China is a great market, but you know what? There's some pretty good competitors here. And the question for you is not what the Chinese government allows me to come in. More so that, hey, can you compete against all the other guys out there who may be better than what you have today? And I think that's the question, because I do think that, and I've used this analogy of China business ecosystem being the world's toughest gym, and you come in here and these guys are hungry. They're very good. Bacon. Beat everyone up, and you come in here and the question is what do you have to offer? That is the question, right? So we're over business, but you better be good, otherwise there's no business for you. Otherwise, it's no business for you.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: And the premier did say, hard work, right? It's about hard work. And we know grit really matters. Please.

Zhao Hai Director of International Politics Studies, National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS): I think what we're seeing is the consequences of deteriorating and fragmenting international system, global trading investment system. And the result of that is the bigger is getting stronger. Because you have a unified market, you have very strong leadership. So for the remaining of those countries, whoever would try to win in this game needs to bound together. That's where carnism is talking about. Actually, the middle powers, all these countries, they need to unify, come together, forming a bigger market so that they can generate the innovation, having the finance that they need to compete in this world. So that's why jail politics now is fitting into. The business considerations and I think that's why also the China wants to continue to develop and sustain a global system instead of a fragmented system.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: I'm going to see who has their hand up and then okay we're going to come to you first but please if you eat.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Response and then we'll come and see. One thing that we haven't mentioned about the premier's speech that I thought for me was striking, that this is consistent with his previous speeches, was the appreciation of the role of private actors, entrepreneurs and inventors as the drivers. Frequently when I listen to comments by the Chinese government, they sound like comments by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the US. That says we need to have more affordable housing. We've put out a decree that there should be more affordable housing, and the housing's are built by.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: So this was a shift in your view.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: It hasn't been built by people, given their incentives. So I thought in both his account of Huawei and also in his commendation of those, that was an important message to send. And I think that was, to me, striking. But you could hear it was authentic.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Authentic. Okay, so Marjorie and then I think it's Karen, right? Karen Young. Please, Marjor.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: I was gonna have a quick parenthetical from the business angle. We've also been talking to our clients in terms of being multi-local. Instead of we talk about multi-national, it kind of says one size. You can go across the world doing one thing. And I think what has happened now is much more granularity to your business strategy as you go. We work in 80 markets. As you go to these places around the world, you have to be. And you have to appoint somebody to be your Secretary of State inside to deal with those things.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: It's very, very, I love the term, multi-local. Okay, please.

Audience member: Thank you so much, great session. I'm Karen Young from Columbia University. My question's for Joe and Hai. Do you see the Chinese business community coming together as an interest group and pushing the government more for an activist foreign policy, playing more of a mediator role, as we've seen in the latest energy crisis? Is that a pressure point, as you describe, businesses having to think about geopolitics? How do they communicate their needs?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Great question. Would you like to?

Zhao Hai Director of International Politics Studies, National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS): OK, I'll go first. I think yes and no, because it depends on what kind of business you're in. If you're the business that is under great pressure. From foreign states, then you have the interest of pushing for your own government to provide protection, also to provide countermeasures. But then if you're enjoying the current open market and you wanted to expand your business into multiple areas, multiple countries, then you wanted maintain an open system, and therefore you don't want to influence the government to do more, but to do less. So it really depends on what kind of, what's the nature of your business. In particular, I think in today's tech world, That is most salient when, you know, companies and institutions wanted to push for government actions because the U.S. Is also actively trying to decouple or cutting or limiting the development in China, and therefore requires a response. But otherwise, overall, I think because of the competitiveness of the Chinese companies, They want less government intervention instead of more.

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: Please, and then we'll come to that. I agree with that. I think businesses are very selfish animals. So I think on the one hand, I think that they would love the policies to facilitate them. But remember, Chinese companies are the most competitive with themselves. So I do think that we see a lot of scenarios where the Chinese companies are going overseas, and they're competing between themselves. And, you know, the... The foreign companies are like, what are they doing, right? So I think that there's actually, right, they are fierce competitors. So can they get together, have common interests? Of course they have, but they themselves also, do I see that being completely together? No, not a chance.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: The folks on the plane with Presid ent Trump probably compete with each other, too. So it's not so abnormal. Please, Professor.

Rattan Lal Professor of Soil Science, Ohio State University: When Mr. Trump was visiting China about a month ago, China Daily carried an article. It was, what cooperation can U.S. And China do? I want to mention in half a minute, four points. Number one, make agriculture a part of the solution rather than a problem. Right now it's a problem, both are very large agricultural country, 700 million tonne China, 600 million tonne U. S., both creating a lot of ecological problems. The second point they said was, do not give subsidies, but reward farmers for doing good agriculture, payment for ecosystem services. The third point that article made was, protect prime land, agricultural land, against non-agricultural uses, industrialization, urbanisation. And the fourth point was, grow carbon in land as a crop, so that farmers can get income out of it, and at the same time make a solution. This was just a comment, but I think it was a very relevant article in Shana Dehli.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Thank you, and you were described as a legend on your panel yesterday on global food security, and after listening to the panel, I fully agree. Thanks for that very important intervention. We're gonna take another question here, it's right at the back. I'll take a few and then come back to the, panel, right, the, please go ahead, and then the lady right behind.

Audience member: I have a question to all at large. There is a huge shortage of capital in the world with AI data centres being built, and now commodity hoarding and stockpiles. How is the shortage of capitol going to push us either towards the 75% of gloom and doom or 25%? And the second point I have is what about the quad?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: The one and then come to the lady right behind you. Thank you, sorry. So I will go first.

Audience member: First, I'll wait for the guest people. OK, so my question is for Professor Allison and Professor Zhao. And I'm CCM reporter from South China Morning Post. And my question about, I wonder your predictions about the next foreseeable meetings between Mr. Trump, President Trump, and President Xi. Like, what kind of improvement, maybe agreements or deals you guys expect to reach for the strategic balance? Thanks.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Capital and what comes next. Who wants to go first? And we'll take one more from the gentleman here while everybody's deciding who goes first. Right here, please.

Audience member: Thank you again, Leslie. I'm Yan Shuanghua, associate professor from the Institute of International Studies of Fudan University. You have talked a lot about other countries and regions of third parties in China-U.S. Relations since I research, teach European studies. So I'd like to turn the question to end the perspective on Europe. And there's a question for Professor Allison. Apparently, there are changes taking place in transatlantic relations. I think the fundamental question is how you assess the nature of that change. I'd like to have your take on that. I mean, it is a fundamental change.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Thank you. And in the context of the US-China relationship. Okay, who wants to go first? Choose the one you wish.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: On this one, I would say the Munich Security Summit's summary this year was right on. Their title was called President of Destruction, and their principal proposition was that we're in an era of wrecking ball politics in which there's the great irony that the architect and builder of the international order has become the principal wrecking ball. And I think that's demonstrated very clearly in the U.S.-European relationship. And if you look at the recent polls on the number of Europeans and their views about America as a ally or its reliability, you can see dramatically the effect, and you see the very same effect in the governments as they deal with the current administration. If you look at the G7 meeting, all of the leaders were just... Fearful hoping that they would not come into the crosshairs of the great disruptor. So I think that's

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: or take pictures with him.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Please. Would you like to march?

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: No, I guess I'm not aware that there is this huge capital shortage. I think it's a matter, I don't know, in my view, it's like how do you apply the resources we have to the best use? And then, you know, where do we go? I've seen the numbers of what it's going to take to deal with some of the huge problems we have out there, and nobody has that much to deal with, but I still think there's... Sufficient ways to finance some of the big things we have to do if we can work together. So I don't... So the cooperation message. No. I just don't know. You probably are a better expert on this whole idea of macrocapitalism. Is there a question from the side? Is there a question from the side?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: If we get ready for these two final quick questions, and then we'll come back to the two of you first, because this group behind me is disadvantaged because I can't see them. And please be succinct, because we're coming right to the end. We need to come to both of you and the others.

Audience member: Thank you, Leslie, because you looked for the third time, so I shouldn't miss this opportunity. I come from a Saudi company, a chemical company, so somewhat I represent that third party. But my question is about the forecasting to the future, because when I learned from Professor Zhang about the previous summit, I have a strong doubt whether this dialogue is a real dialogue. Because when President Xi started that three question, he was not responded. And then, in the end, when he concluded the proposal of constructive relationship with strategic stability, he was also not responded. So in that sense, I have some doubt for the upcoming summits. And there, I'd like to invite the expert insights on that. That's a great final.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: That's a great final question for everybody. One more, right back here from the lady.

Audience member: Okay, thank you. Okay, my name is Zhou Yiwen. I'm from Tsinghua University, China. So I have a question. I'm an expert in Middle East. Right now we can see many cows in Middle-East, right? So I just have one question. Me too, Alison and Professor Zhao, is there any possible for China and the U.S. To find a way out for the conflict? Now I mean, to find some cooperation way. Is there any, any possible way for that?

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Oh, in the Middle East? Yeah, in Middle East, yes. So we have no time. So we're each going to take one minute or 30 seconds and just, you know, was the summit for real? And is there a possibility for cooperation? And I guess you have to also maybe tackle the is there enough capital question.

Zhao Hai Director of International Politics Studies, National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS): So, please. I would say, first of all, it's absolutely real, because both sides has put out statements recognising there's a strategic stability relationship. So I think constructive strategic stability, so that's real. And secondly, to answer your question, I think we can't really predict what's going to happen in September, because U.S. Agenda is changing. But for China, it is consistent. And we now have this new concept. But the second step is to really make it true. So realise the strategic stability. And third one is about agriculture. We just finished a conference between US and China. I think the cooperation will continue. But again, we need to, for the next meeting, take down some of the barriers for both sides to cooperate better.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Thank you for putting that on the table, please.

Joseph Luc Ngai Chairman, Greater China, McKinsey & Company: Yeah. Look, you know, I'm actually quite optimistic, you know, when I see this year versus where we were a couple years ago, look, no one would have predicted kind of where we are now. And I'll take this any day in terms of like, where we are sitting here in 2026, compared to where we're in 2023, sitting from a kind of China, you know, global relations perspective, you know, but I think that what's actually very interesting is that I don't think those answers will ever be clear, right? I think we will have to live with ambiguity, uncertainty, and all this. And that's where I think as business leaders, as community leaders, right, we'll just have to think about resilience in a very different way, where there's no clarity, no clear answers, but you kind of have to weigh through. I think right now, in many ways, businesses have already adjusted to the new reality, which I think is actually fantastic to see. And I think that we're more resilient than we ever have been, which I thing is a great thing for everyone.

Margery Kraus Founder and Executive Chair, APCO: Thank you. I pick up on that too. I think that we are more resilient because I think the thing that was done is that the summit, it doesn't almost matter how much detail they can answer afterward, it happened. And they made a commitment to keep talking and things just take a while to progress. I think almost better to have the ambiguity and know that we're out there doing that. And as far as the Middle East goes, I would bet a lot of money that there are discussions behind the scenes. Where China has been involved in helping to fix the problem.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Final comment from you, and I will say Professor Allison, the optimism I appreciate and respect, and I know it's coming in from a certain perspective, but in your field, in my field, we have seen more conflict, more death than we've seen in decades. This is not a great period. And both the United States and China, have some sort of role in all of this.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: So to the question, was the summit for real? I would say yes. Does the road ahead look promising? Yes, compared again to what? But if we go back to the fundamentals, the structural reality is 75% of what's happening. So again, left to their own devices, normal, natural behaviours of countries, companies, politics, leaders will lead to History as usual. History as usually will be a catastrophic conflict. If Thucydides were betting it, or if I were betting it today, I would say in the next generation, it's likely that it ends in a catastrophic war.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Goodness, really. You can't end on that note.

Graham Allison Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: But, don't. No, but. Quickly and end, because we're over time. Quickly we should go have a drink. No, no. That's the challenge. That's a challenge. There should have been already World War III. It didn't happen not by accident, not by taking things for granted, because people appreciate it. Building peace is a huge undertaking and requires constant work. And requires a lot of imagination and requires dealing with complicated situations. So I think the good news is both President Xi and President Trump talk about war would be catastrophic for things that we, everything we care about. So we have to do what we can. Given this great contradiction to manage this process. And I think they're trying to do that. I think actually in laying out this picture of the future, constructive strategic stability, as Wang Yi said, this is not the end of the story. We haven't given you a whole blueprint for this. We've given you the pointer. And we're asking, actually, the broader community, including people like us, the analytic community, or the business community, help fill this in. Help make it a reality, so I'm hopeful on that side.

Leslie Vinjamuri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Hopeful and the task has been laid. Thank you so much to everybody. This is a great panel. Thank