英国前首相布莱尔：无论谁当选美国总统，中美摩擦都将持续，但我们要让摩擦不失控 -托尼·布莱尔、金刻羽

新冠疫情将让2020年的这场美国大选显得尤为特殊——由于美国疫情不断恶化，今年大选相较往年，有大概8200万人将通过邮寄选票的方式来为乔·拜登或唐纳德·特朗普投票，这比2016年时多出了将近5000万人。

**邮寄选票的合法性问题本就可能引发美国两党激烈斗争，进而导致大选不确定性上升，如今30万张邮寄选票下落不明，大选再添谜团。**有美媒分析，如果特朗普坚持通过法律程序质疑邮寄选票结果，世界接下来可能见证旷日持久的法律大战。

全球瞩目的美国大选结果，会如何改变中美关系的下一步走向？未来在疫情应对和全球经济复苏方面，国际合作还有哪些空间？

**“不管谁最终当选，中美双方仍将会出现真真切切的对抗……我们有必要让这种对抗不出轨。”**10月24日，英国第51任首相托尼·布莱尔在第二届外滩金融峰会上说。

在和伦敦政治经济学院副教授金刻羽进行的这场对话中，布莱尔认为，**当前时刻全球协调和全球领导力缺失，各国至少要在绝对必要的事情上进行合作。**中国作为世界主要领导者的地位和实力不容忽略。尤其在气候变化和经济复苏等方面，西方国家必须要和中国合作，才能找到解决方案。在他看来，中国力量的崛起是正当事实，大多数西方人对中国并无敌意，双方需要积极坦率地进行对话。

“21世纪最重要的双边关系就是中美关系。”布莱尔说，而欧洲可以帮助塑造更有成效的中美对话。

他还表示，当今世界政治面临的最大挑战是如何更好地掌握并充分利用技术革命，通过技术来实现长期的经济目标，创造充满活力的现代经济。

以下为金刻羽&布莱尔对话实录

中文实录

疫情加速技术革命进程，改进国家和公民之间的互动

**金刻羽：**您一直在致力于为各国政府提供抗击疫情的建议，督促政府思考对抗全球流行病的战略，我对您在三个方面的想法特别感兴趣，首先是技术。您曾敦促各国政府，利用技术杠杆来对抗疫情，能对此进行详细的解释吗？

**BLAIR：**我们研究所现在精力都集中在了应对疫情方面，研究各国政府包括英国应该做出怎样的正确反应。同时也有同事做关于非洲、中东和世界其他国家研究。其中有一件事让我们印象特别深刻：那就是各国一定要明白，**我们正生活在一场技术革命中，这些技术变革在疫情之前就已经存在，但疫情之后这些变革的速度加快了，强度也加剧了。**所以我认为我们需要让各国了解到技术变革能给国家带来哪些好处，这也是我们在疫情过程中学习到的。

比如说我们现在通过网络进行对话，再比如说大多数的人已经转为在线工作等一些疫情中出现的一些创新行为。我们需要加快发展快速测试、开发治疗方法、疫苗等等。但我认为疫情让技术具有更广泛的涵义。比如说在医疗中，积累大量的数据非常重要，充分使用这些数据也很重要。因此，在我看来，当今世界政治面临的最大挑战就是这场技术革命，我们要了解它、掌握它、利用它。

**金刻羽：**我分享一下中国在技术使用方面的经验。技术实际上已经成为了一个强有力的政策工具，不仅在抗疫和公共卫生方面发挥作用，也在经济和金融复苏方面发挥了很大作用。中国的技术生态系统非常广阔深厚，由于这场危机对不同人群的冲击有很大的不同，**而最优的对策就是针对不同群体采取特定的有针对性的政策，我们把它称为精准施策。通过技术可以做到精准政策的实施。**我们可以为医护人员提供医疗保险，降低出口企业的资金成本，降低物流公司的成本，为不同的群体量身定制政策。我觉得在这个方面中国有很多经验可以分享给世界其他国家，你也和非洲国家合作过，非洲的技术也有了飞跃性发展。反而是西方发达国家在这方面落后了，还没有充分使用这些工具，没有能够利用这次疫情实现技术的飞跃。

**BLAIR：**是的，确实如此。这对西方政府和政策制定者来说是个很大的挑战。**在西方国家以及许多发展中国家，政策制定者和变革者分散在两个不同的群体中，制定公共政策的人和改变世界的人没有进行对话。**而我们的目标之一，就是让这两组人开始对话，帮助他们互相理解。

举个例子，今天的西方世界面临着巨大的挑战。我们正在为经济复苏倾注一切资源，包括支持系统和投入资金等等。为了克服疫情，我们的支出是极其巨大的。亚洲已经投入了数以万亿美元计的资金来对抗疫情，西方为了度过这次经济衰退，货币政策和财政政策正在全面调整。但与此同时，**这可能会给我们带来巨大的债务问题。而且如果通货膨胀再次出现，届时我们将面临真正的挑战。**因此，我们应该研究如何削减成本？如何管理才能使我们的公共服务，比如在医疗保健领域的服务效率更高？

**技术是实现这一目标的途径。如果我们能够利用好这场技术革命，我们就有机会重新安排国家的开支并且改进公民与国家的互动。**所以，在我看来这是一个根本性的变化。我认为目前西方政治所面临的挑战是，是否可以重新出现能从长远角度考虑问题的领导，做出对国家长期有益的决定。而现在的政治环境中，充斥着短期的被动政策。在脱欧后，英国面临的挑战是必须要创造一个真正充满活力的现代经济，吸引全世界最优秀的人才。而教育体系尤其是高等教育，必须与商业部门互动以便推动技术创新。我认为在某些领域例如生物技术领域，我们有能力做到这一点，但需要大的结构性变革才能确保我们有充分的竞争力。

中国与西方需要在技术竞争中预留合作空间

**金刻羽：**你提到了全球领导力，这是你的愿景的第二个方面，对此你直言不讳。但是当世界最需要领导力的时候，为什么我们没看到全球协调和全球领导力？是领导人能力不足吗？还仅仅是因为缺乏意愿？

**BLAIR：**更多的是缺乏意愿，因为对领导力的需求是显而易见的。我从来没有遇到过这样触及到每个人的政治问题。这次的疫情影响到了每个人，每个人都不得不改变自己的生活和工作方式，以及与其他人的交往方式包括和自己的家人的交流方式。所以，政治领导人难免要先看看自己国家的情况，这是必然的。

但很明显，既然是全球大流行，既然我们都面临同样的重大挑战，我们的应对方式可能不同，但面临的挑战本质上是一样的：如何阻止疾病的蔓延，控制它，并消灭它？**我认为难以置信的是全球协调的欠缺，**比如在提升测试能力、开发快速测试、加速治疗技术和疫苗的生产和分发、以及分享最佳实践案例、分享疾病数据等方面。

现在各国虽然有了一些合作但程度非常有限，只是临床医生们在一起工作，分享一些工作规程之类，还有“新冠疫苗倡议”之类的协议，把疫苗送到发展中世界。但没有能够站出来引领世界的领导者，告诉大家：好吧，尽管我们在其他50件事情上有意见分歧，但抗疫这些事情我们要合作处理。比如在我们国家，快速检测是控制疫情的一个重要环节，假设世界各大国在这次危机开始时就聚在一起说，我们要鼓励开发快速、易用的现场测试，我们也许可以将这些测试的开发周期缩短几个月。我不明白为什么我们没有这样做。

**金刻羽：**那么在你看来是什么根本原因导致了这种缺乏全球领导力和协调的现象？中国可以在这里发挥很大的作用，而且在某种程度上已经发挥了作用，但可以有更多的协调。

**BLAIR：我觉得有两个基本的挑战要克服。一个是很多国家，尤其是美国，现在变得非常内敛，专注于自己的内部事务。**其次坦率地讲，你应该知道美国和西方国家与中国之间的关系是一个很大的挑战。只有双方都做出改变才有希望让事态出现转机，而这件事绝不会容易。

我一直想说的是，我的研究所在最近几个月一直在写这方面论文。首先，我们必须认识到我们正处于一个新的世界里，中国的实力现在已经崛起，这是显而易见的。中国作为世界主要领导者的地位和实力是无法避免的，也是正当的。无论是从规模、历史、经济等原因来看，都应该是这样。但问题是，很显然随着中国的崛起，中国发生了一些变化，西方也发生了一些变化，对抗的气氛更浓厚了。对这一点我们不能视而不见，正如我们在美国总统选举中，不管谁当选，双方都将会出现真真切切的对抗而且双方都很清楚对抗的具体内容是什么。我们有必要让这种对抗不出轨。

第二，双方会有竞争的领域。技术可能是其中之一，**在技术领域将出现真正意义上的中国和西方的竞争，下一代的技术创新将会是一场技术竞赛，**而且竞争会非常激烈，这些竞争领域双方都是非常清楚的。

我认为，**双方必须在竞争的同时，预留一些空间，至少要在那些绝对必要的事情上进行合作。比如气候变化、全球疫情、稳定全球经济，在这些领域如果没有中国，我们就不可能找到解决方案。**我们至少需要保持足够的沟通和接触渠道，才能就这些问题进行真正的对话。

我认为这将需要双方采取我称之为战略的做法。而我所谓的政治战略，这是我非常相信的东西。我认为战略不是对一些事件的反应，而是一个框架，在这个框架内你可以稳定地管理各种关系，接受那些会存在真正的对抗和竞争的领域。但正如我所说的那样，政治家要明确说服公众**：除了竞争，双方也一定要留出用来合作的领域。**

我认为双方都需要战略意义上的共情能力。关于领导力的缺乏，我们其实在疫情之前就已经在欧洲等地看到了这种情况。

西方国家需要从长远利益出发，且能与民众充分沟通的领导者

**金刻羽：**西方的一个核心挑战是统治精英和广大民众之间的疏离，而这种隔阂正变得越来越明显，收入不平等、机会不平等、对全球化或者对技术的政治主张和态度，双方似乎在所有问题上都无法形成共识，分歧太大而无法达成共识。

除了在面对外部的共同竞争者和共同对手之时，这件事上两党可以达成共识。这是一个核心问题，也是民粹主义领导人当选的原因。这在某种程度上也在推动和塑造国内政治以及外交政策，在一定程度上造成了全球协调的缺失。如果他们不能就全球化相关的利益问题达成一致，各国领导人之间的全球协调就会是一个大问题。在我看来，这是问题的根源。

**BLAIR：****西方社会目前是非常分裂的，分裂的方式，既有经济上的，也有文化上的。**而经济上的分裂是非常明显的，因为一部分人已经无法得到自己以往能够得到的经济效益。

按照惯例，每一代人的生活都应该比上一代人更好才对。这种代际承诺，已经有些破裂了。其次，双方之间存在深刻的文化鸿沟和代沟，尤其是围绕着移民、种族、不平等之类的文化问题。在老一辈的人看来，所有这些东西让他们觉得自己已经无法控制生活中的变化，另外，在美国人们的收入停滞不前，民众的愤怒指向体制而体制却无法很好地做出调整。至于民粹主义者的所作所为，顺便说一下，“广受欢迎”没什么不好的，“广受欢迎”和民粹主义之间是有区别的。我对民粹主义的定义是：利用愤怒，而不提供答案。换句话说，民粹主义者所做的是操纵移民等议题，获取政治利益，而不准备解决问题。所以问题是我们能恢复吗？

我们能不能在西方政治中找回那种魔法，重新点燃一种乐观主义的情绪，这可能才是最重要的。基本上，如果人民变得悲观，国家就会变得愤怒，这个问题对我来说很有吸引力，当我在世界上最贫穷的国家工作时我发现，那里的人们对未来的看法，要比在我自己国家看到的乐观得多，虽然我们的生活水平远远高于那些贫穷的国家。**西方政治所缺少的就是那种能向人们把问题解释清楚的领导人物。**让人民明白，我们要面对全球化过程中的挑战。而且让人民明白，这些挑战并不是政府带来的，而是人民自己带来的，我们可以克服全球化和技术带来的挑战，可以利用这些力量来服务公众并以此为契机，重新复活那个失去的代际承诺。目前的西方政治界缺少的就是这个。

如果民众之中缺少乐观的情绪，改变未来就是非常艰难的。而想要改变未来，我们就需要这样说：**西方不再是世界的主宰，东方的力量已经崛起了。我们必须想办法来适应这种情况，不要只是自怨自艾，而是要拥抱新的机遇。**这些都是很大的挑战，只有高瞻远瞩的领导才能对民众说出这些东西。在我看来，一个好的领导人物，不能只去说那些人民爱听的话，任何傻瓜都能那样做，获得人民的拥戴。真正的考验在于，领导人物需要告诉民众，为了国家的长期利益。有些艰难的事情需要大家一起来做。

欧洲可以帮助塑造更有成效的中美对话

**金刻羽：**西方越早恢复这样的领导能力，就能越快地照顾好人民，解决其社会中的一些基本问题，同时有利于外交政策和全球协调。这就是我所相信的，在这一点上，我们认为中国的崛起对世界来说是一个很好的机会。但是双方对它的崛起都有疑虑，而消除这些疑虑是非常重要的。所以，对于一个积极参与国际事务的新崛起的国家，你有什么建议，如何更好地表达自己以及自己的发展轨迹并与世界沟通？

**BLAIR：**你必须要区分西方的两种情绪之间的区别。一种情绪是这样一种理论，新势力崛起之后，旧势力就会担忧，然后就会引发冲突。从历史上看，这是对的。但当今中国与世界的互动程度极高，即使现在有这么多关于脱钩的讨论，也无法掩盖这一事实。我认为，**西方情绪不是这样的。至少就我所知大部分西方人对中国并无敌意。**我们承认，中国力量的崛起是一个正当的事实。中国必须决定它要对西方说些什么，**积极寻求机会与西方接触、理解西方的担忧，有些担忧可能源于对中国力量的焦虑。所以，对话才尤其显得重要。**进行坦率的对话是很重要的。

同样重要的是，我们要保持人与人之间的文化交流。而**我反对脱钩的概念，对我们来说，这是一件非常危险的事情，最好的办法是在互相尊重的基础上开展对话，**这就是我的愿景。西方政治家要有战略思维，中国领导人也要有战略思维。我们应该多谈，多合作。比如在气候变化这样的问题上，双方应该共同研究解决气候变化的方法。科学和技术使我们能够可持续地消费。在气候变化的问题上，中国做的事情很重要，美国做的事情很重要，欧洲做的事情很重要，但情况是这样的，非洲的人口将在未来30年内翻一番，民众希望发展他们想要公路、铁路、机场和航空公司，他们想要消费。我们不能对那些非洲年轻人说对不起，你不能消费，这样会导致供应出现问题。我们必须证明我们可以做到可持续消费，这是一个创新和发明方面的挑战。中国与西方国家在这方面的合作将是一件美妙的事情。

**金刻羽：**我认为中国已经做好了充分的准备，并且已经在气候变化方面发挥重要的全球作用。此外还包括可能的反恐斗争，以及成为金融系统的支柱。就在这次疫情期间，中国充当了最后保障人的角色。当其他地方的供应链和生产能力已经崩溃时，中国仍能向世界提供物资。

下一个问题，你认为中英关系的未来是什么？中欧关系的未来呢？

**BLAIR：**我认为欧洲可以发挥重要的作用，确保我所说的战略框架。另外，我们与中国接触时所使用的思维和方法论框架是和欧洲一样的，虽然英国已经不再是欧洲的一部分了。欧洲人不会以任何方式削弱他们与美国的联盟关系，特别是安全关系。但我认为，欧洲人会希望看到我们有办法推进对华关系，而不要朝着所谓的冷战思维的路上滑过去。

我认为欧洲可以在塑造更有成效的对话中发挥作用，我希望如此。而且我认为，英国也在其中发挥自己的作用，这一点很重要。坦率地说，21世纪最重要的双边关系，就是中美关系。就算不考虑欧洲，情况也是如此。我认为，对华接触符合欧洲的利益，具有非常重要的意义。

英文实录

**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 makers  sit 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’s  what 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.