"In Conversation with C.H. Tung" is a new series by China-US Focus that features highlights of a conversation between Editor-at-Large James Chau and Tung Chee-hwa.

While Mr Tung is most renowned for becoming the First Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 1997, his background reaches far beyond Hong Kong, and all the way to the United States.

In the first part of this series, Mr Tung discusses his experience of living in the U.S. for 9 years and how it inspired his life-long commitment to improving China-U.S. relations. With his deep understanding of both Chinese and American culture and lifestyle, Mr Tung explains what he sees as the root of the current disputes between the U.S. and China, as well as what can be done to resolve existing tensions.

One of the pillars holding up the American economy is its ability to trade with other countries. But because of the U.S.-China trade war, American consumers and businesses are suffering. Trump administration tariffs are threatening as many as 2.6 million American jobs, raising the cost of living, and inflicting damage on manufacturers, farmers, technology companies, and more.

After Trump slapped $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, China decided to retaliate with $110 billion in tariffs on American-made products.

According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the five states hit hardest by these retaliatory tariffs are California, Texas, Washington, Louisiana and Illinois. These states alone account for a whopping $42.7 billion in American-made exports to China that are under threat.

California, the world’s fifth largest economy, exported more than $16 billion to China in 2018. In the first five months of 2019, exports to China from California ports were down 9%.

One fifth of all the jobs in California, approximately 5.4 million, depend on international trade and investment. As a result of the trade war, California is facing stymied economic growth and potential job losses.

California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis testified at a hearing of the California Assembly Select Committee on Asia/California trade and Investment Promotion, saying that the impacts were "especially worrisome" given California’s deep integration into the global markets and supply chains.

In Texas, over 3 million jobs are supported by global trade. Across the Lone Star State, farmers worry that an escalating trade fight between the United States and China will damage their livelihoods. And it’s not just farmers that will suffer.

As China’s economy has flourished, its impact on the Texan economy has grown exponentially. Twenty years ago, Houston and China traded $1.1 billion worth of goods, whereas today that number is more than $20 billion, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

Washington, Louisiana, Illinois and a host of other U.S. states also stand to lose jobs and economic growth in export sectors as varied as agriculture, automotive, and technology.

But the hardest hit of all? The American consumer. The trade war could cost the average American family of four up to $2,300 a year, according to a report on the effect of tariffs on the U.S. economy and workers.

Zeng Peiyan has served at high levels of state leadership: as Vice Premier of China, and as a Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. Born in Shaoxing, outside Hangzhou, in Zhejiang Province, he is a graduate of Tsinghua University. Today, he is Chairman of the China Center for International Economics Exchanges.

He was interviewed by Zhu Yinghuang at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019.

Zhou Wenzhong was China's Ambassador to the United States during the administrations of George W Bush and Barack Obama. In this interview with James Chau, he discusses the gaps in understanding between the two countries and their respective approaches to the bilateral relationship. He says a containment policy is not effective with countries such as China and that instead a 'major power relations' could help steer their joint future.

This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019. 

James Chau:
Ambassador Zhou, you were serving in Washington during the periods of the George W. Bush presidency and also the Barack Obama presidency. Some people look back on that with some nostalgia saying it was a very distinct era to the one we have today under Donald Trump. Are they so different?

Zhou Wenzhong:
Actually, when George W. Bush took over, in the early years of his administration, his perspective on China was already that it was strategic economic competitor. So then, what happened was 9/11, so the number one priority for them was to deal with that problem. And so they needed China's support. So his view of China as a strategic competitor did not intensify. Then, since the war against terror has ended, I think their perception has been to focus on the so-called China threat again.

James Chau:
If 2001 and 9/11 was a turning point, not just for the bilateral relationship, but America's approached to the world at large, why not look also at other hallmark events? The 2016 climate change agreement in Paris, the 2008 financial crisis where we saw the countries come together again also with Ebola outbreak, when their support to those affected countries in west Africa really helped transform the response for the better. Are we shortsighted these days? Is the next generation not as long sighted or as visionary as the one that came before?

Zhou Wenzhong:
Let me put it this way. We want to be a friend of the United States as far as the US-China relationship is concerned because that's relationship is very important for China, for the United States and for the world. And so we hope the United States will not misjudge China's strategic intention. We have made it very clear to them that we don't want to challenge anyone and we don't want to replace anyone. So this is all very clear. So what we want is a stable sort of a relationship with the United States, which would bring benefits to both countries and both peoples. But then the problem is their perception of China and so, out of their sudden need for resolving the problem they are confronted with, they sometimes put an emphasis on cooperation and sometimes they try to shift to the emphasis of containment. So I think this is kind of a zigzag course the US-China relationship has been undergoing. So that's a problem.

James Chau:
What happens when you try to contain a culture like China? What has history in the past shown us?

Zhou Wenzhong:
I think they will never go anywhere. That has been their policy: containment, as well as cooperation. But containment has never really got anywhere because China is a major country, one of the major countries in the world, that they can not afford to neglect.

James Chau:
What would you like for the future? Obviously you've had this highly distinguished career in public service and diplomacy. What kind of a world would you like to see and where would this relationship fit within that, given what we see today?

Zhou Wenzhong:
We have made it very clear that we think our view is that the relationship should become a new type of a major power relationship. There should be neither confrontation nor conflict and a mutually respectful relationship. .That's our proposal and that's our hope for US-China relations. Of course, the two heads of state met in Osaka, Japan, and they agreed that the relationship should be based on stability, cooperation and coordination. And so I think now it's important for the two sides, particularly the US administration to implement that understanding between the two heads of state. So let's see what will happen.

James Chau:
Fundamentally, for those opposed this is a good place to close on. There’s always been gaps of understanding. Even back in the days of normalization under Deng Xiaoping and Jimmy Carter, perhaps due to different languages, different cultures, different histories or maybe just different styles of governance. Will there ever be a time where they could meet close enough for it to go forward in a way that perhaps is better than the 40 great years you've just had?

Zhou Wenzhong:
I hope the US-China relationship will renew with the understanding that two heads of state have accomplished. So that's our hope. But we'll see. The fundamental challenges here with us is that the United States really perceives China as a partner rather than a rival.

James Chau:
We can do all the talking, but in fact it will be the children and the grandchildren, those next generations that will really have to carry this mantle forward. They unfortunately won't necessarily have the experience or the 40 years gone by. They wouldn't know necessarily the history. So what would you tell them now, as an experienced diplomat yourself, who's had to explore tricky waters yourself as well? What would you say to a young person coming out of university right now, about what they can do to contribute not just to a stronger relationship with America and with Americans, but also for the world they’re in? China is a very different place right now.

Zhou Wenzhong:
Children are our future. So I think we should to give them the right education they need to learn. They need to learn from history. They need to learn from their teachers. And they also need to learn from their own experiences. And so that's very, very important for the US-China relationship. If we want to have a better future for this relationship, I think we should start doing this right now starting from our children.

James Chau:
Actually, that was the last question anyway, so all I have to say is Ambassador Zhou, thank you very much.

Stephen Roach is the former Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley and a current Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. He says the U.S. depends on China as a low-cost source of foreign goods, funding of chronic budget deficits, and opportunities for American exporters. In this interview with James Chau, he also talks about his work in teaching the 'Next China' course at Yale University for almost a decade - a way of informing America's educational elite on the future ahead.

This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019. 

JC: Stephen Roach, thank you very much for your time. As we sat down, you noticed this headline over here, "Back on Track." So the President says after he met with Xi Jinping on the sidelines in Osaka, you said, "off-track, maybe." What does that mean?

SR: Well, what is the track? If we're going back to the prior framework before the negotiations broke down in early May, that's a track to nowhere. It features a focus on a reduction of the bilateral trade deficit between the US and China, which any economist, except those who work for the Trump administration, will tell you gets the United States nowhere. And then it has a framework to talk about structural issues that involve major one-sided capitulations from the standpoint of China, but very little in the way of compromise offerings from the US. So, if that's the track, it's a track to nowhere.

JC: There is this thinking amongst some people in China who subscribed to this theory that all was good pre-Trump, and now it's all changed. But in fact, there were clear signs before that, that it wasn't all brilliant. It wasn't all rosy, so to speak. So, how would you describe that track and what is the track that you would want to see established?

SR: There's been a growing, ominous shift in the US-China relationship I'd say over the last 10 years, which predates Donald Trump by a long shot. The view is that American manufacturing, both companies and workers, had been put under enormous pressure since China's accession to the WTO, and that is a key reason that many politicians and their advisors, Republican and Democrat alike, feel that China needs to be held accountable for the pressures bearing down on American middle class workers and families. And then a whole, what I call a false narrative, has been constructed to rationalize that. From focusing on the trade deficit, to intellectual property theft, to forced technology transfer. To cyber hacking, to state sponsored, industrial policy. All of these, arguments had been blown way out of proportion, relative to the actual facts, that have laid the responsibility for these pressures on the American middle class on China. And it sells well in political circles, and it's going to be very difficult for the next president, whether it's second term Donald Trump, or a Democrat who defeats him, to reverse that course in a short period of time.

JC: As you said, it sells well in political circles to those who vote for you, obviously. But as an economist, we know that economic stability leads to social progress, which leads to peace as well. What's the opportunity cost here, right or wrong, if they don't get this fixed?

SR: Look, there's no doubt in my mind that the rise of China has played an enormously beneficial role in influencing the global economy in general and the US economy in particular. In the United States, for example, we depend on China to provide American consumers with low cost source of foreign goods that helps income constrained American consumers make ends meet. We depend on China to help us fund chronic budget deficits. China owns the largest share of foreign holdings of Treasury securities. We depend on China to provide opportunities for American exporters. China is our third largest and most rapidly growing export market. So to say that, you know, we don't need China, is sort of missing the opportunities that have fallen our way in a significant fashion over the the last 10 to 20 years.

JC: You are not just one of the most influential economists of our times, but you extend that to the youngest generation of brilliant minds. You teach over at Yale, you're part of that process of this generation. What are you teaching them and what are they informing you in return in your classrooms?

SR: I teach a course and I've taught it now for nine years. Next year, it'll be the 10th year, called "The Next China." And it's a course about basically the modern Chinese economy, starting off with the origins of the Reform and Opening Up of Deng Xiaoping post-Mao in the late 1970s. And then I talk about the pivotal realization that occurred right around 2007 when a former premier, Wen Jiabao, spoke of a Chinese economy that was unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and ultimately unsustainable. And how that ushered in a debate for the structural rebalancing of China, from exports and investment, to internal private consumption. From manufacturing the services from surplus saving to saving absorption, and finally from imported to indigenous innovation. So I teach the students about these transitional imperatives of China and where they're going to take China over the next 20 to 30 years. And then how that fits into the challenges that China faces in the broader global economy in general, and with respect to the US right now, in particular. So it's a course in the transition of China and it's the most popular economics class at Yale on China, and the students are fully engaged. I teach all between 150 to 200 students a year are in that class, a large number of them, maybe a quarter of them are Chinese students who want to learn about China from the Western perspective. I put a lot of time and effort into changing the course every year. I'm in the middle of doing that right now this summer.

JC: You've had this incredible career. We haven't even touched on the banking and financial sectors as well. I would like to ask you in closing: if you could bring the knowledge that you share with your students at Yale and transport it to a mass number of students in China today, what are the two things that you would tell them in how they can secure global future, and that process is inclusive of Americans and other people.

SR: Well, there's no real silver bullet. The realization by the Chinese leadership that the model that worked for 30 years is not a sustainable model for the next 30 years is a powerful realization. And so, if I were teaching my class in China, I would make the same point that I make at Yale, that the pivotal change that began in 2007 that is very much in evidence today is a strategic adjustment that needs to be sustained at all costs. And that the focus on that change should not be reduced because of trade tensions on the United States, or others. I would stress that point emphatically. And the second point I would stress is that the same pivotal change that really underscores my view of "The Next China" is in China's best interest. It's in China's best interest to have a broader economic model that moves out from manufacturing as the factory of the world, to providing services and goods for its own people, for a system that put too much emphasis on rapid growth and not enough emphasis on the quality of growth to deal with environmental [issues] and income inequality. These changes are all in China's best interest and a stronger China that stays the course of this transformation is in a much better position to deal with pressures that are being brought to bear on it by the rest of the world. If you're stronger from within, you're much better equipped to deal with pressures from the outside. If you're weak inside, then the outside pressures strike you when you are most vulnerable.

JC: That's a very, very powerful thought to finish up on— with the strength from within and this ability to negotiate the pressures from the outside. Stephen Roach, thank you very much.

SR: Thank you. Good to talk to you.

Professor Vali Nasr was Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies from 2012-2019. He says the fundamental issue for the the U.S. and China is how both countries view China's changing place in a changing global landscape. In this interview with James Chau, he says he is encouraged that trade negotiations are ongoing, but warns that concrete solutions must be created for that dialogue to count. This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019.

James Chau: Professor Nasr, we heard at G20 Osaka, President, Donald Trump saying that the trade relationship with China is now back on track. Is it back on track?

Professor Nasr: Well, at least the conversation about how the two sides may get out of the current impasse is back on track or they haven't actually arrived yet at a solution that would suggest that we can see a pathway down the road.

JC: So, let's just say you're not sitting here with me, but you're sitting here with Donald Trump and Xi Jinping and you're in the middle facilitating this discussion. What would be some of the solutions that you would provide?

PN: Well, I think there are some very concrete issues that they have a disagreement over, whether it's trade numbers, how to calculate the trade numbers, how to see innovation, transfer of technology, that they ought to actually come up with some kind of a solution that both sides would be happy with. But I think the larger issue is how does the United States see the future of China in the world and how does it see it as a competitor, as a rival, as a collaborator. And also, how does China see its own role in the world? I mean, it's very clear that China is not the developing country [it once was] when Deng Xiaoping started the process of integrating into the world order. Now it's a behemoth. Now it's a giant economically and if it moves slightly. It can create massive waves in the global economy. So, I think also it's important for China to think about what kind of a relationship it wants with the United States and the global economy.

JC: If we look at the economy, second biggest economy in the world, biggest population with the biggest consumer market at hand. Yet China would say in conversation that it's per capita income is still very small- about a sixth of that in United States, $10,000 versus roughly $60,000. What does America have to be afraid of?

PN: Well, both sides keep calculating strength and rivalry in their own terms. So just like China says that America's calculation of trade discrepancy is not quite accurate, Americans think that when it benefits China, China becomes like a poor developing country. But, in the case of China, it's not so much individuals that are driving the economy or private sector companies. It's the wealth of the state, it's the wealth of the overall economy. I mean China is driven much more by state-owned enterprises, by the overall numbers. China, however you calculate its per capita income, has enormous amount of global purchasing power. It has enormous amount of global investment power. Countries in Africa or Asia don't look at poor Chinese consumers and think, "Oh, they're the same level as me and you." They look at China as a major source of investment in their economy, as a big lender, as a big market, as a big investor. So the perception of China around the world is not of a developing country, it's of an economic giant. And I think there's a discrepancy between the way China may see itself and the way that the rest of the world sees China.

JC: What would you like that giant, as you describe, it to do? If it's to take its place in the world in a way that's not just self-serving but genuinely inclusive of others, including the Americans.

PN: Well the rules of the economic order in which China has risen up through and joined the process in the 1970s, late 1980s, and 1989 was a normative, world order that was written by the United States and its European allies after Bretton Woods, after World War Two. Now, China is such a big player that ultimately it has to find a way to play within those rules. It may want some of the rules changed and that has to be the basis of the negotiation. But China now is too big. It's too powerful. It's too consequential to basically either play outside of the rules or to pretend that it's a poor third world country that is merely moving up the ladder. It has really gone up too far up the ladder for it not to be taken seriously. So I think we're at the point that if the world economy is going to work, the United States and China have to come to terms about the rules of the game, that they both can live with and both are willing to support these rules going forward.

JC: When I listen to you, I think of that round hole and maybe that square peg as well. Professor Nasr, thank you very, very much.

PN: Thank you very much.

Dr Ed Feulner is the Founder of The Heritage Foundation, the Washington-based think tank where he was also Present from 1977 to 2013.

In this interview with James Chau, he says it is in the best interests of the U.S. and China to understand their mutual interests, but also encourages them to break from their traditional narrative by talking "concretely" and creating solutions.

This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019.

James Chau: Ed Feulner, strong words, but honest words as well. What do you tell China at this stage?

Ed Feulner: I tell them that it's in both countries' interests, in the interest of the people in both countries, to come together to figure out what specific issues still are there. Don't rehash the same old arguments from 10 or 15 years ago. Let's deal with where we are now. Let's both sides realize that we have to work together because for the next 50 years, these are going to be the two controlling economies in the whole world and we have to get along together.

JC: Is there a way to break that cycle of that rehash narrative? How do you reach out beyond yourself?

EF: That's the big challenge of course. And that's why this particular conference is so important because you have real candor coming from both sides. That's the interesting thing to me– our Chinese counterparts are speaking very frankly, Americans are giving fairly tough indicators of where some of our particular concerns are, and if we can at least define the problem, then we're part of the way toward getting it settled. And I'm a congenital optimist. I believe it can be settled, but let's figure out what the full dimension of the problem is first and agree on those problems. Then say, "Okay, let's deal with them."

JC: You use the word 'tough.' That makes me think of course of that phrase, 'tough love." Is there love still in this relationship?

EF: Oh, I think there should be. Jeremy from the US Chamber of Commerce just pointed out, though, that for the last several years there's been distrust from the American side in terms of what's going on with the US-Chinese relationship. Yes, we all depend on Chinese imports in our own individual homes and all the rest. But the way it's been portrayed by both political parties, by leaders in both the Senate as well as in this administration and the last administration, it's not a pretty picture that's being painted about the US-China relationship. So again, let's get back together, talk concretely and solve some of it so we can move ahead.

JC: Last question here, President Trump, whom of course you proudly support as an American says we're back on track in terms of the US-China trade relationship. Is it back on track?

EF: I think it's back on track for further discussions, but, as he has said, and as I quoted this morning, a bad deal is worse than no deal. So he's not going to settle for a bad deal. And that's why we've got to make sure that when we get together, we talk about specifics and we figure out what those are and how we can actually deal with them concretely.

JC: Ed Feulner, thank you very much.

EF: Thank you.
 

Goh Chok Tong is one of only three people to have served as Singapore's Prime Minister since 1959, succeeding Lee Kuan Yew on his election in 1990 and remaining in that office till 2004.

He is currently Emeritus Senior Minister and Member of Parliament. Stories from his distinguished leadership are captured in the new biography Tall Order, a biography that recounts his journey and challenges as a politician, and the formative experiences that inform his global leadership today. In this interview with James Chau, he anticipates the major trends in a rapidly changing world, and how attitudes towards globalization and opportunities around technology will present new challenges. He also discusses the "misunderstandings" between the two largest economies.

This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019.

James Chau:
Minister Goh, you were prime minister during challenging times and arguably in this particular period of modern history, we live in even more divisive times. What do you anticipate in terms of global trends and how can we best anticipate that and prepare ourselves for it?

Goh Chok Tong:
Well, I think the challenge for us is the changing attitude. There was globalization and I can see signs of some countries moving towards selective protectionism. So there's one train we could watch unfold. The other of course is technological change that's going to have an impact on all of us. And not all countries can cope with the changes in technology, because technology may replace some job. And when people are out of jobs, what do they do? I mean, it is a real problem looking after your livelihood. The most pressing problem now in a sense the misunderstanding or not adequate understanding between the two big countries, the US and China. China is now seen by the US as a potential strategic threat to national security. But, this is based on maybe prejudice, there's misunderstanding. The consequences could be quite worrying for us.

James Chau:
I just wanted to leverage off your two roles both in Singapore and as a global states figure. Singapore could also be perceived to be a threat given its enormous economic and social progress, yet it manages to strike a balance of being friends and partners. How do you negotiate those waters and what would you say are the essential skills to take them that no matter how big or small your country is?

Goh Chok Tong:
That is perceptive because in our part of the world, Singapore thrives on adding value to other people. So we have to be, for example, a very efficient port. But, when we became successful as a port, our neighbors, of course, did not quite like it. Without Singapore, maybe they are supposed to flourish. So we were seen as a threat. The idea of prosperity, but it's the question of a greater pie. When the world grows, more cargoes come to the area, to Singapore. Our port is the biggest in the area, but the airports have also grown. But very importantly, one minister from Indonesia told me, he said thank you very much for your efficient port. Otherwise our goods through Indonesia would have difficulties in being shipped out to the rest of the world. Because as I said, the airports are not so efficient. Indonesia is a very big country, sprawling country, many islands, so the goods have to be transported to Singapore and shipped out. So it's getting people to understand. So we add value to others, that's the key. You've got to add value to the others. you don't take away the idea. The idea, the ability to grow, add value and they also grow. So that's one way I think to get countries accepted. A treat became, in fact, a partner for them.

James Chau:
There is a temptation to look at one of the biggest global challenges today, the trade dispute between the United States and China, two of the biggest economies in the world, and to be limited to that one narrow area where in fact it's much wider and deeper than that. What should we be thinking about in terms of functional thinking and approaches? Not just the trade dispute.

Goh Chok Tong:
There are some differences which can be addressed. In the case of China, for example, China, joined the WTO some years ago as a developing country. They would give China more time, they implemented certain policies, but China is now so competitive in many areas, and so the developed countries we see this as unfair to them. They say they can't compete. So then the term they use now is not free and open trade, but fair trade. What does fair trade mean? It means to give them a chance. So where there are rules that can be changed, the Chinese are on the forefront working with the other members. They say, okay, let's update the rules. And this is important in the area of digital economy, that's a new area, there are no rules there. So I think China should move into that area to say let’s set up some rules on digital economy, competition, what are the rules? And if the Chinese lead and get others to join and the rules should be fair to all. I think these are things that China can do. And to the question of intellectual property, I think China should take the lead. I can tell you this, in the old days Singapore was poor. we were actually copying a lot of our stuff from other people. We were in fact photocopying books and arguing that this is good for the students. I mean they couldn't afford books, but we were actually stealing private property of others. Then, within ourselves argued, we are going to be producing intellectual property. That must be the aspiration of Singapore, not just copying others. So when we started to have innovative products with intellectual property, we started to argue to better have intellectual property. So China is in that position now where China must protect this intellectual property. So again, China can move forward, through the WTO and through the intellectual property organization in the world, then move forward. So that phase should be all over for China. So move forward and then by moving forward you are showing to the others that I'm cooperating with you. I'm not going to steal your intellectual property, but please don't steal mine when mine is there in the future.

James Chau:
In reality is there a way forward in a setting where on top of all the challenges that you negotiated when you were Prime Minister, we have digital eras, we've got the emergence of five G, the good and the bad. We've got fake news. Is it possible for our young people to skillfully have the required set of tools to handle that?

Goh Chok Tong:
Well, I think we have to learn as you go along, there's not really a solution at this stage. So when this comes along, the leaders and the people have got to work on the solution to fake news. The Internet when it came about, I was at one of the early meetings at APAC talking about Internet and the leaders are talking about the positive aspects of the Internet. I warned them, I said that we should also look at the negative side because Internet could be abused by people.

James Chau: You saw it even then. What did you see then?

Goh Chok Tong: I did not see all the reasons for using the Internet. I did not know about fake news and so on, but I know that a road, is meant for good as much as it is for robbers to get away too. So, I just said, Internet, look at the negative part, but I did not foresee fake news, money laundering through the Internet, Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, and so I didn't see all those. But every positive part has caused a negative. Globalization has caused these negative daily effects. So therefore, for the young people, have a balance. When we look at a positive side and control the negative side, that allows the negative side to inhibit progress, to restrain you. So move forward first and then decide what we do with the negative side.

James Chau:
One of your great values as a facilitator is that you're able to see things from around and beyond your independent platform. What would you tell the US and China? They've got very different systems. Does democracy in the Western sense work for China?

Goh Chok Tong:
Well I will say, both systems work for the respective country. Your organization, the society, the way it’s organized, and going forward, they're different. But, what are they for? What are these two organizations for? It is not for the good of the people in charge. It is for the welfare of the people. Then yours is this way historically and culturally and mine is this way, are we advancing the interests of the people? And that's when common norms comes in. I mean human rights. I think both sides would agree on human rights. Of course, one side can accuse the other side of not living up to human rights, and says if I'm not, then I aspire to that kind of human rights. But in China's case, the greatest human rights Xi has given to the people is relief from poverty. There’s about 400 million people in the middle class, but maybe 800 million people now enjoying a good life. In India in 1971, I could see poverty. So that's the greatest human right gift given to the people of China. Poverty, education, health, and so on. Transportation, the ability to move around China. Now that's freedom for the people. One day, maybe, the people here will enjoy this other kind of a freedom which the West talks about, but let China progressi at its own pace. But you must have stability, security in order to have a good economy. I think China is moving in the right direction.

James Chau:
Millions of people have lent and depended on your experience and your leadership, and I trust that millions more will learn how to walk on the road and beyond.

Goh Chok Tong:
No. My experience is that of governing a very small country, that's all it is.

James Chau:
Minister Goah, Thank you very, very much.

Goh Chok Tong:
Thank you. Thank you.
 

Yasuo Fukuda served as Japan's 58th Prime Minister and was also the longest Chief Cabinet Secretary in history.

Under his leadership, he earned a reputation for his foresight in creating eco cities, that in some respects pre-empted the global environmental movement. In this interview with James Chau, he draws on Japan's historical trade relationship with the U.S., the significant pressures it was placed under in the post-war climate, and how both countries identified a way forward. Can a same or similar approach be applied to the contemporary global challenges?

This interview was recorded at the US-China Trade and Economic Relations Forum in Hong Kong on 9-10 July, 2019.