 So we have time for two questions, maybe so who would like to ask a question if you Can raise your hand Yes, Nikolas Verron at Bruegel in Brussels and the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC I was impressed by your presentation of the Shift to the left of the Chinese economic policy which you dated back to 2007 And the point you made if I heard you correctly is that Xi Jinping is Departing from the previous strategy of reform and opening up So I'd like to ask you about the Chinese application to CPTPP Which on the face of it and rhetorically is very aligned with reform and opening up again In appearance in the previous panel. We heard Mark Nolan Of the Peterson Institute saying if I heard him correctly That he took the application seriously and he expected it to succeed and we also heard ambassador Lee of South Korea Taking essentially the opposite view, which is that the application was there just for the sake of application But but not for the sake of joining CPTPP. So I'd like to have your view Obviously from the standpoint of both geographical and of your experience Is China serious about joining CPTPP or is it just for show? Thank you Thank you. That's an excellent question. I think What we face with China on trade policy is China recognizing that it has a window of opportunity Given protectionism within the United States Congress and the unlikely good of the United States re embracing the TPP Anytime soon Even though for example my think tank the Asia Society has recommended that the administration begin to do so sectorally Through a recent piece written by my vice president Wendy Cutler the former deputy USTR Which you can find on the Asia Society website and in foreign affairs magazine and only about three or four weeks ago But the Chinese Estimation is that American domestic politics will prevent them from moving either comprehensively on the TPP and Probably impede them from doing so segmentally So I do not see this as just for show I see this action by China as a bit like occupying a Geo-strategic or geoeconomic vacuum debated which has been created by a still protectionist America and To underline to the world that protectionism didn't die with Donald Trump. It continues today So that's at a level of international political symbolism On the substance of it I believe the Chinese are serious If they can get away with it and the reason I say that it This has been the subject of enormous internal analysis by Chinese think tanks Since the TPP was first muted in fact at the end of my own period in political office And I had long discussions with President Obama at the time But the TPP was the natural as it were economic pillar To what was then described as the American pivot to Asia You'd have a geopolitical pivot, but minus an economic pivot and frankly would ultimately fail So for those reasons The Chinese have been researching this possibility for themselves for the better part of the last five years and The Chinese do not put up their hand for a fun. They usually put it up with deep strategic purpose The final point though I'd say is Will the Chinese actually succeed in being accepted? given their current Reorientation towards the left on economic policy To make frankly China more protectionist at home And more mechanist abroad More interventionist at home on behalf of the state And less yielding to international market principles abroad and for China to continue to cross subsidize its major Global state-owned enterprises now with massive injection of state industry funds not marginal but massive the equivalent of 10 to 15 percent of GDP 1.5 trillion in In in dollar amounts. I think it would be very hard purely at an analytical level for the open economies of East Asia like the ROK Japan and Australia to say that China should be accepted of course the critical decision-makers here will probably be Japan and I think Australia Australia has already indicated on the current conservative government that they would not support China's accession. That's partly a product of the The policy of economic coercion currently being adopted by China against Australia But it also I think reflects a wider view Across economists the China is now less amenable to a definition as being a market economy Then it was when we granted China market economy status back in 2001 2002 in order to gain accession to the WTO So I therefore unbalance them skeptical so but the open question is Will the prospect of TPP membership? Enable the remaining economic reformers who are now in the minority in the Chinese system an ability to regain the platform regain a Position of power in the same way that happened after China rented the WTO or had the prospect of entering the WTO 20 years ago to leverage more ambitious market reforms than what otherwise had been possible Well, thank you very much already We're already over time, but they will take briefly two last questions. So the two questions together That is Carl Kaiser Igor Jorgens, and I am sorry. It's finished. So a Carl Kaiser Igor Jorgens and we wind up Carl Carl Kaiser Kennedy School as you contemplate the geopolitical structure that's emerging Could you share with us your views on how you see the role of Europe besides the UK? France with its Indo-Pacific position and the European Union So that's called Kaiser Igor Jorgens. How do you see the Russian rule? That's the question No, more or less. Thank you very much. Excellent analysis A certain is at home means a certain is abroad and that means proletarian internationalism and building up the blocks Shanghai Organization of cooperation the role of Russia in extending authoritarianism against liberal democracy What do you think about that? And where Russia stand, you know steps in to help Mr. to assert himself So Igor if you allow me your first question is very much related to mine about the capitalism The two styles of capital anyway, you you will conclude Kevin and I will add a footnote Are you welcome? in China anymore More you Je crois pas de problème Okay, so You can have a visa Yeah, I have a continued and I speak with Chinese think tank for time And in open forums with the Chinese foreign minister and various other Chinese ministers So I use my think tank capacity to do that whatever the current state of relations may be between the Australian conservative government and the and the Chinese So I contain my autonomy independence and freedom of travel and maneuver But as you can appreciate to be it becomes more and more. Shall we say interesting? Igor thank you for the question always good and wonderful to have a great provocative Russian question at forums like this Which is why I always enjoy my times in Moscow and Petersburg and elsewhere and Vladivostok in recent times Um, let me put it to you in a slightly different way Igor is that and I'm not seeking to be provocative here I'm just seeking to explore a question I think the American policy failure in Afghanistan is Being quite damaging for American global prestige. Now. That's my serious analysis That is someone who as a Prime Minister of Australia a lawly committed Australian troops to Afghanistan over a Long period of time as did the French Republic and others however The emerging challenge in Afghanistan is China's predisposition to Have growing influence in Central Asia As well while not as it were making the mistake as they would see it with a former Soviet Union and the United States in Becoming so domestically embroiled in Afghanistan that there is no way of exit However, China has a number of economic interests to pursue in Afghanistan as well not least in minerals And at a very large scale The open question is can the Chinese prosecute a modus vivendi with the Taliban? Which has eluded all previous external powers Open question given that you know Igor the Taliban is not a single a multifarious entity But I make a broader point here in terms of the Russian Federation China through both the Belt and Road Initiative and through its new Afghanistan strategy Will become a bigger and bigger geostrategic player across Eurasia And the question I have as an analyst not as a politician is at what point does that? Frankly create a fundamental tension with Moscow I know that I'm a Putin's relationship with Xi Jinping is very good But I'm looking at the structural dynamics of where this takes us over the next decade And decade and a half as China rises in Central Asia BII digital Silk Road plus Afghanistan and the rest second response is to the point raised About the role of the European Union Europe more broadly and I think I've got the question right in relation to as it were China strategy I have a view about this which is not shared by the current conservative government in Australia apparently And that view is that Europe matters in a fundamental way And I reason I say that is not because I'm you know, it's a urofile as you already heard I speak very bad French But The truth is when the world is looked at through the lens of Beijing They see a number of locus of power They see primarily the United States and its Pacific allies then they see The European Union led by Germany and France And then they see Mother Russia for historical Reasons going back to Peter the great the whole problem of the non-resolution the border until frankly Gorbachev and Dunn and also a Combined community of interest with the United States In many respects there for geopolitically Europe and the European Union represents the swing state in China's perception of global geopolitics for the next decade Therefore where Europe goes is really important And one of my big critiques for example of the Australian government's recent handling of the so-called orcus arrangement including the Unilateral cancellation of the submarine contract with France and the French provider is that it completely ignored The significance of France the significance of the European Union In the future direction of global as it were China strategy If Europe led by France and Germany is in the Indo-Pacific Frankly that is better for all countries in terms of re-establishing a future balance of power with China To ignore Europe and to ignore France and frankly to insult them. In fact it heads in the reverse direction So I have an on this question of you which is that Europe is central to this equation. It is the swing state Maybe not in pure military terms But it is the swing state. I think in foreign policy terms and certainly in global economic terms. I'll leave it there Thierry Thank you very much. Kevin. I think we are going to stop here best wishes And we all hope to see you soon In person somewhere Goodbye. I'll be at home on any. Thank you