Transcript: Ex-Danish FM Jeppe Kofod & Henry Huiyao Wang

Denmark's top diplomat from 2019 to 2022 discusses Greenland, Ukraine, and EU- China relations.

On March 7, Jeppe Kofod, who served as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark between 27 June 2019 to 15 December 2022, joined the latest session of CCG Global Dialogues, delivering a keynote speech and engaging in a discussion with Henry Huiyao Wang, President of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG).

The event was moderated by Mabel Mu Miao, Secretary General of CCG, and drew both in-person and online audiences.

The video of the event recording remains available on CCG’s WeChat blog in the Chinese internet and is being uploaded to CCG’s YouTube channel.

This transcript is based on the video recording and has not been reviewed by the speakers.

Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder & President of CCG

Thank you, distinguished Minister Jeppe Kofod and our friends here—I know there's quite a number of colleagues online at such an early time in Europe—and senior diplomats, ambassadors, and representatives from think tanks and academic institutions, thank all of you, and I appreciate your presence here. Welcome, all of you.

I think that the topic we're going to address today is very timely, and we welcome Minister Jeppe Kofod on his visit to China and Beijing.

I just talked to Jeppe, and he mentioned he had just arrived this morning. He's still probably recovering from his jet lag, but we have quickly found out, that he's a well-known Harvard graduate from Harvard Kennedy School, where I also spent a year as a senior fellow.

As a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and a senior member of both European and Danish parliaments, Minister Kofod is extremely experienced with 25 years of political experience, deep insights, and strong international, EU, and also national networks. As a foreign minister, he visited China in 2021 and had a meeting with our Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Also, in May 2023, Mr. Jeppe Kofod founded a consultancy firm, leveraging his professional background and networks to help companies navigate the complexities of geopolitics and security. I understand that this time, he is visiting China with a delegation of over 30 Danish business leaders, travelling not only to Beijing but also to Shanghai. This reflects the renewed vitality of China-Denmark business relations, and we very much appreciate your visit.

You'll give us a keynote, and I look forward to a dialogue with you after your keynote. So let's welcome Minister Kofod. Please.

Jeppe Kofod, Former Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs

Thank you so much for this very warm welcome. It is a great honour for me to be here and also in the company of this important think-tank institute and you, Professor. Wang, and I look forward to the dialogue we're going to have.

So I arrived this morning. If I'm a bit jet-lagged, I excuse myself for that, but it's great that I can start the morning with such distinguished company with you.

I was also asked to talk a bit about the future of EU-China relations and the opportunities and challenges in a shifting global landscape. But first of all, let me just say that I'm also coming from Denmark, as you know, as I was introduced. And for me, it's a special year also for the Danish-Chinese relationship. We are celebrating the 75th anniversary of our diplomatic ties. We were one of the first countries in the Western world to recognise the People's Republic of China. And we have, over the many years, had very long and strong cooperation on trade, cultural exchange, political dialogue, and so on. Therefore, it's also great for me as a Dane coming back to China.

As Mr. Wang was alluding to, I was here in 2021 when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and met with His Excellency Wang Yi at the time. Very productive meetings. Denmark also has, since 2008, had a strategic partnership with China that was renewed in 2023. When I was here in 2021, we laid the foundation for that renewal. And I'm very happy for that, because there are a lot of issues. I think we are also going to talk about the green transition that we are undergoing globally, the need to address climate change, digital technology innovation, and, of course, big global issues like health issues. We have also cultural and educational research exchanges. All of this is what we are doing today bilaterally. I just want to emphasise that.

My keynote today is more about the China-EU relations. And let me turn to that topic.

First of all, as you know, we are very significant when it comes to our trade and investment partnership, of course, in the world today. And I would like to focus on the recent years of discussion and cooperation because we only have 10 minutes initially.

When I was in the European Parliament in 2019, there was a new, as you remember, the first formulated EU-China EU-China Strategic Outlook in 2019. From a European side, this complex relationship between Europe and China was defined as a partner for cooperation, on one hand, as an economic competitor, but also as a systemic rival. All these three things at the same time. This concept, this complex relationship has been kind of the dominant discussions over the recent years, with various orders of these three elements. And we can get back to that in the discussion.

But when I was Foreign Minister, I was also responsible for trade policy for EU affairs. Therefore, of course, one of the big issues was, what about our relationship between Europe and China? As you know, as a partner for cooperation, many global problems we had to face together, mentioning green transition but also upholding norms and rules that were laid down after the end of the Second World War. So, our institutions like the United Nations and the values and pillars that it rests on are very important. These things we need cooperation to uphold.

But we're also competitors economically, no doubt because we are in a world where we see the different blocs fiercely in competition with each other: China, Europe, and the United States, and we can get back to that in the discussion. But it's increasingly focusing on who will win the technological race and who will have access to the needed resources. Geopolitics is back front and centre in the way that we operate globally.

We are also a systemic rival in many ways, as I said. We have different systems, different ways of doing things, and at the same time, we need to find ways of working with each other.

One of the key concepts for EU-China relations on trade is, of course, reciprocity. That concept is very much laid down in the policy of Europe today vis-a-vis China. So on investment and market access, what we want is reciprocity. When Chinese investors and companies have access to European markets, a very important market in the world, as you all know, it also has to be the other way around.

There's also the discussion, which I think is a very important one, and I like to be a bit philosophical as well in my introductory remarks, because the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has said it very clearly: we are now looking for de-risking, not de-coupling Europe and China.

Why is that? one could ask. I think it's very important to emphasise behind that there is a deep-rooted belief in Europe that we want to ensure that our economic relations will not be used as a political weapon. And if we are over-dependent on one actor or one commodity or one supply chain, then there's a risk of that could become a tool, a political weapon in disputes.

So if you are de-risking, for Europeans, it's very much about ensuring that we have an economic relationship, China-Europe globally, where nobody can take advantage of that and try to weaponise it against each other. And we have a common rule that was also laid down in the World Trade Organisation, which China, of course, entered in 2001.

So philosophically, I think the risk of political conflict is less if there's not a critical dependence on each other, but where you have de-risked but not de-coupled our economies so it cannot be used as a political tool. I think that's one of the things that I would love to discuss more.

But even this February, you saw that the Commission President, after the Commission was reconfirmed after the big European elections last year, that now the European side is deepening our trade and investment ties with China. I think it's important to continue doing that respectfully to what I said before.

At the same time, we are facing a world order where rule-based, fair globalisation, the respect of rules founded by the UN and the UN member states, and, of course, the Bretton Woods institutions, are under dramatic change. In Europe, we see what happened in 2022, in particular with the full invasion of Russia on Ukraine. This was a blatant violation of the UN Charter, the respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country in Europe. And it's something where we want to fight back because the norms of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity are fundamentally important. There we also have discussions with China on how to ensure that Russia stops the war so we can have peace in Europe again.

Then of course, we cannot talk about geopolitical development in the world without looking at also what is happening in the U.S. at the moment. I wanted to make a few comments on that as well. No doubt, the United States and Europe, through the NATO alliance, is the most successful military alliance in the world's history, and that will continue to be so, I believe. But, at the same time, we see that countries are seeking their own national narrow interests at the expense of cooperation, and we will see that coming more and more.

My own country has a discussion with the U.S. for the moment on Greenland. Greenland is its own country. It has a far-reaching self-ruled government in the world. So even the fact that somebody wants to discuss with Denmark over Greenland is a misconception of how things are in 2025 because it's Greenland themselves that decides the future of Greenland. It's a Greenlandic population. It's not Denmark. It's not the U.S. or any third party.

So what I wanted to say here is that we have geopolitical movements in the world. The order we used to know is under change. There, I think it's important to have a strong cooperation between Europe and China over what values, what norms, what rules should underline the new world order.

And the respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of states is a fundamental one where I think we need to work much more closely together, including that China help Europe and the rest of the world to ensure that these principles are respected vis-a-vis Ukraine, which is now unfortunately seeing that their borders are changed with violence and invasion.

The world order we are entering into, there's been many discussions. In Europe, there's this, OK, are we entering into a three-centric world order with the U.S., China, and Europe? Some believe that this is the trend we're seeing. I think it's a bit of a disregard of what some call the Global South because there are big economies and regions in the world, South Africa, India, Brazil, and so on, which are very important players.

But anyhow, what we're seeing is a shift to something. We're still on the move. We don't know where the destination is. And in that process, we are living in many ways in dangerous times, because if we do not manage this change in the right way, we risk war and conflicts coming up.

So let me just concentrate on Europe just for a minute, seen from the European side. I mean, I'm a person, as you alluded to it, Mr. Wang, that has been in politics for 25 years before I stepped out recently. So I'm a child of the end of the Cold War: the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991 in Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and the whole peace period that rose after that globalisation where we all benefited from enhanced trade. As I alluded to, China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. We believed in a world-based trade order. That order is fiercely under attack at the moment. So that world order is under change.

Europe has believed in this multilateralism as a cornerstone of how to ensure a peaceful world. But now we will see a radical change. Multilateralism is still a cornerstone, but not without a strong, self-confident Europe.

So what we will see now, and this is as dramatic a change as, I would say, the end of the Cold War, is a Europe that now understands the burning platform that it's on. So it has to build up a strong military and a strong, competitive economy.

I can just allude to the Draghi report by the former Italian Prime Minister and also the Head of the European Central Bank, who said very clearly that Europe should invest in closing the innovation gap with China and the U.S., and invest heavily, and I would say, even politically. So there we will also see very tough discussions in Europe: how to unite and become a much stronger political player in the world as a unity, not as 27-plus member states. I think that's something that China has to have a careful look at.

Then I would like to say that this idea of a strong Europe is very important because you also alluded to my background at the Harvard Kennedy School and one of my old professors, Joseph Nye, who is famous for his soft power and power discussions. I mean, in today's geopolitical reality, you cannot have real influence or be respected if you don't have a hard power as well. The concept of soft power, or Europe's traditional transformative power created one of the strongest free trade cooperation in the world, meaning that the European ideas of building markets and the values around them, are still being applied to countries who want to join the European Union, like Ukraine, the Western Balkans, and others. But these concepts of power have to be, I think, expanded, so we still have soft power and transformative power, but also hard power. Hard power means military and also economic power to ensure that we are respected in the world today.

So with U.S.-China relations, I think what we will see is a demand from Europe that China takes much more cooperation with Europe when it comes to upholding rules and norms, including respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a country like Ukraine, but also that the world order we are forming, that the institutions we have in common, which are weakened at the moment—the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions—are not undermined. We have a common interest in upholding these institutions. And I think that's something we should be focusing on based on mutual respect, fair competition, reciprocity when it comes to investment market access, respect over each other's political systems because we have another system in Europe, and understanding how we can together deal with the most complex problems of the world.

I was mentioning climate change, but what we have achieved here together has come down the agenda, unfortunately. But we know we can only overcome existential threats like health issues globally if we work together as countries and regions in the world.

So I'm sorry to be lengthy, but I really wanted to take the opportunity to give this perspective. I look forward to discussions and questions. Thank you so much for your attention.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Minister Jeppe Kofod, for your really comprehensive and stimulating introductory speech. We are having rapidly evolving geopolitical changes in the world. That's the topic we are talking about today. So, I would like to start our dialogue by saying that, for example, I just got back from the Munich Security Conference last month. I was sitting in the audience when J.D. Vance made his famous speech. He was saying that China and Russia are not threats, instead emphasising differences in freedom of speech and value systems between Europe and the U.S.

I was also surprised to see that the U.S. and Russia recently voted the same way on a UN Security Council resolution. Also, just two days ago, President Trump, in his address to the U.S. Congress, mentioned Greenland, saying that it has great mineral resources and that the U.S. should have them. As we know, Greenland is under Danish jurisdiction.

What do you think about the old West versus the rest—or more specifically, the West versus China? It appears that differences between the U.S. and Europe are becoming more pronounced. For example, I was also at the AI Summit in Paris last month, where France, India, China, and over 50 nations supported the AI Declaration, whereas the U.S. and the U.K. refused to sign it.

So the world is becoming less black and white and more fragmented, as highlighted in the Munich Security Conference report, which discussed the multipolar world. When we talk about multipolarity, we now refer not only to the U.S., China, and the EU, but also to Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, and others.

What do you think about the changing U.S. approach—which seems less ideologically driven and more focused on economic expansion, as seen in discussions about Greenland? As a former Danish foreign minister, this is probably a question on many people’s minds.

Jeppe Kofod

Yes. It's a very good question. And I wanted to be very frank and honest with you today in my analysis. The Trump foreign policy as we know it now, and also as we knew it from the last term [is clear]. I was actually a foreign minister in 2019 when he, for the first time, wanted to purchase Greenland. So I had to deal with that issue at the time, and Mike Pompeo was his Secretary of State.

So you're right. There is a new way of understanding the world in Washington, and it's focusing very narrowly of what they call "make America great again," that national narrow economic interest at the expense of maybe rules and norms that were there before.

The Monroe Doctrine has always been part of U.S. policy, but it's been expanded to the extent that even allies like Denmark have always been one of the most close allies in Europe on the security front. We are part of the NATO alliance, and it's important to understand that in the NATO alliance, four out of the five Arctic coastal states are NATO countries. So that's the U.S. itself, of course, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway. Only one is not, and it's Russia. So, we are used to having the four NATO Arctic coastal states out of five working closely together on security issues. So it's a very new and recent thing.

The U.S. or Trump wanting to take control of Greenland is in a way mistrusting his allies, because today, de facto, the U.S. military base and U.S. have access to Greenland. They have the Thule Air Base, a perfect, big military base there, so they can freely operate in Greenland and so on. So it's not like they need Greenland; it's already part of the security planning in Washington.

Another thing, and you alluded to it, is about maybe a new economic nationalism, a new cultural war that is going on in the U.S., and a new way of mixing domestic policy with foreign policy. Like J.D. Vance, when he went to the Munich Security Conference, he was sitting in the room, not talking about security issues between states, but talking about internal discussions over freedom of speech or elections and so on, which are all important issues.

So in my analysis, I would say that we are definitely witnessing another direction of the White House under Trump that could jeopardise the traditional transatlantic alliance. That's also why Europe changed, as I said, radically from saying that the U.S.-European alliance is unbreakable and indispensable to that now Europe has to stand on its own. Also, Europe has to invest more in the military, frankly speaking, to be respected in Washington.

My concern with Greenland is more like if the U.S. claims that it has the right to pursue control of Greenland, what does it mean? Does it mean that countries can disregard national sovereignty and respect for the territorial integrity of countries and then start changing borders? That would be a very dangerous world if we do not respect the fundamental UN Charter.

I noticed that also recently when Trump delivered the State of the Union address, he said very clearly that it's up to the Greenlandic people. I absolutely agree with that. It's not up for us, as I said, for Denmark or for the U.S. to decide. It's Greenland themselves that decide what they want to do. Also, if they want to have independence from the Kingdom of Denmark, which they are seeking, we respect that. It's only Greenland that can decide that.

So a long answer, sorry, but I wanted to say that, yes, it's complicating things because we are used to a respectful dialogue. And in my opinion, we live in a post-colonial world. And I hope that that understanding is also the understanding in Washington.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Minister Kofod. It’s interesting to hear that you already went through with this issue alongside Pompeo during Trump’s first term. Still, many European leaders were surprised, including the Danish Prime Minister, who expressed clear dissatisfaction. Europe as a whole was not happy with the idea, either, because, as you said, after World War II, the international order was built on principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Yet today, Trump has suggested that Canada could become the 51st state of the U.S., and has already the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

So I see Trump has a much larger agenda now. It's consolidating North America and even America. It could have an American Union maybe someday and then withdraw back from internationally in many public goods they provided before.

So now I would like to ask, because you are from Europe, what do you think about the latest Russian-Ukraine war? Basically, the U.S. is talking directly with Russia and even voted on the same point at the UN. Ukraine was not involved. The EU was not involved. As a former politician of a European country, what do you think about that?

I see the European countries are now getting up to have many summits and many conferences, trying to turn things around. But what do you think is the prospect? How do you think we can bring a peaceful end to the Ukraine war?

I also heard the Defence Secretary of the U.S. say in Munich that they don't want to send troops to Ukraine, preferring European and “non-European” troops instead. When they say “non-European troops,” does that mean China, India, Turkey, or Brazil?

President Zelensky appears more open to negotiations now than in the past. He used to say that Ukraine would never negotiate with Russia, even passing a law forbidding dialogue. Now, it seems President Trump has made something happen, only unilaterally. So what do you think about future EU involvement and Ukraine involvement in this, which is the hottest issue still in Europe?

Jeppe Kofod

I'd love to answer that because it's very close to my heart as well. But just one thing on Greenland, because as I said, I was Foreign Minister back in 2019. So Trump confirmed he wanted to purchase, like a real estate deal, Greenland at the time. Then I was foreign minister. I called Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State at the time.

And actually, what we did was we managed to start a process where we had a very constructive cooperation, not only involving Denmark and the U.S., but also Greenland. The year after, in 2020, the U.S. reopened their consulate in Nuuk. It has been closed since 1953. The U.S. put aside money on their budget to enhance cooperation with Greenland, which we thought was very good from the Danish side. And we were encouraging more trade, tourism, cultural exchanges and so on, between the U.S. and Greenland because geographically, Greenland is in North America, no doubt. It's not in Europe.

Therefore, what began as a conflict turned out to be, I would say, a way to enhance cooperation. I believe that the same can happen again if rhetoric changes from the Trump side.

And in his speech, you know, he said two things. He said I respect Greenland. And he said, but we want to get it. So it's still a bit of ambiguity. So let's see.

But you asked about Ukraine. Sorry for this long answer. But Ukraine is, as I said, close to my heart in many ways. It's very simple for Ukrainians. The war can end today if Russia stops its invasion. That's a fact. It's not Ukraine that started the war with Russia. It's Russia that invaded Ukraine. It's very important to underline this fundamental fact. They started in 2014. But of course, the full invasion was in February 2022. I was also Foreign Minister at the time when that happened. And I've been to Ukraine many times, both before the war and during the war.

Today, actually, I'm also chairing the board of the National Energy Company of Ukraine, where we see the Russian daily attacks on the energy infrastructure. So Putin is not only attacking militarily, they're also trying to shut down the country by taking out the energy system. So we spent a lot of efforts on that, too.

I think it's really strange to believe that you can make peace without Ukraine at the table. For me, if I talk about Greenland without Greenland at the table, that will be very strange. Without any comparison, but just to say that it's fundamental that Ukraine themselves decide their own future. Not Russia, not the U.S., not Europe, or a third or fourth party.

How will that happen? I believe that hopefully the parties can be brought together. I think from the European side, Europe has been complaining that they're not at the table. I agree with that complaint, but I think it's also due to the lack of actions from the European side. If Europe had, from the outset, said, OK, we're willing to have peacekeeping troops on the ground when there is a peace deal signed, and that we are willing to uphold a real security guarantee for Ukraine, not like the previous one that was not respected, but a real one, then I think we will be more relevant for the U.S., and therefore we will be at the table. So it's partly our own fault. When Trump was elected president, we knew what was coming, we should have been much more active from the outset.

Now I believe that Europe will be at the table, and no peace in Ukraine without, first and foremost, the Ukrainians, of course, but I don't believe either without Europeans, because as you said, Trump will not put U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine. That's not going to happen. Whether he will put military assets or an international coalition in Ukraine is another question, but no troops on the ground.

I think that what we need to see now is that, well, hopefully Ukraine and the U.S. will sign the mineral deal because that will mean that the U.S. has real economic stakes in Ukraine. So they will have an interest in upholding peace in Ukraine after a peace deal as well. I think that's good. Then hopefully, we will see the next step where the parties will negotiate a fair and lasting peace that will be confirmed by Ukraine. I mean, no one in Ukraine, and not President Zelensky, no political leadership will survive a day if they sign a bad deal where a big part of the country will de facto be annexed by Russia after a legal, violent war. That will be unthinkable.

And trust me, I remember when I was Foreign Minister, many people said back in February and January of 2022, oh, it's just a matter of days and weeks and then Russia will take Ukraine and Kyev. And I asked at the time, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, when he was in Copenhagen in January 2022 and visiting me, what will happen if Russia do the full scale invasion of Ukraine? He said, do you remember Russia? Do you remember how Russia tried to invade Chechnya? What they fought, how they fought? The whole city was almost destroyed. We will fight in each and every city in Ukraine if the Russian comes.

And what did we see when they came in, when they had the full invasion on the 24th of February 2022? They saw that Ukraine was ready to fight back. And I think, therefore, don't underestimate Ukraine. Ukraine will not give up its country to make peace. It will continue until they have a fair peace deal and a real security guarantee—not a fake one, but a real one it can trust. And that's also the only way for Ukraine to fulfil its dreams of becoming a member of the European Union. They want to do that before 2030. They also want to become a member of NATO. There's no agreement on that right now with President Trump, as you know. But the only way that Ukraine can be rebuilt after the war ends is if there's a credible guarantee. I know from being in the private sector there on energy that no investors will invest in Ukraine if there's not a security guarantee over the territorial integrity of what is Ukraine after a peace deal.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Minister. Absolutely, I agree with you. If there's no guarantee, there will be no peace, no investment, and no prosperity. However, I did notice, though, that the U.S. actually wants to freeze the borders and then forget about Crimea.

Would the proposal to send European troops—German, French, Polish, and possibly Danish forces—be accepted by President Putin? After all, Putin started this war to keep NATO troops out of Russia’s border. Now, having waged such a big war, they still have NATO troops on the border. As you also said, that part of the previous Minsk or whatever agreement may not work. But what about if there's a UN peacekeeping force made up of India, China, Turkey, and Brazil? And then probably Putin would say, OK, that's fair. You have NATO troops. You have troops from BRICS countries. Then you have quite a few more Global South countries as guarantors for peace. That peace may be more secure than just Putin reaching an agreement with NATO or Western countries maybe a few days later.

BRICS countries' GDP is bigger than G7 now. So the BRICS countries participating in this peace process, even involving peacekeeping forces, would probably be a solution to get out of this dilemma. Because right now, Trump doesn't want to send US troops, and he wants to send European troops and non-European troops. So the non-European troops are still hanging in the air. That's why I think if they really come to the nitty-gritty of negotiations, then probably by offering UN peacekeeping force from Global South countries, this may work out.

Furthermore, I think China and other countries can help reconstruct the infrastructure for Ukraine. China is still the largest trading partner for Ukraine and Russia as well. China Foreign Minister Wang Yi said today at the NPC news conference that China is still actively engaged in promoting peace and really trying to see a peace deal made. Although the relevant parties have not had their positions fully aligned, they all hope to have a fair and durable peace deal that is binding and accepted by all the parties concerned.

Jeppe Kofod

I think it would be great if there will be UN peacekeepers, including from the so-called Global South. I hate this expression because it's not in the South necessarily. But from countries like China, India, and others, I mean, that would be great. I'm just saying that for me, the most important thing is that it is a credible security guarantee that is respected. And as I said, if the US does mineral deals with Ukraine, they have a skin in the game, and therefore, they would help uphold this security guarantee. So I think that's part of it.

For Europe itself, I don't think we have the troops, frankly speaking, for a large-scale deployment of troops for a longer period of time. We need to develop that. Of course, you see heavy investment now from the European side in defence, but it will take some time before we have the actual troops there to be in Ukraine.

I'm happy that we also look at how we can rebuild the country afterwards. But right now, my biggest concern is that if this war ends with Russia taking territory illegally, disregarding, as I said, the UN Charter's respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country in Europe, what precedence does it set?

So we have to ensure that Putin doesn't succeed with that, because if he succeeds, I fear, as intelligence has also been telling in Europe publicly now, that there could be a risk of first a NATO country or another European country being attacked or maybe even in five years, large-scale war in Europe. And that I want to avoid very much. Therefore, avoiding that will start with a fair, justifiable peace deal with a real security guarantee in Ukraine. If that happens, I'm safer, then I trust the future a bit more.

On rebuilding the country, I know Ukrainian people have a national pride, as all of us have in our nations and states around the world. They would be able to rebuild the country quite fast. And help from China, Europe, or other countries will be very important for them, I'm absolutely sure. And they will welcome all kinds of assistance.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great. I think if there are more countries guaranteeing, and more countries participating in the reconstruction of Ukraine, the world is more secure. If this deal really can be made, then probably NATO countries and the EU countries may not go as far as spending 5% of their GDP on the military, whereas US military manufacturers are very happy about that. Having such a high budget for defence really comes at the expense of the livelihood of the ordinary people. So it's crucial now that we have a peace deal so that if we have more guarantors, and then maybe countries don't have to drive up their military budget so high, and then we can have a more secure world.

So what I'm saying is the Global South and all the BRICS countries can have a more balanced peacekeeping and guarantor role to play. Someone asked me at the Munich Security Conference, OK, Indian, Chinese, and Brazilian troops can come, but you are on the Russian side, not on the Ukraine side. But anyway, people are starting to think about this. Thank you for your comment there.

Now, I'd like to turn around a little bit on China-EU relations. You mentioned quite a bit of that. I agree with you. There are enormous opportunities. I'm glad you have 30-some Danish leaders coming to Beijing this time. Also, we see Germany has a new election. The head of the right-wing party who has nearly 20% of votes actually wants more investment from China. The CDU now is also traditionally quite close with China in terms of the business relations. I would think that the EU doesn't really have to follow the U.S. party line sometimes. If the U.S. and China have a strategic rivalry, the EU would say this is a systemic rivalry.

Trump is basically having tariffs on every country now. He said at his inauguration, that the world is ripping the US off. And he's going to be reciprocal, adding taxes to Europe, South Korea, Japan, China, and everyone. China had an experience dealing with the U.S. on tariffs—we are still suffering from the 25% tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term, and now he has added another 20%. Yet, China’s trade with the U.S. has increased by 20% since Trump’s first term, so we haven't really been hurt too much by that.

With the U.S. withdrawing from the WHO, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the UN Human Rights Council, is it time for the EU, China, and the Global South to collaborate more, so that the two largest economies outside the U.S., China and the EU, can come forward to protect the multilateral system? Otherwise, the world will be falling apart if every country follows a “me first” and “make me great again” policy. Having a law of the jungle is really dangerous.

Do you think the EU and China can work together? Do you think we should revive the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI)? The sanctions that blocked it were placed by the last European Parliament—but now there is a new Parliament.

When Pascal Lamy visited my office in November, he was saying that many European companies have successful joint ventures in China; let's reinvest those JVs back to Europe, to Africa or Global South countries. And there are many Chinese companies that want to invest in Europe, including in Denmark. How can we revive business relations at a time when Trump’s policies are disrupting global trade? We face common threats, particularly the potential breakdown of the global free trade system. It's so important we work together to safeguard and promote trade and investment.

Jeppe Kofod

Well, I mean, coming from a country like Denmark, we are free traders by nature. We believe in free trade and, of course, that unjustified tariffs are poison to our economies. What we see the U.S. is doing right now with Canada, Mexico, Europe, and China, doesn't seem like a very smart strategy if you want to enhance trade and prosperity in the world.

So I agree we could come together. Here, I think it's important [to note that] we still have the World Trade Organisation. There are still some rules and principles which were laid down there. If we can enforce them between us, including Chinese compliance with these rules, I think it will be great.

I know that the U.S. now disregard the World Trade Organisation, and the dispute settlement mechanism is not working now and so on. But I think it's an option for all nations in the world that will have a rule-based trade order. And China and Europe should fight for that.

I think the problem for Europe is that we have been very open to investment and business in Europe. We wanna see the same reciprocal access in China, for example, for European investors and companies and so on in the Chinese market. I mean, China is such an important economy in the world today, and it will only become more important in the future. So having access to the Chinese market on equal conditions with Chinese actors is fundamental.

So I think both sides have to do some adjustments if we want to have the investment deal to work in practice. I also think it's important to talk about protecting intellectual property rights, technology, and so on, that we do it in the right way. Because if not, then I fear that there'll be much more trade defensive measures applied, and that will not benefit the relationship between China and Europe.

So we are, in this moment, as you said, when the so-called Global South can hopefully sign in for principles and open up their economies as well. It goes for China, and it goes for India as well. India and Europe have done a lot. When I was Foreign Minister, Denmark was the first strategic partnership India did with any country in the world on economic issues. Actually, it was of green tech and so on.

So I think we can do a lot together, but we have to have fair rules. And I'm still concerned about that issue, as I'm concerned about the course of direction of the current U.S. administration.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great. Maybe my final question before we open it up to the offline audience. We know Copenhagen had this famous climate summit there many years ago. That actually started to pave the way for the Paris Agreement.

Jeppe Kofod

It was not as successful as we wished.

Henry Huiyao Wang

I know. But because of that, I think that paved the way for the Paris Agreement. 10, 15 years ago, Beijing was heavily polluted, and everybody was saying, how come China doesn't do anything? China was so heavily contributing to the pollution of the world. And now, China is starting to revolutionise. China has many leading companies in EV cars, batteries, and solar panels.

And now the Europeans are saying, you have overcapacity; you build too much. But actually, the UK didn't raise any tariff on China's EV cars. The world is still facing a shortage of green products. Tesla and European companies also manufacture EVs and sell them in Europe. So I think we should have more discussions on how to strengthen the green energy transition.

Meanwhile, President Trump is saying, Forget about that—let’s go back to fossil fuels and petroleum, the old ways. But we have already made progress. For example, in Beijing, half of the vehicles on the road are now EVs, and as a result, we have better air quality in China.

That’s why I still hope that countries like Denmark, and Europe as a whole, can continue collaborating on this green transition. You probably have more experience in this area. I remember when we had five Nordic ambassadors at a CCG roundtable, the Danish ambassador spoke very well about how much you have done to make the climate cleaner and more sustainable.

So I think Europe and China can still work together on this. Beyond the tariff issue, Trump is also dropping his green transition agenda, so it’s even more important for us to stay on course.

Jeppe Kofod

I think we absolutely should. Also, I want to commend China. What you have accomplished—steering the country in the right direction on many issues such as building infrastructure, investing in technological innovation, and modernising society—is truly remarkable.

And I think that's something Europe should learn from. As you know, we are now developing industrial policies in Europe. I alluded to the Draghi report. We need to invest heavily, like China has done in its own modernisation, in Europe. In Germany now—you alluded to the new chancellor—they actually will invest a lot, both in defence, as we talked about, and in their own infrastructure. I believe around 500 billion euros over the next years--a remarkable amount. So I think we can learn from that.

But I still think that when we talk about a rules-based trade order, which is a topic close to my heart because I think all of us can get much more out of it if we do it in the right way, I think this reciprocity is important. If there are state subsidies in industries, then of course it has to be dealt with in a fair way so we'll have fair competition or market access both ways.

And there, I think we still need to overcome some challenges between Europe and China. But frankly speaking, as I said, Europe has to be strategic. We have to have a “Made in China 2025” plan for Europe, which is working. We have to, as I said, have a defence plan now—it's there, “ReArm Europe.” So we will start understanding that Europe will become—I think it's good and needed, unfortunately—a geopolitical player in itself. And there, I really see that we can work on common issues.

You mentioned climate change, and I agree it is a disaster that the U.S. is again withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord under Trump. He also did it in his first term as president of the U.S. But it doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't continue because we wanna live as citizens in clean cities.

I haven't been in Beijing since 2012, and I can see how much has happened on the positive side. So we want to embrace technology and innovation as the solution to the green transition—delivering the decarbonisation of our energy systems and creating a better environment.

That's also why I'm very happy for the green partnership we have, or the renewed strategic partnership between Denmark and China that was renewed in 2023, where it also has a lot of focus on green tech.

So yeah, let's show the world what we can do. And I also wanted to say that I wanted to overcome the division between Global North and South. We have to, as you said at one point, see each other more on equal footing where we work together so these blocks don't become a way of excluding each other and starting disputes that are not needed. Of course, we can have different interests sometimes, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be locked in too much.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Great, excellent remarks. I remember last September I was at the WTO Public Forum. CCG hosted a panel there. we had Adam Posen, President of the Peterson Institute there. He said China, the EU, and other countries should really go ahead with climate, WTO, and WHO agendas, even if the U.S. is pulling out. But he thinks a few years later, maybe the U.S. will come back. But we should not stop that, we should continue. So I agree with you, those are absolutely burning issues. China, the EU, and many other countries can work together.

I'd like now to open the floor, and I know that Professor Berthold Kuhn is from Germany. He's a professor at the Freie Universität Berlin. So maybe you have any comments or questions?

Q&A

Berthold Kuhn, Adjunct Professor, Otto-Suhr-Institute of Political Science (OSI), Freie Universität Berlin

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here and sharing your insights. I've just started a project, I will become the team leader of the EU-China Environment and Green Economy Project. Privately, I've just moved from the Pacific, from the low-carbon city of Xiamen to the Liangmahe River. I'm very happy to see people swimming here in the river, in the Liangmahe River. So, I mean, I've seen the very positive green changes happening here in Beijing because it's not the first time that I was in Beijing. Long back, I was a professor at Tsinghua University, so you see a lot of positive changes happening in the city.

You touched among so many aspects, so it's quite difficult to focus my comments and questions. I will still try to be brief, don't worry. I think at the very beginning, you mentioned that the risk of political conflict is less when dependence cannot be used as a political tool. I quite agree, but at the same time, I would like to underscore that the risk is even higher if trade interdependence is shrinking rather than increasing. The more engagement we have with China, I think, the less the chance for the eruption of deeper political conflict.

Trump has quite some respect among Chinese business elites, but also political leaders. They regard him as a dealmaker. I mean, Trump is probably interested in making quick and dirty deals, and I would like to emphasise that—and I really liked your talk about that—Europe has a checked history in both war and in peace, and Europe has a strong expertise and experience. It has been very much engaged in Global South countries in many world regions historically. So, Europe has very strong background experience in peace deal-making, and I think maybe even more than China recently. Maybe Trump's quick and dirty deals could appeal to the Chinese audience easier than they could appeal to Europe with its checked history and its experience with sustainable peacemaking.

Maybe I would direct my question to Henry, first of all. I mean, did the BRICS countries ever feel that the peacekeeping mission is realistic and that the BRICS countries could agree on a joint mission? I mean, how would the UN react to that?

Henry Huiyao Wang

I can answer this very quickly. I’m not suggesting that BRICS countries would send peacekeeping forces on their own—it should be done through the UN.

The UN peacekeeping force is okay because China is the largest contributor of peacekeepers among the five permanent members of the Security Council. They already have Chinese peacekeeping forces in quite a few countries already. If the U.S. and Russia reach a deal, and if the UK and France agree, then let's pass a UN Security Council resolution to send peacekeeping forces.

The UN peacekeeping force can be composed of Germany, France, and other nations. I'm saying this should not be a separate initiative but rather a coordinated UN-led effort.

CGTN

I have a few questions and we'd like to hear your views on them. Firstly, it's about navigating complexities in EU-China cooperation and this question is for Dr. Wang.

With the EU shifting policies and global uncertainties, what strategies would you recommend for Chinese businesses and policymakers to navigate their complexities, particularly in areas of mutual interest like green energy and technological innovation?

Henry Huiyao Wang

Yeah, I can answer your question also very quickly.

Thirty or forty years ago, when European companies came into China, the best way was through joint ventures (JVs) with Chinese companies, which allowed them to expand significantly.

Now, the German company, for example, is selling more cars in China than they sell anywhere in the world, and then they produce more cars in China than they produce anywhere in the world. So Chinese companies should do the same. Maybe they should JV with European local companies, and also use the JV experience they already have in China to go into other countries.

I think finding local partners and following local rules and regulations would be the way to go. For Chinese companies now, going global has become a trend, but then I would really recommend finding more partners, using global talent, and using global logistic services.

CGTN

Thank you. Another question from the EU perspective, what are the key forces shaping the global order today, and how can China and Europe collaborate more effectively to address these changes?

Henry Huiyao Wang

I agree with Minister Jeppe that the EU and China should have more dialogue and mutual understanding, especially now, as we face a kind of threat from the new U.S. administration. They are withdrawing from multilateralism and promoting a new concept of “make me great again,” which is not the right direction.

I would think the best way China and the EU can collaborate more effectively is to revive the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment for both China and the EU. Let's get that quickly revived, or even renegotiated, and then a lot of problems, as the Minister mentioned just now, such as market access and fair trade, can be solved.

A former EU ambassador came to my office and said, Henry, this is, this new CAI agreement is the second opening up of China. It's better than any deal foreign countries have had. We used to follow the U.S. on many deals. They make the deals, we follow that. This time, the EU makes the deal, and has many new policies and provincial treatments. Unfortunately, this hasn't gone through. So I would really like to see that happen.

CGTN

Thank you. The last question for Minister Kofod. You've emphasised the importance of public-private partnerships in our work, and how can these partnerships be leveraged to strengthen EU-China cooperation, especially in sectors like energy transition and trade policy?

Jeppe Kofod

Thank you for that question. As I said, we have common challenges globally that we have to solve together, like climate change, so decarbonising our economies. And there I see big potential in China and Europe working together on developing solutions for that.

I know from my own country, Denmark, that Danish companies have been coming to China in successful joint ventures. For example, [in the field of] energy efficiency, they have provided more savings in energy than the total CO₂ emission of a country like Denmark.

We are a small country, but it's just to say that we can do so much together if we share our resources. When we talk about environmental issues and climate issues, public-private partnerships are also a heavily regulated area where we need the right policies, incentives, structures, and frameworks to ensure that we will move in the right direction.

There I'm concerned about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. But, at the same time—and China is a testimony to that—clean energy, for example, is often much cheaper than non-clean energy. For example, if you look at the cost of producing electricity out of wind and solar and compare it to terminal production, then you will see that it's much cheaper to do renewable, it's much cleaner, and it's much better to fulfil the climate and environment goals.

So when public and private interests align, I think that's where we should work very closely together.

François Valentin, Schwarzman Scholar, Tsinghua University

My name is François Valentin. I'm a student at Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University. I had a question regarding Ukraine.

There's been frustration on the European side at the deepening relationships between Russia and China during the Ukraine war and lack of pressure being put from China on Russia. Could you perhaps take stock of the actions that Europeans have taken to try and mitigate their relationship during the last two or three years, and take stock of what has been accomplished in explaining the European point of view, and what has, on the contrary, failed to be done?

Jeppe Kofod

Well, that's a very important and big question you're raising.

As I said, I was Foreign Minister when the big invasion started in February 2022. What we immediately did, as you recall, was impose big sanction packages against Russia. That affected the global economy, and in particular, countries in the South, countries that were suffering from lack of access to food. So food prices were rising.

I think we have seen Europe twice within the recent years, failing to understand the needs of the so-called Global South. First, we did it in the COVID crisis when we didn't deliver the medicine to them that others did—China and Russia, for example. And then when the war started, we did sanctions that had terrible effects on some of the Global South countries, where they then started questioning why this policy, which would be [towards] Russia, was the right one. So we haven't been good at explaining this, I think, in Europe, and mitigating the negative effects of the policies.

On the other side, I've been in many fora where Global South countries really understand when you talk about national sovereignty, territorial integrity, respect for borders, and that it's important that we uphold them. Of course, we in the Western world should not be hypocritical, because we have also overstepped recently like in the Iraq War—we didn't respect the UN Charter at the time. We have also shown that lack of respect.

But what is going on in Europe is so devastating, and I think what Europe has failed to explain is the cost of war for people. I mean, thousands of people dying literally as we speak. I've been to Ukraine, as I said, many times, and also recently in January. And it's stunning to see how when you take the train—you cannot fly into the country—the train is full of mothers and children. The fathers are not there. They're in the front line fighting. Many of them are dying just to protect their own country. So we didn't manage to explain the inhumanity of this war and the devastation of this war to people in Europe.

When I was Foreign Minister, because I believe in international law, I together with the International Criminal Court (ICC) tried to mobilise a group of countries that will collect evidence of atrocities done in Ukraine by Russian forces because we want to prosecute it. We want to ensure that there's no impunity out of war crimes, for example. We are also very bad at explaining these things. So there are things where Europe hasn't been able to be forceful enough.

Also, as I said at one point in the dialogue with you, I don't like the notion of the Global South and the Global North, that we have different interests. We need to work together much more. So from Europe's side, we have to understand and work much more closely with our friends in Africa, Asia, and South America, so their agendas are also respected. Because then they would also understand why we have to stop this massive war in Europe that Russia has enacted on us.

Q

Thank you. I'm currently applying for a job at CCG.

My question is very quick for the Minister. I wonder, looking back from now, from 2014 to 2022, during these eight years, is there anything that the EU could have done to prevent this war in Ukraine?

Jeppe Kofod

I said on Day One when Russia launched its full invasion of Ukraine at 24th of February 2022, that this has to be the beginning of the end of of that type of thinking that Putin and his people are showing here, that you can invade another country, redo borders, and get away with it. If we don't stop this thinking in the 21st century, then we will all live in a more dangerous world where strong powers think they can change borders by the use of force.

That's also why we had to—and we did—unite in Europe. If you look at the voting in the UN, a lot of countries follow the defence of Ukraine. But we didn't provide enough military aid to Ukraine to defend themselves. That was the thing. It sounds a little bit counterintuitive, but I will try to tell you why it's important: the faster we can provide Ukraine with the most military equipment they need, the sooner Russia will eventually see that they cannot continue the war, and the sooner the war will end, life will be spared on both sides, and we will have peace coming back.

So actually, peace goes through much more armament of Ukraine. If we just continue arming Ukraine gradually—for example, we didn't give them F-16s in the beginning, and that was a big mistake, in my opinion, things like that—then we will prolong the war, and the casualties on both sides will just be more.

So, in my opinion, we have to be strong and end the war by providing military equipment.

My second point is, and you alluded to it with Germany, I think Germany understands now that in order to have peace in Europe in the future, we need a strong, armed Europe. I mean, I wish we shouldn't spend all of this money on weapons and the military. But unfortunately, that's the precondition to keep peace, that no one dares to start a war again, because they see that they cannot win it. So it's a bit where we are now.

My final words will be, and also to Henry, if we arm Ukraine, and we have troops on the ground—UN troops if it's possible, but I doubt it because Russia at the Security Council will veto this; anyway, that's another discussion—then we will prevent another round of war against Ukraine or any other country in Europe. Because it's not only Ukraine, it's not only Georgia. It's also Moldova. It's maybe even the Baltic States. There's this uncertainty now that we have to eliminate if we want to live in a peaceful Europe and world.

So that will be my final comment. Thank you.

Transcript: CCG's side event within Munich Security Conference 2025

Graham Allison & Henry Huiyao Wang on Escaping Thucydides’s Trap in China-U.S. Relations