Mr Wang Xining, Chargé d'Affaires of the Embassy of the PRC was interviewed exclusively by The Guardian Australia on November 17th, 2021. The transcript is as follows.

Daniel Hurst:

Thank you very much for joining me Mr. Wang.

How would you describe the current state of the China-Australia relationship?

Mr. Wang:
Thank you Daniel for your interest in our relationship. I think this is a critical moment for every country. All of us are doing hard jobs to get rid of the impact of COVID. And given what happened recently on the international scene, there are quite some international conferences: the G20, APEC, ASEAN summits in the Asia-Pacific region, and also everybody is interested in COP26. So, every country has to answer the question: what's going to happen in the next decades?

It is also important for China and Australia to answer the question: where are we going - particularly in terms of our relationship? I think China’s policy towards Australia has never changed since the establishment of our diplomatic relations. We always believe that a stable and healthy relationship will serve the interests of our two countries and our two peoples, and what  China wants from Australia remains unchanged from the time when we set up the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

So, it's quite saddening and disappointing that over the past five years, the relationship has not been in good shape. And there seems to be quite some points of contention between the two countries and between the two governments. That's what we are trying to find solutions for, because we are trying to make this relationship work for the interests of both peoples and both countries.

Daniel:
So, why has it gotten worse in the last few years?

Mr. Wang:
I know there are quite some different interpretations of the sources of the current state of the relationship. I will explain what I have observed. I think over the past five years or so, there seems to be quite lopsided observations, and even ill-intentioned interpretations of China's development, in terms of politics, economy, trade and technological advancements. So, that has led to some ill-advised and misguided political judgments on the role of China in its relationship with Australia and in its role in the world.

Sadly that even resulted in a series of, I would say, negative policies and actions from Australia side against China, which have been executed in a very disrespectful way, also in i would say a ruthless and arbitrary way, which has led to a destructive effect on our partnership that was defined roughly seven years ago.

Daniel:
What actions do you think are ruthless?

Mr. Wang:
I think, because we were defined as a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. So, as partners, we should behave like partners and whenever there's a problem or an issue we don't see eye-to-eye about, there are diplomatic ways to deal with differences as partners should do.

For example, the Australian government’s decision on Huawei, the decisions on a lot of initiatives from Chinese business to invest more in Australia, and the decision on the Belt and Road Agreement between the Victoria Government and the National Development and Reform Commission of the PRC. There's no discussion, no proper negotiation as partners should do.

As partners, we should try our best to get rid of the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the others' strategic aim and strategic intention, but no such effort has been made. And also, you know what happened to our journalists in Sydney - they've been brutalized by certain agencies from your government. So, this is not the way to treat a partner, particularly to treat China.

Daniel:
I think those journalists are now free back in China, right? Do you have an update on the situation of Cheng Lei, the Australian journalist who's still detained?

Mr. Wang:
Well, Madam Cheng Lei is going through a legal process according to Chinese law and regulations. Because she is an Australian citizen, she has been provided consular service from your diplomatic and consular mission in China, and also her legitimate rights and interests as a foreigner have been be guaranteed in accordance with our legal system and legal practice.

Daniel:
The Australian government says there's been a lack of detail about why she's been detained and arrested. Why has she been detained and arrested?

Mr. Wang:
It's in a legal process, and she's been charged for leaking national secrets to foreign entities. So, this is a case pertaining to national security. The details will be exposed to the public according to China’s regulations.

Daniel:
You talked about how partners should treat each other. A lot of Australians would have seen the trade actions over the past 18 months that have been taken against a range of export sectors: coal, barley, wine, seafood, and others. At the same time, Australian government ministers have said they haven't been able to reach their direct counterparts. Should China, as a partner of Australia, agree to talk at ministerial and leader’s level?

Mr. Wang:
I know the media and also the public here are very focused on these issues. But the definition of what happened and the labeling of what happened is something we don't agree, because whenever there are companies, businesses or associations complaining about certain practices by foreign countries, such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy, the government needs to answer these requests. So, it happened there. I talked to the press that there are, up to now, at least 107 cases of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations launched by the relevant Australian departments.

There are only four cases that took place in China. And for some commodities, whenever some defects such as metal residue that's been added, or pests that have been identified in agricultural produce, the administration in China has the obligation to deal with such cases. But in the market, we need to play fairly, and I don't think what the Australian government has been doing in terms of setting barriers against Chinese business investment is fair. Last year, our foreign direct investment in total to the world grew by 12%, but Chinese business investment in Australia went down about 60%, because they've been scared away by what seems to be ostensible barriers that have been set up by your government.

Daniel:
Just on those trade actions.Ultimately, some of them will be decided eventually by the World Trade Organization, but the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, said at a press conference in July about Australia, "We will not allow any country to reap benefits from doing business with China while groundlessly accusing and smearing China. When a certain country acts as a cat’s paw for others, it's the people that pay for misguided government policies." Doesn't this show that at least in part, the trade actions rolled out by China, are motivated by politics and not legitimate trade grounds?

Mr. Wang:
Actually, there is a long list of differences between our two governments, and naturally such things happen between every two countries, even between Australia and – I wouldn't say which country – you would have a list of differences. And the key is, as partners, how we handle these cases.

And the other thing is whether you treat China as a threat or as a partner – because we heard top-tier officials publicly claim that China is the number one threat to Australia, which we don't believe is true. At the same time, there is inadequate diplomacy that's been executed by your government in term of solving these differences. And to make matters worse, the trajectory of the negative moves I mentioned that has been going on starting from roughly five years ago, goes in line with the attack that's been started by the previous US administration against China,both in term of subjects and timing.

So, that is not helpful to have a working partnership, that should be independently organized and executed by the two entities involved.

Daniel:
But don't those comments suggest that there is politics behind some of these trade actions? And is it the case that it's becoming more risky for Australian businesses to trade with China?

Mr. Wang:
Trade issues are trade issues. We handle the trade issues according to trade rules. There are bilateral mechanisms where we can talk about how to solve these problems. And also, the concern of Chinese business has to be accommodated and properly dealt with. There are international mechanisms, as you mentioned, WTO mechanisms. And as we are both members of WTO, we will follow the mechanism and find a solution for that. But you mentioned political moves and political intentions, I wonder whether you could interpret what your government has done in terms of setting up barriers against our investment in the same manner.

Daniel:
I think they'd say it's based on national security grounds. Speaking of that though, there's a review underway about the Port of Darwin. The Chinese company, Landbridge, has a 99-year lease. What would be the consequence on the relationship if the Australian government cancels this lease?

Mr. Wang:
Again, I think business is business. There is a contract signed between a Chinese company and the Northern Territory government. I think the Northern Territory government is very keen to promote further relations with China. And also Darwin is the nearest city to China geographically. People are talking about further collaboration between the Greater Gulf area, which includes Guangdong Province, Hong Kong, and Macau, with the Northern Territory. I know the Chinese company is planning to expand the capacity of the port, which will help the Northern Territory to increase cooperation  –  in terms of scale and intensity  –  with China, which will help the development of the Northern Territory.

And I talked with the people who are running the daily operation of the port, and they are Australian citizens. The most important thing is, I wonder whether Australia can afford to break another contract.  I won't be surprised if the intelligence and the security apparatus would stretch its hand again to a normal business operation. But, as far as I see, it is a very awkward argument about a potential security danger that's been posed by a business operation.

Daniel:
Do you accept it's a sovereign matter for Australia, if the security advice is that it should be canceled, that that's able to be done? Or would there be a reaction from China?

Mr. Wang:
We made response to all the negative moves. We explicitly expressed our opposition to the moves that's not going in line with the position of our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. But, it seems to me, that all these responses have fallen on deaf ears. So nobody in the government seems to be listening carefully about what my government has expressed. And even in certain areas, it seems the tensions are still going on and it's very disappointing.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Mr. Whitlam's visit to China. 50 years ago, there were greater differences between China and Australia, but we managed to start a process that turned out to be mutually beneficial for both sides. And I don't think the model of our relationship in the past five years should serve as the model for the next five decades. And next year will be the 50th anniversary of our diplomatic relationship. People need to think what relationship we are going to bring to the next five decades. Still, we could make the relationship as it is today, or we should settle our problems and go forward to a relationship as designed years ago to be a strategic partnership?

Daniel:
Would China impose some extra costs or some negative impact if the Port of Darwin lease was canceled?

Mr. Wang: 
As a responsible government and a government that has a mature diplomacy, we react to what's been done. And I know the media likes to make a hypothetical analysis of what's going to happen, but we think it should not happen. But when it happens, we have to make a response to it.

Daniel:
Have you made direct representations to the Australian government about the Port of Darwin lease?

Mr. Wang:
Actually, we made representations on all the issues that we don't see eye to eye on. And it's funny that your colleague in another media who had an off-the-record chat with one of my colleagues, fabricated a so-called 14 point list. Because the list should be longer than 14 points. And it's funny to me because my colleague is a very mature diplomat. And when we are negotiating with a government, it's like a card game. And we are showing the media what our cards are. It seems that the media thinks the Chinese diplomats are all idiots. And I think it's an idiot who uses such a fabricated - a misleading “made up” as an excuse to accuse China of certain wrongdoings.

Daniel:
I think the list was real and it was given to the journalist, right?

Mr. Wang:
My colleague was offered an opportunity to explain why our relationship is not in good shape. So she tried to enumerate certain points that your government and my government don't agree upon, but that's not all. And the key is not what happened – what's on the list, but how we solve it, how we deal with it. Is the way we deal with it in line with the spirit of our relationship, of our partnership, or should it be dealt with in a very – again I say – ruthless, arbitrary, and disrespectful way?  

Daniel:
One of the points in the list was about unfriendly and antagonistic media reporting on China, and about outrageous commentary on the Chinese government by Australian members of parliament. Do you now concede that it's not possible for the Australian government to restrict those two aspects, that in Australia, we can't restrict the free press or restrict the comments of parliamentarians?

Mr. Wang:
I think it pertains to different cultural backgrounds and traditions. But this is a relationship that needs contribution from all elements, whether it's from media or from legislature. It is our hope that they make judgments and analysis according to facts. As far as I know, some people make judgments on China based on certain conjecture and insinuations, and not facts. But if the aim is to retain a certain sense of superiority, that is a pathetic psychology, as far as I see.

Daniel:
Didn't China want some sort of movement on some of those points listed?

Mr. Wang:
Sure. I think our job is to do the troubleshooting, right? And we need to discuss with our counterparts in different departments of your government, and try to find a solution for those problems. And the process has been going on. Actually, we have more complaints because there are more cases of rejected proposals from the Chinese business as exposed to the media. I would not identify the names of the Australian business and the Chinese business involved, because it's our culture and our way of doing things, and we still want to give them opportunities for further collaboration. But it seems that it is the Australian government playing up all the issues of contention and making the atmosphere even more sour and bad for further collaboration between our businesses.

Daniel:
In retrospect, was that list a mistake? Because it's been reported that Prime Minister Scott Morrison took it to G7 colleagues a few months back. Was that an “own goal”, in retrospect, by China? Releasing that list, did that backfire, in your opinion?

Mr. Wang:
I think your colleague in another media has not done his job according to professional ethics, because it's an off-record conversation, and it's not a complete list, and it's not something we try to brief the media about on how we will handle these cases with our counterparts in the Australian government. We are still very keen to engage in a very fruitful and constructive dialogue and troubleshooting process to get all these problems solved in the end. So that's to serve the spirit, serve the fundamental interest of our partnership.

Daniel:
Why not resume ministerial calls then? What level is the contact currently occurring? How often do you speak, for example, with the foreign minister or her office in Australia?

Mr. Wang:
We have different level officers talking to their counterparts.

Daniel:
So there are official-level contacts. I guess people hear about the freeze on ministerial discussions, but what happens on a day-to-day basis in terms of discussions between Australia and China?

Mr. Wang:
We keep talking to each other at different levels between officials. As far as we understand, ministers are political leadership - members of political leadership. So for them, we can't organize a talk for the talk's sake. We have to see the results of the talk. Like you see what happened yesterday between President Xi Jinping and President Biden. They are not empty talks, they talk about substance. And there's concrete results coming from such high-level talks.

Daniel:
What would be the precondition for returning to ministerial talks between Australia and China?

Mr. Wang:
First, we need to prepare for concrete results. We need to find a real solution for certain problems between certain ministers, and we need an atmosphere. When you see top-tier officials keep on saying that China is a threat, and Australia may get involved in a military conflict in certain parts of China, this is not a conducive environment for engaging in ministerial talks.

Daniel:
I'm just not particularly clear on what do you want the Australian government to do specifically, in order to allow talks to resume.

Mr. Wang:
The talks may happen anytime, but we need preparation, both in terms of political atmosphere and technical preparation. So, it may happen anytime, but we need a suitable environment and we need to talk about the substance in advance.

Daniel:
So, it would need the Australian government to state that China is not a threat, and that Australia wouldn't intervene in Taiwan, is that what you're saying?

Mr. Wang:
I think not only the government. I think this is the time for every Australian to think about whether China is a threat or a partner. If you believe China is a threat, then I hope you could base your judgment on facts, and on your observation of how China encroaches upon your interests. If you think China may be a partner - and is a partner - look at China and deal with issues related to China as partners should do.

Daniel:
Have you had cause to reflect on China's external actions in the last few years? The Lowy Institute and Pew have both done polling. Trust in China in Australia has dramatically decreased in the last few years. The latest Lowy poll showed just 16% of the Australians surveyed said they trusted China to act responsibly in world affairs. Now, that's down from 52% in 2018. So, what responsibility does China take for that decline in trust in Australia?

Mr. Wang:
Maybe it started from five or six years ago, a very tragic and saddening process that China has been misportrayed as being more aggressive, or being more assertive. Well, as my country grows, of course there will be more interaction, both in terms of political interaction and business engagement with almost every country in the world. And now China has become the largest trading partner for 130 countries, and also the Belt and Road Initiative reached out to over 140 countries. People need to adapt to these new elements, and that pertains to whether you hang on to the Cold War or an outdated mentality, or you see China – or you accept China as a new element in the new international situation.

Daniel:
So, there's no self-reflection there about China's own actions in driving that decline?

Mr. Wang:
We need to talk more. We need to communicate more with other countries, other governments, and people from the other countries. But to be frank, I think before COVID, there were about half a million Australians who would visit China each year. If you ask them, I think most of them will tell you a different story because they've seen China with their eyes, they've experienced what happens in China. So, they would give you a more objective observation of China's sentiment and the feelings of the Chinese people.

Daniel:
You'd be aware of comments that the Australian Defense Minister, Peter Dutton, made to the Australian newspaper about Taiwan recently. Dutton said it would be inconceivable that we wouldn't support the US in an action, if the US chose to take that action. What's your response to his comments? And have you made any formal protest about those comments?

Mr. Wang:
It's not the first time we've heard a similar argument, but I think the public and political debate that happened here, in relation to Taiwan, is not well founded. It seems that all of the debate is based on a so-called possible military conflict across the Taiwan Strait. But I believe people should look deeper into the history and the issue of sovereignty, because Taiwan was reunified into China at the end of the Second World War, when Australia, the United States, Great Britain and China are all allies. And according to the international agreement, that was reached before the end of the Second World War, Taiwan came back to China. So unification was achieved at that time. And China suffered the loss of 35 million people in this war against aggression from Japan, and it's a heavy price to pay for achieving unification of the motherland. And if you study the history of China, you know how people cherish unification, and no government can afford to let a piece of territory go away from the motherland.

Daniel:
But Peter Dutton's comments suggest that Australia would support a US action, if it got to that. What would be the consequences for Australia of making that unequivocal statement of support in a military engagement?

Mr. Wang:
Again, that's a hypothetical question.

Daniel:
Well, he's made these comments.

Mr. Wang:
I think the Australian government should abide by the One-China policy, which is the foundation of our diplomatic relations, and the foundation of any diplomatic relations between China and a foreign country. And today the majority of the international community follow the One-China policy, and recognize the government of The People's Republic of China as the sole legal representative of the whole China. And if Australia really wants to see peace and stability maintained in the region, across the Taiwan Strait, they should try everything to stop the current DPP authorities in Taiwan pursuing Taiwan independence.

Daniel:
My understanding is Australia's One-China policy acknowledges the position of the PRC regarding Taiwan's status. Acknowledges not necessarily recognizes or upholds that – there's a bit of ambiguity there. Have you lodged a formal protest? I didn't catch whether you've protested about Mr. Dutton's comments.

Mr. Wang:
We talked with our counterparts in different departments about the issue of Taiwan repeatedly. Recently, there are several cases in relation to Taiwan that we don't agree on, so we put forward our arguments and my government’s position to our relevant counterparts in your political establishment.

Daniel:
Mr. Dutton's comments about Taiwan and about China more generally, are they helpful to the relationship?

Mr. Wang:
I think that politicians have an obligation to follow the government policy, and also should do their best to make this relationship move towards a brighter future, and not do anything that would lead to an even more gloomy state of our relationship. I remember Foreign Minister, Madam Payne said, Australia wants a constructive relationship with China, then it is an obligation for all the incumbent politicians to refrain from doing anything that's destructive to our relationship.

Daniel:
Are you saying his comments are destructive?

Mr. Wang:
I think they should -  every minister and every politician, and the secretaries – should abide by the One-China policy and should follow the principle that's been set up by the government.

Daniel:
Do you accept the Australian government's statement that former prime minister Tony Abbott's recent trip to Taiwan was just as a private citizen?Do you draw any broader conclusions from that trip?

Mr. Wang:
It's very unfortunate. Actually it is very agonizing to see that such a high-level politician would engage in something that doesn't serve the interests of Australia.I think it serves the interests of Australia and China to stick to the One-China policy, and make our relationship as trouble free as possible.

Daniel:
On AUKUS, China has been critical of this deal, but China itself has nuclear-propelled submarines and is modernizing its military at quite a rapid rate. So, how can you seriously say that it's adding to a regional arms race, because Australia's plan is for at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines, but they probably won't start being in the water till the 2040s. How can that really be adding to a regional arms race when you consider the context, including China's own military expansion?

Mr. Wang:
Daniel, you have a point. I think, as many other countries in the world and in the region, China is concerned about the formation about AUKUS, but I think it is the Australian people that should be more worried about AUKUS, and about the acquisition of this nuclear-powered submarine.

Daniel:
Why is that?

Mr. Wang:
Two reasons. I will simplify all the concerns or worries into two reasons. The first is nuclear safety. You know what happened to Chernobyl, about 34 years after the incident, it still has an impact on people's lives. And you know what happened to Fukushima, and recently there's a collision of US submarine Connecticut. So you cannot guarantee nothing would happen to such a vessel powered by a nuclear reactor.

Daniel:
But doesn't that criticism apply to China too?

Mr. Wang:
Yes. But there's zero nuclear capacity, technologically, in Australia – that would guarantee you will be trouble free – you will be accident free. And if anything happened, are the politicians ready to say sorry to people in Melbourne and Adelaide? We are concerned because we are going to buy things from your Antarctic coast. So, that's why we are concerned about the nuclear safety.

The second thing that the Australian people should be worried about is the nation's branding. Look at the reactions from all over the world about AUKUS, about the proposal of this nuclear-powered submarine. Australia was branded as a genuine follower, a genuine supporter of international institutions and international systems. By trying to acquire a nuclear-powered submarine, it certainly has an impact on the ongoing non-proliferation system. So, are you going to be a naughty guy? People of my age in China see Australia as a peace lover after the Second World War, and a contributor to regional integration and global development. The APEC initiative was brilliant. But nowadays people know that a nuclear-powered submarine is designed to launch a long-range attack against a target far away. So who are you going to attack? You are no longer a peace lover, a peace defender? You've become a saber-wielder in a certain form?

People know this is a partnership formed by three Anglo-Saxon countries, so it's an Anglo-Saxon clique. It shows that certain people in your country still has a mentality of concentric stratification of people according to their cultural and ethnic background. So I think those people who really cherish multilateralism and multiculturalism should be worried, because certain people are still hanging on to the legacy of the Colonial British empire, the idea of Pax Americana, and even trying to pursue “PaxAngloana”.

Daniel:
Okay. So it's been reported that the US is planning a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics next year on human rights grounds. Athletes would go, but officials and politicians would not go. What would be the consequences if Australia joined that similar style of diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics?

Mr. Wang:
We've made good preparations for the Winter Olympics. You know that COVID has set up many restrictions over the activities, but we have tried our best. And it'll be a very good event. It'll be a good event for the sports people and also for the Chinese audiences.

And also, sport is sport. To politicize a sport is a dumb move. It's not helpful to everyone. I think the Australian athletes would enjoy a wonderful time in Beijing and the adjacent cities, and I hope there will be no barriers that will be set up in terms of sport events and also between people-to-people exchange programs.

Daniel:
So would there be an impact on the relationship if Australia joined that diplomatic boycott?

Mr. Wang:
I've not heard any intention from any source that Australia is going to boycott any sporting event. I think people know it doesn't help the sport undertaking in Australia, and it doesn't help the image of Australia as a very sporty nation.

Daniel:
And on human rights, if everything is fine in Xinjiang, why won't China allow unfettered access to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet?

Mr. Wang:
Actually the talks have been going on between the UN High Commission on Human Rights and our relevant department, the preparation is going on for the visit. But also we have invited ambassadors from certain Western countries, including Australia, to visit Xinjiang to see with their eyes what happened there.

The current judgment of the situation in Xinjiang by your government is very ill-advised. What's the evidence about the so-called ethnic cleansing, about so-called camps? It's based on a certain satellite image, which falsely identified a senior citizen's house and even markets as a camp.

Daniel:
But coming back to the question, those talks between Ms Bachelet and the Chinese authorities have been going for quite some time, and she has recently raised concerns that she's not able to report progress on seeking meaningful access, so the issue is around meaningful access. Why wouldn't you just allow meaningful, unfettered access, or is there something to hide?

Mr. Wang:
When you visit the place – because nothing like the Western media has described has happened in Xinjiang – the Chinese government spent a lot of energy and resources on de-radicalization and also on preventing terrorist attacks from taking place again. And we are trying very hard to boost the capability of the local population, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds, to get them more opportunity for economic and social development. But there's just a handful of anti-China entities that have been engaging in telling lies and giving misinformation to people outside Xinjiang and outside China.

So, we would love to see people visiting China. Actually even after COVID, there were still thousands of people from other countries visiting Xinjiang. Before COVID, each year, there were more than 1 million foreigners visiting Xinjiang. You wouldn't hear any story coming from them. You only hear stories coming from certain establishments, certain entities, certain organizations - that's been designed to create trouble in Xinjiang.

Daniel:
Just on the outlook, we've seen the trade actions we discussed earlier in the interview, but iron ore hasn't been affected yet. Should iron ore exporters from Australia be worried about the prospect of further actions?

Mr. Wang:
I don't think any exporters should be worried about normal trade with China, because you see our imports in the first three quarters grew by roughly 32%, and the commodity exports from Australia to China in the first three quarters grew in a similar proportion about 31.6%. So it shows a strong complementarity between our two economies, and it serves the interests to engage in deeper economic and trade ties.

And I don't think it's right to limit our collaboration only to trade, because it's an all-encompassing – a very complex structure of our collaboration. It should involve not only trade, but also investment, also technological cooperation, education, people-to-people exchanges. So you should not degenerate our relationship to a relationship between seller and customer.

Daniel:
One more on trade, though. Would China be looking at ending the unofficial ban on Australian coal any time soon?

Mr. Wang:
I would not describe what happened to the coal as you described, because our Customs Administration was looking to the quality, were looking to the safety of the imports, according to their rules.

Again, I think economic and trade ties between our two countries are mutually beneficial, and there should not be barriers. We should promote our economic and trade ties according to international norms and according to international rules.

I also hope all the barriers and obstacles that have been set up here in Australia against Chinese business will be removed. And as far as I know, there are still people pushing for more barriers, more obstacles, discriminately against Chinese business, which will not be helpful for the improvement of our relationship.

Daniel:
The final question on the outlook. Scott Morrison has said that he wants a happy coexistence as the end point. Is that achievable, and how can that be achieved? How can China and Australia have that peaceful coexistence? Or is it more likely that there's an extended period of a difficult relationship? What's your view on whether we're stuck with this for the years ahead?

Mr. Wang:
Again, I said we want this relationship to be mutually beneficial to both peoples and both countries on the basis of mutual respect, and the economic benefit and the political trust are the two wheels of our relationship. We can't imagine that there will be a very cordial relationship in certain fields without a solid foundation of good analysis of each other's strategic intention and political trust between the leadership. So we need to build this relationship in the coming five decades in a comprehensive way, because we are a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. We can't focus our relationship only in certain fields while neglecting other fields.

Daniel:
Mr. Wang, thank you very much for your time.