Transcription
Or has it been America that has been containing China? And if somebody want to contain you, what are you going to do? Lie down and say rape me? What do you do? Rather, my question is why were the Germans there in the 19th century? Why were the French, the British, the Americans, the Russians? Why are they there? I can fight it for you. It's historic fact. If you have a problem with facts, then end of discussion. So, China say, "Put yourself in the Chinese position. You guys messed it up in the Clint in the Carter administration, in the Clinton administration, in the Bush 2 administration, and now you have to find somebody to blame, and so you blame me. Why should I listen to you?" Do you know that they tap telephones before 1997 by the British regularly? Even the list of names came up. One of them is on my board. So you think the bridge are saints? Fore speech. for Mr. Chan. A few weeks ago, our Beijing correspondent wrote in a Spiegel cover story about China, "This is the end of an era in which the global centers of power were clearly defined and the leading role of the US has never been questioned." Would you share this analysis?
>> Would I share this assessment?
>> Mhm.
>> First of all, you have 1.38 billion people in China. Caught 1.4. They were very poor 30 some years ago. So for them to seek a better living is a very natural thing for anybody anywhere in the world. And after 40 years of pretty bad history 50 60 70 80s they finally figure out and decide to change their ways with the help of Dang Xiaoing. And so the rise of China is in is an inevitability. As Henry Kissinger says, for 3,000 years, China was at at the height of human civilization. When Europeans, not my word, Henry's, when Europeans were still living in caves, China was already at the height of civilization. And that's true. Now the last 200 years, China was really out down and out. So much so that Hong Kong was taken by Britain from 10,000 miles away. And so for China today to rise is an is an inevitability back to the trend line of history of 3,000 years. Could 200 years of bad history reverse 3,000 years of glorious history? Probably not.
>> But what he was talking about was not just economic growth. We have been used to economic growth in in incredible figures in China for destinies now. Um what he's talking about is that in addition to these amazing economic growth, there is now a new political ambition which became visible for just some time ago. So I think uh when he was speaking about the end of an era uh this was more in a political or geopolitical um aspect meant it. The reality of human history is that you can never totally divorce economics from politics. Economics will always bring political power and political power is necessary to keep your economic growth. So get used to it. When you have a big country like China, 1.4 billion people rising economically, it is absolutely natural that political power will accompany the economic power. If not, you will not be able to maintain that growth. I cite you with an example. China, what 20% of the energy need is imported right now? Not quite that much, but very soon it'll be 20%. So, how many of you have watched a movie called Captain Phillips? Tom Hanks. You know that movie? Good. Young people have watched it. So, imagine a Chinese ship, a tanker coming out of the Gulf of Hamoose, met some Somalia bandits. They couldn't tell the difference between Captain Phillips and Captain Chan. And they go after the Captain Chan ship. What are you going to do? How do you protect your energy security? Would you call the seventh fleet of the United States and say, "Please help." Don't forget 1996, two aircraft carrier from the United States, seventh fleet navy pop outside of Taiwan and there's nothing. Clinton sent them there. There's nothing China could do. In 1996, that woke up the Chinese and say, "Wow, there's just two battles uh two aircraft carriers from America." And America has 14 of them by the way. Two of them, the whole of China is can do nothing. And so would they call the seven fleet if they mistake you for Captain Phillips? So no choice but to have a navy in order to protect your security of energy. Right.
>> Sure. But in the west we've got the impression that now from the need of protection having a navy an army there is a new political will under Ji Jinping to play a certain role on on an international level. Is there any moment for you a specific moment you could pinpoint when these political ambitions uh of China became clear in the in the near past? I don't think that you can pinpoint a time. Perhaps the 1996 two aircraft carrier sent by Clinton, President Clinton was as close to it as ever. That woke up the Chinese. You have no choice but to protect your own economic interest. But that said, China is evolving gradually economically and the political and military need to protect your economic interests will grow together with the economic rise. So I the question rather is should be posed to the United States. What kind of relationship do you want to have with China? If you want to have good relationship with China, China can easily become more less more like uh Japan. Although by the way, Japan has the second largest defense budget in the world. Okay. So, it's up to the United States what kind of a world of tomorrow you want. China is just doing what is necessary.
>> We got the impression that last autumn something happened. So Ronnie, was that 19th party congress was that a watershed in the history of China in the sense that you know we have returned to our rightful um sort of stature in the community of nations and we're no longer um going to stick to that policy of um you know reluctance and and hiding our true intentions.
>> The answer is a very simple one. Dang Xiaoing said that meaning that we have to hide ourselves don't stick out your head right just buckle down and do your own thing that is at a day and age when China was very poor its reliance on international affairs is very limited so of course you do that don't cause trouble but as I said now two things happen number one China's economy is so integrated with the rest of the room energy as I mentioned also there's food security and so there is a need that stems from economics number one number two you have the United States the United States everywhere the Chinese term Africa Latin America Middle East everywhere you go America just slap you on the face that is just a fact just check history over the last 30 years in particular the last 20 years. So the Chinese say hey how do we defend ourselves? We have no choice but to take measures that is commensurate with our economic prowess today.
>> So so the fact that he heinping enunciated that doesn't mean that it happened that day. It's such a simple-minded way of looking at things that it happened that day it changed everything. No, there is 30 years of economic development before that that gradually drive China into a position where is so totally dependent in the rest of the world and America acting in its own way that the Chinese feel very threatened. So eventually you have no choice but to have a statement such as what Xi Jinping has said.
>> So it's Chinese foreign policy as you said about economic interests. It's also about containing the US. I'm trying to paraphrase you here, but it seems to me that there is also an additional element. What he said at the party congress was that he believes it's high time for China to transform itself into a mighty force that could lead the world on political, economic, military, and environmental issues. So, could you tell us what exactly he has in mind? What are those projects that he's talking about?
>> You know, you mentioned about China containing the United States. Does China have the ability to contain the United States? Or has it been America that has been containing China? And if somebody want to contain you, what are you going to do? Lie down and say rape me? What do you do? You have to do what is necessary for your own people. Of course. So I think you asked a wrong question.
>> It is not China who is containing the United States. It's the United States who is trying to contain China.
>> Point taken.
>> So China have no choice but to react. Respond. Then to your other question about what exactly what it means. Well, if you're a big guy like China, there are certain responsibilities.
>> Mhm.
>> And in fact, a lot of people are accusing China today for not taking enough international responsibility. So, China tried to take some in international responsibility. Then you come around and say, "Hey, hey, hey, what's your intention?" No win situation. Such is the world. Get wake up, grow up, get used to it. That's the real politic like it or not. The only thing you can do is be strong enough to protect yourself economically, militarily, and otherwise. Right. Right. So, China is doing any any other country would do except that China is a big country. I walk into any room, nobody notice. I'm 1 m six. Nobody would notice me. But if um Yao Ming, you know Yaoing 2 m 26, the basketball player, NBA, he walk into any room, he'll be noticed. Like it or not, China is Yaoing. 1.4 billion people. So whatever they do is in the limelight. They cannot hide like I can. So get used to it. There is a LeBron James, Yang Ming, Shak Neil in the world scene today.
>> And if I were to press you to give us three important projects, be it in the realm of politics, be it in the realm of military engagement or economic uh in the economic field. What would those three projects be?
>> Projects >> in terms of China. I mean, what what was what was he talking about in concrete terms? I would say number one energy security number two number two food security number three be a respected member of the international community that would be my three any problem with that
>> I didn't get your point are you denying that something visibly changed in autumn during this 19th party congress or would you share the fact that um Jinping which with what he said there sure there is a development leading to this point but there was something really said and and and heard um which wasn't said and heard before would you agree on that or not
>> If there is something I don't know what it is because America has been moving in a particular direction now for what 15 20 years if you like containing China. So I suppose you can cross a threshold.
>> Mhm.
>> And get to the next phase. Is that the case? I don't know. What do I know? But what I do know is that there has been a gradual deterioration of the relationship between the United States and China. Mhm.
>> And the reason is very simple. United States want to contain China.
>> Okay.
>> So you you have to do your best to protect yourself. That's all. the an American journalist uh from the New York Times um but being also a correspondent in or being correspondent in Beijing, Edward Wong just wrote um this month that from trade to internet, from higher education to Hollywood, China is shaping the world in ways that people have only began to grasp. What is your impression? Do you think the West is aware um enough of these epoal changes um happening? Whether they are or not is one issue. What is changing is in actuality is another thing. Years ago, I begin to I gave a speech that says that by China's being weak and out of the international community because they were so poor and communistic, foolishly, a lot of internal strife and problems. They deprive mankind of 20% of the human ingenuity, creativity, intellectual prowess in the world. China is about 19 20% of the world's population, right? And so you never see anything you How many of you have watched a Chinese movie 20 years ago? How many of you have heard of a Chinese artist or a Chinese musician? Hardly. Because China was poor and out of sync with the rest of the world. But today, as China is economically integrated into the global community, as it gets a little wealthier, surely it will unleash the creativity and artistic expression of 1.4 4 billion people. In that sense, you will be watching movies from China. You will be listening to Chinese artists playing. You will be going to galleries with Chinese painters. These are inevitable things which I think is wonderful. Why not? So I think that um China will no question contribute much more to the global community in many many fields. Let's change a little bit the topic for a country that cames um the word social in its states doctrine social issues um appear somewhat absent from Chinese policy imaginations of great power status.
>> Um what do you mean by social?
>> Social social to be to to behave in a social socialistic
>> way. They're not behaving in a socialistic way.
>> That's my question.
>> President Chi also vote that China would be making greater constitutions contributions to mankind in in the coming years. So what could this be? Well, as I mentioned to you, some Chinese movie will likely win the Oscar one of these days. That will be a contribution.
>> Mhm. One
>> I listened to Daniel Borbomb with uh with uh Dr. Paulson the other day and I saw him over breakfast the next morning at the same hotel. I almost went up to him and asked, "Have you heard of a young pianist by the name of Wang Yu Ja?" Any of you have heard of the pianist by the name of Wangu Ja?
>> No.
>> No. You will. She records for Deutsche Gramophone. She was a Gilmore young artist recipient uh uh 2012 or something like that. So you will be hearing these names. There is a student of mine in Berlin by the name of Ningfong who is a violinist. Last time I heard him play was in the rat house here in in in Hamburg when uh Hammer Schmidt was there and um and uh the then uh premier of China uh when Jaba was there. So you know they were contribute in many many ways
>> but these now you are you are telling about cultural or art um or music I mean there are still other it's it's beautiful and necessary absolutely but there are still other great responsibilities and such as such as
>> um being making the build world a better one. Um
>> good
>> doing your part to to have a clean environment.
>> Good.
>> Respect um respect things you're not respecting perhaps up to now in in China.
>> Okay.
>> Mhm.
>> Let's take some of those as an example.
>> Yeah.
>> Who have been more contributing to a African nations in the last 20 years?
>> Mhm. The Europeans were colonialist in the old days. I made a mistake of saying to the king of Belgium one time, I use the word Congo. The Chinese just traded with Africa. They have their problem. I know that. Especially the private companies. The stateown enterprises are far better, by the way. And so the model of economic development that China has just underwent in the last 30 years in my opinion and that of many economists is far more akin to the condition of many developing economies such as in Africa and in other parts of the world. And so China can be a great model for a lot of these economies to learn from
>> for the African economies.
>> Yes. Or in poorer economies in general. You talk about the the green uh the environmental issue. In 1974 when I was entering MBA school as you mentioned um Nora uh I was in Southern California Claremont Graduate University and I was driving up the hill. I cannot see the hill in front of me because in 197374 Los Angeles was such a disaster
>> in the environment. I have photograph here 1952 London remember that
>> people have to wear masks on the street. So 1952 Britain, 1977 7273 Los Angeles, now you have 2017 China. Economic development will produce a lot of terrible effects to the environment unless you are really enlightened. But it's not enough to be enlightened. You also need money. George Schultz asked me, you know, George Schultz, the former secretary of state of Ronald Reagan, asked me maybe 15 years ago, how come China does not build electric cars or electric cars? I said, good, wonderful idea. 15, 20 years ago, China does not have the technology even for combustion cars, let alone electric cars. So I said, George, if you want China to do that, who's going to pay? 15 20 years ago China was poor. You want them to build all electric car and at that time electric car are not as efficient as it is today. Are you willing to pay? I shut them up. If the west want China to take care of the environment when they were still poor, who's going to pay? Now, let me tell you something also. Today I can assure you the leaders in Beijing are far more enlightened than the leaders in Washington DC concerning the environment. Now let me tell you something also. Let me tell you also something you know the US green building council they take care of building make sure that they are green right?
>> Mhm.
>> The first shopping center that has gold standard of US green building council. What country is it?
>> China.
>> Does it start with a C? Yes.
>> Second one, China. Third one, China. Fourth, fifth, sixth, China.
>> The fact that they're all done by my company is coincidental. Okay.
>> I think that point is definitely taken, Ronnie. But let's come back to the sort of with great power comes great responsibility thing. Um, you talked a lot about the environment and what China does to to protect it. A different issue that comes to mind is migration which is a global concern. Now, could you imagine that China takes in refugees from say Syria or other parts of the Middle East or even closer to home maybe from from Myanmar? Is that an issue where China could also show responsibility?
>> First of all I'm not sure if anybody have asked. Why don't you try? So if they did, what would be China's response?
>> I don't know, but I do know history. A thousand years ago, there were tens of thousands of Jews at that time, refugees. Where did they end up? Nobody took them. China did. 500 years ago there were 300,000 Arabs in southern China. What did China do to them? Welcome them. In fact, sorry to mention this, but in Second World War when the Jews were persecuted in this country, the Brits did not take them. They travel all the way to Hong Kong. They met a British colony. Don't accept them. They went to Shanghai. China took them. The first place that somebody will take the Jewish refugee
>> was China.
>> So that's an historical example and that's much appreciated. But let's talk about the present. What
>> that's why I suggest you ask them if they would take them
>> because China is very big. China is a most populated country in the world. Will they accept? I don't know. I know what your country would do. I don't know what China would do.
>> What would you advise China to do?
>> Depends on the situation. Hypothetical questions are not as meaningful.
>> Still, I don't know. I really don't know the answer. So, all I can do is tell you what history has been.
>> Mhm. The title of these discussions is um the world in disorder or world order under pressure and I think there is enormous amount of uncertainty regarding the current world order but there are some things um perhaps we can agree on. One is China has arrived um or is in the process of arriving on the great power stage. The second is the western dominated order is changing is in crisis possibly crumbling. Do you see um a relation between the two points? Is perhaps one point um favoring the other one?
>> What do you mean by one point?
>> The second one of the western world in this order um making the role of China on the international scene even bigger than it was possible before. Whether the west is in disorder or not, the rise of a big country like China, no choice will change the world order. You don't need to intentionally change anything. Your presence will change everything. Today's trade of China is about the same as that of the United States. So the two of them has trade of what 4 trillion 5 trillion a piece import export add together and so you know when you are that big you will change the world whether you like it or not. The answer rather the question rather is is the rest of the world willing to accept that 1.4 billion people want to better their livelihood. Is that legitimate? So the question should not be addressed to me.
>> The question should be addressed to ladies and gentlemen in the audience. What is your impression? How is the west reacting to this rise of China and to its will to to play apparently a new role on the political scene? I have my worries and the reason is the following. The west have been strong for the last 400 years, 4 500 years since renaissance and China has been re waning for the last two 300 years and it is never easy to accept a new player and today the west is very ideological in particular sorry Thomas Germany. I talked to journalists from Sud Deutsche, Frankfurt, Gam and uh and the French wherever. No other journalists are as ideological as that of the German newspaper that I know. I never talked to DBO bit. Maybe you're better at not at all.
>> But what but whatever whatever it is, you know, let me tell you this. I'll answer it this way. I I was in Frankfurt. I was in Hamburg one time and Angela Merkel was speaking and four or five times in her speech she said shared value shared value. Helmet Schmidt was sitting on stage with her. I was sitting on the first few rows. I raised my hand to ask a question when it's Q&A time. Of course, they would not pick a China man. So I was not picked but let me tell you what my question was and I told Hammer Schmidt later I said my question was Chancellor Merkel you keep using the word shared value. I am I live in China. Am I supposed to share your value? By saying so now, no one is suggesting that you should give up your value. By all means, keep your good value. But by saying so, you draw a line on the sand. I am on this side. You may be on the other side. If you don't share my value, you are not one of my own. Keep your value. But why say it? By saying it, you are dividing the world.
>> Good.
>> I think we will speak about the Chinese policy to uh impose values or or to have a free discussion in Europe.
>> We never impose it outside of our border.
>> Yeah. No,
>> we do.
>> Yes.
>> The West do.
>> Mhm. Can you learn not to impose your value on other countries
>> that perhaps there are values to share.
>> Ronnie, talking about values, imposing values. Um, let's let's look at the role that the US is currently playing. A country that you said is among the most self-righteous countries in in world history. Um, at the same time, what we see in in Washington right now is a pull back from Washington's international responsibility as the leader of the free world. You spend a lot of time in the US yourself. Um, you're engaged in a lot of think tank activities in the US. What is your sense? Where does Washington stand these days? And also, how is that stature perceived in in Beijing for that matter?
>> First of all, let's not blame Donald Trump for everything. He should be blamed for many things, but not everything. Isolationism in America did not start with Donald Trump.
>> In fact, I asked the following question. All of you know the origin of the United States 1776 and so forth. Was America founded on internationalization
>> or was it founded on isolationism?
>> Yeah. Think about it. What's Monroe doctrine? Right. 1820ome. All those tells us that America from day one is an isolationism country, not an internationalism country. The fact that you and I live our whole life in the postw World War II era where America was originally reluctantly pulled into the international scene does not mean that America historically was internationalized. is an internationalism country. In fact, roughly only onethird of its history, particularly after dragged into the second world war, is China is the United States an international list. So for America to go back to isol isolationism should not surprise any of us. And no other country that I can think of
>> can survive as a is as a isolation isolated company country. United States is the only one. Somebody said oh maybe Russia can. I said no Russia cannot. Russia may not need to import anything but it need to export gasoline. I mean, gas natural gas. So even the Russia cannot be totally isolationist and survive. The only country that I can think of is the United States. Two oceans on two sides, small Canada on the north, Mexico in the south, not a threat to Russ to the United States economically or militarily. So America can easily go back to isolationism. And I do worry that America has that tendency always. And so let's not be too surprised if America moved toward isolationism. I am not I don't like it. But what can I do? And I do fear that America, especially now with Trump in the White House, may be moving the country further in isolationism, which I don't think is necessarily good for the for the world.
>> And that means that China has to take on more responsibility, fill that vacuum.
>> Well, China never want to be number one because China always was number one for 3,000 years. Then the last 200 years become number nothing. Couple thousand British soldiers took over China. In Shanghai where my mother grew up in Shanghai in the parks there's a sign that says no dogs and Chinese. This is in your home. What what would you like Britta? You go home in your bedroom, there's a sign that says no dogs and Britta. That's exactly what
>> the colonialist did
>> to China. And so, you know, China has this terrible history of the last couple hundred years of under oppression by the West. 22,000 soldiers in 1900 eight nations defeated the whole of China from thousand Europeans mostly except the United States. So China is today just want to be back to the global scene as a responsible and respected member of the international community. How much responsibility they you want them to take? It depends. So far they are the most uh businessoriented country that I know. They try to keep their hand off all the politics and so forth. Middle East they try to get out of it. They don't want to touch it. Right? Do you want China to take more responsibility? If you do then let me assure you somebody will say see China is ex is overextended itself. It exerting its influence around the world. So the Chinese say to hell with it. No win situation. We just do what we want to do.
>> Um those who are visiting China these days um are and even if they can't read Mandarin, they um have to consider that there are a lot a lot of books and written works on the end of the West. Would you subscribe to this theory? Are we already living in a kind of postwestern order?
>> Not at all. You cannot prevent somebody from being foolish, especially on the internet. You have foolish people in this country. China has tons of it. Just that they have many times more people.
>> We're not assisting yet. Well, Ronnie, if I may, since we're talking about, you know, China's rise or China having risen to great Paris status, here's a question that that I received from the audience, and let me read it to you. Given China's treatment of Uggers, Tibetans, and dissident, do you sympathize sympathize with those who fear the rise of China? Well, if you are the weaguers, I can certainly understand because of historic reasons, the northwestern part of China, Sing Jang Province in particular, has always been a mixed area between the Eggers and the Han people, which comprise 92% of the Chinese population. It has always been a mixed area. My sister-in-law come from there. And so but mind you about something and that is Singinjang province together with Tibet has always been contested by the Russians, the British, the French, even the Americans and certainly the Germans as well. The great game of the 19th century. Why is that the case? Well, everybody is after something either defensively or offensively. There's a lot of natural resources in that part of the world. Most of the big rivers in India start from Tibet. And so the great game now you say what are why are the Chinese you know in Sing Jang province and Tibet province because they have been that way for the last couple thousands of years. Rather my question is why were the Germans there in the 19th century? Why were the French, the British, the American, the Russians? Why are they there? So such is human affairs. China is no saint. Neither Americans nor British or French nor German. Sorry. Nobody is a saint. Everybody is after his own interest.
>> So there are reasons to be concerned about China's rise. That's what you're saying.
>> Of course there is. Who would be so naive to think that a big guy like China with 1.4 4 billion people rising people will not be worried. Right? So the question is not whether what I do object to is irrational fear.
>> Fear is understandable. Irrational fear is terrible. I asked some questions in the last three and a half days since I've been in Germany and I've been talking to a lot of think tank people. I asked them simple facts and they don't know the facts and yet they are so shall I say irrationally fear of China. Let's get the facts right first. talking about getting facts right, here comes your favorite question, Ronnie. Let's talk a little bit about the South China Sea. Um, which is for all intents and and purposes one of the flash points not only between China and its its neighbors, but also in China um in Chinese American relations. Now, you know what what a lot of people find hard, not only in the West, but also in China's neighborhood, is to square that rhetoric of China's peaceful rise with actions in the South China Sea. Um, land reclamations, building military bases on those artificial islands. How does that go together?
>> Very simple. First of all, Japan in 1945 has to give back all the territory that it has taken from its neighbors. Who did Japan gave all those islands back to Spratley and Parasel? Who to
>> China?
>> And that is the Chinese version of history.
>> No, that's not the Chinese version. That's historic facts. The United States 7 fleet accompany the Chinese whatever navy that they had at the time. It is you you want the name of the captain of the British of the American ships that sailed in to protect the Chinese Navy. I can find it for you. It's historic fact. If you have a problem with facts, then end of discussion. The fact I I go to America a lot. In America, you talk to anybody who was in the know in Washington DC, they would know that those islands were all given back to China, escorted by the 7 ft navy of the United States. Why? In the 50s, they negotiated with the North Korean. At that time, they were buddy buddy, good friends. They gave some of the islands to the Vietnamese. The rest of it lie there for 70 years. Why is China not do why did China not do anything for 60 60 years until now?
>> Why?
>> There's island north of Taiwan only I don't know how far it is. I forgot very close. It has been disputed. It's called the Delu Island or the Japanese call the Shang Senkoku Island. The Chinese call the Delu Island in the Cairo declaration at the end of the second world war. That island together with the whole of the real cube were given back to China. Changai the leader of China at the time were busy fighting Maadong the communist. So he said to American let's co-administer it. Then he lost a war to Maadong. Do you think that America will give it to communist China? So America took it in 1972 if I get my if I get my dates right gave all that to Japan. China contested. So they agreed to disagree. Du Island, let's leave it to the next generation according to Dang Xiaoing. Let's leave it to the next generation to resolve it for now. We'll agree to disagree. About four years ago, Japan announced unilaterally that they they call it they bought it from the owner of the island, the occupier of whatever it is, they nationalized it. What did America say? Nothing. In fact, after the the the Japanese unilaterally took it, the Japanese foreign minister, the Australian foreign minister and John Kerry at that time, the state secretary of state in the United States, the three of them had a press conference that says, "We oppose any change to the status quo?" What status quo? Before or after the Japanese unilaterally nationalized? Of course, it's after because a press conference was held afterwards. So the United States cannot say that this thing belong to Japan because they know what say what it says in Cairo declaration and don't say that it's not fact just go back to Kairo declaration and read it and so you Japan uni unilaterally took back took that island so China did not dispute it or they disputed it but there's nothing they can do have you ever come across your mind that if you pick on a big guy, you pick on a guy like me, there's no not much consequences. I'm a small guy. If I'm big guy like that that young man did, there's consequences. And China is a big guy. You take that island from China unilaterally. And America said nothing about it. So the China said, "Okay, you do this, I do that. You do you you react one way, I I no, you act one way, I react another way." And Ronnie, just because China is such a big guy, wouldn't it be a responsible behavior for a country, a global country such as China is um to build trust rather than to to sort of um pour even more gasoline into the fire in a in a region which is even without these tensions already quite tense?
>> Pardon my language. You expect a big guy to lie down and say rape me.
>> I would expect a big guy to to try and build confidence.
>> Why do they need to build confidence and it just because you blackmail them and take take their bedroom or or or take steal whatever from them and they say, "Oh, I build trust. You can take anything you want from my from me. Come to my house. Take whatever you want. I am here to build trust." Which country would do that? What do you expect out of China?
>> But other countries would um consider legitimate um claims from from the neighbors for the situation is not as clear as as you might um see or interpret it.
>> Do you know that in the 1960s there was a German radio station that wrote to Manila and said, "Can I build a broadcasting station on this island?" and Manila wrote back and said we don't own it. Now Manila own claims that they own that island in the 1970s you check history before 1970s none of those nations in the South China Sea surrounding claim any of that stuff. It is in the 70s when China was undergoing the cultural revolution. China was weak. China was in trouble. The pack of hyenas all come up and there was oil discovered. There's a lot of natural resources, fishery and so forth.
>> Mhm.
>> Suddenly everyone want to claim. But why did the United States 7 fleet escorted the Chinese Navy to take back all that island in 1945? You tell me please. Why? Mhm.
>> They don't own it.
>> I can't tell you.
>> Then please consider it.
>> I think yeah, we should we could perhaps um speak another hour about the South China Sea. Um, you have explicit point of view on that.
>> America no anybody in the know including David Petraeus is my friend by the way as South China not an issue. Why? They know the facts unlike what I saw here in Germany in the last three days. I'm sorry.
>> You will observe the future of the South China Sea. There is an a very big initiative project China is shaping. Um, and it's changing our current order already, the one belt, one road initiative, $900 billion. Um, a lot of Western uh partners observe it with um you would say perhaps suspicion. Uh the German foreign minister Ziggma Gabriel um said concerning the one belt and one road
>> which country's foreign minister
>> German I'm sorry I apologize
>> um Germany's foreign minister he said that the problem concerning the one belt one road initiative is not uh China having a strategy but the west lacking a strategy. Would you agree on that?
>> Yeah he he he put it in a very interesting way.
>> Mhm. The reality is what is the belt and row initiative? The belt and row initiative is nothing more than the silk row of 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago, the silk road has two parts. The sea road and the land link.
>> Mhm.
>> The one belt is a terrestrial link. The seaw route or sea road if you will is what it is. And the sea row uh I mean, the silk road in the old days has those two parts. In fact, there's more along the water than there were on land. The old silk road. Today, which part of the world is the least globalized? The silk road was the beginning of globalization as we understand it today. Right? So, which part of the world is the least globalized in the whole wide world today? Now I travel 70% of the time I go to I don't know Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, wherever, Turkey, Israel. The most not or I should say the least globalized part of the world is perhaps central Asia. I go to Africa, it's pretty pretty globalized. I go to Latin America, pretty globalized. Central Asia. So sooner or later where the Chinese raised this issue of belt and row initiative call it whatever you want new silk row whatever somebody will figure that one out and say that is a part of the world that is not globalized that ought to be globalized on the one hand to do trade so that we can open more new market on the other hand hopefully it will benefit the livelihood of the local people as well so the belt and row initiative CGP mentioned If you didn't mention it, that's your problem. China mentioned it, but no country can own the silk road. You can own whatever is within your border. That that which is beyond is none of yours. That's where you collaborate and trade and do business together. So I think that the belt and row initiative to the Chinese makes a lot of sense economically and politically.
>> So would you agree that it's a also a geopolitical project disguised as an economic one?
>> No, it's very economic as well as political. Why do you have to segregate the two? You cannot segregate the two. Economics and politics at the end of the day is all together. So consider the fact that China needs energy as I mentioned right energy security a lot of those countries on the nuclear role are rich in energy right
>> Azabaijan Russia uh u um uh Kaz Kazakhstan that whole that whole area uh uh yeah Tanistan the whole area Iran so China it makes a lot of sense economically to be friendly with those countries to ensure a steady supply of energy. Russia is a is has a lot of it, but as we all know, just talk to my Ukrainian friends, they are not Russia is not necessarily the most reliable. And they negotiated with the Russian for 15 years and they couldn't get a gas deal until the America and the West you guys begin to sanction Russia and suddenly Russia struck struck a deal with China.
>> Mhm.
>> But everyone knows Russia is it that reliable? Think twice. So, China need to diversify its energy sources and so it is very economic. Of course, it's political too because you know all those countries a lot of them are Muslim countries. China has a domestic Muslim population. By having good relationship with those countries, hopefully you will have less of a problem domestically. You mentioned the weaguers. So geopolitical, geio economic, it makes sense for China. And by the way, it makes sense for the local countries as well. The former prime minister of Pakistan said to me last year, $ 39 billion US dollars is already into Pakistan to build roads, the corridor, you know, for China, it makes a lot of geopolitical and geographic sense. And so but then for for Pakistan, you got roads, you got railroads, you got ports. Why not? Everybody wins.
>> Everybody wins. That's sort of the buzzword. Let's look at the far end of the Silk Road from a Beijing perspective for a moment. Europe. Um, the Chinese have increasingly turned to Europe um when it comes to international cooperation. Um, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, went to Beijing um, a couple of days ago and he brought a very nice black horse with him from the Republican Guard as a gift to Xiinping. So, one of the questions that people ask themselves here in Germany, but also probably in other parts of Europe, is who is Beijing's key interlocutor in Europe? Is it Angel Burkel or is it Emmanuel Mau?
>> That's a dangerous question.
>> The answer is simple. Who want whoever wants to be a friend?
>> If Germany wants to be for example in the old days co stays every year he take a big delegation to China. Even Schroer did did some of that right recognizing the opportunity economic opportunities.
>> Merco did too.
>> Merco did too. Okay. So if you want to be a friend of China, China is more than happy to be a friend of yours. They need a lot of things. They need your technology, your precision tools, your there are many things that you have that they that they want or need. In the case of Germany, it's more they need such as precision tools. What France had is what they want such as red wine,
>> Louis Vuitton handbags. Right. Handbags,
>> whatever. Right.
>> Y
>> So whoever want to be friend with the Chinese, the Chinese will be friend with you.
>> So you don't see any change within the political framework inside Europe. Um
>> it's up to you.
>> No, you as a trading and negotiating partner.
>> No, it's a trading partner. Whoever want to trade, they will trade.
>> Mhm. I mean is there with the arrival of Emmanuel Macron in in France is this changing anything for you? It depends on how Beijing look at Macron and and hence his government.
>> If there are ulterior motive that the Chinese detect, of course, they'll be a little bit more cautious.
>> But I think that so far from what I can tell, a lot of it is basically trade related.
>> Mhm. And China being a big country, the United States always like to, you know, slap trade sanctions on everybody. Perhaps another one is coming, right? As you indicated that Ping and and Donald Trump had a phone call. So Europe is a big market. 600 million people, very wealthy, buy a lot of goods and can supply a lot of necessary or desirable goods to the Chinese. They are happy to trade with you. They're happy to trade with with us Europeans. Um, they may also be may or may not be happy to um collaborate with us on international issues such as the North Korean nuclear issue. Um, where Europe plays a a minor role for for all intents and purposes. Um, let me ask another question um Ronnie which comes from the audience concerning um Beijing's role in the DPRK um nuclear crisis. Which concrete steps do you think can Beijing take to escalate tensions with North Korea?
>> Escalate tensions
>> to deescalate dees.
>> No, God forbid. Please escalate. First of all, let me tell you how China h what I think China look at the whole situation. In the last 40 years, America refused to talk to DPRK. America just too proud during the Carter days. They had a diplomatic solution possible. Carter last minute canceled it under Clinton. Same thing under George W. Same thing. Every time there is a diplomatic solution and Americans will be the first to admit that America last minute or mess it up each time they miss a diplomatic solution. You ratchet the game in the wrong direction. Nobody in the neighborhood. I don't know about Russia, but nobody else. Japan, Korea, China, United States, none of them, Canada, none of them want a
Nuclear North Korea. The wind blows a wrong way, the Chinese are hurt. Nobody wants it. So every time the Americans miss a diplomatic solution that the Kim family and the North Koreans begin to do more in the wrong direction for the nuclear weapons. So now suddenly you have a situation where North Korea is basically a nuclear state, like it or not. And one of the top leaders in America had admitted to me in my office that you might as well treat them as a nuclear state. The only thing is he would not say that when he testified in the US Congress. Okay. But he's right. And how can you blame that young kid? If Gaddafi had nuclear weapons, he may still be alive today. So that young man, he's not stupid. He, so far, has played his cards very well, and endangers world peace in a very significant way. Right? You better believe it. And so America got it wrong each time. And then finally, they are confronting with a nuclear state in North Korea. So they have to find somebody to blame. Who to blame? China. Easy target. Every sin in the world is because of China. And so North Korea, blame it on China. What can China do? Mind you something. China's endgame for North Korea is exactly the opposite of what America wants. America doesn't care if tomorrow North Korea disappears. China would not want it because China doesn't want a US army at the Yellow River between North Korea and China. So it's a buffer, right? They want a buffer. So they want to keep the country there. America doesn't care. Get rid of them. So much the better. And America is very good at it. Regime change is a specialty of the United States. And only the United States has the power to do that. At last count, that I have come up with from public sources, 50 times perhaps since World War II, public information. So China says, put yourself in the Chinese position. You guys messed it up in the Carter administration, in the Clinton administration, in the Bush 2 administration, and now you have to find somebody to blame. And so you blame me. Why should I listen to you? And by the way, we have a different endgame. And so they say, "Hey, um, my American friends in Washington D.C. said, why don't they just turn off the tap for the gasoline?" So you want to freeze 5 million North Koreans to death? The Chinese say, "Hey, these are my friends. I want them around. Why do I want to freeze them?" And the Chinese, whatever you say about Communist China, they remember their friends. And the Kim dynasty has been their friends for the last 60, 70 years. And a bit of an unruly friend, wouldn't you say? Maybe. So America has a lot of unruly friends as well. That's true. Is America a saint? Anybody a saint here, ladies and gentlemen? Now, mind you also, if China does not supply energy, how do you assure that Russia does not supply energy? Do you know who is the most important ambassador in Pyongyang? Anybody know? The Russian. Exactly. So America is just looking for a scapegoat for all the diplomatic mistakes that it has made in the last 40 years. And so now blame it on China.
But Ronnie, wouldn't you say that the DPRK issue could also be an opportunity for Beijing to be taken to, you know, gain some international profile as a country that helps?
Why do they need to gain international profile?
Well, I think they could prove that they are able to take the lead on resolving a very serious international crisis in a constructive way. I think that would be a good thing to do.
When you're dealing with America, who messed it up again and again and again and again, you're telling China to say, "All are forgiven. All the diplomatic mistakes that America made in North Korea are forgiven. We want to be nice to everybody." A big smile. Is that what you want China to be? And mind you, China, as I said, has a very different endgame than the United States. So China is big enough to say, "I do what I think is proper and right. Let history judge." In his book on China, Henry Kissinger, who you know very well, warns that one of the biggest dangers to peace in the 21st century will be the clash between Chinese and American exceptionalism. Are Washington and Beijing doing enough to avoid an escalation?
First of all, I'm pretty sanguine about the US-China relations. I don't think it's that dangerous for simple reasons. America has been doing foolish things visa-vis China, in my opinion, over the last 20 years. But you need two parties to get a divorce. China doesn't want to have a divorce. China is a beneficiary of the world post-World War II global system, including the trading system. America shoulders all the problems in the world. Wonderful. China will be very happy to hide behind the United States. And so, you know, I remember that time I was with Merkel and Henriker here in Germany, and a Japanese Indian economist and I were sharing a, you know, we're just a minor speaker in a small session on Asian economy. He said to me that, you know, China is buying oil, gas, and minerals and this and that everywhere, coal. We, India, are doing exactly the same, but we're just so happy that China is in the front. China is bigger. China is buying more. So all the people, all the blame go to China, which is true. China likes to do the same thing with the United States. Let you take care of being the police. You solve all those problems, right? You bear all the responsibility, and we just support you, but don't make us number one. I gave a talk one time with Kevin Rudd. I said, China, in my opinion, is very happy to play second fiddle to the United States in international affairs. Sitting on the front row was the Chinese ambassador to the United States. This is in Washington D.C., in the K Adams Hotel, many of you know, just in front of the White House. And so I said, my opinion, China is very happy to play second fiddle to the United States. Before we end, the organizer, the president of that organization, asked the ambassador, said, please, Mr. Ambassador, would you like to share something before we call it a night? And the ambassador got up and he said, of course, he cannot say he agrees with me, right? He's a diplomat. So he said, well, a lot of the things that Mr. Chan says, I think it's worthy of our considering, but we in China have long decided that we don't want to be number one because it's very expensive. I thought to myself, you're right. Moreover, you can never be number one. You don't have the political system. You don't have the military. You don't have the science. You don't have the rigor of research in your universities and many other things. But that doesn't matter. He's ambassador. So he had to say the politically correct thing, right? So he said, we don't want to be number one. The best position is to be in number three or number four. But we got up one morning and suddenly found out we're number two. And we found out that it's a very dangerous position because you turn to the right, the number one will slap you. If you turn to the left, the number one will slap you. And he sat down. He's right. He got a point. He got a point. And so China would much rather stay below the radar screen as far as, you know, being the number one is concerned. Do you know who sends more peacekeeping forces in the world today? Number one? Who sends the most? China. So they are doing something. So I think that China will be happy to have America be the number one.
I have another question coming from the public. You've mentioned China's desire to become a respected member of the international community. How would you describe China's approach to becoming respected? Where do you see obstacles in this goal?
Well, obviously, China at this stage is concentrating on economics rather than politics. So if China were to help many African countries, for example, develop instead of plundering them like the European countries, helping them develop, buy from them. You have a problem with colonialism. That part of the history is too hurtful to remember. Germany is not the worst. You just have a little bit of issue. A lot of other people have a lot more issues than you do in Africa and in Asia. And so China is just trading with them, and in the process, they are helping them with a model that perhaps will work to economically develop their own country. You help enough of them, you'll be respected by somebody. This is the example you already mentioned some minutes ago, is Africa.
Um, is there anything else to become a respectful member besides Africa?
How about Latin America? How about a lot of the other smaller countries around the world? There are many issues in the world today. And I think that China can collaborate with the United States. You know, when people start talking about G2, I told my friends, I said, China would never accept G2. They don't like that conception at all. But like it or not, the reality is today, no serious problem in the world can be resolved without the United States and China agreeing on it. Be it money laundering, be it nuclear proliferation, be it environmental sustainability issues. Right? So like it or not, we are entering into a world where the United States and China are the two major players. To be politically correct, let me add the EU and India and Japan and a few others. But to be brutally frank, those two countries have to work together. And so the question is, would the United States want China to be a friend or a foe? You want it to be a foe, you have a foe. You want it to have a friend, you have a friend. So far, I think America is moving in the wrong direction.
We are approaching the end, but I would like to speak with you about your native city, Hong Kong, which has been in the news for a long time. Why is China undermining the "one country, two systems" principle in Hong Kong? Why is it arresting leaders of student protest movements? Why is there no freedom of speech as there used to be?
You know, you guys really don't know the facts.
Okay.
We heard that before.
Do you know that under the Brits, if any newspaper were to criticize the British government, you would not be invited to the next government press conference?
You would perhaps not be arrested.
Do you know that nobody is arrested in Hong Kong because of that? Do you know that they tapped telephones before 1997 by the British regularly? Even the list of names came up. One of them is on my board. So you think the Brits are saints? Think twice. I fought China for not abiding by the Basic Law. Not because they are too tight. Because they are absolutely way too loose. They did not abide by their Basic Law because they have a policy. The best way to manage Hong Kong is to not manage it. Just let it go. Let them manage themselves. Although the Basic Law demands that they play a certain role, they didn't. And so you have all those things that are happening. Do you know that the press freedom today is far more freer than it was under the Brits? You don't know that because you don't believe it.
You reject.
Why? Why is it then that, for example, one of the activists of the student movement, Joshua Wong, wasn't allowed to speak at the Asia Society?
Good question. Thank you for asking. Asia Society, of which I'm the global chair until November 1st last year, we never invited anybody to talk about domestic politics. We're a political organization. We never invited any pro-government legislature to speak. So why should we invite any anti-government legislature to speak? I don't want to be accused of being one-sided. We never invited anybody pro or against the Hong Kong government.
So why do you force me or the general public to accept only those who are anti-Hong Kong government or anti-Beijing?
But do you understand these young students and their protests? And do you have any sympathy with them for demanding a more open and free society? And let me tell you what happened. What do you think will happen if, when the mainland Chinese soccer team plays the Hong Kong soccer team and the national anthem is played and the flag of China is hoisted, you have 50 college students turning their back from the flag and showing the middle finger? Is that what you mean by freedom? Is that what you mean by freedom?
That's the group of young people. Is it right to turn your back against the national flag and raise your... I don't want to do it. Okay. Not this finger, but another one. When the national anthem is being played. There are other things in the United States where football players are also doing things when the national anthem is played, and they... This is possible. I mean, you have...
America is not the standard.
China doesn't have to go by the American standard.
But perhaps it's...
Why do you want the Chinese to go according to the American standard?
They can burn flags.
Some countries you cannot burn flags.
What makes you think that America allowing people to burn the national flag is the only way to go?
Okay. I think let's have a full stop here and ask one final question. Ronnie, you told us about your track record, your very good track record of predicting who is the new generation in Chinese leadership earlier on.
A lot of people can do that. I'm not the only one.
But you can. So the question I would like to ask you is, the current Chinese president and secretary general of the Communist Party in China, Xi Jinping, has acquired an enormous amount of power. Do you think that he's going to relinquish that power in 2022?
I don't know. Will Angela Merkel run again?
She probably not. She was just reelected.
Just reelected.
How many terms can Angela Merkel serve?
As many terms as she can win. She can win, right? So why are you asking that question?
It's of interest because he's an important guy, right? So what if he serves another 10 years? He'll be matching or coming close to Angela Merkel.
Huh? It would be indicative of how the Chinese system functions.
The Chinese system is not a very rigid institutionalized system. It's evolving very fast.
And as time goes on, the Chinese system will no doubt have to evolve even more. So whether he serves another five years, whether he serves another 10 years, I don't know. What do I know? And frankly, I'm not that concerned. People say he has a lot of power. I said, only people who don't know about China think he has a lot of power. Is the chief executive of Hong Kong right now his choice? I don't know. I suspect not. He has to compromise as well. Moreover, how do you deal with corruption, which is rife in China in the last 30 years? How do you deal with corruption in a system which for 3,000 years was not a rule-based, law-based society, rather is an ethics-based society? How do you do it? How can you deal with corruption in China without a strong leader? So conceptually, my American friends, my European, my sorry, my Western friends have a problem with a guy being powerful. From a very pragmatic perspective, I say without the power, he can never deal with corruption. And I mean, look at this guy. He arrested two out of the three vice chairmen of the military, the Central Military Commission, with himself being the chair. Now, this guy got... If he doesn't have enough power, he could never do that. I know what you're thinking: absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know that. But damn if you do, damn if you don't. So what are you going to do? Allow the corruption to continue on and on and on and on? They know that will be detrimental to the party. So for themselves, and for the country, and for the people, for everybody, they better do something about it. And so I said, the last five years, the one whose life is the most wanted, you know, a price on his head, is probably his head because he has offended so... not offended, he has scared so many corrupt government officials. So I say, I'm a pragmatic guy. I'm a businessman. You do what is necessary to move the society in a way that will give the biggest number of people a better livelihood. Free speech. Free speech.