Transcription
What is your impression? How is the West reacting to this rise of China and to its will to play, apparently, a new role on a political scene? I have my worries, and the reason is the following: The West has been strong for the last 400 years, 400, 500 years since the Renaissance, and China has been reigning for the last 2, 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 Su Deutsch, Frankfurt, Germany, and and the French. Wherever, no other journalists are as ideological as that of the German newspaper that I know. I never talked to Der Spiegel. Peter, maybe you're better at it. We're not at all. Hahaha. 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 for five times in her speech, she said, "Shared value, shared value." How much Smith was sitting on stage with him. I was sitting in the first few rows. I raised my hand to answer a question when it's Q&A time. Of course, they would not pick a Chinaman, so I was not picked. But let me tell you what my question was, and I told Heinrich Schmidt later. I said, "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 in the sand. I'm 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. Later on, I think we will speak about the Chinese policy to impose values or to have a free discussion. In your, we never impose it outside of our borders. Yeah, you do. You do. Yes, the West does. Mm-hmm. Can you learn not to impose your value on other countries? Mm-hmm. Perhaps there was that 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 pullback 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? Think about it. What's the Monroe Doctrine, right? 1820s, something. All those tell us that America, from day one, is an isolationist country, not an internationalist country. The fact that you and I live our whole lives in the post-World War II era, where America was originally reluctantly pulled into the international scene, does not mean that America historically was internationalized. It's an internationalist country. In fact, roughly only one-third of its history, particularly after being dragged into World War II, is China. Is the United States an internationalist? So for America to go back to isolationism should not surprise any of us. And no other country that I can think of can survive as an isolated, isolated company, a country. The 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 needs to export gasoline, I mean, gas, natural gas. So even 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 Russia, 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 moves 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 into 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 wants to be No. 1 because China always was No. 1 for 3,000 years. Then the last 200 years, it became 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, Brita? You go home in your bedroom, there's a sign that says, "No dogs in Brita." That's exactly what the colonialists did to China. And so, you know, China has this terrible history of the last couple hundred years of oppression by the West. 22,000 soldiers in 19 nations defeated the whole of China, from Europeans mostly, except the United States. So China is today just wants to be back to the global scene as a responsible and respected member of the international community. How much responsibility do they want? You want them to take it? It depends. So far, they are the most business-oriented 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, see, see, China is overextended itself and 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." Those who are visiting China these days are, and even if they can't read Mandarin, they 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 post-Western order?
Not at all. You cannot prevent somebody from being foolish, especially on the internet. There are foolish people in this country. China has tons of it. Just that they have many times more people. They would never have that. You're not a sister yet. Well, Ronnie, if I may, since we're talking about, you know, China's rise, or China having risen to great power status, here's a question that that I received from the audience. And let me read it to you: "Given China's treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, and dissidents, do you sympathize with those who fear the rise of China because of historic reasons?" The northwestern part of China, Xinjiang province in particular, has always been a mixed area between the Uyghurs and the Han people, which comprised 92% of the Chinese population. It has always been a mixed area. My sister-in-law comes from there. But mind you, about something, and that is Xinjiang 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 Xinjiang province and Tibet province?" Because they have been that way for the last couple of thousands of years. Rather, my question is, why were the Germans there in the 19th century? Why were the French, the British, America, the Russians, why are they there? So such is human affairs. China is no saint. Neither Americans, nor British, nor French, nor Germans. 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 billion people, rising people, would not be worried? Right. So the question is not whether, what I do object to is irrational fear. Hmm. 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 fearful 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, which is, for all intents and purposes, one of the flashpoints not only between China and its neighbors but also in China, um, in Chinese-American relations. Now, you know, what, what a lot of people find hurt, not only in the West but also in China's neighborhood, is to square the 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 give all those islands back to? Spratly and Paracel. Who? China. And that is the Chinese version of street. No, that's not the Chinese version. That's historic facts. The United States 7th Fleet accompanied 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 is in the know in Washington D.C., they would know that those islands were all given back to China, escorted by the 7th Fleet Navy of the United States. Why? In the 50s, they negotiated with the North Koreans. At that time, they were buddy-buddy, good friends. They gave some of the islands to the enemies. 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? There's an island north of Taiwan, only, I don't know how far, I forgot, very close. It has been disputed. It's called the Diaoyu Island, or the Japanese call the Senkaku Islands. The Chinese call them the Diaoyu Islands. In the Cairo Declaration, at the end of the Second World War, that island, together with the whole of the Ryukyu, were given back to China. The Communists. So he said to the Americans, "Let's go and minister it." 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. Dauphin Island. Let's leave it to the next generation. According to, 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 called it, they bought it from the owner of the island, the occupier of the island, whatever it is, they nationalized it. What did America say? Nothing. So the United States cannot say that this thing belonged to Japan because they know what's said, what it says in the Cairo Declaration. And don't say that it's not fact. Just go back to the Cairo Declaration and read it. And so, you would actually, Japan 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 a big guy like that, that young man did, there are consequences. And China is a big guy. You take that island from China unilaterally, and America said nothing about it. So the Chinese, "Okay, you do this, I do that. You react one way, 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 region which is, even without these tensions, already quite tense?
Pardon my language. You expect a big guy to come and lie down and say, "Rape me"? I would expect the big guy to try and build confidence. Why do they need to build confidence? And it's just because you blackmail them and take, take their bedroom, 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 claims that they own that island. In the 1970s, you check history. Before the 1970s, none of those nations in the South China Sea surrounding claimed any of that stuff. It is in the 70s. Winter 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, fisheries, and so forth. Suddenly, everyone would want to claim. But why did the United States 7th Fleet escort the Chinese Navy to take back all that island in 1945? You tell me, please. Why? They don't own it. I can't tell you. Then please consider it. I think, yeah, we should, we could perhaps speak another hour about the South, South China Sea. By the way, America, what is its point of view on that? America, nobody in the know, including David Petraeus, my friend, by the way, ask him. Self-honesty is not an issue. Why? They know the facts, unlike what I saw here in Germany in the last three days. I'm sorry. Uh-huh. In his book on China, Henry Kissinger, who you know very well, once said that one of the biggest dangers to peace in the 21st century, um, will be the clash between Chinese and American exceptionalism. Are Washington and Beijing doing enough to avoid in this escalation? 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 Marco and Henrik is here in Germany, and a Japanese, an Indian economist, and I was sharing, you know, we're just a minus speaker in a small session on Asian economy. He said to me, he said, "You know, China is buying oil, gas, and mineral, 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, be the police. You, you solve all those problems, right? You bear all the responsibility, and we just support you. But don't make us No. 1. And so China would much rather stay below the radar screen as far as, you know, being the No. 1 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 No. 1. 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, to 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 hurt. It hurts too much 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 have enough of them, you'll be respected by somebody. This is the example we already mentioned some minutes ago, is the Africa. Um, is there anything else to become a respectful member besides Africa? How about Latin America? How about, 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, 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, no problem, 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 environment 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.