Transcription
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 wants 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 ask a wrong question. It is not China who is containing the United States. It's the United States who is trying to contain China. So, China has no choice but to react, respond.
Then, to your other question about what exactly what it means. 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 international responsibility. Then you come around and say, "Hey, hey, hey, what's your intention?" No win-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? So, China is doing what any other country would do, except that China is a big country. I walk into any room, nobody notices. I'm 1.6 meters. Nobody would notice me. But if, um, Yao Ming, you know, Yao Ming, 2.26 meters, the basketball player, NBA, he walks into any room, he'll be noticed. Like it or not, China is Yao Ming, 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, Yao Ming, Shaquille O'Neal 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 was she talking about in concrete terms? >> I would say, number one, energy security. 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, Xi Jinping could with what he said there? Sure, there is a development leading to this point, but there was something really said and heard 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 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. And the reason is very simple. United States wants to contain China. So, you, you have to do your best to protect yourself. That's all.
>> The an American journalist from the New York Times, um, but being also a correspondent in, being correspondent in Beijing, Edward Wong, just wrote this month that from trade to the internet, from higher education to Hollywood, China is shaping the world in ways that people have only begun to grasp. What is your impression? Do you think the West is aware enough of these epochal changes happening?
>> Whether they are or not is one issue. What is changing is in actuality is another thing. Years ago, I began to, I gave a speech that says that by China being weak and out of the international community because they were so poor and communistic, foolishly, a lot of internal strife and problems. They deprived 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 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. The reality of human history is that you can never totally divorce economic 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 set 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? So, imagine a Chinese ship, a tanker coming out of the Gulf of Hormuz, met some Somali 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 carriers from the United States, Seventh Fleet navy, parked outside of Taiwan, and there's nothing. Clinton sent him there. There's nothing China could do in 1996. That woke up the Chinese and said, "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 Seventh 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? 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 a good relationship with China, China can easily become 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. The rise of China 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 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 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. Now, two things happen. Number one, China's economy is so integrated with the rest of the world. Energy, as I mentioned, also there's food security. And so, there is the need that stems from economics. Number one. Number two, you have the United States. The United States, everywhere the Chinese turn, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, everywhere you go, America just slaps you on the face. That is just a fact. Just check history of 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 Xi Jinping 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 drove China into a position where it's so totally dependent on 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 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 economy? >> 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, 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 1973-74, Los Angeles was such a disaster in the environment. I have photographed here. 1952, London. Remember that people have to wear masks on the street. So, 1952 Britain, 1972-73 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." 50, 20 years ago, China did 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 cars, and at that time, electric cars are not as efficient as today? Are you willing to pay? Shut them up. If the West wants 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 D.C. concerning the environment. Now, let me tell you something also. You know the US Green Building Council, they take care of buildings, make sure that they are green, right? The first shopping center that has gold standard of US Green Building Council. What country is it in? >> 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. 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 has been strong for the last 400 years, 450 years since the Renaissance, and China has been waning for the last 200, 30. And it is never easy to accept a new player. And today, the West is very ideological, in particular Germany. I talked to journalists from Suddeutsche, 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 Der Spiegel. Twitter, maybe you're better. >> Not at all. >> But whatever it is, I was in Hamburg one time, and Angela Merkel was speaking, and four, five times in her speech, she said "shared value." "Shared value." Helmut Schmidt was sitting on stage with her. I was sitting in 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 Helmut 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 in 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 to have a free discussion in Europe.
>> We never impose it outside of our borders. Every country, every system has its own problems. We have our own. So does everybody else. And so, I think that those people, and one day, I, I was, I had lunch at the Hong Kong Club in Beijing, and one of those guys was there, and I told him, I said, "I know that you have a lot of gripes against your own government." He's Chinese, of course. But I can, I suggest that now is not the right time. Save it for another time because I've never seen the full force of the strongest country ever in mankind focusing on one country, and in this case, one person. This is not the time for China to argue internally who's right, who's wrong. Now, it's time to unite. And, and so, I think that, uh, obviously China has to be worried. But as I said earlier, I believe that China should be able to weather the difficulty. As far as the Belt and Road Initiative is concerned, I think that the, all that, you know, bad US-China relations may help the Belt and Road Initiative because Russia will be far more amenable to developing it, especially the one belt, the terrestrial belt, the one road, the winning the sea road. Okay, that's a misnomer. It should be one route, not one road, because in English, there's no road on the sea. Uh, but anyway, so the one route, um, is really controlled by the Seventh Fleet, and this is just nothing you can do. So, I think that, uh, to develop the one terrestrial belt, uh, may be a good time, but you need, uh, the government to take the lead, uh, for specific reasons which I will not go into.
Bill Gates said one time, he said, "He is amazed how come there are so many smart people in the world, and yet so few of them focus on studying the bad things of technology." We all know the good things of technology. We all benefited from it, and we love it, and we cannot, and technology is not something you can go back on. Once out, it's out. So, we all enjoy it. But on the other hand, if you don't understand the negatives of it, you're really foolish. And if you're not prepared for it, you're really foolish. For example, to talk about "clean network" is a joke. And yet, all the Americans believe it. We cannot have TikTok, you know, gather information on our people on Americans, uh, because of privacy. I said, "Any one of us have any privacy today?" I remember watching a video of an American journalist in Washington D.C. with two iPhones, both turned off, one even on airplane mode. He went on a three-hour trip to the National Cathedral, the library, the cafe, and the, uh, and the hospital. He went after three hours, he went back to his office, plugged it in. It recorded everything he did. And there was another article just out a week or two ago on the same thing. And so, there's no such thing called "clean network." And, and yet, President Trump and Pompeo are talking about "clean network" as if there is a thing called "clean network." And only stupid fools will believe it. But almost everybody did. And so that's why I said, I said this is a proof that American citizens who is supposed to be very educated, American voters, and so forth, are as, as foolish as some of the netizens in China thinking that they are somebody, they can, they are not number one, and this and that, foolish. But anyway, so I think that, uh, technology, uh, must be viewed in a proper way. One, one final thing. To America, to the West, technology is only good. And I believe, I worry because the financial crisis is just around the corner. Every 10 years, look at history, there is some serious financial crisis happening somewhere in the world, and it's all caused, it's not caused by, it is enabled by technology. And the Western philosophy, in particular American philosophy today, is very problematic, and that is, and that guides the capital market in the world today. Bigger is better, faster is better, freer is better. After 1985, was it, uh, the Plaza Accord, and then with the fall of the Soviet Union, you, the Big Bang, and all that stuff. Uh, technology has been unleashed, and mankind's living has been improved greatly. No question. But on the other hand, if you think that there's only good to it, then I would say, listen to Bill Gates. Chinese believe in the way of the middle way, of the median. I think that the West, unless they change their philosophy, it's not just the technology. Technology is just a tool. Unless they change their philosophy, which means the heads of the people that are using technology, America, the West will be in trouble again because financial crisis will come again. And if it coincided with a, a loss of trust in the greenback, the US dollar, then hell can break out, and it will be bad for everyone of us, in particular the United States.
There are many, many issues here. I think the first one is really military and the technology that China has that causes concern on the part of the United States. And then you look at what it's doing. Why is it picking on Huawei? I think the former Singaporean, Singaporean Foreign Minister said it best. He said, "Oh, that's simple. It's because for the first time in human history that someone is taking away the monopoly to spying by the United States." And then, of course, with the, with all the, the 5G, right, it leads to artificial intelligence, AI, and from there, all the military apparatus. However, I think I also have said this in the past, and let me say that again, that is, I believe China's Achilles' heel, the soft point, is its academic lack of rigor. Think about this. Today's military exercise is a, is a hugely complicated system, right? You have all the, uh, satellites up there telling you everything, where everybody is, and then you have all the, uh, the land and all the sea and the underwater. So, you have, it's a very complicated system. And my worry is that China's lack of academic rigor is going to be, can become detrimental to China in that whole complicated process. All you need is, in one point, you miss one point, the whole thing can flop. And so, I think that the tradition of academic rigor is critical, not just for scientific development, of course, that is the basis of technology, and hence, and hence military, but also in the operation, in the military operations, the exactness and the rigor with which one has to exercise in order to make everything work is critical. That's why I always tell people, Germany and Japan will always be formidable enemies if they become your enemy, because they are so rigorous in everything that they do. Do you know that today there are, okay, Germany has a levitational train, right? And the Shanghai levitational train came from where? Came from Siemens. And Siemens told me, "We won't give them critical technology." And the head of the levitational train company in China told me exactly the same thing, "Siemens will not give it to us." So, I said, "What are you going to do?" "Nothing we're going to do except to try to do it ourselves." So, I've only met that guy twice. Years later, I met him again. I said, "How's it going?" He said, "Done. We got it." Okay. Do you know there's a third country who has levitational train technology, which is very advanced? And that is Japan. Do you know that there is, I was told, I cannot confirm, but I think it's correct, that they have a train that is, is running for 15 years just to make sure that there's no possibility of mishaps. Do you know that the bullet train has no exit door, emergency exit doors? Why? Because they don't expect that they will be, it will be necessary. I still don't think it's a good idea, but nonetheless, they are so confident. Next time before you take the bullet train, think twice. You may be the first. I hope not. So, I'm so glad that Professor Dang Shang is here from Hong Kong University, the vice chancellor. The academic rigor is so critical to the future success of China that I think that China will do well to pay attention to. I think China has done very well in dealing with a lot of corruption, first in the military, and then in the government. Now, obviously, nobody's perfect, but anyway, it's much better than before. But the last area that China needs to work on is academic rigor, without which you can only be a big country. You can never be a strong country. So, I think that I hope that China will improve in this area.
Why do I say that China will be relatively peaceful? Because I believe that America will eventually find out that they cannot beat China to submission. What are you going to do? Start a hot war? Maybe in a limited basis, perhaps mutually agreed beforehand, but whatever it is, it is less likely, and the risk is too high. And short of that, I think eventually America will wake up and realize that perhaps it's not a good idea to pick on China. And let, ladies and gentlemen, let no one be mistaken. Don't think America is a country of principle. I, I, I want to say it in Chinese first. Okay?
>> United States can bend very pliably. When they need to change, they will change. Then when they figure out eventually that they cannot beat China to submission, then perhaps they will be forced to accept China as a co-equal. In fact, let me end with this. In fact, I've always said this that in my opinion, and I represent no one, Commissioner Xi has to be careful what he says because he represents the government, aging government. I don't, I've always said that China is very happy to play second fiddle to the United States. All are equal. All men are created equal, and all countries are equal. But there are some that are more equal than others. You know that American saying, right? Look at Aaron here, my good friend. Aaron is tall and handsome. He stands up everywhere. Look, I'm short and ugly. I walk in, nobody notices. We're equal, but we're not equal. So, in international affairs, same thing. Read the 1992 Paul Wolfowitz paper again. Basically, it says, "We don't need to worry about any of our allies. They mean nothing. They can help nothing. We'll do everything ourselves." That's in 1992. Can they do it again today? No longer. But nonetheless, I believe that China will be very happy to be, to play second fiddle. And I told my American friends the following. I said, "You know, Americans are really smart people, and they come up with some amazing sayings, such as 'first among equals.'" If you're equal, there's no first and second, right? But Americans came up with a saying called "first among equals." So, I say, I'm ethnic Chinese, and you say Chinese are very good in copying and tweaking it. So, let me be a, uh, ethnic Chinese and tweak it a little bit for you. China has another saying, as far as I'm concerned, I created it. That is, you probably never heard of it. It's called "second among equals." To the Americans, there's no concept. They never dream of a thought, "second among equals." They only know "first among equals." Okay, you be the first among equals because you are LeBron James. But I'm not bad too. So, I'm second among equals. So, let me conclude with a story. About six, seven years, six years ago, I was giving a talk, uh, at the Hay Adams Hotel outside of the White House, uh, in Washington D.C., and Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, was interviewing me. And I said the same thing. China, as far as I can tell, is happy to be, quietly, of course, second among equals to the, to the world. Everybody's equal. Congo and whoever else, Somalia, everybody's, but it's not equal. So, your colleague, Kai, Ambassador Tuen Kai, was sitting in the front row. So, the organizer said, "Ambassador, we're so delighted, so honored to have you here. Would you like to?" That was the Asia event. "Would you like to say a word before we conclude the evening?" So, the Ambassador got up. Of course, he cannot agree with me. You know, I, as in, nobody can say anything I want. You know, second among equals, third among equals, whatever. He cannot say that. So, he said, "Well, some of the things Mr. Chan says, I think that is worthy of consideration. But we China have long decided that we do not want to be number one because it is very expensive. We prefer to be number three, number four, number five. That's fine. But one day we woke up and suddenly we found ourselves to be number two. Then we realized it's a very dangerous position. You turn to the right, the number one slapped you. You turn to the left, the number one slapped you." And he sat down. Brilliant. Brilliant. Think about it. Everybody who left that room had forgotten what I said, but they would be thinking about what Ambassador Trade said. And a lot has happened in the last five, six years since that evening in Hay Adams Hotel in Washington D.C. I think that today that answer is perhaps more critical than ever before. And I think that from what I can tell, what some of the things that Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi have said, that China is very open to discuss anytime, in a nice way, of course, as equals. My fear is that the United States has unilaterally gone down the Thucydides Trap that will leave China with very little alternative. But I was still happy that Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi said what they say, if the newspaper is correct, that the door is open. Anytime America wants to talk. So, the question that we all need to ask, in particular the United States must ask, is, can America beat China to submission? 30 years ago, sure. 20 years ago, yeah. Probably 10 years ago, maybe. Now, probably not. So, frankly, it's a lot better for them to work with China than to fall into the Thucydides Trap. I think that China will have a hard time because, you know, the export market is cut to some extent, but I think China will get over it. China will do fine. In fact, I believe that China is relatively still the safest and most peaceful country in the world for a business guy like me. Uh, you need two things. You need stability, you need growth. China has relatively speaking, stability and more growth. So, I think that China is still a good place to do business. But the United States is playing very dirty today. America is picking on, not just, uh, China, they're now picking on the CCP, and then it's not just CCP, it's about Xi Jinping. Uh, it's really playing dirty. Uh, but I think that the Chinese people will only become more unified like than than before. So, I think that China will do okay. Uh, so, I think that China, my last word is that, uh, should just be happy with quietly building its own country economically, socially, uh, and stay away from, uh, the thought of trying to be number one. It is really a stupid thought. Uh, if you are, you are, you are not, you are not. Let the world decide.