Sir Vince Cable 關於中國

 

 

 

文斯.凱布爾精彩演講揶揄白邦瑞：這算什麽“秘密”？現代中國的許多特點是顯而易見的！

白碎片

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbc3ZPkyTg0&t=14s

And I I I think the United States the core of the problem in many ways is an

inability to get used to this basic fact

and to adapt to it and to accept that

China is going to have to be integrated

within the the the rules of the world

system. They were more subtle. They saw

advantages in keeping this independent

entity. Uh but he said look there are

certain parameters. You you can say what

you like, free speech, you can criticize

the Communist Party, but if there is

violent disorder, we will move in and

stop it. But it's very clear that a lot

of other countries in the world by the

Chinese argument, every single Muslim

country of importance, including those

that are democratically elected,

Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Nigeria, have lined up on

the Chinese side. The person who put the

boot into the rules-based system, the

World Trade Organization, wasn't the

Chinese. It was President Trump.

Fore

speech.

Fore!

Foreign! Foreign!

Fore!

Foreign! Foreign!

forchech.

GDP.

Well, thank you for inviting me back to

the union. Um, and it's an honor to

speak after Dr. Possbury who is probably

one of the two or three people in the

world who is most authoritative on China

and is is a deep thinker um and many of

the things he says and writes about are

wise and right um but I I sort of part

company

um in fact I I start to part company in

the leading article in the book where it

talks about China's secret strategy to

replace America as the global superpower

and And why why secret?

Um in his book uh Dr. Pry describes an

episode where a Chinese defector

uh comes to the United States and warns

that there is a secret plan to make the

Chinese economy as big as that of the

United States by the year 2020. It's a

big shock, you know, big secret. Well, I

mean, I have to tell him that 25 years

ago, I was sitting in a multinational

company in London, uh, armed with a few

statistics, a calculator, and a bit of

common sense. Uh, and you could work

out, um, on the back of an envelope that

China was almost certain to become the

biggest economy in the world by 2020. It

didn't require secrecy to understand

that. And there simple arithmetic

actually. I mean there are four times as

many people in China. You know when

China gets to a quarter of American

living standards by definition it's

going to be equivalent in economic size.

I mean why is that a problem? I mean it

should be something we welcome actually

and a lot of very poor people getting a

decent living standards. And you know,

it's basic arithmetic that when China

has continued to grow, as it almost

certainly will, and it reaches half

American living standards, they will

have an economy twice as big. And

they're going to have to get used to it.

And we are. And actually, it's not just

China. By the middle of this century,

India will also be a economic superpower

with a bigger economy than the United

States. Very probably.

So you know there is an issue about the

the current hegimon you know the

superpower getting used to the idea that

there is another country which will have

comparable and potentially significantly

more economic heft. I mean we you know

Britain used to be number one 100 years

ago. So we've had a century to get used

to sliding down the league table. I

think we're about now about number

eight. We've just been overtaken by

Indonesia. But, you know, we we we get

used to these things. And I I think the

United States, the core of the problem

in many ways is an inability to get used

to this basic fact and to adapt to it

and to accept that China is going to

have to be integrated within the the the

rules of the world system, which the

United States has led and led well to

our all to our benefit for the last 70

years. Now, this whole idea of secrecy,

I think, cuts across the idea that many

of the features of modern China are

hidden in plain sight.

Now, it's very clear what they're about.

Um, it's not hidden. Um, the idea that

the Chinese model which was developed,

the modern Chinese model under Deng

Xiaoing, uh, it was very clear from the

outset that there were two very basic

principles. The first was the emphasis

on stability and security. After a

century of chaos,

uh the revolution, the civil war, the

war, Mount Satan's madness, um security

under a authoritarian one party state

was never hidden. Was always absolutely

clear that this was the model that they

were going to pursue. And the second

aspect was raising Chinese living

standards which was going to happen by

importing capitalism into China which

has happened state capitalism big

private sector at the top end some state

control but with very dynamic capitalist

competive system and state enterprises

with an element of market competition

and the stat capitalist model has worked

in China. It's been highly successful.

uh it may now run into trouble. Um

they've got a lot of economic problems

associated with underconumption,

corporate debt. Um well, of course, if

they do run into trouble, um they'll

become like Japan and we no longer worry

about them. But actually the the issue

which we now face is that if the Chinese

model continues to be successful,

this combination of rapid growth

sustained by a successful capitalist

system allied to an authoritarian one

party state. What is the problem in our

having to try and live with that? Now

some of you will say um well democracy

you know we believe in democracy why

shouldn't China be a democracy well it

is a different system and hitherto you

know we've accepted that there is a

different system um to take a particular

issue which concerns the British which

is our residual responsibilities in Hong

Kong and people here are routly very

upset western

angry that decent people are being

bundled off to prison and newspaper

editors have been shut down. But I have

to say the Chinese always made it

absolutely clear what the red lines were

in Hong Kong. When Margaret Thatcher

went to negotiate with Deng Xiaoping 40

years ago,

uh he said, "Look, we could have dealt

with Hong Kong the way the Indians dealt

with the colonial enclaves or Indonesia

sent the army in, problem solved in 24

hours." But they didn't. They were more

subtle. They saw advantages in keeping

this independent entity. Uh but he said,

"Look, there are certain parameters. You

you can say what you like. free speech,

you can criticize the Communist Party,

but if there is violent disorder, we

will move in and stop it. And those

people in Hong Kong who in the name of

democracy and free speech started

throwing Molotov cocktails at the police

and vandalizing their legislature

did their little bit to kill Hong Kong

democracy because it was very clear what

the rules of the game were. And the

Chinese were not in any way dishonest or

inco in unclear about what was

permissible. And I think we need to

remember that. And similarly in terms of

foreign policy, um,

President G's now been there for 10

years. He set out his approach very

clearly 10 years ago and we accepted it.

And it was set out in a statement he

made in Mexico City. He was asked about

what's your relationship going to be

with the West. He said, "Look, we're not

going to export revolution. We're not

going to export Hungary refugees.

We're not going to mess with you. Don't

mess with us." And it's a bit crude, but

it's very clear how to engage with

China, which is to accept if you want to

have a good relationship with them, you

respect their principle of self of

territorial integrity and non-inference.

And that's the basis on which they've

since conducted their foreign affairs.

It's why for example in the issue of

Chin Jang um terrible human rights abuse

I'm quite sure but and the west has

taken up a strong position on it but

it's very clear that a lot of other

countries in the world by the Chinese

argument every single Muslim country of

importance including those that are

democratically elected Indonesia,

Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria

have lined up on the Chinese side so

that that principle of dealing with

China, engaging with China, but

recognizing the reality that they have a

different system and they're not going

to countenance interference with their

internal politics. That has to be out of

sheer realism the way we deal with them.

So, let me just try and bring to a head

where I think this leads. I mean I was

part of a government that where we did

try to engage with China and our primary

motive was economic and we took the view

and I I would still take the view that

it was economically beneficial to

Britain and other western countries to

engage economically with China as a

result of what we did. Uh we still have

a British steel industry. Chinese

company bought out Tarter Steel and it

was going to close.

We will have an electric vehicle

industry because the Chinese are going

to invest heavily in batteries in the

northeast of England. Jag Land Rover is

a highly successful motor car industry

in in the West Midlands because of the

profits and sales in China. Astroenica

which developed our vaccine did so on

the back of profits and sales in China.

British universities, including this

one, depend very heavily on

120,000 Chinese students every year

paying full commercial fees. You know,

the British economy has benefited from

our relations with China, and I don't

apologize for having negotiated some of

those things, but it isn't just

parochial. There's a broader picture.

Despite all the complaints about Chinese

unfair practices, they've actually

helped to keep the world monetary system

stable. They hold $4 trillion worth of

US assets. It was always going to be

said that they would use it to sabotage

the system and they were going for

currency warfare. Nothing of the kind

has happened. They've kept the basic

monetary system stable in implicit

partnership with the United States. The

person who put the boot into the

rules-based system, the World Trade

Organization, wasn't the Chinese. It was

President Trump tried to cut it off at

the knees, uh, withdrawing support for

the WTO.

And Michael referred quite fairly to

some of the grievances which we have

with the Chinese about intellectual

property rights. I mean all countries

coming up developing Korea, Taiwan,

Japan and I have to say in its early

stages the United States which based its

development stealing um intellectual

property from Britain. That was how they

got going. I mean that's how countries

start. Uh but they have now introduced

intellectual property courts. Foreign

companies are now winning cases. They

are adapting to the demands of a

globally responsible economic partner.

uh we complain and we used to negotiate

with the Chinese and say well you open

your market show that you're willing to

reciprocate free trade and the top of

the western list and the British list

was always financial services and it's

worth noting that in the current flurry

of uh activity that's taking place in

China on policy that one of the things

that the president has done is to open

up China to financial services leading

western companies Black Rockck JP

Philippine organ are now operating fully

owned subsidiaries in China, buying up

Chinese shares. You know, they've

accepted the obligations of being part

of an integrated economic system. But I

conclude with something that's more

important than international trade,

which is those common headaches you

economists call international public

goods, where countries have to

cooperate.

You know, pandemics are one example. Um

the other is in Glasgow at the moment is

climate change and the Chinese are

currently being portrayed as the bad

guys and they have very large emissions

of course but not in actually per capita

terms or cumulatively but yeah we we're

not going to solve the world the climate

problem without Chinese cooperation

and they do recognize there is a problem

they've just introduced carbon pricing

uh they've got the biggest renewable

energy industry

vehicle industry in the world. Um they

tried to accelerate the phasing out of

coal and then run into power shortages.

So they've had to backtrack. But they

understand the necessity. But the key

point is we're not going to solve this

problem actually unless we work with

them on research common standards and so

on. And you can't do that in a cold war

environment. Um

and and just my final point and I'll

just take a minute over this is the

proliferation of nuclear weapons.

probably the biggest danger we face at

the moment and there are rogue states

North Korea Pakistan potentially Iran uh

China has influence with all those

countries we don't know how they

exercise it but we could potentially

minimize the risks associated that if

we're willing to work with the Chinese

and something even more serious because

of the collapse of conversations with

China a a sort of paranoia has now

developed which is leading the Chinese

to build up their stock of nuclear

weapons. They had a minimum deterrence

policy, no first use, was no threat to

anybody. Now they fear they're going to

be attacked by the United States. So

they're building up their nuclear

arsenal. I mean, you can argue about

who's to blame, but it's got to be

stopped. It's very, very dangerous. And

you only stop it if you talk to them.

And nobody is now talking to them. And

we have to engage for our our own sakes

as well as theirs. Thank you.