个人资料
正文

英商务大臣 白邦瑞要尊重中国 不许捏造

(2022-02-18 08:27:30) 下一个

英商务大臣 温斯·凯博 要尊重中国

https://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/72696/202202/22409.html

Dancing With The Dragon - China: Friend or Foe? | Full Head to Head | Oxford Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEchkn3unl8
最近,牛津这场关于中国的辩论很有看头
2022-02-18 19:24【侠客岛按】

https://www.sohu.com/a/523744508_362042

前英国商务大臣在牛津辩论社上发言称,中国从未破坏以规则为基础的国际体系,破坏的人是特朗普。英国在于中国的交往中受益。https://bbs.comefromchina.com/threads/1784609/

最近,有着190多年历史的牛津辩论社举办了一场辩论,主题是“与龙共舞:中国,是敌是友?”

参与辩论的嘉宾都是大咖。一方是美国哈德逊研究所中国战略中心主任白邦瑞(Michael Pillsbury),他号称是西方世界的“中国通”,发言态度强硬,对中国充满猜忌;另一方是英国前商务大臣兼贸易委员会主席文斯·凯布尔(Sir Vince Cable),他从自己与中国打交道的经历发言,展现了对华理性务实的态度。

<<<<<<>>>>>>

转载加注:

Sir Vince Cable: An honor to speak after Dr. Pillsbury who is probably one of the two or three people in the world who is most authoritative on china and is a deep thinker.  Many of the things he says and writes about are wise and right. But I, I sort of part company.

文斯·凯布尔说:很荣幸在白邦瑞博士之后发言,白邦瑞可能是世界上两个或是三个最了解中国的权威,是一个深刻的思想家。 他所说的很多事情,都被认为是明智和正确的,但是,我是例外(我认为他是混帐,胡说八道,编故事儿骗人。中国经济规模赶上美国怎么成了问题?我们应该欢迎这样的事,那意味着很多中国穷人也能过得体面。习近平说,中国一不输出革命,二不输出饥饿和贫困,三不去折腾西方。意思是中国不招惹西方,西方也别来招惹中国。这话让我们明白如何与中国打交道:如果你想跟他们建立良好关系,就要尊重中国的领土完整和独立主权,那是中国开展外交事务的基础。)

<<<<<<>>>>>>

现场辩论视频近期在中国社交网站上热转,凯布尔的发言更获得了中国网友的广泛赞同。侠客岛编译了他的部分发言内容,供大家参考。

英国前商务大臣兼贸易委员会主席文斯·凯布尔在说白邦瑞捏造事实,胡说八道。后面那位气急眼的家伙就是白邦瑞,快被气死了。

文斯·凯布尔:我们应该欢迎中国成为超大经济体

白邦瑞可能是世界上最权威的中国问题专家之一。他在书中写道,中国有一项试图取代美国、成为全球超级大国的“秘密战略”,称有一名中国叛逃者跑到美国,说中国正发起一项天大的秘密发展经济计划:到2020年赶上美国的经济规模。

但我要说,25年前,我在伦敦一家跨国公司的办公室里,仅凭一些统计数据、计算器和常识就能算出,到2020年,中国肯定会成为世界超大经济体。

这不是什么秘密,就是简单算术:中国人口是美国的4倍,当中国人均生活水平达到美国的1/4时,中国经济规模就能赶上美国。

这怎么就成了问题?我们应该欢迎这样的事,那意味着很多中国穷人也能过得体面。而当中国经济继续增长,人均生活水平达到美国一半时,中国经济规模将是美国的2倍。实际上,到21世纪中叶,不只中国,印度也很有可能成为经济上的超级大国。

目前的“世界霸主”“超级大国”必须逐步适应这个现实:其他国家可能会拥有同等甚至更大的经济体量。100年前英国是世界第一,英国人花了一个世纪适应排位下滑的事实。英国现在排第8,刚被印尼超过,但我们已经习以为常。

美国的主要问题在于,不习惯也不适应这样的基本事实。美国无法接受将被其他国家超越,也不适应中国融入世界经济体系。过去70年,这个体系由美国领导,我们都从中受益。

辩论现场(图源:外媒)

想跟中国建立良好关系,就要学会尊重中国。中国的发展并不是什么秘密。中国模式从一开始就很清楚,有两个非常基本的原则:

一是强调稳定与安全。在一个世纪的动荡(革命、内战、战争)后,中国从未隐藏自己的处世逻辑,即追求稳定。

二是提高中国人的生活水平。这主要通过将资本主义市场要素引入中国来实现。国家控制下的市场经济、活跃的市场竞争体系、国企和私企的市场竞争……社会主义市场经济在中国已然奏效,且十分成功。当然,中国也遇到一些麻烦,如消费不足、企业负债等。

如果中国变成日本那样,我们就不必担心。但如果中国模式继续成功,面对这个“社会主义市场经济体制+一党长期执政的政治体制”的组合体,我们与其相处时会遇到哪些问题?

有人会说民主。我们相信民主,但到目前为止,我们也接受了另一个系统来处理与英国有关的特定问题,比如香港。

我必须得说,中国人早就清晰表述过香港问题的“红线”。40年前与撒切尔夫人谈判时,邓小平就说过,中国本可以像印度或印尼对待殖民地那样处理香港问题——派军队过去,24小时内搞定一切。但中国人没这么干,他们看到了保持香港一定独立性的好处,处理得更巧妙。不过,一切都有限度。邓小平说得很清楚,在香港,你可以批评共产党,但要是发生暴力骚乱,中国政府就会介入。

那些以民主和言论自由为名的人,向警察投掷燃烧瓶、破坏立法机构,他们扼杀了香港的民主。对中国来说,游戏规则一直很清楚。允许什么、禁止什么,中国人一直不含糊,没有不诚实。我们应该记住这一点。

外交政策也是如此。多年前,在墨西哥城,有人问“中国与西方的关系是怎样”,习近平说,中国一不输出革命,二不输出饥饿和贫困,三不去折腾西方。意思是中国不招惹西方,西方也别来招惹中国。这话让我们明白如何与中国打交道:如果你想跟他们建立良好关系,就要尊重中国的领土完整和独立主权,那是中国开展外交事务的基础。

中国是另外一套制度体系,强调独立自主,不会接受别国干预内政。我们必须采取现实主义策略,对此要有清晰认知。

与中国合作是有利的

我始终认为,对英国和西方国家的经济来说,与中国保持接触是有利的。中国公司收购了塔塔钢铁;中国人将在英格兰东北部大力投资电池产业,客观上将推动英国的电动汽车行业发展;因为中国市场销售利润,路虎公司生意兴隆;阿斯利康研发疫苗之所以经费充足,来自中国的利润支撑功不可没;包括牛津在内,英国大学高度依赖12万名中国留学生,他们支付了全额学费。

尽管有很多关于中国不公平做法的抱怨,但中国帮助保持了世界货币体系的稳定。他们持有大量美国国债,总有人说中国会利用这笔资产破坏国际金融体系,称中国正发动货币战争,但这并未发生。扰乱国际金融秩序和世贸组织的不是中国,恰恰是特朗普总统!他撤回了对世贸组织的支持。

说到知识产权,在我看来,不少国家和地区,包括韩国、日本、中国台湾甚至美国,在各自早期发展阶段,都曾从英国窃取知识产权。这是赶超式发展常有的做法。但中国现在已经引入知识产权法庭,不少外国公司在案件中胜诉,中国正在适应全球负责任经济伙伴的要求。

我们过去常在谈判中抱怨,希望中国开放市场,开展自由贸易,最突出的是要求开展金融服务。值得注意的是,中国正努力推动金融业开放,一些大公司如黑石、摩根大通等,都在中国开设子公司,购买中国股票。中国已承担起融入世界经济体系的义务。

还有一些更重要的议题,如疫情、气候变化等,我们必须与中国合作。在气候问题上中国常被描绘成“坏人”,他们的排放量的确非常大,但这不是按人均或历史累计排放计算的。中国正视气候问题,引入了碳交易,拥有全球最大的可再生能源及新能源汽车产业,正力推低碳减排。如果不与中国合作,我们将无法解决气候问题,因为你不可能在冷战环境下达成全球合作。

我们处在一个新世界,必须务实

有人将中国与纳粹德国相提并论,这令人相当反感,两国没有任何可比性。这种用语只会损害我们的讨论。

关于新疆,的确存在争议。但设想一下,如果中国对美国人说,你们必须废除宪法第二修正案,禁止持枪,否则我们不会和你们谈贸易,因为我们中国人对美国枪支泛滥和人民被杀感到非常失望,我们不喜欢,这违反中国人权观念,你得修改宪法,用中国的方式定义人权,然后我们再谈贸易……

这显然不可能,没法谈了。我们需要谨慎对待人权问题。中西方价值观存在很大差异,如果你在谈判中拿人权问题开场,像拜登政府那样,那只会关上对话大门。

就世行、IMF和联合国目前的大多数衡量标准而言,中美经济规模大致相等;就购买力平价指数而言,中国可能体量更大。他们是IMF和世行的股东,中国在WTO中的地位也决定了,我们必须把他们当作超级经济大国及规则制定者。他们在谈判中非常强硬,但至少他们是体系的一部分。

英国为什么要跟中国合作?因为脱欧。这个理由绝对令人信服。如果你说想跟具有相同价值观、相同标准的国家合作,就应该留在欧盟。但英国脱欧了。这意味着我们几乎没有其他选择,只能尝试与未来的大型增长性经济体接触,包括中国、印度、巴西,或许还有俄罗斯和其他国家。我们处在一个新世界,必须务实。

根据我的经验,你可以跟中国谈人权。我曾向中方提出劳工权利问题,当时我说,你们是社会主义国家,但工人不能罢工;我代表邪恶的资本主义国家,但我们有最低工资和工会,可以解释一下原因吗?之后我们进行了非常文明的讨论,聊了半小时,我给他们看了一些英国最低工资的政策说明。我注意到,在习近平主席共同富裕政策下,中国劳工市场的情况正在改善。

这例子也说明,即便是人权问题,也可以用一种明智方式跟中国打交道,而非只会大喊大叫。

中国人生气的原因很明显,这就是为何关于“种族灭绝”的讨论如此致命。我不清楚那里究竟发生了什么,但我注意到,即便是对中国持批评态度的《经济学人》也称,不会使用“种族灭绝”这个词,因为它显然不适用。这是一个非常糟糕的词。如果你希望自己的言论被接受,前提就是选择正确的词。

关于温斯·凯博爵士(英语:Sir Vince Cable

温斯·凯博爵士(英语:Sir Vince Cable;1943年5月9日-),英国自由民主党籍政治家和经济学家、前任卡梅伦联合内阁商业、创新及技能大臣、1997年至2015年及2017年起担任议员、2017至2019年间自民党领袖。

凯博在大学学习经济学, 并在1966年担任肯尼亚政府经济顾问。在1970年代和1980年代,担任英国政府和英联邦秘书处顾问。1995-1997年任皇家壳牌公司首席经济学家。在1970年代, 凯博活跃于工党并担任格拉斯哥市市长。但是在1982年,他加入社会民主党(后演变为自由民主党),在1983,1987和1992年参加议会选举,但直到1997年才当选为伦敦选区国会议员。

从2003年到2010年5月,凯博是自民党发言人。他在2006年当选为自民党副领导人,并在2007年10月时任领导人坎贝尔辞职后代理领导人2个月直到克莱格当选。凯博在2007-2010年的金融危机中表现突出,因在危机中警告个人债务过高而备受讃赏。2010年5月辞去副领导人之职,以尊注在与保守党新合组联合政府中的商业大臣内阁职务。

2015年伴随自民党的惨败,失去议席予保守党员。但于2017年提前大选中取回议席,并于同年在无竞争对手的情况下获选为党魁。在带领该党于2019年5月欧洲议会选举取得佳绩后,他旋即辞去党魁,并于7月正式卸任。之后获继任者斯温森先后安排担任该党在国会的健康及社会关怀,和内阁办公厅发言人。他亦宣布放弃竞选连任议员。

UK banned Huawei because US told us to: former minister

By Benjamin Fox | EURACTIV.com Jan 11, 2022 (updated:  Jan 17, 2022)

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/uk-banned-huawei-because-us-told-us-to-former-minister/ 

Former Liberal Democratic Leader Vince Cable speaks during a Best for Britain event in London, Britain, 30 October 2019. [EPA-EFE/ANDY RAIN]

The UK government’s decision to ban Huawei 5G equipment and services “had nothing to do with national security,” and was because of American pressure, a former business and industry minister has said.

Speaking at an event on Monday, Vince Cable, who served as Business and Industry minister for five years in the coalition government led by David Cameron, said that the decision against the Chinese tech giant was taken “because the Americans told us we should do it.”

In July 2020, Boris Johnson’s government announced that Huawei products would be removed entirely from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027, citing new advice produced by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

The move came just months after the United States imposed sanctions against Huawei on the grounds that it was acting contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests. The US barred Huawei from acquiring crucial components such as microchips and forced it to create its own operating system.

Cable, who has a reputation for being more sympathetic towards China than most UK officials, added that during his tenure as minister, the intelligence and security services gave repeated assurances that there was no risk posed by using Huawei services.

“If Britain had kept with 5G, we would now be at the forefront of countries using the most advanced technologies. And we’re not,” said Cable.

(Benjamin Fox | EURACTIV.com)

人物特写:拒绝贵族封号的英前大巨凯布尔

何越  BBC英伦网特约撰稿人 

除了政治活动与交谊舞,凯布尔爵士还活跃在经济学术圈内,他为英国各大媒体撰写经济评论,也在大学发表演讲。除了政治活动与交谊舞,凯布尔爵士还活跃在经济学术圈内,他为英国各大媒体撰写经济评论,也在大学发表演讲。

文斯·凯布尔爵士(Sir Vince Cable)是英国自由民主党(下简称自民党)老臣子。在2010年至2015年自民党与保守党联合执政的5年间,他曾出任英国商务大臣。凯布尔爵士的政治命运与自民党共沉浮,2015年5月大选自民党全党遭遇滑铁卢,凯布尔爵士也在自己位于伦敦西南的选区特威克纳姆(Twickenham)意外败选,此前他已担任该区议员长达近20年。

对于曾经是政坛及媒体宠儿,一夜之间光环尽失,尽管凯布尔爵士说心里有准备,可那巨大的身份落差,非昼夜就能抚平。但他承认,过去自民党与保守党的5年联姻,虽最终造成自民党的大选悲剧,但的确成就了自己的个人成就。

在2015年底中国驻英大使馆的一次活动中,我见到了凯布尔爵士。当时他被英国48家集团俱乐部(The 48 Group Club)与中国大使馆授予“破冰者”(Icebreaker)称号。我向他发出访问邀请,他愉快地接受了。

今年1月初,我在City Lit的餐厅采访了凯布尔爵士。他一身黑呢大衣,头顶黑色绅士礼帽,走路不缓不急,神态从容,谈吐谦逊。我们聊了一个小时,我收获颇丰。

为何不接受贵族封号?

凯布尔的爵士头衔很新,刚受封不过一个月。如果他愿意,他完全可以被册封为上院贵族(Peerage),当个勋爵(Lord)什么的,可他拒绝不要,选择了爵士身份(Knighthood)。我初看到此新闻,猜想凯布尔爵士一定还想从政,不然为何不当勋爵?因为如果进入上议院,就失去了参选国会下议员的资格,自然也无法进入下议院。

可情况完全非我所想。凯布尔爵士告诉我:自己仍活跃在自民党内,有时也与信念相近的工党成员沟通。不过自己已经73岁,不会再去竞选议员,也不会去竞争自民党党魁位置,因为现任领导人年轻能干。不过做上议院的贵族,那是个工作,他不想要。因为他已经在下议院干了18年,足够长了;而且上议院太大,又非民主选举产生,应该被淘汰。作者与凯布尔爵士合影

作者与凯布尔爵士合影

英国民主制度缺陷多

凯布尔爵士认为英国民主政治制度毛病不少。他说:

第一, 因为党派经常交替执政,许多政策无法确保长期执行。爵士说自己在任时推出了工业政策(Industrial Strategy),试图确保政策能有长期效应。不过自己离任后,后继者可能更改甚至完全抛弃该政策。

第二, 选举制度不合理。目前英国大选制度采用简单多数制(First-past-the-post voting),该制度有益于大党(如保守党和工党),对于自民党却是障碍。自民党一直呼吁改革选举制度,不过一直未果。

第三, 上议院太落伍,早该撤销。撤销上院一直是自民党的主张,不过有几位落选自民党议员仍然选择戴上贵族帽子,估计在他们看来,与其做个平民,被册封为贵族起码是个荣誉;而在凯布尔爵士眼里,可能连荣誉都不是,更象是个过时的负累,宁愿选择不要。第四, 分配竞选经费的政策不公。凯布尔爵士说,有钱人是保守党的粮仓,工会是工党最大的票仓,自民党的票源无法与前两者相比。

首相感到很无奈

凯布尔爵士是经济学学家,曾在英国格拉斯哥大学获得经济学博士。他在2015年出版的《风暴:世界经济危机及其意味着什么》(The Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means)中认为:保守党在过去5年的联合执政中,微笑着谋杀了自民党;书中还提及:保守党成功利用媒体,将金融风暴完全归罪于工党。此外他还在书中描写了一个极为强势的内政大臣特雷莎·梅(Theresa May)形象。他披露道:尽管保守党内人人尽知特雷莎的反移民政策对经济不利,可无人可撼她的政策一步,包括首相卡梅伦。我问爵士为何?他解释说特雷莎后有强大的民意支持,所以首相亦奈她的移民政策无何。我问:这股强大的反移民的英国情绪,会否回反映在未来的欧盟公投中,导致英国脱离欧盟?凯布尔爵士耸耸肩,说希望英国仍然留在欧盟。

中国官员聪明务实

凯布尔爵士在任商务大臣期间,曾多次访问中国,会晤过中国商务部长高虎城、广东省委书记胡春华等高官。我问他访华前是否有特别辅导,比如和中国领导人如何打交道的注意事项。他说没有,下属会提供简报(Briefing),自己到中国后会和英国驻华大使馆的官员交谈,仅此而已。谈到对中国领导人的印象,凯布尔爵士说:他们聪明能干且务实。只是碍于语言,无法直接沟通。凯布尔爵士说自己在位时,与印度的高官成为私人朋友,会互发短信。他还说中国政府的沟通方式很正式,他比划着手势说:“和中国领导人开会,这边一排,那边一排。”我笑问他语言不通,坐在那里发言,是不是有点无趣?他犹豫了一会,好象头回听到这个问题,想了想,点了点头,然后说:“开会就是定个调子,坐在后面的下属负责具体执行。”

准交谊舞高手

凯布尔爵士是首位参加Strictly Come Dancing(BBC电视1台播放的名星交谊舞比赛也称舞动奇迹)的政府高官。2010年他初任商务大臣,便现身该节目圣诞特辑大赛,还获得一满分10分。凯布尔爵士说参加比赛前还有些担心,怕因此影响政途。后来证明这是加分票,因为该节目的高收视率让他一夜成为媒体明星。访问中凯布尔爵士一直表情严肃,唯独谈论起交谊舞满脸微笑。这是凯布尔爵士最大的人生爱好,他还经常参加交谊舞大赛。

除了政治活动与交谊舞,凯布尔爵士还活跃在经济学术圈内,他为英国各大媒体撰写经济评论,也在大学发表演讲。他说自己想写本关于邓小平的书。因为觉得邓小平很伟大,让中国经济快速腾飞,但西方人对其重视不够。

前英国商务大臣文斯·凯布尔发言完整版
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KheNv0nw3EI&t=9s

10,608次观看2022年2月12日
Anthony Huang
前英国商务大臣在牛津辩论社上发言称,中国从未破坏以规则为基础的国际体系,破坏的人是特朗普。英国在于中国的交往中受益。

下面是YouTube自动设我能过程的发言记录。

An honor to speak after dr pillsbury who is probably one of the two or three people in the world who is most authoritative on china and is a deep thinker.  Many of the things he says and writes about are wise and right. But I, I sort of part company.

In fact i i start to park company in the leading article in the book where it talks about china's secret strategy to replace America as the global superpower and then why why secret.
um in his book uh dr pillsbury describes an episode where a chinese defector 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 conomy in the world by 2020.

00:12 [Music]

00:16 so you know there is an issue about the

00:18  the current hegemon you know the

00:22 superpower getting used to the idea that

00:24 there is another country which will have

00:26 comparable and potentially significantly

00:29 more economic heft i mean we you know

00:32 britain used to be number 100 years ago

00:34 so we've had a century to get used to

00:36 sliding down the league table

00:39 i think we're about now about number

00:40 eight we've just been overtaken by

00:42 indonesia i think the united states the

00:44 core of the problem in many ways is an

00:47 inability to get used to this basic fact

00:50 and to adapt to it and to accept that

00:52 china is going to have to be integrated

00:55 the rules of the world system which the

00:57 united states has led and led well to

01:00 our all to our benefit for the last 70

01:02 years president g's now been there for

01:05 10 years he set out his approach very

01:08 clearly 10 years ago and we accepted it

01:11 how to engage with china which is to

01:13 accept if you want to have a good

01:14 relationship with them you respect their

01:16 principle of self of territorial

01:19 integrity and non-interference for

01:21 example in the

01:23 issue of qinjian but it's very clear

01:26 that a lot of other countries in the world

01:28 buy the chinese argument including those

01:31 that are democratically elected

01:32

indonesia and malaysia pakistan

01:34

bangladesh nigeria have lined up on the

01:36

chinese side

01:39

[Music]

01:41

to take a particular issue which

01:43

concerns the british which is our

01:45

residual responsibilities in hong kong

01:48 and people here very upset western angry that

01:53 decent people have been bundled off to

01:55 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,  but  he said look there are certain parameters.  You can say what you like free speech, you 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 inca in clear about what was permissible and i think we need to remember that and similarly in terms of foreign policy

07:01
president g's now been there for 10
07:03
years he set out his approach very
07:06
clearly 10 years ago and we accepted it
07:09
and it was set out in a statement he
07:11
made
07:12
in mexico city it was asked about what's
07:14
your relationship going to be with the
07:16
west you said look
07:18
we're not going to export revolution
07:21
we're not going to export hungry
07:23
refugees
07:24
we're not going to mess with you don't
07:26
mess with us
07:28
and it's a bit crude but it's very clear
07:31
how to engage with china which is to
07:34
accept
07:35
if you want to have a good relationship
07:37
with them you respect their principle of
07:40
of uh territorial integrity and
07:42
non-interference
07:44
and that's the basis on which they've
07:46
since conducted their foreign affairs
07:49
it's why for example in the
07:52
issue of xinjiang
07:54
terrible human rights abuse i'm quite
07:56
sure but and the west has taken up a
07:59
strong position on it but it's very
08:00
clear that a lot of other countries in
08:02
the world
08:03
by the chinese argument every single
08:06
muslim country of importance
08:09
including those that are democratically
08:11
elected indonesia malaysia pakistan
08:13
bangladesh nigeria have lined up on the
08:15
chinese side
08:17
so that that principle
08:20
of dealing with china engaging with
08:22
china but recognizing the reality that
08:24
they have a different system
08:26
and they're not going to countenance
08:28
interference with their internal
08:30
politics that has to be out of sheer
08:33
realism the way we deal with them
08:36
so let me just
08:37
try and bring to a head
08:39
where i think this leads
08:41
i mean i was part of the government that
08:42
where we did try to engage with china
08:44
and our primary motive was economic
08:48
and we took the view and i would still
08:50
take the view that it was economically
08:52
beneficial to britain and other western
08:55
countries to engage economically with
08:58
china as a result of what we did
09:00
we still have a british steel industry
09:03
chinese company bought out tata steel it
09:05
was going to
09:07
we will have an electrical vehicle
09:09
industry because the chinese are going
09:11
to invest heavily in
09:13
batteries in the northeast of england
09:15
land rover is a highly successful motor
09:18
car industry in in the west midlands
09:20
because of the profits and the sales in
09:22
china
09:23
astrozenica which developed our vaccine
09:26
did so on the back of profits and sales
09:28
in china
09:29
british universities including this one
09:32
depend very heavily on
09:34
120 000
09:37
chinese students every year paying full
09:39
commercial fees
09:40
you know the british economy
09:43
has benefited from our relations with
09:45
china and i don't apologize for having
09:47
negotiated some of those things but it
09:50
isn't just parochial there's a broader
09:52
picture despite all the complaints about
09:55
chinese unfair practices
09:57
they've actually helped to keep the
09:59
world monetary system stable they hold
10:01
four trillion dollars worth of u.s
10:04
assets it was always going to be said
10:06
that they would use it to sabotage the
10:08
system and they were going for currency
10:10
warfare nothing of the kind has happened
10:13
they've kept the basic monetary system
10:15
stable and implicit partnership with the
10:18
united states the person who put the
10:20
boot into the rules-based system the
10:23
world trade organization wasn't the
10:25
chinese it was president trump
10:27
tried to cut it off at the knees
10:30
withdrawing support for the wto
10:33
and michael referred quite fairly to
10:36
some of the grievances which we have
10:38
with the chinese about intellectual
10:40
property rights
10:41
i mean all countries coming up
10:43
developing korea taiwan japan
10:47
and i have to say in its early stages
10:49
the united states which based its
10:51
development stealing
10:53
intellectual property from britain that
10:55
was how they got going i mean that's how
10:57
countries start
10:59
they have now introduced intellectual
11:01
property courts foreign companies are
11:03
now winning cases
11:04
they are adapting to the demands of a
11:07
globally responsible economic partner
11:10
we complain and we used to negotiate
11:13
with the chinese and say well
11:14
you open your market show that you're
11:16
willing to reciprocate
11:18
free trade
11:20
and the top of the western list and the
11:22
british list was always financial
11:23
services
11:24
and it's worth noting that in the
11:26
current flurry of uh
11:29
activity that's taking place in china on
11:31
policy that one of the things that the
11:33
president has done is to open up china
11:35
to financial services leading western
11:37
companies blackrock jp and organ are now
11:40
operating fully on subsidiaries in china
11:44
buying up chinese shares
11:46
you know they've accepted the
11:48
obligations of being part of an
11:49
integrated economic system but i've got
11:52
some concluding mark with something
11:53
that's more important than international
11:56
trade
11:57
which is those common headaches
11:59
economies called international public
12:01
goods
12:02
where countries have to cooperate
12:05
you know pandemics are one example
12:08
the other is in glasgow at the moment is
12:10
climate change and the chinese are
12:12
currently being portrayed as the bad
12:13
guys
12:15
and they have very large emissions of
12:17
course but not in actually per capita
12:20
terms or cumulatively but yeah
12:22
we're not going to solve the work the
12:23
climate problem without chinese
12:25
cooperation
12:26
and they do recognize there's a problem
12:28
they've just introduced carbon pricing
12:31
uh they've got the biggest renewable
12:33
energy industry the eclipse vehicle
12:35
industry in the world
12:37
um they tried to accelerate the phasing
12:40
out of coal and then run into power
12:42
shortages so they've had to backtrack
12:43
but they understand the necessity
12:46
but the key point is we're not going to
12:48
solve this problem unless we work with
12:50
them
12:51
on research common standards and so on
12:53
and you can't do that in a cold war
12:55
environment
12:56
and
12:58
and just my final point and i'll just
13:00
take a minute over this is the
13:02
proliferation of nuclear weapons
13:04
probably the biggest danger we face at
13:06
the moment
13:07
and there are road states north korea
13:10
pakistan potentially iran
13:13
china has influence with all those
13:15
countries we don't know how they
13:16
exercise it
13:17
but we could potentially minimize the
13:20
risks associated that if we're willing
13:22
to work with the chinese and something
13:24
even more serious because of the
13:26
collapse
13:28
of
13:29
conversations with china
13:31
a sort of paranoia has now developed
13:34
which is leading the chinese to build up
13:36
their stock of nuclear weapons they
13:39
had a minimum deterrence policy no first
13:41
use was no threat to anybody now they
13:44
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 sex as well as this thank you.
[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (0)
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.