中国的和平崛起与新时期对外关系

　　——访哈佛大学中国基金会主席柯伟林教授

　　张 梅

　　［作者简介］张梅，国家留学基金委公派美国哈佛大学访问学者，中国与全球化智库研究员。本文刊载于《东南亚研究》2016年第3期。

　　柯伟林(William CKirby)，美国著名的中国历史学家，曾获哈佛大学杰出贡献教授称号，现任哈佛大学中国基金会主席。作为一名现代中国历史学家，柯伟林的研究关注国际语境下的中国商业、经济和政治发展，其著作涵盖现代中国商业发展（包括国有与私营商业）、中国公司法和公司组织、中国自由史、20世纪50年代国际范围内的社会主义经济、海峡两岸关系、中欧及中美关系等。他目前从事的研究包括当代中国商业研究和中欧美三地高等教育比较研究。柯伟林在1992年加入哈佛之前，曾任华盛顿大学圣路易分校历史学教授、亚洲研究中心主任以及本科生院长。在哈佛大学，柯伟林历任历史系主任、亚洲研究中心主任和哈佛文理学院院长等职务。柯伟林先后获得达特茅斯学院、哈佛大学、柏林自由大学（哲学荣誉博士）以及香港理工大学的学位，先后被北京大学、南京大学、复旦大学、浙江大学、重庆大学、华东师范大学、上海社会科学院等聘任为名誉教授。此外，他还是海德堡大学和柏林自由大学的访问教授。其主要著作有Germany and Republican China(《德国与“中华民国”》)、Realms of Freedom in Modern China(《中国现代自由世界》)等。

　　笔者在哈佛大学访问交流期间旁听了柯伟林教授主讲的《现代中国商业发展》课程，收获颇丰。现在课程结束了，笔者请柯伟林教授谈谈他对当前中国经济发展以及中国的地缘政治和对外关系的看法，与国内读者共享。

　　一、全球化背景下的中国经济发展

　　张梅: 尊敬的柯伟林教授，非常感谢您在百忙之中接受访谈。拜读您的著作，让我印象深刻的是您对于中国商业、经济和现代发展有着深刻认识。您的著作也曾探讨全球化与国际化，您如何看待在全球化背景下的当前中国经济发展？

　　柯伟林: 在我看来，中国经济一直是在全球化和国际化的背景下向前发展的。你知道，在世界历史上中国曾长期占据主导地位，只是到近代以来才开始落伍了。事实上，要想弄清楚中国今天为什么是这个样子，不仅要在当前中国的时代背景下理解，而且要将中国放在全球化的背景下加以研讨。从历史上来看，中国对外封闭的时间很短，在我看来，中国始终是世界潮流中不可或缺的重要组成部分，不管在历史上中国曾经是领导者，抑或是跟随者。因为中国政治、经济、文化等与世界紧密联系，所以我认为中国始终未脱离过世界潮流，即使是在20世纪50年代也不例外，尽管从西方国家的视角来看，中国当时是社会主义国家阵营的成员，但是中国仍然是世界的一部分。现在的世界与19世纪20年代的世界在我眼中差不多，那时候中国人是世界上最有钱的一族，现在也是。

　　现代中国的经济发展史和商业发展史都很独特，我觉得用“中学为体、西学为用”可以概括中国当前的商业和经济发展。中国人在采用西方管理技术方面非常到位，不管是采取股份有限公司形式，抑或是董事会制度，中国人都特别善于利用国际化的商业组织形式。但是，中国的某些传统在家族企业、小规模的企业中也在运行，也就是说，中国的商业管理不仅要看商业运作，而且要看人际关系、交际圈等（与什么样的人打交道，信任什么样的人等）。换句话说，中国的公司组织形式（硬件）可能很西方化，但是软件却是非常中国化的。不仅私营企业如此，国有企业也是如此，尽管国有企业和私营企业的历史不同，但两者都是非常中国化的。

　　张梅：事实上，中国经济经过改革开放三十多年来的飞速发展，已经成为世界第二大经济体。有人说，“21世纪是中国的世纪”，您如何看待这一论断？在您看来，未来中国能否引领全球经济发展？

　　柯伟林：我看待中国经济问题的角度与其他人不一样。在我看来，在20世纪的头三十年中国经济发展非常迅速，比同时代世界其他地区的发展都要好，中国从全球经济大萧条中恢复过来的速度也比其他国家快。可是，后来在中日甲午战争、国共战争中中国经济饱受摧残，虽然50年代出现了短暂的经济增长，但是在1958至1978年间发展又停滞了。在中国经济发展停滞甚至倒退的时候，亚洲其他国家的经济都在前进。当前中国经济的赶超速度非常快，这其中的部分原因是因为强有力的政府管控，这是西方的弱势政府做不到的。举例说来，你看中国基础建设发展很快，像火车、地铁等使得人群的流动性增加，人们可以从一个地方转换至另一个地方工作，这比二十多年前要好得多。还有由于政府在教育方面的投入，尤其是对大学的投入，使得人民受教育的程度也提高了，这些都是国家基础建设能力提升带来的好处。其实，有人就曾经预言过“20世纪是中国的世纪”，我觉得20世纪是中国的世纪，但是我希望21世纪也是，因为中国目前拥有世界上最多的人力资本：优质的大学、人才和企业家等。如果中国政府可以找到某种途径去激发这一群体的创造力，那么中国的发展前途将是无可限量的。除此之外，中国当前还需要持续推进改革。

　　张梅：您认为当前阻挠中国经济持续增长的可能因素是什么？

　　柯伟林：首先，我认为当前中国经济的一个挑战在于国有企业改革。如果你从历史的角度去观察中国企业的发展历程，可以发现它们大多拥有悠久的历史。作为中国经济发展的动态体现，这些企业大部分为私营企业，且在近百年中，发展甚为国际化，即使是在当代依然有很多类似于荣氏家族那样的大型家族式企业。自20世纪50年代开始，中国出现了很多大型国有企业，它们确实起到了一些非常好的作用，但同时也会阻碍相当多领域内私营企业的发展道路。

　　其次，当代中国经济发展的另一个劣势，我认为是土地公有制，当然这个问题已经存在很久了。自古以来，中国土地属于公有制。我认为，这就给农业发展、农民带来了很大的问题。如果你将中国与东亚其他国家与地区做一下对比，例如与日本、韩国、中国台湾等对比，你会发现，它们在第一次工业化进程后之所以能保持持续发展的势头，是因为他们拥有繁荣的农业，而这是中国所没有的。这也意味着中国的农民很贫穷，他们离开农村前往城市，如果不是做大生意，很难获得良好的经济收入。因此，加快农业发展对于一个拥有8亿农民的国家是非常重要的，而在这其中存在的问题可能是因为政府力量太过于强大。例如今天上课我们讨论的一个案例——政府涉入了太多的制酒企业，在我看来，这一行业就根本没有必要国有化，因为这样做与安全、与帮助农民都没有任何关系，反而容易形成垄断。

　　再次，我认为中国经济持续增长的另一大阻碍是，缺乏针对政府管控经济的一系列经济改革。虽然每个国家的政府都在某些领域对经济具有控制权，但是在中国，政府对经济的管控权是比较强的。

　　张梅：您认为当前应该如何解决国有企业改革问题?

　　柯伟林: 在我看来，国企改革最大的障碍，不仅体现在被认为是战略行业的大型国有企业领域，被认为可能是战略行业的高速公路和电信等领域，而且体现在能否将地方上市一级以至省一级的成百上千的国有企业交给私人去管理。我给学生上课经常用葡萄酒企业举例，我问我的哈佛学生：你知道中国的红葡萄酒生产和消费总量是全世界增长最快的，可是葡萄酒行业为什么会被认为是战略产业？为什么在中国排名靠前的葡萄酒企业都是国企？有部分学生对中国知之甚少，就想当然地回答：那可能是因为中国政府想帮助农民增收；还有的回答说，中国政府非常关心老百姓的食品安全问题，所以这个领域要由国家控制。事实上，像中国销量较高的长城、张裕等品牌的葡萄酒在市场上占据的份额已经很高，这些企业在我看来可能缺乏进一步提升的动力，所以，我认为中国经济要想保持长期的稳健发展，并且下一阶段还能像现在这样增长的话，新一代消费者的消费需求必须要被考虑在内。

　　当然，国有企业也不是不可能发展得很好。在每个国家，都有国有企业。在我看来，国有企业改革的挑战在于对国有企业合资化而不是私有化相关政策的诉求。国企合资化，企业可以拥有更多资金，但是并不一定改变其原有的管理模式。我觉得中国的合资企业，尤其是国有合资企业的管理权不是很清晰，因此投资的问题不容易解决。有些企业可能会由于垄断获利不菲，但一旦有竞争对手，就不见得是实力强劲的企业，而这样的局势对中国企业的发展很是不利。因此，在我看来，我很希望中国的经济改革能够持续，仅仅把国有企业改制成股份有限公司，这样的改革力度是不够的。因为如果没有引入竞争性企业，私有企业或者国有企业可能会因此获利，但是无法变得更加强大。

　　张梅：根据商务部的统计，改革开放以来至2007年底，我国引进外资中的近65%是来自海外华侨华人。可是现在海外华商企业面临没有接班人的问题，请问您怎么看待这个问题？

　　柯伟林：说到海外华商的家族企业，我认为这是一种很不错的商业模式，中国政府引进华侨华人资金从中获益颇丰，比如说正大集团就是海外华商向中国投资的很好的例子。事实上，这些家族企业中，有一些是非常成功的。如果我们倒回到200或者300年前，我们会发现中国的家族企业几乎遍及了整个东亚，甚至遍及了美国、欧洲，这就是中国的伟大力量所在——作为中国人，你可以生存在世界的任何地方，你可以在世界的任务地方受教育，在任何地方做生意，同时，你还可以与中国保持紧密的联系（不管是投资方面的联系，还是教育方面的联系抑或其它方面的联系）。中国是一个国家，某种意义上它又是一种文明，这是与其它国家情况非常不同的，就像我课上所说的，当中国人需要祖国时，他们总会回国寻求帮助。可是对比之下，俄罗斯移民离开自己的故土之后，他们就再也不会回去了，他们可能会去以色列，会去美国、德国、英国，但不会回去。所以我认为海外侨胞这个群体对中国经济社会发展来说是一支非常重要的力量。

　　张梅：您认为解决海外华商家族企业的传承问题将来应该往哪个方向走？

　　柯伟林:我觉得有一个思考方向，就是这些家族企业对女性成员的力量还没有足够重视起来。这可能是出于传统习惯的考虑，但是我觉得形势是会变的。你会发现，今天中国称自己为CEO的人中，有20%是女性，这个比率是美国的两倍。这很可能是因为中国的女性在政治上、军事上发展前途有限，所以她们就只能在商业上崛起了。当然，这也可能是独生子女政策带来的一个意料之外的收获吧。家族企业现在全球到处都是，我认为，在世界任何一个地方，大概75%到80%的企业都是以家族企业的形式存在的，家族企业其实是主导经济发展的一个企业形式，对于社会、国家都有很深远的影响。家族企业有一些共有的现象。事实上，关于海外华商家族企业的接班人问题，我觉得，不同家庭成员去共享这个企业，或者不共享这个企业，或者什么时候开始让职业经理人去进行管理以及这些职业经理人的职责是什么，还有他们的所有权怎么样，或者是由自己家人进行管理，这些要依据具体情况而定。事实上，我希望中国本土的家族企业也能变得像海外华商家族企业一样成功，可是以前的独生子女政策让这点变得有些困难。

　　二、和平崛起的中国能否领导世界

　　张梅：党的十八大召开以来，以习近平同志为总书记的党中央提出了实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦的奋斗目标，您如何看待中国梦？

　　柯伟林:在我看来，此前的中国领导人如孙中山、袁世凯、蒋介石、毛泽东、邓小平提出的“富强”、“重振国邦”、“自立于世界民族之林”等概念，从某种意义上来讲，与中国梦有相近之处。事实上，自孙中山以来，中国的历届领导人都曾谈到民族复兴。特别是在20世纪40年代后，中国摆脱了帝国主义强加的一系列不平等条约，结束了中国近代的屈辱历史，这一愿望更加强烈。

　　很多中国人认为中国梦很大程度上是指国家的荣誉，强调集体、国家、民族，而美国梦主要是个人主义的表现。其实从物质方面来说，美国人谈论美国梦时，跟中国人谈论中国梦有很大程度上的相似，比如要有自己的房子，自己的车子，子女能上大学，接受高等教育等。就个人生活追求而言，中美两国人民其实是大同小异的。当然美国梦与中国梦还有另一个差异，即任何一个美国人，无论贫富，无论贵贱，在理论上都有成为美国总统的可能性——当然这也可能是一个梦想，一个神话，因为美国社会现实并非如此，这一点你通过观察美国的总统竞选也可以发现，这和中国的高考有相似之处，即理论上每个人都能参加高考，进入优质的大学。但现实是，如果你的父母并没有受过良好的高等教育，或者你的家庭中没有这样的资源，那你在高考中也不见得会有很强的竞争力（当然这在美国也是如此）。

　　说到中国梦，不可避免要谈到中国崛起，在我看来，中国崛起是必然的，但是实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦仍然要建立在20世纪中国发展的基础之上。其实，无论是中国梦，抑或是美国梦，最大的挑战在我看来就是如何凝聚和激发社会精英人士的力量。中美两个社会中的精英人士都处于一种迅猛增长的状态，甚至中国的精英人士增长较美国要更加迅速，可是，你看中国，例如北京大学、清华大学，来自贫困家庭或者农村家庭背景的学生比例却在逐年递减——那些来自农村的学生拥有的教育资源甚至可能还不如其祖父辈们当年拥有的多。因此，这将会是一个问题。

　　张梅：您对中国的未来发展有什么样的预期？据我所知，您与您的哈佛同事合著了一本新书《中国能领导世界吗？》，该书探讨了中国领导世界的可能性以及面临的障碍。请问，您如何看待中国的和平崛起？

　　柯伟林：在我和同事合著的新书《中国能领导世界吗？》中，我们认为，中国的崛起并不是近十年、二十年或三十年的事情，而是已有近百年。我们认为当代中国是自中华民国和毛泽东时代的人民共和国以来百年国家建设的结合，甚至对于中国现代经济，例如上海、宁波等城市的发展起源，我认为还要追溯到更早的晚清和民国初期。当时中国是世界经济增长的中心，拥有世界最有活力的私营经济，如我开始所言，事实上中国很早就融入了世界体系，是世界潮流不可或缺的重要组成部分。同理，在教育方面，在我看来，中国目前增长很快的优质大学（有些在世界排得上名次，有些在努力成为世界前列学校），不是一夜之间形成的，很多都成立于一百多年前，拥有国际背景和合作关系。例如北京大学、清华大学，1949年前后撤并的中央大学，私立金陵大学、燕京大学等。

　　我认为，当前中国的基础设施建设在世界上居于首位，你看看当前中国的高铁建设、地铁发展、电信设备等就会明白我的意思。事实上，孙中山先生在20世纪20年代的《实业计划》中提及的铁路建设项目等在今天的中国早已实现。现代中国还催生了一大批有创业精神的企业家，例如阿里巴巴的创始人马云。在教育方面中国的发展势头也很迅猛，中国大学的毛入学率现已超过了20%，有3000万在校大学生，中国已经进入了教育大众化时代。私立高等教育在中国正迅速崛起，世界知名学府都到中国来开拓市场，国际合作办学在中国方兴未艾，例如这些年开办了中欧工商学院、宁波诺丁汉大学、上海纽约大学、哈佛上海中心等机构，这说明大家都认为中国有很大的发展潜力，世界的未来发展应该是在中国。你知道，我是一个历史学家，我习惯从历史视角而不是仅仅从当代中国的视角来关注中国问题，所以从历史的视角来看，中国的崛起有其必然因素。

　　张梅：您真的认为和平崛起的中国能领导世界吗？

　　柯伟林：我觉得中国的地理位置可以让它从经济上和平崛起，这不需要使用武力。不过，人们常常无中生有地想像出一些敌人来。以美国为例，军方总是想尽办法向政府要资金。我对中国的未来确实有一些担忧。坦率地说，现在中国的对外投资已经遍及全球，特别是在南亚、非洲一带。然而就像美国曾经经历的那样，我担心中国会抵挡不住在这些地方建军事基地的诱惑，而建军事基地必然会带来混乱。如果你仔细看一下美国近50年的历史，你就会发现美国真是哪里都想插一手，但是在哪里都是白费力气！所以，我认为中国需要从美国的历史中吸取教训，我担心中国会陷入跟美国一样的困境——挣扎不已，赢不了却又想不明白哪里出了错。这是美国现在真实的处境。

　　三、中国的地缘政治与新时期中美关系

　　张梅: 自二战以来，中国一直是国际治理中的积极力量。现在，随着中国经济的日渐强大，中国在全球政治、经济和文化领域发挥越来越强大的国际影响力。可是，近期中国与周边国家和地区的纷争不断。请问，您怎么看待中国今天的地缘政治和周边关系？最近国际社会对中国政府在外交方面的新政策反应比较积极，您如何看待新一届中国领导人在治理国家方面的一系列新政策？

　　柯伟林: 说到中国的外交政策，我觉得中国自1979年对越战争以后，就一直是非常谨慎的。中国积极地团结邻国，与世界其它国家寻求合作关系，中国是联合国中积极的一员，正如1920年到1930年间中国在国际联盟中的重要作用一样，现今的中国也在各大国际组织中占据着中心地位。我总是对我的中国朋友们说，以我看来，中国正处于现代史上最有利的战略地位，中国现在完全没有敌人。因为没有任何一个国家能真正对中国的领土安全构成威胁。以前中国的领土还有可能受到俄国、日本等国的威胁，可是现在这两个国家已经根本不能对中国构成威胁了。中国台湾也不构成威胁，越南、印度更不是威胁，中国的边境现在不存在威胁。中国过去35年来的繁荣发展是由长时期的和平稳定的局势带来的。这段和平时间是自鸦片战争以来最长的一段和平时间。所以只要这种和平局势不受威胁，中国的安全和繁荣也就不会受到威胁。

　　我觉得中国现在没有必要为了很小的利益跟周边的国家把关系搞僵。中国的南海问题可能在某种程度上有象征的意义，但是你要知道自从中国20世纪30年代划定南海版图之后，就再也没有人能在南海宣示主权了。

　　张梅：您怎样评价当前的中美关系？在习近平主席访美后，我们能否说中美双边关系到了一个极为重要的时刻？您对未来中美关系的发展有着怎样的预期？

　　柯伟林：我认为中美关系是世界上最重要的双边关系，我觉得双方对形势都要有一个清晰的判断，在一些领域要坚持合作。先前你问过我有关中国和美国网络战争的问题，事实上，在这个问题上，中美双方显然都存在误判。我觉得解决这一问题不是美国政府去了解中国的企业或者中国的政府、军队做什么，然后他们做跟中国一样的事情，而是双方政府要达成一系列一致的意见，让这场竞争停下来，因为只要努力，这场竞争是可以被停止的。此外，我认为，中美双方在环境问题上的合作非常成功。奥巴马总统和习近平主席在环境问题上起到了国际性的领导作用，这对于两国来说都极为重要，在这些问题上中美双方必须要团结合作，因为如果中国和美国不做出相应行动的话，那么其它国家就更不可能做出点什么了。

　　但是，我认为中美两国在一些政治问题上会持续存在争端，因为两国的政治体制差异太大了。现在在中美两国都有一些事件。我希望特朗普（Donald Trump）先生不要赢得大选，因为特朗普先生代表了美国的新民族主义(Neonationalism)，我觉得他的思想是很危险的。中美关系现在的挑战就是中美双方要尽可能在众多有着共同利益的领域形成合作，比如贸易、投资领域等。我可以给你举例说明某个政策是怎样既损害了中国的利益又同时损害了美国的利益的。以Google为例，我们都知道，Google离开了中国。我觉得Google与中国政府的协商做得非常差劲，他们确实不得不走。但问题是，中国没有了Google，百度的发展也就变得很不令人满意了。百度确实也不错，但是怎么说都没有Google强大。没有了Google，百度在中国就没有了竞争对手，它也就不可能更上一层楼，成为一家更好的公司。这是一个商业悲剧，中国的公司本来有可能成为国际领先者，但是他们需要来自国际上的真正的竞争对手的刺激。这也是为什么我非常欢迎中国的企业家投资进驻美国，因为这可以提高美国公司的竞争意识。总之，我认为中美双方都应该对对方的意图有清晰的理解。

　　The Peaceful Rise of China and Sino-Foreign Relations in the New Era

　　Mei Zhang

　　Zhang Mei: Dear professor Kirby, thank you so much for taking this interview. You have been studying China and China issues, and the books you wrote have a great impact on the international academic community. After reading your books, I’m impressed by your profound understanding about China’s trade, economy and modernization. Your books have also talked about globalization and internationalization. What do you think of the China’s economic development under the background of globalization?

　　Prof. Kirby: It’s very interesting that if you look at the long history of Chinese enterprise, most of it historically has been private. Most dynamic parts of the Chinese economy have largely been private and also very international, which is over the last one hundred years, and also family-based, family enterprises as the Rong’s family enterprises, and some are very large ones today. The difference and challenge for China today is that from 1950s on, a very large state sector has also emerged, which can do something extremely well but also blocks the path of private enterprise and many areas. So I think one of the great weaknesses of China’s economic development today, which has been a problem for a long time, is the government ownership of land. Land, historically degrade the source of wealth in China. Land had been privately owned from Tang dynasty until the 1950s. But the fact is all government collective owned since that time has really been a problem for agriculture, big problem for farmers. If you look at the other areas of East Asia that have continued to grow after their first burst of industrialization, like Japan, and Korea, it’s because they also have a very prosperous agricultural sector. China does not have a prosperous agricultural sector, that is to say, farmers are poor, they are leaving the farms to go to the cities. You can’t easily do a good income at your farm and that’s your big business. So someway or other has been raising agriculture is essential for the continue development and consumption of the next eight hundreds million of people who are still too poor to consume. That is probably because the state is too strong, and as we were talking today in the case you were listening to, if you look at the industry in wine, the state , in my view, is in too many enterprises. There is no reason in the world for the wine industry to be state-run. It’s not a matter of safety, of helping farmers, it’s a matter of monopoly. If the Chinese anti-monopoly were used properly, it would mostly be used to against China’s state-owned enterprises, but it has not been used that way. So I think the biggest impediment for China’s continued economic growth is the lack of the serious reform of state control over the economy. The state should have, in every country, some areas of control, absolutely, but in China, it seems to get stronger not weaker.

　　Zhang Mei: It has been said that the 21st century is the century of China, how do you view this viewpoint? In your perspective, can China lead the world economy? Can China’s development enlighten the global development?

　　Prof. Kirby: I look at China’s economic growth in a certain way, in a different way than other people. China’s growth in 1900s, 1920s and 30s was actually very substantial, better than most parts of the world. China recovered from the great depression faster than other parts of the world. Then it suffered terribly in the war with Japan and then the civil war. In the 50s, it began to grow again briefly but then stagnated really from 1958 to 1978. China went backward while the rest of Asia went forward, but it’s catching up very fast. It’s catching up fast in part because there are certain things that strong governments can do, but week governments can’t do, such as infrastructure development, and this is helping mobility. People can move to different jobs even in the same municipality, much more easily now than they could 20 years ago because of subways, trains and other things. People are better educated because the investment in schools, and particularly in universities now. So there are many good aspects of having a what I called in book, an infrastructure sate, but I think, you know, there were many people who thought the 20th century should have been Chinese century. And actually I think it could have been the Chinese century. We shall hope that it will be the 21st century. I think the big challenge for China in the 21st century, it has the best human capital, the largest amount of extraordinary human capital in the world, extraordinary universities, extraordinary talents, extraordinary entrepreneurs, and if its political system can adapt in a way to get the most creativity out of those people, not to worry, not to fear them, then I think there is no bound of what China can do.

　　Zhang Mei: How do you view the reform of the state-owned enterprises? In your point of view, how to deal with the reform of state-owned enterprises?

　　Prof. Kirby：I think there are a few excellent cases of national company doing well. We have a case COSCO（China Ocean Shipping Group Company）, the shipping company, word-class company, doing extraordinary well. It is possible for state-owned enterprise to do well in every country, there is a history of state capitalism exist all over the world, but I argue that the challenge are greater, because the checks are fewer on performance. I would say right now the state of enterprise reform, as far as I see, the policy is call for cooperatization for state enterprises not privatization. The cooperatization of state enterprises means they will simply have more money for main investors but they doesn’t necessarily change the management or the governance. I think Chinese cooperative governance particularly state enterprises is very unclear, so it makes it difficult for investment. Some of them will make ton of money because they have a monopoly，so that they can be good bets but it doesn’t make them better or strong companies if they have no serious competition. In the 1990s, the tele-communication sector was constantly been reorganized in order to have competition, but today there is almost no competition within it and that’s not good for China and for those companies. So right now it appears to me that this reform has stopped, it’s not going anywhere. I hope it does pick up but the history dates back to the national period has simply making state company not enough reform. For Chinese investors who don’t have too many areas to put their money, it’s a very risky investment. Some of them moved well some of them not, but they won’t get better as companies. They need competition of private sector or international competition. Without that competition, they would not get better.

　　Zhang Mei: I have one more question about the overseas Chinese family business. I　noticed that it is 70% of the foreign capital that comes from the overseas Chinese. However, right now, the overseas Chinese enterprises have met the question of no successors. In your opinion, how to deal with the succession of the overseas Chinese family business?

　　Prof. Kirby: First of all, family business overseas Chinese, it’s one of the great models, and China has benefited enormously from the environment like CP group, you saw the case of overseas Chinese into China. Some of them are very very successful. Hope that I have is that Chinese family business in China can grow and be successful, but it’s much more difficult, with only one child. This will change. If we go back 200 or 300 years from now, we would see broad strength of Chinese family business across all east Asia, and in Europe, and this is the great strength of China. The fact that you can be Chinese and be anywhere else in the world. You can get education anywhere in the world, or started business anywhere in the world and also reconnect China for investment for education, for whatever. So China’s a country but is still in this way, civilization, and this is different from other countries. You know I said it in my class, when people leave China, they often come back, Like today’s case, a guy comes back and invests in wine industry. When people leave Russia, they don’t come back. They go to somewhere else. They go to Israel, United States, Germany or London or somewhere. So this is a huge advantage.

　　Zhang Mei: What is your expectation for the succession of the Chinese family business?

　　Prof. kirby: I think it’ s a big mistake for these companies not to take advantage of the talent in their women. They’ve done it for understandable traditional reasons. but I think it is change. Today you see in China, 20 % of the people who call them CEO are women, that’s twice as high as United States. It’s maybe because the women in China can’t rise in the party or can’t rise in the military, but they can rise in business. It’s also one of the an anticipated result for one child policy.

　　Zhang Mei: In the 18th CPC national congress, President Xi proposed the idea of China dream. How do you view the idea of China dream?

　　Prof. Kirby: I think China dream in some way that president Xi is talking about is the same as Chinese dream of almost every China leader, like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping. “Fu Qiang” which means to return to a prosperous China that has the leading position in the world. I think every Chinese will share this feeling. So that’s very common. If I were to say what average Chinese sees the Chinese dream, part of it, of course is national prestige as with the Americans. But when we talk about American dream, the American dream is very similar in many ways in material sense to what many Chinese dream for, their own house, their own car, their child would be able to get good education and go to universities. These are the things that are so similar, that the American and Chinese are very materialistic in that way. So we have much more in common than we have difference in terms of what people aspire for in their personal lives. The American dream is a little different and it’s not necessarily true but it’s a myth, a dream, that any American however poor or whatever any background can rise and become president. That is not the case in United States today, and it’s not so much part of Chinese dream today, but it is kind of the same idea like Gao Kao, anybody can take Gaokao, and get into a great university. The fact is just like the United States, if you don’ t have parents who are well-educated, or you don’t have the resources in your family to get you to good education, you probably won’t be competitive. So the biggest challenge to both Chinese dream and American dream, you can watch the presidential campaign, you can see this, is the inequality of our societies. In both societies, the inequality is growing dramatically, more even in China than in the United States, but both of them growing in dangerously dramatic ways. So if you look at China today, look at Peking University, Tsinghua University, the percentage number of students from countryside goes down every year. Poor people from the countryside don’t have the access that even their grandparents had to try to get into these things. So this is a big problem. That’s how I would define the Chinese dream.

　　Zhang Mei: What’s your expectations for China’s future development? You and your colleague wrote a book, Can China Lead, which discussed about the possibility of China leading the world in the future and the obstacles. Do you think there is historical necessity for China’s peaceful rise?

　　Kirby: As you know, I’m a historian, so I look at issues of China from historical perspective. In the book that I and my colleagues just published, Can China Lead, our argument is that China has been rising not just for 10 or 20 or 30 years, but for last 100 years. We see China today is the combination of a century of nation building: first under the republic, then after the Mao’s period, under the people’s public. So I look at the growth of business and look at the roots of modern business in Shanghai and Ningbo and elsewhere back in the late Qing and early republic periods when China had very dynamic centers of growth and with one of the most dynamic private economies in the world. Similarly I look at the growth of China’s great universities, which are today among the best in the world and trying to be among the very best in the world, but these universities, the best ones are all started more than 100 years ago with strong international roots and partnerships. So in the sense, this is a great university system that is not been developed overnight. Finally, in the area of infrastructure, China today is leading the world in railroads, high way and somewhat in construction, but these are plans that go back to at least 1920s, back to Sun Zhongshan’s International Development of China. So I look at it in a little bit different than someone who studying just temporarily, I always look at it in a historian’s eye.

　　Zhang Mei: Do you believe that China can lead the world?

　　Prof. Kirby: I absolutely think China, again because it’s in such a good position, it’s in a position to rise economically without military confrontation. The risk, of course, is that the people begin to see enemies where they are not enemies. The risk is that, just as the United States, the military will ask the government for as much money as the government would give them. My worry for China is not so much about US-China, I think what we should worry about is manageable. It’s more China military strength would grow, Chinese investment would occur all over the world particularly in South Asia and Africa, and then like the United States before, China would not be able to resist the wish to have military basis, and with those basis come entanglements, and if you look at the history of the United States over the last 50 years, we have been busy everywhere, and effective nowhere. China should learn from the over extension of military power, of recent American history, and what bad result it can have. But I think that is the biggest risk, is to get bug down and struggles, cannot win and will no understand. That’s the American story.

　　Zhang Mei: Recently, China has been receiving positive respond from the international society for Chinese policies on politics, economy and diplomacy. How do you view the reform of new policies made by the new leaders of China? What is the biggest challenge and opportunity for them?

　　Prof. Kirby: In foreign policy, one of the things I think to know about China since 1979, have two the war with Vietnam is that Chinese foreign policy has been very careful, careful to work with neighbors, to work with others around the world, China has been an exemplary member of the United Nations and international bodies. Just as China was a strong member of the League of the Nations in the 1920s and 1930s, China today is a very central member of most international bodies. The way I try to tell my Chinese friends is that from my perspective in foreign relations, China is in the best strategic position of its modern history. It has no enemies. People in China don’t know we think that way, but in fact, no one threatens China’s borders, nobody. It used to be Russia, Japan, they don’t threaten it, certainly not Taiwan, certainly not Vietnam, not India, no one threatens China’ s borders. The only threat comes from North Korea. You don’s know where one of their missiles might land. The prosperity of the last 35 years and more is the result of the long period of peace. The longest peace since the Opium War. So anything that endangers that peace endangers China’s security, and its prosperity. So what I worry about, this is something the United States has been guilty about too, is what I would call, unilateralism, taking actions on your own and not in concern with other countries. So I think China has needlessly worsen its relationship with many of its neighbors for every small gain, the South China Sea business, I understand its symbolic in a certain way, but you know, no government claim this until Chiang Kai-shek claimed it in the 1930s and mostly for domestic consumption. He also claimed Vietnam, and Korea and Outer Mongolia, all this are part of the lost territory of the Qing dynasty. I think China should be much more careful rather than just pushing itself into these area. It’s too risky. Vietnam is an important neighbor, a powerful neighbor, in fact. The two great countries China and Japan should not argue over these idiotic islands. There are so much more important, so many other areas much more important than these two small aspects. I think Chinese leaders need longer perspective. It’s a risky business because Chinese activities in South China Sea has the risk of bringing the Americans back into the area where the Americans would rather not be, and I think that would be bad for China and bad for the United States. The last area, I think Chinese leadership is desperately need with North Korea. Both United States and China, but China in particular has a heavy historical burden to support it. So in the 1970s, China and the United States both supported Cambodia against Vietnam. Both China and United States have blood on our hands because of that. We should not do this again. I hope China and America could agree to figure out a way, to have Korea unified and have Americans go home. China is the big brother in east Asia, and big brother should take care instead of antagonizing its smaller neighbors.

　　Zhang Mei: How do you view the Sino-US relations? After President Xi’s visit to America, can we believe that the bilateral relations have come to an important time? What do you expect for the development of Sino-US relations?

　　Prof. Kirby：I think both sides need to have greater clarity with each other. I think they need to have cooperation in areas. You take the question of cyber-warfare in China and United States, both sides clearly are guilty, so it’s not United Sates worries about what Chinese companies and Chinese government and military are doing, but the United States government clearly has the capacity to do the same, if it wanted to do. They need to have a serious agreement on beginning to torn this down and to stop it, because it’s stoppable actually. Second, I would say, they have done a very good job in working on climate change. President Obama and President Xi have take the global leadership position in climate change. This is so important for both countries and these are the areas where they have to work together. If these two countries don’t do anything, nobody else can do anything. So that’s a every good thing. I think we will continue to have serious disagreements on politics and here is because the political systems are so different, and you see political movements in both countries. I hope Mr. Trump does not win, but you see Mr. Trump is kind of a Neo-nationalism is the United States. I think it’s dangerous. The challenge is for both countries to cooperate in many areas where we have common interests, in trade, in investment and so on. Let me give you one example of kind of a policy that hurts China and the US. When Google left China, I think they did the worst negotiation possible, the way they doubt with the Chinese government, but maybe they would have done it anyway. But without Google in China, Baidu is not as good as it could be. Baidu is good, but it’s not as good as searching engine as Google, so Baidu does not have serious competition, it would not become the even greater company that it could become. This is just a business tragedy. Chinese companies can be world leaders, but they need international competition in China as well as internationally. This is why I welcome Chinese companies invested to the US, because it will make the US companies be more competitive in the United State. The last thing I think is both countries need to be much clearer on each other’s intentions.