基辛格畅谈中国今昔巨变

    在尼克松和福特两届政府中，亨利•基辛格都主导了美国的对外政策，最近他出版了新书《论中国》（On China）。《财富》（Fortune）杂志主编赛安迪采访了这位传奇外交家。

    问：基辛格博士，您能否谈谈当前中美关系的性质？

    答：中美两国是全球的两个主要经济引擎，在全球范围内彼此互动，因此，全世界的经济发展与和平都取决于这一关系的性质。就当前这一时刻而言，两国政府都认识到这一双边关系的重要性，但尚未能成功地将此种认识转化为面向未来的共同目标。他们颇为擅长给政府首脑会议撰写公报，却无法真正弥合上述鸿沟。两国都正在朝着全新但尚无定论的未来前进，能否以一种平行的方式界定未来？这值得双方努力。两国的未来目标并不一定得完全相同，但至少要避免对抗战略。

    问：基辛格博士，从您1971年首次访华以来，中国发生了巨大变化，这是否符合您当时的预测？

    答：当我第一次踏访中国时，那儿基本上没有汽车，很少有消费品，也没有高楼大厦，他们的科技也很落后。尼克松总统访华时，我们被迫携带了一个地面卫星接收站，以便有效地与国内沟通，同时便利媒体报道。中国方面买下了这个地面站，如此显得他们不是在运作一个美国地面站——这是典型的中国式面子问题。直到1976年，尽管中美两国已经开放贸易5年了，中美之间的贸易额还比不上洪都拉斯与美国之间的贸易额。直到1979年，我们现在所谈论的进展都还是无法想象的，而且直到80年代后期，中国的发展才开始加速。因此，这主要是最近20年的现象。

    问：您是否担心中国经济存在过热风险？对于中国政府领导层掌握市场驱动型经济体的能力，您是否有信心？

    答：他们现在运作的本来就是一种市场经济形式，现在，他们尝试做到的是开发一套“中间体系”，我认为这一目标将会实现。中国沿海地区将会达到发达经济体的水平，而一些内陆地区的落后程度可与世界上最不发达的国家相提并论，运行这样一种经济体将给领导层带来挑战，可以说是巨大的挑战。该问题能否完全通过市场机制解决？这还不得而知，但我不认为这是最主要的问题。经济过热的风险确实存在，中国建设了这么多建筑，甚至是新城，而需求可能下降，两者之间存在矛盾，可能引发房地产泡沫。

    不过，关键问题将是如何把这些迅速发展的经济结构，与正在调整之中的政治结构统一起来。毫无疑问，中国将尝试在国际舞台上把经济成就转变为政治影响力，从这个角度来看，总是会存在某种形式的竞争，但不一定会是零和游戏。

    问：中国似乎很快就将成为全世界最庞大的经济体，这看起来不可避免，对美国来说，这是否值得担忧？

    答：的确会发生这种情况，但我们必须从适当的角度来看待它。中国的人均国内生产总值仍将只有美国的约五分之一，因为其经济总量需要平摊到大得多的人口上。况且，中国的人口构成变化也将带来巨大问题，2025-2030年后，中国老龄人数量将会继续膨胀，而可照顾这些老人的青壮年人口所占比例却会不断萎缩。最后，我们的行动不应该以试图胜过中国为目标，而应该从我们眼中对美国社会以及对世界和平至关重要的因素出发。不过，这是一种前所未有的情况，要成功实现合作，双方都必须要有我刚才描述的观点，这不是美国单方面就能实现的。我认为这对和平与发展至关重要。

    译者：小宇

    Henry Kissinger, who played a dominant role in U.S. foreign policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations, is the author of a new book, On China. He spoke with Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer.

    Q: Dr. Kissinger, can you talk about the nature of the relationship between the United States and China today?

    A: We are the two major economic engines in the world that interact with each other all over the world. So economic progress and peace of the world depend on the nature of that relationship. At this particular moment, both governments understand the importance of the relationship but have not succeeded yet in translating it into a common project for the future. They have been better in writing communiqués for the meetings of heads of government than in filling in this gap. Both countries are moving into a new and somewhat undefined future and need to work on whether they can define it in a parallel way. It doesn't have to be identical, but it has, at a minimum, to avoid strategies of confrontation.

    Did you ever anticipate, Dr. Kissinger, how much China would change from your first visit in 1971?

   When I first came to China, there were practically no automobiles, very limited consumer goods, and no high-rise buildings. The technology was fairly backward. When President Nixon came to China, we had to bring a ground station with us in order to communicate effectively and for our media to communicate. It was typical of Chinese pride that they bought the ground station from us so that they were not operating an American ground station. As late as 1976, five years after the opening, trade with China was less than the trade with Honduras. This whole process we are talking about now didn't get conceived until 1979 and didn't really get momentum until the late '80s. So this is a 20-year phenomenon.

    Are you concerned that the Chinese economy could overheat, and are you confident that the Chinese government leaders are able to handle a market-driven economy?

    They already are running a kind of market economy. Now, what they are trying to do and what I think will happen is the emergence of a system that is somewhat in between. They will have the challenge of developing an economy where the coastal regions are at the level of advanced economies, and the interior is at the level of some of the least developed countries in the world. That's a huge challenge. And whether that can all be done by market principles remains to be seen, but I don't think that is the major problem. There is a danger of overheating. There is a danger of a housing bubble in matching all the structures and even cities being built with demand that could get difficult.

    But the key problem will be how to relate these emerging economic structures to political structures that are being adapted. Internationally, China will undoubtedly attempt to translate its economic performance into political influence. In that sense, there will always be a kind of competition. But it does not have to take the form of a zero sum game.

    It seems inevitable that China will become the largest economy in the world soon. Is that something that should concern the United States?

    It's going to happen, but one has to see it in the right perspective. Per capita, it still will be about only a fifth of the United States because it has to be distributed over a much larger population. There exists a huge demographic problem. A shrinking percentage of the population has to take place to take care of a rapidly growing older generation after 2025 or 2030. Finally, we should act not because we want to outdo China, but because of what we think is essential for our society and for the peace of the world. But it is an unprecedented situation. For cooperation to work, both sides have to have the view that I described. It's not something America can do unilaterally. And -- but I think it is necessary for peace and progress ...