李世默：“一带一路”代表新的全球化模式

当地时间6月22日，由中国社会科学院欧洲研究所、中国公共外交协会和拉斯卡瑞德斯基金会共同主办的“‘一带一路’倡议10周年和中希关系高端论坛”在后者位于比雷埃夫斯市的总部举行，来自中国和希腊的政治家、智库专家、学者以及媒体代表与会，共话“一带一路”建设十年来中希各领域取得的成就，并围绕未来中希共建“一带一路”、经贸往来、人文交流前景等议题开展研讨。

论坛举办地是拉斯卡瑞德斯基金会的历史图书馆，面对着蔚蓝的地中海。各位出席嘉宾在此探讨中希合作前景，思路开放进取，特别是对当今世界形势下如何完善全球化，提出了诸多建设性思路。

在主题为“‘一带一路’倡议10年：教育、文化和文明领域的评估和未来”的论坛环节中，观察者网创始人、复旦大学中国研究院咨询委员会主任李世默回顾了全球化在过去30年间的效果，剖析其当前陷入困境的根本原因，并解释为什么认为“一带一路”倡议代表一种更好、更包容、更普惠的全球化，展望这一“新全球化”的必要性以及光明前景。

李世默致辞

以下为致辞全文：

我是一个商人；我将尝试用一个商人的视角，在我们所处的全球大背景下，谈谈我对 “一带一路”的一些观察。

显然，当下世界前程艰难。在过去30年这一短暂的时间段，世界似乎越来越联通。贸易等各式各样的互联互通在增大，带来了巨大的好处，特别是对美国和整个西方，以及中国。

但这30年期间造成了两个问题，都在这一时代结束时浮现了出来。一个问题是，在美国和整个西方世界中，社会不平等现象大幅增加，撕裂了社会。全球化所有的益处，特别是在美国，都流向了最富有的人。

数据显示：自中国在2000年左右加入世贸组织以来，中国的GDP增加了10倍多。同时，美国的GDP从更高的基数上增加了一倍多，双方GDP绝对增幅是相当的。直截了当地说，中国和美国从全球化进程中赚取了同样数额的收益。

美国（蓝）与中国（红）近年GDP增长走势（图源：IMF）

但是，中国的中位数收入在此期间增加了9倍，而美国的中位数收入却停滞不前，甚至下降了。这些钱都去哪了？收益不均匀在美国造成了巨大的不平等现象。

第二个问题是，全球南方的大部分地区落后了，没有太多获得全球化的利益，中国是一个例外。总的来看，全球南方的非洲、拉丁美洲、甚至东南亚都相对落后了，没有从全球化中明显受益。

因此，当下世界上最强大的力量是去全球化，这是事实。而战争是去全球化最极端的后果。

去全球化有很多花哨的名字：脱钩、去风险，但本质上是类似的。去全球化就是要减少各国之间的联系。一位美国高级官员曾说，美国想建立“小院高墙”。他说的“小院”，是指技术等东西。但自此，这个“小院”已经扩大了。

而“高墙”的竖立也正在发生。我们此前谈到了欧盟关于外国投资的要求。

在教育方面，希腊有很大的机遇：中国学生每年在美国大学花费150亿美元，在英国花费25亿英镑。如果我们加上澳大利亚和一些其他国家，这是一个总值200亿美元的产业。中国的年轻人对世界充满着无限的好奇心，想要去国外学习。但据传言，他们在美国不再那么受欢迎了，在英国似乎也是如此，面临一些困难。在过去的几年里，留学人数已经呈现下降趋势了。因此，希腊哪怕只分到这个大蛋糕的一小部分，这也是个相当大的机遇。但即使在教育领域，也有“高墙”的出现。

中国学生期望的留学目的地，美国占比显著下降（图源：WSJ）

去全球化进程充满风险。一个风险是减少发展机会，这将带来经济和社会后果，尤其是对全球南方来说，他们此前就没有经历显著的发展，未来仍需更多发展。对希腊来说也是如此，希腊需要更多的发展，因为希腊有很多经济问题，它处于西方核心地区的外围。

第二个风险是，许多全球问题现在被忽略了。气候变化、核扩散等问题都需要世界共同合作解决，去全球化对此不利。

第三个风险是安全问题。国与国之间的竞争将导致安全形势恶化，可能导致威胁乃至军事冲突。

在此（去全球化）背景下，我认为“一带一路”倡议很重要。“一带一路”始于10年前的一个宏大设想，但背后的逻辑相当简单，那就是全球南方需要投资，而中国有钱，也希望扩张贸易并增加互联互通，因此中国要用资金去帮助全球南方建设增加贸易、增加经济互联互通所需要的基础设施。

此前有位学者用地缘政治的术语，称“一带一路”是一个“大战略”。这其中或许确有此意，鼓励欧亚大陆的互联互通来增补海洋上的互联互通。无论它是“大战略”还是“小战略”，它仍是旨在增进互联互通的。

希腊比雷埃夫斯港（资料图）

“一带一路”已迎来第十周年了，已经在很多方面变得必不可少了。它是去全球化世界中的一股全球化力量，或许是唯一留存世间推动着全球持续互联互通的“重量级”势力，其他势力都在试图将世界分裂成不同的板块。如果我们想要成就一个更好的世界，我们就必须维护和扩大互联互通。

在去全球化过程中，我认为“一带一路”也变得愈发珍贵。我知道这是一个巨大的项目。在过去的10年里，1万亿美元已被投资于数千、数万个项目。这其中必然会出现问题。我们不能奢望一个如此巨大的项目彻底完美，如果因个别问题就否定整个项目，我认为是完全站不住脚的，不能“因噎废食”。

世界上许多推动去全球化的人和势力都把“一带一路”称为地缘政治威胁，但我反而会告诉他们，去全球化也许才是世界上最大的地缘政治威胁，而不是“一带一路”。

我在中国的互联网上也听到一些反对的舆论声音，说“我们为什么要花1万亿美元？国内需要这些钱”。有趣的是，西方媒体炒作中国提供“不良贷款”，一些国内网友则说，“不良贷款？这应该是我们抱怨的情况吧，而不是你们！”我们借出了钱，没能要回来，抱怨的却是他们（西方媒体）。我在自己的媒体公司观察者网上也听到这样的声音。

作为全球化遗存的“主力”，“一带一路”未来也具有重大意义，可能预示着一种新的全球化。旧版全球化确实在消退，我们正处于一个去全球化的世界。而“一带一路”，除了维持全球化，或许还能作为催化剂，基于新的哲学、原则与想法的基础上培育出一种新的全球化。

这种新的全球化必须更多容纳被遗弃的全球南方。全球南方是一个高度多样化、多元化的世界。它很大：在地图上，除了美国、西欧、澳大利亚，也许包括日本，世界其他地方都是全球南方。我之前在阿联酋的迪拜，每一面墙都是用黄金打造的，他们非常富有，但这就是全球南方， 我还到了沙特阿拉伯。我也去过非洲最贫穷的国家，它们也是全球南方。全球南方是多样化和多元化的，有不同的宗教、文化和经济国情。

沙特阿拉伯（上）与非洲最穷的国家布隆迪（下）

上一次全球化基于单一的标准，即华盛顿共识，将其强加于全世界。这可能是它没能成功的原因之一。“一带一路”所凸显的是，中国的方式有些不一样，不向伙伴国家强加自己的观点，让参与的人民和国家寻找自己的道路。很多美国人反对这一点，但这就是“一带一路”的主要宗旨之一。

希腊哲学被称为西方哲学之母，它的特点是公理主义，即首先提出了原则，然后强行让现实符合大脑想象出的抽象原则。中国的文化则更为演绎主义。我们没有公理，我们接受世界现有面貌，以此为基础采取务实的努力。这也是孔子所提倡的理念。“一带一路”背后就是这样的哲学基础。我们希望希腊这样有深厚的文明根源、在文化上和宗教上不处于西方核心地区的国家，可以成为尝试（新的全球化）的沃土。

以下为英文原文：

I’m a businessman; I will try to use a businessman’s perspective and talk about some of my observations about Belt and Road in a larger context of the world we’re in.

I think it’s obvious that the world is on a difficult path. For a brief moment in the past 30 years, the world seemed to be coming together. Trade was increasing, interconnectedness was increasing in all forms, and it brought tremendous benefits, especially for the United States, the West in general, and China.

But these 30 years created two problems that came about at the end that era. One is, in the US and the Western world at large, there was a big increase in inequality in their societies, which tore apart the social fabric. All the benefits, specifically in the US, went to the very top.

I’d like to use these numbers: since China joined the WTO about 2000, China’s GDP increased more than tenfold. Meanwhile, the US GDP more than doubled from a much higher base, so the absolute increase was comparable. To put it bluntly, China and the US made similar amounts of money out of this process of globalization.

But China’s median income increased ninefold, while at the same time, American median income stagnated and even declined. Where has all the money gone? It created tremendous inequality in the US.

The second problem was that much of the Global South lagged behind, didn’t get to participate much. China was an exception. As you look at the Global South in general, Africa, Latin America, even Southeast Asia, lagged behind and did not get too much money from globalization.

As a result, today, the most significant force in the world is deglobalization, it’s a fact. And war is the most extreme result of this situation.

There are many fancy names to it: decouple, de-risk, but in essence similar forces. Deglobalization is about reducing interconnectedness. A high-level American official said, in the US, they want to build high walls around a small yard. By small yard, he meant technology and things like that. But since he’s spoken, the small yard has expanded.

That’s a phenomena that is happening, walls are being erected. We talked about the EU requirements about foreign investments. In education, Greece has a great opportunity: Chinese students spend $15 billion a year in American universities, 2.5 billion pounds in the UK. If we add Australia and some other countries, together it’s a $20 billion industry. Chinese young people have this insatiable curiosity about the world, they just go aboard to study. But there are rumors they’re not so welcome anymore in America and maybe in the UK, there are some difficulties. In the last couple of years, we’ve seen a decline. So, if Greece could get just a small percentage of this big pie, this is a pretty big opportunity. But even in education, we’re seeing walls being erected.

There are a lot of dangers in the deglobalization process. One is, of course, reducing development opportunities, the lack of development. And that carries with it economic and social consequences, especially for the Global South, which didn’t participate too much and needs more development. For Greece too, Greece needs more development, as Greece had a lot of economic issues, it’s at the peripheral of the Western core.

The second danger is that so many global issues are now being neglected. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, all these require the world coming together and working together. Deglobalization hurts that.

Thirdly, there are security issues. Rivalry leads to security deterioration, leads to threats and even military conflict.

In that context, I think Belt and Road initiative is important. BRI started 10 years ago as a big idea, but with pretty simple reasoning, which is the Global South needed investments, China had the money and China needed trade and to increase interconnectedness, so China was going to use the largess to go and help the Global South build the infrastructure that’s required to increase trade, increase economic interconnectedness.

This morning, a scholar put it in geopolitical terms, a grand strategy. There may be some sense of that too, continental interconnectedness as opposed to maritime interconnectedness. Regardless of whether it is a grand strategy or a “small strategy”, it is still all about increasing interconnectedness.

It’s been 10 years now (since the launch of BRI). Today, it has become an imperative in multiple dimensions: it’s the one globalizing force in a deglobalizing world, it’s maybe the only remaining significant force left that’s pushing for continued interconnectedness. All the other forces are pushing us into separate worlds. We must seek to preserve and expand interconnectedness if we want a better world.

In the deglobalizing world, BRI is something I think has now become precious. I know it’s an immense project. $1 Trillion have been invested in thousands of projects, tens of thousands of projects over last 10 years. There are bound to have problems. You can’t expect a project with this immensity without problems. But to say that these problems are somehow delegitimizing a project like this, I think that’s invalid.

Many de-globalizers in the world, deglobalizing forces in the world, are calling BRI a geopolitical threat. But I would put it to them that de-globalization is perhaps the biggest geopolitical threat to the world. Not BRI.

I hear voices in China too, there’s Chinese public opinion that’s against it, saying “why are we spending $1 trillion? We need the money at home”. We get that on the internet. The funny thing is, you read the Western media, they’re talking about China providing bad loans, and the Chinese are saying, “bad loans? We should be complaining, not them!” We’re giving the money, we’re not getting it back and they (Western media) are complaining? I hear those voices on Guancha, my own media company.

The BRI also carries significant meaning going forward, being the one remaining major force for globalization. It may signal a new kind of globalization, because as the old version globalization recedes, and it is receding, as we know we’re in a deglobalizing world. BRI, perhaps more than keeping globalization alive, could even serve as a catalyst for nurturing a new kind of globalization based on new philosophies, new principles, new ideas.

This new globalization must involve heavily the Global South, which was left behind. The Global South is a highly diverse, pluralistic world. It’s huge: if you look at the map, except for America, Western Europe, Australia, maybe Japan, the rest of world is Global South. I was in Dubai, UAE. It is massive: every wall is built with gold, they’re extremely wealthy. That’s Global South. I was in Saudi Arabia. and I was in the poorest countries in Africa. That’s also Global South. The Global South is diverse and pluralistic, with many religions, many cultures, many economic circumstances.

The last globalization was based on a single standard, the Washington Consensus, being imposed on to the rest of the world. That’s probably one of the reasons why it didn’t work out. Using BRI as an example, I think China has an approach that’s a little different, has an approach that doesn’t impose its views on its partners, and let the people and countries that participate to pursue their own paths. A lot of Americans complain about that, but that’s the point exactly.

If you think about Greek philosophy, which is called the mother of Western philosophical learnings, it is axiomatic. They come up with principles first, and then you make reality adhere to your abstract principles that you gave birth to in your brain. The Chinese culture is much more deductionist. We don’t have axioms, we take the world as it is, and be pragmatic and work with it. That’s what Confucius was about. BRI has that philosophy behind it, and we should hope that with a country like Greece, which has deep civilizational roots, a country is culturally and maybe religiously, not at the center of the Western core, could be fertile ground for this kind of experiment.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。