https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccsSjCwX0vI&t=22s
问
您认为中国实际上对任何人都不构成威胁，这一点我基本同意。的确，几乎没有证据表明中国有意入侵世界任何国家，而且自从近40年前与越南发生冲突以来，他们也确实没有这样做过。然而，每当人们谈到中国，总会提到其威权主义和人权记录，特别是其在西藏和西藏问题上的政策。我想知道您能否就这些问题谈谈您对中国的看法。
萨克斯教授
很好。非常好。中国是一个秩序井然的社会，给人的感觉是，而且确实拥有深厚的文明底蕴。人们举止得体，暴力犯罪率极低。
我有几十甚至几百个朋友，他们过着精彩的生活。他们旅行，他们是游客，他们是专业人士。顺便一提，我在北京大学或中国大学的学术同事们，对公共政策的影响力比美国的学者更大，因为中国非常重视其咨询小组、磋商小组以及各种讨论等等。认为中国是一个高度压制性的极权国家的想法完全是错误的。虽然中国并非以选举竞争为核心组织，而是以提拔有才之士为核心组织，但它仍然是一个行政型国家，就像中国两千年来一直拥有的那样。以上内容基于对中国社会的理解框架。让我印象深刻的是，我所见到的同行们的才华，以及中国党政体制的基本组织结构：从地方基层做起，如果表现出色，就能晋升到更高层级，再晋升到更高层级，最终升到北京，以此类推。我与一位在中国担任最高职位之一的杰出人士共事，他是上海市委书记。你可以想象这个职位有多么重要。他的背景是怎样的呢？他曾是华纳大学的明星博士工程师，后来成为华纳大学的院长，之后又成为华纳大学的校长，然后担任联邦环境部长，最后成为上海市委书记。
他每一步都表现出色，因此得以晋升。这是一个才华横溢的团队。我做了一个简单的分析。顺便说一句，美国内阁成员中没有一位拥有博士学位。35位内阁成员中没有一位拥有博士学位。最高技术学位是麻省理工学院的硕士学位。其余的都是律师或商人，没有一个拥有高等学位。中国内阁有11位博士，政治局的博士人数也差不多。所以，这之间最大的区别就在于能力水平。
我先说明这些，是因为关于西藏的申江的说法并不适用于西藏。我不想把事情过于简单化，但西藏和申江都是300年前被纳入清朝版图的。这引发了很多问题。我不想把任何事情都过于简单化，但我确实想谈谈中国的外交政策。中国一千年来从未侵略过日本，也从未侵略过朝鲜。中国不是一个海外扩张主义国家，在其2200年的统一历史中也从未如此。因此，我想强调的是，我并不认为中国对世界，甚至对其邻国构成任何威胁。总之，我想说的是
问
your uh characterization of of China as not really being a threat to anyone. Uh I for the most part share uh there is little evidence that uh they have any intention to of invading any country around the world and indeed of course haven't done so since uh since their skirmish with with Vietnam almost 40 years ago. However, uh when one talks about about China, the thing that always comes up is authoritarianism and their own human rights record. in particular the policies with regard to Xenyang and uh and Tibet uh and I wonder whether you could address those concerns uh with regard to China.
萨克斯教授
Good. Very good. China is a very well-ordered society and it feels and it there is really a civilizational depth. people behave. there is a very low level of violence.
have dozens or hundreds of friends who live wonderful lives. They travel. They're tourists. They're professionals. the academic colleagues of mine incidentally at Peing University or uh or Chinua University have more input on public policy than academics do in the United States uh because China takes very seriously its advisory groups and its consultative groups and its discussions and so on. The idea that this is a a deeply repressive totalitarian state is utterly false. It is a state though that is not organized around uh electoral uh competition. It's organized around promotion of demonstrated talent. It's an administrative state like China has had for 2,000 years. Under the confusion framework. And what impresses me is uh the talent of the counterparts that I see and the basic organization of the Chinese system both in the party and in the state apparatus is that you start out at a local level and if you do well you get promoted to a larger place and if you do well you get promoted to a larger place and if you do well you get promoted to Beijing and if you do well, etc., etc. Uh, one very impressive individual that I work with in one of the most senior positions in China is the party secretary of Shanghai. You could imagine how important that position is. What is his background? He was a star PhD engineer at Chinua University. Then he became dean of Chinua. Then he became president of Chinua University. Then he became minister of environment at the federal level. Then he became party secretary of Shanghai.
t each step he performed. Because he performed he was promoted. Um and this
is an enormously talented uh group of people. I did a quick analysis. By the way, the US cabinet has no PhD in it. Not one out of the 35 people in the cabinet. The highest technical degree is one master's degree from MIT. Uh the rest are lawyers or business people, but not a single high degree. China has 11 PhDs uh in its cabinet uh and in the uh polit bureau it's a similar count. So this is a a very big difference is just the level of competency.
I preface say all of this because what is said also about Shinjiang in Tibet is not right when it comes to Tibet and I don't want to oversimplify it but both Tibet and Shinjiang were brought into theQing Empire 300 years ago. It raises a lot of questions. I don't want to oversimplify anything but I do want to say about Chinese foreign policy. China never once in a thousand years invaded Japan. China never once in a thousand years invaded Korea. China is not an overseas expansionist country and never has been in its 2,200 years of unity. So I want to underscore that I do not believe that China is any threat whatsoever to the world or even to its nextoor neighbors. So just to say all of
