Thomas Friedman is a well-known American columnist. He worked for The New York Times as director of interviews in Lebanon, specializing in the Middle East, and won the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism three times. In 1980, he published the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem: An Account of the Middle East by American Journalists", which was subsequently awarded the National Book Award for Non-Fiction, and is still considered one of the must-read books for the study of the Middle East. In 2005, he published the book "The World is Flat", which described the major changes taking place in the contemporary world and showed the reasons and ways in which globalization is sliding into twisted flight, which became a global hit and was adapted into a film of the same name.
"The world is more peaceful than ever."
"The world has not existed since 1945."
"A connected world that is closer than at any time in history, but more unbridled than ever before."
"We are at a very dangerous moment in the U.S.-China relationship, and the situation is likely to get worse."
"Those who have been hurt by globalization know exactly who they are, but those who profit from trade have no way of knowing who they are."
Globalization is absolutely ridiculous nonsense
The World is Flat is one of the most important books on globalization of the century. However, since the outbreak of the epidemic, the world has not looked so flat. Do you think your observations and opinions are still valid? Or do you still think the world is flat?
Did you read my recent column, How We Broke the World? As I said at the beginning of the article, the world is not only flat, but also fragile. In 2005, I had very close conversations with some Chinese economic experts, and we sat across from each other at a table. But today, you're in Shanghai and I'm in Washington, D.C., and I find that it's really super hilarious, and when you ask me, "Is the world still flat," we have this conversation that I didn't dare to imagine when I wrote The World Is Flat in 2005.
When I wrote this book, what I proposed was that economists did not have a monopoly on the term "globalization," but that the globalization they proposed was trade and finance. It's true that this globalization has shrunk during the pandemic, but if you define globalization as I did, "the ability to act globally," that's what "ping" really means. This kind of ability, in the past, only the state can do it, then only the company can do it, and now it is an individual can do it. At its core is how we, as individuals, can act globally among ourselves. You're in Shanghai, and I'm in Bethesta, and we're talking, and that's the most global thing we can imagine. The globalization of individuals is exploding, and the world is more peaceful than ever.
So you mean that globalization is not defined by politics or economics, but...
As the extent to which individuals can act globally, I think this is "new". Ever since Chinese traded from the Silk Roads, there has been globalization. But today's new form is the individual, and you and I can act globally. Customers are global, readers are global, suppliers are global.
In your book, you think globalization can bring people closer together. But in your recent column, you said that people or countries choose not to cooperate. Why is this happening?
This is a very complex issue. I have always believed that we Americans are the world, and I am not saying that you do not exist, but that we act to influence other countries, and how other countries act to influence other countries.
Historically, Americans have done three things in times of crisis: we are always the leaders of coalitions that respond to crises; we are providers of aid to alleviate pain in crises; and we are providers of scientific information in crises. Now we're not doing anything of it, we're not coordinating responsibly, we're not providing assistance and comfort to other countries, and we're not providing leadership and knowledge to get people out of the crisis scientifically. The world we know of since 1945 no longer exists.
Objectively speaking, China has not yet replaced the United States at this level, and perhaps one day it will. God forbid, hopefully one day it will. But not now. The United States is no longer the United States, and the United States has not existed since 1945.
Dutch scholar Ian Bruma has also referred to 1945 as the birth of the modern world, calling it "Year Zero"
About a month ago, the New York Times published an article asking whether globalization is dead. Do you agree? Or do you think globalization will die? Or is it just a setback?
I think the issue is nonsense. I've been a journalist for 40 years, and the one thing I want to take back the most is: The world is no longer the same. You have to use this phrase very carefully. Globalization, measured in terms of trade, finance, and tourism, has indeed suffered understandable setbacks. Because of the epidemic, the global epidemic. But if you imagine the technology that drives globalization, the economic dynamics that drive globalization, the human dynamics that drive globalization, the technology and music that connects people together, do you think these will disappear? So this is absolutely ridiculous nonsense. A year later, when you think back, you'll be sorry that I actually asked Friedman this question.
The people who are hurt by globalization are very noisy, and the people who profit from it are very quiet
During the pandemic, the WHO has largely done little. In fact, no international body has played any particularly effective role. Isn't the purpose of these bodies to coordinate relations among States in order to cooperate? Why is this happening?
These international institutions are as "good" as their most powerful member states, especially big powers like China and the United States. If these great powers are together, then they work well. But if they disagree, these international bodies are useless, they simply don't exist. They are nothing, they are the sum of these powerful Member States.
Does this reflect the problems of globalization before the pandemic? You mentioned in your column that globalization is very fragile. Why is globalization so fragile?
As I pointed out in my column, there are three reasons why globalization is fragile. First, the globalized network is running faster than at any time in history; second, we take away many buffers that can slow down; and third, we behave recklessly.
We are unscrupulous in the environment, in the market, in religion. We now have a more connected world, but we have removed all the speed bumps. A connected world, more connected than at any time in history, but more brazen than ever before, is what is happening.
Do you think we're moving too fast? We do not take into account those who have been left behind by globalization.
no doubt. We have such cultural models and economic conditions that allow us to connect with each other. Imagine that many people in Africa don't even have a mobile phone, and I am now on a mobile phone and can spend 1,000 euros in Senegal or Paris at the push of a button. We're talking now, face to face, and I trust you and you trust me because we have mutual friends. But what if not? If I don't understand any Shanghai culture and you don't understand any Minnesota culture, we're going to start a war on Twitter in minutes. This is a real problem. Because we are interconnected, we are able to understand each other's social rules.
Trump was elected in part because he promised to return the job to some American workers. These may be the people who have been left behind by globalization. Do you think there is a possibility of fixing this issue?
These questions are as old as history, as old as a caveman trading grapes for his neighbor's corn. Those who have been hurt by globalization know very well who they are, but those who profit from trade have no way of knowing who they are.
A person who does business with Shenzhen wouldn't think so: Thanks to trade, I can buy an iPhone for a few hundred dollars; now, I can buy from Walmart something that was made in China 72 hours ago. Can I say how lucky I am and how great globalization is? But a man who lost his job on a production plant in Ohio knew exactly who he was. Most people who benefit from globalization don't know what they've got, but those who are hurt are very clear.
Personally, I'm willing to pay any amount of money to help those who are hurt, because it's much cheaper than shutting down society as a whole. That's all I have to say. But in the political debate, the man who lost his job in Ohio was so noisy that he made everyone hear him. And those of us who have benefited from globalization take this for granted, as normal as the sun rises, and we are very quiet. So politicians only heard people who were very noisy and used this as an excuse.
But there are not a few of these people who have been hurt by globalization. Do you think this issue can be fixed? Is it possible for us to build a better globalization in the aftermath of the pandemic?
If you look at the statistics, it's not comparable at all. Because of globalization, more people have come out of poverty, and in the case of India and China alone, the numbers are much larger. But that noisy minority, feeling sad from globalization, is able to influence the political system. We need to raise the interests of these minorities, not just because they are demonstrating, but because justice is at stake. I fully support them.
I'm a tech determinist, and we have this phone and we're going to use it. People can access international web conferences for global action, and they should be connected to it. But I'm not a techno-determinist about how people use it if people use it to spread violence, or lies. People have choices about how to use these techniques, so I say it's more important to say the "golden rule", how you use these techniques to treat others is your choice, and it can make these actions faster, deeper and cheaper. Without these technologies, I might not have had the opportunity to visit Shanghai or talk to news people in Shanghai and benefit from it.
We are at a very dangerous moment in the U.S.-China relationship
But do you think countries, including China and the United States, can exercise what you call the "golden rule"?
Right now, I'm very worried about China's relationship with the United States, because it's the most important relationship in the world. I consider myself a friend of Chinese, and I am a believer in Sino-US relations. But I tell you, Donald Trump is not China's problem right now, I — Thomas Friedman — is China's problem. What do I mean by that? I believe that if China and the United States can maintain good, the world is a better and more resilient place. I believe that China and the United States can build bridges in a wider range of places, that's my opinion. There are many people like me in the United States, but we are just some lobbyists who stick to common sense.
In recent months, the United States has passed a series of laws that have reduced trade relations with each other. Some Chinese media outlets call it "decoupling." Do you think there will really be a decoupling between China and the United States?
I think anything is possible. I think we're at a very dangerous moment in the U.S.-China relationship, and it could get worse. In 40 years, we have established an "unconscious unification", economically speaking, China and the United States are truly "one country, two systems". Any Chinese can say that I want to travel to the United States, go to school, work, invest, go public; and americans can say, I want The Supply Chain in China, I want to hire Chinese, I want Chinese students to come to the university, I want the research office of our school to set up a branch in China. We don't need to think at all, this is the situation for 40 years, from 1979 to 2019, it is unconscious and unified. But this unconscious unity has now ceased. Without this relationship, the world would become a more unstable, poor place. Exactly how much is over is still being debated.
But I believe that in 10 years, the United States will debate who lost China, and China will ask why we lost America.
On January 1, 1979, China and the United States formally established diplomatic relations. From January 29 to February 5, Deng Xiaoping visited the United States.
But from a supply chain perspective, the two sides are so deeply crossed from each other. Political decoupling may be possible, but will it really be in the supply chain?
I don't think it's going to be easy, or we're also afraid that these will happen. But the truth is that the level is now falling sharply and is constantly expanding. Water levels in supply chains in the U.S. and China are falling, and some companies are now afraid that their supplies are so dependent on a country so far away. In terms of economic interests on both sides, I don't think the supply chain relationship between the two countries will collapse as a result, but I have at least seen it stop growing.
If the issue is taken a step further, many fear that China and the United States will enter a new Cold War.
Fighting a Cold War with a country like the former Soviet Union is a completely different thing, and the Trade Relationship between the United States and it is only vodka, caviar and erotic toys. Fighting the Cold War with a country like China, the world's second-largest economy and one-sixth of the world's population, is two completely different things. There must be a different pattern between the two. What I'm seeing is a different situation than in the last 40 years, less cooperation, and as a result the world will be less prosperous and more unstable. But how much cooperation will be reduced, I don't know, depends on the decision-making between the leaders of the two countries.
There is a saying that countries around the world now have to choose between China and the United States. Do you think so?
Now at least some signs have been seen. For example, the United States will say to other countries, if you install Huawei 5G equipment, then we will stop sharing intelligence with you, whether you want cheap Huawei or want relations with the United States.
But how do we get to this point?
Let me explain it to you in detail. In the past 40 years, the United States has sold China deep products, software, computers, microchips, these products have entered your life and industry; While China has sold to the United States are shallow products, clothing, toys, agricultural products. Now, the situation is reversed, and you want to sell us deep products. Shallow products don't matter, but deep products, the value problem between the two sides comes out. There is no basis for mutual trust in each other's values, and the mutual exchange of deep products needs to be based on values. So when China wants to sell deep products to the United States, the United States is alert and nervous. This is an important reason for the current tension.
But this is a core idea of Chinese business. You know, our concept of business, whether it's a black cat or a white cat, is a good cat as long as it catches a mouse. In terms of product sales, this is also the concept.
This is Chinese thinking. For deep products, Americans can only want white cats. If I were the president of the United States, I certainly wouldn't do that, and I'd let Huawei start in one place, like Texas. If you do well and there's no problem, I'll let you go to Houston, and I'll let you go to Atlanta, and that's how to build bridges. But the president we have now, according to the former secretary of state, is a fool, and he can't understand these ideas.