Interviews

环球时报专访

2020年3月13日

由于新冠肺炎疫情在中国之外迅速蔓延,世界卫生组织11日宣布疫情在全球构成“大流行”。为应对新冠病毒这个全人类共同的敌人,越来越多的声音在呼吁抛弃偏见,团结合作。须知,在过去这段中国是“主战场”的时期,从病毒名称到抗疫举措及社会制度,中国均遭遇西方一些媒体及政客的持续攻击,甚至眼下欧美疫情急转直下,他们也要“甩锅”中国。《环球时报》记者近日专访英国剑桥大学政治学与国际关系系高级研究员 、“ 中国通 ”马丁 · 雅克,听他从一个西方人的视角解读这一现象。

体制问题暴露?中国政府应对这类突发事件的能力远超任何西方政府

环球时报:有人将这一流行病视为对不同政治制度的考验,还有声音批评中国的体制,您怎么看“体制问题”?

马丁·雅克:西方从疫情一开始就对中国有很多批评,现在仍然存在。你可以看到、读到诸如“中国犯了一个很大的错误”“这是政治制度的反映”等文章。这一立场正在失去吸引力,因为中国应对疫情的努力显然非常有效。这一立场没有意识到:第一,这是一个非常大规模的疫情暴发;第二,起初中国并不知道它是什么——这是一种人类没有接触过的全新病毒。显然,中国在最初的应对上犯了一些错误。但我们必须记住,这是一种无人知晓的新病毒,可以说中国是小白鼠。也正是因为中国,他们知道了新的冠状病毒是什么,他们不需要从头再来。

一旦中国政府意识到新冠病毒有多危险,开始着手解决这个问题后,中国提供了一个应对这一局势的教科书级别的处理方式。我认为,中国政府应对这类突发事件的能力远超任何西方政府。中国的制度、政府在处理这样的重大挑战方面优于其他国家的政府。原因有两个:首先,中国政府是一个非常有效的机构,能够进行战略思考并动员社会;另一个原因是,中国人希望政府在这类问题上发挥领导作用,并遵循这一领导。

我们必须记住,这是一种全新的病毒。在这种情况下,人们总是会犯错误。大多数西方国家,可能是所有的西方国家,对现在正在发生的事情准备不足,尽管中国的经验为他们提供了很多。他们太慢了,大大低估了病例数量。

环球时报:美国国务卿蓬佩奥等一些政客将疫情政治化,攻击中国的政治制度和共产党的领导,您如何评论?

马丁·雅克:可耻!太不光彩了。对于中国出现的严重医疗健康危机,完全缺乏同情心是太多西方政客和媒体的反应。他们将疫情当作用来打击中国的一根大棒。他们这样做的同时,也或明或暗地鼓励了某种针对中国人的种族主义,不仅仅是针对在中国的中国人,也包括在海外的华人。因此,中国在这方面经历了一段艰难的时期。英国媒体上有很多类似文章,他们只是把这场疫情当作批评中国政府的一种手段。

这样的看法现在越来越陷入困境,原因有二:首先,中国在以日益有效和令人印象深刻的方式应对疫情,世界卫生组织大力赞扬了中国的贡献。事实是,中国看起来控制住了局势。其次,西方现在形势堪忧,我们会看到他们如何管理,但根据目前的情形,我并不太乐观。我们太慢,没有看到危险——太多人认为这只是中国的问题。他们对中国的批评已经开始偃旗息鼓,甚至承认必须向中国学习。

病毒是“中国制造”?任何可以用来反对中国的东西都被他们捡了起来

环球时报:《华尔街日报》之前的一篇文章称中国是“真正的亚洲病夫”,一些欧洲媒体称病毒是“中国制造”。为何会出现这样的言论?

马丁·雅克:将疾病与种族和民族关联起来,可追溯到很久以前。艾滋病毒就是一个典型例子,它被认为与同性恋者和非洲人有关,被称为同性恋疾病。诸如此类的事情还有,所以并不新鲜。古往今来,这一直是人们对疾病的反应症状。不幸的是,它由部分媒体培养、培育和鼓励,自然也让人们恐惧。

我另外想强调的是,自2016年前后以来,西方对中国的看法发生转变,变得更加消极。整体上,从大约2000年到2010-2012年,有一段时间,西方对中国的态度因中国的经济增长、让数亿人摆脱贫困等而变得更加同情。但那种情况、情绪改变了。为什么?很复杂,我认为西方现在有一种深深的自我怀疑,因为它从未真正从金融危机中恢复过来。现在人们不仅认识到中国正在崛起,而且认识到它的崛起将是持久、长期的。中国将在世界舞台上成为一个强大的玩家。事实上,它已经是了。因此,西方对中国的态度变得更加严厉,更加挑剔,任何可以用来反对中国的东西都被捡了起来。 

环球时报:您提到世卫组织赞扬中国采取的措施,不过,有人质疑中国与世卫组织的关系,认为这种赞誉是因为来自中国的压力。

马丁·雅克:西方有些人对世卫组织如此客观和同情中国感到恼火,他们指责世卫组织与中国走得太近。你会支持谁?世卫组织或特朗普这样的人?我认为应该选择世卫组织,因为他们知道自己在做什么、说什么。他们与世界各国特别是发展中国家打交道。他们知道,总体而言,中国对这些问题的理解要比富裕国家好得多。而且事实是,中国在处理世界各地的卫生问题方面将非常重要,在改善卫生设施和医疗保健方面有很好的记录。

环球时报:《柳叶刀》杂志前不久发表多国专家的联署声明,对中国科学家、公共卫生和医学界人士抗击疫情表示支持,谴责病毒并非自然起源的阴谋论。您对“人造病毒”有什么看法?

马丁·雅克:我们生活在阴谋论的时代,英国首相和美国总统对世界的看法都与现实有些脱节。这是假新闻的时代,反科学的时代,所有本质上错误的想法和偏见都可能滋生,而且正在滋生。种族主义在许多国家抬头就是例子。我自己的观点是,当涉及医学问题时,我会听取科学家的意见。

疫情是“中国的问题”?现在不是了

环球时报:世界政治格局将受到什么影响?这场疫情,美国未显示出作为超级大国的领导力,你的看法是什么?

马丁·雅克:我认为现在对可能的政治影响做判断为时尚早。如果你只关注流行病如何被政治化解释或利用,那么在短期内,这与全球政治局势恶化的方式完全一致,因为美英两国本质上利用新冠肺炎疫情的暴发作为攻击中国及其管理体系的手段,当然,考虑到流行病的性质,这是一种新的方式,且让人很不愉快。但你现在也可以看到这种情况开始改变。我认为,西方被迫撤退,因为中国在疫情方面的行动取得了成效,也因为现在西方越来越困扰于新冠病毒在西方和世界其他地区的传播。由于中国如此成功地应对了疫情,看起来中国将因其处理方式而获得很大赞誉。

世卫组织曾表示,中国已经展示了如何应对,其他国家需要向中国学习,中国值得世界感谢。因此我认为,你已经可以看到一种正在发展的局面,中国从中获得了重要的公共关系信誉。

硬币的另一面是,整个疫情将如何影响中美关系。例如,中美关系正在发生什么?我认为,在这种情况下,我们可能会更加肯定事情的发展方向。美国的反华情绪不是暂时的,而是长期的。这一点在美国总统身上表现得非常明显。但如果你看看民主党初选中的候选人,即使是那些左翼人士也对中国怀有敌意。因此,我认为美国和中国之间的关系将更加困难,不会被修补。中美在贸易问题上暂时达成了停火协议,但科技战争正在加剧。所以,我认为我们正在走向一个分歧更大的世界。我认为,这场流行病可能会起到推动这一进程的作用。

环球时报:在公共卫生体系建设、城市治理和国际合作方面,这一流行病能为世界提供什么经验和教训?

马丁·雅克:我认为最大的教训将是,疾病知道对它来说边界是不存在的,它可以去任何地方。最初一些人的反应说这是一种“中国病”,这完全是胡说八道。现在,随着病毒在世界各地传播,我们可以看到我们在同一条船上。我们必须相互学习,这是重大的人道主义问题之一。我们都是人,我们有同样的问题,我们都会生病,我们同样害怕生病,所以这是一个本质上不是政治问题的问题。这是一个人道主义问题,因此需要合作、协作和齐心协力。

在早期攻击中国后,现在人们说我们需要向中国学习,看看他们做了什么,比如隔离,看看他们是如何控制局势的。在这种情况下,我们需要互相学习。直到最近,这场疫情基本上还被视为“中国的问题”,但现在不是了,病毒已经蔓延到所有地方。这一流行病有可能将世界团结在一起,这是我对这场疫情所能做出的最乐观批注。

【环球时报驻英国特约记者 孙微】

Interview with Global Times

2 March 2020

Martin Jacques Photo: Sun Wei in London/GT

1. After more than a month since the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, the epidemic has been coming under control inside the country. How do you evaluate China’s efforts in the fight against the epidemic?

Judging by the situation now, China seems to have got on top of it, with the number of new cases declining. By and large, it looks as if China has managed to restrict the worst of it to Wuhan in Hubei Province. I think that the situation is looking encouraging.

2. Some people view the epidemic as an assessment of different political systems. How do you evaluate the measures taken by different countries such as China, Japan and South Korea?

Read more >

This is a recorded version of a live interview CGTN, to discuss China’s reform and opening-up policies, and the China-US relationship, during a special Town Hall program recorded at the George Washington University on December 11 2018.

CGTN America presented a special town hall filmed at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. on China’s dramatic transformation, and the path forward towards the 21st century.

Speakers on the panel were:

– Zhou Jingxing, minister-counselor and chief of Political Section, Chinese Embassy in U.S.

– Martin Jacques, senior fellow at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University. He is also author of “When China Rules the World”.

– Yukon Huang, Senior Fellow with the Asia program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is also the author of “The China Conundrum”.

– Robert Hormats, former U.S. Under Secretary of State and Vice-Chairman at the Kissinger Associates.

 

Part 1:

CGTN town hall explores China’s rise to prominence

 

Part 2:

CGTN town hall explores China’s rise to prominence

In this interview with Global Times, Martin Jacques, on the 40th anniversary of “reform and  opening up”, reviews the significance of Deng Xiaoping’s historic initiative and China’s prospects in the light of the deteriorating relationship with the US in the era of Trump.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening up. what do you think of the role the reform and opening up has played in china’s extraordinary changes?

China’s transformation started in 1949, but only in 1978 did China’s economy start to take off in an extraordinary way. It was only then that the Chinese worked out what the appropriate economy strategy was for the country. This was the stroke of genius of Deng Xiaoping.What he proposed was very radical and represented a major shift in the communist tradition. Basically he said two things: firstly, socialism is not synonymous with the state and state planning,but that socialism had to combine both the state and the market. And secondly, he argued that China needed to see itself as part of the whole world, including the capitalist world. China had to live with and compete with and learn from the capitalist world, and not just the socialist world.

This was an intellectual revolution which required a complete rethink and unleashed enormous intellectual energy. This ignited a long process of transformation in China.1978 is one of the most important dates in the 20th century, it prefigured the 21st century: the transformation of China and later the world.

China vows to continue opening up. Some people see this as an opportunity, but some say it’s a threat. How do you evaluate these contradictory views?

One of the great things since 1978 is that China is always thinking, always experimenting, always learning, always trying to work out what is the best way in the situation, in the circumstances that it faces, which are constantly shifting. There’s a general idea of where to go and how to do it. But there’s not a tablet of stone about how to do it; instead of a tablet of stone, you “cross the river by feeling for the stones.” The Chinese combine a general set of principles with a very strong dose of pragmatism.

Itis obviously a lot more complex because China’s economy is many, many  times larger now than it was, and China’s impact on the world is now also huge: there are so many more factors China has to consider both internally and globally. China is very interestingly different and distinctive from both the old Soviet mentality and also the West. It has learnt from the West, but it is also very distinctive from the West. It is very important to maintain that. I think one of the reasons for the success of China is its capacity to draw different elements together from different places, different experiences, different traditions, and then combine them in a very unique Chinese way.

Of course, some people think China should be more like America. Now? Really?America is in big trouble, it is in serious long-term decline, which is part of the reason why we got Trump. No, China has to be distinctive. It has to combine those elements which it needs to learn from the West with its socialist and Chinese traditions.

Earlier this year, you wrote an article arguing that the fortieth anniversary of the beginning of the reform period is a cause for celebration and reflection not only in China, but around the world. Can you specify what are the issues that the world, including the Western countries, should reflect on most?

1978 led to the the most extraordinary economic transformation in the modern era. This is much more remarkable than America’s transformation between the 1860s and 1914. It’s a very important event to study. But the West doesn’t think in these terms about 1978, because they don’t really understand any of this.The West is very ignorant about China.

But I would say look, reform and opening up has transformed China. Then,during the 1990s, China began to transform the world and, as a result, the world is now very different from what it was before because of China’s impact. Since 1978 China has been the most important engine of global change. So every country should study China and the Chinese experience.That doesn’t mean that China is a model, but it does mean China is an interesting and important example from which to learn. Many developing countries understand this but the West is still in partial, sometimes total, denial.

On  October 4th, the US Vice President Michael Pence made a speech at the Hudson Institute, claiming that US has rebuilt China over the last twenty five years. The US President Trump also mentioned this many times on different occasions. Are you surprised by Pence’s speech?

Not really. You have got to say that the Trump administration,including the Vice President, is many ways remarkably ignorant. Their reaction to American decline is to reassert American nationalism and to try and bully the rest of the world.It’s nonsense to say America is the major reason for China’s transformation over the last 25 years. That tells me that they know nothing about China’s transformation. What planet are they living on to make that kind of remark? It’s obviously just cheap self-serving propaganda. Has America made a contribution to Chinese rise? Yes. It has. As China itself has frequently said, China has been the beneficiary of the era of globalisation which the US played a key role in shaping.

Some American scholars believe that the US has adopted an engagement policy toward China, which has greatly benefited China. But now believe that China has “betrayed” the US and does not intend to follow the US way in terms of its political system. What do you think?

I think a very big political shift has taken place in America. It is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have also shifted to a more anti-Chinese position. Now the question is why, and this is a question that the Chinese themselves need to reflect on.

Until about 2010, America was generally relatively benign towards China.The period after 1972, following the Nixon Mao accord,was characterised by relative stability in the US-China relationship. There were two assumptions that underpinned American attitudes towards China. The first was that China’s economic rise would never challenge America’s economic hegemony. And the second assumption was that China would, in time, become like the West, because they assumed that unless China became like America it could never succeed, its transformation would fail. It would be unsustainable both economically and politically. From 1972 until the Western financial crisis, the relationship remained very unequal, though less so over time.America was the major power. China was the junior partner.

From around 2010, it became increasingly clear that these two positions were wrong. Firstly, because China’s economic transformation continued very successfully and in 2014 overtook the US economy according to GDP measured by ppp. And secondly, it became clear that China was not going to be like America. The political system was not going to become like America’s. Furthermore, China would not accept American global leadership and do whatever America wanted it to do. Two things served to dramatize the situation: one was the Western financial crisis of 2008, the worst in the West since 1931. Suddenly the West was in deep trouble. And, on the other hand, China was not in trouble and China’s rise continued.It shook the confidence of the West. Until this point,America did not believe it was in decline. It had, of course, been in decline for some time, but it was in denial about it. Trump was the product of, and gave expression to, this new uncertainty, angst, disappointment and a growing mood of anger and frustration. This historically explains the shift in the American attitude towards China.

US President Trump frequently summed up his approach to foreign policy with two words: America First. The US has withdrawn from various international mechanisms and is creating barriers for trade, technical exchange, and personal exchanges with a lot of countries. Do you think this will reverse the globalization process and maybe make the world more differentiated or more difficult to access?

I definitely think the era of neo-liberalism has come to an end.There are lots of elements and dimensions to this. Clearly, there’s a reaction to the globalization era in the West. And the ideology of that period in the West, namely neo-liberalism,is in crisis;Trump is a reaction against it. The uber or extreme globalization, which was the western ideology of this period, has hit the wall.

I also think that the whole American view of itself and its role since the end of the second world war has come to an end. I don’t see any simple reversion to the previous era of American multilateralism and leadership. I think that era is over and is unlikely to be revived in its old form. I don’t think we should be so surprised by this because if you look at American history over a much longer period, for example from the War of Independence against Britain until 1939, it was largely dominated by American nationalism and isolationism. The period after 1945 until the election of Trump in 2016, during which America saw itself in terms of multilateral institutions, broad alliances and leadership, was the exception rather than the rule.

Before the second world war, America was always for itself. It was very nationalistic, for long it existed in splendid isolation on its continent. It thought of itself in its own terms. Historically it was very aggressive.It was built on violence, built on slavery, built on wars. Wars against the Amerindians, against Britain, against Spain, against Mexico. That’s how it expanded. So this latest period of American development has been an exceptional period. And Trump lies within the old tradition. He’s reacting against the post-1945 period, he is reverting to the past, by so doing he wants to make America great again, making America as it used to be. Of course, he cannot succeed. Times have changed profoundly.

I don’t think we should expect the Trumpian era to be short lived. There will be no easy or simple return to the status quo ante before Trump.This period could last twenty years, thirty years; a reaction against western-style extreme globalisation. In the long-run, of course, globalization will continue but in the next decade, perhaps much longer, it will suffer setbacks and could even be reversed in certain respects.

Meanwhile, there’s a different globalization taking place, which is what I’ll call Chinese-style globalization with Belt and Road being its most prominent feature. We are moving into a much more complex period, with a much more divided and fragmented world. In this context I think the Pence speech was quite ominous. It was a speech that could have been given in the cold war, it was a very broad attach on China, an attempt to demonize it.It’s not going to be the same as the cold war, but there will be some similarities.

For decades, China has benefited a lot from globalization and the multilateral trading mechanism. What challenges will the current situation bring for China? And what’s your advice on China’s next step on reform and opening up?

I think that what is now deeply preoccupying the Chinese leadership is how to respond to the shift in America, how to understand it and how to deal with it. I think the fortieth anniversary is a reminder of things we should not forget. The wisdom of Deng Xiaoping: keeping your lines of communication open, keeping your curiosity about the world and making as many friends as possible. And I think that those are still good advice.

Read the full article in Chinese here.

In a New Year’s address, Chinese President Xi Jinping lauded the country’s accomplishments in 2017 and gave a road map for China’s priorities in 2018.

2017 has been a big year for China – from President Xi’s travels to Davos to hosting the first Belt and Road Initiative Forum to the 19th CPC Meeting. China is taking the lead across the world and at home. So what’s the outlook for the country this year?

To discuss President Xi’s speech and the future of China in 2018: Victor Gao, a Chinese international relations expert Dan Wang, a China analyst with The Economist Intelligence Unit; Martin Jacques, author of “When China Rules the World” and a senior fellow in politics and international studies at Cambridge University; Jacques deLisle, a professor and director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Part One:

 

Part Two:

Global Times

The recent slowdown has called previous narratives about China’s rise into question for some. How should we view this economic slowdown? What role will the US play? Global Times (GT) London-based correspondent Sun Wei interviewed Martin Jacques (Jacques), a senior fellow at the Department of Politics and International Studies, Cambridge University, and a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, about these questions.

GT: Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz claims in an article that the “Chinese century” has begun and that Americans should take China’s new status as the No.1 economy as a wake-up call. Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University explains in an essay why the “American century” is far from over. Obama said last year the US will lead the world for the next 100 years. What do you think of these debates?

Jacques: The US is still the dominant power in the world in probably every sense. China is only challenging it economically by virtue of having a huge population. China’s rapid transformation is clearly already having profound economic consequences, and beginning to have serious political, cultural, intellectual, moral, ethical, and military consequences as well. That’s in a way what President Xi Jinping‘s government represents. The Chinese dream imagines a different place in the world and a different future for China.

Read more >

29/09/15 – Guardian

John Harris’ ‘Long Read’ piece for The Guardian (29 September 2015) includes an interview with Martin Jacques and an assessment of his editorship of Marxism Today from 1977 – 1991.  

John Harris 

In May 1988, a group of around 20 writers and academics spent a weekend at Wortley Hall, a country house north of Sheffield, loudly debating British politics and the state of the world. All drawn from the political left, by that point they were long used to defeat, chiefly at the hands of Margaret Thatcher. Now, they were set on figuring out not just how to reverse the political tide, but something much more ambitious: in essence, how to leave the 20th century.

Over the previous decade, some of these people had shone light on why Britain had moved so far to the right, and why the left had become so weak. But as one of them later put it, they now wanted to focus on “how society was changing, what globalisation was about – where things were moving in a much, much deeper sense”. The conversations were not always easy; there were raised voices, and sometimes awkward silences. Everything was taped, and voluminous notes were taken. A couple of months on, one of the organisers wrote that proceedings had been “part coherent, part incoherent, exciting and frustrating in just about equal measure”.

What emerged from the debates and discussions was an array of amazingly prescient insights, published in a visionary magazine called Marxism Today. In the early 21st century, that title might look comically old-fashioned, but the people clustered around the magazine anticipated the future we now inhabit, and diagnosed how the left could steer it in a more progressive direction. Soon enough, in fact, some of Marxism Today’s inner circle would bring their insights to the Labour party led by Tony Blair, as advisers and policy specialists. But most of their ideas were lost, thanks partly to the frantic realities of power, but also because in important respects, Blair and Gordon Brown – both of whom had written for the magazine when they were shadow ministers – were more old-fashioned politicians than they liked to think.

At the core of Marxism Today’s most prophetic ideas was a brilliant conception of modern capitalism. In contrast to an increasingly dated vision of a world of mass production and standardisation, the magazine’s writers described the changes wrought by a new reality of small economic units, franchising, outsourcing, self-employment and part-time work – most of it driven by companies and corporations with a global reach – which they called “Post-Fordism”. Computers, they pointed out, were now being built from components produced in diverse locations all over the world; iconic companies had stripped down their focus to sales, strategy and what we would now call branding, outsourcing production to an ever-changing array of third parties. As a result, economies were becoming more fragmented and unpredictable, as the bureaucratic, top-down structures that had defined the first two-thirds of the 20th century were pushed aside.

The unhappiness with China among segments of Hong Kong society stems from the city’s failure to understand its privileged relationship with Beijing, prominent China expert Dr Martin Jacques said. In a wide-ranging interview with Celene Tan, the British-born author added that China has learnt from the past and will be patient in drawing Taiwan closer to the mainland. He also spoke about China’s territorial claims and President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign. Below is an excerpt of the interview, the first part of which was published yesterday.

As China takes on more global responsibilities, it is faltering in its effort to pull Hong Kong and Taiwan closer to the mainland. Why are the people in these two territories so resistant to China? How can they be swayed by Beijing?

Hong Kong had been under British rule for 155 years. The whole of Hong Kong’s modern experience was under British colonial rule, so it grew up, in a sense, deprived of its birthright, which was China, because it was cut off from China. It was brought up with a kind of adopted birthright, which was Britain, and looked West.

One-hundred-and-fifty-five years is a long time — many, many generations — so it’s left deep roots in the way in which Hongkongers see the world. They were very ignorant, by the end of British rule, about the country to their north. They were Chinese, but they knew very little about China. On the other hand, they were very knowledgeable, in many ways, about the world to their west, particularly Britain and, to a lesser extent, other countries in Europe and, of course, the United States.

Read more >

China has shown enormous capacity for reform in the past three decades without the need to move towards a Western-style system — a point greatly underestimated by the West, said prominent China expert Martin Jacques in a wide-ranging interview with TODAY’s Celene Tan this week. Dr Jacques also said that the Chinese Communist Party does not need economic growth to legitimise its rule and he believes China will grow to be a benign power. Below is an excerpt from the interview.

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs painted a picture of China as a country facing the classic challenges of the middle phases of development. It said China’s existing institutions may not be able to manage the country’s problems in the long term and Beijing seems unlikely to adopt the reforms that could help because they would threaten the Communist Party’s hold on power. What are your views on this?

China has done extraordinarily well over the past 35 years. It has shown an enormous capacity for reform, not only economic reform, but also political reform. Because if you’re growing at roughly 10 per cent a year, your economy is doubling its size every seven years. Now, more like every 10 years with the current growth rate. It’s impossible for the institutions to cope with this level of change without being constantly reengineered and reinvented. Generally, this has been greatly underestimated in the West. Foreign Affairs is a sort of journal of the United States foreign policy establishment — generally they don’t recognise this political reform because the only political reform they recognise is that which is moving China closer to the West. So, if it’s not doing that, then it’s not acknowledged, really.

Read more >

ÀúÊ·µÄÁíÒ»ÃæÕ¹¿ª

Updated and expanded new Chinese edition just released.

cin-hukmettiginde-dunyayi-neler-bekliyor-kitabi-martin-jacques-Front-1

Turkish edition just published!

When China Rules the World is the first book to fully conceive of and explain the upheaval that China’s ascendance will cause and the realigned global power structure it will create.

New edition available now from:

Amazon UK
and all good booksellers.

US second edition is available now via: 

Amazon US