Renowned Columbia University scholar Professor Jeffrey Sachs is on the show this week to talk about how global leadership can navigate a multipolar world. Prof Sachs also shares his insights with us on the global landscape, and on why China and the United States must move forward to resolve their trade dispute for the greater good of the world economy, and how Hong Kong and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area are in a better position than other world tech clusters.

Check out the full transcript of TVB’s Straight Talk host Dr Eugene Chan Kin-keung’s interview with Professor Jeffrey D Sachs:

Chan: Good evening. I'm Eugene Chan, and welcome to Straight Talk. With us tonight is Prof Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world's leading voices on sustainable development, global economics, and geopolitics. Prof Sachs is also the director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. A former advisor to three UN secretaries general, he has been recognized for his pioneering work on ending poverty, addressing climate change, and promoting sustainable growth. He is a recipient of the Tang Prize in Sustainable Development, the Blue Planet Prize, has twice been named among Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential World Leaders. In addition, he had received 45 honorable doctorates from different universities. Welcome to our show, Prof Sachs!

Sachs: Thank you so much!

Chan: And thank you for coming back to Hong Kong once again.

Sachs: It's always a pleasure and an honor to be here.

Geopolitical dynamics & economic narratives

Chan: Thank you for coming to the show. The term that we often hear, “strategic competition”, now defines the relationship between the US and China. But from the Chinese perspective, this often feels less than sort of a fair competition, and it's more about containment. So, why do you think this zero-sum paradigm has become so entrenched?

Sachs: I'm hoping that it's not entrenched. The American attitude towards China is, I could say, one of anxiety, but I don't think it's a justified anxiety. You know, after the end of the Soviet Union, the US view, and I mean, the view in Washington, was, well, now we're in charge of the world, now we are the sole superpower. America called itself the “Indispensable Country”, a little bit arrogant, a little bit delusional, in fact, but also not really very insightful into the dynamics of the world, because as the US was having this feeling, China was soaring.

Chan: Right.

Sachs: And the US wasn't watching. From an American point of view, China was a poor country that made our iPhones; China was a poor country that made our toys; China was a poor country that provided low-cost manufacturing. People were not aware of the dynamism and the scale, and the scope of China's remarkable economic transformation. It was only around 2010 that these Washington policymakers began to wake up to the reality of China as a super economy, an economy growing much faster than the US’. And when China declared its “Made in China 2025 Policy”, which was a decade ago, then American policymakers said, "Oh, my God, they're going to compete on the high end of technology.” They couldn't quite believe it. The anxiety level started to rise because the American view was, “Who could challenge us?” Of course, from my point of view, as an economist, especially one who is focused on world change and world history, the idea that any one country dominates and stays dominant is a very naive view. I published a book 30 years ago called Emerging Asia, where I wrote, actually, with a lot of accuracy, as it turned out. I said China's going to continue to soar over the 30-year period from 1995 to 2025, and China, of course, performed, even outperformed, the very optimistic expectations. The point is that it is taking time for American policymakers to learn that we are truly in a multipolar world, to operate with mutual respect for other countries. You can't contain China. This is a crazy idea. It's crazy as a strategy. It's also immoral in a way. Why should one country say, “We contain another country”? That makes no sense. So, we're at a stage where the United States learns to get along with the rest of the world. This is the bottom line.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Sachs: HK to play leadership role in global sustainable development
• Economist: HK seen as global growth epicenter
• Sachs: As the US steps back, the world must step up
• China highlighted as future host for major UN campus

Chan: Right, Jeffrey, thank you for giving sort of the broader picture. And we know that President Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump met last week in South Korea, and do you think that will start to change the paradigm? Shall we work for more mutual benefit from now on? Do you see that happening?

Sachs: I saw some progress in this meeting. The progress is more realism in the US, more understanding. You can't win a trade war with China; you can't make unilateral demands on China. You can't apply what America thought were choke points on China. China has got more choke points on the US than the US has on China. I think this was, or I should say, still is a learning process in the US. There's a lot of naivety, still, some arrogance still, some delusion. But I think America is learning it the hard way. You go to a trade war against China, you're not going to come out on top of that trade war. It will be lose-lose, for sure, but you're going to lose a lot. And you're not going to have the win that you imagine. All of us in America learned about rare earth magnets. You know, this was not a concept on the daily lips of Americans, but suddenly, Americans learned just a couple of months ago that China can stop the American auto industry, almost in its tracks, by some export controls.

When the US said, “How dare you do that?” Well, the Chinese said, "I think you started this trade war, not us." That was something Americans also didn't like to be reminded of necessarily, but it's completely true. The trade war started with the US and China said, "Now, you want to trade war? Well, we do this." And Americans suddenly, and by this I mean the American leader, said, “Okay, okay, okay, let's calm down." So, I think last week's meeting was a step in the right direction.

Chan: Okay. So, you expect more sort of cooperation measures hopefully will grow out in the months to come. So, it's going to be more mutually beneficial.

Sachs: There are probably three concepts. One is, we hit you. Okay. That was the American approach. Second is, we don't hit you. That's probably where we are right now. The third approach is, we cooperate with you. That's even a step beyond where we are right now. We're not at the cooperative step, but we are at the step of, let's not hit each other. That would hurt. And, so, I think there's progress. But I don't feel yet that there is the kind of broader vision and understanding that China and the United States together, if it's cooperative, could solve a lot of global problems.

Chan: Right. Jeffrey, it's the good thing about having you on the show is to be able to have an open dialogue between two countries of great histories and of great achievements. But one thing that I've found is that the actual narrative is completely different. A clear example of a divergent, I will use divergent narratives, is Hong Kong, from Beijing’s point of view, when we enact the National Security Law, it's really necessary to sort of restore stability after social unrest, and to, of course, uphold “one country, two systems.” But when you look from the Western point of view, it definitely is sort of having exclusively erosion on freedom. So, why do you think the Western media narrative for Hong Kong has always been sort of one-sided or what we call incomplete? How can Hong Kong better tell itself the story, so that it will reflect our real challenges and progress? How should we do that?

Sachs: I think what is true is that if one understands history, then one can appreciate the perspectives of both sides, and that's why dialogue is important. Because if you just imagine what you think the other side is thinking, you don't get it right. From the Chinese perspective, China remembers, and it's not just a slogan, it's a real thing; it remembers what is called the “century of humiliation”. The century of humiliation is not just a humiliation this way. Western imperialism, starting in 1839, when Britain arrived here by the way with its warships, was very devastating for China. The Western imperial powers behaved very badly. By the end of the 19th century, Japan, which had the first jump on industrialization in Asia, behaved even worse, I might say. So, the experience of China was not just humiliation, it was imperialism from Europe, from Japan. And it was extraordinarily damaging, very costly in lives, very costly in economic terms. And with a lot of arrogance from the Europeans, Americans, and the Japanese side for a long time. By the time of the People's Republic of China, the view was "We're not going to let that happen again." And it's not going to happen again. But I would say not one in 100 American policymakers knows anything about China's history or China's perspective. So, they just want to see it their way. And that leads to two things: when the US complains about China, partly it's out of historical ignorance, a lack of understanding the Chinese perspective, partly it is to be annoying, honestly, because the United States wants to make narratives that are global that say, "That rival of ours, they misbehave. We're a wonderful country. We have Western values. Look at them, how badly they' behave.” So, part of the narrative is a misunderstanding, but part of it is a game or a tactic to shed a bad light. Of course, I regret all of these. This is absurd. If you know the history, there's plenty of ground for real cooperation, but you have to have the perspective of both sides.

Chan: Right. Jeffrey, let's have a quick break now. But viewers, stay with us; there will be more Straight Talk ahead.

Chan: Welcome back. We have been looking at how global competition and contrasting narratives shape the world we live in. So, Jeffrey, thank you for giving us another perspective on what Western policymakers could be thinking, and, hopefully, with more shows like this, they can understand more of what's happening over in Hong Kong or even China. One area we want to know is Hong Kong has always been a bridge between China and the rest of the world. It is one of the freest economies in the world. And as professionals, we want to make Hong Kong continue to do that and help everybody, support everybody. But at this moment, how can the Hong Kong business community help rebuild the confidence and reshape the city's global perspective with all that Western media sort of rhetoric in the last few years? How would you suggest we do that?

Sachs: I think Hong Kong's role will be more important than ever as a bridge, a financier, a source of expertise, a source of scientific knowledge, a source of cultural interchange, a great place to visit, let me say as well. But it won't be as it was in the past, mainly between Europe and China or the United States and China. What is happening in a multipolar world is that other parts of the world are becoming more and more important in the world economy – in finance, in investment, and so on. So, Hong Kong, I think, will be an important bridge with Southeast Asia, for example.

Chan: Right.

Sachs: The ASEAN region. It is 11 countries, it has got 700 million people. They want to have rapid economic development. China is a great partner. Hong Kong is there. Also, right next to Shenzhen, right next to Guangdong, Guangzhou. The Greater Bay Area, this region of 70 million people, is the most innovative place on the whole planet right now for the kind of green and digital advances in the world. Hong Kong is a great financier, it opens the door to production, to technology, to innovation, to financing. But I think it is not only the bridge to Europe and the United States. Or maybe in the future, not even to those traditional regions as the primary regions, but more to ASEAN, to the Gulf regions, to Africa, which I expect to be a fast-growing part of the world, to South America. So, that’s going to be a lot more interesting business with a lot more regions of the world.

Technology

Chan: Right. Jeffrey, since you mentioned Shenzhen, it makes you think of all the technological advances it has achieved in the last few decades. See, when we look at the US, where technology used to be really leading the world, you can see sort of the getting increasingly more securitized, I would use the word, it is trying to “decouple” from the Chinese technical system, the sort of the ecosystem. So, in China, you see technology as a tool for global public goods, and for renewable energy, as well as digital infrastructure. How do you reconcile these two visions? Can technology be reframed, what we call as a “neutral bridge” rather than a weaponized war at the moment?

Sachs: I think we should first recognize what the World Intellectual Property Organization said in 2025. The number one cluster in the world for innovation is Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou. This is number one position. Number two: Tokyo, Yokohama. Number three, Silicon Valley. So, already, this region is beyond Silicon Valley. One major reason is that this region not only innovates but also produces. This is a manufacturing center, and it is a global financial hub. So, it puts all the pieces together of a full-service innovation ecosystem, whereas Silicon Valley is mainly just the innovation side. Then the production gets done thousands of miles away. The financial center is across the continent in Wall Street. And so, here everything is in one place; this is fantastic. Now China's model of innovation is mostly open source, quite different from the proprietary model of the United States. That is partly because China is a competitor with a more established lead in the US, which worked on a proprietary model. And China is saying, “Look, we've got great technology, use us.” This is going to work because open source means that you diffuse these platforms all over the world, and it is happening with China's technology right now. So, I think China will diffuse this amazing cutting-edge technology across the emerging and developing economies and be highly competitive, of course. It already is the low-cost producer. Then comes the question: will there be two systems in the world or one system? Meaning the US has banned Huawei from the physical infrastructure of the US military or security alliance. I think it is absurd, but the fact of the matter is it is a reality. So, the US has been trying to break apart the two systems. The US also thought it had a chokehold on China. We restrict the semiconductors, what can China do? Well, it turns out they can innovate semiconductors; they can find their way around this. I am still hoping we don't break the world into technology blocks. Science doesn't work that way; technology doesn't work that way. But politicians sometimes think that way. That would be quite costly to go in that direction, but it is possible. But even if the US says, “Okay, we close off our part of the world”, China is going to have a larger part of the world because the emerging and developing economies want what China offers, and China will offer what it has at lower costs, more open source. It is going to find its partnerships all over the world.

Chan: Right.

Sachs: Maybe the US and Europe are going to be huddled a little bit in a protectionist mode, but it is not going to work in a longer-term point of view.

Chan: Right. Professor, another area apart from technology is AI and big data. I mean the West often says this is a way of controlling people. But if you look at a vast country like China, they need sort of that to make things work. So, how do you see these two sorts of quite different narratives? How can they meet again and be able to work together for the common good? Do you see that happening?

Sachs: The way to find the common good, the only way that I know of, is to talk with each other, to deal with each other, and that has to be done at least on two tracks. One is the government-to-government. It should not just be a summit meeting every few years; it should be a normal amount of interchange that will build trust. Of course, the track two, which I am much more involved in is scholar-to-scholar – universities in cooperation, or athletes in cooperation, or tourists that get to know each other. You probably know the biggest pro-China factor in the US in recent years has been TikTok. This is the way an American, not in some high politics, but just in daily life, gets to know China. And when TikTok was restricted, they went to Red Note, and they found Chinese friends on the system all of a sudden. So, Chinese and American citizens found each other online, not because of any high-level decision-making. In fact, despite it, and it was very, very positive because Americans said, “Oh, they are helping me online, helping me with a new app, helping me to find my way around this social media.” So, I think the more we can have human-to-human contact …

Chan: Right.

Sachs: … the more we can have intergovernmental diplomacy as a normal thing. The more we can put away the US talk about enemies and adversaries and risks of war, and so forth, the better off we will be.

Chan: Right. Jeffrey, we are coming to the last part of the show, I want to ask you a very direct question.

Sachs: Yes.

Chan: You mentioned quite categorically that the policymakers, the political persons, may not know very much about China's history. Would you say in general, the average Americans, will they be open to more friendship and more cooperative efforts between China and the US? Do you think that is a viable option for the two countries?

Sachs: There is absolutely ground for friendship, but people in China and Hong Kong should understand the US has two huge oceans. It has got the Pacific, it has got the Atlantic. Americans don't know the geography of the rest of the world. They don't know the history of the rest of the world. They are actually quite open and friendly people. Our government is a little bit anxious, our government is a little bit militaristic, but the people are not. So, the basis for human cooperation is very strong.

Chan: Right.

Sachs: We have to find ways to make it happen. I tell my students for sure go to China, enjoy, take a semester, and learn because that is the lifelong way to make cooperation.

Chan: Right. So, Jeffrey, thank you very much for sharing your insights with us on the global landscape and on the sustainable leadership in today’s multipolar world. As Hong Kong continues to define its role between the East and the West, your reflections remind us that real progress comes not from rivalry, but from cooperation and shared purpose. Have a good evening and see you next week.