【观察者按】21世纪全球委员会论坛作为G20峰会的副活动，在峰会之前举行。李世默作为会员发表了演讲。21世纪全球委员会的会员包括英国前首相布朗、德国前总理施罗德、美国前副总统戈尔等各大国要员和资深人士。观察者网全文翻译，中英对照。
巴黎——西方又一次走到悬崖边上，全世界也因此屏住呼吸。2008年危机后仅仅三年，这次的震中从美国转向了欧洲。G20戛纳峰会前一个星期，欧洲各国正竭力遏制愈演愈烈的希腊债务危机。又是一次进行到凌晨的谈判，各国政府和银行的首脑精疲力竭地达成“协议”，债务需减记，但相关的实施细节还需确认；财政需紧缩，但具体措施待定；“防火墙“救援基金需扩大规模，而钱还没找落。 这一切听起来十分耳熟？
法国总统萨科齐和胡锦涛主席通电话时，劝说中国投资欧洲救援基金。在G20峰会前召集的21世纪全球委员会上，国际首脑如艾伯特•戈尔、格哈德•施罗德、戈登•布朗、埃内斯托•塞迪略、帕斯卡尔•拉米等共聚一堂，共商当前风雨飘摇的全球化秩序。中国又一次成为众矢之的，首脑们质问说，迄今为止全球化所需的基础共公品是由以美国为首的西方世界埋单，现在是否轮到中国挺身而出，负起责任，为全球化提供公共品？首脑们的意见是，既然中国在成为世界第二大经济体的过程中，一直受惠于西方提供的全球安全和经济秩序，或者干脆如很多人声称的那样是“搭了便车”，那么中国现在也应该对此尽一份义务。
与会者包括一位对中国领导人的资深外交顾问，他提议对会议公报做一个订正，即将“以中国为首的新兴国家”这一措辞，改为“包括中国在内的新兴国家”。最好根本不要特意提及中国，而应强调从各国的共同利益，导向一个利益的共同体。这堪称对中国立场的最好阐述。
冷战终结，全球化发轫之始，西方和中国就在两个平行的体系中运行，两种不同的全球化齐头并进。大家对全球化1.0的过程可谓耳熟能详，因为它显眼而喧闹。相形之下，全球化2.0则模糊而安静。
从老布什的“世界新秩序”开始，经由克林顿的“神奇时刻”，小布什的“结束世界上的暴政”，一直到奥巴马的“对所有统治者的单一标准”；从世界贸易组织到国际货币基金组织；从华尔街到宾夕法尼亚大街；从伊拉克到阿富汗；从华盛顿到奥斯陆等等，全球化1.0的引导者是一以贯之，深信这套体系适用于全人类。为此每个国家都应接受自由主义代议制民主制度，用不断开放及至高无上的市场支持商品和资本流通，由此可以建立一个世界经济共同体，这个共同体的规则人人适用，四海皆准。而在背后推动这一切的，是具备天赋权利的全能个人，以及人人都会有的普世愿望，好似全人类每一个人都渴望喝那杯加有脱脂牛奶的星巴克咖啡。
近二十年来，西方一直引领着这个普世的全球化1.0狂奔，结果是挥霍了他们几代先辈积攒下的财富，质押了后代的未来，葬送了年轻士兵的生命，掏空了本国的工业，更是惘顾自身文化的主体性和民众福祉。在那些投身其中的国家中，全球化产生的经济和政治利益，被政治和商业精英所鲸吞，而绝大多数民众所获无几。在全球化1.0的先锋美国，华尔街、硅谷和好莱坞组成了“神圣的三位一体”，依靠对政治的决定性影响而恣意妄为，不惜以政府救助乃至政治瘫痪为代价，维护自己不断膨胀的利益。欧洲也陷入了同样的泥潭。民众的失落和愤怒正演变成街头抗议。如今这些精英们正在电视上挠头搔耳地问：“我们为何会破产？”或许他们所面对的远不止是财政破产，还有隐藏更深的道义破产。这就是基于普世性的全球化1.0的困境。
在此情形下，一种新的，酝酿已久的全球化即全球化2.0开始崭露头角。全球化2.0一直以来悄无声息，没有自吹自擂，在自我表述上也不甚精致，它不会为全人类许下乌托邦式的未来，也不会让人热血沸腾或浮想连篇。全球化2.0似乎还被全球化1.0的阴影遮蔽着，但其一直深深地扎根于现实，而非像全球化1.0那样推崇悬于“元理论”的宏伟叙事。事实上，全球化2.0恰恰是个反宏伟叙事 。在过去二十年中，全球化2.0成就斐然。数亿人摆脱了贫困，以史无前例的速度快速工业化，拒绝皈依西方的现代性宗教，却完成了事实上的现代化。在那些经历全球化2.0的国家中，政治精英将改善本国民众生活视为自己的首要责任，他们掌握权力的合法性和持久性来自于维护本国家和民族的利益，而非要以某些自命的目标和意识形态去统治世界。全球化2.0的核心是文化的主导性，并作为文明的基本要素：每一种文化和文明都是独一无二的，这应该被视为公理。除此之外，没有任何“神明”足以统合各种文化和文明，或创造出什么普世性。不同文化的存在都是单称（非对称性）的，其差异是无需理由的，根本上是没有可比性的，（用中国人的话说）只有“存异”才能“求同”（承认并尊重文化之间的差异性，才能实现利益的一致），才能建立更和平的世界秩序。这就是基于多元性的全球化2.0的故事。
在此之际，我们遭遇的全球性问题需要全球性的解决方案。人类文明正面临许多重大挑战，包括气候变化和全球经济再平衡等等，这意味着西方必须和世界其他国家达成利益共识。但全球性的解决方案为何迟迟难产呢？
原因在于我们正陷于全球化1.0和全球化2.0衔接的夹缝中，前者已陷入困境，而后者尚无意显山露水。但树欲静而风不止，全球化2.0的势头已难以遏制，中国作为其中的领跑者，正隐隐成为世界瞩目的灯塔。然而，其他任何国家都无法复制中国的道路，这是全球化2.0的模式决定的。中国模式提供经验的是，世界上没有可以随意移植的普世模式，每一种文化都必须探索自己的发展道路。怎样的政治制度最合适？怎样的经济模式最适合各自的发展阶段？怎样的基本价值观最适合其社会的根本组合？不同的地区和民族，最终都必须为这些问题找到各自独一无二的答案。这样的选择应该获得尊重，他们的声音应该得到倾听，尤其是那些尚身陷于全球化1.0的人民，那里的政治和商业精英以普世性的名义，剥夺了他们的遗产和未来。
很多人正呼吁中国成为全球秩序中“负责任”的参与者，还有人指责中国“搭便车”，漠不关心摇摇欲坠的世界经济秩序。只要中国对这种被强加的领导地位表现犹豫，或者是拒绝，就会被视为逃避责任，甚至招来怨恨。这种说辞忽视了更为根本的问题。如果中国要成为与西方平等、合法的角色，登上世界舞台，西方能接受吗？既然中国是一个文明型大国，其外在与内在的价值立场和面目呈现与西方截然不同甚至相悖，西方能与之合作吗？西方很多人一直沉浸于全球化1.0的臆想中，认为不断发展的中国最终将不可避免地接受名为普世、实为西方的价值观。但事实是，中国不论富裕或贫困、强大或虚弱，将永远不会成为西方式的国家，不会有自由主义的代议制民主，资本主义的市场，以及基于个人本位的社会。中国能否与西方达成利益一致，乃至中国能否扮演众所期待的领导角色，其间最大的障碍并不是中国缺乏上述意愿，而是西方社会内部对这种情形的未来缺乏认同的共识。只要这种共识继续缺失，那么呼吁中国承担国际责任，加强与西方的建设性合作，这种种振振有词的说教不过是空谈。
全球化还能继续向前发展吗？世界未来的前景是合作还是冲突？关键在于当今世界能否将全球化的操作系统从1.0顺利地转换到2.0，这可不像在电脑上将Windows操作系统换成Mac操作系统那么容易，全世界正焦虑着拭目以待。
李世默是上海的风险投资家，是G20峰会之前举行的21世纪全球委员会成员。
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
英文版发表于美国赫芬顿邮报：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/eric-x-lis-globalization_b_1069669.html ，香港南华早报：http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=3c8e822443e63310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News
GLOBALIZATION 2.0 – CONVERGENT INTERESTS, INCOMMERSURATE CULTURES
By: Eric X. Li
Paris - Once again the West is on the brink, and along with it, the world is holding its breath. So soon after 2008, this time the epicenter is in Europe. One week before the G20 summit in Cannes, European powers are struggling to contain the Greek debt crisis that refuses to go away. Once again, at the wee hours of the morning, a deal was struck by heads of governments and bankers with weary eyes that involves write-downs of which the details are to be worked out, austerity measures to be implemented at future dates, and fire-wall rescue funds for which the money needs to be found. Sound familiar?
President Sarkozy got on the phone with President Hu Jintao to lobby for China’s investment in Europe’s rescue fund. At the Pre-G20 Summit Forum of the 21st Century Council, world leaders, such as Al Gore, Gerhard Schröder, Gordon Grown, Ernesto Zedillo and Pascal Lamy, gathered to discuss the precarious state of globalization and, again, China was the elephant in the room. Will China, they asked, step up and provide the public goods for globalization that so far the U.S.-led Western order has shouldered the costs? It certainly seems to be China’s responsibility to do so, they say, as it has ridden, or free-ridden as many might contend, the Western provided global economic and security infrastructure to become the second largest economy in the world.
China’s position is best illustrated by an influential foreign policy advisor to Chinese leaders, who requested an edit to the forum’s communiqué: the phrase “emergent nations led by China” was to be changed to “emergent nations including China”. Or perhaps better yet, don’t mention China at all. Rather a focus on convergence of interests leading to a community of interests was proposed.
Ever since the beginning of globalization at the end of the Cold War, the West and China have been operating in parallel universes. Two versions of globalization have been concurrently developing. Globalization 1.0 is globalization as we know it because it is visible and loud. Globalization 2.0, by contrast, has been invisible and quiet.
From George H. W. Bush's "new world order" to Bill Clinton's "moment of miracles", from George W. Bush's "ending tyranny in the world" to Barrack Obama's "single standard for all who hold power", from the WTO to the IMF, from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Washington to Oslo, the proponents of Globalization 1.0 are convinced of a universal outcome for all of mankind: liberal electoral democracy shall rule every nation, an ever opening Market (with a capital M) for both goods and capital will create a singular world economy with the same rules for everyone, everything, and everywhere, and unifying it all are the almighty individuals endowed with God-given rights who all want to drink Starbucks coffee with non-fat milk.
For twenty years now, they have led this drive for their universal vision, emptying the treasuries earned over many generations by their forefathers, mortgaging their children’s future, expending the lives of their young soldiers, hollowing out their countries’ industries, with near complete disregard for the integrity of their own cultures and the welfare of their own peoples. For countries in the Globalization 1.0 sphere, the political and commercial elites have reaped the lion’s share of the economic and political benefits of globalization while the vast majorities are losing ground. In the United States, the leading nation of Globalization 1.0, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood form a holy trinity that, through its decisive influence on the political system, is guarding the benefits accrued to them with bailouts and policy paralysis. In Europe, it is the same quagmire. Little wonder that anger and frustrations are being taken to the streets. And now the same elites are on television scratching their heads asking: “why are we bankrupt?”. Perhaps what they confront is much more than financial bankruptcy. It is potential moral bankruptcy that is facing their version of globalization. This is Globalization 1.0 - globalization based on universality.
Then there is another version of globalization – Globalization 2.0 – that has been taking place all along. It is quieter without bold proclamations; it is perhaps not so coherent in its narrative; it does not get one’s blood boiling or set one’s imagination on fire with some utopian end in sight for all mankind. It seems to be operating in the shadow of Globalization 1.0 but stands in fundamental opposition to the meta-narrative of Globalization 1.0. In fact, it is the anti-meta-narrative. In the last twenty years, it has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty; it has industrialized in a speed unprecedented in history; it has indeed modernized without subscribing to the religion of modernity. For countries in the sphere of Globalization 2.0, elites seem to recognize that their responsibility is first and foremost to improve the livelihoods of their own peoples, and the survival and legitimacy of their power depend on their national interests rather than some self-perceived destiny to run the world. At the core of Globalization 2.0 is the primacy of culture as the basic unit of human civilization: the belief that each culture or civilization is unique and should be seen as such from the very rock bottom. There is nothing more underneath that could somehow unify them and thereby produce something universal. Cultures are fundamentally incommensurate to each other. And only in recognizing and respecting this incommensurateness can the convergence of interests among them be realized, and perhaps a more peaceful world order along with it. This is Globalization 2.0 - globalization based on plurality.
We are at a moment when global problems demand global solutions. The monumental challenges facing human civilization, climate change and the need to re-balance the global economy among them, seem to indicate a necessary convergence of interests between the West and the rest. Why, then, are such global solutions not forthcoming?
It is because we are also at a moment when Globalization 1.0 is in trouble and Globalization 2.0 insists on remaining quiet and invisible. We are stuck in between. But perhaps 2.0 can no longer be so subdued regardless of its intention. China, the leading nation in Globalization 2.0, is becoming a beacon for many to see. Not that any country can emulate China’s path, because it is by Globalization 2.0’s definition not emulate-able. What is emulate-able, however, is the very idea that there is no emulate-able universal model and each culture must follow its own path. What political systems are most suitable, what economic models fit their developmental stages, and what fundamental values should constitute their societies are questions with unique answers to different places and peoples. Their choices should be respected. Their voices deserve to be heard, not the least by the very peoples in the sphere of Globalization 1.0 where their political and commercial elites have, in the name of universality, robbed them of their heritages and their futures.
Many voices are calling on China to be a more “responsible” player in the global system. Some have accused China of “free-riding” and not playing a constructive role in helping re-balance a shattered world economic order. The pronounced hesitancy, and even refusal, to be placed into a leadership role by China is either noted with resignation or met with resentment. But this sentiment misses a fundamental question: Is the West truly prepared to accept China as an equal and legitimate player on the world stage? Can the West cooperate with a major civilizational power that stands for fundamentally different and even opposing values and outlooks? Many in the West have hidden behind the self-delusion of Globalization 1.0 that as China develops it will inevitably and eventually adopt Western values that are billed as universal values. These people need to face the fact: China, rich or poor, powerful or weak, will NEVER become a liberal electoral democracy with market capitalism and the individual as the core unit of its society. The stumbling block to effective convergence of interests and China taking on the much needed leadership role is not China’s unwillingness but the lack of consensus in Western societies on that future. Without such consensus, the rhetoric about responsible behavior and constructive cooperation will remain empty talks.
Can globalization continue? Does the world face a future of cooperation or conflicts? The answer lies in whether the world can smoothly switch the operating system of globalization from 1.0 to 2.0. It is not as easy as going from Windows to Mac. The world watches with anxiety.
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a participant in the 21st Century Council Pre-G20 Summit Forum
