【新唐人北京时间2019年09月18日讯】【世事关心】罗伯特·斯伯汀：拆分谷歌是不够的
谷歌创办人谢尔盖·布林在2017年底的一次全公司大会上，谈到了关于谷歌参与国防项目的一些情况。他说，如果世界各国的军队能和谷歌等跨国公司紧密合作，而不是仅靠本国的国防承包商，将有助于世界和平。我不明白他的意思。谷歌是一个跨国公司，还是美国的公司？它需要保持对美利坚合众国的忠诚吗？在全球化世界的新冷战时代开始之际，大型科技公司扮演什么样的角色？他们自己认同是谁？为了解决这些问题，我采访了曾担任白宫国家安全委员会战略规划高级主任的、哈德逊研究所高级研究员、退役空军准将罗伯特·斯伯汀将军。我是萧茗，您正在观看的是《世事关心》。
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“谷歌创办人谢尔盖·布林在2017年底的一次全公司大会上，谈到了关于谷歌参与国防项目的一些情况。他说，如果世界各国的军队能和谷歌等跨国公司紧密合作，而不是仅靠本国的国防承包商，将有助于世界和平。我不明白他的意思。谷歌是一个跨国公司，还是美国的公司？”
Simone:“ At the end of 2017 the Co Founder of Google Sergey Brin, Sat in a company wide meeting, regarding Google’s involvement in the Pentagon project that, these are his words, he said he thought that it was better for peace if the world’s militaries are intertwined with international organizations like Google rather than working solely was nationalistic defense contractors. So I’m a little confused here. Is Google an international organization or is Google a US company? ”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）: “谷歌是个跨国公司。”
Robert Spalding: “Well, it’s a, it’s a multinational corporation . ”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“它需要保持对美利坚合众国的忠诚吗?”
Simone:“ Does it need to stay loyal to the United States of America?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“我认为它需要，如果它想要有良心的话。但不幸的是，在当今全球化的世界，如果你想要待在中国，如果你想要在中国做生意，那你就需要按照中国共产党的意愿行事。”
Robert Spalding:“ Well, if it wants to have a soul, I think it does, but unfortunately then in today’s globalized world, if you align yourself, if you want to be in China, if you want to be doing business in China, then you do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants. ”
在全球化世界的新冷战时代开始之际，大型科技公司扮演什么样的角色？他们自己认同是谁？ 为了解决这些问题，我采访了曾担任白宫国家安全委员会战略规划高级主任的哈德逊研究所高级研究员，退役空军准将罗伯特·斯伯汀将军。
At the beginning of a new Cold War era in a globalized world, what role do big tech companies play and who do they identify themselves with? To address these questions, I interviewed Brigadier General Robert Spalding, who served at the White House as the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Strategic Planning. Who served as Senior Director for Strategic Planning. at the National Security Council’s at the White House.
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“我是萧茗，你正在观看的是《世事关心》。”
Simone:“ I am Simone Gao, and you are watching Zooming In. ”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“谢谢你今天接受我们采访。”
Simone: “Thank you general for being with us today.”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“很高兴来这里。”
Robert Spalding: “Glad to be here. ”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“首先，祝贺您的新书《隐形战争》出版。”
Simone: “First of all, let me congratulate you on your new book, The Stealth War. ”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“谢谢。”
Robert Spalding: “Thank you. ”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“我还没读过你的书，所以我们可能没法就此深谈。但您可否大概介绍一下《隐形战争》这本书是关于什么呢?”
Simone:“I haven’t read it yet, so we can’t go in depth on this, but why don’t you just give me a little preview of this book and what the Stealth War is about.”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“这本书可以说是我五年来了解到的、有关所有中共所做所为一切相关讯息的总汇，内容涵盖了其对开放系统中的金融、商务、投资、媒体、网路、政治、和学界，各类机构的全面渗透，并从内部破坏民主的行为，然后书的结尾部分谈到了解决方案。我在书中提到了美国采取什么方法来应对中共的行为以保护自己，以及美国该如何强化自己的制定、并如何与其它志同道合的国家一起， 民主在那些国家的发展，这个世界上的民主国家越多，且彼此在经济、金融、资讯方面的联系越紧密，包括我们已有的军事盟友，我们作为民主国家就将处于更有利的地位，来保护我们自己、保护我们的公民和价值观。”
Robert Spalding:“ So actually it’s really a compilation of everything I’ve learned over the last, really five years about everything that the Chinese Communist Party does from finance, business, investment, trade，media, the Internet, politics, academia, all of the ways that they work across the institutions of the open system to really undermine democracy from within. And then at the end it really talks about solutions. It really goes into kind of how the United States should approach this behavior by the Chinese Communist Party and what it should do to protect itself, how it should strengthen its institutions, how it should grow the economy and how it should join with other like minded nations to really promote democracy in those countries as well. Because the more democracies we have in the world and the stronger they’re linked together, and the economic, financial and informational way, to include the military alliances that we already have, we’ll be in much better position as democracies to protect ourselves and protect our values and to protect our citizens.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“这本书的目标读者是哪些人？”
Simone: “ Tell me, who is the reader of this book?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“本书的读者，我希望，是那些被迫失去了制造业工作的340万人群。实际上，这本书适合任何一个在美国努力工作谋生的人，或者曾经有过工作的人、有过长期的工作来提供给他们医保和退休福利，能让他们有收入购买住房、抚养子女、送他们上学、真正去成就美国梦。本书献给他们。”
Robert Spalding: “Well, the reader of this book are, hopefully, the men and women, the 3.4 million that were displaced from manufacturing jobs. Really, anybody that works for a living in the United States or used to work for a living, where they had a long-term employment that provided them health care benefits and retirement benefits that allowed them to have the income to own a home, to raise their children, to send them to school, to really take part in the American dream. This book is for them.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“那这本书不是写给华盛顿的‘精英人士’的。”
Simone: “Okay, so it’s not for Washington elites.”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“不是给华盛顿的‘精英人士’的。”
Robert Spalding: It’s not for Washington elites.
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“会有中文译本吗？”
Simone: “Okay. Is there going to be a Chinese version as well? ”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“一定会有中文译本。台湾出版商‘远流’会出版中文译本，极有可能在除中国大陆以外世界各地所有销售中文书籍的地方上架。 中共可能不会允许此书进入中国大陆。”
Robert Spalding: “Absolutely. There’s gonna be a Chinese version. A Taiwanese publisher ‘Yuen Liu ’ is going to publish the book, and it’s going to be available probably everywhere that Chinese language books are sold except Mainland China. I doubt they’ll let it in.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“真的很期待与您进一步讨论这本书。我们来谈谈约翰·波尔顿。我相信总统身旁围绕着许多鹰派成员。这位仁兄到底发生了什么事?”
Simone:“ Really looking forward to discussing more about this book with you. Let’s talk about John Bolton. I believe the president is surrounded by many hawks. What went wrong with this one?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“ 我想你知道的，John Bolton或许不是总统执行对外政策的好人选。总统想要的是更少的政府干预，并着重在经济建设、保障美国人民每天的生活、提供他们更多的福利包括在经济、金融、社会、政治方面。相当坦率地说，这些事情与我们刚谈到的书中内容有关。我认为自从冷战以来，我们对外政策的出发点多源自于单方面观点。美国显然是冷战结束后世界上最强大的国家。并且我们的政策，如我之前所说的，依循的是‘开放市场带来财富，财富带来民主’。很不幸的，许多国家，以中国为首，开始藉由我们曾经视为力量的开放性系统来摧毁国际秩序，从内部摧毁这个系统。所以实际上那种方式的竞争，有点像是与苏联的竞争，真的是在经济与科技方面的竞争。当时是有军备竞赛，但那本质上是在对峙，双方用核武器威摄对方。我认为川普的行政团队，总统想要的是军队是在那儿，在那儿是为了保护人民。军队存在的目地是为了当敌人想要在军事上与美国对抗时能使他们望而却步。军队在那儿的目地真的只是威摄作用，并不需要那么频繁的被使用。于本届政府情形最相似的是艾森豪总统的任期。军队更多的功能是用在吓阻，很少是用来介入。艾森豪将军经历了二次大战，他了解战斗的代价与战争让他手下的士兵、水手、和飞行员所付出的代价。我认为在使用军力这件事情上，他确实更谨慎。但是美国在这样一个受全球化的互联网加持的世界上有着广泛的力量，特别是当你考虑到美国有储备货币、有美元、有由消费推动的强劲的国内市场。如你所知，（美国的）外交、经济、金融和贸易的影响遍及全球。并且，（美国）在全球有数个军事盟友，这样美国得以既可以增强实力，又可以影响其盟友和伙伴，来推动国际秩序的共同价值观，就是我之前谈过的那些关于民主的原则、自由贸易、法治和自决。”
Robert Spalding:“ Well, I think you know, it’s probably not a good fit for the president for the kind of foreign policy that he wants to execute, which is much less interventionists and more about building the economy, more about protecting the American people in their day to day lives, providing for them in terms of their wellbeing, both economically, financially, and socially and politically. Things quite frankly, that have to do with the book that we just talked about. And I think the way that we pursued foreign policy since the end of the cold for has been much from a unipolar perspective. The United States was the most, clearly the most powerful country in the world coming out of the Cold War. And our policies really were about as I’ve said before, open markets lead to wealth and wealth leads to democracy. Unfortunately many nations led by China began to undermine the international order by using all the openness that we…that used to be strengths to undermine the system from within. And so to actually compete in that way, it’s much more like the competition with the Soviet Union, which was really an economic and a technological competition. The military was there, but it was essentially a standoff, using nuclear deterrent. I think the Trump administration, terms of where the president wants to be is…The military is there. It’s there to protect the people. It’s there to make adversaries pause when they think about confronting the United States militarily, it’s really there as deterrent, but it doesn’t need to be used quite as often. The clearest parallel in terms of an administration, it has existed in the United States is the Eisenhower administration. It was much more about deterrent. It was less interventionists, certainly, Esenhower had come out of a great war in World War II and understood the cost of combat and the cost of war to the soldiers and sailors and airmen under his command. And so he really, I think was more prudent when it came to exercising military power. But the powers of the state in a globalized Internet powered world are quite expansive, especially when you consider the United States has the reserve currency and the US dollar has, you know, a really robust market driven by domestic consumption. Has you know, a diplomatic and economic and financial and trade footprint that really spans the globe. And in addition, has a number of global military alliances. And so the United States is well positioned to both grow its strength and influence its allies and partners in a way that promotes the collective values of the international order, which as I’ve talked about before, is really about democratic principles, free trade, rule of law and self determination.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“好的。我觉得约翰·博尔顿和总统的最大分歧在于阿富汗和伊朗。现在博尔顿离职了，你认为美国在阿富汗的政策走向如何？”
Simone:“Okay. I’ll, I think the biggest difference John Bolton has with the president is in Afghanistan and Iran. With John Bolton gone, What do you think the US policy in Afghanistan is heading to?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“ 我不知道，因为这看起来像我从已有信息以及抛开行政角度观察到的那样，总统一贯认为需要用我们已经花费的资源做些别的事情，这既包括人力、也包括物力和财力。每年我们在阿富汗花费400到600亿美元。这些钱本应该用在美国国内来推动我们的经济和技术发展。自从中国加入WTO后，我们有超过七万家工厂流失海外，我们的工业基础已经完全被抽走。所以我认为他正在考虑机会成本：那些钱现在花到了哪里，可以花到其它那些地方来提升我们的经济安全，确实，经济安全和经济能力奠定了美国在国际秩序里能够做和应该做的一切的基础。”
Robert Spalding: “Well, I don’t know because it seems like as I’ve watched this both from within the administration and from without the administration, the president has been consistent in his message in that we need to do something else with the resources that we have expended, both in terms of the people and the material and the money. We spend anywhere from 40 to $60 billion a year in Afghanistan. That’s money that could be better spent in the United States promoting our economic and technological well being. Our industrial base is completely decimated, since China entered the WTO and we offshored over 70,000 factories. So I think he’s looking at the opportunity costs of where that money gets spent currently and where it could be spent in terms of improving our economic security and really, economic security and economic power underpins everything that the United States can and should be in the international order.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“你认为最大的问题是什么？我是说，你认为美国的阿富汗政策成功吗？美国的阿富汗政策的最大问题是什么？ ”
Simone:“ What do you think is the biggest problem, if , I mean, do you consider the us policy in Afghanistan to be a successful one? And what is the biggest problem with the US policy in Afghanistan?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“ 我认为任何恐怖分子都很难说美国不会非常迅速地、非常自信地、而且非常专业地去抓捕那些对美国公民施暴的人。所以我认为从威慑的角度来看，它确实表明了美国不是纸老虎。美国会保护其公民，并将竭尽全力保护其公民。我想我们以此为出发点来看，我们已经在阿富汗驻兵19年，我认为现在是我们改变优先事项的时候了。即使在第二次世界大战期间也是如此。你想一下，（那时）我们有两个战争的主要威胁，是我们要优先处理的。我们优先考虑的是欧洲，日本其次。因此，在某种程度上，美国（其时）没有优先考虑自己国家安全，真的是在说：‘嘿，我们谁都对付得了’。在冷战结束之后，当时的情况也许是这样，但今天肯定不是了。 在制定外交或国家安全政策的时候，如果有人认为我们可以应对所有的外在挑战，那将是不明智的。”
Robert Spalding:“ Well, I would, I think any terrorists would be hard pressed to say the United States is not going to be…not going to respond very swiftly and very confidently and actually very expertly in terms of going after those who would commit violence to American citizens. And so I think from a deterrent aspect, it really shows that the United States is not a paper tiger. It is willing to protect its citizens and will go to great lengths to protect its citizens. I think from the standpoint of where we go from here, we’ve been in Afghanistan for 19 years. I think it’s time for us to shift priorities, even during World War II. If you think about it, we had two major theaters of war and we had priorities there. We prioritized Europe first and Japan was second. And so, in a way, the United States got out of the business of prioritizing its national security and really said, “Hey, we can take all comers". Well, after the end of the Cold War, maybe that was the case, but today it certainly isn’t and it really isn’t prudent foreign policy or national security policy to think that we can take on every challenge that’s out there.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“我们来谈谈中国。我知道你几天前去了波兰，美国和波兰签署了加强5G技术合作的协议。这是否意味着华为在波兰出局？”
Simone: “Let’s talk about China. I know you went to Poland a few days ago and the U S and Poland signed a deal to strengthen cooperation in 5G technology. So does that mean Huawei is out in Poland?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“这确实意味着华为在波兰已经出局，但这并不是故事的结束，因为坦率地说，没有。 OEM设备, 网络基础设施部分的制造商真正建立了一个安全的网络。没有安全保障的5G网络对民主国家来说真的很危险。不幸的是，大多数安全标准和基础技术都是由中国开发的。到目前为止，除了华为和中兴之外的那些真正主要设备制造商，比如爱立信、诺基亚、和三星，还没公开站出来表示， 我们将绝对致力于创建一个独一无二的安全网络，以欧洲GDPR通用数据保护法规的方式保护人们的数据。或者你知道，就像美国为确保选举结果或者选民意愿不会被外国政府篡改和影响所做的那样，这就是现在发生的。”
Robert Spalding:“ It does mean Huawei is out in Poland, but it isn’t the end of the story because quite frankly, no. OEM equipment maker in the infrastructure portion of the network is really building a secure network. A 5G network without security is really dangerous for democracies. And unfortunately most of the security standards and the underlying technology has been developed by China. And so to this day, Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung, which would really be the major equipment manufacturers, other than Huawei and ZTE have not come out and said, we are going to absolutely commit to creating a one of a kind secure network that would protect people’s data in a way that is by GDPR in Europe the General Data Protection Regulation. Or you know, in a way that in the United States would ensure that elections can’t be tampered with or the individuals can’t be influenced by state actors, which is what happens today.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“那华为是否还可以被阻止住？该怎样做？”
Simone:“So can Huawei still be stopped and how?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“我想我们是要问的问题是：是否能阻止中国共产党建立这个全球网络，以及在5G基础设施上的应用服务和商业模式。我们能阻止共产党在其境外施展影响吗？我认为答案是肯定的，但正如我在美国各地所讲的那样，政府实际上需要在数字领域发挥领导作用。你知道，所以当政府允许科技公司收集数据，并用这些数据做任何他们想做的事情，并允许像中国这样的国家，就像俄罗斯，朝鲜或伊朗做同样的事情，而没有从根本上承诺保护美国人民、他们的数据，那可以说你已经把战场让给了中国共产党和其他人。”
Robert Spalding:“ I think the question we have to ask is: Can the Communist Party, the Chinese Communist Party be stopped in creating this global network and essentially app services and business models that are built on the 5g infrastructure. Can we prevent that from allowing the communist party to influence outside their borders? I think the answer to that is yes, but as I said all along the United States, the government actually needs to take a leadership role in the digital space. You know, so when it just allows tech companies to essentially harvest data and do whatever they want with that data and allows for nations like China, like the Russians, like the North Koreans or the Iranians to do the same without essentially committing to protecting the American people, their data, then you’re essentially acceding the battlefield to the Chinese Communist Party and others.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“您是否认为美国领导层已准备好在这一领域发挥领导作用？ ”
Simone: “Do you think the American leadership is ready to take a leadership role in, in this area?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“我认为总统已做好准备。记得我提到了艾森豪，他说了什么？他说，要注意军事工业综合体的不当影响。好的。那么，一个非常强硬的国家军事安全政策所支持的领域之一就是军事工业综合体。他们通过造F-35、航空母舰、坦克、潜艇来赚钱。所有这些都为这些公司带来了巨额利润。继续‘干涉性’的外交政策或军国主义外交政策背后有着巨大的经济利益。”
Robert Spalding:“ I think the president’s ready. Remember I referred to Eisenhower. What did Eisenhower say? He said, beware the undue influence of the military industrial complex. Okay. So one of the things that supported by a very hawkish military national security policy is the industrial…the military industrial complex. They make money from that F-35’s, aircraft carriers, tanks, submarines, all of those things ended up being for enormous profits for these companies. And so there’s an enormous profit incentive behind continuing this type in intervention as foreign policy or militaristic foreign policy, if you will.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“在2017年底，谷歌看到这个？好的，是这个。在2017年底， 谷歌的联合创始人谢尔盖·布林，在一次公司范围的会议上，提到关于谷歌参与到五角大楼项目。这是他的部分发言，他说他认为如果全世界的军队能与谷歌这样的国际机构紧密合作，而不是只靠各国自己的国防承包商，这样会更有利于和平。这里让我感到有点困惑。这里所指的，谷歌是国际组织还是一个美国公司？”
Simone:“ At the end of 2017. Google, the Google folk. See this? Okay. Yeah. So at the end of 2017 the Cofounder of Google Sergey Brin, sat in a company wide meeting, regarding Google’s involvement in the Pentagon project that, these are his words, he said he thought that it was better for peace if the world’s militaries are intertwined with international organizations like Google rather than working solely was nationalistic defense contractors. So I’m a little confused here. Is Google an international organization or is Google a US company?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“ 它是一家跨国公司，我认为有一点我真的为谢尔·盖布林鼓掌，那就是当初让谷歌退出中国，他来自前苏联，他清楚，我想这是对极权主义的一个暗示，当然是指中国共产党要做的事情。但当然，当他离开公司的日常领导角色，并允许谷歌内的跨国公司结构发展时，这公司已经远离了你所知道的，其核心价值观，即‘不做恶’。但是当你开始与极权主义政权合作时，你知道，创建集中营或强摘器官或任何其他行当，以及中国共产党所做的残忍压迫的罪行，它已经开始腐蚀你的灵魂。在今天这个时代，它的问题是作为全球化跨国公司，并没有什么民主原则，人权，公民权利或法治的约束。因为中国共产党从根本上不打算遵守任何规则，这使得丛林法则成了国际经济关系中的行为通则。当世界上第二大经济体无孔不入但并不遵守规则时，很快其他人就会停止遵守这些规则。有序的商业活动已经变成了一场无规则大战。谷歌已经加入了，他们把宝押在未来的中国经济会不断发展这一点上。不幸的是，当他们这样做时，他们不得不放弃美国的立国原则，而是采用国际上流行的原则。但由于国际秩序真的像狂野的西部，最终除了权力和控制之外没有任何原则。因此，虽然大型科技公司可以在这种环境中非常有效地争夺权力和控制权，但它们并不像国家那样有效。因此，与谷歌相比，中国共产党在影响国际秩序方面有更多的手段可以利用。然而最终谷歌会成为了一个快速追随者，但它仍然看到了它的未来所在，而在中国境内的自由开放原则是，它允许政府监控每个人所做的一切。这是一个谷歌可以欣赏的世界，因为它看到它可以赚很多钱。但是问题是，这个模式开始在自由社会中遇到问题，在自由社会中，如何使用这些有关你的隐私以及他人的个人数据，开始与我们的价值观相冲突。”
Robert Spalding: “Well, it’s a, it’s a multinational corporation and I think one of the things that I can say is that I actually applaud Sergey Brin for originally taking Google out of China, as coming from the former Soviet Union, he understood, I think the implications of totalitarianism and certainly what the Chinese Communist Party was going to do. But of course as he stepped away from a day to day leadership role in the company and allowed more of a multinational corporate structure to evolve in Google, the company has gotten away from its you know, its core values, which is “Don’t do evil". And when you, when you essentially partner with a totalitarian regime that does, you know, creates concentration camps or does organ harvesting or does any of the, the really oppressive things that the Chinese Communist Party does then it begins to corrupt your soul. And the problem with being a multinational corporation in today’s Day and age, globalization, really comes without democratic principles, human rights, civil rights or rule of law. It’s really the law of the jungle in the international order because the Chinese Communist Party is basically determined not to follow any of the rules. When the second biggest economy in the world is intertwined with everybody and is determined not to follow the rules, then pretty soon others stop following the rules. And it really becomes a free for all. And a Google has joined that free for all. And what they’re doing is they’re aligning themselves with where they think the future is, which is a growing Chinese economy. Unfortunately, when they do that, they have to abandon the principles of the United States where they were founded and adopt international principles. But since the international order is really like the wild west, there ended up being no principles other than power and control. And so while large tech companies can fight for power and control very effectively in that environment, they’re not as effective as a nation state. So the Chinese Communist Party has far more levers to pull in the international order than Google does. So Google ends up being, you know, a fast follower, but still it sees where its future lies and that lies in the free and open data rules within China that that allows the government to actually monitor and control everything that everybody does. That’s a world that Google can appreciate because it can see where it can make a lot of money doing that. And of course what happens is that model begins to run into problems in a free society where privacy and rules about what you can do with other people’s data begin to bump up against our own values.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“我认为谷歌的自我定位很重要。谷歌是否把它自己视为一个国际组织? 对我来说，国际组织是像红十字会那种（组织）。谷歌，就像你说的，谷歌是否认为自己是一个跨国公司？它需要保持对美利坚合众国的忠诚吗?”
Simone: “ I think Google’s identity does matter. I mean, does Google equate themselves to an international organization? To me, an international organization would be like Red Cross. I mean, does Google, like you said, Google, consider itself as a multinational corporation. Does it need to stay loyal to the United States of America?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“我认为它需要，如果它想要有良心的话。但不幸的是，在当今全球化的世界，如果你想要待在中国，如果你想要在中国做生意，那你就需要按照中国共产党的意愿行事。如果你不按共产党的意愿去做，那你就没办法在中国做生意。谷歌作为一个商业集团，想要在中国做生意。作为条件，中国共产党要求谷歌在进入中国市场时，几乎放弃除了权力、控制和利润以外的所有价值观。”
Robert Spalding: “ Well, if it wants to have a soul, I think it does, but unfortunately then in today’s globalized world, if you align yourself, if you want to be in China, if you want to be doing business in China, then you do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants. And if you don’t do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants, then you’re not doing business in China. And so Google as a business, wants to do business in China. And in order to do that, the Chinese communist party requires that Google, essentially abandon all of its values other than power, control and profit when it crosses the threshold into China.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“最重要的是，你认为谷歌没有义务对它的国家保持忠诚。”
Simone: “ The bottom line is you think Google doesn’t have an obligation to stay faithful to its country.”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“根据我们现行的法律、公约和美国的规则? 没有。 本质上董事会和谷歌的高管都被要求对股东提供价值。仅仅是这样。没有其它法律要求。因此，就他们没有按法律规定为股东提供价值这方面来说，他们实际上已经违背了自己的受托责任。所以从很多方面来说，我们的系统建立得非常， 企业不仅容易抛弃美国价值观和原则，有时候它们甚至还必须这么做。特别是在跟中国共产党打交道的时候。”
Robert Spalding:“Under our current laws and convention and the rules of the United States? No essentially has a requirement to both directors and the executives of Google have a requirement to deliver value to the shareholder. That’s it. There are no other legal requirements. And so to the extent that they are not by law providing value to the shareholders then their actually violating their fiduciary responsibility. So in a lot of ways, our system is set up so that it’s very…it’s not only easy for companies to abandon US values and principles, it’s also mandatory. When dealing with the Chinese Communist Party in particular”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“ 谷歌拒绝了国防部的几个项目。这几个项目价值大约数百亿美元。 谷歌在中国建立了人工智能中心。你认为谷歌的人工智能研究能直接给解放军带来好处吗?”
Simone:“You know, Google turned down a few Department of Defense…Google turned down with few Department of Defense. So Google turned down several Department of Defense projects. That’s worth like a tens of billions of dollars and instead, Google builds like AI centers in China. So do you think the AI Research Google does, can directly benefit the PLA?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“嗯，我确定它可能会，但我认为它将更多地支持像统战部这样的组织，负责在世界各地制造宣传和影响的组织。我认为这就是5G架构和商业模式对此的意义所在，那就是人工智能和机器学习算法。而机器学习算法的开发则基于谷歌在北京和中国其它地方建立的人工智能得出的数据。实际上，这有助于理解消费者的意图，进而影响他们的购物习惯。但你知道，中国共产党不仅利用这些算法影响你的购物模式，还利用它影响你生活中所做的一切，这样他们就可以自动打压异见人士，确保只留下遵守共产党制定的规则的人。所以这成为了极权主义政权手中一个非常强大的工具。当然，你知道，从谷歌的角度来看，它也是影响你买鞋的有力工具。”
Robert Spalding:“Well, I’m sure it probably can, but I think it’s more going to support organizations like the United Front Work Department that is really responsible for creating propaganda and influence around the world. I think that’s what the 5G architecture and the business models which it means in this case, the artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms that get developed on data with these AI partnerships that, that Google has created in Beijing and elsewhere in China. Actually, that contributes to understanding, you know, the intent of consumers and then influencing their shopping habits. But you know, the Chinese Communist Party takes those algorithms and adapts them to not just influencing your shopping patterns, but also everything else you do in your life so that they can suppress the outliers automatically and ensure that they only have people that are following the rules according to the way that the communist party wants. So it’s an incredibly powerful tool in the arms or in the hands of totalitarian regimes. Of course, you know, from Google’s perspective, it’s also a powerful tool for influencing you to buy shoes.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“有意思。说到钱，谷歌拒绝了美国数百亿美元的国防合同，转而承接了中国的项目，比如‘蜻蜓计划’搜索引擎和人工智能中心。我认为，至少就目前而言，谷歌（在这些项目中）的收入连他们能在美国创造的收入的一小部分都没有。所以我忍不住想，谷歌在中国不是为了赚钱，这个观点有错吗?”
Simone:“Interesting. Talking about money, I mean Google turned down tens of billions of dollars of a defense contract in the US, but the project they took on in China, like the Dragon Fly search engine project or in this AI Project the AI Center. I don’t think it’s at least for now, isn’t generating even a fraction of the revenue they can make in the US so I can’t help but thinking that Google is not after money in China, am I wrong?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“嗯，他们还是为了赚钱。你想想看，如果他们在中国增加了‘搜索’的市场份额，他们的广告点击率就会上升。你知道，随着这一数字的增长，他们每年的收入将达到数百亿，如果不是数千亿美元的话，这是他们目前没有的。因此，是的，国防部的合同可能价值数十亿美元，但最终，如果你能进入中国的搜索市场，它可能价值数千亿美元。当然，这意味着你必须与中国共产党同床共枕、努力阻止中国人民了解他们的历史或文化。你在审查他们，帮助中国共产党压迫他们，但当你作为一家公司的整个价值定位是基于利润时，因为这是美国法律规定的，这是对股东的受托责任，那么利润就将成为驱动你做一切事情的动机。哦，顺便说一下，公司数千亿美元的收入意味着公司的高管和董事，那些真正决定谷歌开拓哪里的市场的人得到了丰厚的报酬。”
Robert Spalding:“Well, they are after money because if you think about it, if you, if they increased market share in China with regard to “‘Search"" and their advertising clicks go up. You know, as that goes up, they’re looking at tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year that they currently don’t have. And so, yes, the defense contracts might be worth a few billions. But ultimately, if you can get into the search market in China, it could potentially be worth hundreds of billions. And of course now that means that you have to get in bed with the Chinese Communist Party and work to prevent the Chinese people from knowing anything about their history or culture and you’re censoring them and helping the Chinese Communist Party oppress them. But when your entire value proposition as a company is based on revenue, because that’s what the laws of America say, it’s a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder, then you know, that drives everything you do. And oh, by the way, that hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the company means that the executives and the directors of the company, the people that are really responsible for the strategy of where Google is involved get compensated quite handsomely.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“来自四十多个州的检察长宣布他们对谷歌的市场力量和公司行为展开调查。你认为谷歌应该被拆分成更小的公司吗?”
Simone:“The state attorney general’s from four dozen states have announced they launched investigations into Google about their market power and corporate behaviors. Do you think Google should be broken up into smaller companies?”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“我认为在一个自由的国家里，人们能够控制自己的数据是很重要的。他们从希望使用这些数据的公司那里得到补偿，而且他们可以选择不再允许这些公司使用他们的数据。目前，即使人们决定不使用谷歌服务，也没有这个选项。谷歌仍然在安卓设备上收集关于他们的信息。这个事情已经被一次又一次地证明了。本质上，这些科技公司想收集尽可能多的关于你的数据，这样他们就能知道你所有的意图。而且他们可以通过广告出售数据，或者直接出售数据本身。所以如果你想保护它，如果你想阻止它，拆分谷歌是做不到的。你必须创建一个保护数据的网络。因此，身份管理、访问控制和加密成为建设互联网和自由社会的关键特征，因为它们将使人们知道网络上的人是谁。所以我们没有像解放军或俄罗斯那样的国家行为来制造影响和窃取人们的数据。与此同时，公民自己有能力保护自己不受政府的压迫，无论是美国政府还是其它政府。实际上，这事关创建与我们的数字或实物文档相对应的相同类型的数字技术。”
Robert Spalding:“I think it’s important that people in a free country have control over their data. They get compensated for companies that desire to use that data and they have an ability to opt out from allowing those companies to use their data. Currently, they don’t have that option even when they decide not to, essentially use the Google services. Google is still collecting information on them in android devices. And so, and this has been shown time and time again. Essentially these tech companies want to collect as much data about you as possible so they know all your intentions. And they can sell that data via advertising or just sell the data itself. And so they really, if you want to protect that, if you wanna prevent that, breaking up Google’s not going to do that. You actually have to create a network that secures that data.
So identity management, access control and encryption become key features of building an internet and a free society because it allows people to actually know who’s on the network. So we don’t have state actors like the PLA or the Russians creating influence or otherwise stealing people’s data. At the same time, the citizens themselves have the ability to protect themselves from an oppressive government or whether that be the u s government and whether it be any other government. It’s really about creating the same type of digital founding technology that corresponds to our digital or to our physical founding documents.”
萧茗 (Host/Simone Gao )：“非常感谢。”
Simone: “All right. Thank you so much.”
罗伯特·斯伯汀将军（ 哈德逊研究所资深研究员）:“谢谢你。”
Robert Spalding:“Thank you. ”
完
End
=====================================
Producer：Simone Gao
Writer：Simone Gao
Editors：Fiona Yang, Bonnie Yu , Julian Kuo
Narrator: Simone Gao
Translation: Cindy Zhan, John Meng, Linda Du, Tung Tung, Maureen Mou, Greg Yang, Ginger
Transcription: James Battaglini, Jesse Beatty
Special Effects：Harrison Sun
Assistant producer：Bin Tang, Merry Jiang
Feedback: ssgx@ntdtv.ca
New Tang Dynasty Television
Zooming In
September, 2019
======================================
