Scenes of Beijing and Washington. Photos: VCG

Editor's Note:

The US is capable of accurately understanding and engaging with China, its policies can be immune to the influences of extreme hawks and China-US relations can develop on a stable and healthy track - these are the shared aspirations of rational individuals from both countries regarding this most important bilateral relationship in the world. In the "Wisdom on China&US" series, the Global Times (GT) gathers the opinions of rational individuals from both the US and China to provide their perspectives on objectively viewing China and the right way for China and the US to coexist. In the sixth article of the series, GT reporters Chen Qingqing and Bai Yunyi talked with Jeffrey Sachs (Sachs), a world-renowned American economist, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, at the sidelines of the China Development Forum 2025 (CDF) held in Beijing from Sunday to Monday.

Jeffrey Sachs Photo: Courtesy of Sachs

GT: Trade tensions are escalating between China and the US because of the US tariffs. However, there are still many American companies attending the forum this year. Why do you think this is? 

Sachs: I think people all over the world realize that US tariffs will hurt the US economy but they're not going to significantly impact the Chinese economy. Therefore, there will be a lot of growth in China, a lot of dynamism in China. Companies want to be part of the Chinese market and the Chinese supply chain. 

GT: Some hawks in the US believe that China's rise will inevitably harm Americans' interests. How do you view this perspective? Do you think China and the US can still rebuild mutual trust?

Sachs: Economic development is not a zero-sum game, where the gains of one country are the loss of another. This is an old and primitive idea. American politicians need to understand that China's rise is not harming the US, it's actually benefiting the US. This is not the current point of view among many American politicians. But they are mistaken in their understanding. I, along with other scholars in the US, have to help American politicians and the public to understand that cooperation is a win-win idea, while confrontation leads to a lose-lose outcome. 

GT: What is your view on China's progress in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly this year, with the increasing discussion around DeepSeek? Do you worry that the China-US competition in this area could evolve into a "new tech cold war"? What advice would you give to the US government?

Sachs: I think the advances of AI in the last 15 years are absolutely remarkable. Some people expected them. I think most people are very positively surprised by how much has been accomplished. The advent of the large language models, starting in 2017, has been a major advance. 

Now, China is developing many of these large language models. DeepSeek has created an ingenious way to make these models low cost, a process that they call "distillation of the larger models" and its successes are very exciting, because it brings the cost of AI down. The fact that DeepSeek is an open source system is also very gratifying, because it makes it much more likely that it can be adopted all over the world and used even in low income settings.  

China's contribution is significant. Clearly, there's a great deal of innovation because it's not only DeepSeek. Many Chinese large language models are appearing right now, and they're performing very strongly. China will definitely be a pioneer in the application of AI across the whole economy. This is already happening with the rapid uptake of Chinese AI systems in cities across China and in economic sectors across China. The competition is healthy as long as it doesn't become militarized or turn hostile. So far, it's leading to increased efforts by Chinese companies, American companies, Chinese scientists and American scientists, benefiting the whole world from that kind of competition. 

GT: You have argued that the US should adhere to the one-China principle, and stop supplying weapons to Taiwan. Some in the US believe that arms sales to the Taiwan island are a necessary means of deterring Beijing. How do you respond to this view?

Sachs: I think that this is an internal matter of China. And the US should not intervene. I believe that US arms sales to Taiwan or US arms transfers to Taiwan are provocative and risky, which could lead extremists in Taiwan to making very dangerous mistakes as well. 

The US should stay out of this. I also believe that the US should stay out of Ukraine for the latter's own safety. 

Sending arms to Taiwan is very dangerous for Taiwan. If I were a Taiwan politician, I would say to the US: "Thank you, but no, thank you. We don't need your help. We need peaceful relations across the Straits. And that's a matter for us and our counterparts across the Straits to deal with on our own."

GT: You have previously called for a shift from provocation to cooperation in US diplomacy. Given the political polarization within the US, do you think such a shift is still possible? How would you evaluate the current US foreign policy? 

Sachs: At this early stage, there are many contradictions in the new foreign policy. The approach toward Russia is beneficial, because the Trump administration says that the war in Ukraine should stop and that good relations between the US and Russia should be reestablished. This is good news.

On the other hand, the policies for many other areas are more aggressive, hostile, or still not formed. For example, in the Middle East, the US is still supporting Israel's violence against the Palestinian people and even threatening Iran with war. This is a very serious mistake. 

There are many contradictions right now. There isn't a clear foreign policy. One area where there is progress is in relation to Russia. However, US policy toward the rest of the world appears either unstable or unformed. 

GT: If Washington continues to uphold an "American First" policy in the long run, will Europe and the US remain allies? 

Sachs: There are already major tensions between the US and Europe. Those tensions, I think, are likely to lead to Europe having more autonomy of foreign policy and to a weakening of the military alliance, NATO. It is possible that NATO will even end within the next 10 years, then Europe would have its own military, strategic and foreign policy autonomy, and the US would have its own. The two would not be enemies, necessarily, but they would not be allies in the same way. I think this is quite possible. 

GT: What's your suggestion for Europe in facing such a situation? 

Sachs: If NATO were to end, I think that would also be fine. Russia is not going to invade Europe. And Europe should have its own strategic autonomy. What we need is diplomacy among the major countries, the US, China, Russia, as well as the EU, African Union, ASEAN and the Arab League. I don't think that there's any underlying cause for war. 

GT: Do you think it's necessary for the EU to build a European army as the president of France suggests?

Sachs: I do think it would be fine for Europe to have its own military force, but it should not be a military force preparing for war, instead, it should be a military force that provides deterrence and defense. However, I don't see any reason for talk of war between Russia and Europe. That's a big mistake. There is no cause for war between the two, but there is a need for diplomacy between the two. 

GT: You have long advocated for multilateralism, but in today's global landscape, multilateral mechanisms are facing challenges. How do you believe the current system should be reformed to better address global issues?

Sachs: I don't think that the multipolar world is yet fully appreciated by the US political leadership. It is a reality, but it is still not the vision of American leaders. Fortunately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it is clear that we are now in a multipolar world. He signaled to the rest of Washington that we need a new approach.