ゼーリックについては「NikkeiEYE プロの視点」にコラム（ゼーリック国務副長官辞任報道の裏側 2006/6/12
Let me start with China. Tell me what you were trying to say to the Chinese. What were you trying to say to them about being a stakeholder?Zoellick:
I was trying to capture the fact that if you are in China these days, it's understandable that you face huge interal challenges. And so if you were President Hu and Wen Jiabao and wake up in the morning, you'd think about the problems of the world versus the coastal areas, urban areas, with just huge internal migration. But because of their very success over the past 25 years, they are now influential in the world. And, in a sense, the United States and other countries have had a strategy to integrate China into the world community over the past 25 years. And if you consider everything from commodity markets to currency markets to counterfeiting to captal markets, you say China is integrated. So now the question is integration to what end. So part of the messages for the United States and others is what should be the goal and part of the message for China is to recognize that it has a stake in this internationa system that it is benefited from. And therefore it has some responsibilities that runs everything from North Korea and Iran to international economy.Rose:
OK, it explains part of some of these and not in others, but to make the point that I read something, maybe 6 month ago, after you had made the major point about being a stakeholder where the Chinese government etiher said or had printed in one of their newspapers that the Chinese had to come to accept the fact that China had a role in the world and that was increasingly significant role. What role do they want to play?Zoellick:
That is why I think this is particulary important time to engage them. I think they are trying to figure that out, Charlie. Just give you one of the most fascinating evidence points on this. The Chinese have developed documentary history series--and these things don't happen accidentally on the history channel in China--about the rise of great powers, starting with Portugal in 1500 to the United States. And I haven't seen it but it's telling you something. It's telling you that the Chinese are now recognizing they are influential and they are trying to determine their role in the system. And, in a sense, the engagement about stakeholder is another way of saying this is a rising power in the system. History is literate with examples of rising powers, not being well integrated in the system. How do we do it in a way that it serves mutual interests. Part of the message that I was trying to relate to the Chinese was to say, you may not have created the system the United States and others created after World War II. But if you look at the history of 20th century, pretty bad for China. You had invasion. You had revolutions, tens of millions of people died. The past 25 years have been good, because Deng Xiao Ping linked the reform of China to the internationa system. So you have a stake in the security of that system and economic ballances. And so, frankly, there is some evidence that the Chinese recognize this. And, coming back to the speech, at first, they weren't so sure how to take it. There was even a little ... I wish I could've said I designed it this way, but there wasn't a clarity about what stakeholder really meant. So that led to ..., they didn't know, and there was a trouble with translation about the meaning. And so I said, later I wish I thought of this. But that led to a debate in China about the meaning of the word, which was exactly what I really wanted to create. But the key thing, Charlie, is that this is an on-going process. And one of the points is that it's not just a speech or a word. It's a question of working with China and trying to identfy the points of mutual interests, and recognizing there will be differences too.
Was there something important to be learned in terms of the role China played vis-a-vis North Korea that perhaps we can use in Darfur and perhaps we can use in Iran?Zoellick:
Definitely, it builds on the same logic, which is that I think, going back to your question, the Chinese understand their self-interest in not only working with the United States but trying to have an international system that serves the mutual interst. In the case of North Korea, they don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapon because they are afraid of its effect on South Korea and its effect on Japan. On the other hand, they don't want to have North Korea collapsed because that's a big problem on their border. So part of what the U.S. diplomacy has done is that we believe you can be influential but we are not saying your responsibilty. And we can use the six party process to try to offer the North Koreans two paths. One path is if you are going to stick with nuclear weapon, you are going to be further isolated, and the other five parties will try to prevent slipping out nuclear material, which is a real danger and fear. But there is a positive path. If you take the positive path, we will take you step by step