谷歌总裁解释谷歌对华决策-中国选举与治理网

　　一直以来，尽管北京对于互联网自由有所限制，谷歌的CEO埃里克·施密特都在为公司开展中国业务而辩护。但是，上周谷歌突然威胁要撤出中国市场，因为他们确信受到了来自于中国的黑客攻击。施密特在新闻周刊的记者Fareed Zakaria所做的专访中解释了这一决定。

　　为什么你要做出这个决定？这让大多数人和大多数公司都感到吃惊。

　　Google和许多其他公司本质有异。在中国运营对我们来说一直都很复杂。（在我们决定进入中国市场的时候，）我们被要求接受那些让我们非常不舒服的审查，但是我们仍然决定在中国开展业务而不是待在这个国家的外面，因为，这样对所有人都有利的——我们，和中国人民。（现在，）我们做出这个决定不再接受审查制度了。

　　在你们做出决定的前一个月，发生了什么事情导致了做出这样的决定？

　　我们发现大量的证据，证明互联网上对中国的持不同政见者存在着监控。我们并没有明确的证据证明谁做出了这种监控，但是你可以得出你自己的结论。

　　这种监控是广泛存在的吗？

　　可能比我们发现还要多得多。

　　为什么你选择公开发表声明，而不是和中国政府一起寻找解决办法？

　　我们正在和中国政府协商，我们也希望能找出解决办法。但是我们想保持透明。我们不想秘密行事。所以，我们决定先向公众发表声明，现在我们正与中国政府讨论。

　　这种讨论会有结论吗？

　　现在说这个还为时过早，讨论才刚刚开始。

　　难道没有人说你们负有让股东利益最大化的责任吗？

　　当我们首次公开发行的时候，我们在招股文档中说明了我们想如何运作谷歌。我们那时已经说明了我们的做法将不循常规，我们不会总是，或只是靠商业利益驱动。这就是这一观点的延伸。这不是一个商业决定——商业决定很明显应该是继续留在中国市场。这是基于价值观的决定，我们试图去问，从全球的立场，什么是最好的决定。

　　你认为中国能一边全球化一边保留他们的审查制度吗？

　　中国对全球化的拥抱对中国和世界来说都是巨大的好处。它使得数以亿计的人民摆脱了贫困。但是，中国也是少数对于信息进行限制的国家之一。中国是谷歌唯一一个为了遵守当地的审查法律而愿意提供本地站点的国家。我们在其他地方没有这么做过。其他国家有时会屏蔽Youtube几周。但是当我们和交流之后，指出他们只是对成千上万的视频中的一个不满。我们就能解决问题，可以说，中国对信息制定了独特的限令。

　　这会让他们在经济上受损？

　　我相信在长期来看会的。如果人们能生活在一个可以与别人一起自由想像、发明和沟通的环境中，你会更好得多。越多的人加入进来，就越好。越多的人与人之间的联系，就越好。谷歌所做的一切都是赋予个体以力量，而且我们也想让个体更有力量。

　　什么是可能的结果呢？那个[中文搜索引擎]百度会完全占领市场吗？

　　这是可能的结果之一。另一个结果是我们与中国政府达成协议，继续运营。或许，其他的搜索引擎公司会进入中国市场。请理解，我们在中国还会有工程师、程序员以及其他的人。我们爱中国和中国人民，这不是他们的问题。这是关于我们不再愿意配合审查制度。

英文原文：

A Conversation With Google’s Chairman and CEO
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK 

Published Jan 15, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Jan 25, 2010

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has long defended his company's decision to do business in China despite the restrictions that Beijing imposes on Internet freedom. Nevertheless, last week the company abruptly threatened to pull out after suffering hacker attacks believed to have originated in China. Schmidt explained why to NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria in an exclusive interview. Excerpts:

Why did you make this decision? It surprised many people and many companies.
Google is a different kind of company than many others. The issue of operating in China was always complex for us. We were asked to accept a system of censorship that we were very uncomfortable with. But we had come to the conclusion that operating in China was better for everyone—us, the Chinese people—than staying out of the country. We have decided that we cannot participate in censorship anymore.

 What happened over the last months to come to this decision?
We came across a lot of evidence of the monitoring of Chinese dissidents through the Web. We do not have clear evidence as to who was doing the monitoring, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Is there a lot of such monitoring?
There is probably a lot more than what we found.

Why did you announce this publicly rather than go to the Chinese government and try to work things out?
We are going to the Chinese government, and we hope we can work things out. But we want to be transparent. We don't want to keep secrets. So we decided to first make a public announcement and now we are having discussions with the Chinese government.

Are they going anywhere?
It's much too early to tell; they really have just begun.

Won't some people say that you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to maximize profit?
When we filed for our IPO, we attached to the document a statement about how we wanted to run our business. We said we were going to be different. We said that we were going to be motivated by concerns that were not always or strictly business ones. This is an extension of that view. This was not a business decision—the business decision would obviously have been to continue to participate in the Chinese market. It was a decision based on values. We tried to ask what would be best from a global standpoint.

Do you believe that China can still globalize while maintaining its censorship system?
China's embrace of globalization has been a great boon for China and the world. It has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But China is placing restrictions on information that few countries place. China is the only country in the world where Google was willing to offer a local site that followed the regime's censorship laws. We haven't done this anywhere else. Other countries sometimes block, say, YouTube for a few weeks. But then we talk to them, point out that they were offended by one video out of literally hundreds of millions. And we work things out. So, China places unique limits on information.

And this will hurt them economically?
I believe it will in the long run. You're much better off with a system in which people can be free to imagine, invent, and connect with one another. The more people who can speculate, the better. The more human-to-human connections, the better. Everything we do at Google empowers the individual. And we want to empower the individual.

What's the likely outcome here? That [Chinese search engine] Baidu will totally dominate the market?
That's one possible outcome. The other is that we can work out an agreement with the Chinese government and continue to operate. Or that some other company moves in. And please understand, we will still have engineers, programmers, and others in China. We love China and the Chinese people. This is not about them. It's about our unwillingness to participate in censorship.