X
你喜歡這篇文章嗎?
按讚接收更多精選文章!

【世事關心】貿易戰升級 為何未必是壞事?

紐約時間: 2018-07-17 09:21 AM 
 ( 自動連播 )
點擊下載觀看Embed 1:   Embed 2:
【新唐人北京時間2018年07月17日訊】 【世事關心】(473)貿易戰升級 為何未必是壞事?
廣告

美中貿易戰開打,而中共和德國卻簽署了一項價值200億歐元的協議。歐洲會和中國站在一起共同對抗美國嗎?
The U.S.-China trade war started while China and Germany signed a 20 billion Euro deal. Will Europe stand by China in the fight against America?

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「也許中共希望和歐洲結成一個暫時的戰術性同盟,我認為這個目標也很難實現。」
Perhaps, the Chinese regime wants to form a temporary tactical alliance with Europe. Even that is challenging for them.

個別美國公司在知識產權之爭中,與整個中共當局叫板。他們會輸嗎?
Narration: Are individual American firms taking on the entire Communist regime in the intellectual property rights fight? And will they lose?

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「實際上懲罰在華的美國企業對中國大陸自己有非常高的成本,如果逼他們遷出中國,中國不僅失去了稅收、就業機會,同時失去了與世界先進技術水平接軌的渠道。」
In fact, it takes huge cost risks for China to punish American firms. If they move out of China, China will lose tax income, job opportunities, and access to the world's top technologies.

美中貿易戰究竟是為了貿易,還是另有原因?
Is the U.S.-China trade war really about trade or something else?

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「中共政府雖然是基於自己的利益主動加入世貿組織, 其本能的行動邏輯是用一切手段來削弱條約對自己約束部分的可執行性。」
「Although the Chinese government chose to join the WTO based on its own interests;
The logic behind its decision-making is to take all opportunities to weaken the possibility of execution on the terms that restrict the Chinese government’s actions.」

中美貿易戰和第二次鴉片戰爭相似嗎?果真如此,它對中國和世界意味著什麼?
Does the U.S.- China Trade war resemble the 2nd Opium war? If so, what does that mean to China and the World?

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):歡迎收看《世事關心》,我是蕭茗。今天,我們來聊一聊美中貿易戰。現在打開電視,關於世界第一、二大經濟體之間的這場衝突,您聽到的很可能不外乎這樣一些內容:加征關稅;中國報復;川普的支持者們受到多大打擊;貿易戰對美國經濟的影響。毫無疑問,人們都關心這些事情。但從現在開始,二十年、三十年、五十年後,人們將不再關心這些。到那時,人們會從一個不同的角度解讀今天這場貿易戰。人們將審視貿易戰改變了什麼,不僅僅是平衡貿易層面的考量,而且延伸到它是否打破了舊的秩序,讓世界走上了一條新的道路。也許人們還會思考:如果這場貿易戰沒有發生,世界又將變成什麼樣子?這些角度非常重要,因為它們決定了這場貿易戰的本質。今天,我們這期節目做的正好就是這樣的事,只是時間上提前了若幹年而已。為了剖析這場貿易戰的本質,我們將回顧歷史,並比較這場戰爭與另一場被人們遺忘已久、影響了一個世紀的戰爭——「第二次鴉片戰爭」,看它們之間有哪些相似之處。好,我們先來看一看這場貿易戰的最新進展。
Welcome to 《Zooming In》. I am Simone Gao. Today, let’s talk about the U.S.-China trade war. When you turn on the TV nowadays, what you hear about this fight between the first and second largest economies in the world would probably fall into the following categories: New Tariffs; China’s retaliation; How much Trump supporters got hit; and the trade war’s impact on the U.S. economy. No doubt, people care about these things. But they are not going to care about them 20, 30, 50 years from now. By then, people would look at the trade war from a different perspective. They would examine what the trade war had changed, not just in a sense of balancing trade, but whether it had disrupted an old order and set the world on a new track. Maybe people would also think about what the world would be like if the trade war hadn’t happened. These angles are important because they define what this struggle was really about. Today, we will do exactly this but years earlier. We will explore what the trade war is really about by looking at history and examining the similarities between this war and another century-shaping struggle that has long been forgotten - the Second Opium War. But first, let’s start our journey by looking at this conflict’s newest development.

2018年7月6日,美中國貿易戰正式開打。美國對340億美元的中國商品加征25%的關稅。中國立即採取報復措施,也對340億美元的美國商品加征25%的關稅。川普政府估計,中國知識產權的盜竊行為每年給美國企業造成500億美元的損失,美國首輪對500億美元的中國商品加征關稅,包括週五生效的340億美元在內,即是為了彌補上述損失。
The trade war between the U.S. and China officially started on July 6, 2018, when the United States’ 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion on Chinese products became effective. China retaliated immediately by raising 25 percent tariffs on U.S. goods that also amounts to $34 billion. The Trump administration estimated that China’s intellectual property theft costs U.S. companies $50 billion annually. The first round of tariffs on $50 billion, including the $34 billion that went into effect on Friday, is meant to match those losses.

三天後,2018年7月9日,中國總理李克強訪問歐洲,會見了德國總理默克爾,直言不諱的進行遊說,願共同對抗美國的關稅。兩國簽署了價值200億歐元(236億美元)的多項協議。除了政府機構之間的多個合作專案外,巴斯夫、寶馬、大眾、戴姆勒、西門子和博世等公司還宣佈達成了一些協議,以及建立了夥伴合作關係。
Three days later, on July 9, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang went to Europe and met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, illustrating a blatant intent to lobby against U.S. tariffs. The two countries signed various deals worth 20 billion euros (23.6 billion US dollars). In addition to multiple joint cooperation projects between governmental agencies, companies like BASF, BMW, Volkswagen, Daimler, Siemens and Bosch announced deals and partnerships.

默克爾總理重申了德國堅持世界貿易組織的指導方針、支持多邊主義的承諾。
Chancellor Merkel reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to stick to the World Trade Organization guidelines and to back multilateralism.

李克強訪問歐洲之後,貿易戰立即升級。7月10日(週二),川普政府確定了追加2,000億美元的中國商品,計畫審核期過後加征10%的關稅。7月11日,川普向歐洲盟友施壓,要求他們將軍費開支增加一倍,同時抨擊德國支持與俄羅斯達成一項天然氣協議。
The trade war escalated immediately after Li’s trip to Europe. On July 10, the Trump administration identified an additional $200 billion in Chinese products and intends to impose 10 percent tariffs after a review period. On July 11, Trump pressed European allies to double their military spending while bashing Germany for supporting a gas deal with Russia.

川普(美國總統):「我不得不說,我認為這是一件令人非常難過的事。本來其它國家還期待德國防範俄羅斯呢,每年幾十億、幾十億的支付給俄羅斯。在那裏,你應該防範俄羅斯,而德國則出去,每年向俄羅斯支付數十億美元。所以,我認為這是非常不合適的。德國前總理是供應天然氣的管道公司的負責人,最終,德國將有將近70%的國土被俄羅斯用天然氣控制。所以,你告訴我,這麼做合適嗎?我的意思是,自從我上任,我就一直在抱怨這件事,根本就不應該讓它發生。」
「Well I have to say I think it's very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia where you're supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia. So we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries and then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. So, we're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate. And the former chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that's supplying the gas. Ultimately Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. So you tell me is that appropriate? I mean, I've been complaining about this since the time I got in, it should never been allowed to have happened.」

儘管關係緊張,但美國股市還是在攀升。截止7月12日10:18,標準普爾500指數上漲24點,至2,798點。道瓊斯工業平均指數上升224點,至24,924點。納斯達克綜合指數上漲107點,至7,823點。據美聯社(AP)報導,這主要是因為美國週五公佈的好於預期的就業報告,以及預期未來幾周美國企業幾乎每一領域均有強勁的盈利報告。
Despite the tension, U.S. stocks climbed. By 10:18 p.m. on July 12, the S&P 500 was up 24 points, to 2,798. The Dow was up 224 points, to 24,924. And the Nasdaq was up 107 points, to 7,823. According to AP, this is largely due to a better-than-forecasted U.S. jobs report on Friday and the expectation for strong earnings reports from nearly every swath of corporate America in the upcoming weeks.

與此同時,歐盟領導人表示,他們注意到了中共不公平貿易的行為,理解美國對中共採取的立場,但在如何處理這一問題上他們與川普總統存在分歧。
Meanwhile, European Union leaders expressed they are aware of China’s unfair trade practices and understand the U.S. position towards China. Notwithstanding, they differ from President Trump in how to deal with this matter.

Jyrki Katainen(歐盟委員會副主席):「在我們進行的有關世貿組織現代化的討論中,我們必須非常明確地強調國家對工業的補貼問題。這是當今的一個問題,會阻礙投資。同樣不公平的交易行為,例如強制技術轉讓,顯然是另一個問題。這兩個問題足以解釋美國為何採取單邊主義行動,當然不是唯一原因,但卻是部分原因。我們需要有序地解決這一問題。」
Jyrki Katainen(Vice President of European Commission): 「In our discussions on modernising WTO, we have to stress very clearly the state subsidies to industry. It's a problem today and it will hamper investment. Also unfair trading practices, for instance, forced technology transfer is obviously an issue. The two issues together are the reasons why, not the only reasons, but some reasons why, for instance, the United States has taken unilateralism actions. But we have to solve this in orderly manner.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):李克強訪問歐洲的意圖非常明確,中國就是想鼓動歐洲對抗美國。但是,中國能如願以償嗎?為此,我採訪了中國問題資深政論家文昭先生。我們來聽一下他是怎麼回答的。
When Li Keqiang visited Europe, his intention was clear: China wants to turn Europe against America. But can China do it? I spoke with senior Chinese political commentator Wen Zhao. This is what he has to say.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「造成一種中德聯合,或者是中歐聯合對抗美國貿易戰的印象可能是中共政權現在很需要的。這次李克強去德國簽了200億歐元的大單。而歐洲也在對美國增加關稅采取報復措施。在這種情況下,中歐真的有可能聯合對抗美國嗎?」
「 A Sino-German alliance against the U.S. might be what the Chinese communist regime badly needs right now. During Li Keqiang’s visit, China made a 20-billion-Euro purchase from Germany. Considering Europe is also retaliating against the U.S. tariff increases, is it likely that China and Europe will join hands to fight back against the U.S.?」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「中國和歐盟不太可能在幾個層面作為同盟來行動。其一是不可能形成同盟目標,他們當然都希望川普放棄關稅行動,但各自只關注自己的目標,中國不可能以川普放棄對歐洲的貿易戰為條件,來考慮自己和美國之間的關系;反過來歐洲也不可能。都是和美國各談各的,也就不存在聯盟狀態下集體談判,不存在集體談判也就發揮不出聯盟的威力。其次對美國的報復行動,中歐也沒有可能彼此磋商、達成分工,形成差異化的搭配,達成整體大於部分之和的威辦。怎麽報復美國也是各自研究各自的,不僅不存在內容上的協調,中、歐連日歷上的協調行動也沒有。因此既不存在對美國共同進退同盟目標、也不存在同盟戰略,所以中歐的聯合只體現在都聲明反對以關稅手段解決貿易糾紛。也許中共希望和歐洲結成一個暫時的戰術性同盟,我認為這也難以達到,因為美國所爭取的,讓中國開放市場、保護知識產權、取消出口補貼,也是歐洲想達到的目標。」
「 They’re unlikely to act as an alliance for a few reasons. First, there’s no way to form a goal as an alliance. Though they all hope Trump will abandon tariff actions, each is only concerned with their own goal. China is not going to consider its ties with the U.S. by relying on Trump to give up his trade war against the EU. It is also true with the EU. They negotiate with the U.S. separately. No group negotiation. So no power of acting as an alliance has been seen. Secondly, China and the EU are unlikely to reach an agreement on task division to maximize efficiency against the United States. Each side works out its own counter-attacks against the U.S. No concrete coordination. Even no scheduled joint actions. Therefore, they have reached no consensus over common targets or strategies as an alliance. They just protest the U.S. tariff increases together over trade disputes. Perhaps, the Chinese regime wants to form a temporary tactical alliance with Europe. Even that is challenging for them. The reason is that the U.S. strives for China to open up its market, intellectual property rights protection, and removal of export subsidies, which are in line with the EU.」

接下來,美中貿易戰與第二次鴉片戰爭有相似處嗎?
Coming up, Is the U.S.-China trade war reminiscent of the 2nd Opium War?

2018年7月6日,美國貿易關稅生效不久,中國商務部發表聲明,稱川普總統剛剛「發動了經濟史上規模最大的貿易戰」。達特茅斯學院經濟學教授道格拉斯•歐文(Douglas Irwin)表示這種說法根本不正確。要說最大的貿易戰,當數上世紀30年代的貿易戰。當時,美國總統胡佛簽署了《斯姆特-霍利法案》,該法案對來自所有國家的、近900種產品徵收平均45%以上的關稅。加拿大和歐洲進行了報復。全球貿易下降了25%,進一步加劇了美國的大蕭條狀況。
Narration: On July 6, 2018, shortly after the U.S. trade tariffs went into effect, China's Ministry of Commerce put out a statement saying that President Trump had just 「launched the largest trade war in economic history.」 According to Douglas Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth, that claim isn’t true. The largest trade war happened in the 1930s. President Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Act, which caused tariffs to be above 45 percent on average on nearly 900 products from all nations. Canada and Europe retaliated. Global trade fell by 25 percent and it exacerbated the Great Depression.

這是許多人擔心的,當前貿易戰可能引向的大家不願意看到的局面。然而,川普總統對總進口商品徵收的關稅還不到4%。討論中的最高的稅率是25%。
That is the undesirable situation that many fear the current trade war may lead to. However, President Trump has only put tariffs on less than 4 percent of total U.S. imports. The highest tariff rate is at 25 percent.

到目前為止,即使美國對價值5千億的所有中國大陸輸美商品徵關稅,其規模也無法與大蕭條時的貿易戰相比。
At least for now, compared to the trade war during the Great Depression, an all-out trade war levying tariffs on all $500 billion Chinese products will not make history repeat itself.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):雖然川普總統發起的貿易戰在規模上無法與加劇大蕭條的斯姆特 - 霍利關稅法案相比,但是這場貿易戰對經濟和政治秩序同樣會產生深遠的影響。高級政治評論員文昭先生說,美中貿易戰讓人想起1856年中國,英國和法國帝國之間的第二次鴉片戰爭。鴉片戰爭沒有引起經濟大蕭條,但卻帶來了其它方面的影響,包括引發了兩個不同的國家管理體制之間的衝突。所以,它給這個有著300年曆史的清朝帶來了巨大的衝擊,並且引發了這個有著2000年曆史的帝國製度衰敗的開始。這對我們今天意味著什麼 ?讓我們先回顧歷史。
Just because Trump’s trade war is not comparable to the Smoot-Hawley Act that deepened the Great Depression doesn’t mean Trump’s trade war will not have a profound impact on the world economic and political order. According to Wen Zhao, the U.S.-China trade war is reminiscent of the 2nd Opium War between China, Great Britain, and the French Empire in 1856. The Opium Wars did not cause a great depression, but they brought out, among other things, the clash between two contrasting governing philosophies. By doing so, it sent great shock waves to the Qing dynasty and eventually initiated the start of the end of a 2000-year-old imperial system. What does all this mean to us today? Let’s examine history.

第一次鴉片戰爭始於1839年。雖然這場戰爭被稱為鴉片戰爭,但由此簽訂的條約與鴉片幾乎沒有任何關係。實際上,它是英國和中國清朝之間,由於在外交關係、貿易和中國司法行政方面觀點存在衝突而引起的一系列軍事衝突。
The first Opium War started in 1839. It is called the Opium War, but the treaty resulting from it hardly had anything to do with opium. It was actually a series of military engagements fought between the United Kingdom and China’s Qing dynasty over their conflicting viewpoints on diplomatic relations, trade, and the administration of justice in China.

1842年,戰敗的清政府被迫簽訂了《南京條約》,這被認為是中國被迫與西方列強簽訂的第一個不平等條約。然而,英國獲得的真正的不平等權利不是來自《南京條約》,而是來自補充的《虎門條約》,該條約賦予英國治外法權和最惠國地位。具有諷刺意味的是,這些不平等條款是清朝自己加上去的,部分原因是為了儘量減少與英國人民及其文化往來,儘量減少受到他們的影響。正因為如此,它們才得以順利實施。相反,《南京條約》中在今天看來應該是平等的部分,當初反而沒有得到履行。
In 1842, the defeated Qing dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking, which is regarded as the first unequal treaty China was forced to enter with Western powers. However, the real unequal rights that the United Kingdom acquired is not from the 「Nanjing Treaty」,but from the supplementary「Treaty of the Bogue」, which granted the extraterritoriality and most favored nation status to Britain. Ironically, these unequal articles are added by the Qing dynasty itself in part to minimize interaction with and influence by the British people and their culture. Because of that, they were implemented smoothly. Instead, it is some part of the Nanking Treaty which is not regarded as unequal that did not get fulfilled.

例如,原條約規定英國商人及其家人可以進入商埠城市。但戰後,兩廣總督耆英拒絕執行。結果,英國人有七年不能進入廣州。與此同時,允許開展反英活動,英國人提出的申訴基本上不予理睬。另一個大的衝突是,清朝有意推遲已商定的重啟1843年「黃埔條約」談判。英國、法國和美國均認為該行為屬於違約行為。所有這些均表明,清政府雖然沒有明確說不,卻不斷的在驅逐英國人。最後,1856年發生了有爭議的「亞羅號」事件,清政府從一艘英國船隻上逮捕了走私嫌疑人。事件激怒了英國人,他們重新動用了軍事手段,這就是第二次鴉片戰爭的起源。
For example, the original treaty stipulated that the British merchants and their families could enter the city of the trading port. But after the war, the Governor of Guangdong and Guangxi, Yu Ying, refused to implement them. As a result, for seven years the British people could not enter Guangzhou city. Meanwhile, anti-British activities were allowed and British complaints were largely ignored. Another major conflict was the Qing dynasty’s intentional delay of the agreed re-negotiations of the 1843 「Whampoa Treaty」. It was deemed as a violation of the treaty by the United Kingdom, France, and America. All of these could be categorized as a consistent effort by the Qing authorities to expel the British without saying so. Finally, in 1856, there was the controversial 「Arrow」 incident, in which China arrested smuggling suspects from an English ship. This provoked the British to re-engage in military means. That was the start of the second Opium War.

第二次鴉片戰爭再次以大清帝國的戰敗而告終。由此產生的《北京補充條約》則包含了更多的土地割讓和賠償。再加上咸豐皇帝的出逃、駕崩,以及頤和園被焚毀,這些變化令曾經輝煌過的帝國極為震驚,倍受打擊——舊的體制遭到了徹底的失敗。戰後,維新運動開始了。這是一場重大的現代化運動,標誌著中國延續了2000年的帝制開始走向沒落。
The second Opium War again ended in the Qing Empire’s defeat. The「Supplementary Treaty of Peking」resulting from it includes more cession of land and indemnity. Coupled with the flight and death of the Xianfeng Emperor as well as the burning of the Summer Palace, these changes brought a shocking blow to the once powerful empire - an old system was thoroughly defeated. After the war, the Self-Strengthening Movement began. It is a major modernization movement that marked the start of the end of China’s 2000-year-old imperial system.

鴉片戰爭的根本原因是什麼?為什麼可以與美中貿易戰相比?讓我們再聽一聽文昭先生的見解。
What was at the core of the Opium War, and how does it compare to the U.S.- China trade war? Let’s hear from Wen Zhao again.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「在您看來,引發第二次鴉片戰爭的核心原因是什麽?是英國要繼續進行鴉片貿易嗎?是中英貿易赤字嗎?還是英國要用武力打開中國國門促使它進一步開放市場?」
「 In your opinion, what was the core reason behind the second Opium War? Was it that the UK wanted to continue selling opium to China? Or was it a Sino-British trade deficit?」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「在1842年的《中英南京條約》和第二年的補充條約裏,完全沒有涉及到鴉片貿易。英國做為戰勝國,並沒有要求清政府允許英商輸入鴉片。鴉片在中國是否合法仍然是清政府主權決定的事,清政府也可以繼續緝查鴉片走私。《南京條約》和它的補充條約《虎門條約》關心的是建立一個近代化的貿易規則體系,事實上第一次鴉片戰爭結束後的頭十年,英國對華的出口總體上還在下降,但這沒有成為激化矛盾的原因。導致矛盾激化的原因是清政府對條約部分內容不履行,使得英國人要建立的規則體系得不到維護,使得英國人的憤怒不斷積累。英國商人在《南京條約》簽定後仍然長達7年無法進入廣州城;廣東省的地方大員不保護英商的合法權益;還有1854年清政府拖延履行《中法黃埔條約》協商修約的承諾,都使得矛盾不斷積累,直到1856年由『亞羅號』事件引燃了雙方的沖突。」
WenZhao: 「The Treaty of Nanking in 1842 and the supplementary treaty in the following year did not mention opium trade. As a victor, the United Kingdom did not ask the Qing government to allow opium trade. That means the Qing government had sovereign authority to determine whether opium was legal in China. The Qing government could have continued to investigate opium smuggling. The Treaty of Nanking and its supplementary treaty, the Bogue Treaty, aimed at establishing a modern trade system. In fact, in the first 10 years after the first Opium War, the UK exports to China declined, but it wasn’t a key factor in triggering the second Opium War. What triggered it was that the Qing government refused to honor certain terms as spelled out in the treaties. That caused the British government to take a protective stance to maintain world trade order. Frustration and anger continued to accumulate for the British. Seven years after the Treaty of Nanking, the British were still not allowed to go into Guangzhou city. Local government officials from the Guangdong Province did not protect the legal rights of the British businessmen. In 1854, the Qing government delayed implementation of the Sino-French Whampoa Treaty. Frictions continued to escalate until a full breakout took place when both sides were ignited by the 『Arrow』incident in 1856.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「您提出,現在的中美貿易戰和一百多年前的第二次鴉片戰爭相似。為什麽這樣說?它們在哪些方面相似?」
「In what sense is the current trade war comparable in nature to the Second Opium War in China? 」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「在於觀念結構上和第二次鴉片戰爭的類似,中共政府雖然是基於自己的利益主動加入世貿組織,但它對規則的態度也像清政府一樣以權宜之計看待,其本的行動邏輯是用一切手段來削弱條約對自己約束部分的可執行性,而不管它是公平、還是不公平的。連使用方法和清政府都有相似性,先是拖延,清朝的兩廣總督耆英是用拖延辦法不讓英國商人進城。中共是用拖延方法不讓外商進入某些領域。然後在抱怨增多的情況下對抗再一步步走向半公開化。葉名琛是以查海盜的名義,扯下船上的英國國旗。而今天中共政府是以查消防的名義,讓『樂天瑪特』關門,以反壟斷的名義打擊微軟和蘋果。這都反映了雙方對規則認知上的根本沖突,中共政府和大清政府類似的是,中共政府所抵觸執行的,主要是條約裏平等的條款,他認為一個好的規則就應該是僅僅對自己有利的規則。」
Wenzhao: 「In the sense of the nature of its conceptual structure. Although the Chinese government chose to join the WTO based on its own interests; however, its attitude towards the rules of the game is similar to the Qing government. The logic behind its decision-making is to take all opportunities to weaken the possibility of execution on the terms that restrict the Chinese government’s actions, regardless of whether such terms were fair. The methods used were also similar to that of the Qing government. First, they used a delaying strategy. For example, the governor of Guangdong and Guangxi province used a delaying strategy to stop the British businessmen from entering the city. Today, the CCP is also using a delaying strategy to prevent foreign investors from entering certain Chinese markets. When the CCP was forced to deal with increased pressure, the CCP protested and then slowly opened up. Another example is that the Qing governor Ye Mingxi removed the British flag on their ship in the name of capturing pirates. Today, the CCP used the excuse of fire protection to shut down Lotte Mart, and in the name of anti-trust, the CCP worked against Apple and Microsoft. All these examples reflect that the fundamental conflict between the two sides arises from their difference in acknowledging, and the willingness to abide by, established rules. Similar to the Qing government, the CCP is avoiding execution on terms that are fairly established in the contract. Their fundamental belief is that the definition of good terms is terms that benefit the CCP.」

接下來,由不同的執政理念導致的中美貿易戰,未來將如何發展?
Coming up, what will the U.S.-China trade war, a conflict rooted in different governing philosophies, evolve into?

中共除了貿易措施之外的最新報復可能已經出現了。
The latest retaliation from China, outside trade measures, may have emerged.

根據《大紀元時報》的報導,7月3日中國大陸一家法院臨時禁止全球最大的存儲晶片製造商——「美光公司」在中國銷售其半導體產品。中共福州市中級人民法院稱,該公司侵犯了臺灣晶片製造商聯華電子(UMC)持有的專利。
According to the Epoch Times, on July 3, a Chinese court temporarily halted U.S. company Micron, the world’s largest manufacturer of memory chips, from selling its semiconductor products in China. The Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court claimed that the company violated patents held by Taiwanese chip manufacturer United Microelectronics (UMC).

早在2017年12月,「美光」就在加州提起民事訴訟,指控「聯華電子」及其中國大陸合作夥伴「福建晉華集成電路公司」竊取其DRAM晶片的設計和製造技術。
Back in December 2017, Micron filed a civil lawsuit in California, accusing UMC and its Chinese partner, Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit, of stealing design and manufacturing technologies related to its DRAM chips.

「美光」在起訴書中稱,正在華擴大業務,計畫在上海證交所上市的「聯華電子」挖走了自己的一些關鍵員工,目的是幫助「福建晉華」改進其DRAM技術。
In its filing, Micron said UMC, which is scaling up its China business and plans to list on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, had poached key Micron employees with the aim of helping Fujian Jinhua improve its own DRAM technology.

這促使「聯華電子」於1月12日在福州市中級人民法院對「美光」科技提起反訴,指控「美光」侵犯其專利權。六個月後,就在美中貿易戰即將開始之前,中共法院發佈了對「美光」在華銷售的禁令。
This prompted UMC to countersue on Jan. 12, filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Micron at the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court. 6 months later, right before the U.S.-China trade war started, the Chinese court issued the ban of Micron’s sale in China.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):這就是美國企業界長期以來擔心的問題。當關稅不再有效的時候,中共當局會將矛頭對準美國的在華企業,讓它們的日子不好過。下一步將發生什麼? 我們再來聽聽文昭先生的看法。
This is what corporate America has long been worried about: when tariffs are no longer effective, the Chinese Communist regime will turn to American companies in China and make their life difficult. What will happen next? Here is Wen Zhao again.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「中美對於知識產權認知和態度的不同實際上是反應了兩個社會體系,兩種意識形態和價值觀的對抗。在這個框架下,尤其現在在中美貿易戰這個背景下,您覺得像『美光案』這樣的中美知識產權之戰,它的走向是什麽?西方公司是不是在以一個公司的力量來對抗整個中國的體制?從而必定失敗?」
「China and the U.S. differ in their attitude toward intellectual property rights, which manifests as conflict between two ideologies and value systems. Given this situation, what do you think will happen with conflicts such as the one between Micron and Fujian Jinhua? Are individual Western firms taking on the entire Chinese system, and are they doomed to fail?」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「這種中國企業從外國企業偷取專利技術,在中國大陸搶先註冊,再反過來控告技術的合法擁有者是侵權、把它趕出中國市場的情況以前也發生過。當前對『美光公司』的處罰,明顯是在恐嚇美國的在華企業,希望他們向美國政府施壓,使川普有所退讓。這個案例恰恰證明中國缺少獨立和客觀的執法體系,政府為了達成短期目標,可以把法律作為隨意使用的工具,這個問題甚至比偷竊知識產權更加有害,使中美之間建立長期互利的貿易關系變得更加艱難。這個博弈過程有一些微妙,實際上懲罰在華的美國企業對中國大陸自己有非常高的成本,他們遷出中國,中國不僅失去了稅收、就業機會,同時失去了與世界先進技術水平接軌的渠道。但問題是中國的整個政治體系不透明,哪怕只有很少數的美國企業成為被報復的對象,你不知道誰會成為這個倒黴蛋,於是在華的美國企業們就會集體恐慌。單個企業不可能對抗中共政府,他們只有支持本國的政府,讓政府出面施加壓力,讓整個規則環境更加合理,處境才有可能改善。」
「Such a thing did happen in China: They stole a patent technology from a foreign firm, preemptively registered it in mainland China, accused the legal technology owner of infringement, and drove it out of the Chinese market. Currently, the punishment of Micron is an obvious intimidation of the U.S. businesses in China, hoping they will pressure their government to discourage Trump. This case precisely proves that China lacks an independent law-enforcement system; the government can use law arbitrarily for immediate goals. This is even more harmful than the theft of intellectual property rights, which makes it harder to establish long-term, mutually beneficial trade ties between China and the U.S. This game’s process is somewhat tricky. In fact, it takes huge cost risks for China to punish American firms. If they move out of China, China will lose tax income, job opportunities, and access to the world's top technologies. But the problem is that China’s entire governance system is opaque. Even if a limited number of American companies become its targets of retaliation, you can’t tell which ones will be unlucky. Hence widespread panic. It’s impossible for individual businesses to confront the Chinese regime. Only by supporting their government to change rule-implementing settings can they win an improved environment.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):除知識產權之爭外,圍繞貿易戰其它方面產生的緊張關係也開始顯現出來。
Besides the fight over intellectual property rights, other tensions surrounding the trade war are also emerging.

美中貿易戰剛剛開始,7月7日,美國海軍派出兩艘驅逐艦,駛入中國大陸和臺灣之間的航道——臺灣海峽。這是自2017年以來美軍艦首艘進入臺灣海峽。在中國對臺灣施加壓力、美中之間開始貿易戰之際,此舉可能意味著從這一天開始,今後會不斷的發生類似的通行,重申美國對臺灣的承諾。
As soon as the U.S.-China trade war started, on July 7, the U.S. Navy sent two destroyers into the Taiwan Strait, the waterway separating mainland China from Taiwan. This is the first U.S. warship heading into the strait since 2017. And it might signal the start of a sustained drumbeat of similar transits, reassuring the United States’ commitment to Taiwan amid intensifying Chinese pressure on the island and a U.S.-China trade war.

幾天前,為進一步確保無核化進程,美國國務卿麥克•蓬佩奧訪問了朝鮮。在上月金正恩與川普熱情會晤後,蓬佩奧此行沒有取得什麼成果。人們普遍懷疑,金正恩態度的轉變是受到了中共的壓力。
A few days earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited North Korea to further assure the denuclearization process, which yielded little result after Kim Jong Un’s enthusiastic meeting with Trump last month. It was widely suspected that Kim’s change in attitude was due to pressure from China.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):這些場貿易戰的最新進展說明了什麼問題?我們聽一聽文昭先生的見解。
What do these new developments say about the trade war? Let’s hear from Wen Zhao.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「金正恩的態度轉變,大家都覺得和習近平有關。另外,貿易戰剛開打的第二天,美國就派軍艦穿越臺灣海峽。您覺得為什麽美國在和中共打貿易戰的時候,這麽快對抗就蔓延到了除貿易之外的其它方面?中美貿易戰的下一步走向是什麽?」
「It is widely suspected that Kim’s shift in attitude was due to Xi Jinping. Moreover, on the second day of the trade war, U.S. warships sailed through the Taiwan Strait. Why have the tensions spilled over into other fields so quickly? What’s going to happen next?」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「因為中國去年美國進口的貨物只有1300多億美元,所以貿易戰的下一步,中共在貨物貿易上沒太多招可想。從朝鮮到南海也都是中共可以用來向美國施加壓力的牌。相應貿易戰一旦觸及到外交和軍事領域就難以避免了。另外像留學、旅遊這類服務貿易、還有刁難美國在華企業,就成了不可避免會使力的方向。但是美國是中國留學生的首先目的地,中共政府也指著中國學生在美國學有所成,帶點技術回來拉動產業升級。如果戰火擴展到服務貿易領域,中國大陸的長期損失也會高於美國,畢竟在這些領域中國只是有暫時的購買力,而美國則是有不可替代的產品,市場格局從長遠趨勢來說是賣方更強。習近平所依賴的優勢多數是一些系統淺層的優勢,也就是說這些優勢實際上不會給習近平帶來決定性和長期的力量。但他認為中國是大國,可用的手段很多,在這些手段窮盡之前你讓他就妥協就很難。所以貿易戰的衝突會在很多方面體現出來。」
「Actually, the Chinese regime doesn’t have much at hand for what’s to come next because China imported only $130 billion of U.S. goods last year. North Korea and the South China Sea are what the Chinese regime can use to put pressure on the U.S. Sectors such as overseas study services, tourism, and U.S. firms in China inevitably become the targets of the communist regime. But America is the No. 1 destination for Chinese students, who, in the eyes of the regime, will bring back tech to them to enhance their industries. If service trade is affected, China’s long-term loss will also be greater than that of America. After all, China has only temporary purchasing power in these sectors, while the U.S. has irreplaceable products; and the seller is stronger in a long-term view of the market. What Xi Jinping relies on is largely low system advantages, which are not supposed to arm him with decisive, long-term strengths. But he assumes that China is so huge and has so many tools for use, which makes it hard for him to cave in unless those tools are used up.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「鴉片戰爭嚴重動搖了清朝統治,也開啟了中國結束兩千年的帝制,試圖和現代文明接軌的契機。您既然把中美貿易戰和第二次鴉片戰爭相比,那您覺得中美貿易戰會對整個的世界政治經濟格局產生什麽影響呢?對中國又會有什麽影響呢?」
「The Opium Wars severely shook up the Qing dynasty’s rule. They also signaled the beginning of the end for China’s 2000-year imperial system and an opportunity to meet with modern civilization. Since you have likened the U.S.-China trade war to the Second Opium War, what impact do you think the trade war will have on global political and economic patterns? And what does it mean to China?」

文昭(新唐人資深評論員):「談影響的前提是誰贏了?第二次世界大戰是希特勒贏了?還是盟國贏了?當然是完全不同的影響。一種流行的說法是貿易戰沒有贏家,這是不對的,任何戰爭都有贏家,結果更接近誰的目標,誰就是贏家,戰爭結果比其過程更有意義。假設美國的目標達成,意味著中共要減少對中國經濟領域的控制,放棄幹預匯率;放棄對某些產業的巨額補貼;讓外資進入更多被國有企業壟斷的領域。失去了政府直接的幹預和保護,低效的國有經濟就難以維持,相應也會讓市場化的改革變得更加迫切,中國市場的競爭主體會更多元化。黨對社會的控制力就有所減弱,中國社會就更需要通過完善和獨立的法律才能實現有效治理,而不是靠政府的隨意幹預。這樣會有利於中國社會走向法治和公平,民間的政治力量在中國也會有更大的空間。中國成為一個更加遵守規則的參與者,對所有貿易夥伴來講都是一件好事。不久前韓國企業因為薩德導彈的事在中國受到欺凌,所有人都會因為中國成為一個更守規則的玩家而受益。如果結果沒有接近這個目標,那就是相反的影響了。」
「Well, we need to be clear when it comes to impact. Who was the winner in World War II? Hitler or the Allies? Of course, they had a different impact. A popular rhetoric is that there would be no winner in a trade war. It’s wrong. Every war has a winner. Whoever has come closer to attaining his goal will be the winner. The result of a war is more meaningful than the process of it. Suppose the United States reaches its goal, it means the Chinese regime should pare down its control over the economy, abandon foreign exchange rate intervention, revoke huge subsidies for certain industries, and open up sectors that are monopolized by SOEs to foreign capital. Without direct intervention and protection from the government, the sluggish state-owned economy will hardly survive. In response, market-oriented reform will become urgent, and competitive market participants will get diversified. The Party’s control over Chinese society will loosen; the latter will rely on mature, independent law rather than arbitrary governmental intervention more than ever for effective governance. That will push Chinese society toward the rule of law and social justice; and more space will be created for civic political forces in China. It will definitely be a good thing for all trading partners if China becomes a more disciplined player. Not long ago, Korean companies were bullied in China because of the Sadr missile back in their home country. So, if China becomes a more disciplined player, everyone will benefit from it. If the result is not closer to this goal, that will be an opposite impact.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):從這個意義上講,美國企業應該支持川普總統的貿易戰,因為川普在為他們的長期利益而戰,而不是照顧他們的短期利益。美國企業是世界創新的源泉。作為個體的中國企業根本無法與它們競爭。但是,如果中共當局成為中國企業的後盾,即便是「蘋果」或「谷歌」也顯得微不足道。長久以來,美國企業一直在遊說,但是卻搞錯了遊說的對象。為了進入中國市場,美企一直在向中國當局伸出橄欖枝,犧牲美國的價值觀。現在川普給他們指了一條更好的道路。這裏的邏輯很簡單,當「福建晉華」與「美光」一對一幹起來時,「福建晉華」輸了。當「福建晉華」得到中國當局撐腰時,「美光」卻失敗了。而當「美光」和其它美企允許本國政府捍衛自己的利益時,他們的對手就蔫了。到那時,無論是美國人民、還是中國人民,都會比今天過得好。要找到我們,請搜索:『《世事關心》 蕭茗』。感謝您的收看,祝您一天愉快。
In this sense, corporate America should support President Trump’s trade war because he is fighting on their behalf for long-term, not short-term benefits. American companies are the world’s powerhouse for innovation. Individual Chinese firms can’t compete against them at all. But when the Communist regime backs Chinese firms, even Apple or Google seems small. For too long, American companies have been lobbying the wrong party. In the hope for access to the Chinese market, they have been extending olive branches to the Chinese authorities by compromising American values. Now Trump is showing them there is a better route. The logic is simple. When Fujian Jinhua was one-on-one with Micron, Fujian Jinhua lost. When Fujian Jinhua was backed by the Chinese regime, Micron lost; When Micron and all other American firms allow the American government to stand up for them, they as a whole shadow their opponents. And at that time, both the American people and the Chinese people will be better off than they are today. Make sure to search for us:「Zooming In with Simone Gao」. Have a nice day.


=================================================
Producer:Simone Gao
Writer:Simone Gao Michelle Wan
Editors:Julian Kuo Bonnie Yu Frank Lin
Narrator: Rich Crankshaw
Transcription: Jess Beatty
Translation:Greg Yang Frank Yue Michelle Wan
Transcription:Jess Beatty
Special Effects:Harrison Sun
Assistant producer:Bin Tang Sherry Chang Merry Jiang

Feedback:ssgx@ntdtv.com
Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television
《世事關心》
July, 2018

================================================
《世事關心》播出時間

美東:週二:21:30
週三:2:30
週六:9:30

美西:週二:21:30
週六:12:30
週日:9:30

舊金山:週二:22:00
週六:12:30
週日:9:30

===========================================
廣告
我來說兩句
您的評論已提交,謝謝!
請輸入您的評論後再提交!
廣告
廣告

訂閱電子報

為保護您的隱私,我們不會將您的電子郵箱透露給任何人。

友好連接: 神韻藝術團 | 新唐人全球系列大賽 | 大紀元時報 | 希望之聲 | 全球退黨服務中心 | 明慧網 | 動態網 | 無界網 | 加拿大真相片攝製組 | 更多

Copyright © 2002-2018 NTDTV. All Rights Reserved.