【世事关心】贸易战升级 为何未必是坏事?

【新唐人北京时间2018年07月17日讯】 【世事关心】(473)贸易战升级 为何未必是坏事?

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?

Perhaps, the Chinese regime wants to form a temporary tactical alliance with Europe. Even that is challenging for them.

Narration: Are individual American firms taking on the entire Communist regime in the intellectual property rights fight? And will they lose?

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.

Is the U.S.-China trade war really about trade or something else?

文昭(新唐人资深评论员):“中共政府虽然是基于自己的利益主动加入世贸组织, 其本能的行动逻辑是用一切手段来削弱条约对自己约束部分的可执行性。”
“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.”

Does the U.S.- China Trade war resemble the 2nd Opium war? If so, what does that mean to China and the World?

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):欢迎收看《世事关心》,我是萧茗。今天,我们来聊一聊美中贸易战。现在打开电视,关于世界第一、二大经济体之间的这场冲突,您听到的很可能不外乎这样一些内容:加征关税;中国报复;川普的支持者们受到多大打击;贸易战对美国经济的影响。毫无疑问,人们都关心这些事情。但从现在开始,二十年、三十年、五十年后,人们将不再关心这些。到那时,人们会从一个不同的角度解读今天这场贸易战。人们将审视贸易战改变了什么,不仅仅是平衡贸易层面的考量,而且延伸到它是否打破了旧的秩序,让世界走上了一条新的道路。也许人们还会思考:如果这场贸易战没有发生,世界又将变成什么样子?这些角度非常重要,因为它们决定了这场贸易战的本质。今天,我们这期节目做的正好就是这样的事,只是时间上提前了若干年而已。为了剖析这场贸易战的本质,我们将回顾历史,并比较这场战争与另一场被人们遗忘已久、影响了一个世纪的战争——“第二次鸦片战争”,看它们之间有哪些相似之处。好,我们先来看一看这场贸易战的最新进展。
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.

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.

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.

Chancellor Merkel reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to stick to the World Trade Organization guidelines and to back multilateralism.

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.

“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.”

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.

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(欧盟委员会副主席):“在我们进行的有关世贸组织现代化的讨论中,我们必须非常明确地强调国家对工业的补贴问题。这是当今的一个问题,会阻碍投资。同样不公平的交易行为,例如强制技术转让,显然是另一个问题。这两个问题足以解释美国为何采取单边主义行动,当然不是唯一原因,但却是部分原因。我们需要有序地解决这一问题。”
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.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):李克强访问欧洲的意图非常明确,中国就是想鼓动欧洲对抗美国。但是,中国能如愿以偿吗?为此,我采访了中国问题资深政论家文昭先生。我们来听一下他是怎么回答的。
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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“造成一种中德联合,或者是中欧联合对抗美国贸易战的印象可能是中共政权现在很需要的。这次李克强去德国签了200亿欧元的大单。而欧洲也在对美国增加关税采取报复措施。在这种情况下,中欧真的有可能联合对抗美国吗?”
“ 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.?”

“ 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.”

Coming up, Is the U.S.-China trade war reminiscent of the 2nd Opium War?

2018年7月6日,美国贸易关税生效不久,中国商务部发表声明,称川普总统刚刚“发动了经济史上规模最大的贸易战”。达特茅斯学院经济学教授道格拉斯•欧文(Douglas Irwin)表示这种说法根本不正确。要说最大的贸易战,当数上世纪30年代的贸易战。当时,美国总统胡佛签署了《斯姆特-霍利法案》,该法案对来自所有国家的、近900种产品征收平均45%以上的关税。加拿大和欧洲进行了报复。全球贸易下降了25%,进一步加剧了美国的大萧条状况。
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.

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.

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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):虽然川普总统发起的贸易战在规模上无法与加剧大萧条的斯姆特 – 霍利关税法案相比,但是这场贸易战对经济和政治秩序同样会产生深远的影响。高级政治评论员文昭先生说,美中贸易战让人想起1856年中国,英国和法国帝国之间的第二次鸦片战争。鸦片战争没有引起经济大萧条,但却带来了其它方面的影响,包括引发了两个不同的国家管理体制之间的冲突。所以,它给这个有着300年历史的清朝带来了巨大的冲击,并且引发了这个有着2000年历史的帝国制度衰败的开始。这对我们今天意味着什么 ?让我们先回顾历史。
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“在您看来,引发第二次鸦片战争的核心原因是什么?是英国要继续进行鸦片贸易吗?是中英贸易赤字吗?还是英国要用武力打开中国国门促使它进一步开放市场?”
“ 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?”

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.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“您提出,现在的中美贸易战和一百多年前的第二次鸦片战争相似。为什么这样说?它们在哪些方面相似?”
“In what sense is the current trade war comparable in nature to the Second Opium War in China? ”

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.”

Coming up, what will the U.S.-China trade war, a conflict rooted in different governing philosophies, evolve into?

The latest retaliation from China, outside trade measures, may have emerged.

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).

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.

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.

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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):这就是美国企业界长期以来担心的问题。当关税不再有效的时候,中共当局会将矛头对准美国的在华企业,让它们的日子不好过。下一步将发生什么? 我们再来听听文昭先生的看法。
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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“中美对于知识产权认知和态度的不同实际上是反应了两个社会体系,两种意识形态和价值观的对抗。在这个框架下,尤其现在在中美贸易战这个背景下,您觉得像‘美光案’这样的中美知识产权之战,它的走向是什么?西方公司是不是在以一个公司的力量来对抗整个中国的体制?从而必定失败?”
“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?”

“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.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):除知识产权之争外,围绕贸易战其它方面产生的紧张关系也开始显现出来。
Besides the fight over intellectual property rights, other tensions surrounding the trade war are also emerging.

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.

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.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):这些场贸易战的最新进展说明了什么问题?我们听一听文昭先生的见解。
What do these new developments say about the trade war? Let’s hear from Wen Zhao.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“金正恩的态度转变,大家都觉得和习近平有关。另外,贸易战刚开打的第二天,美国就派军舰穿越台湾海峡。您觉得为什么美国在和中共打贸易战的时候,这么快对抗就蔓延到了除贸易之外的其它方面?中美贸易战的下一步走向是什么?”
“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?”

“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.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“鸦片战争严重动摇了清朝统治,也开启了中国结束两千年的帝制,试图和现代文明接轨的契机。您既然把中美贸易战和第二次鸦片战争相比,那您觉得中美贸易战会对整个的世界政治经济格局产生什么影响呢?对中国又会有什么影响呢?”
“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?”

“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.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):从这个意义上讲,美国企业应该支持川普总统的贸易战,因为川普在为他们的长期利益而战,而不是照顾他们的短期利益。美国企业是世界创新的源泉。作为个体的中国企业根本无法与它们竞争。但是,如果中共当局成为中国企业的后盾,即便是“苹果”或“谷歌”也显得微不足道。长久以来,美国企业一直在游说,但是却搞错了游说的对象。为了进入中国市场,美企一直在向中国当局伸出橄榄枝,牺牲美国的价值观。现在川普给他们指了一条更好的道路。这里的逻辑很简单,当“福建晋华”与“美光”一对一干起来时,“福建晋华”输了。当“福建晋华”得到中国当局撑腰时,“美光”却失败了。而当“美光”和其它美企允许本国政府捍卫自己的利益时,他们的对手就蔫了。到那时,无论是美国人民、还是中国人民,都会比今天过得好。要找到我们,请搜索:‘《世事关心》 萧茗’。感谢您的收看,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

Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television
July, 2018