特朗普告诉美国人关于贸易战的惨痛经济事实了 [联合国媒体]


Peter Navarro and HenryPaulson, two Americans with vastly divergent views on trading with China, madespeeches last week that indicate a speedy resolution to the US-China trade war may be hard to find.


White House trade adviserNavarro, speaking at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies inWashington, criticised Wall Street bankers and American “globalist elites” for interfering in theTrump administration’s trade negotiations with Beijing.


Calling them “unregisteredforeign agents”, he said, “As part of a Chinese government influence operation,these globalist billionaires are putting a full-court press on the White Housein advance of the G20 [summit] in Argentina”, where US President Donald Trumpand Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet later this month.


Navarro’s 2012 book, Death by China: Confrontingthe Dragon – A Global Call to Action, as you might imagine, doesn’t advocate expanding the twocountries’ trade. His detractors call him an “extremist” when they’re in politecompany. His comments about “globalist elites” were the focus of news coverage,but his 45-minutespeech was substantive.


He spoke about theadministration’s efforts to restore the US manufacturing and defence industrialbase, noting that “economic security is national security”. Americans, bymeddling in the trade talks, are undermining Trump’s efforts not just on tradebut also on national security.


It’s a very American thingto go on cable news or write an op-ed and tell your president how to improvehis job performance. But it’s an entirely different thing to visit Beijing andspeak out afterwards against the policies of the US government.


Since the trade war started,a steady stream of Americans, “old friends”, as Chinese Vice-President WangQishan calls them, has been travelling to Beijing, ostensibly to help China’s leaders understand what Trump is really thinking. Most have two things incommon: a financial stake in business as usual between the US and China and adisdain for Trump.


Their mantra is that“tariffs are bad” and “nobody wins a trade war”. But, given the way bilateraltrade was heading, the US was on a trajectory to lose the trade peace. ManyAmericans believe trading with China has diminished US manufacturingcompetitiveness and harmed its national security.


The US business elite believes thatall Beijing has to do to “win” the trade war is to convince the US to go back tobusiness as usual – strike some deal under which Beijing promises tobuy more American goods and stop the various ways it forces technology transferso the US can declare “victory” and lift the tariffs.


Trump’s detractors focus onthe trade balance – it’s not really a problem, they say – while whistlingpast the graveyard of the US loss of its intellectual property andtechnological lead. They say tariffs are bad, but no one proposes a solution tostop China’s acquisition, one way or another, of US intellectual property.


That’s because the bestsolution may be to keep China away from it – or it away from China – and thatsolution is very much not business as usual.


Towards the end of hisspeech, Navarro projected a chart, which listed “China’s acts, policies, andpractices of economic aggression”. These included “Cyber-enabled espionage andtheft” and “Forced technology and IP transfer”. He told an anecdote about anegotiating trip to Beijing to illustrate how far apart the two sides are.


He describes sitting downacross from the Chinese team and putting down a “long list of demands” to whichthe Chinese side’s response was, “We don’t engage in cyber theft. We’re thebiggest victim of cyber theft. We don’t force technology transfer.” Making agesture of frustration, Navarro asked, “How do you have a deal with somebody ifthey don’t even acknowledge your concern?”

他描述了坐在中国谈判队对面,放下一份“长长的要求清单”,中方对此的反应是“我们不从事网络盗窃。我们是网络盗窃的最大受害者。我们不强迫技术转让.” 做出个灰心的动作, 瓦纳罗问道, “如果他们甚至不承认你的担忧,你怎么和他们打交道?“

He noted that there wereover 50 such acts, policies and practices of economic aggression on the list,all “structural” issues, and that even if the two sides resolved 25 of them,the national security problem still wouldn’t go away.


In short, because of thepublicity Trump’s administration has given these national security issues, it’shard to see him backing down.


Former Treasury secretaryHenry Paulson, arguably Wang Qishan’s best “old friend”, now also paints a dark picture of the relationship. As head of Goldman Sachs in the1990s, Paulson advised Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji on the painful economicreforms they began.


Speaking at Bloomberg’s NewEconomy Forum in Singapore last week, he warned that the US-China “healthystrategic competition” was at risk of tipping into a “full-blown cold war.” Hewas blunt in his criticism of Beijing, noting that “China still hasn’t openedits economy to foreign competition in so many areas,” and deploys a number of“non-tariff barriers to trade and investment”, saying, “this is simplyunacceptable”.


He noted, significantly,that “this negative view of China unites [American] politicians from both theleft and the right, who agree on nothing else”. Within the American politicalestablishment, “China is viewed by a growing consensus not just as a strategicchallenge to America, but as a country whose rise has come at [America’s]expense”.


Trump’s biggest challengemay be keeping on his side the bipartisan swathe of Americans that Paulsonnoted. To do that, he will have to convince Navarro’s “Wall Street bankers andglobalists” to “stand down”. But Beijing would probably like its “old friends”to stand up, on their chairs even, and continue their criticism of Trump.