美國編了一個大反派故事，中國在裏面扮演背鍋俠_風聞

文：Stephen S Roach

譯：由冠羣

當下，美國的民主、共和兩黨頗為難得地在一個關鍵問題上達成了共識：困擾美國的所有麻煩都是中國造成的。“敲打中國”現在成了美國政客們最時髦的行為。

美國現在有種執念，認為自己最珍視的美國夢可能在中國的威脅下夭折。這種執念正在造成一連串嚴重的後果：針鋒相對的關税戰、不斷升級的安全威脅、新冷戰的魅影……甚至已經有人開始議論崛起大國與既有霸權之間可能爆發的軍事衝突了。

中美貿易協議似乎達成在即，有人會一廂情願地以為上述嚴重後果都將煙消雲散，然而這真的只是一廂情願。現在中美之間的互信基礎已徹底破裂，一份膚淺的貿易協議絲毫不會改變這一點。接下來，中美關係很可能進入互相懷疑、矛盾頻發、衝突不斷的新時代。

那些人抨擊中國並不是因為中國真地從外部威脅到了美國，而是要把中國當成美國國內問題的替罪羊。實際上，有許多證據顯示美國的宏觀經濟失衡問題是自己造成的，缺乏安全感的美國開始懼怕喪失全球領導地位，因而炮製了一套虛假的敍事來聲討中國。

以貿易為例。在2018年，美國對中國的貿易逆差達到了4190億美元，佔美國對外貿易逆差總額8790億美元的48%。美國總統特朗普在辯論中聲稱，美國工作崗位流失和工資增長停滯的罪魁禍首都是中國。

然而特朗普和大多數美國政客都不會承認，2018年美國與全世界102個國家都存在貿易逆差。這實際上反映出美國國內儲蓄嚴重不足，造成這個現象的原因是美國不計後果地擴大預算赤字，而這些預算都是得到總統和國會批准的。

另外，他們也不承認供應鏈扭曲的問題，即把在其它國家生產，卻在中國組裝、裝船運至美國的產品也算作美中貿易逆差的一部分。計入這部分產品導致美中貿易逆差規模被高估了35–40%。此外，全球產業鏈所促成的良好宏觀經濟基本面和高效率給美國消費者也帶來了不少好處。但很顯然，對美國政客來説，還是抹黑中國、將其描繪成美國“再次偉大”之路上的絆腳石來的更簡便。

下面再來説説偷竊知識產權問題。美國已經接受了一種所謂的“真相”，認為中國每年從美國偷竊價值數千億美元的知識產權，對美國的技術創新造成了巨大損失。這種説法的源頭來自所謂的“知識產權委員會”，它聲明2017年知識產權失竊給美國經濟造成的損失大約在2250億至6000億美元之間。

先不説這個估值上下限差異之大近乎荒謬，光是這組數字本身就來自不靠譜的“代理模型”，該模型本來的作用是測算經毒品走私、腐敗、職業欺詐與洗錢等違法途徑失竊到的商業機密價值幾何。來自美國海關和邊境巡邏部門的數據顯示，2015年其沒收的所有中國假冒和盜版產品價值達13.5億美元。“知識產權委員會”用可疑的建模方式將這個微不足道的數字延伸放大，推斷出中國給美國造成的知識產權損失佔全部損失的87%（其中52%來自於中國內地，35%來自於香港）。

接着在2018年3月，美國貿易代表辦公室（USTR）發表了一份《301報告》來混淆視聽，該報告旨在為向中國產品加徵關税提供合理解釋，即美國企業被迫向中國合作伙伴進行技術轉讓。其中的關鍵詞是“被迫”，暗示無辜的美國企業在自願與中國合資夥伴簽訂合同後，為了在中國開展業務而被脅迫出讓其擁有的知識產權。

合資企業當然要雙方共享人力資源、經營策略、交易平台和產品設計，這些並不奇怪。但美國的指控是“脅迫”，即久經沙場的美國跨國企業愚蠢到向其中方交出自己的核心技術。

這又是一個以莫須有的證據進行強烈指控的驚人實例。令人難以置信的是，美國貿易代表辦公室在其《301報告》的第19頁上也承認並沒有確鑿的證據能夠證實發生過這些“隱性商業行為”。就像知識產權委員會一樣，美國貿易代表辦公室也委託像美中貿易全國委員會之類的機構來替他們進行調查，一些配合調查的美國公司抱怨的只是中方對待美方技術的方式令它們感到不快。

華盛頓方面還把中國描繪成一箇中央計劃體制的怪獸，其下轄的國有企業享受着優惠貸款、不公平補貼以及諸如“中國製造2025”和“人工智能2030”國家產業政策的扶持等等。但美國卻對大量顯示中國國企效率低下、回報率低等情況的證據熟視無睹。

美國政府也不會質疑日本、德國、法國甚至美國自己長期執行的產業政策。就在今年2月，特朗普簽署行政命令，提出了人工智能倡議，其中包括一項框架內容，即在120天內完成制定《人工智能行動計劃》。顯然中國並不是唯一把創新提到國家政策高度的國家

最後是那個老掉牙的貨幣操縱國的議題，即指責中國故意壓低人民幣的幣值來獲取不公平的貿易優勢。其實，廣義貿易加權計算的人民幣自2004年末開始實際升值已經超過了50%。中國一度十分龐大的經常項目盈餘已所剩無幾。但在目前的貿易談判中，早就不是問題的人民幣問題又被舊賬重翻。這隻會使美國關於中國的論述錯得更加離譜。

總而言之，美國政府列出的事實、分析和結論漏洞百出，而美國公眾卻又太容易輕信那些關於中國的錯誤論述。我並不是説中國不應為中美貿易摩擦承擔部分責任，我只是想強調在追究責任時要保持客觀和誠實，尤其是在當下這個解決美中貿易爭端的關鍵時刻。不幸的是，尋找一個替罪羊顯然遠比反躬自省要容易得多。

America’s False Narrative on China

In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, America’s Republicans and Democrats are now on the same page on one key issue: Blaming China for all that ails the United States. China bashing has never had broader appeal.

This fixation on China as an existential threat to the cherished American Dream is having serious consequences. It has led to tit-for-tat tariffs, escalating security threats, warnings of a new cold war, and even whispers of a military clash between the rising power and the incumbent global hegemon.

With a trade deal apparently imminent, it’s tempting to conclude that all this will pass. That may be wishful thinking. Sino-American trust is now in tatters. The likelihood of a superficial deal won’t change that. A new era of mutual suspicion, tension, and conflict is a very real possibility.

But what if the US chattering class has it all wrong and the China bashing is more an outgrowth of domestic problems than a response to a genuine external threat? In fact, there are strong grounds to believe that an insecure US – afflicted with macroeconomic imbalances of its own making and fearful of the consequences of its own retreat from global leadership – has embraced a false narrative on China.

Consider trade. In 2018, the US had a $419 billion merchandise trade deficit with China, fully 48% of the massive overall trade gap of $879 billion. This is the lightening rod in the debate, the culprit behind what US President Donald Trump calls the “carnage” of job losses and wage pressures.

But what Trump – and most other US politicians – won’t admit is that the US ran trade deficits with 102 countries in 2018. This reflects a profound shortfall of domestic saving, owing in large part to the reckless budget deficits approved by none other than Congress and the president. Nor is there any recognition of supply-chain distortions – arising from inputs made in other countries but assembled and shipped from China – that are estimated to overstate the US-China trade imbalance by as much as 35-40%. Never mind basic macroeconomics and new efficiencies from global production platforms that benefit US consumers. Apparently, it is much easier to vilify China as the major obstacle to making America great again.

Next, consider intellectual property theft. It is now accepted “truth”that China is stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of US intellectual property each year, driving a stake into the heart of America’s innovative prowess. According to the accepted source of this claim, the so-called IP Commission, in 2017 IP theft cost the US economy between $225 and $600 billion.

Leaving aside the ridiculously broad range of such an estimate, the figures rest on flimsy evidence derived from dubious “proxy modeling” that attempts to value stolen trade secrets via nefarious activities such as narcotics trafficking, corruption, occupational fraud, and illicit financial flows. The Chinese piece of this alleged theft comes from US Customs and Border Patrol data, which reported $1.35 billion in seizures of total counterfeit and pirated goods back in 2015. Equally dubious models extrapolate this tiny sum into an aggregate guesstimate for the US and impute 87% of the total to China (52% to the mainland and 35% to Hong Kong).

​

Then there is the red herring emphasized in the Section 301 report published by the US Trade Representative (USTR) in March 2018, which provides the foundational justification for tariffs levied on China: forced technology transfer between US companies and their Chinese joint venture (JV) partners. The key word is “forced,” which implies that innocent US companies that enter willingly into contractual agreements with Chinese counterparts are coerced into surrendering their proprietary technologies in order to do business in the country.

To be sure, JVs obviously entail a sharing of people, business strategies, operating platforms, and product designs. But the charge is coercion, which is inseparable from the presumption that sophisticated US multinationals are dumb enough to turn over core proprietary technologies to their Chinese partners.

This is another shocking example of soft evidence for a hard allegation. Incredibly, the USTR actually admits in the Section 301 report (on page 19) that there is no hard evidence to confirm these “implicit practices.”Like the IP Commission, the USTR relies instead on proxy surveys from trade organizations like the US-China Business Council, whose respondents complain of some discomfort with China’s treatment of their technology.

The Washington narrative also paints a picture of China as a centrally planned behemoth sitting astride massive stated-owned enterprises (SOEs) that enjoy preferential credits, unfair subsidies, and incentives tied to high-profile industrial policies such as Made in China 2025 and Artificial Intelligence 2030. Never mind a large body of evidence that underscores the low-efficiency, low-return characteristics of China’s SOEs.

Nor is there any doubt that comparable industrial policies have long been practiced by Japan, Germany, France, and even the US. In February, Trump issued an executive order announcing the establishment of an AI Initiative, complete with a framework to develop an AI action plan within 120 days. China is hardly alone in elevating innovation to a national policy priority.

Finally, there is the time-worn issue of Chinese currency manipulation– the fear that China will deliberately depress the renminbi to gain unfair competitive advantage. Yet its broad trade-weighted currency has risen over 50% in real terms since late 2004. And China’s once-outsize current-account surplus has all but vanished. Still, the currency grievances of yesteryear live on, getting prominent attention in the current negotiations. This only compounds the false narrative.

All in all, Washington has been loose with facts, analysis, and conclusions, and the American public has been far too gullible in its acceptance of this false narrative. The point is not to deny China’s role in promoting economic tensions with the US, but to stress the need for objectivity and honesty in assigning blame – especially with so much at stake in the current conflict. Sadly, fixating on scapegoats is apparently much easier than taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

(End)