貿易戰裏還有哪些“大殺器”沒有動？_風聞

《亞洲時報》5月20日刊登美國華人精英組織“百人會”成員顧屏山文章《特朗普在打一場他贏不了的貿易戰》

文：George Koo

譯：李翠萍

任何受過一點教育、有一定頭腦的人都知道，貿易戰裏沒有贏家。具體來説，就是美國總統特朗普不可能在他發起的對華貿易戰爭中取得勝利。

他認為，對中國進口商品徵收關税相當於美國財政部“免費拿錢”。但即便他最親近的顧問也知道，這種想法根本就是錯覺。

關税是由進口商支付的，他們會盡其所能地將這部分成本轉移到最終的買家身上。就日常用品而言，是消費者吸收了成本增量。中國的消費品出口商也會因此蒙受損失，因為實際有效價格變貴了，銷售量就會變少。

同樣的，中國對美國進口商品徵收關税也會限制美國出口商出售商品數量。例如，中國本來會是得克薩斯州天然氣的大買家，但由於關税上漲，美國的液化天然氣將因為價格過高而被擠出中國市場。

從理論上講，互徵高額關税會令中國覺得更加難受，因為中國對美出口規模要遠遠大於美國對華出口規模。

然而，雙邊貿易不是零和博弈，中國對美國商品的依賴程度並不像美國對中國商品的依賴程度那樣高。

中國可以從其他國家進口商品來取代美國，比如可以用加拿大龍蝦替代美國緬因州龍蝦，用巴西大豆替代美國艾奧瓦州大豆，用法國葡萄酒替代美國加州葡萄酒。

但反過來，美國進口的中國商品往往價格低於所有替代品。對這些商品徵收進口税，最終結果是提高美國消費成本，導致生活成本整體上升。

“免費拿錢”

此外，美國從中國進口的產品大約有一半是由美國企業在華生產的，因此，美國進口本國企業生產的產品還要支付關税，這就是特朗普所謂的“免費拿錢”。

無論如何，關税戰爭中的雙方都會感到切膚之痛，關鍵在於哪一方能夠更大限度地忍受疼痛。儘管到目前為止，華爾街尚未就提高關税做出強烈反應，但這只是時間問題。

當然，特朗普接下來還可以對更多來自中國的進口商品加徵關税，但美國政府已經明確了態度，它考慮的遠遠不只是貿易問題。特朗普是想以各種方法遏制中國的發展。

特朗普團隊彷彿覺得他們可以把自己的意願強加於人，並堅持讓中國停止“竊取”美國知識產權，並以法律形式將協議固定下來。

沒有任何國家會接受這種侮辱性的要求。美國自己難道書面承諾過不竊取英國、日本或韓國工業技術嗎？

硅谷各個企業之間互相侵犯和竊取知識產權的事難道還少嗎？知識產權擁有者自己得承擔保護知識產權不受侵犯的責任，並自己動手以其人之道還治其人之身。保護知識產權從來不是一個國家用來譴責另一個國家的藉口。

然而，在激烈的貿易談判中，美方一直指責中國企業靠政府資助對知識產權進行竊取。他們認為中國企業侵犯知識產權的行為是國家政策。

眼饞華為的知識產權

外界忽略了一個事實，那就是中國很快就會掌握，甚至已經掌握了令美國企業眼紅的知識產權。其中人們最容易想到的是高速移動通信。

雖然很難知曉是否有人試圖竊取華為先進的5G技術，但可以肯定的是，特朗普的做法是為了打壓華為拒絕它進入市場。他或許能夠阻止美國企業購買華為產品，但在世界其他地方，這種做法是行不通的。

美國國務卿蓬佩奧、國家安全顧問博爾頓等人除了大力抹黑華為之外，拿不出任何確鑿的證據來證明華為設備存在安全風險。他們只是一再強調所有國家都不應該購買華為設備。理由呢？因為這是白宮的意思。

顯而易見的是，華為當下提供的先進技術是其他企業無法比擬的。而華盛頓方面甚至説不出來華為產品中的哪個部分、哪項技術靠竊取知識產權得來的。

目前，世界其他國家無視華盛頓的警告，仍然在購買華為設備，因為它技術更卓越，價格更低廉。不久，世界電信將分為兩大陣營，一邊用上了華為的技術，另一邊則是緊緊抓住山姆大叔褲子不放的少數國家。

共同的經濟利益

地緣政治領域，同樣的情形也在上演。蓬佩奧穿梭於各國，警告其領導人不要加入中國的“一帶一路”倡議。為什麼呢？因為他指責中國在為第三世界國家搞基建時實行掠奪性融資。

然而就在上個月，“一帶一路”高峯論壇在北京巨星，37位國家元首和130多個國家的代表出席。反映出各國對“一帶一路”的態度十分積極，用事實駁斥了特朗普團隊的論調。

這些國家非常樂意看到中國幫助它們修建關鍵基礎設施項目。因為它們知道，基礎設施是經濟增長的必要條件。它也是中國亞歐貿易走廊建設的一部分，意味着沿線國家能夠靠全球貿易致富。

除了“一帶一路”沿線130多個與中國有着共同經濟利益的國家之外，中國還主導成立了亞洲基礎設施投資銀行，專門為亞洲基礎設施項目提供融資。

除了現有的70個成員國之外，還有27個國家正在排隊等待加入亞投行。其主要股東除了參與“一帶一路”的國家之外，還包括歐洲所有主要國家。這使日本和美國的缺席分外引人注目——不加入亞投行是美國前總統奧巴馬錯失的機會。

美國環繞世界修建軍事基地，並通過投射軍事實力來聲明領導地位，而與此同時中國則在促進與世界各國之間的經濟合作。

這兩種戰略路線不一定非要迎面相撞引發衝突，但如果真的爆發衝突，站在美國陣營的國家這樣做也是出於對美國威嚇的恐懼，而站在中國一邊的國家則是因為與中國有牢不可破的共同經濟利益。隨着世界不斷變化，越來越多國家將放棄前者而選擇後者。

共享軍事資產

因為經濟利益交織互補，俄羅斯成為了中國的重要合作伙伴。兩國也是上海合作組織的核心成員。這個成立20多年的組織還包括中亞國家、巴基斯坦和印度，很快將還會接納伊朗。

除了經濟和文化合作之外，上合組織還舉行聯合軍事演習，打擊恐怖主義，確保地區穩定。如果美國進行軍事幹預，上合組織成員將與中國站在一起。該組織的成員國人口占世界總數的一半，覆蓋了歐亞大陸80%的面積。

儘管華盛頓圈子裏傳言博爾頓和蓬佩奧渴望在伊朗實現政權更迭，但特朗普不是個完全沒有常識的人。如果特朗普以美國人生命為代價對伊朗發動代理人戰爭，無疑會取悦以色列和沙特等附屬國，並討好國內那些他十分倚重的超級富豪，但特朗普也清楚，打伊朗不是打伊拉克那麼簡單。

據報道，俄羅斯和中國在外交政策上步調一致，都堅定地支持伊朗。這應該足以讓白宮的鷹派人士不至於衝昏了頭腦。就連極端保守派帕特里克·布坎南也認為，對伊朗開戰將會是特朗普總統任期的終結。

除了伊朗問題，俄羅斯和中國在古巴、朝鮮、敍利亞、阿富汗和委內瑞拉等問題上採取的立場也與美國大為不同，某些情況下甚至與美國截然相反。如果蓬佩奧和博爾頓認為，美國可以在沒有中國或俄羅斯支持的情況下，對這些熱點地區發號施令，那他們簡直是在痴人説夢。

兩種選擇

因此，如果伊朗不太可能引發災難性的戰爭，特朗普可以調轉全部注意力來應對中國的挑戰，擺在他面前的有兩條路。他可以像過去那樣，後退一步尋求非零和的解決方案，實現雙贏；也可以選擇變本加厲，對目前免税進入美國的價值3000億美元的中國進口商品徵收關税。

如果特朗普決定提高貿易戰的籌碼，中國將無法以相同的方式來進行反制，因為中國從美國進口商品遠少於美國從中國的進口。但中國還有其他方式來增加自己的籌碼。

中國可以停止向美國出口稀土礦和化合物。稀土對包括電子和國防在內的許多行業都至關重要，如果美國無法獲得稀土，工業將陷於停產，而美國開採境內已知的稀土礦藏來取代進口則需要花費數年時間。

中國還可以通過減少購買美國國債，從而大幅減少對美國舉債的支持。中國目前持有約1萬億美元的美國國債。如果中國停止購買甚至拋售部分美國國債，將大大動搖人們對美元的信心，並造成美國金融市場失穩。

對美國汽車製造商而言，中國是規模最大、利潤最高的市場。這些企業從中國賺取的利潤通常在企業總利潤中佔據主要部分。中國的另一種反制方式是對美國企業關閉中國市場。

另外一種精準打擊的方式是博彩業，比如讓澳門政府對媒體暗示，三家美國運營商的博彩牌照能否更新存在疑問，其中拉斯維加斯金沙集團（譯者注：作者曾是金沙集團董事）是這三家公司中規模最大的一家，其60%以上的收入和利潤都來自澳門。

謝爾登·阿德爾森是拉斯維加斯金沙集團的主要持股人，也是特朗普的重要金主。任何有關拉斯維加斯金沙集團在澳門陷入困境的暗示，都將對阿德爾森的財富淨值造成直接打擊，從而抑制他支持特朗普對華政策的熱情。

雙輸局面

從貿易戰開始時，特朗普等人便宣稱貿易戰“很好贏”。我上面羅列的這些工具，只可供中國確保雙輸局面。報復性舉措終將破壞全球經濟的穩定性，嚴重打擊特朗普的核心支持者。

這將是一個經典的的雙輸局面，但誰輸得更慘還很難説。美國國務院某高級官員不久前宣佈，中美之間的戰爭是“文明”之戰，特朗普政府既然知道中國有着不同的文化和背景，就應該更清醒一些。

直到現在，特朗普團隊還在將美式價值觀和思維方式強加於中國。僅僅因為美國承認中情局“撒謊、欺騙、偷竊”，就認為中國也會採取同樣的做法，但事實並非如此。

與美國不同，中國不干涉別國內政，不想控制和佔領別國領土，也不把自己的政治制度強加於人。

如果美國能就此打住，不再發動一場它贏不了的貿易戰，不再要求中國變得跟自己一樣，那麼雙方還有可能達成諒解。兩國可以達成一個友好的雙贏解決方案，讓雙方都覺得自己是贏家。

Trump is in a trade war he can’t win

Anyone with a decent education and a dollop of sophistication knows that nobody wins in a trade war. Specifically, there is no way US President Donald Trump can win the war he initiated with China.

He thinks tariffs levied on imports from China are “free” money going into the US Treasury. Even his closest advisers know that’s delusional thinking.

Tariffs are paid by the importer, and to the best of his or her ability is passed on to the ultimate buyer. In the case of daily-use items, it’s the consumer that adsorbs the increased cost. The exporter of consumer goods from China also loses because at the higher effective price, less is sold.

In the same way, tariffs imposed by China on imports from the US limit the amount American exporters can sell to China. For instance, China was going to be a huge market for natural gas from Texas. With the added tariff, liquefied natural gas from the US was priced out of the market.

In theory, tariffs imposed on goods from China would be more painful to China because China sells much more to the US than vice versa.

However, two-way trade is not zero-sum. China is not as dependent on buying from the US as the US is on buying from China.

China can buy from alternative sources, for example lobsters from Canada instead of from Maine, soybeans from Brazil instead of Iowa, wine from France instead of California.

On the other hand, goods imported from China usually have the lowest prices. By slapping import duties on these goods, the net effect is to raise costs for the American consumer, and the cost of living goes up.

‘Free money’

Furthermore, around half of the imports from China are made by American companies in China. Thus American companies will be paying tariffs for importing their own products. So much for Trump’s free money.

In any event, both parties to the tariff war will feel the pain. It will simply be a matter of which party can withstand the pain better. So far Wall Street has not reacted strongly to the prospect of increasing tariffs, but it’s only a matter of time.

Of course, there are more imports from China that Trump has yet to impose tariffs on, but the administration has already indicated that it has much more than trade in mind. Trump wants to stop China in every which way.

The Trump team seem to think they can impose their will and insist that China needs to desist from stealing American intellectual property (IP) and codify that agreement in writing.

No nation would dignify such an insulting request with a response. Did the US pledge in writing not to steal industrial technology from England, or Japan from the US, or South Korea from Japan?

In Silicon Valley, companies infringe on and steal from each other. It’s up to the owner to safeguard and protect its IP from theft and go after the offender mano a mano. It has never been a matter of one nation accusing another.

Yet in the heated trade negotiations, the American side accuses China of practicing IP theft as a matter of national sponsorship. The presumption is that Chinese companies steal according to a national policy.

Huawei has IP the US covets

Overlooked in all this is that soon, if not already the case, China will own IP that American companies will wish to pilfer. High-speed mobile communications readily come to mind.

It’s hard to know if anyone is looking to steal Huawei’s advance fifth-generation (5G) telecommunication technology, but the Trump approach is to suppress and deny Huawei market access. Trump may be able to deter American companies from buying Huawei, but it’s not working elsewhere.

Other than vigorously badmouthing Huawei, American emissaries such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton et al can’t offer any hard evidence that Huawei equipment represents a security risk. They simply insist that others should not buy from Huawei because the White House says so.

What’s obvious is that Huawei offers technological advances here and now that no others can. Washington can’t even put a finger on which aspects of the Huawei package are based on stolen IP.

The rest of the world is ignoring Washington and buying Huawei because of its superior technology at an irresistibly low price. Soon the telecommunications world will be divided into the haves with Huawei technology and the pitiful few countries with slow Internet speeds clinging to Uncle Sam’s trousers.

Common economic interests

The same situation is evolving geopolitically. Pompeo has been visiting national capitals warning the leaders to stay away from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Why? Because he accuses China of practicing predatory financing when China offers to finance infrastructures for Third World countries.

Yet at the just concluded Belt and Road Forum in Beijing last month, attended by 37 heads of state and with about 130 countries represented, the reaction couldn’t be more positive, a clear refutation of what Trump’s China team has been saying.

These countries love the idea that China is willing to help them build crucial infrastructure projects. Infrastructure, they know, is necessary for economic growth. Infrastructure as part of China’s trade corridor from Asia to Europe means member states sitting on the corridor will get rich from global trade.

Along with the 130-plus countries with shared economic interests with China, there is also the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The AIIB was independently established to finance infrastructure projects in Asia.

The AIIB has 70 members, with 27 more waiting in line to join. Apart from some participants in the BRI, major shareholders include every major European country. Only conspicuous by their absence are Japan and the US – not taking part in the AIIB was former US president Barack Obama’s missed opportunity.

While the US rings the world with military bases and asserts its leadership by projecting its might, China promotes economic collaboration with countries around the world.

The two strategic paths need not converge leading to conflict, but if conflict does break out, countries standing by the US would be doing so based on fear and intimidation. Those standing by China are bound by common economic interests. As the world turns, increasing numbers will quit the former for the latter.

Shared military assets

Russia has become an important partner to China because of intertwined and complementary economic interests. The two countries are also key players in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, established more than two decades ago. The SCO also includes Central Asia countries, Pakistan and India, and is soon to include Iran.

Aside from economic and cultural cooperation, the alliance also holds joint military exercises to combat terrorism and ensure stability. In the event of US military intervention, the SCO will stand with China. The organization represents half of the world’s population and 80% of the Euro-Asia landmass.

While it has been said in Washington circles that Bolton and Pompeo hanker for effecting regime change in Iran, Trump is not totally without common sense. Even though waging a proxy war on Iran with American lives would please his client states, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well his super-wealthy support base as home, he knows Iran is no mere Iraq.

Furthermore, as reported in Asia Times, Russia and China are on the same page in their foreign policy and stand firmly behind Iran. That should be enough to give any of the hot-blooded hawks in the White House pause. Even pundit Pat Buchanan thinks war on Iran would be the end of Trump presidency.

Besides Iran, Russia’s and China’s positions on Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan and Venezuela are very different from United States’, and in some cases even diametrically opposed to Washington. If Pompeo and Bolton believe they can dictate terms to these hotspots without the support of China or Russia, they are hallucinating.

A fork in the road

Thus if Iran is unlikely to trigger a calamitous war, Trump can turn his full attention to resolving the China challenge, a dilemma sitting at the fork of the road. He can back off as he has in the past and seek a non-zero-sum approach that would enable both sides to win. Or he can double down and impose tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports currently entering the US duty-free.

If Trump decides to raise the stakes of the trade war, China will not be able to retaliate in kind, since China imports much less than the US imports from China. But the Chinese have other ways to raise the stakes.

China can stop exporting rare-earth minerals and compounds to the US.  Rare earths are essential to a host of industries including electronics and defense. Without access to rare earths, American industries would grind to a halt, and it would take years to develop alternative supplies from known deposits within the US.

China can also greatly diminish its support for the US national debt by buying fewer Treasury bills. China currently holds around $1 trillion of American IOUs. If China were to stop buying or even divesting some of the Treasuries it already holds, it would shake the confidence in the dollar and create instability in the US financial market.

​

China has become the largest and most profitable market for US automakers. Profits earned from China often make up the major part of a company’s total earnings. Another retaliation in the trade war would be to close the market to American companies.

Another strike with surgical precision is for the Macau government to suggest to the media that the renewal of gaming licenses for the three American operators is in doubt. Las Vegas Sands (LVS) is the largest of the three, and a little over 60% of its revenue and profit come from Macau.

Sheldon Adelson is the majority owner of LVS and a heavy financial contributor to Trump’s presidency. Any hint that LVS is in trouble in Macau would be a direct hit to Adelson’s net worth and sure to put a crimp on his enthusiasm for Trump’s China policy.

Retaliation would ensure both sides lose

From the inception of this trade war, Trump and his team have asserted that the war “is easy to win.” What I have listed above are just some of the tools China can use to ensure a lose-lose outcome. Any of the retaliatory moves would destabilize the global economy and severely erode Trump’s core supporters.

The outcome would be a classic lose-lose, and it is debatable who would lose more.

As a senior official at the State Department recently declared, the war between the US and China is between “civilizations.” Knowing that China is coming from a different culture and background, the Trump administration should know better.

Up to now Trump’s China team has been projecting American values and thinking on to the Chinese. Just because “we lie, we cheat, we steal,” doesn’t mean China will act the same way.

Unlike the US, China does not interfere with the internal affairs of other states, does not wish to dominate and occupy someone else’s territory, and does not impose its way of government on anyone else.

If the US could stop waging an unwinnable trade war and stop demanding that China must be more like the US, it would be possible for the two sides to come to an understanding. They can reach an amicable win-win resolution wherein each party can feel that it has won.

(End)