閻學通：美國的貿易戰邏輯 經濟利益至上_風聞

週一，美國宣佈對華為禁令推遲90天實施。對此，中國外交政策、國家安全和中美關係領域知名專家，清華大學國際關係研究院院長閻學通在接受CGTN主持人鄒悦專訪時表示，特朗普政府把經濟利益放在首位，這是美國對華髮起貿易戰的原因。而一方若能給另一方造成更大相對損失，則中美貿易衝突還會繼續。他認為，數字經濟正在加速成為世界財富的最主要來源，而通信技術又是數字經濟增長的關鍵，這是美國採取粗暴方式遏制華為的原因。然而，一國若把經濟利益放在最首要位置，意味着該國的綜合國力正在減弱。

Editor’s Note: This article is based on an interview with Yan Xuetong, dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, by CGTN’s anchor Zou Yue. Yan is one of China’s leading experts on China’s foreign policy, national security, and U.S.-China relations. He has written several books, including Analysis of China’s National Interests, winner of the 1998 China Book Prize, Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power, and Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers.

“It is the economy, stupid.” the Clinton campaign strategy is brought to life again by U.S. President Donald Trump in international relations. At least that is what Yan Xuetong thinks about Trump’s trade war.

“Trump chooses to confront against China in the economic domain, rather than political and security fields like his predecessors. That’s why he initiated a trade war at the first place,” said Yan, dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, in an interview with CGTN’s Zoom In.

The 11th round of trade negotiations ended in Washington on May 11 without a deal, crashing the hope that the impasse could be ended soon. 

The U.S. accused China of “reneging” on trade commitments it “has made” in early rounds of talks, which China had firmly denied.

“We believe before we reach a deal, any changes are natural, and inevitable in the whole process,” said Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, Beijing’s top trade negotiator, to reporters in Washington after the talks.

Liu also outlined three main differences keeping the two sides from reaching a deal: China’s call on both sides canceling all punitive tariffs, the figure for Chinese purchases of U.S. goods, and a balanced text of the agreements.

“We did not backtrack. We had disagreements over how to write some of the text is all,” he said, “any country has its own dignity.”

But no matter what is behind the deadlock, immediate harm has been caused. Both stocks slumped after the announcements of new tariffs. Though employment rate in America drops to 3.6 percent in March, reaching a decade low, U.S.-based employers announced 230,433 job cuts through April, up 31 percent from the same period a year ago, according to outsourcing firm Challenger Gray & Christmas.

Many experts argued the Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods are a bill paid by the American consumers.

A study by the Trade Partnership indicates the new 25 percent tariffs, combined with earlier taxes imposed on 50 billion U.S. dollars in Chinese shipments and steel and aluminum, would cut U.S. employment by 934,000 and cost the average family of four 767 U.S. dollars a year.

And if the U.S. moves ahead with 25 percent tariffs on everything China exports to the U.S., it could amount to a tax hike of more than 2,000 U.S. dollars on the average American family, according to a report by Politico.

“Both sides will do comparative studies on how much they benefit more from the other. If they can cause more damage for the other side than themselves, the trade conflicts will be continued,” Yan Xuetong said.

If a deal can be reached eventually, “it means both sides face less damage or loss caused by the trade war. It doesn’t mean that they will benefit from it, but just reduce further harm,” Yan added.

The self-inflicting harm is generated by the priority of the Trump administration – a booming economy which includes a rise of jobs, a renaissance of manufacturing, and a reduce of trade deficit, though many economists have reiterated that the trade gap doesn’t equate to money “lost” to other countries, as trade imbalances are affected by a combination of factors, such as relative growth rates of countries, the value of their currencies, and their saving and investing rates.

Last week, the U.S. added Huawei Technologies and its affiliates to the Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List, barring the Chinese telecom company from U.S. communication networks, citing national security risks. On Monday, Washington pulled off the move by 90 days, to maintain existing networks and provide software updates to existing Huawei handsets.

“The real concern is not security. It’s wealth,” said Yan Xuetong, “because the digital economy heavily relies on the communication technology a country processes. The most advanced communication technology will generate wealth faster than others.”

“But when a country gave the priority to economic interests, that indicates the country becomes weaker,” Yan added.

訪 談 實 錄

Zou Yue: - Welcome to Zoom In with me. And today I’m honored to have invited Professor Yan Xuetong, a renowned scholar of international relations from Tsinghua University, to talk about big power relationships, to talk about U.S.-China trade war, and how the international relations will be reshaped in the future. So welcome, Professor Yan. 

鄒悦：歡迎收看新一期的《悦辯悦明》。今天我們有幸邀請到了清華大學知名國際關係學者閻學通來和我們談談大國關係和貿易戰的相關話題，並就國際關係的未來走向進行分析。歡迎您閻教授。

Yan: - Thank you.

閻學通：謝謝。

Zou Yue: - Let us start with the headline-making story. That is the U.S.-China trade war. Why do you think there is a trade war in the first place and where we are now? 

鄒悦：那我們先從最為引人關注的中美貿易戰開始。在您看來，貿易戰的起因是什麼？現在的局面如何？

Yan: - Ok. First, it is because Trump has a different preference for the strategy confronting against China. And during the Obama’s period or before the Obama, the American government’s main concern was to confront China in political and security fields and rather than economic fields. They were concerned China and the U.S. share a lot of economic interests and it is not necessary for the U.S. to contain China in the economic domain. But Trump has a different concern. So he gave the priority to economy, but mainly for trade. That’s why he initiated a trade war with China. And concerning the current situation, it seems to me, both sides still want to continue the negotiation rather than end it. So I think that there will be a few rounds of negotiations between China and the U.S., but I cannot guarantee they would reach an agreement finally, I don’t know. 

閻學通：好的。首先是因為在對抗中國的戰略上，特朗普有他自己的側重點。在奧巴馬執政時期，或者再往前的美國政府中，對抗中國的重點是在政治和安全領域，而不是經濟領域。他們考慮到中美兩國有許多共同的經濟利益，覺得美國沒有必要在經濟領域遏制中國。但是特朗普的關注點不一樣。他優先考慮的是經濟，主要是貿易。這就是他對華髮起貿易戰的原因。至於現在的局面，在我看來，雙方都希望繼續進行談判。所以我認為中美之間還會有幾輪磋商。但是我不肯定最後一定會達成協議，這我不確定。

Zou Yue: - If they can come to an agreement, what kind of agreement will it be and what does it mean for China’s economy and the U.S. economy?

鄒悦：如果雙方能達成協議，那麼這會是一個怎樣的協議？對中美兩國經濟意味着什麼呢？

Yan: -Well, if they reach an agreement, it means both sides face less damage or loss caused by the trade war. It doesn’t mean that both sides will benefit more from it. If they can cause more damage for the other side than themselves, they will still continue this trade conflict. 

閻學通：如果雙方達成協議，那就意味着貿易戰給雙方造成的打擊或損失都會小一些，但這不代表雙方從中的獲益會更多。如果一方認為另一方的相對損失更大，那麼他們就會選擇繼續貿易衝突。

Zou Yue: - The White House is right now, some say is occupied by a group of nationalists, thinkers like Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro, and formerly by Steve Bannon. They believe America has been ripped off by China systematically. That’s why they need a historic turn over everything. Do you think their thinking and strategy will make a difference on the policy of the administration?

鄒悦：有人説白宮現在充斥着一羣民族主義者，比如羅伯特·萊特希澤，彼得·納瓦羅，還有之前的史蒂夫·班農。他們認為美國受到了中國系統性的盤剝，所以需要來一次歷史性的大翻盤。您認為他們的想法和戰略對美國政府的政策會不會產生影響？

Yan: - Well, I think it’s very obvious. This government gave the first priority to American economic interests rather than America’s international leadership. So, this is an issue about the sequence of the priorities. 

閻學通：我認為答案很明顯。這屆美國政府把經濟利益放在最首要的位置，而不是美國的外交關係。這涉及優先事項的排序問題。

Zou Yue: - But do you think Trump prioritizing economic competition with China will serve America well?

鄒悦：那在您看來，特朗普將與中國之間的經濟競爭作為優先事項，這是否會給美國帶來好處？

Yan: - I’m not so sure. And a country giving the priority to economic interests indicates the country is becoming weaker.

閻學通：我不確定。但是如果一國將經濟利益放在首位，那説明這個國家的實力正在減弱。

Zou Yue: - People are saying, the capabilities of a nation will largely depend on the technological prowess. Whether you can claim the high-end of value chain depends on your technological know-how.

鄒悦：大家都説，一國國力的強弱主要看科技實力。能否佔據上游產業鏈取決於你的技術能力。

Yan: - Traditional powers, when they talk about technology, they mean military technology. It doesn’t mean the use of technology to generate wealth, to generate money. These are different concepts. So currently for Trump, the concern is the 5G and under the excuse of national security… Actually, from my understanding, the real concern is not security. It’s wealth. Because the digital economy is heavily relied on the communication technology. 

閻學通：傳統強國在討論科技時，指的是軍事科技，並不是探討如何利用科技創造財富和資本。這是兩個概念。目前特朗普政府擔心的是5G會造成所謂的國家安全威脅……我的理解是，他們真正的擔憂不是安全，而是經濟利益。因為數字經濟嚴重依賴於通信技術。

Zou Yue: - But you don’t buy the idea that their technology competitiveness will give them a better chance at international leadership. 

鄒悦：但您並不認同説美國的科技競爭力會讓其更有可能取得國際領導地位。

Yan - Well, that depends on the different age. In the traditional age, the military technology superiority will make a country have a strong international influence. But today possibly, the economic technology results in that way. So that really depends on the concrete situation. We cannot say that if a country has better technology than others, it will become the dominant one, not necessarily. 

閻學通：這取決於具體的時期。在傳統的國際關係時期，軍事技術上的優勢會給一國帶來巨大的國際影響力。但現在，可能起到這種作用的是經濟技術。所以這是要視具體形勢而定的。我們沒法斷定更強的科技實力是否能使一國在國際舞台上佔據主導地位，這並不一定。