海外之声 | 中美谈判需要和平：谈判将调整全球经济利益（中英双语）

观点速递

本文作者是国际货币金融机构官方论坛（OMFIF）美国编辑Darrell Delamaide。原文首先刊于OMFIF Commentary。OMFIF是一家总部位于伦敦的全球金融智库。

作者认为，正在进行的中美贸易谈判可能成为更加持久广泛的斗争，它足以影响全球经济利益，远不止是一场贸易战。要保持这场斗争的和平，一种办法是认识到这是一个长期过程，如果双方保持沟通渠道畅通就都可以从中受益。同时，我们需要以更长远的眼光看待当前的紧张局势和争端。

中文译文如下：

中美谈判需要和平

谈判将调整全球经济利益

Darrell Delamaide

翻译：高致宇

2019年2月20日

正在进行的中美贸易谈判可能成为持久斗争。这场足以调整全球经济利益的斗争，远不止是一场贸易战，而是更加广泛，我们只希望它不会延续到军事领域。要保持这场斗争的和平，一种办法是认识到这是一个长期项目，如果双方保持沟通渠道畅通，都可以从中受益。

看起来谈判代表们将就讨论惩罚性关税达成某种协议，以便在短期内化解这一问题。美国评论员正在大肆渲染中国萎靡不振的经济。中国人不再购买那么多的汽车和苹果手机，进口下降，股价暴跌。经济持续放缓下，中国第四季度的GDP增长率为6.4％。但美国分析师表示，实际数字要小得多，可能只有三分之一。

消息正在泄漏（也许是试探）。据报道，在1月份北京中期会谈中，中国承诺在未来六年内，中国进口美国商品将增加1万亿美元。美国正考虑取消或至少降低关税，以诱导中国谈判代表。

中国现在不愿意在其他方面做出让步，例如技术转移和政府补贴，因为它不需要。经济增速变缓可能迫使中国领导人结束这场冲突，但总统唐纳德特朗普也有自己的压力。他不希望自己因为美国在2020年大选时处于经济周期底端而落选。

加增关税能迫使中国，甚至欧盟承认某些贸易行为对美国不公平，尽管华盛顿长期因忽视这些不公而被指责。对美国而言，中国的重商主义行为藐视了世界贸易组织中许多自由贸易规则。但是，在这个农业、技术和机械受到广泛补贴的世界里，自由贸易大多是一个神话。世界贸易组织是第二次世界大战后形成的最后一个国际组织，也很可能成为第一个解散的国际组织。

中美之间的竞争比WTO还要重要，WTO对全球化来说只能算是一个糟糕的管家。特朗普对多边协议和国际组织的厌恶不仅仅是一种怪癖，而是一种现实政治观点，认为这种广泛的协议掩盖了许多罪恶。他更喜欢双边交易，如果达成这些交易需要一些对抗，那他也在所不惜。

特朗普从一开始就坚持认为自己是自由贸易的信徒。西方媒体觉得这很可疑，一个自由贸易主义者不会本能地对贸易伙伴征收关税。特朗普政府对国际社会所认同的行为准则的微小违规使媒体将它与20世纪30年代斯穆特-霍利关税的保护主义政权混为一谈。这还不是这些媒体扭曲当前政府形象的唯一方式。

自由贸易的支持者可以鼓吹美国是如何能从全球化以和世界经济一体化中获益，而且这的确没有错。这是一个受到平衡的挑战。北美自由贸易协定和中国加入世界贸易组织体系等对美国不利的协议使美国城市经济受到摧残，这正是特朗普当选总统的原因。“让美国再次变得伟大”，或者说“美国第一”对于这些被掏空的城市里的人们来说意义重大。

但这些行为都不妨碍与中国、欧盟或其他任何地区就互惠互利的商品服务交换达成协议。它确实意味着通过尽可能保持竞争环境保护美国的就业机会。不可避免，有些人反对这种观点，而且将不时使局势紧张。

这一争端很有可能不会升级，因为中美两国领导人都有压力，必须阻止争端升级。有消息走漏，双方会做出让步，美国股票和债券市场也应证了这一点。上周，北京举行高层会谈。之后，人们对此持乐观态度，本周谈判也再次转移到华盛顿。

市场是短视的。市场的长期愿景能覆盖六到九个月，但实际上却无法有效执行。然而，我们其他人需要以更长远的眼光看待当前的紧张局势和争端。中美两国必须和睦相处。双边贸易对两国都至关重要，但是，全球化及有效的供应链也是世界经济发展的基础。

英文原文如下：

Keeping the peace in US-China talks Negotiations part of longer struggle to realign global economic interests

Darrell Delamaide

  20 Feb 2019

Ongoing US-China trade talks are a skirmish in what could become a protracted struggle. Not a trade war, but a wider contest – hopefully economic, not military – to realign global economic interests. One way to keep that contest peaceful is to recognise it is a long-term project that could benefit both sides if they keep communication channels open.

It seems negotiators will reach some sort of agreement on the discussion of punitive tariffs to defuse that issue in the short term. US commentators are making much of China's flagging economy. Chinese consumers aren't buying as many cars or iPhones, imports are down, stock prices have plunged. China duly reported GDP growth of 6.4% for the fourth quarter as the economy continued to slow. But US analysts say the real number is a fraction of that, maybe just one-third.

Leaks (perhaps trial balloons) are seeping out. At January's mid-level talks in Beijing, China reportedly committed to an additional $1tn in imports from the US over the next six years. The US is considering lifting or at least reducing tariffs to incentivise Chinese negotiators.

China is not willing right now to give way on other points, such as technology transfer or government subsidies, because it doesn't need to. An economic slump may be pressuring Chinese leaders to end this skirmish, but President Donald Trump is facing pressures of his own. He does not want to be on the wrong end of an economic cycle for the next US election in November 2020.

Tariffs were supposed to be a way to force not only China but also the European Union into acknowledging that some trade practices are unfair to the US, though Washington shares the blame for having ignored them for so long. To the US, China's mercantilist practices flout many of the free trade rules embedded in the World Trade Organisation. But free trade in a world of widespread subsidies for agriculture, technology and machinery is mostly a myth. The WTO, the last of the international organisations to be formed after the second world war, should probably be the first to go.

The US-China rivalry is bigger than the WTO, which is a poor steward for the realities of globalisation. Trump's aversion to multilateral agreements and organisations is not just a personality quirk, but a realpolitik that such wide-ranging accords cloak a multitude of sins. He prefers bilateral deals, and if getting to those requires some element of confrontation, so be it.

Trump has maintained from the beginning that he is a believer in free trade. Western media find that dubious coming from someone whose instinctual reaction is to slap tariffs on trading partners. The smallest infraction of what has become acceptable international behaviour prompts them to conflate the Trump administration with the protectionist regime of the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs. It is not the only way these media distort the picture of the current administration.

Proponents of free trade can brandish all the benefits to the US from globalisation as well as for the world economy in general, and they are not wrong. The challenge is one of balance. The devastation of cities in the US from unfavourable accords like the North American Free Trade Agreement and China's gaming of the WTO system are what got Trump elected. No one in these hollowed-out towns had to ask what he meant by 'making America great again', or putting 'America first'.

But none of this rules out reaching an agreement with China or the EU or anyone else for a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. It does mean safeguarding US jobs by keeping the playing field as level as possible. Disagreement on just what that means is inevitable, and will periodically create new tensions.

The immediate issue of avoiding an escalation of this dispute is likely to be resolved because leaders in both the US and China are under pressure to do so. US stock and bond markets reacted positively to those leaks about concessions on both sides. There is considerable optimism after high-level talks last week in Beijing as negotiations now once again move to Washington this week.

Markets are myopic. Their long-term view extends to six to nine months, but they really cannot perform any other way. The rest of us, however, need to see current tensions and disputes in a longer-term context. China and the US must live with each other. Bilateral trade is crucial to both, but globalisation and its efficient supply chains undergirding world economic development are as well.

内容整理 罗梦宇

图文编辑 罗梦宇

审校  田雯

监制  朱霜霜

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、货币银行、宏观经济、金融监管、金融科技、地方金融等领域，定期举办国际货币论坛、货币金融圆桌会议、大金融思想沙龙、麦金农大讲坛、陶湘国际金融讲堂等高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《天府金融指数报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》等一大批具有重要理论和政策影响力的学术成果。

国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

理事单位申请、

学术研究和会议合作

联系方式:  

010-62516755 

[e-mail]

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.