悦辩悦明 | 以安全为名 行危险之事

In America, national security has been conveniently breached.

在美国，国家安全是个方便的借口，只要需要随时可以被破坏。

Donald Trump cited "national security" 317 times since his inauguration. But is America less safe now than before?

上任以来，唐纳德∙特朗普提到“国家安全”317次。但美国没以前安全了吗？

From blocking Broadcom's takeover to the publication of Bolton's book, blocking shipments of semiconductors and the TikTok ban, all of these decisions have been made in the name of "national security."

从阻止博通收购高通到阻挠博尔顿的新书出版，从限制半导体产品对华出口到禁止TikTok，所有的决定都是以“国家安全”的名义做出的。

For companies like Huawei or TikTok's owner, ByteDance, this is a significant blow. But the negative impact goes beyond China's borders: it hurts America as well. American partners lose revenue and American users lose choices. Both nations suffer and instead of creating a safe environment, those hostilities actually create a feeling of insecurity. 

对于像华为或者TikTok所属的字节跳动这样的公司而言，这是沉重的打击。但消极影响不仅局限于中国境内，也伤害了美国。美国的合作伙伴损失了收入，而美国的消费者则失去了选择。两个国家都为此付出了代价。但那些充满敌意的举措非但没有创造安全的环境，反而催生了不安全感。

Can these walls drive away foreign businesses?

这些障碍会不会使外国企业选择离开？

Huawei reported a 13.1 percent rise in half-year revenue this year, despite the U.S. ban. And if the U.S. decides to shut down TikTok, the app could lose millions of American users. But all the other users will remain and new ones in other parts of the world will be added. 

尽管美国的制裁不断升级，华为今年上半年的收入仍增长了13.1%。如果美国决定禁止TikTok，这款应用可能会失去数百万的美国用户。但其他用户不会离开，而且世界其他地区也会有新的用户加入。

As Adam Smith pointed out, if any branch of trade is advantageous to the public, the freer the competition, it will always be the more so. A successful business will grow because it serves a need and the need will be there. Sooner or later, supply will meet demand. That is why market works and edicts don't.

正如亚当∙斯密所指出的，对于任何于公众有利的贸易部门来说，竞争越自由，它为公众创造的利益就越多。成功的企业会不断发展是因为它能够满足某种需求，而这种需求不会消失。供应最终会追赶上需求。这就是为什么市场能够发挥作用而法令不能。

Another example is space exploration. At the end of July, both China and the U.S. sent spacecraft to Mars. China's Tianwen-1 plans to orbit, land, and rove on Mars, while NASA's Perseverance plans to seek signs of life on the planet. Ideally, the two space powers should coordinate their endeavors, share data and expenses, and identify common goals.  That will cover more areas with less money.

另一个例子是太空探索。七月底，中美两国都发射了火星探测器。中国的“天问一号”探测器计划环绕火星进行轨道飞行，着陆火星并在其表面进行巡视探测。而美国宇航局的“毅力号”则计划探索火星上的生命迹象。理想情况下，两个太空探索大国应当协调行动、共享数据、分担开销并确立共同目标。这样不但能触及更多领域，也能节约资金。

But how can I trust someone if I see him as hostile? The Wolf Amendment, which was passed into law in the U.S. in 2011, blocked every possibility for NASA to work with CNSA. And yes, this too was done for "national security." But even during the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union found a way to cooperate in space. Ironically, citing the same national security, American scientists have been saying: China has become a vital player in space, and leaving it alone will make America blind, and thus less safe. We live in an era of globalization, but we are still thinking like the Cold War.

但如果我认为对方抱有敌意，我又怎么能信任他呢？美国2011年通过的《沃尔夫修正案》否决了美国宇航局与中国航天局的一切合作可能。没错，理由同样是“国家安全”。但即便在冷战期间，美国仍然和苏联进行了太空合作。讽刺的是，同样是以国家安全为理由，美国科学家却一直表示，中国已经是重要的太空力量，不与其合作会使美国变得盲目，进而威胁国家安全。我们生活在全球化的时代，但思维仍停留在冷战时期。

What is different from the Cold War is China. China is not the Soviet Union. It would be inconceivable to cut off ties. A new study from MacroPolo - a think tank run by Paulson Institute, shows nearly one-third of U.S. AI researchers come from China. More than 88% of Chinese Ph.D. students in AI work in the U.S. Brains from the two sides are not only working together but evolving together.

现在和冷战时期的不同之处在于中国。中国不是苏联。与中国彻底脱钩是不可想象的。美国保尔森基金会下属的麦克罗波洛智库的新研究显示，近三分之一的在美人工智能研究人员来自中国。该领域超过88%的中国博士生在美国工作。两国人才不仅相互合作，而且共同进步。

Choosing to cut off ties could mean an unnecessary and expensive divergence of the path for both countries and the world. It would be another Cold War, but in a different dimension, and with a high price tag.

脱钩意味着两国乃至世界各自踏上不同的道路，会带来不必要的严重后果。这会引发另一维度上的冷战，代价高昂。

The real question is: in a post-COVID world, are people ready to pay the cost? Who is going to pay, and what if they don't? If we don’t think through these questions, we will be in deep trouble sooner or later and very possibly sooner than we think.

真正的问题是：在后疫情时代，人们准备好承受这种代价了吗？谁来买单？如果他们不愿买单怎么办? 如果不仔细思考这些问题，我们迟早会遇到大麻烦，而且麻烦来的很可能比我们想象的还要快。

推荐阅读：