高善文华盛顿最新演讲，以史为鉴建言中美关系
当地时间11月6日，由中国金融四十人论坛（CF40）与彼得森国际经济研究所（PIIE）共同举办的第五届CF40-PIIE中国经济论坛在美国华盛顿举行，中美经济学家对中国金融创新与中美贸易争端等话题进行了深入研讨。
在以“大国贸易冲突的边界及接触原则”为主题的专题研讨环节，CF40学术委员、安信证券首席经济学家高善文以Let Histoty Brighten the Future(让历史照亮未来)为题，探讨了更好管理中美经贸关系、助益双方谈判取得互利结果的有效途径。
高善文发表主题演讲
高善文认为，贸易争端中最令人担心的是中美之间的不信任感和相互误解广泛存在，并且近年来日益严重。一旦不信任感的日渐加深与经贸脱钩的加速发展形成恶性循环，人们将受困于一个碎片化的世界。
“在这种背景下，讨论如何更好地处理贸易争端和未来的中美经济关系、防止或减少上述情况的发生是非常重要的。关于这一点，历史可能会为我们提供有助益的参考。”高善文提出。
1949年，美国选择与新成立的中华人民共和国对抗，随后在朝鲜半岛和越南与中国作战，事后看来，这造成了两国间的重大悲剧。但其后两国领导人的勇气和智慧改变了历史，双方克服分歧和争端来建立互信。高善文认为，目前两国仍有广泛的共同利益，“在现在这样一个动荡的时期，这些利益应该被明确地指出，并小心地维护。在这一背景下来看，贸易争端至少在原则上是可管理的。”
高善文还就如何更好管理中美经贸关系、助益双方谈判取得互利结果提出了多项建议，演讲全文如下（中文版由CF40独家翻译，英文版附后）：
文 | 高善文
让我先讲一个故事。在2018年1月贸易战正在这里被酝酿之际，我有幸与中国金融四十人论坛成员一道访问了华盛顿特区。当时，华盛顿特区的人们对中国有很多不满——人们普遍认为贸易战几乎是不可避免的，对中国满是负面情绪。
基于当时访美的所见所得，我于2018年年中在中国发表了几次演讲，试图通过及时且客观的方式来介绍和总结当前冲突的逻辑，并在必要时解释美国的立场。
我传达的信息让大多数听众感到震惊，甚至不敢相信。在移动互联网和即时通信的时代，信息轻易可得，那些听众的反应令人困惑。
但是，这个故事中最让我担心的地方，是中美之间的误解和不信任如此广泛，并且近年来日益严重。
一种可能是，随着中国迅速攀升至价值链上游，其GDP规模也在不断壮大，这会导致彼此之间更加不信任和互相猜疑。随之而来的是更多的争执和冲突，脱钩开始出现并加速发展。反过来，不信任感进一步加深，从而形成恶性循环。最终，我们将受困于一个碎片化的世界。不夸张地说，这个世界的安全性和富裕程度会降低。
在这种背景下，讨论如何更好地处理贸易争端和未来的中美经济关系、防止或减少上述情况的发生是非常重要的。关于这一点，历史可能会为我们提供有助益的参考。
1949年，美国选择与新成立的中华人民共和国对抗，随后在朝鲜半岛和越南与中国作战，事后看来，这也造成了两国间的重大悲剧。两国领导人的勇气和智慧改变了历史，尼克松总统于1970年代初访问了北京，当时中国仍沉迷于搞文化大革命。一夜之间，世界变得更加安全，也逐渐走向和平与繁荣。
这给我们上了关键的一课：我们可以克服分歧和争端来建立互信，追求我们的共同目标并发展我们的共同利益。
自那时起，世界上发生一系列变化——苏联成为历史、中国发展成为世界第二大经济体，并且仍在快速发展。
然而，两国仍有广泛的共同利益。在现在这样一个动荡的时期，这些利益应该被明确地指出，并小心地维护。在这一背景下来看，贸易争端至少在原则上是可管理的。
举例来说，气候变化正在对地球构成越来越大的威胁。如果没有美中两国的合作和领导，几乎不可能阻止气候变暖的趋势，更不用说履行《巴黎协定》的承诺。
正如我们所知，自由贸易是促进财富创造的最佳方式，而基于规则的全球体系则是维护自由贸易的最佳机制。如果没有美中两国的合作和领导，基于规则的全球体系可能会瓦解。
这样的例子还有很多，我们仅举几个。
至于贸易争端，尽管美国提出的一些主张和案例缺乏说服力，但总体而言，它们是可以解决的，中国也非常愿意这样做。
例如，随着中国经济的日益成熟，更好地保护知识产权也符合中国的利益，中国在这一领域的努力和进展应该像PIIE所做的那样，得到充分的认可和公正的记录。
另一个例子是强制技术转让。许多中国学者认为这个问题的定义模糊，表述缺乏说服力，但中国仍然愿意考虑妥协。
有关双边贸易逆差的要求在经济界人士看来是荒谬的，采购清单也是不现实的，但中国在这一问题上仍持灵活态度。
如上所述，鉴于中美关系的重要性和复杂性以及贸易争端的性质，为了更好地管理和加强经济关系，以下是一些建议：
► 中美经济合作仍然是两国关系的重要压舱石，是互利互惠的，应该认真珍惜和维护。
► 贸易争端永远不应被政治化，而应被视为商业、可谈判的事项。
► 要采取必要措施，防止争端蔓延到其他领域，进而损害两国互信和政治关系。
► 以有说服力的事实研究、可靠的成本收益分析方法和可行的解决方案支持我们的诉求和要求。为了让信息得以有效传递，要改善中美彼此之间的沟通，以及与公众的沟通。
► 可以采取更加务实和渐进的方法，首先解决容易解决的部分，因为有关产业政策和国家干预的问题很难得到快速调和。
► 我们应该将这些重要的多边问题放到多边平台上解决。这样可以使得让步和执行变得更加容易。更重要的是，这或许将有助于世界贸易组织改革，并有助于在全球化受到日益高涨的民粹主义挑战的关键时刻，维护和保持全球化势头。
Gao Shanwen
Let me start by telling a story. In January 2018, I have had the chance to visit DC with CF40 group just when the trade war was being conceived here. Back then people in DC had quite a lot of complaints about China—it was widely thought that a trade war was all but inevitable and the sentiment against China was very negative.
Based on this experience and information picked up here, I delivered several speeches in China in the middle of 2018, trying to summarize and present the logic of the ongoing conflicts in a timely and objective way, explaining the positions of the US when necessary.
Most audience was just shocked by the message I conveyed and could not believe it. At the age of mobile internet and instant communication when information is easily available, the reactions from those audience is confusing.
However, what really worried me most in this story is that misunderstanding and mistrust between China and US run so deep and have been increasingly so in recent years.
One scenario is that as China rapidly climbs up the value chain and grows bigger in its size of GDP, resulting in deeper mistrust and suspicion of each other. More disputes and conflicts then follow, decoupling occurs and accelerates, and in turn mistrust is further entrenched, creating a vicious circle. Eventually we will be trapped in a fragmented world, which is less secure and less rich, to say the least.
Against this background, it is very important to discuss how to better manage the trade disputes and Sino-US economic relationship in the future, to prevent the scenario above mentioned from happening, or at least lessen its degree. Regarding this, history may provide helpful lessons.
In 1949, the U.S. turned its back on the newly-born PRC and fought a war with China in the Korean peninsula and later in Vietnam, which was a big tragedy for both countries in hindsight. With great courage and wisdom of the leadership from both countries, President Nixon visited Beijing in early 1970s when China was still obsessed with the Cultural Revolution, and overnight the world became safer and gradually more peaceful and prosperous.
The key lesson here is that we can overcome the differences and disputes to build trust, pursue our common goal, and grow our shared interests.
Ever since then the world has changed. The Soviet Union went into history and China has evolved into the second largest economy and is still growing fast.
However, the two countries still share widespread common interests, which shall be clearly identified and delicately preserved at this turbulent time, while the disputes in trade is well manageable at least in principle.
For example, climate change poses an increasing threat to the planet. Without cooperation and leadership from the US and China, it is almost impossible to arrest the warming-up trend, let alone fulfilling the commitment of the Paris Accord.
As we know, free trade is the best way to enhance wealth creation and a global rule-based system is the best regime to promote it. Without cooperation and leadership from the US and China, the global rule-based system may disintegrate.
The list can go very long and we just name a few.
As for the trade disputes, though some claims and cases presented by the US are less convincing than others, overall speaking, they are solvable and China is more than willing to do so.
For instance, as the Chinese economy becomes more sophisticated, better IPR protection serves China's interests as well, and China's efforts and progress in this field shall be well recognized and fairly documented, as have been done by PIIE.
Another example is forced technology transfer. Many Chinese scholars think the case is ill-defined and poorly presented, but China is still willing to compromise.
The demand concerning bilateral trade deficits sounds absurd to economic professionals and purchase list appears unrealistic, but China is still flexible on this issue.
As mentioned above, given the importance and complexity of Sino-US relationship and the nature of the trade disputes, to better manage and strengthen the economic relationship, here are some suggestions:
We shall emphasize that Sino-US economic cooperation is still an important ballast of the bilateral relationship, which is mutually beneficial and shall be carefully cherished and maintained.
We shall stress that the trade disputes shall never ever be politicized and shall always be taken as a commercial, negotiable matter.
We shall take necessary measures to prevent the disputes from spilling over into other fields and impairing mutual trust and political sentiment further.
We shall always support our claims and demands with convincing fact-based research, robust cost benefit analysis, and feasible solutions. In order to let the message be delivered, we shall improve communication with each other and with the public.
We could take a more pragmatic and incremental approach and start by solving the easy part first, as those issues concerning industrial policy and state interventions are very hard to conciliate soon.
We shall take those essentially multilateral issues to multilateral platforms, whereby concessions and enforcement could be easier to arrange. More importantly, this may contribute to WTO reform and help sustain the globalization momentum in this critical time when it is challenged by rising populism.