贸易战里还有哪些“大杀器”没有动？

《亚洲时报》5月20日刊登美国华人精英组织“百人会”成员顾屏山文章《特朗普在打一场他赢不了的贸易战》

文：George Koo

译：李翠萍

任何受过一点教育、有一定头脑的人都知道，贸易战里没有赢家。具体来说，就是美国总统特朗普不可能在他发起的对华贸易战争中取得胜利。

他认为，对中国进口商品征收关税相当于美国财政部“免费拿钱”。但即便他最亲近的顾问也知道，这种想法根本就是错觉。

关税是由进口商支付的，他们会尽其所能地将这部分成本转移到最终的买家身上。就日常用品而言，是消费者吸收了成本增量。中国的消费品出口商也会因此蒙受损失，因为实际有效价格变贵了，销售量就会变少。

同样的，中国对美国进口商品征收关税也会限制美国出口商出售商品数量。例如，中国本来会是得克萨斯州天然气的大买家，但由于关税上涨，美国的液化天然气将因为价格过高而被挤出中国市场。

从理论上讲，互征高额关税会令中国觉得更加难受，因为中国对美出口规模要远远大于美国对华出口规模。

然而，双边贸易不是零和博弈，中国对美国商品的依赖程度并不像美国对中国商品的依赖程度那样高。

中国可以从其他国家进口商品来取代美国，比如可以用加拿大龙虾替代美国缅因州龙虾，用巴西大豆替代美国艾奥瓦州大豆，用法国葡萄酒替代美国加州葡萄酒。

但反过来，美国进口的中国商品往往价格低于所有替代品。对这些商品征收进口税，最终结果是提高美国消费成本，导致生活成本整体上升。

“免费拿钱”

此外，美国从中国进口的产品大约有一半是由美国企业在华生产的，因此，美国进口本国企业生产的产品还要支付关税，这就是特朗普所谓的“免费拿钱”。

无论如何，关税战争中的双方都会感到切肤之痛，关键在于哪一方能够更大限度地忍受疼痛。尽管到目前为止，华尔街尚未就提高关税做出强烈反应，但这只是时间问题。

当然，特朗普接下来还可以对更多来自中国的进口商品加征关税，但美国政府已经明确了态度，它考虑的远远不只是贸易问题。特朗普是想以各种方法遏制中国的发展。

特朗普团队仿佛觉得他们可以把自己的意愿强加于人，并坚持让中国停止“窃取”美国知识产权，并以法律形式将协议固定下来。

没有任何国家会接受这种侮辱性的要求。美国自己难道书面承诺过不窃取英国、日本或韩国工业技术吗？

硅谷各个企业之间互相侵犯和窃取知识产权的事难道还少吗？知识产权拥有者自己得承担保护知识产权不受侵犯的责任，并自己动手以其人之道还治其人之身。保护知识产权从来不是一个国家用来谴责另一个国家的借口。

然而，在激烈的贸易谈判中，美方一直指责中国企业靠政府资助对知识产权进行窃取。他们认为中国企业侵犯知识产权的行为是国家政策。

眼馋华为的知识产权

外界忽略了一个事实，那就是中国很快就会掌握，甚至已经掌握了令美国企业眼红的知识产权。其中人们最容易想到的是高速移动通信。

虽然很难知晓是否有人试图窃取华为先进的5G技术，但可以肯定的是，特朗普的做法是为了打压华为拒绝它进入市场。他或许能够阻止美国企业购买华为产品，但在世界其他地方，这种做法是行不通的。

美国国务卿蓬佩奥、国家安全顾问博尔顿等人除了大力抹黑华为之外，拿不出任何确凿的证据来证明华为设备存在安全风险。他们只是一再强调所有国家都不应该购买华为设备。理由呢？因为这是白宫的意思。

显而易见的是，华为当下提供的先进技术是其他企业无法比拟的。而华盛顿方面甚至说不出来华为产品中的哪个部分、哪项技术靠窃取知识产权得来的。

目前，世界其他国家无视华盛顿的警告，仍然在购买华为设备，因为它技术更卓越，价格更低廉。不久，世界电信将分为两大阵营，一边用上了华为的技术，另一边则是紧紧抓住山姆大叔裤子不放的少数国家。

共同的经济利益

地缘政治领域，同样的情形也在上演。蓬佩奥穿梭于各国，警告其领导人不要加入中国的“一带一路”倡议。为什么呢？因为他指责中国在为第三世界国家搞基建时实行掠夺性融资。

然而就在上个月，“一带一路”高峰论坛在北京巨星，37位国家元首和130多个国家的代表出席。反映出各国对“一带一路”的态度十分积极，用事实驳斥了特朗普团队的论调。

这些国家非常乐意看到中国帮助它们修建关键基础设施项目。因为它们知道，基础设施是经济增长的必要条件。它也是中国亚欧贸易走廊建设的一部分，意味着沿线国家能够靠全球贸易致富。

除了“一带一路”沿线130多个与中国有着共同经济利益的国家之外，中国还主导成立了亚洲基础设施投资银行，专门为亚洲基础设施项目提供融资。

除了现有的70个成员国之外，还有27个国家正在排队等待加入亚投行。其主要股东除了参与“一带一路”的国家之外，还包括欧洲所有主要国家。这使日本和美国的缺席分外引人注目——不加入亚投行是美国前总统奥巴马错失的机会。

美国环绕世界修建军事基地，并通过投射军事实力来声明领导地位，而与此同时中国则在促进与世界各国之间的经济合作。

这两种战略路线不一定非要迎面相撞引发冲突，但如果真的爆发冲突，站在美国阵营的国家这样做也是出于对美国威吓的恐惧，而站在中国一边的国家则是因为与中国有牢不可破的共同经济利益。随着世界不断变化，越来越多国家将放弃前者而选择后者。

共享军事资产

因为经济利益交织互补，俄罗斯成为了中国的重要合作伙伴。两国也是上海合作组织的核心成员。这个成立20多年的组织还包括中亚国家、巴基斯坦和印度，很快将还会接纳伊朗。

除了经济和文化合作之外，上合组织还举行联合军事演习，打击恐怖主义，确保地区稳定。如果美国进行军事干预，上合组织成员将与中国站在一起。该组织的成员国人口占世界总数的一半，覆盖了欧亚大陆80%的面积。

尽管华盛顿圈子里传言博尔顿和蓬佩奥渴望在伊朗实现政权更迭，但特朗普不是个完全没有常识的人。如果特朗普以美国人生命为代价对伊朗发动代理人战争，无疑会取悦以色列和沙特等附属国，并讨好国内那些他十分倚重的超级富豪，但特朗普也清楚，打伊朗不是打伊拉克那么简单。

据报道，俄罗斯和中国在外交政策上步调一致，都坚定地支持伊朗。这应该足以让白宫的鹰派人士不至于冲昏了头脑。就连极端保守派帕特里克·布坎南也认为，对伊朗开战将会是特朗普总统任期的终结。

除了伊朗问题，俄罗斯和中国在古巴、朝鲜、叙利亚、阿富汗和委内瑞拉等问题上采取的立场也与美国大为不同，某些情况下甚至与美国截然相反。如果蓬佩奥和博尔顿认为，美国可以在没有中国或俄罗斯支持的情况下，对这些热点地区发号施令，那他们简直是在痴人说梦。

两种选择

因此，如果伊朗不太可能引发灾难性的战争，特朗普可以调转全部注意力来应对中国的挑战，摆在他面前的有两条路。他可以像过去那样，后退一步寻求非零和的解决方案，实现双赢；也可以选择变本加厉，对目前免税进入美国的价值3000亿美元的中国进口商品征收关税。

如果特朗普决定提高贸易战的筹码，中国将无法以相同的方式来进行反制，因为中国从美国进口商品远少于美国从中国的进口。但中国还有其他方式来增加自己的筹码。

中国可以停止向美国出口稀土矿和化合物。稀土对包括电子和国防在内的许多行业都至关重要，如果美国无法获得稀土，工业将陷于停产，而美国开采境内已知的稀土矿藏来取代进口则需要花费数年时间。

中国还可以通过减少购买美国国债，从而大幅减少对美国举债的支持。中国目前持有约1万亿美元的美国国债。如果中国停止购买甚至抛售部分美国国债，将大大动摇人们对美元的信心，并造成美国金融市场失稳。

对美国汽车制造商而言，中国是规模最大、利润最高的市场。这些企业从中国赚取的利润通常在企业总利润中占据主要部分。中国的另一种反制方式是对美国企业关闭中国市场。

另外一种精准打击的方式是博彩业，比如让澳门政府对媒体暗示，三家美国运营商的博彩牌照能否更新存在疑问，其中拉斯维加斯金沙集团（译者注：作者曾是金沙集团董事）是这三家公司中规模最大的一家，其60%以上的收入和利润都来自澳门。

谢尔登·阿德尔森是拉斯维加斯金沙集团的主要持股人，也是特朗普的重要金主。任何有关拉斯维加斯金沙集团在澳门陷入困境的暗示，都将对阿德尔森的财富净值造成直接打击，从而抑制他支持特朗普对华政策的热情。

双输局面

从贸易战开始时，特朗普等人便宣称贸易战“很好赢”。我上面罗列的这些工具，只可供中国确保双输局面。报复性举措终将破坏全球经济的稳定性，严重打击特朗普的核心支持者。

这将是一个经典的的双输局面，但谁输得更惨还很难说。美国国务院某高级官员不久前宣布，中美之间的战争是“文明”之战，特朗普政府既然知道中国有着不同的文化和背景，就应该更清醒一些。

直到现在，特朗普团队还在将美式价值观和思维方式强加于中国。仅仅因为美国承认中情局“撒谎、欺骗、偷窃”，就认为中国也会采取同样的做法，但事实并非如此。

与美国不同，中国不干涉别国内政，不想控制和占领别国领土，也不把自己的政治制度强加于人。

如果美国能就此打住，不再发动一场它赢不了的贸易战，不再要求中国变得跟自己一样，那么双方还有可能达成谅解。两国可以达成一个友好的双赢解决方案，让双方都觉得自己是赢家。

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)