When the World Opened the Gates of China

With a congressional vote looming in the spring of 2000, President Bill Clinton mustered his best arguments for why lawmakers should approve his proposed deal for China to join the World Trade Organization.

2000年春，國會投票即將進行，比爾·克林頓總統使盡渾身解數，向議員解釋為何應該批准他的提議，讓中國加入世界貿易組織。

Adding China would link Beijing to Western economies and reduce the government’s ability to control its vast population, he said in a speech that March at Johns Hopkins’s School of Advanced International Studies.

當年三月，他在約翰霍普金斯高級國際研究學院發表演講時說，讓中國加入世貿會把北京和西方經濟體聯繫起來，降低中國政府控制其巨大人口的能力。

“By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to import more of our products, it is agreeing to import one of democracy’s most cherished values, economic freedom,” Mr. Clinton said. “When individuals have the power not just to dream, but to realize their dreams, they will demand a greater say.”

“加入世界貿易組織，中國不僅同意進口更多美國商品，還同意進口民主國家最珍視的價值之一——經濟自由，”克林頓說。“當個人不僅有權做夢，還有權實現夢想，他們會獲得更大的話語權。”

Mr. Clinton’s idealistic rhetoric played well among most of Washington’s elites, but a trade lawyer often dismissed as a protectionist, Robert Lighthizer, was skeptical. As he had warned in a New York Times op-ed a few years earlier, if admitted to the WTO, mercantilist China would become a “dominant” trading nation. “Virtually no manufacturing job in [the U.S.] will be safe,” he wrote.

克林頓先生的理想主義說辭在華盛頓的精英圈子裡很受用，但一個被斥為保護主義者的貿易律師卻心存疑慮，他是羅伯特·萊特希澤。幾年前，他給《紐約時報》評論投稿說，如進入世貿組織，奉行重商主義的中國將成為“壟斷性”貿易國家。“事實上，（美國）沒有一個製造業崗位是安全的。”

Mr. Lighthizer is now the U.S. Trade Representative, President Donald Trump’s chief negotiator on global trade. In the administration’s view, allowing China to enter the WTO in 2001 was a historic mistake that cost the U.S. millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in accumulated trade deficits. The U.S. is now bypassing WTO rules and threatening Beijing with tariffs on up to $500 billion of imported goods.

萊特希澤先生現在是美國貿易代表、總統唐納德·特朗普的首席國際貿易談判官。在本屆政府看來，允許中國在2001年加入世界貿易組織是歷史性錯誤，讓美國數百萬工作崗位流失，並積累了數萬億貿易逆差。美國現在正拋棄世貿組織規則，威脅要對5000億中國進口商品徵收關稅。

The moves against China are part of Mr. Trump’s wider effort to upend longstanding U.S. policy on trade and also the international institutions and agreements that govern trade. Whether the administration’s shift is a much-needed corrective or a disastrous reversal depends in large part on how one views the original decision to bring China into the international trade regime.

特朗普政府有個大計劃，要顛覆美國長期貿易政策，同時顛覆治理貿易的國際體制和協定，對中國採取行動是其中一部分。本屆政府的轉向到底是亟待推行的一種矯正抑或是災難性的逆轉，這基本得看你如何看待讓中國加入國際貿易體系的最初決定。

Given China’s enormous presence in the world economy today, it’s difficult to remember how economically backward the country was in the early 1990s. Inflation hit 24% in 1994. Nearly 60% of the population lived on less than $1.90 a day. Bicycles jammed the streets, not cars.

考慮到如今中國在世界經濟中的大塊頭地位，很難想起該國九十年代初在經濟上有多麼落後。1994年，中國通脹率達24%，近60%的人口每天只靠不足1.9美元為生。街上全是自行車，沒有汽車。

Chinese reformers saw their country’s entry into the WTO as a way to modernize. To join, China would have to reduce sky-high trade barriers and allow a greater role for foreign firms. State-owned firms would finally face competition, and private enterprise, they hoped, would soar. 

中國改革者認為加入世貿組織是實現現代化的一種方法。為了加入世貿組織，中國必須削減高聳的貿易壁壘，允許外國公司發揮更大作用。國有公司必須最終面對競爭，他們希望私有企業能繁榮起來。

“WTO membership works like a wrecking ball, smashing whatever is left in the old edifice of the planned economy,” said Jin Liqun, China’s vice minister of finance at the time.

時任中國財政部副部長金立群說，加入世貿就像推動一個破碎球，搗毀計劃經濟舊建築中的一切。

The WTO is a membership organization. To get in, China had to cut deals with all the members but most importantly with the U.S., the world’s dominant economy. U.S. officials thought they were driving a hard bargain. 

世貿組織是成員國組織，要加入世貿，中國必須和所有成員國達成協議，但最重要的是世界最大經濟體美國。美國官員認為談判很艱苦。

The deal forced Beijing to slash tariffs, permit foreign investment in Chinese industries and give foreign banks more freedom to do business. For a dozen years, Beijing also agreed, the U.S. could block Chinese imports that threatened specific American industries.

協議迫使中國大幅削減關稅，允許外資企業在中國各行業投資，並給予外資銀行更多經商自由。十多年來，北京也同意，中國進口商品威脅到美國特定產業，美國可以制裁。

In exchange for the Chinese concessions, the U.S. just had to surrender its annual rite of deciding whether to grant China “most favored nation” status as a trading partner, ensuring full access to the American market. China’s allies in Congress had succeeded each year in getting the measure through anyway, but by allowing China into the WTO, the annual reviews would end.

為了讓中國做出讓步，美國必須放棄每年對是否給予中國“最惠國”地位作出決定的權利，確保中國商品可以完全進入美國市場。雖然中國在國會的盟友每年都成功批准中國這一地位，但允許中國加入世貿組織，每年的審查都沒了。

Mr. Clinton also linked China’s WTO accession to the democratic vision of President Woodrow Wilson, who dreamed, he said, of “a world full of free markets, free elections and free peoples working together.” The growth of the internet, in particular, would undermine Beijing’s control and make China more like the U.S., Mr. Clinton argued. (He declined to comment for this article.)

克林頓先生將中國加入世貿組織與伍德羅·威爾遜總統的民主願景聯繫起來，威爾遜夢想着“一個自由市場、自由選舉和自由的人民攜手共進的世界”。克林頓認為，互聯網的發展尤其削弱了政府控制，讓中國更像美國。（他拒絕對這篇文章發表評論。）

Many shared this hopeful view, pointing to the examples of South Korea and Taiwan, which had shaken off dictatorships as they became more prosperous. Henry Rowen, chairman of the Reagan administration’s National Intelligence Council, forecast in 1999 that China would “join the club of nations well along the road to democracy” in 2015, when he expected its per capita GDP to reach $7,000. As it turned out, China hit that mark two years sooner than he had predicted, but even now, it is far from being a democracy.

許多人同意這種預判，認為韓國和台灣就是如此。里根政府全國情報委員會主席亨利·羅文1999年預測，中國將在2015年加入民主俱樂部，他預計那時中國的人均GDP將達到7000美元，結果中國2013年就達到了人均GDP目標。

A coalition of labor, environmental and human-rights groups opposed China’s admission to the WTO. Robert Scott, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-backed research group, cranked out alarming numbers. In 2000, he forecast that nearly a million U.S. manufacturing jobs would be lost to Chinese competition.

工會、環境和人權組織聯合起來反對中國加入世貿組織。工會支持的研究集團經濟政策研究所經濟學家羅伯特·斯科特估了個驚人數據。2000年，他預計接近50萬美國製造業崗位將在中國競爭下流失。

Donald Trump was absent from the debate. In 2000, he toyed with a run for president and wrote a campaign book, “The America We Deserve,” which called China the U.S.’s “biggest long-term challenge.” But he didn’t mention the WTO decision. He did say he would appoint himself U.S. Trade Representative and negotiate better deals.

唐納德·特朗普沒有參與討論。2000年，他提出要競選總統，還寫了一本競選圖書《我們值得擁有的美國》，書中將中國說成美國“最大的長期挑戰”。但他沒有提及世貿組織的決定，儘管他的確表示準備任命自己為美國貿易代表，拿到更好的條件。

After the deal, foreign investment in Beijing mushroomed from $47 billion in 2001 to $124 billion a decade later. The lower investment and import restrictions required of China as part of its WTO entry also encouraged multinationals to rush in, as did the prospect of serving the vast Chinese market. China became the world’s manufacturing floor, and Chinese imports to the U.S. soared.

簽訂協議後，北京的外國投資從2001年的470億美元暴增到10年後的1240億美元。中國加入世貿組織降低了投資和進口限制，這也鼓勵了跨國公司蜂擁而入，中國市場前景一片光明。中國成為世界的製造業車間，中國出口美國商品暴增。

Looking back now, whose expectations for the wider impact of the deal proved most accurate? On the issue of U.S. manufacturing jobs, critics made the right call. A study by the MIT economist David Autor and colleagues calculated that Chinese competition cost the U.S. some 2.4 million jobs between 1999 and 2011, battering factory towns that made labor-intensive goods.

中國加入世貿帶來更廣闊衝擊，回頭看，誰的預測更準確呢？在美國製造業崗位問題上，批評者們說對了。麻省理工學院經濟學家大衛·奧特和同事計算，來自中國的競爭讓美國在1999年到2011年間丟失了250萬個崗位，打擊了生產勞動密集型產品的工業城市。

That result haunts one of Mr. Clinton’s senior China negotiators, Robert B. Cassidy, who believes that his work only helped big businesses, not ordinary workers. “When you retire you like to think that you accomplished a lot,” he says now, at age 73. “What kind of benefit did I produce from working around the clock? I was incredibly disappointed.”

結果讓克林頓的對華高級談判者羅伯特·卡西迪憂心忡忡，他認為他的工作只對大企業有利，對普通工人沒有好處。“當你退休時，你希望自己取得很大成就，”如今73歲的他說。“我沒日沒夜地工作帶來什麼好處呢？我太失望了。”

Nor did China open up politically, as many WTO advocates had hoped. 

……

China’s leaders believed that they needed unchallenged authority to carry out economic reform in the face of opposition from entrenched interests. The point of freer markets, in their view, was to encourage competition and prevent the system from becoming sclerotic, not to bolster individual rights.

As for President Clinton and his allies in the WTO debate, they can point to real gains from integrating China into the global economy. 

至於克林頓總統和他的盟友，他們可以在世貿組織討論中指出讓中國融入全球經濟的真正益處。

According to the World Bank, some 400 million Chinese have been lifted from extreme poverty—that is, from living on less than $1.90 a day—since 1999. And during the global recession of 2008 and 2009, China was able to go on a spending spree that supported global demand. Chinese building projects sucked in iron ore, coal, oil and other commodities, boosting other developing nations.

根據世界銀行數據，1999年以來，約4億中國人脫貧，此前他們每天生活費不到1.9美元。2008年和2009年全球經濟衰退時，中國能大筆消費以支撐全球需求。中國的基礎設施建設消耗了鐵礦石、煤炭、石油和其他商品，促進了其他發展中國家的發展。

Today, technology companies tap the Chinese market to boost profits and defray research costs. Last year, about 20% of Apple Computer Inc.’s sales came from China, up from about 12% in 2011. The low inflation associated with cheap imports, together with Chinese purchases of U.S. government bonds, has also helped to hold down interest rates, making it cheaper for Americans to buy not only clothes and electronics but also homes and cars.

今天，科技公司去中國市場提高利潤和削減研發成本。去年，蘋果電腦公司約20%的銷售收入來自中國，2011年只有約12%。廉價進口商品導致低通脹，再加上中國購買美國政府國債，這也拉低了利率，讓美國人不僅能買到便宜的衣服和電子商品，還能買到便宜的房子和汽車。

Economic reform has waxed and waned in China. The WTO deal was supposed to curb the power of China’s state-owned enterprises, which Beijing pledged would operate on commercial terms only. By some measures, that has occurred. 

中國的經濟改革起起伏伏。加入世貿組織預計將遏制中國國有企業的權力，北京承諾按商業邏輯行事。在某些尺度上，確實如此。

Nicholas Lardy, a China expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, estimates that state-owned firms now account for just 20% of China’s industrial output, down from double that share in 2001.

彼得森國際經濟研究所中國問題專家尼古拉斯·拉迪預計，現在國有企業只占中國工業產值的20%，而2001年則占40%。

But there has been a reversal in the past few years, according to Mr. Lardy. State investment in the economy is growing as much as three times faster than private investment, he says. State firms have once again become the heart of Chinese economic policy-making.

但拉迪稱，最近幾年出現反覆。經濟體中的國家投資比民間投資增長速度快兩倍。國有企業再次成為中國經濟決策的核心。

Beijing is counting on such firms to become global leaders in semiconductors, electric vehicles, robotics and other high-technology sectors and is funding them through subsidies and financing from state banks. 

北京指望國有公司成為半導體、電子設備、機器人和其他高科技部門的全球領導者，通過補貼和國有銀行融資的方式資助它們。

These initiatives have raised protests from U.S. companies that now find themselves competing with the Chinese state. In solar and wind power, for example, state investment created a glut that drove many foreign companies out of business.

這些舉動引發美國公司的抗議，它們發現自己在和中國這個國家競爭。例如在太陽能和風能領域，國家投資製造了大量剩餘產品，將外國公司擠出了該行業。

China never fully followed through on its WTO pledge to allow foreign banks to operate in its local currency. It also pledged not to force foreign firms to transfer their technology, but today about one in five companies—many in aerospace and chemical industries—say that they’ve been pressured to do just that in order to do business in China, according to a July survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

中國並未完全履行入市承諾，允許外資銀行以當地貨幣開展業務。中國還承諾不迫使外國公司轉讓技術，但7月位於上海的美國商會一項調查顯示，如今五分之一的公司表示他們受到壓力轉讓技術，以便在中國做生意，公司主要來自航空航天和化工行業。

At a WTO session this month, China’s vice minister of commerce, Wang Shouwen, denied that China twists arms to gain technology. Arrangements on technology are “absolutely contractual behavior based on voluntary business deals,” Mr. Wang said in July, according to a Geneva trade official.

本月WTO會議上，中國商務部副部長王受文否認中國以不正當方式獲取技術。日內瓦一位貿易官員稱，王受文說，對技術的安排是“基於自願商業交易的絕對合規的行為”。

China has also maneuvered to its advantage within the WTO. In one case it blocked exports of scarce raw materials needed by high-tech industries, hurting foreign firms. When the WTO ruled against Beijing on one set of restrictions, it removed the barriers—but then blocked another set of raw materials. 

中國還設法利用世貿規則。中國阻止高科技產業所需的稀有原材料出口，傷害了外國公司。世貿組織判決北京不能對某種原材料施加限制時，北京取消了限制，但隨後對另一種原材料進行限制。

Other Chinese efforts to win an advantage in trade have happened outside the WTO’s purview. For years after joining the international trade regime, Beijing kept its currency undervalued by 30%, boosting Chinese exports by making them cheaper abroad, says Brad Setser, a currency expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

中國在貿易上獲取優勢的辦法不限於世貿管轄範圍。外交關係委員會貨幣專家布拉德·賽斯特說，加入國際貿易體系多年後，北京讓貨幣貶值30%，促進中國出口。

Charlene Barshefsky, who was Mr. Clinton’s U.S. Trade Representative, says that her successors could have used the WTO to sue China to live up to its agreements. She points in particular to provisions that protected U.S. industries from escalating Chinese imports. President George W. Bush turned down all import-surge cases brought by American companies, and President Barack Obama approved just one. Neither brought any cases on their own.

克林頓先生的美國貿易代表沙琳·巴舍夫斯基說，她的繼任者應該在世貿組織起訴中國，讓中國履行承諾。她特別指出那些保護美國產業、抵制中國進口品日益增加的條款。小布什總統拒絕了美國公司提出的所有有關進口高漲的案子，奧巴馬總統只批准了一個。兩屆政府都沒有主動提出訴訟。

A former senior Bush administration official said that “the national interest was not served by raising protectionist barriers.” Growth in imports, the former official says, doesn’t mean that China has acted improperly. Obama officials made similar arguments.

前布什政府高級官員說，“貿易保護主義壁壘不符合國家利益”。這位官員說，進口增長不意味着中國行為不當。奧巴馬政府官員也這樣說。

Mr. Lighthizer, who is now helping to call the shots on U.S. trade policy, says that if the WTO deal had failed in Congress, “uncertainty would have kept the trade deficit from growing and probably would have saved millions of manufacturing jobs.”

現在負責美國貿易政策的萊特希澤先生說，如果讓中國加入世貿組織的協議未獲國會通過，“這種不確定性本可以阻止貿易逆差增長，或許可以挽救成百上千萬製造業崗位”。

But other WTO opponents believe that congressional rejection wouldn’t have made much of a difference for the U.S. With its vast supply of industrious, low-wage workers, China would have continued to rise as an export powerhouse, they say. Indeed, in the 15 years before its WTO entry, U.S. imports from China grew at a faster rate than in the 15 years after, albeit from a much lower base.

但也有世貿反對者相信，國會的拒絕不會給美國帶來什麼不同。有着大量勤勞、低薪的工人，中國將繼續成為出口大國。確實，加入世貿組織前15年中，美國從中國的進口比中國加入世貿組織15年後還快，儘管基數低。

Keeping China out of the WTO might have delayed by a few years the damage to U.S. communities from low-cost imports, though it’s not clear that the extra time would have helped. In the 17 years since China’s entry, the U.S. has poured few resources into worker retraining programs or other social safety net programs for laid-off workers. The programs in which it did invest had mixed results.

不讓中國加入世貿組織，或許能將低成本進口商品對美國的損害延緩幾年，儘管多出幾年是否有用尚不清楚。中國入世17年來，美國幾乎未給工人再培訓或其他下崗工人的社會安全網項目投入過什麼資源。過去投資這些項目的結果好壞參半。

“I don’t know that [a defeat for the Clinton WTO deal] would have made a difference,” says David Bonior, a former Democratic House Minority Whip, who led the congressional fight against it.

“我不知道是否會有不同，”前民主黨少數黨黨鞭戴維·博尼爾說，他曾領導國會議員反對中國入世。

Ms. Barshefsky still believes in a multilateral approach to China. She would revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade pact between the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim nations, which Mr. Trump discarded on his first working day in office, and extend it to other Asian nations and Europe. The members could negotiate new rules of trade, cutting tariffs and covering state-owned enterprises, import surges, subsidies and other issues relevant to China.

巴舍夫斯基女士仍然相信要對中國採取多邊主義方式。她建議重興跨太平洋夥伴關係並把其他亞洲國家和歐洲包含進來，這是美國和11個環太平洋國家簽訂的自貿協定，特朗普上任第一天就退出了。她認為，成員國可以就新的貿易規則進行討論，削減關稅，管理國有企業、進口暴漲、補貼和其他與中國有關的問題。

“Then China would need to make a decision,” she says. “It can come on board, or it can decide it doesn’t want full access to 60% of the global economy.”

“然後中國就要做出決定了，”她說。“中國可以來談，或者決定不加入占全球經濟六成的體系。”

Mr. Lighthizer has a different view. The U.S. should go it alone and threaten China with heavy tariffs, he says, largely leaving the WTO out of the mix as an adjudicator of U.S. grievances.

萊特希澤先生卻不這麼看。他認為美國應該自己干，以高額關稅威脅中國，把世貿組織扔到一邊，不把世貿組織當做解決美國不滿的裁決者。

“The notion that our problems with China can be solved by bringing more cases at the WTO alone is naive at best and at worst distracts policy makers from facing the gravity of the challenge,” his agency said in a January 2018 report.

他所在的機構在2018年1月的報告中說：“我們與中國的問題，光是通過在世貿組織提交更多的訴訟案就能夠得以解決，這種想法說好聽點是天真的，說難聽點是轉移決策者的注意力，忽視了嚴峻的挑戰”。

Instead, the USTR said, the U.S. must rely on its own economic muscle. “Ultimately, that’s all you have anyway,” Mr. Lighthizer says.

相反，美國貿易代表署說，美國要依靠自己的經濟實力。“說到底，還是要看經濟實力，”萊特希澤說。

瞅啥  來源：《英文聯播》

金焱看美國 | 鬧到這個地步，中美能否再回到從前？

川普讓歐美合流了嗎？| 大西洋月刊