欲加之罪与自欺欺人

一场贸易战开打，暴露出很多信息：美国精英界对中国的了解，还是极为的贫乏甚至是到了无知的地步。这里贴出的是一个很活跃的美国国家安全分析师的大作。她二十五岁就获得伦敦经济学院国际关系专业的博士学位，年少得志，分析的好像也有模有样，代表了美国精英的思维能力和思维方式。川普就是这类美国人的代表。

贸易战开打的理由是贸易的不平衡，川普觉得中国人占便宜太多，原因则是中国人的不对等贸易条件，人为的屏蔽自己的巨大市场，不让美国商人进入。现在的川普，就是要打破这个壁垒。同时，作者她还很自豪的回顾了一下历史：当年美国是如何崛起的，中国又是如何衰败的。最终，又是因为共产党的得势，才让中国有了今天这种“熊”样子，只能等着被美国人欺凌，不可能有还手之力。她的意思是说，美国精英界都一致性的支持川普的强硬，都觉得，只要总统坚持下去，中国政府就必须屈服，没有选择，也不可能有选择。

这种分析，粗看似乎很有道理，细看，漏洞百出。所以，在你笑中国人缺乏知识素养的时候，你也得注意到，美国精英的知识素养也充满了“伪”：伪知识，伪逻辑，伪证据，最终变成强盗逻辑，随后就基于这种强盗逻辑搞欲加之罪。

贸易战，有其积极的成分，我赞成美国对中国施压，促其作出改变，特别是涉及到劣根性的部分，没有强大的来自外部的压力，再过几百年，中国人还会依旧，基于所谓的“中国特色”过日子。

盗版成风，举国长期的藐视知识产权，确实是中国人的劣根性所在。强制性的技术转移，以市场换技术，也是当初没有办法的办法，而且，换的也是极为低端的技术。高级点，那时的中国人想学也把握不了，蛇吞象会被噎死的。

制造壁垒，人为的制造障碍，也是中国的劣根性。每个省和地区，都在想办法的各自为政，才有了一再大量的低端重复，持续的浪费。据说，省级高速公路将实现年底前取消收费，如果做到，就是个不小的进步。贸易战之后，如果能够实现彻底的打破壁垒，让市场流通更加流畅，是件好事，利国利民。

类似的做法和施压没有错。这些美国精英，错的是对中国国情的不理解，和无限度的霸道性施压，带有羞辱和不知天高地厚。

其一，算法不对。贸易差额远没有川普以为的那么高，基于这种错误数据，他得出的打击力度，就会误导自己。估计他自己也明白，却装糊涂，看看中国人是不是好糊弄。

其二，开打之后，总统也一定明白，不可能像他想象的那样，“将使美国变的更加强大，中国变的弱小甚至是崩溃”。我觉得，最极端的情况，即使中国和美国不再有贸易往来，中国也不会崩溃！毕竟，自己内部就有那么大的一个市场，而且，经济发展水平已经达到一个不错的层次，基本的工业体系已经完善。倒是美国，已经失去了制造业，特别是低端部分的，失去了中国中国廉价的工厂，哪里去找替代？谁有能力替代？替代不了的结果又会是什么？美国人开始支付高价来自己生产？那么，美国选民会不会答应？忽悠选民只会有效于短期的一时，后面呢？民众也是有感觉的，特别是钱袋子发生巨大变化之后。

其三，川普自己一定明白，自己可用的时间并不多，他也想尽快的促成贸易协议，而且尽可能是自己夸口“可以”获得的。但是，他面对的是完全不同的对手，这个对手，比昔日的 俄国强大多了，没有那么容易打趴的。即使如此，他依然一次次的出口不逊，难不成，他不怕最终自己很难下台？这种博弈，就看中国政府的智慧了。

中国方面也有两难：如果下决心做大的政治改革，就此应对贸易战，以此为契机实现民族复兴，美国后面一定会后悔，弄巧成拙，结果唤醒了 一头巨狮。但是，美国政府在赌：中国共产党不会拥有这般的睿智！权力大于一切。当前看，后者更可能是现实。这也是中国政府绝对不愿意退让的底线。就是这个底线，让美国人看到了中国政府的真正软弱所在，而且是可以充分利用的软弱。中国政府最终可能只能是作茧自缚，任人欺凌，就是为了一时的政权和权力结构体系的维持和安稳，这才是中国现在最可悲的地方。美国人赌的是中国政府不会有胆识，否则，结果将是强大无比的中国。

其四，对于中国来说，共产党当年的获胜，应该是件好事。美国人不承认这点，因为那是美国的失败。但是，这是时代的选择，不一定是人民的选择。如果中国继续是个战火连天，支离破碎的大国，是又一个中东，对于美国，对于世界文明，也未必是什么好事。

问题是，中国共产党的与时俱进，会进步到什么程度？

现在的中国就是中国人的中国，共产党打算继续对谁专政？

政治敏感性方面的问题，就不继续问了。多数，大家都心知肚明。

延伸阅读：

Rebecca Grant: For Trump, the China trade war began long ago – and this is a war he’s determined not to lose

By Rebecca Grant, Published May 10, 2019, Fox News

Round 11 of U.S.-China trade talks wrapped with no deal Friday, after President Trump raised tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent. Beijing was close to a deal a week ago. Then China balked.

Wall Street is reacting to the uncertainty. So are American farmers and businesses.

"Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker," the president tweeted Friday. "Just sit back and watch! In the meantime, China should not renegotiate deals with the U.S. at the last minute."

How can Trump appear so calm? He doesn’t like tariffs any more than you do. He actually wants U.S.-China trade to grow – but not until China changes two decades of bad behavior.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping left themselves plenty of diplomatic wiggle room this week. The tariffs don’t hit goods already in transit, which staves off their impact until late May. Trump also knows the Chinese can't immediately find alternative markets for $539 billion in goods, and that should keep them at the table.

The president was careful to delay tariffs for the rest of the $325 billion in products imported from China. That’s his style, and it’s an important point.

Sure, Trump likes to talk and tweet. But when it comes to action, he has proven quite methodical, even cautious, with the tools of U.S. power, both military and economic. True to form, he rolled out the China tariffs in small batches over the past year. He’s taking measured steps.

But the single most important element is Trump’s determination not to lose this trade war. He’s picked his battle.

Realize that for Trump, this trade war began long ago. And he’s long since accepted that America lost the first battle by not doing enough to engage China on trade rules from 2001 to 2017.

The U.S.-China trade deficit was about $118 billion (inflation-adjusted) when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and started exporting goods with no tariffs. Last year it was $419 billion. True, U.S. sales to China went up, but not enough.

It should never have gone on for so long. Over the past 20 years, we let China gush out exports without getting fair access to China’s market.

Yes, U.S. companies do a lot of business in China. But Beijing throws in barriers and restrictions that limit sales. When Japan and Europe grew their exports from the 1950s to the 1980s, they abided by rules and allowed U.S. businesses to operate in their countries under fair terms. They were allies, not thieves.

The world hoped the Chinese would behave well. After all, they’re a powerhouse. They invented fireworks and gunpowder and sent spaghetti home with Marco Polo 700 years ago.

China was the world’s biggest economic power back when America was t3 colonies trading animal skins and using whiskey for money. There’s a reason your dishes are called “china.”

Beginning in the 19th century, internal turmoil, world events, some British imperialism, and a failure to industrialize knocked China off its game. Then came war and communism. America rose in the 20th century while China was in the dirt.

In the 1990s, China stepped slowly back into the world market. Fine. Trade grew slowly at first. But China set up all sorts of tricks and barriers to its huge domestic market. The result? Massive trade imbalances. In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans both turned a blind eye. You know the rest.

The peak came when China surpassed Canada as the top U.S. trading partner in 2015. Get this. Canada, with a population of 37 million people, buys $298 billion in U.S. goods per year. China, with 1.38 billion people, buys less than half that amount – just $120 billion in U.S. goods.

Even granting that Canada is our neighbor, which facilitates trade, these numbers show something is very wrong with China’s trade practices.

The Chinese want a win-win. They’ve said so. The U.S. wants fairness and reciprocity. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer won’t back down on key issues like intellectual property, forced technology transfer, tariff and non-tariff barriers, and enforcement of agreements.

Australia went 21 rounds negotiating its China trade deal back in 2015.  But it worked out. China and Australia ended up with a positive deal for both sides, with 95 percent of products tariff-free.

Trump doesn’t want long-term tariffs. He wants a deal, and the markets know it.

As Trump once said, sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. What you need generally is enough time and a little luck.

Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst based in Washington, D.C.  She earned her Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics at age 25 then worked for RAND and on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Since founding IRIS Independent Research, she has specialized in research for government and aerospace industry clients ranging from analysis of military campaigns to projects on major technology acquisition such as the B-21 bomber.