近日，中美双边经贸磋商因美方原因受挫，美国继而打压华为等中国公司，开启 “科技冷战”。
面对这一局势，不少专家学者深表担忧。
耶鲁大学高级研究员、摩根士丹利亚洲区前主席斯蒂芬·罗奇（Stephen S. Roach）就认为，中美冲突已经明确进入了危险地带。
斯蒂芬·罗奇（Stephen S.Roach）
斯蒂芬·罗奇向中国日报旗下传播型智库中国观察独家撰文《从贸易战到冷战》（“From Trade War to Cold War”），观点犀利，有理有据，一起来看看。
中美冲突进入危险地带
文章认为，尽管中美在6月下旬举行的大阪G20峰会上达成某些协议的可能性仍然很大，但这样的协议大多都是表面上的。
Amid charges and counter-charges, the US-China conflict has now moved squarely into the danger zone.
在指控和反指控中，中美冲突已经直接滑入危险地带。
And
 in light of the sharp recent escalation of pressures from the American 
side — the early May hike in tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of 
Chinese exports to the US along with a promise of more to come on the 
remaining $325 billion of exports, together with a full frontal assault 
in Huawei — even the odds of a cosmetic agreement are slipping by the 
day.
继对2000亿美元中国输美产品加征的关税从10%上调至25%后，美方又进一步威胁启动对剩下的3250亿美元中国输美产品增加关税，同时对华为展开全面攻击。由于美国对中国的压力急剧上升，即使是达成表面协议的可能性也在一天天地下降。
而华盛顿习惯性打压中国的嗜好已经上升到一个新高度（Washington's penchant for China bashing has been taken to an entirely new level）。
共和党和民主党在刁难中国这一点上难得地达成了一致。
Republicans
 and Democrats agree on very little these days. But blaming China for 
America’s economic ills resonates across the political spectrum.
共和党和民主党现今很难达成一致意见。但指责中国是造成美国经济困境的罪魁祸首，却成为美国政界的和鸣。
Once
 the pro-business constituency of free trade, the Trump takeover of the 
Republican Party has now embraced tariffs with open arms.
特朗普曾是自由贸易的支持者，政策亲商，但如今接管了共和党，却对关税张开了双臂。
For
 pro-working class Democrats, many of whom have long warned of the 
perils of globalization and trade liberalization, the transformation 
into tariff warriors has been relatively easy.
对于支持工人阶级的民主党人来说，他们中的许多人早就发出过全球化和贸易自由化的危险警告，转变为关税战士自然相对容易。
After years of abusive trade practices, goes the shared bipartisan rhetoric, it is high time America stood up against China.
在做了多年的违规贸易之后，两党来了一番共同论调：美国是时候站出来反对中国了。
美国打压中国，
甚于当年对待日本
斯蒂芬·罗奇认为，今天美国对中国的攻击力度已经远远超出了30年前对日本的打压。
Back
 then, the US manufacturing sector was experiencing its first taste of 
pressures on jobs and real wages that could be traced to a sharply 
widening trade deficit. A mercantilist Japan, fixated on suppressing the
 value of the yen and accounting for about 42% of the total US 
merchandise trade deficit in the first half of the 1980s, was the 
culprit.
当时，美国制造业首次感受到就业和工资的压力，这可以追溯到贸易赤字的急剧扩大。而重商主义的日本是罪魁祸首，他们执着于压低日元汇率，占上世纪80年代初美国商品贸易逆差总额的42%左右。
This
 led to the so-called Plaza Accord of 1985, when the so-called G-5 
coalition of leading industrial nations put Japan in a straight-jacket 
of currency appreciation that led to asset bubbles and a string of lost 
decades of economic stagnation and deflation.
这导致了1985年所谓的“广场协议”，当时五大工业国联盟联合干预外汇市场将日本置于货币升值中，从而使日本陷入资产泡沫和持续几十年的经济停滞和通货紧缩。
中国领导层仔细研究过日本的教训，所以拒绝西方类似的建议。
And
 so Washington has embraced different and tougher tactics to address a 
Chinese threat that it judges to be far more serious than that which 
arose from Japan back in the late 1980s.
因此，华盛顿采取了不同和更强硬的策略来应对中国威胁。在他们看来，中国的威胁要比上世纪80年代末日本的威胁严重得多。
图片来源于网络 
美国惯于把自己当受害者
从打压日本到打压中国，美国总是将自己视为受害者，把自己造成的经济问题归咎于他人（blame others for economic problems that are very much of its own making）。
然而，美国这种推卸责任的行为与宏观经济学（macroeconomics）最基本的原理背道而驰。
经济学专业的学生都知道简单的国民收入核算恒等式，即投资等于储蓄。
这个问题带来的必然结果就是：
When
 nations are short of saving and want to invest and grow, they must 
borrow surplus saving from abroad and run current account deficits in 
order to attract the foreign capital.
当各国缺乏储蓄，又希望投资和增长时，他们必须从国外借入盈余储蓄，并常年保持账户赤字，从而吸引外资。
These
 balance-of-payments deficits — which the US has experienced in every 
year since 1982 (with the exception of 1991, when the US ran a small 
surplus by charging other nations for its military campaign to wage the 
Gulf War) — are a recipe for trade deficits. 
自1982年以来美国每年都经历过国际收支赤字（1991年除外，当时美国向其他国家收取发动海湾战争的军事行动的少量盈余），这些国际收支逆差是造成贸易逆差的主要原因。
But
 since the trade deficits stem from macro saving-investment imbalances, 
they tend to be broad based, or multi-lateral, in scope. Indeed, in 
2018, the United States had merchandise trade deficits with 102 
countries.
不过，由于贸易逆差源于宏观储蓄-投资失衡，它们的范围往往是广泛的，或者说是多边的。事实上，2018年美国对102个国家的商品贸易出现逆差。
而这也是抨击中国的漏洞所在。美国政府以为消除中国的逆差就能“让美国再次伟大”。
Yes,
 China accounted for fully 48% of America’s massive $879 billion 
merchandise trade deficit in 2018. That makes it a lightning rod in the 
current US policy debate. Eliminating the Chinese piece of the deficit, 
goes the argument, is the only way to “make America great again” and 
thereby alleviate pressures on American workers.
没错，2018年，美国8790亿美元商品贸易逆差中，中国占了整整48%。在关于当前美国政策的讨论中，中国也就成了众矢之的。他们认为，“让美国再次伟大”的唯一办法是消除中国的这一部分逆差，从而也能够减轻美国工人的压力。
If it were only that easy. For a saving-short US economy, there is no bilateral fix for a multilateral problem.
要是有这么简单就好了。对于储蓄不足的美国经济，多边问题没有双边解决办法。
这是一场“打鼹鼠”游戏
如今，美国把火力都对准了中国，对于这种做法，斯蒂芬·罗奇打了一个比方：
A China-centric solution is like “whack-a-mole.” 
以中国为核心的解决方案就像“打鼹鼠”游戏。
因为根本问题并未得到解决：
Eliminating
 one piece of the trade deficit without fixing the saving problem — a 
very real possibility in light of a further depression of domestic 
saving following from the ill-timed Trump tax cuts of late 2017 — simply
 means that trade will be diverted from China to other foreign 
producers.
由于2017年末特朗普减税的时机不合时宜，直接的可能性是国内储蓄进一步低迷。在不解决储蓄问题的情况下，消除一部分贸易逆差，只意味着贸易将从中国转移到其他外国生产商手中。
Inasmuch
 as China is one of America's lowest cost foreign suppliers, that means 
the trade diversion will invariably go to higher cost foreign producers —
 the functional equivalent of a tax hike on American consumers.
由于中国是美国成本最低的外国供应商之一，这意味着贸易转移必然会流向成本较高的外国生产商。这就相当于在美国消费者头上增税。
所以，针对中国的猛烈攻击还可能对美国经济产生反作用。
这便引发了一个更深层次的问题：为什么美国政府还要推行这样的战略呢？
The answer is as much an outgrowth of hegemonic overreach as it is a reflection China's alleged unfair trading practices.
答案既是霸权扩张的结果，也是针对所谓中国的不公平贸易行为的反映。
With
 the dollar pre-eminent as the world's reserve currency, the United 
States has developed a sense of entitlement toward open-ended budget 
deficits that are funded by dollar-denominated debt issuance in its own 
currency.
随着美元作为世界储备货币地位的加强，美国越发觉得自己有资格无限制扩大财政赤字，这种财政赤字是以发行美元计价的本币债券作为支撑的。
图片来源于网络 
Never
 mind the inefficiencies of a healthcare system that eats up 18% of GDP,
 or a defense budget that is essentially equal to the combined military 
outlays of the next seven largest defense budgets around the world.
所以，不用管低效的医疗体系了，尽管它消耗了18%的GDP，也不用管国防预算了，尽管它庞大到相当于位居美国之后7个军费支出大国之和。
Washington
 would rather pursue fiscal recklessness than come clean with the 
American public. And it would rather blame the consequences of such a 
strategy on the trading practices of others than take a long hard look 
in the mirror.
华盛顿政府宁愿在财政政策上如此鲁莽，也不愿向美国公众坦白。他们宁愿把这样一种策略的后果归咎于其他国家的贸易行为，也不愿认真地照照镜子在自己身上找原因。
承担不了责任，就抹黑中国吧
同时，美国政府还下大功夫抹黑中国，以证明自己充满攻击性的贸易政策是正当的。
China
 has been charged with a number of so-called Section 301 violations of 
the US Trade Act of 1974 and vilified, accordingly, in the arena of US 
public opinion.
中国被指控违反所谓《1974年贸易法》第301条的多项规定，也由此遭到美国公众舆论的严重诋毁。
Yet the evidence behind such allegations is flimsy at best and outright misleading at worst.
然而，这些指控背后的证据往好了说是站不住脚，往严重了说，完全是误导。
Apparently,
 it is much easier to find comfort in the false narrative than to accept
 responsibility for fiscal excesses and saving shortfalls that spawn the
 macroeconomic imbalances that give rise to multilateral trade deficits.
显然，通过抹黑别人寻找慰藉，可比承担起责任，承认美国储蓄不足是导致宏观经济失衡和多边贸易逆差的主要原因，容易多了。
单纯解决贸易逆差就有用了吗
讽刺之处在于，此类贸易协议即便达成，也只是看重中国承诺购买超过1万亿美元的美国制造的商品，由此缩小两国间的贸易不平衡。
This
 is pure political theater at its worst — underscoring the folly of a 
bilateral fix for a multilateral problem. As noted above, the bilateral 
fix is a recipe for trade diversion that does next to nothing in 
providing lasting relief for American workers and consumers.
这等于是在以双边贸易手段解决多边问题，极其愚蠢，简直是一场政治闹剧。正如上文所述，双边解决方案是对贸易转移有效，但长远来看，对于长期缓解美国工人和消费者的压力却无济于事。
最重要的是，单纯解决双边贸易逆差并没有触及到长久威胁两国局势的结构性问题（the
 fixation on the bilateral trade deficit fails to address the structural
 issues that threaten lasting tensions between the two nations）。
而市场准入就是这些结构性问题中的一个：
Market
 access is at the top of that list — the opportunity of multinational 
corporations in both nations to invest freely in each other's markets. 
The US claims that China's joint venture requirements imposed on such 
investments is a recipe for forced technology transfer.
市场准入至关重要，这是指两国跨国公司在彼此市场上自由投资的机会。美国声称，中国企业对合资企业提出的技术转让要求，实质上是对专利创新和知识产权的强制窃取。
2018年，美国总统特朗普4月5日要求美国贸易代表办公室（USTR）依据“301调查”，考虑对从中国进口的额外1000亿美元商品加征关税（图片来源于网络）
As
 highlighted in the March 2018 Section 301 report of the US Trade 
Representative (USTR), this charge has become the poster child of the 
US-China dispute and the foundational evidence for Trump’s tariffs. This
 has occurred despite the fact that the USTR admits (on page 19 of the 
March 2018 report) that there is no direct evidence to support the 
allegation that technology transfer is forced by joint ventures that 
represent voluntary agreements between US and Chinese partners. Once 
again, the false narrative apparently matters more than fact-based 
analytics.
正如美国贸易代表办公室（USTR）2018年3月的301条款报告所强调的那样，这已经成为美国的典型指控，也是特朗普关税政策的基本证据——尽管USTR承认（在2018年3月19日的报告第19页）并没有直接证据支撑美国和中国合作伙伴之间签署自愿协议的合资企业迫使技术转让的指控。再一次，抹黑显然比基于事实的分析更重要。
解决办法还是有的
斯蒂芬·罗奇认为，中美还是有许多务实的解决方法来缓和双边关系。如以下三例：
? Bilateral Investment Treaty.
双边投资协定。
Market
 access is best addressed through the formalization of cross-border 
investment rules and standards that are stipulated in a bilateral 
investment treaty (BIT).
市场准入最好是通过双边投资协定中规定的跨境投资规则和标准的正规化来解决。
The
 United States currently has 42 BITs on the books and China has 145. 
Under a BIT, foreign ownership caps can be eliminated, thereby rendering
 joint ventures unnecessary and taking allegations of forced technology 
transfer off the table.
美国累计签订了42个双边投资协定，中国累计签订了145个。在双边投资协定框架内，可以取消外资持股上限，这样讨论合资公司就不再那么重要，有关被迫技术转让的指控也即不成其为问题了。
Prior
 to the 2016 presidential election in the United Sates, the US and China
 spent 10 years attempting to negotiate a BIT. Stymied by Trump’s 
tariffs, those negotiations have been suspended.
在2016年美国总统大选之前，美国和中国花了10年时间试图谈判。由于受到特朗普关税政策的阻碍，这些谈判已经暂停。
Restarting BIT negotiations would be the single best strategy to resolve the thorny issue of forced technology transfer.
重启双边投资协定谈判将是解决棘手的技术转让问题的主要策略。
? Trans Pacific Partnership.
跨太平洋伙伴关系。
The
 political decision to abrogate America's commitment to TPP in the first
 days of the Trump presidency was a mistake. This multilateral agreement
 provided a high-quality framework linking 12 nations accounting for 40%
 of world GDP through cross-border trade liberalization, labor 
standards, intellectual property rules, Internet protocols, and 
environmental norms.
在特朗普总统任期的头几天就废除了美国对TPP承诺，这个政治决定是个错误。这项多边协议提供了一个高质量的框架，通过跨境贸易自由化、劳工标准、知识产权规则、互联网协议和环境规范，将12个占世界GDP40%的国家连接起来。
With
 China on the outside looking in, TPP would have provided a powerful 
mechanism for Chinese conformity to many of the structural norms that 
are currently being contested. While a rethinking of America’s TPP 
strategy may not be politically possible for President Trump, it may 
well be a realistic option after the 2020 presidential 
election.TPP将为中国遵守目前备受争议的许多结构性规范提供一个强有力的机制。虽然对特朗普总统来说，重新考虑美国的TPP战略在政治上是不可能的，但在2020年总统大选之后，这很可能是一个现实的选择。
? Global cyber accord. 
全球网络协议。
Like
 the trade conflict, this is not a bilateral problem. The US and China 
should take the lead in forging a global cyber accord, complete with 
pooled metrics of cyber incursions, attack-reduction targets and a 
robust dispute-resolution mechanism.
与贸易冲突一样，这不是一个双边问题。美国和中国应率先打造一项全球网络协议，包括网络入侵、减少攻击目标和强有力的争端解决机制等综合指标。
当前世界迫切需要政治智慧
在文章的最后，斯蒂芬·罗奇指出，面对当前局势，现在这个世界比以往任何时候都更加迫切地需要政治智慧。
The
 United States and China are on a collision course. The world’s two 
largest economies have accounted for fully 44% of world GDP growth since
 2008. If they opt for a superficial resolution or fail to come to terms
 on their trade conflict, the global economy could well falter. 
Resolution is possible but it won’t be easy in the current climate. 
如今，美国和中国有发生严重冲突的可能性。自2008年以来，这世界上最大的两个经济体已经占据全球GDP增长的44%。如果他们没能选择正确的解决方案，或者未能就贸易冲突达成协议，那么全球经济很可能就会摇摇欲坠。问题并非不可解决，但在现今的氛围下并不是一件容易的事情。
Saving-short
 America's bipartisan political support of China bashing is especially 
problematic in threatening to turn a trade war into a protracted and 
destructive economic cold war. Now, more than ever, a fragile world is 
in desperate need of political will and wisdom — and a leadership 
courage that is sorely lacking today.
储蓄短缺的美国政坛上下对中国进行大力抨击，这有可能将贸易战变成一场旷日持久、具备破坏性的经济冷战。现在这个世界比以往任何时候都更加迫切地需要政治智慧，以及一种极度缺乏的、领导者应当具备的胆识。
斯蒂芬·罗奇
Stephen S.Roach
耶鲁大学高级研究员，摩根士丹利亚洲区前主席，他被公认为华尔街最具影响力的经济学家之一。他的研究著作被金融报刊和其他传媒广为引用，最新著作是《失衡：美国与中国的相互依存》（Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China(2014)）。