風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
財政部長耶倫在約翰?霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院關於美中經濟關係的講話
大家上午好。斯坦伯格院長，感謝你的熱情介紹。也感謝你為我們國家做的服務。我很感謝你的貢獻–不僅是你在政府任職期間的貢獻，還有在約翰?霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院的貢獻。
我特別高興來到貴院。約翰?霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院擁有全美國曆史最悠久、最全麵的中國研究項目之一。1979年，美國與中華人民共和國建立了全麵的外交關係。僅僅兩年後，貴校的負責人就與中國的同行直接會談，目標是研究約翰?霍普金斯大學和南京大學是否可以合作培養未來的領導人才。
結果是：霍普金斯大學—南京大學中心於 1986 年成立——這是現代中國最早的西方學術項目之一。 這一合作經受了我們兩國雙邊關係現實性和複雜性風風雨雨的考驗。但是，我相信，在這個校園裏就讀的學生見證了美中兩國人民的相互尊重。並且這些學子證明，如果我們開誠布公地進行溝通，世界各地的人們可以相互學習——即使我們有分歧時更應如此。
自我的職業生涯開始以來，美國與中國之間的關係經曆了重大的演化。在20世紀70年代，我們的關係的基調是和解和逐漸的正常化。我看到尼克鬆總統在1972年進行了著名的訪華之旅。我聽到我們兩國經過數十年的沉默後又開始相互交談。在後來的歲月裏，我看到中國選擇實施市場化改革，並向全球經濟開放，這推動中國逐漸成為世界第二大經濟體，中國的崛起進程令人印象深刻。來自世界銀行和其他國際經濟機構的援助為中國的發展提供了支持。美國國會和曆屆政府在支持中國融入全球市場方麵發揮了重要的作用。
但是，近年來，我也看到中國決定偏離市場化改革，轉而執行更多政府主導的方針政策，這一路線損害了中國的鄰國乃至世界各國的利益。與此同時，中國對待美國、我們的盟國和夥伴的姿態呈現愈加強烈的對抗性 – 不僅是在印太地區，而且在歐洲和其他區域。
現在，我們正處於一個關鍵時點。世界正在麵對自第二次世界大戰以來歐洲規模最大的地麵戰爭 – 而時間又恰好是歐洲剛走出百年一遇的疫情。低收入國家和中等收入國家的債務負擔愈加沉重。包括我國在內的一些國家的國內經濟體係和金融體係麵臨壓力。聯合國上月發布的一份報告顯示，如果現在不采取嚴厲的措施，地球有可能在未來十年越過全球變暖的一個關鍵臨界點。
要這些議題上取得進展，就要求世界上最大的兩個經濟體進行建設性的交流。然而，我們兩國之間的關係現在明顯處於緊張的狀態。
所以，我今天想談一談我國對華的經濟關係。我的目標是要做到明確和坦率：過濾掉噪音，基於冷靜的現實直白地闡述這一具有重要意義的關係。
美國對自己的長期經濟實力是有信心的。我國仍然是世界最大的、最有活力的經濟體。我們也堅定地捍衛我們的價值觀和國家安全。在這一前提下，我們尋求對華發展建設性的、公平的經濟關係。兩國應當有能力坦率地討論困難的議題，並且在條件允許的情況下我們兩國應該開展合作，從而造福於我們兩國乃至世界。
我國對華的經濟政策有三大目標。
第一，我們要維護我國的國家安全利益、我們的盟友和夥伴的國家安全利益。我們要保護人權。我們要把自己對中國的行為的關切明確地告知中方。我們將毫不猶豫的捍衛我國的切身利益。即使我們采取的有針對性的措施可能在經濟方麵產生影響，這些措施的出發點完全是為了解決我們在自己的安全和價值觀方麵的關切。我們的目標並非是利用這些工具去獲取經濟上的競爭優勢。
第二，我們尋求對華健康的經濟關係，這種關係能夠促進兩國的經濟增長和創新。一個遵守國際規則、經濟發展的中國對美國乃至世界都是好事。經濟領域中的良性競爭會讓兩國都受益。但是，要讓兩國都受益，要讓良性的經濟競爭具有可持續性，前提條件是這種競爭是公平的。我們將繼續與我們的盟友合作，共同對中國在經濟領域的不公平的行為做出反應。我們將繼續在國內的關鍵領域進行投資，同時要與國際社會一道努力建立我們所憧憬的開放、公平、基於規則的全球經濟秩序。
第三，在如今這個緊迫的全球性挑戰方麵我們尋求開展合作。自拜登總統和習主席去年會晤以來，兩國一直同意就宏觀經濟加強溝通，在氣候變化、債務負擔等議題方麵加強合作。但是，有必要作出更大的努力。我們呼籲中方按照自己的承諾就這些議題與我方開展合作，這不是給我們幫忙，而是出於我們兩國對世界的共同的責任和義務。共同解決這些問題也將增進我們兩國的國家利益。
我們兩國經濟的現狀
我首先談一談我們兩國經濟的現狀。
近年來，許多人認為美中衝突的必然性越來越來強，擔心美國在衰落是形成上述觀點的背後的原因。美國國內部分人士也是有這種擔憂的。按照上述觀點，中國即將超過我國，成為世界頭號經濟強國，從而導致兩國發生衝突。
值得指出的是，看衰美國的論調已經存在數十年了。但這一論調總是被證偽。美國多次證明自己有能力通過調整和創新麵對新的挑戰。這一次也不例外，經濟數據就是明證。
自冷戰結束以來，美國經濟增速超過了大多數的發達經濟體。在過去的兩年中，我國所實現的疫情後複蘇在主要發達經濟體中是最強勁的。我國的失業率接近於曆史低位。人均實際國內生產總值達到曆史高點。自有記錄以來，我國這兩年新企業的數量增幅最為強勁。
我國經濟的本輪複蘇要歸功於我國經濟基本麵牢固。當然，這並不意味著我們已經大功告成。在經濟領域我們的首要任務是控製住通脹，同時保護住本輪經濟複蘇的成果。幾周前，在發生兩家區域性金融機構經營失敗的事件後美國采取果斷的措施，以加強公眾對美國銀行體係的信心。美國的銀行體係保持了穩健性，我們將采取任何必要措施，以確保美國的金融體係繼續是世界上最強大、最安全的金融體係。
在過去的數十年中，中國經濟實現的崛起令人矚目。從1980年到2010年，中國經濟年均增長率為10%。這這導致中國實現了一個確實了不起的成就：數億的人口實現脫貧。中國經濟能夠快速追趕上來得益於該國推行對外全球貿易開放和市場改革的政策。
但是，與許多國家類似，中國如今也在近期麵臨自己的不利因素。這包括：房地產行業存在脆弱性；青年人失業率高企；居民消費羸弱。從更長的時間段看，中國麵臨結構性的挑戰。中國人口正在老齡化，勞動力人口的規模正在下降。中國的生產率增速出現大幅下滑，源於中國倒向經濟民族主義，奉行的政策大幅增加政府對經濟的幹預。這些近期的新情況都沒有減損中國取得的進步，也沒有減損中國人民的勤勞和智慧。但是，中國的長期增長率似乎可能要下滑。
當然，一個經濟體的體量並非決定其實力的唯一因素。美國不僅是世界最大的經濟體，而且在一係列的經濟指標方麵仍然占據頭把交椅——包括財富的總量、技術創新等各方麵。美國的人均國內生產總值在世界上居於前列，是中國人均國內生產總值的五倍以上。與其說是資源或地理條件造就了我國的成功，不如把我國的成功歸結為我國的人民、價值觀和製度。盡管美國的民主製度並非完美，但這一製度為思想的自由交流和法治保駕護航，而思想的自由交流和法治正是可持續的經濟增長的基石。我國的教育機構和科研機構世界領先。我國的創新文化讓我們有能力繼續創造出世界最尖端的的產品和產業。包括來自中國的新移民為我國的創新文化提供了新的養分。
重要的是，因為我們不是孤軍奮戰，我們的經濟實力得以放大。美國重視我們包括在印太地區的世界各地的密友和夥伴。在21世紀，任何孤立中的國家都不能讓本國人民享受到強勁的、可持續的經濟增長。因此，在拜登總統的領導下，我們一直努力鞏固和加強我國與其他國家的關係。
歸根到底，中國經濟發展與美國在經濟領域發揮領導作用並不是必然矛盾的。美國仍然是世界上最有活力、最繁榮的經濟體。我們沒有理由害怕與任何國家在經濟領域開展良性的經濟競爭。
維護我國的國家安全利益並保護人權
擺在我們的前麵有諸多的挑戰。但是，拜登總統和我認為，中美兩國能夠以負責任的方式管控好我們兩國之間的經濟關係。我們能夠努力在未來做到，兩國共享並推動全球經濟增長。我們是否讓這一願景落地在很大程度上取決於我們兩國在未來幾年如何行動。
我想談一談我們的第一目標：維護我國的國家安全並保護人權。這些是我們不會妥協的領域。
國家安全
跟我國處理與所有國家的外交關係一樣，國家安全在我國的對華關係中是重中之重。例如，我們已經明確表示，防止某些技術落入中國軍隊和安全機關的手中就是為了維護我國的切身國家利益。
為實現這一目標，我們有一係列的工具可以動用。在必要時，我們將在很窄的範圍采取有針對性的措施。美國政府的措施可以采取出口管製的形式。這些措施可以包括在實體清單上增加實體，限製那些為人民解放軍提供支持的實體獲取美國的技術。在涉及網絡安全和與中國的軍民融合相關的威脅方麵，美國財政部有權采取製裁措施。我們也對外國在美投資認真地進行國家安全風險審查，並采取必要的措施化解這樣的風險。我們正在考慮建立一項製度，在涉及那些對國家安全具有重大影響的特定敏感技術時，限製美國企業對外投資。
就我們采取的這些措施而言，我要明確指出，這些國家安全範疇的措施的出發點並非讓我們在經濟方麵取得競爭優勢，也不是為了遏製中國的經濟現代化和技術現代化。即使這些政策可能在經濟方麵造成影響，這些政策的依據也純粹是國家安全方麵的考慮。我們在這些問題上不會妥協，即使這樣的措施迫使我們在經濟利益方麵做出取舍。
在經濟領域就國家安全采取措施時，我們會遵循若幹重要的原則。
首先，這些措施的範圍會很窄、針對性很強，要達到的目的是明確的。這種措施的定位很準確，以緩解對其他領域的溢出效應。第二，一定要讓這些工具易懂，具有可操作性。並且在情況發生變化時，這些工具必須能夠隨時調整。第三，在條件允許的情況下，在設計和執行我們的政策時，我們會跟我們的盟友和夥伴進行交流和協調。
此外，為了化解發生誤解和矛盾意外升級的風險，溝通是必不可少的。我們在國家安全領域采取措施時，我們將繼續向其他國家闡述我們的政策邏輯。就副作用的問題我們會聽取並回應其他國家表達的關切。
我們認為最緊迫的國家安全問題之一是俄羅斯非法地無端地對烏克蘭發動戰爭。在我訪問基輔期間，我親眼目睹了俄羅斯的侵略有多麽的殘忍。俄羅斯轟炸醫院、摧毀文化場所、襲擊輸送能源的網絡，給平民造成沉重的苦難。結束俄羅斯的戰爭是我們的道義必選項。這將拯救許多無辜的生命。正如我曾經說過的那樣，這也是我們可以為全球經濟提供的最大利好。為結束俄羅斯的戰爭，我們推動建立的製裁機製是現代曆史上速度最快、最團結、雄心水平最高的多邊製裁機製。我們推動建立由夥伴國廣泛參與的聯盟也為烏克蘭提供了援助，以便讓該國能夠自衛。
中國對俄羅斯的“無上限” 夥伴關係和對俄羅斯的支持是一個令人憂慮的跡象，這表明中國對結束這場戰爭沒有報以認真的態度。必須確保，中國和其他國家不能為俄羅斯提供實質性支持或者協助俄羅斯規避製裁。我們將繼續以極其明確的方式向中國政府和中國政府管轄的企業闡明美國的立場。違反對俄製裁的行為將導致嚴重的後果。
人權
類似於國家安全問題，我們不會在保護人權方麵妥協。這一原則是我們對外交往的基礎。
世人已經親眼目睹中國政府在國內強化鎮壓。中國政府已經動用技術手段監控中國人民，並且正在向數十個國家出口監控技術。
侵犯人權的行為違反了世界的道德良知，也違反了聯合國的基本原則——幾乎每個國家，包括中國，都承諾遵守這些原則。無論世界上何地出現侵犯人權的行為，美國將繼續動用我們的工具進行阻止和威懾。
在與中國政府交往的公開場合和私下場合，美國就中國政府在新疆以及香港、西藏和中國其他地區的侵犯人權的行為表達了嚴重的關切。我們已經采取了行動並將繼續采取行動。就中國的地方官員和企業參與的一係列的侵犯人權的行為，我們已經采取製裁措施，他們的侵權行為包括酷刑和任意拘押等行為。我們現在限製進口那些來自新疆涉及強迫勞動的商品。
在采取上述措施的時，我們現在都是與我們的盟友協調行動，因為我們知道，大家一起行動時我們的措施的效果就更好。
邁向良性的經濟關係
我們不但要維護我國的安全利益，維護我們在人權方麵的價值觀，我們也要努力實現我們的第二個目標：那種讓兩國都受益的良性的經濟關係。
我首先闡述簡單的道理。美國和中國是世界上最大的兩個經濟體。我們兩國經濟相互融合的程度很深。我們兩國的貿易總額在2021年超過了7000億美元。我們與中國的貿易量超過了加拿大和墨西哥以外的任何國家。美國企業在華的經營規模相當之大。數以百計的中資企業在我國的證券交易所掛牌交易，正是這些交易所讓美國的資本市場成為世界上最具深度和流動性最強的資本市場。根據《自然》雜誌的指數，美國和中國在科研領域都是對方最重要的夥伴國。中國也是在美留學生的主要來源國這一。
正如我曾經說過的那樣，當我國切身利益受到威脅時，美國將堅持自己的立場。但是，我們並不尋求讓我國經濟與中國經濟“脫鉤”。讓我們兩國經濟徹底分離將對兩國都是災難性的，對其他國家和地區的穩定帶來衝擊。我們認識到，中國經濟和美國經濟的健康是緊密關聯的。一個遵守規則、經濟發展的中國對美國是有利的。例如，這意味著對美國產品和服務的需求量上升，意味著美國的產業更有活力。
在美國國內增加現代供給側投資
2021年4月，我以財長的身份首次就國際經濟政策發表一次重大的演講，我當時說：“在國外的信譽首先取決於在國內的信譽”。從根本上講，美國在21世紀的競爭能力取決於美國政府作出的選擇，而不是取決於中國政府作出的選擇。
我們的經濟戰略的核心是投資於自己——而不是壓製或者遏製任何其他經濟體。
自我那次演講以來的兩年期間，美國貫徹的經濟路線是我稱之為現代供給側經濟學。我們的政策的出發點是要擴大美國經濟的產能，即要提高我們經濟生產能力的上限。為此，拜登總統已簽署三部具有曆史意義的法案。我們頒布了《兩黨基礎設施法案》——這是我們這一代人在基礎設施建設方麵雄心水平最高的措施，將推動我國在道路、橋梁、港口和高速互聯網方麵的現代化建設。《芯片和科學法案》將推動美國的半導體製造業的規模實現曆史性的擴大。《通脹削減法案》讓我們對清潔能源的投資規模到達我國曆史的最高點。這些措施鞏固了美國在這些代表未來的產業中的實力，也會為我國經濟的長遠發展奠定更紮實的基礎。
在經濟領域裏的良性競爭：我們的願景和要求
美國主張在經濟領域開展良性的競爭，認識到這一性質很重要。
美國並不尋求在競爭中贏家通吃。相反，我們認為，如果按照一套公平的規則在經濟領域開展良性競爭，那麽隨著時間的推移兩國都會受益。根據經濟學的基本原則，持續不斷的競爭可以導致相互促進相互提高。持續對陣強手的運動隊發揮的水平更高。當企業為獲得消費者而競爭時，它們會生產出更加物美價廉的商品。以下的願景是可以實現的：美中兩國的企業都努力要比對方更優秀，兩國的經濟都得到發展，生活水平都得以提高，新的創新都能開花結果。
例如，個人電腦、核磁共振成像等來自美國的發明創造讓中國受益。同理，我相信，來自中國的新的科研成果和醫學進步也能讓美國人和世界受益——並激勵我們要在前沿領域加大研究和創新的力度。
但是，要想讓這種良性競爭具有可持續性的前提是這種競爭對雙方都是公平的。
長期以來，中國政府為本國企業提供支持，幫助它們增加自己的市場份額，從而壓低外國競爭對手的市場份額。但近年來，中國產業政策的複雜性和雄心都在增加。中國已經加大對國有企業和國內民營企業的支持的力度，以便讓它們在與外國競爭對手的競爭中勝出。這一路線不僅體現在傳統行業，還體現在新興技術領域。在貫徹這一戰略的同時，中國還以咄咄逼人的姿態獲取新的技術和知識產權——包括通過竊取知識產權和其他的非法手段。
在某些情況下，政府幹預是有道理的——例如為了糾正特定的市場失靈的問題。但是，中國政府動用非市場化工具的規模和廣度要比其他主要經濟體大得多。中國還對美國企業設置了許多市場準入方麵的壁壘，而這些壁壘是中國企業在美國不用麵對的。例如，按照中國政府經常提出的要求，外國企業要想在中國開展業務就要向中國國內企業轉讓自己的擁有自主知識產權的技術。中方在市場準入方麵設置的這些限製導致競爭環境有利於中國的企業。此外，中國針對美國企業的帶有脅迫性色彩的措施最近有所增加，而與此同時中方的表態是歡迎外資回來，我們對這一事態感到關切。
中國政府的措施已經對全球製造業的布局產生重大的影響。這些措施已經傷害美國乃至全球的勞動者和企業。
在某些情況下，中國也利用其經濟的力量對處於弱勢地位的貿易夥伴進行報複和脅迫。例如，針對其他國家在外交方麵的措施，中國以抵製特定商品的方式進行懲罰。中國采取這些措施往往是打著商業的旗號。但其真實的目標是為了讓那些做出讓中國不快的選擇的國家付出代價——從而迫使外國政府屈從於中國在政治上的要求。
具有諷刺意味的是，美國所倡導的開放、公平、基於規則的全球經濟秩序正是推動中國實現經濟轉型的國際秩序。中國的不公平的行為所導致的效率低下和脆弱性也許到頭來會損害中國自己的經濟增長。
中國的高層官員多次談及讓市場在資源配置方麵發揮“決定性作用”的重要意義——包括今年前不久的一次演講。如果中國政府能夠在實踐中沿著這一方向調整政策，讓自己宣示的改革目標落地，這將對中國乃至世界都是好事。
對中國在經濟領域的不公平的行為，我們要對中方施加壓力，與此同時，我們將繼續與我們的盟友和夥伴協調應對的措施。拜登總統的重點工作之一是確保我國關鍵供應鏈的韌性。在某些行業，中國在經濟領域的不公平的行為導致關鍵商品的生產活動過於集中於中國國內。在拜登總統的領導下，我們現在不僅在國內增加對製造業的投入，我們還在推行一項被稱為“友岸外包”的戰略，這一戰略旨在化解那些能夠導致供應鏈斷裂的薄弱環節。通過與一大批我們能靠得住的貿易夥伴進行合作，我們正在為我們的關鍵供應鏈增加備用能力。
當然，我們認識到，我們要加強全球經濟秩序的最佳方式，就是向世人證明這一秩序是有效的。我們對國際金融機構進行的投資和我們在世界各地深化對外關係的努力正在讓更多的人從國際經濟體係中受益。我們也在加快落實我們對發展中國家的承諾。例如，美國和七國集團的其他成員國的目標是，最晚到2027年要動員6000億美元的資金用於優質基礎設施的建設。我們重點關注那些能夠為這些國家在經濟上帶來正回報的項目，並讓它們的債務處於可持續的水平。當國際體係需要改革的時候，我們對改革是不會猶豫的。美國正在與多邊發展銀行的股東國合作推動改革，讓這些機構更好地應對當今緊迫的全球性挑戰——例如：氣候變化、大規模流行病、脆弱性和衝突。
在應對全球性挑戰方麵共同發揮領導作用
“在確定我國對華經濟關係的方針路線時，我們也要謀求實現我國的第三個目標：在重大的全球性挑戰方麵開展合作。重要的是，無論我們兩國在其他方麵有何分歧，我們兩國都要在全球性議題上取得進展。這正是世界需要美中兩個最大的經濟體所做的事情。”
作為一項基礎性工作，我們兩國必須繼續努力建立暢通的溝通渠道，從而在宏觀經濟和金融方麵開展合作。美中兩國經濟形勢的變化能夠很快地傳導至全球金融市場乃至全球經濟。就兩國如何應對經濟領域的衝擊，我們兩國必須堅持充分地交流意見。我與劉鶴副總理和中方其他高級官員的對話就是一個好的開端。我希望能和我的新的對口官員延續這種對話。
除了宏觀經濟，我今天想重點談兩個全球層麵的優先事項：債務負擔和氣候變化。管控這些問題的最佳方式是美中兩國能夠合作，並且我們與盟友和夥伴要協調行動。
債務負擔
首先，我們必須合作幫助那些麵臨債務困境的新興市場國家和發展中國家。全球債務問題並非中美之間的雙邊問題。這一問題關乎如何以負責任的方式在全球層麵上發揮領導作用。在官方借貸方麵中國現在是世界上最大的雙邊債權國，在債務國無法全額清償債務的時候，中國的這一身份導致自己必然要和其他雙邊債權國按照同一套規則承擔不可推卸的責任。
中國的參與對實質性的債務減免是不可或缺的。但是，長期以來，中國還沒有全麵及時地采取行動。中國成為采取必要措施的障礙。
今年早些時候，在我訪問讚比亞期間我親身感受到了減免債務的緊迫性。該國政商界領袖跟我談及讚比亞的債務負擔已經抑製政府和企業對關鍵領域的投入，阻礙了經濟發展。但是，讚比亞並非處於這一局麵的唯一國家。國際貨幣基金組織估計，低收入國家中有一半以上的國家接近於或者已經陷入債務危機。
就加快處置債務的問題，美國已經與中國政府進行了詳細的討論。我們歡迎中國最近為斯裏蘭卡提供了具體的、可信的融資保證，這使得國際貨幣基金組合可以推進一項借貸安排。但是，斯裏蘭卡的所有雙邊債權國包括中國要及時按照它們的承諾處置債務。我們繼續督促中國全麵參與進來，按照符合基金組織的慣例的方式處置其他國家的債務問題。這包括像讚比亞和加納這樣債務形勢危急的國家。
及時處置債務問題符合中國的利益。拖延必要的債務處置將導致借款國和債權國的成本都增加。這會惡化借款國的經濟基本麵，增大它們最終需要的債務減免數量。
在更廣泛的層麵上，國際債務重組進程有相當大的改進空間。我們與基金組織和世界銀行一起，正在與各方麵的利益相關方開展合作，完善針對低收入國家的《債務處理共同框架》和整個債務處理進程。正如讚比亞官員跟我講的那樣，解決這些問題是對多邊主義的真正考驗。
氣候變化
第二，我們必須合作應對那些威脅我們所有人的長期性全球性的挑戰。氣候變化在這一挑戰清單上排在首位。曆史向我們展示了我們兩國能夠做到的事情：美中兩國在氣候問題上的合作時刻已使全球取得突破成為可能，包括《巴黎協定》。
我們承擔著發揮表率作用的共同責任。中國是溫室氣體頭號排放大國，排在下一位的是美國。美國要承擔其自己的責任。在過去一年期間，美國在國內氣候領域采取的行動為史上力度最大。我們的投資讓我國有望落實美國在《巴黎協定》項下的承諾，並最晚在2050年前實現淨零排放。這些投資還將為世界帶來正麵的外溢效應，包括通過降低清潔能源技術的成本。在國際上，我們也在幫助各國以公正的方式實現能源轉型，減少它們自身的碳排放。這些國家的轉型也將有助於擴大能源供給，為那些受政策影響的群體和勞動者提供經濟機會。
我們期待中國落實其在我們兩國的《格拉斯哥聯合宣言》中所作出的承諾。這包括實現減排目標和終止對未加裝減排設施的燃煤電廠的海外融資支持。中國還應該支持發展中國家和新興市場國家推進自己的清潔能源轉型。此外，美中同為二十國集團可持續金融工作組的聯合主席，我們期待著與中國共同促進私人資本的流動。
我們願與中方合作應對氣候變化這一涉及人類生存的挑戰。我們敦促中國認真地與我們合作，並兌現自己的承諾。鑒於氣候變化的重要性，我們兩國別無選擇。
結論
有些人把美中兩國之間的關係定性為大國衝突：一場零和的雙邊競賽，一方衰落才能讓另一方崛起。拜登總統和我不認同這一視角。我們相信，世界足夠大，能同時容下我們兩國。中國和美國能夠並且應當找到共處和共享全球繁榮之道。我們可以承認雙方的分歧，維護自己的利益，並公平地開展競爭。事實上，對於美國經濟的根本實力和美國勞動者的技能水平，美國將繼續保有信心。但正如拜登總統曾說過的：“我們都有責任要防止競爭滑向衝突的邊緣”。
通過談判確定大國間的交往之道是困難的 。美國絕不會在我們的安全和原則上妥協。但是，如果中國也願意發揮自己的作用，我們是能夠找到一條前進的道路的。
因此，我計劃在適當的時間訪華。我希望，在中國政府換屆之後，我能夠與中國政府中新的對口官員就經濟議題開展重要的、實質性的對話。我相信，這一對話有助於為兩國以負責任方式管控雙邊關係奠定基礎，在那些涉及我們兩國和世界麵臨的共同挑戰領域中開展合作。
正如大家所知道的那樣，我是經濟學家出身。經濟學通常被視為是一個涉及整個經濟體的結構和運行的領域。但是，在最高粒度級別，經濟學研究的對象更基礎。經濟學研究的是人們作出的選擇。具體來講，是人們在特定的情形下作出的選擇—稀缺性、風險，有時候涉及壓力。個人和企業作出的選擇如何相互影響，所有的選擇在國家層麵上或者全球層麵上如何匯總出一個綜合的格局。
換言之，一個經濟體就是人們做出的所有選擇的綜合結果。
美國和中國之間的關係也是同理。我們的道路並非命中注定的，這一道路也並非必然是代價高昂的。這一關係的軌跡就是我們這兩個大國的所有人隨著時間的推移作出的所有選擇的綜合結果—包括何時合作、何時競爭，何時承認：即使在競爭中，和平與繁榮是我們的共同利益。
美國認為，以負責的方式處理美中兩國之間的經濟關係符合我們兩國人民自己的利益。這也是世界的希望和期待。在當今具有挑戰性的時刻，我認為，美中兩國必須做出這樣的選擇。
謝謝。
Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on the U.S. - China Economic Relationship
At Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks on the U.S.-China economic relationship at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Thursday, April 20, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)As Prepared for Delivery
Good morning, everyone. Dean Steinberg, thank you for your kind introduction. And thank you for your service to our country. I’m grateful for your contributions – not only during your time in government but here at SAIS.
I’m particularly glad to be at this institution. SAIS has one of the oldest and most extensive China studies programs in the country. In 1979, the United States established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Just two years after, your university leaders had their own talks with their Chinese counterparts. The goal was to see whether Johns Hopkins and Nanjing University could partner together to educate future leaders.
The result: the establishment of the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in 1986 – one of the first Western academic programs in modern China. This collaboration has been tested by the realities and complexities of our bilateral relationship. But I believe the students on this campus have served as a reminder of the respect that the American and Chinese people have for each other. And they demonstrate that people around the world can learn from one another if we communicate openly and honestly – even and especially when we disagree.
Since I began my career, the relationship between the United States and China has undergone a significant evolution. In the 1970s, our relationship was defined by rapprochement and gradual normalization. I watched President Nixon make his famous journey to China in 1972. And I heard our two countries begin to speak to each other again after decades of silence. In the years that followed, I saw China choose to implement market reforms and open itself to the global economy, driving an impressive rise into the second-largest economy in the world. Its development was supported by assistance from the World Bank and other international economic institutions. And the U.S. Congress and successive administrations played a major role in supporting China’s integration into global markets.
But in recent years, I’ve also seen China’s decision to pivot away from market reforms toward a more state-driven approach that has undercut its neighbors and countries across the world. This has come as China is striking a more confrontational posture toward the United States and our allies and partners – not only in the Indo-Pacific but also in Europe and other regions.
Today, we are at a critical time. The world is confronting the largest land war in Europe since World War II – just as it recovers from a once-in-a-century pandemic. Debt challenges are mounting for low- and middle-income countries. Some nations, including our own, have faced pressures on their economic and financial systems. And a U.N. report released last month indicates that the Earth is likely to cross a critical global warming threshold within the next decade – if no drastic action is taken.
Progress on these issues requires constructive engagement between the world’s two largest economies. Yet our relationship is clearly at a tense moment.
So today, I would like to discuss our economic relationship with China. My goal is to be clear and honest: to cut through the noise and speak to this essential relationship based on sober realities.
The United States proceeds with confidence in its long-term economic strength. We remain the largest and most dynamic economy in the world. We also remain firm in our conviction to defend our values and national security. Within that context, we seek a constructive and fair economic relationship with China. Both countries need to be able to frankly discuss difficult issues. And we should work together, when possible, for the benefit of our countries and the world.
Our economic approach to China has three principal objectives.
First, we will secure our national security interests and those of our allies and partners, and we will protect human rights. We will clearly communicate to the PRC our concerns about its behavior. And we will not hesitate to defend our vital interests. Even as our targeted actions may have economic impacts, they are motivated solely by our concerns about our security and values. Our goal is not to use these tools to gain competitive economic advantage.
Second, we seek a healthy economic relationship with China: one that fosters growth and innovation in both countries. A growing China that plays by international rules is good for the United States and the world. Both countries can benefit from healthy competition in the economic sphere. But healthy economic competition – where both sides benefit – is only sustainable if that competition is fair. We will continue to partner with our allies to respond to China’s unfair economic practices. And we will continue to make critical investments at home – while engaging with the world to advance our vision for an open, fair, and rules-based global economic order.
Third, we seek cooperation on the urgent global challenges of our day. Since last year’s meeting between Presidents Biden and Xi, both countries have agreed to enhance communication around the macroeconomy and cooperation on issues like climate and debt distress. But more needs to be done. We call on China to follow through on its promise to work with us on these issues – not as a favor to us, but out of our joint duty and obligation to the world. Tackling these issues together will also advance the national interests of both of our countries.
STATE OF OUR ECONOMIES
Let me begin by discussing the state of our economies.
In recent years, many have seen conflict between the United States and China as increasingly inevitable. This was driven by fears, shared by some Americans, that the United States was in decline. And that China would imminently leapfrog us as the world’s top economic power – leading to a clash between nations.
It’s important to know this: pronouncements of U.S. decline have been around for decades. But they have always been proven wrong. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to adapt and reinvent to face new challenges. This time will be no different – and the economic statistics show why.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American economy has grown faster than most other advanced economies. And over the past two years, we have mounted the strongest post-pandemic recovery among major advanced economies. Our unemployment rate is near historic lows. Real GDP per capita has reached an all-time high, and we have experienced the strongest two-year growth in new businesses on record.
This recovery is made possible by the strength of our economic fundamentals. Of course, this does not mean that our work is finished. Our top economic priority is to rein in inflation while protecting the economic gains of our recovery. A few weeks ago, the United States took decisive action to strengthen public confidence in the banking system after the failures of two regional institutions. The U.S. banking system remains sound, and we will take any necessary steps to ensure the United States continues to have the strongest and safest financial system in the world.
Over the past few decades, China has experienced an impressive economic rise. Between 1980 and 2010, China’s economy grew by an average of 10 percent per year. This led to a truly remarkable feat: the rise of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. China’s rapid catch-up growth was fueled by its opening-up to global trade and pursuit of market reforms.
But like many countries, China today faces its share of near-term headwinds. This includes vulnerabilities in its property sector, high youth unemployment, and weak household consumption. In the longer term, China faces structural challenges. Its population is aging, and its workforce is already declining. And it has experienced a sharp reduction in productivity growth – amid its turn toward economic nationalism and policies that substantially increase the government’s intervention in the economy. None of these recent developments detract from China’s progress or the hard work and talent of the Chinese people. But China’s long-run growth rate seems likely to decline.
Of course, an economy’s size is not the sole determinant of its strength. America is the largest economy in the world, but it also remains an unparalleled leader on a broad set of economic metrics – from wealth to technological innovation. U.S. GDP per capita is among the highest in the world and over five times as large as China’s. More than resources or geography, our country’s success can be attributed to our people, values, and institutions. American democracy, while not perfect, protects the free exchange of ideas and rule of law that is at the bedrock of sustainable growth. Our educational and scientific institutions lead the world. Our innovative culture is enriched by new immigrants, including those from China – enabling us to continue to generate world-class, cutting-edge products and industries.
Importantly, our economic power is amplified because we don’t stand alone. America values our close friends and partners in every region of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. In the 21st century, no country in isolation can create a strong and sustainable economy for its people. That’s why, under President Biden’s leadership, we’ve sought to rebuild and reinvest in our relationships with other countries.
All this to say: China’s economic growth need not be incompatible with U.S. economic leadership. The United States remains the most dynamic and prosperous economy in the world. We have no reason to fear healthy economic competition with any country.
SECURING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AND PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS
There are many challenges before us. But the President and I believe that China and the United States can manage our economic relationship responsibly. We can work toward a future in which both countries share in and drive global economic progress. Whether we can reach this vision depends in large part on what both countries do in the next few years.
Let me speak to our first objective: securing our national security and protecting human rights. These are areas where we will not compromise.
National Security
As in all of our foreign relations, national security is of paramount importance in our relationship with China. For example, we have made clear that safeguarding certain technologies from the PRC’s military and security apparatus is of vital national interest.
We have a broad suite of tools to achieve this aim. When necessary, we will take narrowly targeted actions. The U.S. government’s actions can come in the form of export controls. They can include additions to an entity list that restricts access by those that provide support to the People’s Liberation Army. The Treasury Department has sanctions authorities to address threats related to cybersecurity and China’s military-civil fusion. We also carefully review foreign investments in the United States for national security risks and take necessary actions to address any such risks. And we are considering a program to restrict certain U.S. outbound investments in specific sensitive technologies with significant national security implications.
As we take these actions, let me be clear: these national security actions are not designed for us to gain a competitive economic advantage, or stifle China’s economic and technological modernization. Even though these policies may have economic impacts, they are driven by straightforward national security considerations. We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force trade-offs with our economic interests.
There are key principles that guide our national security actions in the economic sphere.
First, these actions will be narrowly scoped and targeted to clear objectives. They will be calibrated to mitigate spillovers into other areas. Second, it is vital that these tools are easily understood and enforceable. And they must be readily adaptable when circumstances change. Third, when possible, we will engage and coordinate with our allies and partners in the design and execution of our policies.
In addition, communication is essential to mitigating the risk of misunderstanding and unintended escalation. When we take national security actions, we will continue to outline our policy reasoning to other countries. We will listen and address concerns about unintended consequences.
Among our most pressing national security concerns is Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine. In my visit to Kyiv, I saw firsthand the brutality of Russia’s invasion. The Kremlin has bombed hospitals; destroyed cultural sites; attacked energy grids to cause widespread pain and suffering among civilians. Ending Russia’s war is a moral imperative. It will save many innocent lives. As I’ve said, it is also the single best thing we can do for the global economy. To help end Russia’s war, we have mounted the swiftest, most unified, and most ambitious multilateral sanctions regime in modern history. Our broad coalition of partners has also provided assistance to Ukraine so it can defend itself.
China’s “no limits” partnership and support for Russia is a worrisome indication that it is not serious about ending the war. It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe.
Human Rights
Like national security, we will not compromise on the protection of human rights. This principle is foundational to how we engage with the world.
With our own eyes, the world has seen the PRC government escalate its repression at home. It has deployed technology to surveil and control the Chinese people – technology that it is now exporting to dozens of countries.
Human rights abuses violate the world’s moral conscience. They also violate the foundational principles of the United Nations – which virtually every country, including China, has signed onto. The United States will continue to use our tools to disrupt and deter human rights abuses wherever they occur around the globe.
In public and in private with Beijing, the United States has raised serious concerns about the PRC government’s abuses in Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong, Tibet, and other parts of China. And we have and will continue to take action. We have imposed sanctions on the PRC’s regional officials and companies for a range of human rights abuses – from torture to arbitrary detention. And we are restricting imports of goods produced with forced labor in Xinjiang.
Across these actions, we are working in concert with our allies – knowing that we are more effective when we all go at it together.
III. TOWARDS HEALTHY ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT
As we protect our security interests and human rights values, we will also pursue our second objective: healthy economic engagement that benefits both countries.
Let’s start with the obvious. The U.S. and China are the two largest economies in the world. And we are deeply integrated with one another. Overall trade between our countries reached over $700 billion in 2021. We trade more with China than with any countries other than Canada and Mexico. American firms have extensive operations in China. Hundreds of Chinese firms are listed on our stock exchanges, which are part of the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world. According to the Nature Index, the United States and China are each other’s most significant scientific collaborators. And China remains among the top sources for international students in the United States.
As I’ve said, the United States will assert ourselves when our vital interests are at stake. But we do not seek to “decouple” our economy from China’s. A full separation of our economies would be disastrous for both countries. It would be destabilizing for the rest of the world. Rather, we know that the health of the Chinese and U.S. economies is closely linked. A growing China that plays by the rules can be beneficial for the United States. For instance, it can mean rising demand for U.S. products and services and more dynamic U.S. industries.
Modern Supply-Side Investments at Home
In April 2021, I delivered my first major international economic policy speech as Treasury Secretary. I said that “credibility abroad begins with credibility at home.” At a basic level, America’s ability to compete in the 21st century turns on the choices that Washington makes – not those that Beijing makes.
Our economic strategy is centered around investing in ourselves – not suppressing or containing any other economy.
In the two years since my speech, the United States has pursued an economic agenda that I call modern supply-side economics. Our policies are designed to expand the productive capacity of the American economy. That is, to raise the ceiling for what our economy can produce. To do so, President Biden has signed three historic bills into law. We’ve enacted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – our generation’s most ambitious effort to modernize roads, bridges, and ports and broaden access to high-speed Internet. We’ve mounted a historic expansion of American semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act. And we are making our nation’s largest investment in clean energy with the Inflation Reduction Act. These actions have fortified U.S. strength in the industries of the future. And they are lifting our long-term economic outlook.
Our Vision and Conditions for Healthy Economic Competition
It’s important to understand the nature of the healthy economic competition that the United States is pursuing.
The United States does not seek competition that is winner-take-all. Instead, we believe that healthy economic competition with a fair set of rules can benefit both countries over time. A basic principle of economics is that sustained, repeated competition can lead to mutual improvement. Sports teams perform at a higher level when they consistently face top rivals. Firms produce better and cheaper goods when they compete for consumers. There is a world in which, as companies in the U.S. and China challenge each other, our economies can grow, standards of living can rise, and new innovations can bear fruit.
For example, China has benefited from American inventions like the personal computer and the MRI. In the same way, I believe that new scientific and medical developments from China can benefit Americans and the world – and spur us to undertake even more leading-edge research and innovation.
But this type of healthy competition is only sustainable if it is fair to both sides.
China has long used government support to help its firms gain market share at the expense of foreign competitors. But in recent years, its industrial policy has become more ambitious and complex. China has expanded support for its state-owned enterprises and domestic private firms to dominate foreign competitors. It has done so in traditional industrial sectors as well as emerging technologies. This strategy has been coupled with aggressive efforts to acquire new technological know-how and intellectual property – including through IP theft and other illicit means.
Government intervention can be justified in certain circumstances – such as to correct specific market failures. But China’s government employs non-market tools at a much larger scale and breadth than other major economies. China also imposes numerous barriers to market access for American firms that do not exist for Chinese businesses in the United States. For example, Beijing has often required foreign firms to transfer proprietary technology to domestic ones – simply to do business in China. These limits on access to the Chinese market tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Further, we are concerned about a recent uptick in coercive actions targeting U.S. firms, which comes at the same moment that China states that it is re-opening for foreign investment.
The actions of China’s government have had dramatic implications for the location of global manufacturing activity. And they have harmed workers and firms in the U.S. and around the world.
In certain cases, China has also exploited its economic power to retaliate against and coerce vulnerable trading partners. For example, it has used boycotts of specific goods as punishment in response to diplomatic actions by other countries. China’s pretext for these actions is often commercial. But its real goal is to impose consequences on choices that it dislikes – and to force sovereign governments to capitulate to its political demands.
The irony is that the open, fair, and rules-based global economy that the United States is calling for is the very same international order that helped make China’s economic transformation possible. And the inefficiencies and vulnerabilities generated by China’s unfair practices may end up hurting its own growth.
China’s senior officials have repeatedly spoken about the importance of allowing markets to play a “decisive role” in resource allocation – including in a speech just earlier this year. It would be better for China and the world if Beijing were to actually shift policies in these directions and meet its own stated reform ambitions.
As we press China on its unfair economic practices, we will continue to take coordinated actions with our allies and partners in response. A top priority for President Biden is the resilience of our critical supply chains. In certain sectors, China’s unfair economic practices have resulted in the over-concentration of the production of critical goods inside China. Under President Biden’s leadership, we are not only investing in manufacturing at home. We are also pursuing a strategy called “friendshoring” that is aimed at mitigating vulnerabilities that can lead to supply disruptions. We are creating redundancies in our critical supply chains with the large number of trading partners that we can count on.
Of course, we know that the best way for us to strengthen the global economic order is to show the world that it works. Our investments in the international financial institutions and efforts to deepen our ties around the world are enabling more people to benefit from the international economic system. We are also accelerating our commitments in the developing world. For example, the United States and the rest of the G7 aim to mobilize $600 billion in high-quality infrastructure investments by 2027. Our focus is on projects that generate positive economic returns and foster sustainable debt for these countries. And when the international system needs updating, we will not hesitate to do so. The United States is working with shareholders to evolve the multilateral development banks to better combat today’s pressing global challenges – like climate change, pandemics, and fragility and conflict.
LEADING TOGETHER ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES
As we set the terms of our economic engagement with China, we will also pursue our third objective: cooperation on major global challenges. It is important that we make progress on global issues regardless of our other disagreements. That’s what the world needs from its two largest economies.
As a foundation, we must continue to develop steady lines of communication between our countries for macroeconomic and financial cooperation. Economic developments in the United States and China can quickly ripple through global financial markets and the broader economy. We must maintain a robust exchange of views about how we are responding to economic shocks. My conversations with Vice Premier Liu He and China’s other senior officials have been a good start. I hope to build on them with my new counterpart.
Beyond the macroeconomy, there are two specific global priorities I’d like to highlight today: debt overhang and climate change. These issues can best be managed if both countries work together, and in concert with our allies and partners.
Debt Overhang
First, we must work together to help emerging markets and developing countries facing debt distress. The issue of global debt is not a bilateral issue between China and the United States. It is about responsible global leadership. China’s status as the world’s largest official bilateral creditor imposes on it the same inescapable set of responsibilities as those on other official bilateral creditors when debt cannot be fully repaid.
China’s participation is essential to meaningful debt relief. But for too long, it has not moved in a comprehensive and timely manner. It has served as a roadblock to necessary action.
Earlier this year, I felt the urgency of debt relief firsthand during my visit to Zambia. Government and business leaders spoke to me about how Zambia’s debt overhang has held back critical public and private investment and depressed economic development. But Zambia is not the only country in this situation. The IMF estimates that more than half of low-income countries are close to or already in debt distress.
The United States has had extensive discussions with Beijing about the need for speedy debt treatment. We welcome China’s recent provision of specific and credible financing assurances for Sri Lanka, which has enabled the IMF to move forward with a program. But now, all of Sri Lanka’s bilateral creditors – including China – will need to deliver debt treatments in line with their assurances in a timely manner. We continue to urge China’s full participation to provide debt treatments in other cases in line with IMF parameters. This includes urgent cases like Zambia and Ghana.
Prompt action on debt is in China’s interest. Delaying needed debt treatments raises the costs both for borrowers and creditors. It worsens borrowers’ economic fundamentals and increases the amount of debt relief they will eventually need.
More broadly, there is considerable room for improvement in the international debt restructuring process. With the IMF and World Bank, we are working with a range of stakeholders to improve the Common Framework process for low-income countries and the debt treatment process more generally. As I heard from Zambian officials, solving these issues is a true test of multilateralism.
Climate Change
Second, we must work together to tackle longstanding global challenges that threaten us all. Climate change is at the top of that list. History shows us what our two countries can do: moments of climate cooperation between the United States and China have made global breakthroughs possible, including the Paris Agreement.
We have a joint responsibility to lead the way. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by the United States. The U.S. will do its part. Over the past year, the United States has taken the boldest domestic climate action in our nation’s history. Our investments put us on track to meet U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement and achieve net-zero by 2050. And they will have positive spillovers for the world, including through reductions in the costs of clean energy technologies. We are also working abroad to help countries make a just energy transition to reduce their carbon emissions. These transitions will also help expand energy access and provide economic opportunity for impacted communities and workers.
We expect China to deliver on its commitments in our Joint Glasgow Declaration. This includes meeting mitigation targets and ending overseas financing of unabated coal-fired power plants. China should also support developing countries and emerging markets in their clean energy transitions. Further, we look forward to working together to boost private capital flows as co-chairs of the G20 working group on sustainable finance.
We stand ready to work with China on the existential challenge of climate change. And we urge China to seriously engage with us and deliver on its commitments. The stakes are too high not to.
CONCLUSION
Some see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict: a zero-sum, bilateral contest where one must fall for the other to rise.
President Biden and I don’t see it that way. We believe that the world is big enough for both of us. China and the United States can and need to find a way to live together and share in global prosperity. We can acknowledge our differences, defend our own interests, and compete fairly. Indeed, the United States will continue to proceed with confidence about the fundamental strength of the American economy and the skill of American workers. But as President Biden said, “we share a responsibility…to prevent competition from becoming anything ever near conflict.”
Negotiating the contours of engagement between great powers is difficult. And the United States will never compromise on our security or principles. But we can find a way forward if China is also willing to play its part.
That’s why I plan to travel to China at the appropriate time. My hope is to engage in an important and substantive dialogue on economic issues with my new Chinese government counterpart following the political transition in Beijing. I believe this dialogue can help lay the groundwork for responsibly managing our bilateral relationship and cooperating on areas of shared challenge to our nations and the world.
As you know, I am an economist by trade. Economics is popularly seen as a field concerning the structure and performance of entire economies. But at its most granular level, economics is much more foundational. It’s the study of the choices that people make. Specifically, how people make choices under specific circumstances – of scarcity, of risk, and sometimes, of stress. And how choices by individuals and firms affect one another, and how they add up to a national or global picture.
In other words, an economy is just an aggregate of choices that people make.
The relationship between the United States and China is the same. Our path is not preordained, and it is not destined to be costly. The trajectory of this relationship is the aggregate of choices that all of us in these two great powers make over time – including when to cooperate, when to compete, and when to recognize that even amid our competition, we have a shared interest in peace and prosperity.
The United States believes that responsible economic relations between the U.S. and China is in the self-interest of our peoples. It is the hope and expectation of the world. And at this moment of challenge, I believe it must be the choice that both countries – the United States and China – make.
Thank you.
