20190529 Trish Regan vs Liu Xin Talk on Trade War (Video&Text)

看完採訪。我,沉思半晌。英文原文的對白,聽了一遍又一遍。猛然醒悟,原來,辯論在辯論中把自己取消了,甚至殺死了。幹掉真誠辯論的不是別的,而是虛假辯論本身 ……
倘若換作川普來作主持,面對笑臉盈盈、謙恭和氣、禮貌有加但不說人話、不幹人事、虛偽周旋、做惡不止、得過且過的對話者,怕是遲早要失去耐性,不講禮貌地拂袖而去,直接去找大棒。

 

翠西·里根 vs. 黨媒 劉欣 辯論(訪談)貿易戰

Trish Regan and Liu Xin Talk on US-China Trade War

 

美方:Fox Business,Trish Regan 翠西.里根
中共:CCP CGTN Liu Xin 黨媒主播,劉欣

主題:美中貿易戰及相關

時間:美東時間 2019-05-29

 

收聽音頻版

 

 


 

 

【Text】

 

** Trish Regan:

Tonight I have a special guest joining me all the way from Beijing, China, to discuss the challenges of trade between the U.S. and her home country. She’s the host of a prime time english-language television program overseen by the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. And, Though she and I may not agree on everything, I believe this is actually a really unique opportunity, an opportunity to hear a very different view. Now, as these trade negotiations stall out, It’s helpful to know how the Chinese Communist Party is thinking about trade and (about) the United States.

Now, in the interest of transparency, I should explain that I don’t speak for anyone but myself as the host of a Fox Business show. My guest, however, is part of the CCP, and that’s fine. As I said, I welcome different perspectives on this show. With all that in mind, I’m very pleased tonight to welcome Ms Liu Xin, host of “the point with Liu Xin" to “Trish Regan prime time" tonight. And just quickly to the viewers, please bear with us as we have a significant time delay in our satellites between Beijing and the U.S., and because of that, we’re going to do our very best not to speak over each other, but, Xin, welcome. It’s good to have you here.

 

** Liu Xin:

Thank you, Trish, Thank you, Trish, for having me. It’s a great opportunity for me, unprecedented. I never dreamed that I would have this kind of opportunity to speak to you and to speak to many audiences in ordinary households in the United States …

** Trish Regan:

… Yeah, It is, Indeed unprecedented. Hang on. I’m going to jump in. Tell me, forgive me, you are not what …

 

** Liu Xin:

… I am not … Trish, I have to get it straight, I am not a member of the Communist Party of China. This is on the record. So, please don’t assume that I’m a member, and I don’t speak for the Communist Party of China, and I am here, today, I am only speaking for myself as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN. So …

 

** Trish Regan:

Well, Okay, appreciate it. What’s your current assessment of where the trade talks actually are right now? Give me your current assessment of where we are on these trade talks. Do you believe a deal is possible?

 

** Liu Xin:

It’s true that the satellite connection is not very good, but I believe that you asking me where we are in terms of the trade negotiations, I don’t know. I don’t have any inside information. What I knew was the talks were not very successful. Last time, they were going on in the United States, and now I think both sides are considering where to go next.

But I think China has made, the Chinese government has made its position very clear that unless the United States treat the Chinese government, treat the Chinese negotiating team with respect and show the willingness to talk without using outside pressure, there is high possibility that there could be a productive trade deal. Otherwise, I think we might be facing a prolonged period of problems for both sides.

 

** Trish Regan:

I would stress that trade wars are never good. They’re not good for anyone. So I want to believe, Xin, I want to believe that something can get done. (Liu Xin Jump in: Agreed.) These are certainly challenging times, I realize there’s a lot of rhetoric out.

But, let me turn to one of the biggest issues, and that’s intellectual property rights. I mean, fundamentally, I think we can all agree it’s never right to take something that’s not yours. and yet in going through so many of these cases,  cases at the independent World Trade Organization, the WTO, that China’s a member of it as well as the DOJ and FBI cases, You can actually see some of them on the screen right now, there’s evidence there that China has stolen enormous amounts of intellectual property, hundreds of billions of dollars worth. Now, you know, that’s a lot of money. But truly, I guess we shouldn’t really care if it’s hundreds of billions of dollars or just 50 cents. How do American businesses operate in China if they’re at risk for having their property, their ideas, their hard work stolen?

 

** Liu Xin:

Well, I think, Trish, you have to ask American businesses whether they wanted to come to China, whether they find coming to China and cooperating with Chinese businesses has not been profitable or not, and they will tell you their answers, as far as I understand, many American companies have been established in China, and they’re very profitable. and the great majority of them, I believe, plan to continue to invest in China and explore the Chinese market. Well, now, US president Donald Trump’s tariff makes it a little more difficult, make the future uncertain.

I do not deny that there are IP infringement, there are copyright issues or there are piracy or even theft of commercial secrets. I think that is something that has to be dealt with. And I think the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and me as an individual, I think there’s a consensus, because without the protection of IP right, nobody, no country, no individual can be stronger, can develop itself. So I think that is a very clear consensus among the Chinese society. and, of course, there are cases where individuals, where companies go and steal, and I think that’s a common practice, probably in every part of the world. There are companies in the United States who use each other all the time over infringement on IP rights, and you can’t say simply because these cases are happening, that America is stealing or China is stealing or the Chinese people are stealing. And, basically, that’s the reason why I wrote that rebuttal, because I think this kind of blanket statement is really not helpful, really not helpful.

 

** Trish Regan:

Well, it’s not just a statement, it’s multiple reports including evidence from the WTO. But let me ask you about Huawei, because that’s certainly in the headlines …

 

** Liu Xin: Sure, I don’t deny those …

 

** Trish Regan:

Right. I mean you know, look, I think, as I said, we can all agree that if you are going to do business with someone, it has to be based on trust. and you don’t want anyone stealing your valuable information that you’ve spent decades working on. Anyway, China passed a law in 2017 requiring tech companies to work with the military and the government, so it’s not just individual companies, right, that might be getting access to this technology, it’s the government itself, which is an interesting nuance.

But I get that China is upset that Huawei’s not being welcomed into the US markets. I totally get it. So let me just ask you this, it’s an interesting way to think about it, I think, what if we said, hey, you know, sure, Huawei, come on in, but here’s the deal, you must share all those incredible technological advances that you’ve been working on, you’ve got to share it with us. Would that be okay?

 

** Liu Xin:

I think it is, if it is through cooperation, if it is through mutual learning, if it is through, if you pay for the use of this IP of this high technology, I think, it’s absolutely fine. Why not? We all prosper, because we learn from each other.

I learned English because I had American teachers, I learned English because I had American friends. I still learn how to do journalism because I have American copy editors or editors. So I think that’s fine, so long as it is not illegal. I think everybody should do that, and that’s how you get better, right?

 

** Trish Regan:

But you mentioned something pretty important which is that you should pay for the acquisition of that. And, you know, look, I think that the liberalized economic world in which we live has valued intellectual property, and it’s governed by a set of laws. and, so, we all need to, kind of, play by the rules and play by those laws if we’re going to have that kind of trust between each other. But I think, you bring up some good points.

Let me turn to China, Right now, which is now, Wow, the second largest economy, at what point, will China decide to abandon its developing nation status, and, well, stop borrowing from the world Bank?

 

** Liu Xin:

Well, I think this kind of discussion is going on, and I’ve heard very live discussions about this. And, indeed, there are people talking about China already becoming so big, why don’t you just grow up? Basically, I think you said it in your program as well, China, grow up.

Well, I think we want to grow up. We don’t want to be, you know, dwarfed or poor, underdeveloped all the time. But it depends on how you define developing country, right?

If you look at China’s overall size, the overall size of the Chinese economy, yes, we are very big, the world’s number one, but don’t forget, we have 1.4 billion people. That is over three times the population of the United States. So if you divide the second largest overall economy in the world, basically when it comes down to per capita GDP, well, I think we’re less than 1/6 of that of the United States, and even less than some other more developed countries in Europe. So, you tell me, where should we put ourselves?

This is a very complicated issue, because per capita, as I said, is very small, but overall, it’s very big, so we can do a lot of big things and people are looking upon us to do much more around the world. So I think we are doing that, we’re contributing to the United Nations, we’re the world’s biggest contributor to the U.N. human peacekeeping mission, and we are giving out donations and humanitarian aids, and all of that, because we know we have to grow up. And, Trish, thank you for that reminder.

 

** Trish Regan:

Let’s get to the tariffs. I’ve seen some of your commentaries too, and Xin, I appreciate that you think China could lower some of its tariffs. I watched you say that, and I’m totally in agreement with you. In 2016, the average tariff effectively a tax that was charged on an American good in China was nine point nine percent (9%), that was nearly three times what the US is charging. So, what do you say about this? What do you think about saying, hey, you know the heck with these tariffs, let’s get rid of them altogether, would that work?

 

** Liu Xin:

I think that would be a wonderful idea, I mean, don’t you think? For American consumers, products from China would be even cheaper, and for consumers in China, products from America would be so much cheaper too. I that would be a wonderful idea. I think we should work towards that. But, you know, you talked about rule-based system, rule-based order, this is the thing, if you want to change the rules, it has to be done in mutual consensus. Basically, we talk about tariffs, it is not just between China and the United States. I understand if you lower tariffs just between China and the United States, the Europeans will come, the Japanese will come, the Venezuelans probably will come, and say, hey, we want the same tariff, you can’t discriminate. You know, between countries.

So it is a very complicated settlement to reach, and I think there’s a lot of agreement that China and the (United States) … about trade, yes, I am talking about tariffs. And I think the last time when the world agreed on the kind of tariffs reduction, China should commit to was exactly the result of multilateral and years of difficult negotiations.

The United States saw in its interests and decided to what degree they can agree or to what degree they could lower their tear will have, tariffs. (Nobody could have gotten at their head ) China agreed to lower our tariff considerably. It is all the decision of countries according to their own self-interests. Now, things are different.

Yes, I agree, 20 years later, what are we going to do? Maybe these old rules need to be changed. You know what? Let’s talk about it. Let’s do it according to the rules. (The same reason)  If you don’t like the rules, we’ll change the rules, but, again, it has to be a multi-national and multi-level.

 

** Trish Regan:

Yeah, I was going to say, you know, you could go back to the trade agreement of 1974, section 301, there is a rule that enables the United States to use tariffs to try and influence the behavior of China, should it be taking, stealing our intellectual property, and that, I think, in some ways, is part of what this all comes back to, and it’s this sense of trust.

I hear you on the forced technology transfer, and I think that some American companies perhaps have made some mistakes in terms of being willing to overlook what they might have to give up in near term. But this is an issue, I think, where the country as a whole needs to step in, and we’re seeing the Unite States do that.

Perhaps, Xin, in a way that hasn’t happened. I mean, it’s been in the background, don’t get me wrong. I think previous administrations have identified the challenge, but have really been a little unwilling to take it on. So, we’re living in these very different times.

How do you define state capitalism?

 

** Liu Xin:

You mean, how do I define … sorry, I didn’t hear the last … you mean the forced technology transfer? ( or did you transfer … )

 

** Trish Regan:

No, state capitalism. I guess, forced technology are amazing part of that, but state capitalism, in other words, I want to say that, I think, you know, your system of economics is very interesting, because, you know, you have a capitalist system, right? But it’s state-run. So talk to us about that. How do you define it?

 

** Liu Xin:

Well, we would like to define it as socialism with Chinese characteristics where market forces are expected to play the dominating or the deciding role in the allocation of resources. Basically, you know, let the market, we want it to be a market economy, but there are some Chinese characteristics. For instance, some state-owned enterprises which are playing an important but increasingly smaller role, maybe in the economy. And everybody thinks that China’s economy is state-owned, everything is state-controlled, everything is state …

But let me tell you, it is not the true picture. If you look at the statistics, for instance, eighty percent (80%) of Chinese employees were employed by private enterprises, eighty percent (80%) of Chinese exports were done by private companies, were produced by private companies. About 65% of technological innovation were achieved, were carried out by private enterprises. Some of the largest companies that affect our life, for instance, some internet companies or some 5G technology companies, they are private companies. So we are … yes, a socialist economy with Chinese characteristics, but it’s, you know, not everything is state-controlled, state run. Not like that, we are actually quite mixed and very dynamic and actually very very open as well.

 

** Trish Regan:

Well, I think you need to probably keep being open. I think that, you know, as a free trade person myself, I think that’s the direction to pursue. And ultimately, that leads to greater economic prosperity for you and better economic prosperity for us. And so then you get a win-win.  (Liu Xin Jump in: Absolutely.) But I’m simply … This is interesting. I appreciate you being here. Thank you.

 

** Liu Xin:

Thank you so much if you want to have a discussion in the future, we can do that. If you want to come to China, You are welcome, and I’ll take you around.   (Trish jump in: I’d love it. )  Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much.

 

** Trish Regan:

(Liu Xin quits.)Okay, You know, look, I would just say, as I told Xin, no none wants a trade war. But we have to think long and hard about the right next steps.

 

 

… End …

 

 


【觀點】20190530 士劍:

對5.29 美中女主播從約架辯論到友好採訪的觀感

 

1. 先梳理一下這個辯論門的來龍去脈。5月初川普對貿易戰談判徹底失望,發飆加關稅,撂挑子,你們反悔,那俺就不談了,直接祭出懲罰工具箱。談判陷入僵局,厲害國麻了爪,轉而在國內發動輿論戰,民粹戰,並且指名道姓攻擊川普的前國師,牛人班農。然後,大概Fox的Trish Regan看不過去,叫班農來上節目,說CCP罵你呢,你有什麼要回罵的嗎?於是,班農在節目裡又把CCP攻擊一番,而且,這小子,老是把CCP和China分得很清楚,把韭菜和割韭菜的人分得很清楚。這就更加惹火了CCP。而且Trish Regan在節目裡,無論採訪反共的盧比奧,還是班農,總喜歡附議,陪罵中共。也許因此,Trish 被CCP黨媒鎖定,好吧,就把矛頭對準她吧。於是,2019年5月22日,網上出現了一個攻擊 Trish Regan的短片,發布者是CCP黨媒CGTN,短片中發飆的女人是CGTN女主播劉欣。對於這短片到底是厲害國領導指示所為還是黨媒姓黨的資深主持劉欣自告奮勇,為黨分辯,待考。5月23日,Trish Regan回罵。推特上約架直播辯論。旋即,劉說自己必須和團隊一起參與直播,在北京通過衛星直播。網牆內外,華洋終生,尤其厲害國的韭菜們,唯恐錯過大戲,can not wait.哪知,臨場,劉又說自己的團隊因版權問題無法直播。有網友質疑是否真是直播版權問題,跑到Trish的推特帖文下面跟貼發問,但未得到Trish確認。Anyway,劉欣終究還是確定參加辯論,但是,需要回到個人身份,連線參加Trish的節目。一些網友在開場幾個小時前還在嘀咕,劉欣不會在最後一刻出什麼么蛾子取消辯論吧。一場 公開的,真誠的,真實的辯論,真的會上演嗎?且盼且狐疑。
然後,5月29日晚,Fox Trish Regan的節目開始了,16分37秒的視頻出現在網絡上。我的娘,這他媽哪是辯論啊?

2. 希望越大,失望越大。儘管早在5月24-25日裡根和劉欣約架辯論之初,很多人就預料到所謂的公開而真誠的辯論,以及辯論直播,絕不會痛痛快快的上場,非此即彼的各類狀況,一定少不了。習慣了掌控一切的CCP,絕不會冒險讓一個女子因為言語差錯,公開折損領袖和黨國的面子。或者,厲害國擔心,如果這劉主播風頭太過,只怕更加引起川普政府對厲害國黨媒的更多關注、猜忌和調查,後患無窮,不可冒險。但是,並沒有完全取消。劉主播,劉辯手,變成了劉嘉賓。有惟恐天下不亂的網友評論說,這哪是什麼辯論?分明是FOX和CGTN合夥吸引眼球賺取流量來了。

3.美帝的雷聲大雨點小,中途撂挑子,是經常幹的事。比如在韓戰的作為,比如在越戰的德性。口號和氣勢很牛逼,真要幹起來,美帝各種顧慮,怕死,怕犧牲。此次所謂的辯論,甚至還不如某些自媒體訪談節目中,幾位同屏嘉賓互懟爭論來的精彩。看完採訪。我,沉思半晌。英文原文的對白,聽了一遍又一遍。猛然醒悟,原來,辯論在辯論中把自己取消了,甚至把自己殺死了。幹掉真誠辯論的不是別的,而是虛假辯論本身。一場原本應該直抒胸臆,見血封喉,見性明心,坦率對決的辯論,被整成了刀下留人,嘴下留情,蜻蜓點水,不傷和氣,臨了還誠邀訪問,我願接待帶你逛故宮式的友好採訪。NND。浪費多少人的多少感情。

4. 但是,平心而論,這場短暫的連線採訪,也並非一無是處。開場白,裡根首先指出劉欣的CCP烙印,但劉欣登場後立馬首先聲明自己並非黨員,本次辯論也只代表自己觀點,不為中共說話,這當然是沒什麼信服力的。而且接下來劉的發言內容和思維邏輯,價值取向,無一不是從中共立場出發。如果原本人們期待的是辯論場上,將會上演核彈碰撞,或者至少,泥巴亂飛。但是,實際上,裡根在佔據主場優勢的同時,並沒有窮追猛打,也沒有過分刁難劉嘉賓。提到智慧產權盜竊問題,劉欣承認有,但撇開中共和厲害國政府的責任和行為。裡根又提到華為是不受歡迎的企業,把矛頭指向華為和中共的關係。並且同時提出,中共在2017年立法強迫要求科技企業要配合中共軍方和政府的工作,指出中共才是一切問題的根源。劉欣扯英語的學習,風馬牛不相及,毫無可比性。裡根並沒有過分追問。談及中國的永遠的發展中國家身份,裡根問,中國什麼時候才能長大?什麼時候才能不再從世界銀行借錢?劉欣甩出14億韭菜來做分母,一通詭辯,裡根也放過了。然後,提到降低關稅,自由交易,打開國門,劉欣以關稅涉及多國,影響面太大,降低甚至消除關稅雖然對國民是好事,但不能操之過急,慢慢來。一些規則,你們美帝不喜歡,那麼我們可以改,但是,得需要20年時間摸著石頭過河,畢竟牽涉面太廣。一通忽悠,又被裡根放過。接下來,裡根提到301法案,提出對特色國需要特別對待(懲罰),又逼問劉欣,如何定義你國的國家資本主義。裡根問的比較客氣,更刁鑽的問法是,請問劉主播如何理解貴國的共產權貴國家資本主義(體制)?整個訪談,這個問題,可以說最難回答。因為觸及到了特色國厲害國最敏感最脆弱最不喜歡最不想承認的本質問題。劉欣先是恍惚(裝做?)沒聽懂,但是被裡根追著問,不好迴避,只好應答,甩出一通特色國特色論。就像厲害國的尋釁滋事和煽顛罪名有如口袋罪萬能罪名一樣,這國國情的特色理論,也是包治百病,包遮百丑的萬能答案。

5.儘管裡根已經很是嘴下留情。但是,不知道為什麼,看到某些細節處,劉的一些尷尬表情和故作鎮定、掩飾不住的不安和局促時,我竟然覺得,劉欣,看上去很有點楚楚可憐。儘管明明知道,此刻,她的這種尷尬和局促來源於她部分或者完全喪志自我的作秀。

6. 翠西儘管明顯收起了鋒芒,顯得大度得體(故意為之?),但仍綿里藏針,夾槍帶棒。或許是因為時間太過緊張,所以,難以窮追猛打。也或者,某方私下里已經暗送秋波,討好賣乖,預交了和諧成本費,亦未可知。

7. 結語處,翠西意味深長地說,沒有人喜歡搞貿易戰,但是,我們必須深思接下來該怎麼辦。這句話說得也很是客氣,她實際想要表達的應該是,如果你們繼續耍流氓,那麼,揍你沒商量。我們已經沒工夫跟你們扯淡了。用盧比奧的話說,就是,這可能是我們最後的機會,來改變和平衡(美中兩國間,各個層面上的)諸多不合理、不公平。

8. 總之,這場由辯論異化為採訪的連線對話,大抵來說,雖然不夠真誠,不夠酣暢淋漓,但並非一無是處,一些亮點,值得細細品味。只是,倘若換作川普來作主持,面對笑臉盈盈、謙恭和氣、禮貌有加但不說人話、不幹人事、虛偽周旋、做惡不止、得過且過的對話者,怕是遲早要失去耐性,不講禮貌地拂袖而去,直接去找大棒

 

士劍

2019.5.30