美国国务院
经济和工商事务局
华盛顿哥伦比亚特区
2020年7月7日
关于中国的跨大西洋对话：管理日益升级的利害关系
经济和工商事务局（Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs）助理国务卿马尼沙·辛格（Manisha Singh）的讲话
[摘译]
*        *        *        *
近几十年来，我们一直努力同中华人民共和国展开持续对话，这些对话关系到其在全球经济共同体各成员中的作用，以及有关它向以市场为基础的经济转型也许会促进更大自由的理念。但中国共产党已明确显示其进行经济间谍活动的意图，不仅威胁着商业，而且威胁着各国的安全。
特朗普政府（Trump Administration）的《国家安全战略》（National Security Strategy）阐明，经济安全就是国家安全。从美国和欧洲公司盗取知识产权、敏感技术和人工智能不仅是违反商务规定的行为，而且是我们必须共同应对的战略威胁。
我们已将谈话从没有得到认真对待的对话转向将会得到认真对待的行动。我们希望为获得进入我们的市场而做出的承诺将会得到遵守。
这一直是我们同中华人民共和国有待完成的协议的基础，我们在其中强调要让我们的公司企业能够享有公平竞争的环境，包括知识产权保护、透明做法和市场准入。
我们已将国际努力作为重点工作，曝光像华为和中兴这样不可信赖的供应商利用第五代（5G）技术来损害我们的情报机构而构成的重大威胁，这是美国和欧盟（EU）拥有共同利益的又一个领域。
我们的团队积极主张使用可信赖的商家，而不使用有可能因中国公司根据中华人民共和国的法律而必须对信息传输予以透露或干扰的系统。可信赖的商家网是我们抵制一带一路计划和中华人民共和国监控制度的部分举措。它体现跨大西洋价值观，并且为寻求按照商业条件营商而不出让主权的国家提供一个必要选择。
 尤其是现在，随着我们从全球大流行疫情中恢复和通过技术支持我们的健康、生计和安全，我们需要对我们使用的平台不会给我们个人和国家造成损害具有信心。
为保护人权，特朗普政府已采取具体行动，针对对中华人民共和国国内残暴行径负有责任的中国官员实施制裁。我们还发布了商务警告，提醒公司企业当心供应链可能与新疆强劳的关联。欧洲联盟有着针对中国践踏人权实施制裁的历史，这可以追溯到天安门广场事件。
本政府还针对中国共产党在香港的行动给予制裁和谴责。香港一直是自由社会欣欣向荣的榜样。我们知道这个地区不再有自治，严厉的《国家安全法》（National Security Law）进一步摧毁了香港人民原有的任何自由权利。我们并不是提出谴责的唯一国家。英国和其他国家也已经这样做。我们的共同理想应使我们能够对应这些残暴举动。
我在与欧洲同事的交谈中发现，即使我们的方式各异，但我们的目标始终一致。我们希望我们的公民生活在一个法治和基本人权受到保护的世界，一个发明创造带来更好的生活而不是政府控制的世界，一个以经济自由作为自由社会基础的世界。这是我们过去几十年来希望在中华人民共和国看到的。但实际上我们看到的与此相反。
利益攸关不仅在升级，而且已经达到生存关头，它需要美国和欧洲联盟国家再次发扬马歇尔计划（Marshall Plan）的精神。
正如我们的现任国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥（Mike Pompeo）在2018年12月对欧洲听众所说，“本着我们伟大民主国家的最优秀传统，我们召唤世界崇高国家建立起防止战争和实现所有人的更大繁荣的新自由秩序”。
谢谢各位。

07/07/2020 01:02 PM EDT
Manisha Singh, Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
I want to thank the Carnegie Endowment and Institut Montaigne for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on how the United States and Europe can address the global economic challenges posed by China.
The U.S. and the EU comprise one of largest trading relationships in the world. Our joint approach to China impacts not only our citizens, but also the populations of other nations whose economic fates are tied to ours. In order to determine how we move forward, I find it’s helpful to review how we arrived at our present circumstances. The narrative of economic turbulence with China began decades ago.
Our reflection can start around the post-World War II establishment of the global economic architecture in 1948. That year, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the first major effort at global trade liberalization was enacted. Its original 23 members included some European nations, and both the U.S. and China.
The same year, the U.S. government passed the Marshall Plan for European recovery from the devastation of war. Its pledge of $15 billion in financial assistance was from the Americans, but the commitment to rebuild the transatlantic order came from both the U.S. and its Western European beneficiaries.
Secretary of State George Marshall outlined the vision in a speech he gave at Harvard University in 1947 before the enactment of the recovery plan. He said, “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.”
During the same time period, China was facing ongoing political turmoil of its own with a civil war resulting ultimately in the 1949 creation of the communist controlled People’s Republic of China, largely as we know it today. As Europe was rebuilding, and the post war American economy began to flourish, economic contacts with the PRC were limited.
By the 1970s, when economy of the PRC grew, both the U.S. and European nations began to evaluate the need for commercial ties. However, each was also aware of the prevalent human rights abuses.
Turning back to the Marshall Plan, its purpose, as he said in the Harvard speech was “the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”
Free institutions have existed and have sought to create a world of global commerce where members liberalize trade and importantly, adhere to the rules.
We saw the PRC initiate conversations to join the GATT. Perhaps its disputes with both EU member states and the U.S. were its motivations to join. By 1986, it had gained observer status and began a 15-year process to accede to GATT and eventually its successor the World Trade Organization. According to the WTO, the PRC was “to better integrate in the world economy and offer a more predictable environment for trade and foreign investment in accordance with WTO rules.”
In other words, the PRC spent the almost two decades leading to its 2001 entry into the WTO assuring other members that it would adapt its domestic economic practices to adhere to global rules of trade. However, both the U.S. and the EU have observed the PRC claim the benefits, yet, violate the rules of the international trading community. We have seen profound infringement onto the sovereignty of other nations in the form of sovereign debt traps among other practices. The people of the PRC have no political freedoms, no human rights and are subject to unconscionable abuses at the hands of government.
I return to Secretary Marshall’s 1947 Harvard address, in which he concludes, “Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise, will encounter the opposition of the United States.” This sentiment reflects our present thinking as well as the shared values of the transatlantic community.
Over the last few decades, we have sought to engage in continued dialogues with the PRC about its role among the members of the global economic community and the idea that its transition to a market-based economy might also lead to more freedoms. But the Chinese Communist Party has made clear its intent to engage in economic espionage threatening not just commerce, but also the security of nations.
The Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy states that Economic Security is National Security. The theft of intellectual property, sensitive technologies and artificial intelligence from American and European companies are not just commercial breaches, they are strategic threats which we must address together.
We have shifted the conversation from one of a dialogue that was not taken seriously to one of actions that will be taken seriously. We expect that commitments made to gain access to our market will be commitments kept.
This has been the basis of our pending agreement with the PRC in which we emphasize a level playing field for our companies including intellectual property protections, transparent practices and market access.
We have prioritized international efforts to expose the significant risks posed by untrusted vendors such as Huawei and ZTE utilizing Fifth Generation (5G) technology to undermine our intelligence apparatus, yet another area where the interests of the U.S. and the EU are mutual.
Our team is advocating for the use of trusted vendors as alternatives to a system in which Chinese companies can be required, under PRC law, to either disclose or disrupt information transmitted over their systems. The trusted vendor network is part of our counter to the One Belt One Road Initiative and the PRC surveillance state. It reflects transatlantic values and provides a necessary alternative for countries which are seeking to do business on commercial terms, not to surrender their sovereignty.
Especially now, as we recover from a global pandemic and technology supports our health, our livelihoods and our security, we need confidence that the platforms we use will not undermine us as individuals and as nations.
To protect human rights, the Trump Administration has taken concrete action by sanctioning Chinese officials for the atrocities in the PRC. We have also issued a business advisory to caution companies about supply chain links to forced labor in Xinjiang. The EU has a history of sanctioning PRC human rights violations dating back to Tiananmen Square.
The Administration has also imposed sanctions and condemned the actions of the Chinese communist part in Hong Kong, which has been example of how free societies flourish. We know the region is no longer autonomous and the draconian National Security Law further destroys any liberty the people of Hong Kong have had. We are not alone in this condemnation. The UK and other nations have done so as well. Our common ideals should enable us to address these atrocities.
In personal conversations with my European counterparts, I have found that even when our methods vary, our objectives remain the same. We want our citizens to live in a world where the rule of law and fundamental human rights are respected, where innovation leads to better lives and not government control, where economic freedom is the foundation of free societies. This is what we wanted to see from the PRC over the last several decades. We have, in fact, seen the reverse.
The stakes are not just escalating, they have reached an existential plateau where it is incumbent upon America and European Union member states to again channel the spirt of the Marshall Plan.
As our current Secretary Mike Pompeo said in December 2018 to a European audience, “In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for us all.”
Thank you.