财政部长耶伦在约翰‧霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院关于美中经济关系的讲话   
大家上午好。斯坦伯格院长，感谢你的热情介绍。也感谢你为我们国家做的服务。我很感谢你的贡献–不仅是你在政府任职期间的贡献，还有在约翰‧霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院的贡献。  
我特别高兴来到贵院。约翰‧霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院拥有全美国历史最悠久、最全面的中国研究项目之一。1979年，美国与中华人民共和国建立了全面的外交关系。仅仅两年后，贵校的负责人就与中国的同行直接会谈，目标是研究约翰‧霍普金斯大学和南京大学是否可以合作培养未来的领导人才。  
结果是：霍普金斯大学—南京大学中心于 1986 年成立——这是现代中国最早的西方学术项目之一。 这一合作经受了我们两国双边关系现实性和复杂性风风雨雨的考验。但是，我相信，在这个校园里就读的学生见证了美中两国人民的相互尊重。并且这些学子证明，如果我们开诚布公地进行沟通，世界各地的人们可以相互学习——即使我们有分歧时更应如此。  
自我的职业生涯开始以来，美国与中国之间的关系经历了重大的演化。在20世纪70年代，我们的关系的基调是和解和逐渐的正常化。我看到尼克松总统在1972年进行了著名的访华之旅。我听到我们两国经过数十年的沉默后又开始相互交谈。在后来的岁月里，我看到中国选择实施市场化改革，并向全球经济开放，这推动中国逐渐成为世界第二大经济体，中国的崛起进程令人印象深刻。来自世界银行和其他国际经济机构的援助为中国的发展提供了支持。美国国会和历届政府在支持中国融入全球市场方面发挥了重要的作用。  
但是，近年来，我也看到中国决定偏离市场化改革，转而执行更多政府主导的方针政策，这一路线损害了中国的邻国乃至世界各国的利益。与此同时，中国对待美国、我们的盟国和伙伴的姿态呈现愈加强烈的对抗性 – 不仅是在印太地区，而且在欧洲和其他区域。  
现在，我们正处于一个关键时点。世界正在面对自第二次世界大战以来欧洲规模最大的地面战争 – 而时间又恰好是欧洲刚走出百年一遇的疫情。低收入国家和中等收入国家的债务负担愈加沉重。包括我国在内的一些国家的国内经济体系和金融体系面临压力。联合国上月发布的一份报告显示，如果现在不采取严厉的措施，地球有可能在未来十年越过全球变暖的一个关键临界点。  
要这些议题上取得进展，就要求世界上最大的两个经济体进行建设性的交流。然而，我们两国之间的关系现在明显处于紧张的状态。  
所以，我今天想谈一谈我国对华的经济关系。我的目标是要做到明确和坦率：过滤掉噪音，基于冷静的现实直白地阐述这一具有重要意义的关系。   
美国对自己的长期经济实力是有信心的。我国仍然是世界最大的、最有活力的经济体。我们也坚定地捍卫我们的价值观和国家安全。在这一前提下，我们寻求对华发展建设性的、公平的经济关系。两国应当有能力坦率地讨论困难的议题，并且在条件允许的情况下我们两国应该开展合作，从而造福于我们两国乃至世界。 
我国对华的经济政策有三大目标。  
第一，我们要维护我国的国家安全利益、我们的盟友和伙伴的国家安全利益。我们要保护人权。我们要把自己对中国的行为的关切明确地告知中方。我们将毫不犹豫的捍卫我国的切身利益。即使我们采取的有针对性的措施可能在经济方面产生影响，这些措施的出发点完全是为了解决我们在自己的安全和价值观方面的关切。我们的目标并非是利用这些工具去获取经济上的竞争优势。  
第二，我们寻求对华健康的经济关系，这种关系能够促进两国的经济增长和创新。一个遵守国际规则、经济发展的中国对美国乃至世界都是好事。经济领域中的良性竞争会让两国都受益。但是，要让两国都受益，要让良性的经济竞争具有可持续性，前提条件是这种竞争是公平的。我们将继续与我们的盟友合作，共同对中国在经济领域的不公平的行为做出反应。我们将继续在国内的关键领域进行投资，同时要与国际社会一道努力建立我们所憧憬的开放、公平、基于规则的全球经济秩序。  
第三，在如今这个紧迫的全球性挑战方面我们寻求开展合作。自拜登总统和习主席去年会晤以来，两国一直同意就宏观经济加强沟通，在气候变化、债务负担等议题方面加强合作。但是，有必要作出更大的努力。我们呼吁中方按照自己的承诺就这些议题与我方开展合作，这不是给我们帮忙，而是出于我们两国对世界的共同的责任和义务。共同解决这些问题也将增进我们两国的国家利益。 
我们两国经济的现状 
我首先谈一谈我们两国经济的现状。  
近年来，许多人认为美中冲突的必然性越来越来强，担心美国在衰落是形成上述观点的背后的原因。美国国内部分人士也是有这种担忧的。按照上述观点，中国即将超过我国，成为世界头号经济强国，从而导致两国发生冲突。  
值得指出的是，看衰美国的论调已经存在数十年了。但这一论调总是被证伪。美国多次证明自己有能力通过调整和创新面对新的挑战。这一次也不例外，经济数据就是明证。 
自冷战结束以来，美国经济增速超过了大多数的发达经济体。在过去的两年中，我国所实现的疫情后复苏在主要发达经济体中是最强劲的。我国的失业率接近于历史低位。人均实际国内生产总值达到历史高点。自有记录以来，我国这两年新企业的数量增幅最为强劲。  
我国经济的本轮复苏要归功于我国经济基本面牢固。当然，这并不意味着我们已经大功告成。在经济领域我们的首要任务是控制住通胀，同时保护住本轮经济复苏的成果。几周前，在发生两家区域性金融机构经营失败的事件后美国采取果断的措施，以加强公众对美国银行体系的信心。美国的银行体系保持了稳健性，我们将采取任何必要措施，以确保美国的金融体系继续是世界上最强大、最安全的金融体系。 
在过去的数十年中，中国经济实现的崛起令人瞩目。从1980年到2010年，中国经济年均增长率为10%。这这导致中国实现了一个确实了不起的成就：数亿的人口实现脱贫。中国经济能够快速追赶上来得益于该国推行对外全球贸易开放和市场改革的政策。 
但是，与许多国家类似，中国如今也在近期面临自己的不利因素。这包括：房地产行业存在脆弱性；青年人失业率高企；居民消费羸弱。从更长的时间段看，中国面临结构性的挑战。中国人口正在老龄化，劳动力人口的规模正在下降。中国的生产率增速出现大幅下滑，源于中国倒向经济民族主义，奉行的政策大幅增加政府对经济的干预。这些近期的新情况都没有减损中国取得的进步，也没有减损中国人民的勤劳和智慧。但是，中国的长期增长率似乎可能要下滑。   
当然，一个经济体的体量并非决定其实力的唯一因素。美国不仅是世界最大的经济体，而且在一系列的经济指标方面仍然占据头把交椅——包括财富的总量、技术创新等各方面。美国的人均国内生产总值在世界上居于前列，是中国人均国内生产总值的五倍以上。与其说是资源或地理条件造就了我国的成功，不如把我国的成功归结为我国的人民、价值观和制度。尽管美国的民主制度并非完美，但这一制度为思想的自由交流和法治保驾护航，而思想的自由交流和法治正是可持续的经济增长的基石。我国的教育机构和科研机构世界领先。我国的创新文化让我们有能力继续创造出世界最尖端的的产品和产业。包括来自中国的新移民为我国的创新文化提供了新的养分。  
重要的是，因为我们不是孤军奋战，我们的经济实力得以放大。美国重视我们包括在印太地区的世界各地的密友和伙伴。在21世纪，任何孤立中的国家都不能让本国人民享受到强劲的、可持续的经济增长。因此，在拜登总统的领导下，我们一直努力巩固和加强我国与其他国家的关系。  
归根到底，中国经济发展与美国在经济领域发挥领导作用并不是必然矛盾的。美国仍然是世界上最有活力、最繁荣的经济体。我们没有理由害怕与任何国家在经济领域开展良性的经济竞争。 
维护我国的国家安全利益并保护人权 
摆在我们的前面有诸多的挑战。但是，拜登总统和我认为，中美两国能够以负责任的方式管控好我们两国之间的经济关系。我们能够努力在未来做到，两国共享并推动全球经济增长。我们是否让这一愿景落地在很大程度上取决于我们两国在未来几年如何行动。  
我想谈一谈我们的第一目标：维护我国的国家安全并保护人权。这些是我们不会妥协的领域。  
国家安全 
跟我国处理与所有国家的外交关系一样，国家安全在我国的对华关系中是重中之重。例如，我们已经明确表示，防止某些技术落入中国军队和安全机关的手中就是为了维护我国的切身国家利益。  
为实现这一目标，我们有一系列的工具可以动用。在必要时，我们将在很窄的范围采取有针对性的措施。美国政府的措施可以采取出口管制的形式。这些措施可以包括在实体清单上增加实体，限制那些为人民解放军提供支持的实体获取美国的技术。在涉及网络安全和与中国的军民融合相关的威胁方面，美国财政部有权采取制裁措施。我们也对外国在美投资认真地进行国家安全风险审查，并采取必要的措施化解这样的风险。我们正在考虑建立一项制度，在涉及那些对国家安全具有重大影响的特定敏感技术时，限制美国企业对外投资。  
就我们采取的这些措施而言，我要明确指出，这些国家安全范畴的措施的出发点并非让我们在经济方面取得竞争优势，也不是为了遏制中国的经济现代化和技术现代化。即使这些政策可能在经济方面造成影响，这些政策的依据也纯粹是国家安全方面的考虑。我们在这些问题上不会妥协，即使这样的措施迫使我们在经济利益方面做出取舍。 
在经济领域就国家安全采取措施时，我们会遵循若干重要的原则。  
首先，这些措施的范围会很窄、针对性很强，要达到的目的是明确的。这种措施的定位很准确，以缓解对其他领域的溢出效应。第二，一定要让这些工具易懂，具有可操作性。并且在情况发生变化时，这些工具必须能够随时调整。第三，在条件允许的情况下，在设计和执行我们的政策时，我们会跟我们的盟友和伙伴进行交流和协调。  
此外，为了化解发生误解和矛盾意外升级的风险，沟通是必不可少的。我们在国家安全领域采取措施时，我们将继续向其他国家阐述我们的政策逻辑。就副作用的问题我们会听取并回应其他国家表达的关切。  
我们认为最紧迫的国家安全问题之一是俄罗斯非法地无端地对乌克兰发动战争。在我访问基辅期间，我亲眼目睹了俄罗斯的侵略有多么的残忍。俄罗斯轰炸医院、摧毁文化场所、袭击输送能源的网络，给平民造成沉重的苦难。结束俄罗斯的战争是我们的道义必选项。这将拯救许多无辜的生命。正如我曾经说过的那样，这也是我们可以为全球经济提供的最大利好。为结束俄罗斯的战争，我们推动建立的制裁机制是现代历史上速度最快、最团结、雄心水平最高的多边制裁机制。我们推动建立由伙伴国广泛参与的联盟也为乌克兰提供了援助，以便让该国能够自卫。  
中国对俄罗斯的“无上限” 伙伴关系和对俄罗斯的支持是一个令人忧虑的迹象，这表明中国对结束这场战争没有报以认真的态度。必须确保，中国和其他国家不能为俄罗斯提供实质性支持或者协助俄罗斯规避制裁。我们将继续以极其明确的方式向中国政府和中国政府管辖的企业阐明美国的立场。违反对俄制裁的行为将导致严重的后果。  
人权 
类似于国家安全问题，我们不会在保护人权方面妥协。这一原则是我们对外交往的基础。  
世人已经亲眼目睹中国政府在国内强化镇压。中国政府已经动用技术手段监控中国人民，并且正在向数十个国家出口监控技术。  
侵犯人权的行为违反了世界的道德良知，也违反了联合国的基本原则——几乎每个国家，包括中国，都承诺遵守这些原则。无论世界上何地出现侵犯人权的行为，美国将继续动用我们的工具进行阻止和威慑。  
在与中国政府交往的公开场合和私下场合，美国就中国政府在新疆以及香港、西藏和中国其他地区的侵犯人权的行为表达了严重的关切。我们已经采取了行动并将继续采取行动。就中国的地方官员和企业参与的一系列的侵犯人权的行为，我们已经采取制裁措施，他们的侵权行为包括酷刑和任意拘押等行为。我们现在限制进口那些来自新疆涉及强迫劳动的商品。  
在采取上述措施的时，我们现在都是与我们的盟友协调行动，因为我们知道，大家一起行动时我们的措施的效果就更好。  
迈向良性的经济关系 
我们不但要维护我国的安全利益，维护我们在人权方面的价值观，我们也要努力实现我们的第二个目标：那种让两国都受益的良性的经济关系。  
我首先阐述简单的道理。美国和中国是世界上最大的两个经济体。我们两国经济相互融合的程度很深。我们两国的贸易总额在2021年超过了7000亿美元。我们与中国的贸易量超过了加拿大和墨西哥以外的任何国家。美国企业在华的经营规模相当之大。数以百计的中资企业在我国的证券交易所挂牌交易，正是这些交易所让美国的资本市场成为世界上最具深度和流动性最强的资本市场。根据《自然》杂志的指数，美国和中国在科研领域都是对方最重要的伙伴国。中国也是在美留学生的主要来源国这一。  
正如我曾经说过的那样，当我国切身利益受到威胁时，美国将坚持自己的立场。但是，我们并不寻求让我国经济与中国经济“脱钩”。让我们两国经济彻底分离将对两国都是灾难性的，对其他国家和地区的稳定带来冲击。我们认识到，中国经济和美国经济的健康是紧密关联的。一个遵守规则、经济发展的中国对美国是有利的。例如，这意味着对美国产品和服务的需求量上升，意味着美国的产业更有活力。  
在美国国内增加现代供给侧投资 
2021年4月，我以财长的身份首次就国际经济政策发表一次重大的演讲，我当时说：“在国外的信誉首先取决于在国内的信誉”。从根本上讲，美国在21世纪的竞争能力取决于美国政府作出的选择，而不是取决于中国政府作出的选择。  
我们的经济战略的核心是投资于自己——而不是压制或者遏制任何其他经济体。  
自我那次演讲以来的两年期间，美国贯彻的经济路线是我称之为现代供给侧经济学。我们的政策的出发点是要扩大美国经济的产能，即要提高我们经济生产能力的上限。为此，拜登总统已签署三部具有历史意义的法案。我们颁布了《两党基础设施法案》——这是我们这一代人在基础设施建设方面雄心水平最高的措施，将推动我国在道路、桥梁、港口和高速互联网方面的现代化建设。《芯片和科学法案》将推动美国的半导体制造业的规模实现历史性的扩大。《通胀削减法案》让我们对清洁能源的投资规模到达我国历史的最高点。这些措施巩固了美国在这些代表未来的产业中的实力，也会为我国经济的长远发展奠定更扎实的基础。 
在经济领域里的良性竞争：我们的愿景和要求 
美国主张在经济领域开展良性的竞争，认识到这一性质很重要。   
美国并不寻求在竞争中赢家通吃。相反，我们认为，如果按照一套公平的规则在经济领域开展良性竞争，那么随着时间的推移两国都会受益。根据经济学的基本原则，持续不断的竞争可以导致相互促进相互提高。持续对阵强手的运动队发挥的水平更高。当企业为获得消费者而竞争时，它们会生产出更加物美价廉的商品。以下的愿景是可以实现的：美中两国的企业都努力要比对方更优秀，两国的经济都得到发展，生活水平都得以提高，新的创新都能开花结果。  
例如，个人电脑、核磁共振成像等来自美国的发明创造让中国受益。同理，我相信，来自中国的新的科研成果和医学进步也能让美国人和世界受益——并激励我们要在前沿领域加大研究和创新的力度。  
但是，要想让这种良性竞争具有可持续性的前提是这种竞争对双方都是公平的。  
长期以来，中国政府为本国企业提供支持，帮助它们增加自己的市场份额，从而压低外国竞争对手的市场份额。但近年来，中国产业政策的复杂性和雄心都在增加。中国已经加大对国有企业和国内民营企业的支持的力度，以便让它们在与外国竞争对手的竞争中胜出。这一路线不仅体现在传统行业，还体现在新兴技术领域。在贯彻这一战略的同时，中国还以咄咄逼人的姿态获取新的技术和知识产权——包括通过窃取知识产权和其他的非法手段。  
在某些情况下，政府干预是有道理的——例如为了纠正特定的市场失灵的问题。但是，中国政府动用非市场化工具的规模和广度要比其他主要经济体大得多。中国还对美国企业设置了许多市场准入方面的壁垒，而这些壁垒是中国企业在美国不用面对的。例如，按照中国政府经常提出的要求，外国企业要想在中国开展业务就要向中国国内企业转让自己的拥有自主知识产权的技术。中方在市场准入方面设置的这些限制导致竞争环境有利于中国的企业。此外，中国针对美国企业的带有胁迫性色彩的措施最近有所增加，而与此同时中方的表态是欢迎外资回来，我们对这一事态感到关切。  
中国政府的措施已经对全球制造业的布局产生重大的影响。这些措施已经伤害美国乃至全球的劳动者和企业。  
在某些情况下，中国也利用其经济的力量对处于弱势地位的贸易伙伴进行报复和胁迫。例如，针对其他国家在外交方面的措施，中国以抵制特定商品的方式进行惩罚。中国采取这些措施往往是打着商业的旗号。但其真实的目标是为了让那些做出让中国不快的选择的国家付出代价——从而迫使外国政府屈从于中国在政治上的要求。  
 具有讽刺意味的是，美国所倡导的开放、公平、基于规则的全球经济秩序正是推动中国实现经济转型的国际秩序。中国的不公平的行为所导致的效率低下和脆弱性也许到头来会损害中国自己的经济增长。  
中国的高层官员多次谈及让市场在资源配置方面发挥“决定性作用”的重要意义——包括今年前不久的一次演讲。如果中国政府能够在实践中沿着这一方向调整政策，让自己宣示的改革目标落地，这将对中国乃至世界都是好事。  
对中国在经济领域的不公平的行为，我们要对中方施加压力，与此同时，我们将继续与我们的盟友和伙伴协调应对的措施。拜登总统的重点工作之一是确保我国关键供应链的韧性。在某些行业，中国在经济领域的不公平的行为导致关键商品的生产活动过于集中于中国国内。在拜登总统的领导下，我们现在不仅在国内增加对制造业的投入，我们还在推行一项被称为“友岸外包”的战略，这一战略旨在化解那些能够导致供应链断裂的薄弱环节。通过与一大批我们能靠得住的贸易伙伴进行合作，我们正在为我们的关键供应链增加备用能力。  
当然，我们认识到，我们要加强全球经济秩序的最佳方式，就是向世人证明这一秩序是有效的。我们对国际金融机构进行的投资和我们在世界各地深化对外关系的努力正在让更多的人从国际经济体系中受益。我们也在加快落实我们对发展中国家的承诺。例如，美国和七国集团的其他成员国的目标是，最晚到2027年要动员6000亿美元的资金用于优质基础设施的建设。我们重点关注那些能够为这些国家在经济上带来正回报的项目，并让它们的债务处于可持续的水平。当国际体系需要改革的时候，我们对改革是不会犹豫的。美国正在与多边发展银行的股东国合作推动改革，让这些机构更好地应对当今紧迫的全球性挑战——例如：气候变化、大规模流行病、脆弱性和冲突。 
 
在应对全球性挑战方面共同发挥领导作用 
“在确定我国对华经济关系的方针路线时，我们也要谋求实现我国的第三个目标：在重大的全球性挑战方面开展合作。重要的是，无论我们两国在其他方面有何分歧，我们两国都要在全球性议题上取得进展。这正是世界需要美中两个最大的经济体所做的事情。”  
作为一项基础性工作，我们两国必须继续努力建立畅通的沟通渠道，从而在宏观经济和金融方面开展合作。美中两国经济形势的变化能够很快地传导至全球金融市场乃至全球经济。就两国如何应对经济领域的冲击，我们两国必须坚持充分地交流意见。我与刘鹤副总理和中方其他高级官员的对话就是一个好的开端。我希望能和我的新的对口官员延续这种对话。  
除了宏观经济，我今天想重点谈两个全球层面的优先事项：债务负担和气候变化。管控这些问题的最佳方式是美中两国能够合作，并且我们与盟友和伙伴要协调行动。  
债务负担 
首先，我们必须合作帮助那些面临债务困境的新兴市场国家和发展中国家。全球债务问题并非中美之间的双边问题。这一问题关乎如何以负责任的方式在全球层面上发挥领导作用。在官方借贷方面中国现在是世界上最大的双边债权国，在债务国无法全额清偿债务的时候，中国的这一身份导致自己必然要和其他双边债权国按照同一套规则承担不可推卸的责任。  
中国的参与对实质性的债务减免是不可或缺的。但是，长期以来，中国还没有全面及时地采取行动。中国成为采取必要措施的障碍。  
今年早些时候，在我访问赞比亚期间我亲身感受到了减免债务的紧迫性。该国政商界领袖跟我谈及赞比亚的债务负担已经抑制政府和企业对关键领域的投入，阻碍了经济发展。但是，赞比亚并非处于这一局面的唯一国家。国际货币基金组织估计，低收入国家中有一半以上的国家接近于或者已经陷入债务危机。  
就加快处置债务的问题，美国已经与中国政府进行了详细的讨论。我们欢迎中国最近为斯里兰卡提供了具体的、可信的融资保证，这使得国际货币基金组合可以推进一项借贷安排。但是，斯里兰卡的所有双边债权国包括中国要及时按照它们的承诺处置债务。我们继续督促中国全面参与进来，按照符合基金组织的惯例的方式处置其他国家的债务问题。这包括像赞比亚和加纳这样债务形势危急的国家。  
及时处置债务问题符合中国的利益。拖延必要的债务处置将导致借款国和债权国的成本都增加。这会恶化借款国的经济基本面，增大它们最终需要的债务减免数量。  
 在更广泛的层面上，国际债务重组进程有相当大的改进空间。我们与基金组织和世界银行一起，正在与各方面的利益相关方开展合作，完善针对低收入国家的《债务处理共同框架》和整个债务处理进程。正如赞比亚官员跟我讲的那样，解决这些问题是对多边主义的真正考验。  
气候变化 
第二，我们必须合作应对那些威胁我们所有人的长期性全球性的挑战。气候变化在这一挑战清单上排在首位。历史向我们展示了我们两国能够做到的事情：美中两国在气候问题上的合作时刻已使全球取得突破成为可能，包括《巴黎协定》。  
我们承担着发挥表率作用的共同责任。中国是温室气体头号排放大国，排在下一位的是美国。美国要承担其自己的责任。在过去一年期间，美国在国内气候领域采取的行动为史上力度最大。我们的投资让我国有望落实美国在《巴黎协定》项下的承诺，并最晚在2050年前实现净零排放。这些投资还将为世界带来正面的外溢效应，包括通过降低清洁能源技术的成本。在国际上，我们也在帮助各国以公正的方式实现能源转型，减少它们自身的碳排放。这些国家的转型也将有助于扩大能源供给，为那些受政策影响的群体和劳动者提供经济机会。 
我们期待中国落实其在我们两国的《格拉斯哥联合宣言》中所作出的承诺。这包括实现减排目标和终止对未加装减排设施的燃煤电厂的海外融资支持。中国还应该支持发展中国家和新兴市场国家推进自己的清洁能源转型。此外，美中同为二十国集团可持续金融工作组的联合主席，我们期待着与中国共同促进私人资本的流动。  
我们愿与中方合作应对气候变化这一涉及人类生存的挑战。我们敦促中国认真地与我们合作，并兑现自己的承诺。鉴于气候变化的重要性，我们两国别无选择。  
结论 
有些人把美中两国之间的关系定性为大国冲突：一场零和的双边竞赛，一方衰落才能让另一方崛起。拜登总统和我不认同这一视角。我们相信，世界足够大，能同时容下我们两国。中国和美国能够并且应当找到共处和共享全球繁荣之道。我们可以承认双方的分歧，维护自己的利益，并公平地开展竞争。事实上，对于美国经济的根本实力和美国劳动者的技能水平，美国将继续保有信心。但正如拜登总统曾说过的：“我们都有责任要防止竞争滑向冲突的边缘”。  
通过谈判确定大国间的交往之道是困难的 。美国绝不会在我们的安全和原则上妥协。但是，如果中国也愿意发挥自己的作用，我们是能够找到一条前进的道路的。  
因此，我计划在适当的时间访华。我希望，在中国政府换届之后，我能够与中国政府中新的对口官员就经济议题开展重要的、实质性的对话。我相信，这一对话有助于为两国以负责任方式管控双边关系奠定基础，在那些涉及我们两国和世界面临的共同挑战领域中开展合作。  
正如大家所知道的那样，我是经济学家出身。经济学通常被视为是一个涉及整个经济体的结构和运行的领域。但是，在最高粒度级别，经济学研究的对象更基础。经济学研究的是人们作出的选择。具体来讲，是人们在特定的情形下作出的选择—稀缺性、风险，有时候涉及压力。个人和企业作出的选择如何相互影响，所有的选择在国家层面上或者全球层面上如何汇总出一个综合的格局。  
换言之，一个经济体就是人们做出的所有选择的综合结果。  
美国和中国之间的关系也是同理。我们的道路并非命中注定的，这一道路也并非必然是代价高昂的。这一关系的轨迹就是我们这两个大国的所有人随着时间的推移作出的所有选择的综合结果—包括何时合作、何时竞争，何时承认：即使在竞争中，和平与繁荣是我们的共同利益。 
美国认为，以负责的方式处理美中两国之间的经济关系符合我们两国人民自己的利益。这也是世界的希望和期待。在当今具有挑战性的时刻，我认为，美中两国必须做出这样的选择。 
谢谢。

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
###