CGTN公布刘欣与翠西电视辩论中英双语文字实录

中文实录：

翠西·里根：今天晚上我有一位特别的嘉宾，她是来自于中国北京，跟我们聊一聊美国和她的国家中国之间的贸易挑战。

她是中国一档黄金时段英语电视节目的主持人，该节目由中国共产党监督。我知道我们不可能在所有问题上持相同意见，但我认为这是一个非常好的机会，让我们能够听到非常不一样的声音。

目前贸易谈判陷入僵局，所以能够有机会了解中国共产党对贸易的看法和对美国的看法，将是非常有意义的。为了透明起见，我要解释一下，我不代表任何人，我只代表我自己，我的身份是福克斯电视台的节目主持人。我们这期节目的嘉宾则是中国共产党的一员，但是没关系。如我之前所说，我欢迎不同的观点、不同的视角。

那我们欢迎刘欣，她是黄金时段节目主持人，《欣视点》节目的主持人来到《翠西·里根黄金档》节目。由于中国和美国卫星信号连接有一些延迟，所以希望我们不会出现声音重叠或把对方的声音盖住。刘欣，欢迎你，非常高兴你来到我的节目。

刘欣：谢谢你，翠西，非常感谢邀请我来到你的节目。今天是一个前所未有的机会，我之前从未想过能有这样的机会跟你直接进行沟通，跟美国的广大观众进行交流。

我必须说明一下，我还不是中国共产党党员，这点是有档案可查的，请不要先入为主地认为我是一个党员。我不代表中国共产党的立场，我只代表我个人，刘欣，是CGTN的主播。

图自CGTN，下同

翠西·里根：你觉得中美贸易谈判现在处在一个什么阶段？你是否相信我们会达成一个协议？

刘欣：我没有什么内幕消息，只知道上一轮谈判不是很顺利，当时是在美国谈的。现在双方都在考虑未来前进的方向。

中国政府已经把立场说得很清楚了，只要美方用公正的态度对待中国政府和中方的谈判团队，拿出谈判的诚意，不施加外部压力，还是很有希望达成一个好的结果的；否则双方都会面临一个长期的僵局。

翠西·里根：我想强调的是，贸易战从来都不是好事，对谁都没有任何好处。所以我愿意相信我们是会达成一些成果的（刘欣：同意）。这无疑是一个充满挑战的时代，我也看到有很多的言论。那让我来提问一个其中最主要的问题，就是知识产权问题。从根本上说，我们都认为，如果不是你的东西，你拿走是不对的。但是我们看到有很多这样的案例，比如像WTO这样独立的国际组织，中国也是WTO的成员，还有美国司法部和联邦调查局，都公布过此类案例，你现在可以从我们屏幕上面看到列出了其中一些这样的案例。这些都是证据，显示中国窃取了美国大量的知识产权，价值数千亿美元。数额巨大。

但我们应该真正关心的不是上亿还是说几毛钱，而是：如果在中国做生意的美国企业面临着它们的知识产权、创意、辛勤劳动的成果被窃取的风险，它们还如何在中国做生意？

刘欣：你得问美国的企业了，它们想不想来中国，它们在中国做生意、与中国企业合作是否有利可图，美国企业会告诉你他们的答案。据我所知，大部分在中国做生意的美国企业的利润都是非常丰厚的，绝大部分决定继续在中国投资，不断开拓中国市场。但是美国总统特朗普的关税政策使这种计划变得困难，也让未来变得更加不确定。

我不否认有侵犯知识产权的情况，有版权问题、盗版问题甚至商业机密被窃取的问题。我认为这是必须要处理的问题，而中国政府、中国人民，包括我自己作为一个个体，都有一个共识，就是：没有知识产权的保护，任何一个国家、任何一个人，都无法发展壮大。所以说这个是我们全社会的一个共识。

当然，是有一些个人或者公司去窃取的情况，这个我觉得也不仅仅在中国，在全世界都很普遍，美国公司也有这样的情况，因为知识产权侵权而打官司。你不能仅仅因为这些案例就说美国在盗窃，或者中国、中国人民在盗窃。这也是我为什么之前做出那样的回应，因为这样笼统的指责无益于问题的解决。

翠西·里根：这不是我的说辞，而是有很多相关报告的，包括WTO也有这样的证据。我们现在来谈谈华为的问题，这是一个热点话题。

我们其实都会同意，如果我们想跟别人做生意，必须基于互信。你不希望在做生意的时候，别人把你研究了几十年的很有价值的东西偷走。中国从2017年开始授权科技企业与军方和政府合作（译注：翠西此处应该是指中央军民融合发展委员会成立于2017年1月22日），这就意味着不仅只是一个公司行为，而是政府行为了，这两者之间是有稍许区别的。但据我所知，华为不能进入美国市场，中国觉得不太高兴，这我也可以理解。但我换种方式来问吧，这么问或许更有趣，比如“华为，来我们美国市场吧。但我们先约法三章：你必须跟我们分享你们所取得的那些巨大的科技成就”，这种方式，你觉得可以吗？

刘欣：如果通过合作的框架，互相学习，如果你支付了知识产权的费用，我觉得是可以的。为什么不呢？我们互相学习才能共同进步。我自己也学英语，因为我有美国老师，我有美国的朋友，同时我做新闻，我的编辑、同事很多都是美国人。只要不是违法的事情，都是可以做的，大家都应该这么做，才能够不断让自己做得更好。

翠西·里根：你说的有一点非常重要，就是你要获得这些（知识产权），你就得付费。我觉得我们生活在一个经济自由化的世界，我们历来都很重视知识产权的保护，并且知识产权是受到一整套法律保护的。如果我们想要达成对彼此的互信的话，我们都需要根据规则和法律行事。我现在换个话题吧，中国已经是世界第二大经济体，你觉得什么时候中国会停止称自己为发展中国家，会不再向世界银行借钱？

刘欣：我觉得这种讨论，也在进行之中，我听到了很多现场的讨论，的确，有人说中国已经成为一个大国，为什么不能像一个成人一样长大。基本上你也在你的节目中，也说到，说中国要长大，我们的确也想要变的强大，我们不想要一直是一个弱小、贫穷、欠发达的国家，但这也要取决于你如何定义发展中国家，对吗？如果你看中国整体的经济体量，的确是体量非常大，但是你不要忘了，我们有14亿人口，这个是美国的三倍之多。虽然中国是世界第二大经济体，但是如果按人均GDP来算的话，大概是美国人均GDP的六分之一。与某些欧洲发达国家相比，甚至会更少。

那你告诉我，我们该如何定位自己呢？这是一个非常复杂的问题，因为像我所说的人均的数值很小的，但是总体的体量又很大，我们可以做一些大事，人们也寄希望于中国，在全球有更多的贡献。我们的确也在这么做，我们为联合国做出了很多的贡献，我们是联合国（五个常任理事国中）维和行动最大的贡献方，我们给了捐赠、给了人道主义援助等等。我知道我们要继续壮大。翠西感谢你，你提醒的这一点非常好。

翠西·里根：那我们来谈谈关税的问题，我也看了你之前的一些评论。刘欣，我也很感谢，你说中国可以降低一些关税，我看到你说了这个话，我完全同意你这个观点，2016年加征在美国产品上的平均关税，是9.9%，比美国加征在中国身上的高三倍。你觉得这个关税该怎么解决？如果我建议说“要不咱们采取统一行动，统一降低关税”，你觉得这可行吗？

刘欣：我觉得这是一个很好的想法。你不觉得这对于美国消费者来说，他们可以享受更加实惠的中国产品？对于中国的消费者来说美国的产品也会变的实惠？这是我们共同努力的方向。你提到一个基于规则的一个系统，或者是一个基于规则的秩序，所以说，如果要改变规则的话，就必须双方先达成共识。您谈到关税的问题，不光是中美之间的问题。如果你降低中美之间的关税，那欧洲会来、日本也会来、委内瑞拉也会来，同样要求降低关税，你不能区别对待，所以要达成这个协议，是非常复杂的。对，我是说关于贸易的问题，关于关税的，我认为上一次全球达成关于降低关税的意见，中方也做出了承诺，这就是多边主义和长期艰难谈判的结果。美国看到自己的利益，决定他们要降低到什么程度，降低多少，没人拿抢指着他们的脑袋。中国虽然遇到了一些困难，那我们也大幅降低了我们的关税，这都是各国基于自身利益做出的决定。现在大环境变了，我同意，20年过去了，我们现在要怎么做，有一些规则是需要改变的。你知道吗？那我们就聊聊这些规则，我们可以按照相同的规则行事，如果你不喜欢一些规则，那我们就改变它，但是我说的是这必须是多方达成的共同决定。

翠西·里根：那我们回到1974年《贸易法》301条款，《贸易法》301条款中，有规则授权美国可以用关税去限制中国的行为，如果中国拿走或窃取知识产权的话。某种程度来说，这是事情的本源，是关于信任的问题。你谈到强迫技术转让，一些美国公司也许做了错误的决定，愿意按照中国的要求，放弃一些东西。这个问题要从国家的角度介入。我们看到美国已经做出一些举措，并且是以一种前所未有的方式在做。现在实情就是如此，请不要误解为我的个人想法。我想说之前的政府看到了这样一些挑战，但是他们没有想要解决的意愿，目前来讲时代变了。你怎么定义国家资本主义？

刘欣：我没有听清，您能再说一遍吗？想要定义什么？我听到你说强迫技术转让。

翠西·里根：不，国家资本主义。之前是谈到过强迫技术转让，但现在说的是国家资本主义。

刘欣：你之前谈强迫技术转让，怎么突然跳到了别的主题？

翠西·里根：等一下刘欣，你让我说完，你们的经济体系，是挺有意思的，你们有一个资本主义的体系，但是受国家控制的。跟我们聊一聊这方面，你是如何定义的？

刘欣：我们定义是中国特色社会主义市场经济，市场力量依然是占主导力量，它在资源分配上，起决定性作用。它本身是市场经济，但是会有中国特色。比如说有一些国有企业，在经济中，起到非常重要的，但是相对越来越小的作用。大家都会觉得中国的经济，所有都是国家控制，所有都是国家、国家、国家，但事实却并不是如此，你如果看一下数字，80%中国雇员都是受雇于民营企业的，也有80%的出口来自于民营企业。65%的创新是源于民营企业。很多对人们日常生活影响巨大的公司，比如说一些网络公司、5G公司，都是私营企业。我们的确是中国特色社会主义市场经济，但不是所有的东西都是由国家控制，我们其实是一个非常混合、非常活跃、非常开放的经济体。

翠西·里根：我觉得你们可能希望能够继续这样开放，因为我个人是自由贸易支持者，我认为这是正确的方向。最终我们希望中国更繁荣，美国也更繁荣，这样的话我们才能双赢。我觉得我们的对话很有趣，非常感谢你。

刘欣：谢谢，非常感谢！如果未来还想讨论的话，我们也可以继续。

翠西·里根：我是非常希望的。

刘欣：愿意来中国的话，我们也非常欢迎，感谢！

翠西·里根：非常感谢。

翻页见英文实录：

Trish Regan: Tonight, I have a special guest joining me all the way from Beijing, China to discuss the challenges of trade between the US and her home country.

She’s the host of a primetime English language television programme 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.

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. In the interests 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.

I’m very pleased tonight to welcome Ms. Liu Xin, host of the primetime opinion programme The Point with Liu Xin, to Trish Regan Primetime, tonight. To the viewers, please bear with us, as we have a significant time delay in our satellites between Beijing and the US 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 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.

I have to get it straight, I am not a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC), 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, here today I’m only speaking for myself, as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN.

Trish Regan: What is your current assessment of where the trade talks actually are? Do you believe a deal is possible?

Liu Xin: I don’t have any insider information. What I know is 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 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 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 that something can get done (LX: Agreed). These are certainly challenging times, I realise there’s a lot of rhetoric out there. But let me turn to one of the biggest issues and that’s intellectual property rights. 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 that the independent World Trade Organisation, the WTO, that China is a member of, 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. That’s a lot of money.

But 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: 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, they’re very profitable and the great majority of them I believe plan to continue to invest in China and explore the Chinese market. U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff makes it a little bit more difficult, makes the future a little uncertain.

I do not deny that there are IP infringements, 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, the Chinese people and me as an individual, I think there’s a consensus because without the protection of IP rights, nobody, no country, no individual can be stronger, can develop itself. I think that is a very clear consensus among 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, and there are companies in the United States who sue each other all the time over infringement on IP rights. 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 that kind of blanket statement is really not helpful, really not helpful.

Trish Regan: 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 now…

I think we can all agree that if you’re going to do business with someone, it has to be based on trust. 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 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 is 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. What if we said, ‘hey 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 ok?

Liu Xin: I think if it is through cooperation, if it is through mutual learning, if you pay for the use of this IP or high technology, it’s absolutely fine, why not? We all prosper because we learn from each other, I learnt English because I had American teachers, I learnt English because I had American friends, I still learn how to do journalism because I have American copy editors or editors. I think that’s fine so long as it’s not illegal, I think everybody should do that and that’s how you get better.

Trish Regan: You mentioned something pretty important, which is that you should pay for the acquisition of that (IP). I think that the liberalized economic world in which we live has valued intellectual property and it’s governed by a set of laws. So we all need to 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, wow, the second largest economy. At what point will China decide to abandon its developing nation status and 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 becoming so big, why don’t you just grow up? Basically I think you said it in your program as well, “China, grow up!” I think we want to grow up, we don’t want to be dwarfed or poor, underdeveloped all the time. But it depends on how you define developing country. If you look at China’s overall size, the overall size of the Chinese economy, yes, we are very big. 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 we are less than one sixth of that of the United States, and even less than some other more developed countries in Europe.

So you tell me where we should 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. I think we are doing that, we are contributing to the United Nations. We are the world’s biggest contributor to the UN peacekeeping missions (among the five permanent members of the UN), we are giving out donations and humanitarian aid 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 9.9%. That was nearly three times what the US was charging. So what do you say about this, what do you think about saying “hey, to heck with these tariffs, let’s get rid of them altogether.” Would that work?

Liu Xin: I think that would be a wonderful idea. 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 think that would be a wonderful idea, I think we should work towards that. But 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 when we talk about tariffs it’s 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 will probably come and say ‘hey, we want the same tariffs’. You can’t discriminate between countries. So it’s a very complicated settlement to reach. I think the last time the world agreed on the kind of tariff 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 could agree, or to what degree they could lower their tariff - nobody put a gun to their head - and China agreed, although with some difficulty, to lower their, our, tariff considerably, it is all the decision of countries according to their own self-interest. 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 rules, but if you don’t like the rules, we’ll change the rules, but it has to be a multilateral process.

Trish Regan: There are rules. You can 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 a 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 the near term, but this an issue where the country as a whole needs to step in. And we’re seeing the United States do that, perhaps in a way that hasn’t happened. 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 bit, you mean the forced technology transfer, or so-called forced technology transfer?

Trish Regan: No, state capitalism. I talked about forced technology transfer, but state capitalism.

Liu Xin: Because you started with the forced technology transfer and somehow you skit away.

Trish Regan: Hang on one second, Xin. Your system of economics is very interesting because you have a capitalist system but it’s state-run, so talk to us about that, how do you define it?

Liu Xin: 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, 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, state, state, but let me tell you, it is not the true picture. If you look at the statistics, for instance 80% of Chinese employees were employed by private enterprises, 80% of Chinese exports were done by private companies, 65% of technological innovation were achieved, carried out, by private enterprises, some of the largest companies that affect our lives, 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 not everything is state-controlled, state-run, it’s not like that, we are actually quite mixed, very dynamic and actually very very open as well.

Trish Regan: I think you need to probably keep being open. I think that that, as a free trade person myself, I think that that’s the direction to pursue and ultimately that leads to greater economic prosperity for you and better economic prosperity for us, so then you get a win-win. This was interesting, I appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Liu Xin: Thank you, thank you so much. If you want to have a discussion in the future, we can do that.

Trish Regan: I’d love it.

Liu Xin: If you want to come to China, you’re welcome and I’ll take you around. Thank you Trish for the opportunity.

Trish Regan: Thank you.

（来源：CGTN）