大卫ˑ戈德曼：和中国相关的信息，在美国是被压制，还是被忽略？-大卫·保罗·戈德曼

【采访、翻译/观察者网 刘倩藜 编辑/宁栎】

观察者网：最近美国一家偏保守主流报纸主动向您约稿，希望您就俄乌局势发表评论。但当您交稿时，对方拒绝予以发表。对方说了理由吗？你觉得是怎样的观点或表述刺激到了对方的神经？

**戈德曼：**在那篇评论中，我说俄乌战争的爆发和第一次世界大战的爆发非常相似。一战前，各方基于各自利益，采取了理性行动，但共同制造了一场灾难。

面对当前俄乌局势，几乎所有美国主流报纸的社论立场都是把责任归咎于俄罗斯。我并不是在为俄罗斯向乌克兰发动攻击做辩护，但引发俄罗斯行动的是西方不断将北约东扩至俄罗斯边境的行为。包括亨利·基辛格（美国前国务卿）、威廉·伯恩斯（美中央情报局局长、美国前驻俄罗斯大使）在内的许多美国人都曾警告北约不要扩张，并预测了当前这一灾难性后果。尽管事实已证明这些警告是正确的，但大多数美国主流媒体在报道这次俄罗斯对乌开展军事行动时拒绝谈及历史脉络。

2014年《华盛顿邮报》发表基辛格文章《解决乌克兰危机要“以终为始”》

观察者网：中国有可能调解俄乌冲突吗？

**戈德曼：**这当然是可能的。3月9日我在《亚洲时报》上提到了这一点；3月13日中国与全球化智库王辉耀博士在《纽约时报》上也提出了这一观点。中国是俄罗斯和乌克兰的主要贸易伙伴，乌克兰是最早参与“一带一路”倡议的国家之一。中国有资源，可以提出帮助战后重建，以此促谈，推动双方达成妥协。但调解取决于双方是否有意愿妥协。

目前还不清楚俄方会愿意接受什么样的妥协。乌克兰的立场也很难解读，因为乌总统泽连斯基在一些场合提到愿意妥协，在另外一些场合又把俄罗斯比作二战期间的纳粹德国，但纳粹德国毕竟是个邪恶存在，和它达成妥协是不可能的。

在不愿妥协的双方之间进行调解是有风险的，因为一旦调停失败，外界可能会“甩锅”给这个调解人。不过，我仍然认为，如果走出这一步对中国来说是积极的。

观察者网：欧美禁止进口俄罗斯能源后，又纷纷向拉美、中东产油国家求助。这个进口结构调整，会对全球能源市场带来什么影响？

**戈德曼：**美国和欧洲正和海湾国家石油出口国谈判，希望取代俄罗斯的能源生产。我不知道美国为了获取海湾国家在能源市场上的帮助，美方会愿意做出怎样的让步。很明显，沙特阿拉伯希望美国在安全事务上提供帮助，尤其针对也门武装分子在沙特境内的袭击。

欧洲国家仍然没有对俄罗斯石油和天然气展开制裁，双方仍在交易。印度在增购俄罗斯石油，部分订单价格甚至低于市场价格。2022年3月能源市场的动荡比2月时许多分析师预测的情况要温和得多。

所以目前还没出现结构性的变化。除非欧洲改变主意，决定对俄罗斯石油加以制裁，否则能源市场不会出现结构性改变。当然，为了获取能源，欧洲肯定会寻求替代方案，比如德国正加大从卡塔尔采购天然气的力度。但欧洲要做到能源多样化需要大量投资和时间。

欧洲国家依赖俄国天然气（来源：STATISTA，汉化：观察者网吴辰晨）

观察者网：目前美国正面临严重的通货膨胀，2月消费者价格指数CPI同比上涨达到7.9%，创下1982年1月以来最大同比涨幅。在这样的背景下，美国依然制裁俄罗斯，并且与中国维持贸易战，这样的举措是否真正对美国民众有利？

**戈德曼：**这取决于你如何看待“美国人民的利益”。特朗普总统以为，他可以通过对中国商品加征关税来保护美国人的就业机会，这些措施于2019年9月生效。

但据我计算，从2019年9月到2021年12月，美国从中国的进口反而增长了46%。显然那些措施是无效的，美国不仅没能在国内生产替代产品，反而让美国人在购买中国商品时支付了更高的价格。就是说，加征关税既没能提高美国产品竞争力，也没能加强美国公司在国内投资制造业的意愿。我认为，需要采取有力的办法来改善美国制造业，但关税手段弊大于利。

面对俄罗斯时，无论是美国还是其它国家，总是优先考虑国家安全，短期的经济利益次之。在北约国家边界采取武力，虽然符合美国对安全问题的关切，但如果美国能与法、德一道支持新明斯克协议，支持通过谈判解决乌克兰问题的话，这次俄乌危机本可以避免。

当然会有人说，制裁俄罗斯导致的油价上涨的确给美国人带来了经济痛苦，不过为了美国的安全，这些对俄制裁是合理的。但是，如果在危机爆发前各方就通过协商达成解决方案，美国的安全反而能更好地被保障。

俄方在联合国演讲时西方代表傲慢地用退场施压（来源：法新社）

观察者网：未来，中美双方是否可能在科技层面继续开展多方位、多层面的合作？

**戈德曼：**应该说，前景比较暗淡。接下来一段时间，乌克兰战争的阴影仍将笼罩，这会让美国向中国持续施压，劝阻中国向俄罗斯提供帮助。

当然，中美之间的技术合作已经很广泛。美国每年购买价值6000亿美元的中国产品，我们用的电子消费品很多来自中国。美国公司在中国有大量研发和生产设施。尽管中美之间在特定领域的制裁阻碍了双边的技术合作，但历史上中美经济体从未像现在这样深度融合。几十年来，民营企业和私营部门一直在促进这种合作。

此外，美方在某些领域的研究很难脱离中国开展，比如基于大数据的医学研究，需要依托中国丰富的医疗数据。制造智能手机芯片、提供芯片开发软件和芯片制造设备的美国企业也依赖中国客户。如果两国没有出台打压双边科技合作的措施，我相信民营企业和私营部门会继续扩大技术合作。

观察者网：美方经常指责中方信息沟通不透明，但我们看到大量西方媒体对公众提供的信息都是经过严格筛选的。您认为这种“信息茧房”带来的认知偏差是否会妨碍美国人民了解真实的中国，从而影响美国整体在处理对华关系时做出明智决策?

**戈德曼：**在美国，我们已经看到了一些令人不安的互联网审查案例。比如2021年1月6日国会山发生骚乱事件后，时任总统特朗普的社交媒体Twitter账号被封。

又比如，在美国2020美国大选之前，《纽约邮报》揭露拜登家族涉嫌不正当商业关系。对此，美国51位退休的高级情报官员联名发声，称该报的报道是俄罗斯的虚假信息行动，大型社交媒体平台还压制这篇报道。但是最近那些报道得到了证实。

以上这些都是美国互联网审查工作令人担忧的情况，但我不认为这与美国人如何看待中国有多大关系。和中国相关的信息，与其说是被压制，不如说是被忽略。美国人有点活在自己的世界里。目前有30多万中国人在美国大学学习，但只有2万美国人在中国学习。中国文明与西方文明有很大不同，要理解个中缘由，需要花时间、花功夫。

我们常听到一种说法：美国帮助中国经济发展是个错误，比如支持中国加入世界贸易组织，因为美国以为经济繁荣会使中国成为像美国一样自由民主的国家。事实上，很多美国人都是这么认为的。因为我们是一个吸收来自全世界移民的国家，包括来自中国的移民，所以我们想当然地认为全世界其它地方的人自然会变得越来越像我们。

同不少国家一样，我们喜欢把自己的失败归咎于外界，我们有时会很不公平地把美国自己的失败和中国的经济腾飞相关联。在我看来，中国是一个强大的竞争对手，但它的成功应该激励美国人放下自满，更加努力工作，让我们的科技保持领跑地位。我希望中国经济繁荣，稳定发展，但比美国落后一步。但是，美国只有自己跑得更快才能做到这一点，而不是想着绊倒中国。

（作者信息：大卫戈德曼现任《亚洲时报》(Asia Times)副主编。1973年毕业于美国哥伦比亚大学，后在纽约城市大学获得音乐理论硕士学位，在金融、投行领域从业32年，常年在美国《华尔街日报》、《彭博新闻周刊》发表时评，著有《你将被同化：中国式改造世界的计划》(You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-form the World )一书。）

Guancha: Previously the editorial page of a US newspaper asked you for an Op-editorial on Ukraine. But when you finished writing, they refused to publish it. What was the reason they gave you, if any? What viewpoints or expressions that got their nerves?

Goldman: I argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resembled the outbreak of the First World War, when all sides acted rationally according to their perceived self-interest and together created a disaster. The editorial position of all the major US newspapers assigns unilateral blame to Russia. I do not defend Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but it was set in motion by Western efforts to expand NATO to Russia’s border. In the past many prominent Americans, including Henry Kissinger as well as the present CIA chief William Burns, warned against expanding NATO and predicted exactly this disastrous outcome. But now that their warnings have proven correct, it is unacceptable to provide any context for Russia’s action in most of the major media.

Guancha: Could China mediate the Ukraine war?

Goldman: This is certainly possible. I made this argument in Asia Times on March 9. Dr. Huiyao Wang, the director of the Center for China and Globalization, proposed this in the New York Times on March 13. China is a major trading partner of both Russia and Ukraine, and Ukraine was one of the first countries to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. China also has the resources to offer incentives for compromise in the form of reconstruction aid. But mediation depends on the readiness of both sides to compromise.

It is not clear what Russia might be willing to accept in the way of compromise. The Ukrainian position is also hard to read, because President Zelensky has talked about compromise on some occasions, and on other occasions compared Russia to Nazi Germany during World War II, that is, an evil entity with whom no compromise is possible. It is risky to mediate between two sides who do not want to compromise, because the mediator might be blamed for failure. Nonetheless I think it would be a positive step for China to try.

Guancha: After banning the Energy imports from Russia, US and Europe have turned to Latin America and Middle East countries. Will there be any structural change to the global energy landscape?

Goldman: The United States and Europe are negotiating with the oil exporters of the Persian Gulf to replace Russian energy production. I do not know what the United States is willing to concede to the Gulf countries in return for help in the energy market. It seems clear that Saudi Arabia wants the United States to help on security issues, notably the insurgency in Yemen backed by Iran.

Meanwhile Russian oil and gas continue to trade in the absence of European sanctions, while India has bought additional Russian oil, some at a discount to market prices. The disruption in the energy market is far milder than many analysts feared in February. For the time being there is no structural change. Unless Europe changes its mind about sanctions on Russian oil, there will be no structural change. Europe, to be sure, will look for alternate energy sources. Germany is buying more gas from Qatar, for example. But diversification of energy sources requires a lot of investment and a lot of time.

Guancha: Many countries are loosening up restriction, while China is sticking to the Zero-Covid policy. Will China be excluded in the Global economy in the long run?

Goldman: I’m not qualified to answer questions about epidemiology.

Guancha: Given the high inflation domestically in the US, are waging sanctions against Russia and a trade war with China simultaneously in the interests of American people?

Goldman: It depends how you view the interests of the American people. President Trump thought he would protect American jobs by imposing tariffs on imports from China, which went into effect in September 2019. But US imports from China rose by 46% by my calculation between September 2019 and December 2021. Clearly these were ineffective, because Americans paid higher prices for Chinese goods, rather than producing alternative goods at home. Tariffs failed to improve the competitiveness of American products, or the willingness of American business to invest in manufacturing. I believe that vigorous action is needed to improve American manufacturing, but tariffs do more harm than good.

Regarding Russia, national security always takes precedence over short-term economic convenience, in the United States as well as other countries. The use of force on the borders of NATO countries is a security concern of the United States. But in this case, the crisis could have been avoided if Washington had joined France and Germany in supporting the Minsk II framework for a negotiated solution in Ukraine. In the narrow sense, one could argue that the Russia sanctions entailed economic pain for Americans in the form of higher oil prices, but were justified to protect American security. But American security would have been served better through a negotiated solution before the crisis.

Guancha: Any possibility for China and the US to foster all-round/all-level technology cooperation in the near future?

Goldman: The outlook for the near future is bleak. The very near future is clouded by the Ukraine war, which motivates Washington to put more pressure on China in order to dissuade China from giving help to Russia. Of course, technological cooperation between the United States and China is already enormous. America buys $600 billion a year of Chinese products, including most of our consumer electronics. US companies have extensive production as well as research facilities in China. The two economies never have been more integrated, despite specific sanctions that stop certain areas of technological cooperation. Private business has fostered this cooperation for decades.

There are some areas of research, moreover, that are difficult to conduct outside of China, for example, Big Data medical research that draws on China’s abundance of medical data. American companies that make chip development software tools and chip-building machines depend on Chinese customers, as to the makers of smartphone chips. In the absence of specific action to suppress technological cooperation, private business will continue to expand it.

Guancha: While the US is accusing China for its lack of transparency in information and communication, we have always witnessed how strictly the info provided by many western media are selected. Do you think the Information Cocoons would hinder the understanding of American people of China, thus jeopardizing the Americans’ decision of ways dealing with China?

Goldman: We have had some disturbing examples of censorship, for example the suspension of Donald Trump’s Twitter account after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot, or the suppression of a New York Post report about alleged improper business relationships in the Biden family just before the last presidential election. At the time, 51 retired senior US intelligence officers published a statement claiming that the New York Post story was a Russian disinformation operation, and the big social media platforms suppressed the report. Recently, the New York Post story was confirmed.

These are worrying developments, but I don’t think they have much to do with American perceptions of China. The relevant information isn’t suppressed so much as ignored. Americans are very insular. More than 300,000 Chinese now study at US universities, while only 20,000 Americans study in China. Chinese civilization is very different from the West, and it takes time and effort to understand why.

One hears all the time that America made a mistake in helping China’s economic development, for example by supporting China’s membership in the World Trade Organization, because America believed that prosperity would lead China to become a liberal democracy like the United States. In fact, many Americans believed this; because we are a nation that absorbs immigrants from the whole world, including China, we assume that the rest of the world naturally should become more and more like us.

Like many countries, we like to blame outsiders for our own failings, and we associate China’s remarkable economic growth with some of our own failures, sometimes unfairly. In my view, China is a formidable competitor, and its successes should motivate Americans to abandon our complacency and work harder to maintain our technological leadership. I want China to be prosperous, secure, and a step behind the United States. But American can achieve this only by running faster, not by tripping China.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。