We Will Not Have a Trade Deal With China: Robert Spalding


Hundreds of Chinese companies that pose threats to national security and violate human rights have entered the U.S. capital market.


羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「你不能針對美國公司用一套規則,要求他們必須完全透明,你要知道他們做的一切。然後你讓那些中國公司過來說:嘿,我們想掙錢, 但我們不想告訴你我們在做什麼。」

Robert Spalding: “You can’t have one set of rules for American companies where they have to be completely transparent. You know everything that’s going on. And you have the Chinese companies coming and saying: hey we want money. But we don’t want to tell you what we are doing.”


The Trump administration is asking for structural changes in US-China trade relations, will the Communist Party agree to it?


Robert Spalding: “In essence, you have a command of economy that is controlled by the Communist Party. And they don’t want to dismantle it because the most important thing to the Communist Party is that they stay in control. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「按這個邏輯,我們最終無法達成貿易協議了嗎?」

Simone: Follow this logic, will we not have a trade deal in the end?

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「我覺得最終達不成貿易協議。 」

Robert Spalding: “I don’t think we are going to have a deal in the end. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):在美中貿易戰期間,我採訪了羅伯特·史帕丁將軍。他曾在國防部和國務院擔任戰略和外交高級職位超過26年。他還在中國多年,學習了漢語。 在大阪舉行的川習會之前,我問他在美國中國貿易戰中真正關鍵的是什麼。 我是蕭茗,歡迎收看 《世事關心》。

Amidst the US China trade war, my interview with General Robert Spalding. He has served in senior positions of strategy and diplomacy within the Defense and State Departments for more than 26 years. He has also spent years in China and learned the Chinese language. Leading up to the Trump Xi summit in Osaka, I asked him what’s really at stake in the U.S. China trade war. I am Simone Gao, and you are watching Zooming In.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「 史帕丁將軍,很高興再次見到你。」

Simone :“All right. General Spalding,Very nice to see you again.”


Robert Spalding: “Good to be back.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「是的。川普總統和習近平主席將於週六舉行會談,討論美國的貿易問題,對會議的結果有各種各樣的猜測。 我很想知道,在您看來,對美國來說最有利的結果是什麼?」

Simone: “Yes. So president Trump and President Xi are going to meet on Saturday to talk about U.S China trade and there are all sorts of speculations on what could come out of that meeting. And I just want to know, in your opinion, what kind of outcome would be in America’s best interest?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「嗯,我覺得總統應該走提高關稅、迫使美國和中共脫鉤的路。 我不知道這會不會發生。我覺得更可能看到的是,對另外3000億美元商品徵收關稅會延緩。 但隨著時間的推移,中國人不會討價還價。 他們不會改變他們已有的整個經濟結構。 他們不會進行, 公平和自由的貿易, 他們肯定做不到。 這個國家的結構,控制結構、與國企有關的人、那些坐在習近平身後、支持中共的掌權的人,他們不可能接受國內整個結構的變化。」

Robert Spalding: “Well, certainly I believe that the president ought to stick on the path of increasing the tariffs and forcing the decoupling between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party. I don’t know if that’s what’s going to happen. I think more likely we’re going to see a delay in the imposition of the tariffs on the extra 300 billion. But over time the Chinese aren’t going to bargain. They’re not going to change their structural integrity of the economy that they built. They’re not going to, you know, have fair and free trade. They just can’t do it. The structure, the control structure, in the country…the people that are affiliated with the state owned enterprises, the ones that are in power that sit behind Xi Jinping and promote the communist party, they cannot accept a change in the structure within the country.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「這其實是整個事情中非常重要的因素。 比如說,中國,特朗普總統正在迫使中國接受這些結構性變化,假設中國接受了,但實際上他們又真的不會這樣做,對吧?這意味著共產黨的滅亡。」

Simone: “That’s actually a very important factor in this whole thing. Say if China, I mean president Trump is pushing for China to accept those structural changes, say China accepts it, but in reality they really can’t do it. Right. That means the demise of the Communist Party.”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「是的,接受這個條件,基本上就是要翻轉他們過去幾年所做的事。過去的幾年,他們一直在鞏固國有企業地位。他們一直在加強國有企業,而不是解體它。因此,儘管從他們加入世貿組織後,在每個五年計劃裏都說他們會改革開放,他們其實一直都在反其道而行之,現在國有企業絕對是國內最強大的。就算不是國有企業,是所謂的私人公司,但仍然與解放軍和中共有著很深的關係。所以從本質上說,這是共產黨控制的『指令性經濟』,而他們不想解體它,因為對共產黨來說最重要的是他們說了算,他們對社會各經濟杠桿的控制, 是除了軍隊之外,他們所有的、最重要的東西。」

Robert Spalding: “Right, and to accept, essentially the reversal of what they’ve been doing over the, just the last few years, over the last few years they’ve been consolidating state owned enterprises. They’ve been strengthening state owned enterprise, not dismantling. So even though they have said in every five year plan, since they joined the WTO that they were going to do reform and opening up, In fact, they have been reversing that process and now the state owned enterprises are absolute…the most powerful within the country. And if they’re not a state owned enterprise, then they’re a so-called private company, but still with incredible ties to the People’s liberation army and the Chinese Communist Party. So in essence, you have a command economy that is controlled by the Communist Party and they don’t want to dismantle it because the most important thing to the communist party is that they stay in control and they see that control of the economic levers of society, the most important that they have, in addition to the military.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「那麼這就引出一個很重要的問題。從理論上講,如果這是真的,那麼貿易戰就不可能有一個令雙方滿意的結果,對吧?」

Simone: “And this will lead to a very important question. Theoretically, if this is true, then the trade war can’t have an outcome that is satisfying to both parties, right?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「是的。如果不能在經濟上發生結構性變化,那就意味著任何保證貿易協定的執行機制都是中共所不能接受的。 但是,如果不能在貿易協定中沒有執行機制,實質上貿易協定就是一紙空文。現在,通過WTO我們知道,他們無法讓中國做任何事情。 因此,在我們該指望中國共產黨如何做到貿易執法這件事上,情況還和以前一樣。(美國)政府現在才第一次明白,要想讓共產黨達成協議,唯一的辦法就是協議得有牙齒(懲罰機制)。 如果協議中沒有牙齒,就是一紙空文。」

Robert Spalding: “Right. So if he can’t have structural changes in the economy, that means any enforcement mechanism is unacceptable to the Chinese Communist Party. So if you can’t have an enforcement mechanism on a trade agreement, in essence, you don’t have a trade agreement. Now we know through the WTO that they have not been able to get China to do really anything. And so it’s not a different world in terms of what we’ve come to expect with regard to how the Chinese Communist party deals with trade enforcement. It’s just now for the first time that the administration realizes that the only way to actually get the communist party to deal is to have teeth in the agreement. And if you don’t have teeth in the agreement, you essentially have no agreement.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「這樣說來,我們最終還無法達成貿易協議?」

Simone: “So, following this logic will we not have a trade deal in the end?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「我覺得達不成貿易協議。 我認為會有一系列對話,來尋求彌合『要價與還價』之間的差距,我剛剛聽到『要價與還價』之間的差距還越來越大了。我認為中美雙方會需求對話,為了顯得自己在努力縮小『要價與還價之間』的差距,一直到2020年選舉期間。 但是,就象我所說,共產黨做不到。 所以中美雙方唯一能做的,就是談話,無它。」

Robert Spalding: “I don’t believe we’re going to have a trade deal. I think what we’re gonna have is a series of dialogues that seek to bridge the gap between the ‘Bid and the Ask’to use a quote, that I just recently heard the ‘bid and the ask’ is getting wider. I think they’re going to seek to have dialogue that, attempts to portray, the narrowing of the‘ bid and the ask’ right up through the 2020 elections. But, as I said, the Communist Party can’t deal. So the only thing they can do is talk. That’s it.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「萊特希澤和姆努欽週一會見了劉鶴,他們表示希望在川習會後重新啟動與中國的貿易談判,並表示,或許我們最終可以達成協議。 你說最終不會達成貿易協議。我的問題是,要是最終沒有達成貿易協議,你認為川普政府能接受嗎?」

Simone: “So Lighthizer and Mnuchin met with Liu He on Monday and they expressed a hope to relaunch the trade talks with China after the Trump-Xi meeting and expressing, you know, maybe we can reach a deal in the end or something. So you are saying there’s not going to be a trade deal in the end. And my question is, do you think the Trump administration will be okay with not having a trade deal in the end?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「我認為川普政府追求的是美國的國家利益,美國人民的利益,真的是美國人民的利益,這些都沒有從與中共的密切關係中獲利。 認識到這一點,象他們做的那樣,要求與中共有一個更公平互惠的關係,我認為這是完全公平的。我不會這麼做,但我也理解他們至少嘗試一下。 當然中共做不到, 姆努欽說貿易協定90%定下來了, 所以,實際上他說的是,已經造了一輛汽車,90%完工了, 唯一要做的就是安上輪子, 不安輪子,汽車也不是車了。」

Robert Spalding: “I think they’re pursuing the U.S. National interest, the interests of the American people and the interests of the American people really, have not been served by this close personal relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. And so recognizing that and offering, which they’ve done, offering a more fair and reciprocal, relationship to the Chinese Communist Party, I think is something completely fair. I wouldn’t do it, but I understand their attempt to at least try. Of course the Chinese Communist Party can’t do it. You know, Mnuchin said the agreement, it was 90% done. So, in essence, what he’s saying, you’ve built a car, the car is 90% complete. The only thing that we have to do is put wheels on it. And? No wheels, no car.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「好的。 你知道,華爾街一直在拋出威脅和警告;一些華爾街策略師說,如果峰會沒有任何達成貿易協定的正面跡象,反而貿易緊張局勢升級,從現在開始,全球經濟可能會衰退到目前的四分之三。」

Simone: “Alright. You know, Wall Street has been throwing some threats you know, warnings and some of the Wall Street strategists are saying if, the summit does not yield any positive signs of a deal, but rather an escalation of trade tensions, there could be a global recession three quarters from now.”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「嗯,有些跡象顯示這種情況正在發生。 但還有其它因素。 不一定僅僅是因為與中國的貿易問題導致了這一點。 原因是很多供應鏈已經轉移到其它地方了。 所以,不可避免的會有一些調整。 但我認為,從長遠是看,有一個更穩定、公平、互惠的貿易環境對美國和其它民主國家來說更好。更不用說自2012年以來,隨著習近平崛起,中國在世界上越來越大地區強推自己的利益,給美國和其它民主國家的金融以及整體經濟繁榮、自由和經濟上造成了脅迫。」

Robert Spalding: “Well that the indications are that that is happening. But there are other factors involved. It’s not necessarily just because of this trade issue with China that’s causing that. The reason is, is that a lot of those supply chains are moving to other places already. And so, um, you know, it is inevitable that there’s going to be some adjustments. But I think in the long run, you know, it’s better for America and other democracies, that they have a more stable, fair, reciprocal trading environment. Not to mention in financial and in overall economic prosperity and just in freedom and freedom from economic coercion, which essentially, ever since 2012 and the rise of Xi Jinping, you know, China has been forcing their interests in more and more of the globe.”


蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「川習會之後,如果沒談好,沒有達成協議或是沒有達成協議的跡象,你認為川普總統會立刻提高關稅嗎?」

Simone: “After the Trump Xi meeting. If things don’t go well, there’s no deal or signs of a deal.. Do you think president Trump would raise the tariffs right off?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「川普政府最終會和中共翻臉。可我覺得,他們會繼續給市場信心,故此市場不會恐慌,繼續給美國企業信心。我覺得應當發生但還沒有發生的,是第二部分,國家安全戰略是什麼呢?即基礎設施的投資、研發的投資、對我們自己經濟的投資,來幫助,你看,供應鏈正在轉移。主要轉去東南亞和其它國家。 其中一些可以回到美國,但這需要政府有傾向美國的優惠投資政策。 我認為這一點可能還未到來。」

Robert Spalding: “Eventually they’re going to say enough is enough. I think though, what they’re trying to do is continue to portray confidence to the markets so that the markets aren’t spooked, continue to portray confidence to American businesses. I think what needs to happen and what hasn’t happened yet is the second part of the…What’s in the national security strategy, which is investment in infrastructure, investment in research and development, investment in our own economy to help, you know…The supply chain is moving. It’s moving mostly to Southeast Asia and other countries. Some of it can move back to the United States, but it needs to be encouraged by a pro US investment policy by the administration. And I think that’s a piece that has probably yet to come.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「那麼這種緊縮下,華爾街會如何?」

Simone: “I was wondering what’s gonna Happen to Wall Street with those Tightening?”


羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「我想做的是,你知道,這只是我做的一部分。我想做的就是告訴華爾街這些人,他們可以就在這裡投資、在美國投資。 我們有世界上最低的能源成本,我們的公司稅率在全球屬於最低一檔,我們有很多放寬了的管制, 你可以在這裡開展業務。 你知道,我上回去臺灣時,我想和捷安特談,對吧? 世界上最大的自行車製造商, 你可以在這裡製造自行車。 事實上,經濟結構的變化(讓建廠)有利可圖。過去發生的那些造成勞動力成本高、能源成本高,你知道,所有那些不利於在美國做製造業的因素,都消失了。如果我們建設安全的全國5G網絡,它會成為先建設製造業的首選地點。 知道嗎? 所以,我認為我的目標是從安全和經濟兩方面,與盟友囯之間建立夥伴關係,比如臺灣、日本、韓國,以及其它希望與美國保持密切關係的國家,然後帶來投資用於重建美國的工業產能。 我認為這完全行得通, 這就是為什麼我離開軍隊去做這件事的原因。 那是因為,我想,如果這樣做,就可以治愈我們的國家, 我們可以讓我們的人民重新有工作。 但更重要的是,這樣做,我們會使我們的民主體制更加強大。 然後,我們就可以成為那些包括中國人民在內、期望有民主制度的國家的燈塔。」

Robert Spalding: “What I’m trying to do, and this is, you know, this is just a part of what I do…What I’m trying to do is show, you know, these people on Wall Street that they can invest here in the United States. We have the lowest energy costs in the world. We have some of the lowest corporate tax rates. We have a lot of deregulation. You can actually build businesses here. You know, when I went to Taiwan, I want to talk to like, Giant, right? The biggest bicycle manufacturer, in the world. You can manufacture bicycles here. It’s actually, it’s profitable because of all the structural changes, all the things that were happening in the past that made it know the high labor costs, the high energy costs, you know, all of those things that made it, you know, uneconomic to do manufacturing in the United States, there are all gone away. And if we build the secure nationwide 5G network, it’s going to be the place to be for advanced manufacturing. You know? So, um, I think my goal is to form a partnership between us and our allies like Taiwan and Japan and, uh, South Korea and other countries that want this close relationship with the United States, both in terms of security and economics, and then bring some of the investment here to, to, to rebuild some of the industrial capacity of the United States. I think that’s totally doable. That’s why I got out of the military as to work on that. That because I thought if I did that, then we could heal our country. We could put our people back to work. But more importantly, you know, in doing so, we would make our democracy stronger. And then we could serve as a beacon to other nations that wanted to have democracy to include the people of China.”

下面節目,美國正在努力阻止中國主宰世界下一代網絡空間。 這可以由美國單獨完成嗎?

Coming up, America is fighting to keep China from dominating the world’s next generation of cyber space. Can this be done by the U.S. alone?

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「特朗普總統表示願意將華為問題納入貿易談判。你認為這樣好嗎?」

Simone: “President Trump has indicated willingness to include the Huawei issue in the trade talk. Do you think it’s a good idea?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「不好,因為我們說過華為問題不是一個經濟問題,而是一個國家安全問題。它不是貿易問題,是一個國家安全問題。現在有一個基於國家安全緊急情況的行政命令。其實『制裁清單』只針對國家安全問題。所以把華爲帶到貿易談判中,並不能解決國家的安全問題。我們的挑戰是,我們不想讓華為進入美國的網絡系統。那麼可能會有人提出, 至於其它國家,就讓他們自行決定吧……我們應該這麼做嗎?如果這樣,我們就可以不用把華為列入實體制裁清單了。這個難在我們的去說服其它國家——其它民主國家,尤其是我們與之共享情報的安全同盟囯。如果這些國家使用華為網絡,會讓我們持續這種關係越發困難,甚至不可能持續。因此,其中一個辦法就是繼續把華爲列在『實體制裁清單上』,這是一個國家安全問題,實體制裁清單是用於處理國家安全問題的,所以我不認爲華爲會從實體制裁清單上消失,但是你知道, 我不是代表政府說話,所以我們走著看吧。」

Robert Spalding: “No, because we’ve said the Huawei issue is not an economic issue, it’s a national security issue. It’s not a trade issue. It’s a national security issue. There’s an executive order based on a national security emergency. The Entity List is only done for national security issues. And so I think bringing Huawei up in the context of a trade negotiation, does not deal with that national security issue. Now, the challenge is that we don’t want Huawei in our networks here in the United States. And so there may be an argument to say, well, let’s let, other countries decide on their own… would we do that? In which case, you know, we can stop, you know, with Huawei being on the entity list. The challenge with that though is that somehow we need to convince these other nations, these other democracies, particularly ones that we have as security alliance with that we share intelligence information with, that having Huawei in their networks, makes it increasingly difficult, if not impossible for us to continue those relationships. And so one, one of the ways that you do that is by continuing to keep Huawei on the Entity List. They are a national security issue. The entity list is for national security problems. So, I don’t think Huawei is coming off the Entity List, but, you know, I, I don’t speak for the administration. So we’ll see.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「有趣的是,你知道,華爲最近受到了來自美國的沈重打擊。谷歌和臉書切斷了和華爲的業務,華爲也被美國商務部列入接收美國新設備的黑名單。然而,華爲在全球仍繼續有5g客戶簽約。所以問題是,如果世界其它國家不加入進來,你認爲單憑美國能阻止華爲嗎?」

Simone: “The interesting thing is, you know, Huawei has received some heavy blows from America recently. Google and Facebook cut Huawei off and Huawei is also on the black list from the Commerce Department to receive American new equipment. However, Huawei is still signing up more 5g customers around the world. So the question is, if the rest of the world doesn’t get on board, do you think America alone can stop Huawei?”


Robert Spalding: “Well, I think Huawei is going to be a smaller company. Either way. I think each country has to decide in its own way, how it deals with the challenge of Huawei. I think what you’ll see is…you may see Telcos sign agreements with Huawei. You may see country’s not come out vocally and say they’re not going to have Huawei equipment, but over time what you’re going to see is what actually gets installed probably won’t be Huawei because each of these countries has to deal with their own sovereignty and their own concerns about privacy and security. And so when you do that, when you look at the fact that not, you know, the, British Telecom, which has, you know, a long term partnership with Huawei, you know, there’s a study done in the UK saying that many of the security flaws that they brought up to Huawei are still in the gear. Not to mention the fact that each change that comes out has more security flaws in it. There’s recently another report coming out about all the security flaws that the Huawei gear has. I think over time as people realize how important data is to their, to the functioning of their economies and their societies, and certainly the free for free functioning of their societies, then they’re going to realize that even if you can’t come to the conclusion that Huawei is controlled by the Communist Party, which it is, that you at least know that the Huawei gear is the least secure of anything on the market today, regardless of how it performs, it’s the least secure. And I think, as going forward, and this is what we wrote in the national security strategy, data security is going to be the most important thing for nations to do, as data is a strategic resource in the 21st century.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「所以你認爲安全問題最終會打敗華爲強大的遊說攻勢?」

Simone: “So you think the security concerns will eventually overpower the heavy lobby for Huawei?”

羅伯特·史帕丁將軍(資深研究員/哈德遜研究所):「是的,你知道,這很像飛機。飛機曾經被輕視,直到比利·米切爾(美國空軍之父)擊沈了一艘德國驅逐艦。隨著時間的推移,人們意識到飛機對戰爭的重要性,你知道,改變了戰爭的模式。在這個意義上,在動力學意義上,在進行著。同樣的,有一些人很早就意識到網絡將會對戰爭起著非常重要的作用。你知道,當我們看到這些5 G網絡擴散、與機器相結合,因爲它是一個機器的網絡,人們會意識到一個事實——網絡可能是我們用來保衛國家和守護民主最重要的東西。」

Robert Spalding: “Yeah, it’s, you know, it’s very much like the airplane, you know, the airplane was scoffed at, up until Billy Mitchell, you know, sunk a, German destroyer. And over time the realization of how important the airplane was to warfare, you know, now has, transformed the way war…in that sense, in the kinetic sense. Is conducted. In the same way, there were some that realized that networks, very early on, were going to be very important to warfare. And you know, as we see the proliferation of these 5G networks and their integration with machines, because it’s a network for machines, people are waking up to the fact that the network is probably going to be the most important thing that you use to both protect your nation and preserve your democracy.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「華爲最近與俄羅斯簽署了5G協議,對此你有何看法?」

Simone: “Huawei recently signed up Russia for 5G, what do you make of it?”


Robert Spalding: “Well, again, I think all of these political statements and posturing in public…I don’t put much credence into. I’d like to see, you know, five years down the road how much Huawei equipment is actually in place in Russia. You know, I don’t know if you remember, but when, president Trump went to Beijing, they had, you know, something like $250 billion of announced deals. Go back and check how many of those deals actually came true. So there’s frequent posturing particularly by the Russians and the Chinese to say we’re going to do this or we’re going to do that. But if you go back and check, you know, usually most of them never actually happen.”


蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「那麼俄羅斯有後備計劃嗎?」

Simone: “So Russia has a backup plan?”


Robert Spalding: “I think Russia’s backup plan is they’ve been, you know, recently exercising, how to disconnect completely from the Internet. So, you know, I guess in the end it could just, you know, unplug itself from the world and therefore protect itself from Huawei. But again, I don’t think Russia is going to have a full partnership with Huawei. I would have bet that you’re going to see Ericsson and Nokia and Samsung equipment. They’re, as you know, each of those provides a more secure, um, foundation. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「在俄羅斯?」

Simone: “In Russia? ”


Robert Spalding: “in Russia.”

接下來,數百家對美國國家安全構成威脅、侵犯人權的中國公司正在美國資本市場交易。這意味著什麼? 這個狀況會被改變嗎?

Coming up, hundreds of Chinese companies that pose national security threats to America or have violated human rights are being traded on the U.S. capital market. What does this mean and will it be changed?

Roger Robinson是金融安全專家。他曾經是里根總統國家安全委員會的高級主任,負責國際經濟事務。他在執行里根總統最終打垮蘇聯的政策中起了重要作用。作為捷克共和國布拉格安全研究所的主席,他最近講述了中共滲透美國和其它西方資本市場的廣度及其不祥的戰略影響。

Roger Robinson is an expert on financial security.  He was president Ronald Reagan’s Senior NSC director for International Economic Affairs and played an important role in executing the Reagan strategy that ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. As chairman of the Prague Security Studies Institute in the Czech Republic, he recently described the extent and ominous strategic implications of  China’s penetration into U.S. and other Western capital markets.

羅傑·羅伯遜(布拉格安全研究所總裁):「我們看看我們資本市場上中國公司的數目,我們發現有600多家,超過650家公司。紐約股票交易所有86家,納斯達克有62家,場外交易市場有超過500家。你知道,場外交易市場對那些規避透明性和公開性要求的公司來說,是受監管最少和最受歡迎的。所以這裡有各種各樣的公司。其中很多往好裡說是高風險實體,往壞裡說,說白了是惡意玩家。我說的是各種危害國家安全的、還有侵犯人權的公司。我們可以談談幾個確實的例子。很不幸,涉及的金額不是幾千萬美元,我們說的是幾千億美元,很快會發展到一萬億美元。這些惡意玩家正在吸引大量那些不夠精明的投資人的資金。美國現在有多少投資人在這些金融市場裡?一億八千萬到兩億。我不知道具體數目。但你能意識到,這個數字高的嚇人。中國公司正在快速進入我們的市場融資,他們不顧一切的進入你的市場,你看到數萬億美元在未來兩到三年湧入我們的市場,到達這樣一個程度,可以想像的是,一天早上美國人醒來,發現中國的金融資產占到了他們退休賬戶投資組合的12%,15%,17%, 這樣高的比例被中國的金融資產占據,你知道那時候會怎樣?我們今天知道的中國說客,和那時候將要發生的事情比,不過是小巫見大巫。這些人認識到,如果美國對中國的各種惡行進行處罰或制裁,都可能而且將會使他們自己的資產, 換個說法,就是他們的退休金系統會貶值或者損失。」

Roger Robinson: So when we look at the number of companies that are in our capital markets today that are Chinese, we find that some 600, over 650 such enterprises are there. They’re probably around 86 in the New York Stock Exchange, 62 in in Nasdaq, and over 500 in the over-the-counter market, which is, as you know, the least regulated and the most popular for those seeking to skirt transparency and disclosure requirements. So here is a wide spectrum of companies. Many of them would be seen politely put as high risk entities, less politely put [as] outright bad actors. And I’m talking about national security abusers of all stripe as well as human rights abusers. And we can talk about some hard examples of this, but we’re not unfortunately talking about a few tens of millions of dollars. We’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and moving rapidly toward $1 trillion. Now that’s a lot of financing that’s being attracted from unwitting American investors. How many people do we have in our country, in the markets today? 180 million and 200 million Americans, I don’t know the number, but you can appreciate that it’s disturbingly high, and when you look at the pace at which the Chinese are coming into our markets for dollar financing, which they’re desperate for you, you start to see a trend where trillions of dollars are going to flow into our markets over the next two to three years to such an extent that it is conceivable that one morning the American people wake up and find, whether it’s 12%, 15%, 17%, some high number of their investment portfolios of their retirement portfolios are Chinese securities. Well guess what happens that day? The China lobby, as we know it today, appears to be a trivial asterisk next to what’s coming, when again, these folks realize that any American penalties or sanctions toward China based on it’s malevolent behavior could and probably would devalue or damage the value, another way to put it, of their retirement and pension systems.

 蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「Roger Robinson 是做了研究的。」

Simone: “You know, Roger Robinson has his research.”


Robert Spalding: “Yeah.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「是有很多中國公司在美國資本市場,而且他們是惡意玩家。」

Simone: “A lot of Chinese companies are in the US capital market and they are bad actors.”


Robert Spalding: “Right.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「那麼有什麼法律會通過來阻止這種現象嗎?」

Simone: “So is there going to be legislation passed to stop that?”


Robert Spalding: “Absolutely. There has to be. You cannot have, you know, one set of rules for American companies where they have to be completely transparent and you know everything that’s going on and then have, you know, the Chinese companies come in and say, hey, we want money but we don’t want to tell you what we’re doing. I mean, anybody can see that that’s crazy. I mean, it’s not even, it’s not…it’s unamerican even. The fact that we allowed it to happen, you know, just indicates how confident we were in this free trade leads to wealth, wealth, leads to democracy. Like we were absolutely, supremely confident that that would happen. All we had to do is open up in, you know, magic and…to the point where we let the Chinese basically just walk out with hundreds of billions of dollars.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「你認為華爾街會試圖阻止這個(法律)嗎?」

Simone: “Do you think that Wall Street will try to stop that…try to stop this?”


Robert Spalding: “Yes. Because you know, they’re against it because they make fees on that. They didn’t care who they’re, you know, whose stocks and bonds they’re selling. They take…they take a fee off the top. So you’re basically cutting into their fees when you say, Hey, you can no longer sell Chinese stocks and bonds. Right. So, yeah, they’re going to…they’re going to disagree with it, right?. They’re going to say, and they have said, oh, China’s economy is going to grow and it’s the best place to invest. Meanwhile, everybody knows it’s shrinking except for, you know, the data that comes out of the Communist Party. So…I mean, you can see like MSCI, the emerging markets index…We’re in the middle of a trade war and it goes from five to 20%. How does that make any economic sense? Or, you know, how would you…so you look, you would go to your portfolio advisor and he says, “Well, we should, you know, get rid of all these stocks in Latin American, in, Southeast Asia, and invest in Chinese stocks" And then you’re sitting there thinking, yeah, but the companies are moving out of China to Southeast Asia. Why am I putting money in China? Well, because China told me to. I mean, it’s just insane.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「所以會有一個立法行動。」

Simone: “Okay, so that’s going to happen.”


Robert Spalding: “Whether it’s the legislation or the SEC steps in or Treasury steps in, you know, that ability for China to basically tap into western capital markets and just get as much money as they need…That’s going away.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「這會在多久時候發生?」

Simone: “So how do, how soon do you think it will happen? Because…Not soon enough… Okay.”


Robert Spalding: “You know, it needs to happen now. I mean…I don’t know…I don’t know. The longer we go, the more harm, eventually comes to Americans in their retirement funds. So…But again, what do we have? What’s the problem we have here? We have this, you know, election coming up. Everything’s hard in an election year.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「很有意思,非常感謝。」

Simone: “Yes. And it’s all right. Very, very interesting. Thank you so much. Thank you.”


Producer:Simone Gao

Writer:Simone Gao

Editors:Bonnie Yu, Sunny Yang,  Bin Tang

Narrator: Simone Gao

Transcription: Jim Battaglini

Translation: Chao Yu, Juan Li, Xiaofeng Zhang                 

Proofread: Linda Du

Subtitles: Bonnie Yu,  Bin Tang

Cameraman:York Du

Special Effects:Harrison Sun

Assistant producer:Bin Tang,    Merry Jiang


Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique


New Tang Dynasty Television

Zooming In

July, 2019