中美“婚床”缘何会裂开 ——中美关系变化之回溯（一） (English Version) 1 f- `. Z; [7 H2 W公仔箱論壇 ; S) A' e, ]$ r5.39.217.76何清涟 发表tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb; ?* q$ G( ?7 O- w- g& z; s
- Z0 n" ?. J( p4 K% btvb now,tvbnow,bttvb + E" w/ q6 P+ C! y) x STVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 & v- O9 |% l' m) S/ w* M3 ~$ bThere are signs that the Sino-American wedding bed is quickly falling apart, and no remedy is possible in the near future. Apart from U.S. President Barack Obama’s tough talk that criticized China for not abiding by international rules and its “not being invited” to Trans-Pacific Partnership, there was an even more important directional indicator: the annual report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. In that report forty-three recommendations had been listed, the first of which was: the U.S. Congress should commission the National Security Council to carry out assessments of the current China policy.: N2 m- h7 D) e! c+ n% I6 U/ l
9 P: W$ S0 @2 r
It drew my attention that William Reinsch, chairman of that Commission, pointed out specifically that the U.S. had come to realize it was unrealistic to expect China to fully integrate into the Western economic and political system. This statement showed that the U.S. political illusion about China had dashed. 7 W' y4 C! L) {* M/ e" L2 k公仔箱論壇 tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb7 D A9 G1 L/ T) m/ M
To sort out how the relationship between China and the United States wound up step by step to the way it is today, in particular when recalling U.S. President Barack Obama’s diplomacy toward China in the three years after he entered the White House, one would surely be filled with mixed emotions. 9 _: G) [! K# b- {- f+ q- k `9 Q6 {4 i, Z- n% K
In the first year his presidency, Barack Obama visited China and came back empty-handed; public opinion in Europe and the United States had it that he “kowtowed to Beijing”. This time, during the APEC Summit in Hawaii, Obama made some tough remarks on China, and international media said he “grabbed China by the collar”. 公仔箱論壇8 S& J: a" ^% a$ G. D+ J9 o
公仔箱論壇& G1 C3 B$ F0 A A( Y4 ?
From “kowtow” to “grabbing the collar”, what happened in these three years?" M4 }9 D$ P1 }* j7 x
公仔箱論壇: A$ e+ t( @3 d8 e# }' R
It is necessary to first go through briefly the American factors that determine how the ties between China and the United States would be. In the U.S., there are at least three political forces that have influence on White House policy toward China. 5 t* |; u |- A$ P# _ W8 @ - Z- \, M6 A/ k公仔箱論壇The first force, comprising the Treasury and the Department of Commerce, gives top priority to bilateral economic and trade relations between the two countries, and represents immediate interests and needs of the United States. Supporters of this force are mainly multinational enterprises of the U.S. financial and industrial sectors. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。" f7 n: w8 y" {" T5 x; W8 {& b
' A' r$ l0 ^* r3 ?4 M5 U+ FThe second force is represented by the Department of State. Starting from Bill Clinton’s human rights diplomacy, this force has been hoping to lead China into the Western system through contact, persuasion, influence and guidance. This and the first force constitute the main body of “Panda Huggers”, which has been the group that dominated U.S. policy toward China in recent years. However, in the past two or three years, the financial and the industrial sectors changed their attitude toward China and frictions between the two countries increase by the day. 6 C6 u0 d; @2 s
: u- o( k5 W [2 Q9 R: H) `The third force, known as “Panda Bashers”, evolved from the blue team and the dragon slayers and is represented by the Pentagon, which stresses geopolitical competition. For a long time in the past, this force appeared to be in decline both in its supporters and influence, it gained momentum slightly only in the last two years. Meanwhile, corresponding geopolitical changes have taken place in the Asia-Pacific region: the U.S. Pacific Fleet had had to retreat to the second Pacific island chain in mid-noughties of this century; it went back to the first island chain last year at the request of Southeast Asian countries. & @' R5 G, A2 u# K6 p7 q9 i5.39.217.76 8 {& E9 s6 f4 v5.39.217.76Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1990s, the relationship between China and the United States became the most important of diplomacy in both countries. Whether it was the Clinton administration or that of George W. Bush, U.S. policy toward China appeared to have started low and ended high. # d+ {/ G9 A* n2 M2 b5 B: f 5.39.217.766 @+ y P/ s' Z7 [* W' Y- f! t
In 1992, Bill Clinton promised during his presidential campaign that he would not be “coddling dictators from Baghdad to Beijing”. But later he became an active advocate for countries to lift their bans against China after June-4th. In the face of media ridicule, Bill Clinton could only use “creative ambiguity strategy” as self-defense. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。2 A( l5 I `' R6 v
6 A. S) y3 z$ y. [) S5 F, u
When running for presidency, Clinton’s successor George W. Bush positioned China as a U.S. “strategic competitor”. But after 9/11, he had to develop with China a “Strategic partnership” due to anti-terrorism needs. Under attacks from both the Panda huggers and dragon slayers, Bush took to the middle path, and was called the “panda hedger”. , q1 Z c6 \9 a8 m$ k + N3 }- n; a' z0 u. r( D' W$ j5 Z2 bContrary to the “start low and end high” curve of his two predecessors, Barack Obama appears to have a U.S.-China relationship that “started high and ended low”. Before entering the White House, Barack Obama had no fixed, tendentious opinion on China (including the Taiwan Strait relations). He never said that China is an autocratic country, nor did he promise to take actions to guide China toward democracy. After being elected, Barack Obama created two “firsts” in U.S. China policy: he is the first president to have taken fully into account suggestions from China’s “think tank”. His “China policy wish-list” was drafted from “China’s perspective” by “China Institute of International Studies”, at the invitation of American Institute of East and West. That list suggested that China and the United States should establish partnership in five areas: economics, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, green, and trans-Pacific. + t0 R2 z4 D; |3 S8 R4 GTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。+ E1 q2 n8 Q% ~( }
Barack Obama is also the first U.S. president to visit China within the first year of his presidency. In that visit, Obama openly expressed that the United States positively accept China’s peaceful rise, that the country does not seek to contain China, and its willingness to share with China part of the “leadership responsibility” so as to get in return mutual strategic guarantees between China and America. He hoped that China’s rise would not challenge the interests of the United States and instead become a positive factor in promoting them.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。1 i$ f* G6 a: I- F; K2 F# L% W
% v, y* X/ h1 g8 i; L7 p' m. K2 A5.39.217.76But Barack Obama’s hand of friendship extended to China did not get in return Beijing’s friendship. Instead, Beijing showed Obama its disdain in all sorts of ways. When President Obama visited China, the Chinese authorities applied control measures that were much more rigid than when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush visited the country. # L; R& v" T- @( e - t" O- O6 P2 y; c. c9 A2 l6 u
In a bid to show that Obama’s visiting itinerary was not completely controlled by Beijing, the United States named Southern Weekend to interview Obama. Although Xiang Xi, the editor-at-large of Southern Weekend was a cadre that the CCP trusted and sent to supervise the media outlet, and the interview itself didn’t cross any line, Beijing still punished Xiang Xi by removing him from his duty.! s8 C8 }. l* B; H9 z0 E/ l- ^$ }
In December 2009 during G-24 meeting at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, China “forgot” its commitment to be America’s “Green Partner” and to support the United States in issues like global climate and energy conservation. It even disregarded basic diplomatic etiquette, and sent a vice-ministerial level official to talk arrogantly to president Obama, a behavior that was extremely rude. - Q: u+ B& H2 w* w& J# H: K1 r+ h5.39.217.76All this aroused Americans’ antipathy against the Chinese government. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。1 h7 ]( M2 C: P% T) t# ]) F
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: v* [# g7 {/ m1 ~3 f
By January 2010, this accumulated antipathy finally reached the breakout point on the Google incident. Since then, the wedding bed of China and the United States began to fall apart, and a series of clashes between the two countries ensued. From the Google incident, arms sales to Taiwan, to Barack Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, all those that the United States had once set aside temporarily to take care of the feelings of the Chinese government were now rolled out in succession. ' z: V6 M+ w) z3 Stvb now,tvbnow,bttvb TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。4 K# c+ M# p! K& |2 K
These incidents, with the combination of the trade protectionism that began to rise in 2010, and the strong dissatisfaction the investors felt toward the investment environment in China, resulted in increasing difficulties facing Sino-American relationship. China’s reaction to these was very heated. On February 4, 2010, a CCP mouthpiece Guangming Daily published an article: “Obama, 1.3 billion Chinese people despise you”, setting the first example of China’s state media abusing a U.S. president since the establishment of Sino-American diplomatic relations. + L6 G/ o2 \# K1 e' h( R- { 5.39.217.76" `. F2 ^" J8 i
At that time, the U.S. business community in China, which had always been careful not to talk about politics, were also pessimistic about the prospects of Sino-American relationship, which was even listed by Eurasia Group as number one of the world’s top ten risks in 2010.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。0 z Z! n. o% A: x9 R
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 g; s5 f, X. H- j: }7 r+ [% X
With these many clashes broke out, Beijing did actually think of ways to try to restore the Sino-US relations after it had calmed down. Although China has reached second place in total GDP, the country showed gestures more modest than ever. First, State Councilor for Foreign Affairs Dai Bingguo published in December 2010 a long article which theme was, “It is a myth to say that China would overtake the United States and dominate the world.” ( c& f6 }3 i0 @+ V3 m- y
: v( |7 F [; l! B5 V5.39.217.76Later on, an article entitling “Distorted Image of China’s National Security” was published under the name of Xiong Guangjie, honorary president of the Chinese International Foundation for Strategic Research, and former deputy chief of staff of the PLA. It reprimanded some people inside China for an overestimate of their own strength, and their advocacy of “holding sword while doing business”, which “deepen the outside world’s misunderstanding of China.” 6 F' E- U; k) E9 L+ I : C7 L# E- r9 d+ }5 {
In May 2011, PLA Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde visited the United States. He reiterated that China “has no intention to challenge the United States”, and that it only wants the U.S. to respect its core interests. Although this rapid u-turn from speaking of its “rise” to toning down and addressing itself as a “would-be boss” is a result of grave domestic political and in particular economic situation; the hope of rapprochement with the United States was also expressed very clearly. 3 Y4 ~% v) _+ B: f% g* ]8 ^ 5.39.217.76$ E0 R# p$ L: S; `' y3 o
However, the rise and fall of the forces that influence U.S. China policy is not what the White House has control over. Regardless of what perception a President may have of China, that personal preference could not be allowed to influence U.S. foreign policy. Just as former President George W. Bush had to form with China a “strategic partnership” to fight terrorism as the situation so demanded, even though he never liked autocratic China. Lang Hsien-Ping recently wrote an article, “We have underestimated Barack Obama’s trickery”, in it are signs that he failed to see the rise and fall of the panda huggers and the dragon slayers are what truly shape the U.S. China policy. 2 ?5 V3 @8 S9 V. X$ |tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。& e0 B2 ]0 `. t, w' T1 n/ ?% |. h- F3 ~+ h
For follow-up analysis, please see “U.S. capital reflux, the crucial bond between China and the United States began to loosen—a retrospective of changes in Sino-American relationship over the past decade. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。" Y, i9 z U! T! q% s
- @! n6 I! W. I% t. |tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb : I, d1 ^" Z( A' u# pTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 ; b: d' C: y1 O& x9 @' l5 ?5.39.217.76 公仔箱論壇. S) ~& I7 U- m/ p
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: `% ?5 R& t! J1 y
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: ? }" o" Q" R3 c
來源 / 版權所有：以上所述媒体 / 作者 TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5 v" C/ Y$ Y3 v1 e
(以上内容摘自或摘译自 其它媒体 / 作者 ，不代表發帖者观点)作者: aa00 時間: 2011-12-11 02:38 PM
美资回流：中美友好的重要纽带开始松动-中美关系变化之回溯（二） 公仔箱論壇: ~! I# L3 m; _0 b y+ a/ g6 h/ L# Z
( Q- M: }% ^" s7 J. f8 `0 [/ z& q
何清涟 发表 TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。- i; }) b# |8 V6 m& H1 n0 O8 j
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。/ ^; l7 I9 |3 p# j8 d3 X# P' t
' B, i/ J* a! n$ t; q T% C公仔箱論壇U.S. capital reflux, the crucial bond between China and the United States began to loosen—a retrospective of changes in Sino-American relations (two)TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。9 m- p* W- r. J/ @+ |& f
' d4 ^: x$ g% Z2 V, }8 b. T1 Q: |公仔箱論壇As said in the previous article, one of the main reasons the Sino-American relations has changed was that one American multinational giant after another withdrew from the Chinese market. China only acknowledged that there had been instances of U.S. businesses withdrawal, but denied that it had become a trend. In its research report, Made in the USA, Again, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) pointed out that “the [gap of production costs] with China shrinks”, U.S. enterprises had left China and moved back to America. What were once made in China are now made in America. (Source in Chinese)tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& J* |+ l- T+ ?
5 f; b0 C, G, v 7 |4 W' M/ C3 ^# a. J+ D: p1 L公仔箱論壇 5.39.217.765 K- I& A+ L; g9 K1 \
The Chinese market has become uneasy for American Businesses # z% X# L- J1 z j5 L* MTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 f5 `0 W. Q3 e9 M2 M! f5.39.217.76 ; J8 f5 t8 A0 VHere it is necessary to first analyze the data released the Chinese Ministry of Commerce that reflected an increase in foreign investment. Beijing has claimed all along that foreign investment is still on the increase. From January to September 2011, 20,407 new foreign enterprises had been approved to launch, an increase of 6.24% year on year; and contracted foreign investment amounted to $177.867 billion, an increase of 16.85% year on year. Looking at these data alone and it would be inevitable to misunderstand that multinationals still deem China as the place to invest in. This is not true. The data cited above included investment from free ports like the Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Samoa, Barbados, and Mauritius. These places happen to be money laundering havens and transit points for China’s capital that has fled the country. The so-called new investments in China from these places were in fact returning capitals of Chinese individuals and Chinese companies that had been bleached in money laundering havens.5.39.217.76% C G; G- L! V: C% @
As early as four or five years ago, many multinationals from Europe and the United States openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the deterioration in China’s investing environment. For three consecutive years the American Chamber of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China and the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China published studies that reflected businesses from the U.S. and the E.U. had been increasingly worried about China’s protection policy, thinking that their work environment in China would worsen even more.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb: G5 Z# \, I; D/ m% k% w$ ]
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb; `9 B6 D1 D- p* \) n/ d7 @3 n
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。2 j; @- S) G7 I. Y; c" V x1 z2 _
5.39.217.76- z0 J- O$ G+ q2 Q! T6 T6 N
Foreign companies are dissatisfied in three areas. ' `# K- ^ v' L% pTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ ?# e2 c6 |- l1 @$ N, Q9 E
5.39.217.767 S' Z; h% p/ W7 t
First, lack of protection of intellectual property: New regulations forced these companies to transfer their business and technologies to Chinese companies to gain market access. Protection of intellectual property was seriously inadequate, causing massive losses in foreign enterprises. $ H g' R, X. W% F6 j) z* g; CTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。Second, unfair government provisions on acquisition: Foreign companies in China “wished to get equal treatment in open tender.”公仔箱論壇' B3 y3 Q; o0 O% t* ?6 h
Third, merger restrictions imposed upon foreign firms: To set up joint ventures, foreign companies were required to partner with Chinese companies, and the share holding ratio between both sides could only be fifty-fifty. - q# C3 Z/ N9 X, ~5.39.217.76U.S. government and E.U. leaders held rounds of talk with the Chinese authorities on investment environment, but no change had been resulted. On top of this, China saw in the last two years a rise in workers’ wages, land cost and continuous appreciation of RMB among other factors that sharply increased the overall production costs. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5 ]* Y. U) k$ y, C ?" y0 p
After costs calculation, U.S. enterprises thought that the advantage of cheap labor in mainland China has ceased to exist, and so they moved back to the United States. In its report Made in the USA, Again, the BCG predicted that by 2020, 15% of U.S. corporations targeting North American market would move back to the United States from China. 0 H: h8 \1 B- F0 f, e- i& b' iNot long ago, Ford Motor Company announced that 12,000 jobs are to be moved back to the United States, where it will invest $16 billion, including $62 billion for purchase and plant equipments upgrade.6 z7 x4 G+ D& D- M
BCG senior partner Harold L. Sirkin pointed out that in the next five years the production cost of goods made in certain areas in the United States would only be 5 to 10% higher than coastal cities in China. As the costs reduced, the United States has a productive efficiency edge over China.' ^' e @- _& p4 ^1 B, Q' h
" G" M- W& P: LU-turn of Goldman Sachs’ attitude toward China ) `0 ]; w3 e. K% H2 f. |; ]公仔箱論壇5.39.217.769 C% E( f) H5 _; r3 w/ D; v- u
3 _# V7 `5 O. v9 {" I
It was not just the industries that withdrew, but the financial sector as well. In recent months, the Bank of America and Goldman Sachs ended their partnership with Chinese banks. Before they took action, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch sold about half of their 10% share holdings in China Construction Bank.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- M) \/ d, p# v( q
Of all the American corporations withdrawn from China, Goldman Sachs’ exit had a symbolic significance. From what I knew, Goldman Sachs had at one point racked it brain in the attempt to take root in China. To achieve this, the company became the most active strategic investor in China’s financial sector. And to get Beijing favor, Goldman Sachs had spent big money to produce clever Public Relations. : t: `2 v: D0 V( w$ Z6 M2 {These PR techniques included one that Beijing liked best: helped China with its publicity in international community. Published in 2005, written by Joshua Cooper Ramo, senior consultant of Goldman Sachs, Beijing Consensus was a book that disregarded facts, and went as far in flattery as possible. $ e% J7 h( T/ c5.39.217.76That book not only portrayed China’s economic model—one that disregards social justice, human rights and seriously overdrafts ecological environment—as one with the characteristics of equal and quality development, a development model that seeks fairness and high standard growth; it also said that many of the non-economics ideals the Beijing consensus comprises are not only what developing countries should learn from, but will also replace the “Washington consensus” globally.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。/ j! F* s( N; X" ]! w6 d
This somewhat shameless but highly effective way of pro-China PR had widely been used by other foreign banks. In 2004 [for example], the book the Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang Zemin was published in the English world and generated much attention. Its author, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Executive Director of Citigroup (bank), is a person who doesn’t speak Chinese at all. This financial practitioner who is neither a biography writer nor a journalist, even less so a specialist on China’s problems would personally put pen to paper and wrote up this biography, the book’s significance in pro-Beijing PR went without saying. Z. `& C# H2 f4 H1 R公仔箱論壇The market that Citigroup spent such big money and effort on pro-Beijing PR to get access to was abandoned by the corporation, only a fool would think this decision was due to the conglomerate’s own problem. I could only say that these banks have already realized one thing: China market has a grim outlook, and from which it’s time to withdraw.' A" A- E5 y* h& |3 _9 ^2 [9 w
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 _: B: _6 C* h
5 g1 S* x& ~+ o; U ( O Z: }$ r* H0 ~' q
Multinationals: Key allies of China lobby4 `$ X& i! x# G. ^" T n1 c1 X
0 \$ ?4 b5 N) f+ Ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvb - ~# \( M% S( | E7 G' H: GTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。The withdrawal of multinationals with decisive influence on U.S. political circle means that the crucial link that binds the political and economic relationship between China and the United States has begun to loosen. In the past, given the wide-ranging investment interests in China, these corporations advocated all along for Sino-American friendship and were the main social base of the Panda huggers in the U.S. political and business circles. * {5 Y: i; k" Q- W% O% t, c0 a5.39.217.76For years, multinationals carried out much lobbying at Congress so as to realize and protect their investment interests in China. These corporations had in Washington lobbyists serving specifically this purpose and they formed an alliance. Before China joined the WTO, they keenly called on the U.S. government to unconditionally extend the most-favored-nation trading (MFN; Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR after 1998) status to China. As for the issues of China’s dreadful human rights conditions and its autocratic rule, the main reasons with which they lobbied Congress were, “China is on the path of improvement and is moving closer to Western democracy”, “economic development would be conducive to China’s political reform”, “the spread of the Internet would bring press freedom to China” and so on. tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb# `1 i" o( q. L0 d P
Some of these lobbying efforts benefited China significantly. For example, before the U.S. Congress voted on China’s PNTR status in 2000, hundreds of Multinationals like Boeing formed a group and launched a massive lobby campaign. Participants of the campaign included government relations experts from these companies, industry lobby groups and companies specialized in lobbying that these corporations jointly hired. For almost a year, they held huge number of seminars and talks, instilling in Congress the idea that open trade to China would bring huge business opportunity to American enterprises, and they eventually made it. This collective lobbying cost in total $ 112 million. Before this, the highest spending record of collective action from the US business sector was the creation of the North America Free Trade Zone, which totaled in no more than $ 30 million.4 l& f j/ p# R) ?5 ^ h+ c; K8 o
In 2007 the United States promulgated “the People’s Republic of China exports and re-export control policy changes and clarifications and a new Authorization Validated End-User system “, 47 export control products were added. But in the end what prompted the U.S. to reduce the number of controlled products was not the protest from the Chinese government, but rather the lobbying from U.S. multinationals like Boeing, United Technologies and other enterprises./ z" B0 t" b( A* M
The Chinese government basically would not openly acknowledge the contributions U.S. multinationals had made to bolster Sino-American friendship. Yet Beijing knew very well that even though it had hired more than twenty professional PR firms to lobby for it in the United States, the effort was far less fruitful than these Multinationals which had deep-rooted connections with local politicians." \' u0 O- O* c$ H' }$ c
After the close tie between the U.S. financial and industrial sectors and China has loosened, the geopolitical conflicts between China and the United States, the inherent conflicts between China and the international system, and clashes between universal values and those of the CCP—the friction factors that had been forcibly suppressed by reason of economic interests will become increasingly evident.公仔箱論壇0 \% |% V y7 Y5 J& G3 L7 q! l }
Undoubtedly, the Sino-American relations are facing new changes. Judging from the current situation, the United States seems to have been psychologically ready, while China is clearly ill-prepared for it. 7 F' Q" ^- R- x$ ?& I" w7 f , ~9 P5 x! }- H# r/ `) e7 u, }TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 q# r% H- X& q4 J
: N# c4 r0 O' M* N( w+ W9 t
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。. u3 A S9 Q3 Q4 ?' {
* |0 }4 Y- _! Y' T/ cTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 5.39.217.76% s+ Q; s' i5 u. u) ^# k
來源 / 版權所有：以上所述媒体 / 作者 ; _/ b, O& B( X' M) j6 ]* @% \
(以上内容摘自或摘译自 其它媒体 / 作者 ，不代表發帖者观点)
