接受《中美聚焦》驻美编辑郝佳（KJ Kerr）采访时，美国政府前高官查伦·巴尔舍夫斯基探讨了中国加入世贸组织的漫长谈判过程及其对中国经济、全球一体化和中美关系的持久影响——尽管当前贸易规范面临挑战以及地缘政治出现新变化。她同时强调了国际企业在中国开展业务的重要性，以及它们决定是否拓展中国市场时需要评估的因素。她表示，中美两国都认为保护某些技术对于维护本国国家安全是必要的。但是，她希望国家安全的种种定义不会吞噬两国之间的经济活动。本次采访属于“2023香港中美关系论坛”的嘉宾特别对话活动。

单击此处观看第一部分完整采访

郝佳，中美聚焦：

巴尔舍夫斯基大使，感谢您接受今天的采访。同时，感谢您能够前来参加香港中美关系论坛。现在，我们正式开始。首先，您在担任美国贸易代表期间，在中国加入世界贸易组织的谈判中发挥了关键作用。那么，您如何看待中国加入世贸组织的长期影响？根据您的经历，您是否可以分享一些对当今双边经济关系具有参考意义的想法？

巴尔舍夫斯基：

很高兴参加此次论坛。论坛是由我亲爱的老朋友董建华先生创建的。我来到这里，感到非常自豪，也要向他表示敬意。中国的入世谈判，无论对中方还是美方来说，都是非常漫长的过程。内容非常详细，过程非常困难，但我们始终本着达成互惠互利协议的精神，希望它不仅有利于两国，也有利于全球。中方代表非常出色。美方也努力地在专业知识和意志方面向中国的伙伴看齐。对于中国来说，加入世贸组织的结果今天仍然清晰可见。它推动了中国经济发展，推动了中国的改革开放，帮助中国融入世界经济，成为世界经济的重要动力。而且，在很多方面也加强了美中双边关系，不仅仅是贸易和经济政策方面。今天回顾这段历史的时候，我们看到了一些不同以往的变化。其中之一，当然是地缘政治。像其大他国一样，中国现在雄心勃勃；对于美国和许多西方国家来说，中国崛起的方式是很难接受的。显然，随着时间的推移，这个问题必须得到解决。我希望能够以积极和建设性的方式加以解决。在贸易和经济方面，我们看到，中国没有像加入世贸组织时外界预测的那样持续接受市场经济规范；中国的经济体系在过去几年发生了变化，与这些规范渐行渐远。我认为这带来了挑战，不仅影响到双边关系，也影响到整个世界。必须通过建设性的方式加以解决。我认为有办法做到这一点。我希望，双方以及其他国家能够进行非正式的谈判，来解决这些问题，看看能否找到解决方案。中国加入世贸组织，对于中国本身和全球经济来说都是具有积极意义的。因此，我们期待着随着时间的推移，这种意义得到进一步加强。

郝佳：

非常感谢。现在说说国际企业。中国市场在过去几年变得尤为复杂。那么，您认为在决定是维持还是扩大在中国市场的影响力时，国际企业需要考虑哪些主要问题？

巴尔舍夫斯基：

是的，中国市场现在变得很复杂。但我认为对于一般企业来说，暂时抛开地缘政治的影响不谈，可预测的监管和法律环境是最重要的因素。如果法规在没有通知的情况下发生变化，如果法律环境变得非常奇怪，如果企业不相信今天的商业运营规则明天能够以相同的形式和相同的法律结构存在，那么这些企业将很难留在这个国家。同时，企业很难在该国扩大业务，因为它会自然而然地寻求降低风险，并在其他国家开拓业务。对于企业来说，一致性、规律性、透明度以及让他们能够满怀信心做生意的制度是最关键的因素。当然，如果考虑到地缘政治影响，那么对于美国和中国的企业来说，就会面临一定的政治和政府压力。对于做生意来说，这并不是大家欢迎的因素，但现在仍然是他们面临的一大因素。这是现实。企业在评估风险时，必须再次应对这一问题。

单击此处观看第二部分完整采访

郝佳：

确实如此。您认为国际企业，特别是美国企业，进入中国并在中国开展业务有何意义？

巴尔舍夫斯基：

在中国开展业务，对于企业推动自身发展、扩大市场规模，以及在困难的市场、挑剔的市场里积极竞争至关重要。你想进入这些市场，因为它们有助于你的提升。因此，从风险角度来看，企业需要选择在风险层面可以接受的方式进入中国。我认为，国际企业会继续在中国开展业务。他们将继续在中国投资。这是理所应当的，也是很合适的。

郝佳：

谢谢。稍微换个方向：美国和中国应该如何处理与其他印太国家的贸易和经济关系？

巴尔舍夫斯基：

希望他们的关系基础更有助于推动合作。正在发生的全球经济碎片化并不是有积极意义的趋势。它不利于增长，不利于全球关系。我们希望看到，或者说，我希望看到一种能够促进两国加强合作的环境，特别是在印太地区。印太地区是全球增长的核心地区，但也是全球各种热点问题的核心地区。所以，两国在该地区和睦相处是至关重要的。

郝佳：

谢谢。还有两个问题。美国最近加强对中国半导体和人工智能芯片的出口管制，会对两国贸易产生怎样的影响？

巴尔舍夫斯基：

两国对自己的国家安全都有自己的看法。美国的观点可以概括为“高墙小院”，也就是说美国希望保护某些技术。这是一个相对较小的院子，因为美国对国家安全的定义相当狭窄。“高围栏”是指保护那些技术。中国同样希望在技术上自给自足、自力更生。它的院子非常大，墙也非常高。这是有问题的，但每个国家都认为这是保护本国国家安全的必要做法。我认为，这种情况不会出现任何重大改变。我希望的是，这些国家安全的定义不会过于扩大化，以至于吞噬两国之间的经济活动。当然，这种做法会导致全球经济和技术的碎片化；长远来看，会引发有关互操作性的问题，并引发其他国家是否偏向其中一方的问题，从而进一步导致数字公共资源碎片化。这构成了巨大挑战。对于美国和中国，我想再说一遍，那就是双方现在开始讨论这些问题，这是非常受欢迎的做法。希望他们至少能达成一些共识，不要让安全担忧压倒经济担忧，以至于两国关系被安全担忧吞噬。

单击此处观看第三部分完整采访

郝佳：

非常感谢。感谢您与我们分享这些见解。最后，我们想谈谈中美交流基金会成立15周年。我们工作的重要内容是提供讨论与沟通的机会。考虑到当前日益紧张的局势，我们希望您能够分享下与基金会合作的经历，或者您对基金会在人文交流、促进对话、促进沟通等方面的工作（例如此次论坛）的重要性有何看法。

巴尔舍夫斯基：

此次论坛和这些对话是当前局势下的重要活动。对于形成推动双方继续接触、继续对话、继续解决问题的生态系统来说，它们至关重要。论坛的声望有目共睹。它受到广泛关注，成为许多相关活动的关注焦点。因此，我很高兴能够参加论坛，当然也很高兴再次来到香港。而且，我很高兴地看到论坛在不断壮大，因为世界需要它。毫无疑问，美国和中国都需要它。

Charlene Barshefsky, former United States Trade Representative, discusses in this interview with China-US Focus the lengthy negotiation process for China's entry into the WTO and its lasting impacts on China's economy, global integration and U.S.-China relations. She emphasizes the significance of international businesses having a presence in China and the considerations they need to evaluate whether to expand into the Chinese market. Both China and the U.S. believe protecting certain technologies is necessary for national security, she says, but she hopes this doesn't swallow up economic activity. This interview was part of a special series of conversations with speakers at the 2023 Hong Kong Forum on U.S.-China Relations.

Click to watch the full interview here.

KJ Kerr, China-US Focus:

Ambassador Barshefsky, thank you so, so much for being here with us today. First off, during your tenure as the United States Trade Representative, you played a pivotal role in negotiating China's entry into the World Trade Organization. We are wondering: How do you view the long-term impact of China's entry into the WTO? And what insights can you share from your experiences that may be relevant to today's bilateral economic relationship?

Charlene Barshefsky:

Well, first of all, it's such a great pleasure to be here. I know the forum was inaugurated by my dear old friend, C.H. Tung — Tung Chee-Hwa. And so it is really a matter of great pride for me that I am here, particularly in his honor.You know, negotiating China's WTO entry was a very lengthy process, both for the Chinese side and the U.S. side — very detailed, very difficult, but always in the spirit of wishing to reach an agreement that could be mutually beneficial, not only bilaterally [but] globally as well. And, of course, the Chinese-side was very ably represented. The U.S.-side worked very hard to try and match the Chinese expertise and determination. I think, for China, the result of WTO accession is still visible today. It propelled its economy forward. It propelled China's reform and opening-up. It helped to integrate China into the global economy, making it a critical feature of that economy. And it strengthened U.S.-China bilateral relations in many ways quite beyond simply trade and economic policy.I think as we look at it today, we see a couple of different shifts that have occurred. One, of course, is geopolitical. That is to say, a China that has become very ambitious, as great nations are, but in ways that for the U.S. and many Western countries has become difficult. And so that is going to have to be sorted out over time — hopefully, in a positive and constructive way. But I think on the trade and economic side, what we have seen is that, rather than a continuing convergence with market economy norms, as predicted by WTO accession, we see a divergence from those norms as China's economic system has changed over the intervening years. And that also poses challenges, I think, not just bilaterally but also globally. That also has to be sorted out in a constructive way. And I do think there are ways to do that. Hopefully, the two sides, as well as other countries can enter into a kind of informal negotiation to sort through these issues and see if we can find some resolution. But I think net-net, China's participation in the WTO is very positive for it and for the global economy. And so we look forward to that construct being further reinforced over time.

KJ Kerr:

Thank you very much. Looking at international businesses, what do you think are some of the main issues that some of these international businesses need to consider when determining whether to maintain or expand their presence in the Chinese market, which has become particularly complex over the last few years?

Charlene Barshefsky:

Yes, it has become complex, but I think for business generally — put aside for a moment the geopolitical overlay — for business generally, a predictable regulatory and legal environment is the single most important factor. If regulations change without notice, if the legal environment becomes idiosyncratic in nature, if business doesn't have confidence that the rules under which it operates today will exist tomorrow in the same form and in the same legal construct, it's very difficult for a business to remain in a country. It's very difficult for a business to expand further in that country, as it will naturally seek to mitigate risk and diversify outside the country at issue. So for business, consistency, regularity, transparency and a system in which they feel confident doing business are the most critical factors. If we have the geopolitical overlay, of course, for businesses — both U.S. and Chinese businesses — there is a certain political and governmental pressure, which is not a welcome addition to doing business, but is nonetheless now a feature. It's a reality. And businesses have to navigate that, again, as they assess risk.

Click to watch the full interview here.

KJ Kerr:

Absolutely. What do you think is the significance of international businesses — particularly American businesses — being in China and having a presence there?

Charlene Barshefsky:

Well, I think having a presence in China is critical for growth, for the size of the market, for the positive competitive aspect of being in markets that are difficult, that are markets that are quite discerning. You want to be in those markets because it helps you improve. And so business needs to be in China in a way that, from a risk perspective, is comfortable for them. And I think businesses will continue to be in China. They'll continue to invest in China. That seems quite natural and appropriate.

KJ Kerr:

Transitioning a bit, how should the U.S. and China approach their trade and economic relationships with other Indo-Pacific nations?

Charlene Barshefsky:

Hopefully, on a more cooperative basis, because fragmentation of the global economy, which is happening, is not a particularly positive trend. It's not positive for growth. It's not positive for global relations. I think we would like to see — or I would like to see, I should say — an environment that is conducive to both countries operating in a more cooperative manner, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. This is the epicenter of growth globally. But it is also the epicenter of a variety of flashpoints globally, and so both countries being in the region in a compatible way is of the utmost importance.

KJ Kerr:

How do you think the recent increases in U.S. export controls on semiconductors and artificial intelligence chips to China may influence trade dynamics between the two countries?

Charlene Barshefsky:

Both countries have a view of their national security. The U.S. view is encapsulated by the phrase "high wall, small yard," meaning there are certain technologies the U.S. wishes to protect. That's a relatively small yard, because the U.S. definition of national security is quite narrow. High fence means to really protect those few technologies. China similarly has wanted to be self-sufficient in technology, self-reliant in technology. And so its yard is rather larger and the walls are just as high. This is problematic for various reasons, but each country believes it necessary for the protection of their own national security. I don't see that changing in any significant degree.What I would hope is that these definitions of national security don't expand so much that they swallow up economic activity between the two countries. This kind of approach, of course, fragments the global economy and fragmented technology raises questions in the long-run about interoperability. This raises the question further whether other countries will lean toward one side or the other, further fragmenting the digital commons. And that also poses enormous challenges for both countries, for both the U.S. and China. So again, I think the two sides now are beginning to talk about these issues, which is extremely welcome. And, hopefully, they can reach some common understanding, at least about not letting security concerns so overwhelm economic concerns that the relationship is swallowed by them.

Click to watch the full interview here.

KJ Kerr:

Thank you so much. We are so grateful to you for sharing those insights with us. Last, we'd love to talk a bit about CUSEF's 15th anniversary. I think this is a huge part of our work and what we do — providing opportunities to engage in discussion, to foster communication. So we would love for you to share perhaps your experience working with CUSEF, or even your thoughts on the significance of CUSEF's work, such as the forum, people-to-people exchanges and fostering communication during this time of increased tensions.

Charlene Barshefsky:

Well, this forum and these dialogues are a critical feature of the landscape now. And they are critical to forming an ecosystem where the two sides continue to engage, continue to talk, continue to try and work toward the resolution of issues. The prestige of the forum is very well known. It is so well-regarded that it provides a critical focal point for a lot of these efforts. So I am thrilled to be back, thrilled to be here and of course thrilled to be in Hong Kong again, needless to say, and just delighted to see this forum go from strength to strength, because the world needs it. And most assuredly the U.S. and China need it.