2019-6-1 11:37
短网址
字号

美中女主播辩论贸易战等-全程视频及英文、中文译文

【真相网2019.6.1】福克斯（Fox）新闻女主播翠西•里根（Trish Regan）5月23日在节目中，向中共的海外CCTV——中国环球电视网（CGTN）英文评论女主播刘欣，发出邀请，就美、中贸易战举行“诚实的辩论”。

以下是辩论的实况视频，有中文字幕，国内朋友在国内不能看到全部视频，只有官方的剪辑版。请看实况视频：

里根在介绍刘欣时说，刘欣是英文节目主持人，该节目受中国共产党的指挥。但这是一个从不同的角度看问题的好机会。里根说她只代表自己，而嘉宾是中国共产党的成员，不过没关系，她愿意从从不同的角度看问题。

刘欣说，从未梦想过有这样的机会和里根以及普通的美国人讲话。她说，我不得不纠正你，我不是中国共产党员。这有记录可查，我不为中国共产党讲话，我只替自己讲话。我是中国国际电视台（CGTN）的记者。

里根说，CGTN就是共产党的一部分。

里根问，你认为美中之间达成协议是否可能？

刘欣说，我不知道，我没有内部消息。我只知道贸易谈判不是很成功。中国，中国政府认为除非中方的谈判团队受到尊重，不使用外部的压力，就有很大的可能达成协议。否则问题将持续很长时间，对双方都是这样。

里根列举了十多个中方盗窃美方知识产权的案例。她说，美方每年损失数千亿美元，不过即使5毛钱，也不该偷窃。

刘欣说，很多美企在中国都壮大了，非常盈利，大部分还希望继续在中国投资，探索美国市场，但美国总统川普(特朗普)让事情有点难，未来有点不确定。我不否认有入侵IP、版权问题、隐私问题、甚至盗窃，但这些也是要质疑的。这些都很重要，但个人或个别公司的行为哪都有，是个普遍问题。美国公司也总是互相起诉。这些空洞的陈述帮不上忙。

里根说，这不是陈述，这是多项报告，包括来自世贸组织的。

针对华为问题，里根说，做生意建立在信任的基础之上，没人希望被盗窃。如果我们说，华为来美国吧，但必须和我们分享所有宝贵的科技，可以吗？

刘欣说，如果通过合作，学习，支付使用科技的费用，是可以的。互相学习很好，我学英语是因为我有美国老师，我学英语是因为我有美国朋友。只要合法。

里根说，你提到很重要的一件事，就是为知识产权付钱，这是在法律维护之下的。我们行事都得遵守规则，遵守法律。

里根说，中国已经是第二大经济体了，什么时候中国才能说自己是发达国家，不再从世界银行（低息）借钱呢？

刘欣说，我们想长大，不想贫穷和矮小。但14亿人口，人均就少了，是美国的六分之一。总体来讲，我们很大，分下来就少了。我们给联合国捐了很多钱。

里根说，2016年中国收美国的平均税率是9.9%，这是美国收中国的近3倍。双方能把这些税一起取消吗？

刘欣说，这是很好的主意，双方的产品都会更便宜。但其它国家也会要同样的税率。这很复杂。各方根据自己国家的利益达成了协议，20年后，事情发生了变化，重新协商，遵守规则，如果不喜欢老规则，可以改规则。

里根说，1974年，美国就有规则可对外国的盗窃知识产权的行为采取关税行动。有些美国公司应该审视自己为了短期利益放弃知识产权的做法。但整个美国也应采取行动，此前的美国政府已经发现了这个问题，但没有行动。

里根问，你如何看待国家资本主义？

刘欣说，我们定义为中国特色的社会主义，市场决定资源的配置。但中国特色的话就是有些国家拥有的企业承担重要而小一点的作用。每个人都认为中国的企业都是中国拥有的，但调查数据显示，80%中国人在私企工作，65%的科技是私企实现的，很多5G公司，网络公司，很多最大的中国公司都是私企。我们很多元化，也十分的开放。

中方女主播刘欣身份曝光

日前，有大陆网友搜索到中方代表刘欣的外籍丈夫和子女背景，并质疑刘欣有可能是外国籍。

美国福克斯商业网络电视（Fox Business Network）女主播崔西·里根（Trish Regan）与中共央视大外宣（CGTN）的英文女主播刘欣的辩论引发不少关注。

根据公开资料显示，美国福克斯商业网络电视台主持人里根今年47岁，目前是该台Trish Regan Primetime节目主持人。她毕业于哥伦比亚大学，此前在彭博电视、哥伦比亚广播公司等媒体任职。

而中共央视的刘欣毕业于南京大学外国语学院，曾先后任央视英语国际频道主持人、央视驻日内瓦记者，现为中共大外宣CGTN《欣视点》栏目的主持人。中共各大官媒连日来都在其相关新闻的报导中，为刘欣造势。

然而，有网民却发现，在2017年澎湃新闻网的一篇对刘欣的采访报导中介绍，“刘欣的丈夫是土耳其裔德国人，她的两个孩子从生下来便生活在西方世界里，能讲五种语言。”也有网民搜索发现了刘欣微博上贴出的一张在瑞士的驾照，但由于照片模糊，无法分清驾照类别。

而在百度百科对刘欣个人的介绍中，人物家庭栏目只提到“刘欣是两个孩子的母亲”，并未介绍其外籍丈夫身分。

因此，有大陆网民提出质疑：代表央视出战的刘欣，“现在是什么国籍？”

此外，对于两人的辩论，能否在网上直播及其结果，也引发大陆网民的讨论，但大多数网民持悲观态度。“你放心，你看不见。”“直播不可能，辩得好就会给你看，辩不好就当没发生过。”

也有网民调侃：“直播？可以啊，轮到对方辩友时插入广告，加点专家点评，等后台剪辑差不多马上播一下，又轮到我方辩友了……”

还有网民直言，毕竟在无法预期里根言论尺度的状况下，若贸然直播被抖出“秘密”，将令中共难堪。况且，刘欣做为“国家代表”，肩负不能输的压力，这是当局直播的另一忌惮。

美中女主播辩论 CCTV央视删刘欣认错内容

美国福克斯(Fox Business Network)主播翠西‧里根(Trish Regan)，周三(5月29日)晚，与中共央视英文(CGTN)主播刘欣，就贸易话题进行访谈式辩论。中共央视在汇总时，只保留了一句里根的话，还删除了刘欣承认中共盗窃知识产权的部分，引发大陆网友争议。

英文文本

美方：Fox Business,Trish Regan 翠西.里根
中共：CCP CGTN Liu Xin 党媒主播，刘欣

主题：美中贸易战及相关

时间：美东时间 2019-05-29

【Text for Ref】

** Trish Regan:
Tonight I have a special guest joining me all the way from Beijing, China, to discuss the challenges of trade between the U.S. and her home country. She’s the host of a prime time english-language television program 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. Now, 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.
Now, in the interest 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. With all that in mind, I’m very pleased tonight to welcome Ms Liu Xin, host of “the point with Liu Xin" to “Trish Regan prime time" tonight. And just quickly to the viewers, please bear with us as we have a significant time delay in our satellites between Beijing and the U.S., 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, Trish, 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 …

** Trish Regan:
… Yeah, It is, Indeed unprecedented. Hang on. I’m going to jump in. Tell me, forgive me, you are not what …

** Liu Xin:
… I am not … Trish, I have to get it straight, I am not a member of the Communist Party of China. 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, and I am here, today, I am only speaking for myself as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN. So …

** Trish Regan:
Well, Okay, appreciate it. What’s your current assessment of where the trade talks actually are right now? Give me your current assessment of where we are on these trade talks. Do you believe a deal is possible?

** Liu Xin:
It’s true that the satellite connection is not very good, but I believe that you asking me where we are in terms of the trade negotiations, I don’t know. I don’t have any insight or information. What I knew was 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 China has made, 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, I think 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, Xin, I want to believe that something can get done. (Liu Xin Jump in: Agreed.) These are certainly challenging times, I realize there’s a lot of rhetoric out.
But, let me turn to one of the biggest issues, and that’s intellectual property rights. I mean, 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 at the independent World Trade Organization, the WTO, that China’s a member of it 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. Now, you know, that’s a lot of money. But truly, 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:
Well, I think, Trish, 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, and they’re very profitable. and the great majority of them, I believe, plan to continue to invest in China and explore the Chinese market. Well, now, US president Donald Trump’s tariff makes it a little more difficult, make the future uncertain.
I do not deny that there are IP infringement, 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 and the Chinese people, and me as an individual, I think there’s a consensus, because without the protection of IP right, nobody, no country, no individual can be stronger, can develop itself. So I think that is a very clear consensus among the 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. There are companies in the United States who use each other all the time over infringement on IP rights, and 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 I think this kind of blanket statement is really not helpful, really not helpful.

** Trish Regan:
Well, 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 …

** Liu Xin: Sure, I don’t deny those …

** Trish Regan:
Right. I mean you know, look, I think, as I said, we can all agree that if you are going to do business with someone, it has to be based on trust. and 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, right, 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’s 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, I think, what if we said, hey, you know, 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 okay?

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

** Trish Regan:
But you mentioned something pretty important which is that you should pay for the acquisition of that. And, you know, look, I think that the liberalized economic world in which we live has valued intellectual property, and it’s governed by a set of laws. and, so, we all need to, kind of, 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 now, Wow, the second largest economy, at what point, will China decide to abandon its developing nation status, and, well, 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 already becoming so big, why don’t you just grow up? Basically, I think you said it in your program as well, China, grow up.
Well, I think we want to grow up. We don’t want to be, you know, dwarfed or poor, underdeveloped all the time. But it depends on how you define developing country, right?
If you look at China’s overall size, the overall size of the Chinese economy, yes, we are very big, the world’s number one, 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, well, I think we’re less than 1/6 of that of the United States, and even less than some other more developed countries in Europe. So, you tell me, where should we 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. So I think we are doing that, we’re contributing to the United Nations, we’re the world’s biggest contributor to the U.N. human peacekeeping mission, and we are giving out donations and humanitarian aids, 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 nine point nine percent (9%), that was nearly three times what the US is charging. So, what do you say about this? What do you think about saying, hey, you know the heck with these tariffs, let’s get rid of them altogether, would that work?

** Liu Xin:
I think that would be a wonderful idea, I mean, 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 that would be a wonderful idea. I think we should work towards that. But, you know, 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, we talk about tariffs, it is 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 probably will come, and say, hey, we want the same tariff, you can’t discriminate. You know, between countries.
So it is a very complicated settlement to reach, and I think there’s a lot of agreement that China and the (United States) … about trade, yes, I am talking about tariffs. And I think the last time when the world agreed on the kind of tariffs 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 can agree or to what degree they could lower their tear will have, tariffs. (Nobody could have gotten at their head ) China agreed to lower our tariff considerably. It is all the decision of countries according to their own self-interests. 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 reason) If you don’t like the rules, we’ll change the rules, but, again, it has to be a multi-national and multi-level.

** Trish Regan:
Yeah, I was going to say, you know, you could 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 this 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 near term. But this is an issue, I think, where the country as a whole needs to step in, and we’re seeing the Unite States do that.
Perhaps, Xin, in a way that hasn’t happened. I mean, 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 … you mean the forced technology transfer? ( or did you transfer … )

** Trish Regan:
No, state capitalism. I guess, forced technology are amazing part of that, but state capitalism, in other words, I want to say that, I think, you know, your system of economics is very interesting, because, you know, you have a capitalist system, right? But it’s state-run. So talk to us about that. How do you define it?

** Liu Xin:
Well, 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, you know, let the market, 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 …
But let me tell you, it is not the true picture. If you look at the statistics, for instance, eighty percent (80%) of Chinese employees were employed by private enterprises, eighty percent (80%) of Chinese exports were done by private companies, were produced by private companies. About 65% of technological innovation were achieved, were carried out by private enterprises. Some of the largest companies that affect our life, 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 it’s, you know, not everything is state-controlled, state run. Not like that, we are actually quite mixed and very dynamic and actually very very open as well.

** Trish Regan:
Well, I think you need to probably keep being open. I think that, you know, as a free trade person myself, I think that’s the direction to pursue. And ultimately, that leads to greater economic prosperity for you and better economic prosperity for us. And so then you get a win-win. (Liu Xin Jump in: Absolutely.) But I’m simply … This is interesting. I appreciate you being here. Thank you.

** Liu Xin:
Thank you so much if you want to have a discussion in the future, we can do that. If you want to come to China, You are welcome, and I’ll take you around. (Trish jump in: I’d love it. ) Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much.

** Trish Regan:
（Liu Xin quits.）Okay, You know, look, I would just say, as I told Xin, no none wants a trade war. But we have to think long and hard about the right next steps.