2019-6-1 11:37
短網址
字型大小

美中女主播辯論貿易戰等-全程視頻及英文、中文譯文

【真相網2019.6.1】福克斯（Fox）新聞女主播翠西•里根（Trish Regan）5月23日在節目中，向中共的海外CCTV——中國環球電視網（CGTN）英文評論女主播劉欣，發出邀請，就美、中貿易戰舉行｢誠實的辯論｣。

以下是辯論的實況視頻，有中文字幕，國內朋友在國內不能看到全部視頻，只有官方的剪輯版。請看實況視頻：

里根在介紹劉欣時說，劉欣是英文節目主持人，該節目受中國共產黨的指揮。但這是一個從不同的角度看問題的好機會。里根說她只代表自己，而嘉賓是中國共產黨的成員，不過沒關係，她願意從從不同的角度看問題。

劉欣說，從未夢想過有這樣的機會和里根以及普通的美國人講話。她說，我不得不糾正你，我不是中國共產黨員。這有記錄可查，我不為中國共產黨講話，我只替自己講話。我是中國國際電視台（CGTN）的記者。

里根說，CGTN就是共產黨的一部分。

里根問，你認為美中之間達成協議是否可能？

劉欣說，我不知道，我沒有內部消息。我只知道貿易談判不是很成功。中國，中國政府認為除非中方的談判團隊受到尊重，不使用外部的壓力，就有很大的可能達成協議。否則問題將持續很長時間，對雙方都是這樣。

里根列舉了十多個中方盜竊美方智慧財產權的案例。她說，美方每年損失數千億美元，不過即使5毛錢，也不該偷竊。

劉欣說，很多美企在中國都壯大了，非常盈利，大部分還希望繼續在中國投資，探索美國市場，但美國總統川普(特朗普)讓事情有點難，未來有點不確定。我不否認有入侵IP、著作權問題、隱私問題、甚至盜竊，但這些也是要質疑的。這些都很重要，但個人或個別公司的行為哪都有，是個普遍問題。美國公司也總是互相起訴。這些空洞的陳述幫不上忙。

里根說，這不是陳述，這是多項報告，包括來自世貿組織的。

針對華為問題，里根說，做生意建立在信任的基礎之上，沒人希望被盜竊。如果我們說，華為來美國吧，但必須和我們分享所有寶貴的科技，可以嗎？

劉欣說，如果通過合作，學習，支付使用科技的費用，是可以的。互相學習很好，我學英語是因為我有美國老師，我學英語是因為我有美國朋友。只要合法。

里根說，你提到很重要的一件事，就是為智慧財產權付錢，這是在法律維護之下的。我們行事都得遵守規則，遵守法律。

里根說，中國已經是第二大經濟體了，什麼時候中國才能說自己是發達國家，不再從世界銀行（低息）借錢呢？

劉欣說，我們想長大，不想貧窮和矮小。但14億人口，人均就少了，是美國的六分之一。總體來講，我們很大，分下來就少了。我們給聯合國捐了很多錢。

里根說，2016年中國收美國的平均稅率是9.9%，這是美國收中國的近3倍。雙方能把這些稅一起取消嗎？

劉欣說，這是很好的主意，雙方的產品都會更便宜。但其它國家也會要同樣的稅率。這很複雜。各方根據自己國家的利益達成了協議，20年後，事情發生了變化，重新協商，遵守規則，如果不喜歡老規則，可以改規則。

里根說，1974年，美國就有規則可對外國的盜竊智慧財產權的行為採取關稅行動。有些美國公司應該審視自己為了短期利益放棄智慧財產權的做法。但整個美國也應採取行動，此前的美國政府已經發現了這個問題，但沒有行動。

里根問，你如何看待國家資本主義？

劉欣說，我們定義為中國特色的社會主義，市場決定資源的配置。但中國特色的話就是有些國家擁有的企業承擔重要而小一點的作用。每個人都認為中國的企業都是中國擁有的，但調查數據顯示，80%中國人在私企工作，65%的科技是私企實現的，很多5G公司，網路公司，很多最大的中國公司都是私企。我們很多元化，也十分的開放。

中方女主播劉欣身份曝光

日前，有大陸網友搜尋到中方代表劉欣的外籍丈夫和子女背景，並質疑劉欣有可能是外國籍。

美國福克斯商業網路電視（Fox Business Network）女主播崔西·里根（Trish Regan）與中共央視大外宣（CGTN）的英文女主播劉欣的辯論引發不少關注。

根據公開資料顯示，美國福克斯商業網路電視台主持人里根今年47歲，目前是該台Trish Regan Primetime節目主持人。她畢業於哥倫比亞大學，此前在彭博電視、哥倫比亞廣播公司等媒體任職。

而中共央視的劉欣畢業於南京大學外國語學院，曾先後任央視英語國際頻道主持人、央視駐日內瓦記者，現為中共大外宣CGTN《欣視點》欄目的主持人。中共各大官媒連日來都在其相關新聞的報導中，為劉欣造勢。

然而，有網民卻發現，在2017年澎湃新聞網的一篇對劉欣的採訪報導中介紹，｢劉欣的丈夫是土耳其裔德國人，她的兩個孩子從生下來便生活在西方世界裡，能講五種語言。｣也有網民搜尋發現了劉欣微網誌上貼出的一張在瑞士的駕照，但由於照片模糊，無法分清駕照類別。

而在百度百科對劉欣個人的介紹中，人物家庭欄目只提到｢劉欣是兩個孩子的母親｣，並未介紹其外籍丈夫身分。

因此，有大陸網民提出質疑：代表央視出戰的劉欣，｢現在是什麼國籍？｣

此外，對於兩人的辯論，能否在網上直播及其結果，也引發大陸網民的討論，但大多數網民持悲觀態度。｢你放心，你看不見。｣｢直播不可能，辯得好就會給你看，辯不好就當沒發生過。｣

也有網民調侃：｢直播？可以啊，輪到對方辯友時插入廣告，加點專家點評，等後台剪輯差不多馬上播一下，又輪到我方辯友了……｣

還有網民直言，畢竟在無法預期里根言論尺度的狀況下，若貿然直播被抖出｢秘密｣，將令中共難堪。況且，劉欣做為｢國家代表｣，肩負不能輸的壓力，這是當局直播的另一忌憚。

美中女主播辯論 CCTV央視刪劉欣認錯內容

美國福克斯(Fox Business Network)主播翠西‧里根(Trish Regan)，周三(5月29日)晚，與中共央視英文(CGTN)主播劉欣，就貿易話題進行訪談式辯論。中共央視在匯總時，只保留了一句里根的話，還刪除了劉欣承認中共盜竊智慧財產權的部分，引發大陸網友爭議。

英文文本

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

主題：美中貿易戰及相關

時間：美東時間 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.