n********t
发帖数: 21 | 1 反华为战争
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-war-on-huawei-meng-wanzhou-arrest-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-12/chinese
Dec 11, 2018 JEFFREY D. SACHS
发自纽约——华为公司首席财务官孟晚舟被捕事件是特朗普政府与中国冲突加剧过程中
的一个危险举动。如果正如马克·吐温所说，历史经常是押韵的，我们这个时代也越来
越让人回想起1914年之前那段时期。正如当年的欧洲大国那样，一个由试图维护美国对
华统治地位的政府所领导的美国正在推动世界走向一场灾难。
这起逮捕的背景非常重要。美国要求加拿大在孟晚舟从香港经温哥华转机前往墨西哥的
途中将其逮捕，然后将她引渡到美国。这一举动堪称是向中国商界宣战，也使美国商人
出国并遭其他国家采取类似行动的风险上升到前所未有的高度。
美国很少因其企业所犯的罪行而逮捕美国或外国高管。公司经理人通常会因个人犯罪（
如贪污，贿赂或暴力）而非所属企业涉嫌非法行为而被捕。这些经理人当然应该为其所
属企业的非法行为负责，包括受到刑事指控；但是首先拿一位中国商界头面人物——而
不是数十名涉嫌渎职的美国企业CEO和CFO——来开刀，对中国政府，商界和公众来说简
直就是令人震惊的挑衅。
孟晚舟被指控违反美国对伊朗的制裁。但问题在于还有许多（美国或非美国）企业也违
反过美国对伊朗和其他国家的制裁。例如2011年摩根大通就因违反美国对古巴，伊朗和
苏丹的制裁而支付了8830万美元罚款，而其主席杰米·戴蒙可没被人从
飞机上抓走羁押起来。
摩根大通也不是唯一一个违反美国制裁的企业。自2010年以来就有以下主要金融机构因
违反美国制裁而被罚款：巴西银行、美洲银行、关岛银行、莫斯科银行、东京三菱银行
、巴克莱银行、法国巴黎银行、明讯银行、德国商业银行、西班牙外换银行、法国农业
银行、德意志银行、汇丰银行、荷兰国际集团、意大利联合圣保罗银行、摩根大通、阿
布扎比国家银行、巴基斯坦国家银行、PayPal、苏格兰皇家银行（荷兰银行）、法国兴
业银行、多伦多道明银行、跨太平洋国家银行（现更名为灯塔商业银行），渣打银行和
富国银行。
这些违反制裁银行的CEO或CFO均未因这些违规行为而被逮捕和拘留。在所有这些案例中
被追究责任的都是企业——而不是某个高管。这些人也没有对2008年金融危机爆发前后
的普遍违法行为负责，根据最近的统计数据，银行合共支付了惊人的2430亿美元罚款。
照这一记录来看，孟晚舟的被捕堪称是实际操作上一个令人震惊的突破。我们当然要让
CEO或CFO负责，但要首先从本国着手以免将虚伪自利伪装成某种崇高原则，以及煽动新
的全球冲突。
很显然，美国针对孟晚舟的行动实际上是特朗普政府通过征收关税，对中国高科技出口
关闭西方市场以及阻止中国收购美国和欧洲科技企业来削弱中国经济的更宏大企图的一
部分。可以毫不夸张地说这就是对华经济战的一部分，也是一场贸然发起的战争。
华为是中国最重要的科技企业之一，因此也是特朗普政府减缓或阻止中国进军几大高科
技领域的主要目标。美国发动这场经济战争中的动机有部分是商业性的——为了保护和
支持那些落后的美国企业——也有部分是地缘政治。这两点显然都与维护国际法治毫无
关系。
而美国专门针对华为主要是因为该公司在全球推广尖端5G通讯技术方面成绩斐然。美国
声称该公司通过其硬件和软件中隐藏的监控功能构成了特定的安全风险，但却未能提供
支持这一说法的证据。
而最近英国《金融时报》针对华为发表的一篇诽谤文章就暴露了这一点。在承认“除非
你能足够幸运地在大海捞针中找到针头，否则无法获得相关信息通信技术收到干扰的具
体证据”之后，作者只是声称“你不会冒险将你的安全放在潜在竞争对手手中。”换句
话说，虽然我们无法抓住华为的马脚，但照样要将该企业拉进黑名单。
照特朗普的说法，如果全球贸易规则阻碍了他的强盗战术，那么规则就该被移除。美国
国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥（Mike Pompeo）上周在布鲁塞尔也如数承认了这一点。 “我们的
政府，”他说，“正在合法地退出或重新谈判那些不符合我们主权利益或盟友利益的过
时或有害的条约，贸易协定及其他国际协议。”然而在该政府退出这些协议之前总会通
过各类鲁莽的单边行动去大肆破坏。
针对孟晚舟的无先例逮捕则更具挑衅性，因为它是基于美国所发动的区域外制裁，这意
味着美国可以命令其他国家停止与古巴或伊朗等第三方进行贸易，而美国显然无法容忍
中国或任何其他国家去规定美国企业可以或不可以跟谁交易。
针对非国家方的制裁（例如美国对中国企业的制裁）不应仅由一个国家执行，而应根据
联合国安理会达成的协议执行。比如联合国安理会第2231号决议就呼吁所有国家放弃对
伊朗的制裁以作为2015年伊朗核协议的部分条件。然而美国——也只有美国——拒绝让
安理会在这些事务上发挥作用。由此可见，特朗普政府——而非华为或中国——才是当
今对国际法治乃至全球和平的最大威胁。 | n********t
发帖数: 21 | 2 The War on Huawei
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-war-on-huawei-meng-wanzhou-arrest-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-12
Dec 11, 2018 JEFFREY D. SACHS
The Trump administration's conflict with China has little to do with US
external imbalances, closed Chinese markets, or even China’s alleged theft
of intellectual property. It has everything to do with containing China by
limiting its access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global
banking services, and perhaps even US universities.
NEW YORK – The arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is a dangerous move by US
President Donald Trump’s administration in its intensifying conflict with
China. If, as Mark Twain reputedly said, history often rhymes, our era
increasingly recalls the period preceding 1914. As with Europe’s great
powers back then, the United States, led by an administration intent on
asserting America’s dominance over China, is pushing the world toward
disaster.
APOCALYPSE TRUMP
Dec 24, 2018 ELIZABETH DREW thinks the president's recent behavior has
triggered a sense that America is spinning out of control.
The context of the arrest matters enormously. The US requested that Canada
arrest Meng in the Vancouver airport en route to Mexico from Hong Kong, and
then extradite her to the US. Such a move is almost a US declaration of war
on China’s business community. Nearly unprecedented, it puts American
businesspeople traveling abroad at much greater risk of such actions by
other countries.
The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged
crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested
for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery, or
violence) rather than their company’s alleged malfeasance. Yes, corporate
managers should be held to account for their company’s malfeasance, up to
and including criminal charges; but to start this practice with a leading
Chinese businessperson, rather than the dozens of culpable US CEOs and CFOs,
is a stunning provocation to the Chinese government, business community,
and public.
Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest
in the context of the large number of companies, US and non-US, that have
violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example
, JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines in 2011 for violating US
sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. Yet Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off
a plane and whisked into custody.
And JP Morgan Chase was hardly alone in violating US sanctions. Since 2010,
the following major financial institutions paid fines for violating US
sanctions: Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow,
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking,
Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa
Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of
Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion
Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank (now known as Beacon Business Bank),
Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo.
None of the CEOs or CFOs of these sanction-busting banks was arrested and
taken into custody for these violations. In all of these cases, the
corporation – rather than an individual manager – was held accountable.
Nor were they held accountable for the pervasive lawbreaking in the lead-up
to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, for which the banks paid a
staggering $243 billion in fines, according to a recent tally. In light of
this record, Meng’s arrest is a shocking break with practice. Yes, hold
CEOs and CFOs accountable, but start at home in order to avoid hypocrisy,
self-interest disguised as high principle, and the risk of inciting a new
global conflict.
Quite transparently, the US action against Meng is really part of the Trump
administration’s broader attempt to undermine China’s economy by imposing
tariffs, closing Western markets to Chinese high-technology exports, and
blocking Chinese purchases of US and European technology companies. One can
say, without exaggeration, that this is part of an economic war on China,
and a reckless one at that.
Huawei is one of China’s most important technology companies, and therefore
a prime target in Trump administration’s effort to slow or stop China’s
advance into several high-technology sectors. America’s motivations in this
economic war are partly commercial – to protect and favor laggard US
companies – and partly geopolitical. They certainly have nothing to do with
upholding the international rule of law.
The US is trying to targeting Huawei especially because of the company’s
success in marketing cutting-edge 5G technologies globally. The US claims
the company poses a specific security risk through hidden surveillance
capabilities in its hardware and software. Yet the US government has
provided no evidence for this claim.
A recent diatribe against Huawei in the Financial Times is revealing in this
regard. After conceding that “you cannot have concrete proof of
interference in ICT, unless you are lucky enough to find the needle in the
haystack,” the author simply asserts that “you don’t take the risk of
putting your security in the hands of a potential adversary.” In other
words, while we can’t really point to misbehavior by Huawei, we should
blacklist the company nonetheless.
When global trade rules obstruct Trump’s gangster tactics, then the rules
have to go, according to him. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted as
much last week in Brussels. “Our administration,” he said, is “lawfully
exiting or renegotiating outdated or harmful treaties, trade agreements, and
other international arrangements that don’t serve our sovereign interests,
or the interests of our allies.” Yet before it exits these agreements, the
administration is trashing them through reckless and unilateral actions.
The unprecedented arrest of Meng is even more provocative because it is
based on US extra-territorial sanctions, that is, the claim by the US that
it can order other countries to stop trading with third parties such as Cuba
or Iran. The US would certainly not tolerate China or any other country
telling American companies with whom they can or cannot trade. 4
Sanctions regarding non-national parties (such as US sanctions on a Chinese
business) should not be enforced by one country alone, but according to
agreements reached within the United Nations Security Council. In that
regard, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 calls on all countries to drop
sanctions on Iran as part of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement. Yet the US –
and only the US – now rejects the Security Council’s role in such matters.
The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today’s greatest threat
to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of
Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia
’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development
Solutions Network. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The
Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most
recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism. | h****e
发帖数: 1 | 3 美国政府帮助医院绑架杀死美国儿童司空见惯
麻痹的一个孟晚舟
闹腾这么大 | l**o
发帖数: 131 | 4 日，美国的民主党派写的？极好，麻痹的美国不过就是个大号国民党，我鳖那几下散手
又可以使了。 |
|
