开始前，Regan先跟观众强调，Xin是党员，并提醒观众Xin有立场，代表党说话。
8点26分，开始。
Regan：
Xin welcome, it’s good to have you here.
刘欣你好，很高兴你能来。
Xin：
It's a great opportunity for me unprecedended. I never dreamed that I would have this kind of opportunity to speak to you and to speak to audiences in the ordinary houses in the US.
I have to get it straight, I am not a member of CPC.
This is on the record, please don’t assume that I am a member. I don’t speak for the CPC and I’m here today I’m only speaking for myself as Liu Xin a journalist working for CGTN. So if anybody wants to quote me, please put my name there at least.
对我来说这是一个前所未有的好机会。我从未想过我能有这样的机会和你交谈，和美国普通家庭中的观众交谈。
我必须澄清，我并不是中国共产党党员。
我把话说明白，请不要假定我是党员。我并不为共产党发言，今天在这里我是作为CGTN的记者代表我自己发言。所以，如果有人想引用我的话，至少请把我的名字放在这里。
（刘欣直接表明自己身份，强调自己是个人身份，回击了对方对身份和立场攻击）
Regan：
Ok appreciate it. Give your current assessement of where we are on these trade talks. Do you believe a deal is possible?
好的，谢谢你。以你目前对贸易谈判的评估，告诉我们你对贸易谈判进展的判断吧。你相信会达成协议吗？
（Regan开始提问，谈贸易摩擦）
Xin：
It is true that the satellite connection is not very good, but I believe you are asking me where we are in terms of the trade negotiations. I don’t know. I don’t have any insider information. I knew that talks were not very successful last time when they were going on in the United States, and now I know both sides are considering what to go next. But I think the Chinese government has made its position very clear that unless the US treated the Chinese government, treated the Chinese negotiation 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 we might be facing a prolonged period of problems for both sides.
卫星信号的确不是很好哈。但是如果你问我，当前我们贸易谈判的进程如何，我并不知道。我并没有任何内部消息。我知道上一次在美国的谈判不是很顺利，现在我知道双方都在考虑接下来怎么办。但是我认为，中国政府已经摆出了明确的立场：除非美国尊重中国政府、中方谈判团队，展现出不施加外部压力来交流的意愿，这样我们就很有可能达成富有成效的贸易协议；否则，我们双方可能都会面临旷日持久的问题时期。
Regan:
I would stress that trade wars are never good. They are not good for anyone. So I wanna believe Xin I wanna believe that something can get done. And this is certainly a challenging time. I realize there are a lot of rhetorics out there. But let me term one of the issues. That’s IP rights…You fundamentally… I think we can all agree that it’s right to take something that’s not yours. And in going through some of these cases, cases of the independent WTO that China is a member of as well as the DOJ, the FBI cases, you can actually see some of them are on the screen right now. There is evidence that China has stolen an enormous amount of IP, hundreds of billions of dollars worth now, youn know that's a lot of money. But really, I guess we shouldn't really care hundreds of billions of dollars or just 50 cents. How do American businesses operate in China if there are risks of having their ideas or intellectual properties stolen?
我想强调，贸易战绝不是好事儿，对任何人都不好。所以我愿意相信，我愿意相信能做成一些事情。这无疑是一个极具挑战的时代。我意识到形形色色的话术。但是，让我来聊其中一个问题吧。那就是知识产权……你基本上……我想我们都同意，拿不是你的东西是不对的。在浏览某些此类案件的过程中，来自中国也是成员国之一的WTO、DOJ和FBI的案件，你现在可以在屏幕上看到它们。有证据表明，中国盗窃了大量的IP，价值数万亿美元，你知道这可是一大笔钱。但认真的，我认为我们该关注的不是几万亿美元还是50美分。如果有想法或知识产权遭到盗窃的风险，美国企业该怎么在中国经营下去呢？
Xin:
Well, I think Trish you should ask American businesses whether they want to come to China, whether they find coming to China and cooperating with Chinese businesses has been profitable or not. They will tell you their answers, as far as I understand, many American companies have been established in China very profitable. 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 tariffs make it a little bit difficult, make the future a little bit uncertain. I don not deny that there are IP infringement or copyright issues or there are piracy or even theft of commercial secrets. I think this is something to be dealt with. I think the Chinese government, the Chinese people and me as an individual, I think there is a consensus because without the protection of IP right nobody, no country, no individual can be stronger, can develop itself. I think that is a very clear consensus among the Chinese society. And of course there are cases where individuals where companies just go and steal, and that’s a common practice probably in every part of the world. There are companies in the United States who sue each other all the time for infringement on IP rights. You can’t say simply because these cases are happening, 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.
我认为你应该去问问美国公司，看看他们愿不愿意来中国，看看他们觉得到中国来、和中国公司合作是不是有利可图。他们会给你答案的。就我所知，许多美国公司在中国发展得非常好，盈利非常可观。我相信，他们中的绝大多数都打算继续在中国投资，开发中国市场。好吧，现在美国总统特朗普的关税把事情弄得有点儿麻烦了，把未来弄得有点儿不确定了。
我不否认的确存在知识产权侵犯问题、版权问题、隐私问题乃至商业机密盗窃问题。我认为这是有待于解决的事情。中国政府、中国人民以及我作为个体都有这样一个共识，因为如果没有IP保护，没有国家或个人可以独善其身。这在中国社会是一个显而易见的共识。当然也有个体或公司进行偷窃的案例，这样的情况或许在世界各地都很常见。许多美国的公司也一直在控诉彼此侵犯知识产权。你不能因为这样的案例在发生，就说美国人就在盗窃，或者中国人在盗窃。基本上这就是我写下那段反驳的原因，因为我认为，这种含糊片面的言论真的毫无益处，真的毫无益处。
Regan:
It’s not just a statement. It’s multiple reports including evident from the WTO. Let me ask you about Huawei. That’s in the headlines right now. (Sure. I don't deny those.) As I said, we can all agree, if you do business with someone, it has to be based on trust. and you don’t want anyone stealing your valuable information you spent decades working on. Anyway China passed a law in 2017 requiring tech companies to work with the military and the government. It’s not just individual companies right? They might be getting access to these technologies as the government itself, which is an interesting nuance. But I get that China is upset that Huawei has not been welcome to the US market totally. So let me just ask you this, it’s an interesting way to think about it. What if we said, you know, sure, Huawei, come on in, but here’s the deal you must share all the technological advances that you’ve been working on. You get to share with us. Would that be ok?
这不仅仅是一段言论。这是许多份报告，其中包括了来自WTO的证据。让我问问你华为的事儿吧。毕竟这是现在的头条热点。（当然，我不否认。）如我所说，我们都同意，如果你要和一个人做生意，那一定是建立在信任之上的，你不希望别人来偷窃你花费了几十年心血的宝贵信息。无论如何，2017年中国通过了一条法律，要求科技公司与军方和政府合作。不仅仅是独立的公司对吧？政府本身也可能接触到这些技术，这是一个很有趣的细微差别。但我了解到，华为在美国市场完全不受欢迎，这事儿让中方很沮丧。所以我想问问你，用这种方式来想很有意思。如果我们说，华为，进来吧，但条件是你们必须把正在研究的所有先进技术都拿来共享。你们必须和我们分享。这样可以吗？
Xin:
I think if it is through cooperation, if it is through mutual learning, if you pay for the use of this IP or high technology, absolutely fine. Why not? We all prosper because we learn from each other. I learn English because I had American teachers. I learn English because I had American friends. Still I’m learning journalism because I have American copy editors. I think that is fine as long as it is not illegal. Everybody should do that. That’s how we get better right?
我认为如果是通过合作，如果是通过互相学习，如果你愿意花钱来使用我们的知识产权或高新技术，绝对可以的。为什么不呢？我们都会繁荣发展，因为我们互相学习。我学英语，因为我有美国老师。我学英语，因为我有美国朋友。不仅如此，我学新闻，因为我有美国的文案编辑。我觉得那是可以的，只要不违反法律。每个人都应该那样做。我们就是那样变得更好的，不是吗？
Regan：
But you mention something very important, which is that you should pay for the acquisition of that. You know, look, I think that the liberalized economic world in which we live and have valued intellectual property and it’s governed by a set of laws, and so you need kind of to play by the rules and play by those laws for 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 abandon its developing nation status or stop borrowing from the World Bank.
但你提到了一件非常重要的事情，那就是：你应该花钱来买知识产权。你知道的，听着，我认为我们生活在一个自由化的经济世界之中，当今世界很重视知识产权，这个问题受到一系列法律的管束，所以你必须按照规则和法律来玩这场游戏，才能建立起彼此之间的信任。但我认为，你提到了一些很好的观点。让我聊回中国，中国现在……哇哦，第二大经济体。到什么时候，中国才会放弃发展中国家的身份，停止向世界银行借钱呢？
Xin：
Well I think discussion is going on and I have heard a very live discussion about it. Indeed, there are people talking about China already big, why don’t you just grow up? I think we want to grow up, we don’t wanna be dwarf and underdeveloped all the time. But it depends on how you define developing country, right?
If you look at the overall size of the Chinese economy, yes we are very big. But don't forget we have 1.4 billion people, that is over three times population of the United States. But when it comes down to per capita GDP, we are 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.
It’s a very complicated issue, because as I said it’s very small, but overall it’s very big.
We can do a lot of big things, and people are looking upon us to do a lot 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 UN peace keeping commissions, we’re giving out donations and humanitarian aids. Because we know we have to grow up and Trish, thank you for the reminder.
好的，我认为讨论正在进行中，我已经听到了关于这个话题的非常生动的讨论。事实上，有很多人说中国已经很大了，你们为什么就不能成长起来呢？我认为我们也想要成长，我们也不想一直低人一等、不够发达。但是这要取决于你如何定义发展中国家，对吗？
从如果你观察中国经济的整体规模，那么没错，我们体量很大。但不要忘了，我们还有14亿人民，是美国人口的三倍。但是，由人均GDP来看，我们还不到美国的1/6，跟其他更发达的国家比起来就更少了。所以不如你来告诉我，我们应该把自己置于何处。
这是一个非常复杂的问题，因为我说了中国的人均GDP很低，但总体经济规模非常大。
我们可以做成很多伟大的事情，人民期待我们在世界各地做更多的事情。
所以我认为我们正在这要做，我们正在为联合国做贡献，我们是世界上为联合国维和任务贡献最多的国家，我们积极捐款，参与人道主义援助。因为我们知道我们必须“长大”，也谢谢你的提醒。
Regan:
Let’s get to the tariffs, I’ve seen some of your commentaries too, and Xin I appreciated it you think China could lower some of it’s tariffs. I watch to see that and I totally agree with you. In 2016, the average tariff charged on the American goods in China was 9.9%, and that was nearly three times what the US was charging, so what do you say about this?
让我们来聊聊关税。我也看过了一些你的评论，我很感谢你认为中国应该降低关税。我拭目以待，而且完全同意你的观点。2016年，中国对美国商品征收的平均关税是9.9%，差不多是美国所征收的三倍。你怎么看待这个问题？
Xin:
I think that would be a wonderful idea, I mean don’t you think? I mean for American consumers, products from China will be even cheaper, and for consumers in China, products from US will be so much cheaper too. I think that will be wonderful idea.
You talked about rule-based order, this is the thing, if you want to change the rules, it has to be done in mutual consensus, basically, if you talk about tariffs, it is not only about China and US, I understand, if you lower tariffs just between China and the Unites States, the Europeans will come, the Japanese will come, the Venezuelans will probably come and say, hey, we want the same tariff. But you can’t discriminate between countries, so it’s a very complicated settlement to reach.
When the world agreed on the tariff reduction China should commit to……was exactly the result of years of difficult negotiations of the United States saw in its interests and decided to what degree they can agree, or to what degree they can lower their tariff, and China agreed to, although in some difficulties, lower our tariff considerably, it is all the decisions of countries according to their own self interests, now things are different.
20 years later, what are we going to do? Maybe these old rules need to be changed. Let’s talk about it, let’s do it according to the rules. If you don’t like the rules, let’s change the rules, but again, it must be a multilateral decision.
我认为这是个很好的主意，你不觉得吗？我的意思是，对于美国消费者而言，来自中国的商品会更便宜了，而对于中国的消费者而言，来自美国的商品也会便宜得多。我认为这会是个很棒的主意。
你谈到了基于规则的系统，基于规则的秩序，这就是问题所在。如果你想要改变规则，那必须是建立在双向共识之上。从基本上说，如果你要谈关税，那就不仅仅是中国和美国之间的问题。我明白，如果你只降低中美之间的关税，那么欧洲国家会跑过来，日本会跑过来，委内瑞拉或许也会跑过来，然后说：喂，我们也想要一样的关税。你不能区别对待不同的国家，所以这是一个非常复杂、难以解决的问题。
全球各国也是经过了多年的艰难协商，才确定了关税降低的幅度。期间美国也是根据自己的利益，决定在多大程度上同意，或者在多大程度上可以做些什么。尽管中国面临一些困难，但依然同意大幅降低关税，这本来就是各国根据自己的利益所做的决定。现在，事情不一样了。
20年后，我们应该怎么做？或许旧有的规则需要改变。让我们坐下来沟通、根据规则行事。如果你不喜欢现在的规则，那让我们来改变规则。但我需要再重申一遍，这必须是一个多边的决定。
Regan:
You go back the trade view of 1974 Section 301, I wonder. There was a rule that enable U.S to use tariffs to try and influence behavior of China should have been taken in stealing our intellectual property. And I think in some ways that is part of what come in for human’s sense of trust. I hear you on the forced technology transfer. And I think that some of the American companies perhaps admit it is a mistake in terms of being willing to overlook what they might have to give up in the near term. But this is an issue where the country as a whole needs to step in and we’re seeing the United States do that perhaps in a way that hasn’t happened. I mean it’s been in a background. Don’t get me wrong. I think previous administration have Identify the challenges but have really been a little bit unwilling to take on. We’re living in this very different times. How do you define state capitalism? No, forced technology transfer is part of it…. Hang on one second, Xin, I wanna say that I think your economic system is very interesting because you know you’ve had a capitalist system but it’s state-run. So, talk us about that. How do you define?
我想，你说的是1974年贸易法案的301条款。有这样一条规则让美国运用关税来试图影响中国的行为，在中国盗窃我们的知识产权时本应该运用这样的规则。我认为在某些方面，这是由人类的信任感而来。我听到了你关于强制技术转移的言论。 我认为，有的美国公司可能会承认，忽略他们可能要在短期内放弃的东西是一个错误。
但这是一个需要国家整体介入的问题，通过已经发生的事情，我们看到美国就在这样做。我的意思是，这是有大的背景的。不要误解我的意思。我认为前一届政府已经确认了挑战所在，但又不是很愿意接受挑战。我们生活在这样一个不一样的时代里。你如何定义国家资本主义？不，强制技术转移是一部分......等一下，欣，我想说 我觉得贵国的经济体系非常有趣，因为你知道你们有资本主义体系，但又是国家主导的。所以，和我们聊聊这个吧。你如何定义？
Xin：
Well, we’d like to define the socialism with Chinese characteristics where the market forces are expected to play the dominating or the deciding role in the allocation of resources. Basically, we wanna 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 in the economy, and everybody thinks that china’s economy is state-owned.
Maybe in the economy and everybody thinks that china’s economy is state-owned. Everything is state-controlled everything is state state state. But I let me tell you it is not the true picture if you look at the statistics for instance 80% of Chinese employees were employed by private enterprise. 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.the largest, some of the largest companies that affect our life for instance some internet companies some 5G technology companies, they are private companies, so we are yes socialist economy with Chinese characteristics but it’s you know that not everything state controlled, state-run it’s not like that. We are actually quite mixed and dynamic and actually very very open as well.
好的，我们愿意将其定义为有中国特色的社会主义，在资源配置方面由市场力量起主导性或决定性的作用。基本上，我们想成为市场经济，但还要有一些中国特色。比如说，有的国有企业正发挥着非常重要但与日俱减的作用，而所有人都认为，中国的经济是国家主导的，所有的东西都是国家控制的，所有的事情都是国家、国家、国家。
但是我要告诉你，真实情况不是这样的。你不妨看看数据，80%的中国上班族在私企上班，80%的出口都是来自私企，这些商品也是由私企生产的。将近65%的科技创新都是由私企来实现、来完成的。许多影响着我们生活的顶级公司，比如互联网公司、5G技术公司，它们都是私企。所以没错，我们是有中国特色的社会主义经济，但是你得知道，并不是一切都是由国家控制、国家经营的，情况不是那样的。我们其实非常多元，非常有活力，也非常非常开放。
Regan：
Well I think you need to probably keep being open and that you know as a free trade person as 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 let me get a win-win.
作为一个支持自由贸易的人，我认为你或许应该保持这种开放的心态，这是值得努力的方向。如此一来，不管是中国还是美国的经济都将蓬勃发展，所以让我们互惠双赢吧。
Xin：
Absolutely.
没问题。
Regan：
This was interesting. I appreciate you’ve been here. Thank you.
很有意思，感谢你来。谢谢。
Xin：
Thank you so much. If you wanna have a discussion in the future we can do that. If you wanna come to China…
非常谢谢。如果你想来中国来讨论
Regan：
I’d love it
我很愿意
Xin:
You are welcome. And I’ll take you around
我会带你到处转转
Regan：
Thank you.
谢谢
回顶部