8月26日，香港《南華早報》網站發表beat365戰略與安全研究中心主任傅瑩題為“美國對華政策制定基于虛假信息是危險和不負責任的”的文章。8月27日，參考消息進行摘編刊發。以下為中英文全文：
近幾個月來，美國國會通過的有關中國的立法文件比以往任何時候都多，其中大多建議采取反對或限制性政策。
6月9日，美國國會參議院通過了《2021年美國創新與競争法案》（以下簡稱《法案》）。該《法案》是将《無盡前沿法案》《2021年戰略競争法案》《應對中國挑戰法案》等多項法案打包後形成的，涵蓋内容廣泛，體現了美國民主、共和兩黨在對中國開展長期戰略競争上的共識。
顯然，美國國會已經沖到制定對華遏制戰略的第一線，但是其可信度令人嚴重質疑，因為這個重要的法案中提出的許多政策建議是基于虛假信息和個人想象形成的結論。
美國新法案裝“舊酒”
法案聲稱意在振興美國，這無可厚非，任何國家都有可能采取借助外部競争調動内部積極性的做法。然而，把中國想象成敵人、甚至描繪成“科技惡魔”，是不負責任、甚至是危險的，這樣隻會挑動人民之間的對抗情緒。
下面舉幾個例子來說明法案的錯誤。《法案》第3002、3401條指責中國缺乏知識産權保護。現實是，中國在過去的十多年着眼于鼓勵創新，在知識産權保護方面進步很快，建立起多項法律構成的體系。
值得提到的是2020年1月1日起正式實施的《外商投資法》，明确了對外國投資合法權益的保護以及知識産權侵權的法律責任，還禁止使用行政手段強制技術轉讓。中國的多項知識産權相關法被重新修訂，包括明确了5倍懲罰性賠償等規定。北京、上海、廣州設立了專門的知識産權法院。2021年《美國企業在中國》白皮書在談到中國營商環境時也對中國改進知識産權保護給予了認可。由此可見，美國國會需要認識到，法案中所謂的“新發現”已經是陳舊的了。
中國是黑客受害國
《法案》第3252條認定中國政府意圖通過技術公司收集公民隐私數據以強化控制。事實是，中國的《民法典》《電子商務法》等均有條款規定，禁止過度收集個人數據，并要求主管部門采取必要措施保護電子商務經營者提供的數據信息的安全。經過這些年的努力，社會各方都增強了尊重他人隐私的意識。
《法案》第3252條還指責中國正在輸出其基于數字監控的治理模式。事實上，不搞意識形态和制度輸出是中國的一貫政策，正如中國也不接受别人将之強加于己。美國可以向中國學習，不要再幹涉他國内政和将自己的制度模式和價值觀強加于他國。
《法案》第3401條和3002條指責中國政府“鼓勵竊取”他國企業關鍵技術和商業秘密。然而，中國法律明令禁止網攻行為，中方發起了《全球數據安全倡議》，提出反對利用信息技術對他國實施網絡監聽、攻擊和信息盜取。中國自己是黑客受害國，據中國國家互聯網應急中心統計，2020年中國境内531萬台主機遭到5.2萬個境外程序惡意攻擊。從境外計算機惡意程序捕獲次數、境外拒絕服務攻擊（DDoS）次數、向中國境内網站植入後門等指标看，美國均居首位。
顯然，數據和網絡安全問題是全球性挑戰，中國和美國都在與網絡犯罪作鬥争，雙方應該分享信息、合作打擊這方面的犯罪行為，而不是相互為敵，否則隻會令問題更加惡化。
“一帶一路”持開放原則
關于中國的“一帶一路”倡議，《法案》第3235（a）和3401（11）條聲稱這是在“擴大解放軍的力量投射能力”，威脅美國和戰略夥伴的安全，并指責“一帶一路”排斥美歐國家參與，這完全不符合事實。
“一帶一路”聚焦經濟合作，沒有軍事方面的内容，項目的安全保障屬于相關主權國家的職責。中國在海外唯一建設了吉布提保障基地，其任務是為中國海軍在亞丁灣、索馬裡海域等地方履行聯合國委托的護航和人道救援任務保障供給。
“一帶一路”秉持開放原則，已有140個國家和30多個國際組織參與共建，中國先後與法國、英國、德國、日本、加拿大等發達國家達成第三方市場合作共識。一些美國公司也有參與，為項目提供設備、管理經驗和融資服務。美方提出的“重建更好世界”計劃（B3W）被媒體認為是對沖“一帶一路”，其實如果能落實，兩者應形成相互補充而非損害的結果。
綜觀《法案》的涉華内容，凡此種種未加核實的虛假信息和假設不一而足，不能成為制定政策的可靠基礎。正如新任中國駐美國大使秦剛對媒體所說，中國希望“與美國建立理性、穩定、可控和建設性的關系”。為了實現這一目标，兩國首先需要冷靜而現實地看待對方，避免被不可靠的信息誤導。就中國而言，應更加努力地與世界溝通，包括與美國社會溝通，以減少錯誤信息和誤解。
中美應發揮表率作用，為應對包括《法案》中提到的一些全球性挑戰開展合作，造福兩國和世界各國人民。如果雙方在一些領域的競争不可避免，也有必要将其引向公平、積極的方向，就像習近平主席表明的，開展你追我趕、共同提高的田徑賽，而不是搞相互攻擊、你死我活的角鬥賽。
---------------------------------
Fu Ying: In US legislation targeting China, Washington is wrestling with a shadow enemy
More legislative documents concerning China have passed through Capitol Hill offices in recent months than ever before, mostly suggesting countering or restrictive policies on China and the Chinese people.
On June 9, the US Senate passed the Innovation and Competition Act of 2021. A combination of several China-related bills – including the Endless Frontier Act, the Strategic Competition Act of 2021, and the Meeting the China Challenge Act of 2021 – the Innovation and Competition Act covers a wide swathe of issues and demonstrates a bipartisan consensus for the US to engage in long-term strategic competition with China.
Capitol Hill is now on the front line of formulating US containment strategy against China. But its credibility is in serious doubt, as its policy suggestions in the act are drawn from conclusions based on misinformation and personal imagination.
There is nothing wrong with the act’s purpose, which is to stimulate American rejuvenation, as any country may choose to motivate itself through external competition. However, it’s irresponsible or even dangerous to make China an imaginary enemy, even a science and technology bogeyman, which will only rouse antagonism between the two peoples.
Here are some of the flaws in the act. Sections 3002 and 3401 claim that China lacks intellectual property (IP) protection. Yet China has made rapid improvement over the past decade in IP protection for the sake of innovation.
One notable legislative move, among many, is the Foreign Investment Law of 2020 that safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of foreign investment against IP infringement. The law also prohibits using administrative means to force the transfer of technology.
Further, several IP-related laws are being amended, with punitive compensation for wrongdoing raised fivefold. Major cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou have established special IP courts and, in 2020, there were 3,176 technology-related IP cases reported, with 2,787 of them concluded.
The American Chamber of Commerce in China, in the 2021 edition of its white paper on China’s business environment, also acknowledged China’s improvement on IP protection. Capitol Hill needs to be reminded that its so-called new findings are outdated.
Section 3252 holds that the Chinese government intends to strengthen its control by collecting citizens’ private data via technology companies. This claim cannot be supported by reality in China, either.
China’s civil code and e-commerce law both prohibit the over-collection of individual data and require the relevant authorities to take the necessary measures to protect the security of the data and information provided by e-commerce businesses.
Section 3252 further claims that China is exporting a governance model based on a data monitoring system. On the political front, it has been China’s consistent policy not to impose its ideology and political system on other countries, just as it would not accept having one imposed on it. The US can learn from China and stop interfering in other countries’ internal affairs and imposing its own model and values.
Sections 3002 and 3401 of the act accuse the Chinese government of encouraging and empowering the theft of critical technologies and trade secrets from foreign enterprises. However, cyberattacks are prohibited in China.
China launched the Global Initiative on Data Security last September calling on nations to oppose surveillance, cyberattacks and information theft against other countries. China itself has been a victim of hacking attacks.
According to the National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team/Coordination Centre of China, a total of 5.31 million attacks against Chinese hosts from 52,000 foreign programs was recorded in the first half of 2020. As indicated, among the foreign malware capture, the number of foreign distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, and back doors implanted into Chinese websites, the US was actually the most common source.
Data and internet security is a global challenge and both China and the US are fighting cybercrime. The two countries should exchange information and work together to crack down on these crimes instead of making enemies of each other, which will only exacerbate the problem.
On China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Sections 3235 (a) and 3401 (11) of the act claim it “expands the power projection capabilities for the People’s Liberation Army” and threatens the security of the US and its strategic partners. They also claim the initiative excludes US and European participation.
This view counters the reality. The belt and road features infrastructure projects with no military component whatsoever. For every infrastructure project, security matters are the responsibility of the sovereign states concerned.
China has only one foreign military base, in Djibouti, the role of which is to supply the Chinese navy on UN missions in the Gulf of Aden and Somalia waters.
The belt and road incorporates some 140 countries and over 30 international organisations. Some US companies have also joined to provide equipment, management experience and financial services. Though the US-led Build Back Better World initiative is seen as a rival to the Belt and Road Initiative by some media, if set in motion, the two could complement rather than undermine each other.
Generally, the act is riddled with unreliable and unverified information regarding China which cannot serve as a sound policy foundation. As the new Chinese ambassador to the US Qin Gang told the press, China hopes for a “rational, stable, manageable and constructive” relationship with the US.
To achieve such an objective, the two countries first need to take a cool-headed and realistic measure of each other and avoid being misguided by unreliable stories and information. On China’s part, it should make a greater effort to communicate with the world, including with American society, to reduce misunderstanding.
It’s also important that China and the US act as examples and cooperate to address global challenges, including those mentioned in the act, to benefit the people of both countries and the world.
If we are to compete, it is necessary to steer the competition in a fair and positive direction. As noted by China’s President Xi Jinping, US-China competition should be more like a race on the track and less like a fight in the wrestling arena.
Fu Ying is the chair of the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University and former vice-foreign minister of China.
英文原文首發于2021年8月26日南華早報
傅瑩：beat365社科學院兼職教授，beat365戰略與安全研究中心主任
