“Народная война” с США и лексика китайской пропаганды

Газета “Коммерсантъ” сегодня опубликовала материал “Китай объявил США «народную торговую войну»” В принципе там точно пересказаны все тезисы, вошедшие в лексикон китайской государственной машины пропаганды, хотел бы лишь дополнительно обратить внимание на следующее.

Сам термин “Народная война” (人民战争) является одним из центральных понятий идей Мао Цзэдуна (毛泽东思想的核心之一). Согласно этому пониманию, “народная война – война, ведущаяся организованными и вооруженными широкими массами населения против иностранного вторжения” (反抗外来侵略,组织和武装广大人民进行的战争). Поскольку китайская коммунистическая теория считает эту концепцию важнейшей составной частью маоистского наследия, то и существуют достаточно объемные ее разъяснения. Погружаться в это не хотелось бы в данном контексте.

Исследователь китайских СМИ Дэвид Бандурски считает, что главным смыслом концепции “народной войны” является “важность объединения людей под руководством коммунистической партии для ведения сражений”. По его наблюдениям, в последние десятилетия этот термин достаточно широко используется для обозначения необходимости “объединения всего общества для борьбы” с крупными и серьезными вызовами. Например, про “народную войну” Жэньминь жибао за последние 10 лет писала 11 раз в контексте борьбы с наркотиками.

Соответственно, упоминаемая в Хуаньцю шибао “народная война” – термин в ряду ранее и ныне звучащих высказываний со стороны прочих, более сдержанных, СМИ или МИД КНР. Это не призыв к войне, а скорее предупреждение обществу, что оно должно собраться и объединиться (под руководством компартии, естественно). В конце концов, если сейчас возобновили отсылки к “опыту Фэнцяо” (тоже лексика маоистского периода), то почему бы не говорить о “народной войне”? Вполне себе нормально для периода гражданской мобилизации вокруг партии вообще и ее ядра в частности.

Дэвид Бандурски полагает, что более точна пропагандистская интонация в редакционном комментарии в Жэньминь Жибао, за авторством Чжун Шэна (钟声) – редакционного псевдонима (“Голос Китая”) для материалов на международные темы. Интересно, что в этом комментарии фамилия Трампа не упоминается ни разу, а говорится лишь о “некоторых людях в США” (美国总有一些人对中美之间所谓“巨额贸易逆差”耿耿于怀,动辄将“美国每年都要输给中国5000亿美元”“美国损失了数百万制造业岗位”等说辞挂在嘴边). Цитаты же точно Трамповские)

China Media Project сделал перевод статьи на английский язык; комментируя текст, Бандурски пишет, что авторы пишут осторожно, стараясь одновременно продемонстрировать и неудовольствие, даже гнев, но при этом напрямую не называя никого врагами.

Перевод ниже.

Who’s Worked Up About Neologisms: Enough With America’s ‘Doctrine of Loss’
Zhong Sheng (钟声)
People’s Daily
May 14, 2019

There are always certain people in America who brood over the so-called “massive trade deficit” between the U.S. and China, with things like, “The U.S. loses 500 billion dollars a year to China,” or, “The U.S. loses millions of manufacturing jobs to China,” hanging on their lips at every turn. Over the past year, this sort of “doctrine of loss” (吃亏论) has become the imagined evidence used again and again, hot and cold, to exercise extreme pressure on the Chinese side, flying in the face of Chinese sincerity.

The U.S. is the strongest economy in the world, and the maker of rules when it comes to the world economy. If we are to accept that the U.S. is the “loser” (吃亏者), isn’t this essentially saying that the rules made by the rule-maker have been harmful to itself? If this is the case, is it not the strangest thing. [But] if whether we talk about global trade or about the U.S.-China bilateral trade, not only is the U.S. not the loser — quite the opposite, it takes a lot of advantages. This is something about which American industries, consumers and economists are very clear in their hearts.

America’s massive trade deficit has not emerged because of China, and it will not come to an end because of China. On the one hand, excessing spending, insufficient savings and a huge fiscal deficit are the principal reasons for the deficit; on the other hand, the United States uses the US dollar as the main means of payment for international trade with the status of a reserve currency, expanding the trade deficit, and then it uses the dollar to purchase U.S. Treasury Bonds, obtaining massive amounts of cheap capital that it then invests in high-tech and other fields, making itself the biggest beneficiary of economic globalization. Carmen Reinhart, a professor of international finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School, believes that there is no sense at all in the U.S. pointing fingers at countries with which it has a trade deficit. His views represent the views of mainstream international economists [NOTE: The article uses the male pronoun here, though Reinhart is a woman].

The trade deficit with China is just an idea, and it cannot reflect the truth about America’s commercial interests in China. The world economy long ago entered the era of global value chains. Looking at production, [we see that] the U.S. is at the high end (高端)of the global value and global pricing chains, controlling patented technologies, core components, research and development and design, sales and other added-value segments, reaping huge benefits. The example of the iPhone is familiar to all. If we calculate surpluses only with the figures of those countries exporting end products, it is obviously impossible to reach an objective evaluation of value distribution in trade. In fact, from 2011, in order to [better] reflect a country’s true benefit within the value chain, the WTO and the OECD advocated the use of “global manufacturing” to approach international production, and introduced the method of “trade in value added” (贸易增加值核算). But regrettably, the U.S. has always maintained an attitude toward the WTO and other multilateral institutions of “using them when it suits, and abandoning them when it does not” (合则用、不合则弃). Even where well-considered methods are concerned, it will not support them if it cannot first see the advantage to itself.

Right now, U.S.-funded enterprises sell 700 billion dollars in China every year, earning profits of around 500 billion dollars. This is a benefit and opportunity reaped for U.S. companies as a result of China’s development. Low commodity prices in the U.S. are something known to all. For many years, as the central banks of many other countries have been busy trying to control inflation levels, inflation the U.S. has pushed below the target level of 2 percent. High quality and low-price Chinese products have flowed to the families of America, a great boon for consumers. As Timemagazine journalist Robert Wright wrote in his book Nonzero: History, Evolution and Human Cooperation, the fate of mankind depends on understanding that we have moved from an era of “zero-sum” to an era of “nonzero.” Over the past 40 years, the scale of U.S.-China trade has expanded more than 230 times — if this [trade] was not win-win, but a “zero-sum” situation in which one side was the loser, how could it have produced such dramatic change?

China has always been a major importing country, and developing China has opened its doors to the world. China has today become the largest trade partner for more than 120 countries and regions. China has never sought trade surpluses, and it earnestly hopes to expand the import of competitive American products. According to the analysis of relevant U.S. institutions, if export restrictions for high-technology goods for civilian use were relaxed, the U.S. trade deficit toward China would contract by around 35 percent. And who is to blame for restricting the export of its own superior products?

This talk of the trade deficit with China resulting in the loss of American manufacturing jobs is also nonsense. For many years, the mainstream explanation emerging from academia in the U.S. has been that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is attributable to its own economic restructuring, and that automation and mechanization have caused rises in productivity in manufacturing. External trade results in the phasing out and transition of inferior industries, but also brings opportunities for the expansion of higher quality industries, achieving industrial restructuring. Research from scholars at the University of California has shown that saying the U.S. has lost jobs in the course of U.S.-China trade is less appropriate than saying that it has reaped greater benefits in terms of high-paying employment.

These simple facts and logic long ago proved that this talk of trade deficits and job losses in manufacturing cannot support this “doctrine of loss.” Insisting on this “doctrine of loss” may for a time provide a distraction from domestic contradictions, but before long the American people will become the true losers. In April this year, the National Association for Business Economics revealed in a survey of the economic environment that three-quarters of manufacturers responding said that the [U.S.] tariffs had had a negative impact on them, raising their costs and forcing half of these companies to raise their prices. American consumers, farmers and enterprises have become the victims of the trade tensions stirred up by the U.S., not victims of “unfair Chinese trade practices.”

Anyone who can see clearly will realize that this so-called “doctrine of loss” is about more than just putting on a sad face and seeking sympathy. There is more behind this inventing of despondent neologisms than meets the eye. It’s just that those encouraging this incorrect view [about the trade deficit] have miscalculated. China’s economy has great resilience and potential, and it fully has the capacity and confidence to encourage higher-level development through higher-level openness toward the outside and the expansion of domestic demand, promoting high-level economic development, hedging against the impact of trade frictions between China and the U.S., and achieving long-term stability for the Chinese economy.

The continued repetition of these patently false, untenable and detrimental views may not tire those who utter them, but they exhaust all who listen.

China Media Project

 

 

One thought on ““Народная война” с США и лексика китайской пропаганды

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.