特朗普保護主義政策的沉重代價

Donald Trump really is a protectionist. It is more than mere rhetoric. This is the lesson from last week’s announcement that he would sign an order this week imposing global tariffs of 25 per cent on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium.

唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)是個不折不扣的保護主義者。這不是空話。上週美國方面宣佈，特朗普將於本週簽署一項命令，對進口鋼材和鋁材分別徵收25%和10%的關稅。

These tariffs are not that important in themselves. But the rationale used to justify them, their proposed level and duration, the willingness to target close allies and the president’s statement that “trade wars are good and easy to win” must alarm all informed observers. This action is unlikely to be the end; it is more likely to be the beginning of the end of the rules-governed multilateral trading order that the US itself created.

這些關稅本身不是那麼重要。但其徵收理由、擬徵收水平及持續時間、打擊親密盟友的意圖以及美國總統關於“貿易戰是好事，贏得貿易戰很容易”的言論一定會令評論界的有識之士憂心忡忡。美國不太可能就此止步；這更可能是由美國創造的受規則約束的多邊貿易秩序走向終結的序曲。

This may sound alarmist. It should not. True, the proposed actions target only a little over 2 per cent of US imports. If this is where they end, then the world — and the world economy — will surely take it in its stride. It is possible that, with someone as inconsistent as Mr Trump in charge, this is where it will end. But we cannot bet on it.

這聽上去可能有些危言聳聽。並非如此。誠然，擬議舉措針對的產品僅佔美國總進口額的2%多一點。如果美國就此作罷，那麼整個世界——以及世界經濟——一定能從容應對。也許，由於當權的特朗普如此反覆無常，從此再無下文。但我們對此沒有把握。

One reason US protectionism is likely to spread is that the proposed action, explicitly intended to last a long time, will tax all users of steel and aluminium. These include industries that employ vastly more people than the 81,000 employed in the US basic steel industry. The users will suffer “negative effective protection”. One result will be that imported products made of steel and aluminium will become cheaper. The “solution” will surely be to put tariffs on imports of these products, too.

美國保護主義可能蔓延的一個原因是，這項明顯要持續很久的擬議舉措，將對鋼材和鋁材的所有使用者徵稅。相關行業的從業人員遠多於美國鋼鐵業的工人（8.1萬人）。這些用戶將受到“負面有效保護”。結果之一將是進口的鋼鐵和鋁製品將變得相對便宜。“解決的辦法”肯定是對這些製成品的進口也加徵關稅。

Another reason why this action could spread is that those adversely affected could retaliate against the US in other areas. In practice, however, it is more likely that they will take the US into the dispute settlement process of the World Trade Organization, while imposing so-called safeguard protection on steel and aluminium to forestall diversion of imports on to their markets. In this way, too, protection will spread.

這種保護主義舉措可能蔓延的另一個原因是，那些受到不利影響的國家可能在其它領域對美國展開報復。不過在實踐中，它們更可能將美國訴至世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization)的爭端解決機制，同時針對鋼鐵和鋁實施所謂的保護措施，以防止受影響的產品轉而流入本國市場。這也是令保護主義措施蔓延的一種方式。

A further reason for protectionism to spread is the US use of the national security loophole. The WTO does indeed allow a member to take “any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests?.?.?.?taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations”. But, as Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s foreign minister, suggests: “It is entirely inappropriate to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the United States.” Yet once this loophole is used so irresponsibly by the US, of all countries, where might it stop?

保護主義蔓延的第三個原因是美國鑽了國家安全的空子。世貿組織確實允許成員國“在戰爭時期或國際關係處於其它緊急狀態時，採取任何必要舉措保護其基本的安全利益”。然而，誠如加拿大外長克里斯蒂婭?弗裏蘭(Chrystia Freeland)所說的：“認爲與加拿大的貿易對美國構成國家安全威脅是完全不適當的。”然而，一旦美國如此不負責任地利用這個空子針對所有國家，那何時纔會收手？

A crucial point is that this action is not about China, which accounts for less than 1 per cent of US steel imports. Its victims are friends and allies: Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan and South Korea. Nor is it a measure taken against some form of unfair trade. This is a purely protectionist policy aimed at saving old industries. Yet, even on these terms, the rationale is feeble: US steel and aluminium production has been flat for years. If this action really makes sense to Mr Trump, what might not?

關鍵是，這項舉措與中國關係不大，美國從中國進口的鋼鐵不及美國鋼鐵進口總量的1%。這一舉措的受害者是美國的友邦及盟邦：巴西、加拿大、歐盟(EU)、日本及韓國。這項舉措也並非針對某種不公平貿易。它純粹是一項旨在拯救老工業的保護主義政策。然而，即便如此，其理由也站不住腳：美國的鋼鐵和鋁產量多年來變動不大。如果特朗普認爲這項舉措合情合理，那他還有什麼做不出來？

For all these reasons, then, we should foresee more protectionist actions by the US and others. Yet a still more important reason exists for expecting this. Mr Trump seems to want a protectionist war. He is sure that a big country with large trade deficits must “win”. Furthermore, he believes those deficits are proof that the US has been taken for a ride by others. Both beliefs are economically ludicrous. Yes, the US might be less harmed than others in a protectionist war. But everybody, very much including the US, would be damaged by the Balkanisation of the global economy. In addition, it is wrong to view trade surpluses as the equivalent of a profit in business, as Mr Trump does. Imports are the goal of trade. Trade surpluses have no intrinsic merit.

因此，基於所有這些原因，我們應該預見到美國和其它國家會採取更多的保護主義措施。然而，還有一個更重要的理由讓我們抱着這種預期。特朗普似乎想要發起一場保護主義戰爭。他確信，一個有着鉅額貿易逆差的大國必須“贏”。此外，他認爲，這些逆差表明，其它國家一直在佔美國的便宜。這兩種想法從經濟上講都很荒唐。誠然，倘若發生保護主義戰爭，美國受到的損害可能要比其它國家小。但包括美國在內的所有國家，都將因全球經濟的“巴爾幹化”(Balkanisation)而受損。另外，像特朗普那樣將貿易順差等同於商業利潤是錯誤的。進口是貿易的目的。貿易順差沒有內在價值。

Yet this action is ultimately justified by the strong belief that the US has been a victim of the machinations of others. One bit of evidence used to justify this sense of grievance is the idea that the US is “the least protectionist large economy in the world”. No summary measure of overall protection is ideal. But the least bad one is the weighted-average applied tariff. According to the WTO, Japan’s weighted average tariff in 2015 was 2.1 per cent, that of the US 2.4 per cent and the EU’s 3 per cent. These are very similar. China’s was 4.4 per cent, largely because it has been part of just one global negotiation: its accession to the WTO in 2001, when it was rightly still viewed as a developing country.

然而，若堅信美國一直是其它國家陰謀的受害者，這項舉措就顯得有道理。被用於證明這種委屈感合理的一點理由是，美國是“世界上保護主義程度最低的大型經濟體”。沒有一個理想的衡量整體保護主義程度的指標，“加權平均關稅率”還算差強人意。世貿組織的數據顯示，2015年日本的加權平均關稅率爲2.1%，美國爲2.4%，歐盟爲3%。這些國家的加權平均關稅率相差不大。中國的加權平均關稅率是4.4%，主要因爲這是當年一場全球談判的一部分：中國於2001年加入世貿組織，當時中國被恰當地定位爲一個發展中國家。

Some US policymakers refer instead to the “bound” tariff. On that basis, US protection is relatively low. But a simple average of bound tariffs — the ceilings a country has agreed upon its tariffs — tells one very little about its actual level of protection. Furthermore, the US has bound its tariffs at low levels to obtain concessions from others, notably protection of its intellectual property.

一些美國政策制定者則傾向於使用“約定”關稅概念。以這個指標衡量，美國的保護主義程度相對較低。但是，約定關稅的簡單平均數反映不出實際的保護主義程度。此外，美國將其關稅限制在較低水平，以此獲得其它國家的讓步，尤其是在保護其知識產權方面。

The other grievance is over trade deficits. But these are macroeconomic phenomena, not the result of trade policy. Mr Trump has just signed into law a large increase in the US structural fiscal deficit. Other things equal, this is sure to increase the trade deficit. This will be particularly true if, as the administration hopes, its tax cuts fuel a large rise in US private investment, while government deficits rise. Does the left hand of US policymaking understand what the right hand is doing? It appears not.

另一個不滿是針對貿易逆差。但這些是宏觀經濟現象，而不是貿易政策的結果。特朗普最近簽署了一項法律，同意大幅增加美國的結構性財政赤字。假定其它情況不變的話，這肯定會導致美國的貿易逆差增長。如果像美國政府期望的那樣，減稅刺激了美國私人投資的大幅增長，同時政府赤字則在上升，那麼貿易逆差擴大就更是確定無疑的了。在美國的政策制定機制中，左手明白右手在做什麼嗎？似乎並沒有。

The International Monetary Fund is right to criticise this plan. It will impose substantial costs, disrupt alliances and surely lead to yet more costly protectionism, by the US and others. It is a product of a characteristic blend of self-pity — the world is mean to us — and bombast — we can easily bully others into submission. The result is likely to be further shredding of the fragile fabric of global trade. Well done, Mr Trump.

國際貨幣基金組織(International Monetary Fund)批評了美國限制鋼鋁進口計劃，這是對的。這一計劃將造成巨大代價、影響同盟關係，並且必然會導致代價更高的保護主義措施，不管是出自美國還是其它國家之手。這是自憐和好大喜功兩種心態相結合的典型產物——一方面認爲世界對我們很刻薄，另一方面又認爲我們能夠輕易地迫使其它國家屈服。其結果可能是進一步撕裂全球貿易的脆弱結構。幹得漂亮，特朗普。