专访贲杰民：注意！美国的目标已悄然改变

近期，中美关系出现缓和的迹象。美国国会参议院多数党领袖舒默率团访华，得到中方的高规格礼遇。此前，中美两国还成立了经济、金融工作组，旨在加强经济领域沟通。 但另一方面，美方于10月17日发布了对华半导体出口管制最终规则，在去年10月7日出台的临时规则基础上，进一步收紧对人工智能相关芯片、半导体制造设备的限制，并将多家中国实体增列入出口管制“实体清单”。 为什么事实证明了制裁效果有限，美国政府依然坚持这条路？如何看待美国目前对华策略？美方的哪些话能信，哪些不能信？ 长安街知事（微信ID：Capitalnews）联合中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（微信公众号：人大重阳）推出“全球治理大家谈”栏目。美国《地缘政治经济报告》创始人、外交政策专家贲杰民（Benjamin Norton）就中美关系、“一带一路”倡议等与记者进行了分享。 世界上许多国家都说你永远不能相信美国 知事：您这次来中国待了几天了？对中国的经济和社会发展总体感觉如何？近期美西方的严肃媒体上出现了许多反智反常，令人匪夷所思的报道，比如说，“中国经济将要崩溃”“上海变成了鬼城”等等。一旦对这些报道稍加梳理，就会发现这类说辞破绽百出。您曾经也是一名记者，在媒体界耕耘多年，您认为美西方媒体为何一再误判中国？ 本杰明·诺顿：中国的发展水平令人难以叹服。几十年来，西方媒体一直坚称中国“正处于崩溃的边缘”。然而，事实总是一次次证明他们错误。 据估计，今年中国的GDP将增长约5%，与许多停滞甚至衰退的西方经济体相比，这是一个强劲的数字。在新自由主义模式下，西方经济体几十年来一直陷入停滞，经济增长率低，贫困和不平等加剧，政治失灵……西方国家正将自己的不安全感投射到中国身上。 我在中国所见到的不是经济崩溃，而是转型。在经历了快速的经济发展后，中国意识到需要转向更先进的生产模式，强调高附加值的尖端技术生产，这是一种战略性的转变。 尽管美国商务部长雷蒙多明确表示，华盛顿的目标是阻碍中国的创新，但结果却与美国的设想大相径庭。中国在半导体技术方面取得了进步，生产出小至7纳米的芯片。中国的经济持续增长，推动它自信地走向未来。 这些进步，美国媒体并非看不到，而是受到了操纵。美国政府在操纵媒体方面有着悠久的历史：炒作伊拉克有大规模杀伤性武器，炒作俄罗斯通过社交媒体干涉美国大选，如今有又开始针对中国。美国媒体每周都在用一些古怪可笑的事来诬蔑中国。且无一例外，这些指控都没有证据。 中央情报局（CIA）第一任政治战主管弗兰克·威斯纳曾将这种宣传机器比作一种乐器“强大的风琴”(Mighty Wurlitzer)，他说，它们“能够演奏任何他想要的宣传曲调”，以帮助华盛顿的外交政策。美国政府机构都在利用媒体来影响公众舆论，使美国采取的具有高度侵略性的政策合法化。 美国的目标已悄然改变 知事：美国在半导体领域限制中国也不是什么新鲜事了，但即便如此，在美国的芯片封锁下，中国企业华为今年仍然推出了新手机，搭载的是中国自研芯片。这是否可以证明美国对华科技战失败了？ 贲杰明：首先我们需要看清，美国在这场“科技战”中的目标到底是什么。美国商务部长雷蒙多曾明确表示，华盛顿的目标是阻止中国创新。从这个意义上说，这是一个彻底的失败。 美国实际上承认了无法完全阻止中国的技术进步，所以现在的目标是保持领先地位，让中国始终位于身后。 这就是美国的虚伪之处。虽然美国经常强调竞争的意义，但美国公司对来自中国同行的竞争却持抵制态度。这些美企中有不少都得到了美国政府的补贴，与华盛顿保持着密切的联系。美国这些禁令的根本目的是阻止中国公司同美国公司竞争，本质上是操纵游戏规则，阻止公平竞争。 然而中国的发展却有增无减。美国越是依赖制裁，制裁作为武器的威力就越弱。美国沉迷于制裁，不惜违反国际法，这种做法无意中助长了被制裁国家的独立意识。随着时间的推移，制裁不仅会失去效力，还会变得无关紧要。 而且通过对中国、俄罗斯和伊朗等国的制裁，还让这些国家越走越近。它们也专注于培育自己的技术优势，以求摆脱对外国实体的依赖，展示了将逆境转化为自强机会的能力。 10月4日，美国商务部长雷蒙多在参议院商务、科学和交通听证会上作证，以审查芯片和科学的实施和监督。图源：视觉中国 知事：为什么事实证明了制裁效果有限，而且还可能会刺激中国自力更生，但拜登政府依然坚持这条路呢？ 贲杰民：在美国，政治和经济之间存在着密切的联系，大型企业的政治献金发挥了关键作用。 研究显示，超过90%的参众议员候选人通过砸钱赢得选举。要想在美国成为政治家，你必须得到大企业的支持，尤其是硅谷和大银行的支持。这些私营实体只以盈利为目标，希望保持其在全球的垄断地位。美国政府正在向这些企业的利益“看齐”，努力扼杀华为等中国公司的竞争潜力。从长期来看，这种做法可能会适得其反。 美国的问题在于，所有的决策基本上都是短期的，主要受到这些大型企业的季度股息驱动，而不是5年、10年甚至20年的长期战略。正是这种短视，导致了美国经济的去工业化，向金融投机的转变。 华盛顿的许多政策都使其经济变得更加脆弱和不稳定，少数寡头却变得更加富有。这一群体在政治体系中的影响力又进一步限制了重大变革。 许多国家都说：你永远不能相信美国 知事：近期中美关系似乎在好转，有观点认为，这是美国向中国妥协的标志，说明美国先扛不住了，所以不得不放下身段，与中国握手言好。但也有观点认为，在这些友好姿态的同时，美国对华的制裁、围堵、脱钩并没有停止，仍然步步压迫。所以这可能是美国的烟雾弹，是在迷惑中方，让中方误以为美国改变了对华态度。您如何看待美国目前对华策略？美方的哪些话能信，哪些不能信？ 贲杰民：世界上许多国家都说，你永远不能相信美国。 伊朗经历了惨痛的教训。美国是《联合全面行动计划》（即“伊核协议”）的签署国之一，这项协议得到了联合国安理会的支持，被写入了国际法。结果呢？特朗普当选总统，单方面宣布退出了协议，违反了美国对伊朗的承诺，也违反了国际法。 2018年5月，时任美国总统特朗普宣布退出伊朗核问题全面协议。图源：视觉中国 你也可以问问美国的土著居民，美国曾签署了许多条约，保证会尊重他们的主权，然后发生了什么？ 长期以来，美国一直如此：先宣称会做些什么，然后很快违反承诺，因为原来的承诺不再符合其经济利益。 美国现在面临的问题在于，它与中国的经济深度融合，以及曾经有意地去工业化，导致如今“脱钩”是不可能的，就连“去风险”的概念也很荒谬。 美国的经济严重依赖金融服务业，这导致实体生产大幅减少。根据联合国的数据，美国制造业占全球制造业总产值的比重约为14%，而中国占比高达30%，遥遥领先。 华尔街、私人银行、投资基金和“秃鹫基金”占据美国经济的主导地位，这些公司管理着数万亿美元的资产，它们的增长速度呈指数级，远快于实际GDP增长。为少数富人管理财富的实体拥有比整体经济增长更快的资产增长，意味着这个国家正变得越来越不平等。 在这种形势下，美国如何发展新的产供链，实现再工业化？它根本做不到。更不幸的是，美国在政治上也失灵了。 奥巴马与伊朗达成一项协议，特朗普上任就会单方面废除。如果拜登政府签署了一份文件，特朗普再次当选怎么办？或者德桑蒂斯成为总统怎么办？美国不仅有背信弃义的历史传统，还有新政府上台就抛弃上任政府政策的传统。你不能完全信赖美国，这是一个经济和政治功能失调的国家。 幸好中国、俄罗斯和许多其他国家已经认识到，未来取决于跨地区的经济一体化，比如亚洲或“全球南方”的合作。 全球南方的机会来了 知事：中国是“全球南方”的当然成员，致力于提高“全球南方”的国际话语权。今年金砖国家迎来扩员，在中国的努力下，非盟加入了G20，这是G20成立以来第一次扩员。美国长期以来一直是国际事务中的主导力量，如今是否受到了挑战？ 本杰明·诺顿：长期以来，美国在国际舞台上自诩为“世界领导者”，但其扮演的角色一直备受争议。实际上，美国经常违背国际社会的共识。 美国对古巴的非法禁运就是一个典型例子。三十年来，几乎所有国家都在联合国大会上投票反对美国的做法，唯一支持美国搞禁运的只有以色列。但美国每年都在联合国大会上宣称自己是“国际法的捍卫者”，极其荒谬。 美国一再展示着对国际法的漠视，试图通过所谓的“基于规则的国际秩序”来取代国际法。“基于规则”的概念非常模糊，美国从未对其进行明确定义，实际上就是由美国来制定规则。 几十年来，“全球南方”国家对美国一直心存不满，但苦于没有其他选择。美国是世界上最大的经济体，拥有巨大的市场。“全球南方”中以出口为导向的国家需要美国市场。他们担心美国的制裁，也害怕美国可能会入侵或发动军事干预，就像我们在伊拉克、利比亚、阿富汗和叙利亚看到的那样。 但现在情况变了。中国经济显著发展，越南、印尼、巴西崛起，替代方案出现了。各国不再完全依赖美国，这给了他们反抗压迫的政治空间，他们希望建立代表自己利益的新机构。 在古巴举行的“77国集团和中国”峰会声明中，强调了现有的国际金融机构如国际货币基金组织和世界银行的不平等和不公正，他们主张建立新的国际经济秩序。 其实“全球南方”国家早在50多年前就发出了这一呼吁，但遭到了忽视，因为当年没有这些西方主导的国际金融机构的替代品，如今机会来了。 知事：77国集团并非只有77个国家，实际上已经发展到134个成员国，为什么77国集团、金砖国家和G20都在持续扩员，而G7很难扩员？ 本杰明·诺顿：首先我们应该记住，G7是踩在77国集团的背上建立起来的。 G7曾殖民了世界的大部分地区，本质上代表了“殖民大国的卡特尔”。直到今天，他们依然坚持应该主宰整个世界的观念，因为这些国家从未真正经历过非殖民化的进程。 纵观历史，G7只增加了一个新成员，那就是苏联解体后的俄罗斯。美国将俄罗斯拉入这个“西方专属俱乐部”成为G8，直到2014年乌克兰危机爆发，俄罗斯被驱逐出G8。 而77国集团以及金砖国家等主要是由曾经被殖民的国家组成的，目的是在政治和经济上团结起来维护共同利益。77国集团的经济一直在持续增长，其134个成员国的人口占世界的80%以上，代表了这个地球上绝大多数人类的利益，而G7只代表了前殖民大国的利益。 而且，按购买力平价计算，G7在世界GDP中所占的份额约为29%，这个数字还在缩小。而金砖国家经济约占全球GDP的三分之一，这一数字仍在上升。 在新自由主义时代，西方经济日益金融化和去工业化，依靠“全球南方”国家生产其所需的商品，这种模式是不可持续的和剥削性的，“全球南方”国家的工人被过度剥削，只为少数“全球北方”国家的利益服务。这种制度不可持续也不公平，“全球南方”国家一直在呼吁建立新的国际经济秩序。 现在，金砖国家已经展示了创建新机构的潜力，比如新开发银行、亚洲基础设施投资银行，这都是向前迈出的重要一步。 英国新自由主义领袖玛格丽特·撒切尔有一句名言：“别无选择。”但金砖国家证明了替代方案确实存在。 中国正在展示资金利用的新方式 知事：上月，往返于美国佛罗里达州迈阿密和奥兰多市的高铁线路正式开通，运营速度仅为每小时200公里。这趟高铁线总长度为378公里，单程时长为3小时，耗时比驾车仅仅少30分钟。据报道，第1天正式运行时，还意外撞死了一位横穿铁路的行人。今年，美国已经发生了不少于三起运送危险化学品的列车脱轨事件。拜登说，美国曾拥有世界第一的基础设施。那么如今美国的基础设施建设为什么落后了？ 贲杰民：美国的基础设施正在经历字面意义上的“崩溃”：桥梁在坍塌，火车在出轨。这是美国经济结构的金融化和几十年来实施新自由主义政策的恶果。这些政策将资金从基础设施和生产投资中抽离，流向了金融投机，催生了巨大的投机性资产泡沫。这实际上无法改善人民的生活，只能使一小波富人受益。 铁路行业盈利并不丰厚，却是其他行业所需的基础设施。但在美国，不仅银行是私有的，所有的基础设施也都私有化了，铁路，公路、供水系统、电网和电信网络已经或正在加速私有化。大企业（特别是车企）频繁游说政客，阻止在铁路方面进行大量投资。美国的“高铁”速度很慢，无法与中国或其他东亚国家相比。 等到美国想要修建大型基础设施时，问题又来了：资金从哪儿来？谁将从中受益？这就是美国的困境。为了修铁路，不仅要与强大的汽车游说集团抗衡，还要确保获利丰厚。如果一个项目在美国不盈利，它通常就不会开花结果。 相关报道截图 知事：既然美国国内基础设施建设已经捉襟见肘，为什么还在过去三年中，每年都提出一个声称要资助发展中国家搞基础设施建设的倡议？美国媒体还特别喜欢把这些倡议和中国的“一带一路”倡议对比，您对此有何看法？ 贲杰民：美国喜欢造新词，说“我们有新项目”，承诺“我们将开发所有这些项目”，但实际上开发的项目非常少，要么没做成，要么建设时间比声称的晚了很多年，还贵得多。美国只是因为目睹了中国在基础设施建设方面取得了巨大成功，才声称自己也要努力发展基础设施项目。 这就是为什么这么多国家，尤其是“全球南方”国家，在发展基础设施方面寻求与中国合作，因为中国会说到做到，而美国在“画饼”方面无出其右。 中国的“一带一路”倡议绝对是不可思议的壮举，在许多方面深刻地改变着世界。 首先，多年来，“全球南方”国家迫切需要基础设施投资。美欧不断宣称自己是他们的朋友，会帮助他们，然而情况却往往相反。 在英国对印度的殖民统治之前，印度的制造业比1947年独立后的更庞大。在殖民期间，英国企业为了把印度变成英国商品的倾销地，摧毁了印度先进的纺织工业。殖民体系崩溃后，美西方国家采取了新殖民主义政策，声称他们将帮助这些新兴发展中国家发展。 西非的许多国家一直在法国的控制下，包括他们的货币，被称为非洲法郎（CFA franc）。那么，这些国家的经济发展了吗？他们的基础设施建设起来了吗？ 10月10日，法军从尼日尔撤离行动开启，第一批驻尼法国士兵离开尼亚美。图源：视觉中国 当然没有。这就是为什么许多非洲领导人常开玩笑说，每次西方官员访问非洲，他们就会受一通教训。而每次中国来访，他们将有机会建起一座桥、一个医院、一个港口。 中国用“一带一路”倡议向“全球南方”国家表明，中国会帮助他们发展基础设施，从这个意义上说，“一带一路”倡议是革命性的。 此外，“一带一路”倡议的另一个重要意义，就是通过它的实施，中国正在展示如何利用资金促进生产和帮助全球发展经济，而不是专注于金融投机。这一点虽然讨论得不多，但我认为至关重要。 西方那些奉行新自由主义的国家，都在处理生产出来的盈余(尽管美国长期存在经常账户赤字)。比如挪威，该国拥有庞大的主权财富基金。这些资金投到哪里去了？投资于西方企业的股票，这将增强这些企业的实力；投资于美国国债等债券，这将为美国庞大的经常账户赤字提供资金；投资于房地产，这将进一步扩大房地产市场的投机泡沫。 10月3日，由中企投资、建设和运营的刚果（金）萨卡尼亚陆港项目举行落成典礼。图源：新华社 而中国在上述选择之外，还将资金投入到有形的基础设施，投入到提高人们生活水平的实体。因此，我们看到了中国人民银行正在逐渐去美元化，减少持有的美国国债。 中国还将利用这些过剩的资金和盈余来促进全球经济发展，通过帮助其他“全球南方”国家，中国不仅促成了更多互利合作，还找到了一条富有成效的盈余投资途径，并创造了新市场。 知事：美国将来会想加入“一带一路”倡议吗？您觉得有这个可能吗？ 本杰明·诺顿：美国要参与“一带一路”，就需要一场“革命”。美国的问题在于，政治体系完全被少数公司和金融利益集团所控制。在这种制度下，只有从大企业和大金融公司获得更多资金的政治家才能赢得选举，这本质上是一种用钱买选票的民主，它在美国是合法的。而在许多别的国家，这是贿赂。 为了与中国进行双赢的合作，美国需要从根本上改变其政治制度。不幸的是，我们看到了美国政治体系的瘫痪，这就是为什么美国有这么多人，特别是我们这一代的年轻人，认识到这个国家需要进行彻底的变革。我们有两个政党，在很多方面非常相似：相同的新自由主义经济政策、相同的“鹰派”好战外交政策。我们如果想从根本上打破现行体制，就需要一个新的政治运行系统。 我们可以向中国学习很多东西，这就是为什么大量来自世界各地的学者、记者来到这里，也是占据全球人口八成的“全球南方”国家把目光投向中国的原因。 如果美国能更谦虚一些，如果其政治制度有根本性的改变，它就可以与中国进行双赢的合作，可以成为“一带一路”倡议的一部分。但不幸的是，那一小撮控制政治体系的金融寡头不会答应。 以下为本次专访的英文原文： The Benjamin Norton Interview: Attention! U.S. Objectives Quietly Shifted Recently, China-United States relations appears to show some signs of détente.Among others, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led a congressional delegation to China and was accorded a high level of courtesy in China. Earlier, China and the United States launched a pair of economic and financial working groups in an effort to deepen economic communication between the two countries. On the other hand, on October 17th, theU.S. released three final rules to update the semiconductor export controls issued on October 7, 2022 for further tightening export restrictions on chips that support artificial intelligence and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China, and add a number of Chinese entities to the “Entity List”. People may wonder why the U.S. insists on wielding the stick of sanctions, though sanctions have proved to be of very limited effect. How about the current U.S. strategy toward China? Which words from the U.S. side is trust-worthy and which is not? In collaboration with RDCY, Capital News has launched the “Global Governance Forum” section. Benjamin Norton, founder and editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report, foreign policy expert, shared with us on China-US relations and the Belt and Road Initiative. Fruitless sanctions make for a trust bankrupted U.S. Capital News: How was your visit to Beijing this time? The reason why I ask such a question is that, lately, we've been seeing some really bewildering reports in serious  Western media. You know, stuff like 'China's economy is on the brink of collapse' or 'Shanghai is like a ghost town' and whatnot. But if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find all sorts of holes in these stories. Given your background as a journalist with years, why do you think Western media keeps getting China so wrong? Benjamin Norton: It's incredible to see the level of development in China. The Western media has consistently asserted, for decades, that China is on the verge of collapse. However, it's always proven to be false. Even the claim that China’s economy is not experiencing growth is equally ridiculous. China’s GDP is estimated to grow by around 5 % this year, a robust figure when compared to many Western economies which are either stagnant or even in recession. In Europe, multiple economies are slipping into recession, and the situation looks like it could get even worse in the near future. This highlights a phenomenon known as psychological projection, wherein one attributes their own problems to their adversary. What we're witnessing in China is not an economic collapse, but rather a transition.  China has experienced rapid economic development and has built infrastructure at an incredible rate. Presently, the government and many economists recognize the need to shift towards more advanced forms of production, emphasizing high-value-added production of cutting-edge technologies. This is a strategic shift from China's earlier focus on lower value-added products in the industrial production chain. Now, China has undeniably emerged as one of the world's foremost technological powers. Despite explicit statements from U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo about Washington's aim to hinder China's innovation, we have witnessed the opposite unfold. China has made significant strides, particularly in semiconductor technology, producing chips as small as 7 nanometers. Despite the U.S.  sanctions, which are illegal according to international law, what we’re seeing is an economic transition away from a focus on physical infrastructure production to a focus on technological production and the development of human capital. While any economy undergoing such a transition may encounter challenges, China is unequivocally progressing. Its economy continues to grow, propelling it confidently into the future. It is crucial to reiterate that this appears to be a case of Western economies, which have been mired in stagnation under a new liberal model for decades, experiencing minimal growth. These economies have witnessed an increase in poverty and inequality, along with escalating political dysfunction. It seems to me that the western countries are projecting their own insecurities on China. The unfortunate reality is that in the United States, there is a growing number of people who hold a negative view of China, but this sentiment is not organic. It is largely a result of media propaganda. The level of propaganda in the U.S. media is extreme. Every week China is accused of outlandish and ridiculous things. Almost invariably, there is little to no evidence to support these claims. This is reminiscent of the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I vividly recall when the United States government incessantly asserted that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the entire planet. The media unquestioningly echoed these unsubstantiated claims from the U.S. government without demanding any evidence. We saw a similar scenario with Libya in the lead-up to the 2011 war. U.S. media propagated false claims about Muammar Gaddafi and the Libyan government, which were used to justify the NATO intervention that led to the destruction of the Libyan state. Now, there is propaganda about Russia, alleging interference in U.S. elections through means on Facebook and Twitter, and even suggesting that Russia manipulated the 2016 elections. These are baseless allegations. There is never any concrete evidence presented. And now, China is subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda on TV and social media, filled with, frankly, falsehoods about China. This explains why, unfortunately, there are people who now hold a negative view of China. However, polls show that 20 years ago, many people in the U.S. held a very positive view of China. So, this negativity is not organic; it's not because ordinary people in the U.S. simply harbor ill feelings toward China. Unfortunately, this negativity stems from manipulation. Noted scholars in the United States, Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Herman, authored a book titled 'Manufacturing Consent.' It delves into the political economy of mass media in the U.S., illustrating how media institutions, in collaboration with the U.S. government, particularly with intelligence agencies such as the CIA, and the Pentagon, disseminate propaganda through the media to further Washington's foreign policy interests. This was evident in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War, where constant lies were spread to justify U.S. policy. For example, during the onset of the Vietnam War, a false narrative was constructed around the Gulf of Tonkin incident, portraying Vietnamese forces as aggressors against the United States. In reality, it was the United States that initiated the conflict, but Vietnam was unfairly blamed in the media, with these falsehoods originating from the U.S. government. This pattern repeats in history. The U.S. has a long history of manipulating the media. In fact, a former CIA official, one of the co-founders of the U.S. spy agency, likened the media to a 'Mighty Wurlitzer,' a type of musical instrument. He was emphasizing how the CIA deftly uses the media to shape public opinion, essentially orchestrating support for aggressive U.S. policies. Regrettably, today we witness a stark example of this manipulation, with U.S. government agencies, especially intelligence bodies like the CIA, and the military, along with other government entities, leveraging the media to sway public opinion and legitimize these highly aggressive policies. Capital News: You just talk about the semiconductor restriction, actually, the U.S. has a history of restricting China in the field, so this isn't entirely new. Yet, even with these chip restrictions in the U.S., Huawei, for instance, still managed to roll out new phones this year with chips they developed themselves. Could this means a failure of U.S. tech war against China? Benjamin Norton: We have to ask what Washington’s goal is in this tech war. Gina Raimondo, the U.S.  commerce secretary, said clearly that Washington’s goal is to prevent China from innovating. In that sense, it is a complete failure. But now the United States actually acknowledges its inability to entirely impede China's technological progress. Instead, its goal is to maintain a lead, keeping China a few years behind. The hypocrisy of the U.S. is evident here. While it frequently emphasizes competition and the necessity of having diverse competitors, its corporations are resistant to competition from their Chinese counterparts. Many of these firms are subsidized by Washington and maintain close ties with it. The underlying objective of these sanctions is to prevent Chinese companies from effectively competing with these American corporations. Essentially, the U.S. is rigging the rules of the game, preventing fair competition, despite all the rhetoric on the importance of competition. However, China continues its development unabated. Now the more the U.S. relies on sanctions, the weaker the sanctions as a weapon gets. The U.S. is addicted to sanctions, regardless of breaching international laws. In fact, this approach is inadvertently fostering a sense of independence in the sanctioned countries. Over time, not only do the sanctions lose their bite, but they also veer towards irrelevance. By imposing sanctions on nations like China, Russia, and Iran, the U.S. not only compels these countries to bolster their own industries and make a pitch for independence but also encourages them to forge closer ties with one another. Capital News: But why, when the evidence shows that sanctions have limited effectiveness and might even spur China to be more self-reliant, does the Biden administration still insist on this path? Benjamin Norton: Because in the United States, there exists a tight-knit relationship between the political and economic classes. Large corporations play a pivotal role in financing political campaigns, with studies revealing that over 90% of candidates vying for seats in the House and Senate who secure substantial funding tend to win elections. So, if you want to be a politician in the U.S., you have to get the support from big corporations, particularly those in Silicon Valley and the big banks. These privately owned firms geared only towards corporate profitability. They prefer to maintain their long-held positions as dominant monopolies in the world. Consequently, the U.S. government is acting in alignment with these corporations’ interests, endeavoring to stifle the competitive potential of Chinese firms such as Huawei and others, despite the fact that in the long term, this is going to backfire. The crux of the matter in the United States is that all decision-making is predominantly short-term in nature, driven by quarterly dividends for the stockholders of these corporate giants, rather than long-term strategies extending over 5, 10, or even 20 years. Such a myopia has led to the de-industrialization of the U.S. economy and a shift towards financial speculation. So many of Washington policies have made a small handful of wealthy oligarchs in the U.S. even richer at the expense of a weaker and more unstable economy. The group’s great influence in the political system forestalls any significant change. Capital News: Lately, it seems like there's been a detente in U.S.-China relations.  Some believe this is a sign of the U.S. making concessions to China, suggesting that perhaps the U.S. is finding it tough to hold its ground and has to set aside pride to shake hands with China. However, while the U.S. is showing these friendly gestures, it hasn't stopped its sanctions, containment, and attempts at de-risking with China. It's still applying pressure step by step. So, this could be seen as a bit of a smokescreen from the U.S., potentially to confuse China, making China think that the U.S. is changing its stance towards U.S. . What's your take on the current U.S. strategy towards China? What statements from the U.S. can be trusted, and what should be taken with a grain of salt? Benjamin Norton: Many countries around the world say you can never trust the U.S.. Iran learned that the hard way. The U.S. was one of the signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal with Iran. This agreement was backed by the UN Security Council. It was written into international law. What happened? Donald Trump was elected president, and he unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, violating the U.S.’s promises to Iran and violating international law. You can also ask native peoples in America what happened after the U.S. government signed treaties claiming that it would respect their sovereignty, respect their land rights. So, there’s a long history of the U.S.  claiming that it will do something, and then violating that agreement soon after when it no longer serves its economic interests. The problem facing the U.S.  lies in its deep economic integration with China and its long-standing de-industrialization in a way where decoupling is impossible, even the notion of de-risking is ridiculous. Notably, the vast majority of U.S. GDP comes from the services sector rather than from actual production. According to UN data, the U.S. economy currently accounts for approximately 14 % of global manufacturing production, while China takes the lead with a share of 30 %. Wall Street, private banks, investment funds, and vulture funds hold sway in the U.S. economy. These firms now manage trillions of dollars in assets, and their growth rate is at an exponential rate, much faster than actual GDP growth. They are managers of the wealth of a small handful of rich elites, who are experiencing faster asset growth than the overall economic expansion. Consequently, the country is becoming increasingly unequal. So how is the U.S.  going to develop new industrial supply chains and re-industrialize amidst such a complex situation? It simply cannot do. And more unfortunately, the reality is that the U.S. is also politically dysfunctional. For instance, a president like Barack Obama may sign an agreement with a country like Iran, only for the next president, as was the case with Trump, to unilaterally withdraw from that very agreement, such as the Iran nuclear deal. You can’t simply entirely trust the U.S., because this is a country that is dysfunctional economically and politically. Fortunately, the reality is that China, along with Russia and other countries, have recognized that the future lies in economic integration across regions, such as in Asia or through Global South cooperation. U.S.’s crumbling infrastructure goes against its lip service Capital News: In September, a new high-speed train route opened between Miami and Orlando in Florida. It runs at a speed of just 200 kilometers per hour. The total length of this route is 378 kilometers, and a one-way trip takes even 3 hours, only 30 minutes faster than driving. It's worth noting that, on its very first day of operation, there was an unfortunate incident where a pedestrian was accidentally hit while crossing the tracks. This year, the U.S. has experienced no less than 3 incidents of trains carrying hazardous materials derailing. President Biden mentioned that the U.S. U.S. ed to have the world's top-notch infrastructure. So, why is America's infrastructure falling behind nowadays? Benjamin Norton: The U.S. infrastructure is falling apart, quite literally. Everywhere we look, bridges are collapsing, and trains are constantly derailing. This is due to the neoliberal policies of financialization that the U.S. government has been implementing for decades. These policies have diverted funds away from infrastructure and production investments, with capital predominantly directed towards financial speculation, inflating large bubbles of speculative assets. This doesn't actually lead to an improvement in the lives of the people. It primarily benefits a small group of wealthy individuals. Railway industry is not very profitable, and it is actually the infrastructure of other industries. But all infrastructure in the U.S. is privatized. Not only am I talking about railroads, which are all privatized, but even roads, water systems, power grid, telecommunications grids are increasingly privatized. Large corporations, big auto companies in particular, lobby the government to prevent the construction of public transportation like railways. As a result of that, the U.S.’s railway trains are slow in terms of both its building and speed, as compared to China, or even other East Asian countries. Whenever the U.S. wants to build big infrastructures, it comes to the two questions again that where is the funding and who is the beneficiary on earth. This is the predicament in the U.S.. To establish advanced railroads, one must not only contend with the powerful car lobbies but also find a way to make it financially viable. If a project isn't profitable in the U.S., it often doesn't come to fruition. Capital News: The U.S. is struggling with its own domestic infrastructure, why has it been putting forth initiatives every year for the past 3 years claiming to support developing countries in their infrastructure development? We’ve also noticed that American media often compared its infrastructure initiatives like B3W and IMEC to China’s BRI. What is your opinion on that? Benjamin Norton: The U.S. loves to create new phrases and say, 'We have this new program; we’re going to develop all these projects,' but actually very, very few projects are developed and some are never realized. Or if they are, the infrastructure is built many years past the date they claimed it would be, and it’s much more expensive than they claimed it would be. The U.S. is simply responding to China’s massive success in infrastructure development. That’s why so many countries, especially developing countries in the Global South, are looking to China for help in developing infrastructure because China has actually, as we say in English, 'put its money where its mouth is.' It has actually accomplished what it says it’s going to do. The U.S. is the master of lip service, saying something but not actually doing it. The BRI is absolutely incredible, and I think it really is changing the world in many profound ways. First of all, many countries in the Global South have desperately needed investment in infrastructure for many years. The United States and the European powers have constantly claimed to these countries that they’re their allies. They’re going to help them. However, the case runs the other way around. India, for example, had a larger manufacturing sector before British colonialism than it did after the end of British colonialism with independence in 1947. In the colonial era, British firms take India as the dumping field of their goods, and thus destroyed its then advanced textile industry. And after the collapse of colonial system, the U.S. and European countries have maintained neo-colonial policies, claiming that they’re going to help these countries develop. Many countries in West Africa are long controlled by France, including their currencies, which is called the CFA franc. Yet, what has happened in these countries? Have they developed economically? Have they developed infrastructure? Of course not. This is why many African leaders have joked that every time a Western official visits an African nation, they get a lecture. Every time China visits, they get a bridge, they get a hospital, they get a port. So, China’s BRI has actually shown that it’s going to help these countries in the Global South develop infrastructure. In that sense, the BRI is revolutionary and is providing a lot of opportunities for the Global South. Furthermore, I think another important aspect of the BRI that is not discussed much but I believe is critical, is that by implementing this ambitious international project, China is showing how capital can be used to advance production and help develop the global economy, rather than simply investing in financial speculation. The Western neo-liberal countries are dealing with the surplus that is produced (although the U.S.  has chronically had a current account deficit). For instance, Norway has a massive sovereign wealth fund. Where is that capital invested? It’s invested in stocks of Western corporations, which helps to strengthen Western corporations. It’s invested in bonds like U.S. Treasury bonds, which helps fund the massive U.S. current account deficit. It is invested in real estate, which helps further inflate a bubble of asset price speculation in the real estate market. China is asserting that instead of merely speculating with that capital and surplus, they are investing it in tangible infrastructure - in things that enhance people’s lives. So we've witnessed the People’s Bank of China gradually de-dollarizing, meaning it's reducing its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. China is now declaring that they'll utilize this excess capital and surplus to foster global economic development, to construct infrastructure, and establish new trade routes. Therefore, China must cultivate fresh markets and establish new trade partners. Capital News: Can you imagine that one day can the America participate in the Belt and Road Initiative? Did you think there has a such kind of opportunity? Benjamin Norton: For the U.S. to engage in the BRI, it would need a revolution. The problem in the United States is that the political system is completely controlled by a small handful of corporate interests, by financial interests. It is not a democratic system. It is a system in which politicians who have more funding from large corporations and large financial firms win elections. So essentially, it’s a democracy in which money buys votes. We see through things like, for instance, the Supreme Court ruling Citizens United, which declared that donations in politics are a form of democracy and that corporations have the same legal rights as people. That is to say, in the elections, in the United States, large corporate firms, that’s to say, oligarchic interests, can buy the elections. That is legal in the United States. In many countries, that would be called bribery. In the United States, that is legal. In order for the United States to engage in win-win cooperation with China, it needs a fundamental change in its political system. Unfortunately, we see this paralysis in the political system. We have two political parties that are, in many ways, very similar. They share many of the same Neo-liberal economic policies. They share much of the same hawkish war-mongering foreign policy. We need a fundamental break from the system. We need a new system. I think there’s a lot we can learn from China. So that’s why I’m here in China to learn about the economic system and the political system. That’s why so many students, scholars and journalists from around the world are here in China. That’s why for much of the low population in the Global South, which is where over 80% of the world population lives, they’re not looking to the West as the future of economic development. They are looking toward China. I think the U.S., if it were more humble, and if there were a fundamental change to its political system, it could engage in win-win cooperation with China, and it could be part of the Belt and Road Initiative, which could be truly international, that all countries could participate in it. An increasingly multi-polar world calls for new institutions Capital News: This month, representatives from over 130 countries gathered in the Cuban capital for the 'Group of 77 + China' summit. The Group of 77 was founded in 1964 initially to counter the unfair economic order led by Western countries, especially the U.S., and to safeguard the interests of developing nations. Over the course of more than half a century, its membership has grown to 134 countries today. Given the long-standing U.S. containment and pressure on China, many developing nations can relate. Article 8 of the declaration strongly opposes unilateral sanctions on developing countries, while Article 10 explicitly condemns unfair practices like technological monopolies that hinder technological development in developing countries. How do you think the U.S. views the voices of these developing countries? Benjamin Norton: We should keep in mind that 1/4 of the global population lives in countries that have been sanctioned by the United States, and also by the European Union. These countries represent roughly 1/3 of global GDP, so these sanctions imposed by the Western powers are not only against a small handful of countries. The number of sanctions increases every year. We can see on a graph that with each different presidential administration in the U.S., the number has increased rapidly. So, these sanctions violate international law. They go against international law and the UN Charter, which clearly states that for sanctions to be imposed, they must have the approval of the UN Security Council. According to the top United Nations expert on sanctions, the Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan, 98% of the sanctions imposed in the world are illegal. These are the sanctions that the U.S. and the Western powers have imposed on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Zimbabwe, and the DPRK. There are so many countries suffering under the weight of these unilateral sanctions. Frequently, we hear from the United States that there are targeted sanctions against individuals or sectors. But that's not how sanctions work because sanctions, by their very nature, are a blunt instrument of collective punishment. What they do is they prevent foreign firms from working with sanctioned countries. So, I have spent quite a bit of time in Venezuela. I’ve been to Venezuela several times. I’ve talked to Venezuelan officials. They have frequently said that the U.S. claims there are humanitarian exemptions for its sanctions. But in reality, Venezuela cannot buy certain medicines, medical equipment and certain machine parts that it needs to repair its public transportation sector because foreign companies are afraid of doing business with Venezuela. Even if they’re not directly sanctioned, they’re afraid of secondary sanctions. And also, furthermore, many insurance companies simply refuse to sell insurance to companies that are trading with sanctioned countries. What we see is an over-compliance with sanctions. Sanctions have resulted in economic crisis and humanitarian crises, leading to many preventable deaths. Now, this is why the statement at the G77 plus  China summit in Cuba is so important, because it shows that the G77 plus  China, which represents over 80 % of the world population. This is why the statement at the summit is so crucial. It demonstrates that the 80% of the world's population opposes these illegal unilateral sanctions imposed by the Western powers. This statement also underscores the significance of technological transfer and technological monopolies, which are closely related issues. The sanctions is intricately connected to technological monopolies because sanctions are utilized not only to further foreign policy interests but also to advance the economic interests of these firms that are averse to foreign competition. Finally, the matter of technology transfer is highly significant because many countries in the Global South aspire to industrialize and grow their economies. They do not want to be solely dependent on exporting raw materials and low-value-added commodities to the advanced, affluent imperialist countries that were their former colonizers. To achieve this, many of these formerly colonized countries in the Global South need access to technology to establish new industries. But because of sanctions, and due to patents and intellectual property laws, the U.S. has often prevented countries in the Global South from having access to technology transfer. This is something that China recognized the importance of. Many countries could learn from China’s economic model. When China, under Deng Xiaoping, embarked on the process of opening up and implementing reforms, China also understood that not all forms of foreign direct investment are necessarily beneficial. Not all forms of investment lead to productive, sustainable growth in the economy and the creation of jobs for people. China understood the importance of requiring technology transfer from foreign firms that invest in the country. So, if foreign firms were going to invest, they should also share some of the technology they’re helping to produce. Furthermore, China recognized the significance of forming joint partnerships with local firms. This way, China could develop its own nascent industries and not solely rely on foreign companies. The United States and the European powers do not want countries in the Global South to foster their own industries and become competitors because then they would challenge the monopolies held by Silicon Valley. Capital News: We've got some new members joining the BRICS club this year, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Argentina, Iran, and Ethiopia. Also, thanks to China's push, the African Union hopped on board with the G20 this year. As we know, the U.S. has been the big player in international affairs for a long time, is it losing long-held position? Benjamin Norton:  I think the role of the United States has played on the international stage has long been misrepresented. The U.S. constantly claims to be a leader in the world, or the leader of the world. But in reality, if we look at international institutions like the United Nations, it is frequently Washington that goes against the will of the international community. A good example of this is the sanctions, the illegal U.S. embargo on Cuba. Every single year at the United Nations General Assembly for three decades, almost all countries on Earth vote against the embargo. The only countries that support the embargo are the U.S. and Israel. Every year, at the United Nations, we can see that Washington’s claim to be a leader on the international stage to defend international law is preposterous. In fact, if we also look at the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. constantly uses its veto to go against the will of other members of the Security Council. The U.S. is constantly violating international law. This is not a country that is actually truly committed to international law, which is why we see increasingly, politicians in Washington and also Brussels are trying to rewrite international law with the idea of the so-called rules-based international order. Now, this is a very vague concept, and they never define it clearly because what they’re really saying is we make the rules. International law is something that’s written in stone, and the U.S. can’t change that, but it can create vague rules in a rules-based order. For many decades, countries in the Global South have been dissatisfied with the United States, but they didn’t have economic alternatives. The U.S. was the world’s largest economy. It had a massive market, and many countries in the Global South, especially those with an export-oriented development model, needed access to the U.S. market. They were apprehensive about U.S. sanctions. They were fearful of the threat of U.S. invasion or military intervention, as we witnessed in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. But now the situation has fundamentally changed with the significant economic development of China, and the relative economic stabilization of Russia compared to the situation in the 90s, where there was an economic collapse due to the shock therapy. What we observe is the emergence of alternatives. Countries no longer have to be entirely dependent on the United States. And that grants them more political space to criticize the United States and assert their expectations to establish new institutions that represent their interests. If we examine the statement from the G77+ China summit in Cuba, it underscored that the existing international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are unequal and unjust. They advocate for a new international economic order. Now, that term is significant. The call for a new international economic order was initially made over 50 years ago by many countries in the Global South, but that call was disregarded because there were so few economic alternatives. Now, what we are witnessing is that China is the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Using nominal figures in U.S. dollars can sometimes obscure more than it clarifies. China is, by this measure, the world’s largest economy. We also witness the ascent of Vietnam and Indonesia, and the development of Brazil. These are new countries and economic blocs that provide alternatives for development and also serve as trade partners. Now, this explains why we see the emergence of new institutions like BRICS. In Latin America, the U.S.-controlled Organization of American States is going through gradual decline, which is based in Washington and controlled by Washington. Instead, we’re witnessing the emergence of CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. In Southeast Asia, we have ASEAN, and in Eurasia, we have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. All of these reflect an increasingly multipolar world, which provides new opportunities for countries that were historically colonized by Western powers. After gaining formal independence from European colonialism, many of these economies were still reliant on Western economies. But now, when we consider the BRICS countries collectively, their economies are larger than the G7 economies. As a percentage of world GDP, the G7 economies are declining whereas the BRICS economies are growing. This explains the direction in which the world is moving economically. Now, many countries in the Global South feel that they can finally have a voice on the international stage and criticize these Western policies that they’ve always opposed. Capital News: Why can BRICS and G20 expand their membership, while G7 finds it tough to do so？ Benjamin Norton: We should keep in mind that the G7 was created in response to the G77. The G77 was formed by formerly colonized countries as a way to unify politically and economically to advance their shared interests. These are countries that were colonized by the G7 nations. So, the G7 essentially represents the cartel of the colonial powers—the United States, European colonial powers, Canada (which was a British colony), and Japan (which colonized many parts of East Asia). On the other hand, the G77 has continued to grow over time. Now, there are 134 members representing more than 80% of the world's population. Throughout history, there's only been one instance of the G7 adding a new member, and it was Russia after the Soviet Union was overthrown. Russia’s government was essentially controlled by U.S. neo-liberal economists, who were sent to Moscow to impose shock therapy. According to UNICEF, this resulted in 3 million excess deaths in Russia, an economic collapse, millions of people falling into poverty, with their living standards and life savings destroyed, as well as public health crises. So, in the 1990s, Russia was in a state of collapse, and the United States largely bears responsibility for overseeing this collapse. Later on, Russia implemented more nationalist economic policies, asserting more state control over elements of the economy which had been completely privatized, and embarked on a path of economic growth. The United States then attempted to recruit Russia into this western-exclusive club while it was still under Boris Yeltsin. Russia was invited to join and it became the G8. However, with the western sanctions on Russia in 2014 after the crisis in Ukraine, Russia was expelled from the G8 and it gets back to G7. This is in response to the Ukraine crisis, which was triggered by a coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected president, who was geopolitically neutral, Viktor Yanukovych. A pro-western government was installed, pledging to join NATO. This set off a crisis after the U.S.-backed coup. This is an example of the G7 representing the interests of the western colonial powers. They colonized much of the world, and even today, they believe they should control the world, as there never truly was a process of decolonization in these countries. In the former colonial powers, the economic system remains the same as it was in the colonial era. That's why they continue to uphold these Neo-colonial policies. The G77 now represents the interests of more than 80% of the world population. It is not an exaggeration to say that the G77 advocates for the interests of the majority of humanity, whereas the G7 represents the interests of the colonial powers. Capital News: I heard of an opinions saying that, the BRICS and “G77 + China” , such kind of organization, its goal is to make cake. But the members of G7, their goal is to divide cake. Do you agree with that? Benjamin Norton: Absolutely, the reality is that the G7 countries now represent a declining share of world GDP. It's currently 29% of global GDP measured at purchasing power parity, and this figure is shrinking. Meanwhile, the BRICS economies constitute roughly a third of global GDP measured by the same metric, and this figure is on the rise. Why is this the case? The BRICS economies are fundamentally centered on production, not on financial speculation. In contrast, the Western economies, in the neoliberal era, have financialized and deindustrialized, relying on countries in the Global South, and their workers, to produce the commodities needed to fuel their economies. This model is unsustainable and exploitative, as the labor of workers in the Global South is super-exploited for the benefit of a small handful of countries in the Northern and Western hemispheres. This system is neither sustainable nor fair, and it's why the majority of humanity has been calling for a new international economic order. Looking forward, the question arises: Can BRICS provide a viable economic alternative? BRICS has demonstrated the potential to create new institutions, such as the New Development Bank. However, the NDB is still relatively small and is in the process of expanding its loan portfolio to finance infrastructure projects. There's still ample room for growth. Additionally, the NDB needs to work toward de-dollarization, a process that is underway, albeit at a gradual pace. The new president of the NDB, Dilma Rousseff, former president of Brazil, has pledged to offer financing in the local currencies of member countries, which will account for about a third of their total loan portfolio in the next five years—a significant step forward. Nevertheless, many argue that this process needs to accelerate, given the risks associated with holding U.S. dollar-denominated assets, as seen in the unilateral and illegal seizures of foreign exchange reserves. The United States has unilaterally and illegally seized the foreign exchange reserves of central banks in countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Afghanistan. This sends a clear message to countries worldwide: holding U.S. dollar assets may incur exposure of economic piracy and potential attacks. For instance, Russia's central bank had over $300 billion in assets frozen, essentially stolen by the United States and its European counterparts. To address such issues, there is a pressing need for new institutions. To this end, China has established its own financial institutions, like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which have been instrumental. These are vital steps forward. However, many countries in the Global South require more financing and economic opportunities. There's an ongoing debate within BRICS about the creation of a new international currency, and a working group of economists is discussing plans for a new unit of account for international trade, investment, and foreign exchange reserves. These are all significant strides, but they need to be developed swiftly. Politically, there are differences within BRICS, and as it expands, there will be a debate about its future direction. The most crucial takeaway is that BRICS has demonstrated that alternatives do exist. In the UK, the neoliberal leader Margaret Thatcher famously declared, 'There is no alternative.' BRICS has proven otherwise. With the support of China, Russia, Brazil, and others, countries are forging their own alternatives. Many countries are eager for more alternatives to emerge as quickly as possible. 来源：长安街知事 记者：刘晓琰 版权说明：任何媒体、网站或个人未经书面授权许可不得转载、摘编或利用其它方式使用本网站上的文字、图片、图表、漫画、视频等内容。 未经许可即使用，或以此盈利的，均系侵害本网站著作权及相关权益的行为，本网站将追究法律责任。 如遇作品内容、版权等问题，请在相关文章刊发之日起30日内与本网联系。 联系方式：[email protected]