近日，英国外交发展大臣克莱弗利结束了访华之行。虽然访问时间只有一天，但行程满满。据新华社和外交部网站消息，8月30日，国家副主席韩正，中共中央政治局委员、外交部长王毅，分别会见了克莱弗利。

英国外长时隔5年再次访华，中英关系“破冰”了吗？英国的对华政策为何多变？英国被曝摸底调查企业“敏感”投资，是否意味着将跟随美国在半导体等领域遏制中国发展？我们还能相信英国政府释放的善意信号吗？

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。英国伦敦经济与商业政策署原署长、中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员罗思义（John Ross）就中英关系及“一带一路”倡议的影响等与记者进行了分享。

“英国是一个很好的反面教材”

知事：近日，华为新机上市，时值美国商务部长雷蒙多访华，引发的舆论热度居高不下，根源在于美国打着“国家安全”的幌子对华高科技领域的打压愈演愈烈。打压中国真的会让美国更“安全”吗？

罗思义：这完全是无稽之谈，和国家安全没有任何关系。我完全理解美国不会允许美国公司向中国出口导弹或供应坦克——这样的行为称得上是合理的限制，中国也没有试图购买它们，但华为和这个例子是两码事。

美国为什么要禁止华为使用安卓系统？因为华为正成为世界上最大的手机制造商之一。美国的国家安全真的依赖手机上的安卓系统吗？这太可笑了。

美国对中国高科技领域的遏制，其实是打压中国经济增长的又一次尝试。过去四年，中国经济总量的增长速度是美国的2.5倍，人均经济增速是美国的3倍多，谁发展得快，谁就会成为美国的遏制目标。

美国现在面临的问题是，中国并不只有一家成功的科技公司，而是拥有众多行业内领先的企业，美国对中企施加限制的代价正变得越来越高，很难在不对自身造成重大伤害的情况下实施禁令。

以TikTok为例。此前，美国大肆宣传说中国缺乏创造力，只能组装别国的产品，不能发展出自己的品牌。然而，TikTok已经成为世界上访问量最大的应用程序，大约有1.2亿美国人在手机上安装了它，而且美国有很多访问量巨大的应用程序都是中国的。

彭博社就曾指出，美国想要禁止一个1.2亿人都在使用的应用，可能会导致意想不到的损失。这也是为什么虽然美国对TikTok发出了禁用威胁，但到目前为止还没有采取大范围的行动。

美国的遏制是徒劳的。“吹灭别人的灯不会给自己带来光明”，如果把房间里每个人的灯都熄灭，整个情况就会变得更糟。

美国表面上是在试图削弱中国的发展，实际上全球多国都在连带受害，更讽刺的是，受到美国政策的恶劣影响最大的并不是中国，而是其盟友。

韩国、日本、荷兰都不得不配合美国，对中国这个最大的芯片市场进行封锁。英国由于盲目跟随美国的对华政策，中英经贸联系已经受到挑战，如果与中国的关系继续恶化，英国将面临灾难性的经济后果。

华为Mate 60 / 60 Pro手机备件价格公布。

知事: 美国真的能降低对中国的依赖吗？

罗思义：美国会在一些领域尝试“摆脱”中国，但美国也将为此付出重大代价。原因如下：

首先，这些措施将导致美国消费者的物价上涨，降低美国人民的福祉。

其次，美国公司并不愿意与中国“脱钩”。美国目前推行的经济制裁并不符合绝大多数美国企业的利益。这些企业非常清楚，中国是世界上增长最快的经济体，是一个极具吸引力且迅速扩张的市场。这些公司渴望与中国接触，然而美国采取的立场却是在横加阻隔。

第三，美国还面临着投资不足的挑战，特别是在基础设施方面。在特朗普政府转变对华政策之前，美国国内许多政治人物都认识到了这个问题。美国的许多州长开启了全球旅程，陆陆续续访问中国，为各自的州寻求投资建厂的机会，这在当时已经成为一种趋势。而现在他们却被警告不要这样做，导致美国基础设施领域的投资减少了，与中国顶级基础设施企业的合作也减少了。

多年来，中国的基础设施企业凭借其优异的项目成绩，已经确立了该领域的全球领导者地位。相比之下，几十年来，美国的基础设施公司的实力和在该领域的耕耘都落后了。

所以，答案是否定的。虽然美国可能会试图切断在特定高科技领域与中国的联系，但不太可能全面“脱钩”。

知事：谈到美国对中国高科技产业的围堵，其实英国也出现了相似的迹象。8月21日，“政客”新闻网披露称，英国政府近日对该国企业进行了一项大范围调查，以获取他们在17个“敏感”领域的对外投资情况，包括先进材料、机器人、合成生物学、运输、能源和民用核能基础设施、通信、密码学等行业。报道称，调查并非只针对企业对华投资情况，被询问的投资目的地还有澳大利亚和加拿大等。但“政客”分析认为，调查的主要意图就是与中国有关。一位了解相关计划的商业代表称，英国商业贸易部官员告诉企业，英国将像拜登政府一样，限制半导体、量子计算和人工智能领域的对华投资。该代表还称，英国政府的此项调查“看起来像是一种新的、非常困难的出口管制机制的雏形”。您听说这个消息了吗？您如何看待英国政府的这项调查？英国打算跟随美国在半导体等领域遏制中国发展吗？

罗思义：不幸的是，英国确实一直在政策方面密切追随美国，结果就是对本国经济造成了巨大的损害。在过去的四年里，英国人均GDP经历了微不足道的0.1%的增长，以及实际工资的下降。英国是一个很好的反面教材，告诉大家什么不该做。

实际上，英国的对华经济政策对中国的影响有限，因为英国有限的经济体量摆在那里，而这种政策对英国自身损害极大。

更不幸的是，我认为英国将继续遵循这一破坏性的政策。英国的决策层似乎致力于模仿美国做出的任何决定，即便以本国福祉为代价——英国脱欧就证明了这一点。

知事：过去8年里，英国的对华态度发生剧烈变化，从曾经中国在欧洲的“最大支持者”，到如今却成为中国的“最激烈批评者之一”。自苏纳克去年10月担任英国首相以来，英国的对华政策一度变得更为强硬，但近期却出现了反复。据英国媒体21日报道，英国外交部近日要求政府官员停止在官方文件等内容中将中国、俄罗斯、朝鲜和伊朗等国家称为“敌对国家”，其官方指南中提供的修改特定词为“敌对行为者”。报道声称，此举旨在“改善与中国的外交关系”。您如何评价英国政府的对华政策，为什么如此多变？我们能相信英国政府释放的善意信号吗？

罗思义：中国已经足够成熟，可以根据一个国家的行为而不是言语来做判断。英国的官方文件中对中国不使用“敌对”一词，对中英关系不会产生实质性影响，真正重要的是英国是否会改变自己的行动。

实际上，英国和中国之间的问题不是中国引起的，这也不单纯是中英关系的问题。之前一些中国朋友误以为英国脱欧之后会加强与中国的友谊，以为英国会拥有真正的独立政策、追求本国的发展，这都太天真了。

英国经济规模太小，又夹在美、欧两大经济体的夹缝之间，无法独当一面、自成一派，它要么是欧洲势力范围的一部分，要么是美国势力范围的一部分。英国脱欧的意义在于，英国决定不再是欧洲的那一部分，而是更多地成为美国的那一部分，那它必然会跟随美国的政策，从而采取不那么友华的立场。

考虑到糟糕的中英关系会有损英国经济，英国或会有一些表面上的战术转圜，但除非英国决定摆脱做美国的附庸，否则对中国的核心态度不会发生重大变化。

知事：英国外交大臣克莱弗利刚刚结束访华，您如何评价克莱弗利此行？

罗思义：正如我刚才所说，在语言上做些表面改变，或试图表现出追求独立政策的假象，对中国来说是站不住脚的。因此，在他访华之前我就预测，这次访问不会取得什么实质性的成果，也不会产生什么重大影响。

中国作为一个眼光长远的国家，评估一个国家的依据是行动，而不仅仅是言辞。除非英国愿意改变其政策，停止禁止华为的5G设备、停止干涉中国内政和香港事务、停止参与高科技领域的对华遏制等行动，否则外交大臣试图利用外交手段改变两国关系不会取得明显成果，中国也不会轻易被这种策略所左右。

知事：正如王毅在与克莱弗利会谈时指出的，“中英关系面临何去何从的战略选择”。中国人相信“行胜于言”，英方接下来会如何行动，我们拭目以待。

8月30日，北京，英国外交大臣克莱弗利访华。

“这真是我有生以来听到的最蠢的判断”

知事: 几年前，英国政界多次表达希望参与“一带一路”倡议的想法，当时英国驻华大使吴百纳曾表示，英国希望看到基于“一带一路”建设的中英经济合作和相互连通。英国为何尚未加入“一带一路”倡议？有哪些方面的考虑？

罗思义: 自从这些声明发表以来，英国的经济政策已经发生了灾难性的转变。疫情暴发后，英国总体GDP增长率每年仅为0.1%，人均GDP增长率和平均增长率也是零，这表明GDP唯一的增长源自人口增长。这无疑是一个灾难性的经济表现，说明英国经济在多个领域都偏离了正轨。

其实，中英在经济领域具有广泛的互补性。伦敦作为国际金融中心之一，在金融服务业领域具备显著优势。但英国在制造业等领域相对薄弱，而中国则是全球最大的工业和制造业中心。中国企业想要走出去，寻求国际化，通常会选择欧洲作为切入点，而英国，特别是伦敦，作为国际金融中心，能为中国企业的运营提供更多便利。

而且，英语是中国人最常学习的外语，因此与其他欧洲国家（如法国、德国、西班牙等）相比，中国人在英国开展工作将更加高效。这些因素对英国来说具有重要意义。

七年前，在卡梅伦担任英国首相期间，他认识到两国在经济上的互补性，英中关系有过一段“黄金时期”。然而，在此后的时期，英国的经济和政策完全偏离了正轨，原因很简单——英国决定屈从于美国，我几乎为此感到惶恐。

英国之选择脱欧，主要受到美国重要人物的支持。例如，美国前总统特朗普希望英国脱欧以削弱欧盟。为了取悦美国，英国选择了脱欧，但美国却至今未向英国提供自由贸易协议，因为担心损及自身利益。

此外，英国还采取了强硬的反华立场，以迎合美国，这也是为什么英国与“一带一路”倡议保持距离，并且禁止华为参与本土5G网络建设，后者更是一场大灾难。这些决策使英国过度依赖美国，从而形成了一个恶性循环。

知事：美国污蔑中国“一带一路”倡议让沿线国家陷入“债务陷阱”，您认为“一带一路”是债务陷阱吗?

罗思义：这是我有生以来听过的最荒谬的经济论点之一。没有一家公司能够完全仅依靠现金流来为所有投资提供资金，大部分公司通过贷款来融资。投资带来的生产增长将产生高于借入资金利率的回报，这是全球每家大公司的常态运作方式。关键在于确保投资项目的回报率要高于所借资金的利息。

如果一家公司通过借款投资项目，最终回报却低于支付的利息，这是借款行为本身错误吗？不是，这是因为企业选择了不当的投资项目，是商业决策出现了偏差，而不是因为公司或银行进行了借款。因此，所谓的“中国制造的债务陷阱”观点绝对是站不住脚的。

此外，美国没有将这种逻辑应用到自身。它从未反对国际货币基金组织或世界银行提供贷款。它对自己的银行业又做了什么？美国的银行是否因为向他国提供贷款而被认为是不安全的？有人呼吁美国银行停止放贷吗？这太荒谬了。

我认为，“一带一路”倡议是目前世界上最重要的发展倡议，因为它符合世界范围内“全球南方”崛起的大趋势。

购买力平价是国际货币基金组织衡量世界经济的首选方法，如果以它为标准衡量，发展中经济体的规模已经超过发达经济体。即使在经济危机期间，这一点也表现得十分明显。

尽管在绝对规模上，发展中经济体暂时还赶不上发达经济体，但它们的增长速度却相当迅猛。为什么金砖国家峰会会受到如此广泛的关注？60多个国家领导人齐聚南非，20多个国家正式申请加入金砖国家，这一现象的背后是“全球南方”的壮大，它们日益成为全球经济的关注重点。中国和印度就是其中显著的增长力量，这两个国家将在未来一段时间内贡献全球近一半的经济增长。

因此，中国希望参与“全球南方”，这是合理的选择，任何明智的实体都会寻求进入增长最迅猛的市场。

而且，“一带一路”倡议旨在实现互利共赢，中国从“全球南方”国家的快速经济增长中受益，而这些国家也从中国作为全球增长最快的主要经济体的角色中获益。这是一项共同发展的倡议，美国没有理由对此恶意揣摩和诋毁。

如果美国也能够采取更为理性的政策，将重心放在扩大与“全球南方”国家的贸易往来上，一样能获得经济增长的回报。但如果美国仍把注意力局限在增长缓慢的经济体，比如它的欧洲盟友，就难以取得亮眼的成果。

8月30日，在山东港口青岛港，“一带一路”国家的航线一派繁忙。

挑衅仍在继续

知事：路透社9月1日披露，美国政府将在下周宣布向乌克兰提供贫铀弹，将成为继英国之后第二个向乌方输送这种“毒弹”的国家。您如何看待美英等国持续向乌克兰供武的行为？

罗思义：这不是一个明智的决定，只会使情况恶化。俄乌冲突的根源在于北约东扩，俄罗斯曾多次警告美国不要这么做，一旦北约扩大到东欧，就意味着越过了俄罗斯的红线，美国应该非常清楚这一点。

1962年古巴导弹危机的前车之鉴还摆在眼前。以古巴到美国如此近的距离，美国在任何情况下都不会允许苏联在古巴部署这些导弹，即使引发核战争也在所不惜。

而基辅到莫斯科之间的距离只有哈瓦那和华盛顿之间距离的一半。如果美国当年坚持不许苏联在古巴部署导弹的原因是距离自己太近了，那它就应该明白俄罗斯在北约东扩问题上的立场。这完全是对俄罗斯的挑衅，这就是战争的起因。

此外，美国还支持对东乌克兰讲俄语人口的权利的侵犯。这个群体占全乌克兰人口的约25%，乌克兰甚至禁止他们使用俄语作为官方语言。如果同样的情况发生在加拿大，突然禁止部分人口使用法语，毫无疑问魁北克会立刻投票支持该地区独立。

西方应该采纳中国的建议，立刻停火，并解决诸如乌克兰是否加入北约等相关问题。但美国似乎并没有朝这个方向发展，这种继续向乌克兰供应武器的政策就是挑衅的继续。

2022年6月，美国军方人员在准备几枚被污染和损坏的贫铀弹。

知事：欧洲的经济受俄乌冲突的影响有多大？

罗思义：要理解这一点，必须从更广泛的欧洲形势入手。地理意义上的欧洲也包括俄罗斯，由于俄罗斯拥有巨大的国土面积和人口，它助力欧洲形成了平衡的经济体系，即西欧有高度集中的制造业，东欧有丰富的原材料。当东欧和西欧关系良好时，欧洲经济就会发展得很好。

但美国不喜欢这样，出于它自己的发展诉求，它想在东西欧之间打入楔子，制造隔阂，这给欧洲造成了实质性的伤害。

这类似于德克萨斯州和美国其他地区之间的划分。如果你把德克萨斯州赶出美国，就相当于把美国最大的石油和主要原材料供应商赶出了美国，这对美国经济是一个巨大的损害。美国分裂东西欧的政策也给欧洲经济造成了结构性损伤。

事实证明，欧洲的发展模式是灾难性的，欧洲正在经历政治制度的统一、军事联盟的枷锁和经济灾难。在过去四年里，欧洲经济几乎没有增长，俄乌冲突爆发后就更不用说了，欧洲的经济状况雪上加霜。

相比之下，亚洲存在着另一种已被证明有效的模式。在东亚，各种各样的政治体制可以并存，没有人想在东亚推动政体统一或试图建立如北约一般的军事集团。尽管东亚也经历过二战、冷战时期的多次大战，但该地区已经从冲突走向和平，成为世界上经济发展最快的地区。

因此，除非欧洲采取措施摆脱美国的影响，否则情况不太可能有明显改善。

文中图源：视觉中国

以下为英文版采访原文：

The John Ross Interview: "China Will Not Be Fooled"

Recently, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the UK, James Cleverly, concluded his one-day visit to China. Despite its short duration, the trip was packed with activities.

According to reports from Xinhua News Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, on August 30th, Vice President Han Zheng and Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs, separately met with Cleverly.

With the UK Foreign Secretary visiting China after a five-year hiatus, has there been a thaw in Sino-UK relations? Why has the UK's policy towards China been so changeable? Given the revelations about the UK conducting background checks on companies' 'sensitive' investments, does this imply alignment with the United States in restraining China's development in fields like semiconductors? Can we still trust the goodwill signals being sent by the UK government?

Capital News, in collaboration with RDCY, has launched the "Global Governance Talk" section. John Ross, former director of Department of Economic and Business Policy of the Mayor London and Senior Fellow at RDCY, shared his views with us on topics such as Sino-UK relaions and the impact of the Belt and Road Initiative.

GLOBAL ECONOMY

Capital News: I'm sure that you have heard of the new regulations announced by US President Biden on August 9th, which prohibit private equity and venture capital firms from investing in China's high-tech sectors such as quantum computing, AI and advanced semiconductors. How do you perceive the reasons behind and the consequences of this ?

John Ross: This seems to be another attempt by the United States to slow down China's economy. I mean the challenge for the United States lies in the fact that China's socialist market economy is growing at a much faster rate than that of the United States. Over the last four years, in terms of total GDP growth, China's economy has grown 2.5 times faster than that of the United States.

However, this actually somewhat understates China's rapid growth in productivity and potential improvements in living standards. The comparison becomes more accurate when considering per capita terms, which provides a better indication of the overall productivity of the economy and the potential to enhance living standards. In this context, China's economy is growing over three times faster than that of the United States. This poses a significant challenge for the United States, which struggles to accelerate its own economic growth. Hence, it appears the U.S. is attempting to hinder China's progress.

President Xi eloquently articulated this in his speech during the BRICS meeting, stating that some country, obsessed with maintaining its hegemony, has gone out of its way to cripple the EMDCs. Whoever is developing fast becomes its target of containment; whoever is catching up becomes its target of obstruction. But this is futile. Blowing out others’ lamp will not bring light to oneself– a sentiment that is indeed accurate. If you put out the lamp of various people in the room, the whole situation becomes darker. In essence, the United States' actions are causing damage to global economic growth.

It's not really succeeding in slowing down China significantly. It creates some problems in specific sectors, but it's not greatly slowing down China's economy. But it's having very negative consequences for the world economy, because if you follow the United States, you suffer damage.

Britain suffered serious damage by going to cut itself off from China and has got its economy into a right mess. This is also the present situation in Europe. the United States policy in Europe has been a disaster. The whole expansion of NATO, the United States model for Europe, which is that everybody should have the same political system, presidential or parliamentary type system on the western model, combined with the military block has been a total disaster in Europe. We got from this slow growth, high inflation, and the biggest war going on since World War II. This policy has proven to be disastrous.

Furthermore, the biggest impact seems to be borne by U.S. allies, not China. By restricting companies from countries like South Korea, Japan, or the Netherlands from exporting to China, the world's largest chip markets, the United States is also inflicting damage on its allies.

The more important is that, United States will cut itself off from the world's most important markets and advanceesin AI, chips, etc. Because China is absolutely one of the leading countries in the world in these areas, notably AI, and the U.S. might be undermining its own interests in this process – a situation best described as ‘cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'.

Capital News: But we found that the U.S. government believes that although de-risking strategy may reduce efficiency, adhering to restrictions on sensitive products will mitigate the harm caused by lowered efficiency. Moreover, it believes that incurring additional costs is deemed worthwhile, as it enhances U.S. security. Will the U.S. blockade of China in the high-tech sector truly lead to greater security for itself?

John Ross: This is absolute nonsense. That policy has got nothing to do with security.

I perfectly well understand that the United States will not allow companies to export missiles or supply tanks to China– such actions would indeed be reasonable restrictions. China is not trying to buy them. However, the examples I'm referring to are different in nature. Take the case of the Android operating system on mobile phones – the United States banned Huawei from using it. Why does the U.S. want to do this? Because Huawei is becoming one of the world's largest manufacturing of mobile phones. Is the security of the United States truly dependent on the Android system in mobile phones? This is absolutely laughable. The real motivation behind such actions has nothing to do with U.S. security concerns. Instead, it's about attempting to damage highly successful Chinese telecommunications companies.

But the problem for the United States is that China isn't limited to just one successful company. China now boasts numerous prosperous companies, and it's becoming increasingly expensive for the U.S. to consistently impose restrictions.

This becomes evident in cases like TikTok. Previously, the U.S. propagated the idea that China lacks creativity and cannot develop brands – that it can only assemble others' products for export. However, TikTok has surged to become the world's most visited website, with around 120 million Americans having it installed on their phones.

Although many of the most visited websites in the U.S. are Chinese, let's focus on TikTok.

Someone at Bloomberg summed up the U.S.'s predicament aptly: they want to ban TikTok. But picking a fight with an app present on 120 million phones may lead to unintended losses. While the U.S. has made threats against TikTok, it hasn't taken extensive actions against it so far.

Most of the United States’ actions – like the attacks on TikTok, Huawei, or even the Android mobile operating system – have little to do with national security. Instead, they are just attempts to slow down China's companies, that's all.

Capital News: Do you think the United States can really reduce its reliance on China?

John Ross: Not very much, probably a bit around the edges, but it will pay a significant price for doing so.

The predicament arises for several reasons:

Firstly, such measures would lead to higher prices for American consumers, thus adversely affecting their well-being.

Secondly, American companies don't really want it. The current policy pursued by the United States, including economic sanctions, seems to be at odds with the interests of the vast majority of US enterprises. They know perfectly that China is the most rapidly growing economy in the world, making it an appealing and swiftly expanding market. These companies aspire to engage with China. Unfortunately, the stance taken by the United States involves placing hurdles in their path.

An additional challenge faced by the United States relates to insufficient investment, particularly in infrastructure. Before the recent shift in U.S. policy initiated under the Trump administration towards China, many individuals within the United States, including political figures and state governors, recognized this issue. There was a trend of U.S. state governors visiting China to encourage investments in the establishment of factories within their respective regions and seeking investments for their states.

Now they've been warned off from that, leading to diminished investments. As a result, the United States is now confronted with a situation where the the cooperation with China's top-tier infrastructure companies is reduced.

In reality, China's infrastructure companies have established themselves as global leaders due to their extensive track record in successfully developing infrastructure projects. In contrast, the United States has lagged behind both in terms of the strength of its infrastructure companies and its commitment to infrastructure development over several decades.

So, the answer is, no. The United States will not really succeed in doing this. While It will probably succeed in severing ties in specific high-tech sectors, a comprehensive disentanglement is unlikely.

Capital News: Since we're discussing the U.S. containment of China's high-tech industry, we've also noticed a similar trend recently in the United Kingdom. According to reports of POLITICO, British firms are asked if they have invested in a list of 17 areas — covering everything from advanced materials and robotics to synthetic biology. Department for Business and Trade (DBT) officials have told companies that — like the Biden administration — the U.K. will curb investment into China's semiconductor, artificial intelligence and quantum computing technology. The same business representative said that the survey “looks like a kind of embryonic form of a new, very difficult export control mechanism”. Have you heard about this news? How do you view the investigation being conducted by the British government? Does the UK intend to follow the United States in restraining China's development in same areas such as semiconductors?

John Ross: Unfortunately, yes. Britain has indeed been closely following the United States in this regard. Very, very faithfully. The result of which has been enormous damage inflicted upon the British economy. It's terrible. The economic condition of Britain is awful – over the last four years, we've experienced a meager 0% per capita GDP growth, a paltry 0.1% increase in overall GDP, and a decline in real wages.

In fact, using Britain as a cautionary example is quite effective. It's a very good negative lesson of what not to do. The British economy has borne a heavy cost for aligning itself with the United States. Unfortunately, Britain will continue to follow this deeply damaging policy. Because it appears that the dominant circles within Britain are committed to mirroring whatever decisions the United States makes, even if it comes at a significant cost to their own well-being – as demonstrated by the pursuit of Brexit.

I don't see any sign of a shift in their stance. However, it's important to note that while Britain's impact on China might be limited due to its size, the damage it inflicts upon itself remains significant.

Capital News: We remember that, in 2015, Britain used to be China’s “best partner in the west.” It had become a founding member of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, against American opposition. From 2020 onward, however, Britain transformed itself from China’s best partner in Europe to its harshest critic, sweeping away decades of foreign-policy consensus in the most drastic such shift in the Western world. Since Rishi Sunak formally became UK's new prime minister, the UK's policy towards China had become notably tougher. However, there has been a recent shift in this stance. Two days ago, the UK Government officials have reportedly been told not to use the term “hostile state” by the Foreign Office in case it upsets China. The move is understood, according to the report, to help improve relations with China via diplomacy. How do you assess the UK government's policy towards China and its frequent changes? Can China trust the goodwill signals emitted by the UK government?

John Ross: China is quite mature enough to judge people based on their actions rather than their words. In this context, the absence of the term "hostile" in statements will have no meaningful impact on China-UK relations. What truly matters is whether the UK modifies its actions. And I'm afraid its actions have been far from friendly and have led to significant repercussions. The issues between Britain and China weren't originated by China; it's important to note that the situation isn't just about China's relations with Britain.

Allow me to clarify an assumption that some in China made after the Brexit vote. They speculated that Britain's exit from the European Union would lead to a stronger friendship with China. I said sorry, you're quite wrong. You're only looking at the word, not the reality that was behind Brexit.

Britain's economy is too small to pursue an independent course. It's between two of  world's largest economic blocs, the United States and Europe. And the idea that Britain can achieve complete independence from either of these spheres is complete nonsense. It's either a part of the European sphere or it's part of the U.S. sphere. The meaning of Brexit was that the Britain decided to be less part of the European sphere and more part of the U.S. sphere. And once Britain decided to become more part of the U.S. sphere, it would follow what the United States did.

So, the Brexit decision doesn't imply that Britain will be more favorably disposed toward China. On the contrary, Brexit reflects a shift towards aligning more closely with the United States and thus, adopting a stance that tends to be less accommodating to China.

And I think recent events have substantiated this viewpoint. Britain's actions and policies haven't fundamentally changed and are unlikely to do so unless it decides to break free from its subservience to the United States. While there might be some tactical shifts for appearance's sake, because Britain is paying a very, very severe price for its bad relations with China, the core attitude towards China won't significantly change unless Britain is willing to detach itself from U.S. Influence.

Capital News: British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has just concluded his visit to China. How do you assess Cleverly's trip?

John Ross: It appears that he might attempt to use diplomatic language and maneuvers to create an illusion, hoping to persuade China that Britain is pursuing a more independent policy, etc.  But it is not the truth. Cosmetic changes in language or attempts to present a facade of pursuing an independent policy won't hold water with China. China possesses the capability to discern whether actions align with words or not.

So, I imagine that this visit will yield minimal results and have little impact. China, as a serious and discerning country, assesses nations based on their actions rather than mere rhetoric.  Unless the UK is willing to alter its policies and halt actions such as banning Huawei, meddling in Hong Kong, and engaging in the fields of high technology boycotts, there won't be a notable improvement in relations.

Given this context, the Foreign Minister's intentions to utilize diplomatic efforts to create a façade are unlikely to bear fruit. China won't easily be swayed by such tactics.

So, I don't foresee this trip being particularly successful in altering the trajectory of China-UK relations.

Capital News: As Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointed out during his meeting with Cleverly, "Sino-UK relations are at a strategic crossroads." Chinese people believe in the principle of "actions speak louder than words," so we eagerly await to see how the UK will follow through with its actions in the coming days.

Belt and Road Initiative

Capital News: What is your overall impression of the Belt and Road Initiative?

John Ross: I think it's the most important development initiative taking place in the world because it fits into the general trend that is occurring worldwide and China's specific ability to play a role in it.

The general trend is that the so-called Global South economies, the developing economies, are growing significantly more rapidly than advanced capitalist economies. According to projections by the IMF, 70 % of world economic growth in the next 5 years is going to take place in the developing countries based on PurchasingPower Parities (PPPs). Even if you take it at current exchange rates, 55 % of the world's economic growth will take place in developing countries.

The first overall global trend is the development which is taking place in the Global South. Within this trend, China is the most important and largest developing economy in the Global South, and it has some very great advantages to contribute to this situation. First, it has a rapidly growing economy. Second, it boasts the world's most efficient infrastructure companies due to its extensive experience in infrastructure development. Third, it holds substantial foreign exchange reserves that can be deployed outside of China to provide assistance. And therefore, this gives a new model of the way that the economy can develop.

I know that the Belt and Road Initiative is not formally confined to Global South countries, but it primarily involves participation from Global South countries. If we examine the overall trend of the world economy, where the Global South experiences much more rapid growth than the Global North, and then consider the specific contributions China can make, it becomes evident that this initiative is the most significant ongoing development effort in the world.

Capital News:  A few years ago, the British political sphere expressed multiple times the desire to participate in the "Belt and Road" initiative. At that time, the British Ambassador to China, Sebastian Wood, indicated that given the significance of the regions along the "Belt and Road" to the global economy, promoting economic growth in those areas aligned with the interests of all parties. The UK hoped to witness economic cooperation and connectivity between China and the UK based on the "Belt and Road" construction. Why hasn't the UK joined the "Belt and Road" initiative yet? What considerations are involved?

John Ross: I'm afraid that since those statements were made, Britain's economic policies have taken a disastrous turn. I mean the last 7 years have been marked by failure after failure. If we look at the period since 2019, especially the latest phase since the pandemic, Britain's economic results are absolutely terrible.

The general GDP growth rate is 0.1% per year, and both its actual per capita GDP and average growth are zero. That means the only increase, which is 0.1% of GDP, has simply come from the expansion of the population. This is an absolutely disastrous track record, and Britain's economy has gone off the rails in a whole series of ways.

The first issue was the decision for Brexit, which was completely irrational and greatly against Britain's interests. Secondly, there was the reversal in policies towards China.

When Cameron was the Prime Minister, before the Brexit referendum,, there was a so-called golden period with China. He understood the logical complementarity between the British and Chinese economies, which is that Britain possesses one of the world's only two international financial centers– London and New York. This is a significant advantage.

On the other hand, Britain is now weak in manufacturing industries and so on，while China is the world's largest industrial and manufacturing center. Chinese companies aiming to go international often choose Europe, and Britain, especially London, offered a series of advantages. Firstly, it has an international financial center, which makes operations for Chinese companies smoother. Secondly, English is the foreign language most commonly learned by Chinese people, so there's a larger pool of Chinese individuals who can work effectively in Britain compared to other European countries like France, Germany, or Spain. And therefore this was greatly advantageous for Britain.

However, after this period, Britain's economies and policies have completely gone off the rails. It happened for one simple reason – its determination to subordinate itself to the United States.

Britain wanted to get out of the European Union because important figures in the United States supported Brexit. For instance, Trump wanted Brexit to weaken the European Union. So, in order to accommodate itself to the United States, Britain left the European Union，which turned out to be a disaster. But the United States didn't even offer Britain a free trade deal because that would have damaged the U.S. So, Britain essentially shot itself in the foot by leaving Europe and received nothing in return from the United States. Similarly, Britain adopted a very anti-China stance to appease the United States. That's why it distanced itself from any involvement in the Belt and Road Initiative.

Banning Huawei from participating in the 5G network in Britain was also a big setback. Unfortunately, this disastrous policy which has been carried out on all fronts by Britain, resulting in negative outcomes across all sectors. The decisions have made Britain overly reliant on the United States and have brought about terrible economic situation in Britain.

Capital News:  We have noticed that the United States has implemented a series of anti-China policies in recent years, and views the BRI as China's ideological expansion and geopolitical competition, using economic interests as bait. How do you perceive the United States' criticism and negative portrayal of the BRI?

John Ross: This is completely stupid policy as viewed by the United States. China hasn't set out any attack against the United States, nor have I noticed any aggressive actions taken by China against the United States. Instead, what I have observed are numerous aggressive economic actions taken by the United States against China– such as imposing tariffs. China did not initially impose tariffs on the United States, but the Trump administration introduced tariffs against China, and unfortunately, the Biden administration has not yet removed them. Now, this is proving to be very costly for American households.

Well-regarded estimates, such as those from Oxford Economics, which has got nothing to do with China, indicate that the complete set of tariffs will burden the average American household with an additional $800 in expenses per year.  And this is a situation in which real wages in the United States has been growing extremely slowly for the last 44 years, with an average annual increase of just 0.3 %, which is tiny. And in actual fact, in several years, real wages in the United States have even declined.

Given the ongoing situation of rapid inflation in the United States – the highest in 40 years – the imposition of tariffs on goods imported from China only exacerbates the problem further. This is aggression on the part of the United States.

Moreover, the United States is actively attempting to ban exports of chips to China. This strategy is causing damage to all sorts of chips companies around the world, and the American business community isn’t particularly supportive of it. After all, China operates the largest markets for chips in the world due to its status as a significant manufacturing hub. This move by the United States is anything but logical. I've yet to notice China initiating such steps against the United States.

Thus, the assertion that China is carrying out aggression against the United States just won't stand up even on the economic field. The reality is that the aggressive policy is being pursued by the United States against China.

Regarding the BRI, this is a strategic approach for China that makes perfect sense. China wants to involve itself with Global South economy, a region experiencing more rapid growth than the advanced economies. This is a logical choice, as any sensible entity would seek to tap into the fastest-growing market segments rather than stagnant ones.

The Belt and Road Initiative is a mutual benefit – it's a win-win situation. China benefits from the Global South's faster economic expansion, and the economies of the Global South benefit from China's role as the world's fastest-growing major economy. This initiative is about mutual growth. It's got nothing to do with opposing the United States.

If the United States were to adopt a more rational policy, it would focus on expanding trade with the Global South to also reap the rewards of their burgeoning development. But if the United States aims to concentrate economic growth within its own borders and among its closest allies, such as Europe, it should be aware that these economies are experiencing sluggish growth. Naturally, concentrating efforts on economies with slow growth rates is unlikely to yield positive outcomes.

Therefore, the United States' claim that China's actions are aggressive is absolutely stupid. What the U.S. trying to do is attempting to reverse the general trend in the world economy, but it has been largely unsuccessful in doing so.

This only reveals the folly of U.S. policies, which are causing harm to itself. This has nothing to do with China; rather, the root of the problem lies in Washington, not Beijing.

Capital News: We have noticed that the United States accuses the Initiative of pushing countries along its route into a "debt trap." What your opinion regarding to the “debt trap,” do you think the Initiative pushing countries along its route into a "debt trap"?

John Ross: I think this is one of the most stupid economic arguments I've ever heard.

When examining the development of any company, it becomes clear that no company can fund all of its investments solely from its cash flow – it's simply not feasible. If  it werethe case that companies must not borrow, every company would remain small in scale. Many companies adopt a logical strategy: they secure loans to finance their investments. Their calculation is based on the understanding that the growth in production resulting from these investments will generate returns higher than the interest rate on the borrowed funds. This is how every single major company in the world operates.

Imagine if the United States were to propose to every country globally and to all American companies that they must eliminate borrowing. The U.S. economy would be wrecked. Any CEO of an American company would outright reject such a proposition. Instead, it's understood that borrowing is often necessary. The key lies in selecting projects that will yield returns greater than the interest paid on the borrowed funds.  That's just a normal commercial decision.

If a company borrows money  to invest in projects and the resulting returns are lower than the interest paid, the problem stems from selecting the wrong project, not from the mere act of borrowing itself. So, the so-called “debt trap made by China” is an absolutely ridiculous type of argument.

Also, the U.S. doesn't even apply this logic to itself. It has never objected to the IMF or World Bank providing loans. What is it doing about American banks? Are they considered unsafe due to all the lending they facilitate? Has there been a call for American banks to halt lending? This is absolutely ridiculous.

This is one really, I can't emphasize enough how utterly stupid this perspective is. The notion that borrowing money is inherently wrong is baseless. The crux of the matter is ensuring that borrowed funds are invested wisely. If an investment turns out poorly and doesn't yield profits, it's because of a misguided business decision regarding the project chosen, not because the company or bank borrowed money.

Capital News: Looking ahead to the next decade, how do you think the Belt and Road Initiative will evolve? What are your recommendations for the development of the Belt and Road Initiative?

John Ross: I think that it will continue to strengthen. Because the development of the Global South, as a rapidly growing part of the world economy, is set to gain more momentum.

When viewed in terms of PPPs, the measurement method preferred by the IMF to gauge the world economy, developing economies are  already larger than advanced economies in size. This is evident even during market crises.

Although developing economies might not yet match the advanced economies in sheer size, if measured at current exchange rates, their rate of expansion is significantly more rapid. This phenomenon is exemplified by the considerable interest surrounding the BRICS summit. Why is there such widespread attention? Why have around 60 countries been invited to the BRICS summit, and why have over 20 countries formally applied to join BRICS? Why is this taking place? This interest stems from the fact that the Global South is outpacing the growth of the global North – the advanced capitalist nations. This trend is going to continue and strengthen.

To illustrate, considering the cases of China and India alone, they are expected to contribute to nearly half of the world's economic growth in the coming period. This trend extends to many other countries as well.

The BRI is profoundly aligned with this trajectory. Through strategic infrastructure investments, it offers a logical approach to fostering the growth of Global South economies. Given that these economies often face capital shortages but possess abundant labor resources and high growth rates, such investments are highly advantageous to them.

As a result, the BRI is slated to further strengthen over the next decade. It seamlessly dovetails into the predominant trajectory of the world economy.

Russian special military operations

Capital News: Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Western countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have been consistently supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine. Do you consider continuing to provide military support to Ukraine a wise decision? Are there risks of further escalating the situation?

John Ross: It’s not a wise decision, and it exacerbates the situation. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has its roots in the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and Ukraine.

The majority of experts in Russia warned the United States not to expand NATO into eastern Europe. They said that the decision to expand NATO into these regions crossed a red line for Russia, the United States should be able to understand it very clearly.

Let's go back to the time of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Given the proximity of Cuba to the United States, the U.S. was not willing to allow the Soviet Union to deploy missiles in Cuba under any circumstances, no matter if it is necessary to have a world nuclear war to stop it. Now, the distance between Kiev and Moscow is only half the distance between Havana and Washington. If the United States were to say that we are not going to have Soviet missiles in Cuba, because they're too close, you can imagine what Russia's position would be on the question of NATO in Ukraine. This was a total provocation, and that's what created the war.

Therefore, the continuation of this policy of supplying weapons is just a continuation of this situation. They are part of the U.S. policies. The war has also slowed down the European economy. We now get high inflation and high gas prices amidst a big war. This is an absolutely disastrous policy that has been pursued and won't come to a stop until the United States refrains from its attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Another point is that within Ukraine, the United States supports various actions against the rights of the Russian-speaking population. This group constitutes a significant portion, approximately 25%, of the country's population, and Russian is their first language. Ukraine even bans them from using Russian as an official language.

Allow me to draw a comparison with Canada. Canada has a strict bilingual policy; both French and English are used across the country. If, hypothetically, they banned the use of the French language, there's no doubt that French speaking Quebec would have voted for independence.

The United States' policy in Ukraine has been an absolute disaster, a catastrophe for Europe. The supply of weapons is merely a continuation of this trend. Instead, what should be done aligns with China's proposal. A ceasefire should be established, and the pertinent issues, such as Ukraine's involvement in military alliances, should be addressed. The focus should shift towards the absence of Ukraine from military blocs. Furthermore, the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine should be discussed at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield.

However, the United States does not appear to be moving in this direction. At the moment, things are not progressing well for the U.S., as the Ukrainian offensive seems to be leading nowhere.

Capital News: After one year of fighting, Western countries have imposed a series of alternating sanctions on Russia. In response, Russia has implemented counter-sanctions. What impact do these sanctions have on the stability of global economic development and trade?

John Ross: But their impact isn't significant on a global scale due to the majority of countries in the world refusing to go along with the U.S. sanctions. About 85% of the world's population resides in nations that have refused to enact U.S. sanctions. These sanctions are, in practice, only being enforced by a handful of the United States' closest allies. The majority of other countries are choosing not to cooperate, which even includes some traditional allies of the United States.

Unfortunately, the sanctions are having a notably acute effect in specific sectors. For instance, they have hit the agricultural and fertilizer industries hard.  Because Russia is the largest global supplier of fertilizers, and both Russia and Ukraine are significant exporters of agricultural goods. Therefore, the repercussions are being felt in terms of food supplies, particularly in regions such as Africa and some developing countries, and it's here that the negative effects of the U.S. sanctions are most apparent.

In terms of the broader world economy, the U.S. sanctions aren't yielding substantial consequences due to the widespread refusal by most nations to implement sanctions.

Capital News: Has Europe’s economy been affected by the Russia-Ukraine conflict? How badly has the war hit Europe’s economy?

John Ross: The impact has been profoundly negative, both in the short term and from a strategic standpoint. To comprehend this, it's important to consider the broader situation of Europe. If we define Europe in its broader geographical sense, which includes Russia, with its significant size and population, it forms a balanced economic system, although not uniformly distributed. Western Europe has a strong concentration of manufacturing industries, while Eastern Europe and particularly Russia is rich in raw materials – somewhat akin to the division between Texas and the rest of the United States, if you want to put it that way.

When good relations exist between Eastern and Western Europe, the European economy does very well. But the United States doesn't like that. For its own reasons,  it wanted to drive a wedge between the two regions, which has inflicted substantial harm on Europe.

If you took Texas out of the United States, then you take out its biggest oil suppliers and primary raw materials, this is a huge damage to the U.S. economy. The United States’ policy to split western and Eastern Europe has also caused structural damage to the European economy.

Moreover, the immediate consequences of the conflict, such as elevated natural gas prices, have compounded the negative effects.

Over the last four years, the European economy has barely grown, particularly since the initiation of the Ukraine war. This contributes to the broader disaster that the United States has effectively imposed upon Europe.

In Asia, there exists an alternative model that has proven effective. Look at the situation in Asia. A diverse array of political regimes coexists, including socialism in China and Vietnam, monarchies like Thailand. There are all sorts of republics. Nobody is pushing for political uniformity or attempting to create military blocs there. While the United States is attempting, but almost nobody will go along with it.

Despite the historical backdrop of major wars during the Cold War era, East Asia has transitioned from conflict to peace and has become the world's most rapidly developing economic region. This is achieved not by imposing political uniformity or military blocs, but through peaceful economic development.

Unless Europe takes steps to regain its independence from U.S. influence, it's unlikely that the situation will improve significantly.

来源：长安街知事 | 记者 刘晓琰