11月21日，马来西亚最著名的英文报纸The Star（《星报》）正式开设了全球第一个英文报纸“人类命运共同体”主题专栏“On A Shared Future”，发表了中国传媒大学人类命运共同体研究院院长李怀亮教授的文章Who Won the Trade Wars？（“谁赢得了贸易战？”）。

这是中国传媒大学与马来西亚拉曼大学共建的人类命运共同体东盟研究中心继与百年华文报纸《星洲日报》（Sin Chew Daily）共同合作专栏后，探索在国外传播人类命运共同体理念的全新创举。以下转载全文。

WHO WON THE TRADE WARS?

Li Huailiang

For nearly half a decade, the U.S.-China trade war has unfolded like a costly, self-defeating drama, with neither side emerging unscathed. Mr. Robert Guest , Deputy editor of The Economist, said “ China is winning” the trade wars. The Economist’s observation that “China is winning” overlooks a far more critical truth: in a global economy woven together by supply chains, technological collaboration, and shared markets, trade wars do not produce victors—only casualties. From American farmers losing access to China’s billion-strong consumer base to Chinese manufacturers grappling with tariffs on key components, the damage has rippled outward, destabilizing global value chains and eroding the very liberal trading order that once fueled decades of global prosperity. What the world truly needs is not a “winner” between nations, but a triumph for humanity—one where fair trade rules, mutual benefit, and collective growth take precedence over zero-sum rivalry.

The myth of a “winning side” in trade wars collapses under the weight of economic reality. When the U.S. imposed tariffs on over $360 billion worth of Chinese goods starting in 2018, it claimed the measures would protect domestic industries and reduce the trade deficit. Instead, American businesses and consumers bore the brunt: a 2022 study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that U.S. households paid an average of $1,277 more annually for goods due to the tariffs, while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) reliant on Chinese inputs faced soaring production costs. Farmers, once a pillar of U.S. export strength, saw soybean sales to China plummet by 74% in 2018, forcing the U.S. government to allocate over $28 billion in bailout funds to offset losses—hardly a sign of “winning.”

China, too, has felt the pain. Tariffs on Chinese tech products disrupted access to U.S. semiconductors and software, temporarily slowing the growth of its high-tech sector. Exporters of consumer goods, from electronics to textiles, faced shrinking profit margins as they absorbed tariffs or lost market share to competitors in Vietnam, Mexico, or India. Yet framing this as a “loss” for China misses the point: the trade war has not been a contest to outlast one another, but a mutual drain on resources that could have been invested in innovation, infrastructure, or addressing global challenges like climate change. Both nations have spent billions shoring up industries affected by tariffs, diverting capital from areas that would have delivered long-term prosperity for their citizens.

The greatest casualties of the trade war, however, are not nations—but the global supply chains and vulnerable economies that depend on predictable, rules-based trade. For decades, the world relied on a system where components crossed borders multiple times: a smartphone might have chips from Taiwan, batteries from China, and assembly in Vietnam before reaching U.S. shelves. The trade war shattered this predictability. Multinational corporations were forced to restructure supply chains at enormous cost, often relocating production to avoid tariffs—a process that displaced workers in developing countries and raised prices for consumers worldwide. Small economies, in particular, were caught in the crossfire: countries like Malaysia, which supplies 70% of the world’s semiconductor packaging materials, saw export growth slow as demand from China and the U.S. wavered. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that the trade war reduced global GDP by 0.8% in 2020, a loss of over $700 billion—resources that could have lifted millions out of poverty or funded COVID-19 relief efforts.

This is why the narrative of “winning” a trade war is not just flawed, but dangerous. It reduces complex global interdependence to a simplistic contest of strength, ignoring the fact that every tariff, export restriction, or trade barrier harms real people: the American factory worker laid off when their company loses a Chinese contract, the Chinese farmer struggling to sell produce to the U.S., the Kenyan entrepreneur waiting for delayed tech imports to start a business. What the world needs instead is a victory for fair trade rules—rules that prioritize transparency over protectionism, mutual benefit over coercion, and shared growth over unilateral advantage.

Fair trade rules are not about “letting one side win,” but about creating a level playing field where all nations, large and small, can thrive. This means reforming institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address longstanding grievances—such as use of tariffs as a political tool—without abandoning the core principle of non-discrimination. It means rejecting “weaponization” of trade policy, and instead building resilient supply chains that benefit multiple countries. For example, a collaborative approach to semiconductor production—with the U.S. focusing on design, Taiwan on manufacturing, and China on assembly—could lower costs for consumers and reduce the risk of conflict over tech dominance.

Most importantly, a “world win” requires nations to recognize that global challenges—climate change, poverty, pandemics—cannot be solved through trade wars. The transition to renewable energy, for instance, needs China’s manufacturing capacity for solar panels, the  U.S.’s innovation in battery tech, and developing countries’ access to affordable green energy. A trade war that blocks technology sharing or raises costs for renewable goods slows progress for everyone, condemning future generations to a warmer planet.

The U.S.-China trade war has shown that there are no winners in zero-sum conflicts. The Economist’s focus on which nation is “winning” distracts from the far more urgent task: rebuilding a global trading system that works for humanity. This will not be easy—it requires compromise, trust, and a rejection of nationalist rhetoric that frames other nations as enemies. But the alternative is clear: more tariffs, more supply chain chaos, more poverty, and a world where no one truly thrives.

Let us stop asking “who is winning?” and start asking “how can we all win?” Let us work to strengthen fair trade rules, support vulnerable economies, and prioritize collective growth over individual gain. When the world wins, America wins, China wins, and every person—from the farmer in Iowa to the entrepreneur in Shenzhen to the child in Kenya—wins. That is the victory we should all be fighting for.

谁赢得了贸易战？

李怀亮

近五年来，美中贸易战如同一出代价高昂、得不偿失的闹剧徐徐展开，双方均未能全身而退。《经济学人》副主编罗伯特・格斯特先生称 “中国正在赢得” 这场贸易战。但该刊这一 “中国获胜” 的论断，却忽视了一个更为关键的事实：在这个由供应链、技术协作和共同市场交织而成的全球经济中，贸易战没有赢家，只有受害者。从失去中国十亿级消费市场的美国农民，到苦苦应对关键零部件关税的中国制造商，其破坏效应不断向外扩散，既动摇了全球价值链的稳定，也侵蚀了曾推动全球数十年繁荣的自由贸易秩序。世界真正需要的，并非国家间的 “胜负之分”，而是人类的共同胜利 —— 让公平贸易规则、互利共赢与集体发展凌驾于零和博弈之上。

贸易战存在 “胜负方” 的说法，在经济现实面前不堪一击。2018 年起，美国对价值超3600 亿美元的中国商品加征关税，声称此举将保护本国产业并减少贸易逆差。然而，最终承受冲击的却是美国企业与消费者：彼得森国际经济研究所2022 年的一项研究显示，关税导致美国家庭年均多支出1277 美元购买商品，而依赖中国输入品的中小企业则面临生产成本飙升的困境。曾是美国出口支柱的农民群体，2018 年对华大豆销售额暴跌74%，迫使美国政府拨付逾280 亿美元救助资金以弥补损失 —— 这绝非 “获胜” 的迹象。

中国同样遭受了冲击。针对中国科技产品的关税阻碍了其对美国半导体和软件的获取，暂时放缓了高科技产业的发展速度。从电子产品到纺织品等消费品出口商，要么自行承担关税成本，要么被越南、墨西哥或印度的竞争对手抢占市场份额，利润空间不断压缩。但将这定义为中国的 “失败” 却偏离了核心：贸易战并非一场比谁更能持久的竞赛，而是对本可投入创新、基础设施建设或应对气候变化等全球挑战的资源的双向消耗。两国均投入数十亿美元扶持受关税影响的产业，将资本从能为国民带来长期繁荣的领域转移开来。

然而，贸易战最大的受害者并非特定国家，而是依赖可预测、基于规则贸易的全球供应链和脆弱经济体。数十年来，世界依赖着一套商品组件多次跨境流通的体系：一部智能手机的芯片可能来自中国台湾，电池产自中国内地，组装在越南完成，最终销往美国市场。贸易战打破了这种可预测性。跨国公司被迫耗费巨资重组供应链，往往为规避关税而迁移产能 —— 这一过程导致发展中国家工人失业，同时推高了全球消费者的购买成本。尤其是小型经济体被卷入战火：例如供应全球70% 半导体封装材料的马来西亚，随着中美需求波动，出口增长陷入停滞。国际货币基金组织（IMF）估计，2020 年贸易战导致全球GDP 下降0.8%，损失超过7000 亿美元 —— 这些资源本可帮助数百万人口脱贫或为新冠疫情救助提供资金支持。

这正是 “赢得贸易战” 这一叙事不仅存在缺陷、而且具有危险性的原因。它将复杂的全球相互依存关系简化为一场单纯的实力较量，忽视了每一项关税、出口限制或贸易壁垒都会伤害真实的个体：因公司失去中国合同而失业的美国工厂工人、难以向美国出售农产品的中国农民、等待延迟交付的科技产品以启动业务的肯尼亚创业者。相反，世界需要的是公平贸易规则的胜利 —— 这些规则应将透明度置于保护主义之上，将互利共赢置于胁迫施压之上，将共同发展置于单边优势之上。

公平贸易规则并非要 “让某一方获胜”，而是要创造一个所有国家无论大小都能蓬勃发展的公平竞争环境。这意味着改革世界贸易组织（WTO）等机构，解决长期存在的不满 —— 例如将关税用作政治工具等问题 —— 同时不放弃非歧视的核心原则；意味着拒绝贸易政策的 “武器化”，转而构建惠及多国的韧性供应链。例如，半导体生产的协作模式 —— 美国专注于设计、中国台湾负责制造、中国内地承担组装 —— 不仅能降低消费者成本，还能减少因科技主导权引发的冲突风险。

最重要的是，“世界共赢” 要求各国认识到，气候变化、贫困、疫情等全球挑战无法通过贸易战解决。以向可再生能源转型为例，这需要中国的太阳能电池板制造产能、美国的电池技术创新，以及发展中国家获得可负担的绿色能源的机会。阻碍技术共享或推高可再生能源产品成本的贸易战，会减缓全人类的进步步伐，将子孙后代推向一个变暖的地球。

美中贸易战已证明，零和博弈中没有赢家。《经济学人》执着于争论哪个国家 “获胜”，却分散了对更紧迫任务的关注：重建一个为人类服务的全球贸易体系。这绝非易事 —— 它需要妥协、信任，以及摒弃将其他国家视为敌人的民族主义言论。但替代方案的后果显而易见：更多关税、更多供应链混乱、更多贫困，以及一个无人能真正实现繁荣的世界。

让我们停止追问 “谁在赢？”，转而思考 “我们如何才能共赢？”。让我们共同努力强化公平贸易规则，支持脆弱经济体，将集体发展置于个体利益之上。当世界获胜时，美国会获胜，中国会获胜，每一个人 —— 从爱荷华州的农民到深圳的创业者，再到肯尼亚的孩童 —— 都会获胜。这才是我们所有人都应为之奋斗的胜利目标。