Trade Is a Two-Way Street
Remember in the late '80s when the Japanese bought a majority interest in Rockefeller Center? There was great fear that they would end up controlling the U.S., as well as a public outcry not to let them buy a symbol of New York and America. It turned out that it was a good sale for the American owners. Now we have a Chinese company talking about (to some, threatening) to purchase Unocal. There is an outcry that a foreign company will control one of our energy producers, potentially driving up the price of oil and starting an insidious invasion of our energy supply. Many forget that several U.S. companies have made large investments in China -- often much bigger than the $18.5 billion proposed by the China National Offshore Oil Company.
Chevron worries that if the deal is completed with Cnooc, oil might come off the international market and go directly to China. In their view it would raise the price for other oil on the U.S. and international markets. I can understand Chevron's position, but it is not entirely objective. I share its other concern that competing against Cnooc is unfair because the Chinese government would be subsidizing the bid through zero-interest bearing bonds. But U.S. businesses face difficult subsidized competition around the world, including Italy's steel industry and, of course, Airbus, subsidized by much of Europe.
The price of oil is being driven up significantly by surging global demand led by China and India. China is now the No. 2 user and importer of oil, second only to the U.S. However, this proposed purchase of Unocal by Cnooc should not be alarming. Unocal is a midsized oil and gas exploration and production company, about the same significance as Devon, Burlington, Apache, Anadarko and others. Compared to Exxon, BP, Shell Total and Chevron, it is a small player. Unocal's control of world oil supply is clearly de minimis. And Unocal is a good fit for Cnooc. It is close to the same size, with good technical personnel, and a higher percentage of its production in Asia.
We have issues of greater importance with China than this proposed transaction. The U.S. is frustrated by China's delay in floating its currency, its lack of forcefulness with North Korea and China's arms buildup. And our trade deficit with China now runs in excess of $160 billion per year (almost a quarter of our huge overall trade deficit). Despite all these issues, we must be extremely careful not to send a signal limiting foreign investment, in general, and Chinese investment, in particular. We are a free-trade nation which overall has worked very well for us. Free trade must be a two-way street.
The Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) may review this transaction should it actually come to fruition. But its prime purpose is to keep out of foreign hands those businesses and technologies which could have a negative impact on national security. It is hard to fit the Cnooc-Unocal deal into that definition.
Many of our leaders, from Alan Greenspan to former cabinet officers from both parties, as well as many in Congress, would join in cautioning us about closing potential trade doors based solely on emotion. We should be particularly sensitive to a country which is not only a major trading partner but has also been relatively open to U.S. investments. China makes us nervous because of its size as well as its 9% annual GDP growth rate. This is even more remarkable because it has 1.3 billion people. They are only beginning to define their "manifest destiny."
Returning to the "Japan, Inc." analogy. In the '80s, Japan's rate of increase of GDP and exports to the U.S. indicated they could possibly overtake our economy by 2020. Now we see communist China most likely surpassing Japan by 2020. However, I firmly believe the U.S. economy will continue to be the world leader. Let's not move in haste in what could be, and, in my estimation, would be, a counterproductive direction through trade or investment restrictions.
Mr. Mosbacher, chairman of the Mosbacher Energy Company, served as secretary of commerce from 1989-1992.
自由贸易应是双向的
还记得上世纪80年代末日本人买下洛克菲勒中心(Rockefeller Center)多数股股权的事么？当时美国上下一片惶恐，深怕日本人最后发展到控制美国的经济命脉，美国公众也大声疾呼反对把这座象征著纽约乃至全美国的标志性建筑交到日本人手里。但事实证明，大厦卖了个好价钱，美国业主从这笔交易中获利颇丰。
现在，中国海洋石油（中国）有限公司(CNOOC Ltd., 简称：中海石油))提议收购加州联合石油(Unocal)一事又成了一个闹得沸沸扬扬的话题，一些人对这笔交易感到不安。有人强烈反对说，中国企业收购美国能源商可能会推高油价，进而影响到美国的能源供应，此举可谓用心险恶。但很多人忘记了这样一个事实：美国企业在中国拥有不少大型投资项目，很多项目的规模都远远超过中海石油对加州联合石油185亿美元的报价。
雪佛龙(Chevron)担心，中海石油一旦收购了加州联合石油，一部分原油供应就会从国际市场上消失，直接流入中国。在雪佛龙看来，这会推高美国和国际市场的油价。我可以理解雪佛龙的担心，但我认为这种观点有失偏颇。我也认为，雪佛龙和中海石油的竞争是不公平的，因为中国政府以提供无息贷款的方式资助了中海石油。但别忘了，美国企业在世界各地都会遇到政府补贴的棘手问题。这方面的例子不胜枚举，如意大利的钢铁工业，当然，还有得到欧洲多个国家政府补贴的空中客车(Airbus)。
油价的攀升主要是全球需求激增造成的，增长主要来自中国和印度。中国目前是仅次于美国的第二大原油消费国及进口国。但没有必要对中海石油竞购加州联合石油一事大惊小怪。加州联合石油是一家中等规模的油气钻探及开采企业，其重要程度与戴文能源公司(Devon Energy)、Burlington、Apache、Anadarko等企业基本在同一水平，与埃克森美孚(Exxon Mobil)、英国石油(BP)、皇家壳牌石油公司(Royal Dutch/Shell Group)、道达尔公司(Total)和雪佛龙等业内巨头相比则是小巫见大巫。很显然，加州联合石油对全球原油供应的影响微不足道。此外，加州联合石油非常适合中海石油，这是因为二者规模相近，加州联合石油还拥有中海石油渴望得到的优秀技术员工，而且，加州联合石油有相当一部分开采业务位于亚洲。
与中海石油的并购案相比，对于中国我们还有更重要的问题需要处理，如中国迟迟不肯推进人民币汇率改革、不愿在核问题上向朝鲜施压、中国军力不断扩张等。另外，我们与中国的年贸易逆差现在已经超过了1,600亿美元，占到我们贸易逆差总额的近四分之一。尽管存在上述种种问题，但我们务必小心行事，避免发出限制外资、特别是限制中国投资流入的信号。美国是一个信奉贸易自由化的国家，我们也从自由贸易中获益非浅，但自由贸易应该是双向的。
如果加州联合石油与中海石油达成协议，美国海外投资委员会(Committee on Foreign Investments)可能会对这笔交易进行审查。但CFIUS的主要任务是阻止外国投资者获得可能会危及美国国家安全的企业或者技术。以这个理由对中海石油并购案加以阻挠很难站得住脚。
美国的许多领导人，从格林斯潘到前内阁成员以及许多国会议员都会告诫我们，在贸易问题上切勿仅凭意气用事。我们在处理与中国的贸易关系上应该尤其谨慎，因为中国不仅是美国的重要贸易伙伴国，而且中国对接受美国的投资一直是持相对开明的态度。我们对中国感到惶恐不安是因为它的经济规模以及9%的年增长率。考虑到中国有13亿人口，这是一个相当了不起的成就。但中国人还只是刚刚开始阐释他们的“神圣使命”。
让我们还是回到当初日本经济扩张的话题上来。80年代时，有人基于日本的GDP增长率和对美国的出口增幅推测说，日本经济有可能在2020年之前超过美国。现在，又有人说中国经济很有可能在2020年前超越日本。但我坚信，美国仍会是全球最大的经济体。让我们不要匆忙采取贸易或投资限制措施，那样可能会起到适得其反的效果，实际上在我看来，限制的后果很有可能就是那样的。
（编者按：本文作者罗伯特?莫斯巴赫(Robert A. Mosbacher)是Mosbacher Energy Company的董事长，他曾在1989-1992年期间担任美国商务部长一职。）
