国外网站怎么上2017:谁能帮我找篇关于中美贸易摩擦的英文资料 急用..

我找了一篇,然后你用goole 或随便什么的翻译一下!
　　不知道有用否.
　　在者.你可以先找中文的然后翻译!ok!

　　After experiencing a steel war, auto war and beef war respectively, global trade war has evolved into a tug of war over textiles in 2005. China assumes a key role in the ongoing trade war due to its increasing participation in the exports of textile products. Chinese producers'' sophisticated ability to manufacture and export textiles gives rise to every-growing trade friction as well as every-rising vigilance from their American counterparts. China Daily quoted an article (China''s rise raises questions about free trade) in an American newspaper on June 16, 2005. This article adopts the pragmatic American view and argues that the United States should adjust its policy on free trade in view of China''s rapid rise.
　　After World WarⅡ,with the support of major developed countries, including the United States and other economic power across the world , the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT)/the World Trade Organization(WTO) was set up.(WTO replaced GATT formally on January 1,1995.) The establishment of GATT/ WTO lays a solid foundation for the present-day world trade system which regards free trade as its ultimate objective. America is the primary beneficiary of this world trade system. A study from America shows, the living standards of American people has been raised by 10% or so. The United States has gained from the advantages brought by economic globalization, such as less expensive imported commodities, growing competition and scientific and technological upgrading.
　　The Untied States has also benefited from Sino-Us trade. China''s trade surplus with the U.S., which is likely to continue for many years, will not bring about devastating consequences or exert a damaging impact on US economy. Foreign-funded enterprises in China, which mainly contribute to China''s U.S.-trade surplus, have consistently accounted for a big chunk of China''s export volume, with a proportion of above 50%. Particularly, foreign-owned companies have paid the lion''s share 80% of the total export volume of China''s high-tech industries. For example, the export volume of personal computers in China amounted to 60 billions US dollars in 2004, and China retained its trade surplus. However,at least 3/4 of the profits of a computer goes to American businesses which research and develop software, design chip and sale the complete set of computer. The true story behind China''s trade surplus with the U.S. is that American businessmen have pocketed much of the earnings and Chinese manufacturers only have got modest economic returns.
　　China''s miraculous rise is attributed to globalization, trade liberalization and the thriving domestic market of the United States. Thanks to unremitting and dauntless efforts made by Chinese people from all sectors of the society, China''s economy is developing at a dizzying pace. Compared with other developing country, China enjoys a huge domestic market and its economy is of a grand scale. China has emerged as a world factory. The United States keeps up its guard against China''s fast-paced development with a sense of insecurity. So that the United States is seeking to hinder china''s rapid development and hold high the banner of trade protectionism.
　　Therefore, the question we will study here is whether a retreat to the trade protectionism is a wise choice for the United States? What are the implications of such an American approach on Sino-US trade as well as the world trade?
　　In fact, America has never given up or abrogated the policy of trade protectionism and free trade has never been virtually realized. The Industrial revolution broke out in the United States in the early 19th, in an effort to met the challenges brought by Britain industrial products and fueled the development of American homegrown industries. The United State raises its tariff constantly. American average tariff rate has rose progressively to approximately 40% in 1824 from the somewhere between 7.5%-30% in 1816. This proportion has also surged to 45% in 1825, posing another sharp increase. Thanks to the implementation of the policy of trade protectionism, American industry was far ahead of others within the global reach in the 80'' of the 18th.
　　Since China joined the WTO, the United States has adopted a tougher policy of trade protectionism towards China in a step-by-step fashion. A series of make-or-break measures have been outlined and adopted successively, for example The imposition of high duties on imported steel, anti-dumpling cases against China-made televisions and the imposition of quota restrictions on China-manufactured textiles. ...... All of above-mentioned issues give full _expression to the fact that the United States has earnestly implemented a policy of trade protectionism.
　　The question we are facing is whether the surging American trade protectionism will lead the world economy and trade into a blind alley? Compared with the world of the late twentieth century, today''s world is far from stable and tranquil. For example, the international financial market is a fragile one, the WTO negotiations have almost reached a stalemate, multilateralism is porgressively being replaced by regionalism, competition among the economic powers in the global market is white-hot and the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing day by day. How much the side effects of the rises of trade protectionism will add to the instability of global economy is still A mystery. However, we must be aware of the fact that trade war is emerging as an active factor.
　　Whether the implementation of the policy of trade protectionism will reduce the trade deficit of the United States and address the problems on its home front is still unclear. Trade protectionism is not at all a newly started thing and maybe not a panacea. The United States has been experienced in imposing safeguards on Japan-manufactured automobile. As a result, the pressure from the U.S. has forced Japan to become a heavyweight player in the international arena. Japan ends up with a world-top automaker.
　　The author regards free trade, the objective of WTO, as a mirage, and does not thing that free trade is achievable. However, the liberalization of trade may be achievable.
　　The competition between free trade and protectionism never stops and will run through the entire history of world trade. As China experiences rapid economic growth it is nature for the United States to adopt a policy of protectionism towards China.
　　China should be prepared for the adverse trade environment and the undesirable condition which is unlikely to take a turn for the better in the years ahead. Therefore, we ought to learn how to strive to survive under the every-increasing pressure.
　　When settling the trade disputes between China and the United States, America should seek to maintain the stability of world economy and safeguard our win-win situation. The United States should also be made aware that China will not cave in the face of American protectionism or be led by the nose. China, a world factory, will find a way out of the deteriorating trading climate. The United States desperately needs to have a better understanding of the fact that America benefits a lot through Sino-US trade. America will lose a low-priced suppiier base and a vast market, if America impairs and hurts its relations with China.
　　Dan Ikenson, an US trade policy analyst says, if the United States begins to impose tariffs and penalties on China, it would have a negative effect on consumers in the US. "It''s just a rash idea that would be ruinous to our economy," he said, doubting seriously that the tariffs would ever be imposed. "It''s not going to help anybody, it will hurt a lot of people though."
　　China also has to go through a rethink of the ongoing trade war. China has paid a costly price for its success in gaining accession to WTO in a considerably long period of 15 years and has been compelled to open its door to the outside world accordingly. We have heeded lessons from American policy of pragmatism that we should put equal emphasis on the implementation of market opening policIes and self-protection. We ought to create a strategic development space for the industries with competitive strength and safeguard our own interests in the course of settling every single trade dispute.
　　The minister of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce Bo Xilai announced on May 30, 2005, to the public media around the world that China will not make any concessions to the United States and will squarely address the trade friction with the United States in textiles. China''s approach will be viewed as an impressive turning point in the contemporary Chinese history of trade which featured every-expanding opening. This declaration also is the response given by China when China faces the changes caused by American reconsideration over free trade.
　　The author hopes that the world trade system does not move into an indefinite period of protectionism . Conversely, the writer makes a wish that the trend of trade liberalization will be irresistible and the global welfare can be raised continually.
　　(张晓璐译)

　　By Eliza Patterson
　　"It is getting ugly" is a phrase used with increasing frequency in the United States to describe the surge in China-bashing in the US Congress. The frenzy of activity in the Congress is the result of anxiety about the surging economic power of China and its expanding sphere of influence. Congress sees China as an export-driven giant racking which as a result of such unfair practices as currency manipulation has racked up an enormous and growing trade surplus with the US at the expense of US industry and workers. Even more troubling to Congress is the fact that China has accumulated over $650 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The fear is that China will use these assets to buy up important and strategic US assets. China''s bids for Maytag, IBM and most recently Unocal are considered a threat to US national security.
　　Faced with this picture the Congress has taken a number of protectionist actions- none of which have any actual force as of now. It has drafted but not passed legislation that would impose a surcharge on all Chinese imports to counter what is viewed as an undervalued yuan; legislation that would bar the US Export-Import Bank from providing a $ 5 billion credit package to support a bid by Westinghouse to build nuclear plants in China; legislation that would bar the US Treasury from using funds to approve the Unocal sale to Cnooc; and passed a non-binding resolution expressing concern that the Cnooc sale would threaten US national security.
　　While these measures clearly conflict with the long-standing liberal trade agenda of the United States, they do not signal a fundamental retreat from the policy of open trade. In fact many have pointed out the similarities between the current reaction to China to the anxieties created in the 1980s by the seemingly unstoppable rise of Japan. Then too alarms went off and some protectionist measures were taken. In the end however, the US remained firmly committed to liberal trade, pushing for greater multilateral liberalization in the Uruguay and Doha Rounds and undertaking the negotiation of multiple free-trade agreements. Then as now the retreat from liberal trade was based on anxiety about one specific trading partner not about the implications of open trade generally. And the protectionism now as then is targeted at just one trading partner and comes largely from just one branch of the US government- Congress. The Administration remains firmly committed to liberal trade and consequently there is little risk that protectionism will engulf US trade policy; or even US policy vis- a- vis China.
　　This is not to say the Administration does not have numerous complaints about China. It does, ranging from China''s failure to adequately protect intellectual property to its policy of pegging the yuan to the dollar. But, as US Commerce Secretary Gutierrez said recently, the Bush Administration prefers negotiations to legislation and does not think that new tariffs and other barriers are the right answer to address US concerns.
　　The US Congress would be well advised to consider the adverse impact its protectionist measures would have not only on US- China relations but also on US credibility in pushing for market liberalization world wide. It should listen to the many serious analysts who say the claims that Cnooc''s bid for Unocal threatens national security are unfounded. They should listen to the expert economists'' explanation of the potential adverse effects of a rapid move to a free floating yuan. And they should consider the impact on US consumers of increased tariffs on Chinese imports.
　　For its part China must recognize that much of the US public and a number of US members of Congress are uneasy about the implications of China''s increasingly important role in the global economy. China should try to understand US anxieties and should seek to work with the US to alleviate those concerns. While the heated rhetoric coming from Congress is indeed "ugly", it should not be seen as an indication of a fundamental shift in US liberal trade policy or even of as an effort to isolate China or keep it off the global stage. Rather, the Congress, under pressure from segments of the public, is seeking changes in specific Chinese policies and practices that they regard as unfair if not WTO-illegal.
　　China would be best served by seeking to negotiate a solution with the Bush Administration to US complaints regarding the yuan, intellectual property protection and Chinese barriers to US exports. Successful negotiations in which China agreed to move gradually toward a free floating yuan , to improve its enforcement of intellectual property rights and to remove at least some of the alleged barriers to US exports would almost certainly restrain Congressional protectionist threats.
　　If negotiations with the Administration do not yield a mutually satisfactory solution, or if China refuses to enter negotiations at all, it can be expected that the US will retaliate by placing limits on some Chinese exports and perhaps denials of some Chinese investments in the US. Such action would be unfortunate and a step backward from the long-standing US goal of global liberal trade. It would not, however, signal a fundamental shift in US trade policy.
　　If the US does take such actions China should take full advantage of its WTO membership and pursue a WTO complaint against the US. My guess is that if China won such a case the US would, after much agonizing, remove any WTO- illegal barriers because the Administration remains firmly committed to global trade liberalization and the rule of law as encompassed in the WTO.
　　While segments of the US public and the US Congress are currently enamoured with China-bashing and threats of protectionism abound, US trade policy remains firmly in support of liberal trade, including with China.