????中國(guó)在日前美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選的第二場(chǎng)和第三場(chǎng)辯論中成了重要議題,，而且第二場(chǎng)比第三場(chǎng)更明顯,，盡管第三場(chǎng)的主題才是外交政策。奧巴馬和羅姆尼在中國(guó)問題上都強(qiáng)調(diào)了美中關(guān)系相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的本質(zhì),，以及需要讓中國(guó)遵守游戲規(guī)則,，但誰(shuí)也沒有給出多少未來政策的細(xì)節(jié)。而且,，兩人都強(qiáng)調(diào)同樣的設(shè)想：“如果中國(guó)遵守規(guī)則,，我們?cè)敢馀c之成為伙伴,?！边@與克林頓政府執(zhí)政中期以來采取的方式保持了一致。

????我們從羅姆尼那里聽到的最具體表態(tài)是：“從上任第一天起,，我就要給中國(guó)貼上貨幣操縱國(guó)的標(biāo)簽,。”這表明,，他將因人民幣被低估對(duì)中國(guó)實(shí)施制裁或懲罰,。或許如此,，但還不一定,。在他的表態(tài)和真正實(shí)施制裁之間還有好幾個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，不能一蹴而就,。因此,，這種“明確”的政策正是羅姆尼行事方式的鮮明寫照。實(shí)際上，我們對(duì)于羅姆尼將采取怎樣的中國(guó)政策或世界其他地區(qū)政策完全一無所知,。

????奧巴馬的立場(chǎng)似乎相對(duì)清晰,。他將延續(xù)過去四年所采取的政策，特別是自從2010年至2011年奧巴馬政府將“重心”轉(zhuǎn)移到亞洲以來的政策,。奧巴馬將繼續(xù)尋求世界貿(mào)易組織（WTO）的幫助,。因?yàn)檎缢f，美國(guó)在這方面一直相當(dāng)成功,。按照筆者的統(tǒng)計(jì),，美國(guó)在日內(nèi)瓦提出的、針對(duì)中國(guó)的貿(mào)易仲裁,，10項(xiàng)有9項(xiàng)都是美國(guó)獲勝,。他對(duì)泛太平洋伙伴關(guān)系（Trans-Pacific Partnerhsip，簡(jiǎn)稱TPP）也出人意料地坦誠(chéng),。第三場(chǎng)辯論中,，他沒有提到TPP。但他說,，美國(guó)正在組織地區(qū)內(nèi)國(guó)家實(shí)施一項(xiàng)高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的貿(mào)易和投資標(biāo)準(zhǔn)協(xié)定,，這應(yīng)當(dāng)會(huì)給中國(guó)帶來更多壓力時(shí)，其實(shí)說的就是TPP,。這段概述或許是美國(guó)政府首次在公開場(chǎng)合對(duì)TPP協(xié)議作出如此明確地表述,，但人們可以明白為什么奧巴馬選擇在競(jìng)選時(shí)期這么干?；蛟S他已得出結(jié)論,，中國(guó)絕不可能簽約，至少一開始不會(huì),，因此,，比以前更明確地探討TPP目標(biāo)并沒有什么害處。

????換個(gè)話題,。2011年,，中國(guó)銷售了不到9,000輛電動(dòng)或混合電動(dòng)汽車。當(dāng)時(shí),，筆者評(píng)論稱,，對(duì)于一個(gè)據(jù)稱非常希望推廣綠色能源的國(guó)家，這是一個(gè)多么可怕的數(shù)據(jù),。結(jié)果狀況卻越變?cè)皆愀?。?cái)新網(wǎng)（Caixin）的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2012年前三季度,，中國(guó)僅售出了235輛電動(dòng)汽車,。這基本上就是零,，表明這個(gè)行業(yè)沒有獲得任何支持。另?yè)?jù)報(bào)道,，中國(guó)出口了7,500輛電動(dòng)汽車,。如果真是這樣的話，這個(gè)行業(yè)模式與太陽(yáng)能行業(yè)一模一樣：95%以上的產(chǎn)品用于出口,。這意味著太陽(yáng)能和電動(dòng)汽車并非中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)能源或環(huán)保政策的核心內(nèi)容,，而是全球貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)略的一部分。

????譯者：早稻米

????China featured prominently in the 2nd and 3rd US presidential debates, in fact, more in the 2nd than the 3rd, even though the latter was on foreign policy. Although there has been handringing in Beijing because President Obama and Governor Romney have emphasized the competitive nature of the relationship and the need to have China play by the rules, neither has given many specifics about policy going forward. Also, both have used essentially the same formulation, "We want to be partners if China plays by the rules." That is essentially consistent with the approach taken since the middle of the Clinton Administration.

????The most detail we got from Romney is that, "On Day One I will label China a currency manipulator." That implies he will institute sanctions or penalties against China because the RMB is undervalued. Maybe, but not necessarily. There are several steps that have to occur between his declaration and sanctions, and none are automatic. So this moment of supposed policy precision is just another example of Romney being Romney. In fact, we have absolute zero idea what Romney's policies toward China -- or essentially anywhere in the world -- will be.

????President Obama's position seems clearer. He'll continue his policies of the last 4 years, particularly since the administration adopted its "pivot" to Asia in 2010/11. Obama will continue to go to the WTO, since as he noted, the US has been so successfl there. By my count, it has won 9 of 10 cases against China in Geneva. He also was perhaps unexpectedly honest about the Trans-Pacific Partnerhsip (TPP). He did not mention these words last night, but when he said the US is organizing countriesi in the region to adopt an agreement on trade and investment principles that sets high standards and that should put additional pressure on China, he meant TPP. This framing gives the agreement a sharper edge than perhaps the administration has been suggesting in public, but one can see why Obama would do so in the context of the campaign. He may have also concluded that there is no way China would ever sign on, at least initially, so there's no harm in being more explicit about the TPP's goals.

????Switching gears, in 2011, China sold less than 9,000 electric or hybrid vehicles. At the time I remarked how this was a horrible record for a country supposedly so intent on promoting green energy. Things have only gotten worse. According to Caixin, in the first 3 quarters of 2012, China has sold only 235 electric cars. That is essentially zero and means there is no support for this sector whatsoever. China reportedly did export 7,500 electric cars. If so, we are seeing the same pattern as in the solar sector: export over 95% of production. This means solar and electric vehicles are part of a global trade strategy but not central to domestic energy or conservation policy.