（觀察者網(wǎng)訊）

近日，新加坡《海峽時(shí)報(bào)》前總編馮元良（Leslie Fong）在《海峽時(shí)報(bào)》發(fā)表《關(guān)稅、阿片類藥物和鴉片之間的奇怪聯(lián)系》一文，文章主要觀點(diǎn)如下:

一、特朗普將美國國內(nèi)的阿片類藥物濫用危機(jī)，同全球兩大經(jīng)濟(jì)體之間的貿(mào)易問題掛鉤，令人費(fèi)解

當(dāng)全世界都認(rèn)為中美在上海最新一輪貿(mào)易談判進(jìn)展順利之時(shí)，特朗普卻拋出一枚炸彈，宣布擬于9月1日起對中國3000億美元商品加征關(guān)稅。特朗普將“中國不阻止芬太尼流入美國”作為加征關(guān)稅的理由之一，其實(shí)是將美國國內(nèi)的阿片類藥物濫用危機(jī)，上升為中美之間的貿(mào)易爭端。特朗普將這兩者聯(lián)系起來，令人匪夷所思。這對世界其他國家而言，也開了一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的先例。如果肥胖成為美國的嚴(yán)重問題，特朗普會(huì)要求法國和比利時(shí)減少巧克力生產(chǎn)和出口嗎？

特朗普這樣做想在中美貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)中達(dá)到什么目的？如果這是他的談判策略，那么迄今為止的記錄表明，這不大可能奏效。中國政府不會(huì)在別人拿槍指著自己腦袋時(shí)進(jìn)行談判?？梢钥隙ǖ氖牵乩势盏穆暶髯屓澜缤顿Y者損失了數(shù)十億美元，但那些做空的投資者將一路笑著走進(jìn)銀行。這點(diǎn)很蹊蹺，如果有企業(yè)和個(gè)人因?yàn)樘乩势盏耐蝗恍级筚嵰还P，他們會(huì)是誰？

二、美國阿片類藥物濫用危機(jī)是美國的制藥公司和醫(yī)生造成的，美國卻把該問題的責(zé)任推給中國，這是虛偽的

美國出現(xiàn)阿片類藥物危機(jī)，起初的原因是阿片類藥物制藥公司未對藥物致癮性發(fā)出足夠警告，甚至還向醫(yī)生提供激勵(lì)，讓其多開這種藥，醫(yī)生也這么照做了。當(dāng)阿片類藥物成癮現(xiàn)象變得越來越普遍，再也無法被忽視時(shí)，美國政府才開始限制阿片類處方藥物。于是癮君子轉(zhuǎn)而尋求非法替代藥物，包括羥考酮、芬太尼、曲馬多等。特朗普2017年就宣布美國阿片類藥物濫用危機(jī)進(jìn)入公共衛(wèi)生緊急狀態(tài)。特朗普還把矛頭對準(zhǔn)了這些替代藥物的主要供應(yīng)國，包括墨西哥和中國。

事實(shí)上，芬太尼的合成并不難。只要能獲取合成原料，藥劑師在學(xué)校實(shí)驗(yàn)室里就可以合成。而合成芬太尼的主要成分N苯乙基-4-哌啶酮（NPP）很容易從漢堡或海德拉巴的小型商業(yè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室購買到。小包裝的芬太尼可以從任何地方寄往美國。美國如果不解決好自己的問題，仍然無法應(yīng)對好阿片類藥物濫用危機(jī)。

三、中國在芬太尼問題上已經(jīng)做了足夠多的工作，美國的指責(zé)毫無道理

去年12月中美兩國元首會(huì)晤后，中國應(yīng)美國要求管制了芬太尼及類似藥物的生產(chǎn)。或許中國是出于對“好朋友”的幫助，或許是因?yàn)榉姨嵩谥袊鴮γ莱隹谇鍐紊蠌奈凑紦?jù)重要位置。無論如何，中國確實(shí)禁止了這種藥物的生產(chǎn)。同時(shí)從另一個(gè)角度看，對中國政府來說，監(jiān)管全國成千上萬個(gè)小型實(shí)驗(yàn)室面臨不小困難。即使這樣，中國已經(jīng)做得夠多了，通過管制NPP和芬太尼合成所需的化學(xué)品的供應(yīng)，管控藥品合成生產(chǎn)。阿片類藥物濫用原本是美國自己造成的問題，而中國卻為此動(dòng)用了大量執(zhí)法資源。

四、美國在芬太尼問題上的困境具有歷史諷刺意味

19世紀(jì)，除了英國，美國公司也從對華鴉片貿(mào)易中獲得巨額利潤。美國歷史學(xué)家斯蒂芬·普拉特在其關(guān)于中國和鴉片戰(zhàn)爭的著作《帝國的黃昏》中指出，一家名為羅素的美國貿(mào)易公司占對華鴉片銷量的五分之一以上。以1838年為例，4萬箱鴉片被運(yùn)往中國，每箱鴉片重達(dá)64公斤、價(jià)值680美元。塞倫的埃利亞斯·德比和紐約的雅各布·阿斯特從對華鴉片生意中發(fā)家，分別成為美國的第一個(gè)百萬富翁和第一個(gè)千萬富翁。在不到200年后的今天，美國將本國制藥公司和醫(yī)生引發(fā)的藥物濫用歸咎于中國。這是不是報(bào)應(yīng)？

以下為馮元良原文：

The strange link between tariffs, opioids, and opium

Two things about US President Donald Trump's surprise decision on Aug 1 to slap further tariffs on some US$300 billion worth of Chinese imports from Sept should set people thinking.

First, it was all too sudden. Just when the world was led to believe that the latest round of trade talks between American and Chinese trade officials in Shanghai had gone reasonably well, he dropped the bombshell. From all accounts, Beijing was taken by surprise and has retaliated by ordering state-owned companies to stop importing agricultural products from the United States and allowing the value of the yuan against the US dollar to slide to 7, closer to the historic low of 8.5.

The second surprise was his citing of the alleged tardiness on the part of the Chinese to stem the illegal flow to the US of fentanyl, an opioid used to relieve severe pain, as one of the reasons for imposing the additional 10 per cent in tariffs. In effect, he is elevating America's domestic crisis of opioid addiction to the status of an international dispute be- tween the world's' two largest economies. This linkage is questionable, to put it mildly. Predictably, his tweet announcing the additional tariffs sent stock markets around the world into a tailspin just as they rose when he signalled that talks were going well. Why did he do it? Had he not pronounced, just moments before, that the Shanghai talks had been constructive? By threatening tariffs ahead of the next round of negotiations scheduled to begin on Sept 1, what is he trying to achieve?

If this is his negotiating tactic, then the record thus far shows that it is unlikely to work. Beijing, which has described the latest move as "an irrational, irresponsible act", has said time and again it will not negotiate with gun pointed at its head.

Unless President Trump and his officials have some cards up their sleeves which China does not know about and cannot easily counter, it is hard to see how Beijing can afford to capitulate in full view of its people and the international community. It is anyone's guess whether it will even resume talking with Washington any time soon.

What is certain is that Mr Trump's announcement has cost investors around the world billions. But those who "shorted"the markets would be chuckling all the way to the bank. This is where it gets in- triguing-if there were indeed companies and individuals who made a killing as a result of the sudden announcement, who are they?

On the accusation over the "export"of fentanyl from China to the US, Beijing has yet to re- spond. Perhaps in time it will and then again, it may not even want to bother. To the rest of the world, linking the two sets a dangerous precedent. If obesity becomes a huge problem in the US, will the Trump administration ask France and Belgium to cut chocolate produc- tion and export?

True, Chinese leader Xi Jinping did accede to Mr Trump's request last December for an offi- cial clampdown on the production of fentanyl as well as fentanyl analogues. Whether that was as a favour to"good friend" or because fentanyl has never counted for anything much in China's list of exports to the US is for Beijing to explain. In any event, it did outlaw such production.

So what is the problem? Obviously, the results of Chinese enforcement are not to Mr Trump's satisfaction. But putting the onus on China to solve America's opioid addiction crisis, which he declared a public health emergency in 2017, is, in the first place, disingen- uous.The problem first arose because pharmaceutica companies that made opioids like oxy- codone not only did not issue sufficient warnings about their addictive qualities but also on top of that, provided incentives to doctors to prescribe them, which they did. When the ad- diction became so widespread it could no longer be ignored, the health authorities acted and prescription opioids became hard to obtain.

That was when addicts turned to the street to get their illegal fixes, from not only oxy- codone but also fentanyl, hydrocodone, tramadol and many other analogues. And, not un- expectedly, the Trump administration targets as key suppliers, Mexico and its drug cartels, and China, whose chemical factories are said to be involved in very profitable fentanyl pro- duction.

In truth, synthesising fentanyl is not rocket science. According to Wikipedia, competent chemists can do it in a school laboratory as long as they have access to the precursors or basic ingredients like N-Phenethyl-piperidir--4-(npp), which are easily purchased on- line from small commercial laboratories in places as diverse as Hamburg and Hyderabad. So small packets of fentanyl can be mailed to the US from anywhere.

Thus policing the thousands and thousands of small labs all over China might be a genuine problem for county-level Chinese authorities who, in all likelihood, think they have done enough by curbing access to NPP and other chemicals needed for fentanyl synthesis. Why use up scarce enforcement resources when after all, the opioid epidemic is a problem of the Americans'own making?

There is certain historical irony in all this. Though the British bore the brunt of interna- tional condemnation for their perfidy in forcing opium on a weak China in the early to mid-19th century, American companies also profited hugely from that drug trade. For example, money from opium trading helped make Elias Hasket Derby of Salem and John Jacob Astor of New York, respectively, the first millionaire and first multi-millionaire in the US. And as American historian Stephen Platt notes in Imperial Twilight, his book on China and the opium wars, an American trading firm called Russell and Company ac- counted for more than a fifth of all the

Indian opium sold to China. At the height of the opium trade in 1838, 40,000 cases, each containing 64 kg of opium and valued then at about USS680, were shipped there.

Today, less than 200 years later, America blames China for a drug epidemic started by its own pharmaceutical companies and doctors. Karmic retribution?

Unless President Trump and his officials have some cards up their sleeves which China does not know about and cannot easily counter, it is hard to see how Beijing can afford to capitulate in full view of its people and the international community.

原文網(wǎng)址：

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-strange-link-between-tariffs-opioids-and-opium

本文系觀察者網(wǎng)獨(dú)家稿件，未經(jīng)授權(quán)，不得轉(zhuǎn)載。