The Sino -US trade war has recently entered a very severe stage. The negotiations between the two parties have been suspended, and each has a tough attitude. The next development is still uncertain.At this time, two outstanding female anchors from the two countries demonstrated another possible way of dealing with the trade war with a television debate, that is, the communication between civilization, peace, and rational, including inquiry and clarification, interpretation and listening.
In fact, this debate is a formal interview with the Fox Business Channel female anchor Trish Regan's interview with China CCTN English (CGTN) female anchor Liu Xin, but it originated from the debate of the two anchors.It is essentially reflected in the disputes between the two parties' different views on the problem, so it is regarded as a problem that there is no big debate.
The debate generally experienced six rounds.At the beginning of Cui Xi, she repeatedly emphasized that Liu Xin was part of the Communist Party and represents the official position. Liu Xin promptly clarified that he was not a member of the Communist Party of China, but he participated in his personal identity. The response was professional and sensitive.Cui Xi had six issues on the topic settings.The first question about the direction of the trade war, Liu's answers were very decent, showing that China is willing to negotiate but adheres to principles, and hopes to be treated equally in the United States.The second issue is about the stolen Chinese intellectual property rights of China. The third issue involves Huawei but is also about intellectual property rights.Regarding this issue, it should be said that Liu Xin's response was unsatisfactory. His response did not have enough support for international economic law knowledge, and he failed to seize the opportunity to point out the common sense errors of Cuixi's greatness.In fact, taking this opportunity to point out that the United States accusation is too empty, that is, China does not have any legal compulsory request for foreign business transfer, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no report or ruling to publicly accuse China of theft of intellectual property rights.
The other three issues involve China's developing countries. Whether China and the United States can cancel all tariffs and whether the Chinese economy is national capitalism.When Liu Xin answered these questions, he explained China's consistent position on these issues.
In view of the full grasp of the topic setting of Cui Xi with its home advantage, Liu Xin could only see the trick in a limited time, answering the question for the second time, and failed to actively launch an offensive, questioning and asking about the mistakes of the US trade policy.But at least, Liu Xin's explanation of China's formal position is concise and accurate on several issues. I have never seen any other people in China (including officials and scholars) that can do this on the mainstream Western media.Although the audience can blame it, but Liu Xin's explanation and interpretation of the language that Americans can accept, it is very valuable in itself, making American audiences realize that China's position is not completely unreasonable.
As far as the overall performance of the two female anchors is concerned, it can be described as professional, friendly, and polite.Cuixi's past hosting style is quite spicy. Words are often very sharp and sometimes emotional. However, although this interview is still sharp, the attitude is very peaceful and does not show strong aggressiveness. Although the question is sufficient, although the question is sufficientThe advantage of setting up the topic was used, but did not take the opportunity to set up a trap, and also gave Liu Xin a full time to answer the explanation.Liu Xin's personal expression is impeccable in language expression, response, and manner. These aspects are not at all, just like English is her mother tongue, which is really amazing.Although Liu Xin did not show a momentum and did not attack again and again, she showed the gentleness, reasoning, and expressiveness of her, which is actually the most needed international image in China.We have enough reasons to believe that this is a positive and healthy debate, and it also provides a example of rational communication for the ongoing Sino -US trade war.
(The author teaches at the National University Law School of Singapore)
