美国不能垄断贸易失衡叙事 - 2026-09-03
The recently concluded G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting in Asheville, the US, has once again placed global trade imbalances at the forefront of the international economic agenda.
After the meeting, the US attempted to portray the meeting as a coordinated effort to pressure China over its trade surplus, which twisted other members' shared concern about global economic imbalances into support for US trade policy. The talks and public remarks, however, show that what G20 members actually agree on is the need to face global economic imbalances and their spillover effects. They still differ on how those imbalances should be understood and adjusted. Caring about trade balances, in particular, does not mean accepting the tariff walls, unilateral pressure and security-driven trade policy the US has tightened in recent years.
Trade balances have long been an important topic in G20 discussions, especially since the 2008 global financial crisis. In fact, the chair's statement from the latest meeting explicitly noted that both surplus and deficit economies need to undertake appropriate policy adjustments, while emphasizing that surveillance of global imbalances is anchored in the mandate of International Monetary Fund (IMF). This underscores that global trade balance is a complex macroeconomic issue involving savings, investment, fiscal policy, exchange rates, consumption, industrial structure and international division of labor. It cannot be reduced to a simplistic narrative that "surpluses are inherently problematic."
China, for its part, is fully aware of the importance of trade balance. In recent years, it has expanded domestic demand, advanced high-level opening-up, increased high-quality imports and improved the structure of consumption and investment. China has never denied the need for more sustainable global rebalancing. The real question is how to achieve it.
After decades of globalization, the world economy is tied together by highly complex industrial, supply and value chains. A country's trade surplus comes from many things: How competitive its industries are, what the world wants to buy, and how production is divided among countries. Cutting all this down to bilateral trade numbers, and trying to force a change with tariffs, only turns a macroeconomic question into a trade fight.
This was also a key message from the G20 meeting. In more direct comments, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said "the US- and Israeli-led Iran war, together with ongoing US tariff disputes, were also major causes of uncertainty holding back the global economy." The IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva likewise stressed that global rebalancing requires coordinated efforts from both surplus and deficit economies. One point is becoming increasingly clear: Global imbalances cannot be defined unilaterally by any single country, nor can the power to determine "who is responsible," "who must adjust" and "how adjustments should be made" be monopolized by the country with the largest market and financial leverage.
The contradictions in US trade policy are plain. Washington tells others to respect "market principles," yet it leans more and more on tariffs, export controls, investment screening and industrial subsidies, and treats more ordinary economic activity as a matter of "national security."
Even more concerning is the weaponization of tariffs. Tariffs used to be a trade tool. In recent years, the US has tied them more and more to geopolitics, security, industrial policy and even diplomacy. Canada, Europe, Japan and many developing countries have all felt that pressure, in different ways. When the rules shift with US domestic politics, the world is left with a trading system that is less stable and less predictable.
There are already established institutional frameworks to address global trade imbalances. The multilateral trading system centered on the World Trade Organization is complemented by the IMF's surveillance and coordination on macroeconomic imbalances. Bilateral disputes can also be resolved through equal consultation. These processes may take longer, but they better balance national interests, preserve rule stability and prevent trade issues from being excessively politicized or securitized. What truly matters in the G20 meeting is the direction of global economic governance. Countries broadly seek to reduce imbalances, safeguard industrial security and enhance economic resilience - concerns that are grounded in reality. The world economy needs rebalancing, but it also needs an open, stable and predictable trading environment.
The very purpose of the G20 is to bring together major economies at different stages of development to seek common ground and explore shared rules. Turning trade into an extension of power politics will only increase barriers, uncertainty and global economic costs.
Source: Global Times
