体恤民困，还是寻找借口？中加在关税战中的制度分野（观点，中英对照）

川普对中国进口商品征收高额关税，中国政府随即强势反制，这场关税战再次引发国际市场动荡，冲击全球供应链。在习近平的领导下，中国政府打着“发扬吃苦耐劳传统精神”的旗号，以更为强硬的姿态回应美方关税攻势。然而，中国并非第一个遭遇川普激进关税政策打击的国家。今年早些时候，川普的关税威胁就已直指加拿大——这个长期以来高度依赖对美贸易的中等强国。但与有意煽动民族主义情绪的中国政府不同，加拿大的回应更为克制、透明，并根植于民主程序。加拿大民众所展现出的爱国情怀，并非源于政府灌输，而是出自真实情感的自然流露和对公平正义的朴素信念。

Trump’s hefty tariffs on Chinese imports — and China’s forceful retaliatory measures — have once again sparked market turmoil and rattled global supply chains. China, under Xi Jinping, doubled down with defiance, invoking a long tradition of enduring national hardship. But China wasn’t the first country to be targeted by Trump’s aggressive tariff agenda. Earlier this year, his tariff threats shook Canada — a middle-power nation whose economy is deeply intertwined with U.S. trade. Unlike China’s orchestrated nationalist fervor, Canada’s response was measured, transparent, and rooted in democratic process. Patriotism here wasn’t state-mandated — it emerged naturally, drawn from citizens’ raw emotions and a shared sense of fairness.

事实上，加拿大对川普汽车关税的回应展现出一种鲜明的民主策略：反制，但却凸显平衡与灵活性。当渥太华制定对美国进口汽车的25%的报复性关税时，却给予那些承诺继续在加拿大投资与生产的汽车制造商提供关税豁免。财政部长弗朗索瓦-菲利普·尚帕涅（François-Philippe Champagne）宣布，每家汽车公司可免税进口的汽车数量将依赖于该制造商在加拿大的生产和投资规模。这也就是说：那些在加投资或产能有所削减的制造商，其享有的豁免额度也将随之减少。

In fact, Canada’s reaction to Trump’s auto tariffs reveals a distinctly democratic playbook: retaliate, but with balance and flexibility. When Ottawa imposed 25 per cent counter-tariffs on American vehicle imports, it also offered tariff exemptions to automakers who commit to continued investment and production in Canada. Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced that the number of tariff-free vehicles allowed for each manufacturer would be tied to their Canadian footprint — a warning that any cutbacks in domestic operations would reduce their privileges.

联邦政府还为那些依赖美国原材料的汽车制造商提供了为期六个月的报复性关税豁免期。该缓冲期旨在为企业调整供应链、优先采用本地替代方案提供时间。与此同时，政府启动了紧急贷款机制，以纾解受此次关税冲击影响较大的企业压力。加拿大采取的是一种“胡萝卜加大棒”的策略，既着眼于保就业、稳经济，又尽量避免让国家经济陷入政治漩涡。

The federal government also granted a six-month exemption from broader retaliatory tariffs for manufacturers relying on U.S. inputs. This grace period is intended to give companies time to adapt their supply chains and prioritize domestic alternatives. In the meantime, emergency loan facilities are being made available to businesses struggling to absorb tariff shocks. It’s a carrot-and-stick approach that aims to protect jobs without plunging the economy into ideological trench warfare.

与之形成鲜明对比的是习近平的“吃苦主义”——这一毛时代遗留下来的理念，如今被重新包装，服务于当下的政治局势。在他的领导下，“吃苦”被塑造成一种政治美德。新冠疫情期间，习近平号召民众“能吃得了苦”，将忍耐与牺牲视为国家精神的体现。而在这场关税战中，旧戏重演，“吃苦精神”再次被奉为中国应对美国关税的灵丹妙药。若说川普尚能在债券市场发出警讯后调整策略，习近平则毫无让步迹象，对青年失业高企、民营企业在重压之下的苦苦挣扎置若罔闻。

Contrast that with Xi Jinping’s “hardship doctrine,” a Maoist relic repackaged for modern-day geopolitics. Xi has made a political virtue of suffering. During the COVID crisis, he insisted citizens “eat bitterness.” In this trade war, that same ethos prevails. While Trump recalibrated after bond markets signaled alarm, Xi shows no sign of yielding — even as youth unemployment soars and private enterprise reels from the pressure.

在中国，几乎不存在关于关税所带来经济困境的公开声明，既没有新闻发布会，也没有为供应链不受阻而提供缓冲或资助，取而代之的是网络上铺天盖地的民族主义口号。那些在网上提及收入锐减或生意受挫的普通民众，不是被嘲讽，就是被封号噤声。而在加拿大，企业高管可以公开会见部长、表达不满和担忧；在中国，心知肚明，明了任何形式的公开批评都可能招致政治报复的企业家们却集体三缄其口，保持沉默。

There is no public dialogue in China about the pain tariffs might inflict. No news conferences. No supply-chain grace periods. Instead, nationalistic slogans flood the internet. Dissenters — ordinary citizens posting about lost income or disrupted businesses — are ridiculed or silenced. While Canadian CEOs meet with ministers and voice concerns openly, China’s business leaders stay silent, well aware that public criticism could invite political reprisal.

这种差别背后体现出的不仅仅是文化差异，更是制度差异。在加拿大，政府领导人需对选民和承担经济利益的有关关方负责；而在中国，领导人只需对党负责。一个制度在面对困难时提供支持和帮助，另一个制度则要求民众忍受。

This difference is not just cultural — it is systemic. Canada’s leaders are held accountable by voters and economic stakeholders. China’s leaders answer only to the Party. One system adjusts to hardship. The other demands it.

同时，这种差异也不仅仅体现在政策层面上，更是两种根本制度之间的根本分野，以及他们究竟是在为政策带来的经济困境寻找出路，还是在为其带来的后果寻找借口。

Ultimately, this contrast reveals more than just divergent policy choices. It lays bare two fundamentally different systems — and how each seeks to justify the economic pain it inflicts on its people.