中国投资者招人讨厌吗？

上周，照片分享软件Snapchat曝出一款严重歧视亚洲人的滤镜（滤镜效果是黄皮肤，又小又斜的眼睛），引发网络抵制热潮，最后以Snapchat撤下滤镜告终。这一事件让人不禁联想，会不会出现同样声势浩大的抵制中国海外投资热潮。

这里有三起与美国利益不相关的案例，可能更方便解释清楚问题。第一起就是，出于国家安全考虑，澳大利亚明确拒绝中国政府与企业组成的银团收购该国最大的供电网络。

上周，英国新任首相叫停40年来第一个核电站项目，只因为中国在其中有小部分股份（不过也有人说英国更担心的是如何摆脱之前跟合作方法国电力公司签订的天价能源购买合同）。

越来越多证据表明，中国在网络战争方面的实力不容小觑且还在增强，所以考虑国家安全无可厚非。打算投资英国欣克利角核电站的中广核集团此前就身陷美国一起间谍丑闻。不过这一方面体现中国在低利率环境里渴望通过正当手段寻求可靠回报，另一点也被反复强调（也有可能是误导），即中国在积攒长期低碳能源领域的经验。

不管真相如何，中国利用类似投资图谋不轨的可能性到底有多大呢？中国可是靠着向全世界出口维护国内经济稳定的。一旦贸易伙伴的信任不再，反作用会非常明显。俄罗斯总统普京用天然气当武器对抗欧洲的前车之鉴历历在目。

即便无关国家利益，而且与中国政界没什么关系，中国美的集团收购德国工业机器人制造商Kuka AG还是遭遇抵抗，西方政客对中国的态度就是比别国严苛许多。安全方面的考虑当然很重要。但如果德国政府和央行五年来一直苦求行业加大投资却毫无效果，外国资金要进入却无脑抵制，到底有多大意义？（财富中文网）

译者：Charlie

审校：夏林

Snapchat succumbed yesterday to a wave of online outrage about a filter that smacked of anti-Asian racism (a yellow face with closed, slanted eyes). It seems a good moment to wonder if the same outrage will ever be directed at those who are blocking Chinese investment overseas.

It may be easier to illustrate the problem in three cases where U.S. interests aren’t directly affected. Today, Australia moved to block a Chinese consortium of state and private interests taking a controlling stake in the country’s largest electricity network over national security concerns.

Last week, the U.K.’s new Prime Minister slammed the brakes on a project to build the country’s first new nuclear power station in 40 years due to China having a minority stake in it (although one suspects that London is more concerned about wriggling out of a ludicrously high power-purchase contract it has already signed with the lead partner, France’s EDF).

The national security risk may be clear, given widespread evidence of Beijing’s formidable and growing cyberwarfare capabilities. China General Nuclear Power, the company investing in the Hinkley Point power station, is already mired in an industrial espionage scandal in the U.S.. But one reflects a legitimate desire for a reliable yield in a world of low returns, and the other an important (if arguably misguided) learning experience in the country’s search for a long-term low-carbon energy future.

But, either way, how credible is the threat of China abusing the leverage it gets through such investments? It is a country that guarantees its internal stability by exporting to the rest of the world. Breaching the trust of its trading partners would quickly prove counterproductive. The example of Vladimir Putin and his use of the gas weapon in Europe makes this only too clear.

Even where there is no national security interest and no direct line back to politicians back in Beijing, as in the acquisition of German robot maker Kuka AG by China’s Midea Group, western politicians continue to resist Chinese investment much more stiffly than that of other countries. Security concerns matter, obviously. But when domestic business isn’t investing despite five years of pleading from governments and central banks, you’re allowed to wonder whether it makes sense to be so sniffy about foreigners who are.