上周，照片分享軟件Snapchat曝出一款嚴重歧視亞洲人的濾鏡（濾鏡效果是黃皮膚，又小又斜的眼睛），引發網絡抵制熱潮，最后以Snapchat撤下濾鏡告終。這一事件讓人不禁聯想，會不會出現同樣聲勢浩大的抵制中國海外投資熱潮。

這里有三起與美國利益不相關的案例，可能更方便解釋清楚問題。第一起就是，出于國家安全考慮，澳大利亞明確拒絕中國政府與企業組成的銀團收購該國最大的供電網絡。

上周，英國新任首相叫停40年來第一個核電站項目，只因為中國在其中有小部分股份（不過也有人說英國更擔心的是如何擺脫之前跟合作方法國電力公司簽訂的天價能源購買合同）。

越來越多證據表明，中國在網絡戰爭方面的實力不容小覷且還在增強，所以考慮國家安全無可厚非。打算投資英國欣克利角核電站的中廣核集團此前就身陷美國一起間諜丑聞。不過這一方面體現中國在低利率環境里渴望通過正當手段尋求可靠回報，另一點也被反復強調（也有可能是誤導），即中國在積攢長期低碳能源領域的經驗。

不管真相如何，中國利用類似投資圖謀不軌的可能性到底有多大呢？中國可是靠著向全世界出口維護國內經濟穩定的。一旦貿易伙伴的信任不再，反作用會非常明顯。俄羅斯總統普京用天然氣當武器對抗歐洲的前車之鑒歷歷在目。

即便無關國家利益，而且與中國政界沒什么關系，中國美的集團收購德國工業機器人制造商Kuka AG還是遭遇抵抗，西方政客對中國的態度就是比別國嚴苛許多。安全方面的考慮當然很重要。但如果德國政府和央行五年來一直苦求行業加大投資卻毫無效果，外國資金要進入卻無腦抵制，到底有多大意義？（財富中文網）

譯者：Charlie

審校：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.