美國不應嫉妒排斥亞投行

Britain has irritated the US by opting to become a founding member of an institution that some view as a part of China’s answer to the World Bank. But this does not mean the decision is a bad one. On the contrary, it is sensible — although not without risk.

英國選擇成爲亞洲基礎設施投資銀行(Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank，簡稱：亞投行)的創始成員國，此舉激怒了美國。一些人將亞投行視爲中國挑戰世界銀行(World Bank)計劃的一部分。但這不等於說英國做出了一個糟糕的決定。相反，這個決定是合理的，儘管並非沒有風險。

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is to have initial capital of $50bn, which may be doubled. It will finance for example roads and railways in the continent’s developing countries.

亞投行的初期註冊資本爲500億美元，之後可能會增加一倍。該銀行將爲亞洲發展中國家的公路、鐵路等項目提供融資。

China is to be the biggest shareholder with many other Asian countries joining while non-Asian members are restricted to 25 per cent of the shares. Other European countries, including Germany and Italy, have decided to apply; Australia, Japan and South Korea are still in two minds .

隨着亞洲多個國家的加入，中國將成爲亞投行最大股東，而非亞洲成員國的持股比例被限制在25%以內。其他歐洲國家（包括德國和意大利）已決定申請加入；澳大利亞、日本和韓國仍舉棋不定。

The lender is potentially valuable. Developing countries in Asia are in desperate need of such investment . Private funding of risky and long-term projects is often either expensive or non-existent. The resources of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank are grossly deficient, relative to the needs.

亞投行可能意義重大。亞洲發展中國家亟需基建投資。長期高風險項目的私人融資通常要麼代價高昂，要麼根本就沒有。相對於資金需求，世界銀行和亞開行(ADB)的財力極度匱乏。

Thus, the fact that China wishes to invest a part of its $3.8tn in foreign exchange reserves in the AIIB is good news. That it wishes to do so via multilateral institutions, in which its voice, however loud, will be one among many, is still better. The bank would have a global staff, which should make it less politicised than if China provided the money on its own.

因此，中國希望拿出其3.8萬億美元外匯儲備的一部分投資於亞投行是件好事。更令人高興的是，中國希望通過多邊機構實施這一投資——在這樣的機構中，中國的聲音不管多麼強大，也將是衆多聲音中的一個。亞投行將擁有全球性員工，與中國獨自提供資金相比，這應會減少該銀行的政治色彩。

For all these reasons, the US should also join. The White House might reply that, however much it would like to do so, it has no chance of getting approval from the current Congress. That may be true. But it is not an argument against participation by other countries.

基於這些理由，美國應該也加入。但美國可能回答說：不管美國政府有多希望這麼做，也不可能獲得本屆國會的批准。這或許沒錯，但不能成爲其反對他國加入的理由。

Still, the US does have an argument, although it is a baffling one. Western countries, it says, can have more sway by staying outside. That, argues one US official, would be better than “getting on the inside at a time when they can have no confidence that China will not retain veto powers”.

美國還有一個理由，不過這個理由令人困惑。美國表示，西方國家不加入能夠產生更大影響。一位美國官員辯稱，“在他們無法確信中國不會保留否決權的情況下”，不加入要好於“加入進去”。

Yet outsiders will have no influence over an institution that does not need their money. The only hope is from inside. True, it would have been better if the Europeans had agreed on conditions for entry. But it is too late for that.

然而非成員不會對一個不需要它們的資金的機構產生任何影響。唯一的希望是加入進去，從內部發揮影響。確實，如果此前歐洲就加入的條件進行了協商，結果就會更好。但現在爲時已晚。

Jack Lew, US Treasury secretary, has voiced American concerns that the Asian bank would not live up to the “highest global standards” for governance or lending.

美國財長傑克•盧(Jack Lew)表達了美國的擔憂：亞投行在治理、貸款方面可能達不到“最高全球標準”。

As a former staff member of the World Bank, I must smile. Mr Lew might like to study the Bank’s role in funding Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, one horrifying example among many.

作爲世界銀行的一名前員工，聽到這句話我就笑了。盧或許願意研究一下世界銀行在爲扎伊爾總統蒙博託•塞塞•塞科(Mobutu Sese Seko)提供資金方面所扮演的角色，這是衆多可怕例子中的一個。

It would be good if China’s lender were as pure as the driven snow. But this is a fallen world. At the least, it would be better with a broad membership than without it.

如果亞投行像白雪一樣純潔的話，那當然好。但這是一個墮落的世界。至少，擁有廣泛的成員國要比沒有強。

Nor can the US argue with any credibility against competition to the existing institutions. Yes, a risk of a race to the bottom on standards remains. But a possibility also exists that needless red tape would be eliminated.

美國也無法令人信服地反對加大現有機構面臨的競爭。成立新機構，確實可能引發競相降低標準的風險，但有些多餘的繁文縟節也可能因此被廢除。

The real American concern is that China might establish institutions that weaken the US influence on the global economy. To this I offer four replies.

美國真正擔心的是，中國建立的金融機構可能會削弱美國對全球經濟的影響力。對此我有四點要說。

First, the US, Europeans and Japanese treasure a degree of influence on global financial institutions that is increasingly out of line with their position in the world. Moreover, they have failed to exercise that stewardship as well as they ought to have done. Not least, they have insisted on the right to appoint leaders who have been far from consistently excellent.

首先，美國、歐洲和日本看重自身對國際金融機構的巨大影響力，而這種影響力與它們在世界上的地位日益脫節。此外，它們並不是稱職的“管理者”。尤其是，他們堅決不放棄對這些機構領導人的任命權，而這些機構歷任領導人並不總是優秀的。

Second, it is five years since the Group of 20 leading economies agreed on new quotas that would moderate their outsized influence at the International Monetary Fund. The world is still waiting for the US Congress to ratify the changes. This is an abdication of responsibility.

其次，二十國集團(G20)5年前就已同意實行新的配額制度，以降低上述幾個國家（或地區）對IMF過大的影響力，而美國國會迄今仍未批准這一變革。這是不負責任的。

Third, the world economy would benefit from larger flows of long-term capital to developing countries as well as from a bigger insurance fund than the IMF can offer to countries exposed to “sudden stops” in capital flows.

第三，更多長期資金流入發展中國家，以及讓面臨資金流“突然中斷”風險的國家能獲得IMF無法提供的更大資金保障，這對世界經濟是件好事。

Foreign exchange reserves have risen to nearly $12tn, from about $2tn at the turn of the millennium, dwarfing the IMF’s resources of less than $1tn. This indicates the scale of the shortfall. China’s money could push the world in the right direction. That would be an excellent thing.

千禧之交，全球外匯儲備總額約爲2萬億美元，如今已增至近12億美元，這使得IMF不到1萬億美元的資金能力顯得微不足道。這種情況反映出資金缺口有多麼大。中國的資金可推動世界朝正確的方向前進。這實在是件大好事。

Finally, the US criticises the UK for its “constant accommodation” of the rising superpower. But the alternative to accommodation is conflict. China’s economic rise is beneficial and inevitable. What is needed is intelligent accommodation.

最後，美國批評英國“不斷遷就”這個正在崛起的超級大國。但如果不選擇遷就，就要選擇衝突。中國在經濟上的崛起是有益的、也是不可避免的。我們需要做到的是聰明地遷就。

Where China offers proposals that make sense for itself and for the world, engagement is more sensible than carping from the sidelines. An erstwhile US policy maker once asked China to be a “responsible stakeholder”. With the creation of the AIIB, it is doing just that.

當中國的提議對自身和世界都有意義的時候，接觸比在一旁挑刺兒更明智。曾經有一位美國政策制定者要求中國做一個“負責任的利益相關者”。創立亞投行正是在做“負責任的利益相關者”。

Thus, the approach of the UK and other European allies is to be applauded. Moreover, the UK’s decision to join the AIIB could even be a salutary shock to the US.

因此，英國以及其他歐洲盟國的做法值得讚賞。此外，英國加入亞投行的決定，對美國甚至可能是個有益的刺激。

Yes, it would be desirable if countries with similar interests and values, such as Britain and the US, could speak and act as one. And yes, the UK is taking risks in adopting a line different from that of its most important international partner. But support must not be slavish. That has proved to be in nobody’s interests.

當然了，假如擁有相似利益和價值觀的國家——比如英國和美國——不管說話還是行動都能一條心，那是可取的。沒錯兒，英國採取了與其最重要盟友不一致的立場，這是有風險的。然而，對盟友的支持不能變味成奴才般的服從。事實證明，那樣對誰都不好。

Moreover, if Britain’s choice makes clear to US policy makers that leadership is not a right but has to be earned, the decision could well prove beneficial. In the years after the second world war, in a fit of presence of mind, the US created the institutions of the modern world. But the world has moved on.

此外，如果英國的選擇能讓美國政策制定者明白，領袖的位置不是一種權利，而是必須靠爭取得來的，那麼英國這個選擇很可能是有益的。二戰後那些年，美國憑藉冷靜的頭腦創建起了當代世界的多個國際機構。但世界已經變了。

It needs new entities. It must adjust to the rise of new powers. It will not stop, just because the US can no longer engage. If the results are not to America’s liking, it has only itself to blame.

世界需要新的機構。它必須做出調整，以適應新的大國的崛起。它不會僅僅因爲美國無法繼續參與就停止前進。如果美國不喜歡這種結果，那隻能怪它自己。