【08.11.13每日电讯】欧巴马的难题：富国必须学习分享权力
【08.11.13每日电讯】巴拉克·欧巴马的两难窘境：富国必须学习分享权力【原文标题】巴拉克·欧巴马的两难窘境：富国必须学习分享权力
【原文标题】Barack Obama's dilemma: Rich nations must learn to share power
【登载媒体】英国每日电讯
【原文地址链接】http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/13/do1305.xml
【译者】妩人少将 个人原创翻译
【声明】本翻译仅供Anti-CNN使用，转载时请注明出处。
【英文原文】
Barack Obama's dilemma: Rich nations must learn to share power
By David Rothkopf
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 13/11/2008
Have your say Read comments
When I was a little boy, I had a sweatshirt that on the front bore an image of the Peanuts character Linus Van Pelt. On the back, it had his most famous quote: "I love mankind: it's people I can't stand." If you ever wondered what happened to Linus, the odds are very good that he became a common type of American politician.
It's a sad fate for a once cute little boy, but it is an instructive one if you want to understand some of the dilemmas likely to face the new administration as it grapples with the consequences of this weekend's economic summit in Washington.
France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped persuade President Bush to play host to the summit, comes to the meeting like many other leaders from Europe, Asia and elsewhere: with a sweeping vision of the work to be done. They want to do nothing less than remake the world, or at least to transform post-war international financial structures to reflect what they consider to be a new global financial order.
This could mean dramatically renovating - or even replacing - the World Bank and the IMF and creating new institutions such as a Global Monetary Authority: a central bank for the planet. It would also mean establishing a new set of international financial market standards and strengthening the co-ordination between government regulators and central bankers.
For any structural changes to be meaningful, however, a number of important philosophical and even cultural changes are required as well. One of the reasons that the IMF has fallen on to such hard times is that it was seen as forcing the developing world to accept an orthodox recipe for capitalism that was politically difficult to swallow. This view - "the Washington consensus" - was a tough sell even before Washington made itself anathema to the world with Mr Bush's foreign policy. It became harder still when America threw many of its basic precepts out the window in its response to the recent financial crisis.
The consensus will require a brand make-over, or countries will seek their support elsewhere - an option that is more possible when some of the biggest pools of capital are in China, the Gulf or other emerging countries.
This shift in the balance of soft power, the rise of a new set of economic players with deep pockets and agendas not in step with those of the West, demands another philosophical shift. The November 15 meeting - not of the G7, but of the G20 - recognises this, acknowledging that there is no managing the international economy without the big emerging markets - China, India, Brazil and others - at the table. This shift is a profound one, marking the beginning of the end of the G7 as the head table of the international economy.
New or improved financial structures, created in what some would call Bretton Woods II, after the July 1944 meeting that first created the frameworks for today's global financial system, can work only if the power shift from G7 to G20 is institutionalised within those organisations and within the thinking of their political elites.
Finally, of course, world leaders must acknowledge that much of what was once believed is not true. In the simpler world in which most current regulators and policy makers grew up, money was the prime repository of value in the global economy, the key tool for policy makers to work with. Today, with more than $500 trillion in derivative financial instruments estimated to be in circulation, it is these private-sector-created instruments and other securities - many of which are complex, risky, opaque to tracking and analysis - that are the new "money".
advertisementSelf-regulating global markets now churn beyond the control of those we once depended on to ensure their smooth and fair operation. To restabilise the global financial system, we need both new tools and a new set of instructions for a global economy that has a lot of new and complicated working parts.
Which brings us back to Linus. To deal effectively with these issues will require not just creativity and vision, but also a willingness to create stronger international institutions. And the Obama team, no matter how capable, will be in a difficult place. Because while our party, the Democrats, loves multilateralism, there are some within it who can't stand globalisation.
While we love burden-sharing and alliances, a vocal subset of the party is very wary of the power of global institutions such as the WTO, just as those on the Right are afraid of "ceding sovereignty" to strong new international institutions, or control to international economic decision makers.
Yet voluntary co-operation among nations has proved insufficient to manage this system. Stronger medicine is needed. Those who would benefit from a reduction in the effects of upsets need to play by the same rules, set common standards and ensure market transparency. This means much stronger commitments from nations, whether through new or just transformed institutions. And that will be a tough sell for Obama, especially as these institutions will also have to accept a growing role for the emerging powers.
The trick will be for him to spell out that, when international institutions are too weak or they fail, the citizens of any nation have less influence over global affairs or none at all … and so it is only through effective and stronger multilateral mechanisms that we can actually preserve our sovereignty and influence.
David Rothkopf was a senior economic official during the Clinton Administration
中文译文：
巴拉克·欧巴马的两难窘境：富国必须学习分享权力
作者 大卫普夫
2008年11月13日 上午12点01
当我还是一个小男孩的时候，我曾经拥有一件前面印有《花生》漫画里的人物莱纳斯·潘贝鲁特形象的运动衫。而在运动衫的背面，写着潘贝鲁特最有名的一句话：“I love mankind: it's people I can't stand.”如果你想知道在故事里莱纳斯后来发生了什么事情，我想他有非常高的几率会成为一位典型的美国政治家。 （莱纳斯·潘贝鲁特——史努比漫画中的一个角色，露西的弟弟）
对曾经聪明伶俐的小男孩来说这是一个过于悲惨的命运，但是如果你想了解新内阁在本周末华盛顿经济首脑会议上极力争取成果所要可能面临的一些尴尬的两难境地，那么这个故事就能够非常有益地启发读者。
帮助说服美国总统布什担任首脑会议东道主的法国总统尼古拉萨科齐带着对即将开展的外交工作的美好广泛想法，像许多来自欧洲、亚洲和其他地区的其他领导人一样也出席该会议。他们这样做无非是想要改造世界，或者至少改变战后的国际金融体系，这反映出他们考虑建立新的全球金融秩序。
这可能意味着金融体系大幅的修整-甚至取代-比如修改世界银行和国际货币基金以及建立新的机构，如一家全球性的中央银行——全球金融管理局。这也许还意味着构建一套新的国际金融市场标准，同时加强政府监管机构和中央银行业主们之间的协调。
任何结构性的变化都是是有意义的，然而同时也需要有一些重要的哲学和甚至是文化上的改变。国际货币基金组织沦落到这种艰难地步的一个原因就是人们认为它强迫发展中国家接受正统的资本主义体系，这是一个令人难以下咽的政治难题。甚至在布什的外交政策使得美国招致全世界的讨厌诅咒之前，“华盛顿共识”就早已是一项艰难的推销产品。而如今因为美国在应对当前金融危机之时将自己许多基本原则抛出窗外，使得“华盛顿共识”变得更加困难。
此共识将需要进行一次品牌改造，否则各国将在其他地方寻求他们的支持者——而当一些最为庞大的资本储备掌握在中国、海湾或其他新兴国家手中时，这个选项变得更加可能。
软实力平衡的转变，财力雄厚的新的经济参与者的兴起，以及与西方议事日程步调不一致的议程的出现，都需要世界进行另一个哲学上转变。11月15日将举行的，不再是7国集体而是20国集团的会议认识到了这一点，承认如果没有在座的大新兴市场-中国、印度、巴西和其他国家的支持，就无法有效地管理全球经济。这是一次深刻的变革，标志着七国集团作为国际经济领头羊的位置结束的开始。
1944年7月会议以后举行的，在被一些人称为“布雷顿伍兹体系II”的会议上建立了新的以及改良过的金融结构，它初次建立了今天的全球金融体系的框架。而如今只有从七国集团到20国集团的权力转移在这些组织和他们的思想政治精英的期望之内实现制度化，该体系才能继续发挥作用。
当然世界各国的领导人们最后必须承认，许多曾经认为的东西是不正确的。在大部分现在的管理者和决策者成长的这个简单的世界中，钱是全球经济中价值的基本储藏库，是使决策者能够工作的重要工具。估计当前衍生的金融工具中有超过500万亿美元的财富在流通，它以那些私营部门造文书和其他证券的形式存在-其中的许多资本在追踪和分析上可以说是复杂、有风险以及不透明的，这就是新的“钱”。
自我调节的全球市场现在翻腾于我们曾经依赖来确保其顺利和公平运作的那些控制之外。为了重新稳定全球的金融体系，我们需要新的工具和一套新的操作指南，以应对会有着很多新的和复杂工作部件的新全球经济。
这又将我们带回到了莱纳斯的故事中。有效地处理这些问题不仅需要有创意和远见，也需要有创造更有力的国际机构的意愿。奥巴马的团队无论多么的有能力，都将会处境艰难。因为虽然我们的民主党热爱多边主义，但是它内部仍然有一些人反对全球化。
虽然我们渴望与别国分担负担并构建联盟，但是民主党内发挥影响力的小团体非常提防全球性机构如世贸组织的权力，正像害怕“割让主权”会使得新的国际机构变得壮大，或受到国际经济的决策者支配的那些右派人物一样。
然而国家之间的自愿合作已经被证明不足于管理这个全球系统，所以必要服用更有效的药物。那些将在全球性动荡带来的影响得到减弱后获益的国家，需要在全球经济体系竞争中遵守同样的规则，确定共同的标准，并确保市场的透明度。不管是通过新的还是刚刚转化的机构，这都意味着国家政府将在经济生活中承担更大的承诺。这将是奥巴马的一场艰苦的推销活动，尤其是当这些机构也将不得不接受新兴的大国越来越强大的角色的时候。
奥巴马将阐明的技巧是，在国际机构过于软弱或失败了的时候，任何一个国家的公民都缺乏影响全球事务的能力或根本没有...等等，所以只有通过有效的和更有力的多边机制，我们才能在实际上维护我们的主权和影响力。
作者大卫普夫是克林顿政府执政期间一位高级经济官员
[ 本帖最后由 妩人少将 于 2008-11-14 01:09 编辑 ]
页:
[1]