【2009.08.10 经济学人】中国和力拓--不断变质的关系：在中国指控力拓参与间谍活动后
本帖最后由 vivicat 于 2009-8-17 19:41 编辑【中文标题】中国与力拓--一个不断变质的关系：在中国指控力拓参与间谍活动后
【原文标题】China and Rio Tinto --A souring relationship：Behind China’s accusations of spying against Rio Tinto
【登载媒体】经济学人
【来源地址】http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14205057
【译者】xitaowu
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-189053-1-1.html
【译文】
EACH year the world’s big steelmakers and the big suppliers of iron ore get together to fix a benchmark price for the commodity. For decades the annual negotiations generated barely a murmur of interest from outsiders. In recent years some attention was paid to talks between the big three of the seaborne iron-ore trade—BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale—and the steelmakers because of rapid price rises for iron ore on the back of rocketing Chinese demand. However this year they have been beset with uncustomary intrigue.
每年世界上的大钢铁公司和大的铁矿石供应商一起协商确定铁矿石的供应的基准价格。几十年来，年度谈判都引起外部利益者的私底下的不满。近年来这些关注转移到会谈三大海运铁矿石贸易商必和必拓，力拓和淡水河谷 --及钢铁制造商，因为中国近年来急速上升的需求所带来的价格飞速上涨，然而今年他们却被不符合常理的、有计划性的阴谋所困扰。
Last month four Rio employees, including an Australian, and two employees of Chinese steel companies were arrested in China. Then on Saturday August 8th China accused Rio, an Anglo-Australian mining giant, of overcharging the country for iron ore by a whopping 700 billion yuan ($102.5 billion) over six years.
上个月， 包括一名澳大利亚人在内的4名力拓雇员，和两名中国钢铁公司雇员在中国被逮捕。然后上周六8月8日中国控告力拓---一个英澳矿业巨头---在过去6年里通过要求过高的铁矿石价格掠取了7000亿元（1025亿美元）。
It is no coincidence that the dramatic developments come as negotiations between suppliers and China’s steelmakers, which should have concluded by April, are at an impasse. China’s government is putting pressure on the foreign suppliers and showing its ongoing unhappiness with the way that iron-ore prices are set. Secret annual discussions with one ore producer (in this case Rio) and a leading steelmaker (Baosteel for China) result in a price that is, by tradition, accepted by the other miners and the world’s steelmakers.
这戏剧性的事态发展并不是偶然的，现在铁矿石供应商和中国钢铁企业正在谈判供货的基准价格，本来这个谈判应当在4月结束，目前一直陷于僵局。中国这个内服这个内在对境外供应商施加压力，用它自己的方式展现不满铁矿石的降价幅度。铁矿石供应商（这里指力拓）和主要的中国钢铁制造商（中国宝钢）年度的秘密会谈的基准价格结果是，和以前一样，双方接受其他供应商与其它世界钢铁制造商协定的价格。
This year China has been pushing for big price cuts, in response to the waning world economy. Although steelmakers in Japan and South Korea had made a deal to pay 33% less than last year, China has demanded a deeper discount. But as talks continued, spot prices, a determinant of contract prices, began to rise. Many of China’s steelmakers looked for supplies on the open market to fill hungry blast furnaces. China’s negotiating position worsened even as it made increasingly belligerent noises.
今年，中国一直在推动大降价，以应对世界经济的衰退。虽然日本和韩国钢铁制造商接受了比去年低33%的价格，而中国则要求更高的折扣。但随着谈判继续下去，合同价格的决定因素--现货价格，开始上升。许多中国的钢铁企业在公开市场寻找原料，以满足急需铁矿石的高炉。中国在日益挑起和增加一些冲突和噪音的时候，其谈判立场更加恶化。
The anger turned to outrage in early July, with the arrest of Stern Hu, Rio's head of iron-ore marketing in China, and colleagues. They were accused of stealing state secrets. Although the precise accusations are unclear it seems that the Chinese suspect Rio’s people of spying on its steel industry to obtain information about China’s negotiating position. As a result of seizing computers during the arrests it seems that China believes it has found evidence of Rio’s wrongdoing. Rio denies all the charges but has otherwise kept quiet since the arrests.
7月初中国的怒火演变成了愤怒，并逮捕了位于中国的力拓铁矿石营销主管胡士泰和其同事。他们被指控盗窃国家机密，虽然确切地指控罪名还不清楚，但看起来中国政府相信力拓员工从事间谍活动获取有关中国谈判的信息。由于在逮捕的同时收押了他们的电脑，似乎中国确信已经找到了力拓不道德行为的证据。自逮捕事件发生后力拓否认所有的指控但在其他时候却保持沉默。
The latest accusations demand closer inspection. They have been made by a state-secrets watchdog, presumably with the government’s blessing. But the charges seem absurd. Suggesting that Rio extracted excess charges of over $100 billion for iron ore over the past six years is odd given that the company’s entire global revenue over the six years to 2008 is some $162 billion, of which less than a third has come from iron ore.
可能来自于政府间的压力，目前事件最新的进展是要求这些指控做更详细的调查，这些调查由国安局去做。但是这些指控看起来是荒谬的，按照这些指控可以联想到力拓在过去6年从中国掠取了超过1000亿美元，然而在过去6年里公司全球收入的1620亿美元的收入中，只有三分之一来自铁矿石。
Perhaps the huge total reflects what the country feels it has lost because of the benchmarking system as a whole, though it still seems excessive. That too would be a strange complaint as there is no obligation to join negotiations—the system was developed to give both miners and steelmakers certainty about prices over the year. And the system is breaking down. BHP is offering a quarterly pricing system based on spot prices and Rio says that it could do something similar. China is also entitled to buy exclusively from the spot market.
也许面对巨大的总数的反应，该国认为自己仍然失去过多，因为觉得基准系统作为一个整体，但价格似乎仍然过高。对于没有义务加入的谈判进行抱怨是非常奇怪的，这些谈判系统用于矿石供应商与钢铁制造商之间整年的供应价格。然而这系统正走向崩溃。必和必拓根据现货价格提供的季度价格，而力拓认为它将做类似的举措。中国当然也有权利拒绝他们的价格直接从现货市场购买。
It may be that China has other motives for its pursuit of Rio. The country’s leaders were said to be furious with the mining giant for pulling out of a deal in June that would have seen Chinalco, a state-controlled aluminium firm, raise its stake in Rio from 9% to 18% in return for an investment of $19.5 billion. Rio instead raised cash to pay down hefty debts with a rights issue and also announced an iron ore tie-up with BHP (which itself had tried, and failed, to acquire Rio in 2008). Chinalco took its original stake in the hopes of blocking a merger that China feared would hand too much control of iron ore prices to one company. China worries that the new deal may lead to a similar outcome.
这也许中国是因为其他动机对力拓动手，据说该国的领导人十分愤怒之前力拓退出入股协议，该协议是指中国国营公司中国铝业通过现金195亿美金现金投资（建立合资公司和购买可转债）的方式，将持有力拓集团整体持股比例由9%增加到18%。力拓集团用增股的方式替代现金支付庞大的债务，并同时宣布与必和必拓结盟（之前曾经尝试过，失败了，最终力拓在2008年成功构建联盟）。中国铝业持有原有的股份，中国担忧一家公司掌控太多的铁矿石定价能力，希望能阻止这两家铁矿石巨头的合并。中国担心这一合并协议会导致相似的后果。
China may have other reasons to act tough towards Australia. Its attempts to buy assets in Australia, home to one of Rio’s two head offices and many of its mines, have met difficulties. Australians are nervous of Chinese efforts to acquire what they regard as strategic assets, and regulators have been less than welcoming (rumours suggest that the authorities in Australia were ready to block the Chinalco deal). Australian bosses also point out that China does not welcome foreign takeovers of its firms. But the latest accusations, far from easing the country’s way into investment overseas, may make foreigners more wary about doing deals with the Chinese.
中国可能也有其他原因对澳大利亚采取强硬措施。在力拓的两个总部之一并拥有多处矿业开采所在的国家---澳大利亚试图购买资产时，遇到了许多困难。对于中国努力获取铁款式资源，澳大利亚人非常紧张，认为这些是战略物资，同时澳大利亚的监管机构也不太欢迎中国的收购（有传言澳大利亚当局将阻止中国铝业的收购）。澳大利亚的老板们也指出中国也不欢迎外国企业收购本国公司。但最新出现的（对力拓）指控（事件），对于用该国的方式进行海外投资更加困难，可能使外国人更加小心处理与中国的各种交易。
仅供参考，请指正。
翻译交流 见6#
鄙人浅见：
The latest accusations demand closer inspection. They have been made by a state-secrets watchdog, presumably with the government’s blessing.
可能来自于政府间的压力，目前事件最新的进展是要求这些指控做更详细的调查，这些调查由国安局去做。
最新的指控需要深入的调查。这已经由国安部门完成，很可能是在政府的关照之下（进行的）。
Perhaps the huge total reflects what the country feels it has lost because of the benchmarking system as a whole, though it still seems excessive.
也许面对巨大的总数的反应，该国认为自己仍然失去过多，因为觉得基准系统作为一个整体，但价格似乎仍然过高。
虽然这个巨大的总数看起来有些过分，但它可能在整体上反应了，该国所认为的由于长协价格系统而造成的损失。
深深的红 发表于 2009-8-16 00:06 http://www2.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/images/common/back.gif 他们掠夺了那么多的经济利益,却在经济危机下倒下?(如果不是有中铝)
不觉得很是件非常奇怪的事吗?
铁矿石里的黑幕,应该远不是我们看到的这么简单. 西方国家在炒作中国间谍的时候,往往像打了鸡血一样兴奋,而中国在抓到外国间谍的时候,却在极力淡化,明明是间谍却不敢承认,真是窝囊废.和谐了中国,还要和谐世界. 鄙视西媒，自己做了坏事还不承认！ 什么破媒体？听都没听说过 鄙人浅见：
The latest accusations demand closer inspection. They have been made by a state-secrets watchdog, presumably with the government’s blessing.
可能来自于政府间的压力，目前事件最新的进展是要求这些指控做更详细的调查，这些调查由国安局去做。
最新的指控需要深入的调查。这已经由国安部门完成，很可能是在政府的关照之下（进行的）。
Perhaps the huge total reflects what the country feels it has lost because of the benchmarking system as a whole, though it still seems excessive.
也许面对巨大的总数的反应，该国认为自己仍然失去过多，因为觉得基准系统作为一个整体，但价格似乎仍然过高。
虽然这个巨大的总数看起来有些过分，但它可能在整体上反应了，该国所认为的由于长协价格系统而造成的损失。 本帖最后由 vivicat 于 2009-8-17 19:45 编辑
鄙人浅见：
The latest accusations demand closer inspection. They have been made by a state-secrets watchdog, presumably with the government’s blessing.
可能来自于政府间的压力，目前事件最新的进展是 ...
深深的红 发表于 2009-8-16 00:06 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
谢谢！不合适清指正~
另外，补改这行：
The anger turned to outrage in early July, with the arrest of Stern Hu, Rio's head of iron-ore marketing in China, and colleagues.
在7月初，当力拓在中国的铁矿石贸易主管胡士太及其同事被逮捕时，怒气转成愤概。
更正为：7月初中国的怒火演变成了愤怒，并逮捕了位于中国的力拓铁矿石营销主管胡士泰和其同事。
------------------------------版主插楼编辑分界线---------------------------
已编辑进原文，感谢翻译 什么破媒体？听都没听说过
莫言莫鱼 发表于 2009-8-14 20:05 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
摘自百度：
经济学人:
《经济学人》（ISSN 0013-0613, The Economist）是一份由伦敦经济学人报纸有限公司出版的杂志，在全球发行。
《经济学人》主要关注政治和商业方面的新闻，但是每期也有一两篇针对科技和艺术的报导，以及一些书评。除了常规的新闻之外，每两周《经济学人》还会就一个特定地区或领域进行深入报道。 杂志最早于1843年9月由詹姆士·威尔逊创办，创办的目的是“参与一场推动前进的智慧与阻碍我们进步的胆怯无知之间的较量”，这句话被印在每一期《经济学人》杂志的目录页上。一般人把《经济学人》看作是一份杂志，因为它每周出刊一次，而且采用杂志专用的光面纸印刷。但是《经济学人》认为自己是一份报纸，因为它每一期除了提供分析与意见外，还试图报导整周发生的所有重要政经新闻。
《经济学人》的发行量大约是88万份，大约一半的读者群在北美，20%在欧洲大陆，15%在英国，10%在亚洲。《经济学人》有意识地将自己看作是一份国际性杂志，因此报道不仅仅局限于或偏重于英国或欧洲，因此其80%以上的读者是在英国以外地区。
《经济学人》的发行人经济学人报纸有限公司是经济学人集团的全资子公司，而经济学人集团则是一家私人企业，一半的股份由私人股东控股，另一半则由《金融时报》拥有。在2002年，经济学人集团的营业额达到2.27亿英镑，赢利1500万英镑。其收入大约一般来自读者订阅，另一般则是广告收入。 此外，这篇文章评论也很多：
有兴趣的自己上去看
网址：http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14205057&fsrc=rss&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> Last
Leon HAHA wrote:
August 16, 2009 19:18
Legoland01
The US acting like a horse's behind doesn't excuse Chinese action. This is a discussion on this specific case, bring up all the wrong doings in the world will not alter this case.
Indeed if bribery is involved, charge them so and tell everyone in the beginning like a civilized society would. Making the four disappeared without giving any coherent reason is a just cause for criticism. Letting government-controlled media started a lynching is definitely not civilized.
I believe it was the US Congress which blocked the deals you mentioned and FBI who arrested Dr Wenho Lee yet you named the US as being responsible. Why not criticize "the wrong doing of some people/government agency within" US rather than rant against the US? Let's not be splitting hair here.
Recommend (1)Report abuse
bismarck111 wrote:
August 16, 2009 18:29
smiling_face_riger,
"FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT , since the TIME article did not mention names, it is not being factual"
I don't have a problem with using unnamed sources, but as a professional journalist they should use people who are willing to go on the record most of the time. Look even the China Daily would not write a piece like this.
As for the Economist not allowing their writers to use their name that is irrelevant. Because at the end of the day its the Economist as a magazine that is responsible.
With the unnamed source no one is responsible.
"Since you yourself also do not mention your real name, as all of us here use fake names,as well
THEN, does it mean , as, according to your logic, we are all not factual here ?"
It interesting that you should make that point. We are just having a discussion. Even though my figures are correct and properly sourced no one is going to take my info and use it as a source.
Someone pays Bill Powell to write an article that is supposed to factual. He gets paid $100-150 K a year, at least he should be more careful about the facts. His editor who most likely gets paid even more than him is supposed to fact check. What if a college or high school student uses that 75% figure to write an essay or report thinking that since TIMES is a respectable magazine its figures are true.
What I did not like about the article it was mostly heresay. It did not comment on what the Chinese government had to say about the possibility of Baosteel taking over negotiations again or provide more background. Most readers of TIMES will take the story as fact, because this is most likely 1-2 time they came across the topic. If the SMH or Financial Times was to write such a piece I would have no problem, because it would most likely be their 10 or 20 piece on Rio Tinto. Readers have the other articles to serve as counter balance.
Recommend Report abuse
Smiling face tiger_ wrote:
August 16, 2009 16:22
@ bismarck
FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT , since the TIME article did not mention names, it is not being factual
Since you yourself also do not mention your real name, as all of us here use fake names,as well
THEN, does it mean , as, according to your logic, we are all not factual here ?
The AUTHOR OF THIS Economist aticle do not disclose his name, ---does that mean that this article is not factual? does it mean that all ECONOMIST articles are not factual since all ECONOMIST articles do not bear the names of their writers
AT LEAST THE TIME ARTICLE's writer give his name as Bill POWELL
..... 中国是不是阳虚体质。
页:
[1]