|
|
【原文标题】Chinese and American madness
【中文标题】中美对话是疯狂无意义的
【登载媒体】外交政策
【来源地址】http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/12/chinese_and_american_madness
【译 者】朱朱
【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。
【译 文】
何为疯狂？虽不停地重复同样的政策和行为，可每一次都期待会带来不同于上一次的结果，这就是癫狂。
在周二结束的中美战略经济对话的结束语上，美国财政部长蒂姆盖纳特称颂道，“具体而实际的信号显示双方都取得了进步”。当然，这是过去几年中美对话后盖纳特一直重复的台词。
那么，这些进步的信号都是什么呢？也许，最重要的就是中国保证增强对知识产权的保护并且会改变政府采购规则，也就是说，中国政府合同的竞标商若想赢取合同不必以同意向中国转移技术为交换条件。中国还保证在任何一级政府，外国公司赢得政府合同都不必以促进当地科技革新为条件。另一方面，美国则保证放松对华高科技和与国家安全相关的出口的限制，同时表达了希望中国的银行在美国投资的意愿。
这些听起来都不错，然而问题是这些话以前都说过。假如中国每承诺一次增强对知识产权的保护，我就存一美元，那么现在我早就是个富翁了。中美战略经济对话的最后一个回合，中国还保证对科技转移和本土创新的投标案将不设置市场准入条件及裁定。并且，据我回忆，以前的美国商贸谈判官员已经保证过，如日本和现在的中国一样的贸易伙伴，美国对其军事相关的科技出口控制都将放松。至于让中国银行来投资，我认为，任何美国官员以前都没说过中国银行不允许来美投资，前提是这些银行满足了对美投资的规则。
一次又一次的重复这些话只能告诉我们，这些保证从来都没有被真正完全的履行过。为什么呢？当然两个国家都不是十足的骗子，但是既要保证对方能满意，又要避免兑现这些承诺，这是出于一些重于一切的考虑的。是的，中国也许会建立一些专利或版权法的执行机制，也有可能更改合同不要求外国公司正式承诺转移技术或参与当地创新。但我们现在都该现实点。中国自己有一套成熟的产业政策和经济战略，旨在发展指定的关键产业并努力提升这些产业的能力以达到世界级水平。外国公司对这一点是清楚的。他们也知道不论做什么都要先得到北京的允许。中国这股强大的力量正在推动国外科技向国内的转移促进当地技术革新。既然这样还会有人相信中国的威权政府就算从合同中把这些条款删掉，那么在实际操作时就不会这么做了吗？
同样，美国官员也可以简单地说他们愿意中国的银行在美国投资。但是他们会办理这些投资吗？当然，这个问题就完全不一样了。谁会认为美国官员真的会允许不透明的中国国有银行在美国正式运营？
在盖纳特宣布胜利并称颂中美对话的成功的当天，美国每月贸易赤字已超过了480亿美元，而与中国贸易的赤字在美国非石油类赤字里共占了70%的份额。中美对话无力改变赤字情况，原因就是这个对话本来就是一场疯狂的行为。
【原 文】
Madness has been defined as continually repeating the same policies and actions while each time expecting a result different from the previous one.
Thus, at the conclusion of Tuesday's U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner hailed "concrete, tangible signs of progress on both sides." This is, of course, only the tenth or so time that Geithner has repeated this claim over the past few years of dialogue with China.
So what were these signs of progress? Perhaps the most important was a pledge by China to improve protection of intellectual property and to change its government procurement rules so that foreign bidders for government contracts don't have to agree to transfer technology to China as a condition of being awarded a contract. China also pledged not to make indigenous innovation a condition of foreign companies being awarded a government contract at any level of government. On the other side, the United States pledged to relax controls on high-tech, national security related exports to China and expressed willingness to let Chinese banks invest in the U.S.
The only trouble with all this nice-sounding verbiage is that it has all been said before. If I had a dollar for every time China has pledged to improve protection of intellectual property, I'd be a very rich man. The last round of this S&ED also included assurances by China that it would not condition market access and awards of government contract bids on technology transfer or indigenous innovation. And, for as long as I can remember as a former U.S. trade negotiator, U.S. officials have been assuring trading partners like Japan and now China that U.S. controls on exports of military-related technology will be relaxed. As for letting the Chinese banks invest, I don't think any U.S. official has ever said that they can't invest as long as they meet all the rules for banking in the U.S.
The need to repeat these pledges time after time tells you that the pledges were never actually fulfilled or certainly not fully fulfilled. Why not? Well, neither country is telling flat-out lies, but there are certain overriding considerations that just prevent these kinds of pledges from ever being honored in a way satisfactory to the other side. Yes, China may step up enforcement of some of its patent or copyright laws and might change contracts so as not to require a formal commitment for foreign companies to transfer technology or for foreign companies to do indigenous innovation. But let's be real here. China has a full-fledged industrial policy and economic strategy aimed at developing specified key industries and at raising the capabilities of these industries to world-class levels. Foreign companies know this. They also know that they have to get Beijing's permission to blow their noses. Powerful forces in China are pushing for technology transfer from abroad and for indigenous innovation. Does anyone think that China's authoritarian bureaucrats will be unable to convey that message in informal ways even if offending language is removed from contracts?
By the same token, American officials can easily say they are willing to have Chinese banks invest in the U.S. But will they be able to proceed with such investments? Ah, that is a totally different question. Does anyone think that U.S. officials are really going to allow nontransparent, state-controlled Chinese banks to set up for normal business in the U.S.?
It was somehow fitting that on the very day on which Geithner declared victory and hailed the success of the dialogue, the U.S. monthly trade deficit widened to over $48 billion while the deficit with China totaled 70 percent of the U.S. non-oil trade deficit.
Nothing in this dialogue will do anything to change that deficit story, and the reason is because the whole dialogue is just madness. |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-5-16 16:20
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
