What do Volvo, the port of the Piraeus, and the Château Viaud vineyard and winery in Bordeaux have in common with Spanish debt and bonds issued by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF)? They are all owned by Chinese investors.
瑞典的沃尔沃汽车公司，希腊的比雷埃夫斯港，波尔多维奥酒庄的葡萄园和酒厂，还有欧洲金融稳定基金（EFSF）发行的西班牙债务债券，它们有何相同之处？答案是，它们都被中国投资者所拥有。
In addition to the massive amounts of European sovereign debt and portfolio assets already in Chinese hands, private and state-owned Chinese companies have embarked on a shopping spree in Europe over the past four years. Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) is still minute compared to other sources of FDI in Europe -- a mere 0.2% of all foreign investment stock in Europe according to recent calculations by the Rhodium Group. But Chinese direct investment is already present in all 27 European Union member states and will likely continue to grow as Chinese firms are encouraged to go abroad, pushed by their own government and incentivized by their own bottom line.
除大量持有欧洲主权债务和证券资产外，在过去四年里，中国的私企与国企还开始了在欧洲大肆收购。在欧洲获得的对外直接投资(FDI)中，来自中国的投资仍然显得微不足道，根据荣鼎经济咨询公司（纽约的一家专注于中国的经济顾问机构）最近计算，来自中国的投资只占欧洲获得的总投资量的0.2%。但是来自中国的直接投资已经广布于27个欧盟成员国中，并且在中国政府的鼓励以及利益驱动的双重刺激下，来自中国的投资很可能会持续不断的增加。
Will Chinese direct investment transform the political economy of Europe, and, if so, is this a real cause of concern for Europeans? Could Chinese investment threaten European unity?
This is a novel situation for European countries more accustomed to investing in emerging, problematic economies than being treated like one of them. Throughout the 20th century, direct investment flowed almost exclusively from developed to developing economies. Europe and the United States were, and still are, the largest investors worldwide and the largest stakeholders in each others' economies. However, outward direct investment originating in developing countries exploded in the past decade, mainly in the direction of other emerging economies, such as India investing in Brazil or China in Africa. A much more recent phenomenon is that emerging countries, chief among them China, are now starting to invest in developed countries. The combination of the global financial crisis, massive currency reserves accumulated by China, and the sovereign debt crises in Europe has turned China into a potential savior perhaps -- but also a potential predator for the embattled European economies.
中国的直接投资会改变欧洲的政治经济吗？若答案是肯定的，那这会是欧洲人焦虑的真正原因吗？中国的直接投资会影响到欧洲的团结吗？对于欧洲，这是一个未曾有过的境况，因为他们更习惯于投资去扶植新兴经济以及救市，而非反过来被投资。整个20世纪，直接投资几乎都是由发达经济体流向发展中的经济体。彼时至今，欧美一直都是世界上最大的投资者，并且彼此之间有着最紧密的利益关系。然而，在过去的十年间，来自发展中国家的直接投资迅速增加，这些投资主要面向其它的新兴经济体，例如印度投资巴西，中国投资非洲。在更近的几年里，新兴的国家已开始向发达国家投资，其中最主要的便是中国。全球经济的危机，中国积累的大量货币储备以及欧洲的主权债务危机，种种因素相结合，使得中国之于四面楚歌的欧洲经济，即可能是一位救世主也可能是一位掠夺者。
The savior narrative comes from China seemingly dropping "helicopter money" in national economies that have few alternative prospects of cash influx. Swedish automaker Saab just won a reprieve after two Chinese carmakers agreed to buy the company hours before a court could have forced its factories to close forever. Klaus Regling, head of the EFSF, went to Beijing as soon as the European rescue package was put together, begging for Chinese investment in the fund.
来自中国的救世传奇故事看起来就像驾着直升机，在欧洲那几乎看不到金钱流入希望的灰色天空上撒下灿灿的金币。瑞典的汽车制造商萨博公司在开庭宣布破产前的数小时获得缓刑，因为两个中国汽车制造商同意收购该公司。欧洲救助计划刚一达成，欧洲金融稳定基金首席执行官克劳斯·雷格林便迫不及待的来到北京，请求中国资金的援助。
On the other hand, China has also been portrayed in the media and in some political rhetoric as a predator. In this scenario, it begins by preying on the weaker EU countries before insidiously penetrating the rich European economies, using sovereign debt purchases and direct investment as part of its master plan to take over the world. Respected magazines all over Europe have used on their cover pages menacing images of fiery dragons spewing banknotes or contemporary Maos with imperialistic designs on the continent.
另一方面，在媒体和一些政治言论中，中国被描述为一名掠夺者。在它们描述的剧本中，中国先通过购买主权债券和直接投资的方式来掠夺欧盟中的弱小国家，然后借此渗透富足的欧盟经济体，这是其接管世界蓝图中的一部分。全欧许多有名的期刊都把一头邪恶火龙的图片做为封面，图片里，火龙在向欧洲大陆喷着钞票和带有帝国主义风格的毛泽东思想。 In any case, whether China is seen as a deus ex machina or a devil to whom weak European economies have sold their souls, the increasing willingness of Chinese entities to invest in Europe, directly and indirectly, raises a multiplicity of unanswered political questions. Will it lead to European dependency and Chinese leverage? Does Chinese investment come with strings attached, and can it act as a Trojan Horse affecting European norms and policies, from labor rights to the environment? Are there security implications to Chinese investment, especially when it comes to potential technology transfers?
总之，不管中国是欧洲的救世主还是夺走其灵魂的魔鬼，对中国实体直接或间接投资的期望不断升温，也带来了多种多样的政治问题。这种情形会不会导致欧洲成为其附庸国，同时成为中国对付欧洲的手段？中国的投资是否会像特洛伊木马（内藏敌人士兵一样）带有附加条件，从工人权利到环境等各种领域，对欧洲的规范和政策造成影响？这样是否会让中国的资金进入到一些需要安全保障的领域，尤其是这些资金会涉及到一些可能的技术转让问题。
European policymakers and publics are for the moment ambiguous towards this unprecedented situation. Opinion polls show that Europeans are split when it comes to viewing China as an opportunity or a threat. Of individuals in the twelve EU countries surveyed in the 2011 edition of the Transatlantic Trends poll, 41% see the Chinese economy as a threat while 46% see it as an opportunity. This reflects vast differences among countries, the French at one end of the spectrum with 56% seeing China as a threat, the Dutch on the other end with only 22% interpreting China as a threat. Similar splits were reflected in the immediate reactions to the announcement that the EFSF was looking to China to secure some of the bailout funds.
欧洲的政策制定者以及公众对目前这个前所未有的情况都持模棱两可的态度。民意调查显示，在中国是敌是友这个问题上，欧洲人的看法并不一致。从2011年 “跨大西洋趋势”在12个欧盟国家的民意调查结果来看，41%的人认为中国经济对于欧洲是个威胁，46%的人则认为这对欧洲是个机遇。调查还反映出，对于中国的看法，不同的国家之间存在巨大差异：法国与荷兰是两个截然相反的极端，在法国，有56%的人把中国视作威胁，而在荷兰，只有22%的人持此看法。类似的差异在欧洲金融稳定基金希望中国保证部分援助资金的声明中也可以看到。
Probably the biggest concern right now is that with the current political fragility of the EU, there is a real potential for Chinese investment to exploit and exACerbate European disunity. First, opinion is split in Europe when it comes to the desirability of Chinese investment, with objections ranging from the political to the cultural. Second, no mechanism exists right now at the EU level for vetting foreign investments (on grounds other than competition policy). Third, European nations will logically compete with each other to attract Chinese investment with all sorts of incentives. All of this could combine into a perfect storm shattering European unity. The predicted surge of Chinese investment in Europe presents great opportunities; after all, it is better for the EU if Chinese companies come to Europe and employ local workers than if European companies go East to employ Chinese workers. But in order for this investment to truly rescue European economies, Europeans have to be careful to present a unified response so that China does not end up ruling by dividing, carving out concessions in the heart of Europe as an irony of history.
欧洲当前最大的担心在于，中国会借欧盟政治虚弱之机，利用并加剧欧盟内部的不统一状况。第一，在是否期望中国投资这个问题上，欧洲的观点是不一致的，同时还伴随着从政治到文化的各种领域内反对（中国的）声音。第二，在欧盟的整体层次上，目前还没有（以除竞争政策外的理由来）审查国外投资的机制。第三，欧洲各国理所当然的会利用各种优惠政策来吸引中国的投资。而这种竞争可能会掀起一场狂风骤雨，把欧盟的统一状态粉碎。当然，我们所预计的中国投资浪潮肯定会带来大量的机会；毕竟，对于欧盟来说，中国公司来欧洲投资并雇佣当地的工人要比欧洲公司去东方并雇佣中国工人要好。但为了使中国的投资能真正解救欧洲经济，欧洲各国必须对中国统一步调，只有这样中国才不会对不同国家制定不同政策，也不会把这种援助当作历史的一种讽刺刻入欧洲的内心。 Comment:
评论：
Shoop Bio:
Great post. But what is the alternative? Who will invest in Europe if the Chinese don't, and where will Chinese money go if not in Europe?
好文。但是，我们彼此会有其它的选择吗？若中国不投资欧洲，还会有谁来投资；若中国不往欧洲投资，还能往哪里投资？
Spwitts:
It's an interesting progression of globalization that it's come to this: China beginning to invest in Europe. Perhaps a lesson to be learned from the Chinese themselves is to pair up Chinese ventures with European companies in joint partnerships so dominance doesn't shift to a foreign country in Europe -- although that would be ironic considering China's 'century of humiliation.'
全球化真是个有趣的过程，它带来了这样的结果:中国开始向欧洲投资。获取我们应该从中吸取的教训是，我们应该以合作的方式把中国人的冒险精神同欧洲公司结合起来，这样控制权就不会转移到一个国外公司的手里了—但考虑到中国历史上的“百年屈辱”，这种合作将会是一种讽刺。
Dempst:
The U.S. bought Great Britain's assets when it had to face two world wards. Now China may purchase U.S. and European assets when they face the results of their fiscal folly. I don't see much difference in being owned by the autocrats in Wall St. or the autocrats in Beijing.
Perhaps Greece could lease a few of its islands to help with its debt crisis in lieu of repayment of its foreign debt. Britain leased Hong Kong for 99 years...or was that 150 years. In any case, a Greek island under the control of Germany would have a much higher probability of being run on a profitable basis than being left part of the Greek nation. After 99 years the Greeks would get back an island which would be very productive. Everyone wins.
If the Chinese take over a few Greek, Italian, Spanish islands, they could fill them with excess population and, with any luck, eventually take over Europe. That would handle the declining population in that area of the world. Might even result in the Westernization of China... or vice versa。
Now here in Canada we have huge frozen Arctic islands which are almost totally uninhabited ...for a good reason. It's really really cold most of the time. Other than for the vast oil and mineral resources which they contain... ? Well maybe they would be interested.
当初的美国面对两张“病床”时，选择了购买英国的财富。现在，当中国面对欧美愚蠢的财政所导致的后果时，或许会购买他们的财富。不过，不管这些财富是在华尔街的独裁者手里还是在北京的独裁者手里，我不认为有什么区别。
或许希腊可以出租部分岛屿以偿还它在国外的债务，进而缓解它的债务危机。英国租借了香港99年..或者是150年。无论如何，一个德国经营的希腊岛屿肯定比希腊自己经营更可有能盈利。99年后，德国归还希腊一个富饶的岛屿。结果是双赢的。
如果中国能接管部分希腊，意大利和西班牙的岛屿，他们可以让岛上居住超额的人口，若有好运气，他们或许最终可以接管整个欧洲。这样可以解决这些地区人口下降的问题。或许最后可以西化中国….当然，也可能恰恰相反。
目前，在加拿大有许多在北极区范围的冰冻岛屿，那里几乎无人居住…原因很明显，那里大部分时间都很冷，但那里有丰富的石油和矿藏。或许他们会对这些岛感兴趣。
狗仔卡
楼主
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-11-4 23:59
发表于 2011-11-5 01:05
