美國應在亞洲摒棄冷戰思維

In a thinly veiled admonishment, the White House recently accused the UK – our closest ally – of “a policy of constant accommodation” towards China. The parallel drawn to the historical appeasement of Germany by an apprehensive Europe was lost on no one, nor indeed the overwrought nature of the underlying concern.

最近，白宮(White House)向其最親密的盟友英國發出了一個幾乎不加掩飾的告誡，指責其對中國奉行“不斷遷就的政策”。這顯然是想讓人聯想起歷史上惶惶不安的歐洲對德國採取的綏靖政策，與此同時，所有人也都明白，美國這塊“心病”其實是由過度緊張造成的。

The proximate cause of this spleen-venting was the surprise breaking of ranks by the UK to join as a founding shareholder the nascent China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB.) This initial $50bn fund has as its’ agenda the financing of overdue infrastructure in Asia.

美國如此大發脾氣，直接原因是英國與美國分道揚鑣、決定以創始股東身份加入由中國主導的新生的亞洲基礎設施投資銀行（AIIB，簡稱：亞投行），這讓美國頗感意外。亞投行初始資本爲500億美元，目標是爲亞洲早該建設的基礎設施提供融資。

It is of a piece too with the recent proposal by China to form a Brics bank focused on its’ partners in Brazil India, Russia and South Africa. There is also then the ambitious “New Silk Road” project, which aims to generate greater connectivity between Asia and beyond – by land and by sea. All of this stands against the backdrop of a US-led effort to hammer out a Trans Pacific Partnership with the very same partners in Asia, conspicuously excluding China.

這與中國近期提出的建立“金磚銀行”(Brics bank)的計劃非常相像。金磚銀行的注意力將主要放在中國的合作伙伴巴西、印度、俄羅斯和南非身上。另外還有雄心勃勃的“新絲綢之路”(New Silk Road)計劃，目標是通過陸路和海路加強中國與亞洲乃至更遙遠地區的連通性。這些都與美國目前牽頭展開的一項努力針鋒相對：美國正努力與中國上述計劃所涉及的那些亞洲合作伙伴敲定《跨太平洋夥伴關係》(TPP)協定，引人注目的一點是，該協定將中國排除在外。

The UK has since been followed by very nearly the rest of our allies – save Japan – in signing up with the more than 30 countries that have already chosen to join. We are increasingly alone in our worry that a China dominated enterprise may not follow international standards of creditworthiness, transparency, and environmental sensitivity that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank adhere to.

美國的所有盟友（日本除外）後來幾乎都在效仿英國的做法，與30多個已決定加入亞投行的國家簽署入行協議。美國擔心，一個由中國主導的組織或許不會像世界銀行(World Bank)、國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)和亞洲開發銀行(ADB)那樣遵守有關信譽、透明度和環保敏感性的國際標準，但持同樣擔心的國家現在越來越少。

While US officials are not directly discouraging other nations from joining the bank, the opposition is consistent with the impression in Asia that our efforts are aimed at bolstering our martial superiority with a soft economic superiority that seeks to displace China from the already pivotal role it has in the furthering of Asian economies.

儘管美國官員沒有直接勸說其他國家不要加入亞投行，但是這種抵制的態度符合美國給亞洲留下的印象：美國想以軟性的經濟優勢來鞏固自身的軍事優勢，而這種經濟優勢意味着不讓中國在促進亞洲經濟發展方面繼續扮演其已在扮演的關鍵角色。

It does not help the White House that Congress has stalled proposed reforms to the IMF, which would double the fund’s resources and give more voting power to the BRICS, most notably China. In short, whether it is White House or Congressional policy or both, US impediments to IMF reforms have accelerated China’s opportunity to lead in the region.

美國國會阻撓擬議中的IMF改革，也就是將IMF的資本增加一倍並給予金磚國家、尤其是中國更多投票權。這種做法對白宮並無助益。簡而言之，不管這是白宮的政策，還是美國國會的政策，還是二者共同的政策，美國阻撓IMF改革的做法都加大了中國在亞洲擔當領導者的機會。

We are unable also to bolster a viable regional alternative to the AIIB. The most likely candidate, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), is chronically underfunded and unable to serve as the lead organizing force for a much overdue Asian investment resurgence. The US has not met its funding commitments to either the IMF or ADB, in spite of the ADB’s own estimates that Asia needs at least $8tn in infrastructure investment.

美國也無法找到一個能在該地區有效替代亞投行的實體並予以支持。最有可能的候選者是亞開行，但長期資金不足的亞開行無法擔當主要的組織者、促成早該出現的亞洲投資復興。無論是對亞開行還是對IMF，美國都沒有兌現其出資承諾，儘管亞開行自身的估計數字顯示亞洲至少需要8萬億美元基礎設施投資。

Significant projects such as Asian rail links, hydroelectric power and logistical links all require deep pocketed and patient sponsors that the West’s riven political structures simply cannot provide the consensus for anymore. The equivalent of the New Deal for Asia – mirroring the commitment and policy cohesion under which the US stitched together a continent with roads, while raising a generation out of poverty – is simply not imaginable today with the backing of the World Bank, IMF or the ADB. It is inevitable then that as resurgent Asian economies welcome abundant and flexible Chinese investment, the US appears weaker by being unable to mobilise the West to offer a compelling alternative.

亞洲的鐵路網、水力發電和物流網等重大項目，都需要財力雄厚又有耐心的投資者，而西方四分五裂的政治結構根本無法再爲此達成共識。今天，要想在亞洲複製當年美國的“新政”(New Deal)，即像美國那樣靠承諾和政策凝聚力把整塊大陸用道路連通起來、同時讓一代人脫離貧困，靠世行、IMF或亞開行的支持是根本不可想象的。因此，隨着復興中的亞洲經濟體對充裕而靈活的中國投資表示歡迎、而美國又無法動員西方提供一個令人難以抗拒的替代選擇，美國顯現出頹勢就是不可避免的。

Far away from the teeming capitals of Asia, many in the US are unaware also of how radically different the world view is of the western dominated global development bodies. The tough love austerity recipes that the IMF and World Bank routinely impose on Asian countries in exchange for aid or sponsorship are increasingly seen as severe and slavishly theoretical. We run the risk of appearing hypocritical when we in the West bail out our own banks and major industries in carefully and centrally planned moves, while insisting upon letting transparent and unfettered market forces determine the fate of Asian institutions when they run aground.

另外，由於與亞洲各國人口衆多的首都相距甚遠，美國的很多人不瞭解世界對西方主導的全球開發機構有着多麼截然不同的看法。IMF和世行經常會向亞洲國家開出代表“嚴愛”的緊縮處方、以此作爲向它們提供援助和資助的條件，人們越來越認爲這種做法既苛刻又教條。當西方人一面以小心翼翼和中央計劃的舉措紓困自己的銀行和主要產業、一面卻堅決要求讓透明和不受約束的市場力量決定陷入困境的亞洲機構的命運時，就會在別人眼中可能會成爲“虛僞”的代名詞。

We fail also to properly evaluate how essential China’s investment is to our own domestic economy. In a still fragile housing market Chinese investment into US residential property amounts to nearly $22bn with most of it in stable hard cash, impervious to market jitters. Consider also the overall very welcome foreign direct investment from China which in California alone tallies up at an astonishing $12bn, far outpacing any other source and certainly eclipsing locally led investments. Further, Chinese investment into California alone has a potential to reach an astonishing $60bn by 2020 if the state and the private sector maximise the partnership.

至於中國投資對美國國內經濟有多麼重要，美國也沒能做出正確評估。在美國房地產市場依舊脆弱之際，中國對美住宅地產投資已逼近220億美元，其中大多數投資是以不受市場波動影響的、可靠的現款來完成的。再考慮下整體上很受歡迎的來自中國的外商直接投資(FDI)，僅在加利福尼亞一個州就達到令人吃驚的120億美元，遠遠超過來自任何其他國家的投資，當然也讓來自美國國內的投資黯然失色。此外，如果加州公共及私營部門能最大限度地發展利用這種合作關係，那麼到2020年時，中國僅對加州一個州的投資就有望達到令人乍舌的600億美元。

It is clear then that the economic fallout would be severe if Chinese investors pulled back from new investment in California, New York, Texas, Illinois, or Washington, to name just the most popular destinations of Chinese investment. As an American and the CEO of an Asian bank based in the US, it is clear to this observer that the repercussions would affect us greatly.

因此，如果中國投資者撤回新近在加州、紐約州、德克薩斯州、伊利諾伊州或華盛頓州（這裏僅舉幾個最熱門的中國投資目的地）的投資，顯然會造成嚴重的經濟後果。我既是一名美國人又是一家亞洲銀行美國區的首席執行官，在我這樣的專業人士看來，這些後果無疑會嚴重影響到我們。

As China approaches the status of the world’s largest economy, it has become an integral part of the global financial system. It is both bad policy and an ahistorical view that any strengthening of China regionally is necessarily damaging to US interests in Asia. The US would be better served if we did not continue to treat China as a junior partner in its own backyard, and form a diplomatic partnership instead that recognises China’s importance to the development of Asia and as an intermediary funneling domestic surpluses into high value investments around the globe.

隨着中國逐漸登上世界最大經濟體的寶座，它已成爲全球金融體系不可或缺的一部分。有人認爲中國的地區影響力增強必然會損害美國在亞洲的利益，這是一種有悖歷史潮流的觀點，會催生糟糕的政策。假若美國不再把中國視爲其所在地區內的次要合作伙伴，而是與其建立一種新型外交合作關係，承認其對亞洲發展的重要性、以及其作爲把國內過剩資本導向世界各地高價值投資之中介的重要性，會更符合美國的利益。

It is true that we started this century believing that we would enjoy center stage in a permanently uni-polar world, but that is just not the case anymore. China differs from previous rivals we have historically faced in one crucial way in that its’ strategic goals are driven largely by economics and a desire to maintain internal social and economic stability.

沒錯，本世紀開始時我們曾認爲自己會在這個永久的單極世界裏出盡風頭，但現在這種想法已不再成立。在一個至關重要的方面，中國與美國過去遭遇的對手並不相同：中國的戰略目標主要受經濟狀況以及維持國內社會和經濟穩定的願望驅動。

There is little apparent desire or motive to subjugate the globe as they are not in their current form driven by an ideological imperative of lethal opposition to the US or democratic nations in general, as we were used to from our old foe the Soviet Union. Hence, holding on to the narrative of the Cold War will lead only to wasted treasure and a stalemate neither we nor the rest of the world can afford.

中國沒有什麼明顯的慾望或動機去征服世界，因爲其目前所處的階段並不受極力反對美國或整個民主世界（過去，我們的老冤家蘇聯曾這樣對待我們）這種意識形態使命的驅動。因此，死抱着冷戰思維不放，只會造成財富浪費以及無論美國還是世界其餘國家都承受不起的對峙。

With more than seven per cent of our national debt – the most of any nation – and the world’s largest stockpile of greenbacks outside of the US, China realises the almost umbilical stake they have in the continuous health of the US. While the US certainly does not treat China as gravely as we once did the Soviet Union, the rhetoric is heating up and has the potential to escalate if not handled with care.

中國持有逾7%的美國國債，是我們最大的債權國，同時也是世界上除美國外美元儲備最多的國家。中國明白自己的利益與美國的長久健康息息相關。美國現在當然沒有像過去對待蘇聯那樣冷酷地對待中國，但冷戰敘事正在升溫，若不小心應對，這種敘事可能會升級。

Noor Menai is President & CEO of CTBC Bank USA and former CEO of Charles Schwab Bank

本文作者是中國信託商業銀行美國(CTBC Bank USA)總裁兼首席執行官，曾任嘉信銀行(Charles Schwab Bank)首席執行官