从“脱钩”到“去风险”:西方对华政策是如何演变的_OK阅读网
双语新闻
Bilingual News


双语对照阅读
分级系列阅读
智能辅助阅读
在线英语学习
首页 |  双语新闻 |  双语读物 |  双语名著 | 
[英文] [中文] [双语对照] [双语交替]    []        


从“脱钩”到“去风险”:西方对华政策是如何演变的
How ‘Decoupling’ From China Became ‘De-risking’

来源:纽约时报    2023-05-22 02:33



        If diplomats were on TikTok, “de-risk” would be trending. The word has suddenly become popular among officials trying to loosen China’s grip on global supply chains but not cut ties entirely, with the joint communiqué from this weekend’s Group of 7 meeting making clear that the world’s largest democratic economies will now focus on “de-risking, not decoupling.”        如果外交官开始上TikTok,“去风险”肯定会成热词。这个词在一些官员中间突然变得流行起来,他们都试图挣脱中国对全球供应链的掌控,同时又不想跟该国完全断绝关系,本周末七国集团会议发表的联合公报就明确表示,这几个世界最大经济体目前会致力于“去风险,而不是脱钩”。
        The former is meant to sound more moderate, more surgical. It reflects an evolution in the discussion over how to deal with a rising, assertive China. But the word also has a vexing history in financial policy — and since the debate over de-risking will continue, we all might as well get up to speed.        用前者是为了听起来更温和、更精确。它反映了在如何应对一个更强大、更强势的中国这个问题上,有关的讨论出现了怎样的演化。但是这个词在金融政策领域也有着令人困扰的历史——鉴于有关去风险的争论还将继续下去,我们不如做一些了解。
        How De-risking Went Viral        去风险是如何流行起来的
        “De-risking” relations with China caught on after a speech by the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, on March 30, when she explained why she’d be traveling to Beijing with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and why Europe would not follow the calls for decoupling that began under President Trump.        “去风险”与中国的关联始于欧盟委员会主席乌尔苏拉·冯德莱恩在3月30日的一次讲话,当时她解释了自己为什么与法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙一同出访北京,为什么欧洲没有响应自特朗普总统开始的脱钩呼吁。
        “I believe it is neither viable — nor in Europe’s interest — to decouple from China,” she said. “Our relations are not black or white — and our response cannot be either. This is why we need to focus on de-risk — not decouple.”        “我认为与中国脱钩既不可行,也不符合欧洲的利益,”她说。“我们的关系不是非黑即白的——我们的应对也不应该这样。这就是为什么我们需要专注于去风险,而不是脱钩。”
        German and French diplomats later pressed for the term in international settings. Countries in Asia have also been telling American officials that decoupling would go too far in trying to unravel decades of successful economic integration.        德国和法国外交官此后在国际场合强调了这个词。亚洲国家也开始对美国官员说,脱钩太过分了,会动摇几十年来的成功的经济一体化。
        In an interview, David Koh, Singapore’s cybersecurity commissioner, explained that the goal should be safety, with separation in some domains and cooperation in others.        新加坡网络安全专员许智贤(David Koh)在采访中说,应该以安全为目的,在某些领域要分离,某些领域要合作。
        “I think we derive a huge amount of economic, social and safety value when systems are interoperable,” he said. “I want my plane to take off from Singapore and land safely in Beijing.”        “我认为当系统可互用时,我们能得到大量经济、社会和安全价值,”他说。“我希望我的飞机能从新加坡起飞,在北京安全降落。”
        What worries globalized economies, he added, is “bifurcation,” with Chinese markets and manufacturing on one side, and American-approved supply chains on the other.        他接着说,全球化经济担心的是“分叉”,一边是中国市场和制造,另一边是得到美国认可的供应链。
        These arguments appear to have worked in de-risking’s favor. On April 27, the U.S. national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, used the word in a major policy speech.        这些言论似乎让去风险流行起来。4月27日,美国国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文在一次重要政策讲话中用了这个词。
        “We are for de-risking, not for decoupling,” he said. “De-risking fundamentally means having resilient, effective supply chains and ensuring we cannot be subjected to the coercion of any other country.”        “我们追求去风险,而不是脱钩,”他说。“去风险从根本上意味着有弹性、有实效的供应链,确保我们不会被任何一个国家所胁迫。”
        On May 17, S. Jaishankar, the Indian foreign minister, added his voice, saying it was “important to de-risk the global economy and yet to ensure that there is very responsible growth.”        5月17日,印度外交部长苏杰生(S. Jaishankar)也加入进来,称“重要的是在全球经济去风险的同时确保非常有责任心的增长”。
        What China Thinks        中国怎么看
        To the Chinese government, unsurprisingly, “de-risking” isn’t much of an improvement.        不出所料,对中国政府来说,“去风险”并没有多大改善。
        “There is a sense that ‘de-risking’ might be ‘decoupling’ in disguise,” the state-run Global Times wrote in a recent editorial. It argued that Washington’s approach had not strayed from “its unhealthy obsession with maintaining its dominant position in the world.”        “去风险给人一种可能是变相脱钩的感觉,”官方媒体《环球时报》在最近的一篇社论中写道。文章认为华盛顿的做法并没有偏离“对维持其世界主导地位的病态迷恋”。
        Some commentators in the region are also de-risk skeptics. “A substantial change in policy?” asked Alex Lo, a columnist for The South China Morning Post. “I doubt it. It just sounds less belligerent; the underlying hostility remains.”        该地区的一些评论人士也对去风险持怀疑态度。“政策的重大改变?”《南华早报》的专栏作家卢纲问道。“我对此表示怀疑。只是听起来没那么好战;潜在的敌意依然存在。”
        De-risking’s Sordid History        “去风险”的黑历史
        Before it entered diplo-speak, de-risking had a long life in the response to American government sanctions against terrorism and money laundering, where it’s associated with overreaching.        在进入外交语汇之前,这个词作为对美国政府的恐怖主义和洗钱制裁的回应早已存在,指的是越界管辖。
        According to the Treasury Department, “de-risking refers to financial institutions terminating or restricting business relationships indiscriminately with broad categories of customers rather than analyzing and managing the specific risks associated with those customers.”        根据美国财政部的说法,“去风险是指金融机构不加区分地终止或限制与广泛类别客户的业务关系,而不是分析和管理与这些客户相关的具体风险。”
        In other words, de-risking — in its common usage, pre-April — carries negative connotations of unnecessary exclusion.        换句话说,在4月之前,“去风险”一词通常的用途带有“不必要的排斥”这一负面含义。
        Human rights groups, for example, have condemned how banks de-risk by denying service to aid agencies that work in places like Syria, fearing fines if an organization strays into a gray zone of providing aid to nations under sanction.        例如,人权团体谴责银行通过拒绝向在叙利亚等地工作的援助机构提供服务来降低风险的做法,这些银行担心,如果一个组织误入向受制裁国家提供援助的灰色地带,会受到罚款。
        A 2015 report from the Council of Europe offered an additional critique: “De-risking can introduce further risk and opacity into the global financial system, as the termination of account relationships has the potential to force entities and persons into less regulated or unregulated channels.”        欧洲委员会2015年的一份报告提出了另一项批评:“去风险可能会给全球金融体系带来进一步的风险和不透明度,因为终止账户关系有可能迫使实体和个人进入监管较少或不受监管的渠道。”
        That means de-risking leads to enforcement challenges: Dubious and legitimate actors move into darker corners and innovate, making their actions harder to manage.        这意味着去风险会导致执法方面的挑战:各类行为者,无论是可疑的还是正当的,都进入更黑暗的角落进行创新,使他们的行为更难管理。
        Takeaway        要点
        De-risking’s history highlights the challenge facing the world’s democracies: how to disconnect from China enough to reduce the threat of coercion, without encouraging paranoia or rogue behavior that causes unneeded harm.        去风险的历史凸显了世界民主国家面临的挑战:如何与中国保持足够的距离,以减少遭胁迫的风险,同时又不鼓励造成不必要伤害的猜疑或任意行为。
        De-risking requires tough, in-the-weeds decisions and solutions. Which semiconductors must be kept out of China’s hands? Do all medical devices need to be produced somewhere other than China? What could TikTok do to firewall the risks of being owned by a Chinese company?        去风险需要艰难、琐碎的决策和解决方案。哪些半导体必须远离中国?所有的医疗器械都需要在中国以外的地方生产吗?TikTok能做些什么,来规避被一家中国公司拥有的风险?
        De-risking may feel more diplomatic than decoupling. “Who doesn’t like reducing risk?” said Bates Gill, director of the Asia Society’s Center for China Analysis. “It’s just rhetorically a much smarter way of thinking about what needs to be done.”        去风险可能比脱钩更圆滑。“谁不喜欢降低风险呢?”亚洲协会中国分析中心主任季北慈(Bates Gill)说。“这只是从措辞上想了一个聪明了许多的方法来思考需要做些什么。”
        To make it work, the United States and it allies will need to do more thinking and regulation writing for some businesses, while allowing others to stay in China, which is navigating its own push to become self-sufficient.        为了实现这一目标,美国及其盟友将需要为一些企业进行更多的考量和监管设计,同时允许另一些企业留在中国。而中国本身也在摸索方向,努力实现自给自足。
        In the sanctions world, sifting risk from fair treatment and economic benefit is an imperfect, evolving challenge — so will it be with China.        在制裁的世界里,从公平待遇和经济利益中筛选风险是一项不完美的、不断演变的挑战——对待中国也是如此。
                
   返回首页                  

OK阅读网 版权所有(C)2017 | 联系我们