日历
| |||||||||
| 日 | 一 | 二 | 三 | 四 | 五 | 六 | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |||
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||||
搜索标题
我的好友
统计信息
- 访问量: 1337
- 日志数: 27
- 建立时间: 2009-01-15
- 更新时间: 2009-10-28
RSS订阅
我的最新日志
-
火星撞地球
2009-10-28
China and America
The odd couple
Oct 22nd 2009
From The Economist print editionAmerica should be much more confident in its dealings with its closest rival
Illustration by Jon Berkeley
IT HAS become a tedious tradition for Westerners dealing with China to garnish their speeches with wisdom from the Chinese classics. Barack Obama, addressing Chinese and American leaders in July, used not just a banal quotation from Mencius, a Confucian sage, but a punchier one from Yao Ming, a Chinese basketball player: “No matter whether you are new or an old team member, you need time to adjust to one another.” Though it is 30 years since the two countries re-established diplomatic ties severed by the Communist takeover, both sides still badly need to adjust.
The heart of the problem is a profound uncertainty in both countries about where the relationship may lead. In many respects the two countries are in the same bed. Their economies have become interlocked, especially in the past decade. America is the world’s biggest debtor and China its biggest creditor. From climate change to the economic recovery, the world faces problems that demand China and America work in concert.
Prussian blues, Chinese reds
Yet relations are dogged by fears of a new cold war, or even a hot one, breaking out. Some Americans in Washington, DC, talk of China as “the new Prussia”. China has engaged in a rapid military build-up that could challenge America as the defender of Asian peace (and Taiwan’s sovereignty). Unannounced, China is building its first aircraft-carrier, yet its generals often refuse even to talk to their American peers.
Underlying the strategic competition is China’s economic rise. Its companies are “colonising” swathes of Africa and Latin America, cosying up to regimes Westerners shun. Its huge foreign-exchange holdings and its sniffing of bargains mean Chinese investment in the West will grow rapidly in the coming years. And to cap it all, China owns $800 billion of American government debt—enough to give it power of life and death over the American economy.
Tensions will get worse in the next few years for two reasons. The first is unavoidable: 2012 witnesses important political transitions in the form of elections in Taiwan and America and a Communist Party Congress in China. Second—and more generally—there has been a recalibration of perceived power. There is now talk of a G2 of China and America, implying that their global weights are nearly equal. In fact, as our special report argues, this is a misperception, and a dangerous one.
China’s economy is still less than a third the size of America’s at market exchange-rates. Its GDP per head is one-fourteenth that of America. The innovation gap between the two countries remains huge. America’s defence budget is still six times China’s. As for the Treasury bills, dumping them is not an option for China: a tumbling dollar would hurt its own economy (see article). And as American consumers spend less, while Chinese stimulus boosts its domestic spending, the huge and politically troublesome trade imbalances are shrinking. In the meantime, the danger of overegging China’s economic expansion abroad is that it will fuel protectionism at a time when American unemployment is painfully high.
In terms of geopolitical power, China has neither the clout nor the inclination to challenge America. Confidently though China’s leaders now strut the world stage, they remain preoccupied by simmering discontent at home: there are tens of thousands of protests each year. For all the economic progress, all sorts of tensions—social, cultural, demographic, even religious—haunt the regime and help explain why it resorts to nationalism so often. So it is odd, and wrong, that America’s approach towards China is driven by its own insecurities.
To simplify enormously, the danger is that a frightened United States will be too tough on China over the economy, especially trade; and not tough enough on human rights. On money matters, Mr Obama’s foolish decision to slap tariffs on Chinese tyres has given dangerous encouragement to protectionists in America. As unemployment there climbs inexorably towards 10%, the pressure will grow for Congress to fuel a self-defeating attack on Chinese exports and the undervalued yuan. This is bad economics: both China and America would lose enormously from a trade war.
If economic freedom is one American value that Mr Obama should not sacrifice on his first visit to China next month, the other is personal freedom. Chinese authoritarianism is not somehow more acceptable because China is a rising power; nor are human rights bargaining chips to be played only when expedient. That Mr Obama needs Chinese help to fix the global economy and on climate-change mitigation does not mean the leader of the free world should stifle criticism of its political system. Avoiding a meeting with the Dalai Lama in Washington this month was an unnecessary sop to his hosts. The Communist Party, keen to bolster its image at home, wants the trip to appear successful as much as Mr Obama does.
Same bed, different dreams—and one is stronger
A more confident approach is a bet on whose sort of system of government will prove ultimately stronger. At the moment China’s responses on the climate, the financial crisis and the emerging swine-flu pandemic have won it praise internationally. But they have also borne the hallmarks of an authoritarian system. For instance, on greenery, it is clear that if China had exposed its response to the rigours of democratic debate, it would have acted more slowly: China’s system enables it to mobilise huge resources and make politically difficult decisions. But an effective long-term response to climate change needs public understanding of the issues and a legal environment that allows foreign owners of green technologies to transfer them without fear of theft. China lacks both.
Behind China’s façade of strength, on stunning display with its parade of tanks and missiles through Beijing on October 1st, lie fretful frailties—also on display that day, when spectators were banned for fear of protests. Social tensions in China are likely to rise, even as it grows richer. Locking up activists, as China has been wont to do recently, is not a lasting solution. Mr Obama should meet some of them in Beijing to find out for himself. If his hosts have a hissy fit, let them.
-
在中国做生意
2009-10-16
Selling foreign goods in China
Impenetrable
Oct 15th 2009 | SHANGHAI
From The Economist print editionDespite widespread hope that China will help pull the world out of recession, foreigners are finding it as arduous as ever to do business there
Reuters
EVERY year, says Paul French, head of Access Asia, a research firm based in Shanghai, the same company buys the same report from him on the market for a particular product in China. That is because each year the company in question sends a new executive to China with instructions to break into the local market, who soon departs in despair—having failed to find an opening given the (brief) time and (insufficient) resources allotted.
Mr French’s customer is not alone. China accounts for less than 2% of the global sales of drugs giants such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Bayer, estimates IMS, another research firm. Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer-goods giant, is reckoned to generate only a bit over $3 billion annually in China, less than 5% of its overall sales. Unilever is thought to sell less than half as much; its local operations are barely profitable. AIG, an American insurance firm, was founded in Shanghai and has won greater access to China than many of its competitors. But its operations are still restricted to just eight cities. Analysts suspect its revenues in China are less than in Taiwan, a country with 2% of the population and stiffer competition.
The promise—and frequent disappointment—of doing business in China has been a common theme since at least the 19th century, when weavers in Manchester were said to dream of adding a few inches to every shirttail in China. Thanks to recession at home, foreign firms are keener than ever to capitalise on China’s growth. But Europe and America’s exports to China have remained broadly flat over the past year and amount to less than 7% of the total, even though shrinking exports to other countries flatter the figure. Even if the Chinese economy grows by the official target of 8% this year, the impact on Western firms’ total sales would be little more than a rounding error, says Ronald Schramm, a visiting professor at the Chinese European International Business School.
Many foreign firms, of course, are doing well in China, especially at the two extremes of the value chain: things like luxury goods, fibre-optic cable and big aeroplanes on the one hand, and oil, ores and recyclable waste on the other. But in between, both explicit legal impediments and hidden obstacles continue to hamper access to Chinese customers, despite China’s promises of reform when it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001. Publishing, telecommunications, oil exploration, marketing, pharmaceuticals, banking and insurance all remain either fiercely protected or off-limits to foreigners altogether. Corruption, protectionism and red tape hamper foreigners in all fields.
Recent reports from three lobbies for foreign businesses, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, the European Chamber of Commerce in China and the US-China Business Council, bear out this gloomy view. Their biggest gripes have nothing to do with typical business concerns, such as the availability of good staff or high costs. Instead, they complain about subsidised competition, restricted access, conflicting regulations, a lack of protection for intellectual property and opaque and arbitrary bureaucracy.
To operate in China, the Council itself must provide documents from America’s State Department, the Chinese Embassy in America, the cities of Washington and Shanghai, the local tax authorities and the local branch of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. It takes six months to obtain a one-year licence. At least there is an established procedure, albeit a costly and cumbersome one. Others are not so lucky: upon joining the WTO, China agreed to allow foreign firms to compete to offer booking systems to local airlines, but according to the European Chamber it has not yet produced the necessary regulations.
Local officials go to great lengths to protect companies on their patch, often by giving them preferential access to land or credit, or by easing bureaucratic constraints for them. All the red tape would at least provide plenty of work for multinational law firms, were they permitted to employ Chinese lawyers—which they are not. The government, by dint of its control of the media, also controls advertising rates. That makes the cost of reaching a consumer in China higher than in many Western countries, although the potential rewards are much lower since most Chinese are so much poorer, says Tom Doctoroff, the boss of JWT, an advertising firm. There is little reliable business news (see article).
Firms that have managed to overcome these obstacles tend to produce locally in China; their products are perceived to be of high quality (few foreigners succeed by undercutting prices) and they have invested tremendous amounts of time and effort building distribution networks and raising awareness of their brands. Take Goodyear, an American tyremaker. It has had to find local partners for all of its 760 dealerships in China, who in turn had to obtain permits from the authorities. It has got around the state monopoly on advertising by deploying its trademark blimps, and pre-empted objections to that by using them to advocate a worthy cause: safe driving.
As always, there are local tastes to consider too. Chinese consumers seem to have even more of a taste for variety than most. P&G produces its Crest brand of toothpaste in a mouth-watering array of flavours, including lemon, tea, strawberry, salt and honey. A similar proliferation of offerings has served Nokia, the world’s biggest handset-maker, well too.
One strategy that has brought success to several foreign firms has been to charge high prices—a surprise, given that earnings in China remain quite low. A survey by the Nielsen Company concludes that Chinese believe that foreign brands are more expensive, even when they are not. That suggests that they should aim to compete on quality rather than cost. At any rate, Apple, General Motors and Levi Strauss all sell certain products at higher prices in China than elsewhere. So do many luxury brands. But relatively few foreign firms have managed to reap such rewards.
-
奥巴马的独角戏
2009-10-12
Barack Obama and the Nobel peace prize
Even greater expectations
Oct 9th 2009
From Economist.comIs it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?现在授予奥巴马诺贝尔和平奖是否为时过早，这位黑人总统入主白宫还不到一年。
AP
BARACK OBAMA, who has been America's president for just nine months, has won the 2009 Nobel peace prize. Perhaps the Nordic judges felt it was a suitable consolation after Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro in its bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Or the prizegivers might have felt moved by Mr Obama’s personal story: that a mixed-race man is president says much about the peaceful progress on race relations in America. Instead they emphasised Mr Obama’s aspirations and his commitment to diplomacy, even if, so far, he has achieved little that is concrete. 才当了9个月美国总统的奥巴马，获得了09年诺贝尔和平奖。或许评委们觉得，芝加哥刚刚失去2016年奥运会主办权，在这个时候授予奥巴马诺贝尔奖是很合适的安慰吧。又或许是授奖者被奥巴马个人的经历所感动了：一位混血种的总统不断强调在美国的种族问题上要和平式的不断前进。他们讲到奥巴马本人对于外交的期望和他本人所作出的承诺，即使到目前为止，我们并没有看到他取得的具体的成就。
Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.
Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia. Since coming to office Mr Obama has also overseen talks aimed at reducing the nuclear arsenals of Russia and America, while speaking of his ultimate wish to “get to zero”—somehow ridding the world of all nuclear weapons. Most substantially (and to the dismay of the Polish and Czech governments), he has scrapped an earlier plan to deploy a missile-defence shield on land in eastern Europe, which had been seen as a provocation by Russia.
Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.
Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy. Some may also see Mr Obama’s push for more action to tackle climate change as a factor—he is urging Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill and has said that his administration would decree new environmental rules if Congress fails to do so. (Al Gore, another Democratic figure, also won the Nobel prize, for his campaigns against climate change.)
Yet critics will have plenty to complain about. The prize-giving committee was at pains to emphasise Mr Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. In the citation, the committee argued that his “diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.” But is the award premature? Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much.
One might point to Mr Obama’s lauded decision to close the military prison for terrorist suspects in Guantánamo Bay, and his explicit rejection of the use of torture by American spies and interrogators. Both are welcome, but for now Guantánamo Bay remains open. Carrying through on promises is proving far harder than making them. Similarly Mr Obama made progress in encouraging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks about peace earlier this year, but as he is distracted by other concerns both parties have since drifted away from negotiations. And so far North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Russia—among others—have offered nothing of substance to demonstrate that a policy of engagement will bring more results than Mr Bush’s tough line.
More troubling is Afghanistan. Although the Nobel committee has now rewarded Mr Obama with a title of peacemaker (plus $1.4m or so), he remains a war president. He must shortly decide whether to deploy an additional 40,000 soldiers to fight against Taliban and other insurgents in a conflict that has lasted for eight years. With no obvious means of ending that war, there is a serious possibility that Mr Obama's presidency will become dominated by worsening conditions there.
Mr Obama’s aspirations may be laudable, but he has several tough years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him but it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more. In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at least.
-
朝核博弈
2009-10-07
China and North korea
Putting a squeeze on
Oct 6th 2009 | SEOUL
From Economist.comChina’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, persuades Kim Jong Il to return to nuclear-arms talks
Reuters
NORTH KOREA'S ailing dictator, Kim Jong Il, rarely ventures to the airport to greet visiting foreign dignitaries. But China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, who departed from North Korea on Tuesday October 6th after a three-day visit, is no run-of-the-mill VIP. China has been North Korea’s staunchest ally through war and uneasy peace. Fraternal protocol demanded that Mr Kim greet Mr Wen on the tarmac not only with a vigorous handshake but also a prolonged hug.朝鲜领导人金正日很少去机场欢迎来访的外国政要，但是中国总理温家宝在结束了三天的访问星期二离开朝鲜的时候，却得到了这一贵宾级的待遇。中国一直以来是朝鲜最坚定的盟友。兄弟般的情谊需要金正日亲自去机场送别温家宝，俩人不仅紧紧握手还相互拥抱。
Officially Mr Wen was in Pyongyang to celebrate the 60th year of diplomatic relations between China and North Korea. But since 1978 the two countries have pursued very different economic policies. China's markets are open to the world; North Korea remains in isolation and its economy is in terrible shape. As winter looms many North Koreans cannot feed or warm themselves. United Nations sanctions and a maritime blockade have squeezed the impoverished country further by cutting off North Korea’s most profitable export, weapons.温家宝此次平壤之行是为了庆祝中朝建交60周年。自1978年以来，两国采取了不同的经济政策，中国市场开始对世界开放，而朝鲜依旧选择孤立，自身经济陷入僵局。每当冬天到来是，很多朝鲜人民都没法解决根本的温饱问题。通过切断朝鲜最具盈利的出口产品--武器，联合国的制裁和海上封锁更是将朝鲜进一步推向了贫穷的边缘。
Mr Kim desperately needs Chinese aid and Mr Wen obliged the North Korean, according to Chinese news reports. China’s prime minister signed a broad economic-assistance package with North Korea which has pledged to transform itself by 2012 into KanGsong Taeguk, a strong, prosperous and powerful country.金正日急需得到中国的帮助，而温家宝此行也正是来帮助朝鲜的。温总理此行与朝鲜签订了一系列有关经济援助的文件，将力图帮助朝鲜在2012年前转变成一个自强，繁荣，强大的国家。
The package is perhaps in defiance of UN sanctions aimed at halting North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programme and missile development. But it may be a carrot intended to draw Mr Kim back into talks aimed at dismantling his nuclear arsenal. In this Mr Wen seems to have succeeded, albeit with a caveat. 这一系列文件与联合国制裁朝鲜核计划及导弹开发有所对抗，但这或许能让朝鲜重回谈判桌，以此来解散其核武器，从这点来看，温似乎已经成功了，尽管有点警告。
North Korea’s official news agency says that Mr Kim expressed readiness to hold multilateral talks depending on the outcome of talks between North Korea and America. Mr Kim doubtless wants some of the same things from the Americans that he has got from China: economic assistance, a peace treaty on the Korean peninsula to replace the current armistice and diplomatic relations with Washington. The North Korean leader may want to bequeath to his successor, perhaps his third son, Kim Jong Un, an international environment that is less hostile to North Korea.
James Steinberg, America’s deputy secretary of state, says his government is “prepared to have direct engagement with North Korea” if the regime returns to six-party talks with China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and America aimed at getting rid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons. These discussions are crucial to Barack Obama’s efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. America wants to bring North Korea back into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which it left in January 2003. America’s president plans a nuclear-arms summit in March next year and he desperately needs a diplomatic breakthrough on North Korea. For several months his administration has been trying to convince Japan and South Korea to give their blessing to negotiations between America and North Korea.
North Korea’s pledge to recommit itself to “denuclearising the [Korean] peninsula” has failed to impress the South Koreans. Hyun In-taek, South Korea ’s minister in charge of relations with North Korea, says “North Korea’s recent conciliatory gestures can be regarded as only minor shifts in attitude.” Another complication is that North Korea’s leader hinted that he may want Japan excluded from multilateral talks. Mr Kim is angry that Japan continued to raise the issue of the kidnapping of its citizens by his regime at the six-party talks.
Mr Wen’s success in eliciting a commitment from North Korea to return to the six-party talks is evidence of its diplomatic muscle. North Korea had, just two months ago, described the talks as “dead”. China has long been criticised for not using its considerable influence to bring North Korea to heel for its nuclear weapons and intercontinental-missile tests. Mr Wen has apparently convinced North Korea to give some ground.
-
巴西人的狂欢
2009-10-05
好容易养成的习惯被我丢掉了，哎，重新捡起来吧，那怕只是坚持那么一下下，不放弃。
The Olympic games
Rio’s sporting carnival
Oct 2nd 2009
From Economist.comRio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic games, the event’s first visit to South America
AFP
THE founder of the modern Olympic games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, insisted that taking part in the event was equally as important as winning. The gloomy delegations from Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid will find little consolation in the baron’s philosophy as they trudge from Copenhagen on Friday October 2nd. The members of the International Olympic Committee decided that the host city for the 2016 summer games will be Rio de Janeiro. 现代奥林匹克运动会的创立者，顾拜旦强调说能够参与比赛与赢得比赛同样重要。而来自芝加哥，东京和马德里的代表团在周五沮丧离开哥本哈根时并不觉得男爵先生的话对他们是多大的安慰。国际奥委会将2016奥运会的举办权给了里约热内卢。
The delight on the faces of the representatives of the winner, Rio de Janeiro, equalled any beaming gold medal winner. A huge crowd of whooping cariocas greeted the news, relayed to a huge TV screen on Copacabana beach, with unabashed delight. The celebrations are well earned. Years of dedication and hard work go to moulding an Olympic champion and this is mirrored by the preparation needed to win the votes of committee members from every corner of the world. All four cities produced fat “bid books” explaining why they would be the best showcase and listing the projected costs of stadiums, roads and accommodation.来自里约热内卢的代表们脸上洋溢着的喜悦之情同得了金牌的运动员一样，非常高兴。
The pre-tournament favourite was knocked out early on. Chicago, thought by many to be in the box seat, was surprisingly the first city to be eliminated, despite a visit to Copenhagen by Barack Obama. Tokyo followed soon after. Many developing countries are reckoned to have shown solidarity with Rio—and the event had never before been staged in South America. Madrid was thought to have only a slender chance mainly because the 2012 games will be in London. Tokyo may have suffered because the games would be held only eight years after Beijing triumphed, troubling those who advocate sharing it around more widely.
Politics, supposedly, does not count either. Chicago, a town known for political machinations secured the personal backing of its adopted son, Mr Obama. He asked the IOC to “choose America” and to witness the “incredible diversity of the American people.” Chiacgo's resounding loss is something of a blow to his star power.
The Brazilian city’s high crime rate may have counted against it with some delegates, but most will have concluded that Rio’s vibrancy will add to the allure of the games. And Brazilian enthusiasm for sports other than football will not have gone unnoticed—beach volleyball, a relatively new Olympic sport, is a Brazilian favourite. In fact the country will have a useful run at hosting a big sporting event when it stages the 2014 soccer world cup.
But is staging the Olympics such a great coup? The pluses may seem obvious. Big building projects will employ lots of people who will spend their wages in the rest of the economy. Railways and roads will be built that might otherwise have stayed on the drawing board for years. Visitors will come from far and wide, either for the games or as tourists afterwards. That all sounds especially alluring in a recession.
The pro-Olympics lobby tends to downplay the disadvantages. Building in the host city may push up wages and prices and crowd out investment elsewhere. Hurrying up building projects raises costs. What suits the games may not be best for the city afterwards. Not every visitor during the games is an extra one; tourists may time long-wished-for trips to watch the sport. Crowds or inflated hotel prices may deter others from coming.
By and large, economists have found it hard to detect the benefits of big sporting events. Robert Baade, of Lake Forest College, near Chicago, describes the Olympics as a “high risk, low reward proposition”, but concedes that the games may prompt spending, say in transport, which boosts a region’s economy in the long term.
The right event at the right time can give a city a lift: Barcelona, host in 1992, is a case in point. However, Stefan Szymanski, an economist at Cass Business School in London, suggests that hosting the Olympics may be a mark of recognition: the effect rather than the cause of change. If so that should also count as another reason for wild partying deep into the Rio night.
-
Reunification by trade?
2009-8-10
Taiwan and China
Reunification by trade?
Aug 6th 2009 | TAIPEI
From The Economist print editionA plethora of free-trade deals is driving Taiwan closer to China
Illustration by Claudio Munoz
FREE-TRADE agreements (FTAs) are often contentious but rarely would one have as much strategic significance as that proposed between China and Taiwan. On July 29th Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou, elected last year on a platform of liberalising business restrictions and easing military tensions with the mainland, said a China-Taiwan trade pact should be signed as soon as possible. The two sides have quietly concluded months of unofficial negotiations and Taiwan’s economy minister, Yiin Chii-ming, says he wants formal negotiations to start in October. The island is in a hurry.
Mr Ma is willing to take the political risk of tying a self-ruled democratic island economically to its giant authoritarian neighbour because of the rest of the world’s craze for free-trade deals. Taiwan has diplomatic relations with 23 countries. Most nations recognise China and fear to sign FTAs with Taiwan lest they incur China’s wrath. Already, says Huang Chih-peng, the director general of Taiwan’s Bureau of Foreign Trade, the world’s 230-odd bilateral or multilateral trade pacts are harming the export-dependent island’s economy.
Mr Ma is even more worried about what will happen next year when trade agreements between China and the Association of South-East Asian Nations—so-called ASEAN+1—take effect. Taiwan’s exports to China face tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% and its government fears that, unless they are lowered, the island will be left at a competitive disadvantage in the giant Chinese market. This disadvantage would greatly worsen if a planned ASEAN+3 were one day signed, embracing South Korea and Japan.
Economic benefits, political costs
A think-tank commissioned by the government said the proposed pact could increase Taiwanese GDP by 1.65-1.72%—more if services and investment were included. In addition, it argued, the pact could increase foreign direct investment by $8.9 billion in seven years and create around 260,000 jobs (though other economists said this was too high). The president wants an outline agreement in place before ASEAN+1 comes into force, with the details worked out and implemented bit by bit after that. An incremental approach, officials say, is needed because an immediate FTA would be too disruptive to Taiwan’s economy.
Disruptive is right, but not perhaps mainly to the economy. China still asserts that Taiwan is an integral part of the People’s Republic. Many Taiwanese, including the pro-independence opposition party, fear that the proposed accord is really a ploy by China to bring about unification by stealth. They also argue that once the pact is signed, there is no guarantee that China will not lean on members of other FTAs to keep Taiwan out anyway. In contrast, Mr Ma insists that the proposed pact would make it easier for Taiwan to sign free-trade accords with third parties.
“It is a suicidal policy that makes Taiwan locked into China,” says Huang Kun-huei, the chairman of the pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union. In a sign of the popular unease raised by the pact, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which has virtually no parliamentary clout, still managed to collect over 120,000 signatories to a petition asking the government for a referendum on it (though Taiwan’s high threshold for referendum participation means that such a thing may not get off the ground).
In fact, dramatic political shifts seem unlikely in the short term. Mr Ma has promised that when the deal is negotiated, the wording will not compromise the island’s political stance. And China-watchers think the increasingly sophisticated government in Beijing is not likely to make heavy-handed political demands in case this rebounds on Mr Ma and he is voted out of office in 2012 (the Chinese much prefer him to the independence-minded opposition). Nevertheless, in the long run China hopes that economic interdependency and goodwill will eventually encourage the island to return to the fold. The trade pact will be a test of whether that hope can be fulfilled.
-
Yes,we can
2009-8-01
-
路漫漫其修远兮
2009-7-30
-
神秘的阿拉伯世界
2009-7-26
前言：翻完这篇，收获颇丰，增长了不少知识，一直以来都不太了解阿拉伯世界，但又一直对阿拉伯语有种莫名的向往，想将来有钱有机会了一定要学习一下。
The Arab world
Waking from its sleep
Jul 23rd 2009
From The Economist print editionA quiet revolution has begun in the Arab world; it will be complete only when the last failed dictatorship is voted out一场变革正在阿拉伯国家悄悄上演，只有当最后一个专制政权退出历史舞台，这场变革才算彻底。
Alamy
WHAT ails the Arabs? The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this week published the fifth in a series of hard-hitting reports on the state of the Arab world. It makes depressing reading. The Arabs are a dynamic and inventive people whose long and proud history includes fabulous contributions to art, culture, science and, of course, religion. The score of modern Arab states, on the other hand, have been impressive mainly for their consistent record of failure. 到底是什么在困扰着阿拉伯人？本周联合国发展计划发布了第五篇关于阿拉伯国家的报道，这是一系列专门针对阿拉伯世界的措辞强烈的报告。这些报告读起来使人感到非常压抑。这是一个有活力充满创造力的民族，在长期繁荣的历史长河中，阿拉伯人对世界艺术，文化，科学以及宗教做出了卓越的贡献。然而，现代的阿拉伯世界给人的印象却是持续不断的失败履历。
They have, for a start, failed to make their people free: six Arab countries have an outright ban on political parties and the rest restrict them slyly. They have failed to make their people rich: despite their oil, the UN reports that about two out of five people in the Arab world live on $2 or less a day. They have failed to keep their people safe: the report argues that overpowerful internal security forces often turn the Arab state into a menace to its own people. And they are about to fail their young people. The UNDP reckons the Arab world must create 50m new jobs by 2020 to accommodate a growing, youthful workforce—virtually impossible on present trends. 首先，阿拉伯人并不自由，六个阿拉伯国家完全禁止政治党派的存在，其余的国家也都对党派进行了严厉的限制。其次，阿拉伯人并不富裕，尽管拥有大量的石油，但据联合国报道，有大约五分之二的阿拉伯人生活水平低于每天2美元。并且，阿拉伯人生活的环境并不安全。报道强调说过于强大的国内安全力量经常给阿拉伯人民生活带来威胁。而且他们也让年轻人非常感到失望。报道估计，阿拉伯国家必须在2020年之前创造五千万的工作岗位来适应日益增长的年轻劳动力，显然，据目前来看，这是根本不可能的。
Arab governments are used to shrugging off criticism. They had to endure a lot of it when George Bush was president and America’s neoconservatives blamed the rise of al-Qaeda on the lack of Arab democracy. Long practice has made Arab rulers expert at explaining their failings away. They point to their culture and say it is unsuited to Western forms of democracy. Or they point to their history, and say that in modern times they would have done much better had they not had to deal with the intrusions of imperialists, Zionists and cold warriors.阿拉伯国家的领导人们已经习惯了对这些指责置若罔闻了。他们也听够了类似的指责，在布什当政期间，美国新保守主义者不断指责阿拉伯领导人，把基地组织的日益壮大归咎于阿拉伯国家民主制度的缺乏。而长期以来的指责也使阿拉伯国家的统治者擅于为他们失败的体制找到开脱的借口。他们拿他们的文化说事，说阿拉伯国家并不适合于西方世界的民主模式。他们也会拿他们的历史来开脱，说如果他们没有遭受帝国主义，犹太复国主义以及冷战入侵的话，他们早已经非常进步了。
Some of this is undeniable. A case can indeed be made that Islam complicates democracy. And, yes, oil, Israel and the rivalry between America and the Soviet Union meant that the Arab world was not left to find its own way after the colonial period ended. More recently the Arabs have been buffeted by the invasion of Iraq. Now they find themselves caught in the middle as America and Iran jostle for regional dominance.他们说的或多或少也对，伊斯兰教确实使民主变得错综复杂。的确，殖民时代结束以后，石油，以色列以及美苏两国之间的抗争都在干扰阿拉伯人民独立寻求适合自己发展的道路。近来，阿拉伯国家更是受到了伊拉克战争给他们的冲击。如今他们感觉自己被夹在美国和伊朗之间，他们两国都想在阿拉伯世界占有统治权。
Strangely, your highness, they like voting
Still, as the decades roll by the excuses wear thin. Islam has not prevented democracy from taking root in the Muslim countries of Asia. Even after its recent flawed election, Iran, a supposed theocracy, shows greater democratic vitality than most Arab countries. As for outside intrusion, some of the more robust Arab elections of recent years have been held by Palestinians, under Israeli occupation, and by Iraqis after America’s invasion. When they are given a chance to take part in genuine elections—as, lately, the Lebanese were—Arabs have no difficulty understanding what is at stake and they turn out to vote in large numbers. By and large it is their own leaders who have chosen to prevent, rig or disregard elections, for fear that if Arabs had a say most would vote to throw the rascals out.然而，历史的车轮的依旧在转，阿拉伯领导人找寻的借口也渐渐消逝，伊斯兰教并没有阻止民主在亚洲的伊斯兰国家生根发芽。即使是伊朗这样一个神权统治的国家，虽然最近的总统大选存在瑕疵，但他已经比大多数的阿拉伯国家显示出更加强大的民主活力。至于讲到外来的侵略，阿拉伯世界近几年也举行了几次声势浩大的选举，分别是巴勒斯坦人民进行的选举，这是在以色列的统治下举行的，还有就是美军入侵后的伊拉克。
For this reason, you can bet that if the regimes have their way, Arabs will not get the chance. Arab rulers hold on to power through a cynical combination of coercion, intimidation and co-option. From time to time they let hollow parties fight bogus elections, which then return them to power. Where genuine opposition exists it tends to be fatally split between Islamist movements on one hand and, on the other, secular parties that fear the Islamists more than they dislike the regimes themselves. Most of the small cosmetic reforms Arab leaders enacted when Mr Bush was pushing his “freedom agenda” on unwilling allies have since been rolled back. If anything, sad to say, the cause of democracy became tainted by association with a president most Arabs despised for invading Iraq.正是由于这些，我们可以说如果阿拉伯政权真正一意孤行的话，那么阿拉伯人民也不会有机会进行选举了。阿拉伯国家的统治者是通过高压政治，恐吓以及指派来紧握他们手中权力的。每次他们都让那些并不存在的政党进行假象选举，以此再次让权力回到他们手中。每当有真正的反对党出现的话，他们注定是要被驱散的，因为一方面，伊斯兰运动队他们形成威胁，另一方面，这些反对党惧怕伊斯兰教分子更甚于他们反对阿拉伯政权。布什当政期间在所谓的盟国之间推行其自由进程，为此阿拉伯领导所进行的那些表面上的改革大都已经又回到了起点。如果真有什么的话，可悲的是，阿拉伯的民主事业却是由于布什决定入侵伊拉克而变得若隐若现。
The illusion of permanence
Can regimes that are failing their people so clearly really hold sway over some 350m people indefinitely? Hosni Mubarak has been Egypt’s president for 28 years; Muammar Qaddafi has run Libya since 1969. When Hafez Assad died after three decades as president of Syria, power passed smoothly to his son Bashar. After the failure of Mr Bush’s efforts to promote democracy, and the debacle in Iraq, Barack Obama has put “respect” rather than “freedom” at the centre of America’s discourse with the Muslim world. That may be wise: since the advent of Mr Obama, America’s standing has risen in Arab eyes, and Mr Bush’s zeal for reforming other countries was counterproductive anyway. But this suggests that if the Arabs want democracy, they will have to grab it for themselves. 难道如此让人民失望的政权真的能无限期的统治阿拉伯将近三千五百万人民吗？Hosni Mubarak在埃及统治了28年，Muammar Qaddafi从1969年就开始执政利比亚。当统治叙利亚30年的Hafez Assad去世后，权力顺利的传到了他的儿子手中。在布什试图推行民主失败以及伊拉克问题后，在对待伊斯兰世界上，奥巴马已将策略重心更多转向尊重，而不再是推行自由。这招看来很明智：奥巴马上台以后，美国在阿拉伯人的眼里地位有所上升，不管怎样，布什一腔热情试图在其他国家推行改革只是适得其反的尝试。但这也说明了一点：如果阿拉伯人民想要民主的话，他们会自己去主动争取的。
Some in the West are wary of Arab elections, fearing that Islamists would exploit the chance to seize power on the principle of “one man, one vote, one time”. Yet Islamists seem to struggle to raise their support much above 20% of the electorate. Non-Arab Muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia suggest that democracy is the best way to draw the poison of extremism. Repression only makes it more dangerous.西方国家一些人对阿拉伯国家的选举有些提防，他们担心伊斯兰分子会借此机会利用一人只能投一次票的规矩把权力紧紧抓在手上。但是伊斯兰分子似乎试图将他们的支持率在选民中提高至少20%以上。一些非阿拉伯的穆斯林国家像土耳其和印尼都提出：民主是去除极端主义的最好方式。高压统治只会使局面更加危险。
Democracy is more than just elections. It is about education, tolerance and building independent institutions such as a judiciary and a free press. The hard question is how much ordinary Arabs want all this. There have been precious few Tehran-style protests on the streets of Cairo. Most Arabs still seem unwilling to pay the price of change. Or perhaps, observing Iraq, they prefer stagnation to the chaos that change might bring. But regimes would be unwise to count on permanent passivity. As our special report in this issue argues, behind the political stagnation of the Arab world a great social upheaval is under way, with far-reaching consequences. 民主并不仅仅是选举。民主还包括教育，宽容还有建立独立的体制比如像司法体制还有公开自由的媒体报道。目前棘手的问题是阿拉伯人民到底有多么想要民主。大多数阿拉伯人民似乎并不情愿为变革付出代价。或许，看看伊拉克，与变革所带来的混乱，他们更情愿维持现状。但如果仅仅是依赖人民的顺从的话，那对于目前的政权来说并非明智之举。正如这一系列关于阿拉伯世界的特别报道所指出的，在阿拉伯国家政治体制停滞不前的背后，一场社会变革正在进行中，并且由此将会造成非常深远的影响。
In almost every Arab country, fertility is in decline, more people, especially women, are becoming educated, and businessmen want a bigger say in economies dominated by the state. Above all, a revolution in satellite television has broken the spell of the state-run media and created a public that wants the rulers to explain and justify themselves as never before. On their own, none of these changes seems big enough to prompt a revolution. But taken together they are creating a great agitation under the surface. The old pattern of Arab government—corrupt, opaque and authoritarian—has failed on every level and does not deserve to survive. At some point it will almost certainly collapse. The great unknown is when.在几乎每一个阿拉伯国家，生产力正在下降，越来越多的人，尤其是妇女受教育程度越来越高，并且商人想要在由国家主导的经济活动中有更大的发言权。在卫星电视领域发起的革命已经打破了由国家垄断经营新闻媒体的局面，并由此也造成了公众要求统治者给与解释并且赋予他们合法权利，这在以前是没有的。就他们自己的力量来看，这些改变似乎都不足以促成一场变革，但若将他们放在一起，他们正在悄悄的发起一场大的变动。腐败，不透明，专制的阿拉伯政府已经到了危及其存亡的时刻，某一刻，他们终将垮台。一切疑问都在这一刻将于何时到来。
-
伸出你的手我的手
2009-7-23