世界格局内诸边贸易协定的风险

Should proposed US plurilateral trade agreements be welcomed? This is a big question, not least for those who consider the liberalisation of world trade to be a signal achievement. It is also highly controversial.

美国提议的诸边贸易协定应该受到欢迎吗？这是一个大问题，不仅仅是对于那些认为世界贸易自由化是一项重大成就的人。这也是个极富争议的问题。

Since the failure of the “Doha round” of multilateral negotiations — launched shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 — the focus of global trade policy has shifted towards plurilateral agreements restricted to a limited subgroup of partners. The most significant are US-led: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. As a study by the US Council of Economic Advisers puts it, the Obama administration’s trade agenda aims to put America “at the center of an integrated trade zone covering nearly two-thirds of the global economy and almost 65 per cent of US goods trade”.

自从“多哈回合”(Doha round)多边谈判（“多哈回合”在2001年9月11日恐怖袭击之后不久启动）失败以来，全球贸易政策的焦点已转向仅限于某个伙伴国集团的诸边协定。最重要的协定均由美国主导：《跨太平洋伙伴关系》（Trans-Pacific Partnership，简称TPP）以及《跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴关系协定》（Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership，简称TTIP）。正如白宫经济顾问委员会(CEA)一项研究所指出的，奥巴马政府的贸易议程旨在将美国置于“一个覆盖全球经济近2/3、美国货物贸易近65%的一体化贸易区的中心地位”。

The TPP is a negotiation with 11 countries, most importantly Japan. Its partners account for 36 per cent of world output, 11 per cent of population and about one-third of merchandise trade. The TTIP is between the US and the EU, which account for 46 per cent of global output and 28 per cent of merchandise trade. The main partner not included in these negotiations is, of course, China.

TPP是美国与11个国家（最重要的是日本）谈判的贸易协定。其伙伴国的产出占世界总量的36%，人口占全球总人口的11%，商品贸易占全球的大约1/3。TTIP是美国与欧盟之间的协定，占全球产出的46%，商品贸易的28%。当然，中国是未被纳入这些谈判的主要贸易伙伴。

Some of the countries participating in TPP still have quite high barriers to imports of goods. The CEA notes the relatively high tariffs in Malaysia and Vietnam and agricultural protection in Japan. It also argues that the TPP partners and EU have higher barriers to imports of services than the US.

一些参与TPP的国家仍然存在相当高的货物进口壁垒。CEA指出了马来西亚和越南相对较高的关税以及日本的农业保护。该委员会还认为，TPP伙伴国以及欧盟的服务进口壁垒高于美国。

Yet lowering barriers is only a part of the US aim. The CEA report adds that, in the TPP, Washington is proposing “enforceable labor protections and greener policies”. But it is also seeking “strong enforcement of intellectual property rights”. In the TTIP, “both sides seek agreement on crosscutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparency” — in other words making rules more compatible with one another and more transparent for business. Thus, both TPP and TTIP are efforts to shape the rules of international commerce. Pascal Lamy, former director-general of the World Trade Organisation, argues that “TPP is mostly, though not only, about classical protection- related market access issues . . . TTIP is mostly, though not only, about . . . .  regulatory convergence”.

不过，降低壁垒只是美国的一部分目标。CEA报告补充称，在TPP中，华盛顿方面提议“可强制执行的劳动保护和更环保政策”。但是，它还寻求“有力执行知识产权保护”。在TTIP中，“双方寻求就交叉领域的监管连贯性和透明度达成一致”——换句话说，让双方的法规更兼容、对企业更透明。因此，TTP和TTIP都是旨在塑造国际商务规则的努力。世界贸易组织(WTO)前任总干事帕斯卡•拉米(Pascal Lamy)认为，“TPP主要是（尽管不全是）关于经典的与贸易保护相关的市场准入问题……而TTIP主要是（尽管不全是）关于监管融合”。

Whether these negotiations succeed will depend on whether the administration obtains trade promotion authority from Congress. But should we want them to succeed?

这些谈判能否取得成功，将取决于奥巴马政府是否会从国会获得贸易促进权(TPA)。但是，我们应该期盼谈判成功吗？

The straightforward points in favour are: plurilateral agreements are now the best way to liberalise global trade, given the failure of multilateral negotiations; their new rules and procedures offer the best template for the future; and they will bring significant gains.

直截了当的支持理由是：考虑到多边谈判的失败，眼下诸边协定是促进全球贸易自由化的最佳方式；它们的新规则和程序为未来提供了最好的模板；它们将带来显著收益。

These arguments have force. Yet there are also counter-arguments.

这些观点很有说服力。不过，也有反面的观点。

With limited political capital, the focus on plurilateral trade arrangements risks diversion of effort from the WTO. That might undermine the potency of global rules. Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University stresses such risks. Furthermore, preferential trading arrangements risk distorting complex global production chains.

在政治资本有限的情况下，专注于诸边贸易安排可能会分散投入WTO的努力。这进而可能削弱全球规则的效力。哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)的贾格迪什•巴格沃蒂(Jagdish Bhagwati)强调了此类风险。此外，特惠贸易安排可能扭曲复杂的全球生产链。

Another concern is that the US is using its clout to impose regulations that are not in the interests of its partners.

另一个担忧在于，美国正利用其影响力强行制定不符合伙伴国利益的法规。

I would be less concerned about labour and environmental standards, though both might be inappropriate, than about protection of intellectual property. It is not true that tighter standards are in the interest of all. On the contrary, if US standards were to be imposed, the costs might be very high.

尽管劳工和环境标准都可能不适当，但我对它们不如对知识产权保护那么担忧。关于更严格的标准有利于各方的说法是不对的。相反，如果普遍推行美国标准，成本可能会非常高。

Finally, the economic gains are unlikely to be large. Trade has been substantially liberalised already and any gains decline as barriers fall. A study of the TPP by the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington suggests that the rise in US real incomes would be below 0.4 per cent of national income. A study of TTIP published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London comes to slightly higher numbers for the EU and US. Completion of TPP and TTIP might raise US real incomes by 1 per cent of GDP This is not nothing, but it is not large.

最后一点是，经济收益不太可能会很高。贸易已经得到大幅自由化，随着贸易壁垒的降低，进一步的收益会减少。华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所(Peterson Institute for International Economics)对TPP的研究显示，美国的实际收入增量将不到国民收入的0.4%。伦敦的经济政策研究中心(Centre for Economic Policy Research)发表的对TTIP的研究显示，欧盟和美国的增量数字略高。TPP和TTIP达成后，可能会使美国实际收入增量达到GDP的1%。这不容忽略，但也不是很大。

The US-EU agreement does not raise concerns about the US ability to bully its partners. In trade, the two sides are equally matched. There are three further concerns with the TTIP, however.

美国和欧盟之间的协定并未引起人们对美国欺负伙伴国的担忧。在贸易方面，双方势均力敌。不过，人们对TTIP还是抱有3个担忧。

First, Jeronim Capaldo of Tufts University has argued that estimates of the gains ignore macroeconomic costs. His Keynesian approach argues that the EU will lose demand because of a fall in its trade surplus. This is ridiculous. Macroeconomic problems should be addressed with macroeconomic policies. Trade policy has different goals.

第一，塔夫茨大学(Tufts University)的叶罗尼姆•卡帕尔多(Jeronim Capaldo)认为，对收益的预估忽视了宏观经济的成本。按照他的凯恩斯主义逻辑，欧盟将损失需求，因为其贸易顺差将会下降。这是无稽之谈。宏观经济问题应该用宏观经济政策来解决。贸易政策的目标本来就不同。

Second, some of the barriers they are attempting to remove reflect different attitudes to risk. The negotiators will have to devise a text that allows co-ordination of regulatory procedures — over drug testing, say, without imposing identical preferences. If Europeans do not want genetically modified organisms, they must be allowed to preserve that preference. If trade policy treads on such sacred ground, it will die.

第二，这些协定试图消除的某些壁垒，反映了伙伴国对待风险的不同态度。谈判代表们将不得不妥善拟定文本，在避免强加相同偏好的前提下，使监管程序的协调成为可能，比如说针对药物测试。如果欧洲人不想要转基因生物，他们必须被允许保留这种偏好。如果贸易政策触犯此类神圣领域，它将会碰壁。

Finally, we have the vexed issue of investor-state dispute settlement. Many complain that political choices — publicly-funded health systems or the right to control drug prices — might be put at risk by systems biased in favour of business. Negotiators fervently deny this. They had better be right.

最后，我们还有一个棘手问题，那就是投资者-国家纠纷解决。很多人抱怨称，政治选择——公费医疗体系或者控制药品价格的权利——可能会被偏向于企业的制度置于风险之中。谈判代表们强烈否认这一点。他们最好没说错。

On balance, the benefits of TPP and TTIP will probably be positive, but modest. But there are risks. They must not become an alternative to the WTO or an attempt to push China to the margins of trade policy making. They must not be used to impose damaging regulations or subvert legitimate ones. Tread carefully. Overreaching could prove counterproductive even to the cause of global trade liberalisation.

总而言之，TPP和TTIP的好处可能是积极的，但程度有限。但是这其中存在风险。必须避免用它们替代世界贸易组织、或把中国推向贸易政策制定边缘的企图。它们不得被用于推行破坏性的法规或是颠覆正当法规。必须谨慎行事。把手伸得过长可能会适得其反，甚至不利于全球贸易自由化事业。