美国不应嫉妒排斥亚投行

Britain has irritated the US by opting to become a founding member of an institution that some view as a part of China’s answer to the World Bank. But this does not mean the decision is a bad one. On the contrary, it is sensible — although not without risk.

英国选择成为亚洲基础设施投资银行(Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank，简称：亚投行)的创始成员国，此举激怒了美国。一些人将亚投行视为中国挑战世界银行(World Bank)计划的一部分。但这不等于说英国做出了一个糟糕的决定。相反，这个决定是合理的，尽管并非没有风险。

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is to have initial capital of $50bn, which may be doubled. It will finance for example roads and railways in the continent’s developing countries.

亚投行的初期注册资本为500亿美元，之后可能会增加一倍。该银行将为亚洲发展中国家的公路、铁路等项目提供融资。

China is to be the biggest shareholder with many other Asian countries joining while non-Asian members are restricted to 25 per cent of the shares. Other European countries, including Germany and Italy, have decided to apply; Australia, Japan and South Korea are still in two minds .

随着亚洲多个国家的加入，中国将成为亚投行最大股东，而非亚洲成员国的持股比例被限制在25%以内。其他欧洲国家（包括德国和意大利）已决定申请加入；澳大利亚、日本和韩国仍举棋不定。

The lender is potentially valuable. Developing countries in Asia are in desperate need of such investment . Private funding of risky and long-term projects is often either expensive or non-existent. The resources of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank are grossly deficient, relative to the needs.

亚投行可能意义重大。亚洲发展中国家亟需基建投资。长期高风险项目的私人融资通常要么代价高昂，要么根本就没有。相对于资金需求，世界银行和亚开行(ADB)的财力极度匮乏。

Thus, the fact that China wishes to invest a part of its $3.8tn in foreign exchange reserves in the AIIB is good news. That it wishes to do so via multilateral institutions, in which its voice, however loud, will be one among many, is still better. The bank would have a global staff, which should make it less politicised than if China provided the money on its own.

因此，中国希望拿出其3.8万亿美元外汇储备的一部分投资于亚投行是件好事。更令人高兴的是，中国希望通过多边机构实施这一投资——在这样的机构中，中国的声音不管多么强大，也将是众多声音中的一个。亚投行将拥有全球性员工，与中国独自提供资金相比，这应会减少该银行的政治色彩。

For all these reasons, the US should also join. The White House might reply that, however much it would like to do so, it has no chance of getting approval from the current Congress. That may be true. But it is not an argument against participation by other countries.

基于这些理由，美国应该也加入。但美国可能回答说：不管美国政府有多希望这么做，也不可能获得本届国会的批准。这或许没错，但不能成为其反对他国加入的理由。

Still, the US does have an argument, although it is a baffling one. Western countries, it says, can have more sway by staying outside. That, argues one US official, would be better than “getting on the inside at a time when they can have no confidence that China will not retain veto powers”.

美国还有一个理由，不过这个理由令人困惑。美国表示，西方国家不加入能够产生更大影响。一位美国官员辩称，“在他们无法确信中国不会保留否决权的情况下”，不加入要好于“加入进去”。

Yet outsiders will have no influence over an institution that does not need their money. The only hope is from inside. True, it would have been better if the Europeans had agreed on conditions for entry. But it is too late for that.

然而非成员不会对一个不需要它们的资金的机构产生任何影响。唯一的希望是加入进去，从内部发挥影响。确实，如果此前欧洲就加入的条件进行了协商，结果就会更好。但现在为时已晚。

Jack Lew, US Treasury secretary, has voiced American concerns that the Asian bank would not live up to the “highest global standards” for governance or lending.

美国财长杰克•卢(Jack Lew)表达了美国的担忧：亚投行在治理、贷款方面可能达不到“最高全球标准”。

As a former staff member of the World Bank, I must smile. Mr Lew might like to study the Bank’s role in funding Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, one horrifying example among many.

作为世界银行的一名前员工，听到这句话我就笑了。卢或许愿意研究一下世界银行在为扎伊尔总统蒙博托•塞塞•塞科(Mobutu Sese Seko)提供资金方面所扮演的角色，这是众多可怕例子中的一个。

It would be good if China’s lender were as pure as the driven snow. But this is a fallen world. At the least, it would be better with a broad membership than without it.

如果亚投行像白雪一样纯洁的话，那当然好。但这是一个堕落的世界。至少，拥有广泛的成员国要比没有强。

Nor can the US argue with any credibility against competition to the existing institutions. Yes, a risk of a race to the bottom on standards remains. But a possibility also exists that needless red tape would be eliminated.

美国也无法令人信服地反对加大现有机构面临的竞争。成立新机构，确实可能引发竞相降低标准的风险，但有些多余的繁文缛节也可能因此被废除。

The real American concern is that China might establish institutions that weaken the US influence on the global economy. To this I offer four replies.

美国真正担心的是，中国建立的金融机构可能会削弱美国对全球经济的影响力。对此我有四点要说。

First, the US, Europeans and Japanese treasure a degree of influence on global financial institutions that is increasingly out of line with their position in the world. Moreover, they have failed to exercise that stewardship as well as they ought to have done. Not least, they have insisted on the right to appoint leaders who have been far from consistently excellent.

首先，美国、欧洲和日本看重自身对国际金融机构的巨大影响力，而这种影响力与它们在世界上的地位日益脱节。此外，它们并不是称职的“管理者”。尤其是，他们坚决不放弃对这些机构领导人的任命权，而这些机构历任领导人并不总是优秀的。

Second, it is five years since the Group of 20 leading economies agreed on new quotas that would moderate their outsized influence at the International Monetary Fund. The world is still waiting for the US Congress to ratify the changes. This is an abdication of responsibility.

其次，二十国集团(G20)5年前就已同意实行新的配额制度，以降低上述几个国家（或地区）对IMF过大的影响力，而美国国会迄今仍未批准这一变革。这是不负责任的。

Third, the world economy would benefit from larger flows of long-term capital to developing countries as well as from a bigger insurance fund than the IMF can offer to countries exposed to “sudden stops” in capital flows.

第三，更多长期资金流入发展中国家，以及让面临资金流“突然中断”风险的国家能获得IMF无法提供的更大资金保障，这对世界经济是件好事。

Foreign exchange reserves have risen to nearly $12tn, from about $2tn at the turn of the millennium, dwarfing the IMF’s resources of less than $1tn. This indicates the scale of the shortfall. China’s money could push the world in the right direction. That would be an excellent thing.

千禧之交，全球外汇储备总额约为2万亿美元，如今已增至近12亿美元，这使得IMF不到1万亿美元的资金能力显得微不足道。这种情况反映出资金缺口有多么大。中国的资金可推动世界朝正确的方向前进。这实在是件大好事。

Finally, the US criticises the UK for its “constant accommodation” of the rising superpower. But the alternative to accommodation is conflict. China’s economic rise is beneficial and inevitable. What is needed is intelligent accommodation.

最后，美国批评英国“不断迁就”这个正在崛起的超级大国。但如果不选择迁就，就要选择冲突。中国在经济上的崛起是有益的、也是不可避免的。我们需要做到的是聪明地迁就。

Where China offers proposals that make sense for itself and for the world, engagement is more sensible than carping from the sidelines. An erstwhile US policy maker once asked China to be a “responsible stakeholder”. With the creation of the AIIB, it is doing just that.

当中国的提议对自身和世界都有意义的时候，接触比在一旁挑刺儿更明智。曾经有一位美国政策制定者要求中国做一个“负责任的利益相关者”。创立亚投行正是在做“负责任的利益相关者”。

Thus, the approach of the UK and other European allies is to be applauded. Moreover, the UK’s decision to join the AIIB could even be a salutary shock to the US.

因此，英国以及其他欧洲盟国的做法值得赞赏。此外，英国加入亚投行的决定，对美国甚至可能是个有益的刺激。

Yes, it would be desirable if countries with similar interests and values, such as Britain and the US, could speak and act as one. And yes, the UK is taking risks in adopting a line different from that of its most important international partner. But support must not be slavish. That has proved to be in nobody’s interests.

当然了，假如拥有相似利益和价值观的国家——比如英国和美国——不管说话还是行动都能一条心，那是可取的。没错儿，英国采取了与其最重要盟友不一致的立场，这是有风险的。然而，对盟友的支持不能变味成奴才般的服从。事实证明，那样对谁都不好。

Moreover, if Britain’s choice makes clear to US policy makers that leadership is not a right but has to be earned, the decision could well prove beneficial. In the years after the second world war, in a fit of presence of mind, the US created the institutions of the modern world. But the world has moved on.

此外，如果英国的选择能让美国政策制定者明白，领袖的位置不是一种权利，而是必须靠争取得来的，那么英国这个选择很可能是有益的。二战后那些年，美国凭借冷静的头脑创建起了当代世界的多个国际机构。但世界已经变了。

It needs new entities. It must adjust to the rise of new powers. It will not stop, just because the US can no longer engage. If the results are not to America’s liking, it has only itself to blame.

世界需要新的机构。它必须做出调整，以适应新的大国的崛起。它不会仅仅因为美国无法继续参与就停止前进。如果美国不喜欢这种结果，那只能怪它自己。