美欧贸易谈判重在监管协调

American cars have bigger bumpers than European ones. That may sound like a trivial detail but it, and others like it, have big ramifications for diplomats charged with negotiating a trade agreement between the US and the EU. Opening up markets once meant removing barriers that protected domestic producers from foreign competition. Authorities in Europe and America have given the impression that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is just another trade agreement of that kind. In fact, the proposed agreement is a different beast.

美国汽车的保险杠比欧洲汽车的保险杠大。这听上去或许是一个无关紧要的小细节，但对于负责谈判一项美欧贸易协定的外交官们而言，诸如此类的问题有着重要意义。开放市场曾经意味着消除壁垒，这些壁垒旨在保护本国生产商免受外国竞争的威胁。目前欧美当局给人的印象是，《跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴关系协定》(TTIP)也是这样一种协议。实际上，这项拟议的协定属于另一种类型。

Most old-fashioned barriers have already disappeared. Trade negotiators are focusing instead on removing discrepancies between the regulations in force in the American and European markets. These talks are no longer about removing protections; they are about harmonising precautions that prevent harm to consumers.

多数旧式壁垒已经消除，如今的贸易谈判代表们把注意力放在了消除欧美市场现行监管规定之间的差异。谈判的目的不再是消除保护主义措施，而是要协调那些防止对消费者造成损害的预防措施。

The political economy of this sort of endeavour differs from those of past negotiations. When you work to reduce tariffs, consumers praise you for lowering prices while producers complain that you have stripped away their protections. Things are different when we start talking about regulatory harmonisation. Producers are excited by the prospect of such measures, which could have serious implications for medicine, food, financial products, vehicles – everything. But they make consumers anxious because they fear it means giving up the precautionary safeguards from which they benefit.

这种努力的政治经济学不同于以往的谈判。当你致力于降低关税时，消费者会因为价格下跌而称赞你，而生产者则会抱怨你取消了保护主义措施。当我们开始讨论监管协调时，情况就不一样了。生产者对这类措施出台的可能性感到兴奋，因为它们会对医药、食品、金融产品、汽车等一切商品产生重大影响。但这些措施可能会引起消费者担忧——他们担心这意味着废除对他们有益的预防性保护措施。

How do we come up with a mutually acceptable approximation of American and European regulations that have the same purpose but do not always safeguard consumers to the same extent or in the same way? This is serious politics – far more difficult than horse-trading over tariffs. The Europeans have been dealing with this challenge ever since they set about creating the single European market in the mid-1980s. Failing to make clear that the TTIP negotiations, too, are about regulatory harmonisation was a huge blunder. Negotiators need to be transparent if they are to calm public suspicions.

怎么才能拿出一套双方都能接受、与美国和欧洲的监管规定都比较接近的方案呢？双方的监管规定有着同样的目的，但在保护消费者的力度和方式上不尽相同。这是个严肃的政治问题，比围绕关税的讨价还价要困难得多。自上世纪80年代中期着手创建单一欧洲市场以来，欧洲人就一直在应对这一挑战。未能明确TTIP谈判也涉及监管协调是一大失策。要化解公众的疑虑，谈判代表们需要做到透明。

Another political obstacle lies in the plan to allow investors to sue governments under the pact if they feel local laws threaten their investment. The negotiators seem to have forgotten about the anti-globalisation activists. This loud minority is managing to convince consumers they will have to eat chlorinated chicken and genetically modified food, and that US data privacy laws will be foisted on them. Introducing potential investor-state disputes to the mix adds to this sense of distrust.

另一个政治障碍与一项计划有关：假如投资者认为地方法规威胁到自己的投资，可以依据该协定起诉政府。谈判代表们似乎忘记了反全球化的活动人士。这些声势很大的少数群体正设法说服消费者，他们将不得不食用以含氯消毒液处理过的鸡肉，不得不食用转基因食品，同时美国数据隐私法将被强加在他们身上。在这种局面下，如果再引入潜在的投资者与政府争端，将会加重不信任感。

Both sides also underestimated the change in German public opinion. When I was the EU trade commissioner, from 1999 to 2004, the German public could be counted on to support greater trade openness. But recent polls suggest that Germans trust America far less than they did – a bad omen for a pact that would require them to put their faith in US regulators.

双方还低估了德国民意的变化。当我在1999年至2004年担任欧盟贸易专员时，我们能相信德国公众会支持更大力度的贸易开放。但最近的民调显示，德国人对美国的信任感远远不及过去——对于一个需要他们相信美国监管机构的协定而言，这是个不好的征兆。

How can we put TTIP back on track? We need to embrace transparency. We must explain, frankly and openly, that 80 per cent of these negotiations deal with a realm of regulatory convergence. We must recognise that, while we might reap some early harvests, this is a long-haul project. If investor-state disputes are to be allowed, a much better case for them must be made. When there are differences in regulation, negotiators should say either that they will not touch each other’s rules or that they will both adopt the most stringent of the existing safeguards.

我们怎么才能让TTIP重新步入正轨呢？必须奉行透明原则。我们必须开诚布公地解释，80%的谈判内容涉及监管趋同。我们必须认识到，尽管我们可能会在初期收获一些成果，但这是一个长期项目。如果要容忍投资者与政府争端，那么这类争端必须有明显更加合理的理由。一旦法规上存在差异，谈判代表们应该解释，彼此不会触动对方的规定，或者双方都会实行现行保护措施中最严格的措施。

Finally, both sides should leave open the possibility of TTIP being widened to include other interested states. If the EU and the US overcome these obstacles and put the agreement back on track, then they stand to establish global regulatory benchmarks that will help to achieve the promise of open trade.

最后，双方应保留扩容TTIP以纳入其他感兴趣国家的可能性。如果欧盟和美国克服了上述障碍，让TTIP协定回归正轨，那么他们有望建立起全球监管基准，这将有助于兑现开放贸易的承诺。