在达沃斯会议中心对面，有一座木屋多年来一直为微软(Microsoft)保留，但现在，鲜艳的中国国旗明白地告诉人们，今年最佳场地让给了中国官方的中央电视台(CCTV)。似乎是为了进一步突显亚洲不断增长的影响力，NDTV成了首家在达沃斯主持现场辩论的印度电视台，主题是印度在世界舞台上的地位。
本次达沃斯显然应该出现下述局面：在金融危机及其令人痛苦的后续影响之后，西方终于接受经济与政治实力正逐渐东移的事实。但现实与此大相径庭。达沃斯陷入了有关银行家奖金、美国就业以及希腊财政危机的激烈辩论。在讨论双底型衰退风险或如何监管金融业的全体大会上，常常不见亚洲代表的身影。
“西方已经被自身的问题弄得焦头烂额，没有时间和精力抬头去看世界正在发生什么，”印度最大的业务流程外包公司Genpact首席执行官帕拉蒙•哈辛(Pramod Bhasin)表示。“这非常好笑，因为即便我们在说世界变得更加全球化了，但实际上世界正在分裂。”
拿中国来说，尽管中央电视台展示了实力，但东西方之间的隔阂是相互的。中国固然派遣迄今阵容最强的代表团——38位代表，但部长级官员寥寥无几，即使在人数上也赶不上印度的87位代表。似乎是为了强调中国想要置身于达沃斯讨论的边缘，中国副总理李克强发表的重要讲话几乎完全避开了与本国无关的内容。
清华大学国际问题研究所所长阎学通表示，北京方面坚守邓小平保持低调的格言。他表示：“在过去30年内，中国领导人坚信中国是一个发展中国家。达沃斯是发达国家的盛会。”在谈到尽管中国财富不断增长、但北京方面仍保持沉默寡言时，阎学通补充说：“世界其它国家都视中国为超级大国。但我们说：‘我们不是。这是一个想耗尽我们有限资源的圈套。'”
当然，对于中国（乃至印度）度过危机的方式，国际上有众多仪式性的称赞。就连达沃斯这个盎格鲁-撒克逊式资本主义的教堂，也对更具干预主义色彩的政策的可能优点，表示了难得的认可。比如，亿万富翁投资者乔治•索罗斯(George Soros)就认为，中国通过“行政指导”与信贷控制来戳破资产泡沫的方式，好过他所称的美联储(Fed)前主席艾伦•格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)单纯依赖货币政策的败笔。
但银行家们表示，尽管中国政府在监管国有银行方面取得了相对的成功，但它仍置身于全球辩论之外。西方监管机构不可能仿效中国那种命令式的结构，同时在中国政府看来，有关“沃尔克规则”和“大得不能倒闭”的辩论都与中国的国情无关。
因此，中国和西方代表大部分时间都在各执一词，特别是在谈到棘手的汇率问题时。李克强在讲话中完全回避了这个话题。就连中国重要智囊机构国际金融论坛(International Finance Forum)的主席成思危也出言谨慎，称这个话题“正在考虑之中”，但中国政府会逐步采取措施，而且肯定不会屈从于西方的压力。
美国负责经济、能源与农业事务的副国务卿罗伯特•霍马茨(Robert Hormats)对中国提出了委婉的批评。“依赖于向美国消费者销售越来越多商品的增长模式是不可持续的，也是不可靠的，”他表示。“如果你希望保持强劲的增长速度，就必须调整增长模式。”
他还指出，中国尚未领悟一个道理，即随着本国不断累积财富，应该更积极参与国际事务。“随着中国成为全球体系中更大的一部分，它必须为全球体系担负更多责任。”
阎学通对于有关国际合作的任何温馨说法都不屑一顾。在谈到中美关系时，他说：“我们不是朋友。我们是商业伙伴。”中国将完全从自身经济利益出发行事。
译者/何黎
Opposite the Davos Congress Centre in the chalet for years reserved for Microsoft, the brash display of People's Republic red left little doubt that this year the prime spot had been yielded to CCTV, China's state-run television network. As if to drive home the point about Asia's growing clout, NDTV became the first Indian channel to host a live debate at Davos, with the theme of India's place in the world.
This was clearly meant to be the Davos when the west finally came to terms with the steady shift of economic and political power eastwards, revealed in an epiphany of financial crisis and its wrenching aftermath. But the reality has been quite different. Davos instead has been locked in fractious debate about bankers' bonuses, US jobs and the financial implosion of Greece. Plenary sessions at which delegates discussed how to regulate the financial industry or the risks of a double-dip recession were often devoid of Asian representation.
“The west is very absorbed by its own problems and hasn't had the time or energy to look up and see what's happening,” said Pramod Bhasin, chief executive of Genpact, India's biggest business processing outsourcer. “That's quite funny because the world is splitting apart, even as we say that we are getting more globalised.”
In the case of China – and despite CCTV's show of force – the disengagement between east and west was mutual. China did send 38 delegates, its largest contingent to date, but there was very little senior ministerial representation and even the number paled besides India's 87. As if to emphasise that Beijing wanted to stay on the periphery of the Davos conversation, the big set-piece speech by Li Keqiang, executive vice-premier, shunned foreign content almost entirely.
Yan Xeutong, director of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University, says Beijing is sticking to Deng Xiaoping's dictum of keeping a low profile. “In the last 30 years, Chinese leaders have firmly believed China is a developing country,” he says. “Davos is for rich countries.” Of Beijing's continuing reticence, in spite of China's growing wealth, he adds: “The rest of the world regards China as a superpower. But we say: 'No. This is a trap to exhaust our limited resources.'”
Of course, there has been plenty of ritualistic praise for the way in which China - and India – have sailed through the crisis. There has even been the odd nod from Davos, the church of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, to the possible merits of more interventionist policies. For example, George Soros, the billionaire investor, favourably contrasted China's approach to pricking asset bubbles through “administrative guidance” and control of credit with what he categorised as the failed reliance on a purely monetary approach practised by Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
But bankers said that, despite its relative success in regulating its state-owned banks, Beijing remained outside the global debate. Western regulators are not in a position to emulate China's command-led structure, while Beijing regards debates about the “Volcker rule” and too-big-to-fail as irrelevant to its circumstances.
As a result, delegates from China and the west have spent much of the time talking past each other, particularly when it came to the vexed question of exchange rates. Li Keqiang avoided the subject altogether in his speech. Even Cheng Siwei, chairman of the International Finance Forum, an influential Chinese think tank, was cautious, saying the subject was “under consideration” but that Beijing would move gradually and certainly not under western pressure.
Robert Hormats, US undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agriculture affairs, took gentle potshots at China. “A growth model which depends on selling more and more to the US consumer is not a sustainable or credible model,” he said. “If you want to continue to have a robust rate of growth you have to reorient your model.”
He also suggested that Beijing had not yet learnt that, with increasing wealth at home, came the need for greater international engagement. “As China becomes a bigger part of the global system it has to assume more responsibility for the global system,” he said.
Prof Yan from Tsinghau University brushed away any cozy talk of international co-operation. Of China-US relations, he said: “We are not friends. We are business partners.” China would act solely in its own economic interests.
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001031112
没有评论:
发表评论