欧洲对中国的应对之策 [美国媒体]

As Chinese investment pours into the European Union, the Europeans are beginning to worry

随着中国的投资涌入欧洲，欧洲人开始担忧了



EUROPE has caught China’s eye. Chinese investments there have soared, to nearly 36bn ($40bn) in 2016—almost double the previous years’ total. Chinese FDI fell in2017, but the share spent in Europe rose from a fifth to a quarter. For the most part, this money is welcome. Europe’s trading relationship with China has made both sides richer.

欧洲吸引了中国的注意力。2016年中国在欧洲的投资飙升，接近360亿欧元（合400亿美元）——几乎是前些年的投资总额的两倍。2017年，中国对外直接投资有所下降，但对欧洲投资的比重却从五分之一增加到四分之一。大多数情况下，中国的资金是受欢迎的。欧洲与中国的贸易关系使得双方都更加富裕。

However, China is also using its financial muscle to buy political influence. The Czech president, Milos Zeman, wants his country to be China’s “unsinkable aircraft-carrier” in Europe. Last year Greece stopped the European Union from criticizing China’s human-rights record at a UN forum. Hungary and Greece prevented the EU from backing a court ruling against China’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. Faced with such behaviour, it is only prudent for Europeans to be nervous.

然而，中国也在利用自身的经济实力获取政治影响。捷克总统米洛什·泽曼（Milos Zeman）希望捷克成为中国在欧洲的“永不沉没的航空母舰”。去年，希腊在联合国论坛上阻止欧盟批评中国的人权记录。匈牙利和希腊曾阻止欧盟支持一项反对中国在南中国海上的领土主张。面临这样的行为，欧洲人必须谨慎行事。

And not only Europeans. The terms on which the emerging undemocratic superpower invests in the outside world are of interest to all countries—particularly if other things, such as foreign policy, may be affected. Americans, increasingly consumed by fears that China poses a commercial and military threat, should be mindful of competition for the loyalties of its oldest ally. For everyone’s sake, it matters that Europeans gauge their welcome to China wisely. Just now, they do not.

并且不仅仅是欧洲人。这个新兴的非民主超级大国对外投资的条款符合所有国家的利益——尤其是当外交政策等可能会受到影响的时候。美国人越来越担心中国会带来商业和军事威胁，因此美国要留心争夺这个最古老盟友的忠诚。为了所有人的利益，欧洲人要明智地衡量他们在中国的受欢迎程度是很重要的。只不过现在他们还没做到。

Many of China’s plans in Europe are just what you would expect of a rising economy. Some investments are private, profit-seeking and harmless. Acquiring technology by buying innovative firms, including in Germany’s Mittelstand, is reasonable, too, so long as deals are scrutinized for national-security risks. There are also things that China, unlike Russia, does not want, such as to undermine the EU or sow chaos by furtively supporting populist, xenophobic parties. It would rather Europe remained stable and open for business. On issues such as climate change and trade, China has acted more responsibly than the Trump administration, seeking to uphold global accords rather than chuck grenades at them.

中国在欧洲的许多计划符合人们对于提升经济的预期。一些投资是私人的，只为追逐利益，不会有危害。只要其交易通过了严格的国家安全风险审核，通过收购创新型公司（包括德国的Mittelstand）以获取技术的行为也是合理的。与俄罗斯不同，有些事情中国不想做，如暗中支持民粹主义和排外的政党以削弱欧盟。它宁愿欧洲保持稳定和商业开放。在气候变化和贸易等问题上，中国采取了比特朗普政府更加积极的行动，寻求维护全球协议，而不是向它们开炮。

Some Europeans take this to suggest that China is a useful counterweight to an unpredictable Uncle Sam. That is misguided. Europe has far more in common with America than China, however much Europeans may dislike the occupant of the White House. Moreover, China has used the EU’s need for unanimity in many of its decisions to pick off one or two member states in order to block statements or actions of which it disapproves—as with human rights.

一些欧洲人据此认为，面对难以捉摸的山姆大叔（美国），中国是一股有效的制衡力量。这种想法是错误的。无论欧洲人多么不喜欢白宫如今的主人，欧洲与美国的共同点始终要比与中国多得多。此外，中国还利用了欧盟的许多决定需要取得一致意见的制度，拉拢一两个国家以阻止其不喜欢的言论和行动——如人权问题。

Other Europeans seize on such examples to jump to the opposite conclusion. They fear that Chinese lucre will one day undermine Europe’s military alliance with the United States. Fortunately, that is a long way off, as the French and British navies have shown by joining America and Japan to challenge China in the South China Sea. Until China itself becomes a democracy, of which there is no sign, Europe will surely remain closer to its traditional allies.

而其他一些欧洲人则凭借这些事情得出了相反的结论。他们担心，中国的投资总有一天会损害欧洲与美国的军事联盟。幸运的是，这种情况还要很久才会发生，因为法国和英国海军加入美国和日本的行列在南中国海上挑战中国。在中国成一个民主国家之前（没有任何迹象），欧洲肯定会更贴近其传统盟友。

Europe thus needs to take a path that avoids the extremes of naivety and hostility. It should avoid mimicking Chinese protectionism. It might sound “fair” to subject Chinese firms in Europe to the restrictions European firms face in China, but it would be a mistake. The permeability of European societies and economies to ideas and influences is a strength.

因此，欧洲需要采取一条避免极端幼稚和敌意的道路。它应当避免模仿中国的保护主义。在欧洲的中国公司受到与在中国的欧洲公司相同的限制听起来可能“公平”，但这是错误的。欧洲社会和经济对思想和影响的渗透性是一个优势。

But such openness also makes them vulnerable. Hence, governments should vet investments case by case. Montenegro should not have allowed its debts to China to become so perilously vast. Hungary and Poland should have looked harder at certain Chinese infrastructure projects that offer poor value for money or were never properly completed.

但是这种开放使得这些欧洲国家变得脆弱。因此，政府应当逐个审查投资。黑山不应允许自己对中国的债务变得如此巨大，这是极其危险的。匈牙利和波兰应该更加认真地审查中国的某些基础设施项目，这些项目要么性价比低，要么从未妥善完成。

Europeans could do more to substantiate their talk of “reciprocity”, or the mantra that the EU and China should treat each other as each wishes to be treated. They could, for example, introduce new instruments to make it clearer who is buying stakes in firms and thus whether they are doing so fairly. They should also increase funding for impartial China research. Transparency should be demanded from political parties, universities, think-tanks and lobbyists. Sometimes Chinese cash buys unsubtle happy talk. More often, it leads to self-censorship and punch-pulling from even prestigious academies.

欧洲人可以做更多的事情去证实他们“互惠互利”的说法或者欧盟和中国应该以各自希望被对待的方式去对待对方。例如，他们可以引入新的工具弄清楚谁在购买公司的股份，以及他们的做法是否公平。他们也应该增加对公正的中国研究的资助。政党、大学、智库和游说团体需要提高透明度。有时，中国的资金买来的是坦率的、快乐的谈话。更常见的是，它会导致自我审查，甚至招致一些知名大学的批评。

And Europe should aim to speak as one. None of its states alone can face down China but, acting together, they could do so for decades to come. The EU could, for example, use qualified-majority voting (QMV) rather than unanimous votes on some subjects sensitive to China, such as human rights. This would not work for everything—most EU nations would balk at giving Brussels a veto over how they deploy their military forces. But QMV would make it harder for China to paralyse the EU by picking off one small member at a time. The EU could also co-ordinate investment-screening processes by member states. And it could take better care of those southern and eastern countries particularly vulnerable to China’s influence and provide alternative sources of investment for the projects they deem important.A little more intra-European solidarity would go a long way.

欧洲应该团结一心。欧盟的任何一个国家都无法单独对抗中国，但是倘若它们同心协力，那么在未来几十年内便可抗衡中国。比如，在对中国的一些敏感问题如人权问题上使用多数表决制而不是一致投票。这并不适用于所有情况——大多数欧盟国家会在赋予欧盟对各国军队部署的否决权问题上选择回避。但是多数表决制可以使中国更难通过一次离间一个欧盟国家来瘫痪欧盟。欧盟也可以协调成员国的投资审查程序。它还可以更好地照顾到欧盟南部和东部那些特别容易受到中国影响的国家，并为它们认为重要的项目提供替代的投资来源。实现欧洲内部的团结将会大有裨益。

America has a role to play, too. Ideally the Trump administration would stop treating Europeans as free-riders on American power who deserve a good kicking. On trade, especially, the EU is a powerful potential ally in getting China to abide by global norms. America should also work more closely with European governments to set up common standards of transparency, graft-busting and the prevention of influence-peddling—

美国也要发挥作用。理想的情况是，特朗普政府将不再认为欧洲人是美国力量的搭便车者，真该狠狠踢他们一脚。特别是在贸易问题上，在促使中国遵守国际规则方面，欧盟是一个强大的潜在盟友。美国还应该与欧盟展开更加紧密的合作，以建立透明、打击腐败和预防以权谋私的共同标准——这将使中国更难将自己的规则强加给一些小国。

which would make it harder for China to impose its own rules on small countries. At a time when standards for IT and artificial intelligence risk splitting into a Chinese camp and an American one, Europe can help find a middle path.

而正值信息技术和人工智能面临分裂为中国阵营和美国阵营的风险之际，欧盟可以帮助找到一条中间道路。

As China rises, the benefits for the world of an independent, open and free Europe will only increase. Conversely, a Europe weakened and divided by the world’s most powerful authoritarian regime would exacerbate problems far beyond the EU’s borders. Europe must not let that happen.

随着中国的崛起，一个独立、开放、自由的欧洲对世界的益处只会增加。相反，一个被世界最强大的威权政权削弱和分裂的欧洲将会导致问题恶化远超欧盟范围。欧洲决不能允许这样的事情发生。

Portugal
It doesn't matter how much infrastructure and businesses you own in a foreign country, if that country can seize it whenever they want then no worries. Portugal can hijack Chinese private owned infrastructures in Portugal and China couldn't do anything but put sanctions on us. On the other hand if Thailand or Cambodia did it then there might be some military action by china.
​
你在外国拥有多少基础设施和企业并不重要，如果那个国家想什么时候占领它就能什么时候占领，那就不用担心。葡萄牙可以劫持中国在葡萄牙的私人基础设施，中国除了制裁其他什么也做不了。另一方面，如果泰国或柬埔寨这样做，中国可能会采取一些军事行动。

aleqqqs
Any country doing that is in for a hefty round of multinational sanctions, and investors won't touch that country with a 10 ft pole for 2 decades.

任何这样做的国家都将面临大规模的跨国制裁，投资者在20年内都不会再投资这个国家。

Portugal
Even if there's a plot to manipulate politics?

即使有阴谋操纵政治？

Jersey
Because investors don’t give a shit even if you starve. They care about their earnings. And if they can be sized at a whim, then they’ll just rather not give you the money in the first place. And getting politically oppressed/ virtually conquered is no reason for them to allow you to just "steal" investments. If you can do it once, who is going to make sure you or others don’t do it again? Cant let that happen.
Oh, and for " On the other hand if Thailand or Cambodia did it then there might be some military action by china"
What do you think land sized/bought by china for military bases in Africa are for but to develop global reach? Better hope NATO/Europe is willing to cover your ass if things keep going as they are (not actually that likely, Africa is waking up to Chinese debt trapping) and your country decides to take Chinese investments back. Otherwise you might end up with your own, Chinese "aid" propped up Majuro to make sure China gets their moneys worth.

就算你饿死了，投资者也不在乎。他们只关心自己的收益。如果他们可以随心所欲地调整，那么他们宁愿一开始就不给你投资。被政治压迫或实际上被征服并不是他们允许你“窃取”投资的理由。如果你能干一次这样的事儿，谁能保证你或其他人不会再干一次呢？不能让这种事情发生。
哦，对于“另一方面，如果泰国或柬埔寨这样做了，那么中国可能会采取一些军事行动。”你认为中国在非洲为建设军事基地购买的土地除了拓展全球影响力还有什么用？如果事情继续发展下去，你最好希望北约或欧洲愿意帮你擦屁股（实际上不太可能，非洲正意识到中国的债务陷阱），而贵国决定收回对中国的投资。否则你可能会自食其果，中国的“援助”支持了马朱罗，以确保他们的投资有所回报。

Portugal
Do American investors care Chinese investors got shafted? Does rating agencies care? It's china,the enemy of free markets,the champion of protectionist economics

美国投资者在意中国投资者被耍吗？评级机构关心吗？那是中国，保护主义经济的拥护者。

United States of America
Yeah, but the way things seem to be progressing the US will be in a military confrontation soon enough (by the end of the 2020s at least) that I think a lot of economies will be fine when they expropriate Chinese owned investments.

是的，但事情似乎正在发展，美国很快就会陷入军事对抗（至少到本世纪20年代末），我认为，许多经济体在没收中国所有的投资时会安然无恙。

Czech Republic
Thank God our Western politics are entirely segregated from any and all financial influence, and all those wealthy mega-corporations that China is slowly taking over have no sway on the decision-making our politicians whatsoever.
Otherwise we'd really be in trouble...

感谢上帝，我们的西方政治与所有的金融影响是完全隔离的，而中国正在慢慢接管的富裕的大型企业对我们政策的决策没有任何影响。
否则，我们就有麻烦了。。。

Portugal
Yes, but selling EDP to them is still one of the worst decisions ever made. The most profitable public company just gone forever ...

是的，但是向中国出售葡萄牙电力公司仍是最糟糕的决定之一。葡萄牙最赚钱的上市公司永远消失了。。。

Flanders
This is also about stealing technology though.

但这也与窃取技术有关。

Spirit_Inc
"Not to worry" we were told in the eastern Europe, when we were opening our borders and economies, "this is progress!"
Now there is almost no bigger eastern European owned companies, they couldn't compete. Even toilet paper is German.
Are you trying to say that the same happening to the western Europe would be a bad thing? But it wasn't when happened to us? Confusing.
Anyway, we don’t have the problem described in the article. Chinese, German or french capital domination? Whats the difference?

当我们开放东欧的边境和经济时，我们被告知，“别担心，这是进步！”
现在较大的东欧国家几乎没有企业，他们无法参与竞争。就连厕纸都是德国造的。
你是想说同样的事情发生在西欧就是坏事吗？但这不会发生在我们身上吗？令人困惑。
总之，文章中没有提到这事儿。中国、德国还是法国的资本占据主导地位？区别在哪儿？

zynmu
This was always the deal. Eastern Europe will open borders to western companies and Western Europe will pay for developing eastern economies. And this deal was hugely profitable for both sides.
Focusing only on the on the costs of the deal is narrow minded both for westerners complaining about UE structural funds and easterners complaining about European companies on their market.

事情总是这样。东欧将向西方公司开放边境 ，西欧将为发展东欧经济体提供资金。这项交易对双方都有巨大利润。
无论是对抱怨欧盟结构性基金的西欧人还是对抱怨市场上欧洲企业的东欧人来说，仅仅关注这笔交易的成本是狭隘的。

level 3
But Western Europe paid far less than what it got from Eastern Europe on top of that most of Eastern Europe qualified population migrated to Western Europe so it's not hugely profitable for both sides. Furthermore there are now talks for lowering the amount of money Western Europe gives to Eastern Europe so the deal is now even better for Western Europe and even worse for Eastern Europe。

但是西欧支付的钱比东欧少得多而且大部分东欧合格人口都迁移到了西欧所以对双方来说都没有太大的利润。此外，现在有西欧降低向东欧提供资金数额的传言，因此该协议现在对西欧甚至更好，对东欧甚至更糟。