International government
国际政府
What a way to run the world
统治这个世界的方法
Jul 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition
Global institutions are an outdated muddle; the rise of Asia makes their reform a priority for the West
全球组织混乱落伍；亚洲的崛起使改革这些机构成为西方的首要任务
CLUBS are all too often full of people prattling on about things they no longer know about. On July 7th the leaders of the group that allegedly runs the world-the G7 democracies plus Russia-gather in Japan to review the world economy. But what is the point of their discussing the oil price without Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer? Or waffling about the dollar without China, which holds so many American Treasury bills? Or slapping sanctions on Robert Mugabe, with no African present? Or talking about global warming, AIDS or inflation without anybody from the emerging world? Cigar smoke and ignorance are in the air.
俱乐部里总是挤满了絮絮叨叨的人，其实他们对自己所谈论的事情不再了解。7月7日那个据称统治了这个世界的集团–G7民主国家加上俄罗斯–其领导人相聚日本讨论世界经济。但是这有什么意义呢？他们讨论石油价格，却没有沙特阿拉伯这个世界上最大的石油生产者的参与；喋喋不休地谈论美元，却没有中国的参与，它持有如此多的美国短期公债；对罗伯特•穆加贝施加制裁，却没有非洲人出席；讨论全球变暖，AIDS或通货膨胀，却没有任何来自新兴经济体的人参与。空气中飘荡着无知和雪茄烟雾。
The G8 is not the only global club that looks old and impotent (see article). The UN Security Council has told Iran to stop enriching uranium, without much effect. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in tatters. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the fireman in previous financial crises, has been a bystander during the credit crunch. The World Trade Organisation’s Doha round is stuck. Of course, some bodies, such as the venerable Bank for International Settlements (see article), still do a fine job. But as global problems proliferate and information whips round the world ever faster, the organisational response looks ever shabbier, slower and feebler. The world’s governing bodies need to change.
G8集团并不是唯一看起来老式和无能的全球俱乐部。联合国安理会已经告诉伊朗停止铀浓缩，却没有多少效果。核不扩散体制岌岌可危。国际货币基金组织（IMF），以往金融危机的救火员，在这次次贷危机中成了旁观者。世界贸易组织多哈谈判停滞不前。当然，有些组织，比如德高望重的国际结算银行，仍然做了出色的工作。但是当全球性问题高涨而信息在这个世界传递得更快，那些组织的反应看起来从未有过的寒酸、迟缓和衰弱。这个世界的统治机构需要变革。
Time for a cull?
是时候开始优选了？
There has always been an excuse for putting off reform. For a long time it was the cold war; more recently, “the unipolar moment” convinced neoconservatives that America could run things alone. But now calls for change are coming thick and fast. Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and America’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, want to redesign global financial regulation. Others are looking at starting afresh: John McCain is promoting a League of Democracies, while Asian countries are setting up clubs of their own-there is even talk of an Asian Union to match the European one. And many critics, especially in America, want a cull. Surely economic progress in the emerging world argues for getting rid of the World Bank? Is a divided Security Council really any use?
要推迟改革总是有理由的。很久以来这个理由是冷战，而最近的”单极时刻”则使新保守主义者们相信美国可以独自行动。但是现在，要求改革的呼声源源不断。英国首相戈登•布朗和美国财政部长汉克•鲍尔森想要重新制定金融规范。其他人则寻求重新开始：约翰•麦凯恩正在提议一个民主国家集团，而亚洲国家正在建立它们自己的俱乐部–甚至谈到建立一个亚洲同盟来应对欧洲联盟。许多批评家，尤其是美国的，则希望来一次优选。真的是新兴世界的经济发展要求废除世界银行吗？一个分裂的安理会真的有任何用途吗？
The critics are right to argue that global organisations should be more focused than they are, but wrong to assume they can be dispensed with altogether. Get rid of the Security Council or the World Bank and the clamour to invent something similar would begin: you need somebody to boss around 100,000 peacekeepers and to lend to countries that find it hard to access capital markets. International talking-shops and standard-setters are here to stay; instead of trying to bin them, focus on making them work well.
批评家们要求全球组织应该更加目标集中是对的，但是认为所有这些机构都应该被废除则是错误的。废除安理会或者世界银行以及要求创建一些类似的机构的呼声将会出现：你需要某人来管理大约十万名维和人员，以及给那些发现自己很难接触到资本市场的国家贷款。国际性的清谈俱乐部和标准设立者是已经存在的事物；与其试图将它们扔出去，不如集中精力使它们运行良好。
That means recognising how economics has changed the world order. Emerging economies now account for more than half of global growth. The most powerful among them need to be given a bigger say in international institutions-unless of course you think India will always be happy outside the Security Council and China content to have a smaller voting share than the Benelux countries do at the IMF.
那意味着弄清楚经济是如何改变这个世界的秩序的。新兴经济现在占据了全球增长的一半多。而其中最强大者需要在国际组织被赋予更大的话语权–除非你真的认为印度对自己被排除在安理会外感到很幸福，或者中国满意自己在IMF中的表决权比比荷卢还小。
Any solution must accept three constraints. First, better institutions will not solve intractable problems. A larger G8 will not automatically lick inflation, a better World Food Programme would not stop hunger. Second, no matter how you reform the clubs’ membership rules, somebody somewhere will feel left out. Third, you cannot start again. In 1945 the UN’s founders had a clean slate to write upon, because everything had been destroyed. The modern age does not have that dubious luxury, so must build on what already exists.
任何解决办法都必须接受三个局限。第一个，更好的制度不会解决棘手的问题。一个更大的G8集团不会自动地轻易击败通货膨胀，一个更好的世界粮食计划署不会消除饥饿。第二点，无论你如何改革这些俱乐部成员规则，总是有某地的某人会感到被排除在外。第三个，你无法重新开始。在1945年联合国的创建者们拥有一张好画画的白纸，因为那时所有事物都被摧毁了。现代世界则没有那份可疑的奢侈，因此你必须在现有的基础上开始建设。
Take for instance the G8. Some dream of reducing it to just the economic superpowers: the United States, the EU, China and Japan. An appealing idea, but Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin are unlikely to give up their seats at the top table. Better to enlarge the current body to include the world’s biggest dozen economies. A G12 would bring India, Brazil, China and Spain into the club, while allowing Canada (just) to stay in.
以G8集团为例。有些人梦想着将其缩小为几个经济超级大国：美国、欧盟、中国和日本。很吸引人的一个想法，但是西尔维奥•贝卢斯科尼和弗拉基米尔•普京不会愿意放弃他们在贵宾席上的座位。更好的办法是将现在的组织扩大，使其包含世界上最大的十几个经济体。一个G12集团将使印度、巴西、中国和西班牙进入俱乐部，同时让加拿大（仅仅）呆在里面。
The politics of the Security Council are even more outdated. Nobody now would give France or Britain a permanent veto, but neither wants to give up that right. Meanwhile, the four obvious candidates are held back by regional jealousies: India by Pakistan; Brazil by Argentina; Germany by Italy; and Japan by China. The most sensible plan gives these four permanent but non-veto-wielding seats, with two other seats provided for Islamic countries and one for an African nation.
安理会的政治更是过时。现在没人会给法国或英国永久否决权，但是这两个国家也不愿意放弃这种权力。与此同时，四个显而易见的候选人因为地区偏见而被挡在门外：印度被巴基斯坦阻拦在外；巴西被阿根廷；德国被意大利；日本被中国。最理智的办法是给这四个国家永久但无否决权的席位，另外两个席位给伊斯兰国家，还有一个给一个非洲国家。
America has yet to get behind these proposals, but a sharpened Security Council could mitigate the emerging world’s objections to UN reform. With a more representative high command, more jobs could be allocated on merit, the globocracy slimmed and bolder steps considered: for instance, the case for a small standing army, or earmarked forces, to nip Darfur-style catastrophes in the bud, would be easier to make.
美国从未支持过这些建议，但是一个变得有力的安理会能够缓和新兴世界对联合国改革的反对。拥有一个更具代表性的司令部，更多的工作能按照能力被分配，globocracy slimmed，更大胆的步骤被考虑：例如，建立一支小规模的常备军，或保留力量，将达尔富尔这样的灾难消除在萌芽中，
The Bretton Woods duo are easier to change: all that is needed is Western will. Their problem is finding a useful purpose. The World Bank is still needed as a donor to the really poor and as a supporter of global public goods, such as climate-change projects. There is less obvious need for the IMF, which was originally set up to monitor exchange rates. It could become a committee of oversight, but the main financial regulation will stay at the national level.
布雷顿森林二重唱则更容易改变：唯一需要的就是西方的意愿。他们的问题是要发现一个有益的用途。世界银行作为对真正的穷人的捐助人，以及作为全球公益事业 –比如气候变化项目–的支持者，仍将被需要。对IMF的需求则不那么明显，它最初被建立是用来监测汇率的。它可能会变成一个监管委员会，但是主要的金融监管将保持在国家水平。
League of Good Hope
好望同盟
Supporters of Mr McCain’s League of Democracies suggest it could be like NATO-a useful democratic subcommittee in the global club. But Mr McCain needs to define his democracies. (Will Malaysia count? How about Russia or Iran?) And, crucially, any league must not be seen as an alternative to reforming the UN. The whole point of global talking-shops is that they include everybody, not just your friends.
麦凯恩先生民主国家同盟的支持者建议说该同盟可以像NATO一样–成为全球俱乐部里一个有用的民主小组委员会。但是麦凯恩先生需要定义他的民主国家。（马来西亚算民主国家吗？俄罗斯或伊朗呢？）并且，最关键的是，任何同盟都不能视为对改革联合国的一种替代。全球清谈俱乐部的全部意义就在于它们包括了每一个人，而非仅有你的朋友。
Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world-and America in particular-has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world.
面对改革国际组织的要求，富裕国家–尤其是美国–有一个选择。抓住权利不放，则中国和印度将形成它们自己的俱乐部，着眼于他们自己的利益与问题。交出权力并把它们吸收进来，则利益与问题被共享。这将会是统治世界的一个体面方法。
译者：7colorwolf http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12499&pid=78434&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid78434