民主黨羞辱奧巴馬 誰能爲TPP困局解圍

There were troubling portents in the way Democrats humbled President Barack Obama last Friday. It is not only that he made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to appeal for Democratic support on his global trade agen­da. Nor that he warned them that a vote against it would be the same as one against him. These were bad enough. Worse is that it was Nancy Pelosi — the Democratic leader, and linchpin of every legislative victory since Mr Obama took office, including healthcare — who put the knife in his back. When your closest ally betrays you, it is time to reach for your Shakespeare.

上週五，民主黨羞辱巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)總統的方式有一些令人不安的徵兆。不只是他罕有地造訪國會山，希望贏得民主黨對其全球貿易議程的支持。也不是他警告稱，反對該議程就是反對他。這些已經足夠糟糕了。更糟糕的是，民主黨領導人南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)在奧巴馬背後捅了一刀。自奧巴馬上任以來，佩洛西是奧巴馬所有立法勝利（包括醫療改革）的關鍵人物。當你最親密的盟友背叛你時，你就該求助莎士比亞(Shakespeare)了。

Mr Obama may have to beg, flatter and cajole his way out of this one. The only way to retrieve his trade agenda — let alone his credibility — will be to reverse last week’s defeat. It has been done before. The best example is Congress’s rejection of the $700bn Wall Street bailout package (the troubled asset relief programme, Tarp) in September 2008. It was reversed 72 hours later. But George W Bush, the then president, could point to a stock market in free fall. The Dow fell almost 1,000 points after the first vote, enough to terrify lawmakers into the Yes camp on the second. Mr Obama has no such prompts. The Dow Jones index dropped 140 points last Friday, which was no more than an average bad day.

要殺出困境，奧巴馬或許不得不設法乞求、奉承和哄騙。挽回其貿易議程（更別提他的信譽了）的唯一途徑是逆轉上週的敗績。以前出現過這種事情。最好的例子是，2008年9月美國國會否決了7000億美元的華爾街紓困方案——問題資產救助計劃(Tarp)。72小時後該決定被逆轉。但時任總統喬治·W·布什(George W Bush)可以指向一落千丈的美國股市。在首次投票後，道瓊斯指數(Dow)下挫近1000點，嚇得立法者在第二輪投票時加入支持陣營。奧巴馬沒有得到這種輔助。上週五，道瓊斯指數下跌140點，只是一個普通的糟糕交易日。

Mr Obama badly needs to come up with something in the next few days. The price of failure for him — and the US — is too high. The costs would be threefold. First, rejection of the trade promotion authority (TPA), or fast-track negotiating powers, would leave the US without a global economic strategy in a rapidly changing world. It would kill prospects of wrapping up the Pacific trade deal on which Mr Obama has been working for three years. The 12-member group covers almost 40 per cent of the world economy. It would also halt progress in the parallel transatlantic talks, which cover close to half the global economy.

奧巴馬迫切需要在未來幾天拿出一些應對方案。對於他（以及美國）而言，失敗的代價太高。這表現在三方面。首先，否決“貿易促進權”法案（TPA，又稱快速道(fast-track)談判授權）將令美國在這個快速變化的世界喪失一項全球經濟戰略。這將斷送締結奧巴馬已努力3年的太平洋貿易協定的可能性。《跨太平洋夥伴關係》（Trans-Pacific Partnership，簡稱TPP）12個成員國佔全球經濟的近40%。這也將讓平行的跨大西洋談判進展受阻，這些成員國佔全球經濟近一半。

Next, it would rob the US “pivot to Asia” of its most important element. Mr Obama’s biggest argument for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that it would force China to abide by global rules on trade and investment. China is not included in the group. Perhaps un­wisely, Mr Obama has played that China card explicitly and repeatedly. A collapse in the TPP talks would breathe life into China’s rival initiative, to which the US does not belong. Any scepticism that others would take the China-led trade talks seriously was laid to rest last month when America’s regional allies, including Australia and South Korea, spurned the US boycott of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. There is no reason to suppose it would turn out any different on trade. Most countries would far prefer US leadership to China’s. But in America’s ab­sence, there is only one alternative.

其次，這將剝奪美國“重心轉向亞洲”戰略中的最重要元素。奧巴馬支持TPP的最有力理由是，該協定將迫使中國遵守全球貿易與投資規則。中國沒有被納入該協定。或許不明智的是，奧巴馬明確、多次地打出這張“中國牌”。TPP談判的破裂將爲中國與之競爭的倡議（美國不在其中）注入生機。對於其他國家將嚴肅對待由中國主導的貿易談判的懷疑，已在上月消除，美國在亞洲的盟友（包括澳大利亞和韓國）沒有理睬美國對中國主導的亞洲基礎設施投資銀行(AIIB)的抵制。沒有理由設想在貿易問題上會出現不同的結果。多數國家將更青睞美國的領頭，而非中國。但在沒有美國的情況下，只有一種選擇。

Last, the death of TPA at Democratic hands would deprive Mr Obama of credibility on the world stage. His trade team, led by the very able Michael Froman, has assured the US’s Pacific partners that TPA’s enactment was a foregone conclusion. Since Mr Obama al­ready had the bulk of Republicans on his side, it was only a matter of persuading a sliver of Democrats to back him. The fallout would go far beyond trade. Mr Obama faces a deadline to conclude US-led talks with Iran. This year — and over Mr Obama’s protestations — the US Senate took the unusual step of passing a bill that would give it 60 days to review the contents of any Iran nuclear deal. There is a clear parallel to fast track. Mr Obama had insisted an Iran deal would not qualify as a treaty and would therefore not require Senate approval. Iran is less likely to risk the necessary concessions if it thinks Congress will torpedo the deal. On what grounds would Iran trust Mr Obama’s assurances?

最後，若TPA葬送在民主黨手裏，奧巴馬將喪失其在世界舞臺上的信譽。由非常能幹的邁克爾•弗羅曼(Michael Froman)領導的奧巴馬的貿易團隊，已讓美國在太平洋地區的合作伙伴相信，TPA儀案的通過是一個免不了的結果。奧巴馬已經有大多數共和黨人站在他這一邊，他本來只要說服一小部分民主黨人支持他就行了。失敗的衝擊波將遠遠超越貿易領域。奧巴馬面臨着與伊朗完成由美國主導的核談判的最後期限。今年，美國參議院不顧奧巴馬的抗議，不尋常地通過了一項法案，使自己獲得60天時間審議伊朗核協議的內容。這與“快車道”有清晰的類似之處。奧巴馬此前堅稱，與伊朗達成的協議算不上條約，因此不需要參議院批准。如果伊朗認爲美國國會將否決協議，它就不太可能冒險作出必要的讓步。有什麼理由讓伊朗相信奧巴馬的保證？

In an ideal democracy, any of these points ought to be a clincher. But in the real world politicians look to their own survival before thinking of the bigger picture. Mr Obama must thus come up with something more persuasive. One hope is that Republicans will save the day without Mr Obama having to do anything. After all, Republicans believe in free trade and fast-track powers would be inherited by Mr Obama’s successor, who might well be a Republican. Last week’s defeat was an “only on Capitol Hill” moment, in which TPA was passed (by a majority of eight) only to be sunk by defeat of another part of the package. Enactment of that part, which subsidises retraining workers who lose their jobs to trade, was required for the whole bill to pass. Both parties voted heavily against.

在理想的民主政體中，上述任何理由都應該是起決定性作用的論據。但在現實世界中，政客們把自己的生存置於全局考慮之前。因此，奧巴馬必須拿出更有說服力的理由。一個希望是，不需奧巴馬採取任何動作，共和黨人就將扭轉局面。畢竟，共和黨人信仰自由貿易，而且快車道權力將被奧巴馬的繼任者繼承，而後者很可能是共和黨人。上週的挫敗是典型的“國會山式”荒唐劇，TPA部分被通過了（贊成方獲得了8票的優勢），卻因法案的另一部分遭否決而受挫。只有那一部分（補貼對因貿易而失業的工人的再培訓）也獲得法律效力，整個法案才能通過。兩黨都有很多議員投票反對這部分。

If it squeaks through on the second try, Mr Obama would be saved. But it would require Republicans to hold their noses and vote for something they mistrust (subsidies) to save someone they abhor (Mr Obama). The other hope is that Ms Pelosi and colleagues change their mind on the merits of trade deals. But that seems improbable. So Republicans are left with a dilemma: should they defeat Mr Obama and hobble the US? Or give Mr Obama a victory that would also save America’s credibility? The coming days will be very revealing.

如果法案在第二次嘗試時勉強通過，奧巴馬將會得救。但這需要共和黨人捏住鼻子，投票支持他們不信任的事情（補貼）以拯救他們討厭的人（奧巴馬）。另一個希望是，佩洛西及其同事從貿易協定的好處着想，改變想法。但那似乎不太可能。所以，共和黨人面臨一個兩難困境：到底是應該擊敗奧巴馬，讓美國受到重創？還是應該讓奧巴馬獲勝，同時也挽救美國的信譽？未來幾天將讓我們大開眼界。