本屆G20峯會可能仍然令人失望

FRANKFURT — It will shut down a city for two days, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and oblige 20 of the world’s top leaders to make long journeys to the east coast of Australia. So it would be a bit of a letdown if the Group of 20 summit meeting in Brisbane on Saturday and Sunday failed to accomplish very much.

法蘭克福——它讓一座城市停止運轉兩天，它耗費的資金達數億美元，此外，它還迫使20位國家元首不遠萬里來到澳大利亞東海岸。因此，如果本週末在布里斯班召開的20國集團（Group of 20，簡稱G20）峯會不能取得多大成就，那可有點讓人掃興。

Expectations are that the gathering will be a disappointment. Past summit meetings have fallen short of their goals, and the latest meeting will take place when collegiality among leaders is at a low ebb, strained by conflict in Ukraine, territorial disputes in Asia and war in the Middle East.

不過外界預測，這次峯會將以失望告終。以往的G20峯會均未能達成目標，而本屆會議召開之際，各國領導人的關係正處於低潮，造成他們關係緊張的因素包括，烏克蘭衝突、亞洲領土爭議，以及中東的戰爭。

Failure of the G-20 meeting would be more than just a diplomatic setback for the countries involved, which include the United States, China, Russia, Japan, Germany and France. If they fail to coordinate their economic policies — the forum’s primary goal — the leaders will squander an opportunity to make the global economy grow faster and improve the living standards of millions of people, economists say.

如果本屆G20峯會失敗，將不光是與會各國在外交上的一次挫折。參會的成員國包括美國、中國、俄羅斯、日本、德國和法國等。經濟學家們表示，如果無法協調各國的經濟政策——這是峯會的主要目標——這些領導人將浪費一個讓全球經濟更快增長並改善無數人生活水平的機會。

John P. Lipsky, former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has said that the Brisbane summit meeting is a make-or-break moment for the G-20. If the leaders fail to achieve anything concrete, or fail to follow up later, it will raise questions about whether they are capable of working together in service of global prosperity, Mr. Lipsky told an audience in Melbourne this year. During a recent telephone interview, he did not sound optimistic.

國際貨幣基金組織（International Monetary Fund，簡稱IMF）前第一副總裁約翰·P·利普斯基(John P. Lipsky)稱，此次布里斯班峯會對於G20是一次成敗攸關的機會。他今年在墨爾本發表演講時曾表示，如果G20的領導人無法達成任何實質性成果，或者未能在會後有效跟進，將會引發對他們能否共同服務於全球繁榮的質疑。在最近的電話採訪中，他似乎並不樂觀。

“In the way of these summits, agreements will be announced on all the principal agenda items,” Mr. Lipsky said by phone from Washington. “What remains to be seen is whether the specifics will be sufficiently credible and whether they will receive strong enough political backing by the G-20 leaders to make them politically convincing as well.”

“按照峯會的安排，各國將宣佈就各項主要議程達成共識，”利普斯基在華盛頓通過電話表示。“仍需拭目以待的是，協議的具體內容是否足夠可信？它們能否得到20國領導人足夠的政治支持，從而在政治上同樣令人信服？”

The G-20 nations held their first summit meeting in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, when the world was in danger of falling into economic depression.

首屆G20峯會召開於2008年金融危機最嚴重的時期。當時，全球正面臨着陷入經濟衰退的危險。

Initially, the leaders, including those from developing countries like Brazil and India that had been excluded from the Group of 7 summit meetings — focused on creating a financial system less vulnerable to the kind of crisis that was then raging. Later, a more ambitious goal evolved — coordinating economic policies with the aim of lifting world growth.

起初，G20的領導人只是想打造一個不那麼容易受到當時正在肆虐的危機影響的金融體系。後來，他們有了一個更宏偉的目標——協調經濟政策，促進全球增長。G20包括了一些七國集團(Group of 7)之外的發展中國家，如巴西和印度。

World leaders would work together to remove the roadblocks to economic progress, including corruption, trade restrictions and regulations that discourage hiring and firing. Countries would spend more on research and development, create more equitable tax systems, and invest in public infrastructure like transit systems.

各國領導人決心共同掃除經濟發展的障礙，包括腐敗、貿易限制措施，以及阻礙勞動力市場發展的監管規定。他們打算在研發領域投入更多資金，建立更加公平合理的稅收體系，並且投資運輸系統等公共基礎設施。

The stakes were big. In 2010, the I.M.F. estimated that if the 20 leaders could follow through on their commitments, global growth would have been 2.5 percentage points higher. The extra economic output would be worth $1.5 trillion, the I.M.F. said, while 30 million new jobs would be created and 33 million people would escape poverty.

它的意義非同小可。2010年，IMF估計，如果20國領導人能夠貫徹他們的承諾，全球增長本來可以高出2.5個百分點。IMF稱，這意味着增加1.5萬億美元（約合9萬億元人民幣）的經濟產出，與此同時，還可以新增3000萬個就業崗位，並讓3300萬人擺脫貧困。

The I.M.F. also sketched out a worst-case scenario in which members of the G-20 did not follow through on their promises and growth missed forecasts. The difference between the best-case and worst-case scenarios was $4 trillion in output and 52 million jobs.

IMF也預計了最糟糕的情形，即20國領導人沒有履行承諾，增長低於預期。它與最好情形的差距是4萬億美元的經濟產出，以及5200萬個就業崗位。

In fact, it was the worst-case scenario that proved to be the more accurate prediction. If anything, Mr. Lipsky said, it was too optimistic.

事實證明，最糟的情形成了更爲準確的推斷。利普斯基表示，甚至可以說這種看法還是過於樂觀。

Strictly speaking, the G-20 is not a forum to achieve rapprochement with Russia over Ukraine or adjudicate conflicting claims to waters in the South China Sea. The G-20 is supposed to be about economics and finance. The United Nations is supposed to be responsible for geopolitical issues.

嚴格來講，G20並不是一個用來在烏克蘭問題上與俄羅斯恢復友好關係，或者對多國在南海水域存在衝突的主張做出裁定的論壇。G20的關注點應該是經濟和金融。聯合國才應該對地緣政治問題負責。

But heightened tensions will inevitably affect the mood in the Brisbane convention center, where the leaders, 4,000 delegates and an estimated 3,000 media representatives will gather. Security precautions will be even more intense than usual because of conflict in Syria and Iraq and heightened fear of terrorism. A public holiday has been declared in Brisbane for Friday.

但是，升級的緊張氛圍將不可避免地對布里斯班會議中心的情緒造成影響。屆時，20國領導人、4000名代表和大約3000名媒體人士將在這裏齊聚一堂。由於發生在敘利亞和伊拉克的衝突，以及人們對恐怖主義的擔憂加劇，此次會議的安全防範會比以往更加嚴格。週五，布里斯班將進行公休。

The government of Australia will spend 400 million Australian dollars, or about $350 million, hosting the event, according to local press reports. That figure does not include what the G-20 leaders and their entourages will spend during the meeting.

據當地媒體報道，澳大利亞政府將斥資4億澳元（約合3.5億美元）來舉辦這次活動。這個數目還不包括G20領導人和他們的隨從人員在會議期間的開銷。

The summit meeting is the culmination of intense preparation by officials below the rank of head of state. In September, central bank governors and finance ministers from the G-20 countries met in Cairns, farther up Australia’s eastern coast, and agreed to a range of measures designed to add 1.8 percent to global growth by 2018. This included more investment in public works and measures to combat tax evasion.

峯會召開之前，國家元首以下各個級別的官員進行了緊鑼密鼓的籌備工作。9月，G20成員國的央行行長和財政部長在位於澳大利亞東海岸更北面的凱恩斯會面，就旨在到2018年將全球經濟增長提升1.8個百分點的一系列舉措達成了共識。其中包括對公共工程進行更多投資，以及一些打擊逃稅行爲的措施。

But such high-minded policy declarations often prove to be inconsistent with the domestic politics of individual members. Germany, for example, has been reluctant to spend more fixing roads and bridges, even though the government has a budget surplus and can borrow money on international financial markets at interest rates close to zero. Cautious German voters would rather save than invest in, say, their country’s overcrowded public universities.

然而，事實證明，這些雄心勃勃的政策聲明往往與單個成員國的國內政策相左。例如，德國就一直不願意在修繕路橋方面增加開支，儘管政府預算存在盈餘，而且還能以接近零利率的水平從國際金融市場借貸。謹慎的德國選民寧願把錢存起來，也不願意對諸如過度擁擠的公立大學之類的領域進行投資。

Even under the best of circumstances, the G-20 is an unwieldy group. Unlike the G-7, whose members are all wealthy democracies, the G-20 includes authoritarian countries like China and poor countries like India. But is it all just a waste of time and money?

即便在最佳狀態下，G20仍然是個運轉不靈的組織。與成員均爲富裕民主國家的G7不同，G20包括中國這樣的威權國家和印度這樣的貧窮國家。那麼，G20是否只是在浪費時間和金錢呢？

The G-20 has arguably had a significant impact in addressing one pressing global issue: the fragility of the financial system. G-20 support has been crucial in addressing the problem of banks that are too big to fail, an underlying cause of the financial crisis that brought the world leaders to Washington in 2008 for the first summit meeting. Another likely outcome of the Brisbane gathering will be to endorse rules that further strengthen banks’ ability to absorb losses.

在處理一個緊迫的國際議題方面，G20可以說是產生了巨大影響。這個議題就是金融體系的脆弱性。G20的支持對於應對那些“大到不能倒”的銀行的問題十分重要，而此類問題就是這輪金融危機的潛在誘因。由於這場危機，各國領導人2008年在華盛頓召開了首次G20峯會。布里斯班會議另一項可能的成果是，讓各國承諾支持進一步加強銀行承擔損失能力的規章。

“Has the G-20 done enough to support a vision of well-functioning, integrated financial markets? I would say no,” said Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels. But he said the progress on bank regulation “has been useful.”

“G20是否已經爲支持一個運轉良好、完整統一的金融市場做出了足夠努力？我認爲沒有，”在位於布魯塞爾的布勒哲爾國際經濟研究所(Bruegel)任高級研究員的尼古拉斯·韋龍(Nicolas Véron)說。但是他表示，銀行監管方面的進展“起到了作用”。

Moreover, he and others pointed out, there is something to be said for getting leaders together in one room where they have a chance to take each other’s measure, where they must deal with each other as mortal human beings.

此外，他和其他一些人還指出，讓各國領導人共聚一堂是有好處的：他們必須作爲普通人與彼此打交道，有了機會來增進了解。

“Maybe there are too many people attending and too much taxpayers’ money spent,” Mr. Véron said. “But the fact that we have these meetings to discuss the world economy at the highest level with the most important leaders is useful.”

“或許參與者過多，也花了納稅人太多的錢，”韋龍說。“但是，我們召開這些會議，與最重要的領導人一起在最高層面討論世界經濟，還是有用的。”