民主党羞辱奥巴马 谁能为TPP困局解围

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.

上周五，民主党羞辱巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)总统的方式有一些令人不安的征兆。不只是他罕有地造访国会山，希望赢得民主党对其全球贸易议程的支持。也不是他警告称，反对该议程就是反对他。这些已经足够糟糕了。更糟糕的是，民主党领导人南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)在奥巴马背后捅了一刀。自奥巴马上任以来，佩洛西是奥巴马所有立法胜利（包括医疗改革）的关键人物。当你最亲密的盟友背叛你时，你就该求助莎士比亚(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.

要杀出困境，奥巴马或许不得不设法乞求、奉承和哄骗。挽回其贸易议程（更别提他的信誉了）的唯一途径是逆转上周的败绩。以前出现过这种事情。最好的例子是，2008年9月美国国会否决了7000亿美元的华尔街纾困方案——问题资产救助计划(Tarp)。72小时后该决定被逆转。但时任总统乔治·W·布什(George W Bush)可以指向一落千丈的美国股市。在首次投票后，道琼斯指数(Dow)下挫近1000点，吓得立法者在第二轮投票时加入支持阵营。奥巴马没有得到这种辅助。上周五，道琼斯指数下跌140点，只是一个普通的糟糕交易日。

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.

奥巴马迫切需要在未来几天拿出一些应对方案。对于他（以及美国）而言，失败的代价太高。这表现在三方面。首先，否决“贸易促进权”法案（TPA，又称快速道(fast-track)谈判授权）将令美国在这个快速变化的世界丧失一项全球经济战略。这将断送缔结奥巴马已努力3年的太平洋贸易协定的可能性。《跨太平洋伙伴关系》（Trans-Pacific Partnership，简称TPP）12个成员国占全球经济的近40%。这也将让平行的跨大西洋谈判进展受阻，这些成员国占全球经济近一半。

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，这将剥夺美国“重心转向亚洲”战略中的最重要元素。奥巴马支持TPP的最有力理由是，该协定将迫使中国遵守全球贸易与投资规则。中国没有被纳入该协定。或许不明智的是，奥巴马明确、多次地打出这张“中国牌”。TPP谈判的破裂将为中国与之竞争的倡议（美国不在其中）注入生机。对于其他国家将严肃对待由中国主导的贸易谈判的怀疑，已在上月消除，美国在亚洲的盟友（包括澳大利亚和韩国）没有理睬美国对中国主导的亚洲基础设施投资银行(AIIB)的抵制。没有理由设想在贸易问题上会出现不同的结果。多数国家将更青睐美国的领头，而非中国。但在没有美国的情况下，只有一种选择。

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?

最后，若TPA葬送在民主党手里，奥巴马将丧失其在世界舞台上的信誉。由非常能干的迈克尔•弗罗曼(Michael Froman)领导的奥巴马的贸易团队，已让美国在太平洋地区的合作伙伴相信，TPA仪案的通过是一个免不了的结果。奥巴马已经有大多数共和党人站在他这一边，他本来只要说服一小部分民主党人支持他就行了。失败的冲击波将远远超越贸易领域。奥巴马面临着与伊朗完成由美国主导的核谈判的最后期限。今年，美国参议院不顾奥巴马的抗议，不寻常地通过了一项法案，使自己获得60天时间审议伊朗核协议的内容。这与“快车道”有清晰的类似之处。奥巴马此前坚称，与伊朗达成的协议算不上条约，因此不需要参议院批准。如果伊朗认为美国国会将否决协议，它就不太可能冒险作出必要的让步。有什么理由让伊朗相信奥巴马的保证？

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.

在理想的民主政体中，上述任何理由都应该是起决定性作用的论据。但在现实世界中，政客们把自己的生存置于全局考虑之前。因此，奥巴马必须拿出更有说服力的理由。一个希望是，不需奥巴马采取任何动作，共和党人就将扭转局面。毕竟，共和党人信仰自由贸易，而且快车道权力将被奥巴马的继任者继承，而后者很可能是共和党人。上周的挫败是典型的“国会山式”荒唐剧，TPA部分被通过了（赞成方获得了8票的优势），却因法案的另一部分遭否决而受挫。只有那一部分（补贴对因贸易而失业的工人的再培训）也获得法律效力，整个法案才能通过。两党都有很多议员投票反对这部分。

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.

如果法案在第二次尝试时勉强通过，奥巴马将会得救。但这需要共和党人捏住鼻子，投票支持他们不信任的事情（补贴）以拯救他们讨厌的人（奥巴马）。另一个希望是，佩洛西及其同事从贸易协定的好处着想，改变想法。但那似乎不太可能。所以，共和党人面临一个两难困境：到底是应该击败奥巴马，让美国受到重创？还是应该让奥巴马获胜，同时也挽救美国的信誉？未来几天将让我们大开眼界。