美國外交政策：駱家輝就是一個香蕉

美國外交政策：駱家輝就是一個香蕉

Gary Locke is a banana

原文作者 Clyde Prestowitz
原文鏈接 http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/10/gary_locke_is_a_banana

任命商務部長駱家輝為新任美國駐華大使這件事，被金融時報等人吹捧為白宮一項精明的舉措。這些人認為這是事半功倍的一個決定——奧巴馬把一個美籍華人作為特使派往中國，這樣可以討好中國人；而把一個一流CEO任命為商務部長的同時可以討好美國商界。

實際上，這是一個優劣並存的舉措。好處是終於讓他離開了商業界，不好之處是把他派往北京，西雅圖或許更適合他。

金融時報熱捧美籍華人駱家輝，當他在北京亮出大使國書時，他會被當作是“歸國的遊子”。感情因素會讓駱獲取一些特權、得到更多在尊重、收獲更多的感謝，僅僅是因為他的中國血統。這種論調反應出西方評論界人士對亞洲普遍的誤解，他們認為中國人、日本人或者韓國人，對於那些具有自身種族背景的美國人，或多或少都懷有親近感。

實際上，與此截然相反的例子比比皆是。作為一個在亞洲生活、工作過很長一段時間的人，作為一個與美籍華人已經組成家庭的人，我可以確認，亞洲人一般都會把亞裔美國人看作是香蕉——外表是黃的，內在是白的。當然，這種觀點有也有等級的不同，但很不幸，駱恰好落在等級最低的範圍中。他不會說中文，不認識中國字，從未在中國或亞洲其它地方長期生活和工作過，也未在中國讀過書。他的那張中國麵孔完全代表了美國的全球化策略和外交政策的企圖，他或許會因此得到中國一些信任，但也會得到同樣多的不信任。

駐華大使是僅次於國務卿的美國最重要的外交職位，因此需要有一個完全清楚自己在做什麽的人來任職。比如Chas Freeman大使，曾經在尼克鬆總統與毛澤東會麵時擔任翻譯，曾任國防部副部長和駐沙特阿拉伯大使，他與中國有著長期、親密、廣泛的關係，他才是明智的人選。他會讓中國人了解，白宮在嚴肅對待中美關係。以此來看，對駱的任命似乎更像是對中國人的某種侮辱。

當然，好消息是他終於離開了商務部和華盛頓，他在那裏的作用完全是可有可無的。

從另一方麵來看，我發現似乎有些人認為這是對駱的提升。我曾經在商務部中任職於部長Malcolm Baldrige的顧問，的確，商務部已經從二級重要部門逐漸淪落成三級、甚至四級部門。但是這種評論其實主要是針對駱和他最近的繼任者，而不是這個部門。

商務部經常被描述為一個眾多不同機構組成的大雜燴，前商務部長、白宮的幕僚長Bill Daley也是這麽認為。這其中有美國專利局、國家海洋大氣司、人口統計局、外國商務服務處等等。經常會有一些建議出現，要求商務部放棄這些職能，讓它們組建獨立的機構，然後與美國貿易商務代表辦公室合並成為一個超級國際貿易機構。

這種評論實在是不著調。國防部也是由眾多職能的機構組成，但是大家認為國防是一項龐大的工作，需要很多職能。那麽提升美國的商業競爭力也同樣是件龐大的事情，也需要眾多部門的支持。

舉個例子，評論人士經常嘲笑國家海洋大氣司和美國天氣預報處也是商務部的一部分。要知道，海洋大氣司管理外國漁船在美國水域打撈水產品的數量。當我在商務部工作期間，我們曾經利用日本漁業大量依賴美國水域捕撈量的事實作為理由，成功要求日本開放本土的半導體和其它市場。

而且，認為商務部的工作僅僅是促進出口和商務談判的想法是錯誤的。在Herbert Hoover任部長期間，商務部是一個相當強大的部門，因為它全麵提升了基礎設施建設的發展、美國本土的投資和美國國家競爭力。為了達成奧巴馬總統把美國出口額翻倍的目標，首要的任務是找到一些可以出口的東西。這才是商務部的工作。

駱家輝的可悲之處在於他從未真正理解自己的工作和商務部可以達成這些目標的潛在力量。當前，失業率超過15％；失業造成的貿易赤字超過GDP的3％，而且還在上升；美國本土投資占GDP的比率在所有主要國家中最低；美國生產業對GDP的貢獻即將低於10％。商務部應當與國防部和財務部一起，發揮出頂級重要部門的強大力量。商務部長有權力自主決定針對不公平貿易展開反傾銷和懲罰性關稅的行動，這會讓他/她手中握有巨大的談判優勢，同時還可以壓迫美國企業提高效率。商務部長可以針對美國支持國防的產業能力展開調查，並且有各種各樣的方法讓企業和政府合作，組成聯合體來提升研發能力、促進最優方案的推廣、為提高生產力的規模經濟製定標準。

總統正在尋找繼任駱家輝的商務部長人選，就像很多政治界人士所指出的，隻把目光放在選擇一個商業領袖方麵以彰顯白宮鼓勵商業的態度，是完全錯誤的。奧巴馬目前唯一重要的任務是通過刺激投資和就業來全麵複蘇美國的生產能力。運作商務部和在華盛頓內閣中就職，與經營一個企業完全不同。經營企業的人完全不了解美國國家競爭力的必要性，更不用提去提升它了。

商務部需要的是一個眼界廣闊的領袖，這個人要理解全球經濟的現狀、如何使用政策來創造利於競爭力提升的環境，以及如何讓這些政策有效實施。像Jeff Bingaman參議員這種從事過長期研究美國競爭力、能源自主和美國出口政策的人，是一個好的人選。像他這樣的人還有很多。

重點是，我們的確不需要在北京安排一個香蕉，而我們的商務部需要一個聰明的家夥來讓大家忙起來。

原文：

The appointment of U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke as the new U.S. Ambassador to China is being hailed as an astute White House move by the Financial Times (FT) and others who see it as a twofer -- Obama gets to curry favor with the Chinese by sending them a Chinese-American as his envoy and he gets to curry favor with American business by appointing a big time CEO as the New Secretary of Commerce.

In fact, it's a good/bad move. It's good to get him out of Commerce, but bad to send him to Beijing. Seattle would have been a better destination.

The FT enthuses that Locke, who is Chinese-American, will be welcomed as a "returning son" when he presents his Ambassadorial credentials in Beijing. The sentiment being expressed here is that Locke will have some special entrée and enjoy greater respect and appreciation in China because he is of Chinese ancestry. This kind of thinking is a common misperception of western commentators with regard to Asia. They think the Chinese or Japanese or Koreans, as the case may be, feel a greater affinity for Americans of their own ethnic background.

In fact, the opposite is usually the case. As someone who has lived and worked extensively in Asia and who is also married to a Chinese-American, I can confirm that Asians tend to think of Asian-Americans as bananas -- yellow on the outside but white on the inside. Of course there are gradations of this perception, but unfortunately Locke fits into the bottom category. He doesn't really speak Chinese, doesn't read it at all, and has never lived or worked for any extended period in China or anywhere else in Asia, nor is he a student of China. That he has a Chinese face masking a very typically orthodox American perspective on globalization and foreign policy is as likely to make him distrusted as trusted in China.

Since the U.S. Ambassador in China is America's most important diplomat after the Secretary of State, it would be nice to have someone in the post who knows what he or she is doing. Someone like Ambassador Chas Freeman, who interpreted for President Nixon during his talks with Mao Tse Dung, was Deputy Chief of Mission in Beijing, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and who has extensive, intimate, and long standing contacts in China would have been a brilliant choice.  It would have shown the Chinese that the White House takes them seriously. In that context, the appointment of Locke might even be seen as a bit of an insult to the Chinese.

But, of course, the good news is that it gets him out of the Commerce Department and out of Washington where he has had all the impact of a feather on granite.

On the one hand, I can see how some might see this move as a promotion for Locke. It is true that the Commerce Department, where I served as Counselor to Secretary Malcolm Baldrige, has sunk from what was always considered a second tier department to the third or fourth tier. But that is more of a commentary on Locke and his recent predecessors than on the department.

Commerce is often described, even by some former Secretaries such as current White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, as an incoherent grab bag of agencies such as the U.S. Patent Office, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) the Census Bureau, the Foreign Commercial Service, and others. From time to time proposals surface to spin most of these off as independent agencies and to consolidate Commerce with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative into a kind of super international trade agency.

This critique is really wide of the mark. On the one hand, the Defense Department is also an assemblage of a vast range of agencies. But providing defense is a big job and requires a lot of agencies. Just so, promoting American commerce and competitiveness is a big job with a lot of different requirements.

For example, critics often scoff at the notion of NOAA and its U.S. weather service in the Commerce Department. But NOAA also administers the fishing quota for foreign fishermen in U.S. waters. When I was a Commerce official, we were able to use the fact that Japan's fishing industry depended significantly on its catch in U.S. waters as leverage to achieve market opening in Japan's semiconductor and other industries.

Moreover, it is a mistake to think that export promotion and trade negotiation are the main jobs of the department. Under Herbert Hoover, Commerce was a powerhouse department because it was deeply involved in promoting infra-structure development, investment in American, and U.S. competitiveness. To achieve President Obama's objective of doubling American exports, it is first necessary that America make something to export. That is the job of the Commerce Department.

The tragedy of Gary Locke is that he never understood the job or the potential power of the Commerce Department to do it. At this moment in time, when real unemployment is over 15 percent, the job killing trade deficit is over 3 percent of GDP and rising again, U.S. investment as a percent of GDP is among the lowest of the major countries, and U.S. manufacturing will soon be less than 10 percent of GDP the Commerce Department should be a powerhouse top tier agency along with the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. The Secretary of Commerce has the authority to self-initiate anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases in instances of unfair trade. This gives him/her enormous leverage to influence negotiations as well as to pressure U.S. industry to improve its performance. The Secretary can launch investigations of U.S. capability to sustain defense production and in a thousand ways can pull business and government together in consortia and joint undertakings to promote R&D, encourage widespread use of best practices, and set standards to encourage economies of scale that enhance productivity.

As the President searches for a new Secretary of Commerce to succeed Locke, it would be a mistake to focus on selecting a major business leader as a way of demonstrating that the White House is not anti-business, as some political operatives are suggesting. President Obama's single most important task right now is to launch a renaissance of American productive capability by promoting investment and creation of jobs in America. Running the Commerce Department and operating in Washington as a cabinet office is not at all like running a business. Running a business has nothing to do with an ability to even understand the needs of American competitiveness, let alone effectively promote it.

What Commerce needs is a leader with a broad understanding of the realities of the global economy and of how policies operate to create the right environment for establishing competitiveness and of how to get those policies adopted. Someone like Senator Jeff Bingaman who has long studied and championed U.S. competitiveness and U.S. energy independence and U.S. exports would be a good candidate. And there are others like him.

The point is that we really don't need bananas in Beijing and we really do need smart cookies at Commerce who know how to make the place hum.

----------------------------------------
轉貼，僅供參考，不負責核實其內容真實性。