[国际新闻] 中国的援外计划很慷概，可是有毒

日月光

原载：http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3732（外交政策）: R( u; g& g! j, X% h
人在德国 社区0 `' u- U0 G1 v% f+ ^

4 ]* g3 J' S. [6 \! l$ B6 \! \+ _: gWhat's wrong with the foreign aid programs of China, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia? They are enormously generous. And they are toxic.
: O+ b( W) p% [: `5 W3 ]+ t# \8 F8 a
/ ^- U. V, g4 u* }中国、委内瑞拉与沙乌地阿拉伯的援外计划的问题在哪里？这些计划都很慷概，可是都有毒。
* M+ K8 c" k' `! i  t- L3 B! t
$ N! u) x9 z+ J2 F. F0 c" C4 z我的朋友看来很震惊。他才刚刚得知他的主顾转而跟中国人做生意去了。他跟我说：“这太惊人了，这些中国人把我们都赶出市场。我们没办法跟他们竞争。”/ f; f2 }' P/ ~* U7 T0 r
人在德国 社区! Y* y; G, s8 n3 D& g
当然，制造业的工作每天都在转移到中国。但我的朋友不是在制造业。他的工作在世界银行。rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de3 s& G9 j6 k- A' l+ l3 }  w9 W

5 X7 K2 _+ |2 p; o8 V他的故事从奈吉利亚开始。奈吉利亚政府所营运的三条铁路线，都是恶名昭彰地腐化、缺乏效率的单位。三条线都面临破产边缘。世界银行提出一个计划，根据的是一般的常识：如果不处理让铁路公司几乎破产的贪腐问题，再借钱给奈吉利亚政府是没有用的。经过数个月的协商后，奈吉利亚政府与世界银行同意了一项五百万美元的计划，包括引进私人公司，清理铁路局的烂帐。但就在签约前夕，中国政府说要给奈吉利亚九十亿美金，让他们重建整个铁路网－－不用竞标、没有条件、而且也不用改革。这就是我的朋友不得不打包行李，前往机场的原因。$ b. z0 Z! j, m& z1 ~7 s5 t

' T7 ^* A. O) @这不是一个单一个案。近年，数个有钱、非民主的政权开始用他们自己的援助计划来挫折发展政策。就称它为流氓金援（rogue aid）好了。这种发展援助在根源上就非民主，在做法上非透明；其效果就是阻碍真正的进步、损害一般百姓。% f$ e+ V4 V* t  }, t; A3 W* p! c
/ l. n3 i! k) m; x8 a' q) q
中国在非洲到处支持这种类型的交易；它在非洲资助的基础设施兴建金额从2003年的七亿美金，到过去两年已经变成每年20-30亿美金。而这也是一个世界级的策略。在印尼，北京同意帮忙盖电厂。不幸的是，这笔交易要盖的是高污染、以燃煤为主、运用中国技术的电厂。国际的能源供应公司没有一家会签下这种对环境极不友善的合约。在菲律宾，以低利率贷款给穷国的亚洲发展银行，同意资助马尼拉的新水道。亚洲发展银行也突然被告知，这笔钱不需要了。中国愿意提供更低的利率，问更少问题。
" {& Q/ D6 N* ?) E人在德国 社区
, Z: {/ u! Q% G) S人在德国 社区中国为什么突然开始在世界各地行善？三个简短的答案是：钱、原料、国际政治。中国的中央银行钱淹脚目，外汇储备高达1.1兆美金－－是全世界最多的。北京渐渐开始用这些钱来保证自己可以得到原料，并且在同时增加国际盟友、增加中国的全球影响力。还有什么比慷概大方的援助计划更能保证赢得像富藏石油的国家如奈吉利亚的好感、拥有丰富天然资源的邻居印尼的感激？0 i& J' Y9 J3 Q0 U" V

/ t7 r3 y2 U* `- y$ b1 l8 P( B# b人在德国 社区中国不是第一个靠援助来增加自己利益的国家。苏联与美国花了数十年时间，给许多独裁者“发展援助”来换得这些国家的忠诚。即使今天，美国对埃及与巴基斯坦的大方慷慨，都是来自于地缘政治的计算。但是，从1990年代开始，这个系统慢慢地开始改善。随着更多媒体报导与批评，许多已开发国家耻于从事这样计划。今日，像世界银行这样的组织的计划，都受到独立单位的仔细监控。虽然现在的系统并非完美，却比过去不断让不仁的独裁者永远执政的时代透明许多。
: ^9 p+ Z, I& {2 s, n6 M2 l8 `
' P4 O2 \! V) H中国也不是唯一提供流氓援助的国家。雨果·查维兹（Hugo Chavez）总统对于用卖石油赚来的外汇收买外国友人也一样不手软。今年一月时，委内瑞拉驻尼加拉瓜的大使是这样解释对于尼国的援助：“我们想用我们的模式传染整个拉丁美洲。”如此一来，贫穷古巴会在卡斯楚死后更加开放的希望也很有可能破灭，因为查维兹每年援助古巴的金额大约是二十亿美金。更糟的是，他的慷慨大方最终伤害的还是古巴人，因为这些假的援助会让他们不可或缺的真正改革更慢到来。
9 L) @9 i$ `4 T' B9 g: J1 Z* X+ l( m
- K. [8 K# P/ a8 Urs238848.rs.hosteurope.de伊朗对巴勒斯坦的哈玛斯、黎巴嫩的真主党的援助，也一样对在地的人民有害。然而很清楚的也是，这些财政上的支持大大增加了伊朗在本区的影响力。不清楚的是，巴勒斯坦与黎巴嫩的平民百姓是否会因为伊朗的慷慨就过得更好。沙乌地阿拉伯的庞大海外教育援助计划也是同样的情形。贫穷的巴基斯坦男孩，去上沙乌地所资助的宗教学校真的好吗？在那里他们学不到可以让他们找到工作的一技之长？当然可以上学总比在街上游荡还好。但为什么他们只有两种选择？为什么沙乌地所资助的教育机构、中国出钱盖的大楼马路、查维兹金援古巴，等等，不能做到不伤害贫穷的巴基斯坦人、奈吉利亚人、或古巴人？
* w3 B  g* `2 C" ?# ^人在德国 社区
' X- _: m$ P. V: E2 j因为他们的目标不是帮助其他国家发展。他们的动机只是推动自己国家的利益，宣传散播特定的意识形态，甚至有时候只是为了中饱私囊。提供流氓援助的国家对于这些被援助国家的人民的长期福祉一点也不关心。
; r: Z3 p3 y' \) b6 d, m9 s9 |/ b; a5 V% _# D! j" g$ M
这些有钱与别有目的的国家－－如中国、伊朗、沙乌地阿拉伯、委内瑞拉－－想把这个世界塑造成一个我们这些其他人不想居住的地方。虽然它们不是一致行动，却集体对健康、永续的发展计划造成威胁。更糟的是，它们正在有效地把负责任、充满好意的援助组织赶出市场，特别在最需要这些良善组织的国家里。如果它们继续成功推动这些替代性的发展模式，它们就会成功地支持一个更腐化、混乱、独裁的世界。这对任何人都没有好处，除了对这些流氓以外。
# h, O0 k9 e) G8 _: E- ^# x0 j* d% }" q
; N1 K! I7 H5 T8 j
0 ?8 p' E/ J5 O3 jRogue Aid # c: `: C+ n9 q- ^) a

4 |3 n% U  [0 ?1 ~rs238848.rs.hosteurope.deBy Moisés Naím rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de8 |/ n) g$ t9 x5 ]( @
( Z/ d- t$ Y6 s* g* s
March/April 2007 & x6 p. l9 C1 p7 V
人在德国 社区. F, g: D( d7 B& @! ]
What's wrong with the foreign aid programs of China, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia? They are enormously generous. And they are toxic.
; N$ [, C" _6 ]+ g  `" K! X% _rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de人在德国 社区, C) a3 t$ X5 @" y4 u  H( g

/ h1 a8 C" e" Z& ^0 o' Wrs238848.rs.hosteurope.deMy friend was visibly shaken. He had just learned that he had lost one of his clients to Chinese competitors. “It’s amazing,” he told me. “The Chinese have completely priced us out of the market. We can’t compete with what they are able to offer.” rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de/ `* O$ I! j+ V6 p
+ i2 K  K- a9 r4 z) b3 t
Of course, manufacturing jobs are lost to China every day. But my friend is not in manufacturing. He works at the World Bank.
. ~+ b. |$ K! J3 s* Z
( f% d3 b  l4 `/ R* T8 d; k1 r5 ]- Q* OHis story begins in Nigeria. The Nigerian government operates three railways, which are notoriously corrupt and inefficient. They are also falling apart. The World Bank proposed a project based on the common-sense observation that there was no point in loaning the Nigerians money without also tackling the corruption that had crippled the railways. After months of negotiation, the bank and Nigeria’s government agreed on a $5 million project that would allow private companies to come in and help clean up the railways. But, just as the deal was about to be signed, the Chinese government offered Nigeria $9 billion to rebuild the entire rail network—no bids, no conditions, and no need to reform. That was when my friend packed his suitcase and went to the airport. rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de# ?0 H. E  t& B) l( H- f" O) L
rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de8 _" N3 t' }8 I- m1 @
It is not an isolated case. In recent years, a variety of wealthy, nondemocratic regimes have begun to undermine development policy through their own activist aid programs. Call it rogue aid. It is development assistance that is nondemocratic in origin and nontransparent in practice; its effect is typically to stifle real progress while hurting average citizens.
0 R! I1 G# j: G: l
7 }: Y3 ~0 V  ~% j  jChina has backed such deals throughout Africa; its funding of infrastructure there has boomed from $700 million in 2003 to between $2 and $3 billion for each of the past two years. Indeed, it is a worldwide strategy. In Indonesia, Beijing agreed to expand the country’s electrical grid. Too bad the deal calls for building plants that use a highly polluting, coal-based Chinese technology. No international agency would have signed off on such an environmentally unfriendly deal. In the Philippines, the Asian Development Bank, which lends money at low interest rates to poor countries, had agreed to fund Manila’s new aqueduct. It too was suddenly told that its money was no longer needed. China was offering lower rates and fewer questions.
9 z$ V1 O2 {5 r& n/ f: S8 R
6 A' G3 M+ }; D$ s) z% aWhat’s behind this sudden Chinese drive to do good around the world? The three short answers are: money, access to raw materials, and international politics. The coffers of China’s Central Bank are bursting with nearly $1.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves—the world’s largest. Beijing is increasingly leveraging this cash to ensure its access to raw materials while also boosting international alliances that advance China’s growing global influence. What better than a generous foreign-aid program to ensure the goodwill of a petropower like Nigeria or a natural resource-rich neighbor such as Indonesia?
! m- }3 O+ U" R( i: p0 Ors238848.rs.hosteurope.de# h9 f* D( K+ Y) p$ ?
China is not the first country to rely on aid as a tool to advance its interests abroad. The Soviet Union and the United States spent decades giving “development aid” to dictators in exchange for their allegiance. Even today, American largesse to Egypt and Pakistan is rooted in geopolitical calculations. But, beginning in the 1990s, this system slowly began to improve. With greater media scrutiny, many developed countries were shamed into curbing these practices. Today, the projects of organizations like the World Bank are meticulously inspected by watchdog groups. Although the current system is far from perfect, it is certainly more transparent than when foreign aid routinely helped ruthless dictators stay in power. 人在德国 社区+ k. ]6 U( E: L4 d( H

9 _9 u; |$ s5 w- s- n' p  U! C' G人在德国 社区Nor is China the only regime offering rogue aid. President Hugo Chávez has not been shy in using his nation’s oil-fueled international reserves to recruit allies abroad. Indeed, Venezuela’s ambassador to Nicaragua, explaining his country’s large aid packages to the region, bluntly announced in early January, “We want to infect Latin America with our model.” Thus, hopes for Cuba’s opening as a result of Fidel Castro’s demise and the island’s bankruptcy will likely be dashed by the roughly $2 billion in rogue aid that Chávez supplies to Cuba every year. Worse, his generosity ultimately harms Cubans who, because of these artificial lifelines, will be forced to wait even longer for the indispensable reforms that will bring their society opportunities for true prosperity.
) ]* h, F0 U9 t1 A
  ?# l2 ~3 B# x* y3 l, iIranian aid to Hamas in Palestine or Hezbollah in Lebanon is equally damaging to the people there. Clearly, this financial support has boosted Iran’s influence in the region. Far less clear is whether average Palestinians and Lebanese will ever be better off thanks to Iran’s generosity. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia’s massive overseas educational aid program. Are Pakistani boys whose parents cannot afford to send them to school well served by attending Saudi-sponsored religious schools that fail to equip them with the skills needed to get a job? They are surely better off going to any school than being in the streets. But why should these be the only two options? Why can’t the Saudis fund education, the Chinese pay for infrastructure, and Chávez help Cuba’s economy without also hurting poor Pakistanis, Nigerians, or Cubans?
4 `( `3 \3 x4 Y& r* o2 u! r* I4 e& l' X& D0 X( J
Because their goal is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda, or sometimes line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they “aid.”
3 _7 p; B" ^' zrs238848.rs.hosteurope.de
- o  o) H# |$ U% F3 p8 P+ k人在德国 社区What we have here—in states like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela—are regimes that have the cash and the will to reshape the world into a place very different from where the rest of us want to live. Although they are not acting in concert, they collectively represent a threat to healthy, sustainable development. Worse, they are effectively pricing responsible and well-meaning aid organizations out of the market in the very places where they are needed most. If they continue to succeed in pushing their alternative development model, they will succeed in underwriting a world that is more corrupt, chaotic, and authoritarian. That is in no one’s interests, except the rogues.8 y& }' K& G- _) _. l& w" O
- |- U7 R; E- l

4 s% A+ N+ K/ k6 KMoisés Naím is editor in chief of Foreign Policy.