6月7日,由紫荊文化集團主辦、集友銀行聯合主辦的“‘一帶一路’十年成果和願景——紫荊文化論壇”在香港君悅酒店舉行。論壇共邀請了來自印度尼西亞、英國、美國、哈薩克斯坦、阿聯酋、馬來西亞、塞爾維亞和中國香港等地的16位國際知名專家學者、政商領袖親臨現場,回顧總結“一帶一路”十周年的成就和經驗,為“一帶一路”的發展提出建議。英國著名學者、劍橋大學前資深研究員馬丁·雅克出席並發表英文致辭,致辭全文中英文如下:
十年前,在“一帶一路”倡議首次提出時,曾引發諸多疑惑。“它是什麼?”是最常被問到的問題,這也在情理之中。因為,“一帶一路”是我們前所未見的,它既不是有明確日期的計劃,也不存在具體方針、界限、截止日期。從任何意義上講,它都是一項開放性的倡議。它是一個想法、一種概念,更是一種全新的獨創項目思考方式。此外,“一帶一路”的規模極其龐大,涵蓋世界絕大多數人口,這是前所未見的。美國在1947年至1952年期間推出的馬歇爾援助計劃與之最為接近,但其相比之下仍顯得微不足道。
“一帶一路”理念的出發點是中國對自身轉型的思考。發展中國家可以從中吸取哪些經驗?發展中國家能夠從中學到什麼?中國轉型的核心是由國家主導的大規模基建投資。如果在中國可行,對其他國家又何嘗不可?歐亞大陸,以及非洲和拉丁美洲的大部分地區,都面臨基礎設施不足的問題。“一帶一路”將試圖改變這種情況。中國將是該項目的核心。該項目將包括中國和發展中國家之間簽訂大量雙邊協議,中國通常將以貸款的形式提供資金。“一帶一路”反響熱烈,現已有147個國家加入其中。
如果說“一帶一路”在宣布之初引發許多人的困惑,那麼現在情況早已改變。現在,人們對它已有不同程度的瞭解。在短短十年間,它已對全球地緣經濟格局產生重要影響,其影響力不亞於國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行。讓我們回顧中國在2013年剛推出倡議時的情景。當時中國正逐步走出鄧小平時代,在鄧小平時代,中國的首要任務是發展自身經濟;當時的中國“韜光養晦”,在全球舞台上保持低調,遵循規則而不是制定規則,以其非凡的經濟增速而聞名,而非其試圖避免的國際倡議。當時我們並不知曉,“一帶一路”的推出標誌着中國與世界的關係發生重大轉變,它為中國走出國門創造了契機。事實證明,它取得了巨大成功。毫不誇張地說,在倡議發展的十年中,它改變了世界。
從哪些方面?
首先,“一帶一路”推動了發展問題在全球舞台上的基本中心地位。西方對發展中世界一直是口惠而實不至,以剝削和家長式作風對待,蔑視發展中世界。“一帶一路”為發展中國家提供了一種新的解決方案。在此過程中,發展中世界在全球舞台上佔據着越來越重要的地位。
第二,“一帶一路”在中國與發展中世界之間構築了一種新的關係。中國被視為發展中國家的捍衛者,它不僅通過語言,更重要的是通過實際行動,代表發展中國家發出強有力的聲音。
第三,“一帶一路”為新式的全球聯盟鋪平道路,進而形成一種新的全球政治。中國與發展中世界的關係並非基於相同的政治觀點或意識形態,亦非軍事聯盟,而是基於絕大多數世界人口面臨的最重要問題——發展。這與西方採取的方法截然不同。“一帶一路”一直是這種轉變的推動者和舞台,我們看到這種轉變體現在不同方面,包括全球南方國家對烏克蘭衝突的不同態度。“一帶一路”預示着地緣經濟的崛起,成為了地緣政治的新力量。
第四,“一帶一路”首次將中國哲學的核心思想推向更廣闊的世界。兩個多世紀以來,國際政治的語言和理念完全是西式的,但現在那個時代已經徹底結束。“一帶一路”帶來了新的思維方式:發展本質上是一個全球性問題,因而應具備真正從全球化視角思考問題的能力;這是一種截然不同的時間觀念,該倡議發展的時間軸大幅延長,遠非西方認為的幾年或者最多十年,就“一帶一路”而言,我們必須從半個世紀的時間跨度來考慮,甚至完全擺脫任何時間限制,這就是發展面臨的挑戰。然後我們產生了雙贏的想法,而並非零和思維。“一帶一路”無疑是中國命運共同體理念的生動體現。“一帶一路”就像中國哲學速成班。
第五,“一帶一路”是一種全新的國際機制。國際體系一直由國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行等美式機構主導,其顯著特徵是代表一小部分人並為之代言。相比之下,“一帶一路”作為一種新型國際機制,旨在代表佔世界人口85%的發展中國家。換言之,“一帶一路”讓我們得以窺見一種截然不同的國際體系,以多數人而非少數人的利益為主導地位。
“一帶一路”涵蓋世界上絕大多數國家,包括歐亞大陸(包括中亞、東南亞、南亞、中東和歐洲部分地區)以及非洲和拉丁美洲國家。自2013年以來,中國在“一帶一路”上的累計支出高達9,320 億美元,作出了巨大的貢獻。我們應該將“一帶一路”視作一個隨着世界的變化而不斷發展變化的活躍機制。在初始階段,“一帶一路”主要注重超大規模的基礎設施項目,但與此同時,中小企業、環境和氣候需求以及綠色項目也變得越來越重要。疫情持續期間,不可避免地導致中國投資大幅減少。烏克蘭衝突也意味着新的重心轉移到海上路線而非陸上路線,因為在可預見的未來當中一兩條陸上路線將無法實現。
最後一點是西方的態度。美國最初認為“一帶一路”無關緊要。但隨着越來越多的國家簽署加入“一帶一路”,該倡議已不容忽視,因此美國試圖進行破壞,指責其推行“債務陷阱”外交。但事實恰恰相反,中國竭盡全力幫助各國避免陷入沉重的債務。2008年至2021年間,中國已向20個陷入困境的國家資助2,400億美元。在必要時,中國亦會重新談判協議,以減輕此類國家的負擔。西方最終總算意識到其需要提供“一帶一路”的替代方案。但幾乎沒有或根本沒有跡象表明,西方(無論是美國還是歐盟或是兩者)承諾、提供資源或具有政治信念來提出一個可行的替代方案。這需要西方對發展中國家的態度發生巨大轉變,顯然近期無法實現這種轉變。十年過去了,西方並未提供任何方案。“一帶一路”仍是唯一的選擇。
When the Belt and Road Initiative was first launched ten years ago, there was much puzzlement. ‘What is it?’ was a widely asked question. And quite reasonably so. Because Belt and Road was like nothing we had seen before. This was not a plan with fixed dates. There was nothing concrete. There were no boundaries. There was no end date. In every sense it was open-ended. It was an idea, a concept. It was a totally new and original way of thinking about a project. Furthermore, it was on the hugest of scales, encompassing the great majority of the world’s population. We have never seen anything like this before. The nearest was the America’s Marshall Aid plan between 1947 and 1952, but that was puny in comparison.
The point of departure for the idea of Belt and Road was a reflection on China’s own transformation. What lessons might be drawn from it for the developing world? What could the developing countries learn from it? At the heart of China’s transformation was state-led, large-scale investment in infrastructure. If it worked for China, then why not for others? Most of the Eurasian land mass, together with Africa and Latin America, suffered from a disabling shortage of infrastructure. Belt and Road would seek to change that. China would be the hub of the project. It would consist of a multitude of bilateral agreements between China and the developing countries, with China providing the funding, typically in the form of loans. The response has been enormous with 147 countries now part of Belt and Road.
If many scratched their heads in puzzlement about Belt and Road when it was first announced, this has long ceased to be the case. Everyone now knows in varying degrees what it is about. In ten short years, it has become part of the global geo-economic firmament, no less than the IMF and the World Bank. Let’s remind ourselves where China was in 2013 when it was launched. It was in the process of emerging from the Deng era during which the overriding priority had been China’s own economic development; it was quiescent on the global stage, seeking to keep a low profile, a rule-taker not a rule-maker, famous for its extraordinary economic growth rate but not for its international initiatives, which it sought to avoid. Little did we know at the time, but the launch of Belt and Road was to signal a huge shift in China’s relationship with the world. It marked the moment of China’s coming out. And it was to prove remarkably successful. It is not an exaggeration to argue that over the decade of its existence it has changed the world.
In what ways?
First, Belt and Road promoted the question of development to a position of fundamental centrality on the global stage. The West had always paid little more than lip-service to the developing world, which it looked down upon and treated in an exploitative and paternalistic manner. Belt and Road offered a new kind of solution for the developing countries. And in the process the developing world came to occupy an increasingly important position on the global stage.
Second, Belt and Road forged a new kind of relationship between China and the developing world. China came to be seen as the champion of the developing countries. It became a powerful voice on behalf of the developing countries, not just by word but crucially by deed.
Third, Belt and Road paved the way for a new kind of global alignment and, as a result, a new kind of global politics. The relationship between China and the developing world is not based on a shared view of politics or ideology, nor military alliances, but on the most important issue facing the great majority of the world’s population, that of development. This is entirely different from the West’s approach. Belt and Road has been the agency and stage for this shift, which we see expressed in many different ways, including the very independent attitude of the Global South towards the Ukraine war. Belt and Road has heralded the rise of geo-economics as a new force in geo-politics.
Fourth, Belt and Road has introduced, for the first time, key tenets of Chinese philosophy to the wider world. For over two centuries the language and concepts of international politics have been exclusively Western. That era is now well and truly over. With Belt and Road has come new ways of thinking: the ability to think in truly global terms because development is quintessentially a global issue; a very different idea of time, in which timescales are hugely longer – far from being limited to a few years, or at most a decade as in the Western mind, in the case of Belt and Road we must think in terms of half a century, or even without any time limits at all, such is the challenge of development. Then we have the idea of win-win relationships rather than zero-sum thinking. And Belt and Road, of course, is the living embodiment of China’s Concept of a Community of Shared Destiny. Belt and Road is like a crash course in Chinese philosophy.
Fifth, Belt and Road is an entirely new kind of international institution. The international system has been dominated by US-style institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank, whose distinctive characteristic is that they represent and speak on behalf of a small minority of humanity. Belt and Road, in contrast, is a new kind of international institution that seeks to represent 85% of the world who live in the developing world. In other words, it offers a glimpse of a very different kind of international system in which the interests of the majority rather than the minority predominate.
Belt and Road comprises the great majority of the world’s nations. They are drawn from across Eurasia – including Central Asia, South East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe – together with Africa and Latin America. China’s cumulative expenditure on Belt and Road since 2013 amounts to a huge $932bn, a colossal contribution. It is important to see Belt and Road as a dynamic institution, one that is constantly moving and changing as the world itself changes. In the initial phase, the main emphasis was on very large-scale infrastructural projects, but alongside these, SMEs, environmental and climatic needs, and green projects have been acquiring growing significance. The pandemic for a period inevitably led to significantly reduced Chinese investment. The Ukraine war means a new emphasis on maritime rather than land routes, one or two of which will for the foreseeable future be impossible.
What then, finally, of the Western response. The US initially dismissed Belt and Road as irrelevant. But, as a growing number of countries signed up to it, it could no longer be ignored, so the US sought to undermine it, accusing it of debt diplomacy. The contrary is the case. China has gone to great lengths to help countries avoid into getting into deep debt. Between 2008 and 2021, it gave $240bn to 20 distressed countries. Where necessary it has renegotiated deals to make them less burdensome. Belatedly, the West has finally recognised that it needs to offer an alternative to Belt and Road. But there is little or no sign that the West, be it the US or EU, or the two combined, has the commitment, the resources, or the political conviction to come up with a viable alternative. It would require a huge shift in the West’s attitude towards the developing world, one which is patently not forthcoming. After ten years, the West has nothing to offer. Belt and Road is the only show in town.
https://res.youuu.com/zjres/2023/6/7/AG8LwnIp3v7inKqztAIhAfRneKBk79XXq8V.JPG
掃描二維碼分享到手機