G20峰会有何价值存在.

　　对于在澳大利亚举行的20国集团(G20)峰会，人们的一个担心是，也许期望过高。许多观察家认为，那些有关新布雷顿森林体系(Bretton Woods)的言论都令人担心。这次会议最有可能的结局就是无果而终，届时，这将又一次挫伤人们的信心。请看下面的双语新闻。

　　The fears were a little overstated – not because the summit achieved much but because, in the US at least, this climactic moment came and went without anyone really noticing.

　　上述担心有点夸大了，这不是因为此次峰会取得了很多成果，而是因为至少在美国，这一高潮时刻来了又去，人们几乎就没留意。

　　You might have thought that an emergency gathering of leaders from the world&aposs 20 main rich and emerging economies, with the global economy poised for its worst slump since the Great Depression, would have aroused some interest. The event was deemed unworthy of the main section of Saturday&aposs New York Times. (Room was found on the front page for a story about how hard it is to open the “clamshell” packaging of toys and electronic gadgets. The summit, “A crisis in finance”, made page 3 of the business section.) On television news, world leaders&apos forts to stave off disaster were displaced by speculation about Hillary Clinton&aposs next job and by fires in California (four firemen injured).

　　你也许会认为，在全球经济即将陷入上世纪30年代大萧条以来最糟糕的下滑之际，全球20个主要富国和新兴经济体的领导人举行紧急会议，将会引发一些兴趣。但是，周六的《纽约时报》(New York Times)不认为这一事件值得重头报道。当日该报头版的报道之一是，打开玩具和电子产品的双泡壳包装有多难。有关G20峰会的报道《金融领域危机》(A crisis in finance)出现在该报商业版的第3页。在美国的电视新闻上，人们看不到世界各国领袖应对金融危机的努力，只能看到有关希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)下一份工作的猜测，以及加州火灾(4名消防员受伤)。

　　For most Americans, and doubtless for many summit participants as well, the meeting did not matter for the simple reason that the president-elect was not there. Barack Obama sent representatives, choosing not to attend himself. For Americans, that made it a non-event. Had the summit been held at the end of January, with the new president in office, it would have been seen as a world-historic moment. Timing is everything.

　　对多数美国人乃至许多峰会参加者来说，此次会议无关紧要的原因很简单：美国当选总统没有出席。巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)派了代表与会，但决定不亲自到场。对美国人来说，这使此次峰会无足轻重。如果峰会在1月底新总统就任后举行，它会被视为具有世界历史意义的重大时刻。时机意味着一切。

　　Expectations will have a second chance to get out of hand in April. Another meeting has been called for then. The new president will be in charge and by that time a lot of the preparatory work on financial regulation set in train last week will have been completed. Something concrete could happen – but between now and then the limits to what this kind of international co-operation can achieve will not be removed.到明年4月，人们的期望将有第二次机会脱离现实。届时将举行另一次G20会议，美国新总统将执掌大权，而上周启动的金融监管方面许多筹备工作也将完成。有可能取得一些具体成果，但从现在到明年4月这段期间，有关这种国际合作成效的局限将不会消失。

　　The president-elect&aposs absence disguised the most important of these limits. Even a president with four or eight years still to serve is circumscribed in the commitments he can make to such a venture – far more so than Gordon Brown, say, or Nicolas Sarkozy.　Think what a struggle it was for the administration to get its ever-evolving troubled asset reli programme first enacted. Look at the current US debate over a second fiscal stimulus. Congress writes the laws; Congress passes the appropriations. The president can ask and entreat – and at least to begin with Mr Obama can expect to have great sway with Democrats on Capitol Hill – but in the end these are not his decisions. Having the right man turn up at the next summit will make less difference than you might suppose.

　　想想吧，布什政府付出多么艰辛的努力让一再修订的问题资产救助计划出台;再看看目前美国围绕第二轮财政刺激的辩论。在美国，制定法律的是国会，通过拨款的也是国会。总统可以提出请求，而且对奥巴马来说，至少在刚开始的时候，他对民主党占多数席位的国会预期将有很大影响力，但归根结底，这些决策不是他能够拍板的。下届峰会有合适的美国总统出席，其差别可能不像你想像的那么大。此外，无论是美国新总统还是美国国会，都不会认真考虑任何可能会被视为向国际组织出让主权的提议。比如，创建某种超国家的金融监管机构，无论在原则上有多么可取，实际上却不可能发生。在监管范畴，就像财政和货币政策一样，美国将在可以预见的将来保留决策权。

　　The summit was expected to affirm the importance of liberal trade, and it did, after a fashion. “We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will rrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions or implementing [illegal] measures to stimulate exports.” A whole year of no new trade barriers! Of course, the next administration and Congress are not bound by that promise, and a measure that violates its spirit if not its letter – the proposed bail-out of the big three US-owned carmakers – stands at the top of the agenda.

　　人们可以希望各国领导人在基本原则上意见一致，包括拓宽监管范围以堵塞漏洞(尤其是针对非银行金融机构)，以及更为强调信息披露。在宏观经济政策方面开展非制度化的更紧密合作将是好事。针对监管标准的更佳国际监督——国际货币基金组织(International Monetary Fund)或金融稳定论坛(Financial Stability Forum, FSF)的一个职责——将最为可取，以便依照约定的最低标准进行合规认证。各国政府已许诺研究所有这些议题。差不多就是这些：其余问题就是正确把握各国的国家政策。

　　The financial crash and the economic crisis it provoked attest to the importance of global linkages: the response must be internationally co-ordinated. But down the years, economic summits have been a waste of time for a reason, and some things even Barack Obama cannot change.

　　人们曾预期此次峰会将确认自由贸易的重要性，而峰会勉强做到了这一点。“我们强调拒绝保护主义、在金融动荡时期不转向孤立的关键重要性。在这方面，在今后12个月期间，我们将不对投资或商品及服务贸易树立新壁垒，施加新的出口限制，或者实施(非法的)措施来刺激出口。”整整一年没有新的贸易壁垒!当然，下届美国政府和国会不受这一许诺的约束，而拟议中的纾困美国三大汽车制造商这一措施在它们的议程表上名列前茅，该项措施即使不在字面上违反上述许诺，也至少与其精神相悖。