【英语国际】分析：美国不可能单挑中国

The decision by the Japanese authorities to criticise currency manipulation by Seoul must have come as some relief in the US, which has to make a tricky decision about whether to escalate similar confrontation with China.

The twice-yearly Treasury currency report, in which the US has to decide whether or not formally to name China as a manipulator, is due to be released by Friday. The widespread belief in Washington is that the Treasury will once again refrain from using the label. Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, has repeatedly underlined in public the limited gains from thus naming Beijing. The report’s only sanction is to start negotiations with the Chinese authorities, which Mr Geithner is already doing.

With China at least allowing the renminbi to float up slightly since September, there seems little more the US is prepared to do for the moment than continue to pursue the issue multilaterally – the next opportunity being at next month’s G20 leaders’ meeting in Seoul.

Washington will continue its struggle to assemble a coalition of countries prepared publicly to criticise China and other persistent interveners such as South Korea. In any case, the US is also fighting off criticism that it is worsening imbalances because expectations of quantitative easing are weakening the dollar against other currencies.

Even eurozone countries have tempered criticism of China’s exchange rate policy with their worries about the US. Steffen Seibert, spokesman for Angela Merkel, German chancellor, last week said: “One could of course also argue that the US currency might not be fully at its real value, given the ample amount of liquidity that’s being pumped into the market, which tends to devalue [the dollar].”

Investors in financial markets, certainly, seem to be expecting more of the same from the US rather than direct confrontation. Steven Englander, head of foreign exchange strategy for the big economies at CitiFX in New York, says since most currency frictions are caused by countries’ diverging domestic policy objectives rather than deliberate opposition, the returns to increasing the rhetoric level are unclear.

“Even if they do name China [as a manipulator], the only way to pursue the issue is through the G20 in any case,” said Mr Englander.

“There is very little enthusiasm in the rest of the world for the US to start acting unilaterally.” None of the main freely traded currencies are a long way out of normal bounds, except perhaps the Australian and Canadian dollars, whose authorities are not complaining loudly in any case, he said.

The timing of the currency report, in the middle of US midterm election campaigns, does add some uncertainty to the decision. Unemployment remains high and American voters, concerned about a double-dip recession, frequently blame globalisation for shipping jobs overseas. China-bashing has emerged as a constant theme during the campaigns.

But a currency bill was passed with wide bipartisan support through the House of Representatives two weeks ago, diminishing the use of the currency as a wedge issue. Those Democratic candidates seeking to make China an issue when going after free-trade Republicans – such as Lee Fisher standing for the Senate against Rob Portman, former US trade representative, in Ohio – have tended to focus on trade deals rather than the exchange rate.

Despite Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate finance committee, talking up its prospects during a visit to Beijing on Wednesday, the chances of the bill becoming law are low. If, as seems likely, the Republicans take the House in November, they have signalled a clear lack of enthusiasm for pursuing it. Tom Gallagher, policy analyst at the Scowcroft Group, an advisory firm, says the bill is mainly helpful as a potential threat. “It has real problems as an end, but it is useful as a means to an end,” he said.

Although the administration has not commented on the bill, the White House would certainly be unhappy with legislation that did not allow presidential discretion over whether such politically explosive restrictions were imposed.

The US administration will have cheered Tokyo’s criticism of Seoul. But, if anything, the episode is likely to confirm US instincts that the multilateral diplomatic route is still the best way to go.

日本当局决定批评韩国政府操纵汇率，此举必然让美国感到些许慰藉，因为美国现在不得不面对一个棘手的决定：是否升级与中国的汇率对抗。

美国财政部将在周五发布一年两次的汇率报告。美国政府要在报告中决定，是否正式将中国列为汇率操纵国。华盛顿内部普遍认为，财政部将再次避免给中国贴上这个标签。美国财长蒂姆?盖特纳(Tim Geithner)已再三公开强调，将中国列为汇率操纵国的好处有限。该报告唯一会做出的制裁，是开启与中国当局的谈判，而盖特纳已经在这样做了。

自9月份起，中国至少已开始允许人民币轻微上浮。因此，除了继续寻求以多边方式解决这一问题，眼下美国似乎不打算再做些什么了——下一个机会将出现在下月的20国集团(G20)首尔峰会。

华盛顿方面将继续努力，召集愿意对中国和韩国等国不断干预汇市的行为展开公开批评的国家。不管怎样，美国仍在竭力回击人们对它的指责——由于人们预期美国会出台新一轮定量宽松政策，美元兑其它货币持续下挫，各界纷纷指责美国让全球失衡进一步恶化。

就连欧元区国家也因为担心美元，而减弱了对中国汇率政策的指责。德国总理安格拉?默克尔(Angela Merkel)的发言人斯特芬?赛贝特(Steffen Seibert)上周表示：“鉴于目前向市场注入的过量流动性可能会（让美元）贬值，人们当然也可以辩称美元汇率或许并未充分反映其实际价值。”

当然，金融市场投资者似乎更希望美国维持当前策略，而不是展开直接对抗。花旗外汇(CitiFX)大型经济体外汇策略主管史蒂文?英格兰德(Steven Englander)表示，由于大多数汇率摩擦都是因各国国内政策目标不一致而起，而非彼此故意作对，因此美国提高调门后能获得多大好处仍不得而知。

英格兰德表示：“即使他们真的将中国列为（汇率操纵国），解决这个问题的唯一出路还是通过G20。”

“对于美国启动单边行动的选择，世界其它地区几乎毫无热情可言。”英格兰德表示，几乎所有可自由兑换的主要货币都未大幅偏离正常汇率水平——可能澳元和加元除外，而澳加两国当局不管怎样都不会大声抱怨。

此次汇率报告的发布时间选在了美国中期选举期间，这就为最终决定增添了些许不确定性。美国失业率目前仍然高企，而担心双底衰退的美国选民，再三指责全球化致使工作岗位流失至海外。抨击中国俨然已成为选举期间一个不变的主题。

不过，两周前在众议院赢得两党普遍支持而获通过一部汇率法案，有助于避免有人将汇率当作争议话题。一些民主党候选人在攻击支持自由贸易的共和党人时，会试图拿中国当作话题——例如俄亥俄州民主党参议员候选人李?费希尔(Lee Fisher)对美国前贸易代表罗布?波特曼(Rob Portman)的攻击——但他们往往将重点放在贸易协定上，而不是放在汇率问题上。

尽管参议院金融委员会主席马克斯?鲍卡斯(Max Baucus)周三在访问北京时，大谈该法案有望获参议院通过而成为法律，但这种可能性并不大。即使共和党人在11月重新掌控众议院（这看起来很有可能），他们也已明确表现出缺乏促其成为法律的热情。咨询公司斯考克罗夫特集团(Scowcroft Group)政策分析师汤姆?加拉格尔(Tom Gallagher)表示，该法案的主要作用在于威胁。“将它当作目标真的很成问题，但当成实现目标的手段还是有价值的，”他表示。

尽管奥巴马政府尚未就该法案置评，但白宫肯定会对其感到不满，因为该法案不允许总统酌情决定是否下达这种会引爆政治争执的限令。

美国政府肯定会为日本政府批评韩国政府叫好。但这件事可能只会印证美国的直觉：即诉诸多边外交仍是最佳选择。

译者/陈云飞