美歐貿易談判重在監管協調

American cars have bigger bumpers than European ones. That may sound like a trivial detail but it, and others like it, have big ramifications for diplomats charged with negotiating a trade agreement between the US and the EU. Opening up markets once meant removing barriers that protected domestic producers from foreign competition. Authorities in Europe and America have given the impression that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is just another trade agreement of that kind. In fact, the proposed agreement is a different beast.

美國汽車的保險槓比歐洲汽車的保險槓大。這聽上去或許是一個無關緊要的小細節，但對於負責談判一項美歐貿易協定的外交官們而言，諸如此類的問題有着重要意義。開放市場曾經意味着消除壁壘，這些壁壘旨在保護本國生產商免受外國競爭的威脅。目前歐美當局給人的印象是，《跨大西洋貿易與投資夥伴關係協定》(TTIP)也是這樣一種協議。實際上，這項擬議的協定屬於另一種類型。

Most old-fashioned barriers have already disappeared. Trade negotiators are focusing instead on removing discrepancies between the regulations in force in the American and European markets. These talks are no longer about removing protections; they are about harmonising precautions that prevent harm to consumers.

多數舊式壁壘已經消除，如今的貿易談判代表們把注意力放在了消除歐美市場現行監管規定之間的差異。談判的目的不再是消除保護主義措施，而是要協調那些防止對消費者造成損害的預防措施。

The political economy of this sort of endeavour differs from those of past negotiations. When you work to reduce tariffs, consumers praise you for lowering prices while producers complain that you have stripped away their protections. Things are different when we start talking about regulatory harmonisation. Producers are excited by the prospect of such measures, which could have serious implications for medicine, food, financial products, vehicles – everything. But they make consumers anxious because they fear it means giving up the precautionary safeguards from which they benefit.

這種努力的政治經濟學不同於以往的談判。當你致力於降低關稅時，消費者會因爲價格下跌而稱讚你，而生產者則會抱怨你取消了保護主義措施。當我們開始討論監管協調時，情況就不一樣了。生產者對這類措施出臺的可能性感到興奮，因爲它們會對醫藥、食品、金融產品、汽車等一切商品產生重大影響。但這些措施可能會引起消費者擔憂——他們擔心這意味着廢除對他們有益的預防性保護措施。

How do we come up with a mutually acceptable approximation of American and European regulations that have the same purpose but do not always safeguard consumers to the same extent or in the same way? This is serious politics – far more difficult than horse-trading over tariffs. The Europeans have been dealing with this challenge ever since they set about creating the single European market in the mid-1980s. Failing to make clear that the TTIP negotiations, too, are about regulatory harmonisation was a huge blunder. Negotiators need to be transparent if they are to calm public suspicions.

怎麼才能拿出一套雙方都能接受、與美國和歐洲的監管規定都比較接近的方案呢？雙方的監管規定有着同樣的目的，但在保護消費者的力度和方式上不盡相同。這是個嚴肅的政治問題，比圍繞關稅的討價還價要困難得多。自上世紀80年代中期着手創建單一歐洲市場以來，歐洲人就一直在應對這一挑戰。未能明確TTIP談判也涉及監管協調是一大失策。要化解公衆的疑慮，談判代表們需要做到透明。

Another political obstacle lies in the plan to allow investors to sue governments under the pact if they feel local laws threaten their investment. The negotiators seem to have forgotten about the anti-globalisation activists. This loud minority is managing to convince consumers they will have to eat chlorinated chicken and genetically modified food, and that US data privacy laws will be foisted on them. Introducing potential investor-state disputes to the mix adds to this sense of distrust.

另一個政治障礙與一項計劃有關：假如投資者認爲地方法規威脅到自己的投資，可以依據該協定起訴政府。談判代表們似乎忘記了反全球化的活動人士。這些聲勢很大的少數羣體正設法說服消費者，他們將不得不食用以含氯消毒液處理過的雞肉，不得不食用轉基因食品，同時美國數據隱私法將被強加在他們身上。在這種局面下，如果再引入潛在的投資者與政府爭端，將會加重不信任感。

Both sides also underestimated the change in German public opinion. When I was the EU trade commissioner, from 1999 to 2004, the German public could be counted on to support greater trade openness. But recent polls suggest that Germans trust America far less than they did – a bad omen for a pact that would require them to put their faith in US regulators.

雙方還低估了德國民意的變化。當我在1999年至2004年擔任歐盟貿易專員時，我們能相信德國公衆會支持更大力度的貿易開放。但最近的民調顯示，德國人對美國的信任感遠遠不及過去——對於一個需要他們相信美國監管機構的協定而言，這是個不好的徵兆。

How can we put TTIP back on track? We need to embrace transparency. We must explain, frankly and openly, that 80 per cent of these negotiations deal with a realm of regulatory convergence. We must recognise that, while we might reap some early harvests, this is a long-haul project. If investor-state disputes are to be allowed, a much better case for them must be made. When there are differences in regulation, negotiators should say either that they will not touch each other’s rules or that they will both adopt the most stringent of the existing safeguards.

我們怎麼才能讓TTIP重新步入正軌呢？必須奉行透明原則。我們必須開誠佈公地解釋，80%的談判內容涉及監管趨同。我們必須認識到，儘管我們可能會在初期收穫一些成果，但這是一個長期項目。如果要容忍投資者與政府爭端，那麼這類爭端必須有明顯更加合理的理由。一旦法規上存在差異，談判代表們應該解釋，彼此不會觸動對方的規定，或者雙方都會實行現行保護措施中最嚴格的措施。

Finally, both sides should leave open the possibility of TTIP being widened to include other interested states. If the EU and the US overcome these obstacles and put the agreement back on track, then they stand to establish global regulatory benchmarks that will help to achieve the promise of open trade.

最後，雙方應保留擴容TTIP以納入其他感興趣國家的可能性。如果歐盟和美國克服了上述障礙，讓TTIP協定迴歸正軌，那麼他們有望建立起全球監管基準，這將有助於兌現開放貿易的承諾。