各行其是導致歐洲各國影響力下降

Until about a decade ago, I attended an annual conference at which we discussed the future of Europe. We always split into two groups: one focused on foreign policy, one on economics. Each group nominated a rapporteur whose job it was to relay the conclusions of the group to the final plenary. Everyone listened politely.

直到大概10年前，我一直在參加一個討論歐洲未來的年會。我們總是分成兩組：一組關注外交政策，另一組關注經濟。每個組指定一個報告人，在最後的全體會議上傳達該組的結論。大家都禮貌聽取報告。

The separation of politics and economics is in Europe’s DNA. The monetary union is, more or less, a collection of small, open economies, and behaves accordingly. Members are more interested in raising their competitiveness against the rest of the world than in using economic instruments to exert influence. To this day, the worlds of foreign and economic policy communicate largely through rapporteurs. In the US, it is perfectly normal for foreign policy think-tanks to have big economics departments. European think-tanks mainly do one or the other.

政治和經濟是兩回事——這個觀念深入歐洲的基因。貨幣聯盟或多或少由一組規模較小的開放經濟體組成，其行爲與之相稱。比起利用經濟工具施加影響，成員國更感興趣的是提高自己相對於世界其他國家的競爭力。直至今日，歐洲外交政策界和經濟政策界主要還是通過“報告人”來相互溝通。在美國，外交政策智庫往往擁有規模較大的經濟部門。而歐洲的智庫則主要專注於單一的領域，要麼外交政策，要麼經濟政策。

This separation leads us to downplay the political consequences of long-term economic weakness. Would Russian President Vladimir Putin have acted so ruthlessly in eastern Ukraine if the eurozone had quickly overcome the crisis and begun to lay the foundations for a fiscal and political union? Would we have the strong separatist movements we see today in various member states? Would opinion polls be telling us that Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National, stands a real chance of becoming the next French president? Would an anti-euro party have dislodged the venerable Free Democrats as the party of choice for Germany’s liberal bourgeoisie?

政經分離使我們低估了長期經濟疲弱帶來的政治後果。當初如果歐元區迅速克服危機，並開始爲財政和政治聯盟打下基礎，俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)還會在烏克蘭東部事務上表現得如此無所顧忌嗎？我們在多個成員國內看到的勢頭強勁的分裂運動還會出現嗎？民意調查還會告訴我們極右翼的國民陣線(National Front)黨魁馬琳•勒龐(Marine Le Pen)有望成爲下一任法國總統嗎？反歐元政黨還會取代備受尊敬的德國自由民主黨(Free Democrats)，成爲德國自由主義資產階級的的首選政黨嗎？

I know several policy makers who feel a deep sense of foreboding about the present situation – which I share – yet feel unable to do anything about it. Mario Draghi’s attempt to change the eurozone policy narrative in his speech at the central bankers’ gathering in Jackson Hole last month was an exception. The European Central Bank president was right to emphasise that we should look at the eurozone as a whole rather than obsessing about its constituent parts.

我認識幾個政策制定者，他們對當前的事態有強烈的預感（我有同感），卻感到無能爲力。馬里奧•德拉吉(Mario Draghi)在上月傑克遜霍爾(Jackson Hole)央行行長會議上的講話中，試圖改變歐元區政策敘述，但此舉是個例外。歐洲央行(ECB)行長強調我們應該把歐元區看作一個整體，而不是過於關注其組成部分，他是正確的。

It is only when you take a global view that you can spot what is wrong. From this vantage point, you can see a shortage in aggregate demand, and the danger that low inflation today will beget even lower inflation tomorrow. You notice that the mix of fiscal and monetary policies is wrong. And you also see that it is quite easy to draw up a stimulus programme as long as you do it at EU level. And from this position, you can clearly spot the potential of a monetary union as a political power.

只有縱觀全局，你才能發現哪裏出了問題。從這個視角看，你可以看到總需求的匱乏，以及今天的低通脹帶來明日更低通脹的危險。你會注意到，當前的財政政策和貨幣政策搭配是錯誤的。你還會看到，只要是在歐盟(EU)層面上，制定一個刺激計劃相當容易。而且，從這個視角看，你能夠清楚看到歐洲貨幣聯盟成爲強大政治力量的潛力。

But when you take the perspective of a national capital such as Berlin, you see none of that. A good reminder of the distance between the prevailing German consensus and Mr Draghi’s new pan-Europeanism came last week when, during the 2015 budget debate Wolfgang Schäuble, finance minister, promised permanent fiscal surpluses. There is hardly a soul in the Bundestag who questions how permanent fiscal surpluses would fit in with the rest of the eurozone, let alone worrying about the geopolitical consequences.

然而，當你從某個國家首都（比如柏林）的視角看，這一切你都看不到。上週，在進行2015年預算辯論時，德國財長沃爾夫岡•朔伊布勒(Wolfgang Schäuble)承諾德國將永遠保持財政盈餘狀態，這很好地提醒了我們德國主流共識和德拉吉新近提出的泛歐洲主義之間的差距。德國永遠保持財政盈餘，歐元區其他成員國怎麼辦？幾乎沒有哪個德國聯邦議院(Bundestag)的議員對此提出疑問，更不用說擔憂地緣政治方面的影響了。