【注】为什么是大事儿？
不论英德法意加入后亚投行运作如何，这将是一个中国为主导，美国之外的系统，完成了脱离美国控制的一步，对美肯定是个巨大的打击。
【快讯】澳大利亚已经决定申请亚投行，见下面《澳大利亚人》的专题评论，新加坡、印度、新西兰已经申请了。给评论·该评论对美国做了极其尖酸的讽刺和尖刻的驳斥（我加了黑体字）。
华尔街见闻翻译英国金融时报：
欧洲公然"忤逆"美国 纷纷同意加入亚投行
据英国《金融时报》援引某官员的消息，德国、法国、意大利也都同意追随英国，申请加入中国主导的亚洲发展银行。这一举动可能使美国试图在自己建立的体系内领导西方国家的愿望落空。
上周，英国向中方正式提交申请，加入亚洲基础设施投资银行（亚投行，AIIB），成为首个申请加入亚投行的主要西方国家。而如今德、法、意三国政府也希望加入这一机构，对美国主导的世界银行（World Bank）形成了潜在挑战。
此外，澳大利亚——美国在亚太地区最核心的伙伴之一，据称正在承受美国的压力，要求其不要参与中国主导的亚洲基础设施投资银行。但澳大利亚总理周一表示可能考虑加入亚投行，或在下周做出决定。新西兰、新加坡也在就加入亚投行展开谈判。
《金融时报》评论认为，欧洲一系列国家的决定对奥巴马政府来说是重大的打击，如果这些国家在亚投行之外联合起来，可以创造属于西方国家的更大的影响力，且可以推高借贷标准。
亚投行旨在支持亚洲国家基础设施建设，促进地区互联互通，推动区域经济发展。筹建亚投行系中国国家主席习近平、国务院总理李克强2013年10月访问东南亚时先后提出的倡议，旨在以此满足亚洲地区基础设施融资的巨大需求。
亚投行的法定资本为1000亿美元，各意向创始成员同意以国内生产总值衡量的经济权重作为各国股份分配的基础，因此中国持有最大股份。
日本和美国主导现有的亚洲开发银行（ADB）。亚投行由中国主导，这引起了日本和美国的不满。此前，亚洲开发银行总裁中尾武彦表示，不欢迎成立一家目的基本相同、由中国牵头成立的另一家区域性银行。中尾武彦称对此表示理解但不欢迎，不过也不太担心。
《金融时报》认为，通过亚投行的建立，中国在国际上可以获得更大的影响力，这也是决定未来中国和美国之间谁能在亚洲领导经济和贸易规则的核心问题。
【附录】
澳大利亚"投诚" 下周或申请加入亚投行
英国“投奔”亚投行 为主要西方国家中首个
英国《金融时报》杰夫•代尔亚投行背后的美中较量
此报道很逗：
亚投行申请日期今截止 法国德国意大利追随英国加入
Abbott’s decision on China regional bank a poke in eye for Obama
Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor, Melbourne
The Australian, March 16, 2015
THE decision by the Abbott government to sign on for negotiations to join China’s regional bank, foreshadowed by Tony Abbott at the weekend, represents another defeat for Barack Obama’s diplomacy in Asia.
The Abbott government is right to make this decision. It had well-founded concerns about the vague and unsatisfactory governance arrangements of the institution when Beijing first invited Canberra to join.
Those arrangements have improved since then and Australia is only signing on to negotiate terms of accession.
If the terms are no good, Australia will ultimately walk away.
Canberra’s move follows similar decisions by Britain, Singapore, India and New Zealand.
Make no mistake — all this represents a colossal defeat for the Obama administration’s incompetent, distracted, ham-fisted diplomacy in Asia.
The Obama administration didn’t want Australia to sign up for the China Bank. The Abbott government rightly feels that it owes Obama nothing.
Obama treats allies shabbily and as a result he loses influence with them and then seems perpetually surprised at this outcome.
The Asian professionals in Washington regard the Obama administration as particularly ineffective in Asia.
The consensus is that the Obama White House is insular, isolated, inward-looking, focused on the President’s personal image and ineffective in foreign policy.
Obama went out of his way to embarrass the Prime Minister politically on climate change with a rogue speech at the G20 summit in Brisbane.
The speech had been billed as dealing with American leadership in Asia and instead was full of material designed to embarrass Abbott.
Since then, the Abbott government has felt absolutely zero subjective good will for Obama.
This is an outlook shared by many American allies.
It’s important to get all the distinctions right here.
The Abbott government operates foreign policy in Australia’s national interest.
That includes full fidelity to the American alliance and to supporting US strategic leadership.
But the Obama administration has neither the continuous presence, nor the tactical wherewithal nor the store of goodwill or personal relationships to carry Canberra, or other allies, on non-essential matters.
The Obama administration has tried to convince both its friends and allies not to join the China Bank.
This was probably a bad call in itself, but, as so often with the Obama administration, it was a bad call badly implemented.
The characteristically bad implementation has helped shred Obama’s diplomatic credibility.
The Chinese have been the US’s best friends in Asia, diplomatically. Their territorial aggressiveness in the East and South China Seas has driven Asia to embrace America’s security role more tightly than ever.
The American military are now the best American diplomats in Asia by far.
Such prestige as the US enjoys in Asia these days rests disproportionately on the shoulders of the US military.
Obama has neglected and mistreated allies and as a result Washington has much less influence than previously.
The saga of the China Bank is almost a textbook case of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy.
|
