您的位置：首页 > 时事时事
网友讨论：为什么西方花了十年时间而不是更早才最终意识到，他们也需要做一些类似于中国“一带一路”的事情？
Why did it take a decade's time for the West to finally realize that they also need to do something similar to China''s BRI and not sooner?
2022-05-14
互联网
934
收藏
举报
译文简介
网友：“一带一路”倡议是一项关于整体经济发展的项目，需要政府间的承诺和行动，而西方国家的政府对穷国的发展从来没有做过这样的承诺。注意，虽然“一带一路”倡议是由中国主导的，但参与与否是自愿的，不受各种条件的约束，东道国可以接受或拒绝，并决定具体的实施项目。
正文翻译
评论翻译
Allen Allington
, Traveler and retired career counselor. 52 years of traveling
Great question
I wonder why the USA didn’t do a BRI all the way to at least Panama.. we could have built up the economy’s of our neighbors and illegal immigration wouldn’t be an issue today.
Same with Cuba… we could have offered to help them with economic development, capitalism would have changed them and helped them become a middle class nation today. But we sabotaged Cuba which has never been a military economic or political threat to America.
我想知道为什么美国没有开展至少到巴拿马的类似于“一带一路”的项目，我们本可以帮我们的邻国建立经济基础，这样的话非法移民在今天就不会成为问题。
和古巴一样……我们本可以帮助他们发展经济，资本主义本可以改变他们，帮助他们成为像现在的中产阶级国家。但我们破坏了古巴，而古巴从未对美国构成军事、经济或政治威胁。
------------
Adrian Lee Magill
, Video Company President/Artist BA SFU, VFS (diploma), Author，Lives in Amagasaki, Japan
Original question: Why did it take a decade's time for the West to finally realize that they also need to do something similar to China's BRI and not sooner?
Thanks for the A2A.
Just a quick response here.
Up until recent events, the way the west was going to deal with the C (at least officially. I have my beliefs that what we are seeing now may have been an inevitable conclusion to the relationship the west has had with the C) has been cooperation.
Recently, however, with hostage diplomacy, wolf warrior tactics, expansionism in the SCS and Senkaku Islands, not to mention the treatment of ethnic minorities, the C has become beligerent to the western world.
Now, the west is changing tactics. Playing nice did not work.
这只是一个快速的回应。
直到最近的事件发生之前，西方对待中国的方式（至少在官方上。我相信我们现在看到的可能是西方与中国关系的必然结果）一直是合作。
然而，最近，随着人质外交、战狼战术、中国在南海和钓鱼岛的kz主义......，中国对西方世界变得轻视起来。
现在，西方正在改变策略，他们认识到装腔作势是行不通的。
Or did it?
If the initial conclusion in confronting Chinese Communism was that military conflict would not be desired and, like the USSR previously, better results could occur using economics, it is possible that the western governments decided to open negotiations with China and include them in trade. If they knew that, after a generation or two, the Chinese people would grow accustomed to wealthier lifestyles, and they took those lifestyles away after 40 years, the Chinese people would not be happy.
或者玩真的？
如果与中国对抗的最初结论是，军事冲突是不可取的，而且像苏联以前那样，可以通过经济手段取得更好的结果，那么西方政府有可能决定与中国展开谈判，并将其纳入贸易体系。如果他们知道，在一两代人之后，中国人民会习惯于更富裕的生活方式，而他们要在40年后将这些生活方式剥夺，中国人民将不会高兴。
There is one principle that the C just don’t seem to understand: Cooperation breeds success. Wolf warrior attitudes and hostage diplomacy do not.
If the luxuries that the elite in China were suddenly challenged at a personal level, they would not be happy about it. The wealth of the world was offered to China, but the C did not act kindly and ruined it for the nation.
We do not have to work with China. We were just fine without them before and can do it again. The west was dominant without China and China was in the middle of 50 years of struggling under C control. We started to share in good faith and the C ruined that relationship.
We do not have to share anymore.
中国似乎不明白一个原则：合作孕育成功，战狼式的态度和人质外交则不然。
如果中国精英阶层的奢侈品在个人层面上突然受到挑战，他们将不会为此感到高兴。
我们不必与中国合作，以前没有他们我们也过得很好，这样的情形可以再来一次。在没有中国的情况下，西方占据了主导地位，而中国则挣扎了50年。后来我们开始真诚地分享，而中国破坏了这种关系。
我们不必再分享了。
50 years is returning.
As soon as the Chinese people realize this, they will turn to their government and demand answers. That, I believe, is the end game. It is basically telling the Chinese people that their government is their responsibility. You can share and we can all prosper, or China can be left behind.
50年的苦日子又将重演。
一旦中国人民意识到这一点，他们就会求助于他们的政府，要求得到答案。我相信，这就是结局。这基本上是告诉中国人民，这是他们的政府的责任。
Why did it take so long? I think the initiative brought on by the west to counter the BRI just came about due to recent actions by the C. We did not need it before. Now it is becoming necessary as the C becomes more antagonistic and China gets more isolated. Again.
I hope this helps. Stay safe.
Adrian Lee Magill.
为什么花了这么长时间？我认为，西方发起的对抗“一带一路”倡议是由于中国最近的行动而产生的，我们以前不需要它。现在，随着中国变得更加敌对，更加孤立，这一点变得十分必要。
我希望这对你有帮助。
------------------
Os Jose
, Senior Account Manager (1990-present)
The west already has the rail/road infrastructure where they need to conduct business. They even have a tunnel to connect England to Mainland Europe. North and South America already lixed by the pan American highway. The US has their Highways built Since the beginning of the Cold war. The west funded Panama and Suez, which even the communist and socialist countries enjoy. The west has more major airports and sea ports. What China is attempting to accomplish is lixing where she wants to trade, the silk road. If the west had seen economic prosperity, they would have built that many years ago.
So based on my opinion, it is China that is trying to catch up with its trade infrastructure, not the west. Thye even let China use these roads.
西方国家已经拥有了开展业务所需的铁路/公路基础设施，他们甚至有一条连接英国和欧洲大陆的隧道。北美洲和南美洲已经通过泛美高速公路连接起来了。美国自冷战开始就修建了很多高速公路。西方资助了巴拿马运河和苏伊士运河，连GC主义和SH主义国家都享受着这两条运河带来的便利。西方国家有更多的机场和海港。中国正试图实现的是把她想进行贸易的地方——用丝绸之路——连接起来。如果西方看到了经济机会，他们早就把这些基础设施建起来了。
因此，基于我的观点，我认为是中国正在努力在贸易基础设施上追赶，而不是西方。
Os Jose
The US infrastructure is not literally crumbling, it is used every day by people that need to go somewhere. I think you meant it needs to be more maintained like the roads in the rest of the world. The USA has so many roads that lead everywhere and nowhere, can China say that? Many un-informed people here think the USA lacks infrastructures, please google that information before you write the answer. Some even think our airports are falling apart, the same airport that has been servicing the people before China had their communist government established.
美国的基础设施并没有崩溃，每天都有需要去某个地方的人在使用它。我想你的意思是，它需要像世界其他地方的道路一样得到更多的维护。美国有那么多通向任何地方的道路，而中国能这么说吗？这里许多不知情的人以为美国缺乏基础设施，请在你写答案之前用谷歌搜索一下这些信息。有些人甚至认为我们的机场正在崩溃，而在新中国之前，这个机场一直就在为人民服务。
Nathan James
US infrastructure has been literally crumbling and decaying for many decades.
It has been a long, long time since the US successfully completed a major infrastructure project on time and on budget.
Most Western ports and airports are in serious need of overhaul.
The basic problem is that infrastructure needs to be maintained and modernized. Western countries have not been very good at doing this.
几十年来，美国的基础设施一直在崩溃和衰败。
美国已经有很长很长一段时间没有按时、按预算成功完成一项重大基础设施项目了。
大多数西方港口和机场都急需大修。
基础设施需要维护和现代化，西方国家在这方面做得不太好。
---------------------
Nathan James
, lives in Toronto, ON
You’re referring to the G7’s B3W (Build Back Better World). Well, I believe the G7 underestimated what China was trying to do. They didn’t believe that China would succeed.
The G7 were cynical, skeptical, and arrogant. Because they lacked the vision, seeing was believing. It took them 8 years to see.
我想你指的是七国集团发起的B3W（重建更美好的世界）项目，我相信七国集团低估了中国的努力，因为他们不相信中国会成功。
七国集团是自私、疑心和傲慢的。由于他们缺乏远见，他们花了8年时间来观察中国的“一带一路”。
Unfortunately for the G7, I believe B3W will be a stillbirth. These countries lack the political will. These countries lack the financial resources. These countries lack the infrastructure acumen and experience. These countries lack the trust from developing countries like those in Africa and Latin America.
Remember, these developing countries were previously colonialized by Western powers who abused the shit out of them.
不幸的是，对于七国集团而言，我相信B3W项目最终将会胎死腹中。因为这些国家缺乏政治意愿，缺乏财政资源，缺乏基础设施建设的经验，也缺乏非洲和拉丁美洲等发展中国家的信任。
记住，这些发展中国家以前是被西方列强殖民过的，西方列强曾在当地滥用了它们的特权。
------------------
Robert Quek
, former Retired. Prior Employment in Finance Sector，Lived in Lived in Singapore
BRI is a project about general economic development and requires government-to-government commitments and actions. Western governments never had such commitments about the development of the poor countries. Note that although China-led, BRI is voluntary regardless of the shade of the governments, not subject to all sorts of conditionality, and host countries may accept or reject, and decide the projects.
“一带一路”倡议是一项关于整体经济发展的项目，需要政府间的承诺和行动，而西方国家的政府对穷国的发展从来没有做过这样的承诺。注意，虽然“一带一路”倡议是由中国主导的，但参与与否是自愿的，不受各种条件的约束，东道国可以接受或拒绝，并决定具体的实施项目。
What western governments did was to force their way into the poor countries so that their companies can exploit the resources and make profits. It is not the job of these companies to worry about the country’s economic development. They may build some infrastructures needed for the exploitation of the resources, such as to transport the minerals to the port, often with the help of their governments and even enforced upon the native rulers.
西方政府所做的就是强行进入穷国，使它们的公司能够开发穷国的资源来获利。操心这些穷国的经济的发展不是这些公司的职责，它们可能会建设一些开发资源所需的基础设施，例如，他们会在本国政府的帮助下，甚至在当地统治者的帮助下，修建一条将矿物运到港口的铁路。
China’s BRI is therefore unprecedented in concept and in scope and ambition. China has experienced the benefit of connectivity and infrastructures to foster and sustain development. It has the ability to share it because it is one nation and has the daring and expertise and resources to do so. US has tried for years to demonize it a Chinese debt-trap to frighten away the developing countries. It failed badly.
而中国的“一带一路”倡议在概念、范围和雄心上都是前所未有的。中国体验过互联互通和基础设施建设对促进和维持发展的好处。中国有能力分享它，因为它是一个有勇气和专业知识以及资源这样做的国家。美国多年来一直试图将其妖魔化为中国的“债务陷阱”，以吓跑发展中国家，但它败得很惨。
Now US has mooted the B3W project to compete with and counter BRI. It had drawn in the support of the G7 nations. It will be interesting to see if it eventuates and if so, at what speed and scale.
现在，美国提出了B3W项目来与“一带一路”竞争和对抗，它得到了七国集团国家的支持。如果B3W项目确实实施了，那么以什么速度和规模来实施将是一件很有趣的事情。
One curious point of note is that although US sees B3W in competition with BRI, it may in fact be complementary. China’s BRI is about the promotion of multi-national trade and investments, and no matter how you want to dress it, B3W must be about the same thing. Otherwise, why would any country joins it. In this regard, I think China and the BRI network countries would be delighted to see B3W succeed.
有一点很奇怪，尽管我们看到B3W在与“一带一路”竞争，但实际上它们可能是互补的。中国的“一带一路”倡议是关于促进多国贸易和投资的，无论你如何去描绘，B3W肯定是差不多的事情，不然怎么会有国家加入呢。在这方面，我认为中国和加入“一带一路”的国家将很高兴看到B3W成功。
One final point. It is not that US and the G7 countries need to do it. It is because they are scared that otherwise they may sink into insignificance in the eyes of the developing countries. BRI network countries number about 140 or 70% of the nations of the world. Interestingly, of the G7 countries, Germany and Italy are already in BRI. So it is the US which feels the greatest fear.
最后一点，并非美国和七国集团国家需要这样做，他们之所以这样做是因为他们害怕如果不这样做他们可能在发展中国家眼中变得无关紧要。加入“一带一路”倡议的国家有140个，约占世界所有国家的70%。有趣的是，在七国集团国家中，德国和意大利已经在里面了。所以，对“一带一路”感到最害怕的是美国。
----------------------
Thomas Pauken II
, B.A. from Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (1999)
BEIJING: I met an American businessman before the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic and I relied on him to provide blunt answers on how US thought leaders really think. He had an interesting explanation for why Washington has delayed actions on launching a global infrastructure campaign similar to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
According to him, the West wants China to pour huge funding and investments into infrastructure projects worldwide so that sovereign governments from the West will not have to pay for the bills.
北京：在冠状病毒大流行爆发之前，我遇到了一位美国商人，我依靠他知道了美国思想领袖的真实想法。他对为什么华盛顿推迟发起类似中国“一带一路”倡议（BRI）的全球基础设施运动的行动有一个有趣的解释。
按照他的说法，西方希望中国向世界范围内的基础设施项目投入巨额资金，这样西方的主权政府就不必为此买单了。
He noted that in the 1960s and 1970s the US government had taken a similar approach by providing generous loans and offers to construc infrastructure in the developing nations, particularly in Latin-America and Africa regions.
The projects had often turned into failures on account of rampant corruption, social instability and dfaults on loans and other forms of financial assistance granted towards recipient nations.
From the Western elitist mindsets, they want China to help the countries of the emerging markets to build infrastructure and if it fails, they know China loses money but if it succeeds the West will move forward on an alternative plan.
他指出，在20世纪60年代和70年代，美国政府采取了类似的做法，为发展中国家，特别是拉丁美洲和非洲地区的基础设施建设提供慷慨的贷款和优惠。
由于腐败猖獗、社会不稳定以及拖欠贷款和向受援国提供的其他形式的财政援助，这些项目通常都失败了。
从西方精英的心态来看，他们希望中国帮助新兴市场国家建设基础设施，如果项目失败，他们知道中国会赔钱，但如果项目成功了，西方将采取替代计划。
The new strategy, if the BRI succeeds, will be to persuade countries that benefited from China’s generosity to turn their backs on Beijing. US agents will push ahead on a worldwide media and publicity smear campaigns against China to shame nations into supporting the West.
The scheme sounds clever. Let’s say Chinese firms complete construction of new roads, bridges, railroads and etc. in an African nation. Washington will approach the government and inform them they must expel Chinese enterprises from their territories or the US and other Western powers will ostracize them.
如果“一带一路”倡议（BRI）成功了，西方新的战略将是说服受益于中国慷慨援助的国家背弃北京。美国特工将在全球范围内推进针对中国的宣传诽谤活动，以使各受援国支持西方。
这个计划听起来很聪明。假设中国公司在一个非洲国家完成了新公路、桥梁、铁路等的建设。华盛顿将与该国政府接触，并告知他们必须将中国企业驱逐出其领土，否则美国和其他西方大国将排挤他们。
Washington would then announce the imposition of international economic sanctions based on groundless accusations, such as the alleged African country failing to uphold pro-LGBT human rights laws or other claims.
In the aftermath if the countries buckle under the threats, Western companies, mainly multinationals (big Business), will invest in the country, knowing new infrastructure had already been built.
华盛顿随后将宣布实施基于毫无根据的指控的国际经济制裁，例如声称某非洲国家未能维护支持LGBT的人权法或其他主张。
之后，如果这些国家屈服于威胁，西方公司，主要是跨国公司（大企业）将在该国投资，因为他们知道新的基础设施已经建成了。
As noted earlier, I’m only citing comments from a business person I know from the US but by taking a closer look one can surmise that there is a strong possibility Washington could take such deliberate actions. But from the perspective of fairness, should this approach be favored?
I would argue from the standpoint of ethics that this is a dishonest tactic and should be condemned by the public. Just because it sounds clever does not make it righteous. The developing nations may have to confront bullying by Western powers because they had formed closer economic cooperation with China.
如前所述，我只是引用了一位我在美国认识的商界人士的评论，但仔细观察，人们可以推测，华盛顿极有可能采取这种蓄意的行动。但从公平的角度看，这种做法是否应该受到赞扬？
我想从伦理学的角度来看，这是一种不诚实的策略，应该受到公众的谴责。仅仅因为听起来聪明，并不意味着它是正义的。由于它们与中国形成了更紧密的经济合作关系，发展中国家可能不得不面对西方列强的欺凌。
We can take a deeper dive into learning more about how the BRI has already helped a number of developing nations from the China Daily. The lix is here:
As reported by the China Daily:
“So far, China has signed BRI cooperation documents with 140 countries and 31 international organizations, and a large number of projects have been carried out. Despite the impact of COVID-19, China and BRI partners including Central Asian countries have witnessed growth in trade and investment since last year.
The trade volume of commodities between China and BRI-related countries was $1.4 trillion last year, a year-on-year increase of 0.7 percent, according to the Ministry of Commerce.”
China has endeavored to work closely with the developing despite the high risks that stem from it. One hopes the West will not resort to political blackmail to derail the BRI.
我们可以从《中国日报》更深入地了解“一带一路”是如何帮助一些发展中国家的。
据《中国日报》报道：
“到目前为止，中国已与140个国家和31个国际组织签署了“一带一路”合作文件，开展了一大批项目。尽管受到大流行的影响，但自去年以来，中国和包括中亚国家在内的“一带一路”合作伙伴的贸易和投资都出现了增长。
中国商务部的数据显示，去年中国与“一带一路”相关国家的大宗商品贸易额为1.4万亿美元，同比增长了0.7%。”
尽管这种合作具有很大的风险，但中国依然在努力与发展中国家密切合作。我希望西方不要诉诸政治勒索来破坏“一带一路”项目。
Peter Elliott
I guess they didn’t factor in the Chinese canniness around contracts lol. China seems to be able to keep ownership of the infrastructure built - or at least a stake in it.
我猜他们没有考虑到中国人对合同的精明，哈哈。中国似乎能够保有对其所建的基础设施的所有权——或者至少持有其中的一部分股份。
Malay Tripathi
The drawback of this thought process is that it doesn't factor local development around and on top of the infrastructure. The Chinese are there for good. It's not that China builds a railway line and sits back. It supplies the trains and runs them as well for instance. All this means that the assets are being monetised simultaneously. In worst case, China leaves with zero losses. But this is unlikely. The Chinese are established in all these countries, not just managing from the outside. The only factors that work for such devious foreign plans are the glamour aspect of Western culture and possible local corruption. But I doubt if they will weigh so strongly in face of China's intimate mingling with local authorities.
这种思维过程的缺点是，它没有考虑基础设施周围的开发。并不是说中国人修建了一条铁路线就没事了，中国人将永远待在那里。例如，他们会为火车提供补给，并让火车运行，所有这些都意味着这些资产正在同时货币化。在最坏的情况下，中国将以零损失离开，但这不太可能。中国人在所有这些国家都有立足之地，他们并不仅仅是从外部进行管理。这种狡猾的外国计划起作用的唯一可能是西方文化的魅力和当地可能存在的腐败。但我怀疑，面对中国与地方当局的亲密交往，该国政府是否会如此重视西方的看法。
KCC
I’m sure the west, especially the US, have that in mind or will go with another round of proxy wars that will destroy everything built on the ground. Unlike the Soviet’s experience, China now has a bigger economy and can absorb both the resources and products that African countries produces. They are not entirely at the mercy of the west.
我相信西方国家，尤其是美国，已经考虑到了这一点，或者将进行另一轮代理人战争，这将摧毁一切建立在地面上的东西。与对待苏联的经验不同，中国现在的经济规模更大，可以吸收非洲国家生产的资源和产品，他们并不完全受西方的摆布。
Ewe Yu Yie
The strategy might work. Unless China manages to supplement its BRI partners through language and cultural exchanges the US and its allies most probably would be able to overwhelm the PRC’s narrative through the news media, social media and popular culture all of which are communicated through the English language.
这个策略可能会奏效。除非中国设法通过语言和文化交流来补充其“一带一路”伙伴关系，否则美国及其盟友极有可能通过新闻媒体、社交媒体和流行文化压倒中国的叙事，因为所有这些都是通过英语传播的。
Yap You Wai
(i) his explanation doesn’t make sense; (ii) Esp. in/from the US, most bizs are private initiative, and if there’s not enough returns in the short term, nobody wanna start one? (iii) if Chinese enterprises really completed those projects, there’ll be goodwill for China to the detriment of the Western powers; don’t assume they did not think of this?
（1） 他的解释没有道理；（2）特别是在美国，大多数业务都是私人发起的，如果短期内没有足够的回报，没有人愿意开办一家。（三）如果中国企业真的完成了这些项目，对中国的善意将损害西方列强的利益，不要以为他们没有想到这一点。
原文地址：https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-take-a-decades-time-for-the-West-to-finally-realize-that-they-also-need-to-do-something-similar-to-Chinas-BRI-and-not-sooner
, Traveler and retired career counselor. 52 years of traveling
Great question
I wonder why the USA didn’t do a BRI all the way to at least Panama.. we could have built up the economy’s of our neighbors and illegal immigration wouldn’t be an issue today.
Same with Cuba… we could have offered to help them with economic development, capitalism would have changed them and helped them become a middle class nation today. But we sabotaged Cuba which has never been a military economic or political threat to America.
我想知道为什么美国没有开展至少到巴拿马的类似于“一带一路”的项目，我们本可以帮我们的邻国建立经济基础，这样的话非法移民在今天就不会成为问题。
和古巴一样……我们本可以帮助他们发展经济，资本主义本可以改变他们，帮助他们成为像现在的中产阶级国家。但我们破坏了古巴，而古巴从未对美国构成军事、经济或政治威胁。
------------
Adrian Lee Magill
, Video Company President/Artist BA SFU, VFS (diploma), Author，Lives in Amagasaki, Japan
Original question: Why did it take a decade's time for the West to finally realize that they also need to do something similar to China's BRI and not sooner?
Thanks for the A2A.
Just a quick response here.
Up until recent events, the way the west was going to deal with the C (at least officially. I have my beliefs that what we are seeing now may have been an inevitable conclusion to the relationship the west has had with the C) has been cooperation.
Recently, however, with hostage diplomacy, wolf warrior tactics, expansionism in the SCS and Senkaku Islands, not to mention the treatment of ethnic minorities, the C has become beligerent to the western world.
Now, the west is changing tactics. Playing nice did not work.
这只是一个快速的回应。
直到最近的事件发生之前，西方对待中国的方式（至少在官方上。我相信我们现在看到的可能是西方与中国关系的必然结果）一直是合作。
然而，最近，随着人质外交、战狼战术、中国在南海和钓鱼岛的kz主义......，中国对西方世界变得轻视起来。
现在，西方正在改变策略，他们认识到装腔作势是行不通的。
Or did it?
If the initial conclusion in confronting Chinese Communism was that military conflict would not be desired and, like the USSR previously, better results could occur using economics, it is possible that the western governments decided to open negotiations with China and include them in trade. If they knew that, after a generation or two, the Chinese people would grow accustomed to wealthier lifestyles, and they took those lifestyles away after 40 years, the Chinese people would not be happy.
或者玩真的？
如果与中国对抗的最初结论是，军事冲突是不可取的，而且像苏联以前那样，可以通过经济手段取得更好的结果，那么西方政府有可能决定与中国展开谈判，并将其纳入贸易体系。如果他们知道，在一两代人之后，中国人民会习惯于更富裕的生活方式，而他们要在40年后将这些生活方式剥夺，中国人民将不会高兴。
There is one principle that the C just don’t seem to understand: Cooperation breeds success. Wolf warrior attitudes and hostage diplomacy do not.
If the luxuries that the elite in China were suddenly challenged at a personal level, they would not be happy about it. The wealth of the world was offered to China, but the C did not act kindly and ruined it for the nation.
We do not have to work with China. We were just fine without them before and can do it again. The west was dominant without China and China was in the middle of 50 years of struggling under C control. We started to share in good faith and the C ruined that relationship.
We do not have to share anymore.
中国似乎不明白一个原则：合作孕育成功，战狼式的态度和人质外交则不然。
如果中国精英阶层的奢侈品在个人层面上突然受到挑战，他们将不会为此感到高兴。
我们不必与中国合作，以前没有他们我们也过得很好，这样的情形可以再来一次。在没有中国的情况下，西方占据了主导地位，而中国则挣扎了50年。后来我们开始真诚地分享，而中国破坏了这种关系。
我们不必再分享了。
50 years is returning.
As soon as the Chinese people realize this, they will turn to their government and demand answers. That, I believe, is the end game. It is basically telling the Chinese people that their government is their responsibility. You can share and we can all prosper, or China can be left behind.
50年的苦日子又将重演。
一旦中国人民意识到这一点，他们就会求助于他们的政府，要求得到答案。我相信，这就是结局。这基本上是告诉中国人民，这是他们的政府的责任。
Why did it take so long? I think the initiative brought on by the west to counter the BRI just came about due to recent actions by the C. We did not need it before. Now it is becoming necessary as the C becomes more antagonistic and China gets more isolated. Again.
I hope this helps. Stay safe.
Adrian Lee Magill.
为什么花了这么长时间？我认为，西方发起的对抗“一带一路”倡议是由于中国最近的行动而产生的，我们以前不需要它。现在，随着中国变得更加敌对，更加孤立，这一点变得十分必要。
我希望这对你有帮助。
------------------
Os Jose
, Senior Account Manager (1990-present)
The west already has the rail/road infrastructure where they need to conduct business. They even have a tunnel to connect England to Mainland Europe. North and South America already lixed by the pan American highway. The US has their Highways built Since the beginning of the Cold war. The west funded Panama and Suez, which even the communist and socialist countries enjoy. The west has more major airports and sea ports. What China is attempting to accomplish is lixing where she wants to trade, the silk road. If the west had seen economic prosperity, they would have built that many years ago.
So based on my opinion, it is China that is trying to catch up with its trade infrastructure, not the west. Thye even let China use these roads.
西方国家已经拥有了开展业务所需的铁路/公路基础设施，他们甚至有一条连接英国和欧洲大陆的隧道。北美洲和南美洲已经通过泛美高速公路连接起来了。美国自冷战开始就修建了很多高速公路。西方资助了巴拿马运河和苏伊士运河，连GC主义和SH主义国家都享受着这两条运河带来的便利。西方国家有更多的机场和海港。中国正试图实现的是把她想进行贸易的地方——用丝绸之路——连接起来。如果西方看到了经济机会，他们早就把这些基础设施建起来了。
因此，基于我的观点，我认为是中国正在努力在贸易基础设施上追赶，而不是西方。
Os Jose
The US infrastructure is not literally crumbling, it is used every day by people that need to go somewhere. I think you meant it needs to be more maintained like the roads in the rest of the world. The USA has so many roads that lead everywhere and nowhere, can China say that? Many un-informed people here think the USA lacks infrastructures, please google that information before you write the answer. Some even think our airports are falling apart, the same airport that has been servicing the people before China had their communist government established.
美国的基础设施并没有崩溃，每天都有需要去某个地方的人在使用它。我想你的意思是，它需要像世界其他地方的道路一样得到更多的维护。美国有那么多通向任何地方的道路，而中国能这么说吗？这里许多不知情的人以为美国缺乏基础设施，请在你写答案之前用谷歌搜索一下这些信息。有些人甚至认为我们的机场正在崩溃，而在新中国之前，这个机场一直就在为人民服务。
Nathan James
US infrastructure has been literally crumbling and decaying for many decades.
It has been a long, long time since the US successfully completed a major infrastructure project on time and on budget.
Most Western ports and airports are in serious need of overhaul.
The basic problem is that infrastructure needs to be maintained and modernized. Western countries have not been very good at doing this.
几十年来，美国的基础设施一直在崩溃和衰败。
美国已经有很长很长一段时间没有按时、按预算成功完成一项重大基础设施项目了。
大多数西方港口和机场都急需大修。
基础设施需要维护和现代化，西方国家在这方面做得不太好。
---------------------
Nathan James
, lives in Toronto, ON
You’re referring to the G7’s B3W (Build Back Better World). Well, I believe the G7 underestimated what China was trying to do. They didn’t believe that China would succeed.
The G7 were cynical, skeptical, and arrogant. Because they lacked the vision, seeing was believing. It took them 8 years to see.
我想你指的是七国集团发起的B3W（重建更美好的世界）项目，我相信七国集团低估了中国的努力，因为他们不相信中国会成功。
七国集团是自私、疑心和傲慢的。由于他们缺乏远见，他们花了8年时间来观察中国的“一带一路”。
Unfortunately for the G7, I believe B3W will be a stillbirth. These countries lack the political will. These countries lack the financial resources. These countries lack the infrastructure acumen and experience. These countries lack the trust from developing countries like those in Africa and Latin America.
Remember, these developing countries were previously colonialized by Western powers who abused the shit out of them.
不幸的是，对于七国集团而言，我相信B3W项目最终将会胎死腹中。因为这些国家缺乏政治意愿，缺乏财政资源，缺乏基础设施建设的经验，也缺乏非洲和拉丁美洲等发展中国家的信任。
记住，这些发展中国家以前是被西方列强殖民过的，西方列强曾在当地滥用了它们的特权。
------------------
Robert Quek
, former Retired. Prior Employment in Finance Sector，Lived in Lived in Singapore
BRI is a project about general economic development and requires government-to-government commitments and actions. Western governments never had such commitments about the development of the poor countries. Note that although China-led, BRI is voluntary regardless of the shade of the governments, not subject to all sorts of conditionality, and host countries may accept or reject, and decide the projects.
“一带一路”倡议是一项关于整体经济发展的项目，需要政府间的承诺和行动，而西方国家的政府对穷国的发展从来没有做过这样的承诺。注意，虽然“一带一路”倡议是由中国主导的，但参与与否是自愿的，不受各种条件的约束，东道国可以接受或拒绝，并决定具体的实施项目。
What western governments did was to force their way into the poor countries so that their companies can exploit the resources and make profits. It is not the job of these companies to worry about the country’s economic development. They may build some infrastructures needed for the exploitation of the resources, such as to transport the minerals to the port, often with the help of their governments and even enforced upon the native rulers.
西方政府所做的就是强行进入穷国，使它们的公司能够开发穷国的资源来获利。操心这些穷国的经济的发展不是这些公司的职责，它们可能会建设一些开发资源所需的基础设施，例如，他们会在本国政府的帮助下，甚至在当地统治者的帮助下，修建一条将矿物运到港口的铁路。
China’s BRI is therefore unprecedented in concept and in scope and ambition. China has experienced the benefit of connectivity and infrastructures to foster and sustain development. It has the ability to share it because it is one nation and has the daring and expertise and resources to do so. US has tried for years to demonize it a Chinese debt-trap to frighten away the developing countries. It failed badly.
而中国的“一带一路”倡议在概念、范围和雄心上都是前所未有的。中国体验过互联互通和基础设施建设对促进和维持发展的好处。中国有能力分享它，因为它是一个有勇气和专业知识以及资源这样做的国家。美国多年来一直试图将其妖魔化为中国的“债务陷阱”，以吓跑发展中国家，但它败得很惨。
Now US has mooted the B3W project to compete with and counter BRI. It had drawn in the support of the G7 nations. It will be interesting to see if it eventuates and if so, at what speed and scale.
现在，美国提出了B3W项目来与“一带一路”竞争和对抗，它得到了七国集团国家的支持。如果B3W项目确实实施了，那么以什么速度和规模来实施将是一件很有趣的事情。
One curious point of note is that although US sees B3W in competition with BRI, it may in fact be complementary. China’s BRI is about the promotion of multi-national trade and investments, and no matter how you want to dress it, B3W must be about the same thing. Otherwise, why would any country joins it. In this regard, I think China and the BRI network countries would be delighted to see B3W succeed.
有一点很奇怪，尽管我们看到B3W在与“一带一路”竞争，但实际上它们可能是互补的。中国的“一带一路”倡议是关于促进多国贸易和投资的，无论你如何去描绘，B3W肯定是差不多的事情，不然怎么会有国家加入呢。在这方面，我认为中国和加入“一带一路”的国家将很高兴看到B3W成功。
One final point. It is not that US and the G7 countries need to do it. It is because they are scared that otherwise they may sink into insignificance in the eyes of the developing countries. BRI network countries number about 140 or 70% of the nations of the world. Interestingly, of the G7 countries, Germany and Italy are already in BRI. So it is the US which feels the greatest fear.
最后一点，并非美国和七国集团国家需要这样做，他们之所以这样做是因为他们害怕如果不这样做他们可能在发展中国家眼中变得无关紧要。加入“一带一路”倡议的国家有140个，约占世界所有国家的70%。有趣的是，在七国集团国家中，德国和意大利已经在里面了。所以，对“一带一路”感到最害怕的是美国。
----------------------
Thomas Pauken II
, B.A. from Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (1999)
BEIJING: I met an American businessman before the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic and I relied on him to provide blunt answers on how US thought leaders really think. He had an interesting explanation for why Washington has delayed actions on launching a global infrastructure campaign similar to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
According to him, the West wants China to pour huge funding and investments into infrastructure projects worldwide so that sovereign governments from the West will not have to pay for the bills.
北京：在冠状病毒大流行爆发之前，我遇到了一位美国商人，我依靠他知道了美国思想领袖的真实想法。他对为什么华盛顿推迟发起类似中国“一带一路”倡议（BRI）的全球基础设施运动的行动有一个有趣的解释。
按照他的说法，西方希望中国向世界范围内的基础设施项目投入巨额资金，这样西方的主权政府就不必为此买单了。
He noted that in the 1960s and 1970s the US government had taken a similar approach by providing generous loans and offers to construc infrastructure in the developing nations, particularly in Latin-America and Africa regions.
The projects had often turned into failures on account of rampant corruption, social instability and dfaults on loans and other forms of financial assistance granted towards recipient nations.
From the Western elitist mindsets, they want China to help the countries of the emerging markets to build infrastructure and if it fails, they know China loses money but if it succeeds the West will move forward on an alternative plan.
他指出，在20世纪60年代和70年代，美国政府采取了类似的做法，为发展中国家，特别是拉丁美洲和非洲地区的基础设施建设提供慷慨的贷款和优惠。
由于腐败猖獗、社会不稳定以及拖欠贷款和向受援国提供的其他形式的财政援助，这些项目通常都失败了。
从西方精英的心态来看，他们希望中国帮助新兴市场国家建设基础设施，如果项目失败，他们知道中国会赔钱，但如果项目成功了，西方将采取替代计划。
The new strategy, if the BRI succeeds, will be to persuade countries that benefited from China’s generosity to turn their backs on Beijing. US agents will push ahead on a worldwide media and publicity smear campaigns against China to shame nations into supporting the West.
The scheme sounds clever. Let’s say Chinese firms complete construction of new roads, bridges, railroads and etc. in an African nation. Washington will approach the government and inform them they must expel Chinese enterprises from their territories or the US and other Western powers will ostracize them.
如果“一带一路”倡议（BRI）成功了，西方新的战略将是说服受益于中国慷慨援助的国家背弃北京。美国特工将在全球范围内推进针对中国的宣传诽谤活动，以使各受援国支持西方。
这个计划听起来很聪明。假设中国公司在一个非洲国家完成了新公路、桥梁、铁路等的建设。华盛顿将与该国政府接触，并告知他们必须将中国企业驱逐出其领土，否则美国和其他西方大国将排挤他们。
Washington would then announce the imposition of international economic sanctions based on groundless accusations, such as the alleged African country failing to uphold pro-LGBT human rights laws or other claims.
In the aftermath if the countries buckle under the threats, Western companies, mainly multinationals (big Business), will invest in the country, knowing new infrastructure had already been built.
华盛顿随后将宣布实施基于毫无根据的指控的国际经济制裁，例如声称某非洲国家未能维护支持LGBT的人权法或其他主张。
之后，如果这些国家屈服于威胁，西方公司，主要是跨国公司（大企业）将在该国投资，因为他们知道新的基础设施已经建成了。
As noted earlier, I’m only citing comments from a business person I know from the US but by taking a closer look one can surmise that there is a strong possibility Washington could take such deliberate actions. But from the perspective of fairness, should this approach be favored?
I would argue from the standpoint of ethics that this is a dishonest tactic and should be condemned by the public. Just because it sounds clever does not make it righteous. The developing nations may have to confront bullying by Western powers because they had formed closer economic cooperation with China.
如前所述，我只是引用了一位我在美国认识的商界人士的评论，但仔细观察，人们可以推测，华盛顿极有可能采取这种蓄意的行动。但从公平的角度看，这种做法是否应该受到赞扬？
我想从伦理学的角度来看，这是一种不诚实的策略，应该受到公众的谴责。仅仅因为听起来聪明，并不意味着它是正义的。由于它们与中国形成了更紧密的经济合作关系，发展中国家可能不得不面对西方列强的欺凌。
We can take a deeper dive into learning more about how the BRI has already helped a number of developing nations from the China Daily. The lix is here:
As reported by the China Daily:
“So far, China has signed BRI cooperation documents with 140 countries and 31 international organizations, and a large number of projects have been carried out. Despite the impact of COVID-19, China and BRI partners including Central Asian countries have witnessed growth in trade and investment since last year.
The trade volume of commodities between China and BRI-related countries was $1.4 trillion last year, a year-on-year increase of 0.7 percent, according to the Ministry of Commerce.”
China has endeavored to work closely with the developing despite the high risks that stem from it. One hopes the West will not resort to political blackmail to derail the BRI.
我们可以从《中国日报》更深入地了解“一带一路”是如何帮助一些发展中国家的。
据《中国日报》报道：
“到目前为止，中国已与140个国家和31个国际组织签署了“一带一路”合作文件，开展了一大批项目。尽管受到大流行的影响，但自去年以来，中国和包括中亚国家在内的“一带一路”合作伙伴的贸易和投资都出现了增长。
中国商务部的数据显示，去年中国与“一带一路”相关国家的大宗商品贸易额为1.4万亿美元，同比增长了0.7%。”
尽管这种合作具有很大的风险，但中国依然在努力与发展中国家密切合作。我希望西方不要诉诸政治勒索来破坏“一带一路”项目。
Peter Elliott
I guess they didn’t factor in the Chinese canniness around contracts lol. China seems to be able to keep ownership of the infrastructure built - or at least a stake in it.
我猜他们没有考虑到中国人对合同的精明，哈哈。中国似乎能够保有对其所建的基础设施的所有权——或者至少持有其中的一部分股份。
Malay Tripathi
The drawback of this thought process is that it doesn't factor local development around and on top of the infrastructure. The Chinese are there for good. It's not that China builds a railway line and sits back. It supplies the trains and runs them as well for instance. All this means that the assets are being monetised simultaneously. In worst case, China leaves with zero losses. But this is unlikely. The Chinese are established in all these countries, not just managing from the outside. The only factors that work for such devious foreign plans are the glamour aspect of Western culture and possible local corruption. But I doubt if they will weigh so strongly in face of China's intimate mingling with local authorities.
这种思维过程的缺点是，它没有考虑基础设施周围的开发。并不是说中国人修建了一条铁路线就没事了，中国人将永远待在那里。例如，他们会为火车提供补给，并让火车运行，所有这些都意味着这些资产正在同时货币化。在最坏的情况下，中国将以零损失离开，但这不太可能。中国人在所有这些国家都有立足之地，他们并不仅仅是从外部进行管理。这种狡猾的外国计划起作用的唯一可能是西方文化的魅力和当地可能存在的腐败。但我怀疑，面对中国与地方当局的亲密交往，该国政府是否会如此重视西方的看法。
KCC
I’m sure the west, especially the US, have that in mind or will go with another round of proxy wars that will destroy everything built on the ground. Unlike the Soviet’s experience, China now has a bigger economy and can absorb both the resources and products that African countries produces. They are not entirely at the mercy of the west.
我相信西方国家，尤其是美国，已经考虑到了这一点，或者将进行另一轮代理人战争，这将摧毁一切建立在地面上的东西。与对待苏联的经验不同，中国现在的经济规模更大，可以吸收非洲国家生产的资源和产品，他们并不完全受西方的摆布。
Ewe Yu Yie
The strategy might work. Unless China manages to supplement its BRI partners through language and cultural exchanges the US and its allies most probably would be able to overwhelm the PRC’s narrative through the news media, social media and popular culture all of which are communicated through the English language.
这个策略可能会奏效。除非中国设法通过语言和文化交流来补充其“一带一路”伙伴关系，否则美国及其盟友极有可能通过新闻媒体、社交媒体和流行文化压倒中国的叙事，因为所有这些都是通过英语传播的。
Yap You Wai
(i) his explanation doesn’t make sense; (ii) Esp. in/from the US, most bizs are private initiative, and if there’s not enough returns in the short term, nobody wanna start one? (iii) if Chinese enterprises really completed those projects, there’ll be goodwill for China to the detriment of the Western powers; don’t assume they did not think of this?
（1） 他的解释没有道理；（2）特别是在美国，大多数业务都是私人发起的，如果短期内没有足够的回报，没有人愿意开办一家。（三）如果中国企业真的完成了这些项目，对中国的善意将损害西方列强的利益，不要以为他们没有想到这一点。
很赞哦！ ()
