在这个动荡的时代，合作和善治是克服新冠大流行和气候变化等复杂的全球性新挑战的关键。面对这些挑战，中国和美国这两个世界上最大的经济体在履行其全球责任时采取截然不同的方式。中国与全球化研究中心高级研究员哈维·佐丁表示，在应对各自面临的挑战时，中美两国的处理方式截然不同，这是一个关于两种治理体系的故事——一个成功，另一个艰难挣扎。

 

The world has been living (and dying) with COVID-19 for the past two years, but it feels like an eternity¹. Yet despite the uncertainties² ahead, the contrasting ways China and the United States have handled their respective challenges are a tale of two governing systems－one successful and the other struggling.

过去两年，新冠病毒一直与人类共存，有人因此失去生命，但疫情似乎没完没了。尽管未来存在不确定性，但在应对各自面临的挑战时，中美两国的处理方式截然不同，这是一个关于两种治理体系的故事——一个成功，另一个艰难挣扎。

 

Their differences notwithstanding, it's now critical that the two countries work together where their respective national interests overlap³ bilaterally⁴ and through the rules-based international order. Our lives and our very existence depend upon it.

尽管中美存在分歧，但现在至关重要的是两国在国家利益重叠的方面，通过双边和基于规则的国际秩序进行合作。我们的生活和生存都取决于此。

 

When I think about this tale of two systems, I am drawn⁵ to the memorable⁶ opening of A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness." Which perfectly⁷ encapsulates the contrasting models.

当我想到这个故事时，我回想起《双城记》里令人难忘的开头，“这是一个最好的时代，也是一个最坏的时代；这是一个智慧的年代，这是一个愚蠢的年代”，这句话完美地概括了两种截然不同的模式。

 

Of course, there have been missteps on both sides as is inevitable⁸ in a mega-pandemic situation. However, one side quickly activated⁹ its whole of government approach to address and contain the crisis . The other side, with then US president Donald Trump¹⁰ in command, went in a totally different direction: denial and obfuscation¹¹. One leader put his people first, the other put himself first.

当然，双方都有失误，这在全球性大流行病面前是不可避免的。然而，一方整个政府迅速采取行动，解决和遏制危机。另一方在时任美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的指挥下，走向了完全不同的方向：否认和混淆视听。

 

Trump's mantra was and remains¹² "America first". Thanks to him, when it comes to COVID-19, the US was, and is, first in the number of infections and deaths.

特朗普过去和现在的口号仍然是“美国至上”。多亏了他，新冠疫情暴发后，美国是感染者和死亡人数最多的国家。

 

According to worldometers.info, the US has recorded more than 65 million cases and nearly 900,000 deaths, while China, with four times the population of the US, has an accumulated 135,000 cases and about 5,700 deaths.

根据“世界实时数据统计”网站，美国登记在册的确诊病例数超过6500万，死亡病例近90万。而中国人口是美国人口的4倍，中国累计确诊病例135000例，死亡约5700人。

 

Notably¹³, the next country in number of cases to the US is China's neighbor, India, with its population similar to China's but with 270 times the number of cases and 85 times the number of deaths. India, like the US, seems to value politics over human lives.

值得注意的是，确诊病例数量仅次于美国的国家是中国的邻国印度，其人口与中国相似，但确诊数是中国的270倍，死亡人数是中国的85倍。印度和美国一样，似乎更重视政治而非人命。

 

Why such a disparity? The night and day difference arises from divergent governance models. Those who have no experience of China may be skeptical¹⁴ of China's whole-process democracy but my observation－as one living in China－is that the statistics speak for themselves.

为什么会出现如此大的差距？鲜明的对比来自于不同的治理模式。那些没来过中国的人可能会对中国的全过程民主持怀疑态度，但作为一个生活在中国的人，据我观察，统计数据就是很好的说明。

 

The results are not accidental. In China, leaders are carefully promoted, according to their performance and achievements, to increasing levels of responsibility. Starting from the smallest village, cadres who cannot cut it, don't advance. The Peter principle of being promoted beyond competence¹⁵ doesn't exist in the Communist Party of China's model. Instead, at every stage, advancement¹⁶ is based on results.

这些结果不是偶然的。在中国，领导者凭借他们的表现和成绩得到慎重提拔。从最小的村庄开始，不能胜任的干部就不会晋升。在中国共产党的模式中，不存在不能胜任的人被提拔的“彼得原理”。相反，在每个阶段，晋升都是基于成就。

 

By contrast, the US political system is broken. Trump may have been the last straw that broke the camel's back but the system has long been flawed. When I was in government more than four decades ago, the divisions were there and growing, but leaders from both parties worked together for the good of the country. Now, this rarely happens.

相比之下，美国的政治制度已经崩溃。特朗普可能是压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草，但这个系统长期以来一直存在缺陷。四十多年前我在美国政府工作时，两党分歧已经存在，而且越来越大，但两党领袖为了国家利益还能合作。现在，这种情况很少发生。

 

The United States today is split right down the middle and most of the two parties' energy is wasted on neutralizing¹⁷ the other side. Trump supporters storming the Capitol was the inevitable result.

今天的美国正处于分裂状态，两党的大部分精力都浪费在了否决另一方上。特朗普的支持者冲进国会大厦是不可避免的结果。

 

With this legacy¹⁸, an effective COVID-19 response still eludes¹⁹ the US despite President Joe Biden's best efforts. He faces continued opposition²⁰ to mandates²¹ and scientifically-dictated measures such as requiring vaccinations²² or workplace testing.

在这些遗留问题下，尽管乔·拜登总统尽了最大努力，但美国仍然没能采取有效防疫措施。他的疫苗接种令、工作场所核酸检测等强制命令和科学措施都遭到持续反对。

 

It appears from the oral arguments before the US Supreme²³ Court on Jan 7 that Biden's initiatives will be thwarted－and COVID-19 fatalities²⁴, many preventable, could cross 1 million.

从1月7日美国最高法院的口头辩论来看，拜登的倡议将会受阻，新冠肺炎死亡病例可能会超过100万（其中许多本可以避免）。

 

Science in US has been politicized

科学在美国已经政治化

 

Science in the US has become politicized and weaponized. The mantra "follow the science" has been replaced by "follow the money". More and more, the American model serves the top 1 percent, which is the polar opposite of China's development philosophy of "common prosperity".

科学在美国已经变成政治工具。“追随科学”的口号已被“追随金钱”取代。美国模式越来越多地服务于最顶层的百分之一，这与中国“共同富裕”的发展理念截然相反。

 

Many see China's zero-tolerance infection policy as draconian²⁵, but the results speak for themselves. In public policy, there are rarely right answers, only least bad ones. Most countries faced with killing²⁶ their economies or killing their people opted²⁷ for the former at the expense of the latter. China was the exception.

许多人认为中国的零容忍感染政策过于严苛，但结果说明一切。公共政策很少有标准答案，只有坏处最少的答案。大多数国家在面对牺牲经济还是牺牲人民的问题时都会选择前者，牺牲后者。中国是个例外。

 

But China found the elusive²⁸ sweet spot with a small number of deaths but an annual real GDP growth of 2.3 percent in 2020, compared with the US which saw many more deaths and registered a yearly growth of-3.5 percent.

但中国找到了一个很难实现的平衡点，中国的新冠肺炎死亡病例很少，但2020年的年实际GDP增长率为2.3%，而美国死亡人数更多，GDP年增长率为负3.5%。

 

As such, there is no need for China to quickly change its policy, First, had China relaxed its measures and the infections reached the global average level, the country would have more than 47 million people infected and 950,000 dead, according to China's top epidemiologist Wu Zunyou.

因此，中国没有必要迅速改变当前政策。首先，据中国疾控中心流行病学首席专家吴尊友称，如果中国放松防疫措施，感染率达到全球平均水平，中国将有超过4700万人感染，95万人死亡。

 

Second, China is on track to develop new vaccines²⁹, which can better protect against the novel coronavirus and new variants³⁰.

其次，中国正在研发新疫苗，可以更好地预防新冠病毒及其新变异毒株。

 

Third, pathogens do not observe national borders and until most of the people in the world are vaccinated³¹, mutant strains, some even more lethal³², will keep emerging and infecting more and more people.

第三，病原体不受国界限制，在世界上大多数人接种疫苗之前，突变株（有些甚至更致命）将不断出现并感染越来越多的人。

 

In fact, some scientists say the novel coronavirus is mild compared with what could come next. For example, the Nipah virus that recently broke out in India, although not nearly as transmissible, has a 50-75 percent mortality rate and no cure. There is a need therefore to look beyond COVID-19 and national borders to prevent future pandemics.

事实上，一些科学家表示，与未来可能出现的病毒相比，新冠病毒可能是温和的。例如，最近在印度暴发的尼帕病毒，虽然不易传播，但致死率为50-75%，而且无法治愈。因此，有必要以超越新冠病毒和国界的眼光来预防未来的流行病。

 

The World Health Organization is the global coordinator³³ for public health but it is vastly underfunded.

世界卫生组织是全球公共卫生协调员，但资金严重不足。

 

There is a hope-raising precedent³⁴ for cooperation, though. Smallpox³⁵, which killed more than 300 million people in the 20th century alone, was eradicated³⁶ at the height of the Cold War because of US-Soviet Union cooperation.

不过，历史上出现过让人充满希望的合作先例。由于美国和苏联的合作，仅在20世纪就造成3亿多人死亡的天花在冷战高峰期被根除。

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why the US and China don't do the same to contain COVID-19, especially because they are capable of providing the leadership to pull this off, saving lives, rescuing economies and building mutual³⁷ confidence again.

我怎么也想不明白，为什么美国和中国不采取同样的措施来遏制疫情，尤其是因为他们有能力发挥领导作用，终结疫情，拯救生命，拯救经济，重建互信。

 

Recent developments have made me pessimistic, but I am optimistic that such necessary cooperation would be possible if only one side shows the courage to take the first step.

最近的事态发展使我感到悲观，但我乐观地认为，只要一方拿出勇气迈出第一步，这种必要的合作是可能的。

点击收听单词发音