悉尼先驱晨报 我们要不要全盘卖给中国

中国2000亿美元的主权基金正式成立十天了，澳大利亚公司已经被制定为这笔基金在西方世界最有可能的投资目标。因此，澳大利亚政治家要快速下决心：这最新的、最具争议性的国家控制投资基金是一个经济机遇还是一个战略威胁？

　　澳大利亚拥有世界级的资源和矿产公司，中国具有工业思想的领导人非常渴望持股。但当同样令人信服的投资目的地被除名，澳大利亚仍然留在购买名单上，理由是澳大利亚政治家没有以欧美对中国资本的普遍憎恶和恐惧作出反应。

　　霍华德政府一贯尽力令中国公司投资澳大利亚资源铺平道路。上周陆克文（Kevin Rudd）慎重地表示他将采取同样的办法。在商务午宴回答问题时，陆克文表示，对任何赢得大选的人来说，处理流入的中国投资将是一个“有趣的挑战”，但他拒绝采取“市场为基础的办法”并推迟对外商投资审核委员会（Foreign Investment Review Board）的政治敏感性提问。

　　两党领袖倾向于欢迎中国投资的简单理由在于他们要应对视中国崛起为好事的选民。上周悉尼大学的美国研究中心现实56%的澳大利亚人对中国持好感。罗伊研究所最近的民调显示了几乎相同的结果。

　　罗伊研究所的执行总监金杰尔（Allan Gyngell）表示，“对中国的态度非常热烈。对澳大利亚人而言，中国代表了机遇，而不是威胁。”这样的态度在几乎任何其他西方国家都是不可想象的。美国对中国投资的回应最为敌对，但欧洲似乎也朝同样的方向。

　　6月，皮尤研究中心的全球态度项目法向只有42%的美国人对中国持好感，而英国为49%，西班牙为43%，德国为34%，意大利为27%。而且那些数字都快速下降。在很大程度上，欧洲和美国对中国的反应是由经济恐惧推动的。65%的意大利人视中国经济增长为坏事。法国的数字为64%，德国的为55%。

　　发展中世界和澳大利亚的观点大致相同。石油丰富的尼日利亚有75%的人对中国抱好感，而两年前这个数字为59%。在中国经济增长的具体问题上，象牙海岸96%的受访者认为那是好事，马里和肯尼亚的数据分别是93%和91%。

　　中国领导人肯定困惑为什么他们国家在非洲的经济参与在欧美引起的争议比在非洲引起的争议要大得多。南美也明显有同样的趋势。皮尤报告显示南美国家视中国的经济影响力为好事，而欧美人却不这么认为。

　　在中国问题上，澳大利亚与非洲和南美的距离要比与传统欧美朋友的距离要近。为什么？因为澳大利亚、非洲和南美都从中国的经济觉醒中获得特别的矿业红利，而且制造业付出的代价小。而欧美国家没有从上升的商品价格中获得纯利，而且制造业面临一些非常明显的损失。

　　中国新生代的国家资本主义者没有什么投资外国的经验。他们犯了早期的错误——主要是低估政治对他们的投资的影响。

　　中国贸然购买美国私募公司黑石10%的非投票股份，引火烧身。其他国家控制的中国公司的主动也遭到美国的回绝。欧盟姿态最近也更强硬。欧盟经济及货币事务专员阿尔穆尼亚（Joaquin Almunia）最近向《金融时报》表示，“我们很有理由要求这些基金申明它们想要投资什么样的资产，它们决定投资时采用什么样的准则，以及它们的投资分布如何。”“如果它们不同意这些准则，我们在一些情况下就可以找到回应的好理由。”

　　澳大利亚的领袖应该为未来一年左右的一些苛刻问题做好准备。主权基有许多透明度问题，而且它们频频由爱保密的、专制的国家控制，令事情更加复杂。（作者 John Garnaut）

Should we sell out to the Chinese?

CHINA'S $US200 billion sovereign wealth fund is officially nine days old and Australian companies have already been earmarked as the fund's most likely investment targets in the Western world.

Australian politicians have therefore been placed on notice to fast make up their minds: is the newest and most controversial state-controlled investment fund an economic opportunity or a strategic threat?

Credit Suisse speculated last week that Australia was second only to Russia on the fund's likely shopping list. In fact BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto (ranked two and six respectively) are the only Western companies anywhere in the Credit Suisse top 50 - even though the world's equity markets are dominated by companies in the United States and Europe.

Australia has world-class resources and mining companies that China's industrial-minded leaders are desperate to have a stake in. But the reason it has stayed on the list, when equally compelling investment destinations have been scratched, is that Australian politicians have not reacted with the reflexive fear and antipathy towards Chinese capital that has become common in the US and Europe.

The Howard Government has consistently gone out of its way to smooth the way for Chinese companies to invest in Australian resources. Last week Kevin Rudd cautiously signalled he would take the same approach. Answering questions at a business lunch, Rudd said managing an influx of Chinese investment would be "an interesting challenge" for whoever won the election, but he was inclined to take a "market-based approach" and defer questions of political sensitivity to the Foreign Investment Review Board.

The simple reason leaders on both sides of politics have tended to welcome Chinese investment is that they are answerable to an electorate that views China's economic rise as a good thing. Last week Sydney University's US Studies Centre showed 56 per cent of Australians held a favourable opinion of China. A recent Lowy Institute poll showed an almost identical result.

"Attitudes to China are very warm," says Allan Gyngell, executive director of the Lowy Institute. "To Australians, China represents an opportunity, not a threat." Such attitudes are inconceivable in almost any other Western country. Reaction to Chinese investment has been most hostile in the US but it seems that Europe is headed in the same direction.

In June, the Pew Research Centre's Global Attitudes Project found just 42 per cent of Americans had a "favourable" view of China, compared with 49 per cent in Britain, 43 per cent in Spain, 34 per cent in Germany and 27 per cent in Italy. And those figures are falling fast.

Says the Pew report: "Since 2005, favourable ratings for China have fallen 18 points in Spain, 16 points in Great Britain, 12 points Germany and 11 points in France."

In large part, the European and American reaction against China is driven by economic fear. Sixty-five per cent of Italians view China's economic growth as a bad thing. The figure is 64 per cent in France and 55 per cent in Germany.

The view from the developing world - plus Australia - could not be more different.

In oil-rich Nigeria, 75 per cent of people view China favourably, up from 59 per cent two years ago. On the specific question of China's economic growth, 96 per cent of respondents in Ivory Coast think it is a good thing, as do 93 per cent in Mali and 91 per cent in Kenya.

It must bemuse China's leaders that their country's economic involvement in Africa is far more controversial in the US and Europe than it is in Africa itself.

Similar trends are evident in South America.

"South American countries view China's economic influence as a good thing, whereas the Europeans and Americans do not," says the Pew report.

When it comes to China, Australia stands alongside Africa and South America rather than its traditional friends in the US and Europe. Why? Because Australia, Africa and South America have received an extraordinary mining industry dividend from China's economic awakening, but few of the manufacturing costs. In resource-rich countries the benefits of China's rise are plainly visible on the sharemarket, in government revenue and ultimately in more jobs and rising wages. Europe and the US receive no net dividend from rising commodity prices but their manufacturing industries face some very visible losses.

China's new generation of state capitalists have little experience in sending their money abroad. They have made early mistakes - mainly by underestimating the political impact of their investments.

The China Investment Corporation, entrusted with initial endowments of $US200 billion ($222 billion) in foreign exchange reserves, was badly burnt when it rushed out to buy a 10 per cent non-voting share of the American private equity firm Blackstone. Other state-controlled Chinese companies have had their overtures rebuffed in the US.

The European Union has recently hardened its stance.

"We have good reasons to ask these funds to declare what kind of assets they want to invest in, what criteria they apply to decide their investments, and what the distribution of their investments is," Joaquin Almunia, the EU's commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, recently told the Financial Times.

"If they don't agree to these criteria, we can find good reasons to react in some cases."

Australia's leaders should be prepared for some tough questions in the next year or so. Sovereign funds carry many of the transparency problems shared by private equity, with the added complication that they are frequently controlled by secretive, authoritarian states.

Should they be bound by special investment rules? Would it be un-Australian to sell a large slice of BHP Billiton to China?