泛北论坛英汉翻译练习16.doc

泛北论坛英汉翻译练习16学号： 姓名： 班级： 评分：Put the following into Chinese:Towards Making China a Close Partner: CAFTA and the Pan-BeibuGulf Economic Cooperation InitiativeA Presentation to the 2nd Pan-Beibu Gulf Economic Cooperation Forum26-27 July 2007Nanning, ChinaByJosef T. Yap, Mario C. Feranil and Mari-Len Reyes-Macasaquit Dr. Josef T. Yap is the President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) while Mr. Mario C. Feranil is concurrently the Officer in Charge of the Office of the Vice President and Director for Research Services. Ms. Mari-Len Reyes-Macasaquit is a Research Associate at PIDS. The research assistance of Ms. Fatima del Prado is gratefully acknowledged.A reconfiguration of the world economic order is unfolding. While a fair, equitable, and efficient global economic system is the ultimate goal, regionalism is proving to be the beacon that will get us there. The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the European Union (EU) are the pathfinders to this regional configuration, but the impending creation of an East Asian Community will prove to be the biggest bloc yet in terms of population and market size. Yet at this point, the process of establishing an East Asian Economic Community is still at its early stages. To achieve this goal, a number of issues, not all of them economic, will have to be resolved. Politically, this process is being pursued primarily via the ASEAN and the ASEAN + 3 initiative, which involves the ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the powerhouse countries from the Northeast, Japan, China and Korea. Economic building blocks are meanwhile characterized by a multi-layered structure involving a myriad of efforts by different partnership arrangements: bilateral, trilateral or sub-regional. Whatever form they come, these cooperative arrangements are considered to play a catalytic role towards accelerating East Asian regionalism. Trends and Progress of Economic Integration in the East Asian RegionEast Asian economic integration and regional cooperation has been experiencing an upswing in the past decade. The experiences and lessons from the 1997 financial crisis in the region; the stalled multilateral trade talks in the Doha round of the WTO; the increasing strength of the EU and the success of NAFTA as regional blocs; the rising magnitude of intra-regional trade and investment; the mitigation of political factors that hampered closer cooperation in the past; and the rapid economic expansion of China that makes East Asia a more viable market proved to be the raison dtre for this phenomenon. Moreover, the proposal that East Asia must reduce its external dependence in terms of exports and anchor its economic growth more on regional demand to stabilize the regional, even global, economy is a centripetal force that pushes the economies in the region more closely. By itself, ASEAN integration is progressing albeit not in an accelerated pace. Due to various reasons peculiar to the nations of Southeast Asia, ASEAN could not yet make substantial headway when it comes to economic integration. This led to three major responses to address these constraints namely, expand efforts in order to deepen integration among ASEAN member countries, which was the thrust of the Vientiane Action Plan of 2004 The Vientiane Action Plan, 2004-2010 explicitly states that “the overall strategy for realizing the ASEAN Economic Community involves deepening and broadening economic integration in the product and factor markets, and accelerating the integration process towards a single market and production base,” thus calling for the intensification of “current economic cooperation initiatives and measures targeted for completion on or before 2010 and implement new ones to accelerate integration in the eleven priority sectors, as recommended by the High Level Task Force (HLTF) on ASEAN Economic Integration, which is attached to the Bali Concord II.” ; explore the creation of sub-regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs); and, engage to a larger extent Japan, China and Korea in the process of eventually pursuing an East Asia Free Trade Area, which according to experts may be the most feasible bloc in terms of regionalism. The latter is being based on the existing ASEAN+3 sub-regional arrangement. Data show that from ASEAN 10 to ASEAN+3 intra-regional trade jumps from 28% to 39% (2005 figures). Official figures likewise place Japan, China and Korea amongst the top major markets and suppliers of ASEAN.Table 1. Intra Regional Trade Share, 1990-2005 in percent19901995200020012002200320042005ASEAN10 +633.740.840.540.641.342.843.343.4East Asia 1543.151.952.151.753.755.656.155.6Emerging East Asia32.939.140.640.943.145.045.345.6ASEAN+329.437.637.337.137.939.439.639.2NIEs-411.915.515.514.915.515.014.413.7ASEAN1018.824.024.724.124.427.627.628.1SAARC2.73.93.94.34.85.65.24.8Central Asia7.27.26.25.36.45.8NAFTA37.943.148.849.148.447.346.445.0MERCOSUR10.919.220.317.913.614.715.215.0EU-1566.264.262.362.262.563.062.260.1EU-2567.067.466.867.267.868.668.066.2Source of Basic Data: IMF Direction of Trade, September 2006 ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations, EU = European Union, MERCOSUR = Mercado Comon del Sur, NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement, NIEs = newly industrializing economies, SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, % = percent Source of Basic Data: IMF Direction of Trade, September 2006 (a) Intraregional trade share is defined as: Xii /(Xi. + X.i)/2 where Xii is exports of region i to region i, Xi. is total exports of region i to the world, and X.i is exports of the world to region i. (b) East Asia-15 includes Emerging East Asia-14 and Japan. Emerging East Asia-14 includes ASEAN+2 countries; Hong Kong, China; and Taipei,China. (c) ASEAN 10 includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. (d) ASEAN10 +3 includes ASEAN 10 plus Peoples Republic of China, Japan and Republic of Korea. (e) ASEAN10+6 includes ASEAN+3 plus Australia, India and New Zealand. (f) NIEs4 includes Hong Kong, China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taipei,China. (g) EU15 includes Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom. (h) EU25 includes EU15 plus Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Computed from IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics, CD-ROM and CEIC database. Meanwhile, it is also worth mentioning that one of the strengths of an East Asian economic bloc is the magnitude of its production networks. Much of the growth in intra-regional trade among its nations is attributable to intra-industry growth accruing for 75% of total trade growth in East Asia between the years 1996 and 2000, the largest among major regions. Source: World Economic Outlook, 2002, IMF Chapter III table 3.8 as cited by Chow, et. al. (2005) and lifted from PIDS, 2007Still, the road towards East Asian regionalism is fraught with hurdles. Issues such as the prevalence of high transactions costs on trade compliance requirements; heterogeneity of the countries in the region in terms of economic and financial market developments, monetary and political systems, not to mention social and economic development gap; and, the so called noodle bowl syndrome characterized by the proliferation of preferential trade agreements that may complicate harmonization requirements in the future are current stumbling blocks. However, these bilateral and sub-regional trade agreements themselves may reveal to be the building blocs for the evolution of an East Asian Community. As cited by some experts, such engagement may play a positive role in the development of bilateralism through its construction of a sub-structural or base of international relations from which regional links may build. A more manageable regional bloc could already resolve major issues directly or indirectly affecting East Asian integration aside from being able to set up the basic structure, principles, contents, and relationships for the larger grouping. It is in this regard that the China-ASEAN sub-regional grouping is proving to be a trailblazer.同中国建立密切的合作伙伴关系：有关中国-东盟自由贸易区乔瑟夫 T. 雅普博士是菲律宾发展研究所所长。马里奥 C. 弗拉尼尔先生是副所长办公室官员兼研究服务部主任。玛丽-伦蕾丝-马卡萨基女士是菲律宾发展研究所（PIDS）的研究合作人。感谢研究助理法蒂娜 德尔 普拉多女士的协助。和泛北部湾地区经济合作的倡议在第二届泛北部湾经济合作论坛上的发言2007年7月26-27日中国 南宁由乔瑟夫 T. 雅普，马里奥 C. 弗拉尼尔和玛丽-伦蕾丝-马卡萨基发表世界经济秩序正处于不断演变的重组之中。然而建立一个公平、公正、高效的全球经济体系将是最终的目标。事实证明区域政策会像灯塔一样指引我们达到这个目标。北美自由贸易区（NAFTA）和欧盟（EU）是这种区域性结构的开创者，但即将建立的东亚共同体将成为在人口及市场规模方面最大的组织。然而，目前建立东亚经济共同体的进程还停留在初级阶段。为了达到这个目标，很多问题有待解决，而且并不是所有问题都是经济方面的。在政治方面，这一进程主要通过东盟和东盟+3倡议实现，其中包括东南亚国家联盟的10个成员国和东北部实力强大的日本、中国和韩国。经济大厦的搭建是具有多层结构的，涉及各式各样的不同的伙伴关系：双边的，三边的或次区域性的。不论采用哪种形式，这些合作关系对加快东亚的区域化都起到了催化的作用。东亚地区经济一体化的趋势与发展东亚经济一体化和区域性合作在过去的十年持续增长。1997年这一地区有金融危机的经验与教训；世贸组织(WTO)多哈回合谈判中多边贸易对话陷入僵局；欧盟实力的不断增强和作为区域性组织的北美自由贸易区（NAFTA）取得了巨大成功；本区域内贸易和投资幅度的不断加大；过去由于政治因素而妨碍密切合作的问题得到缓和； 中国经济的迅速扩张已成为东亚市场更具活力的因素；因此，有人提出，东亚必须减少对外部的依赖，通过出口和稳固经济在区域性需求方面的增长，以稳定区域甚至是全球经济。这一提议将是推动区域内经济走得更近的一种向心力。就其本身来说，东盟一体化本身的进程速度并不快。由于东南亚国家种种特殊的原因，东盟的经济一体化还未能取得实质性的进展。与此对应的解除这些制约的三种主要的药方：一是努力深化东盟成员国之间的一体化，这也是2004年万象行动计划的重点万象行动计划，2004-2010年明确指出，“实现东盟经济共同体的整体策略包括深化和拓宽产品及生产要素市场，加快一体化进程，形成单一的市场和生产基地”，因此，呼吁加强“当前经济合作的倡议和措施，在2010年或之前完成并实施新的举措以加快11个优先领域的整合。以上是由高层专责小组(HLTF)在巴厘第二协约中对东盟的经济一体化所提的建议。” 。探索建立次区域及双边自由贸易协定（FTAs）；以及让日本、中国和韩国在最终建立东亚自由贸易区的进程中发挥更大的作用。据专家介绍，这将是最为可行的区域性组织。后者是建立在东盟10+3次区域结构之上的。数据表明从东盟10到东盟10+3区域内贸易额由28%跃至39%。（2005年数据）。官方数据同样显示日本、中国和韩国已成为东盟最主要的市场和供应国。表1. 区域内部贸易份额, 1990-2005 百分比表示19901995200020012002200320042005东盟10 +633.740.840.540.641.342.843.343.4东亚1543.151.952.151.753.755.656.155.6东亚新兴地区32.939.140.640.943.145.045.345.6东盟+329.437.637.337.137.939.439.639.2新型工业经济区域-411.915.515.514.915.515.014.413.7东盟1018.824.024.724.124.427.627.628.1南亚区域合作联盟2.73.93.94.34.85.65.24.8中亚7.27.26.25.36.45.8北美自由贸易区37.943.148.849.148.447.346.445.0南方共同市场10.919.220.317.913.614.715.215.066.264.262.362.262.563.062.260.1欧盟-2567.067.466.867.267.868.668.066.2数据来源: 国际货币基金组织贸易统计指南, 2006年9月 欧盟-15 ASEAN = 东南亚国家联盟, EU = 欧盟, MERCOSUR = 南方共同市场,