美国是否参加世博会无关中国颜面
王冲
上海世博会的脚步越来越近，然而，美国，这个世界上最富有的国家之一，却还未拍板是否参加。
国内媒体大都语焉不详地说：美国有关方面为“是否应该参加世博会”而头疼，“在美国陷入金融危机的情况下，美方参会组织者们正为搭建国家展馆的费用而发愁”。
其实，截至2008年年底，确认参展的国家和国际组织达到229个，无需查看参展国家目录就可以知道，这些国家至少有半数以上财力不及美国。据了解，美国馆大约需要6500万美元的经费，这对于一个国民生产总值达13万亿美元的大国来说，对于一个总统大笔一挥拿出7000亿美元救市的国家来说，可谓九牛一毛。
可见，缺钱不是理由。有报道称，上海市政府于去年12月向美方提出，愿意提供一笔无息贷款以支持美国公司完成展馆的“技术性工作”。其实，这也大可不必，谁都知道，美国比中国更有钱。
那么，美国为什么在世博会建馆问题上为钱发愁呢？
首先，这和美国的体制有关。美国政府要花钱，需要过国会这一关，而对于世博会，美国国会不是特别感兴趣，只是授权国务院负责筹办，却不肯拨款。国务院无奈之余，只好授权私人公司筹集6500万美元的场馆建设费用。其用意明显：你们能找来足够的钱，就参展；如果不能，那我们也没有办法，只好放弃。
这也是美国的一惯作为——政府不介入太多具体和钱财有关的事务，慈善组织、基金会等NGO在社会生活中发挥着巨大的作用。甭说是明年的上海世博会，就是1984年的洛杉矶奥运会，筹委会也只是从政府那里领到可怜兮兮的100万美元的启动资金，然后采取商业运作方式，办成了当年的奥运会.
从更深层次看，美国对世博会不热心，和其传统有关。美国人有着奉行孤立主义的传统，只关注自家那一亩三分地，对外部世界关注不多，尽管二战后大有改观，但整体而言，美国人还是笃信“一切政治都是地方的”，国会的议员们更是只关心自己本地区的利益，对世博会拨款自然不会赞成。
值得注意的是，有媒体揪住美国筹资困难、不能及时确定是否参加世博会而发出不恰当的言论。美联社的报道称，“如果美国缺席，中国会把此看成脸上挨了耳光”。中国的专家也说，美方担心此举将伤害中美双边关系，也可能打击美国对中国的商业投资兴趣。
仔细解读这两句话，会发现其中值得玩味的地方。美国缺席，不是打中国耳光，而是“中国看成挨耳光”；美国不参加，不是会损害中美关系，而是“美方担心会损害中美关系”。
这两句话透露出的内涵是：美国是否参加世博会，对他们来说不是重要的事情；而对中国来说，则特别重要。这种不对等的看法，势必会造成不必要的矛盾。
其实，美国是否参加，和世博会的成功与否没有必然联系，也和中国的脸面问题没有太大联系。
对于世博会，美国人一直不是特别热衷。日本爱知世博会举办时，美国国会也是不肯作为，最后丰田美国公司的前总裁道格拉斯•韦斯特出马，拉来赞助，美国馆才得以问世。2000年的德国汉诺威世博会上，德国人设计了“新世界崛起”的主题，181个国家参会，可没有美国的身影。再往前翻，1992年，西班牙举办世博会，同时纪念哥伦布发现新大陆500周年，给美国预留了一个特别好的位置，可美国国会拒绝提供2400万美元的场馆建设费，最后，只好凑合建设了一个普通场馆，被人取笑。
其实，美国参不参加世博会，无关中国面子和中美关系，而是有关潜在的商业利益。如《大西洋月刊》的评论所言，1964年的纽约世博会宣示了美国的科技优势，而2010年的上海世博会，主角无疑是经济腾飞的中国。如果美国“缺席”，人们会怎么理解美国目前的国际地位？上海世博会比这些年在其他国家举办的世博会意义重要得多，因为这是由世界第三大经济体的最大城市举办的。如果不参加，将伤害美方在中国的利益。
This is a very insightful article by Mr. Chong Wang of the People’s Daily. It is one of the best press accounts, in the U.S. as well as in China. A few issues call for elaboration from an American point of view.
First, in the U.S., the Government does not build pavilions. In modern Expos, private producers build America’s pavilions. In the recent past, the Government provided the funding. But this time, as Mr. Chong relates, the U.S. Congress has not authorized the State Department to pay for a pavilion. In the case of the Shanghai Expo, the producers — not the US State Department (herein translated as the “State Council” — have been made responsible for raising private funding, an impossible condition they should never have accepted.
Second, while the deep reason for this probably has to do with America’s historical exclusionary tendencies, in this case there is a specific locus of responsibility: the George W. Bush Administration. In 2006, the Bush Administration developed a still secret Action Plan that apparently made it official policy not to ask Congress to fund the Shanghai Expo, even though the U.S. Government verbally agreed to attend the Expo. The policy may have roots in America’s 2005 Aichi Expo debacle, so well described in this article by Chong Wang.
Because in America, private producers create U.S.pavilions, there can be more than one contending for the privilege — and indeed there are. The BH&L Group to which I belong is one — a nonprofit association of world-class Expo veterans and China experts. We have fought hard for the past two years for the right to create the U.S. pavilion for precisely the reasons that Chong Wang provides in his article. We firmly believe that good US-China relations are key to the world’s economic recovery, fighting climate change, creating a sustainable urban ecology, promoting global security, and other essential goals.
The approach of the current team, which has reportedly alienated commercial interests in China and the U.S., has also produced political frustration in both countries. We have approached the U.S. Government with alternative pavilion plans that are more economic and more state-of-the-art than the current team’s. We hope for a resolution of the current impasse that will involve us and other Americans — among the grassroots as well among the experts — who share our passion for U.S.-China goodwill and for the very best U.S. presence at the Shanghai Expo. There are many: those who want to contribute expertise and those who want to give $10, $25, or $50 of very precious cash. All of us now must wait and see how the U.S. Government, under a new leadership, will treat our offers. There isn’t much time. The Shanghai Expo opens in less than a year.
We welcome a dialogue with Chinese counterparts, including the perceptive Mr. Wang, who also long for a different U.S. policy and solution. Readers of People’s Daily and Watch America can learn more by visiting our BH&L Group website and our BH&L Group Facebook Page. Thank you. See you in Shanghai!
Robert Jacobson, PhD
Core Team, BH&L Group
Santa Monica, California USA