當分裂主義者分裂--賽蒙德的回歸

When separatists separate 

MARCH 31, 2021

The return of Alex Salmond賽蒙德的回歸

The former leader of the Scottish National Party has a new party, and some radical ideas for independence

前蘇格蘭民族黨魁另創新黨，並提出更激進的獨立思想

MARCH 31, 2021

SUCCESSFUL POLITICAL parties are coalitions, and the Scottish National Party’s has been expansive. Over the years it has been divided on Europe, NATO and devolution. It has lured those who dream of a socialist Scotland, and those who think it can be a low-tax rival to Ireland. Young Scandiphiles rub elbows with old Anglophobes. Electoral success and growing support for independence have bound it together.

成功的政黨是聯盟，蘇格蘭民族黨（SNP）就一直在擴張。多年來，黨內就歐洲、北約和權力下放議題一直有歧見。它吸引夢想蘇格蘭成為社會主義國度者，也吸引認為蘇格蘭能在低稅率上與愛爾蘭競爭的人。年輕的親北歐者與年老的仇英者互相來往。選舉的成功與支持獨立者日增，把該黨結合在一起。

On March 26th, the party split. Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon’s predecessor as first minister and its leader in the independence referendum of 2014, announced that he was leading a new party, called Alba. The Scottish Parliament’s electoral system comprises constituency and list seats, and is geared to stop one party becoming too powerful. Mr Salmond would like independence supporters to game this system, and back the SNP with one vote and Alba with the other, to create a parliament with a “supermajority” for independence.

3月26日，蘇格蘭民族黨分裂。該黨主席史特金的前任、領導2014年獨立公投的薩蒙德宣布，正在領導新政黨阿爾巴（Alba）。蘇格蘭議會的選舉制度由區域席次和不分區席次構成，旨在阻止一黨獨大。薩蒙德會希望支持獨立者鑽選制漏洞，一票支持蘇格蘭民族黨，另一票支持阿爾巴黨（Alba），建立一個獨立派占「絕對多數」的議會。

To many, it looks like revenge. Last year Mr Salmond was tried and acquitted on charges of sexual assault against ten women. He accused Ms Sturgeon’s inner circle of a political plot to have him jailed, and he is suing the Scottish government over its handling of complaints against him. She doubts his fitness for office.

對許多人來說，這舉動看似報仇。去年薩蒙德因被控對十名婦女性侵害受審，而後無罪釋放。他指控史特金圈內人設下政治陰謀構陷他入獄，正控告蘇格蘭政府對他的投訴處理不當。她懷疑他不適任公職。

But Mr Salmond is also prising open a growing fissure in the SNP over how to achieve independence. Under the Scotland Act which governs devolution, the union is the preserve of Westminster. The referendum of 2014 took place after the British government granted a legal instrument, known as a Section 30 order. Persuading Boris Johnson to do so again is Ms Sturgeon’s strong preference; only if a referendum is recognised in London will it result in exit negotiations and statehood. Otherwise, it is a dead end.

但是，薩蒙德也表示，SNP在如何實現獨立方面，敲開一個不斷增長的裂縫。在政府權力下放的《蘇格蘭法》，統一是屬英國國會的「保留事項」。 2014年的公投是在英國政府根據第30條命令授予合法下進行。說服強生固態重施是史特金的強烈偏好。只有在公投得到倫敦的認可，才能導致脫離協商和建國。否則，這是一個死局。

Many nationalists are sick of waiting, and are toying with more radical options. Mr Salmond has offered himself as their leader. A big nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament would be a “mandate to negotiate”, he argues. “It is a fundamental mistake to put forward the Section 30 as the Holy Grail.” He cites the “velvet divorce” that split Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s as an example of a break-up that was preceded by an election, rather than a referendum. He won’t be pinned to a strategy, but says options could include a plebiscite organised by the Scottish Parliament, securing international pressure, a constitutional convention of lawmakers or demonstrations.

許多民族主義者厭倦等待，並在玩弄更激進的選項。薩蒙德主動擔任他們的領袖。他的論點是，民族主義者若在蘇格蘭議會取得多數，就有如「民意授權談判」。 他主張「提出第30條命令作為聖盃是個根本的錯誤。」他舉1990年代初讓捷克斯洛伐克分裂的「天鵝絨革命」為例，來說明在該分裂之前舉行的是選舉，而不是公投。他不會拘泥於戰略，但他說方案可以包括蘇格蘭議會組織的全民公投、確保國際壓力、立法者的立憲大會或示威遊行。

Two SNP members of parliament and a handful of councillors have defected to Mr Salmond’s new party, but he probably won’t force a major exodus at the ballot box. Some 79% of SNP voters say they have an unfavourable view of him, a similar figure to Tory voters.

兩名SNP國會議員和一小撮議員叛逃至薩蒙德的新政黨，但他可能不會迫使支持者在投票時大批出走。大約79％的SNP選民表示他們對他的看法不佳，這一數字與保守黨選民相似。

He could still find a niche. The SNP has become more Europhile since Brexit, and there is a split in the party over trans rights. Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh thinks he could win over socially conservative, pro-Brexit nationalists. Mr Salmond says he would like to attract working-class Scots who were animated by the referendum in 2014. The party has been held together by success, says Heinz Brandenburg of the University of Strathclyde: “Now, the cracks are just showing at the most inopportune moment.”

薩蒙德仍然可以找到定位。自英國脱歐以來，SNP變得更加偏歐，而黨內在跨性別權利上存在分歧。愛丁堡大學的艾希霍恩認為，他可以贏得社會保守主義者及支持脫歐的民族主義者選票。薩蒙德表示，他想吸引在2014年公投中活躍的蘇格蘭勞工階級。斯特拉斯克萊德大學的勃蘭登堡說，SNP往昔因成功而結合，「如今裂痕卻在最糟的時候顯現」。

Mr Salmond may cause more damage if he fails to find such a niche. Rather than creating a parliament stuffed with nationalists, Mr Salmond may fall short of winning seats, while also denying the SNP the list seats it needs to form an overall majority. The SNP strategy has long been to win the trust of suburban Scotland through cool-headedness. Alba may frighten away persuadable voters, says a veteran.

薩蒙德若找不到這種利基，可能弄巧成拙。不但不能建立一個充滿民族主義者的議會，薩蒙德反而可能未能贏得席位，同時剝奪SNP形成總體多數黨所需的席位。SNP戰略長久來贏得蘇格蘭郊區頭腦冷靜選民的信任。一位資深人士說，阿爾巴黨可能會嚇走易被說服的選民。

Some of Ms Sturgeon’s supporters are happy with the split. “He can have all the cranks that think we’ll win independence by hanging flags off bridges, and we’ll get on with speaking to the people we need to persuade,” says one. “I’ve never had a colonic irrigation but I imagine this is what it feels like.” Mr Johnson has several reasons to continue to refuse another independence referendum. Watching the once-disciplined nationalists scrap over strategy is a compelling one. ■

史特金的一些支持者樂見分裂。一位人士說：「就讓他挖走所有怪咖，那些人認為我們可以透過在橋上懸掛旗幟來贏得獨立。我們則會繼續勸說需要說服的人們。我從未灌過腸，但我想感覺大概就像這樣。」強森有許多理由繼續拒絕另一場獨立公投，其中一個難以抗拒的理由，就是觀望曾經自律的民族主義者因為策略而鬧翻。 ■

動議駁回--藉冗長演說癱瘓議事是件怪事，並危害美國民主

 

Motion to dismiss 動議駁回

The filibuster is an oddity that harms American democracy 藉冗長演說癱瘓議事是件怪事，並危害美國民主

And it does not even stem from the constitution

而且它甚至不起源於憲法

---

Mar 13th 2021

In the aftermath of a mass shooting at a primary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, two senators introduced a modest measure to require background checks on all gun sales. Out of 100 senators, 54 voted to move ahead with it. In almost every parliament in the world, such a majority would be enough to ensure passage. In the Senate it meant defeat.

康乃狄克州紐敦的一所小學在2012年發生大規模槍擊案後，兩名參議員提出了一項溫和措施，要求在所有的槍枝銷售時調查背景。在100位參議員中，54位投票贊成通過法案。在世界上幾乎所有的議會中，這樣的多數就足以確保通過。但在參議院，這意味著失敗。

The men who framed America’s constitution intended the Senate as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Its present-day failure to pass bills supported by a majority of its members, though, was never any part of that original design. It is the result of what seems to have been a genuine error: a lack of fixed procedures for shutting down debate. That absence allowed minorities in the chamber to use various manoeuvres, most famously the filibuster, to block legislation a majority wishes to pass. Once onerous and used sparingly, subsequent changes to the rules have allowed these ruses to become routine, cost-free and all but ubiquitous. This has turned the Senate into the only legislative body in the world which requires a supermajority for ordinary business.

美國憲法制定者故意將參議院做為反對多數暴政的堡壘，它現今未能通過多數參議員支持的法案，即使這從來都不是原始設計的一部分，這個結果似乎是真正的錯誤：缺乏停止辯論的固定程序。這個缺陷使參院的少數黨可以採取各種人為操縱，最著名的就是冗長演說，用來阻撓多數黨希望通過的立法。這方法曾經繁瑣且很少使用，但隨後規則發生改變，使此策略變得常規化、無成本且幾乎無所不在。這使參議院成為世界上唯一對普通事務仍需要絕對多數決的立法機構。

The ability to filibuster could be abolished by a simple majority vote. But neither party has chosen this route. Instead, as the filibuster has become more routine, frustrated majorities have carved out various exceptions. Now that Democrats find that their unified control of Washington is insufficient for enacting the sweeping agenda of the Biden administration, further exceptions seem possible. But some requirements for supermajorities seem certain to stay.

簡單多數決可以廢除冗長演說阻撓議事的能力，但是沒有一黨選擇此路。取而代之的是，藉冗長演說阻撓議事變得愈來愈常態，沮喪的多數黨已排除各種例外。民主黨發現，他們在華盛頓的完全執政不足為拜登政府制定決定性的議程，似乎有可能有更多的例外。但是，對絕對多數決的一些要求看來肯定會延續。

The room where it doesn’t happen 不會出現的機會

Few have put the case against supermajorities better than Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of America’s constitution, who brought to the issue the impassioned frustration of one who had seen them in action. Reflecting on the way they had been used in the Congress created by the Articles of Confederation, he wrote in the Federalist Papers that “What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison.” Rather than protecting minorities, as its supporters claimed, “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

很少有人比美國憲法制定者漢彌爾頓（Alexander Hamilton）提出反對絕對多數決更好的論據，他提出激昂且接近行動的挫折引發討論。他在《聯邦論》寫到「乍看下是補救的措施，實際上是種毒藥」，反映對《邦聯條例》在國會被使用的方式的評價。比起支持者聲稱的「保護少數派」，其真正的舉動是使內閣尷尬，破壞政府的力量，並以輕挑的歡樂、反覆無常動盪或狡猾的腐敗群體，取代常態地縝密並尊重多數的決定。

He and his fellow framers saw the case for supermajorities in circumstances of great consequence—the constitution requires them for convicting impeached officials, overriding presidential vetoes, ratifying treaties and enacting constitutional amendments. They could have also written them in for other matters. They did not.

他和其他憲法制定者認為，在具有重大後果的情況下，絕對多數決是有理由的--憲法要求他們對彈劾的官員定罪、推翻總統否決權、批准條約並制定修憲。他們也可以寫在其他事項裡，他們沒有。

The filibuster was only rendered possible at all by a parliamentary housekeeping accident. In 1805 Aaron Burr (who, as a service to musical theatre, had killed Hamilton in a duel the previous year) recommended removing from the Senate rulebook the motion used to force the end of debates: it was thought redundant. It was only a few decades later that John C. Calhoun, a senator for South Carolina, realised that the absence of such a rule meant that debate could defer a vote indefinitely. After the civil war, organised filibusters—the term, an anglicisation of the Dutch vrijbuiter, meaning mercenary or privateer, denotes the way in which the tactic overthrows the normal order—became a recognised tactic. But they were used only for matters of great importance.

議事阻撓者僅是議會內部程序可能的意外。 1805年，伯爾（就像音樂劇所演的，他在前一年的決鬥中殺死漢彌爾頓）建議從參議院規則中刪去強制結束辯論的動議：這被認為是多餘的。僅僅幾十年後，南卡羅來納州參議員卡爾霍恩意識到，缺乏這類規則，意味著辯論可能會無限期推遲投票。內戰之後，有組織的議事阻撓者（此術語是荷蘭語英譯，意思是僱傭軍或武裝民船）表示這種推翻正常議程的方式，成為公認的策略。但是它們僅用於非常重要的事務。

Those 19th-century filibusters could run indefinitely. In 1917 the Senate created a way to cut them short: a “cloture” vote requiring a two-thirds majority (in 1975 this was reduced to three-fifths, which is 60 votes in today’s Senate). But a minority could still hold business hostage. And if it had enough votes to defeat a cloture motion it could block legislation.

那些19世紀的反對派可以無限期地阻撓議事。 1917年，參院創造一種方法縮短期限：終止討論需要「三分之二」的多數票（1975年將票數減至五分之三，在今日的參院為60票）。但是少數派仍然可以劫持重要事務。而且如果票數足以擊敗終止動議，將可能會阻礙立法。

The minority these rules ended up protecting was that of segregationists in the Senate. Their protection was achieved at the expense of the African-American minority in the country at large. From the end of the civil war to 1964 practically the only bills actually defeated by the filibuster were civil-rights legislation opposed by Southern Dixiecrats.

這些規則最終保護的少數派是參院的種族隔離主義者，對他們的保護以損害所有美國全體非裔少數族群為代價。從內戰結束到1964年，實際唯一遭到反對派阻撓的法案是遭南方民主黨人反對的民權法案立法。

The filibuster has changed since then. The “two-track system” created in 1970 allows the majority leader to consider more than one piece of legislation at a time. This has stopped filibusters from derailing all business, but has also reduced the public cost paid for using the device. Now the threat of a filibuster (known as a “hold”) chills the progress of any bill that seems unlikely to muster the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote. Such threats are now quotidian. “You can make it more difficult to pass a bill than it has ever been before. And you can do so with near total anonymity,” says Adam Jentleson, whose time as deputy chief of staff to Harry Reid, the Senate Democrats’ leader through much of the 2000s and 2010s, led him to entitle his book on the filibuster “Kill Switch”.

議事阻撓者自那時起發生變化。 1970年建立的「雙軌制」使多數黨領袖能一次審議多件法案。這不但阻止議事阻撓者使所有事務脫軌，也減少使用此策略時人民所支付成本。現在，議事阻撓者的威脅（或被稱為「僵持」）使任何總票數不太可能達60票以終止討論的法案進展心灰意冷。現在，這種威脅司空見慣，「你可能比以往任何時候都更難以通過法案。而且，你幾乎可以完全匿名地阻撓議事。」詹特森說，他在2000年代和2010年代大部分時間擔任參議院民主黨領袖瑞德的副手，使他將自己的著作命名為議事阻撓者的「緊急停止開關」。

Checks in a chequered history 查看盛衰多變的歷史

The recent increase in filibustering has been a bipartisan achievement. Both parties, when in the minority, have driven it forward—a ratcheting-up which both parties, when in the majority, have decried. During the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr Reid’s Democrats started to use the filibuster routinely to block nominations for cabinet secretaries and federal judges. A frustrated Mitch McConnell, then the Republicans’ majority whip, openly mulled changing the rules to allow simple majority votes: “What Senate Republicans are simply trying to do is get us back to the procedure that operated quite nicely for 214 years.” But Republican senators under Mr McConnell’s leadership took up the baton with gusto during Barack Obama’s presidency—and Democrats under Mr Reid and his successor, Chuck Schumer, outdid them during the tenure of Donald Trump.

近來頻繁的議事阻撓是兩黨的成就。兩黨在成為少數派時，都推動小幅推動進展—然後在成為多數派時譴責。在小布希總統任期時，瑞德的民主黨人開始常態地使用冗長演說來阻止內閣和聯邦法官的提名。時任多數派共和黨黨鞭麥康奈爾感到沮喪，公開考慮規則修改為採取簡單多數決：「參議院共和黨人單純想做的，就是讓我們回到順利運作214年的議程。「但是，在歐巴馬總統任期時，麥康奈爾興致勃勃地領導共和黨參議員傳接力棒。然後瑞德和他的繼任者舒默所領導下的民主黨，在川普任期內有過之而無不及。

Senators seeking to justify the filibuster say that it is an incentive for bipartisanship in matters of substance. There may have been some merit to that argument when the parties had real ideological overlap, with a smattering of East Coast Republicans further to the left than some Southern Democrats. Those days are gone. The median Republican senator has moved a long way to the right (see chart 2), creating a polarised legislature well suited to a political landscape where animosity towards the other side trumps everything else.

試圖證明議事阻撓正當性的參議員說，這是一種誘因，在最重要問題促進兩黨合作。這種說法可能有某些價值，當政黨之間存在真正的意識形態重疊時，少數東岸的共和黨人比一些南方民主黨人更偏左，但時過境遷。中間派共和黨參議員大大地向右偏移，建立了一個兩極化的立法機構，非常適合政治格局，對另一方的敵意勝過一切。

What is more, control of the Senate now swings back and forth. Between 1933 and 1979, the Senate was led by Democrats for all but four years. Since 2000 it has changed hands five times. Put together these changes create “less incentive to share hands and jump over the cliff together” says Sarah Binder, a professor at George Washington University. The rewards for stymieing the majority in the hopes of retaking the gavel in the next election cycle look (rationally) enticing. In these circumstances the filibuster operates as a convenient tool of partisan struggles, not as a helpful stimulus towards dealmaking. The Senate certainly does not seem much more genial and conciliatory than the current House of Representatives, which has no such parliamentary faff.

更重要的是，參院的控制權現在來回擺動。在1933年到1979年間，參院一直由民主黨人領導。自2000年以來，它的控制權轉移五次。喬治華盛頓大學教授賓德說，綜合這些變化創造出「降低人們牽手跳越過懸崖的動力」。為了在下一輪選舉中重掌大權，而阻礙多數黨的利益，其回報(理性上)看起來誘人。在這種情況下，執行議事阻撓是黨派鬥爭的便利工具，而不是對達成共識的有益誘因。參議院顯然沒有比現在的眾議院看起來更友好與和諧，但後者不用費勁地在議會裡講廢話。

As the filibuster has risen in use, so have threats to change the rules and impose simple majority votes (called “the nuclear option” in the overheated parlance of the day). In 2013 Mr Reid, then majority leader, launched a limited nuclear strike, eliminating the filibuster on presidential nominations other than those for the Supreme Court. Mr McConnell lamented this “power grab” as a “sad day in the history of the Senate”. But in 2017 the nukes flew again as Mr McConnell got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmations.

隨著議事阻撓使用增加，威脅要改變規則並強制實行簡單多數決（在當今熱門用語被稱為「核選項」）。 2013年，時任多數黨領袖瑞德發起了一次有限度的核攻擊，消除除大法官提名之外總統提名的議事阻撓障礙。麥康奈爾對這一「權力奪取」悲痛為「參議院史上的悲傷日」。但是在2017年核武器再次飛起來，作為麥康奈爾擺脫對大法官任命確認的議事阻撓。

Why did he not go further? One reason is that in the 1970s the Senate created a limited exception to the filibuster: reconciliation, which allows a bill to pass the Senate if its provisions are aimed at changing spending and taxes. This means that tax cuts, like the appointment of conservative judges, are rendered filibuster-proof. If he could provide both those things Mr McConnell was content to do little else; his forbearance reflected shrewdness more than deference to senatorial norms.

他為什麼不做更多？原因之一是在1970年代，參院創建議事阻撓的有限例外：和解程序，如果此條款旨在改變支出和稅收，那麼就可以允許法案通過參院。這意味著減稅就像任命保守派法官一樣，可以防止議事阻撓。如果這兩件事他都能做到，麥康奈爾就不願再做別的事。他的寬容反映出精明，而不是服從參議員的規範。

The status quo is less pleasing to Democrats. Their plans for dramatic climate action and curtailing income inequality fit poorly with reconciliation, if at all. They are also well aware that the nature of the Senate makes Republican filibusters doubly minoritarian because the states they represent tend to be less populated. The 41 Republican senators needed to defeat a cloture motion could, in principle, represent just 23% of the population.

這種現狀使民主黨人不太高興。他們極端氣候行動和縮減所得不平等的計畫與和解相去甚遠，如果可能發生的話。他們也很清楚參議院的本質，由於共和黨在參院所代表的州往往人口數較少，因此使共和黨議事阻撓的少數派為雙倍。原則上，需要41名共和黨參議員落空才能終止討論，但他們只代表總人口的23％。

The process of shoehorning President Joe Biden's covid-19 relief bill through the reconciliation process (which forced the shedding of a long-sought increase to the federal minimum wage) underscores this painful state of affairs for progressives. The stillborn bill to reform the immigration system and create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, introduced at the insistence of the Biden administration, will be another expedition doomed to a dead end.

總統拜登的新冠紓困法案藉由和解程序強行過關，這也迫使取消長期尋求增加聯邦最低工資條款，突顯出進步派議員痛苦的狀況。在拜登政府的堅持下提出的改革移民制度，為非法移民創造公民身份途徑的法案腹死胎中，將是注定失敗的另一次遠征。

This has produced new enthusiasm for going fully nuclear. When Mr McConnell, now in the minority again, recently tried to force Mr Schumer to guarantee that the filibuster would not be tampered with, Mr Schumer demurred. Mr Biden—in the past very much a traditionalist on Senate procedure—has not flatly ruled out abolition. But in practice it seems off the table. Two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have expressed their resistance to outright abolition in no uncertain terms. Pressed on the possibility by a reporter, Mr Manchin snapped back “Jesus Christ, what don’t you understand about ‘never’?”

這激發對全面發展核武器的熱情。當麥康奈爾（現又成為少數派）最近試圖迫使舒默保證議事阻撓不會被削弱時，舒默表示反對。拜登過去曾是參院程序的傳統派，但他並沒有斷然地排除廢除議事阻撓。實際上，這似乎是不可能的。兩名溫和派民主黨人--西維吉尼亞州的曼欽和亞利桑那州的希尼瑪--對徹底廢除表達反對。迫於記者對可能性逼問，曼欽回嗆：「天阿，你對『絕不』一無所知嗎？」

This leaves only the option of a further carve-out. The likeliest immediate crisis point will be a new voting-rights bill with which Democrats hope to head off Republicans’ efforts to amend state election laws. Because voting rights have little budgetary effect, the measure could not pass using reconciliation. The hope of reformers is to force a carve-out for certain genres of critical legislation (beginning with civil and voting rights) and try to expand its remit over time.

進一步開創是唯一留下的選項。眼前最可能的危機點將是一項新的投票權法案，民主黨希望藉此阻擋共和黨人修改州選舉法的努力。由於投票權的不影響預算，因此該條款無法利用和解程序通過。改革者的希望是強制開創某些類型的關鍵立法（從公民權和投票權開始），並嘗試隨著時間的推移擴大適用範圍。

Other reforms could temper the filibuster where it still applies—and might meet with Mr Manchin’s approval. Dr Binder suggests lowering the threshold for cloture from 60 votes to, say, 57, then 54, and, finally, 51 as the debate on a bill goes on. Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, suggests requiring the minority to provide 41 votes to continue debate (rather than requiring the majority to find 60) and insisting that the debate-seekers actually hold the floor of the Senate and debate the measure they object to.

其他改革也能削弱議事阻撓仍適用的地方，並且可能會得到曼欽的同意。隨著關於法案的辯論進行，賓德博士建議將終止辯論的門檻從60票降低到57票，然後是54票，最後是51票。美國企業研究院學者奧恩斯坦建議，要求少數黨湊滿41票才能繼續辯論，而不是要求多數黨找到60票，並堅持尋求辯論的人實際上在參院擁有發言權，並對他們反對的措施進行辯論

There is little doubt that in either case the minority, whichsoever party it might be, would seek to maximise whatever possibilities for obstruction remained. And hopes that more debate would be better debate should be tempered: the Senate will never be the “world’s greatest deliberative body”, as is sometimes grandiloquently claimed. But steps towards simple majority rule would bring it more into line with the rest of the democratic world—and the vision of the framers.

毫無疑問，無論是哪一黨，少數派都將尋求維持阻礙的可能性最大化，並希望更多辯論優於應被緩和的辯論：參議院將永遠不會是「世上最慎重的機構」，如同其有時大言不慚的聲稱。但是，邁向簡單多數決，將使其接軌其他民主世界，以及制憲者的願景更加吻合。

接縫處磨損--中國抵制西方服裝品牌超過新疆棉

 

Fraying at the seams 接縫處磨損

China boycotts Western clothes brands over Xinjiang cotton 中國因新疆棉抵制西方服飾品牌

Retailers may be caught between nationalistic Chinese consumers and conscientious ones at home 

在愛國的中國消費者及祖國具道德良知的顧客間，零售商可能左右為難

Business

---

Mar 27th 2021

NEW YORK

FOR MORE than a year some big foreign apparel and technology companies have been walking a fine line on the human-rights abuses committed by China against Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minoritiy in the north-western region of Xinjiang. These firms have been working to clear their supply chains of the forced labour of Uyghurs, hundreds of thousands of whom pick cotton under apparently coercive conditions. What they have not done is boast about these efforts, fearful of angering the Communist Party and 1.4bn Chinese consumers. “Usually in our work it’s easier to get companies to say they’re doing the right thing than to actually do it,” says Scott Nova of the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), a labour-monitoring organisation, and the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region. “On this issue, with limited exceptions, the opposite is true.”

一年多以來，一些大型外國成衣和科技公司謹慎對待中國對維吾爾族--新疆西北地區的少數民族，大部分為穆斯林--的人權侵犯。這些公司設法確定供應鏈未使用被強迫的維吾爾族勞動力，數十萬族人顯然在被脅迫情況下採摘棉花。他們並未宣揚這些努力，擔心激怒共產黨和14億中國消費者。「通常在工作上，我們比較容易碰到公司說自己在做正確的事，實際上卻沒有做。」勞工監督組織工人權利聯盟（WRC）及中止維吾爾區域強迫勞動聯盟的諾瓦說， 「在這個議題上，情況恰好相反，只有少數例外。」

An online furore stoked by Chinese authorities this week suggests that Beijing may be tiring of this double game. China’s government, increasingly keen to punish critics of their Xinjiang policies, is forcing foreign companies to make a choice they have been studiously trying to avoid: support China or get out of the Chinese market.

中國政府本周在網路掀起騷動，顯示北京可能厭倦了雙面遊戲。中國政府愈來愈激烈地懲罰新疆政策的批評者，迫使外國公司做出他們一直在努力避免的選擇：支持中國或滾出中國市場。

Chinese authorities have stirred nationalist protests against foreign companies in the past, then tamped them down having made their point. This time the campaign looks like part of a broader, more enduring counterattack against critics of the government’s policies in Xinjiang, where it incarcerated more than 1m Uyghurs in a gulag for their religious and cultural beliefs. It extends beyond the corporate world. In recent days China has imposed sanctions against members of the British, Canadian and European parliaments, European scholars and think-tanks in Britain and Germany. Britain, Canada and the EU had previously joined America in sanctions on senior officials in Xinjiang, implicated in what the American government has called “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”. “China is not the first to shoot, neither will we be passive and submissive to threats from the outside,” said Yang Xiaoguang, chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London, at a news conference. “The Chinese people will not be bullied.”

中國政府過去曾煽動民族主義者抵制外國公司，表明立場後再平息抗議怒潮。這次行動似乎更廣泛、持久地反擊對新疆政策的批評者，新疆超過100萬維吾爾族，因宗教和文化信仰關押在勞改營，這已超越商界範圍。近日，中國對英、加和歐洲議會議員、歐洲學者以及英國和德國的智庫實施制裁。英、加和歐盟之前曾加入美國，一起對新疆的高級官員實施制裁，這牽涉到美國政府所謂的「危害人類罪」和「種族滅絕」。中國駐倫敦大使館代辦楊曉光在新聞發布會上說：「中國不是第一個開槍的人，我們對外來威脅也不會挨打屈服而不反擊。中國人民不是好欺侮的。」

Instead, it is Chinese authorities who are doing the bullying. On March 24th the Communist Youth League, a party affiliate, whipped up a nationalist online boycott of H&M, digging up a months-old statement on the Swedish garment-maker’s corporate website expressing concerns about reports of forced labour in Xinjiang. Government officials and state media joined in. An online mob besieged H&M and other brands, including Nike, Uniqlo and Adidas, demanding they retract past statements about Xinjiang if they expect to make money in China.

相反地，正在霸凌別人的是中國當局。 3月24日，共產黨附屬組織的中國共青團煽動愛國者在網路抵制H＆M，在這家瑞典服裝製造商的官網上挖出一個月前的聲明，該聲明表達對新疆強迫勞動報導的擔憂。政府官員和官媒也加入，網路暴民圍攻H＆M和其他品牌，包括Nike，優衣庫和愛迪達，要求他們撤回有關新疆的聲明，如果他們想在中國賺錢的話。

By March 26th Chinese apps, from e-commerce to maps, had booted H&M off their platforms. By the next day at least some of its stores in China had been closed. A Chinese business worth $1bn in revenues—about 5% of H&M’s global sales in 2020—is in jeopardy. Multiple Chinese celebrities publicly renounced brands they had endorsed but which have stuck by earlier statements about Xinjiang (or not indicated any change). These include H&M, as well as Adidas, Nike, Puma and Uniqlo. Zhou Dongyu, an actress, dropped her deal with Burberry because she said the British maker of posh trench-coats, a member of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), a due-diligence consortium, had not “clearly and publicly stated its stance on cotton from Xinjiang”, according to her agency. Tencent, a tech giant, pulled Burberry-designed outfits from one of its online games.

到了3月26日，中國應用程式從電商平台到地圖都把H＆M踢出平台。次日一些中國的H＆M門市已經關閉，營業額高達10億美元的中國市場，約占H＆M 2020年全球銷售額的5％，正岌岌可危。許多中國名人公開譴責他們代言的品牌，但代言活動在品牌先​​前發表新疆聲明後仍繼續進行（或未表態要改變），包括H＆M、愛迪達及Nike、 Puma和優衣庫。女演員周冬雨放棄與Burberry的合約。因為她透過經紀公司表示，這家英國高檔風衣製造商、良好棉花發展協會的成員（BCI，一家盡職的聯營企業），並未「明確並公開地表示對新疆棉的立場」。科技巨頭騰訊將Burberry設計的服裝從一款線上遊戲撤下。

The antagonism toward foreign companies comes amid talk in both China and the West of “economic decoupling” between the two blocs, which have been intricately knitted together over decades of globalisation. These debates have focused in part on critical technology such as computer chips and artificial intelligence. But China’s new five-year plan articulates a more ambitious concept of self-sufficiency, the better to shield China from an uncertain or hostile external environment. The Communist Party views itself as increasingly able to exert economic pressure on others, using the “powerful gravitational field” of the world’s second-largest economy.

對外商敵意興起的同時，中國與西方都在談論雙方「經濟脫鉤」。在數十年來全球化的運動下，雙方經濟已錯綜複雜地交織在一起。這些討論部分聚焦在關鍵科技上，如電腦晶片和人工智慧。 但中國的十四五計畫表明，企圖心更強的自給自足概念，更能保護中國抵禦混沌不明或充滿敵意的外部環境。共產黨認為自己愈來愈能利用世界第二大經濟體的「強大引力場」，對他人施加經濟壓力。

The gravitational pull is strong indeed. Several apparel firms, including Muji, Fila China and the Chinese operation of Hugo Boss, gave testimonials on Chinese social media that they support Xinjiang cotton; a spokeswoman for Hugo Boss told Bloomberg that the Chinese post was unauthorised and has since been deleted (all three of those companies have also issued statements from corporate headquarters acknowledging concerns about allegations of forced labour in Xinjiang).

這個引力場拉力確實很強。許多服裝品牌包括無印良品，斐樂中國和雨果博在中國代理商等，在社群網站上提供支持新疆棉的證明。雨果博的一位女性發言人告訴彭博，這份中文發言未經授權，因此已被刪除（所有這三家公司都已在總部發表聲明，承認對新疆強迫勞動的醜聞有所擔憂）。

Other firms have apparently taken down earlier statements about Xinjiang. They include PVH, which owns Calvin Klein, and Inditex, which owns Zara, among other brands. Inditex had 570 stores in mainland China as of January 2020, more than in any other country besides its Spanish home market, and its manufacturers in China employed more than 500,000 workers, second only to Bangladesh. PVH and Inditex belong—like H&M, Nike and Burberry—to the BCI, which announced in October that it would stop operating in Xinjiang. (That announcement disappeared from the organisation’s website on March 25th; a representative of the BCI said its policy had not changed, that its website has been the target of repeated distributed denial-of-service attacks in recent days, and that it would repost “relevant information” when it could.) PVH and Inditex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

其他公司顯然已撤下先​​前有關新疆的聲明，包括擁有凱文克萊的PVH以及擁有Zara等品牌的印地紡。印地紡至2020年1月為止，在中國大陸擁有570家門市，比西班牙本土市場以外的任何國家都還要多，而其中國工廠雇用50多萬名勞工，僅次於孟加拉。 PVH和印地紡與H＆M、Nike和Burberry一樣，都是良好棉花發展協會的成員，這個協會在（2020年）10月公告將在新疆停止營運，而這份公告在（今年）3月25日從協會官網上消失； 良好棉花發展協會的代表人表示政策並未改變，最近幾天網站成為分散式阻斷服務攻擊（殭屍攻擊）的目標，將重新發布「相關信息」。PVH和印地紡都沒有立即回應。

Western brands that have held their ground on Xinjiang may worry that being seen as kowtowing to the Communist Party could provoke a backlash among shoppers in the West, who increasingly expect companies to behave responsibly on everything from the treatment of workers to climate change. And there are many people inside these companies “who recognise the moral gravity of what’s happening in Xinjiang”, says Mr Nova of the WRC. The firms may also be calculating that the nationalist fervour in China will cool. And they are hedging their bets. None of the companies named has publicly endorsed a call to action pushed by the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region.

對新疆議題維持立場不變的西方品牌，也許擔心自己被視為對中共磕頭，可能激起西方購物者的強烈反彈，消費者愈來愈希望企業對一切行為負責任，從對待勞工到氣候變遷。 良好棉花發展協會的諾瓦說，這些公司內部有很多員工「認知到新疆發生的事情具有道德上的嚴重性」。企業們可能也盤算，中國的愛國熱潮終會冷卻，他們在為自己留後路。目前上述公司沒有一家公開支持由中止維吾爾區域強迫勞動聯盟發起的行動呼籲。

Investors seem to think it’s a wash, at least for the time being. The share prices of H&M, Nike and Fast Retailing, which owns Uniqlo, all fell on news of the boycotts but have since recovered much of those losses. Those of firms that took a more accommodating stance, such as Fila and Hugo Boss, have reacted in a similar way. The big winners are Chinese firms that make using Xinjiang cotton a point of pride, such as Anta, a big sportswear-maker listed in Hong Kong (in part thanks to interest from patriotic retail investors).

投資人似乎認為這只是正負相抵（wash:利弊參半互相抵銷），至少目前是如此。 H＆M、Nike和優衣庫母公司迅銷的股價皆因遭到抵制的消息而下跌，但之後已收回大部分跌幅。 Fila和雨果博等採取更圓融立場的公司股價反應也類似。最大的贏家是以使用新疆棉為傲的中國企業，例如在香港上市的大型運動服飾製造商安踏（部分要感謝愛國零售投資者的興趣）。

That could all change as both China’s official anger at criticisms of its Xinjiang policies and pressure from Western human-rights campaigners and consumers continue to intensify. Human-rights campaigners are already calling for a corporate boycott of next year’s winter Olympics in Beijing. “Companies feel caught,” says Mr Nova. They know that responding to Chinese pressure by renouncing their own human-rights commitments looks indefensible in their home markets. At the same time, they are understandably worried about the consequences in China. The choice between the lucrative Chinese market and the values firms profess in the rest of the world is becoming unavoidable, says Bennett Freeman, a former State Department official in the Clinton administration who now advises multinationals (and also volunteers at the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region).

隨著中國官方對新疆政策遭受的批評怒火持續升高，西方人權運動者和消費者施加的壓力也愈演愈烈，這一切都可能改變。人權運動者已呼籲企業聯合抵制明年的北京冬奧。 「公司感覺被綁架了」諾瓦先生說。他們知道，透過放棄自己的人權承諾來應對中國的壓力，在他們的本土市場似乎是站不住腳。同時，他們擔憂在中國的下場也可以理解。一邊是利潤豐厚的中國市場，一邊是在世界其他地區宣揚的價值觀，企業將無可避免在兩者之間做選擇。科林頓政府前國務院官員弗里曼說，現為跨國公司顧問（同時也是中止維吾爾區域強迫勞動聯盟的志工）。

For Western companies in China both paths, the principled and the pliant, carry risks. But so does the Communist Party’s nationalist indignation. If it does end up causing foreign firms to leave the Chinese market and reduce their dependence on Chinese supply chains, that could itself irritate many Chinese shoppers and hurt millions of Chinese workers. It would also give Western businesses more freedom to do something the party would itself love to avoid: criticise China in the open.

對在中國的西方公司而言，不論是堅守原則，或順從中國，兩條路都有風險。但是共產黨的愛國主義者憤慨也是如此。如果最終導致外國公司退出中國市場，並減少對中國供應鏈的依賴，這可能會激怒許多中國購物者，並傷害數百萬中國勞工。這也將給予西方企業有更大的自由，去做共產黨本身想要避免的事：公開地批評中國。