在這個動蕩的時代，合作和善治是克服新冠大流行和氣候變化等復雜的全球性新挑戰(zhàn)的關鍵。面對這些挑戰(zhàn)，中國和美國這兩個世界上最大的經濟體在履行其全球責任時采取截然不同的方式。中國與全球化研究中心高級研究員哈維·佐丁表示，在應對各自面臨的挑戰(zhàn)時，中美兩國的處理方式截然不同，這是一個關于兩種治理體系的故事——一個成功，另一個艱難掙扎。

The world has been living (and dying) with COVID-19 for the past two years, but it feels like an eternity. Yet despite the uncertainties 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.
過去兩年，新冠病毒一直與人類共存，有人因此失去生命，但疫情似乎沒完沒了。盡管未來存在不確定性，但在應對各自面臨的挑戰(zhàn)時，中美兩國的處理方式截然不同，這是一個關于兩種治理體系的故事——一個成功，另一個艱難掙扎。

Their differences notwithstanding, it's now critical that the two countries work together where their respective national interests overlap bilaterally and through the rules-based international order. Our lives and our very existence depend upon it.
盡管中美存在分歧，但現在至關重要的是兩國在國家利益重疊的方面，通過雙邊和基于規(guī)則的國際秩序進行合作。我們的生活和生存都取決于此。

When I think about this tale of two systems, I am drawn to the memorable 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 perfectly encapsulates the contrasting models.
當我想到這個故事時，我回想起《雙城記》里令人難忘的開頭，“這是一個最好的時代，也是一個最壞的時代；這是一個智慧的年代，這是一個愚蠢的年代”，這句話完美地概括了兩種截然不同的模式。

Of course, there have been missteps on both sides as is inevitable in a mega-pandemic situation. However, one side quickly activated its whole of government approach to address and contain the crisis . The other side, with then US president Donald Trump in command, went in a totally different direction: denial and obfuscation. One leader put his people first, the other put himself first.
當然，雙方都有失誤，這在全球性大流行病面前是不可避免的。然而，一方整個政府迅速采取行動，解決和遏制危機。另一方在時任美國總統唐納德·特朗普的指揮下，走向了完全不同的方向：否認和混淆視聽。

Trump's mantra was and remains "America first". Thanks to him, when it comes to COVID-19, the US was, and is, first in the number of infections and deaths.
特朗普過去和現在的口號仍然是“美國至上”。多虧了他，新冠疫情暴發(fā)后，美國是感染者和死亡人數最多的國家。

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.
根據“世界實時數據統計”網站，美國登記在冊的確診病例數超過6500萬，死亡病例近90萬。而中國人口是美國人口的4倍，中國累計確診病例135000例，死亡約5700人。

Notably, 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，確診病例數量僅次于美國的國家是中國的鄰國印度，其人口與中國相似，但確診數是中國的270倍，死亡人數是中國的85倍。印度和美國一樣，似乎更重視政治而非人命。

Why such a disparity? The night and day difference arises from divergent governance models. Those who have no experience of China may be skeptical of China's whole-process democracy but my observation－as one living in China－is that the statistics speak for themselves.
為什么會出現如此大的差距？鮮明的對比來自于不同的治理模式。那些沒來過中國的人可能會對中國的全過程民主持懷疑態(tài)度，但作為一個生活在中國的人，據我觀察，統計數據就是很好的說明。

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 competence doesn't exist in the Communist Party of China's model. Instead, at every stage, advancement is based on results.
這些結果不是偶然的。在中國，領導者憑借他們的表現和成績得到慎重提拔。從最小的村莊開始，不能勝任的干部就不會晉升。在中國共產黨的模式中，不存在不能勝任的人被提拔的“彼得原理”。相反，在每個階段，晉升都是基于成就。

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，美國的政治制度已經崩潰。特朗普可能是壓垮駱駝的最后一根稻草，但這個系統長期以來一直存在缺陷。四十多年前我在美國政府工作時，兩黨分歧已經存在，而且越來越大，但兩黨領袖為了國家利益還能合作?，F在，這種情況很少發(fā)生。

The United States today is split right down the middle and most of the two parties' energy is wasted on neutralizing the other side. Trump supporters storming the Capitol was the inevitable result.
今天的美國正處于分裂狀態(tài)，兩黨的大部分精力都浪費在了否決另一方上。特朗普的支持者沖進國會大廈是不可避免的結果。

With this legacy, an effective COVID-19 response still eludes the US despite President Joe Biden's best efforts. He faces continued opposition to mandates and scientifically-dictated measures such as requiring vaccinations or workplace testing.
在這些遺留問題下，盡管喬·拜登總統盡了最大努力，但美國仍然沒能采取有效防疫措施。他的疫苗接種令、工作場所核酸檢測等強制命令和科學措施都遭到持續(xù)反對。

It appears from the oral arguments before the US Supreme Court on Jan 7 that Biden's initiatives will be thwarted－and COVID-19 fatalities, many preventable, could cross 1 million.
從1月7日美國最高法院的口頭辯論來看，拜登的倡議將會受阻，新冠肺炎死亡病例可能會超過100萬（其中許多本可以避免）。

Science in US has been politicized
科學在美國已經政治化

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".
科學在美國已經變成政治工具?！白冯S科學”的口號已被“追隨金錢”取代。美國模式越來越多地服務于最頂層的百分之一，這與中國“共同富裕”的發(fā)展理念截然相反。

Many see China's zero-tolerance infection policy as draconian, but the results speak for themselves. In public policy, there are rarely right answers, only least bad ones. Most countries faced with killing their economies or killing their people opted for the former at the expense of the latter. China was the exception.
許多人認為中國的零容忍感染政策過于嚴苛，但結果說明一切。公共政策很少有標準答案，只有壞處最少的答案。大多數國家在面對犧牲經濟還是犧牲人民的問題時都會選擇前者，犧牲后者。中國是個例外。

But China found the elusive 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.
但中國找到了一個很難實現的平衡點，中國的新冠肺炎死亡病例很少，但2020年的年實際GDP增長率為2.3%，而美國死亡人數更多，GDP年增長率為負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，中國沒有必要迅速改變當前政策。首先，據中國疾控中心流行病學首席專家吳尊友稱，如果中國放松防疫措施，感染率達到全球平均水平，中國將有超過4700萬人感染，95萬人死亡。

Second, China is on track to develop new vaccines, which can better protect against the novel coronavirus and new variants.
其次，中國正在研發(fā)新疫苗，可以更好地預防新冠病毒及其新變異毒株。

Third, pathogens do not observe national borders and until most of the people in the world are vaccinated, mutant strains, some even more lethal, will keep emerging and infecting more and more people.
第三，病原體不受國界限制，在世界上大多數人接種疫苗之前，突變株（有些甚至更致命）將不斷出現并感染越來越多的人。

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.
事實上，一些科學家表示，與未來可能出現的病毒相比，新冠病毒可能是溫和的。例如，最近在印度暴發(fā)的尼帕病毒，雖然不易傳播，但致死率為50-75%，而且無法治愈。因此，有必要以超越新冠病毒和國界的眼光來預防未來的流行病。

The World Health Organization is the global coordinator for public health but it is vastly underfunded.
世界衛(wèi)生組織是全球公共衛(wèi)生協調員，但資金嚴重不足。

There is a hope-raising precedent for cooperation, though. Smallpox, which killed more than 300 million people in the 20th century alone, was eradicated at the height of the Cold War because of US-Soviet Union cooperation.
不過，歷史上出現過讓人充滿希望的合作先例。由于美國和蘇聯的合作，僅在20世紀就造成3億多人死亡的天花在冷戰(zhàn)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 mutual confidence again.
我怎么也想不明白，為什么美國和中國不采取同樣的措施來遏制疫情，尤其是因為他們有能力發(fā)揮領導作用，終結疫情，拯救生命，拯救經濟，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.
最近的事態(tài)發(fā)展使我感到悲觀，但我樂觀地認為，只要一方拿出勇氣邁出第一步，這種必要的合作是可能的。

作者：中國與全球化研究中心高級研究員 哈維·佐丁
編輯：董靜