Global technopolitics--The new grand bargain  

Without teaming up, democracies will not be able to establish a robust alternative to China’s autocratic technosphere

You’re my best friend

It is against this background that a grand bargain needs to be struck. Its broad outline would be for America to get security guarantees and rule-making bodies in which its interests can be taken seriously. In return it would recognise European privacy and other regulatory concerns as well as demands that tech titans be properly taxed. Ideally, such a deal would also include India and other developing countries, which want to make sure that they do not risk becoming mere sources of raw data, while having to pay for the digital intelligence produced.

Against this background：在这样的背景下

strike a ˈbargain/ˈdeal 达成（对双方都有利的）协议

broad outline：梗概，大致轮廓

In terms of security, the parties to the bargain would ensure each other secure, diverse supply chains for digital infrastructure. To get there, the CNAS proposes, in effect, to partially mutualise them: among other things, members of a tech alliance should co-ordinate their efforts to restructure supply chains and might set up a semiconductor consortium with facilities around the world. Supporting open technologies and standards that create a diverse set of suppliers would help, too. An example is OpenRAN, a mobile network that allows carriers to mix and match components rather than having to buy from one vendor. A world with open infrastructure like this need not, in principle, just depend on a few suppliers, as is the case today with Huawei, Nokia or Ericsson.

Mutualise /tjʊtʃʊəlaɪz/ v. 使互相；按共享原则组织（公司等）；共同承担（某物）（等于 mutualize）

Semiconductor /ˌsemikənˈdʌktə(r)/ 半导体

consortium  /kənˈsɔːtiəm/（合作进行某项工程的）财团，银团，联营企业 • the Anglo-French consortium that built the Channel Tunnel 修建英吉利海峡隧道的英法财团。

To give in to Europe on other fronts in return for help in such matters would be costly to America, which has largely opposed attempts to regulate and tax its tech giants abroad. In terms of statecraft, that is an attractive part of the arrangement; to be willing to pay a cost shows that you place real value on what you are getting.

Statecraft  n. /ˈsteɪtkrɑːft/ 治国才能；政务才能

If an alliance of democracies is to deliver a China-proof technosphere, America will have to accept that the interdependence of the tech world on which the whole idea is based means that it cannot act unconstrained. Henry Farrell of Johns Hopkins University argues that America has so far simply weaponised this interdependence, using chokepoints where it has leverage to strangle enemies and put pressure on friends. But Europe’s resistance to banning Huawei’s gear and the ECJ’s decision show that even friends can balk. America needs to give if it is to receive.

Chokepoint /'tʃəuk,pɔint/  n. 阻塞点

Strangle v.   /ˈstræŋɡl/  1.扼死；勒死；掐死 •to strangle sb to death 把某人掐死；2.抑制；压制；扼杀 •The current monetary policy is strangling the economy. 现行货币政策抑制了经济的发展。

Balk  /bɔːk/ 阻止; 反对 • Even biology undergraduates may balk at animal experiments. 即使是生物专业的大学生都可能会反对动物实验。

译文

You’re my best friend

It is against this background that a grand bargain needs to be struck. Its broad outline would be for America to get security guarantees and rule-making bodies in which its interests can be taken seriously. In return it would recognise European privacy and other regulatory concerns as well as demands that tech titans be properly taxed. Ideally, such a deal would also include India and other developing countries, which want to make sure that they do not risk becoming mere sources of raw data, while having to pay for the digital intelligence produced.

正是在这种背景下，需要达成一项大协议。它的大概轮廓是美国得到安全保障和制定规则的主体，在这个主体中美国的利益能被严肃对待。作为回报，他承认欧洲隐私和其他监管关注点以及对科技巨头合理收税的需求。理想中，印度与其他发展中国家也应该参加该协议，当然这些发展中国家不想冒着变成原始数据资源提供国的风险同时还要支付电子智能产品的费用。

In terms of security, the parties to the bargain would ensure each other secure, diverse supply chains for digital infrastructure. To get there, the CNAS proposes, in effect, to partially mutualise them: among other things, members of a tech alliance should co-ordinate their efforts to restructure supply chains and might set up a semiconductor consortium with facilities around the world. Supporting open technologies and standards that create a diverse set of suppliers would help, too. An example is OpenRAN, a mobile network that allows carriers to mix and match components rather than having to buy from one vendor. A world with open infrastructure like this need not, in principle, just depend on a few suppliers, as is the case today with Huawei, Nokia or Ericsson.

在安全方面，协议各方将确保彼此为数字基础设施提供安全、多样化的供应链。为了达到这种效果，CNAS提议在实际中实现他们的相互作用，在其他事物中，科技联盟的成员应该共同努力重建供应链并应用全世界的设备创建半导体联盟。支持技术开放和标准建立来创造一个多样化供应商世界也会有帮助。典型例子是OpenRAN，它是一家允许运营商混合和匹配零件，而不是从一个供应商购买的移动互联网。一个拥有这样开放基础设施的世界，原则上不需要依赖少数供应商，就像今天的华为、诺基亚或爱立信那样。

To give in to Europe on other fronts in return for help in such matters would be costly to America, which has largely opposed attempts to regulate and tax its tech giants abroad. In terms of statecraft, that is an attractive part of the arrangement; to be willing to pay a cost shows that you place real value on what you are getting.

对美国来说在其他方面向欧洲让步，以换取在此类问题上的帮助的代价是高昂的，因为美国很大程度上反对欧洲对其海外科技巨头进行监管和征税。对于治国战略来说，这是协议的吸引人之处；愿意付出代价表明你重视你所得到的东西。

If an alliance of democracies is to deliver a China-proof technosphere, America will have to accept that the interdependence of the tech world on which the whole idea is based means that it cannot act unconstrained. Henry Farrell of Johns Hopkins University argues that America has so far simply weaponised this interdependence, using chokepoints where it has leverage to strangle enemies and put pressure on friends. But Europe’s resistance to banning Huawei’s gear and the ECJ’s decision show that even friends can balk. America needs to give if it is to receive.

如果民主国家的联盟是传递“防备中国”科技道路，美国将不得不承认，作为整个理念基础的科技世界是相互依赖的，这意味着它不能不受约束地采取行动。Johns Hopkins大学的Henry Farrell表示美国目前为止只是简单的“武器化”这种相互依存的关系，通过使用有影响力的关键点扼杀敌人和向盟友施压。但欧盟对禁止华为设备的抵触和欧洲法院的裁决表表明即使盟友也会反水。美国如果想要获得收获需要付出相应的代价。（UP主：以前觉得媒体是中立的，觉得人家都说你不好肯定是自己有问题，现在想想too naive，经济学人上面非常多的文章明显是站在美国精英角度思考如何处理中国这个威胁到它自身地位的麻烦。并不是你错了，而是你的存在就影响到它的呼吸了。当然里面很多思考问题的模式蛮有意思的，有耳目一新的感觉）

经济学人2020年12月刊