That is true – although the majority of the extra money came from Europe, there would be little need for extra IMF firepower if there were no fears about the eurozone, and the rest of the world pointedly tied the IMF resources to an increase in the eurozone’s own firewall.
的确如此，尽管增加的资金多数来自欧洲，但如果不是因为欧元区状况令人担忧，IMF根本就不需要增资;而世界其他地区也明确地把欧元区增强自身防火墙与向IMF增资相挂钩。
Large emerging economies were reluctant, understandably, to provide large sums of money to back up some of the richest nations in the world – nations that have disproportionately large voting weight at the IMF. They went along, in the end, because market turmoil harms them too. They extracted a beefed-up pledge on reform to voting quotas at the Fund.
可以理解，大型新兴经济体并不愿提供大量资金用于为全世界最富有的一些国家提供支持——这些国家在IMF的投票权也大得不相称。它们最后还是同意提供支持，因为市场的动荡也会损害它们的利益，最后它们也得到了针对IMF投票权配额进行改革的信誓旦旦的承诺。
The real question, however, is under what circumstances and conditions the extra funds would be lent to a large European country that lost market access for its debt. Simply having the money available to the Fund does not make it credible as a firewall for Europe unless the will is there to use it.
然而真正的问题是，这些新增的资金在哪些情况和条件下会被借给一个无法再从市场上获得债务融资的欧洲大国。仅仅靠IMF有可以支配的资金，还不足以使其成为值得信任的欧洲防火墙，除非使用这些资金的意愿也存在。
Several countries made it clear that, if and when that debate has to happen, it will not be easy. Jim Flaherty, Canada’s finance minister, said that non-eurozone countries should have a veto over further IMF loans to the continent. “We ought to have two keys, in effect,” he said. “We would have one vote by eurozone countries and another vote for approval by the non-eurozone countries.”
一些国家已经表明，一旦到了必须发生争论的时候，这个问题不容易解决。加拿大财长吉姆•弗莱厄蒂(Jim Flaherty)表示，非欧元区国家应该对未来IMF向欧洲提供的贷款拥有否决权。“实际上我们应当有两把钥匙”，他说。“应当由欧元区国家举行一次投票，再由非欧元区国家投票批准。”
If it did become necessary to launch further IMF programmes in the eurozone, the main worry would be confidence that the money would be paid back. In a standard IMF programme, it sets conditions around fiscal discipline and structural reform, to make sure a currency devaluation is not frittered away and instead returns a country to a sustainable position where it can pay down its debt.
如果真的有必要在欧元区实行更多IMF救助项目，那么最让人头疼的将是信心问题：受援国是否能偿还这些资金?在IMF标准的项目中，它会围绕财政纪律和结构改革设定条件，从而确保受援国不会滥用货币贬值措施，而是帮助该国回归到有能力偿还债务的可持续状态。
The eurozone has no option to devalue, and all rests on structural reforms to drive down costs in the south and regain competitiveness. Success is so uncertain that officials outside the eurozone quietly wonder what conditions the IMF could impose that would give it some assurance of safety.
欧元区并没有贬值这个选项，而是完全依赖于实行结构性改革来降低南欧国家的成本，从而重建竞争力。成功的希望极渺茫，欧元区外的官员私下担忧IMF需要设置哪些条件，才能得到一些安全保障。
Signs are emerging that eurozone officials recognise the problem and are trying to generate confidence that their campaign of internal adjustment will work. “These efforts are already delivering. We are witnessing clear signs of adjustment of imbalances and divergences of competitiveness across the euro area,” said Olli Rehn, the European Union’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs. The question is whether those divergences would re-emerge if south European countries returned to full output.
已经有迹象表明欧元区官员认识到了这个问题，并正在努力让人们相信，他们实施内部调整的行动将会奏效。欧盟经济和货币事务专员奥利•雷恩(Olli Rehn)说：“这些举措已经在产生效果。我们观察到了欧元区内部的失衡和竞争力差距出现了调整的迹象。”问题在于南欧国家恢复充分产出后，这种差距会不会重新出现。
Unless the eurozone can provide a clear answer then exactly what can be undertaken with that extra $430bn is likely to remain unclear as well.
除非欧元区能够提供清晰的答案，否则那4300亿美元资金具体将怎样运用，也仍然不会明朗。
