美中关系紧张。谁才是真正的威胁？

 美中关系紧张。谁才是真正的威胁？

马可-卡内罗斯

发布日期：2022年8月3日 10:37 UTC

|

最后更新：5天6小时前

华盛顿认为中国的崛起是对其全球领导地位的挑战，而北京则认为美国的担忧是试图限制其全球角色。

168

股票

Facebook分享按钮Twitter分享按钮Whatsapp分享按钮Messenger分享按钮电子邮件分享按钮Sharethis分享按钮

美中关系正在成为本世纪的主要地缘政治挑战。几十年来建立在既定供应链和相互投资基础上的强大经济相互依存关系正在解体。

在美国众议院议长南希-佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)本周的台湾之行中，紧张局势已经飙升。美国和中国长期以来一直同意在该岛的地位上保持一定程度的模糊性，"一个中国政策 "隐含地承认中国对台湾的主权。这一切正受到佩洛西之行的挑战，被中国政府视为一种挑衅。在台湾问题上，中国已经发出了与俄罗斯在乌克兰问题上相同的 "红线 "警告。

美国是否又陷入了另一种假设，就像把中国的制度转变为自由民主制度那样被误导？

半个世纪以来，中美关系蓬勃发展。在那段时间里，美国经济增长了18倍，而中国的经济增长了130倍。这是一个双赢的局面。美国的合作及其巨大的市场帮助中国成为全球经济强国，而廉价的中国商品的流动维持了美国的超级消费主义体系，为其企业部门提供了大量利润。

但随着两个现实的出现，这种关系的基础开始受到侵蚀。首先是华盛顿意识到，无论美国与中国有多少贸易往来，它都无法将后者改变成美国自由民主的翻版。

中国向外部世界敞开了经济大门，但却牢牢锁住了政治大门。习近平主席在2013年的一次著名演讲中解释了原因，他透露了苏联解体对中国的冲击有多大。对华盛顿来说，这个讲话有背叛的意味。

接下来是2008年的金融危机，它把成为全球经济增长的主要引擎的角色交给了中国。华盛顿方面很快就明白，中国正在变成一个军事强国，将挑战美国作为世界唯一霸主的主张。

安全困境

结果就是国际关系理论中定义的安全困境：中国的崛起威胁到美国，因为它挑战了华盛顿的全球领导地位和基于规则的世界秩序。另一方面，美国的担忧被北京认为是试图限制其全球角色。

在2017年的一本书中，美国政治学家格雷厄姆-艾利森有先见之明地将这种风险置于一个迷人的历史矩阵中，他称之为修昔底德陷阱--这个词可以追溯到伯罗奔尼撒战争，当时崛起的雅典引发了与日益关注的斯巴达的战争。在评估历史上16个类似的大国崛起案例时，艾利森不安地得出结论：12个案例以一场大的战争结束。

简而言之，美中关系可以被概括为一段变了味的漫长爱情。从来没有正式的婚姻，在这段关系中留下的只有愤怒和怨恨。现在的挑战是如何阻止这种分裂产生另一场全球冲突。

在华盛顿，关于中国的辩论已经结束。任何历史记录或经验证据都不会改变美国的心态。抨击中国是在高度分化的政治格局中仍能获得两党共识的少数问题之一。解读中国领导人的想法要困难得多，但可以猜测，北京对美国也得出了同样的结论。

 

在系统性风险的刺激下，美国国务卿安东尼-布林肯最近提出了拜登政府的全面中国政策，他把这一政策说成是试图管理两国之间日益激烈的竞争。不幸的是，在美国的外交中，话语往往与意图不符，更不用说行动了。

布林肯把他的国家的中国政策解释为试图 "捍卫和改革以规则为基础的国际秩序"，其出发点是假设中国是 "唯一一个既打算重塑国际秩序，又越来越有经济、外交、军事和技术力量来做这件事的国家"。

恕我直言，布林肯的外交技巧，他的语义学似乎不是管理竞争的最佳方式。美国是否又陷入了另一种假设，就像把中国的制度改造成自由民主制度那样被误导？中国真的打算重塑国际秩序吗？这是有可能的，但迄今为止的证据还远不是结论性的。

遏制中国

中国令人印象深刻的崛起恰恰是在当前美国主导的以规则为基础的世界秩序所设定的边界内发生的。习近平在2017年达沃斯世界经济论坛上为这一秩序和全球化辩护，即使当时的美国总统唐纳德-特朗普已经开始质疑它。中国为什么要重塑一个对它非常有利的世界秩序？

布林肯将中国描述为世界经济的一个组成部分，对解决 "从气候到科威德的挑战 "至关重要，并补充说："在可预见的未来，美国和中国必须相互打交道。"他还说美国 "不寻求冲突或新的冷战"，并且无意 "阻止中国作为一个大国的角色，也不阻止中国......发展他们的经济或促进他们人民的利益"，这听起来令人放心。

为什么美国和中国正处于碰撞的过程中

阅读更多"

目前还不清楚这种保证是否打动了中国政府。毕竟，美国正在印度-太平洋地区实施一些举措--如涉及美国、日本、印度和澳大利亚的四方磋商，以及美国、英国和澳大利亚之间的《奥库斯条约》--这些举措似乎明显是为了在一系列区域联盟和位于中国关键供应链上的美国军事基地圈内遏制中国。

美国在中国海岸的大规模军事部署与中国在美国海岸的任何类似部署都不相匹配。美国有大约800个军事基地分布在世界各地；中国只有一个，在吉布提。询问谁在威胁谁当然是合理的。

布林肯加倍辩解说，"在习主席的领导下，执政的中国共产党在国内变得更加压制，在国外变得更加咄咄逼人......在南中国海推进非法的海洋主张......[并]规避或破坏贸易规则，损害美国的工人和公司"。在乌克兰战争中，中国与俄罗斯的立场也没有逃脱布林肯的批评。

互相攻击

不出所料，中国对布林肯讲话的正式答复是一份长达25000字的愤怒声明。如果说美国逼得很紧，中国肯定反应过激。根据北京的说法，美国 "中国威胁论 "的目的是 "干涉中国的内部事务，抹黑中国的国内和外交政策，所有这些都是为了全面遏制和压制中国"--这是一个 "欺骗性的、虚伪的和危险的 "政策。

中国的看法是，拜登政府的真正意图是维护一个 "旨在为美国自身利益服务并延续其霸权的国际秩序"。

北京甚至断言，"美国本身是破坏实际世界秩序的最大根源"--这是一个挑衅性的结论，并得到以下事实的支持："在美国240多年的历史中，只有16年美国没有处于战争状态"。此外，"自2001年以来，美国以反恐名义进行的战争和军事行动已造成90多万人死亡，其中约33.5万人是平民，数百万人受伤，数千万人流离失所"。

西方似乎正准备站在普京和习近平的面前。世界其他国家会温顺地跟随其脚步吗？

激烈的交锋预示着未来的不妙。美国正在召集其欧洲盟友，以对付俄罗斯的方式来对付中国。6月在马德里举行的NATO峰会上批准的新战略概念宣称。"[中国]公开的野心和胁迫性政策挑战了我们的利益、安全和价值观。

最近，联邦调查局和军情五处的负责人发表了一份史无前例、措辞尖锐的联合声明，警告中国的间谍活动、大规模黑客活动和一个负责偷窃西方技术的全球特工网络。

西方似乎正准备站在俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔-普京和习近平的面前。世界其他国家会温顺地跟随其脚步吗？

很快，与中国有重大贸易关系的欧洲将面临与俄罗斯相同的两难境地。如果它坚持美国对中国的强硬政策，那么它的经济在未来的日子里将经历更多重大的困难。

本文所表达的观点属于作者，不一定反映《中东眼》的编辑政策。

Marco Carnelos是前意大利外交官。他曾被派往索马里、澳大利亚和联合国。1995年至2011年期间，他曾在三位意大利总理的外交政策办公室任职。最近，他担任意大利政府的中东和平进程协调员叙利亚问题特使，并在2017年11月之前担任意大利驻伊拉克大使。

US-China tensions: Who is the real threat?

Marco Carnelos

Published date: 3 August 2022 10:37 UTC

|

Last update: 5 days 6 hours ago

China’s rise is viewed by Washington as a challenge to its global leadership, while Beijing perceives US concerns as an attempt to constrain its global role

168

Shares

facebook sharing buttontwitter sharing buttonwhatsapp sharing buttonmessenger sharing buttonemail sharing buttonsharethis sharing button

The US-China relationship is becoming the major geopolitical challenge of this century. Decades of strong economic interdependence, built upon established supply chains and mutual investment, are unravelling.

Tensions have spiked amid US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan this week. The US and China have long agreed to maintain a certain amount of ambiguity on the status of the island, with the “One China policy” implicitly recognising China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. This is all being challenged by Pelosi’s trip, regarded as a provocation by Beijing. On Taiwan, China has issued the same “red-line” warnings that Russia issued on Ukraine.

Is the US falling into another assumption as misguided as the one about transforming the Chinese system into a liberal democracy?

For half a century, Sino-American relations thrived. In that time, the US economy grew 18-fold, while China’s grew by a factor of 130. It was a win-win situation: US cooperation and its huge market helped China become a global economic powerhouse, while the flow of cheap Chinese goods sustained the hyper-consumerist American system, granting massive profits to its corporate sector.

But the foundations of this relationship began to erode as two realities came to the fore. First was the realisation in Washington that however much the US traded with China, it would not change the latter into a replica of US liberal democracy.

China opened its economic doors to the outside world, while keeping its political doors firmly bolted. President Xi Jinping explained why in a famous 2013 speech, where he revealed how much of a shock the collapse of the Soviet Union had been to China. To Washington, this speech smacked of betrayal.

Next came the 2008 financial crisis, which handed China the role of becoming the main engine of global economic growth. It soon became clear in Washington that China was turning into a military power that would challenge the US claim to be the world’s sole hegemon.

Security dilemma

The result is what is defined in international relations theory as a security dilemma: China’s rise threatens the US because it challenges Washington’s global leadership and rules-based world order. On the other hand, US concerns are perceived by Beijing as an attempt to constrain its global role.

In a 2017 book, American political scientist Graham Allison presciently placed such risks in a fascinating historical matrix, which he called the Thucydides Trap - a term that harks back to the Peloponnesian War, when a rising Athens triggered a war with an increasingly concerned Sparta. In assessing 16 similar cases of rising powers in history, Allison disquietingly concluded that 12 had ended in a major war.

In short, US-China relations can be summarised as a long love affair that went sour. There was never a formal marriage, leaving in the relationship’s wake only anger and resentment. The challenge now is to stop this split from producing another global conflict.

In Washington, the debate on China is closed. No historical record or empirical evidence will change the US mindset. China-bashing is one of the few issues that still musters a bipartisan consensus in the highly polarised political landscape. Reading the minds of the Chinese leadership is far more difficult, but it is safe to guess that Beijing is reaching the same conclusion about the US.

 

Spurred into action by the systemic risks, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently laid out the Biden administration’s comprehensive China policy, which he framed as an attempt to manage the two countries’ increasing competition. Unfortunately, in US diplomacy, words often do not match intentions - not to mention actions.

Blinken explained his country’s China policy as an attempt to “defend and reform the rules-based international order”, starting with the assumption that China is “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it”.

With all due respect to his diplomatic skills, Blinken’s semantics hardly seem the best way to manage a competition. Is the US falling into another assumption as misguided as the one about transforming the Chinese system into a liberal democracy? Does China really intend to reshape the international order? This is possible, but the evidence to date is far from conclusive.

Containing China

China’s impressive rise took place precisely within the boundaries set by the current US-led rules-based world order. Xi defended this order, and globalisation, at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, even as then-US President Donald Trump had begun to question it. Why would China reshape a world order that has served it so well?

Blinken described China as an integral part of the world economy, crucial to solving “challenges from climate to Covid”, and added: “The United States and China have to deal with each other for the foreseeable future.” He also sounded reassuring when he said the US was “not looking for conflict or a new Cold War”, and that there was no intention “to block China from its role as a major power, nor to stop China… from growing their economy or advancing the interests of their people”.

Why the US and China are on a collision course

Read More »

It is unclear as to whether such reassurances impressed the Chinese government. After all, the US is implementing initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region - such as the Quad consultations, involving the US, Japan, India and Australia, and the Aukus pact among the US, UK and Australia - that seem clearly aimed at containing China within a set of regional alliances and rings of US military bases positioned along crucial Chinese supply chains.

The massive US military deployment along Chinese shores is not matched by any similar Chinese deployment along US coasts. The US has around 800 military bases spread around the world; China only one, in Djibouti. It is certainly legitimate to ask who is threatening whom.

Blinken doubled down when he argued that “under President Xi, the ruling Chinese Communist Party has become more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad… advancing unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea… [and] circumventing or breaking trade rules, harming workers and companies in the United States”. China’s standing with Russia amid the war on Ukraine did not escape Blinken’s criticism.

Trading barbs

Unsurprisingly, China’s formal reply to Blinken’s speech was a rancorous, 25,000-word statement. If the US pushed hard, China definitely overreacted. According to Beijing, the American “China threat” narrative aims to “interfere in China’s internal affairs, and smear China’s domestic and foreign policy, all in an attempt at full-blown containment and suppression of China” - a “deceptive, hypocritical and dangerous” policy.

China’s perception is that the Biden administration’s real intention is to preserve an “international order designed to serve the US’s own interests and perpetuate its hegemony”.

Beijing goes so far as to assert that “the US itself is the largest source of disruption to the actual world order” - a provocative conclusion, buttressed by the fact that “throughout the 240-plus-year history of the US, there were only 16 years in which the US was not at war”. In addition, “since 2001, US wars and military operations in the name of counterterrorism have killed more than 900,000 people, about 335,000 of whom were civilians, injured millions and displaced tens of millions”.

The West seems to be preparing to stand up to both Putin and Xi. Will the rest of the world follow meekly in its footsteps?

The furious trading of barbs portends ill for the future. The US is rallying its European allies against China in the same way it did against Russia. The new Strategic Concept approved at the June Nato summit in Madrid asserted: “[China’s] stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values”.

Recently, the heads of the FBI and MI5 issued an unprecedented, sharply worded joint statement warning of Chinese espionage, large-scale hacking and a global network of agents tasked with stealing western technology.

The West seems to be preparing to stand up to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Xi. Will the rest of the world follow meekly in its footsteps?

Soon, Europe, which has major trade relations with China, will be faced with the same dilemma it encountered with Russia. If it adheres to tough US policy on China, its economy will experience far more significant hardships in the days ahead.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East peace process coordinator special envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, Italy's ambassador to Iraq.