阿諾·貝特朗
@RnaudBertrand
這篇由@PaulJHeer撰寫的文章，對美中關係提出了幾個至關重要卻令人沮喪的觀察。Heer是美國少數真正懂中國的高級官員之一（他曾任東亞國家情報官）。 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/diminishing-prospects-us-china-d%C3%A9tente-213361
Heer描述了他試圖向華盛頓決策者證明他們誤讀了中國意圖的失敗經歷：
「中國專注於在多極世界中最大化其財富、權力和影響力，而不是爭奪全球霸權；中國尋求的是讓其治理與發展模式獲得合法性，而不是期望其他國家採用它。」
我完全同意：任何稍微了解中國和中國歷史的人，都會覺得「中國一心追求西方式全球霸權、試圖按照自身形象重塑世界」的說法可笑。這恰恰是中國完全不想做的事——這與他們的文化和外交傳統根本對立。正如Heer正確指出的，這種中國形象是華盛頓製造的「稻草人」（bogeyman），與現實幾乎無關……
然而，眾所周知，在地緣政治中，認知就是現實。「和平共存」的核心挑戰在於，你必須先承認對方願意與你共存；如果你認定對方一心要摧毀你，自然就會認為共存不可能……
Heer寫道，這導致華盛頓出現一種激進化傾向：
- 認為即使是北京最起碼的戰略目標也「不可接受且不可改變」；
- 拒絕承認「中國擁有合法利益與抱負」；
- 「只責怪北京拒絕妥協」。
他沮喪地提到，在華盛頓一場關於中國的私人會議上，「大多數與會者似乎不願公開承認——或至少具體指出——中國在印太地區的任何合法安全或經濟利益」。這一點令人震驚，因為中國就在印太地區……
北京的情況並非如此。他們「真心希望和平共存」，儘管「懷疑美方是否同樣願意，或已認定美方不願意」（考慮到Heer上述描述，誰能怪他們？）
這不是好趨勢。正如Heer所說：
「北京目前判斷，華盛頓正在抵制多極化，以及美中和平共存的可能性。如果戰略趨勢持續強化中國對美國試圖圍堵中國、阻礙其發展或否定其抱負合法性的認知，這將增加北京被迫採取更對抗與激進姿態的機率。」
Heer對局勢短期內改善並不樂觀，但他正確強調：
「美中和平共存至關重要……替代方案是基於錯誤前提與錯誤假設而升級的冷戰。」 而且，「世界上大多數國家都希望華盛頓與北京做到這一點。」
我個人——你可能會驚訝——比Heer略微樂觀一些： 中國最擅長的就是耐心。他們明白，美國需要時間適應失去霸權地位，並接受「他國也有合法利益」這一事實。中國的策略是系統性挫敗美國重申霸權與圍堵的每一次嘗試，從而讓美國深刻體會這一新現實。
美國學得並不快，現在正處於「發脾氣／否認」階段，但最終他們別無選擇，只能接受。
Heer的文章至少說明：美國一些頂尖戰略思想家已經走到這一步了。
Heer describes his unsuccessful attempts at showing decision-makers in Washington that they misread China's intentions, that "China is focused on maximizing its wealth, power, and influence in a multipolar world rather than on making a bid for global supremacy and legitimizing its governance and development model rather than expecting other countries to adopt it". Which I completely agree with: anyone who understands China and Chinese history even a little bit finds laughable this notion of a China hellbent on a Western-like global hegemony where it seeks to remake the world in its image. It's exactly what China does NOT want to do: it's completely antagonistic to their culture and diplomatic traditions. As Heer rightly writes, this image of China is a "bogeyman" created in Washington with very little to do with reality... Yet, as we all know, in geopolitics perception is reality and "the central challenge of peaceful coexistence" is that you first need to acknowledge that the other side is ok to coexist with you: if you convince yourself that they're hellbent on destroying you, then you obviously simultaneously convince yourself that coexistence isn't an option... All this, as Heer writes, results in a form of radicalization in Washington which "deems even Beijing’s minimal strategic goals to be both unacceptable and unchangeable", refuses to "acknowledge that China has legitimate interests and ambitions" and "blames Beijing exclusively for resisting compromise". He depressingly relates that at a private conference on China he attended in Washington, "most participants appeared reluctant to concede openly—or at least specify—any legitimate Chinese security or economic interests in the Indo-Pacific", which is pretty mind-blowing if you think about it, given that China is IN the Indo-Pacific... The inverse is not true in Beijing as they are "genuinely interested in peaceful coexistence", although they are "skeptical that the other side is similarly inclined or has already concluded that it is not" (and who could blame them given what Heer relates above...) This is not a good trend because, as Heer writes: "Beijing currently judges that Washington is resisting both multipolarity and the idea that U.S.-China coexistence could be peaceful. If strategic trends continue to reinforce the Chinese perception that the United States seeks to contain China, hinder its development, or deny the legitimacy of its ambitions, this will increase the chances that Beijing will feel compelled to adopt a more confrontational and aggressive posture." Heer doesn't seem to be positive that the situation will change anytime soon but stresses, correctly, that it still must: "peaceful coexistence between the United States and China is imperative... The alternative is an escalating cold war based on false premises and faulty assumptions." Also, "most of the rest of the world wants Washington and Beijing to do this". I'm personally, this might surprise you, slightly less negative than Heer: I think that China is nothing if not patient. They understand it will take a while for the US to adjust to their loss of primacy and accept the idea that others have legitimate interests too. I also think that China's strategy is to systematically blunt all US attempts at reasserting primacy and containing them, so as to impress this new reality upon them. The US aren't exactly fast learners and they're now in their tantrum/denial phase, but eventually they'll have no choice but to get there. If anything Heer's article illustrates that some preeminent strategic thinkers in the US are there already.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。