在美中战略竞争性愈益显现的时候，美中的国家利益是否不可调和？这个问题亦愈益引起关注。美国《外交事务》杂志网站最新面向美国学界的34位专家做了调查，14人认为不可调和，15人认为并非不可调和，5人保持中立。两种看法可谓平分秋色。
"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"（U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible），34位专家被问到是否同意这种论述时，有两人表示"非常同意"，他们是芝加哥大学教授米尔斯海默（John Mearsheimer）、马歇尔基金会高级研究员弗莱（Jamie Fly），而且他们都给自己的看法打了百分之百确信的10分。
表示"同意"这种说法的专家有12人，包括亚洲协会高级研究员夏伟（Orville Schell）、哈佛教授阿里森（Graham Allison）、乔治城大学教授麦艾文（Evan Medeiros）、哥伦比亚大学教授贝茨（Richard Betts）、乔治·华盛顿大学教授沈大伟（David Shambaugh）、新美国安全中心副主席拉特纳（Ely Ratner）、乔治城大学助理教授梅惠琳（Oriana Skylar Mastro）、网络专栏作者利明彰（Bill Bishop），胡佛研究所研究员奥斯林（Michael Auslin），以及华裔学者裴敏欣和孙韵等。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"论述持中立态度的有5人，包括哈佛教授奈（Joseph Nye）、前华盛顿邮报驻华记者潘文（John Pomfret）、牛津大学教授米特（Rana Mitter）和传统基金会高级研究员成斌等。
表示"非常不同意"上述论述的专家有3位，都是华裔学者：布鲁金斯学会高级研究员李成、密歇根大学副教授洪源远（Yuen Yuen Ang）、康奈尔大学副教授白洁曦（Jessica Chen Weiss）。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"说法表示"不同意"的学者有15人，包括哥伦比亚大学教授黎安友（Andrew Nathan）、亚洲协会副主席拉塞尔（Danny Russel）、战略与国际研究中心高级顾问葛来仪（Bonnie Glaser）、外交关系理事会高级研究员艾布拉姆斯（Elliott Abrams）、新美国安全中心主席范腾（Richard Fontaine）、耶鲁大学高级研究学者胡珀（Mira Rapp-Hooper）、新美国安全中心高级研究员舒尔曼（Loren DeJonge Schulman）、亚洲协会政策研究所主任福德（Lindsey Ford）、约翰·霍普金斯大学副教授傅瑞珍（Carla P.Freeman）等。
有意思的是，表示"非常不同意"上述论断的3位华裔学者都写出了详细的理由。而多数同意上述论断的学者，并没有写理由或仅写寥寥数语，或许因为现在的形势似乎是显而易见的。
布鲁金斯学会约翰·桑顿中国研究中心主任李成指出：美国有明显的紧迫感要保护和促进美国在世界舞台上的安全、繁荣和信誉。令人担心的是，如果美国不拿出新的、有效的方式与中国打交道，这个强大的对手将在许多重要方面超过美国，并在二十年内获得实质性的竞争优势。矛盾的是，尽管美国和中国越来越怀疑对方的战略意图，但两国之间的接触从未像今天这样广泛、深入和频繁——无论是国家元首、军事首脑、智库、地方、商业、教育、文化或旅游级别。美国和中国都面临着恐怖主义、核扩散、网络安全、国际难民流动、气候变化和全球流行病方面日益严峻的挑战，这些挑战很大程度上是共同的。
研究中国民族主义课题的白洁曦指出：中国和美国的国家利益虽然不同，但仍然是相容的。国土安全、经济繁荣、治理污染和气候变化以及一个和平的亚太——这些都是美中两国的共同利益，不会威胁对方生存和福祉。我们看到并将继续看到中美在一些重大问题上的摩擦，包括贸易、台湾问题，以及中国与美国在亚太地区的盟友和伙伴之间的主权争端。但假定两国之间存在根本的不相容，就等于承认，如果两国继续走目前的道路，战争或投降是不可避免的。
出版过《大国政治的悲剧》并提出"进攻性现实主义"的米尔斯海默写道：中国的主要外交政策目标是以美国主导西半球的方式主导亚洲。换句话说，中国想成为地区霸主，从他们的角度来看，这是一个明智的目标。毫不奇怪，有大量证据表明他们正在追求这个目标。另一方面，美国在防止中国主宰亚洲，而不是维持该地区目前的实力平衡方面有着深远的利益。因此，中美两国的利益显然是根本不相容的。
最早提出"修昔底德陷阱"的阿里森指出：中美两国在一些关键的国家利益上有共同之处，比如两国之间不想发生全面战争，但在谁将在西太平洋地区占据主导地位等问题上存在利益冲突。
曾在奥巴马时期任白宫东亚事务高级主任的麦艾文写道：美国和中国的国家利益多元，有些是汇合的，有些是分离的。在与国家安全和经济决策有关的关键问题上，这种分歧越来越大。然而，目前双方都有利益避免一场重大的双边冲突，而这将暂时提供一点稳定。
著名中国问题专家黎安友表示，原则上每个国家都可以安全和繁荣，而不会损害另一个国家的安全和繁荣，但他们的领导人是否能找到通向这种幸福状态的道路尚不确定。
曾任拜登助手的前白宫副国安顾问拉特纳说：在亚洲，中美两国在战略竞争最具后果、最直接，其愿望是不可调和的，尽管两国在国际经济和跨国问题上有共同利益。
奥巴马时期的美国助理国务卿拉塞尔说：美国和中国的国家利益"维恩图解"（一种英国的逻辑图解）显示出了明显的重叠。如果两国都有称职的领导，他们的分歧已经并且可以在很大程度上得到缓解。
曾在白宫国安会任职和担任参议员麦凯恩幕僚的范腾指出：从根本上说，两国利益并非互不相容，大国之间存在着可以想象的双赢结果。但在实践中，默认立场更有可能是竞争。因此，理论上可行的做法可能只是学术上的，因为双方都在追求利益，而害怕对方的努力。
傅瑞珍认为，中美关系互利共赢是有可能的。然而两国之间存在严重的互不信任和摩擦，包括一些可能无法调和的分歧。如果处理不当，将使美中关系面临恶化的高风险。只有当两国都决定争夺地区和全球的主导地位时，两国的国家利益才从根本上不相容。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"论断持中立立场的学者都认为，这取决于两国怎么做。有"软实力之父"之称的奈只写了一句话：这取决于牌怎么打。
"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"（U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible），34位专家被问到是否同意这种论述时，有两人表示"非常同意"，他们是芝加哥大学教授米尔斯海默（John Mearsheimer）、马歇尔基金会高级研究员弗莱（Jamie Fly），而且他们都给自己的看法打了百分之百确信的10分。
表示"同意"这种说法的专家有12人，包括亚洲协会高级研究员夏伟（Orville Schell）、哈佛教授阿里森（Graham Allison）、乔治城大学教授麦艾文（Evan Medeiros）、哥伦比亚大学教授贝茨（Richard Betts）、乔治·华盛顿大学教授沈大伟（David Shambaugh）、新美国安全中心副主席拉特纳（Ely Ratner）、乔治城大学助理教授梅惠琳（Oriana Skylar Mastro）、网络专栏作者利明彰（Bill Bishop），胡佛研究所研究员奥斯林（Michael Auslin），以及华裔学者裴敏欣和孙韵等。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"论述持中立态度的有5人，包括哈佛教授奈（Joseph Nye）、前华盛顿邮报驻华记者潘文（John Pomfret）、牛津大学教授米特（Rana Mitter）和传统基金会高级研究员成斌等。
表示"非常不同意"上述论述的专家有3位，都是华裔学者：布鲁金斯学会高级研究员李成、密歇根大学副教授洪源远（Yuen Yuen Ang）、康奈尔大学副教授白洁曦（Jessica Chen Weiss）。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"说法表示"不同意"的学者有15人，包括哥伦比亚大学教授黎安友（Andrew Nathan）、亚洲协会副主席拉塞尔（Danny Russel）、战略与国际研究中心高级顾问葛来仪（Bonnie Glaser）、外交关系理事会高级研究员艾布拉姆斯（Elliott Abrams）、新美国安全中心主席范腾（Richard Fontaine）、耶鲁大学高级研究学者胡珀（Mira Rapp-Hooper）、新美国安全中心高级研究员舒尔曼（Loren DeJonge Schulman）、亚洲协会政策研究所主任福德（Lindsey Ford）、约翰·霍普金斯大学副教授傅瑞珍（Carla P.Freeman）等。
有意思的是，表示"非常不同意"上述论断的3位华裔学者都写出了详细的理由。而多数同意上述论断的学者，并没有写理由或仅写寥寥数语，或许因为现在的形势似乎是显而易见的。
布鲁金斯学会约翰·桑顿中国研究中心主任李成指出：美国有明显的紧迫感要保护和促进美国在世界舞台上的安全、繁荣和信誉。令人担心的是，如果美国不拿出新的、有效的方式与中国打交道，这个强大的对手将在许多重要方面超过美国，并在二十年内获得实质性的竞争优势。矛盾的是，尽管美国和中国越来越怀疑对方的战略意图，但两国之间的接触从未像今天这样广泛、深入和频繁——无论是国家元首、军事首脑、智库、地方、商业、教育、文化或旅游级别。美国和中国都面临着恐怖主义、核扩散、网络安全、国际难民流动、气候变化和全球流行病方面日益严峻的挑战，这些挑战很大程度上是共同的。
研究中国民族主义课题的白洁曦指出：中国和美国的国家利益虽然不同，但仍然是相容的。国土安全、经济繁荣、治理污染和气候变化以及一个和平的亚太——这些都是美中两国的共同利益，不会威胁对方生存和福祉。我们看到并将继续看到中美在一些重大问题上的摩擦，包括贸易、台湾问题，以及中国与美国在亚太地区的盟友和伙伴之间的主权争端。但假定两国之间存在根本的不相容，就等于承认，如果两国继续走目前的道路，战争或投降是不可避免的。
出版过《大国政治的悲剧》并提出"进攻性现实主义"的米尔斯海默写道：中国的主要外交政策目标是以美国主导西半球的方式主导亚洲。换句话说，中国想成为地区霸主，从他们的角度来看，这是一个明智的目标。毫不奇怪，有大量证据表明他们正在追求这个目标。另一方面，美国在防止中国主宰亚洲，而不是维持该地区目前的实力平衡方面有着深远的利益。因此，中美两国的利益显然是根本不相容的。
最早提出"修昔底德陷阱"的阿里森指出：中美两国在一些关键的国家利益上有共同之处，比如两国之间不想发生全面战争，但在谁将在西太平洋地区占据主导地位等问题上存在利益冲突。
曾在奥巴马时期任白宫东亚事务高级主任的麦艾文写道：美国和中国的国家利益多元，有些是汇合的，有些是分离的。在与国家安全和经济决策有关的关键问题上，这种分歧越来越大。然而，目前双方都有利益避免一场重大的双边冲突，而这将暂时提供一点稳定。
著名中国问题专家黎安友表示，原则上每个国家都可以安全和繁荣，而不会损害另一个国家的安全和繁荣，但他们的领导人是否能找到通向这种幸福状态的道路尚不确定。
曾任拜登助手的前白宫副国安顾问拉特纳说：在亚洲，中美两国在战略竞争最具后果、最直接，其愿望是不可调和的，尽管两国在国际经济和跨国问题上有共同利益。
奥巴马时期的美国助理国务卿拉塞尔说：美国和中国的国家利益"维恩图解"（一种英国的逻辑图解）显示出了明显的重叠。如果两国都有称职的领导，他们的分歧已经并且可以在很大程度上得到缓解。
曾在白宫国安会任职和担任参议员麦凯恩幕僚的范腾指出：从根本上说，两国利益并非互不相容，大国之间存在着可以想象的双赢结果。但在实践中，默认立场更有可能是竞争。因此，理论上可行的做法可能只是学术上的，因为双方都在追求利益，而害怕对方的努力。
傅瑞珍认为，中美关系互利共赢是有可能的。然而两国之间存在严重的互不信任和摩擦，包括一些可能无法调和的分歧。如果处理不当，将使美中关系面临恶化的高风险。只有当两国都决定争夺地区和全球的主导地位时，两国的国家利益才从根本上不相容。
对"美国和中国的国家利益根本上不可调和"论断持中立立场的学者都认为，这取决于两国怎么做。有"软实力之父"之称的奈只写了一句话：这取决于牌怎么打。
附：
Are U.S. and Chinese National Interests Incompatible?
We at Foreign Affairs have recently published a number of pieces dealing with the clash of U.S. and Chinese national interests. To complement these articles, we decided to ask a broad pool of experts for their take. As with previous surveys, we approached dozens of authorities with deep specialized expertise relevant to the question at hand, together with a few leading generalists in the field. Participants were asked to state whether they agreed or disagreed with a proposition and to rate their confidence level in their opinion; the answers from those who responded are below:
DEBATE STATEMENT
U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible.
Elliott Abrams
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 6
Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
We must distinguish between Chinese national interests and those of the regime. A China not ruled by the Communist Party would have not only different domestic policies but quite different foreign policies as well.
Graham Allison
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9
Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
China and the United States share some vital national interests, for example no general war between them, but have conflicting national interests, for example over who will be the predominant power in the Western Pacific.
Yuen Yuen Ang
STRONGLY DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan and the author of How China Escaped the Poverty Trap
The belief that U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible is dangerously self-reinforcing. If American and Chinese policymakers hold this belief, they will make policies that undermine each other, and the more they do so, the more the two nations will appear to be incontrovertible enemies. This is exactly what's happening in the ongoing trade war. In fact, both the United States and China are economically interdependent; neither can
Michael Auslin
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Williams-Griffis Fellow in Contemporary Asia at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Washington and Beijing have similar national interests, including territorial integrity, national security, regional stability in the Americas and Asia, domestic economic growth, and a healthy global economy, to mention but a few. Yet they view many of these increasingly in zero-sum terms and therefore incompatibly vis-à-vis each other at the present time. With Beijing determined no longer to occupy what it considers to be a subordinate role globally, areas of
Salvatore Babones
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Associate Professor of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney
Despite all the "trade war" rhetoric, China is rapidly integrating into a trans-Pacific technological ecosystem centered on Silicon Valley.
Richard K. Betts
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 6
Director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
It depends on which category of interests is meant. My answer is about the most important: political, strategic, national security interests. Regarding economic interests, the answer is probably different.
Bill Bishop
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Publisher of Sinocism
Dean Cheng
NEUTRAL, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 6
Senior Research Fellow at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation's Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
It depends very much on which interests, and what time-frame is being considered. In the short run, for example, both sides presumably have an interest in avoiding a full-blown trade war. In the long run, both sides presumably have a shared interest in avoiding a thermonuclear war. But there are many areas where we do have incompatible interests, so it depends.
Bridget Coggins
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara
Their interests may come to a point of fundamental incompatibility in the years to come, but that outcome is contingent on the nature and pace of China's rise and the American response—especially in Asia.
John Delury
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 5
Associate Professor of Chinese Studies, Yonsei University
Compatibility depends on the willingness of both sides to accept an imperfect, but viable, accommodation with the other.
Jamie Fly
STRONGLY AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
Senior Fellow and Director of the Future of Geopolitics and Asia Programs, German Marshall Fund
Richard Fontaine
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
President of the Center for a New American Security
Fundamentally, they are not incompatible, and there are win-win outcomes conceivable between the big powers. But in practice the default position is far likelier to be competition. So what is theoretically possible may be simply academic, as each side pursues advantage and fears the other's exertions.
Lindsey Ford
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Director of Political-Security Affairs at the Asia Society Policy Institute
Carla P. Freeman
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Associate Research Professor and Executive Director of the SAIS Foreign Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University
A Sino-American relationship that is mutually and globally beneficial is possible. There are, however, significant areas of mistrust and friction, including a number of potentially irreconcilable differences between the two countries that put relations between the United States and China at high risk of deterioration if not deftly managed. The two countries' national interests are fundamentally incompatible only if both decide to contend for regional and global primacy.
Bonnie Glaser
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Patricia Kim
NEUTRAL, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Cheng Li
STRONGLY DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Director, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
There is a palpable sense of urgency in the United States to protect and advance American security, prosperity, and credibility on the world stage. The fear is that unless the United Sttes unveils a new and effective approach to dealing with China, this formidable rival will surpass the United States in many important aspects and gain a substantial competitive edge within a couple of decades, if not sooner. Paradoxically, even
Rebecca Friedman Lissner
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9
Research Fellow at Perry World House, the University of Pennsylvania's Global Policy Research Center
Although the United States and China share certain interests on matters of global governance, they have opposing interests in the Asian regional order. Whether and how these competing interests are managed will be the defining geopolitical question of twenty-first century geopolitics.
Oriana Skylar Mastro
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Assistant professor of Security Studies at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Evan S. Medeiros
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies, Professor of Practice at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
The United States and China each have a diversity of national interests; some converge and some diverge with each other. The divergence is growing and on key issues related to national security and economic policy-making. Yet both have an interest in avoiding a major bilateral conflict and that will provide a modicum of stability, for now.
John Mearsheimer
STRONGLY AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
China's principal foreign policy goal is to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. In other words, China wants to become a regional hegemon, which is a wise goal from their perspective. Unsurprisingly, there is an abundance of evidence that they are pursuing that aim. The United States, on the other hand, has a profound interest in preventing China from dominating Asia and instead maintaining the
Rana Mitter
NEUTRAL, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Professor of the History and Politics of Modern China, St. Cross College, Oxford University
Andrew J. Nathan
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
Class of 1919 Professor of Political Science, Columbia University
Each country can in principle be secure and prosperous without detracting from the security and prosperity of the other. But whether their leaders will find their way to that happy state of affairs is uncertain.
Joseph Nye
NEUTRAL, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus and former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
It depends on how the cards are played.
Minxin Pei
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9
Tom and Margot Pritzker '72 Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College
The root cause of the clash of national interests between China and the United States is the difference in their political regimes. Their national interests could converge if China were to have a more liberal political regime.
John Pomfret
NEUTRAL, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
Journalist and Former Washington Post Bureau Chief in Beijing
It's a very mixed picture. In some areas, there's natural compatibility. In other areas, the interests diverge.
Mira Rapp-Hooper
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Senior Fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center and Senior Research Scholar, Yale Law School
Ely Ratner
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for a New American Security
In Asia, where the strategic competition is most consequential and immediate, U.S. and Chinese aspirations are irreconcilable, despite shared interests on international economic and transnational issues.
Danny Russel
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Vice President for International Security and Diplomacy, Asia Society Policy Institute
The Venn diagram of U.S. and Chinese national interests displays significant overlap and their differences have and can be largely reconciled if both nations have competent leadership.
Orville Schell
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations, Asia Society
The climate of antagonism has turned markedly since President Xi Jinping took office and basically undermined the most basic suppositions of "engagement."
Loren DeJonge Schulman
DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 7
Deputy Director of Studies and the Leon E. Panetta Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
David Shambaugh
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 8
Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director of the China Policy Program, George Washington University
Yun Sun
AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9
Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center
Jessica Chen Weiss
STRONGLY DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9
Associate Professor of Government, Cornell University
China and the United States have different but still compatible national interests. Homeland security, economic prosperity, combating pollution and climate change, and a peaceful Asia-Pacific—these are shared American and Chinese interests that do not vitally threaten the other's survival and well-being. We are seeing and will continue to see friction over major issues, including trade, Taiwan, and sovereignty disputes between China and U.S. allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific. But to assume fundamental incompatibility is to accept the inevitability of war or capitulation, should the two nations continue on their present trajectories.
No comments:
Post a Comment