【重磅】傅瑩:中美關系能否從危險的邊緣回歸? - 新聞評論 - 社會國家 - 頂客論壇 ,免費遊戲,免費交友,免費空間,免費部落格,免費相簿,免費開店 - 頂客社區 dk101.com 最用心的華人社群網站
發新話題

[轉貼] 【重磅】傅瑩:中美關系能否從危險的邊緣回歸?

【重磅】傅瑩:中美關系能否從危險的邊緣回歸?

2018-11-04
中央廣電總台國際在線

  “ 彭博新聞網今日刊登傅瑩文章,文章強調中國人需要了解中美關系所面臨的問題及其原因。雖然新的形勢令人擔憂,但人們沒有放棄重返穩定和發展的希望,並且願爲實現這一目標而努力。
  以下是中國社科院國家全球戰略智庫首席專家,清華大學兼職教授,中國外交部前副部長 傅瑩女士 文章中英文版,中文版經作者授權盤古智庫發布。 ”

中國社科院國家全球戰略智庫首席專家,清華大學兼職教授,中國外交部前副部長傅瑩女士
  中美關系能否從危險的邊緣回歸?
  傅瑩
  中美關系下滑的速度超出人們預料。隨之而來的問題是:這兩個國家是否會閉著眼睛跳入所謂守成大國與新興大國不惜發生戰爭的“修昔底德陷阱”?美國在推動加快這個下滑進程,但需仔細考量的是:“這是否符合美國的最佳利益?”而對于中國人來說,需要考慮的不僅是如何智慧應對挑戰,而且要看這種向錯誤方向的下滑有沒有可能被阻止。
  貿易摩擦帶來的緊張局勢開始向其他領域蔓延。美國聲稱中國已成爲其主要的戰略競爭對手,甚至指責中國“幹涉”選舉並試圖挑戰美國的全球霸權。在國際層面,全球主義和多邊主義遭到批判;同時地緣政治和大國競爭重登台面,同民粹主義、保護主義雜揉在一起,正在削弱幾十年來各國之間建立的紐帶。所有這些不確定因素頗有要將世界拖回到20世紀上半葉那種動蕩狀態之勢。
  造成這些緊張的原因是多元和多樣化的。在工業和技術領域圍繞新增長動能的競爭是原因之一;動搖了自由民主國家的重大政治力量的變化也帶來不安。此外,美國等西方發達國家基于對不同政治制度的懷疑心態,對中國在共産黨領導下取得成功疑懼日深。
  美國需要意識到,它的諸多怨訴都建立在不牢固的事實基礎之上。例如,美國自認爲是全球化的受害者 —— 即便數據所證明的事實與此恰恰相反。根據世界銀行以現價美元估算值所做的統計:美國國內生産總值從1990年的5.98萬億美元增長到2017年的19.39萬億美元 —— 人均增加35,577美元;而同期中國人均國內生産總值增長8,509美元,不及美國增長額的四分之一。
  事實上美國是全球化的長期主要受益者,美國跨國公司獲得了巨額利潤;而海外低成本加工制造和低價進口商品以及全球美元環流,則無疑有助于維持美國的經濟繁榮和民生的高基准。
  盡管如此,在美國有一些人似乎想促使世界上最大的兩個經濟體“脫鈎”,減少相互依存,以期阻礙或至少滯遲中國的進步。他們提出的要求如此極端,以致于似乎這套設計的目的就是,讓中國除了對抗並卷入代價高昂的世界權力博弈之外,別無選擇。
  但現實是,中美已在同一全球經濟體系內相伴成長了40年,相互在經濟結構上深層次的聯系和互補性意味著,“脫鈎”不可能立竿見影,即便不得已而發生,也要經曆長期而痛苦的過程。而這對雙方的經濟和人民的福祉乃至全球經濟可能造成的損害,恐怕是世界難以承受之重。
  曆史進程的方向性變化從來不是在哪個特定時間選定、抑或因某個特別事件發生的,而是在對諸多具體問題的應對和調整中,累積完成。只有在大勢形成之後,人們才能觀察到變化的全貌。從這個角度來看,中美現在的選擇所産生的影響,將會在很長一段時間波瀾不息。
  如果中美兩國共同努力,就能夠取得重大成就。而如果兩國對抗,不論對兩國自身還是世界來說都有極大的危害。因此雙方都需要避免誤判彼此戰略意圖,否則就會陷入無果的惡性循環中。
  美國對中國提出的許多指控並非基于可靠事實,這表明,在美國關于中國和中國的目標和利益方面的信息是缺失的。有些指控也許是基于個別情況或事件,被故意用來作爲抹黑或抨擊中國的理由。例如,如果某些中國個人或媒體以公開合法的方式對美國政治發表評論,那麽由此被指爲官方幹涉美國內政是很牽強的。中國對外國幹涉自己的內政高度敏感,因此不會允許對別國采取這樣的做法。在缺乏有效證據的情況下,對中國進行這樣的指責,如果不是故意妖魔化中國,那麽只能被當作一種天真的笑話來看待。
  中國人也可以做更多努力來消除這類傷害形象的誤解,官員和學者可以更積極地與美國公衆和更廣泛的國際社會進行溝通。舉例來說,2008年發生了三聚氰胺嬰兒配方奶粉事件,現任白宮貿易顧問納瓦羅曾在他的書中將此事渲染和扭曲,根據他的描述,中國人如此不道德,不僅給外國消費者下毒,也給自己下毒。但如果中國人能主動向外界進行全面通報,說明事件如何得到徹查,相關人如何被懲處,法律法規如何得到嚴格執行以避免再發生,這樣的胡扯就不會輕易傳播。10年過去了,挑戰仍然存在,但食品安全已成爲中國政府的頭等大事。
  中國有權在其政治體制受到攻擊時捍衛政治主權。同時,對美方提出的具體問題也可以做出說明和給予回應。舉例來說,美國人批評中國在應對氣候變化上努力不夠,而實際上中國爲改善環境付出巨大經濟代價,一些工廠不得不關閉,下崗工人需要再培訓和安置。中國人爲維護一個健康的地球所經曆的種種困難應該讓世人所知曉。
  如果美方提出的訴求有合理的地方,中國人可以坦然接受,並且通過加快改革來解決這類問題。例如,中國已宣布采取措施進一步開放金融服務業,全面降低關稅等。爲了更好地保護知識産權,全國人大常委會剛作出決定,涉及知識産權專業技術性較強的二審案件,今後將直接提交最高法院審理,以利于統一專利等知識産權司法裁判標准。
  自2014年以來,在北京、上海和廣州設立的知識産權法院處理了越來越多的涉及專利、商標和版權等方面的案件。目前知識産權領域的侵權和糾紛仍不少見,須進一步提高人們的意識和加強從嚴執法。如果美國真關心中國的知識産權保護,那就應該成爲中國應對挑戰的夥伴。
  此刻,中國人需要了解中美關系所面臨的問題及其原因。雖然新的形勢令人擔憂,但人們沒有放棄重返穩定和發展的希望,並且願爲實現這一目標而努力。即便“修昔底德陷阱”是存在的,但並不意味著我們必須踏進去。
  Can China-U.S. Relations Step Back From theEdge?
  Fu Ying
  Visiting the U.S. recently, I was told by virtually every American I met that attitudes toward China had shifted. This phenomenon, they claimed, cut across bipartisan lines as well as government, business and academic circles. The U.S. was frustrated at not having shaped China in its own image, despite bringing the country into the World Trade Organization and helping to enable its economic takeoff. Instead, China had “ripped off” the U.S. by taking advantage of it in trade and business. There was concern at how fast China was climbing up the global economic and technological ladder, and that its military was threatening to “elbow out” the U.S. from Asia.
  Although attitudes may have changed, I’m not convinced they’ve settled yet. Judging from American history, major strategies are usually shaped through trial and error, in response to specific challenges. Consensus develops along the way. Any adjustment in the U.S. posture toward China will therefore take time. This also means that the final outcome will be affected by how the two countries act and react in the coming months and years.
  In evaluating next steps, the Chinese people first have to ask whether U.S. criticisms are fair. It’s true that economic growth hasn’t produced in China a political system similar to the U.S.’s. Interestingly, I recall attending an American government program in the mid-1990s designed for diplomats from developing nations. The topic was U.S. security strategy and policy-making. I had one question: What were America’s strategic objectives for the post-Cold War era? The answer was unambiguous: to promote U.S.-style democracy and human rights worldwide. And indeed, the U.S. has pursued those goals consistently over the last two decades, at huge cost to itself and others.
  China isn’t America’s only failure — nor the worst one. In fact, given what’s happened to some countries since the “color revolutions” and the “Arab Spring,” the U.S. should be thankful that its efforts haven’t thrown China into political turmoil and economic chaos. The fact that China has maintained social and political stability and followed its own economic path has contributed to global economic growth, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. Rather than draining U.S. finances the way the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have, China has added greatly to American prosperity.
  True, China’s fortunes have risen as well. Taking advantage of the globalization promoted by the U.S. and Europe, hardworking Chinese gained access to global capital, technologies, expertise and markets, all of which facilitated the growth of industry. Hundreds of millions of Chinese came out of poverty, and living standards in the country have risen substantially.
  But it’s important to remember two things. First, Chinese workers paid a steep cost for these developments, just as American workers did. After entering the World Trade Organization, Chinese enterprises were suddenly thrown into direct competition with global peers. Many of them didn’t survive, leading to huge layoffs all over the country. At the same time, more than 2,000 laws and regulations had to be revised or abolished at the national level and about 190,000 more at the local level, causing widespread dislocation.
  Second, China’s gains have benefited the U.S. as well. According to Oxford Economics, U.S.-China trade helps each American family save $850 every year. Between 2001 and 2016, U.S. commodities exports to China expanded five times, much higher than the 90 percent average increase. The advent of the “internet of things” and rapid growth in the number of China’s middle- and upper-class consumers will offer even more opportunities for U.S. companies. China is not only an integral part of the global economy, but also an indispensable source of growth. Any attempt to “decouple” it from the U.S. or the global economy will hurt all countries, including the U.S.
  So what should China’s response be? The Chinese have to stay cool-headed in the face of tough but confusing messages from the U.S. We must stay focused on China’s development, and overcome our own difficulties.
  China is not adopting a more confrontational stance toward the U.S. Its current attitude is part of its overall foreign policy, which is aimed at ensuring a sound environment that facilitates effective cooperation with the outside world to serve China’s development goals. For its purposes, there’s every reason for China to maintain an attitude of “constructive cooperation” with the U.S.
  In fact, changes in U.S.-China relations may help to push China’s own desired reforms. Some requests raised by U.S. companies, such as increased market access, dovetail with recommendations from China’s leaders. The government is, in fact, opening up: Eight out of the 11 market-opening measures announced by President Xi Jinping in April have been put in place, covering banking, securities, insurance, credit rating, credit investigation and payment, and so on. The government is also working harder to improve the business environment and strengthen intellectual property protections for both Chinese and foreign enterprises. Chinese reformers can turn outside pressure to their advantage, using it to bust through internal resistance to necessary changes.
  But make no mistake: The Chinese people will stand firm against U.S. bullying over trade. There is talk about China’s economy “sliding down” as a result of the trade war. Some expect China to succumb soon. I can tell you that this is wishful thinking.
  Yes, China is in the process of deleveraging, which is uncomfortable and painful. But it is a price worth paying for sustaining healthy development. It’s worth remembering that China adopted a stimulus program to help overcome the global recession triggered by the 2008 financial tsunami in the U.S. And it’s worth noting that the trade war may slow the necessary process of deleveraging.
  Finger-pointing and hurting each other won’t solve any problems. They will only make things worse. This is why China will continue to work with all countries, including the U.S., in areas of mutual concern — from climate change to transnational crime to epidemics to nuclear nonproliferation.
  This is also why China should continue talking to the U.S. Many in China believe that the root causes of U.S. troubles lie within — and therefore need to be solved by Americans themselves. We can see that the U.S. system requires a major overhaul to overcome deep sociopolitical divisions and economic disparities. But that doesn’t relieve China of the responsibility to engage in dialogue, to find out where the two sides can and can’t agree, and to seek solutions or at least ways to manage persistent disputes.
  Such an approach won’t appeal to those who seek confrontation now. But, to borrow a saying, if some folks want to chase butterflies, why should the rest of us go dancing along with them?
  China-U.S. relations have deteriorated faster than almost anyone could have expected. The question looms: Are the two countries leaping with their eyes closed into a so-called Thucydides Trap, with war possible between the rising and the established power? The U.S. is driving this process and should reflect carefully whether it’s in Americans’ best interests to continue down this path. China also needs to consider how to address the challenges wisely and whether the slide in the wrong direction can be halted.
  Tensions caused by trade have started to spread to other areas. The U.S. is now claiming that China has become its main strategic competitor, even accusing it of interfering in elections and seeking to challenge American global hegemony. At the international level, globalism and multilateralism are under attack, and the resurgence of geopolitical and power competition, mixed with populism and protectionism, are weakening the bonds built among countries in recent decades. These uncertainties seem poised to drag the world back to the turbulent years of the early 20th century.
  The causes for these tensions are many and various. Competition among the new drivers of growth, industry and technology is a source of unease. So, too, are the seismic political realignments in liberal democracies. It also seems that the U.S. and other Western countries, driven by their suspicion of different political systems, have become more wary or even fearful of China’s success under the leadership of the Communist Party.
  The U.S. needs to realize that many of its complaints rest on shaky foundations. For instance, the U.S. seems to believe that it’s a victim of globalization — even though the numbers tell a different story. According to World Bank statistics based on current dollar estimates, U.S. gross domestic product grew from $5.98 trillion in 1990 to $19.39 trillion in 2017, an increase of $35,577 per capita. China’s GDP per capita over the same period grew $8,509, or less than a quarter of the U.S. total.
  The reality is that the U.S. has been the main long-term beneficiary of globalization. U.S. multinationals have earned huge profits. And there’s no doubt that Americans' prosperity and high living standards have been helped by low-cost overseas manufacturing, low-priced imports and the global circulation of dollars.
  Despite this, some in the U.S. seem to be hoping to “decouple” the world’s two biggest economies, to reduce their interdependence and hamper or at least delay China’s progress. The demands they’ve laid out are so extreme they seem designed to leave China no option but to choose confrontation and enter a high-cost power game.
  The truth is that China and the U.S. have grown together, in the same global economic system, for 40 years. The deep connections and complementary economic structures mean that decoupling is not immediately possible. If it has to happen, it would probably involve a protracted and painful process, and the extent of the damage to each country and its people’s well-being is hard to predict, as well as the damage to the world economy.
  Looking back at history, directional change is not made in a particular moment or through a single event but rather through the accumulation of many small adjustments to specific problems. The big picture only reveals itself later. In this light, the choices China and the U.S. make now will reverberate for a long time to come.
  If China and the U.S. work together, they can achieve major successes. Confrontation, by contrast, would be enormously harmful for both countries and the wider world. American and Chinese leaders cannot afford to make misjudgments on the fundamental issue of each other’s intentions, or we will all lose out in a fruitless downward spiral.
  That many of the charges the U.S. has leveled against China aren’t based on solid facts indicates there is lack of sufficient information about China and its aims and interests. Some of the accusations may be based on individual cases or mishaps, which are being deliberately used to give China a bad name. For example, if a Chinese individual or a member of the news media comments on American politics in a transparent and lawful manner, it should not be misportrayed as official interference. China has been highly sensitive about foreign interference in its domestic affairs and therefore condones no behavior for such purposes. Accusing China of interference without hard evidence, for any Chinese, is no more than a na�ve joke -- if not a deliberate demonization.
  For its part, the Chinese can do more to dispel such corrosive misconceptions. Chinese officials and scholars can be more active in engaging the American public. Take for example, the 2008 melamine-laced baby formula scandal. Peter Navarro, now a White House trade adviser, twisted the tragic episode in his book, using it to portray the Chinese as so immoral that they would poison foreign customers and themselves. Such distortions wouldn't spread if China had proactively given the world a fuller picture of the episode, making clear that the problem was investigated, that the people responsible were punished and that laws and regulations were put in place to prevent future such occurences. Ten years have passed and challenges remain, but food safety is a top priority of the Chinese government.
  Although China has a right to defend its sovereignty when its political system is under attack, it can also do a better job of responding to specific U.S. complaints. Take, for instance, the empty American contention that we haven't done enough to fight climate change. To safeguard the environment, China is paying a stiff economic cost. We have closed polluting factories, which has led to layoffs and workers in need of retraining. The difficulties China is going through in service to a healthier planet need to be shared with the entire world.
  Where there are reasonable requests from the U.S., the Chinese can candidly acknowledge and try to address them through accelerating reforms. For example, China has announced further steps to open up the financial service sector and bring down tariffs across the board. To better protect intellectual property, the Standing Committee of National People's Congress has just approved changes that the second-instance intellectual properties cases with strong technical elements will be submitted directly to our Supreme Court so as to unify the standards of adjudication.
  Since 2014, specialized intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou have handled a growing number of patent, trademark and copyright cases. Violations and disputes are not uncommon, however a strong emphasis is given to broadening people's awareness and reinforcing the execution of laws. If the U.S. cares for China's IP improvement, it should be China's partner in addressing the challenges.
  At this moment, it is important for the Chinese people to understand what is confronting us in our relationship with the U.S. and why. Although events of late have increased apprehensiveness, we have not given up the hope of returning to a place of progress and stability, and we are willing to work toward this goal. Just because the Thucydides Trap is set, doesn't mean we have to walk into it.

TOP

發新話題

本站所有圖文均屬網友發表,僅代表作者的觀點與本站無關,如有侵權請通知版主會盡快刪除。