風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
二十年來，美國一直誤會中國
通過 Tom Plate 2022-12-15
https://koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2022/12/197_341699.html?utm_source=fl
你知道嗎，在美國話裏，一群會飛的 COVID 不叫“flock”，而是叫“murder”？
眼下，在南加州溫暖的拉古納地區，聰明的烏鴉已經展開翅膀，期待春天的到來。
他們沒有武裝飛行計劃來俯衝轟炸在他們後院燒烤的人。 相反，這些受傳統束縛、以家庭為導向、勤奮工作的幸存者將很快通過強有力的空中監視尋找可靠的食物來源和補給線。
是的，用羽毛裝飾它們的巢穴可能會很吵鬧，但總的來說，這裏的定居者 Homo sapiens 很好地接受了它們的需求，因此在這個太平洋社區，鳥類與人類之間存在著穩定的和平。
在智人物種中並非如此：將南中國海巢穴中的“狡猾”中國人與周圍軍事基地的“侵入性”美國人以及具有“航行自由”海上突襲的咄咄逼人的第七艦隊進行對比。 誰是侵略者，誰是可接受的嵌套者？
在這個難題上，超過四分之一個世紀以來，我與堅持認為我們應該能夠做我們想做的事情的美國人持不同意見。 諸如《中國即將崩潰》等令人厭惡、刻薄的書籍，或者甚至是被嘉年華標題玷汙的紮實書籍，如《命中注定》，都表明美國缺乏足夠的常識和情感平衡來應對 21 世紀最大的地緣政治困境 .
幾十年來，新加坡教授兼外交官馬布巴尼 (Kishore Mahbubani) 一直在警告所有人，美國在情感上或理智上都沒有準備好在一定範圍內處理和接受中國的曆史性重現。 這位十字軍思想家的地位如何。
我自己在亞洲和美洲的報道工作使我同意我們對中國的政策方向已經變得被動和錯誤。 美國媒體從來沒有提供過多少幫助，它們總是用美國例外主義和冷戰複仇主義的陳舊破爛來包裝自己的報道。 很少有美國政客有敏銳或勇氣呼籲在與崛起中的亞洲核超級大國的高風險關係中進行路線修正（甚至是微小的重新調整）。
曆史不會善待美國過去二十年的對華政策。 知識分子和政策上的懶惰阻礙了洞察力。 不了解中美關係 關係可以寄希望於閑置或按兵不動的信譽和可持續性。 這就是“北京與華盛頓”、“有特色的社會主義”與“美國例外主義的資本主義”的問題。 它們是雙輸的、麵對麵的公式。
我需要重新校準，因為我看到了一本魯莽但緊迫的新書，書名是《超越：中國如何脫離和平崛起的軌道》。 這是一本自認為對中國足夠了解的人都應該讀一讀的書，因為他們並不了解。
作者是加州大學聖地亞哥分校的 Susan Shirk 博士，她知識淵博。 作為我們最有洞察力的學者之一，她在美國西海岸享有盛譽，在克林頓政府期間，她作為前國務院官員在中國、台灣、香港和蒙古贏得了廣泛的聲譽。 這是一個短暫的、被遺忘的時代，當時美國的對華政策往往是務實的，有時甚至接近於明智的。 這是一段值得銘記的過去。
Shirk 對政策重新調整的貢獻在於，她將深度思考的學術巧妙地運用到對必要的撤退和新的新方向的雙重需求中。 這適用於北京和華盛頓。
她首先讓中國——尤其是其現任領導層——承擔擴大問題清單的責任：北京的過度擴張（其戰狼外交、南海霸淩等等）加劇了現有的緊張局勢或引發了新的緊張局勢。 西方因其頑固的政策思維缺陷而受到阻礙，認為它必須以某種方式做出反應——製裁、增加軍費開支、新的聯盟結構。
Shirk 將中國此前宣稱的“和平”崛起脫軌的根源追溯到 2006 年至 2009 年左右，並尖銳地指出現任中央政府：“中國的習政策成本正在增加，”她總結道。 解決方案難以捉摸：中國將需要“找到自我約束的機製。這個問題沒有明顯的解決方案或簡單的答案。”
更糟糕的是，如果中國對一個人來說是一項不可能完成的大工作，那麽它是否有合適的人選來擔任這個在政治上呼喚對不懈的實用主義的無限熱情的角色？
是的，中國在曆史上一直遭受著令人厭惡的、冷酷無情的西方幹涉和對霸權的無禮刺傷； 但是，試圖通過強硬的言辭和咄咄逼人的政策來解決地緣政治的不公正，隻會激勵敵人並製造新的疑慮和懷疑者。
是的，從某些指標來看，美國很可能正在失去動力，但將中國的戰略思想強加在一艘據稱正在沉沒的船的桅杆上是一場驚人的巨大賭博。
謝克教授的下台似乎比冷戰時期的熱風更新鮮，因為她對美國政策的批評幾乎同樣尖銳，在這個過程中向雙方發出了嚴厲的、成人級別的警告，要求雙方共同生活，以避免危及整個物種。
為什麽中國領導人認為它必須在世界舞台上像狼一樣跳舞？ 為什麽華盛頓-紐約的權力精英這麽長時間以來一直拒絕為中國更明智的烏鴉製定更好的美國政策這一崇高挑戰？ 相反，唉，它似乎隻能像老鷹一樣觀察它們。
洛杉磯洛約拉馬利蒙特大學亞太研究傑出學者湯姆·普拉特(Tom Plate)是太平洋世紀研究所副所長。 他的第一本書《理解世界末日，論核軍備競賽》於 1971 年出版。他的文章由《南華早報》發行。
By Tom Plate 2022-12-15
Did you know that, in American-speak, a group of flying COVIDs is not called a "flock" but a "murder"?
Right now, amid the warm Laguna area of southern California, whip-smart crows are already spreading their wings in anticipation of spring.
They're not armed with flight plans to dive-bomb people barbecuing in their backyards. Instead, these tradition-bound, family-oriented, hard-working survivors will soon be scoping out reliable food sources and supply lines with assertive aerial surveillance.
Yes, feathering their nest can get to be quite a racket, but, on the whole, their needs are well accepted by the settler Homo sapiens here, so that in this Pacific neighborhood, a steady peace prevails between birdkind and mankind.
Not so much within the Homo sapiens species: Contrast the "cunning" Chinese in their South China Sea lair, and the "intrusive" Americans with their surrounding military bases and pushy Seventh Fleet with those "freedom of navigation" sea-swoops. Who's the aggressor and who's the acceptable nester?
On that conundrum, for more than a quarter of a century, I have differed with Americans who insist that we should be able to do pretty much what we want. Loathsome, mean-spirited books such as The Coming Collapse of China or even otherwise solid books sullied by a carnival title, such as Destined for War, suggest that America lacks enough common sense and emotional balance to handle the biggest geopolitical dilemma of the 21st century.
For decades now, Singaporean professor and diplomat Kishore Mahbubani has been warning everyone that America was not emotionally or intellectually prepared to process and accept, within bounds, the historic resurfacing of China. How spot on this crusading thinker has been.
My own reporting efforts on Asia and America led me to agree that our policy direction with China had become reactive and wrong. Scant help ever comes from the U.S. media, always wrapping its reporting in the old rags of American exceptionalism and Cold War revanchism. Few American politicians had the acumen or courage to call for course corrections (or even minor recalibrations) in the high-stakes relationship with the rising Asian nuclear superpower.
History will not judge American policy towards China over the last two decades kindly. Intellectual and policy laziness have blocked out insight. No understanding of China-U.S. relations can hope for credibility and sustainability that lies fallow or stands pat. This is the problem of "Beijing versus Washington," and with "Socialism with Characteristics" versus "Capitalism with American Exceptionalism." They are lose-lose, in-your-face formulations.
The need for recalibration came to me in coming across a brash but urgent new book titled Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise. This is a volume that everyone who thinks they know enough about China should read, because they don't.
The author is Dr. Susan Shirk of the University of California in San Diego, and she knows plenty. Famed on the U.S. west coast as one of our most insightful scholars, she earned a large international reputation as a former State Department official with the remit of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mongolia during the Clinton administration. This was a brief, forgotten epoch when U.S. China policy was often practical and sometimes close to sensible. It's a past worth remembering.
Shirk's contribution to policy recalibration is in her sophisticated parlaying of deep-thinking scholarship into the twin need for necessary retreats and fresh new directions. This applies to both Beijing and Washington.
She starts up by taking China ― especially its current leadership ― to task for extending the list of problems: Beijing's overreach (its Wolf-Warrior diplomacy, South China Sea bullying, and so on) heats up existing tensions or flares up new ones. The West, handicapped by the defects of its implacable policy thinking, feels it must react somehow ― with sanctions, increased military expenditures, new alliance configurations.
Shirk traces the origins of China's derailing of its own previously proclaimed "peaceful" rise back to around 2006-2009, and pointedly calls out the current national government: "The costs to China of Xi's policies are adding up," she concludes. A solution is elusive: China will need to "find mechanisms to restraint itself. The problem has no obvious solution or simple answer."
Worse yet, if China is an impossibly big job for one man, does it have the best man in place for a role that cries out politically for the infinite zest of relentless pragmatism?
Yes, China has historically suffered from obnoxious and callus Western meddling and ham-fisted stabs at hegemony; but seeking to square geopolitical injustice by overreaching via punchy rhetoric and pushy policy only incentivizes enemies and creates new doubts and doubters.
Yes, America by some metrics may well be on a power losing momentum, but to lash China's strategic thinking onto the mast of an allegedly sinking ship is one breathtakingly colossal gamble.
Professor Shirk's takedown seems more fresh air than cold-war hot air, because her critique of U.S. policies is almost as searing, in the process offering a stern, adult-level warning to both sides to live together to avoid endangering the entire species.
Why does the Chinese leadership believe it has to dance like wolves on the world stage? Why has the Washington-New York power elite so long resisted the noble challenge of a better US policy for China's more sensible crows; instead, alas, it only seems capable of watching them like, well, hawks.
Tom Plate, distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, is the Pacific Century Institute's vice-president. His first book ― "Understanding Doomsday, on the nuclear arms race" ― was published in 1971. His article was distributed by the South China Morning Post.
