個人資料
正文

哈佛教授:美國一手好牌但未必能贏

(2023-03-09 16:15:17) 下一個

哈佛教授:美國一手好牌但未必能贏

發布:2023年03月09日 14:03來源:旺報
哈佛大學教授奈伊。(本報資料照)
 

外界將當前的美中關係比作冷戰,哈佛大學教授奈伊(Joseph Nye)認為,這種類比具有誤導性,但仍不排除爆發新冷戰的可能性。他也指出,美國應避免在意識形態層麵妖魔化中國;如果美中關係是一場紙牌遊戲,可以說美國已經拿到一手好牌,但如果打得不好,一樣會輸。

以提出“軟實力”聞名全球的哈佛大學教授奈伊,2日於美國“評論匯編”(Project Syndicate)撰文,該文中文版後刊於中美交流基金會旗下平台“中美聚焦”的微信公眾號。

奈伊認為,一些分析人士將當前的美中關係比作冷戰,原因是它也正變成一場長期戰略競爭。但這種類比有誤導性。冷戰期間,美蘇之間幾乎沒有貿易或對話,也沒有在氣候變化或流行病等問題上的生態相依關係。美國同中國的情況與美蘇幾乎相反。美國的任何遏製戰略都將受到一個事實的限製,即中國的主要貿易夥伴國家數量遠超美國。

奈伊表示,這種類比於冷戰的遏製戰略會適得其反,但這一事實並不排除爆發新冷戰的可能性,“我們仍有可能不小心走上這條路”。所以,與當前進行恰當曆史類比的時間點不是1945年,而是1914年。當時,所有大國預計會發生短暫的第三次巴爾幹戰爭,結果卻迎來了第一次世界大戰。

奈伊強調,20世紀10年代早期的政治領導人不夠重視日益強大的民族主義,如今的政策製定者最好不要重蹈覆轍。他們必須對中國日益高漲的民族主義和美國的民粹民族主義,以及這兩種力量之間危險的相互作用保持警惕。考慮到中國的外交特點,以及長期以來美中圍繞台灣問題的僵持與衝突,我們所有人應當對未來局勢意外升級的可能性感到擔憂。

澳洲前總理陸克文(Kevin Rudd)認為,西方的目標不應該是“全麵戰勝”中國,而應該是管控與中國的競爭。奈伊對此指出,良策就是避免妖魔化中國,而是將美中關係框定為“競爭性共存”。從長期看,在一個傳統上、經濟上和生態上相互依存的時代,如果中國變得更好,這將是西方管控大國關係戰略一個意想不到的收獲。

奈伊直言,一個好的戰略必須基於審慎的整體評估。低估會滋生自滿,高估則會產生恐懼——兩種行為都可能導致誤判。中國已成為世界第二大經濟體;但其人均收入仍不到美國的四分之一,而且還麵臨著一係列內部挑戰,也沒有多少盟國。如果美國、日本和歐洲協調政策,仍將占據世界經濟的最大部分,從而保持維護一個基於規則的國際秩序的能力,進而影響中國的行為。美日歐盟長期聯盟是應對中國崛起的關鍵。

奈伊說,短期而言,考慮到中國采取更加果斷的外交政策,我們可能不得不花費更多的時間在雙邊關係“競爭”的一側。但是,如果我們保持盟友關係,避免意識形態妖魔化和誤導性的冷戰類比,我們就能夠取得成功。

奈伊形容,如果美中關係是一場紙牌遊戲,可以說美國已經拿到一手好牌。但如果打得不好,即使是一手好牌也會輸。從1914年的曆史背景來看,最近的氣球事件應該提醒我們為什麽需要護欄。

Peak China?

From an American perspective, it is just as dangerous to underestimate Chinese power as it is to overestimate it. While hysteria creates fear, discounting China’s recent progress and future ambitions could lead the United States to squander its own long-term advantages.

CAMBRIDGE – The failure of China’s zero-COVID policy is leading to a reassessment of Chinese power. Until recently, many expected China’s GDP to surpass that of the United States by 2030 or soon thereafter. But now, some analysts argue that even if China achieves that goal, the US will surge ahead again. So, have we already witnessed “peak China”?

vestager3_OLIVIER MATTHYSPOOLAFP via Getty Images_dsa dma

Economics0Tearing Down Big Tech’s Walls

It is just as dangerous to overestimate Chinese power as it is to underestimate it. Underestimation breeds complacency, whereas overestimation stokes fear; but either can lead to miscalculations. A good strategy requires a careful net assessment.

Contrary to the current conventional wisdom, China is not the world’s largest economy. Measured in terms of purchasing power parity, it became larger than the US economy in 2014. But PPP is an economist’s device for comparing estimates of welfare; even if China someday surpasses the US in total economic size, GDP is not the only measure of geopolitical power. China remains well behind the US on military and soft-power indices, and its relative economic power is smaller still when one also considers US allies such as Europe, Japan, and Australia.

To be sure, China has been expanding its military capabilities in recent years. But as long as the US maintains its alliance and bases in Japan, China will not be able to exclude it from the Western Pacific – and the US-Japan alliance is stronger today than it was at the end of the Cold War. Yes, analysts sometimes draw more pessimistic conclusions from war games designed to simulate a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. But with China’s energy supply exposed to US naval domination in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, it would be a mistake for Chinese leaders to assume that a naval conflict near Taiwan (or in the South China Sea) would stay confined to that region.

China has also invested heavily in its soft power (the ability to get preferred outcomes through attraction rather than coercion or payment). But while cultural exchanges and aid projects could indeed enhance China’s attractiveness, two major hurdles remain. First, by indulging in ongoing territorial conflicts with neighbors such as Japan, India, and Vietnam, China has made itself less attractive to potential partners around the world. Second, the Communist Party of China’s domestic iron grip has deprived China of the benefits of the vibrant civil society that one finds in the West.

That said, the scale of China’s economic reach will remain important. The US was once the world’s largest trading power and bilateral lender. But now, nearly 100 countries count China as their largest trading partner, while only 57 have such a relationship with the US. China has lent $1 trillion for infrastructure projects through its Belt and Road Initiative over the past decade, while the US has cut back aid.

Moreover, China’s economic success story undoubtedly enhances its soft power, especially vis-a-vis other developing and emerging markets. And its ability to grant or deny access to its domestic market gives it hard-power leverage, which its authoritarian politics and mercantilist practices allow it to wield freely.

Where does that leave us in assessing the overall balance of power? Importantly, the US still has at least five long-term advantages. One is geography. The US is surrounded by two oceans and two friendly neighbors; China, by contrast, shares a border with 14 other countries and is engaged in territorial disputes across the region.

The US also has an energy advantage. Over the past decade, the shale revolution transformed it into a net energy exporter, whereas China has become ever more dependent on energy imports.

Third, the US derives unrivaled financial power from its large transnational financial institutions and the international role of the dollar. Only a small fraction of total foreign-exchange reserves is denominated in renminbi, while 59% are held in dollars. Though China aspires to expand the renminbi’s global role, a credible reserve currency depends on it being freely convertible, as well as on deep capital markets, an honest issuing government, and the rule of law. China has none of these, making the renminbi unlikely to displace the dollar in the near term.

Fourth, the US has a relative demographic advantage. It is the only major developed country that is currently projected to hold its place (third) in the global population ranking. Seven of the world’s 15 largest economies will have a shrinking workforce over the next decade, but the US workforce is expected to increase by 5%. China, meanwhile, will suffer a 9% decline in its working-age population – which already peaked in 2014 – and India will  it in terms of population this year.

Lastly, America has been at the forefront in the development of key technologies (bio, nano, and information) that are central to this century’s economic growth. China, of course, is investing heavily in research and development, so that its technological progress no longer depends solely on imitation. It has managed to become competitive in fields such as , where it hopes to be the global leader by 2030. US efforts to deprive China of the most advanced semiconductors may slow this progress, but they will not end it.

All told, the US holds a strong hand. But if it succumbs to hysteria about China’s rise or complacency about its “peak,” it could play its cards poorly. Discarding high-value cards – including strong alliances and influence in international institutions – would be a serious mistake.

One important issue to watch will be immigration. Around a decade ago, I asked former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew whether China would surpass the US in total power any time soon. He said it would not, because America can draw upon and recombine the world’s talents in ways that simply are not possible under China’s ethnic Han nationalism.

For now, Americans have ample reason to feel optimistic about their place in the world. But if the US were to abandon its external alliances and domestic openness, the balance could shift.

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

REGISTER NOW

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.