風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
美學者文章：世界潮流正背離美國轉向中國
2023-04-27 來源：海外網
參考消息網4月26日報道 美國《國會山》日報網站4月20日發表題為《經濟和政治潮流正在背離美國並轉向中國嗎？》的文章，作者是美國科羅拉多基督教大學百年研究所高級研究員威廉·莫洛尼。全文摘編如下：
意味深長的是，今天在全世界的軍事院校中，被最廣泛研讀的專著之一是2000多年前的一本中國軍事著作。《孫子兵法》中最為人所熟知的一句話是“不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也”。然而書中還有其他許多格言，應當引起那些願意猜測中國意圖並把不同策略進行對比的人們的興趣。
中國軍隊在數十年時間裏沒有大動幹戈。相比之下，美國在同一時期卻幾乎不斷地以直接或通過代理人的方式參與戰爭。與自己的帝國前輩大不列顛一樣，美國常常尋求在世界遙遠的角落通過軍事手段強行施加自己的意誌。
同樣與其不列顛前輩一樣的是，憑借自身強大的經濟實力，美國長期以來能夠發揮非同尋常的全球影響力。而一直到最近，中國始終表現得較為謹慎。
如今，在中國的經濟和軍事實力激增、全球影響力正迅速擴張的時刻，美國卻越來越多地受到曠日持久戰爭的累積效應拖累，並被英國曆史學家保羅·肯尼迪所描述的那種“帝國過度擴張”削弱。中國成功斡旋伊朗和沙特的和解，已經瓦解了美國建立共同戰線以打擊伊朗的努力。在感到焦慮的美國盟國中，法國總統埃馬紐埃爾·馬克龍在訪問中國時發表講話，暗示可能不存在所謂“支持捍衛台灣的北約統一戰線”。
美國兩黨政客對於馬克龍言論毫無節製的憤慨表達，在不經意間忽視了這樣一個事實，即法國總統表達了一種多半是許多歐洲公民共有的情緒，這種情緒在歐洲對外關係委員會2019年的一項民調中曾得到披露。該民調顯示，受訪者當時曾強烈認為自己的國家應當在美國與中國的任何衝突中保持中立。顯然，團結歐洲人對抗身旁的俄羅斯是一回事，但為了與遙遠中國的潛在軍事衝突征集支持卻是完全不同的命題——中國從來沒有侵略的曆史，而且對於每一個歐洲國家的經濟而言都至關重要。
值得注意的是，歐洲對於美國領導層素養和可靠性的疑慮與日俱增，尤其是考慮到不久前在災難性的美國從阿富汗撤軍一事上未經協商和被蒙在鼓裏的痛苦回憶。因此，如果一些歐洲人認為，那些要求他們忠實和毫無異議地追隨美國加入又一場亞洲戰爭的美國人非常傲慢，那麽這算不上缺乏理性。
同樣令美國的長期友邦感到擔憂的是，美國今天看起來像是一個由於日益險惡的內鬥政治而陷入深度錯亂的國家——即亞伯拉罕·林肯那句永恒名言中的“分裂之家”——並且因此會對或許能夠更清醒地觀察世界的盟友的理性論述缺乏共鳴。馬克龍也許正是這樣一個應該得到尊重而不是被譴責的朋友。
Are economic and political tides turning away from America and toward China?
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3953391-are-economic-and-political-tides-turning-away-from-america-and-toward-china/
BY WILLIAM MOLONEY, 04/20/23
The American and Chinese flags wave at Genting Snow Park ahead of the 2022 Winter Olympics, on Feb. 2, 2022, in Zhangjiakou, China.
It is interesting that one of the most widely studied treatises on war in the world’s military academies today was written by a Chinese general who lived 27 centuries ago. The best-known quotation from “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu (544-496 BC) is, “[The] supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” but there are many other maxims that should merit the interest of those who would divine the intentions of China and contrast the strategy of that country with that of the United States. Of particular relevance is,“Who wishes to win must first consider the cost” and its corollary, “There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged war.”
China has not sent its armies to war in 70 years, since the end of the Korean War. In contrast, the United States, over the same period, has been at war directly or by proxy almost constantly. With rare exception, China, like Russia, has historically flexed its military muscle only in areas on its borders with which it has longstanding ethnic and/or cultural ties. The United States, like its imperial predecessor, Great Britain, has regularly sought to impose its will militarily in far-flung corners of the world.
The United States, again like its British forebear, has long been able to exert extraordinary global leverage owing to the immense might of its economy, whereas until quite recently, China — never in modern times a wealthy or economically dominant nation — has been more cautious, preferring to rattle its sabers rather than use them.
Now, at the very moment when China’s economic and military might is surging and its global influence rapidly expanding, the United States is increasingly being weighed down by the cumulative effect of prolonged war and weakened by what British historian Paul Kennedy described in 1987 as “imperial overstretch.”
The waxing of Chinese power and the waning of America’s has not gone unnoticed and U.S. enemies and allies alike have recently undertaken bold independent initiatives that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. China’s success in brokering a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia — soon followed by Russia’s sponsoring talks between Saudis and another longtime foe, Syria — has unhinged U.S. efforts to build a common front against Iran-backed terrorism. Among disquieted U.S. allies, Japan stunned Washington by asserting its own national interest by bluntly refusing to honor energy sanctions against Russia, and then French President Emmanuel Macron made remarks while visiting China that signaled there may be no united NATO front in efforts to bolster the defense of Taiwan.
The intemperate expressions of indignation over Macron’s remarks by U.S. politicians of both parties blithely overlooks the fact that the French president is voicing sentiments likely shared by the many European citizens, as revealed by a 2019 poll done by the European Council on Foreign Relations that showed respondents strongly believed then that their countries should remain neutral in any conflict between the United States and China. Clearly, it is one thing to rally Europeans against a nearby and historically threatening Russia, but an entirely different proposition to enlist support for potential military conflict with distant China, with whom there is no history of aggression and which is vitally important to the economies of every European country.
It is pertinent to note the context of growing European doubts about the quality and reliability of American leadership, particularly in light of the recent painful memory of being unconsulted and blindsided regarding the disastrous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Accordingly, it is hardly unreasonable if some Europeans see more than a touch of arrogance in Americans who think they should loyally and unquestioningly follow the United States into yet another Asian conflict — this time against an adversary vastly more formidable than the Taliban.
Also of concern to America’s longtime friends is the United States today appears as a nation deeply distracted by its increasingly vicious internecine politics — in Abraham Lincoln’s timeless phrase, “A house divided against itself” — and thus less responsive to reasoned discourse with allies who might see the world a little more clearly. Macron may be one such friend deserving of respect, not condemnation.
William Moloney is a senior fellow in conservative thought at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his Doctorate from Harvard University. He is a former Colorado Commissioner of education.
