- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 6,070
- Points
- 83
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/dgby/2018-03-15/doc-ifyscsmv8287884.shtml
六种战略能力决定生死 美如今正面临中国清朝时困局
六种战略能力决定生死 美如今正面临中国清朝时困局
0
原标题：六种战略能力决乎生死！中美大战略遭遇分野
程亚文：大国竞争，战略能力强者胜
（作者是上海外国语大学国际关系与公共事务学院教授、盘古智库学术委员）
中国对国家安全和长远发展的关注已越来越具有大战略的特征
英国伦敦国际战略研究所的杰拉尔德·西格尔1999年在美国《外交事务》杂志发表《中国重要吗》一文，直指中国是全球经济中的“小角色”，军事上的“二流国家”，政治影响“微不足道”。如今快20年过去了，在很多西方人的不看好中，中国风景愈加丽好，无论经济、军事还是国际影响，恐怕再没人敢说中国是“小角色”“二流国家”。倒是以往被奉为“灯塔”的美欧国家愈发成了“问题”。
在一个国家间联系日益密切的全球性网络中，国家间竞争很大程度已经体现为战略能力的竞争，谁在战略能力上高人一筹，谁就更有可能精心筹划未来，在危机和挑战来临时更加应对有方。现在的西方国家对内面临治理挑战，对外处理国际事务时无力甚至混乱，都根源于它们的战略能力出了问题。
一个国家按照自身意志自主决策、保持战略自由权的能力，可称为战略能力。笔者曾概括规模较大国家所需要的六种战略能力，即有效的政治社会组织能力、强大而自主的生产能力、支持生产可持续的能力、相应的外交和军事能力、文化创新能力、人口生产维持世代更替水平的能力。战略能力是制定大战略的基本资源条件，如果没有这种能力作为前提，无论大战略的思想还是筹划都不过是空中楼阁。
大多数中小国家在战略能力上都有欠缺，因此难以制定和实施大战略。第二次世界大战结束后英国和法国的选择，就颇能说明这个事实。在1956年苏伊士运河危机中，因遭到美国当头棒喝，英法两国不得不从埃及退却，这实际上标志着两国作为世界大国地位的正式终结。而在二战结束后相当长时间内，英法两国都曾怀有制定大战略的雄心，其中法国表现为戴高乐主义，英国表现为丘吉尔倡导的“欧洲联合”和以英国为中心的“三环体系”，但这些都已无法帮助两国恢复旧时荣光。
究其根源，主要在于它们的国家能力与国家雄心已严重不相匹配。其结果是，包括昔日老大帝国英国在内的大部分欧洲国家，在20世纪下半叶以来不得不安于美国羽翼之下，不仅难再有大战略，就连大战略的思想建构也不再活跃。
国家战略能力的一个重要体现，是能否着眼长远进行战略筹划，并有效落实既定战略筹划。尤其是能围绕战略目标进一步地分步实施，在不同阶段设定不同的小目标，通过点滴积累逐步推进来实现总目标。
这些年来，中国对国家安全和长远发展的关注已越来越具有大战略的特征，表现出战略能力的逐渐充沛。中国提出“两个一百年”的战略目标，在现实发展中则有条不紊地推进“五年规划”，对外陆续提出以“一带一路”倡议为代表的国际公共产品，并能有效推动相关项目落地。当今中国的所言所行，较之以往视野更加宏大，格局更加高远，参与世界经济、政治议程的意愿与能力都常常为世界所惊讶。诚如国内外不少观察家所言，中国战略能力的日渐提升乃至卓尔不凡，首先表现为高效的政治社会组织能力，而中国共产党的领导是这种能力得以产生的根本保障。
一般认为，美国比其他国家更重视大战略设计，贯彻大战略的意愿、能力也比其他国家更强大。但曾参与美国政府核心决策的布热津斯基却有着不同观察。他在《战略憧憬——美国和全球实力的危机》一书中说，中国善于从长远处着眼并勾画未来，政策前后连续，这是中国优势所在，而美国太专注于目前的危机，太缺乏长远视角，“受困于一种短视的精神状态”。早在上世纪80年代美苏对抗时，他就曾说，美国的政治文化仍然具有缺乏战略或地缘政治意识的特点，常常将长期地理战略问题放在更为近期的政治问题之后。
布热津斯基的这些话，现在看来很像是种预言。美国近年来在大战略的建构上依旧活跃、行动上仍然显眼，但无论相关的思想还是实践都已表现出内向保守倾向，根本原因在于支撑大战略的国家战略能力已出现短板。
对照笔者上文提及的六种国家战略能力，今天美国在多个方面都出现了不良之兆。其中的首要环节是在经济战略能力上出现问题的情况下，现有政治机制因其内在掣肘，没有足够能力尽快化解挑战。自上世纪80年代以来，美国在物质生产领域不断后退，生产能力相对减弱，这不仅直接导致美国财政来源减少、深刻影响美国民众就业，还使美国人引以为傲的美式生活方式难以为继。美国的解决之道是通过人口流动全球化、恢复制造业优势地位，但这要以暂时降低美国人的生活水平为前提。可是没有多少美国人愿意这样做，无论精英阶层还是普通大众，精英阶层习惯了金融暴利，大众不想减少已有社会福利。
在世界围着美元转、美国经济日益脱实向虚后，高度依赖外部使用才能产生效应的美元体系，也遇到了中国明清时代类似的问题：一旦有其他国家以身示范放弃使用美元，是否会引发多米诺骨牌效应，进而导致美元体系以及美国的优势地位随之烟消云散？19世纪后期欧洲纷纷放弃银本位而改用金本位，就曾给依赖白银的中国带来无比巨大的困扰。
另外，过度消费主权信用和经济虚拟化难以有效逆转，也在加剧美国内部的财富分配失衡，导致社会危机继续加深。在同一片天空下，当以往虽有差等、但总体共享的财富格局，向差等加深、彼此割裂的财富格局转化时，美国的社会和政治制度已难表现出曾有的自我修复能力。想为继续维持全球霸权而进行大战略设计，也就显得捉襟见肘、心有余而力不足了。
Six strategic capabilities determine life and death. The United States is now facing the difficulties of the Qing Dynasty in China.
Six strategic capabilities determine life and death. The United States is now facing the difficulties of the Qing Dynasty in China.
0
Original title: Six strategic abilities are for life and death! The Sino-U.S. Grand Strategy Meets a Demarcation
Cheng Yawen: Great Powers, Strong Strategic Players
(The author is a professor of the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University and a member of the Pangu think-tank Academic Committee)
China’s attention to national security and long-term development has become increasingly characterized by large strategies.
Gerald Siegel of the London Institute of International Strategic Studies in the United Kingdom published an article on “China's Important?” in the “Foreign Affairs” magazine in 1999. He pointed out that China is a “small player” in the global economy and a second-rate military player. "State," political influence "insignificant." Today, nearly 20 years have passed. In the face of not being optimistic about many Westerners, China’s landscape is getting better and better. Regardless of economic, military, or international influence, I am afraid that no one will dare to say that China is a “small role” and “second-rate country”. However, the United States and Europe that have been regarded as "beacons" in the past have become more and more "problems."
In a global network that is increasingly linked between countries, competition among countries has largely manifested itself as competition in strategic capabilities. Whoever is superior in strategic capabilities will be more likely to carefully plan the future in the face of crises and challenges. At the same time, we should be more responsive. The Western countries now face internal governance challenges and are weak and even chaotic when dealing with international affairs. They all stem from problems with their strategic capabilities.
The ability of a country to make its own decisions and maintain strategic freedom according to its own will be called strategic capabilities. The author once outlined the six strategic capabilities needed by larger countries, namely, effective political and social organization capabilities, strong and autonomous production capabilities, ability to support sustainable production, corresponding diplomatic and military capabilities, cultural innovation capabilities, and population production. Maintain the ability to replace generations of generations. Strategic capability is the basic resource condition for formulating a grand strategy. Without this capability as a prerequisite, the idea or planning of a grand strategy is nothing more than a castle in the air.
Most small and medium-sized countries are lacking in their strategic capabilities, making it difficult to formulate and implement a grand strategy. The choices of Britain and France after the end of the Second World War are quite illustrative of this fact. In the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, the United States and Britain had to withdraw from Egypt because they were swayed by the United States. This actually marked the official end of the status of the two countries as world powers. In the long period after the end of World War II, both Britain and France had ambitions to formulate a grand strategy. Among them France represented Gaulleism, Britain represented Churchill’s advocacy of "European Union" and Britain-centered "three-ring system". However, these have failed to help the two countries restore their old glory.
The root cause lies in the fact that their national capabilities and national ambitions have been seriously incompatible. As a result, most European countries, including Britain, the oldest empire, had to settle under the wings of the United States since the second half of the 20th century. Not only is it difficult to have big strategies, even the strategic construction of big strategies is no longer active. .
An important manifestation of the country's strategic capabilities is whether it can focus on long-term strategic planning and effectively implement the established strategic plan. In particular, it can be further implemented step by step around the strategic goals, set different goals in different stages, and achieve overall goals through gradual accumulation.
Over the past few years, China’s attention to national security and long-term development has become increasingly characterized by large-scale strategies, demonstrating the gradual accumulation of strategic capabilities. China puts forward the "two hundred years" strategic goal. In the actual development, it systematically advances the "Five-year Plan", and externally proposes international public products represented by the "One Belt and One Road" initiative, and can effectively promote the related projects to be launched. . In today's China, what he says is more ambitious than before, and the pattern is more ambitious. The willingness and ability to participate in the global economic and political agenda are often surprising to the world. As many observers at home and abroad have said, China’s strategic capabilities have become even more remarkable. They are first shown as effective political and social organizational capabilities, and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is the fundamental guarantee for the emergence of such capabilities.
It is generally believed that the United States attaches greater importance to large-scale strategic design than other countries, and its willingness and ability to implement the grand strategy are stronger than those of other countries. But Brzezinski, who had been involved in the core decisions of the U.S. government, had different observations. In his book "Strategic Strategy - The Crisis of US and Global Strength," he said that China is good at focusing on the future in the long run and formulating the future. The policy is continuous before and after. This is where China's strengths lie. The United States is too focused on the current crisis and is too lacking. From a long-term perspective, "is trapped in a short-sighted mental state." As early as the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, he once said that the political culture in the United States still has the characteristics of lack of strategy or geopolitical awareness, and often puts the long-term geographic strategy issue behind more recent political issues.
These Brzezinski words now seem to be a kind of prophecy. The United States has been active in the construction of its grand strategy in recent years, and it still stands out in action. However, the relevant ideas and practices have shown inwardly conservative tendencies. The fundamental reason is that the national strategic capabilities that support the grand strategy have appeared shortcomings.
In contrast to the six national strategic capabilities mentioned above, today the United States has seen bad signs in many aspects. The first of these is that in the event of problems in the economic strategic capabilities, the existing political mechanisms are not able to resolve the challenges as quickly as possible due to their inherent limitations. Since the 1980s, the United States has been retreating in the field of material production, and its production capacity has been relatively weakened. This has not only led directly to a reduction in the United States’ financial resources and has affected the employment of the American people. It has also made it difficult for Americans to take pride in their American lifestyle. . The solution of the United States is to globalize population movements and restore the dominant position of the manufacturing industry, but this must be based on the temporary reduction of Americans' living standards. However, not many Americans are willing to do so. Regardless of the elite or the general public, elites are accustomed to financial profits. The general public does not want to reduce existing social welfare.
After the world has turned around the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy has become more and more virtual, the U.S. dollar system, which is highly dependent on external use to produce effects, has also encountered similar problems in China's Ming and Qing dynasties: once other countries have demonstrated their abandonment of U.S. dollars, whether Will cause domino effect, which in turn will lead to the dollar system and the US's dominant position will disappear? In the late 19th century, Europe abandoned the silver standard and switched to the gold standard. This has brought immense enormous problems to the Chinese relying on silver.
In addition, over-consumption of sovereign credit and economic virtualization are difficult to effectively reverse, and they also aggravate the internal imbalance in wealth distribution in the United States, leading to continued deepening of the social crisis. Under the same sky, when in the past there were differences, but the overall shared wealth pattern and the wealth pattern deepened and separated from each other were transformed, the social and political systems of the United States had shown little ability to repair themselves. Want to continue to maintain global hegemony and carry on the big strategic design, it also appears to be stretched, has more than enough strength.
六种战略能力决定生死 美如今正面临中国清朝时困局
六种战略能力决定生死 美如今正面临中国清朝时困局
0
原标题：六种战略能力决乎生死！中美大战略遭遇分野
程亚文：大国竞争，战略能力强者胜
（作者是上海外国语大学国际关系与公共事务学院教授、盘古智库学术委员）
中国对国家安全和长远发展的关注已越来越具有大战略的特征
英国伦敦国际战略研究所的杰拉尔德·西格尔1999年在美国《外交事务》杂志发表《中国重要吗》一文，直指中国是全球经济中的“小角色”，军事上的“二流国家”，政治影响“微不足道”。如今快20年过去了，在很多西方人的不看好中，中国风景愈加丽好，无论经济、军事还是国际影响，恐怕再没人敢说中国是“小角色”“二流国家”。倒是以往被奉为“灯塔”的美欧国家愈发成了“问题”。
在一个国家间联系日益密切的全球性网络中，国家间竞争很大程度已经体现为战略能力的竞争，谁在战略能力上高人一筹，谁就更有可能精心筹划未来，在危机和挑战来临时更加应对有方。现在的西方国家对内面临治理挑战，对外处理国际事务时无力甚至混乱，都根源于它们的战略能力出了问题。
一个国家按照自身意志自主决策、保持战略自由权的能力，可称为战略能力。笔者曾概括规模较大国家所需要的六种战略能力，即有效的政治社会组织能力、强大而自主的生产能力、支持生产可持续的能力、相应的外交和军事能力、文化创新能力、人口生产维持世代更替水平的能力。战略能力是制定大战略的基本资源条件，如果没有这种能力作为前提，无论大战略的思想还是筹划都不过是空中楼阁。
大多数中小国家在战略能力上都有欠缺，因此难以制定和实施大战略。第二次世界大战结束后英国和法国的选择，就颇能说明这个事实。在1956年苏伊士运河危机中，因遭到美国当头棒喝，英法两国不得不从埃及退却，这实际上标志着两国作为世界大国地位的正式终结。而在二战结束后相当长时间内，英法两国都曾怀有制定大战略的雄心，其中法国表现为戴高乐主义，英国表现为丘吉尔倡导的“欧洲联合”和以英国为中心的“三环体系”，但这些都已无法帮助两国恢复旧时荣光。
究其根源，主要在于它们的国家能力与国家雄心已严重不相匹配。其结果是，包括昔日老大帝国英国在内的大部分欧洲国家，在20世纪下半叶以来不得不安于美国羽翼之下，不仅难再有大战略，就连大战略的思想建构也不再活跃。
国家战略能力的一个重要体现，是能否着眼长远进行战略筹划，并有效落实既定战略筹划。尤其是能围绕战略目标进一步地分步实施，在不同阶段设定不同的小目标，通过点滴积累逐步推进来实现总目标。
这些年来，中国对国家安全和长远发展的关注已越来越具有大战略的特征，表现出战略能力的逐渐充沛。中国提出“两个一百年”的战略目标，在现实发展中则有条不紊地推进“五年规划”，对外陆续提出以“一带一路”倡议为代表的国际公共产品，并能有效推动相关项目落地。当今中国的所言所行，较之以往视野更加宏大，格局更加高远，参与世界经济、政治议程的意愿与能力都常常为世界所惊讶。诚如国内外不少观察家所言，中国战略能力的日渐提升乃至卓尔不凡，首先表现为高效的政治社会组织能力，而中国共产党的领导是这种能力得以产生的根本保障。
一般认为，美国比其他国家更重视大战略设计，贯彻大战略的意愿、能力也比其他国家更强大。但曾参与美国政府核心决策的布热津斯基却有着不同观察。他在《战略憧憬——美国和全球实力的危机》一书中说，中国善于从长远处着眼并勾画未来，政策前后连续，这是中国优势所在，而美国太专注于目前的危机，太缺乏长远视角，“受困于一种短视的精神状态”。早在上世纪80年代美苏对抗时，他就曾说，美国的政治文化仍然具有缺乏战略或地缘政治意识的特点，常常将长期地理战略问题放在更为近期的政治问题之后。
布热津斯基的这些话，现在看来很像是种预言。美国近年来在大战略的建构上依旧活跃、行动上仍然显眼，但无论相关的思想还是实践都已表现出内向保守倾向，根本原因在于支撑大战略的国家战略能力已出现短板。
对照笔者上文提及的六种国家战略能力，今天美国在多个方面都出现了不良之兆。其中的首要环节是在经济战略能力上出现问题的情况下，现有政治机制因其内在掣肘，没有足够能力尽快化解挑战。自上世纪80年代以来，美国在物质生产领域不断后退，生产能力相对减弱，这不仅直接导致美国财政来源减少、深刻影响美国民众就业，还使美国人引以为傲的美式生活方式难以为继。美国的解决之道是通过人口流动全球化、恢复制造业优势地位，但这要以暂时降低美国人的生活水平为前提。可是没有多少美国人愿意这样做，无论精英阶层还是普通大众，精英阶层习惯了金融暴利，大众不想减少已有社会福利。
在世界围着美元转、美国经济日益脱实向虚后，高度依赖外部使用才能产生效应的美元体系，也遇到了中国明清时代类似的问题：一旦有其他国家以身示范放弃使用美元，是否会引发多米诺骨牌效应，进而导致美元体系以及美国的优势地位随之烟消云散？19世纪后期欧洲纷纷放弃银本位而改用金本位，就曾给依赖白银的中国带来无比巨大的困扰。
另外，过度消费主权信用和经济虚拟化难以有效逆转，也在加剧美国内部的财富分配失衡，导致社会危机继续加深。在同一片天空下，当以往虽有差等、但总体共享的财富格局，向差等加深、彼此割裂的财富格局转化时，美国的社会和政治制度已难表现出曾有的自我修复能力。想为继续维持全球霸权而进行大战略设计，也就显得捉襟见肘、心有余而力不足了。
Six strategic capabilities determine life and death. The United States is now facing the difficulties of the Qing Dynasty in China.
Six strategic capabilities determine life and death. The United States is now facing the difficulties of the Qing Dynasty in China.
0
Original title: Six strategic abilities are for life and death! The Sino-U.S. Grand Strategy Meets a Demarcation
Cheng Yawen: Great Powers, Strong Strategic Players
(The author is a professor of the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University and a member of the Pangu think-tank Academic Committee)
China’s attention to national security and long-term development has become increasingly characterized by large strategies.
Gerald Siegel of the London Institute of International Strategic Studies in the United Kingdom published an article on “China's Important?” in the “Foreign Affairs” magazine in 1999. He pointed out that China is a “small player” in the global economy and a second-rate military player. "State," political influence "insignificant." Today, nearly 20 years have passed. In the face of not being optimistic about many Westerners, China’s landscape is getting better and better. Regardless of economic, military, or international influence, I am afraid that no one will dare to say that China is a “small role” and “second-rate country”. However, the United States and Europe that have been regarded as "beacons" in the past have become more and more "problems."
In a global network that is increasingly linked between countries, competition among countries has largely manifested itself as competition in strategic capabilities. Whoever is superior in strategic capabilities will be more likely to carefully plan the future in the face of crises and challenges. At the same time, we should be more responsive. The Western countries now face internal governance challenges and are weak and even chaotic when dealing with international affairs. They all stem from problems with their strategic capabilities.
The ability of a country to make its own decisions and maintain strategic freedom according to its own will be called strategic capabilities. The author once outlined the six strategic capabilities needed by larger countries, namely, effective political and social organization capabilities, strong and autonomous production capabilities, ability to support sustainable production, corresponding diplomatic and military capabilities, cultural innovation capabilities, and population production. Maintain the ability to replace generations of generations. Strategic capability is the basic resource condition for formulating a grand strategy. Without this capability as a prerequisite, the idea or planning of a grand strategy is nothing more than a castle in the air.
Most small and medium-sized countries are lacking in their strategic capabilities, making it difficult to formulate and implement a grand strategy. The choices of Britain and France after the end of the Second World War are quite illustrative of this fact. In the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, the United States and Britain had to withdraw from Egypt because they were swayed by the United States. This actually marked the official end of the status of the two countries as world powers. In the long period after the end of World War II, both Britain and France had ambitions to formulate a grand strategy. Among them France represented Gaulleism, Britain represented Churchill’s advocacy of "European Union" and Britain-centered "three-ring system". However, these have failed to help the two countries restore their old glory.
The root cause lies in the fact that their national capabilities and national ambitions have been seriously incompatible. As a result, most European countries, including Britain, the oldest empire, had to settle under the wings of the United States since the second half of the 20th century. Not only is it difficult to have big strategies, even the strategic construction of big strategies is no longer active. .
An important manifestation of the country's strategic capabilities is whether it can focus on long-term strategic planning and effectively implement the established strategic plan. In particular, it can be further implemented step by step around the strategic goals, set different goals in different stages, and achieve overall goals through gradual accumulation.
Over the past few years, China’s attention to national security and long-term development has become increasingly characterized by large-scale strategies, demonstrating the gradual accumulation of strategic capabilities. China puts forward the "two hundred years" strategic goal. In the actual development, it systematically advances the "Five-year Plan", and externally proposes international public products represented by the "One Belt and One Road" initiative, and can effectively promote the related projects to be launched. . In today's China, what he says is more ambitious than before, and the pattern is more ambitious. The willingness and ability to participate in the global economic and political agenda are often surprising to the world. As many observers at home and abroad have said, China’s strategic capabilities have become even more remarkable. They are first shown as effective political and social organizational capabilities, and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is the fundamental guarantee for the emergence of such capabilities.
It is generally believed that the United States attaches greater importance to large-scale strategic design than other countries, and its willingness and ability to implement the grand strategy are stronger than those of other countries. But Brzezinski, who had been involved in the core decisions of the U.S. government, had different observations. In his book "Strategic Strategy - The Crisis of US and Global Strength," he said that China is good at focusing on the future in the long run and formulating the future. The policy is continuous before and after. This is where China's strengths lie. The United States is too focused on the current crisis and is too lacking. From a long-term perspective, "is trapped in a short-sighted mental state." As early as the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, he once said that the political culture in the United States still has the characteristics of lack of strategy or geopolitical awareness, and often puts the long-term geographic strategy issue behind more recent political issues.
These Brzezinski words now seem to be a kind of prophecy. The United States has been active in the construction of its grand strategy in recent years, and it still stands out in action. However, the relevant ideas and practices have shown inwardly conservative tendencies. The fundamental reason is that the national strategic capabilities that support the grand strategy have appeared shortcomings.
In contrast to the six national strategic capabilities mentioned above, today the United States has seen bad signs in many aspects. The first of these is that in the event of problems in the economic strategic capabilities, the existing political mechanisms are not able to resolve the challenges as quickly as possible due to their inherent limitations. Since the 1980s, the United States has been retreating in the field of material production, and its production capacity has been relatively weakened. This has not only led directly to a reduction in the United States’ financial resources and has affected the employment of the American people. It has also made it difficult for Americans to take pride in their American lifestyle. . The solution of the United States is to globalize population movements and restore the dominant position of the manufacturing industry, but this must be based on the temporary reduction of Americans' living standards. However, not many Americans are willing to do so. Regardless of the elite or the general public, elites are accustomed to financial profits. The general public does not want to reduce existing social welfare.
After the world has turned around the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy has become more and more virtual, the U.S. dollar system, which is highly dependent on external use to produce effects, has also encountered similar problems in China's Ming and Qing dynasties: once other countries have demonstrated their abandonment of U.S. dollars, whether Will cause domino effect, which in turn will lead to the dollar system and the US's dominant position will disappear? In the late 19th century, Europe abandoned the silver standard and switched to the gold standard. This has brought immense enormous problems to the Chinese relying on silver.
In addition, over-consumption of sovereign credit and economic virtualization are difficult to effectively reverse, and they also aggravate the internal imbalance in wealth distribution in the United States, leading to continued deepening of the social crisis. Under the same sky, when in the past there were differences, but the overall shared wealth pattern and the wealth pattern deepened and separated from each other were transformed, the social and political systems of the United States had shown little ability to repair themselves. Want to continue to maintain global hegemony and carry on the big strategic design, it also appears to be stretched, has more than enough strength.
