- Joined
- Nov 29, 2016
- Messages
- 5,674
- Points
- 63
https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiews7075844.shtml
外媒:中美冲突或持续百年 美指责中国显得十分虚伪
外媒:中美冲突或持续百年 美指责中国显得十分虚伪
410
马丁·沃尔夫:中美冲突可能持续百年,你有思想准备吗?
[文/马丁·沃尔夫,译/观察者网 杨晗轶]
1991年苏联从政治版图上消失,留下了一个巨大的空洞,美国从此失去了敌人。尽管9·11事件之后美国发动了“反恐战争”,但后者毕竟远不足以填补苏联曾经占据的位置。然而,不论从意识形态、军事实力还是经济水平等各个方面来看,中国都满足许多美国人对敌人的需求。美国终于又遇到了一个与自己旗鼓相当的对手。这是我从今年的彼尔德伯格会议(译注:Bilderberg meeting,始于1954年的年度非官方会议,百余名与会者皆为商政两界顶级权贵,会议最初旨在促进欧美对话,后来在更多重大国际事务上施加决定性影响力,该会议不接受采访报道也不透露任何内容,被称为“全球影子政府”)中得出的主要结论。美国的经济、外交和安全政策统统开始把与中国全面敌对竞争作为核心原则。
至于特朗普是否以此作为核心原则,其实并没有那么重要。这位美国总统只需要跟随他的民族主义和保护主义直觉。其他人将为他提供框架,填充细节。他们的目标是确保美国的主宰地位,实现该目标的手段是掌控中国或与中国脱钩。在这场冲突过程中,以规则为基础的多边秩序、经济全球化,以及国际关系的和谐都将成为牺牲品,任何对此怀有侥幸心理的人都被蒙蔽了。
6月2日,中国发布了令人震撼的《关于中美经贸磋商的中方立场》白皮书,证明了这一点。尽管我感情上不愿承认,但事实是,从许多方面来说中方立场都是正确的。美国抓住中美双边贸易失衡大做文章,这在经济学角度看来属于文盲行为。美方认为中国盗窃知识产权给美国造成巨大破坏,这个观点也很成问题。美国还指责中国严重违反2001年加入世贸组织时的承诺,这种提法同样属于言过其实。
2019年6月2日,国务院新闻办公室2日发布《关于中美经贸磋商的中方立场》白皮书,旨在全面介绍中美经贸磋商基本情况,阐明中国对中美经贸磋商的政策立场。图为国务院新闻办公室副主任郭卫民在新闻发布会上发言。图片来源:IC Photo
美方指责中国“作弊”显得十分虚伪,因为特朗普政府采取的贸易政策几乎统统都违反了世贸组织的规则。美国极力破坏世贸组织的争端解决机制,等于从侧面承认了美国违规的事实。在中美贸易谈判当中,美国的立场可以总结为“强权即公理”。它坚持要求中国接受美方充当协议的审判员、陪审团和刀斧手这三重角色,恃强凌弱的态度体现得淋漓尽致。
双方如果对市场开放或知识产权保护的某些条款持有争议,可以通过慎重的谈判来解决。这种解决方式甚至可以说对中国有好处,因为它可以使“看得见的手”减轻干预,促进市场化改革。但现在摆在双方面前的问题太过于棘手,以至于这种解决方式已经无法奏效。造成当前这种状况的原因一部分是谈判破裂,双方不欢而散;更主要的原因是美国已经开始质疑要不要与中国的国家主导型经济融合,这种融合对美国有没有好处。美国之所以对华为充满恐惧,是因为它触及了国家安全和技术自主的敏感神经。在美国眼里,自由经贸活动已经越来越等同于“与敌人做生意”。
美国正在出现一种新的思潮,将中美关系限定在零和冲突的框架里。不久前,作为美国国务院政策规划主管(该职位曾经由冷战战略家乔治·凯南担任)的凯润·斯金纳在新美国基金会组织的论坛上发表了一通言论,非常说明问题。她提出,中美之间的敌对关系是“美国与一个很不同的文明和不同的意识形态之间的争斗,是美国过去从未遇到的”。她补充道,这是“美国首次以一个由非高加索人种构成的大国作为竞争对手”。她显然忘记了美国与日本的战争。但更重要的是,她透过文明和种族战争的框架来看待中美关系,而文明和种族战争是不可调和的冲突。这绝非偶然。美国方面也没有调整斯金纳女士的职位。
除了文明和种族,还有许多人将中美冲突描述为一场围绕着意识形态和权力展开的斗争。强调意识形态的人认为中国官方强化了马克思主义话语,党扮演的角色也变得更加突出。强调权力的人则注意到中国经济实力的崛起。这两种观点都指向中美长期冲突。
这是当前时代最重要的地缘政治发展趋势。特别关键的一点在于,中美长期冲突将迫使其他所有国家选边站队,保持中立将越来越难。这个趋势不仅重要,而且十分危险。中美关系原本虽然棘手但仍处于可控范畴以内,但如今的风险在于,它有可能莫名其妙地演变为一场全盘冲突。
中国的意识形态不像苏联那样,它对自由主义民主没有什么威胁。西方的右翼煽动分子反倒比中国更危险。任何企图阻拦中国经济和技术崛起的尝试几乎肯定会遭遇失败。更糟糕的是,它会引起中国人民深深的敌意。随着中国人民生活越来越富足、受教育程度越来越高,他们要求掌握自己的命运。从长远来看,这样的要求终究会得到满足,但如果中国自然崛起的进程受到威胁,那这个进程就会大受挫折。此外,中国的崛起并不是导致西方弊病缠身的重要原因。相比之下,西方国家精英阶层的冷漠和无能才是关键。什么叫做知识产权盗窃?它其实在很大程度上反映了一种事实,即崛起当中的经济体必然试图掌握时下最先进的技术。说到底,企图永远维持4%的人对全人类的统治才是非法的。
这当然不是说,中国说什么做什么我们都应该接受。相反,西方对待中国的最佳方式是矢志不渝地坚持自由、民主、以规则为基础的多边主义,以及全球合作等价值观。这些思想曾经在全球范围内团结了许多人,使他们成为美国的支持者。其中许多理念至今仍然吸引着许多中国人。今天,与从事环境、商业与和平事业时一样,西方在与崛起的中国携手合作的同时,也完全可以坚持这些思想,而且还要比过去更加坚定,这至关重要。
竞争与合作并重的相处之道才是中国与西方正确的前进方向。西方在应对中国崛起时,既要与志同道合的盟友密切合作,也要给予中国足够的尊重。当前状况的悲剧之处在于,特朗普政府在发动中美冲突的同时,还在攻击盟友,摧毁美国主导的战后秩序。美国对中国发起的攻击是一场在错误的战场上发起、以错误的方式进行的错误的战争。唉,这便是我们现在所处的位置。
(观察者网杨晗轶译自《金融时报》)
https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiqay3871116.shtml
美媒:美国在与中国的对抗中 正失去欧洲支持
美媒:美国在与中国的对抗中 正失去欧洲支持
60
美国《大西洋月刊》网站4日文章,原题:在与中国的角逐中,美国正失去欧洲
4月初一个阳光明媚的午后,十几位来自欧洲和其他盟友的外交官与美方人员,参加了在国务院举行的一个会议。会上,美方外交官要求盟友支持一项谴责中国的“一带一路”倡议的联合声明。但显而易见,无论是欧洲人还是来自亚洲和拉美的其他国家均未同意。
一位了解会议细节的不具名欧洲外交官对笔者说,“没人愿意支持。”在欧洲人看来,白宫对与中国打交道有一种误入歧途的零和思维,而上述会议无非再度证明了这一点。他们还认为,白宫错误地以为可以随意摆布其伙伴,在某些问题上公开指责他们,而在另一些问题上又指望他们配合。
从笔者与大西洋两岸几十名官员的谈话来看,对于中国挑战的问题,欧洲和美国非但没有走到一起,反而开始陷入一种破坏性分歧。特朗普的最新举动,让人担心华盛顿和北京进入长期的经济冷战,它可能加速欧洲与美国的分歧,让美国走上一条连欧洲的铁杆强硬派都难以接受的道路。
前美国国务院亚太事务高级官员、卡内基国际和平基金会的埃文·费根鲍姆说:“特朗普政府有人把中国视为一种生存威胁,大多数欧洲人都不会认同他们的那种立场。”
最近几个月的一系列会谈,以及各方对会谈的不同解读都折射出美欧的裂痕不断扩大。参加4月份会谈的欧洲外交官认为华盛顿对“一带一路”毫不妥协的态度,与几年前美国对亚洲基础设施投资银行(亚投行)的立场相仿。那时,美国未能说服盟友抵制中国牵头的亚投行,最后沦为孤家寡人。
讽刺的是,美国高级官员私下承认,美国在与中国的竞争中能否胜出,可能最终要取决于欧洲。但许多美国官员,至少是特朗普政府的最高层,在与欧洲盟友合作方面缺乏耐心。
一位不愿透露姓名的欧盟外交官说:“美国人想要打击、遏制、对抗中国,他们气势汹汹。但我们认为他们注定徒劳无功。”
6位欧盟国家和政府领导人参加4月中国举行“一带一路”的峰会时,美国官员只能待在家里。欧洲企业继续大力投资中国,包括人工智能等敏感新科技领域。如果迫不得已时,欧洲人愿意让对华长期商贸关系陷入危险境地吗?
如果没有共同的目标,今后跨大西洋伙伴关系或许会变得更加困难,不论特朗普是否连任。(作者诺厄·巴尔金,陈俊安译)
Https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiews7075844.shtml
Foreign media: Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years.
Foreign media: Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years.
410
Martin Wolf: The Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years. Are you mentally prepared?
[Text / Martin Wolf, translation / observer network Yang Wei]
In 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared from the political map, leaving a huge hollow, and the United States lost its enemies. Although the United States launched the "war on terror" after the September 11th incident, the latter is far from enough to fill the position occupied by the Soviet Union. However, regardless of ideology, military strength or economic level, China has met the needs of many Americans for the enemy. The United States finally met another opponent that rivaled itself. This is my second year from the Bilderberg meeting, which began in the 1954 annual unofficial meeting. More than 100 participants were the top dignitaries in the business and government circles. The meeting was originally designed to promote dialogue between Europe and the United States. Later, it exerted decisive influence on more major international affairs. The conference did not accept reports and did not reveal anything, which was called the “global shadow government”. The US economic, diplomatic, and security policies have all begun to make full competition with China a core principle.
Whether Trump uses this as a core principle is actually not that important. The American president only needs to follow his nationalism and protectionist intuition. Others will provide him with a framework to fill in the details. Their goal is to ensure the dominance of the United States, and the means to achieve it is to control China or decouple it from China. In the course of this conflict, the rule-based multilateral order, economic globalization, and the harmony of international relations will all be victims, and anyone who has luck in this will be blinded.
On June 2, China issued a stunning white paper on China's position on China-US economic and trade consultations, which proves this. Although I am not willing to admit it, the fact is that the Chinese position is correct in many respects. The United States has made a big fuss about the bilateral trade imbalance between China and the United States, which seems to be illiterate in economics. The US believes that theft of intellectual property rights in China has caused tremendous damage to the United States, and this view is also very problematic. The United States also accused China of serious violations of its commitments when it joined the WTO in 2001. This formulation is also an exaggeration.
On June 2, 2019, the State Council Information Office issued a white paper on "China's Position on Sino-US Economic and Trade Negotiations" on the 2nd, aiming to comprehensively introduce the basic situation of China-US economic and trade consultations and clarify China's policy stance on Sino-US economic and trade consultations. The picture shows Guo Weimin, deputy director of the State Council Information Office, speaking at the press conference. Image source: IC Photo
The US accused China of "cheating" as very hypocritical, because the trade policy adopted by the Trump administration almost completely violated the rules of the WTO. The US’s efforts to undermine the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism are tantamount to acknowledging the facts of US violations. In the Sino-US trade negotiations, the US position can be summarized as "power is justice." It insisted that China accept the three roles of the US as a judge, jury and axe in the agreement, and the bullying attitude is vividly reflected.
If the parties have disputes over certain terms of market opening or intellectual property protection, they can be resolved through careful negotiation. This kind of solution can even be said to be good for China because it can make the “visible hand” mitigate intervention and promote market-oriented reforms. But the problems that are now in front of both sides are too difficult, so that this solution has not worked. Part of the reason for the current situation is that the negotiations broke down and the two sides broke up. The main reason is that the United States has begun to question whether it wants to integrate with China's state-led economy. This kind of integration is not good for the United States. The reason why the United States is full of fear for Huawei is because it touches the sensitive nerves of national security and technological autonomy. In the eyes of the United States, free trade and economic activities have become more and more equivalent to "doing business with the enemy."
A new trend of thought is emerging in the United States, limiting Sino-US relations to the framework of zero-sum conflict. Not long ago, Kairun Skinner, the head of policy planning at the US State Department (who was once served by Cold War strategist George Kenan), made a statement at the forum organized by the New American Foundation, which is very illustrative. She proposed that the hostile relationship between China and the United States is "the struggle between the United States and a very different civilization and different ideologies, which the United States has never encountered before." She added that this is "the United States for the first time as a big country composed of non-Caucasian people as a competitor." She obviously forgot the war between the United States and Japan. But more importantly, she looks at Sino-US relations through the framework of civilized and ethnic wars, which are irreconcilable conflicts. This is no accident. The United States has not adjusted the position of Ms. Skinner.
In addition to civilization and ethnicity, many people describe the Sino-US conflict as a struggle around ideology and power. People who emphasize ideology believe that Chinese officials have intensified Marxist discourse, and the role played by the party has become more prominent. Those who emphasize power are aware of the rise of China’s economic power. Both views point to long-term conflicts between China and the United States.
This is the most important geopolitical development trend of the current era. The key point is that the long-term conflict between China and the United States will force all other countries to choose the sideline, and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain neutrality. This trend is not only important but also very dangerous. Although Sino-US relations are still tricky but still within the controllable range, the risk now is that it may inexplicably evolve into a full-scale conflict.
China's ideology is not like the Soviet Union, it has no threat to liberal democracy. Western right-wing instigators are more dangerous than China. Any attempt to block the rise of China's economy and technology will almost certainly fail. Worse, it will cause deep hostility to the Chinese people. As the Chinese people become more affluent and educated, they demand their own destiny. In the long run, such demands will be met in the end, but if China's natural rise is threatened, the process will be frustrated. In addition, the rise of China is not an important reason for the ills of the West. In contrast, the indifference and incompetence of the elites of Western countries is the key. What is intellectual property theft? In fact, it reflects to a large extent the fact that the rising economies are bound to try to master the most advanced technologies. In the final analysis, it is illegal to attempt to maintain 4% of the rule of all mankind forever.
This of course does not mean that we should accept what China says and do. On the contrary, the best way for the West to treat China is to uphold the values of freedom, democracy, rule-based multilateralism, and global cooperation. These ideas have united many people around the world, making them supporters of the United States. Many of these ideas still attract many Chinese. Today, as with the cause of the environment, business and peace, the West can fully adhere to these ideas while working hand-in-hand with the rising China, and it is more determined than the past.
The way to get along with both competition and cooperation is the right direction for China and the West. When the West responds to China's rise, it must work closely with like-minded allies and give China enough respect. The tragedy of the current situation is that while the Trump administration is launching the Sino-US conflict, it is still attacking allies and destroying the post-war order dominated by the United States. The US attack on China was a wrong war initiated on the wrong battlefield and carried out in the wrong way. Oh, this is where we are now.
(Observer Network Yang Hao translated from "Financial Times")
Https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiqay3871116.shtml
US media: The United States is losing European support in its confrontation with China
US media: The United States is losing European support in its confrontation with China
60
US "Atlantic Monthly" website 4th article, original title: in the competition with China, the United States is losing Europe
On a sunny afternoon in early April, more than a dozen diplomats and Americans from Europe and other allies attended a meeting held at the State Department. At the meeting, the US diplomat asked allies to support a joint statement condemning China’s “Belt and Road” initiative. But it is obvious that neither Europeans nor other countries from Asia and Latin America have agreed.
An unnamed European diplomat who understands the details of the meeting told the author, “No one wants to support it.” In the eyes of Europeans, the White House has a misguided zero-sum thinking about dealing with China, and the above meeting is no longer proof. at this point. They also believe that the White House mistakenly believes that it is free to arbitrarily engage its partners, publicly accuse them on certain issues, and expect them to cooperate on other issues.
From the author's conversations with dozens of officials on both sides of the Atlantic, Europe and the United States have not come together to solve the problem of China's challenge. Instead, they have begun to fall into a destructive disagreement. Trump's latest move raises fears that Washington and Beijing will enter a long-term economic cold war, which may accelerate Europe's disagreement with the United States and put the United States on an unacceptable path to hardcore European hardliners.
Evan Feigenbaum, a former senior official in Asia Pacific affairs at the US State Department and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "The Trump administration has seen China as a survival threat, and most Europeans will not agree with them. That position."
A series of talks in recent months, as well as different interpretations of the talks, have reflected that the rift in the United States and Europe has continued to expand. European diplomats attending the April talks believe that Washington's uncompromising attitude toward the “Belt and Road” is similar to the US position on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) a few years ago. At that time, the United States failed to persuade its allies to boycott the Chinese-led AIIB and finally became a loner.
Ironically, senior US officials privately admit that whether the United States can win in competition with China may ultimately depend on Europe. But many US officials, at least the top level of the Trump administration, lack patience in working with European allies.
An EU diplomat who asked not to be named said: "The Americans want to fight, contain, and fight against China. They are very angry. But we think they are doomed to be in vain."
When six EU state and government leaders participated in the “Belt and Road” summit in China in April, US officials could only stay at home. European companies continue to invest heavily in China, including sensitive new technology areas such as artificial intelligence. If it is a last resort, are Europeans willing to put long-term business relations with China in jeopardy?
If there is no common goal, the future transatlantic partnership may become more difficult, regardless of whether Trump is re-elected. (by Noah Barkin, translated by Chen Junan)
外媒:中美冲突或持续百年 美指责中国显得十分虚伪
外媒:中美冲突或持续百年 美指责中国显得十分虚伪
410
马丁·沃尔夫:中美冲突可能持续百年,你有思想准备吗?
[文/马丁·沃尔夫,译/观察者网 杨晗轶]
1991年苏联从政治版图上消失,留下了一个巨大的空洞,美国从此失去了敌人。尽管9·11事件之后美国发动了“反恐战争”,但后者毕竟远不足以填补苏联曾经占据的位置。然而,不论从意识形态、军事实力还是经济水平等各个方面来看,中国都满足许多美国人对敌人的需求。美国终于又遇到了一个与自己旗鼓相当的对手。这是我从今年的彼尔德伯格会议(译注:Bilderberg meeting,始于1954年的年度非官方会议,百余名与会者皆为商政两界顶级权贵,会议最初旨在促进欧美对话,后来在更多重大国际事务上施加决定性影响力,该会议不接受采访报道也不透露任何内容,被称为“全球影子政府”)中得出的主要结论。美国的经济、外交和安全政策统统开始把与中国全面敌对竞争作为核心原则。
至于特朗普是否以此作为核心原则,其实并没有那么重要。这位美国总统只需要跟随他的民族主义和保护主义直觉。其他人将为他提供框架,填充细节。他们的目标是确保美国的主宰地位,实现该目标的手段是掌控中国或与中国脱钩。在这场冲突过程中,以规则为基础的多边秩序、经济全球化,以及国际关系的和谐都将成为牺牲品,任何对此怀有侥幸心理的人都被蒙蔽了。
6月2日,中国发布了令人震撼的《关于中美经贸磋商的中方立场》白皮书,证明了这一点。尽管我感情上不愿承认,但事实是,从许多方面来说中方立场都是正确的。美国抓住中美双边贸易失衡大做文章,这在经济学角度看来属于文盲行为。美方认为中国盗窃知识产权给美国造成巨大破坏,这个观点也很成问题。美国还指责中国严重违反2001年加入世贸组织时的承诺,这种提法同样属于言过其实。
2019年6月2日,国务院新闻办公室2日发布《关于中美经贸磋商的中方立场》白皮书,旨在全面介绍中美经贸磋商基本情况,阐明中国对中美经贸磋商的政策立场。图为国务院新闻办公室副主任郭卫民在新闻发布会上发言。图片来源:IC Photo
美方指责中国“作弊”显得十分虚伪,因为特朗普政府采取的贸易政策几乎统统都违反了世贸组织的规则。美国极力破坏世贸组织的争端解决机制,等于从侧面承认了美国违规的事实。在中美贸易谈判当中,美国的立场可以总结为“强权即公理”。它坚持要求中国接受美方充当协议的审判员、陪审团和刀斧手这三重角色,恃强凌弱的态度体现得淋漓尽致。
双方如果对市场开放或知识产权保护的某些条款持有争议,可以通过慎重的谈判来解决。这种解决方式甚至可以说对中国有好处,因为它可以使“看得见的手”减轻干预,促进市场化改革。但现在摆在双方面前的问题太过于棘手,以至于这种解决方式已经无法奏效。造成当前这种状况的原因一部分是谈判破裂,双方不欢而散;更主要的原因是美国已经开始质疑要不要与中国的国家主导型经济融合,这种融合对美国有没有好处。美国之所以对华为充满恐惧,是因为它触及了国家安全和技术自主的敏感神经。在美国眼里,自由经贸活动已经越来越等同于“与敌人做生意”。
美国正在出现一种新的思潮,将中美关系限定在零和冲突的框架里。不久前,作为美国国务院政策规划主管(该职位曾经由冷战战略家乔治·凯南担任)的凯润·斯金纳在新美国基金会组织的论坛上发表了一通言论,非常说明问题。她提出,中美之间的敌对关系是“美国与一个很不同的文明和不同的意识形态之间的争斗,是美国过去从未遇到的”。她补充道,这是“美国首次以一个由非高加索人种构成的大国作为竞争对手”。她显然忘记了美国与日本的战争。但更重要的是,她透过文明和种族战争的框架来看待中美关系,而文明和种族战争是不可调和的冲突。这绝非偶然。美国方面也没有调整斯金纳女士的职位。
除了文明和种族,还有许多人将中美冲突描述为一场围绕着意识形态和权力展开的斗争。强调意识形态的人认为中国官方强化了马克思主义话语,党扮演的角色也变得更加突出。强调权力的人则注意到中国经济实力的崛起。这两种观点都指向中美长期冲突。
这是当前时代最重要的地缘政治发展趋势。特别关键的一点在于,中美长期冲突将迫使其他所有国家选边站队,保持中立将越来越难。这个趋势不仅重要,而且十分危险。中美关系原本虽然棘手但仍处于可控范畴以内,但如今的风险在于,它有可能莫名其妙地演变为一场全盘冲突。
中国的意识形态不像苏联那样,它对自由主义民主没有什么威胁。西方的右翼煽动分子反倒比中国更危险。任何企图阻拦中国经济和技术崛起的尝试几乎肯定会遭遇失败。更糟糕的是,它会引起中国人民深深的敌意。随着中国人民生活越来越富足、受教育程度越来越高,他们要求掌握自己的命运。从长远来看,这样的要求终究会得到满足,但如果中国自然崛起的进程受到威胁,那这个进程就会大受挫折。此外,中国的崛起并不是导致西方弊病缠身的重要原因。相比之下,西方国家精英阶层的冷漠和无能才是关键。什么叫做知识产权盗窃?它其实在很大程度上反映了一种事实,即崛起当中的经济体必然试图掌握时下最先进的技术。说到底,企图永远维持4%的人对全人类的统治才是非法的。
这当然不是说,中国说什么做什么我们都应该接受。相反,西方对待中国的最佳方式是矢志不渝地坚持自由、民主、以规则为基础的多边主义,以及全球合作等价值观。这些思想曾经在全球范围内团结了许多人,使他们成为美国的支持者。其中许多理念至今仍然吸引着许多中国人。今天,与从事环境、商业与和平事业时一样,西方在与崛起的中国携手合作的同时,也完全可以坚持这些思想,而且还要比过去更加坚定,这至关重要。
竞争与合作并重的相处之道才是中国与西方正确的前进方向。西方在应对中国崛起时,既要与志同道合的盟友密切合作,也要给予中国足够的尊重。当前状况的悲剧之处在于,特朗普政府在发动中美冲突的同时,还在攻击盟友,摧毁美国主导的战后秩序。美国对中国发起的攻击是一场在错误的战场上发起、以错误的方式进行的错误的战争。唉,这便是我们现在所处的位置。
(观察者网杨晗轶译自《金融时报》)
https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiqay3871116.shtml
美媒:美国在与中国的对抗中 正失去欧洲支持
美媒:美国在与中国的对抗中 正失去欧洲支持
60
美国《大西洋月刊》网站4日文章,原题:在与中国的角逐中,美国正失去欧洲
4月初一个阳光明媚的午后,十几位来自欧洲和其他盟友的外交官与美方人员,参加了在国务院举行的一个会议。会上,美方外交官要求盟友支持一项谴责中国的“一带一路”倡议的联合声明。但显而易见,无论是欧洲人还是来自亚洲和拉美的其他国家均未同意。
一位了解会议细节的不具名欧洲外交官对笔者说,“没人愿意支持。”在欧洲人看来,白宫对与中国打交道有一种误入歧途的零和思维,而上述会议无非再度证明了这一点。他们还认为,白宫错误地以为可以随意摆布其伙伴,在某些问题上公开指责他们,而在另一些问题上又指望他们配合。
从笔者与大西洋两岸几十名官员的谈话来看,对于中国挑战的问题,欧洲和美国非但没有走到一起,反而开始陷入一种破坏性分歧。特朗普的最新举动,让人担心华盛顿和北京进入长期的经济冷战,它可能加速欧洲与美国的分歧,让美国走上一条连欧洲的铁杆强硬派都难以接受的道路。
前美国国务院亚太事务高级官员、卡内基国际和平基金会的埃文·费根鲍姆说:“特朗普政府有人把中国视为一种生存威胁,大多数欧洲人都不会认同他们的那种立场。”
最近几个月的一系列会谈,以及各方对会谈的不同解读都折射出美欧的裂痕不断扩大。参加4月份会谈的欧洲外交官认为华盛顿对“一带一路”毫不妥协的态度,与几年前美国对亚洲基础设施投资银行(亚投行)的立场相仿。那时,美国未能说服盟友抵制中国牵头的亚投行,最后沦为孤家寡人。
讽刺的是,美国高级官员私下承认,美国在与中国的竞争中能否胜出,可能最终要取决于欧洲。但许多美国官员,至少是特朗普政府的最高层,在与欧洲盟友合作方面缺乏耐心。
一位不愿透露姓名的欧盟外交官说:“美国人想要打击、遏制、对抗中国,他们气势汹汹。但我们认为他们注定徒劳无功。”
6位欧盟国家和政府领导人参加4月中国举行“一带一路”的峰会时,美国官员只能待在家里。欧洲企业继续大力投资中国,包括人工智能等敏感新科技领域。如果迫不得已时,欧洲人愿意让对华长期商贸关系陷入危险境地吗?
如果没有共同的目标,今后跨大西洋伙伴关系或许会变得更加困难,不论特朗普是否连任。(作者诺厄·巴尔金,陈俊安译)
Https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiews7075844.shtml
Foreign media: Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years.
Foreign media: Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years.
410
Martin Wolf: The Sino-US conflict may last for a hundred years. Are you mentally prepared?
[Text / Martin Wolf, translation / observer network Yang Wei]
In 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared from the political map, leaving a huge hollow, and the United States lost its enemies. Although the United States launched the "war on terror" after the September 11th incident, the latter is far from enough to fill the position occupied by the Soviet Union. However, regardless of ideology, military strength or economic level, China has met the needs of many Americans for the enemy. The United States finally met another opponent that rivaled itself. This is my second year from the Bilderberg meeting, which began in the 1954 annual unofficial meeting. More than 100 participants were the top dignitaries in the business and government circles. The meeting was originally designed to promote dialogue between Europe and the United States. Later, it exerted decisive influence on more major international affairs. The conference did not accept reports and did not reveal anything, which was called the “global shadow government”. The US economic, diplomatic, and security policies have all begun to make full competition with China a core principle.
Whether Trump uses this as a core principle is actually not that important. The American president only needs to follow his nationalism and protectionist intuition. Others will provide him with a framework to fill in the details. Their goal is to ensure the dominance of the United States, and the means to achieve it is to control China or decouple it from China. In the course of this conflict, the rule-based multilateral order, economic globalization, and the harmony of international relations will all be victims, and anyone who has luck in this will be blinded.
On June 2, China issued a stunning white paper on China's position on China-US economic and trade consultations, which proves this. Although I am not willing to admit it, the fact is that the Chinese position is correct in many respects. The United States has made a big fuss about the bilateral trade imbalance between China and the United States, which seems to be illiterate in economics. The US believes that theft of intellectual property rights in China has caused tremendous damage to the United States, and this view is also very problematic. The United States also accused China of serious violations of its commitments when it joined the WTO in 2001. This formulation is also an exaggeration.
On June 2, 2019, the State Council Information Office issued a white paper on "China's Position on Sino-US Economic and Trade Negotiations" on the 2nd, aiming to comprehensively introduce the basic situation of China-US economic and trade consultations and clarify China's policy stance on Sino-US economic and trade consultations. The picture shows Guo Weimin, deputy director of the State Council Information Office, speaking at the press conference. Image source: IC Photo
The US accused China of "cheating" as very hypocritical, because the trade policy adopted by the Trump administration almost completely violated the rules of the WTO. The US’s efforts to undermine the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism are tantamount to acknowledging the facts of US violations. In the Sino-US trade negotiations, the US position can be summarized as "power is justice." It insisted that China accept the three roles of the US as a judge, jury and axe in the agreement, and the bullying attitude is vividly reflected.
If the parties have disputes over certain terms of market opening or intellectual property protection, they can be resolved through careful negotiation. This kind of solution can even be said to be good for China because it can make the “visible hand” mitigate intervention and promote market-oriented reforms. But the problems that are now in front of both sides are too difficult, so that this solution has not worked. Part of the reason for the current situation is that the negotiations broke down and the two sides broke up. The main reason is that the United States has begun to question whether it wants to integrate with China's state-led economy. This kind of integration is not good for the United States. The reason why the United States is full of fear for Huawei is because it touches the sensitive nerves of national security and technological autonomy. In the eyes of the United States, free trade and economic activities have become more and more equivalent to "doing business with the enemy."
A new trend of thought is emerging in the United States, limiting Sino-US relations to the framework of zero-sum conflict. Not long ago, Kairun Skinner, the head of policy planning at the US State Department (who was once served by Cold War strategist George Kenan), made a statement at the forum organized by the New American Foundation, which is very illustrative. She proposed that the hostile relationship between China and the United States is "the struggle between the United States and a very different civilization and different ideologies, which the United States has never encountered before." She added that this is "the United States for the first time as a big country composed of non-Caucasian people as a competitor." She obviously forgot the war between the United States and Japan. But more importantly, she looks at Sino-US relations through the framework of civilized and ethnic wars, which are irreconcilable conflicts. This is no accident. The United States has not adjusted the position of Ms. Skinner.
In addition to civilization and ethnicity, many people describe the Sino-US conflict as a struggle around ideology and power. People who emphasize ideology believe that Chinese officials have intensified Marxist discourse, and the role played by the party has become more prominent. Those who emphasize power are aware of the rise of China’s economic power. Both views point to long-term conflicts between China and the United States.
This is the most important geopolitical development trend of the current era. The key point is that the long-term conflict between China and the United States will force all other countries to choose the sideline, and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain neutrality. This trend is not only important but also very dangerous. Although Sino-US relations are still tricky but still within the controllable range, the risk now is that it may inexplicably evolve into a full-scale conflict.
China's ideology is not like the Soviet Union, it has no threat to liberal democracy. Western right-wing instigators are more dangerous than China. Any attempt to block the rise of China's economy and technology will almost certainly fail. Worse, it will cause deep hostility to the Chinese people. As the Chinese people become more affluent and educated, they demand their own destiny. In the long run, such demands will be met in the end, but if China's natural rise is threatened, the process will be frustrated. In addition, the rise of China is not an important reason for the ills of the West. In contrast, the indifference and incompetence of the elites of Western countries is the key. What is intellectual property theft? In fact, it reflects to a large extent the fact that the rising economies are bound to try to master the most advanced technologies. In the final analysis, it is illegal to attempt to maintain 4% of the rule of all mankind forever.
This of course does not mean that we should accept what China says and do. On the contrary, the best way for the West to treat China is to uphold the values of freedom, democracy, rule-based multilateralism, and global cooperation. These ideas have united many people around the world, making them supporters of the United States. Many of these ideas still attract many Chinese. Today, as with the cause of the environment, business and peace, the West can fully adhere to these ideas while working hand-in-hand with the rising China, and it is more determined than the past.
The way to get along with both competition and cooperation is the right direction for China and the West. When the West responds to China's rise, it must work closely with like-minded allies and give China enough respect. The tragedy of the current situation is that while the Trump administration is launching the Sino-US conflict, it is still attacking allies and destroying the post-war order dominated by the United States. The US attack on China was a wrong war initiated on the wrong battlefield and carried out in the wrong way. Oh, this is where we are now.
(Observer Network Yang Hao translated from "Financial Times")
Https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2019-06-06/doc-ihvhiqay3871116.shtml
US media: The United States is losing European support in its confrontation with China
US media: The United States is losing European support in its confrontation with China
60
US "Atlantic Monthly" website 4th article, original title: in the competition with China, the United States is losing Europe
On a sunny afternoon in early April, more than a dozen diplomats and Americans from Europe and other allies attended a meeting held at the State Department. At the meeting, the US diplomat asked allies to support a joint statement condemning China’s “Belt and Road” initiative. But it is obvious that neither Europeans nor other countries from Asia and Latin America have agreed.
An unnamed European diplomat who understands the details of the meeting told the author, “No one wants to support it.” In the eyes of Europeans, the White House has a misguided zero-sum thinking about dealing with China, and the above meeting is no longer proof. at this point. They also believe that the White House mistakenly believes that it is free to arbitrarily engage its partners, publicly accuse them on certain issues, and expect them to cooperate on other issues.
From the author's conversations with dozens of officials on both sides of the Atlantic, Europe and the United States have not come together to solve the problem of China's challenge. Instead, they have begun to fall into a destructive disagreement. Trump's latest move raises fears that Washington and Beijing will enter a long-term economic cold war, which may accelerate Europe's disagreement with the United States and put the United States on an unacceptable path to hardcore European hardliners.
Evan Feigenbaum, a former senior official in Asia Pacific affairs at the US State Department and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "The Trump administration has seen China as a survival threat, and most Europeans will not agree with them. That position."
A series of talks in recent months, as well as different interpretations of the talks, have reflected that the rift in the United States and Europe has continued to expand. European diplomats attending the April talks believe that Washington's uncompromising attitude toward the “Belt and Road” is similar to the US position on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) a few years ago. At that time, the United States failed to persuade its allies to boycott the Chinese-led AIIB and finally became a loner.
Ironically, senior US officials privately admit that whether the United States can win in competition with China may ultimately depend on Europe. But many US officials, at least the top level of the Trump administration, lack patience in working with European allies.
An EU diplomat who asked not to be named said: "The Americans want to fight, contain, and fight against China. They are very angry. But we think they are doomed to be in vain."
When six EU state and government leaders participated in the “Belt and Road” summit in China in April, US officials could only stay at home. European companies continue to invest heavily in China, including sensitive new technology areas such as artificial intelligence. If it is a last resort, are Europeans willing to put long-term business relations with China in jeopardy?
If there is no common goal, the future transatlantic partnership may become more difficult, regardless of whether Trump is re-elected. (by Noah Barkin, translated by Chen Junan)