百位諸葛亮：中國不是敵人

【Comment】

China is not an enemy to the U.S.?  It’s probable. 

They might be not Homo sapience, but Homo erectus, or the Alien.

中國不是敵人？也有可能。

但，他們可能是另一種人：直立猿人，或，外星人。

如果開宗明義的認為，「美國需要堅定有效地回應這些挑戰，但現今的對中政策根本上卻會適得其反。」那表示：中國是敵人，只是對應錯誤。

這些學者在說什麼？

A hundred scholars, in fact, did recognize China is an enemy, for they concluded: “These challenges require a firm and effective U.S. response, but the current approach to China is fundamentally counterproductive.”

「但許多都了解，唯有溫和、務實和真心與西方合作，才是符合中國利益。」

學者又再說什麼？

從布里辛斯基與季辛吉以來，40年不變的期望，已經證明是錯誤的。

The scholars also revealed “many Chinese officials and other elites know that a moderate, pragmatic and genuinely cooperative approach with the West serves China’s interests,” ignoring the naïve expectation has been proven wrong since the strategy drafted by Brzezinski and Kissinger.

如果「美國站在對立面，阻止不了中國經濟繼續擴張」。

很好，如果不用川普的政策，那該怎麼辦？

If “U.S. opposition will not prevent the continued expansion of the Chinese economy” is correct, what the new policy should be?

學者的方法是「創造中國能有機會參與、更開放且更繁榮的世界」。這就是過去40年的政策，事實是越來越失敗。

The scholars’ offer “The best American response to these practices is to work with our allies and partners to create a more open and prosperous world in which China is offered the opportunity to participate” is not only old fashioned but also wrong. 

中國不是敵人 卜睿哲等百位亞洲專家投書華郵      中央社 20190704

前美國在台協會（AIT）理事主席卜睿哲與前AIT台北辦事處長包道格等100位亞洲專家今天發表公開信，警告美國「視中國為敵」政策有害美國與全球利益。

這封在「華盛頓郵報」發表的公開信以「中國不是敵人」（China is not an enemy）為題，呼籲「親愛的川普總統和國會成員」重新思考中國政策。

信件由麻省理工學院政治系教授傅泰林（M. Taylor Fravel）、美國前駐北京大使芮效儉（J. Stapleton Roy）、卡內基國際和平研究院研究員史文（Michael D. Swaine）、哈佛榮譽教授傅高義（Ezra F. Vogel）、前美國國務院代理亞太助卿董雲裳（Susan Thornton）等5人執筆。

5位執筆人加上卜睿哲（Richard Bush）、包道格（Douglas H. Paal）等95名連署人，聯名發出公開信的共100人，他們「是學界、外交政策、軍方和企業界成員，絕大多數來自美國，其中許多人專業生涯重心都放在亞洲」。

這封信開宗明義寫道：「我們非常擔心美中關係日益惡化，這樣並不符合美國或全球利益。儘管北京近日的行為讓我們憂心忡忡，也需要強而有力地回應，但我們也認為，美國的多番作為，才是雙方關係急轉直下的直接原因。」

信件從「7個觀點」，傳達100位專家的共同看法。

「1. 中國近年的讓人憂心行為，也對世界其他地方帶來重大挑戰，像是越來越強硬的國內壓迫、增強國家對私人企業的控制、未能履行若干貿易承諾、更擴大箝制外國輿論、外交政策更加咄咄逼人等等。美國需要堅定有效地回應這些挑戰，但現今的對中政策根本上卻會適得其反。」

1. China’s troubling behavior in recent years — including its turn toward greater domestic repression, increased state control over private firms, failure to live up to several of its trade commitments, greater efforts to control foreign opinion and more aggressive foreign policy — raises serious challenges for the rest of the world. These challenges require a firm and effective U.S. response, but the current approach to China is fundamentally counterproductive.

「2. 我們不認為北京是經濟上的敵人、是國安威脅，需要在各個面向與之對抗。中國並非鐵板一塊，領導人也非冥頑不靈，中國雖因軍事與經濟飛速成長以致國際角色更趨獨斷，但許多都了解，唯有溫和、務實和真心與西方合作，才是符合中國利益。

北京的溫和派深知這點，但華盛頓敵視北京，削弱了他們的影響力。只要在合作與競爭之間適切地取得平衡，美國的行動，就可以讓希望中國更建設性參與世界事務的領導人更穩住腳步。」

2. We do not believe Beijing is an economic enemy or an existential national security threat that must be confronted in every sphere; nor is China a monolith, or the views of its leaders set in stone.  Although its rapid economic and military growth has led Beijing toward a more assertive international role, many Chinese officials and other elites know that a moderate, pragmatic and genuinely cooperative approach with the West serves China’s interests.  Washington’s adversarial stance toward Beijing weakens the influence of those voices in favor of assertive nationalists. With the right balance of competition and cooperation, U.S. actions can strengthen those Chinese leaders who want China to play a constructive role in world affairs.

「3. 美國視中國為敵、想讓中國從全球經濟脫鉤的舉措，只會傷害美國的國際角色與聲望，破壞所有國家的經濟利益。

美國站在對立面，阻止不了中國經濟繼續擴張、阻止不了中企在全球市場更大的市占、也阻止不了中國參與全球事務；更有甚者，美國試圖大幅拖慢中國崛起速度勢必反傷己身。倘若美國壓迫盟邦，要它們視中國為經濟與政治之敵，不僅會打壞與盟邦關係，到頭來，遭到孤立的或許也不是北京，而是自己。」

3. U.S. efforts to treat China as an enemy and decouple it from the global economy will damage the United States’ international role and reputation and undermine the economic interests of all nations.  U.S. opposition will not prevent the continued expansion of the Chinese economy, a greater global market share for Chinese companies and an increase in China’s role in world affairs.  Moreover, the United States cannot significantly slow China’s rise without damaging itself. If the United States presses its allies to treat China as an economic and political enemy, it will weaken its relations with those allies and could end up isolating itself rather than Beijing.

「4. 惶惶不安地認為中國會取代美國成為全球領袖，真的有點擔心過頭了。多數國家都不希望如此，也不清楚北京是否認為這個目標有其必要、或認為他們能達到這個目標。再者，限制公民取得資訊和機會、嚴厲壓迫少數民族的政府，不會獲取有意義的國際支持，也無法成功吸引全球人才。

美國回應這些措施最好的辦法，就是和盟邦以及夥伴合作，創造中國能有機會參與、更開放且更繁榮的世界。致力孤立中國，只會削弱意圖發展更人道且更包容社會的那些中國人。」

4. The fear that Beijing will replace the United States as the global leader is exaggerated. Most other countries have no interest in such an outcome, and it is not clear that Beijing itself sees this goal as necessary or feasible. Moreover, a government intent on limiting the information and opportunities available to its own citizens and harshly repressing its ethnic minorities will not garner meaningful international support nor succeed in attracting global talent.  The best American response to these practices is to work with our allies and partners to create a more open and prosperous world in which China is offered the opportunity to participate.  Efforts to isolate China will simply weaken those Chinese intent on developing a more humane and tolerant society.

「5.中國立下於本世紀中之前要躍升為世界級軍事強國的目標，但想成為主宰全球的軍事強權，中國的前方還有莫大障礙。

北京軍事實力成長已侵蝕到美國長期以來在西太平洋的軍事優勢，永無止境的軍備競賽...並非最好的回應，藉著與盟邦合作維持威懾力，才是更明智的政策。」

5. Although China has set a goal of becoming a world-class military by midcentury, it faces immense hurdles to operating as a globally dominant military power. However, Beijing’s growing military capabilities have already eroded the United States’ long-standing military preeminence in the Western Pacific. The best way to respond to this is not to engage in an open-ended arms race centered on offensive, deep-strike weapons and the virtually impossible goal of reasserting full-spectrum U.S. dominance up to China’s borders. A wiser policy is to work with allies to maintain deterrence, emphasizing defensive-oriented, area denial capabilities, resiliency and the ability to frustrate attacks on U.S. or allied territory, while strengthening crisis-management efforts with Beijing.

「6.北京尋求削弱西方民主準則在全球秩序中扮演的角色，但不是想推翻中國本身也從中獲益數十年的經濟等要素。

確實，中國的參與攸關國際體制存續，也關乎能否有效回應氣候變遷等共同問題。美國應鼓勵中國參與全新或是修訂過的全球體制，使得參與其中的崛起勢力能有更大聲音。對中國採取零和作法只會刺激北京，要不脫離體制，要不就是支持分裂的全球秩序，而那樣將傷害到西方利益。」

6. Beijing is seeking to weaken the role of Western democratic norms within the global order. But it is not seeking to overturn vital economic and other components of that order from which China itself has benefited for decades. Indeed, China’s engagement in the international system is essential to the system’s survival and to effective action on common problems such as climate change. The United States should encourage Chinese participation in new or modified global regimes in which rising powers have a greater voice. A zero-sum approach to China’s role would only encourage Beijing to either disengage from the system or sponsor a divided global order that would be damaging to Western interests.

「7. 總而言之，美國對中戰略要成功，重點就得放在與其他國家合力打造持久聯盟...在瞬息萬變的世界重拾有效競爭力、與其他國家以及國際組織通力合作，才最符合美國利益，宣揚破壞與限制中國參與世界的作法，只會適得其反。

我們認為，這麼多人連署公開信已明確顯示，並無支持全面敵對中國的一致華盛頓共識，不像有些人所想的那樣。

7. In conclusion, a successful U.S. approach to China must focus on creating enduring coalitions with other countries in support of economic and security objectives. It must be based on a realistic appraisal of Chinese perceptions, interests, goals and behavior; an accurate match of U.S. and allied resources with policy goals and interests; and a rededication of U.S. efforts to strengthen its own capacity to serve as a model for others. Ultimately, the United States’ interests are best served by restoring its ability to compete effectively in a changing world and by working alongside other nations and international organizations rather than by promoting a counterproductive effort to undermine and contain China’s engagement with the world.

We believe that the large number of signers of this open letter clearly indicates that there is no single Washington consensus endorsing an overall adversarial stance toward China, as some believe exists.」