西方与中国的关系走向发生了重大变化

来源: 作者:James O’Neill 点击: 发布时间:2021-10-22 13:00:54
   该文章由James O’Neill撰文,全文内容(翻译)如下:

   最近发表在俄罗斯《战略文化》杂志上的两篇文章指出,西方国家对俄罗斯和中国的态度正在发生重大变化。这些变化已经持续了一段时间,但近几个月来加快了步伐。俄罗斯和中国都在为一个新的体系指明道路,其后果将对世界的地缘政治产生非凡影响。
 
   第一篇文章由Finian Cunningham撰写,发表在10月30日的《战略文化》杂志上。这篇文章的题目是《转向深渊——美国及其盟国在理智上处于昏迷状态》。这篇文章基于坎宁安对美国学者迈克尔·布伦纳(Michael Brenner)教授的一次访谈。
 
   布伦纳教授通过指出他所谓的政治领导和战略思考的失败开始了他的论点。这种失败最明显地体现在华盛顿对中国的持续敌对,以及它无法与北京进行有意义的对话和外交以解决重大问题。
 
   在布伦纳看来,由于形势严峻,因此他所谓的美国缺乏战略和政治思维的可悲表现,正在把世界其他地区推向深渊。
 
   布伦南说,“任何对拜登政府的连贯战略设计的描述都是错误的。”相反,他认为拜登对他的国家安全团队的控制是脆弱的。美国国务卿安东尼·布林肯(Antony Blinken)和国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文(Jake Sullivan)等美国官员一致认为,中国对于美国的主导地位构成了致命威胁。他们认为对抗性的方式是对中国经济增长的唯一合理回应。
 
   华盛顿只会用一种强制性的方式思考,因为这是他们唯一能够做到的。解决这一问题的唯一方法是美国为两国关系的恶化承担责任。
 
   布伦纳指出,澳大利亚、英国和美国最近建立的美英澳三国同盟是一种政治形态,旨在实现两个目的:第一,在中澳关系道路上设置直接障碍;第二,加强美国集团对堪培拉在亚太地区外交政策的选择。
 
   布伦纳称澳大利亚总理斯科特·莫里森只是在装模作样。他并不是第一个指出澳大利亚对华立场将造成经济损失的人。令人难以理解的是,澳大利亚的外交政策对其与中国的经济关系如此不利。中国显然是澳大利亚最大的贸易伙伴,而莫里森自杀式的对华贸易行为对他的人气几乎没有影响。在这方面,澳大利亚媒体发挥了重要作用,没有提醒读者注意经济危险,这与澳大利亚对于美国的对华外交政策的盲从是一致的。
 
   比中澳关系恶化更重要的一点是,布伦纳承认日本与中国的关系发生了根本性变化,他将其描述为态度上的九十度转变。他提到了两国总统最近的会晤,双方同意在加强对话的基础上发展“建设性和稳定的关系”。
 
   第二篇值得一提的文章是10月15日发表在《战略文化》杂志上的一篇社论,题为“华盛顿的零和心态疏远盟友”。《战略文化》的编辑们认为,华盛顿对中国的冷战式对抗性政策导致了美国与欧洲和亚太地区盟友之间的裂痕日益加深。这一点在本周举行的G20会议和东盟(ASEAN)会议上表现得很明显。在会议上,许多国家对华盛顿不断推动与中国建立分裂关系表示深切担忧。
 
   布伦纳教授也提到本月早些时候相关盟国完全没有想到美英澳三国会形成同盟,这一发展令美国的欧洲盟友措手不及。
 
   不难看出欧洲对于中欧关系恶化而感到恐慌的原因。中国现在已经取代美国成为他们最重要的贸易伙伴。作为欧洲最重要的经济体,德国目前严重依赖中国市场。德国显然会抵制美国削弱中国在两国贸易关系中重要地位的这一企图。
 
   《战略文化》的社论还指出,许多亚洲国家也对华盛顿对中国的冷战行动而警惕。尽管一些东盟国家与中国在领海使用权问题上存在争议,但这一争议正在通过各方协商解决,这是一种典型的亚洲解决各方困难的方式。
 
   美国多次重复谈到要维护他们所称的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”。对许多国家来说,这是一个特别令人厌烦的用语,因为它们将所谓的基于规则的国际秩序与长期存在的、行之有效的国际法制度区分开来。这些国家清楚地认识到,基于规则的国际秩序只是一种工具,美国及其盟友借此将自己的观点强加给世界其他地区。简而言之,这只不过是另一种寻求保持其对其他国家支配地位的手段。
 
   《战略文化》最后说,世界不可避免地与美国分道扬镳,这是因为世界现在发现,美国的力量是根本的不可调和的问题,而不是解决方案。
 
   这两篇文章很重要,因为它们强调了世界地缘政治的基本趋势。也就是说,世界正在远离由美国构建的、在二战后的大部分时间里占主导地位的框架。因此,而当下世界地缘政治的基本趋势是一个值得鼓励的趋势。



原文如下:

 
Two Recent Articles Point to Significant Changes of Direction By The West In Relation to China

 
By
 
 James O’Neill*

 
Two recent articles have recently appeared in the Russian Journal Strategic Culture that point to significant changes that are occurring among western nations toward Russia and China. These changes have been in the wind for some time but in recent months the tempo has accelerated. Both Russia and China are pointing the way to a new system, the ramifications of which will have extraordinary effects on the geopolitical world.
 
The first of these articles was written by Finian Cunningham and appeared in Strategic Culture on 30 October. The article was entitled Veering to the Abyss – United States and Allies Are Intellectually Comatose. It was based on an interview that Mr Cunningham did with the American academic Professor Michael Brenner.
 
Professor Brenner commences his argument by pointing to what he calls an abject failure of political leadership and strategic thinking. This failure is most clearly seen with regard to Washington’s persistent antagonism towards China and its inability to conduct meaningful dialogue and diplomacy with Beijing for the purpose of resolving major issues.
 
The situation is so dire in Professor Brenner’s view that what he calls a lamentable lack of strategic and political thinking by the United States is driving the rest of the world to an abyss.
 
Brennan says that “any description of a coherent strategic design to the Biden administration is misplaced.”  Rather, he sees Biden’s control over his national security team as tenuous. United States officials such as secretary of state Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan as being unanimous in their view that China is a lethal threat to American dominance. These two see a confrontational approach as being the only logical response to China’s growth.
 
Washington thinks only in terms of a coercive mindset because that is the only concept that they are capable of. The only way this can be resolved is for the United States to take responsibility for the deteriorating relationship between the two countries.
 
Brenner points to the recent development of the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and the United States) as a political gesture that is designed to achieve two ends: firstly, to place an immediate obstacle in the way of Sino – Australian relations, and secondly, to tighten the United States group on Canberra’s foreign policy options in the Asia Pacific region.
 
He describes the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison as someone who is just posturing, Brenner is not the first person to point out that there will be economic losses as a consequence of Australia’s posture toward China. It is difficult to understand how Australia could in fact follow a foreign policy that is so detrimental to its economic relationship with China, which is far and away its biggest trading partner. One of the alarming features is that Morrison’s suicidal conduct toward trading relationships with China has had so little effect on his popularity. In this the Australian media has played a major role in not alerting the readership to the economic dangers consistent with Australia’s blind adherence to American foreign policy wishes with regard to China. 
 
An even more significant point than the deteriorating relationship between China and Australia is Brenner’s acknowledgement of the fundamental change in Japan’s relationship with China, that he describes as a 90° shift in its attitude. He referred to the recent meeting of the presidents of the two countries where they agreed to pursue “constructive and stable relations” based on an increased dialogue.
 
The second article worthy of mention is an editorial which appeared in Strategic Culture on 15 October entitled “Washington’s Zero-Sum Mindset Alienates Allies”.   The editors of Strategic Culture see the consequences of Washington’s Cold War style confrontational policy towards China as being responsible for an ever-growing rift with United States’ allies in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. This was evident during the G 20 and ASEAN discussions both held this week where numerous countries expressed their deep misgivings about Washington’s relentless push for divisive relationships with China.
 
These allies were caught totally unaware by the formation earlier this month of the new tripartite relationship between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) that was also referred to by Professor Brenner. This development completely blindsided the United States’ European allies.
 
It is not too difficult to see the reasons for Europe’s alarm over any deterioration in a relationship with China. China is now their most important trading partner, having recently overtaken the United States in that role. Germany, which is the most important economy in the European context is now heavily dependent on China’s market. The Germans would clearly resist any attempts by the Americans to diminish China’s important role in their trading relationship.
 
The Strategic Culture editorial also observes that many Asian nations have also become alarmed by Washington’s Cold War activism towards China.  Although several of the ASEAN nations have a dispute with China over access to what they regarded as territorial waters, that is a dispute that is being resolved by consultations between the parties, which is a classic Asian means of resolving difficulties between parties.
 
In what has become a rather tiresome repetition, the United States talks about upholding what they are pleased to call the “rules based international order”.  This is a particularly tiresome phrase to many countries who distinguish the so-called rules based international order from the long-standing and well-established system of international law. These latter countries correctly recognise the rules based international order as simply a device whereby the Americans and their allies impose their view of what they want to see happen upon the rest of the world. It is in short simply another means of seeking to maintain their dominance over others.
 
Strategic Culture concludes by saying that the world is ineluctably diverging from the United States and that is because the world is now finding that American power is the fundamental irreconcilable problem, rather than a solution.
 
These two articles are important because they highlight what is a fundamental trend in world geopolitics.  That is that the world is moving away from a framework constructed by the United States and which dominated for much of the post- World War II period.  As such it is a trend to be encouraged.
 
 
*Geopolitical analyst.  He may be contacted at jamesoneill83@icloud.com
(责任编辑:James O’Neill)

版权及免责声明

1、本网转载媒体稿件旨在传播更多有益信息,并不代表同意该观点,本网不承担稿件侵权行为的连带责任;

2、在本网博客/论坛发表言论者,文责自负。