王飞跃的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/王飞跃

博文

[转载]China’s Monroe Doctrine+Israel's Sustainable Success

已有 6545 次阅读 2014-5-9 23:46 |个人分类:感言社会|系统分类:海外观察|关键词:china,usa| China, USA |文章来源:转载

Roger Cohen
Damon Winter/The New York Times

Roger Cohen joined The New York Times in 1990. He was a foreign correspondent for more than a decade before becoming acting foreign editor on Sept. 11, 2001, and foreign editor six months later.

Since 2004, he has written a column for the International New York Times, until 2014 known as the International Herald Tribune, first for the news pages and then, from 2007, for the Op-Ed page. In 2009 he was named a columnist of The New York Times.

Mr. Cohen has written “Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo” (Random House, 1998), an account of the wars of Yugoslavia’s destruction, and “Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis’ Final Gamble” (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). He has also co-written a biography of General Norman Schwarzkopf, “In the Eye of the Storm” (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1991). His family memoir, “The Girl from Human Street: Ghosts of Memory in a Jewish Family,” (Alfred A. Knopf) will be published in January, 2015.


中国把美国的“门罗主义”用到亚洲

越南胡志明市——在他的经典作品《大国政治的悲剧》(The Tragedy of Great Power Politics)最新版中,芝加哥大学的约翰·米尔斯海默(John Mearsheimer)就中国崛起后亚洲出现战事的必然性做出了有力论述:


“简而言之,我的看法是如果中国在经济上继续增长下去,它会希望像美国统治西半球那样统治亚洲。而美国会百般阻挠中国实现这种区域霸权。北京的多数邻国,包括印度、日本、新加坡、韩国、俄罗斯和越南,都会和美国联手来遏制中国的势力。这样一来就会有一场激烈的安全竞赛,战争的可能性相当大。”


  这是21世纪的核心战略问题。在历史中,我们很少看到权力从一个霸主转向另一个霸主的过程是和平的。中国需要资源。无论是远是近,它都会去寻觅——过程中都会发现美国在碍事。战火的燃起显然是有可能的,问题在于能否通过结盟来巧妙应对,或是在共同毁灭原则的魔影笼罩下防微杜渐,这和苏联的情况是一样的,只不过现在不存在意识形态冲突。


  冲突的萌芽显而易见。奥巴马总统在近日访问亚洲时明确表示,日本和中国在尖阁诸岛(北京称钓鱼岛)问题上的对峙,也许会把美国卷进去。他宣称中国东海中由日本管辖的礁石“处在《美日安保条约》(U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security)第5条的规定范围内”,从而激怒了声称对那些岛屿拥有主权的中国。中国向华盛顿传达的讯息,实质上就是在说,少管闲事,冷战已经过去。


  越南和中国的海洋冲突近日也出现激化,起因是中国决定在中国南海建一座石油钻井平台。那是一片河内政府宣称拥有主权的海域,可能蕴藏了大量石油和天然气,护送平台的中国船只撞击了前来阻止的越南船只,并发射了水炮。


  对于越南这个曾经的敌人、现在的“转向亚洲”合作伙伴,美国给予了坚决的支持:“中国决定在多艘政府船只的护送下首次前往与越南的争端水域架设钻井平台,此举是具有挑衅性的,会加剧紧张气氛,”美国国务院女发言人珍·普萨基(Jen Psaki)在一份声明中说。“此次单边行动似乎符合中国在更大范围内的一种行为规律,它在以破坏该地区和平与稳定的方式,推进其在争端区域的领土主张。”


  中国正在维护自己在中国南海的主权,从而激怒了菲律宾和越南。看起来它用行动证明了米尔斯海默的正确,他在书中写到,一个更强大的中国“可能会试图把美国挤出亚太地区,就像美国在十九世纪把欧洲大国挤出西半球那样。我们应该会看到,中国将炮制自己的门罗主义”——也就是19世纪美国向欧洲发出的“别碰这个半球”的告诫。


  越南显然在加强与美国的关系,以此来防范中国。去年宣布的“全面伙伴关系”表明两国的战争创伤愈合得有多充分。合作覆盖到了贸易、投资、教育(在美留学生中,越南人的数量排在第八位)和防务等领域。为此提出的贸易协议名叫“跨太平洋战略经济伙伴关系协议”(Trans-Pacific Partnership),越南是其中一个参与者(但中国不是),它正在把投向中国的制造业投资吸引过来。较低的工资也是一个诱惑。近日美国还和越南海军举行了联合演习。


  在越南的眼中,实际上一切问题都是和对中关系有关的。同为一党执政的共产主义兄弟情,不足以消除成为附庸的风险。在东南亚的这个角落,法国和美国是后来者。越南的立国故事,就是一部千百年来摆脱中国统治的斗争史。因此,越南想把美国当成它的离岸制衡者。


  随着中国的崛起,其他一些亚洲小国也会效法。这些同盟关系,只要是稳固的,就可以对战争构成有力威慑。在冷战僵持中不曾有过的经济相互依赖,也能防止冲突。竞争性的合作是一个可能的局面。中国看起来一心想要和平发展,至少目前是如此;“和谐”是其国家语汇的核心。但同时,邓小平又有过“韬光养晦”的教诲。


  越南的“转向美国”表明它对中国的恐惧何其真切。而围绕着一个中国钻井平台发生的小型海上冲突证明,它的恐惧并非空穴来风。正如米尔斯海默所认识到的,他的预言并非不可避免,但却是有理有据的。美国的开支紧缩令这种可能性愈发加剧。正在崛起的霸主一旦发现弱点就不会放过。威慑远比战争更可取。


  作者罗杰·科恩 2014年05月10日。翻译:经雷

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNISTChina’s Monroe Doctrine


HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — In the new edition of his classic “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago makes a powerful case for the inevitability of war in Asia as Chinarises:

“My argument in a nutshell is that if China continues to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. The United States, however, will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony. Most of Beijing’s neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia and Vietnam, will join with the United States to contain Chinese power. The result will be an intense security competition with considerable potential for war.”

This is the core strategic question of the 21st century. History is not rich in peaceful transitions of power from one hegemon to another. China needs resources. It will seek them near and far — and find America in its path. As with the Soviet Union, but without the ideological conflict, the issue will be whether the evident potential for a conflagration can be finessed through alliances or forestalled through the specter of mutual assured destruction.

The seeds of conflict are evident. On his recent visit to Asia, President Obama made clear how the tensions between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands to Beijing) could draw in the United States. His declaration that the Japan-administered rocks in the East China Sea “fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security” incensed China, which claims the islands. Mind your own business and get over the Cold War was the essence of the Chinese message to Washington.

Vietnam and China also have maritime conflicts that have flared in recent days as a result of a Chinese decision to place an oil rig in the South China Sea. Chinese ships escorting the rig rammed and fired water cannons at Vietnamese vessels attempting to stop the move in potentially oil- and gas-rich waters claimed by Hanoi.

The U.S. response in support of Vietnam, its erstwhile enemy turned pivot-to-Asia partner, was firm: “China’s decision to introduce an oil rig accompanied by numerous government vessels for the first time in waters disputed with Vietnam is provocative and raises tensions,” Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This unilateral action appears to be part of a broader pattern of Chinese behavior to advance its claims over disputed territory in a manner that undermines peace and stability in the region.”

China is asserting sovereignty in the South China Sea, angering the Philippines and Vietnam. Its actions appear to vindicate Mearsheimer, who writes that a more powerful China can “be expected to try to push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific region, much as the United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere in the nineteenth century. We should expect China to devise its own version of the Monroe Doctrine” — the 19th century keep-out-of-this-hemisphere message of the United States to Europe.

The push here in Vietnam to hedge against China by strengthening ties with the United States is evident. The “comprehensive partnership” announced last year indicates how far the wounds of war have healed. Cooperation extends across trade, investment, education (Vietnam is the eighth-largest provider of foreign students to the United States) and defense areas. The proposed trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership in which Vietnam would be a participant (but not China) is luring manufacturing investment from China. So are lower wages. A joint U.S. exercise with the Vietnamese navy was recently conducted.

Vietnam looks at virtually everything through the lens of relations with China. The fraternity of one-party communist systems is seen as insufficient insurance against vassal state status. France and the United States were latecomers to this corner of Southeast Asia. The Vietnamese creation story is one of a 1,000-year struggle to free itself from Chinese rule. So Vietnam looks to the United States as its offshore balancer.

Other smaller Asian nations will do the same as China rises. These American alliances, if firm, could be powerful deterrents to war. Economic interdependence, which did not exist during the Cold War standoff, could also prevent conflict. Competitive cooperation is a possible scenario. The Chinese seem bent on peaceful development, at least for now; harmony is at the core of the national vocabulary. But then Deng Xiaoping famously counseled: “Hide our capacities and bide our time.”

The Vietnamese pivot to the United States demonstrates how real its fears of China are. The little naval battle being fought around a Chinese rig suggests they have cause. The Mearsheimer prediction is not inevitable, as he acknowledges, but it is plausible. American retrenchment would make it more so. Rising hegemons seize on weakness when they see it. Deterrence is far preferable to war.


LONDON — Hearing an Indian official talk the other day about Delhi’s booming arms trade and ever-closer relationship with Israel, I had a thought that also struck me while listening to Israeli businessmen in Beijing. The idea may be summed up in three words: It is sustainable.

“Pivot to Asia” is a term that might be applied to Israel. Its trade with China has boomed, reaching more than $8 billion in 2013 from a pittance when diplomatic relations were established in 1992 (the same year as with India). Europe huffs and puffs about the West Bank settlements; Asia does business. India has already bought sea-to-sea missiles, radar for a missile-intercept system and communications equipment from Israel.

Tel Aviv, one of the world’s most attractive cities, has a boom-time purr about it. For all the talk of its isolation — and all the efforts of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement — Israel has an economy as creative as it is successful. Yes, it is sustainable.

Behind its barriers and wall, backed by military might, certain of more or less unswerving American support, technologically innovative and democratically stable, Israel has the power to prolong indefinitely its occupation of the West Bank and its dominion over several million Palestinians. The Jewish state has grown steadily stronger in relation to the Palestinians since 1948. There is no reason to believe this trend will ever be reversed. Holding onto all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, while continuing to prosper, is feasible. This, after all, is what Israel has already done for almost a half-century.

It is time to retire the unsustainability nostrum. Facile and inaccurate, it distracts from the inconvenient truth of Israel’s sustainable success.

Throughout this year the Obama administration has pushed the unsustainability argument to make its case for peace. “Today’s status quo, absolutely to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in February. “It is not sustainable. It is illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace.”

More recently, President Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg View that his question to Benjamin Netanyahu was: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”

Obama also said of Israel: “There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank?”

Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTS

The Wifely Person 14 days ago

Mr. Cohen,We may actually be on the same page here. Seems like you finally put words to what all Israelis already know, "any peace with only...

Neil 14 days ago

"The Jewish state has grown steadily stronger in relation to the Palestinians since 1948. There is no reason to believe this trend will ever...

Spirit of Marek Edelman 14 days ago

One thing Mr. Cohen says is true. Israel is a very prosperous nation, with an annual GDP per capita that ranks it no. 25 in the world, just...

  • SEE ALL COMMENTS

But that “point” of unmanageability is a vanishing one. Permanent occupation is what several ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition government advocate. Backed by the evidence, they are certain it can be managed. They are right.

Of course, manageability does not equal desirability. There is no consent of the governed in the West Bank. Dominion over another people is morally corrosive; Jews, of all people, know that. The nationalist-religious credo that the West Bank was land promised to Abraham’s descendants has intensified over the past half-century. Settlers see their work as the culmination of the Zionist idea of settlement. The opposite is true. Israel has undermined its Zionist founders’ commitment to a democratic state governed by laws. The occupation undercuts Israel’s own Founding Charter of 1948, which promised a state based on “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

These, too, are uncomfortable facts. But the evidence is that Israelis, in their majority, prefer to live with them than believe in a sustainable peace with Palestinians. Trust your neighbor? Been there, tried that. Which brings us to the agreement (yet another) reached this week between Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, the militant Islamist group, to form a unity government and hold elections within six months.

Netanyahu leapt on it to inter the already half-buried peace talks: “Does he want peace with Hamas, or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other.” But Israelis are smarter than that. They know that any peace with only one Palestinian faction would not amount to peace at all; that without elections, eight years after the last vote, Abbas has no real legitimacy; and that bringing a weakened Hamas under Egyptian suasion into a unity government (if that happens) would increase pressure on Hamas to meet international demands that it recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and accept previous signed agreements.

Moving toward a two-state peace — the best outcome for both nations — cannot be based either on the myth that Israel’s current situation is unsustainable or on the myth that the Palestinian Authority, as currently constituted, represents the Palestinian national movement. It can only emerge when a majority on both sides believes, based on the facts, that painful compromise in the name of a better future is preferable to manageable conflict fed by the wounds of the past.



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2374-792920.html

上一篇:[转载]纽约时报:马云一特点十分引人注目Unlikely Ascent of Jack Ma
下一篇:[转载]Traponomics: 陷阱经济学? 陷阱学?

0

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (3 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2018-7-23 08:10

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社

返回顶部