作者:成朝庭(德中论坛研究所创始人)
Email: 该邮件地址已受到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它需要在浏览器中启用 JavaScript。
2020.10.26


音频Audio

Video on YouTube

有一种影响很大的意见认为,中美不会爆发一场新冷战。理由是,与当年在经济上相互隔离的美苏阵营大相径庭的是,中美之间有着紧密的经贸联系,这是维持两国关系斗而不破的压舱石。此外,中国与前苏联不同,没有咄咄逼人的意识形态扩张倾向,并不追求埋葬资本主义制度。恰恰相反,中国推行改革开放的目的就是要将中国经济融入世界资本主义体系。

 

然而,经济决定论却不能解释第一次世界大战为何爆发。实际上,全球化在二十世纪初就已经达到相当深入的程度,欧洲各国之间(尤其是英国和德国之间)存在空前紧密的经贸联系和文化渊源。英德两国皇室还有长久的联姻关系(德皇威廉二世的母亲是英国维多利亚女王的长女,继位维多利亚女王的爱德华七世是威廉二世的舅舅,继位爱德华七世的乔治五世则是他的表弟),但这些都并未能阻止英德反目成仇和血流成河的第一次世界大战。在国际关系中,经济利益不能代表一切,国家安全、地缘政治、意识形态、民族情感或者领袖野心都可以压倒经济利益。中美之间旷日持久并日趋激烈的贸易战和科技战,表明经贸联系不但不是中美关系的压舱石,反而是矛盾和冲突的来源。

 

至于发动新冷战的动机,美国显然具备,至少对华鹰派早就磨刀霍霍。这在美国的国家安全战略、国防安全战略、印太战略以及国务卿和国防部长等高官的一系列讲话中有明确无误的表述。尤其是美国国务卿Pompeo于2020年7月23日发表的名为《共产中国与自由世界的未来》演说,发出了对华意识形态冷战的强烈信号。那么,中方是否也有发动对美意识形态斗争的动机呢?答复是肯定的。Kevin Rudd(富有影响力的中国问题专家、澳大利亚前总理、现美国亚洲协会主席)指出,执政的中国共产党(CCP)一直认为,华盛顿永远不会真正接受中国政府的根本政治合法性,因为它不是一个自由民主政体。的确,在中国政治精英、学者和群众中存在一个广泛的共识,即美国长久以来一直试图在领土上分裂中国、在政治上颠覆中国、在战略上遏制中国、在经济上削弱中国。美国政治学大师亨廷顿在其名著《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》中也谈到了中国各界对美国的这一重要认知。对于中国共产党而言,维护党的领导和确保国内安全与稳定一直是、并将继续是最高优先级。因此,中国共产党认为美国的敌意是对其生死存亡的重大威胁。Pompeo的讲话企图将中国共产党和中国人民分割,挑战中国共产党领导权的合法性,无疑实锤确证了中国共产党的忧虑。在强烈不安全感的驱使下,中国同样有发动对美意识形态斗争的动机。早在2013年,中国国防大学的内部宣传片《较量无声》就对此有鲜明的表述。

 

当年美国和苏联之间在意识形态、地缘政治和军事领域的全方位紧张对峙,其规模和烈度早就足以引爆一场全面热战。然而,历史给我们上演的却是一场持续近半个世纪的冷战。其根本原因在于,美苏之间存在核武器的均势,两个超级大国达成了所谓的“相互确保摧毁”(Mutual Assured Destruction)局面。双方都拥有足够的二次核反击能力,任何一方率先发动核打击,其结果将是同归于尽,所以美苏都不敢冒着自杀的威胁打一场热战。正是由于这种可怕的恐怖平衡,才使得世界避免了一场毁灭性的热战。从这个意义上来说,在核武时代,不具备与对手“相互确保摧毁”能力,就没有资格和实力发动或应对一场冷战,因为对手很难抑制将冲突升级为热战的冲动。二战后较大规模的热战如朝鲜战争(美韩 vs. 中朝)、越南战争(美国 vs. 越共)、苏军入侵阿富汗以及美国后来发动的海湾战争、阿富汗战争和2003年入侵伊拉克的战争,诱因均是冲突双方实力不对称,当强势一方自由地升级冲突烈度时,并不会冒被对手毁灭的风险。苏联帝国拥有令人生畏的常规军力和与美国势均力敌的核武力量,正是因为这个原因,美国才极力避免与苏联发生热战,被迫选择打了一场地缘政治和意识形态冷战。苏联的最终解体,不是因为军事上战败,而是由于僵化的体制造成经济和财政的总崩溃。

 

与美苏冷战相比,美中对抗有一个被大多数人都忽略的重大差异,即美国拥有对中国压倒性的核优势。根据瑞典斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所的数据,截至2020年1月,美国拥有5800枚核弹,而中国只有320枚,远远低于美国。因此,美中之间并没有形成“相互确保摧毁”局面。在最极端的情况下,美国可以毁灭中国,而中国却没有能力同等报复。从这个意义上来说,中国其实还不具备与美国打一场冷战的资格和实力。前苏联当年建立了华约,来对抗美国领导的北约集团,但中国却缺乏这样的军事政治同盟。所以,中国能够调动的经济、政治、文化和军事资源远远低于美国。北京强调不打新冷战、不搞零和对抗,与其说是没有强烈动机,不如说是缺乏足够实力。美中对抗,很大程度是美国主动挤压中国的战略空间,而中国无力全面反击。亨廷顿曾经指出,“西方赢得世界不是通过其思想、价值观或宗教的优越,而是通过它运用有组织暴力的优势。西方人常常忘记这一事实,非西方人却从未忘记。” 当今时代最强的有组织暴力,无疑非核武器莫属。如果中国的核力量不能达到与美国“相互确保摧毁”的规模,即便中国有对美冷战的动机,也没有对美冷战的实力,这是一个无情的现实。

Does China have the motivation and capacity to fight a new Cold War against the United States?

There is a highly influential opinion that a new Cold War will not break out between China and the United States. The reason is that, in contrast to the old Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union which are economically separated from each other, China and the U.S. have close economic and trade ties, which are the ballast that keeps the relationship between the two countries afloat. Moreover, unlike the former Soviet Union, China does not have an aggressive ideological expansionist motivation and does not seek to bury the capitalist system. On the contrary, the purpose of China’s “reform and opening-up” is to integrate its economy into the world capitalist system.

 

Economic determinism, however, does not explain why World War I broke out. Globalization, which had reached considerable depth at the beginning of the twentieth century, and the unprecedentedly close economic and trade ties among European countries, especially between Britain and Germany, did not prevent the bloodshed of World War I. In international relations, economic interests are not everything; national security, geopolitics, ideology, or ambitions of leaders can prevail over economic interests. The protracted and increasingly fierce trade and technology wars between China and the U.S. have shown that economic and trade ties are not the ballast of Sino-American relations, but rather a source of contradictions and conflicts.

 

The U.S. clearly has the motivation to launch a new Cold War against China, at least the U.S.’ China hawks do have it. This is clearly and unmistakably expressed in the U.S. National Security Strategy, the National Defense Security Strategy, the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and a series of speeches by senior officials such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. In particular, Secretary of State Pompeo’s speech on July 23, 2020―“Communist China and the Future of the Free World”―is a strong signal of an ideological Cold War against China. So, does the Chinese side also have a motive to wage an ideological struggle against the U.S.? The answer is yes. According to Kevin Rudd, an influential China expert, former Australian Prime Minister and now President of the Asia Society of the U.S., China’s ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long believed Washington will never really accept the fundamental political legitimacy of the Chinese administration because it is not a libreral democracy. Indeed, there is a broad consensus among the Chinese elites and people that the U.S. is trying to divide China territorially, subvert it politically, contain it strategically and frustrate it economically. The famous American political scientist Huntington, in his influential book―The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order―also confirmed this perception of China toward the U.S. For CCP, preserving party control and ensuring domestic security and stability have been, and will continue to be, the highest priorities. Pompeo’s speech, which sought to separate CCP from the Chinese people and challenge the legitimacy of the CCP’s rule, undoubtedly confirmed CCP’s concerns. Driven by a strong sense of insecurity, CCP has an equally strong motivation and practical need to wage an ideological struggle against the U.S. This is exactly expressed in “Silent Contest”―a propaganda film made by the National Defense University of China in 2013.

 

The scale and intensity of the tense confrontation between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union on all fronts in the ideological, geopolitical and military spheres at that time were long enough to ignite a full-scale hot war. However, what history has shown us is a Cold War that lasted nearly half a century. The root cause was the balance of nuclear weapons between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, which culminated in the so-called “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD). Both sides had sufficient retaliatory strike capability, and if either side launched a nuclear strike first, the result would be mutual destruction. So neither the U.S. nor the former Soviet Union dared to strike the other in risk of suicide. It was because of this balance of terror that the world was able to avoid a devastating nuclear war. The ultimate disintegration of the Soviet empire was not due to a military defeat, but an economic and financial collapse caused by a rigid system.

 

Compared to the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, the U.S.-China confrontation has one major difference that most people overlook: the U.S. has an overwhelming nuclear advantage over China. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden (SIPRI), as of January 2020, the U.S. has 5,800 nuclear warheads, while China has only 320, far fewer than the U.S. As a result, there is no “Mutually Assured Destruction” between the U.S. and China. In the most extreme case, the U.S. can destroy China, but China cannot retaliate equally. In this sense, China does not yet have the power to fight a Cold War against the U.S. The former Soviet Union established the Warsaw Pact bloc to counter the U.S.-led NATO bloc, but China lacks such a military-political alliance. Therefore, China can mobilize far fewer economic, political, cultural and military resources than the U.S. Beijing claims it wants neither a new Cold War nor zero-sum confrontation, this is not for lack of strong motivation, but for lack of sufficient power. Huntington once pointed out that the West won the world not through the superiority of its ideas, values or religion, but through its superiority in the use of organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do. The most powerful organized violence of our time is undoubtedly none other than nuclear weapons. It is a ruthless reality that if China’s nuclear weapons cannot reach the scale of “Mutually Assured Destruction” with those of the U.S., it will not have the power to wage a new Cold War against the U.S., even if it has the motivation to do so.


评论  

# j 2020-11-03 15:43
看你的文章很痛快,语言精辟,犀利,理念切中要点。
回复