用户名:   密码:

当前位置:首页社区国外译帖美国中美辩论:中国与美国的战争一触即发?
看世界译帖
美国

中美辩论:中国与美国的战争一触即发?


China Debates: Is War with U.S. Inevitable?
译者:unknown     发布时间:2015-03-24     超过 0 位网友阅读

中国并不是雅典,而美国也不是斯巴达,人们不能简单的将历史与现实进行比较。

原文地址:http://nationalinterest.org


【译注:修昔底德陷阱是指一个新崛起的大国必然要挑战现存大国,而现存大国也必然会回应这种威胁,这样战争变得不可避免,源于同名古希腊历史学家。】

It has become quite common to use historical analogies to describe the complex Sino-American relationship. At the centenary of the First World War, the comparison between China's rise and that of Wilhelmine Germany has been widely made. However, a path-breaking 2012 opinion piece by Harvard University's Graham Allison reached back to Ancient Greece to describe the strategic dilemmas facing the most important bilateral relationship in the 21st century.

用类比历史分析法去研究复杂的中美关系已经变得十分常见。一战之后的百年间,人们就已广泛比较中国和威廉德国的崛起。(译注:威廉德国指一战前德国,当时崛起的德国与周边国家有众多利益纠纷。)不过,由哈佛大学Graham Allison发表的文章则提供了一种新思路,其关注点回溯到古希腊,以此来描述如今21世纪世界上,战略两难却又最重要的双边关系。

Pointing to what is perhaps the most important sentence in the entire Western cannon on international relations, Allison invited strategists and analysts on both sides of the Pacific to recall that "it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this inspired in Sparta that made war inevitable." Moreover, Allison supplied disturbing evidence of the frequency of war between a rising and established power, as observed by Thucydides in the History of the Peloponnesian War. According to Allison, "in 11 of 15 cases since 1500 where a rising power emerged to challenge a ruling power, war occurred."

西方世界最为关注的要点可能就是国际关系,Allison邀请了太平洋两岸的策略师和分析师们回忆起"就是希腊的崛起使与斯巴达的战争不可避免。"并且Allison提供了令人不安的证据,其与新兴力量和老牌势力间战争频繁性相关,就如伯罗奔尼撒战争(译注:伯罗奔尼撒战争是以雅典为首的提洛同盟与以斯巴达为首的伯罗奔尼撒联盟之间的一场战争。最终斯巴达获得胜利。这场战争结束了雅典的经典时代,也结束了希腊的民主时代,强烈地改变了希腊的国家。)期间修昔底德记录的一样。根据Allison的说法,"自1500年以来,15个新兴力量中的11个挑战老牌势力时爆发了战争。"

While Allison's reference to the Peloponnesian War seems to have had some impact on the relevant debates in Washington, there has been little exploration of the idea's impact in Beijing. Yet, the "Thucydides Trap" concept has indeed been discussed by China's top foreign policy decision-makers. In order to better understand Chinese perspectives related to "Thucydides Trap," this edition of the Dragon Eye series will explore a forum dedicated to that theme in the official Chinese military journal 军事历史 [Military History] that was published by the prestigious Chinese Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) in 2014.

Allison对伯罗奔尼撒战争的引用似乎已经有些许对华盛顿相关讨论的影响了,他的理论已被稍稍用来试探可能对北京造成的影响。不过,所谓的"修昔底德陷阱"这个概念已经被中国最高外决策者们所讨论。为了更好地认识中国对"修昔底德陷阱"的理解,这版的《龙眼》系列将会探察由中国著名的军事科学院(AMS)2014年出版的中国官方军事杂志《军事历史》中关于此主题的说法。

The journal's first reflection on Thucydides, which was critical, was by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel Zhou Xiaoning, a researcher specializing in foreign military history at AMS. While Senior Colonel Zhou conceded that Thucydides' comparison between ancient Greek city-states and modern nation-states was "worth discussing," he quite emphatically rejected Allison's analogy: "China is not Athens and the United States is not Sparta. One should not take history and facts to make simple comparisons." One of his major objections to the analogy was that both Athens and Sparta were fully risen – essentially superpowers – when war broke out, whereas China is only a "rising strong power." According to Colonel Zhou, both Athens and Sparta were 霸权国家 [states seeking hegemony].

这份杂志对修昔底德最为重要的第一条论断是由中国人民解放军(PLA)大校周晓宁(音译)做出的,他在军事科学院中专门从事关于外国军事史的研究。尽管周大校承认用修昔底德观点对古希腊城邦和现代国家联合进行比较是"值得讨论的",但他强烈反对Allison的类比:"中国并不是雅典,而美国也不是斯巴达,人们不能简单的将历史(情况)与现实(情况)进行比较。"他反对类比的主要理由是:在战争爆发时,雅典和斯巴达都已基本发展成强盛势力,但中国只是一个"正迅速崛起的大国"。根据周大校的说法,雅典和斯巴达都是霸权国家。

Continuing his argument, Colonel Zhou asserted that Beijing is still a developing country, and that the "power gap" between China and the United States is still very wide. Writing unequivocally, he noted that "China does not have the power to challenge the United States, but even more so has no intention to challenge the United States by launching a war. This is a very different situation from the relatively evenly matched hostile situation prevailing among Sparta and Athens."

如果进一步了解他的论点的话,周大校坚持称北京仍是发展中国家,并且中国与美国间"力量差距"仍十分巨大。直截了当的说,他表明:"中国并无实力挑战美国,更没有发动战争去挑战美国的意图。这与当时雅典和斯巴达势均力敌的敌对情况极度不同。"

Colonel Zhou also insisted that unlike Athens, China's independent foreign policy means that it seeks neither alliances nor expansion. In addition, he also raised the point that both China and the United States possess nuclear weapons, so "a large scale U.S.-China war is hard to imagine.

周大校还认为,不同于雅典,中国奉行的独立自主的外交政策意味着不寻求结盟,也不扩张。并且,他还指出,中美都拥有核武器,所以"中美间大规模战争是难以想象的。"

Colonel Zhou then proceeded to accuse Allison of suspect motives, noting that the Harvard Professor's recent research has focused on how Washington could present Beijing with a "red line" over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands crisis that erupted afresh in 2012. Zhou asserted that lumping contemporary China with historical cases like Athens and Germany implies that the United States suspects Beijing will seek to "destroy the international system." The military historian concluded that this analogy is ultimately employed by Allison to advocate "containing China."

周大校接着开始怀疑Allison的动机,这名哈佛教授最近研究的都是关于华盛顿如何能够在2012重新爆发的钓鱼岛/尖阁群岛危机上,给北京划一条"红线"。周大校声称,将当代中国抽象成历史案例,如雅典和德国,反映了美国怀疑北京将会"破坏(现有)国际体系。"这名军事历史学家最后总结道,Allison的类比最终是为了推广"遏制中国"论。

Yuan Peng, a professor at the Chinese Institute for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and one of Beijing's leading America experts, also had an article in the journal, which was more receptive to Allison's thesis. In contrast to the military historian Colonel Zhou, Dr. Yuan focused primarily on what he perceived to be a troubling shift toward instability and greater mistrust in Sino-American relations. He observed that "the Asia-Pacific Rebalance Strategy has created a multi-faceted set of challenges for China in the economic, military and foreign policy domains. But most importantly, the challenges have been at the psychological level."

袁鹏(音译)是中国现代国际关系研究院(CICIR)的一名教授,也是北京方面关于美国的一流专家,他也在那杂志上发表了文章,不过更倾向于接受Allison的论文。不同于军事历史学家周大校,袁博士主要关注于中美关系中不安定和更大误解的转变。他指出"亚太再平衡战略已经给中国经济,军事和外交政策建立了多方面挑战。不过最重要的是,心理层面就已有的质疑。"

Dr. Yuan outlined a troubling cycle in U.S.-China relations, suggesting that the psychological pressure applied against China will likely be taken as an attempt to "围堵" [surround] China, but Beijing's counter-moves would be interpreted as an attempt to "排挤" [squeeze out] American interests in the Asia-Pacific. Thus, Yuan was much more receptive to Allison's ideas about the dangers of unbridled competition between a hegemonic power and a rising challenger. He proposed some new areas for Sino-American cooperation, such as Afghanistan, and argued that Beijing must "千万百计" [exhaust every means] to avoid a direct conflict with the United States.

袁博士提出了中美关系中一个令人忧虑的循环,对中国的心理压力可能变成对中国的"围堵"行动,而北京的对策可能被理解成对美国在亚太地区利益的"排挤"。因此,袁教授更能接受Allison关于霸权集团和新兴挑战者间肆无忌惮竞争危害的观点。他提出了许多中美合作的新领域,比如阿富汗,而且他认为北京必须"千方百计"的避免与美国的直接冲突。

A final reflection in the journal— by Senior Colonel Ke Chunqiao, also a historian— focused on Germany's rise prior to the First World War. Colonel Ke contended that to avoid the "Thucydides Trap," great powers must make rational and scientific strategic choices, while avoiding goals that are either not feasible or provocative. Taking European diplomacy prior to the First World War as a focal point, he blamed Germany for departing from Bismarck's more cautious diplomacy and adopting overly ambitious strategic goals. Finally, he noted that Berlin adopted this posture despite the fact that the naval gap with Great Britain remained very wide and that the Kaiser's inclination to engage in a naval arms race with London "ran up against England's strategic red line."

杂志的最后思考也由一名历史学家完成,柯春桥(音译)大校关注于一战前德国的崛起。他认为大国为了避免"修昔底德陷阱",必须做出合理的,科学的战略决策,同时避免有不可行或挑衅性的目的。以一战前欧洲外交为切入点,柯春桥归咎于德国放弃俾斯麦较谨慎的外交到更野心勃勃的战略目标。最后,他指出,柏林尽管与大不列颠海军有巨大差距,但帝国仍决意采取和英国进行海军装备竞赛的姿态,其实"触碰了英国的战略红线。"

It is undoubtedly a positive sign that Chinese military scholars are chewing over this vital history. Of course, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that Thucydides' ideas have had a major impact on China's diplomacy and military policies. Senior Colonel Zhou's critique of Allison, moreover, demonstrates a reluctance to engage directly with Western conceptions of great power interaction. This may reflect strategic narcissism to a degree, but also genuine differences in traditional Chinese diplomacy that ought to be recognized.

这毫无疑问的是个积极信号,表明中国军事学者研究过这段重要的历史。当然,认为修昔底德的观点会对中国外交和军事政策产生巨大影响其实是很夸张的。更进一步,周大校对Allison的批评显示出一种与西方大国直接进行互动的不情愿。这也许反映出了战略上些许的自我陶醉,不过也应承认中国在传统外交上出现的巨大改变。

The other two pieces in the journal, by Dr. Yuan and Senior Colonel Ke, are more receptive to reflecting on the nuanced meaning of the "Thucydides Trap." As such, they are more reassuring. Dr. Yuan's piece illustrates that the PLA is not as isolated as some have claimed, and is at least somewhat open to airing the views of top civilian experts. Moreover, Senior Colonel Ke's piece shows a certain awareness within the PLA of the grave dangers of an unrestrained "海军派" [naval faction] and a maladroit diplomacy that "四处树敌" [makes enemies in all four directions].

在杂志的另两部分,袁博士和柯大校都更倾向于在"修昔底德陷阱"略微不同的意义上做思考。如此,他们的观点会更可靠。袁博士的部分表明解放军并不像有些人声称的那样不透明,至少,它通过高级评论专家表达观点。在柯大校的部分表明解放军意识到没有约束的"海军派"将是严重危险,而笨拙的外交手段将会导致"四面树敌"。

Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government. 

作者介绍:Lyle J. Goldstein是美国海军战争大学的中国海事研究院的副教授,位于罗德岛州纽波特市。此文中引述的观点仅代表他个人,并不表明美国海军或其他任何美国政府部分的官方评价。


 
更多
评论加载中。。。
我还要发表看法:
"看世界"温馨提醒:
1、请勿发表违反国家法律评论,评论请文明用语;
2、禁止发布广告评论。
匿名发表  用户名: 密码: 验证码:

浏览过本页的网友还关注:
美国译帖 - 热门推荐
第一赞助商
双语美文 - 阅读榜
第二赞助商
美国译帖 - 最新收录
第三赞助商
国外优秀论坛 - 为您推荐
第四赞助商
经验分享 - 阅读榜
欢迎爱好网帖翻译的朋友加入我们:
QQ群:307195648
联系邮箱:seas_2000@sina.com
无觅关联推荐,快速提升流量