用户名:   密码:

当前位置:首页社区国外译帖美国美媒称美中之间彼此不信任 美网友评论!

美媒称美中之间彼此不信任 美网友评论!

译者:unknown     发布时间:2014-07-08     超过 0 位网友阅读



The US and China Are Right to Distrust Each Other


Trust is a rare commodity ininternational politics, and Beijing and Washington aren’t likely to be an exception.

信任是国际政治中一个罕见的商品, 北京和华盛顿都不可能是一个例外.

“There is a low level of strategic trustbetween the United States and China, which could make bilateral relations moreturbulent,” warned arecent report jointly issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peaceand the Beijing-based China Strategic Culture Promotion Association (CSCPA).


It was hardly the first such report toassess that the U.S. and China fundamentally distrust one another. Two yearsago, Wang Jisi and Kenneth G. Lieberthal wrote a report for the BrookingsInstitution that warned, “Althoughboth Beijing and Washington consider the U.S.-China relationship to be the mostimportant in the world, distrust of each other’s longterm intentions (‘strategic distrust’) has grown to a dangerous degree.” Twoyears before that, in 2008, Phillip Saunders spoke of the need to enhance trust between the U.S. and China; an argument pickedup recently by Chinese academics and the foreign minister.

这几乎是首次发布这种类型的评估报告,即美中之间没有互信。两年后,王季思和KennethG. Lieberthal为布鲁金斯学会写的一篇报道中警告说“尽管北京和华盛顿都认为美中之间的关系是世界上最重要的,但双方长期的猜忌('战略上的不信任”)已发展到危险的程度。“两年前,在2008年,菲利浦桑德斯就提到美中之间需要加强互信

Although it would be preferable if the twocountries trusted one another, this is an unrealistic goal. The U.S. and Chinaare right to distrust one another and this won’t change anytime soon.Therefore, the goal should be to find ways to manage the bilateral relationshipwithout strategic trust.


In general, trust is a rare commodity in theworld of international politics, and for good reason. To begin with, it isimpossible for states to know each other’s intentions. Even if a state is confident itknows another country’s current leadership’s intentions—which is unlikely in and ofitself—it certainly cannot know what the country’s future leaders’ intentions will be.


Secondly, international politics is hyper-competitive.Although there are some issues like climate change that might be somewhatconducive to cooperation, the main realms of world politics—economics,politics, and military affairs—are based on relativepower. Thus, each state has a strong incentive to gain an advantage over otherones. Even issues like climate change are ultimately about relative gains sincethere are strong economic advantages to be gained by having other statesshoulder a larger share of the burden for addressing climate change. Hence whyChina and many developing countries argue that the U.S. and the West shouldbear a disproportionate share of the burden on climate issues, and whyWashington and its allies refuse to oblige these demands.


Thirdly, the anarchic nature of theinternational system also incentivizes distrust. In most industries in theUnited States, individuals and countries can place a modicum of trust in oneanother to honor contracts because ultimately they know they can turn to theU.S. legal system to force compliance (or receive restitution). But inillegitimate industries in the U.S.—such as the illegal narcotics trade—the protection of the legal system is absent. Consequently, theretends to be a lot more distrust in the narcotics industry and other illegalenterprises. International politics is far more like the illegal drug trade inthe United States than legitimate industries, at least in this respect.

再次,国际组织无政府的现状也是无法建立互信的诱因。美国大多数行业中,个人与国家之间的互信是可以通过履行合同来实现, 因为他们知道他们可以利用美国法律制度来强制约束(或接受赔偿)。但在美国不正当的行业中如非法**交易,法律不可能对其保护。因此,**以及其他非法行业是无法取得信任的。国际政治与美国合法行业比,在这方面更像似非法**交易。

Finally, international politics is ahigh-stakes game where getting burned has severe consequences. The U.S.promises freedom of navigation in the high seas, including to China which isincreasingly economically dependent on its continuation. Should China decide to take theU.S. at its word on thematter and forgo modernizing its military, it would behelpless a decade down the road if a U.S. president decidedto erect a blockade around China over a political dispute or simply to crippleits economy. And this blockade would have profound negative consequences forthe Chinese people and ultimately for the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.It’s no surprise that CCP leaders aren’t appear anxious to make this gamble now that they have an economycapable of supporting a modern navy and air force.


Thus, at most states can trust other statesto pursue their own interests (even this is not advisable since it assumes bothsides are able to correctly identify that state’s interests).And this is preciously why the U.S. and China do not trust each other and aren’t likely to start anytime soon– namelybecause they largely have opposing interests in the Western Pacific. America’s interest is in preserving the current status-quo, which is aregional order built around the United States. China’sinterest is in rebuilding the regional status-quo that existed before thearrival of the Europeans. That is, Beijing seeks a Sino-centric order.


True, neither side is eager for a war inpursuit of this aim. But both sides must first admit that they have opposingvisions for the region’s future, before they can leverage theirmutual aversion to war in reaching a negotiate peace.


JenWhittenFebruary4, 2014 at 11:38“if a U.S. presidentdecided to erect a blockade around China over a political dispute or simply tocripple its economy. ”The UScan do that by simply blocking the Malaka and Sundastraits. That will cut China off from it’s oil and gas imports from the MiddleEast and coal from Australia. More than 80% of China’s energy imports come viathe Malaka and Sunda straits. That is why Singapore is in the PLAN’s ‘FirstIsland Chain’ military objective. To safeguard it’s trade lifelines, China mustexpel the US from the South China Sea and impose it’s control on Singapore.

“如果美国因为政治意图而对中国进行封锁,只是为了削弱它的经济活力”美国只需通过封锁断马六甲和巽他海峡即可,这将消减中国从中东和澳大利亚进口的石油和天然气。中国超过80%的能源是通过马六甲和巽他海峡进口的。这就是为什么新加坡成为“第一岛链”军事计划中的一部分。为了保护自己的贸易生命线,中国必将解除我们对南中国海和新加坡的控制。(巽 :这个字念XUN四声,俺不会念这个字,度娘来的~羞愧啊~)

GhenghisFebruary4, 2014 at 10:40Chinawas united 2000 years ago, with 98% of common Han culture. Today, Europe failedin its integration to emulate China. One of the world wars was fought based onthe differences between european states. Europeans willforever be behind China in a union   of values, culture, and common language.After all, Chinese is the #1 language most used in the world for the last 5 milleniums,right up to today.


ImperiumVitaFebruary4, 2014 at 13:22Fantastic.Now, what does that have to do with anything?


IvanFebruary4, 2014 at 03:58“China’s interest isin rebuilding the regional status-quo that existed before the arrival of theEuropeans. ”The flawin this argument is to even begin to speak of “China’s interest”.Thereis/are not “China’s interest”.Thereare individual “selfish” interests that masquerade as collective interest,whether they be family, village, clan, province, or “national” interest.WithChina governed by a weak central government, the likelihood of any systematiccalculation of “national” interest disappears the further one is removed fromindividual or lower level calculations of self interest.Thequestion for the US is whether or not the Beijing regime is any different frompast Chinese regimes, from the Republic of China to the Ching or any of theother lesser regimes, in their ability to exercise sole legitimate authorityand control, or should we say, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence,over a defined territory.


GeorgeFebruary4, 2014 at 03:38Chineseand American DNA are just not compatible for trust. Case in point..the famous 5eyes..(US,UK,Canada,Australia and New Zealand) global surveillance makes itobvious that native english speakers only trust each other….which is one up onthe Chinese,who dont trust automatically other native chinese speakers….maybebecause Mandarin isnt exactly Chinese.


applesauceFebruary4, 2014 at 10:57“5 eyes”, the US andvery likely everyone else, including your so called “5 eyes” spy on each otherand everyone else, governments, individuals, strategic, economic, nothing isspared. the chinese, of course, spy on everyone too, the only difference is,the chinese, unlike a certain other country, dont spy then go around tellingeveryone that spying/hacking is bad only for the world to later find out theyrun the largest spying network in the world.andalso, “Mandarin isnt exactly Chinese.” yea and the pope isnt catholic.

(回楼上)“5只眼?” 说的只能是美国吧,你所谓的“5只眼睛”还包括它们之间的互相刺探而且对每个人都一样,其他的诸如政府,个人,战略,经济,无一幸免。当然,中国也是在监视每个人,唯一不同的是,中国没有像某些其他国家的间谍,四处走动告诉大家,间谍与黑客的区别,就是看是谁发现了正在运行的世界上最大的间谍网络。还“普通话不也是中国的么~”,教皇还不是天主教徒呢

匿名发表  用户名: 密码: 验证码:

美国译帖 - 热门推荐
双语美文 - 阅读榜
美国译帖 - 最新收录
国外优秀论坛 - 为您推荐
经验分享 - 阅读榜