亞洲可與美國為友，決不能與中國為敵 -楊榮文

【本文8月21日原載於美國《赫芬頓郵報》旗下《世界郵報》，原題“For the Rest of Asia, America Might Be a Friend, but China Cannot Be an Enemy”，觀察者網楊晗軼譯。】

中日間釣魚島主權歸屬的爭議，導致中美關係越繃越緊。美國戰略家們已開始思考如何在支持盟友日本的同時，調和與中國的關係。

或許，站在亞洲的角度看待當前的局勢更有助於解決問題。縱觀東亞和東南亞歷史，在西方人到來以前，中國是地區內唯一的大國。中國曆經王朝更迭、盛衰交替。當她國力昌盛時，周邊國家最好能順應天朝，換取可觀的經濟利益。

千百年來，富饒的中國一向是整個東亞和東南亞繁榮的保證。所以，今天的亞洲國家或許可以把美國當作有價值的朋友；但沒人想讓中國成為自己的敵人。如果美國主動拉近與中國和其他亞洲國家的距離，各方都會從中獲益。如果美國為了應對中國崛起而在亞洲內部站隊搞對抗，各方都將成為輸家。其實，亞洲存在一個讓各方皆大歡喜的微妙平衡點，摸索這個平衡點的邊界，是治國之道和外交工作的一部分。

亞洲存在一個讓各方皆大歡喜的微妙平衡點

日本是第一個通過走帝國主義道路迎接西方挑戰的亞洲國家。戰敗後，日本實際上成為了美國附屬國。不尋常的是，中國和美國或許都樂於讓日本長久保持這樣的“非正常”地位；而安倍首相等日本領導人則希望日本成為“正常”國家。對於美國來説，“正常化”的日本或許有助於其抗衡正在崛起的中國。

日本重新“入亞”

只要日本拒不承認歷史錯誤，中國就不能接受日本的“正常化”。日本的“再亞洲化”是個尚需下一代人繼續努力才能完成的複雜過程。中日之間圍繞釣魚島的爭端，僅僅是日本“再亞洲化”的一個表現。“再亞洲化”或“正常化”並不一定要把日本拖向戰爭。日本國內和國際社會應向精英階層施壓，迫使他們承認歷史錯誤，這種做法不但正確、可行，而且還能緩和太平洋地區的緊張局勢，併為包括日本在內的所有相關國家指向一個更美好的未來。各方必須達成共識，即日本的“正常化”必須是全方位的，這需要中國和美國扮演好各自的角色。

傳教士式的超級大國

美國將自身定位為一個“傳教士式”的超級大國。美國不但按自己的標準來評判別國，並且試圖通過恩威並施，以自己的模式去塑造別國。如果中國步蘇聯——另一個傳教士式的超級大國——後塵的話，那麼中美兩巨頭之間的對抗將不可避免。然而，中國已明確表示不具彌賽亞情結，不會干涉別國。對於中華人民共和國以及歷代華夏王朝來説，一條根本的治國之道是：除非核心利益遭到威脅，否則不干涉別國內政。

實際上，中國到今天還堅守着不干涉別國內政的原則。中國在與非洲、中東國家打交道時秉持“非道德”立場，已招致西方的批評。但正因為中國不具有彌賽亞情結，不像美國那樣熱衷於輸出價值觀，亞洲地區的未來才有希望。

（點擊下一頁，查看英語原文）

 

 

 

For the Rest of Asia, America Might Be a Friend, but China Cannot Be an Enemy

SINGAPORE -- As tensions rise between the U.S. and China over China’s islands dispute with Japan, American strategists have been thinking about how to accommodate China while at the same time standing behind their Japanese ally.

It may be helpful to look at the situation also from an Asian perspective. Historically, in East and Southeast Asia -- until the Western arrival -- there has only been one major power rising and ebbing: China. When it rises, it is best to accord it some respect in return for which one derives considerable economic advantage.

Over the centuries, a rich China invariably brought prosperity to all of East and Southeast Asia. Therefore, while Asian countries might value the U.S. as a friend, no one wants China as an enemy. There is a spot that is sweet for everyone. If the U.S. moves closer to China and to other countries of Asia, all will benefit. If the U.S., in response to China’s rise, moves too close to some as a move against others, everyone is caught in a lose-lose situation. Finding the limits of that sweet spot is part of statecraft and diplomacy.

Japan is the first Asian country to meet the Western challenge by becoming an imperial power itself. After its defeat, it effectively became an adjunct power of the U.S. In a curious way, both China and the U.S. may be happy to keep Japan in that “abnormal” position for as long as possible. Prime Minister Abe and other Japanese leaders want Japan to become a “normal” country. For the U.S., such a Japan may help counterbalance a rising China.

THE RE-ASIANIZATION OF JAPAN

For China, such a Japan is only acceptable if it acknowledges history. This re-Asianization of Japan is a complex process that will take another generation to achieve. The Diaoyu/Senkaku issue is only one manifestation of it. The re-Asianization or “normalization” of Japan need not lead to war. Domestic and international pressure on the Japanese elite to recognize history is not only right and doable, it will also relax tension in the Pacific and lead to a better future for everyone, including Japan. But it also requires China and the U.S. to do their part. The common objective must be the “normalization” of Japan on all dimensions.

THE MISSIONARY SUPERPOWER

The U.S. is, by self-identification, a missionary superpower. It judges others by its own standards and tries to shape them in the U.S.’ own image -- by hard and soft power. If China is also a missionary power, like the Soviet Union, perhaps a titanic struggle will again be inevitable. However, China is, by self-proclamation, not a missionary power. For China, a cardinal principle of statecraft, not just the PRC but also its earlier incarnations, is non-interference in the internal affairs of others unless those affairs affect China’s core interests.

In fact, this is now a western criticism of China -- that it is “amoral” in the way it deals with countries in Africa and the Middle East. But it is precisely the fact that China is unlike the U.S. in missionary zeal that there is hope for the future.