姚雲竹：中國在美國被重新定義（中英文）_風聞

圖片來源：Matt Barber

“ 

中美兩國關係已跌到了上世紀90年代以來的最低水平。美國正在重新定義中國，這導致它出現政策上的轉向。

本文中英文版分別來源於“中美聚焦”中英文網站，作者系盤古智庫顧問委員會高級顧問、中國人民解放軍軍事科學院中美防務關係研究中心榮譽主任姚雲竹。

”

中國在美國被重新定義

姚雲竹

隨着貿易戰的不斷升級，地緣戰略競爭的日趨激烈，意識形態衝突的暗流湧動，中美兩國關係已跌到了上世紀90年代以來的最低水平。美國正在重新定義中國，這導致它出現政策上的轉向。

**在重新定義中國方面，唐納德·特朗普總統發揮了關鍵的作用。**他指責中國通過貿易順差佔盡便宜，同時剽竊美國的知識產權，發動網絡攻擊，搶走美國的就業機會，而且利用了之前歷任政府的弱點。他承諾要阻止中國繼續利用他的國家，並死守苛刻的貿易談判條件。特朗普作為總統重新定義中國，促成了政策的急劇改變。

**特朗普政府的外交政策和國家安全班子發揮着即時而直接的影響。**他們把中國重新定義為最強勁的地緣戰略對手：挑戰美國在亞太（或印太）地區的主導地位；用軍事力量或經濟實力脅迫美國的盟友和夥伴國；削弱美國的軍事優勢；侵犯以規則為基礎的海上秩序；企圖通過“一帶一路”倡議重建區域經濟結構。他們的觀點充分反映在《國家安全戰略報告》、《國防戰略報告》、《核態勢評估報告》等官方文件中，他們的正式講話和印太戰略構想也十足表達了這種觀點。

在塑造公眾對中國的看法和政府的對華政策方面，美國的中國問題研究界一直通過政策諮詢渠道和與媒體的頻繁互動發揮着重要作用。過去40多年來，美國的主流對華政策主張一直是接觸與防範並進。通過接觸與合作，鼓勵中國朝着符合美國利益的方向轉型。而通過防範和遏制，美國仍隨時準備在必要的時候與中國競爭甚至對抗。美國曆屆政府所採取的都是這種做法。**但近年來，中國問題研究界日益瀰漫着失望、不滿和沮喪，其中最失望的是中國非但沒有按照預想的那樣發生轉變，相反它迅速崛起成為有着完全不同的社會制度和意識形態的超級大國。**在對中國的認知上，中國問題專家一直是最直言不諱的，他們在當前的對華政策辯論中同樣如此。然而，如果以為他們想的和他們説的是一回事，那就大錯特錯了。《外交》雜誌最近邀請一批專家，來談他們是否同意“美國與中國的國家利益完全不相容”這一命題，在34位受訪者中，有14人表示同意，2人表示強烈同意，15人不同意，3人表示強烈反對，5人持中立態度。如果在這樣根本的深層問題上都存在勢均力敵的分歧，那麼他們離達成共識還遠着呢。

最近通過的《台灣旅行法》和2019財年《國防授權法》證明，國會在鼓勵和強化對華政策的消極轉向方面發揮了重要作用。例如，雖然五角大樓取消了對中國人民解放軍海軍參加環太平洋演習的邀請，但2019財年《國防授權法》有過之而無不及，規定除非中方停止在南海填海造地，並撤走在人工島上的武器裝備，否則將禁止中方參加未來的演習。

通過以準確、有見地，或者有偏見甚至惡意的方式解讀中國，媒體在傳播公共話語和塑造國家對華視角方面掌握着巨大的權力。美國企業、地方政府、軍隊及其他各行各業，以及美國的盟友和合作夥伴，它們對中國的擔憂和不同期望都對重新定義中國起了推波助瀾的作用。

**同樣重要的還有公眾輿論的走向。**皮尤研究中心的最新調查顯示，對中國有好感的美國人減少了，令他們擔心的主要問題包括美國對華債務、網絡攻擊、失業和貿易逆差。不過，大約一半年輕人（18-29歲）卻對中國有好感。公眾輿論走向是緩慢而無形的，但它會積聚動能，在改變或維持政府的政策方面發揮巨大作用。

當前，中國正在以多種不同的方式被重新審視和定義。其原因可能多種多樣，但**對中國的普遍感覺是沮喪，這種感覺在一個分裂的、兩極分化的美國足以成為團結人心的因素。**人們比較一致的看法是應該對中國採取強硬行動，但具體怎麼做，還沒有達成共識。特朗普總統的對華貿易戰遭到商界領袖的反對，中國被貼上地緣戰略敵人的標籤讓經驗豐富的中國通感到吃驚，加強地區同盟和夥伴關係迫使其他國家要做出艱難的選擇，就連呼籲加強與台灣的軍事關係，也僅僅獲得了台灣人小心翼翼的回應。

中美關係40年來歷經風雨，如今兩國再次處在洶湧的波濤中，而且風更疾、浪更高。**重要的是要明白和理解對方的變化，管控政策的轉變，在決策中把握好行動-反應週期。**到目前為止，中國一直是審慎冷靜地應對特朗普總統任意多變的政策，例如，中國不再使用對美“貿易戰”一詞，因為它意味着最終結果是勝利，或者失敗。中國使用的表述方式是“貿易摩擦”，就貿易摩擦而言，理想的終結狀態是“降級”。

中美關係太重要，以致不容有失，不僅對兩國是如此，對地區的長期安全與繁榮、對世界的持久和平也是如此。

Redefining China in the U.S.

Yao Yunzhu

With a rising trade war, intensifying geostrategic competition, and a simmering ideological clash between China and the United States, relations between them have fallen to the lowest level since 1990s. The U.S. is redefining China, which leads to policy shifts.

**President Donald Trump plays a pivotal role in redefining China.**He blames China for gaining too much from the trade surplus, stealing US intellectual property, launching cyberattacks, grabbing American jobs, and exploiting the weakness of previous administrations. He pledges to stop China from taking further advantage of his country and insists on harsh terms for trade negotiations. As president, Trump’s redefinition of China has an abrupt and significant policy shift.

**The foreign policy and national security teams in the Trump Administration exert immediate and direct impact on China policy.**They reconceptualize China as the most formidable geostrategic rival: challenging America’s dominance in the Asia-Pacific (or Indo-Pacific) region, coercing its allies and partners with military force and economic power, eroding its military superiority, violating rule-based maritime order, and trying to rebuild a regional economic construct by implementing the “Belt and Road Initiative”. Their perspectives are adequately reflected in official documents like the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Nuclear Posture Review, as well as their official statements and formulation of the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

**The China research community in the U.S. has always played a significant role in shaping the public perspective of, and government policy on, China, through policy consultation channels and frequent interactions with the media.**For more than four decades, the mainstream proposition has been to engage and hedge against China at the same time. Through engagement and cooperation, China has been encouraged to transform in ways that converge with American interests. And by hedging and containing, the US remains ready and capable to compete with, or even confront China when necessary. This approach has been adopted by successive administrations. In recent years, a growing feeling of disappointment, discontent, and frustration permeates the China study circle. The sourest part is that China has not changed itself as expected; instead, it has rapidly risen as a superpower, with a very different social system and ideology. The China experts have been the most vocal in defining China, and they are no less articulate in the current China policy debate. However, it would be wrong to assume them to be similar in how they think and what they say. Foreign Affairs recently asked a pool of experts to state whether they agree or disagree with the proposition that “U.S. and Chinese national interests are fundamentally incompatible”. Of the 34 responders, 14 agreed, and 2 strongly agreed; 15 disagreed, 3 strongly disagreed; and 5 took a “neutral” stand. If a half-half divide exists on an issue as profound and fundamental as this, they are far from reaching consensus.

The recent passages of the Taiwan Travels Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019 proves Congress to be a major actor in encouraging and solidifying the negative shifts in China policy. For example, even though the Pentagon has disinvited the Chinese PLA Navy from the 2018 Rim Pac Exercise, the FY 2019 NDAA further prohibits China from future participation unless it ceases land reclamation in the South China Sea and removes all weapons from its reclaimed land.

By interpreting China in ways either accurate, or insightful, or biased, or even malicious, the media holds great power in informing the public discourse and shaping the nation’s perspective of China. The numerous concerns over and different expectations of China from American business, local governments, military, and many others in the U.S., as well as those held by U.S. allies and partners, all contribute to the process of redefining China.

**Last but not least are the trends in public opinion.**The most recent Pew Research Center survey reveals a decline in the number of Americans having favorable opinions of China. And their major concerns include U.S. debt to China, cyberattacks, loss of jobs, and the trade deficit. However, about half of the young people（age 18-29）, express a favorable view of China. Trends in public opinion are slow and intangible, but it builds momentum and plays a huge role in changing or sustaining government policies.

At present, China is being reexamined and redefined in many different ways. The reasons may be diverse and different, but the feeling of frustration regarding China seems common, and grows strong enough to be a rallying factor in a divided and polarized America. The common idea is to act tough with China, but there is no consensus on how to do it. President Trump’s trade war with China is opposed by business leaders. The labeling of China as a geostrategic foe alarmed seasoned China hands. The beefing up of regional alliances and partnerships push other countries to hard choices. And even the call for elevated military ties with Taiwan is responded to by Taiwanese with caution.

China and the U.S. have gone through ups and downs in their relationship for four decades. Right now, they are again in very choppy waters, with stronger winds and greater waves.**It is important to understand and interpret changes in the other, manage policy changes, and control the action-reaction cycle in policy making.**So far, China has responded to President Trump’s abrupt and random policy turns with prudence and calm. For example, China refrains from using the term “trade war” with the U.S., which implies victory or defeat as a result, and uses the expression “trade frictions”, with regard to which, the ideal end state is de-escalation.

The China-America relationship is simply too important to fail, not only for both countries, but also for long-term regional security and prosperity, and lasting world peace.■

本文中英文版分別來源於“中美聚焦”中英文網站

責任編輯：羅震