| | 最近美国副总统彭斯关于中国的演讲在美国和中国引起很大的轰动。太多的分析，评论和结论。老实说，对这件事接下来的演变，我个人却是感到担心的。
彭斯关于中国的演讲在进程上来说是延续中美贸易争端后的美国对华态度的总结和可能的政策选项的总体宣誓，让我感到微妙的是川普总统并没有很明确的表明他的态度。而且我最感兴趣的是彭斯宣讲中做出的竞争并不是要对抗的强调。我一直认为美国去年底的国家安全战略的调整，把中国当作战略竞争对手是美国以后对待中国的基调，后续政策的选择主要看中国的应对，为此写了好几篇博文。最近的事态发展和读到的几篇报告和访谈，让我感到有一种趋势在酝酿着，这种趋势让我感到担心。美国有智库和国家安全人士在酝酿一个选择："It might need a war to let China realize they are the weak side."
川普刚就任，采取解决北韩核问题的措施，我就读了好几篇智库报告。那些老生常谈的分析没有吸引我。Generational Dynamics分析师们的分析，让我对中美对抗有了比较深刻的认知。美国国家安全战略的改变，把中国定性为战略竞争对手是基于中国在准备跟美国打仗的判断。川普上台后的对华政策主要是在贸易方面加关税，其他国际政策，包括解决北韩核武问题，解决伊朗核武问题，和俄罗斯相对友好，对欧洲和北约的tough love，北美贸易协定的重新修订，WTO的改革，联合国的改革，看似全方位出击，实际上是基于长远可能是要和中国打仗的这个判断作为前提的。同时这些国际和盟友之间的问题的解决或者达到一种有利美国的新的平衡，可以有效的防止跟中国的战争，因为可能比较肯定的得出一个结论：美国调整好国际关系后，盟友之间的矛盾就会达到谅解，就会团结，国际组织的改革使得中国不可能站在道德moral的制高点用国际组织对美国发难，加上中国经济由于中美贸易的争端和高科技封锁，中国会评估和掂量自己的不足，也就不会，更不敢跟美国打仗。对川普来说这样就能有效的避免跟中国的热战，同时也延缓甚至改变中国的政治经济的发展进程，从而保持美国的持续领先。反过来美国如果在国际上不做这个全方位的出击达到调整，尤其是不把所谓的国际化进程扭转的话，如果跟中国打仗，就会牵扯太多其他国家的利益，就不一定能获得其他国家的支持或者保持中立。很多人对川普的误判在于不能明白美国对长远要跟中国打仗，现在就开始要避免的这个战略判断。另外我个人跟国内的朋友聊天中的信息，解放军是在准备打仗的，相信美国的情报机构也心知肚明。
虽然美国的这些如意算盘都在有条不紊的展开进行中，但是最近中美军舰在南海的对峙和差点相撞，让美国国防部和国家安全人员不得不进一步审视美国这些有条不紊的政策实施是否会出现其他不确定的状况，因为美国军方没想到中国海军会采取那样的举措。前段时间美国防长访华还跟中方专门讨论了双方互相避免这种檫枪走火的可能场景。在彭斯的演讲里特别提到习近平主席2015年访美对南海非军事化的保证，还有就是宣誓美国还会在南海自由航行的活动。原来中美对南海有共识：美国希望习近平再次强调南海非军事化，并且冻结南海军事设施的建设，美国减少自由航行，大家各说各话，那样美国在国际和东南亚那些小国面前有面子，减少那些国家对美国的信赖和依赖的动摇。中国也还是可以宣誓主权，可以参照钓鱼岛的处理模式。奇怪的是中国愿意跟日本和好，让步，却对美国在南海的自由航行采取激烈针对性的态度和行动，甚至发展到两国军舰几乎相撞，这不能不让美国做出其他的考量。也许习近平在学美国，也不想在东南亚那些小国面前丢面子，因为那样对经济的一带一路的推展会不利，和日本是两国关系，权宜管控起来比较简单方便，钓鱼岛模式没能采用到南海。于是中美之间似乎形成了：谁是强者，谁是弱者的比拼。我想川普是个坚持从position strength出发考虑和解决问题的风格和理念的总统，现在看来习近平也想这么干。我们无从了解习近平是个性如此，还是被逼这样。这就有了美国人当前的考虑，也许需要跟中国在南海打一仗，那样才能让中国认识到中国是弱者。这是我对彭斯对华演讲后的担心。我想习近平没有任何其他理由要跟美国在南海打一仗，只有如下两个考量：1，党内自己的权势不稳，进一步煽动中国的民族主义，用南海来转移和凝聚注意力，从而保持自己的地位。2，真的认为自己有撒手锏，可以制胜，吓住美国。
据说美国会在南海展开一次show force行动，我想这恐怕是一次警告，美国不怕打仗的。同时美国彭斯副总统会去参加亚太国家的会议，届时可能会直接了当跟中国摊牌。我认为美国国务卿刚完成的访华，肯定是把美国在这方面的考虑直接传递给了中国，习近平没见美国国务卿恐怕一是不好回答2015年的那个南海不军事化的宣言，二是如果美国国务卿直接提到美国不怕打仗，习主席可能面子过不去。我个人希望中国的习近平主席要冷静，在这个时候如果真的演变成跟美国打一仗的话，无法控制局面，全球的华人和中国国内的老百姓都要遭殃。对美国来说，也不要太顾面子，还是以和为贵。川普总统和习近平主席太需要坐下来好好谈一谈，接下来如果有这种安排，我想中美之间不至于会发展到热战。当然下面层级也是可以达成不打仗的协定，问题是中国取消美国防长的访问显得很诡异，We will see。
有兴趣的读者可以读读这篇：http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e180322.htm
22-Mar-18 World View -- How China would lose a war with the United States
by John J. Xenakis
For over ten years I've been writing, based on a Generational
Dynamics analysis, that the China and the United States would
be opposed to each other in the approaching Clash of Civilizations
world war. As I've indicated many times in the past, China is expected to repeat
the situation in World War II, when it faced an external enemy (Japan)
and also had a major internal rebellion, Mao Zedong's Communist
Revolution. Although in the grand scheme of things, there's never a guarantee that
the US will survive such a war, in the past few years it's seemed
increasingly likely that the US will not only survive, but will
actually win this war. This is because China's belligerent actions
have turned much of the world against China, and China would be facing
multiple enemies besides the US. An analysis by the Indian think tank SAAG has outlined China's
strategic vulnerabilities:
Estimates of China's "strategic and military might have been
overblown both on scale and magnitude."
"What the United States could not achieve through diplomacy for
decades," China has handed to the US through its military
belligerence. Many Asian nations that have been neutral or even
inimical to the United States are now US allies.
Pacific nations are in varying stages of military alliance with
the United States because of China's South China Sea military
aggression. Japan, South Korea, India and Australia are strongly
allied with the US.
Russia may be in a strategic nexus with China, but it is only a
tactical expedient.
China is friendless in sub-regions of Asia. Among East Asian
nations, China cannot count on anyone but Cambodia and to some extent
Thailand.
In South Asia, the China-Pakistan axis presents a "Two-Front
military threat" to India, and China appears to have gained ground in
Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bhutan and Bangladesh through the use
of "economic doles." But the influence of China in these countries is
fraying, even in Pakistan, where the "average Pakistani is questioning
the Pakistan Army’s furthering China’s gains at the expense of China’s
‘colonization’ of Pakistan."
Since Narendra Modi came to power, India's war preparedness has
been increased, after "abject neglect" in the previous government.
China's internal security has been worsening, with border regions
like Xinjiang and Tibet in a state of unrest. With China's economy
slowing down, domestic discontent is bound to grow.
There are likely to be violent disturbances generated by thousands
of senior Party officials, Army Generals and others whom Xi Jinping
has removed by using false charges of corruption, in order to become
an unchallenged dictator. There is an explosive mix of internal
security and domestic unrest waiting to be ignited by a solitary
incendiary spark originating externally or internally, or
both.
I would add one more item to this list: I've been comparing the path
that China is following to the path that Nazi Germany followed -- Xi
Jinping's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is the same as
Hitler's "National Socialism," Xi's blaming Britain and the Opium Wars
for humiliating China is the same as Hitler's blaming the Jews and
World War I for humiliating Germany. Xi and Hitler both became total
dictators after winning elections. Another big similarity is that the Chinese believe that they're
superior not only to Americans but to any other group on earth, and
that they can defeat any of them quickly in a war. China isn't using
the phrase "Master Race" that Hitler used, but reading news stories
from China conveys the same feeling. So the item that I would add to
the list is vast overconfidence. Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." In 1860,
America's southern states started the Civil War, even though they had
no chance against the North, which was three times the size. In 1941,
Japan started the Pacific war, even though they had no chance against
the US, which was five times the size. Overconfidence leads absolute
dictators to make catastrophically bad decisions. Assuming that the analysis is correct that China would be likely to
lose such a war, that doesn't mean that the war won't occur, or that
the war won't be disastrous for the entire world, as well as China, or
that billions of people won't die from nuclear weapons, conventional
weapons, ground war, famine and disease. China's actions are going to
lead to a world war, and historians will look back on the Chinese as
being worse than the Nazis. South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG - India) Related Articles:
|
