评论COMMENTS
当前位置:首页>评论

哈斯:蓬佩奥不懂中国、尼克松和美国外交政策

作者:理查德·哈斯   来源:华盛顿邮报   字体放大  字体缩小

【编者按:《华盛顿邮报》7月25日发表美国外关系委员会会长理查德·哈斯题为(Richard Haass)“蓬皮奥不懂中国、尼克松和美国外交”的时评(What Mike Pompeo doesn’t understand about China, Richard Nixon, and the U.S. foreign policy)。哈斯在文章结尾说,老罗斯福的外交座右铭是手握大棒,柔声细语,蓬佩奥的做法恰恰相反。今天看到国内对这一时评(op-ed)两个编译版本,跟英文原文一同发布,以飨读者。点击这里查看英文原文。】

一、微信没有编译信息的转发版本:蓬佩奥“不懂历史、不懂中国也不懂美国”

2020年7月26日,美国《华盛顿邮报》刊登美国智库“美国外交关系委员会”主席理查德·哈斯的文章,批评蓬佩奥上周四对中国言辞激烈的演讲“不懂历史、不懂中国也不懂美国”。哈斯认为,蓬佩奥宣布尼克松开启的对华接触政策“失败”,可他自己在美国应该如何处理对华关系上没有给出任何答案。

理查德·哈斯的文章批评国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥,“美国首席外交官一点都不外交”。“更严重的是,美中关系比其他任何双边关系都更加能够决定这个时代(的走向),可他拿不出任何连贯可行的政策,还暴露了自己对历史的误读”。

理查德·内森·哈斯(Richard Nathan Haass),曾就任美国国务院政策规划主任和前国务卿克林·鲍威尔的幕僚。 1989年至1993年,理查德·哈斯是老布什的特别助理和美国国家安全委员会在近东和南亚事务的高级主管。在这之前,他曾担任过国务院和美国国防部的多个职务,同时也曾是参议院的立法幕僚。

哈斯另外的职务也包括布鲁金斯学会副主席和外交政策研究主任、汉密尔顿学院国际关系研究客座教授,卡内基国际和平基金会资深会员,哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院公共政策教授,国际战略研究所研究员。

作为老资格外交家和学者,哈斯懂历史、懂中国也懂美国。在文章中,哈斯的核心观点如下:

第一,蓬佩奥问美国人,与中国“盲目接触”50年后得到了什么,并称答案是几乎什么也没得到,因为中国并未如美国所愿变得“更民主”。

这实际上是竖起了一个稻草人:理查德·尼克松总统和亨利·基辛格当年接触中国的目的是借助中国之力对抗苏联,他们希望塑造的是当时中国的外交政策,可不是中国的内政。而历史的结果是,美国强化了中苏的分裂,并借此赢得了冷战。

第二,诚然,中国在南海展示了肌肉,但蓬佩奥在演说中没有提到的事实是,中国在1979年之后就没有进行过任何战争,更重要的是,中国也没有使用武力统一台湾。

第三,蓬佩奥给美国承诺了一条注定失败的道路。

想决定中国的未来,或者说改变它,并不在美国的能力范围之内。这个国家是面临很多挑战——老龄化越来越严重;对环境的破坏也严重;公共医疗卫生体系不是很公平;经济增长模式过多依赖于大规模投资等等。但所有这些,包括共产党在中国社会中的角色,都是中国人和中国的领导层去决定的事务,而蓬佩奥和他的同事们需要去做的是与中国政府谈判,美国还有很多事务需要与中国合作,比如朝鲜、阿富汗和气候变化、核不扩散这样的全球挑战。

第四,美国有效的对华政策依赖于盟友的支持。

但结果呢,这届美国政府把欧洲当做经济竞争对手,在负担美军军费问题上猛击日本和韩国,还威胁从朝鲜半岛撤军,就像从德国撤军那样,让盟友不得不质疑美国到底有多可靠。

在南海问题上,美国应该同地区国家打造一个统一战线,但本届政府过了3年半才想起来这件事应该做。此外,我们逼盟友不许使用中国的5G技术,但我们能给盟友提供替代选择吗?并不能。

第五,本届政府总是拥抱“美国第一”的口号,但讽刺的是,他们真正做了什么吗?

真正可行的战略应该是从联邦政府做起,为基础研究投入更大资源,改善美国的基础设施,同时吸引全球人才来到美国,留在美国,而不是像现在这样把他们都赶走。蓬佩奥只知道批评中国“人权问题”,但如果美国的标准真这么高,为什么不批评俄罗斯、土耳其和沙特呢?事实上,我们的整套说辞充满投机主义。

第六,结束语:当年,西奥多·罗斯福建议美国,手握大棒,轻声细语,但本届政府及其总统在这个问题上很危险地进行了倒退。

二、观察网编译版本:美国外交关系委员会主席:蓬佩奥对中国、对美外交政策一无所知

【文/观察者网张晨静】跑到尼克松故居发表了一番言辞激烈的“反华演讲”后,美国务卿蓬佩奥招致国内外人士的一致批评。7月26日,美国对政府最有影响力的智库之一——外交关系委员会主席理查德·哈斯(Richard Haass)专门在美媒《华盛顿邮报》上刊文,对蓬佩奥演讲内容予以强烈批评,指责他对中国、对尼克松和美国外交政策根本一无所知。

哈斯在文章开头就毫不客气地批评蓬佩奥:问题不仅是这个国家首席外交官毫无外交手腕,更糟糕的是,他歪曲了历史,以及也没有能力为这段能定义这个时代的关系,提出一条条理清晰、切实可行的前进道路。

蓬佩奥在演讲当天宣布美国对华接触“失败”,声称中国没能演变成一个“民主国家”,不能再继续“与中国盲目接触的旧模式”。

哈斯在文中对此解释说,事实上尼克松和基辛格所制定政策的目的是利用中国制衡苏联,并塑造中国的外交政策,而不是影响其内部性质。最重要的是,他们的政策很大程度上成功了。通过巩固与中国的外交政策时,苏联解体了,美国获得促成冷战结束的影响力。

“诚然,中国在南海展示了肌肉,但蓬佩奥在演说中没有提到的事实是,中国在1979年之后就没有进行过任何战争。更重要的是,中国也没有使用武力统一台湾。”

哈斯认为,蓬佩奥正试图让美国走上一条注定失败的道路。“我们没有能力决定中国的未来,更不用说改变它”。实话实说,中国的确存在一些问题,比如人口老龄化、环境保护等等。但所有涉及中国的事情,都应由中国人民和他们的领导人来决定。用前美国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德(Donald Rumsfeld)的话来说,现在蓬佩奥和他的同事需要和中国政府谈判协商。

哈斯表示,美国能做的、以及应该尝试做的是“影响中国的选择”,一同合作应对如朝鲜、阿富汗等地区挑战,以及防止核扩散和气候变化等全球性挑战。

但不幸的是,特朗普政府正在破坏有关努力。哈斯批评,要“想当一个能改变中国经济行为”的政府,应该是世界贸易组织(WTO)的改革先锋,而不是使WTO上诉机构瘫痪。

作为一个美国外交政策分析人士,哈斯认为美国有效的对华政策应与盟友、伙伴合作,而不是对抗。但在这届政府的领导下,美国将欧盟视为经济仇敌,在驻韩、驻日美军的军费分摊上屡次抨击韩国和日本,威胁从韩国撤军等等。哈斯写到,“若盟友不能指望我们,我们还要指望盟友去对抗一个强大的邻国是不可能的”。美国还撺掇盟友不要使用中国的5G技术,但却未能与盟友合作开发替代技术。

哈斯称令人讽刺的是,这一届奉行“美国优先”的政府在提高本国对华竞争力方面做得太少。一个真正的战略应包括联邦政府加大对基础研究的投入,使基础设施现代化,尽可能让世界上最有才华的人来到美国并留下来,而不是驱赶他们。

特朗普和其手下一再攻击美国媒体,将其描述为人民公敌。还攻击独立的司法系统,利用联邦军队镇压美国城市中的不同声音。

在文章的最后,哈斯写到,美国前总统西奥多·罗斯福建议美国要“手持大棒说话温和,才能走得更远”。而特朗普总统和他的首席外交官正危险地让这一政策倒退。

What Mike Pompeo doesn’t understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. foreign policy

Opinion by Richard Haass

July 25, 2020 at 2:43 p.m. EDT

Add to list

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The World: A Brief Introduction.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a blistering speech about China on Thursday. The problem was not simply that the nation’s chief diplomat was decidedly undiplomatic. Worse was his misrepresentation of history and his failure to suggest a coherent or viable path forward for managing a relationship that more than any other will define this era.

The secretary asked what Americans have to show for 50 years of “blind engagement” and said the answer was little or nothing. He instead erected a straw man: U.S. policy failed, he said, because China did not evolve into a democracy when, in fact, the purpose of the policy developed by Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger was to use China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and shape China’s foreign policy, not its internal nature.

What’s more, their efforts largely succeeded. In cementing China’s split from the Soviet Union, the United States gained leverage that contributed to the Cold War ending when and how it did.

Yes, China continues to flex its muscles in the South China Sea, but Pompeo failed to note it has not fought a war with another country since its 1979 border conflict with Vietnam. Importantly, China has not used force against Taiwan, which has emerged as a thriving democracy.

Pompeo also sought to commit the United States to a path that is bound to fail. It is not within our power to determine China’s future, much less transform it. To be sure, the country faces enormous challenges: an aging society that will soon start shrinking dramatically, a badly damaged environment, an inadequate public health system, an unsustainable economic model that relies on massive amounts of investment for growth, and a top-heavy leadership that stifles creativity and has difficulty correcting its mistakes.

But all this and more — including the role of the Chinese Communist Party — will be for the Chinese people and their leaders to determine. For now, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, Pompeo and his colleagues need to negotiate with the Chinese government they have.

What the United States can and should try to do is shape China’s choices, to bring about a China that acts with a degree of restraint at home and abroad and that works with us to deal with regional challenges, such as North Korea and Afghanistan, and global challenges, such as nonproliferation and climate change.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is undermining prospects for moderating China’s behavior. The first foreign policy decision of the then-new administration was to pull out of the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership. This grouping, which represented about 40 percent of global gross domestic product, had the potential to force China to change the very economic behavior the secretary criticizes. Instead, the United States focused on negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with China that has achieved little more than a Chinese commitment (so far not realized) to import slightly more U.S. products while shelving larger structural issues.

An administration committed to changing Chinese economic behavior would be spearheading reform of the World Trade Organization, rather than paralyzing its appellate body.

An effective U.S. policy toward China would work with, not against, our allies and partners. Instead, under this administration, we treat the European Union as an economic foe, bash South Korea and Japan over how much they pay to offset the costs of our stationing soldiers on their territory and regularly raise doubts as to our reliability, be it by unilaterally canceling military exercises on the Korean Peninsula or threatening to withdraw some of our troops from South Korea, as we are doing from Germany. It is not realistic to expect allies to stand up to a powerful neighbor if they cannot count on us.

Similarly, we should be working with countries of the region to produce a collective front against Chinese claims and actions in the South China Sea; instead, it took three-and-a-half years for the State Department to produce a tougher but still unilateral U.S. policy. Meanwhile, we press our allies not to use China’s 5G technology but have failed to work with them to develop an alternative.

It is ironic, too, that an administration that embraces “America First” is doing so little to make this country more competitive vis-a-vis China. A real strategy would include the federal government spending more on basic research, modernizing infrastructure and making it possible for the most talented people in the world to come and stay here, rather than pushing them away.

Pompeo spent a good deal of his speech highlighting China’s human rights failures, which are many and deserve U.S. condemnation. But our standing for criticizing China would be immeasurably greater if we were equally tough on Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, our words appear to be nothing so much as opportunistic.

America’s voice would be even stronger if we practiced at home what we preached abroad. President Trump and those who work for him have forfeited much of their credibility as democracy advocates with their repeated descriptions of the U.S. media as an enemy, their attacks on an independent judiciary and their use of federal forces to repress dissent in our cities. Here and elsewhere, foreign policy begins at home.

Theodore Roosevelt advised the United States to speak softly and carry a big stick. This president and his chief diplomat are perilously close to getting it backward.


发布时间:2020年07月28日 来源时间:2020年07月28日
分享到:

留 言

网友留言为中美印象网网友个人的看法和感受,不代表本站观点

评论COMMENTS
微博WEIBO

中美印象
官方微信