Editor's note: The 2020 U.S. presidential election is a once-in-a-lifetime event to watch. The American public and politicians are drowning in international conflicts, domestic crises, political divide and civil unrest. The U.S. and its relationship with other countries and the international system today stand at a crossroads. What's in store for us from now until November 3? What will the future look like after this crucible? CGTN is inviting scholars from U.S. think tanks and universities to break down the election and share their views on its various aspects. This is part three of the series, with Andrew Bacevich discussing the idea of "new Cold War" between China and the U.S. and how the U.S. presidential election will influence the China-U.S. relationship. He is the president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University. The opinions expressed here are his own, and not necessarily the views of CGTN. 编者按：2020年美国总统大选是人生难得几回见的大事，确实值得关注。美国民众和政治家们正在疲于应对国际冲突、国内危机、政治分歧和骚乱。美国及其外交关系、当今的国际体系全都处在十字路口。从即日起至11月3日，美国将面临哪些考验？经历了这些考验之后，未来又会是怎样的呢？CGTN邀请来自美国智库和大学的学者对此次大选进行剖析，分享他们对大选各方面的看法。本篇是《美国大选解析》系列的第三部分，安德鲁·巴切维奇(Andrew Bacevich)解析了中美间的“新冷战”概念和美国总统大选对中美关系的影响。巴切维奇是美国昆西国家事务研究所所长和波士顿大学国际关系和历史学荣誉教授。本篇仅代表专家观点，不代表本台观点。 Adriel Kasonta: Some describe tensions between China and the U.S. as a "new Cold War." Do you agree with this characterization?有人认为中美正在经历“新冷战”，您同意这种定性吗？ Andrew Bacevich: Well, I mean, a war between the United States and China would be an unspeakable disaster, so that has to be avoided. I think what we see going on with the China hawks in the United States, at least to some degree, reflects bureaucratic politics. 我认为，如果中美之间爆发战争，那将是一场难以言喻的灾难。因此必须避免。在某种程度上，美国对华鹰派的行为是官僚政治的体现。 Institutions need to remain relevant. The Pentagon today gets a budget of something on the order of 750-780 billion dollars a year. Total U.S. national security spending is more than a trillion dollars a year. For long time after 9/11, the global war on terrorism provided a rationale for the national security establishment to lay claim to that enormous reservoir of resources.各部门机构都希望刷存在感。美国防部每年约有7500-7800亿美元的预算。美国国家安全总支出每年超过一万亿美元。9/11事件后的很长一段时间里，国家安全机构以全球反恐战争为由大肆索要财政资源。 Global war on terrorism has turned out to be a failure. It’s still kind of sputtering along in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but those missions are not on a scale that they justify seven or eight hundred billion dollars a year going to the Pentagon. So I think that within the Pentagon there are people who say: “Well, we have to come up with the new rationale. Let’s come up with the new mission, we have to come up with the new explanation for why we are needed.” And China is an obvious sort of “enemy.” 如今全球反恐战争失败已成定居。虽然在伊拉克和阿富汗等地仍在进行，但这些军事行动的规模并不足以支持国防部每年七八千亿美元的预算。所以我认为五角大楼内会有人说：“既然如此，我们必须找些新的理由，制定新的军事行动，必须想办法证明我们存在的意义。”显然中国就是他们想要的“对手” But you know, we don’t allow the United States military to dictate U.S. policy, and we should insist that wiser and more prudent civilian authorities actually determine what policy should be. Again, we have to get through this election, we have to see who wins. And if Biden prevails, we need to pay a lot of attention to what his people propose as their basic thrust of policy. I’m not particularly hopeful that it will be enlightened, but we will wait and see. 但是我们不允许军方对美国的政策指手画脚。我们应该坚持让更明智、更审慎的文官政府来进行决策。此外，我们必须通过这次选举，看看到底谁会胜出。如果拜登当选，我们需要高度关注他的团队提出的基本政策主张。我不太指望它有多惊世骇俗，但让我们拭目以待。 Kasonta: Former U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said Americans shouldn't go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy." Do you think the U.S. can forgo this habit of seeking "monsters" to destroy in the future?前国务卿约翰·昆西·亚当斯说，美国没必要去国外“寻找要消灭的怪物”。你认为美国今后能否放弃这种寻找“怪物”并将其消灭的习惯？ Bacevich: Well, I think we need to, and I think that going abroad in searching monsters to destroy is not going to provide us with the wherewithal to deal with other kinds of problems. 我认为美国要改掉那种习惯。到国外去寻找怪物并将其消灭这种行为不能为我们提供解决其他问题的方法。 The United States and China are rivals. They are at some level adversaries. I think it’s important that we don’t become enemies. We need to be able to somehow limit the competition, confine it to spheres that will avoid violence, and also at least make it possible to collaborate on matters where collaboration is gonna be necessary. 中美之间存在博弈，在某种程度上还是对手。但关键在于，双方不能成为敌人。两国需要限制博弈程度，在不导致武力冲突的情况下进行博弈，至少使两国能够在有必要合作的领域里进行合作。 Kasonta: In your opinion, what should be the U.S. strategy vis-à-vis China?您认为美国应该采取怎样的对华战略？ Bacevich: Engagement. I think intense, patient engagement. I think we need a clearer understanding of China’s aspirations. There needs to be mutual accommodation - can’t have mutual accommodation in the absence of some amount of trust. 对华接触。我认为应该开展密切且耐心的对华接触。我认为美国需要更清楚地了解中国的愿望。两国需要互谅互让。如果没有一定程度的信任，就无法做到互谅互让。 As far as I can tell, trust between the United States and the People’s Republic of China is waning, certainly the pandemic has not helped in that regard. But there are many other sources of this declining trust. That’s really important to do. 据我所知，中美之间的信任在日渐式微。疫情使两国之间的信任度进一步下降。但是，信任度下降的原因还有很多。这一点真的很重要。 What’s needed here is creative diplomacy, so that Chinese leaders and American leaders can find some way to come to a mutual recognition that we must coexist. I mean, we don’t have to love each other, that doesn’t mean that peace and harmony will exist everywhere, but we must coexist. We must coexist not simply because stability in East Asia is an important shared interest, we must coexist because there are other common threats that we must deal with - and here I’m referring to things like climate change.中美之间需要创造性外交，以便中美两国领导人可以找到某种方式就友好共处达成一致意见。两国不必彼此相爱，也不必强求在各个领域都营造一种和平与和谐的氛围，但两国必须学会共处。中美必须学会共处，不仅仅是因为东亚的稳定符合中美的共同利益，还因为中美两国有着必须应对的共同挑战这里我指的是气候变化等挑战。