【关注】中国智库学者在《外交学人》撰文“劝”美国政府“识趣”（中英文）
作者陈晓晨系中国人民大学重阳金融研究院国际研究部副主任、研究员，常玉迪系人大重阳实习研究员。中文版《中美应坦诚对话，寻求共识》刊于7月15日中国网，英文版刊于7月19日《外交学人》。
南海虽然现在局势很紧张，但并非没有出路。如果中美两国智库界和政策界能够充分意识到管控分歧、坦诚对话、慎思而行与寻求共识的重要性，进行实质性学术交流，将对南海局势和中美关系大局都起到十分积极的建设性作用。
“管控分歧”是应对南海问题的当务之急。冰冻三尺非一日之寒，南海问题错综复杂，中美关系也是国际上最复杂的一对关系。我们清楚，中美两国在南海问题上存在着一些分歧。分歧的存在隐含着冲突，更意味着我们应该对这些分歧加以管控。不仅中美军政界需要加强沟通与合作，增进理解。中美双方在内部也需要做到分歧管控。历史的教训告诉我们，军事战略不应绑架政治大局，军事行动应该服从国际政治的大环境。无论军界政界，各方都应从政治大局出发来思考南海问题，意识到军事手段的局限。当前正值奥巴马总统卸任前夕，我们希望并相信他能从美中关系大局出发，维护中美友好关系，管理好过渡时期、也是敏感时期的中美关系。
“坦诚对话”是中美两国解决南海问题的必由之路。尤其是战略层面上的沟通是最重要的。大家知道，在中美战略和经济对话框架下，从贸易、金融到投资，我们两国都达成了丰富的成果。然而，安全的阴影始终存在。因此，我建议，中美之间的“战略”对话理应更加重视战略性。让我们开诚布公，坦诚相待，排除误会，哪怕为此少了一些可供媒体报道的成果，也要这样做。
“慎思而行”应该成为中美两国未来互动的指南。中国智库界比较普遍地认为，奥巴马总统的“亚太再平衡”的军事战略助推了南海局势的紧张。一些美国学者也认为美国直接派舰队前往南海并不是明智之举。美国在制定“亚太再平衡”战略中是否有具体针对的国家，我们不得而知。但美国过去的实际行动却一再对中美关系大局提出了挑战。我认为，“亚太再平衡”战略的目标和手段，都到了一个需要反思的时间节点。美国必须更加慎重地考虑自己想要什么样的亚洲，如何影响亚洲，如何与中国相处。
最后，就本次会议来说，中美智库之间有必要进一步加强联系和学术交流。尤其是，我们注意到，美国智库中一些对于中美安全问题深有研究的学者，在既定的中美“对抗”思维下，将中国根据自身需要所进行的国防现代化建设，定义为所谓的区域“反介入”或者“拒止”（A2/AD）战略，殊不知，以美军历史实践和作战理论为基础提出的这种“战略”，在中国官方文件中没有任何对应物，中国的智库界也从来没有提出过这种战略——除了引进介绍美国智库观点以外。这是一种出于“美国本位”的军事假想，它只会让美国政界和军界自我建构“中国威胁”，并走入“自我实现的预言”这一怪圈。因此，双方的智库界应该对对方的战略有准确地了解和传播，而非发明自我创设的概念。
我认为，中美两国智库应当把寻求共识作为一个研究重点。比如，南海周边的经济合作，就将是一个越来越大的蛋糕，值得我们花大力气研究。事实上，亚太的经济合作与共赢是不存在“拒止”的。中国提出的“一带一路”倡议，愿景是将中国的经济发展与整个亚太区域相连接，各国分享经济开放和发展带来的红利。我相信这一愿景是包容、共享的，也欢迎美国以自身经济力量参与进来，共同维护南海和亚太的繁荣与和平。
以下为英文版：
Seeking a US-China Consensus in the South China Sea
By Chen Xiaochen Source: The Diplomat Published: 2016-7-19
Ed note: On July 5, just one week before the award of the South China Sea arbitration came out, a “U.S.-China Dialogue on the South China Sea” was held in Washington D.C. co-organized by Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China (RDCY) and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). This article is based on Chen Xiaochen’s prepared remarks for the seminar; his remarks as delivered did not follow the text.
Tension in the South China Sea does not necessarily mean an impasse. If think tanks and political circles of both China and the United States could realize the importance of disparities management and control, frank strategic dialogues, prudent thinking, and consensus seeking, along with the proceeding of substantial academic exchange, would have a positive effect on the South China Sea tensions and U.S.-China relationship.
First of all, managing and controlling differences is the top priority to cool down the tensions in the short run. This will take time. Rome was not built in a day; the South China Sea dispute is complicated while U.S.-China relations is the most sophisticated relationship worldwide. We are fully aware of the divergences between the United States and China over the South China Sea issue. Nevertheless, the divergences not only imply conflict, but also indicate we should manage and control them. The Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) is an important shared rule, but not enough. Military and political circles in both countries should facilitate more channels for communication, whether in ordinary times or during an emergency.
The lessons of history warn us that military affairs should not take precedence over politics; instead, the military field should be subject to the grand picture of international politics. Regardless of military or politics, all parties should consider disputes over the South China Sea in a political perspective and realize the limits of military means. Before President Barack Obama’s trip to China for the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, the two powers should cool down the tensions and manage this transitional yet sensitive period before and shortly after the U.S. general election.
Second, frank and strategic dialogues are also essential for finding a viable solution to the tensions between China and the United States, especially in terms of high-level exchanges. As we all know, both countries have achieved a lot under the framework of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) from trade, finance, to investment. However, even as bureaucracies in both sides make the outcome list longer and longer, the shadow of security anxiety is still there. In fact, I would argue it is one of the problems with the S&ED — too enthusiastic about a long list of outcome, leaving no time or credit for frank discussion of strategic issues. Hence, I suggest the S&ED mechanism in future should adhere to its original purpose by focusing more on core issues of strategic importance. Let the strategic dialogues be frank and honest; let them focus more on strategic issues even is that means fewer outcomes for the media to broadcast.
Third, in the long term, prudent thinking should guide U.S.-China interactions. The way we think matters, and misunderstanding could emerge. For instance, scholars in Chinese think tanks generally attribute the South China Sea tensions to the U.S. pivot (later rebalance) to Asia, while Americans tend to deny the strategic impact of the rebalance and its consequences for security tensions. Chinese intellectuals, as well as some American scholars, also consider it not a wise choice to send U.S. fleets directly to the South China Sea, while other American think tanks maintain it is nothing but a part of the long-standing Freedom of Navigation Program (FON). We do not know if United States intended to target specific countries while formulating its Asian rebalance — many in the U.S. say no; many in China say yes. But it’s undeniable that the actual U.S. deeds over the past few years have indeed made the Chinese side feel more threatened. From my perspective, we have come to a time for reflection on both the means and the ends of the rebalance. With the U.S. general election coming, it is a good time for the United States to carefully readjust the rebalance and rethink how to get along with China.
Last but not least, it is necessary for both Chinese and American think tanks to strengthen ties and academic exchange. Without this, misunderstandings may come about and form an echo-chamber-effect. For example, American think tanks seem to have widely accepted the notion that China is developing what is called an “Anti-Access” or “Area Denial” (A2/AD) strategy. But this “strategy” — based on historical practice and theories and doctrines from the U.S. military — has neither corresponding discussion in Chinese official documents nor similar proposals by Chinese think tanks, except when introducing American think tank perspectives back to China. This concept may fall into the “self-fulfilling prophecy” by misinterpreting China’s strategic intention. In this case, think tanks in both sides should have a thorough understandings of each other, rather than invent self-constructed concepts.
In my view, think tanks on both sides should consider potential areas of consensus a research priority. Among these are issues such as meteorological stations, typhoon early warning systems, and joint research on climate change. In addition, we should make the cake bigger by expanding economic cooperation surrounding the South China Sea. As a matter of fact, no party would deny economic cooperation and a win-win situation in the Asia-Pacific. The Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road initiatives proposed by China envision connecting China’s economic development with the whole Asia-Pacific region, in which every country share the dividends of openness and development. I trust this vision to be inclusive and open, and the United States is welcome to participate with its own economic strength, and jointly ensure the lasting prosperity and peace of the South China Sea as well as the Asia-Pacific.
（欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博：@人大重阳，微信公众号：rdcy2013）
往期精彩推荐：
搜索“人大重阳”或查找“rdcy2013”速速点击关注，共享金融大资讯。
中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（人大重阳）成立于 2013 年 1 月 19 日，是上海重阳投资管理股份有限公司董事长裘国根先生向母校捐款 2 亿元的主要资助项目。
作为中国特色新型智库，人大重阳旨在把脉金融，钻研学术，关注现实，建言国家，服务大众。人大重阳聘请了来自 10 多个国家的 89 名前政要、银行家、知名学者为高级研究员，与 30 多个国家的智库开展实质合作。
目前，人大重阳被中国官方认定为 G20智库峰会（T20）共同牵头智库、中国金融学会绿色金融专业委员会秘书处、“一带一路”中国智库合作联盟常务理事、中国-伊朗官学共建“一带一路”中方牵头智库。2014年来，人大重阳连续两年被选入由美国宾州大学推出的、国际公认度最高的《全球智库报告》的“全球顶级智库150强”（仅七家中国智库连续入围）。