【学术前沿】王栋教授在国际知名政策研究平台East Asia Forum发表英文评论文章

点击蓝字

关注我们

小 i 导 读

2021年12月26日，北京大学国际关系学院教授、中外人文交流研究基地执行主任王栋在国际知名政策研究平台东亚论坛（East Asia Forum）发表题为《平衡中美战略竞争与合作》（“Balancing US–China strategic competition and collaboration”）的英文评论文章。文章探讨了在中美战略竞争背景下，亚太地区如何维持和平、稳定以及繁荣的局面，以及下一步如何平衡战略竞争与合作等问题。本文根据王栋教授在英国著名智库迪驰力基金会（The Ditchley Foundation）主办的“如何最好地促进印度-太平洋地区的战略稳定、经济增长和法治？”国际研讨会上的引导性发言（Opening Remarks）整理而成。（后附文章原文）

王栋

北京大学国际关系学院教授

北京大学中外人文交流研究基地执行主任

本文约5860字，读完约15分钟

文章开头指出战略竞争已经成为了美国对华政策的标记，但战略竞争需要重新被定义为一个建设性的、有边界的、健康的，而不是不加限制的、零和的与恶性的过程。对美国而言，尽管拜登政府仍然谈论与中国的合作和接触，但美国对华政策中的“合作”与“接触”已经被边缘化、工具化和交易化。接触的内在价值需要被重建。在过去四十多年的“旧接触共识”（Old Engagement Consensus）中，美国将中国视为需要被“转变”、“整合”并“纳入”到美国所主导的国际秩序中的“他者”。这种旧接触共识存在严重的认识论谬误。

未来，中美有可能形成“新接触共识”（New Engagement Consensus），这需要双方摒弃零和博弈的思维，并建构一个中美双方可以共存且以正和方式竞争的新秩序。而作为世界上最大的两个经济体，中美可以在平等互惠的基础上实现两国经贸的再挂钩（recouple）。

此外，文章指出，平衡战略竞争与合作还需要发展和阐述包容性的地区秩序愿景。文章特别对以意识形态划线的所谓“民主”与“威权”对立的地区秩序叙事提出了批评，指出这种以意识形态划线的叙事非常具有误导性，有可能导致自我实现的、具有分裂性的新冷战。例如，美国与其盟国所高调宣扬的所谓“自由与开放的印太”被描述为“志同道合”的具有“共享价值”自由民主国家所倡导的愿景。但事实上，意识形态叙事下伪装的是针对和排除中国的地缘政治计算。因此，所谓的“自由与开放的印太”也成为了具有高度分裂性而不是包容性的地区秩序愿景。

最后，文章提出平衡战略竞争与合作需要在整个亚太地区实现真正的包容性的、不针对和敌视任何国家的多边主义。地区经贸合作应该得到加强。而经贸问题的政治化、武器化以及过度安全化对于健康和繁荣的地区经济动力的发展是极为有害的。自贸协定不应成为政治武器。当前中国已经正式申请加入“全面与进步的跨太平洋伙伴协定”（CPTPP），这一举动并非如某些国际舆论所说的是“哗众取宠”（grandstanding），而是旨在推动国内经济改革，展现中国维护和推动经济全球化和多边自由贸易体系的决心。而中国申请加入CPTPP的战略决定，也说明中国坚信在一个日益被战略竞争所定义的世界中，只有在进一步开放与加强外部世界的联系基础上，才能取得成功，保守主义与孤立主义没有出路。文章最后指出既然西方一直宣称CPTPP不是针对任何一国（意即中国）的地缘政治工具，那么现在是时候美国及其盟国用实际行动证明它们是言而有信而非伪善自私。

拓展

东亚论坛（East Asia Forum）由澳大利亚国立大学东亚经济研究所和南亚经济研究所两个机构倡议发起，是探讨亚太地区政治、经济、商业、法律、安全、国际关系以及公共政策等领域的国际知名政策研究平台，主要提供来自全球学者、政界人物的原创分析文章。 

文章原文

Balancing US-China strategic competition and collaboration

The Asia Pacific has entered a period of profound change characterised by a shifting power balance and increasingly contentious great power rivalry. Key questions that loom large on the strategic horizon for the region and beyond are to what extent peace, stability and prosperity in the region can be maintained? And what steps need to be taken to strike the right balance between strategic competition and collaboration?

As far as strategic planning on the part of regional actors is concerned, there is no doubt that strategic competition and collaboration can and must be balanced. ‘Strategic competition’ has become the hallmark of US policy toward China, and regional actors’ strategic planning has been increasingly unfolding in the context of US-China competition. But ‘competition’ needs to be clearly defined as a constructive, bounded, calibrated, and healthy process, rather than as something that is unconstrained, zero-sum, and malicious. The sum of US-China interactions in the region should not be defined only in competitive terms.

Washington often talks about collaboration and engagement with China. But in the US narrative, engagement has been marginalised and is perceived as transactional. The inherent value of engagement needs to be recognised and restored. The old engagement consensus — the four-decade-old bipartisan consensus in the United States which views China as an ‘other’ that must be ‘transformed’, ‘integrated’ and ‘ushered’ into a US-dominated order — was an epistemological fallacy. A new engagement consensus in the coming years might be possible, but it would require both Washington and Beijing to abandon the zero-sum mentality and instead conceive of power as a positive-sum game.

This would allow an order in which the United States and China could coexist while continuing to compete in a constructive and positive-sum way, rather than in a confrontational, zero-sum manner. Instead of pursuing a damaging, complete decoupling of the world’s two biggest economies, Washington and Beijing might be able to recouple their economies on a new basis of reciprocity.

Different visions of regional order need to be harmonised and a more inclusive vision needs to be developed and articulated. Too many narratives from the region have drawn distinctions along ideological lines, such as ‘democracy versus authoritarianism’. Such a narrative is misleading and tends to foster a false sense of comfort when it turns a world of complexity into a simplistic, black-and-white one.

The democracy versus authoritarianism narrative is whispering life into the self-fulfilling prophecy of a divisive, new Cold War. For instance, the vision of the so-called ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ region has been pitched by the United states and its allies and partners as one of ‘like-minded’ states with ‘shared values’ of liberal democracy.

The geopolitical calculations of counterbalancing and excluding China are carefully couched and camouflaged in an ideological narrative. The vision of a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ region becomes one that is consequently divisive rather than inclusive. A healthy dose of suspicion and studied vigilance are needed toward any such narrative of the region. The future regional order has to be one of inclusion and integration, rather than one of exclusion and bloc-rivalry.

Genuine multilateralism in the region that is inclusive and does not discriminate against particular countries should be fostered. The impetus for regional economic and trade cooperation needs to be enhanced rather than weakened. The politicisation, weaponisation and over-securitisation of trade issues is corrosive to the development of healthy and prosperous regional economic dynamics.

Free trade agreements should not become geopolitical weapons. Beijing has now officially applied for membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Some critics suggest that China's application was just ‘grandstanding’ or aimed at deflecting criticism of its backtracking on economic reforms. But Beijing’s bid to join the CPTPP is genuine and aims at daobi gaige (creating pressure for reform at home), to lock in momentum toward the implementation of domestic structural reforms.

China’s CPTPP application shows that while the world is increasingly defined by ‘strategic competition’ between two most powerful countries, Beijing believes that the recipe for success lies in not protectionism or isolationism, but rather in further opening up and linking itself more closely with the outside world. The West has stated all along that the CPTPP is not driven by geopolitical calculations and is not targeted against any specific country. Now it is time for the United States and its allies to prove that they meant what they said.

点击左下角“阅读原文”跳转原文链接

本文为iGCU原创，欢迎转载，转载时请标明文章来源：北京大学中外人文交流研究基地

采写：齐为群

排版：苗鑫

审校：刘聪、高丹

往期推荐