【11.05.10 赫芬顿邮报】本拉登之后是中国吗？
本帖最后由 满仓 于 2011-5-24 10:21 编辑【中文标题】本拉登之后是中国吗？
【原文标题】After Osama: China?
【登载媒体】赫芬顿邮报
【原文作者】John Feffer
【原文链接】http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/obama-china_b_860064.html
如果杀死奥萨马本拉登的故事是一部好莱坞大片，那么阿伯塔巴德枪战之后的情节就应该是逐步揭开究竟是谁为基地组织提供了藏身之处。影片刚开始的时候，难道不是巴基斯坦情报部门的官员向美国承诺他必定会将本拉登绳之以法吗？沙特建筑业巨头有没有向本拉登家族亏欠很多人情？或者，会不会原来是美国使馆的官员认为奥萨马活着比死了更有意义——直到最后认为他不再具有利用价值了？
谁有可能在支持、援助基地组织的行为中受益？观众们完全了解谁受益谁就有嫌疑的原则，阴谋越曲折、越复杂越好。
在海军舰队海葬了本拉登之后，我们跟随镜头回到了伊斯兰堡，本拉登避难所的秘密资助人坐在办公室里，背对着镜头。这个人把最后一笔款项付给避难所房屋的主人，音乐随之响起。资助人的口音难以分辨。镜头逐渐拉远，我们发现办公室其实是一个大使馆。镜头跟随墙上的国旗、门口的卫兵，然后是大使馆的牌子：中华人民共和国。
诚然，本拉登的死并不是一部好莱坞大片，可是奥巴马政府却一直将其当作一部电影来展示给公众（勇敢的战士、胆小的坏蛋、充满悬疑的追捕过程）。中国与基地组织没有任何感情，尤其是它自己还在新疆等地方与所谓的恐怖分子作战。
但是或许中国是唯一一个在过去十年与基地组织的战争中受益的国家，而且其受益匪浅。北京袖手旁观美国在反恐战争中花费了3万亿美元；在中东地区投入大量军事资源；对全球其它事务一概置之不理（除了基地组织和它的朋友们交际的地方）。美国现在深陷债务泥潭，经济一蹶不振，党派斗争让国家陷入瘫痪。
然而与此同时，中国迅速成长为世界第二大经济体。2001年，高曼集团预测中国的经济规模在2011年将与德国相当。哥们，这其实是一个掩人耳目的虚低报价。上个月，国际货币基金组织又看了一眼手里的水晶球，宣布中国经济将在2016年成为世界第一。
David Gardner在英国每日邮报的一篇文章中写道，中国超越美国“将比大部分分析人士所预测的时间提前十年结束‘美国时代’。这意味着，无论谁在2012年的大选中入主白宫，他/她都将被赋予一项不光彩的荣誉——主持美国衰落的仪式。”
北京的备忘录：任务完成！
当然，这不是电影，没有事先写好的剧本。中国在美国的巨额投资——包括一月份签署的450亿美元交易金额——让它不想见到美国破产的结局。实际上，美国的预算赤字和低利率加速了全球的通货膨胀，让食品价格上涨，同时营造出来的不稳定局面恰恰是中国所不愿看到的。北京需要美国消费者和相对安全的美国债券，以及美国军队创造的短暂安定局面。但是要记住：所有这些东西，作为世界第二大经济体和第一大军事预算国，都是可以自给自足的。
奥巴马政府完全了解这个趋势。实际上，国防顾问Tom Donilon在接受《纽约客》Ryan Lizza采访时说，美国需要重新关注亚洲。“Donilon其中一项最重要的观点后来被奥巴马所采纳，就是美国需要重新树立自身的形象，从中东和阿富汗抽出身来，重点关注亚洲和中国在这一地区未经遏制的影响力。美国对前者‘过分关注’，对后者‘关注不足’。”亚洲强硬派代表人物Kurt Campbell在担任东亚与太平洋事务的助理国务卿职务之前，经常斥责乔治布什政府忽略东亚国家。但是，阿富汗和伊朗的战争、追捕本拉登的行动、对巴基斯坦和也门的持续无人机轰炸以及当前的阿拉伯春天，都让我们把目光从中国迅速崛起问题上转移开来。
奥巴马政府中寻求重塑美国全球外交政策的人被迫采取一种“战略忍耐”的姿态，当然，这也是美国官方对待朝鲜的政策。华盛顿基本上是在等待朝鲜向身边的经济和军事压力屈服，尽管到目前为止朝鲜没有丝毫与此类似的迹象。“战略忍耐”其实就是忽略政策的一种比较好听的说法。美国基本上忽视了朝鲜，而且相对来说，也忽视了整个亚洲。我们在忙于打仗、杀死更多的恐怖分子（和无辜的旁观平民）、建立禁飞区，像飞蛾一样盲目地扑向中东烈火。
奥巴马政府对转移东亚关注的迫切需求，以及其目前无力实现这一目的的现实，说明了很多问题。我们与日本关系的恶化导致其一名首相下台（到目前为止只有一名），因为我们拒绝取消在冲绳迁移一处军事基地的计划，岛内大部分居民强烈反对这个计划。政府在朝鲜核问题上没有取得丝毫进展，而韩国的保守派政府的上台把这个地区带到了战争的边缘（如果朝鲜继续推行边缘政策的话）。
似乎美国在亚洲也并非不可或缺的力量。印度尼西亚牵头调停泰国和柬埔寨的边界争议；东盟继续为解决南中国海岛屿问题而努力斡旋；日本和俄罗斯证明自己完全有能力处理双方在千岛群岛问题上的争端。
有关美国使用老套的冷战手段来制约中国在这一地区影响力的说法完全是没有必要的。中国不会一口吞掉东亚，光是台湾这道开胃菜的代价就足够昂贵了。北京眼睁睁地看到华盛顿狼吞虎咽之后造成的严重消化不良（这本来是需要整个世界共同来消化的一道菜）。地缘政治意义上的大吃比赛我们并不陌生——见《殖民时代》一书——但是中国到目前为止显示出了相当克制的态度。
如果美国关注东亚的目的就是为了将其搞糟，就像我们在中东留下的烂摊子一样，那么如果此举失败，所有人都会皆大欢喜。但美国依然有机会运用其太平洋力量来扮演一个积极的角色。正在华盛顿举行的双边高峰会议上，两个国家相互指责人权和汇率问题。这的确是很重要的事情，但是华盛顿和北京这两个世界军费支出数一数二的国家，还应当讨论讨论如何控制全球军备竞赛。在武器贸易和发展问题上达成一致的行为准则也是相当有收获的。另外，奥巴马政府应当在中国的帮助下想办法重新开启六方会谈，这样我们就省的面对朝鲜这个怪胎——世界上唯一一个食不果腹的核武器国家。
奥萨马本拉登的时代结束了，美国的时代也会随之终结。这里有一个形势转移的迹象：Nicholas Kristof一篇警醒的论坛文章中写道，从统计学角度来看，上海的孩子要比美国的孩子寿命长（译者注：见【11.04.30 纽约时报】中国胜过美国的地方）。中国或许依然存在腐败、间歇性镇压行动、像美国一样的经济两极分化和金融泡沫现象，但是，当我们在与伊斯兰教BOSS较劲的时候，中国在忙着发展经济，享受我们的午餐。
原文：
If the killing of Osama bin Laden were a Hollywood murder mystery, the shootout scene in Abbottabad would be followed by the unveiling of the sponsor who arranged for the al Qaeda safe house. Is it the Pakistani intelligence officer who appears early in the movie to assure his U.S. counterparts that he is fully committed to bringing bin Laden to justice? Is it the Saudi construction magnate who owes several major favors to the bin Laden family? Or perhaps it's the U.S. embassy official who, it might turn out, believes that Osama is more useful alive than dead -- until finally, he is useful no longer.
Who could possibly benefit from the care and feeding of the al Qaeda legend? Audiences know to look for the suspect who benefits the most. The more intricate the conspiracy the better.
As the Navy SEALs dispose of bin Laden's body at sea, we follow the simultaneous action in Islamabad where bin Laden's secret sponsor is sitting in an office, back turned to the camera, passing over a final payment to the safe house owner. The music builds. It's hard to pinpoint the sponsor's accent. And then the camera pulls back and we realize that the action is taking place in an embassy. The flag on the wall, the sentries posted out front, and finally the placard with the embassy's name: The People's Republic of China.
Of course, bin Laden's death was not a Hollywood movie, however much the Obama administration presented it as such (the brave soldiers, the cowardly villain, the suspenseful hunt). And China has no love for al Qaeda, particularly given its own battles against alleged terrorists in Xinjiang and elsewhere.
But perhaps the only country in the world that has benefited from the last decade of war against al Qaeda is China, and it has benefitted big time. Beijing has watched the United States spend more than $3 trillion on the war on terrorism, devote its military resources to the Middle East, and neglect pretty much every other part of the globe (except where al Qaeda and its friends hang out). The United States is now mired in debt, stuck in a recession, and paralyzed by partisan politics.
Over that same period, meanwhile, China has quickly become the second largest economy in the world. In 2001, Goldman Sachs predicted that the Chinese economy would rival that of Germany by 2011. Boy, was that a lowball estimate. Last month, the International Monetary Fund looked again into the crystal ball and announced that the Chinese economy would become the world's largest in 2016.
China's overtaking of the United States "will effectively end the 'Age of America' a decade before most analysts had expected," writes David Gardner in the British Daily Mail. "It means that whoever wins the 2012 presidential election will have the dubious honor of presiding over the fall of the United States."
Memo from Beijing: Mission Accomplished!
Naturally, since this is no movie, it's not so cut and dry. As demonstrated by its huge investments into this country -- including $45 billion worth of deals back in January -- China doesn't want a bankrupt United States. Indeed, U.S. budget deficits and low interest rates have fueled global inflation, driving up food prices and creating precisely the kind of instability that makes China uncomfortable. Beijing needs American consumers, the relative security of American bonds, and the occasional stability provided by American troops. But remember: all of that can be provided by the world's second leading economy and number one military spender.
The Obama administration is well aware of these trends. Indeed, as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon recently told Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, the United States should be refocusing on Asia. "One of Donilon’s overriding beliefs, which Obama adopted as his own, was that America needed to rebuild its reputation, extricate itself from the Middle East and Afghanistan, and turn its attention toward Asia and China’s unchecked influence in the region. America was 'overweighted' in the former and 'underweighted' in the latter." Asia hands like Kurt Campbell, before he became the current assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, routinely castigated the George W. Bush administration for ignoring East Asia. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the hunt for bin Laden, the continuing drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and now the Arab Spring have all kept the focus away from China’s rapid rise.
Those in the Obama administration looking for a global reset of U.S. foreign policy are forced to adopt a posture of "strategic patience." This, of course, is also the official U.S. policy toward North Korea. Basically, Washington is waiting for North Korea to bend to economic and military pressure, though there is not much precedent for such a North Korean response. "Strategic patience" is really just a fancy way of describing a policy of neglect. The United States is largely ignoring North Korea and, relatively speaking, the rest of Asia as well while we engage in some more battles, kill a few more terrorists (and civilian bystanders), enforce a no-fly zone, and otherwise behave like a moth attracted to the Middle East flame.
The Obama administration's desire to shift focus to East Asia -- and its current inability to do so -- explains a lot. The administration soured relations with Japan and caused the downfall of one Japanese prime minister (so far) because of a refusal to cancel a military base relocation plan on Okinawa opposed by the vast majority of the island's residents. The administration has made little headway on North Korea's nuclear program, allowing a conservative South Korean administration to bring the region close to the brink of war (with North Korea cooperating with brinksmanship of its own).
It's not as if the United States is an indispensible power in Asia. Indonesia has taken the lead in trying to mediate the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continues to slog away at untangling the dispute over islands in the South China Sea. Japan and Russia are perfectly capable of clearing up their own conflict over the Kurile Islands.
And the notion that the United States has to balance China in the region in some old-fashioned Cold War sense is certainly not necessary. China is not about to gobble up the region, beginning with Taiwan as an expensive appetizer. Beijing has watched Washington suffer considerable indigestion when it bit off more than it could chew (and the rest of the world could stomach). Competitive eating is not unknown in the world of geopolitics -- see Age of Colonialism -- but China has so far shown a measure of restraint.
If the United States intends to refocus on East Asia only to screw it up royally in the same way we've made a mess of the Middle East, it would be in everyone's interest if we fail to reorient our policy. But the United States still could play a constructive role as a Pacific power. At the current bilateral summit here in Washington, the two countries are trading charges over human rights and the value of each other's currency. These are critical issues, but Washington and Beijing, as the two leading military spenders in the world, should also discuss how to restrain the global arms race. Agreeing to a mutual code of conduct on arms trade and development issues would be valuable as well. And the Obama administration could help kick-start the Six-Party Talks, with China's help, so that we don't have to deal with the anomaly of North Korea, the world's only starving nuclear power.
The Osama bin Laden Era is over, and with it will end the Age of America. Here's one sign of the transformation: a child in Shanghai, writes Nicholas Kristof in a sobering op-ed, will now statistically outlive a child in the United States. China remains corrupt, intermittently oppressive, and subject to the same economic disparities and financial bubbles as the United States. But while we were fighting the chimera of a caliphate, China was going about its business and eating our lunch. 中国在忙着发展经济，享受我们的午餐。
是吗？中国得到免费的午餐？ “当我们在与伊斯兰教BOSS较劲的时候，中国在忙着发展经济，享受我们的午餐。”
中华民族是世界最勤劳的民族之一，我们始终认为：天下没有白吃的午餐！ 也不想想美国会发生这种局面有多少是自己的原因。尤其是中东问题 楼主辛苦了。 西方列强一直在免费享用别人的午餐，是到了重新布置餐桌的时候了！ 第一大军事预算国:$ 为什么不是印度、巴西、俄罗斯，美国的果子都叫中国摘了，莫非美国和中国有一腿？ 摆在我们餐桌上的肯定就是我们的午餐，怎么就成了他们的午餐，这西方人的强盗逻辑不是一般的强。 噢
明白了
原来全世界都是他们的午餐啊！
还不允许别人吃！ 美国人一向享受的是对别人指手画脚、高高在上的感觉，现在把家底折腾光了，又来怨这个怨那个，真活该 【中文标题】本拉登之后是中国吗？
【原文标题】After Osama: China?
【登载媒体】赫芬顿邮报
【原文作者 ...
"谁有可能在支持、援助基地组织的行为中受益？观众们完全了解谁受益谁就有嫌疑的原则，阴谋越曲折、越复杂越好。"
满仓 发表于 2011-5-24 10:19 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
美帝什么时候没有利益会对别国指手画脚，动轧放枪放炮……
阿富汗是打着反恐旗号动手、伊拉克呢？更别说现在的利比亚，没利益你当乌龟缩回你家。
今天又言“中国是唯一受益者……”，想法挺多，要干什么？“拉登之后是中国吗？”,让老美议会举手吧：是！——放马过来试试！！！ 文章开头那个镜头拉远，中国大使馆。。。太过分了。没有证据，充其量只是猜测，不可以这样恶毒。 这种栽赃陷害、挑拨离间的文章，为什么我们的媒体写不出来？ 我们比较低调，再说《读者》那么多年，老百姓一下子适应不了，呵呵。 本帖最后由 海外华人甲 于 2011-5-26 00:05 编辑
我認為大家對這篇文章有誤解。這個作是在批評美國，不是在批評中國，他認為美國不該對中國有敵意，但是作者鑑於美國的法西斯氣氛，不好直接說出來，所有說的比較隱晦。他真正的意思是
1）上面拿著電影來說中國威脅，意思是諷刺美國的所謂“中國威脅論”像是電影編出來的虛構情節。
2）中國相比美國實力大增，是因為美國到處侵略，胡作非為。
3）朝鮮半島的緊張局勢，並不是北朝鮮的責任，而是李明博挑釁造成的，美國再不應該粗魯地捲入戰爭，而是應該和中國一起促進和平。
作者當然是為了美國著想，同時批評美國也比較溫和隱晦，但是和美國越來越瘋狂的右翼相比，我認為這個作者並沒有什麼惡意。如果他真的能夠幫助美國轉變方向，對中國也有好處。只不過他能不能成功就是問題了。 怎么四月的朋友理解力也这么让人大跌眼镜？
总的来说这篇文章还属客观，强调合作多于斗争。
前面引述中国大使馆，只是介绍了当前美国关注点改变的现状而已啊。 说得比较符合现实啊。 说的比较中肯，而且语气比较像说给美国自己的。
页:
[1]