【纽约时报11.20】中国是怎样打败美国的

lilyma06

How China Can Defeat America
Edel Rodriguez

By YAN XUETONG
原文链接：http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/opinion/how-china-can-defeat-america.html?_r=1
作者：清华大学当代国际关系研究院院长阎学通
WITH China’s growing influence over the global economy, and its increasing ability to project military power, competition between the United States and China is inevitable. Leaders of both countries assert optimistically that the competition can be managed without clashes that threaten the global order.        
Most academic analysts are not so sanguine. If history is any guide, China’s rise does indeed pose a challenge to America. Rising powers seek to gain more authority in the global system, and declining powers rarely go down without a fight. And given the differences between the Chinese and American political systems, pessimists might believe that there is an even higher likelihood of war.        
I am a political realist. Western analysts have labeled my political views “hawkish,” and the truth is that I have never overvalued the importance of morality in international relations. But realism does not mean that politicians should be concerned only with military and economic might. In fact, morality can play a key role in shaping international competition between political powers — and separating the winners from the losers.        
I came to this conclusion from studying ancient Chinese political theorists like Guanzi, Confucius, Xunzi and Mencius. They were writing in the pre-Qin period, before China was unified as an empire more than 2,000 years ago — a world in which small countries were competing ruthlessly for territorial advantage.        
It was perhaps the greatest period for Chinese thought, and several schools competed for ideological supremacy and political influence. They converged on one crucial insight: The key to international influence was political power, and the central attribute of political power was morally informed leadership. Rulers who acted in accordance with moral norms whenever possible tended to win the race for leadership over the long term.        
China was unified by the ruthless king of Qin in 221 B.C., but his short-lived rule was not nearly as successful as that of Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty, who drew on a mixture of legalistic realism and Confucian “soft power” to rule the country for over 50 years, from 140 B.C. until 86 B.C.        
According to the ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi, there were three types of leadership: humane authority, hegemony and tyranny. Humane authority won the hearts and minds of the people at home and abroad. Tyranny — based on military force — inevitably created enemies. Hegemonic powers lay in between: they did not cheat the people at home or cheat allies abroad. But they were frequently indifferent to moral concerns and often used violence against non-allies. The philosophers generally agreed that humane authority would win in any competition with hegemony or tyranny.        
Such theories may seem far removed from our own day, but there are striking parallels. Indeed, Henry Kissinger once told me that he believed that ancient Chinese thought was more likely than any foreign ideology to become the dominant intellectual force behind Chinese foreign policy.        
The fragmentation of the pre-Qin era resembles the global divisions of our times, and the prescriptions provided by political theorists from that era are directly relevant today — namely that states relying on military or economic power without concern for morally informed leadership are bound to fail.        
Unfortunately, such views are not so influential in this age of economic determinism, even if governments often pay lip service to them. The Chinese government claims that the political leadership of the Communist Party is the basis of China’s economic miracle, but it often acts as though competition with the United States will be played out on the economic field alone. And in America, politicians regularly attribute progress, but never failure, to their own leadership.        
Both governments must understand that political leadership, rather than throwing money at problems, will determine who wins the race for global supremacy.

Many people wrongly believe that China can improve its foreign relations only by significantly increasing economic aid. But it’s hard to buy affection; such “friendship” does not stand the test of difficult times.        



How, then, can China win people’s hearts across the world? According to ancient Chinese philosophers, it must start at home. Humane authority begins by creating a desirable model at home that inspires people abroad.        
This means China must shift its priorities away from economic development to establishing a harmonious society free of today’s huge gaps between rich and poor. It needs to replace money worship with traditional morality and weed out political corruption in favor of social justice and fairness.        
In other countries, China must display humane authority in order to compete with the United States, which remains the world’s pre-eminent hegemonic power. Military strength underpins hegemony and helps to explain why the United States has so many allies. President Obama has made strategic mistakes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, but his actions also demonstrate that Washington is capable of leading three foreign wars simultaneously. By contrast, China’s army has not been involved in any war since 1984, with Vietnam, and very few of its high-ranking officers, let alone its soldiers, have any battlefield experience.        
America enjoys much better relations with the rest of the world than China in terms of both quantity and quality. America has more than 50 formal military allies, while China has none. North Korea and Pakistan are only quasi-allies of China. The former established a formal alliance with China in 1961, but there have been no joint military maneuvers and no arms sales for decades. China and Pakistan have substantial military cooperation, but they have no formal military alliance binding them together.        
To shape a friendly international environment for its rise, Beijing needs to develop more high-quality diplomatic and military relationships than Washington. No leading power is able to have friendly relations with every country in the world, thus the core of competition between China and the United States will be to see who has more high-quality friends. And in order to achieve that goal, China has to provide higher-quality moral leadership than the United States.        
China must also recognize that it is a rising power and assume the responsibilities that come with that status. For example, when it comes to providing protection for weaker powers, as the United States has done in Europe and the Persian Gulf, China needs to create additional regional security arrangements with surrounding countries according to the model of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — a regional forum that includes China, Russia and several central Asian countries.        
And politically, China should draw on its tradition of meritocracy. Top government officials should be chosen according to their virtue and wisdom, and not simply technical and administrative ability. China should also open up and choose officials from across the world who meet its standards, so as to improve its governance.        
The Tang dynasty — which lasted from the 7th century to the 10th and was perhaps China’s most glorious period — employed a great number of foreigners as high-ranking officials. China should do the same today and compete with America to attract talented immigrants.        
OVER the next decade, China’s new leaders will be drawn from a generation that experienced the hardships of the Cultural Revolution. They are resolute and will most likely value political principles more than material benefits. These leaders must play a larger role on the world stage and offer more security protection and economic support to less powerful countries.        
This will mean competing with the United States politically, economically and technologically. Such competition may cause diplomatic tensions, but there is little danger of military clashes.        
That’s because future Chinese-American competition will differ from that between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war. Neither China nor America needs proxy wars to protect its strategic interests or to gain access to natural resources and technology.        
China’s quest to enhance its world leadership status and America’s effort to maintain its present position is a zero-sum game. It is the battle for people’s hearts and minds that will determine who eventually prevails. And, as China’s ancient philosophers predicted, the country that displays more humane authority will win.

中英文不完全对应，求原文。这篇是从中文翻译过去的。

近年来，随着中国经济实力的迅速崛起，要求中国在气候变化等全球治理方面发挥更大作用的呼声也越来越高。不过，中国则强调责权一致。

中国将成为一个什么样的超级大国、在全球事务上会扮演什么样的角色不仅是国际社会普遍关注的问题，也是中国学术界的一个热门话题。

*阎学通：应该以不同的标准规范国家行为*

中国知名学者、清华大学当代国际关系研究院院长阎学通星期二在华盛顿大学的一个讨论会上表示，谈到全球治理，我们不可避免的要考虑的一个问题是要用什么样的国际标准来规范国与国之间的行为。阎学通在这个问题上的看法与西方国际关系理论有很大的不同。

他说：“西方的概念以及大多数西方学者提出的国际关系理论认为，我们需要一个统一的标准来规范各个国家的行为。我的理解是，这是不充分的，这不能解决我们的问题。这不能使这个世界成为一个和平的世界。”

阎学通认为，我们需要多种不同的标准来规范国家行为，因为就像人与人有差别一样，国与国也是有差别的，不能等同视之，而需要区别对待，否则就会出现混乱。他说，中国战国时期著名的思想家荀子明确的提出，人与人之间是有名分等级之分的，如果我们不对人加以区分，结果就只会是争夺，而争夺会导致混乱。

*中国：将承担与其国际地位相一致的国际责任*

阎学通对中国政府在《中国和平发展白皮书》中阐述的有关立场做出了这样的解读。

他说：“在今年9月发表的最新一期的白皮书里，中国首次表示将承担与其国际地位相一致的国际责任。这意味着，我们不能承担比美国还要多的国际责任，因为你是老大，你应该比我承担更多的责任。我是老二，我承担比其他人要多的责任，但是不能比你的多，应该比你少。第二句话的意思是，随着中国国际地位的提高，中国将会相应的承担更多的国际责任。”

这位着有6部专著的学者说，中国强调责权一致。

阎学通还表示，在中国的实力方面，经济实力是最强的，而军事实力是最弱的。他说，鉴于中国目前有限的军事实力，中国在国际安全领域发挥的作用将是非常有限的。

*沈大伟：中国将发挥有限的作用*

华盛顿大学国际关系教授、中国安全问题专家沈大伟(David Shambaugh)也认为，中国在国际管治领域将只会发挥有限的作用。

他日前在美国世界事务理事会举行的一个研讨会上表示：“这不是一个接受支撑全球管治基本概念的自由国际主义议程的国家。坦率的说，他们对此是反对的，最多是一种模棱两可的态度。我的看法是，他们将只会采取有限的行动。多边主义对于他们来说是一种外交策略，而不是一种外交哲学。”

这位学者表示，中国目前虽然全面参与全球事务，但还不是一个全球性的大国。他认为，除了军事实力，中国还尤其缺乏文化和道义上的影响力。

*阎学通：中国应该成为‘王权国家’*

清华大学的阎学通教授认为，中国应该成为荀子所说的王权国家，即一个以道义为基础的超级大国。他说，这样的中国将带给世界比现在更安定的国际秩序。而要成为这样的一个国家，中国应该致力于提高其政治实力，使中国成为受到世界尊重的国家，而不仅仅是经济实力，因为一个以财富为最高利益目标的强权超级大国只会给别国带来灾难而不是福音。

lilyma06

应该是有原文的，大家一起发动力量看能否找到原文