美中冲突势不可挡基迪恩?拉什曼 文 李雅婧 译

wuliumu

　　谷歌同中国发生的冲突的意义远不止影响一家软件业巨头的前途那样简单。除非中国政府改变其审查政策，该公司决意撤出中国市场。这个决定是眼下预示着美中关系波澜不断的又一个征兆。
　　谷歌事件如此令人关注的一个原因是美国自1989年以来的对华政策的假设可能根本就是错的。美国的政策制定者已经说服自己中国的经济开放将有助于其政治走向自由化，因此美国已然接受-甚至欢迎-中国作为经济巨人的崛起。
　　如果这个假设有所变化，美国的对华政策也许会随之改变。欢迎一个亚洲正向民主制度迈进的巨大的经济实体的崛起是一回事，赞助一个列宁主义的一党执政的、并有可能成为美国唯一的地缘对手的国家的崛起是另一回事。将这种政治幻灭与被众人谴责的由中国的汇率操纵导致的美国两位数的失业率的现实结合起来，反华的呼吁自然会一浪高过一浪。
　　比尔·克林顿和乔治o布什都坚信自由贸易，尤其在当今的信息时代，它将不可阻挡地引发中国的政治变革。1998年访华时，克林顿先生曾说：“在这个全球化信息时代，经济成功源于创新，个人自由对任何国家建立伟业都将十分关键。”一年后，布什先生表达了相同的观点：“经济自由产生对个人自由的诉求；而对个人自由的诉求则生出对民主的期盼……与中国进行自由贸易，历史会站在我们这边。”
　　两位前总统的话不过折射了美国最具影响力的知识分子所秉持的传统智慧。，《纽约时报》的专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼写过几本关于全球化的畅销书，他曾经断言：“中国将会有一个宽松的媒体环境。全球化是新闻自由的发动机。”罗伯特1怀特，克林顿先生最喜爱的智囊之一，认为如果中国阻挠互联网自由，“代价将是惨痛的经济衰退。”
　　迄今为止，事实与理论相差甚远。中国依然限制新老媒体，但"惨痛的经济衰退"并没有发生。相反，中国如今是全球第二大经济体及最大出口国，外汇储备超过两万亿美元。日新月异的经济增长并未带来布什和克林顿总统所共同盼望的相应的政治变革。要是有什么变话的话，那就是对自己的公民的更加强硬（此处有删节--编辑）。
　　谷歌与中国政府对着干的决定或许是美国开始厌倦继续与中国威权主义打交道的预兆。但更大的压力可能来自政界而非商界领袖。谷歌是一家在非同寻常的政治化的行业中打拼的不一般的公司。如果谷歌人最终真的撤出中国，他们不太可能被其他叫嚣离开中国市场的追随者（其他跨国公司）挤倒。巨大的中国市场如此诱人，多数跨国公司都不愿放弃。与谷歌相反，美国商界可能会成为继续与中国保持接触的院外活动集团。
　　与中国断绝接触的呼声主要来自劳工组织、国家安全鹰派分子和政客，特别是国会议员。目前，奥巴马政府的对华政策的基础依旧是经济自由可以带来政治变革的看法，这一看法是美国整整一代人与中国交往的框架。总统最近发表的关于亚洲政策的演讲继续重弹与中国保持接触的老调，其中包含这样的经典表述----美国欢迎中国的崛起。然而，在自己与上海学生的对话被中国电视媒体剪裁，并在哥本哈根气候会议上被中国一位较低级较低的官员训斥之后，巴拉克o奥巴马对北京的亲情可能会锐减。白宫对华政策趋向强硬的信号可能将在未来数月中显现，包括正式认定中国为"汇率操纵者"。
　　即使奥巴马政府本身不打算改变政策，国会中呼吁出台强硬对华政策的声浪可能也会不断升高。谷歌所强调的来自中国的网络攻击的危险或将提升美国人在国家安全问题上对中国的忧虑。不断发展且威胁美国海军在太平洋主导地位的中国弹道导弹防御系统同样令华盛顿担心。即将进行的美国对台军售已经引起双方争端。
　　同时，贸易保护主义在美国似乎变得更加为开明的人所接受，这对中国来说并不是什么好事。
　　美中贸易对垒几乎不会受人欢迎。贸易战可能会把世界重新抛向衰退并为国际政治格局带来一系列新的紧张关系。如若贸易战真的发生，双方都将受到责备。美国在自由贸易与民主之间的联系上始终抱有天真的态度；中国则一直对汇率及人权问题坚持己见。若中方意欲避免与美国发生更多冲突，现在是在政策上做些改变的时候了。

英文原文：

Gideon Rachman
Why America and China will clash
By Gideon Rachman
Published: January 18 2010 19:54 | Last updated: January 18 2010 19:54
Google's clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company's decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.
The reason that the Google case is so significant is because it suggests that the assumptions on which US policy to China have been based since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 could be plain wrong. The US has accepted - even welcomed - China's emergence as a giant economic power because American policymakers convinced themselves that economic opening would lead to political liberalisation in China.
If that assumption changes, American policy towards China could change with it. Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America's only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition. Combine this political disillusionment with double-digit unemployment in the US that is widely blamed on Chinese currency manipulation, and you have the formula for an anti-China backlash.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush firmly believed that free trade and, in particular, the information age would make political change in China irresistible. On a visit to China in 1998, Mr Clinton proclaimed: "In this global information age, when economic success is built on ideas, personal freedom is essential to the greatness of any nation." A year later, Mr Bush made a similar point: "Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy ... Trade freely with the Chinese and time is on our side."
The two presidents were reflecting the conventional wisdom among America's most influential pundits. Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of best-selling books on globalisation, once proclaimed bluntly: "China's going to have a free press. Globalisation will drive it." Robert Wright, one of Mr Clinton's favourite thinkers, argued that if China chose to block free access to the internet, "the price would be dismal economic failure".
So far, the facts are refusing to conform to the theory. China has continued to censor new and old media, but this has hardly condemned it to "dismal economic failure". On the contrary, China is now the world's second largest economy and its largest exporter, with foreign reserves above $2,000bn. But all this economic growth shows little sign of provoking the political changes anticipated by Bush and Clinton. If anything, the Chinese government seems to be getting more repressive. Liu Xiaobo, a leading Chinese dissident, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for his involvement in the Charter 08 movement that advocates democratic reforms.
Google's decision to confront the Chinese government is an early sign that the Americans are getting fed up with dealing with Chinese authoritarianism. But the biggest pressures are likely to come from politicians rather than businessmen. Google is an unusual company in an unusually politicised industry. If the Googlers do indeed head for the exits in China, they are unlikely to be crushed by a stampede of other multinationals rushing to follow them. To most big companies the country's market is too large and tempting to ignore. Despite Google, US business is likely to remain the lobby that argues hardest for continuing engagement with China.
The pressures for disengagement will come from labour activists, security hawks and politicians - particularly in Congress. To date, the Obama administration has based its policy firmly on the assumptions that have governed America's approach to China for a generation. The president's recent set-piece speech on Asia was a classic statement of the case for US engagement with China - complete with the ritualistic assertion that America welcomes China's rise. But, after being censored by Chinese television in Shanghai and harangued by a junior Chinese official at the Copenhagen climate talks, Barack Obama may be feeling less warm towards Beijing. An early sign that the White House is hardening its policy could come in the next few months, with an official decision to label China a "currency manipulator".
Even if the administration itself does not move, the voices calling for tougher policies against China are likely to get louder in Congress. Google's decision to highlight the dangers of cyberattack from China will play to growing American security fears about China. The development of Chinese missile systems that threaten US naval dominance in the Pacific are also causing concern in Washington. Impending US arms sales to Taiwan are already provoking a dispute.
Meanwhile, protectionism seems to be becoming intellectually respectable in the US in ways that should worry China.
A trade war between America and China is hardly to be welcomed. It could tip the world back into recession and inject dangerous new tensions into international politics. If it happens, both sides will share the blame. The US has been almost wilfully naive about the connections between free trade and democracy. The Chinese have been provocative over currency and human rights. If they want to head off a damaging clash with America, changes in policy would be well advised.
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)