作者：朱锋 2012年《现代国际关系》第4期
〔内容提要〕奥巴马政府“转身亚洲”战略的出台虽然不代表美对华政策发生了根本性转变，但美国随之采取的一系列军事和外交调整与行动表明，美已将战略重心转移至亚太地区，其对中国的认识与判断正在出现新的重大变化，已经将中国作为最主要的军事“假想敌”。
布热津斯基：强而不霸（Giants, but Not Hegemons）
作者：布热津斯基（Zbigniew Brzezinski） 2013年2月13日International Herald Tribune
Today, many fear that the emerging American-Chinese duopoly must inevitably lead to conflict. But I do not believe that wars for global domination are a serious prospect in what is now the Post-Hegemonic Age.
基辛格：The Future of U.S.-Chinese Relations-Conflict Is a Choice, Not a Necessity
作者 Henry A. Kissinger 2012 年3/4月 Foreign Affairs
On January 19, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement at the end of Hu's visit to Washington. It proclaimed their shared commitment to a "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship." Each party reassured the other regarding his principal concern, announcing, "The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs. China welcomes the United States as an Asia-Pacific nation that contributes to peace, stability and prosperity in the region."
倪峰：美国“重返”亚洲及其评估
作者：倪峰 2012年1月中国社会科学院美国研究所《美国战略研究简报》
2009年7月，当美国国务卿希拉里在曼谷机场喊出“美国回来了”的口号时，一场新的超级博弈拉开了帷幕。从那时起，在亚洲国际舞台，远在大洋彼岸的美国的身影变得颇为抢眼。美国总统和外交、国防官员，像“走马灯”一样穿梭于亚洲各地。浩浩荡荡的美国舰群，不断在亚洲海域炫耀武力。对这一地区的各种争端, 无论是“天安号事件” 、“钓鱼岛事件” ，还是“南海争端” ，美国都积极介入。所有这一系列举动正在亚太地区持续发酵，深刻地影响着我国的周边安全和发展环境。
John Kerry：US-China Partnership Important For Economic Stability, Growth
作者：John Kerry 2011年10月6日John Kerry 網站
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today spoke from the floor of the United States Senate to address the current debate surrounding the Chinese currency bill.
“China is an important partner of the United States in a lot of ways. It's also a major investor in the United States,” said Sen. Kerry. “So I don't think that we're here to rupture that relationship. I think we're here to send a message to the Chinese about the urgent need to repair it. We want a mutually beneficial partnership, an equitable partner that will pay dividends for both countries and I believe if we listen to each other and work in good faith we can make that happen, and we can enter into a better framework of cooperation that inures to the benefit and the stability and the leadership demands of both of our countries.”
The full text of his speech, as delivered, is below:
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I’ll use under the one hour. I won't use all of that by any means. Mr. President, this is obviously an issue that's more complicated than the debate here may have indicated at all moments, at least. And I think that there are complicated and long-standing frustrations that have built up in a lot of senators and a lot of people in America that bring us here to this moment on the floor.
As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a reluctance to see us engage in an effort that I think can put other efforts at risk in certain ways. But on the other hand, I have voted to allow and help this legislation to reach the point of post-cloture because I think it's an important debate because I think China needs to carefully think about and process the substance of what people are saying here on the floor of the United States Senate.
This is a very complicated relationship with enormous interests on both sides for us to avoid confrontation in a lot of different ways, a lot of different kinds of confrontation. Trade, physical confrontation in the South China Sea and the straits and elsewhere, confrontations over human rights in Tibet and other issues. There are a lot of issues at play. But with respect to the trade issue, China has a huge interest in the United States of America being able to export more effectively to China. China has an interest in its middle class growing in its purchasing power and expressing that purchasing power through consumption.
One of the things China needs is its own higher level of domestic consumption. It's saving too much. And one of the reasons it saves too much is it doesn't have a safety net structure of any kind really. So people do save. That’s the nature of life there. But at the same time China, I think, is seeing a slowdown of its own economy now. And one of the reasons for the slowdown in China's economy is the fact that we have had a slowdown in our economy and in our ability to consume the goods brought in from China, so it all is interconnected. China's also our biggest banker, and China is critical to our ability to deal with our current economic challenge in many ways, and Europe's, I might add, both Europe and the United States would benefit significantly with a new trade relationship with China. And that's what I want to talk about for a moment.
I believe in trade. I have supported trade here. I don't believe in unequal trade. I don't believe in unfair trade. I believe in enforcing the agreements we have. If you look at NAFTA, for instance, NAFTA had side agreements, side agreements on the environment, side agreements on labor standards, and they were never enforced. And people have a right to be angry if they see an agreement that's made and then parts of it are enforced, parts of it are not, and they see their job go overseas, whether it's in North Carolina or Georgia or Massachusetts or Ohio or any other place in our country. So I think it's important to have trade that's fair and sensible. You're not going to grow your economy trading with yourself. No way. Particularly if your overall population growth isn't growing that fast and you're a mature economy, economics just doesn't work that way. You need you are in you need newer markets and other places to expand. So I think that it's important for us to recognize that the world's trading system only works if the participants treat each other fairly.
Over the last decade, our national debate on the costs and benefits of trade has intensified, and frankly the uneasy alliance, the uneasy -- I think I would call it sort of uneasy consensus that had been created from the 1980's forward with respect to trade is being frayed right now, is being frayed for understandable and clearly definable reasons. The American worker is not seeing their wages go up. There are a lot of reasons for that. The unfairness of our tax code, the inability of people in America today to be able to bargain the way they used to and the lack of an NLRB and a Court that upholds the rights of labor to be able to negotiate, a whole bunch of reasons why people are disadvantaged today. And one of them is the fact that you have this unfair competition. So in order to keep the consensus which allows Americans to say yeah, trade is a good thing, it's got to be a good thing, and to be a good thing, it's got to be fair and it's got to result in people's lives being improved by it, meaning their wages go up, their jobs can get better, their opportunities are greater.
Everything has been working in the opposite direction, and I think that's why so many of our colleagues feel a responsibility to come to the floor on this legislation and make sure that China and others hear from the American people loudly and clearly. We did this before on a vote that we took on currency legislation back in 2005. I think China heard us then, and China began slowly to allow the value of its currency to begin to fluctuate rather than keeping it pegged tightly to the dollar. China's taken measures. China's -- in fairness, China's currency has appreciated over the course of the last few years. Some argue exactly how much, somewhere in the vicinity of 27%, maybe 7% the last year, but it's not fast enough. It's still not fair enough. And the fact is that there are other Chinese trade tactics that contribute to our increasing trade deficit with china, not just currency.
Unfortunately, our efforts through multilateral institutions, nobody can point a finger at the United States and suggest that we haven't played by the rules or that we haven't gone to the global institutions in order to try to resolve these differences. We have gone to the World Trade Organization, and we have won sort of step by step, slowly but slowly. But if your tactic is to just keep in this highly mercantilistic focus of China to keep on taking advantage of everything you can and you get a little nibble here and there at the W.T.O., a little nibble over there, that's really just an inconvenience on the road to a kind of trade domination that is bad for everybody. So that's why I’m here today, that's why I have voted for this legislation to come to the floor to have this debate.
This debate is an imperfect stand-in for the broader discussion that we need to have about our economic relationship with China. The truth is that our bilateral relationship is both filled with promise and plagued by complex challenges that we have to overcome for the good of both countries. The Chinese market is a huge and growing opportunity for American firms, obviously, and despite the hurdles to entry -- and there are hurdles -- China is still our fastest growing export market today. People better think about this as we go forward. I am convinced that the key to America pulling itself out of this economic challenge we're in today and the key to Europe pulling itself out is for the United States and Europe to actually work out almost formally a new and better relationship with respect to trade with China as well as with the other fast-developing countries -- Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, India. Because if those societies will allow us adequate entry to market, and if those societies will purchase more from Europe and the United States, then we will export more, manufacture more, come out of the economic doldrums, and that reverberates to China's benefit also because their investments in the United States become more secure because our debt goes down because we have a stronger economy and because we're watching more in return from them. What goes around comes around.
So my hope is that we can agree on fair terms and conditions for trade with these rising powers, and if we do, we will create jobs. It's the fastest way we have to create jobs and pull out of our economic doldrums today. The simplest, fastest, most obvious way to do this is to be able to access those other markets rapidly with American goods and begin to restore confidence to the marketplace so that people believe they will get a larger return on investment and begin to reinvest in job creation and in the marketplace. The current trade model that we're operating under with massive U.S. trade deficits, enormous Chinese trade surpluses is not only unfair, it's unsustainable. So we have got to rebalance that relationship. China's own leaders need to understand that their country's long-term economic health absolutely cannot rest on a subsidized foundation of subsidized exports fueled by an indebted American consumer and the credit card of the American consumer. That is a deathly unvirtuous to use our former chairman of the fed's comments about virtuous and unvirtuous cycles -- it's about as unvirtuous as you could get in that economic relationship.
Now, conflict, in my judgment, is not the best way to resolve our tensions, but making clear how we feel and what we think the reality is and what's important in our relationship is critical. Some of our colleagues have come to the floor to argue that our two countries are already in a trade war. Others have come to the floor to say that this bill is going to trigger one. Mr. President, I don't agree with either of you. I don't think either one of those views are correct. If we were in a real trade war with our largest lender, let me tell you they would be doing a heck of a lot more damage than the misalignment of currency is currently doing to us. And the specific remedy proposed in this legislation is neither as dramatic nor as offensive as some people have said. This is a pretty carefully structured piece of legislation, and I think the language has been chosen in a thoughtful way, and I think the remedies that are available under this bill are not as dramatic as some would suggest. It doesn't propose raising tariffs on all Chinese goods. It only proposes increasing tariffs on those Chinese goods that receive an unfair advantage from an undervalued currency and then compete with American-made goods here in the U.S. It's a pretty limited and targeted message, and that's within our rights. That's within our rights. And if the yuan is properly valued, that will simply not be necessary. That's China's decision, China's choice.
I would much prefer a negotiated, multilateral solution, as I described, involving this new relationship, the new trade relationship, if you will, on a global basis which I think would send an extraordinary message to a beleaguered Europe, where Greece, as we all know, is basically fundamentally insolvent, needing some kind of a managed structured transition hopefully that avoids a greater crisis in Spain and contagion in their banking system which clearly needs recapitalization, clearly needs more than $440 billion that was put on the table, clearly needs some kind of a rescue fund with some very tight kinds of requirements, not dissimilar to what we did in the united states in 2008, 2009 out of sheer necessity. My hope is they will do that, but nothing would do more to send a message of confidence about the future of job growth than to have this new trade understanding and relationship where responsible partners are behaving responsibly and accepting responsibility for the global marketplace that we all operate in. Not just exploit it but support it. Protect it, nurture it.
Beyond the currency, there are many other sources of tension in our economic relationship, and they need to be resolved, Mr. President. China does not protect our intellectual property in its market adequately, and that's almost a euphemism. The violations of intellectual property rights, the outright theft on some streets and communities within China, billions of dollars of American design and -- designed and marketed and developed property is shocking, and in addition to that, China imposes artificial regulatory barriers to the entry of many of our goods. It fails to crack down on cyber-attacks, and it has executed a thinly veiled effort to appropriate key foreign technologies. On each of these issues and others, we have been going to the W.T.O., we have been bringing cases and we have been winning those cases, and as I have said, that is not a substitute for this larger fix in the relationship that is critical. I believe that overcoming market access challenges are actually where we ought to be focusing our efforts in China, and also in the other large fast-growing markets, and that, as I have said several times, is really the answer, the quick answer, if you will. We can develop goods, we can invest in companies here, but if we can't sell the goods to more than ourselves, we have got some serious limits on us, and I think it's important for us to be fighting for that market access.
I believe that to increase our exports, we're going to have to increase our competitiveness here at home and we're going to have to convince our partners to lower their tariffs, remove discriminatory regulatory restrictions on our exporters, protect intellectual property, use scientific standards as the basis for allowing our agricultural goods to enter and recognize that trade in services is becoming as important to the modern economy as trade in goods. And we need to make the case that doing all of these things is not to the advantage of one country or another. It’s to all of our shared advantage because of the nature of the global marketplace that we live in. Countries like China, India and Brazil are stakeholders whether they want to admit it or not publicly, they are stakeholders in the West's economic success. They need access to our consumers. They need access to our investors. They want to make deals over here. They want to have joint ventures. They want to own companies. And their businesses and citizens will benefit from strong, sustainable growth in the world's largest economies.
China is an important partner of the United States in a lot of ways. It's also a major investor in the United States. So I don't think that we're here to rupture that relationship. I think we're here to send a message to the Chinese about the urgent need to repair it. We want a mutually beneficial partnership, an equitable partner that will pay dividends for both countries and I believe if we listen to each other and work in good faith we can make that happen, and we can enter into a better framework of cooperation that inures to the benefit and the stability and the leadership demands of both of our countries. We both sit on the security council of the United Nations. We both have remarkable responsibilities through our economic power. We are still the largest economy on the face of this planet, maybe three times larger than China still, even as China is growing. China will surpass us, and with that reality of where China stands today economically comes a major responsibility. No country has exercised that responsibility through all of the last century and into this century, I think, with greater sense of purpose and responsibility than the United States. And I think hopefully China will embrace the notion that its new economic power brings with it that same shared responsibility, and I hope we can engage in the creation of that kind of mutually beneficial relationship. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time and yield the floor.
杰弗里·贝德：美国“重回亚太”政策
作者：杰弗里·贝德 (Jeffrey Bader) 田方萌 2012年12月11日 《南都讯》
一个月前，美国当地时间2012年11月7日，巴拉克·奥巴马如愿连任美国总统。再次当选后的第一次出访，奥巴马选择了东南亚，美国“重回亚太”战略再次受到中国舆论关注。时间追溯至1995年，还在竞选伊利诺伊州参议员的奥巴马在芝加哥遇见了一位“中国通”——— 在中国居住过、有着丰富外交经验的外交家、中国及台湾问题的研究者杰弗里·贝德 (Jeffrey Bader)。
2009年，奥巴马入主白宫后不久就将这位曾给他留下深刻印象的“中国通”收入麾下，任命其为美国安全委员会东亚事务高级主管。在美国安全委员会两年的时间里，贝德成为奥巴马政府东亚政策制定与实施的建议者与参与者。他了解美国“重回亚太”政策的制定与实施背景，他参与安排并跟随奥巴马在2009年对中国的访问，见证并亲历胡锦涛与习近平到访美国，他是近年中美关系的局内人。20 12年，贝德推出新书《奥巴马与中国崛起———一个局内人视角下的美国亚洲政策》，详述美国亚洲政策内幕。近日，贝德以布鲁金斯学会外交事务资深研究员身份在清华大学发表演讲，随后接受了南方都市报的专访。美国媒体曲解了国家政策与外交关系
在杰弗里·贝德11月29日这场并不长的演讲与问答中，他用了数十分钟来抱怨美国媒体对于美国外交报道的“肤浅”。在演讲的开头他便提及《纽约时报》对于奥巴马连任后访问缅甸的报道，在这篇报道中，这次访问被解读为美国在与中国争夺在亚洲的影响力。“实际上无论奥巴马去亚洲哪个国家，都会被报道为与中国竞争”，贝德称。而对于被持续关注的美国“重回亚太”政策，他表示自己并不喜欢“战略向亚太‘转移(Pivot)’”这一说法，他认为正确的说法应该是战略“再平衡(rebalance)”，他甚至指出，前者是媒体传播的误读。
一位听众提问：能否介绍美国“重回亚太”这一政策定义和出台背景，这一政策是否会重新定义中美关系的未来？
贝德：我想我得从2009年1月说起，那时我们在通盘考虑世界局势，考虑美国所拥有的资源和美国自身的利益，发现我们以往的政策低估了亚洲的重要性，高估了中东局势对于美国的影响。这只是当时的想法，我们并没有给这个新的决定起什么名字。在这种观察与思考之下，大概一个月后，国务卿希拉里·克林顿踏上她的亚洲之旅，这次访问包括了一些亚洲的重要国家，中国、日本、韩国等，这可能是我们第一次发出这样的信号，即我们今后首要的任务应该是应对亚洲区域。随后我们与东盟签订协议，合作进一步加深。这一系列步骤都是在强调我们将更关注东亚。
实际上，在奥巴马于2011年11月参加东亚峰会前，我从没有听到过“转移(Pivot)”这个词，这并不是由国务卿提出的，而是美国政府内部负责媒体沟通的那些官员最先开始使用的。这个词是这样传播开来的：奥巴马在这次访问期间，有个新闻团队跟着他，我们听到外界和公众把这次访问演绎为一次成功的访问，而这些评价包括词语的使用都是源于奥巴马新闻团队的信息，但我认为基于这些信息的新闻报道常常是非常肤浅的。
再举个例子，2009年我曾跟奥巴马到中国访问，就我个人来讲，那次访问很成功，完成了很多重要议题，比如军事交流、联合声明等。但在媒体的报道中，这次访问简直就是一场灾难，所有媒体都围着我们问，中国崛起了，美国没落了，中国持有了这么多的美国国债怎么办……最后所有这些问题的答案又被媒体报道成了同一个样子———美国衰落了，中国崛起了。
也许我的回答偏离了你的问题，但我想让你知道“转移(Pivot)”这个词是怎么来的。实际上我们所说的是亚太“再平衡(rebalance)”，指的是美国看到了亚洲是最有活力的地方，所以想把有限的资源从其他地方转移到这一地区，而中国正好也在这一地区。
南都：你在演讲中表示，公众意见与媒体正在曲解官方的原意，你认为公众媒体正在影响国家政策么？
贝德：是的，我对于美国媒体的态度一直都很苛刻。同时，我完全支持美国媒体在公众舆论监督中的中心作用。因此我对他们苛刻的方式并不是想把它们赶开，而是承认每个人表达反对意见的权利。我相信意见与声音多多益善，人们有判断正误的能力。我认为美国媒体对于中国的报道过去并不太好，但正在慢慢好转，变好的一部分原因是媒体的爆发式的发展，过去我们只有几种报纸和杂志作为报道事实的官方声音，但现在我们有多种多样的媒体，有了基于网络的媒体，还有一群人常常到中国去。因此关于中国的大量报道与从前比也越加客观与综合。也许你还是会看到一些简单化的报道，但从全局来看，你能获知一切，能看到真相。在现在的时代，已经不可能用一种简单观点说服民众，在网络时代，你有很多方式发表自己的看法，了解事实的真相。
军事只是战略“再平衡”很小一方面
与美国其他学者反复重申的一样，贝德强调东亚“再平衡”政策并不针对中国，中美需要通过增加战略透明、继续加强在经贸方面合作、推进人文交流等方式建立起中美之间的互信。同时，他强调“再平衡”的关键因素是政治与经济而非军事。
南都：为什么奥巴马连任后第一个出访的国家选择了缅甸？美国总统首次访问该国是否反映了接下来四年美国在亚洲的政策走向？
贝德：在2009年奥巴马的第一任任期时，他有一个清晰的概念，即美国要对那些已经“松开了拳头”的敌人伸出手去，也就是说，在小布什推行了八年的“要么是朋友要么是敌人”的外交政策后，奥巴马想要推行一套不同的理念，即“即使你对美国不友好，美国也不会以同样方式回敬。相反，美国将试图和你处理分歧，解决矛盾，美国将不做‘你是邪恶’的这一假设”。而缅甸即是那些可能对美国不友好的国家之一，近年来缅甸发生了一些以改革和开放为形式的重要变化，奥巴马想通过访问来示范美国将如何开始和那些曾经被称为“敌人”的国家发展关系，他想要向缅甸的领导人重构新的不同于以往的关系。对缅甸的访问是一次成功的访问，而缅甸也正在发生好的变化，比如开始选举，放开了对媒体的限制，周边环境较过去也宽松许多。
南都：提到美国的“重回亚太”和再平衡，人们更关注于军事战略和部署的平衡，但应该如何处理军事战略与扩大经贸合作可能存在的矛盾？
贝德：我认为在美国的“再平衡”战略中，经济和政治的因素其实是最为核心的，军事因素已吸引了我们太多的注意力。是的，美国的军力资源是有向东亚的调整，但这一政策确实是基于美国由于财政原因裁减军费开支的基础上的，我们没有增加在这一地区的预算，只是保证在这一地区的军费没有减少。必须承认，美国的军力确实在增长，但在我们关于东亚“再平衡”的通盘考量中，军事只是很小的一个方面。
中美关系完全不同于美苏关系
在中美关系定位的讨论中，G 2(两国集团)与C 2(两国协调)的讨论还未落定，2008年，中国国家主席胡锦涛访问美国时又提出了“新型大国关系”，此后，多位中国高层在各个场合也都曾提起过这一概念，但美国方面在公开场合却甚少对此作出回应。究竟正在快速发展的中国应与美国这一传统大国建立起的是一种什么样的关系？
南都：美国政府对于“新型大国关系”这个概念怎么看？
贝德：正如你说到的，这是由胡锦涛主席在公开场合提到的概念。美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿也几次在公开场合提及了同一想法，并强调了我们都应致力于建立这一新型国家间关系。我相信中美双方对于这一概念有着相同的理解，即这种关系意味着无论传统大国还是新崛起国家，我们都是大国。在国际关系历史上，传统大国和新崛起大国总是容易发生冲突，但是我们不允许这样的历史再次发生在中美之间，因为我们之间如此相互依赖，我们的利益如此相互联系和重叠，若关系处理不好，我们都无法承受其带来的高昂代价。在新世纪，我们不允许重复过去的模式，我想这是胡锦涛主席和美方对于这一概念的共识。中美两国应该共同搭建这一概念，并使其充实。
南都：你在演讲中提到中美之间与美苏之间的关系完全不同，如何理解？
贝德：无论从哪个方面来看，中美关系都不是也不会遵照美苏关系的范式发展。因为美苏关系是一种纯粹建立在军事、政治竞争之上的关系，而尼克松访华以来，中美就从未有过或致力于发展这种形式的关系，因此中美关系和美苏关系是完全不一样的。中国是美国北美外最大的贸易伙伴，美国对中国有巨大的投资，而中国对美的投资也在不断增长，中美人民之间的相互交流访问，科学技术之间的合作，特别是大学之间的合办项目，人员互通已经成为中美两国关系最坚实的基础，这一点也是同美苏关系完全不同的。
南都：你还提及中美之间要建立互信，最现实的目标是需要战略透明，我们该如何实现这一目标？
贝德：就两国的军事关系来说，我认为需要更多的互动与交流，两军联合演习是一个好的方法，因为两国之间的最核心的不信任是源于军事的不信任，两军之间更多的交流和透明化将有效消减不信任。此外，建立更为牢固的合作关系也是建立互信的重要方式，中美在世界范围内有很多重要挑战要面对，例如朝核问题、叙利亚危机、阿富汗局势等，这些问题都会影响包括中美在内的整个世界局势，因此中美需要证明我们能够一起处理这些问题，在此过程中，中美间将建立起信任，反之互信将无法建立。
美国民众对中国存刻板印象
随着中美两国换届的完成，两国关系的政策延续性成为外界普遍关心的问题。贝德在演讲中表示，在第二任任期内，奥巴马政府还会延续以往的对华战略，即正确对待中国的崛起，同时也会督促中国越来越多地在国际社会中承担大国责任。他同时相信，中国也会保持对于美国政策的延续性。正如贝德所称，在中美关系中，他是一个乐观主义者。同时，他对于中国面临的问题也有自己的看法。
听众提问：美国对于中国的政策近些年是否有变化？
贝德：在外界看来，中美关系在2010年似乎突然变得紧张了……一些人觉得美国修改了原有政策，实际上没有。政策常常会发生调整，这并不是因为我们产生了误解或者抱有不切实际的幻想，而是因为有紧急事件的发生。
中国方面也一样，政策也具有延续性。2010年，中国国务委员戴秉国发表过一篇文章，强调中国还是要坚持邓小平“韬光养晦”的外交政策，发表这样的文章并不是偶然的，实际上是因为包括他在内的整个中国领导层都看到了两国关系中存在的问题。在文章中他作出了非常正确的判断，他非常清楚中国的崛起会给世界带来什么影响，所以邓小平的决策目前来看仍是正确的。
实际上在中美两国政府内部，官员在对待中美关系时都是温和而稳定的，我们曾经应对过各种各样的危机，中美关系中很多的问题都是由来已久的，比如对台军售。
南都：今年2月，你在《外交政策》杂志刊文分析了习近平访美及其背后的中国现实情况，文中你多次提到了中国的“复杂性”，你能解释一下“复杂性”最突出体现在什么地方？
贝德：当我在美国民众前提及中国的“复杂性”时，我实际上是要打破美国民众对于中国的刻板印象。实际上，中国政府运作体系远比他们所想的复杂，它涉及来自中央与地方的众多持不同立场的利益相关者，它需要这些相关者为了最终结果进行商讨与妥协，中国依然需要面对一群富人、一个巨大的中产阶层以及一个仍然贫困的大众阶层。中国像是几个国家的结合体，既是经济发达的国家又是经济落后的国家。美国人对此尚不十分了解，这是我所说的“复杂性”，这是中国领导人需要面对的挑战。很多美国人只看到了中国的成功之处，他们看到美国商场里的中国制造产品，他们认为中国是一个富有而有实力的国家，实际上中国同时也是一个贫穷而有弱点的国家，所以我试图将这些复杂性解释给美国民众，这非常重要。
南都：这种复杂性将如何影响中美关系？
贝德：很多国家包括一部分美国人都看到了中国强大的力量，并会为中国将如何使用这种强大的力量而焦虑。但我曾交谈过的中国人包括中国领导人似乎更多地关注中国所面临的问题，而不是抓住一切机会向外扩展自己的影响力。是的，中国想要扩展国家影响力，但更吸引他们注意力的仍是中国国内所存在的问题。因此可以说美国受益于中国的“复杂性”，这意味着中国的主要挑战仍然来自国内，中国需要机会去处理自己的国内问题，我想我们不应制造外部压力而让中国感到恐惧，让它违背自己的初衷。
《南都讯》记者娜迪娅 吴瑶 发自北京
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)
