维护国家核心利益.doc

表面的谦逊都需要背后强大力量的支持参议院周刊外媒关注中国在维护南海等问题上的立场有没有新的变化？9月5日，新加坡海峡时报发表新加坡东南亚研究院客座研究员迈克尔理查森的文章北京在有争议地区采取更强硬的立场？，对此有所分析。该文主要内容如下：菲律宾总统阿基诺8月31日在中国进行国事访问的当天，新华社发表文章说，稳定的双边关系不仅应由稳固的贸易关系来支撑，还要靠双方致力于妥善解决南中国海海上纷争。新华社称，中国向来明确表示，它对南中国海的岛屿及周边海域拥有无可争议的主权，这是中国的核心利益之一。两天前，也就是8月29日，在野田佳彦等待被确认为日本新首相之际，新华社也说，中日交往的一个条件是，日本要尊重中国的核心利益。中国称自己才是目前由日本控制的钓鱼岛的合法所有国。值得注意的是，新华社直接或间接地将南中国海和东中国海都定义为中国的“核心利益”，这似乎将北京关于对该地区有争议岛屿、海域及海底拥有管辖权的说法提升到了一个新的级别。美国高官曾说，中国官员告诉他们南中国海是中国的“核心利益”，此后北京不再提这样的说法，因为这引起了亚洲的疑虑。“核心利益”意味着中国准备动用武力或威胁用武力来获得对具有重要战略意义的大片海上领土的控制权。当然，提出主权诉求和付诸行动是两回事。日本新政府被派系斗争割裂，而且忙于对付棘手的经济问题。但野田首相致力于加强日本与美国的结盟，以此来抗衡中国的崛起。菲律宾阿基诺政府也向美国这个盟友寻求支持，以抗衡中国。不过阿基诺总统刚刚从北京回国，他此行取得了成果，中国承诺向其提供经济上的支持，从而扩大贸易、投资并创造就业机会。他未来是否会向中国倾斜仍有待观察。一个严峻的考验将是马尼拉是否会继续推进其计划，邀请国内外的能源公司在有争议的南沙群岛开展海上油气勘探活动。中国努力让东南亚地区顺从自己，为此，它主要向菲律宾和越南施加压力，因为这两个国家正好挡住了它向东南亚海域南下的道路。中越关系在今年五六月份陷入几年来的谷底，此前，中国表示反对越南在沿海勘探油气资源的做法，按照中国对南中国海约80%的海域提出的主权诉求，这一地区就在其中。经过高级别对话后，中国在6月底表示它已经与越南达成共识，决定通过友好磋商解决南中国海纷争，避免采取可能会恶化局势的做法。如果北京能够劝说越南和菲律宾接受自己为解决彼此间海上纷争开出的条件，那么与位于南中国海更南端的两个声索国马来西亚和文莱以及印度尼西亚达成类似的协议就简单一些。新华社北京9月6日电 中国是个什么样的国家？中国追求什么样的战略目标？中国的和平发展道路能否走得通坚持得下去？对于这些国内外关心、讨论，乃至质疑的问题，国务院新闻办公室6日发表的中国的和平发展白皮书给出了令人信服的“中国答案”。多位专家从13万字的白皮书中，梳理阐释了中国和平发展道路的目标、路径和特征，对一些新提法和新理念做出了多角度解读。总体目标：对内求发展与和谐，对外求合作与和平白皮书“原声”中国和平发展的不懈追求是，对内求发展、求和谐，对外求合作、求和平。这已经上升为中国的国家意志，转化为国家发展规划和大政方针，落实在中国发展进程的广泛实践中。解读清华大学国际问题研究所所长阎学通：这个总体目标表明，和平发展不仅是外交政策，而是中国内政外交的结合，表明中国秉持的内外原则是一致的。和平发展上升为国家意志表明了几层含义：和平发展是中国政府总结多年历史经验，凝聚整个国家决心的重大战略；上升为国家意志表明我们认为这条道路能成功、能走得通；作为国家意志，这个政策不是一个短期的、暂时的策略，而是长期坚持的战略。明确界定“核心利益”白皮书“原声”中国坚决维护国家核心利益。中国的核心利益包括：国家主权，国家安全，领土完整，国家统一，中国宪法确立的国家政治制度和社会大局稳定，经济社会可持续发展的基本保障。解读北京大学国际关系学院副院长王逸舟：白皮书以权威形式发布，系统化、精细化地涉及和平发展的各方面，比如中国的核心利益。虽然中国领导人在不同场合做过论述，但这次在白皮书中细化地表达出来更好，更有利。中国不是软柿子，不能忍气吞声、一味退让，应有的权利要坚持。现代国际关系研究院副院长王在邦：白皮书对中国核心利益的界定非常清楚。在当今世界，很多国家和中国一样要走和平发展道路，中国不是孤家寡人，不是孤军奋战。和平发展的前提和基础是各国要相互尊重各国的核心利益，其他国家不能无视或忽视中国的核心利益。和平发展道路的“六大特征”白皮书“原声”这条道路最鲜明的特征是科学发展、自主发展、开放发展、和平发展、合作发展、共同发展。解读中国国际问题研究所所长曲星：这六个发展实际上是中国特色社会主义道路在发展领域的体现。科学发展是强调可持续发展，中国的发展既要考虑经济发展，也要考虑改善民生和环境保护；自主发展指出这种发展是自己的内生需求，不是迫于外界压力的发展，是考虑中国国情和世界形势的发展；开放发展表明关起门是发展不起来的，发展不仅要发展中国国内经济、提高人民生活水平，也要有利于世界共同发展；和平发展指出不以武力夺取资源和市场，在一个和平的国际环境中求发展；合作发展表明要跟外国合作，大家齐心把蛋糕做大；共同发展表明各国要走一条互利共赢的道路，共同参与全球治理。不谋求地区霸权和势力范围白皮书“原声”中国不谋求地区霸权和势力范围，不排挤任何国家，中国的繁荣发展和长治久安对周边邻国是机遇而不是威胁。解读王逸舟：这主要是针对亚太，包括我们周边国家讲的。从逻辑和理论上看，世界发展的经验教训证明，大国要在国际舞台上发挥作用，登上全球高峰，首先要在自己所在的区域建立相互信任，形成有向心力的对话氛围。从现实看，近年中国周边国家情况呈现复杂局面，一方面各方积极发展对华贸易，另一方面在安全上仍然有各式各样的疑惑和担忧，担心中国强大后可能在主权纠纷、海上争端上采取强硬态度。白皮书中这段话既是向外部昭示，中国未来发展是互利共赢，其次也是提醒国人在自身发展强大同时不要忘了周边国家需要我们采取谦虚态度，特别是面对一些棘手问题时。奉行防御性的国防政策绝非权宜之计白皮书“原声”中国将坚持奉行防御性的国防政策。中国不会也无意同任何国家搞军备竞赛，不会对任何国家构成军事威胁。中国坚持“人不犯我、我不犯人”，致力于和平解决国际争端和热点问题。解读国防大学战略研究所副所长孟祥青：这些年国际社会有关中国的议论越来越多，越来越广泛，尤其是国防现代化的发展。去年以来我们试验了一些新型装备和平台，包括改建一艘旧航母，都引起国际社会广泛议论，其中有一种说法就是“中国军事威胁论”。一国的国防政策是国家利益的能动反映；一国的战略意图，对走什么样的道路起到风向标的作用。中国奉行防御性的国防政策，绝不是权宜之计，它是由中国和平发展的根本任务，政策和历史文化传统所决定的。这一政策本质体现在：维护国家利益与反对军事扩张相统一，主张和平解决争端与不损害我们自己的利益相统一，推进国防现代化与促进地区安全合作相统一。没有国防现代化，我们不可能很好地履行国际责任和义务。从阿富汗战争到伊拉克战争，再到现在的利比亚战争，世界军事变革在不断加快，中国的国防现代化也必须跟上全球军事变革的步伐。推进国防现代化是中国的客观选择，也是和平发展战略的应有之意。和平发展道路走对了，没任何理由改变白皮书“原声”中国和平发展打破了“国强必霸”的大国崛起传统模式。几十年来的实践证明，中国走和平发展道路走对了，没有任何理由加以改变。解读王逸舟：这个结论已经得到了历史事实的检验，是历史揭示的真理和启示。我们现在承诺和平发展，反对“国强必霸”的逻辑，更着眼于未来中国面对的环境和世界各国面对的共同挑战。全球性问题和中国周边地区存在的各式各样纠纷，靠霸权的方式，靠以大欺小、以强凌弱、武力解决的方式，事实上只会造成更乱局面。会在消除某个问题同时，造成更多抱怨和危险。同时，这也是基于中国现实的考虑。中国发展一定会遇到很多困难，但解决困难一定要通过和平对话、外交斡旋的方式。很多全球性问题，不管是气候变化、贸易谈判、安理会改革，还是中国周边的主权争议，都不是“拳头大，说话粗”，动用蛮力可以搞定的。这种表态、承诺是智慧的，是中国未来处理与其他国家纠纷的指南。没有万能的、一成不变的发展模式白皮书“原声”无论什么主义、什么制度、什么模式、什么道路，都在经历时代和实践的检验。各国国情千差万别，世界上不存在最好的、万能的、一成不变的发展模式，只有最适合本国国情的发展道路。有十几亿人口的中国走和平发展道路，这是人类发展史上新的伟大探索和实践，不可能做得十全十美，我们欢迎一切友好建议和善意批评。解读曲星：中国认为自己的道路符合中国的国情，也给中国带来了巨大的变化和发展，但并不以此认为中国的道路比其他国家更好，从而把自己的发展道路强加于人。各种制度在现实操作当中应该相互借鉴，表明了中国一种谦虚的心态。Transcript:Interviewer: Were very pleased to have Professor David Shambaugh here. He is the professor of China Studies in George Washington University, and he is also internationally recognized as the authority on contemporary China affairs. So, welcome, Professor Shambaugh.Shambaugh: Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here.Interviewer: Maybe we can start with an important issue and question. That is about the US China relations in several years or even a decade later. So now we know the United States is in some kind of economical difficulties, but many of us would believe that the US will recover from current financial crisis. However, it could be a different context especially in terms of power. So in the different power structure, how will you evaluate the interaction between the United States and China in the future? Thank you.Shambaugh: Well its a very good question you asked. Youre correct that the United States is in some very severe financial difficulties at the present time. In terms of its high level of public and private debt, in terms of unemployment, now nine and a half percent. In terms of the tax system, the whole number of reasons, this is the most serious financial situation the United States has been in since the Great Depression. The United States economy has not really recovered fully from the recession and the global financial crisis two years ago. Its going to be awhile, its going to take some vision, its going to take some time, its going to take a lot of effort, but I am confident the United States will recover and is quite a resilient country. But its similar to maybe where China was in 1978, when it began its restructuring. The United States needs to do some fundamental restructuring of its social welfare system, of its infrastructure, and other aspects. This is going to take some time. But your question has to do with what will the power balance be between the US and China and other powers, Once the United States does recover. You Chinese have a phrase that will summarize very well what the power balance is going to be: “Yi chao duo chang”(one super with many greats). One, you know, “Chao ji da guo”(super nation), with many “Changs” (greats) many powerful middle powers. Now the United States I think when it remerges from the financial crisis, is still going to be by far the predominant power in the world. Economically, militarily, intellectually, scientifically, culturally, in many ways. But it will be relatively less than it was previously, but at the same time, China, India, Brazil, European Union, others, Australia perhaps, South Africa, these powers are rising, emerging middle powers. So its a world, its a more multi polar world. Okay, and its going to be a world in which many countries need to cooperate together. The era of American dominance is ended. Its finished, its over. The United States has to cooperate very effectively with many countries to address common problems. We live in an era of common problems. So no nations including China, can simply look after itself. We all need to contribute to global governance and addressing common problems together.Interviewer: Very interesting, so the other related issue is the economic development, but the economic ties between China and the United States is so significant, not only to themselves but also to the whole world. So my second question is in the past thirty years, the US China economic relations has functioned very importantly sometimes as a stabilizer. But sometimes when the trade is rising, some people will say that economic ties will be destablizer. So now the financial crisis happens, its clear that the model of the United States and Chinas economic relationship cannot sustain anymore. Maybe in the future, China will import more and the United States will export more. So the model change of the economic relationship between the two countries, how will that influence the bilateral relations in general? And influence the world as a whole?Shambaugh: Well Im not sure if I completely agree with the premise of the question. Both countries are in the mist of rebalancing their economies, and theyre actually coordinating rebalancing. Secretary Treasury Geithner and Executive Vice Premire Wang Qishan have had numerous discussions. And there are numerous discussions between the NDRC and their American counterparts. So as both of our countries are economically restructuring and rebalancing internally, domestically were having a, were doing that in a coordinated fashion. So that it does not destabilize the global economic order. But the basic fact has been several years and its only going to intensify that these are two countries are very interdependent economically. This is not a zero sum game, its a very interdependent game. There are structural imbalances in some dimensions of the economic relationship. The trade dimension, is structurally very imbalanced. That is unsustainable on a politically level in the United States, perhaps on economic level. We have to do something about that. China as you say needs to import more, the United States needs to export more and we need to bring down this unsustainable trade surplus on Chinas behalf. But basically Im of the view that interdependence is a good thing. Because it stablizes and buffers the relations from external shocks. So Im not sure if the United States and China are going to have cause difficulties for the international economic order. Quite to the contrary we grow together we benefit the whole world. So thats how I look at it.Interviewer: Personally I think that would be very good if that happens. So, in recent times, China published this white paper called “Chinas peaceful development”. So in this document, for the first time, China clearly defined its core national interests. That means the national sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity and national reunification. And also our systems protection and also how to maintain our sustainable economical development. So with this document published, how will the United States look at it? And whats your view and evaluation about the definition of the core national interest?Shambaugh: Well I personally think its a very important document. I read it very carefully two or three times. Its one of the most systematic articulations of official Chinese government policies on world affairs that has been made for several years. So I think it merits very careful attention. But I have to tell you that it has not been receiving very careful attention in the United States. Most American officials and scholars and experts hardly noticed that it was published. Yeah, white papers, I have to be honest with you, some countries publish them, most countries dont. United States never publish its white papers. China publishes about 6 or 8, 10 white papers a year. So, theyre not, theyre all important. White papers are official government policy so they merit attention. But Im just saying to you that theyre not getting the attention perhaps that they merit. Your question about the core national interest, its useful, that the Chinese government has now defined carefully what these 5 areas are. Its the first time, as you say, that the. 6, thats been done. But Im not sure that those core national interests are any different than any other countrys core national interests. With the exception of territorial unification, your country is split, most countries are not. So that dimension, the Taiwan dimension, is different. But there are disputes about Chinas national territorial definitions, in the South China Sea, 6 other countries dispute them. India and China still have not resolved common boarder problem. So for China to assert what they are, to me, that should be the beginning of a conversation with other countries. China should not just assert them and say: fine, thats the end of the story. You should be respectful. Other countries should be respectful, including the United States. But I dont find these core national interests, I mean when was the last time you heard any other country in the world, there are 180 countries in the world, what other countries feel that they need to articulate what their core national interests are? I find it a little bit unnecessary. I mean its good, but I dont think its terribly necessary.Interviewer: Interesting views. In fact I know that the United States, different departments have their so called “strategy reports”. Okay, every 4 years or 2 years. So maybe there are some differences between them, like between the strategy reports with Chinas White paper? What do you think?Shambaugh: Well itll make a good scholarly study. United States, youre right, we do publish the national security strategy of the United States, the national military strategy of the United States and the quadrennial defense review. These are the three, and the national security nuclear posture review. So yes, the U.S government publishes these, but those are more documents for the U.S government than for the rest of the world. But it would make a good scholarly comparison. Interviewer: Very interesting, so the other regional arrangements and regional maybe affairs. So we know in last year, in Eastern Asia there are many events and disputes which made the regional countries feel a little bit nervous and worried. And we also know that some kind of regional institution restructuring, such as the East Asia Summit, and the United States is pushing forward the TTP initiative. Some people will say that China and the United States have some different preference of regional arrangements, especially in pacific area and maybe in other regions in the globe as well. So whats your opinion about the difference and how would you suggest for them to reach a kind of consensus?Shambaugh: I think there are some differences in a way that the United States and China look at multilateral institutions, but I wouldnt exaggerate the differences. I think we have more in common than we differ about. When it comes to East Asia, I see the multilateral architecture as a having over lapping levels. There are many different organizations that have evolved over the last 20 years, and they all kind of reinforce each other. Some of them are older, such as the American 5 alliances that the United States has with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia, those go back way far in time. Others theyre more recent, as you said, like the East Asian Summit, TPP. So none of these are mutually exclusive, theyre reinforcing of each other. And second point has to do with exclusivity and inclusivity. The United States very much believe in inclusivity, that all East Asia nations and actors, which includes the United States, should be a member of these regional institutions. China seems to have a more exclusive view. And in some cases such as the East Asian Summit, its very well known, China was not in favor of the Americans being involved, until other countries: India, Japan, Australia and South East Asian countries brought some pressure to bear on the Chinese government and then the Chinese government changed their position. So I think theres a little bit of, theres some difference about membership, and theres some difference about what we call norms. China has put forward an alternative view to institution building. That is embodied in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its a very interesting organization that is doing some very good work, but its a certain type of organization and its dissimilar from others. So, again I dont see these in a zero sum fashion, all these organizations are mutually reinforcing. And the United States and China are two central members, but by no means the only ones. This is the region where there is some very significant powers: South Korea, Japan, ASEAN collectively, Australia. So the more dialogue and more organizations the better, I believe in “dui hua” (dialogue). But there also has to be effectiveness, and I think all of these organizations right now in East Asia, are facing a kind of crisis of effectiveness and legitimacy frankly. You can have “dui hua” for a long time but if it doesnt address problems effectively, then the legitimacy of the organization has to be questioned. So I think in many of these cases, we need to pay some attention to implementation of policies and decisions.Interviewer: I also heard recently that you are writing a book, called: China Goes Global”. Its a very interesting topic, because we all know that China now has very broad interests domestically and also over seas, in every parts almost, in the globe. So China is a new comer, relatively, compared to western countries. And maybe its not so experienced to deal with new challenges. And also it has very legitimate demands of some interests. Whats your suggestions for China to deal with new challenges, and how China should play much more active and very useful role in the future.Shambaugh: I wouldnt want to interfere with your internal affairs by offering advise, China has to find its own way in the world, and learn from experience. And part of learning from experience is learning from mistakes. China is going to make mistakes as it goes global. China has already made mistakes as it gone global. In the economical area for example, many mergers and acquisitions that Chinese companies have under taken, have not worked out very well, lost a lot of money. So China needs to reflect on why these mergers and acquisitions have not gone so well to do better next time. One thing though I would say from the American experience and perhaps European experience, if youre going to be a global power, you have to expect criticism. It comes with being a global power. Not everybody is going to love you, if you were a major power. Criticism and friction is part of being a global power. So China I think has to expect that its going to be criticized in various parts of the world, for some of its activities. For example, its investments in oil and lining. You know, if you look at th