“兩面性”有損中美戰(zhàn)略互信
Duplicity of US in Relations with China Hurts Bilateral Ties

鐘聲
Zhong Sheng

日前，美國(guó)國(guó)防部發(fā)表2016年度《中國(guó)軍事與安全發(fā)展態(tài)勢(shì)報(bào)告》，再次毫無根據(jù)地渲染“中國(guó)軍事威脅”“中國(guó)軍力不透明”，對(duì)中國(guó)國(guó)防政策以及中國(guó)在東海、南海的合法行動(dòng)肆意歪曲。這樣一份充斥傲慢與偏見的報(bào)告，遭到中方堅(jiān)決反對(duì)，中方按照自身需求和規(guī)劃進(jìn)行國(guó)防建設(shè)的步伐更不可能因此受到絲毫影響。
The U.S. Department of Defense recently issued a report on China-related military and security developments for 2016. The report once again fans the theory of the “China Threat,” complete with accusations of insufficient transparency in military power. It also twists China’s defense policies in the South China Sea.China has voiced strong opposition to such a prejudiced report. Regardless of the report’s content, China’s national defense will not be affected by any of the accusations.

“通過閱讀史書可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，比起沒有自己的軍隊(duì)且未做好準(zhǔn)備的國(guó)家，擁有自己的軍隊(duì)且時(shí)刻準(zhǔn)備著的國(guó)家要成功得多?！泵儡姺礁邔尤耸坎痪们敖邮堋都~約時(shí)報(bào)》采訪時(shí)曾這樣為手下部隊(duì)時(shí)刻準(zhǔn)備“今夜就開戰(zhàn)”做辯護(hù)。美國(guó)擁有當(dāng)今世界最強(qiáng)大軍事實(shí)力，尚且這般“居安思?！?。中國(guó)為維護(hù)國(guó)家獨(dú)立、主權(quán)和領(lǐng)土完整開展正當(dāng)國(guó)防建設(shè)，有什么不對(duì)之處？五角大樓又憑什么隨意散布中國(guó)“軍事威脅”？
“In reading history, it is those countries with militaries who are prepared and ready that fare much better than countries that have no militaries and aren’t,” said a U.S. senior military official in a recent interview with the New York Times, claiming that his forces must be ready “to fight tonight.”As the strongest military power in the world, the U.S. has always been extremely cautious. For the same reason, China’s national defense, the purpose of which is to safeguard China’s independence, sovereignty and territories, is totally reasonable. The so-called China Threat is a lie.

中國(guó)始終不渝走和平發(fā)展道路，奉行防御性國(guó)防政策，是維護(hù)亞太乃至世界和平穩(wěn)定的積極力量。五角大樓以抹黑中國(guó)為底色的報(bào)告，映射出的是華盛頓發(fā)展對(duì)華關(guān)系時(shí)始終難以擺脫的兩面性。
Contributing to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and beyond, China has always followed the path of peaceful development and pragmatic national defense. The report issued by the Pentagon does nothing more than reflect the U.S. government’s two-facedness when dealing with China.

“美方愿同中方一道，以建設(shè)性方式妥善處理好兩國(guó)之間的問題”“美國(guó)無意破壞中國(guó)的穩(wěn)定，無意遏制中國(guó)，支持中國(guó)改革進(jìn)程”“美國(guó)歡迎中國(guó)和平崛起。一個(gè)穩(wěn)定、繁榮的中國(guó)，不僅符合中國(guó)人民利益，也符合美國(guó)和國(guó)際社會(huì)利益”……這都是近年來美國(guó)作出的鄭重承諾。華盛頓近來的種種言行，包括拿“人權(quán)牌”干涉中國(guó)內(nèi)政、在南海問題上頻頻挑起事端、無端攻擊中國(guó)國(guó)防建設(shè)等，顯然和上述承諾對(duì)不上號(hào)，攜帶著十足的負(fù)能量。
In recent years, the U.S. has made solemn commitments to manage differences and sensitive issues in a constructive manner. U.S. President Barack Obama once said that the U.S. welcomes China’s peaceful rise, and a strong and prosperous China can help bring stability and prosperity to the region and the world.However, Washington has since then done a great deal of interfering with China’s internal affairs under the banner of “human rights,” provoking conflicts in the South China Sea and defaming China’s national defense.

不管美國(guó)種種言行緣自對(duì)國(guó)際格局轉(zhuǎn)換的焦慮，還是出于國(guó)內(nèi)政治的盤算，其對(duì)中美戰(zhàn)略互信的損害是顯而易見的。中美共同構(gòu)建新型大國(guó)關(guān)系，至關(guān)重要的就是強(qiáng)化戰(zhàn)略互信。中美要成功避開“修昔底德陷阱”，需要富有政治智慧和歷史擔(dān)當(dāng)?shù)捻攲釉O(shè)計(jì)，更需要體現(xiàn)這種智慧和擔(dān)當(dāng)?shù)膶?shí)際行動(dòng)?！爸忻佬枰】档母?jìng)爭(zhēng)而非高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和高代價(jià)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，需要擴(kuò)大合作?！边@是華盛頓一位前高官今年早些時(shí)候講過的一句話，相信這種現(xiàn)實(shí)感在美國(guó)政壇還是有相當(dāng)代表性的。問題是，宏大的戰(zhàn)略性判斷，要有足夠的戰(zhàn)略定力來支撐。恣意妄為，看上去似乎是基于實(shí)力的超級(jí)自信，其實(shí)透出的底虛不僅當(dāng)事人心知肚明，旁觀者一樣看得清楚。
What the U.S. has done, no matter if it was out of anxiety or due to a miscalculation in its domestic politics, has damaged the mutual trust between China and the U.S.“China and the U.S. need to expand cooperation and healthy competition…[avoiding] high risk and cost,” said a senior official in Washington early this year. This statement represents the overall belief of most U.S. politicians, but such a vision requires strong willpower. It seems that the conceit of the U.S. comes from its confidence in its own power, but behind that veneer is obvious insecurity.