Jiang Shigong, "The rise of great powers and the revival of civilization——The Taiwan issue under the "protracted war of civilization'" [强世功 《大国崛起与文明复兴——“文明持久战”下的台湾问题》]

  

 The liberal democratic states have tended to view the recent events in Taiwan as another episode of something like the series, Game of Thrones. The liberal democracies, like the noble houses playing the great game in fantasy historical political dramas, think in terms of chess. That is a natural--a semiotic incarnation--of the fundamental approaches to the rationalization of order, the expectations of social organization, and the elaboration of the highest objectives of political organs--the object is to capture the king, and thus the kingdom. These political organs are hierarchical, but consist of semi autonomous actors, each a prisoner of the characteristics that define themselves and their roles in both the social order and in the objectives of collective organization.  The bishop, the castle, the horse. . . . the pawn. The chessboard itself serves as the boundaries of the reality within which the internal games among collectives takes place.  Beyond the board there is nothing--or at least nothing worth signification. Power relations in chess are contained within the board (like they are contained within the institutions of state) but are understood as the aggregation of aligned demi-powers with their own attributes. That is, power relations are endogenous and the players are understood to be the forces of nature.

Taiwan is a piece on the liberal democratic chessboard, but the Chinese vanguard  sees Taiwan as a space, a territory,  on a vastly different board, the rules of which, it players and objectives, are in some ways strikingly different (even in subtle ways) from the chess board in which the liberal democracies place Taiwan. The game, its rules, structures, and boundaries are as confining as those of chess.  But this is not chess. It is Go.  Like chess it is played on a square board.  But the pieces (stones) are undifferentiated.  They are all pawns--the leader sits outside the board directing the pawns, rather than in the game itself. The King in Go--the vanguard or leading force, sits outside the board (the field of play).  In chess, the leading forces act collaboratively and oppositionally within the board. And the object is different--the object is territory. One wins when one surrounds more territory than an opponent. Power relations in Go lie outside the game. There is a sharp division between the mass forces on the board and the leading forces of the guiding vanguard. Like chess, Go players are constrained  by the inherent nature of the pieces--but that nature is both different and directed toward different ends. In Go power relations are exogenous and the players are the vanguard and holders of the mandate of heaven (where heaven is understood to be the incarnation of the rules themselves) who move the masses over territories they seek to control.

This difference, perhaps, speaks to much of the inability of either Chinese or American elites to understand each other, much less to find a space of common ground beyond the ambiguity of effects (interpreted--signified-- in substantially different ways). That has been the story of the so-called "One China" policy.  And it helps explain the risk of engagement as either side seeks to shift the effects on which the ability of ambiguity rests.  Both sides have been doing a bit of shifting effects lately.  Both sides see an end game in sight--the Chinese to acquire territory (the victory in Go); and the Americans to move to constrain the king and dominate the board (the victory in chess). Both sides have advanced arguments to support their actions and justify their objectives.  Neither side is listening very intently to the other. While the Chinese seek territorial union (and from it the consequences of territorial control), the Americans seek extra sovereign autonomy--not control of the territory but the autonomy of  the Taiwanese under the umbrella of a rules based international order (as they call it).   

Applying the semiotics of the games that define a civilization (more on that term below), one can see how civilization defines  the premises through which perception (and thus the construction) of challenge and interactions are China looks at Taiwan and sees territory with people on it; the United States looks at Taiwan and sees people who create a society on a territory.  These differences, and their relationship to civilization, and to civilization's relationship to Taiwan are the central object of an important essay that was circulated recently in China.  In  "The rise of great powers and the revival of civilization——The Taiwan issue under the "protracted war of civilization", Peking University's Jiang Shigong correctly argues that the issue of Taiwan is not merely a political issue, but more importantly it marks  an important point in a longer term ideological event. 

For Jiang, then, Taiwan is the current battlefield of modernity, and of China's engagement and then liberation from it.  Through this lens, it become quite clear that to liberate Taiwan is effectively to liberate Chinese civilization with its engagement with Anglo-European modernity, and the equally ancient civilization that they represent. Jiang argues, and again correctly, that Taiwan  is not yet another example of the playing out of pathetic versions of realpolitik by inferior practitioners with the breadth of knowledge of a glowworm at noon. Instead it represents an important point in the consequences of the peculiar form of Chinese confrontation with European modernity in the late Qing (prior engagements appear to have been more propitious). For Jiang, 这不是单纯军事战争，而是近代以来面对西方文明侵入，中国人在政治、经济和文化各领域展开的生死存亡之战 ["This is not a purely military war, but a life-and-death battle for the Chinese people in the political, economic and cultural fields in the face of the invasion of Western civilization since modern times." Editor's Introduction]. 

The essay on Taiwan, then, starts at its center--the fundamentally unfinished business of Chinese confrontation with the delights and perils of received modernity. It then incarnates that unfinished business within the geographies of the territorial humiliations of the decaying Qing, and of the need to regain what was lost.  Ideology and civilization, in other words as territory. It then situates that territory (in this case Taiwan)  among the variations in conceptions of the international order and within Chinese politics.  All of this is undertaken by way of introduction to the larger themes playing out within the small vessel which is Taiwan--the protracted war of civilizations as Jiang calls it.  That takes the analysis outward ("National Strategy in the Stage of Strategic Stalemate") and inward ("The Challenge of Taiwan issue to Mainland Academics") and back again to modernity ("Reconstruction of History and Modernity") and the politics of civilization. This time the Chinese leadership will apply in a more innovative fashion the lessons of Hong Kong 2019 ("Academics and Politics"). 

Is Jiang playing on a "Go" board, on a "chess" board, or is the seeking to play on an altogether different board? Perhaps, it is more accurate to say that what Jiang sounds the alarm about is the dangers of turning Go "stones" to individualized chess pieces. That may be the thinking that drives the current intensity of response to the current Taiwan situation brought into the open with the visit of Mrs. Pelosi to Taiwan but long simmering. While liberal democratic elites and their press organ popularizers continue to thnk in terms of chess, and through the methodological lens of interest oriented politics, their Chinese opponents may be thinking along quite different, and for them, quite fndametally decisive lines.  That does not change objectives, bit it may suggest a means of improving communication and adjusting strategy to align objectives and tactics against a better understood target. That, at any rate, might be useful to consider on the liberal democratic side.  On the Chinese side, exposition is not proof--and the elaboration of a counter ideology grounded in civilizationally distinct modalities of rationalization does not in itself eviscerate that against which it is deployed. To know oneself is the step step.  But it is no the last, and territories can be surrounded in a number of different and some more elegant ways.

The essay is reproduced below in its original Chinese and in a crude English translation. Readers from liberal democratic states will especially profit from considering the essay, not necessarily for the truth of what it argues, bit for the premises around which it is possible to construct these arguments in ways that not only remain true to the ordering principles of the world view in which it is embedded, but for how that world view substantially affects the way that its holders see themselves, see others, and thus see in Manichean  terms the meeting of those two quite distinct visions on the territory and with the people of Taiwan. My own consideration of the essay follows in the next post.

 

台海变天? 北大教授: 还有一场决定性的暗战要拿下 | 文化纵横

强世功 文化纵横 2022-08-06 20:15 Posted on 北京

 

 

✪ 强世功 | 北京大学法学院

【导读】近期，美国众议长佩洛西执意窜访台湾，加剧台海紧张局势。作为反制行动之一，中国人民解放军在台岛周围水域实施海空域管控、开展实战化联合演训，常规导弹首次穿越台岛，引发各界关注。

本文从长时段历史视野切入，在文明复兴的语境中分析台湾问题的过去、现在与未来。作者认为，思考台湾问题要从思考中国面临的现代性困境入手。台湾问题不仅是一个政治事件，也是一个思想事件，关系着中华文明能否在未来复兴的前途问题。台湾问题本质上是两种文明力量在亚洲的“持久战”，这不是单纯军事战争，而是近代以来面对西方文明侵入，中国人在政治、经济和文化各领域展开的生死存亡之战。因此，解决台湾问题，必须认真对待战争，真正准备战争，才能换来持久和平；而解决台湾问题的最大障碍，恰恰是我们缺乏一套文明力量来施加文化影响力，以争取人心统一。对此，中国的有识之士们应打破僵局，超越教条、地域甚或群体私利，共担现代中国艰苦卓绝的命运，不仅为中国人提供关于文明未来的图景，也把政治力量转化为文明力量；不仅从根本上解决台湾问题，也为人类生活提供伦理榜样。

本文原载《开放时代》，原题为《大国崛起与文明复兴——“文明持久战”下的台湾问题》，仅代表作者观点，特此编发，供读者参考。

大国崛起与文明复兴——“文明持久战”下的台湾问题

在复杂的政治局面中，台湾问题成为目前中国内政外交的关键所在。一方面，中国能否和平崛起与如何解决台湾问题密切相关，台湾问题需要放在国际政治格局的重组中来审视；另一方面，台湾问题与中国循序渐进地实现政治转型密切相关，台湾问题如何解决不仅是基于时势的手段选择，而且关乎中国未来政制的建构，关乎中国文明的复兴。

台湾问题不仅是一个政治事件，也是一个思想事件，不仅涉及到统一与分裂的内政问题和中国崛起与世界格局的国际问题，也涉及到中华文明能否在未来复兴的人类前途问题。这其实是中国进入现代以来一直面临的问题，因此思考台湾问题首先要从思考中国面临的现代性困境入手。

▍中国面临的现代性困境

中国进入现代以来所经历的国家转型无疑给公民自由开辟了广阔空间，每个人的自由创造使古老的文明焕发出新的生命力。今天，我们不仅创造了人类经济发展史上的奇迹，形成了独特的“北京模式”，而且在推动宪制、法治和民主的道路上，正从事着人类前所未有的事业：面对现代性的命运，我们是以“尾随者”的姿态走在历史终结的道路上，还是以政治民族的胸怀为人类开辟出新的历史道路？这与其说是历史对中华文明的挑战和考验，不如说历史赐予我们这个民族的机会。

然而，与每个人生机勃勃的自由创造力形成对照的是，我们面临着前所未有的困难和错综复杂的问题，因为我们要在短短的一百多年时间里，走完西方历史上经历了一千多年现代化历程。公平问题、道德问题、腐败问题、教育问题、人口问题和环境问题等等，这些成堆的问题将个人自由转化为尖锐的社会冲突：贫富冲突、官民冲突、地区差异、城乡差别等等，这些矛盾固然需要建立一个和谐的法治社会，通过一套公平合理的制度来加以规范和调节，但不可否认的是，在这些表面矛盾的背后隐含着一个深层的人类生存的基本矛盾：众多人口与有限资源之间矛盾。所有这些问题，我们都不能作为一个简单的政策或者制度来思考，而必须放在现代性的背景下来思考。

　　 

事实上，现代自由主义为我们提供了思考这些问题的基本视角：即通过资源的市场配置实现效用最大化。这意味着在全球化时代，过剩的劳动力可以通过人口自由流动来缓解，而资源匮乏也自然可以通过全球市场来解决。但这种理想的自由主义思路却被一种外在的力量扼杀了，在目前西方主导的全球经济体制中，资本和物质资源可以全球自由流动，而劳动力资源却不能自由流动。这意味着我们众多的劳动人口必须被困在这块资源困乏的土地上，我们的经济政策只能争取引进外资，而不能输出劳动力。

无论西方经济学家编出什么样的理由，都不能掩盖一个普通人的常识，中国人追求幸福的权利受到了恶劣的生存环境的限制，当中国人怀着追求自由的理想，试图离开穷乡僻壤的恶劣生存环境闯世界，等待他们的可能是“偷渡客”的命运。有人可能抱怨中国人口太多，但人口多并不是罪过，每个人都有生存并过上幸福生活的权利，中国人口众多并不能成为他们在这种不合理的国际经济秩序面前丧失权利的理由。

　　 

尽管某些西方经济学理论认为，劳动力的自由流动可以通过资源的流动来替代，可是，当我们要购买俄罗斯的石油时，会遇到日本的阻挠；要购买中亚的石油时，美国的势力开始控制那里的国家；当你想从非洲进口石油时，漫长的运输线上随时出现的航母让你的自由交易成为泡影。自由交易必须由法律来保证，可谁的法律能保证这样的自由交易呢？哈耶克认为“自由就是强制的不存在”，那么，究竟是什么样的强制力量对人口和资源在全球范围内自由流动构成强制？我们看到的典型例证就是如果一个国家不服从西方世界的政治安排，它就要面临西方世界的经济制裁，用国家暴力的强制消灭了自由贸易。

正是在这个地方，自由主义触摸到一股冷冰冰的现代力量，这就是构成国际秩序的主权力量。自由主义者不喜欢主权，因为他们知道，每个人选择自由生存和自由创造的权利受到了大使馆签证处、移民局、海关及其背后的法庭、监狱、军队等等这些国家主权力量的强制。如果不能在全球范围内彻底消灭国家和主权，不能形成每个人在全球范围内自由流动的“开放社会”或“天下大同”，那么，自由主义所主张的个人自由只能降格为“公民自由”，即以政治共同体或者国家作为前提条件的公民自由。因此，真正的自由主义者从来不是采取鸵鸟政策仇视主权，而是认真地面对主权并引导主权。自由主义的鼻祖霍布斯把自由的个体编制在“利维坦”这样的强大主权中，而用主权来对抗主权，构成现代国际法的基本原则。

　　 

今天，中国人追求自由的权利不仅受到各种内部制约，而且受到外部强制，外部强制往往会加剧内部矛盾。可以想象，如果中国经济发展所需要的能源和市场受到其他主权国家不合理的限制，中国人的自由追求将会面临怎样的局面。事实上，1949年之后的经济政策之所以走向计划经济乃至集体化道路，与西方世界对中国的全面封锁密不可分。自由的人民必须以强大的国家主权为前提，以遏制其他主权的霸权，建立一个公平合理的国际秩序，保证经济的增长，从而为解决内部矛盾提供一个良好的外部环境。

　　 

国家主权不是外来强加的力量，而恰恰是个人自由的产物，它来自每个人身上追求自由的欲望和意志，它是人民主权的法律表现。国家主权不过是每个人实现自由的工具，国家主权的伸张也正是公民自由的伸张，公民自由和国家主权构成现代性的两翼。在全球化的时代中，国家主权之所以如此重要，是因为每个人都迫切地需要透过国家主权来实现其自由。

中国现代性的真正困境在于释放出公民自由的同时，国家却无力满足其自由。今天，我们的产品已经远销世界各地，我们的生产原料依赖全球范围内的资源。我们与全球的关系越紧密，也越需要国家主权来保护全球范围内自由交易的供给链条。在全球化时代，国家安全概念已经超出了传统的范围，台湾问题正是在这个意义上与自由中国的命运紧密联系在一起。

▍中国的地理环境与国家安全

国家安全首先是国家保护其公民的生命、财产和追求幸福等基本人权不受到其他国家的剥夺，因此，国家强大是保证公民自由的必要条件。国家强大有很多偶然的因素，其中地理环境是一个重要的因素。孟德斯鸠把国家的政体与地理环境联系起来，托克维尔探索美国民主的时候，首先看到的是其独一无二的地理环境。

　　 

中华文明的孕育和成熟与其独特的地理环境密切相关。东部、南部广阔的大海和西部高山峻岭为东亚大陆上的文明发育提供了安全屏障，唯一的不足是北部开阔的高原。国家分裂或朝代灭亡也大都来自北方势力的入侵，长城由此成为构筑帝国安全的最后屏障，成为国家安全的象征。不过也正是来自北方不断侵入才刺激着文明的成长。这种相对安全的地理环境形成了“分久必合，合久比分”的历史循环论，也促进了民族和文化之间的融合，使得中华文明对任何其他民族和文化怀着一个开放的心态。古典中国政治追求的从来都是“以天下为己任”的普遍主义，只有“天下”和“文明”的观点，而没有狭隘的国家或民族观点，以至于白鲁恂（Lucian W.Pye）说，“中国是佯装成国家的文明”。

　　 

十九世纪以来，西方世界的入侵意味着中国古老的安全观受到了全面的挑战。因为现代技术的发展使得地理屏障在国家安全中的重要性降低了。曾经作为安全屏障的东南沿海变成了最不安全的敞开大门，中国边疆面临着全面的危机。“分久必合，合久必分”也成了老黄历，中国人面临的不仅是国家统治的危机，而且是文明被摧毁、种族被消灭的危机。西方世界以“民族国家”的姿态战胜了“文明国家”，从此，中国经历了从“文明国家”向“民族国家”的痛苦转型。

　　 

正是面对西方列强的入侵，中国人才为了抵抗外族入侵而掀起了内部革命。中国人对外争取国权也就自然变成了对内争取人权。人权与国权、个人自由和国家主权从一开始就交织在一起。中国人建构“民族国家”历史也是其建构国际政治秩序的历史。“国家要独立，人民要解放”，孙中山和毛泽东等建构共和国的历史，也是中华民族反对外来压迫、追求公民自由的历史。

“五四”一代人把“启蒙”与“救亡”交织在一起，因为国家独立是个人自由的保证，个人自由是国家独立的动力。公民自由与民族国家的建构就此紧密联系在一起，共和国就奠基在公民自由和人民主权之上。在这一历史进程中，台湾与大陆的命运紧密地联系在一起，即使在1949年之后，两岸关系也一直处于国际法上的“内战状态”，究竟通过和平还是战争来解决，取决于两岸政治局势的发展。

　　 

民族国家的建构从一开始就是中国回应国际秩序的政治努力，因此人民共和国的建立和发展，包括台湾问题，也必须放在国际政治秩序中才能理解。新中国成立后，国家安全始终面临北方的苏联和东部的美日同盟的威胁。在苏美争霸的局面下，我们建国初期与苏联结盟，也包含了对北方安全的考虑，而中国的这种选择必然被美国看作是敌人，朝鲜战争开始，美国基于“封锁中国”的战略考虑，把台湾纳入到其在中国东部构筑的“包围链”之中。在这样的国际安全环境中，中国自由经济的外部环境受到限制，为了保证现代化建设所必需的资本和原材料供应，计划经济模式逐步成为一种历史的必然。

　　 

中苏结盟并不意味着中国要成为苏联的附庸国，当苏联试图把中国纳入其势力范围时，我们的第一代领导人断然拒绝了这个要求，甚至不惜与苏联兵戎相见。中国的国家安全从此处于腹背受敌的境地。“当掉裤子也要搞原子弹”，陈毅的这句话道出了一代中国人追求自由的心声。为了这种不受外国支配的自由，一代中国人为了子孙后代付出了惨重的代价，大跃进、人民公社和“文化革命”都与美苏全面封锁下优先发展重工业、军事工业和三线建设这些国家战略密切相关，看不到这样的恶劣外部环境就无法理解国内利益冲突的根源。这样的安全战略无疑要付出了巨大的代价，但也为我们营造了几十年的和平建设环境。

　　 

为了对付苏联的全球霸权，1972年美国与中国建交，美国承认台湾是中国的一部分。中国东部沿海的封锁开始解除，中国的经济建设就从东南沿海开始，吸收外来资本和出口贸易成为中国经济发展的战略，海峡两岸进入了良性互动阶段，经济贸易持续增长。然而，苏联解体使得中国北部边疆获得相对安全之际，随之而来的美国全球霸权不仅将其势力扩展到中亚，威胁中国的西北边疆，而且重新将台湾作为其遏制中国崛起的支点，强化其与日本的军事同盟关系。尽管美国目前的全球战略依然处于变动之中，但是，台湾无疑成为美国针对中国的战略重心所在。

▍国际秩序和中国政治中的台湾　 

台湾作为中国领土的一部分在传统的国家安全战略中并不占有重要的地位，因此也没有成为明清帝国苦心经营的重点。随着现代资本主义在中国的兴起，海外的广阔世界成为经济发展必不可少的组成部分，中国的国家安全概念从本土延伸到全球，随之台湾在中国领土中的战略地位也变得越来越重要，它既是保护中国的能源和产品在全球范围内自由贸易的重要屏障，也是美国遏制中国崛起的重要支点。

　　 

活跃在美国政界的汉学家谭若思（Ross Terrill）指出，一旦台湾不再以独立实体存在，东亚的权力平衡亦会跟着改变，日本会减低对美国安全保证的信赖，菲律宾、越南也将会重新考虑对中国的看法。当然，他给美国政府提供的政策建议就是肢解中国，支持台湾独立。而亨廷顿在《文明的冲突》中甚至假想了一场台海战争引发亚洲战争最终摧毁中国。

　　 

美国的战略学家们已经给我们描绘了一幅清晰无比的地图。国际政治斗争表面上是不同国家之间争夺政治领导权，实际上是争夺话语领导权，最终争夺文明支配权。在文明冲突中，每一个文明都需要一个核心国家才能维持这种文明的力量。在儒教文明传统中，中国是无可争议的核心国家，但在儒教文明的现代转型中，日本通过“脱亚入欧”变成了世界强国，在东亚和东南亚发挥着相当的影响力。若与中日结盟，美国的势力必将退出对东亚和东南亚的支配，但基于双方的历史矛盾和现实利益冲突，除非中国对日本取得决定性优势，日本必然“恃洋自重”，与美国结盟以对抗中国。

而中日在东亚的竞争中，台湾无疑是一个关键性要素。若中国实现了统一，在地缘政治上占据了整个东亚的战略高地，且依然保持经济增长和政治稳定，并与东盟、朝鲜和韩国形成稳定的战略伙伴关系，日本明智的选择只能是“脱欧入亚”，将整个东亚和东南亚都恢复到儒教文明传统之中。若美国的势力退出东亚，则其对南亚和波斯湾的霸权也随之减弱，儒教文明也因此获得了足够的空间来全面复兴，世界可能形成北美集团、欧洲集团、俄罗斯中亚集团、东亚集团和南亚集团的共治局面。反之，如果美国或日本控制着台湾，中国崛起就如同笼中雄狮，难有作为，儒教文明的复兴也不过是一句空话。

因此，中国要复兴传统文明，就必须取得在东亚的政治领导权，要取得东亚的政治领导权，就必须实现与台湾的统一；反过来，中国要实现台湾统一，就要取得东亚的政治领导权，要取得东亚的政治领导权，就必须重建传统文明在东亚的影响力。台湾问题涉及到两种文明力量在亚洲的较量，其结果影响着人类文明的未来。

　　 

从国际法上看，台湾无疑是中国领土的一部分，实现与台湾的统一还必须从中国的内政来思考。台湾问题缘起于1945年国共两党的争夺政治统治权的内战，这种内战状态一直持续到今天，它实际上是中国从“文明国家”向“民族国家”转型中两种现代性路向的不同抉择。

二十世纪八十年代以来，随着大陆对社会主义的不断扬弃，两岸的在现代性路向上的分歧逐渐缩小。台湾的经济转型和政治民主化曾经被人们作为成功的典范昭示着中国的未来，因为如何实现稳定的现代政治转型一直是中华民族在“民族国家”转型中面临的难题，台湾的成就被看作是中华民族和传统文明的骄傲。遗憾的是，台湾当局把政治民主化的动力转化为本省人与外省人之间的统独之争，变成促使国家分裂的力量，以至于和平统一渐行渐远，战争的危险越来越近，历史机遇与中国人擦肩而过。

命运会赐福于伟大的政治家，而不会光顾政治小丑。民主化在台湾政治小丑的拙劣表演中暴露出其最为脆弱的一面，也暴露出现代性最阴暗的一面：即民主化成为挑起地区矛盾、民族矛盾、阶级矛盾和文化矛盾的诱因，也成为国家和民族分裂的正当化理由，台湾分裂势力正在运用文化手段改造台湾人的思想，从人心上把台湾分裂出去，以实现彻底的政治分裂。国家主权和文化统一性处于危机之中。

　　 

在这危急之秋，中国大陆必须以最大的坚韧和意志挑起国家统一的重任，把它看作是“天降大任”的命运考验，并以文明复兴的政治抱负和高超的政治智慧来实现国家统一。既要从国际政治的角度来思考台湾问题，也要从国内政治的角度对待台湾问题。在防止分裂的同时，必须采取新思维，探讨统一的途径。

▍战争与和平：文明持久战　 

在历史上，一个大国的兴起往往要通过一两次标志性的战争胜利获得自我认同和世界承认，也有大国在兴起的过程中因为战争而最终走向彻底崩溃。大国的和平崛起，除了政治领导人的高超政治智慧，还需要历史的机遇。在成功与失败、德性与命运的背后，往往体现出文明兴衰的必然。

因此，在大国崛起的过程中，必须认真对待战争，必须紧紧地把握和驾驭战争，必须对战争有深思熟虑的考虑，既要避免因为战争而迈向崩溃，又要把握利用战争迅速崛起的时机，更要在有能力争取不战而胜，和平崛起。在这种深思熟虑的政治决断过程中，不仅要对国际利益格局有一个清醒的考虑，而且要对国家实力的对比有一个清醒地认识，不仅要对战争的目的、性质、影响和后果有一个清醒地考虑，而且要充分利用各种经济、政治和文化手段来达到战争要实现的目标。

无论如何，我们必须认识到，战争仅仅是政治的一种手段，而且是迫不得已才使用的危险手段，如果战争是必要的，那必须是必然的，必须是服务于既定战略目标的必然要求。如果一个国家没有一套崛起的整体战略，没有对实现战略目标的坚韧耐性，任何对战争的轻率考虑都是危险的。

　　 

在今天的局势中，我们必须把战争作为实现台湾统一的必要组成部分来思考，把战争作为政治的必要手段和可能途径来思考。这样的考虑恰恰是整个国家大战略的必要组成部分，这个大战略就是中华民族的崛起。没有台湾的统一，这个大战略无法实现，而为了实现这个大战略，当前的战略就是紧紧抓住本世纪二十年的战略机遇期，在这种战略机遇期内，坚持以经济建设为中心，尽最大可能避免战争。

因此，无论是国家的大战略，还是实现国家大战略的战略步骤，都必须把战争考虑在内。这既包括充分准备战争，也包括尽最大可能避免战争。只有认真对待战争，真正准备战争，才有可能避免战争，缔造和平，或者通过一次代价有限的战争，缔造持久和平。这种战争与和平的辩证法，植根于无法改变的人性，因为只有以野心才能遏制野心，才能保持政治的平衡。

　　 

目前的台海局势之所以如此危险，就在于整个东亚的政治实力处于不平衡的对抗之中，美日同盟在东亚试图以压倒性优势遏制中国的崛起，台湾不过是其实现霸权野心的筹码。这种遏制若发展为战争，那不仅是一场令人痛心的内战，而是一场让人忧心的区域性国际冲突，若得不到有效的控制，很有可能演变成世界性冲突。若在这场冲突中我们遭到失利，其结果不仅是国家分裂、政制崩溃，民族和文明的复兴也可能遥遥无期。这场战争太关键，太重要了，我们必须清醒地认识到我们的敌人是谁，战争的后果是什么。台独危险越严重，实现台湾统一的任务也就越迫切，战争的可能性和危险性也就越大；战争的后果越严重，就越要认真对待真正战争，尽力防止台独，避免战争。

避免一次失败的战争，和发动一次胜利战争一样，都需要非凡的政治远见。当年的清政府轻率地发动一场注定失败的甲午海战，直接导致了帝国的崩溃，而1951年新中国在朝鲜战争中的胜利奠定了它在国际政治中的发言权。同样是着眼于朝鲜半岛，同样是与强国的战争，在失败与胜利的背后，不仅有国际局势的不同，国家综合实力的不同，还有政治家的政治智慧和国民政治意志的不同。政治家若不考虑此三者，则不可以妄言战争。

在战争问题上，我们既要反对幼稚的和平主义和胆怯的投降主义，反对单纯的经济主义，以为战争会破坏经济发展，而看不到国家安全才是经济发展的基石，但也要反对不顾实力的冒险主义和不考虑时机的盲动主义，防止把战争变成目的，变成不计后果的豪赌。这两种倾向都是一个民族在政治上不成熟的幼稚表现，前者缺乏政治意志，后者缺乏政治理性。而真正成熟的政治家必须在坚强的政治意志和生命顽强的政治本能与冷峻的政治克制和深思熟虑的政治计算之间保持平衡，必须为崇高的政治原则而理性地选择合适可行的工具，必须意识到战争不过是可能的工具之一，它必须服从国家的大战略。

　　 

今天的台海局势似乎还没有发展到当年的危急关头，但已处在“战难和亦不易”的局面中，而且这将会成为我们长期面临的困境，而我们的思路依然是“以空间换时间”，依然坚持的是“持久战”。当然，这里所说的“持久战”不是单纯军事战争，而是近代以来面对西方文明的侵入，中国人展开政治的、经济和文化的持久战争，这是一场“文明的持久战”。

邓小平确立的以经济建设为中心，韬光养晦，决不当头，绝不参与军备竞赛，实际上依然是“以空间换时间”的战略思路，即让出政治和军事的空间，埋头搞经济建设，换取战略机遇期的宝贵时间。台湾问题必须放在这个“持久战”的思路中来思考，若能维持“台湾不独，大陆不武”且两岸实现经济文化互动，就为我们赢得增强国家实力的宝贵时间。我们目前虽然处于弱势，但已经挺过了十九世纪的殖民战争和二十世纪的冷战的危险期，度过了清末以来的战略防御阶段，稳住了脚跟，进入了战略相持阶段。这就意味着我们要开始“有所作为”，无论在国际，还是在国内，无论在政治军事上，还是在经济文化上，都要采取积极稳健的攻势，甚至在局部领域以攻为守，积极扩大根据地，积小胜为大胜，为国家统一创造条件。

　　 

在这场全面的“文明持久战”中，军事战争无疑是其组成部分，也是最危险的部分，尤其要考虑“以不可战而战，以亡其国”的危险，因为民众总容易被空洞的大道理所鼓动，而政治家必须考虑战争的后果，必须时刻牢记：实现统一不是我们的唯一目标，文明复兴才是我们真正的目的。在战略机遇期内，若台独势力在美日的支持下悍然宣布独立，把中国逼到死角里，战争还是和平？这依然需要对时势、实力和战争的后果进行冷静全面的评估，不能被冲动的民意牵着鼻子走，更也不能抱一丝的侥幸和幻想，把战争当作不负责任的赌博。若此战不可避免，须有不怕“打碎坛坛罐罐”的坚强意志，只有这种“鱼死网破”的决心和意志，才有可能遏制战争或赢得胜利。如果这是一场“以战而亡其国”的战争，则必须避免这样的战争，寻求其他的统一思路。因此，无论战争还是和平，都要由有承担的政治家们做出审慎决断，都要服从国家崛起和文明复兴这个大战略。

　　 

▍战略相持阶段的国家战略

从“文明持久战”的角度来思考，国家崛起不过意味着我们开始进入相持阶断，只有文明的复兴才是战略反攻阶段。而本世纪前二十年的战略机遇期，就是中国开始迈入战略相持阶段的关键时期，它决定着中国未来的前途和命运，也是改变世界的前途和命运。

乐观主义者曾认为，中国保持经济的持续增长和政治稳定，到本世纪二十年代，中国在经济实力远超日本，亦接近美国，军事实力也会大大增强。为了避免灾难性的冲突，美国会退出对东亚的影响，承认并鼓励中国在亚洲取得政治领导权，并与中国在国际上建立持久的合作关系，由此为国家统一和文明复兴奠定政治基础。

而悲观主义者认为，为了遏制中国的崛起，美日同盟联合欧盟发起全面肢解中国的战略，策动台湾独立，中美关系将全面恶化，中国经济会出现衰退，国内社会矛盾被激化，在内忧外患的局面中，全面战争的结局可能毁灭台湾，重创日本，肢解中国，拖垮美国，而欧洲、俄国和印度得到全面的复兴。如果我们把两种未来图景加以对照，那么，中国的发展战略就有了一个清晰的目标和蓝图，即努力争取乐观主义者提供的光明前景，而避免悲观主义者描述的悲惨命运，必须励精图治，制定一整套完整的战略相持阶段的国家战略，争取一个“前途光明的中国”。

　　 

第一，必须实行战略上的克制。一方面是政治上的战略克制，包括避免与美国、甚至日本发生直接的冲突，避免直接挑战美国的霸权地位，支持美国在其他国际问题上的主导权来换取美国在东亚问题上对中国大国地位的认可和支持；另一方面是经济战略上的克制，走新型工业化发展的道路，发展高科技产业，逐步缩小高耗能、低附加值的工业，这不仅有利于中国经济的长远发展，而且可以避免因能源紧张、和产品销售与西方世界发生经济利益上的激烈冲突。

但我们必须清楚地认识到，战略克制决不是战略退让，而是一种积极的、态度克制的、现实主义的、有条件的进攻方式，是一种积小胜为大胜的小步递进战略，通过积极建立根据地来巩固增强势力的战略。在当年的国共内战中，共产党采取让出江南、进军东北的策略，在东北又采取让出大路、占领两厢的策略，都是这种战略克制的典型实例。今天，我们必须把这种战略战术运用到国际政治中。

　　 

第二，必须积极参与国际秩序的建立，有意识地在拉美、非洲、中亚和中东建立自己的根据地，巩固在东亚的地位，并建立有利于国家安全的合作性制度性机制。一方面要充分利用联合国和在“第三世界”中的传统优势，在第三世界中建立自己的战略根据地，在全球事务中发挥大国作用，以形成对美国的必要制约；另一方面要采取睦邻友好政策，有选择性地与某些周边国家发展战略同盟关系，通过各种制度性机制构筑防止冲突的缓冲地带，比如充分利用“六国机制”，正面促进朝鲜半岛的和平和统一；利用“9+3”机制协调维护东盟的稳定和繁荣；通过“上海组织”增进与中亚国家的政治合作；利用与巴基斯坦的传统友谊促进印巴和解，以低调的姿态成为亚洲事实上的核心国家，使美国被迫尊重中国在亚洲的政治领导权。

　　 

第三，必须充分利用自己的经济优势，要善于把经济优势转化成政治优势，而且最终必须要转化成文化的和意识形态的优势，发挥“软权力”的作用。中国目前在亚洲和世界上的最大优势是经济优势，而最大的劣势是意识形态劣势，这不仅是因为冷战结束后共产主义意识形态失去了吸引力，而且因为西方世界掌握了现代话语的支配权。

为了改变这种劣势，我们除了不断吸收西方文化，更新马克思主义意识形态，关键是要把激活和复兴传统的文化意识形态作为文明复兴的使命，由此要有意识地回归传统的文化价值，发挥中国传统文化在亚洲的影响力和对西方文明的吸引力。一方面要借助中国传统文化促进亚洲国家的价值认同、文化认同和身份认同，强化亚洲国家处理亚洲事务的政治认同，鼓励和支持日本“脱欧入亚”，重新把日本融入到亚洲世界之中；另一方面要在积极吸收西方文化的同时，通过政治民主化对西方文明释放出文化上的和意识形态上的善意，消除部分西方人对中国文明发展路向的疑虑，以世界秩序的建设者和合作者的姿态而崛起。

　　 

第四，整个对外战略的根基还在于对内战略，对内战略必须与对外战略协调一致，相互促进，而不能相互恶化，从根本上说，只有国家内部健康稳定发展，才能对外实现国家安全。在经济上，必须最新型工业化道路，按照国家经济和军事战略进行知识产权创新，同时必须平衡城乡的地区发展差异，缩小收入差距造成的阶级矛盾；在政治上，必须积极主动地回应现代民主化的挑战，探索执政党在民主体制下的执政规律，提高执政能力，建立现代的行政管理体制，完善法治和宪制建设，探索新型民主化道路；在文化上，必须确立中国文化的主体性地位，恢复中国人的文化自尊心和自信心，以此凝聚人心，把马克思主义思想、西方自由思想作为中国文明的有机组成，在现代性的基础上复兴和重建中国文明。

　　 

第五，必须充分认识两岸隔绝造成的文化和人心上的隔阂以及由此造成的复杂性，因此在台湾问题上必须运用新思维，走渐进统一的道路。《反分裂国家法》为台湾的统一划定了底线，但是如何实现统一，依然有很大的想象空间，需要发挥政治的想象力。

在此基础上，一方面中国必须真正把台湾作为地方的内政问题，积极影响台湾政治，在台湾选举中发挥影响力，另一方面在统一问题上要按照渐进统一的思路，进行大胆想象和制度创新。在这方面，“一国两制”解决港澳回归就是一个制度创新的范例。

　　 

如果我们能对外采取战略克制、合作性制度建设和文化统合的国际战略，对内采取协调发展和渐进统一国内战略，中国和平崛起的未来就在眼前，文明的复兴也会随之而来。因此，必须意识到，“我们正在从事着人类历史上前所未有的伟大事业”，对此我们应当有充分的自信和冷静的应对，但也必须清楚我们面临的困难，未雨惆缪，着眼长远，不能有丝毫的松懈。

　　 

▍台湾问题对大陆知识界的挑战

对每个中国人来说，台湾问题一直是心口上隐隐的痛。台湾目前的分治状态和分裂趋势，不仅构成对国家安全和利益的损害，而更重要是对中国人的尊严和意义的伤害。台湾对于中国人的伤痛在于文明屈辱的记忆，因为人之为人而不同于动物，就是在于人不是一个虚无的存在，而是一个有文明赋予意义的存在。历史从来不是一个物理学上的时间概念，而是文化意义的载体，是培育主体意识的土壤，是所有价值、伦理和正当性的来源。历史决不是对过去的记载，而是对现在的见证，历史就是文明，是关于永恒存在的哲学。捍卫历史，就是捍卫人的存在，这是一场关系到成为主人还是沦为奴隶的生死之战，这是一场来自本能的为生存而战，哲学的目的就是为这场战争进行最高的辩护。台湾问题的痛就在于对中国人的存在、对中国人生存的哲学根据、对中国文明构成了全面的挑战。

　　 

众所周知，1949年之后的台湾思想界，主要处在胡适到殷海光的自由主义话语的潜在支配之中，这种话语由于二十世纪八十年代的台湾民主化运动而成为主流，自由与专制成为其思想轴心，与八十年代大陆知识界的主流话语遥相呼应，只不过大陆思想界在自由与专制的话语背后，有一个更大的源于“五四”的启蒙话语背景：传统与现代、中国与西方。进入九十年代，台湾知识界掀起了一场哲学革命，市民社会与本土化成为思想界的支配话语，这也迅速影响了大陆的知识界，引发市民社会理论与“地方性知识”的中国例外论。九十年代末期以来，台湾的哲学革命向更极端的方向发展，本土化引发了本省人与外省人的族性问题，族性问题终于和“想象共同体”联系在一起，成为台独运动的哲学辩护。作为中国人生存依据的历史与文明被撕裂，作为中国统一的哲学根基遇到了前所未有的挑战。

　　 

上世纪八十年代以来海峡两岸息息相关的思想互动，终于因残酷的政治现实第一次在哲学上决裂了，因为中国不是符号想象的虚假建构，也不是法律技术建构的国家机器，而是通过历史和文明建构起来的政治共同体。中华民族也不是生物意义上的种族，中国人也不是法律意义上的公民身份，而是包含了历史和伦理意义的哲学主体。一句话，由历史文明塑造的中国和中华民族对于每个中国人来说具有生存论意义上的根本性，具有文明上的意义和价值，它包含了哲学上的真理性和道德上的绝对性。台独势力通过撕裂历史、虚构历史来为台湾独立辩护，实际上是在摧毁历史，摧毁文明，最终摧毁每一个中国人生存的哲学根据。因为根本的问题在于：我们作为中国人存在的哲学根据是什么？这是国际法不能解答的，也不是统一与分裂的政治后果能解答的，更不是战争能解答的。

　　 

面对台独势力的哲学挑战，大陆知识界乃至整个华人思想界突然陷入了“失语症”，丧失了哲学上回应的能力，这并不是大陆知识界第一次在涉及人类历史的重大事件中丧失发言权，这种“失语症”凸现了这20多年来大陆知识分子群体的基本状况。

　　 

首先，我们必须承认，有相当一部分知识分子在骨子里对台湾独立抱着无所谓的态度，因为在他们的思想里，中国人或者中国本身没有什么意义的，他们认同的是“世界公民”，说到底就是认同西方世界的公民，或者美国公民。在这些人看来，只要人们过得自由，做什么人都可以，只不过这些人并没有认真地思考什么是自由。这些人在八十年代反对收回香港，九十年代要做“一夜美国人”，后来又提出美国在朝鲜战争中没有打过鸭绿江推翻新中国是一个历史性错误。

　　 

其次，知识的学科化使得知识分子都关心专业领域的问题，台湾问题因此被专业化，变成台湾问题专家思考的问题，而看不到台湾问题的牵涉到中国面临的自由、主权和文明等现代性问题。而在专业领域中，政治学的发展无疑是最薄弱的，它在大学院系了差不多被行政管理科学所取代，缺乏对政治哲学关注和思考。至于我们的哲学家们差不多都变成了学院派的哲学教授，无力思考台湾问题给中国人的生存提出的哲学挑战。

　　 

最后，在上述背景下，那些真正关心台湾问题并热切捍卫国家统一的知识分子，却面临着哲学辩护上的理论困难，因为自由派已经垄断了自由、人权和文化认同等等现代性的正当话语，任何理论上的反思都会被扣上不名誉的政治帽子。如果主张武力解决台湾问题，就会被指责为马基雅维里主义；如果强调民族的统一性，会被指责为民族主义，如果强调传统文化的意义，则被指责为保守主义。因此，如果不能克服学科的界限，无法在理论上反思整个现代性话语，中国文明的主体性地位就难以确立，中国人的生存意义就难以获得正当性，台湾统一问题就难以给予哲学上的最高辩护。

▍历史与现代性重建　　

从上述大陆知识界的基本格局，就可以看出，中国人对自己生存意义丧失了辩护的能力。究其原因在于大陆知识界对于现代性问题的片面理解，对自由问题的单向度的理解，把人的自由理解为没有历史和文化的存在，理解为无根的存在，由此国家、历史和文化统统看作是约束自由的传统权威而摧毁，人由此成为赤裸裸的欲望主体。然而，一个无根据的欲望主体怎么可能建立起国家并服从政治权威的统治呢？这个欲望的主体随时可以摧毁这个国家，因为国家和政治权威本身并没有权威，个体的自主性才是最高的权威。这种单向度的自由主义思路导致虚无主义和后现代主义。

因此，对于自由主义，真正的问题在于自由的人如何才能成为伦理的主体？自由人如何建立起政治制度的权威性和稳定性？这正是自由主义大师卢梭思考的主题，一个人从欲望的主体成为伦理的主体，必须通过教育培养为“公民”，然后才能通过社会契约建立政府，并依赖“公民宗教”来维持一个政治共同体的存在。而这样的“公民宗教”必然是民族的，因此，真正的自由主义必须以民族主义作为前提，只有民族主义培育出来的公民归属感和认同感，才能奠定共和国的基石，自由公民的真正根基在于历史文化之中。托克维尔正是在卢梭的立场上，探讨现代民主的意义。

　　 

由此来看，“五四”以来，中国的自由主义者一直处于悖论状态之中，一方面不遗余力地主张自由主义，另一方面又不遗余力地否定支撑自由主义的历史文化传统。以至于否定了中国人的生存伦理，把中国人变成了纯粹的无根的欲望主体，自由被等于单纯欲望的满足，而没有任何伦理上的生存意义，这就是今天中国的自由主义话语被经济自由主义话语垄断的原因所在。因此，中国面临的现代性困难不仅在于如何解决人口和资源的矛盾，满足每个自由人的欲望，而且在于符合恢复传统文化，给中国人的生存赋予哲学意义，使中国人的生存具有伦理上的尊严感和自豪感。

　　 

今天，中国人的财富每天都在增加而幸福却每刻不断在减少，因为国家缺乏文明的方向，个人缺乏伦理生活的根基。传统文化赋予的伦理基础和生存意义被“五四”以来的反传统摧毁了，共产主义赋予的伦理基础和生存意义再次被后冷战的意识形态所摧毁，而今天除了永无止境的贪婪，我们的生存还能凭信什么。这种生存根基的摧毁每次都是通过对历史以及历史中所确立起来的伦理德性的解构完成的。

　　 

因此，要回应台湾问题提出的哲学挑战，就必须重建历史在现代性中的重要地位，把历史与人生的意义联系起来，把历史与德性的培养和伦理生活联系起来，更全面完整地理解自由主义和现代性问题，捍卫中国历史和文明对于中国人的自由生活的重要意义，为中国人的伦理生活提供哲学根据。因此，未来中国的思想界，历史问题必然会重新成为哲学思考的主要问题，因为中国人的生存信念和伦理生活不是任何宗教给定的，而是老祖宗给定的。当我们的知识界按照西方现代学科的标准来理解历史的时候，根本没有考虑过历史对于人生的利弊问题。

　　 

把历史作为哲学来思考，作为中国人安身立命的依据来思考，既不是书院中的学理反思，也不是知识分子一厢情愿的努力，而必须扎根于深厚的现实基础。当我们的知识分子丧失生存本能的时候，这种生存本能在民众中间以粗野的方式表达出来，“礼失求诸野”，我们的知识分子必须在人民大众中找回自己的生存意志。“五四”以来不断的文明驯化，使得我们的知识分子迷恋于“最后的贵族”，变得太文明了，已经丧失了纯朴的自然天性，丧失了健康的生命力量。今天，只有返回到人民大众中间，返回到自己的历史文化传统之间，返回到政治共同体之中，知识分子才能重新获得自己的硕壮的生命力，为中国人的伦理生活提供哲学依据。

　　 

▍学术与政治

台湾问题作为民众、政治家与学人必须严肃面对的问题，不仅是一个政治问题，也是一个哲学问题。台湾的统一不仅有利于中国的和平崛起，也有利于中华文明的复兴，因为国家统一将奠定文明复兴的政治基础，会使中国政治从被迫防御中解放出来，变得自信、开放和从容，中国的政治发展也因此获得更广阔的空间，为文明的复兴提供了政治动力，为中国文化奠定主体地位，使得中国在完成“民族国家”建设的同时，逐步恢复到“文明国家”的传统中。

　　 

最根本的挑战在于：随着国家统一和崛起，我们准备如何建构国际政治秩序？我们准备怎样的伦理德性为人类承担责任？我们除了给世界提供产品和市场之外，还能提供怎样的思想文化、怎样的生活方式、怎样的未来图景？中国的崛起不仅是为了让中国人尽最大可能发挥自由创造力，而且要承担其对其他国家与人民的责任，要对人类的生活方式提供榜样，说到底，伦理生活的重建才是文明复兴的依归。文明复兴的使命就是要给全人类的伦理生活提供有意义的普遍性答案，这无疑是历史赋予中华民族的使命。台湾问题既要放在文明冲突的政治图景中来理解，也要放在文明复兴和伦理生活重建的哲学图景中来理解，如果我们没有这种追求美好生活的伦理冲动，政治统一也难以保证长治久安。

　　 

文明复兴目前似乎成为中国人的口头禅，且很容易走向极端保守主义。其实，文明复兴必须回答现代性提出的挑战，必须回应西方文明对传统文明的挑战。如当年梁启超所言，今日之中国已为世界之中国，中华文明的复兴必须要在文化思想上整合多元成分，创造一种崭新的现代中国文明，这意味这一文明既是现代的，也是中国的。这意味着中国学人必须以开阔的心胸看待自己以往的文明成就以及世界文明成就，更必须摈弃各式各样的桎梏和教条，包括种种“洋教条”和“古教条”，特别要防止一种对“洋教条”和“古教条”屈膝膜拜的奴隶心态，中国学人因此首先必须树立当代中国文明创造的自我意识，面向未来以高度的想象力和创造力复兴我们的文明。

　　 

而就现实情形来说，两岸的中国学人首先应当克服意识形态分歧造成的敌视状态，必须摆脱“自由主义”与“共产主义”、“民主”与“专制”之类的意识形态教条和“左派”与“右派”、“自由”与“保守”之类的政治意识形态标签所造成的狭隘心态，破除画地为牢的意识形态思维惯性。中国学人长期的政治化已经妨碍了真正严肃长远地思考问题，限制了思考中国政治和中国文明未来的眼界，窒息了思考人类历史和未来命运的创造力。为此，中国学人必须要从冷战思维中解放出来，要从“历史终结”意识中解放出来，要从奴隶意识中解放出来，正心诚意地从正面来树立中国文明的文化主体意识，思考如何面对现代性冲击而重建伦理生活。唯有这种伦理生活的重建，中国文明才有复兴的希望，中国学人才能为人类文明作出真正的贡献。

　　 

回过头来看，目前解决台湾问题的最大障碍是我们缺乏一套文明的力量来施加文化影响力，以争取人心的统一。因为中华文明处在西方文明的压力之下，我们的文化只能吸收西方文化，还难以形成自身的文化创造力。这种文化停滞的局面与生机勃勃的经济增长形成错位。

面对这种局面，中国学人容易把责任归结为政治力量限制思想自由，而政治家则容易把“公共知识分子”看作西方文化的贩卖者或政治秩序的破坏者，并无真正的文化创造。这种政治与思想之间的互不信任局面成为目前政治转型和文明复兴的真正障碍。我们必须有意识地努力打破这种僵局，在政治与学术之间、在政治家与学人之间建立良性的互动，这既需要彼此在韦伯所谓“信念伦理”与“责任伦理”寻找平衡，也需要彼此在面向文明复兴的未来上相互支援，更需要他们共同建立对自身历史和文化传统的自信心。重任当头，所有的中国学人必须以深刻的文明关怀和艰苦的学术努力，超越各种现成的教条，超越地域、党派的私利，为中国人提供关于文明未来的图景；而中国的政治家也必须以承担历史使命的责任感，把政治力量转化为一种文明的力量。

　　 

在文明复兴的意义上看，台湾问题能否顺利解决，既是中国文明复兴面临的严峻考验，也是中国文明复兴之成败的核心关键所在。今日之中国既需要承担文明复兴使命的伟大政治家，把维护国家统一作为文明复兴的基石，把繁荣文化思想作为复兴文明的首要任务；今日之中国也需要承担文明复兴的伟大学人，把当代中国史和世界历史作为中华文明的一部分来思考，把现实的政治力量作为迈向文明未来的支柱来对待。中国政治家和中国学人必须以一身钢筋铁骨，共同担当现代中国艰苦卓绝的命运，以坚强的意志和恢弘的气魄进行不懈的创造。我们深信，台湾问题解决之时，也将是古老中国重新成为屹立于世界的强大国家和伟大文明之日，也是中国人重新尝试为人类生活提供伦理榜样的开始。

The Taiwan Strait is changing? Peking University professor: There is still a decisive dark battle to win | Cultural aspect

Qiang Shigong Cultural aspect 2022-08-06 20:15 Posted on Beijing

 

The new issue of "Cultural Landscape" will be released in August 2022

Click the image above or the bottom left corner of the end of the article to read the original text and subscribe

Service Hotline: 13167577398 (Wechat same / 8am 8pm on weekdays)

Submission email: wenhuazongheng@gmail.com

"Cultural aspect" postal code: 80-942

 

✪ Jiang Shigong | Peking University Law School

 

[Introduction] Recently, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted on visiting Taiwan, intensifying tensions across the Taiwan Strait. As one of the countermeasures, the Chinese People's Liberation Army implemented sea and airspace control in the waters around the Taiwan Island, and carried out joint exercises in actual combat. Conventional missiles crossed the Taiwan Island for the first time, attracting attention from all walks of life.

 

From a long-term historical perspective, this paper analyzes the past, present, and future of the Taiwan issue in the context of civilization revival. The author believes that thinking about the Taiwan issue should start with thinking about the dilemma of modernity faced by China. The Taiwan issue is not only a political event, but also an ideological event, which concerns the future of whether the Chinese civilization can be revived in the future. The Taiwan question is essentially a "protracted war" between two civilizational forces in Asia. This is not a purely military war, but a life-and-death battle waged by the Chinese in the political, economic and cultural fields in the face of the invasion of Western civilization since modern times. Therefore, to solve the Taiwan issue, we must take war seriously and truly prepare for war in exchange for lasting peace. The biggest obstacle to solving the Taiwan issue is precisely that we lack a set of civilized forces to exert cultural influence and win the unification of people's hearts. In this regard, Chinese people of insight should break the deadlock, transcend dogma, region or even group self-interest, and share the arduous fate of modern China, not only to provide the Chinese with a picture of the future of civilization, but also to transform political power into civilized power; It not only solves the Taiwan issue fundamentally, but also provides an ethical example for human life.

 

This article was originally published in "Open Times", and the original title was "Rise of Great Powers and Revival of Civilization: The Taiwan Issue under the "Protracted War of Civilization", which only represents the author's point of view and is hereby compiled for readers' reference.

 

The rise of great powers and the revival of civilization——The Taiwan issue under the "protracted war of civilization"

 

In a complex political situation, the Taiwan issue has become the key to China's domestic and foreign affairs. On the one hand, whether China can rise peacefully is closely related to how to solve the Taiwan issue, which needs to be examined in the context of the reorganization of the international political landscape; on the other hand, the Taiwan issue is closely related to China’s gradual political transformation, and how to solve the Taiwan issue It is not only about the choice of means based on the current situation, but also about the construction of China's future political system and the revival of Chinese civilization.

 

The Taiwan issue is not only a political event, but also an ideological event. It involves not only the internal affairs of reunification and division and the international issue of China's rise and the world structure, but also the future of mankind, whether the Chinese civilization can be revived in the future. This is actually a problem that China has been facing since it entered modern times. Therefore, when thinking about the Taiwan issue, we must first start by thinking about the dilemma of modernity that China is facing.

 

▍The dilemma of modernity facing China

 

The national transformation that China has undergone since entering modern times has undoubtedly opened up a broad space for civil liberties, and the free creation of everyone has brought new vitality to the ancient civilization. Today, we have not only created a miracle in the history of human economic development and formed a unique "Beijing Model", but also engaged in an unprecedented undertaking for mankind on the road of promoting constitutionalism, rule of law and democracy: facing the consequences of  modernity, are we walking on the road of the end of history as a "follower", or are we opening up a new historical road for mankind with the consciousness of a political nation? This is not so much a challenge and test of history to Chinese civilization, as it is an opportunity that history has given us as a nation.

 

However, in contrast to the vibrant free creativity of everyone, we are faced with unprecedented difficulties and intricate problems, because we have to walk through the thousand years of Western history in just over a hundred years. Years of modernization. Equity issues, moral issues, corruption issues, education issues, population issues and environmental issues, etc. These piles of issues transform individual freedom into sharp social conflicts: conflicts between rich and poor, conflicts between officials and people, regional differences, urban-rural differences, etc., These contradictions certainly require the establishment of a harmonious society under the rule of law, which should be regulated and regulated through a set of fair and reasonable systems, but it is undeniable that behind these apparent contradictions lies a deep basic contradiction of human existence: the large population of conflict with limited resources. All these issues cannot be considered as a simple policy or system, but must be considered in the context of modernity.

 

In fact, modern liberalism provides us with a fundamental perspective for thinking about these issues: maximizing utility through the market allocation of resources. This means that in the era of globalization, excess labor can be alleviated by the free flow of population, and resource scarcity can naturally be solved through the global market. However, this ideal of liberalism has been stifled by an external force. In the current Western-dominated global economic system, capital and material resources can flow freely around the world, but labor resources cannot. This means that our large labor force must be trapped in this resource-poor land, and our economic policy can only seek to attract foreign capital, but not export labor.

 

No matter what reasons Western economists concoct, they cannot hide the common sense of an ordinary person. The Chinese people's right to pursue happiness is limited by the harsh living environment. The harsh living environment breaks into the world, and what awaits them may be the fate of "stowaways". Some people may complain that China has too many people, but it is not a sin to have a large population. Everyone has the right to survive and live a happy life. China's large population cannot be a reason for them to lose their rights in the face of this unreasonable international economic order.

 

Although some Western economic theories believe that the free flow of labor can be replaced by the flow of resources, when we want to buy Russian oil, we will encounter resistance from Japan; when we want to buy oil in Central Asia, the power of the United States Start taking control of the countries there; when you want to import oil from Africa, the aircraft carriers that pop up on the long shipping line at any time make your free trade come to nothing. Free trade must be guaranteed by law, but whose law can guarantee such free trade? Hayek believes that "freedom is the absence of coercion", then, what kind of coercive force constitutes coercion on the free flow of population and resources on a global scale? The typical example we have seen is that if a country does not obey the political arrangements of the Western world, it will face economic sanctions from the Western world, and use the coercion of state violence to eliminate free trade.

 

It is here that liberalism touches an icy modern force, the sovereign force that constitutes the international order. Liberals do not like sovereignty because they know that the right of each individual to choose to live freely and to create freely is enforced by the sovereign powers of nations such as embassies, visa offices, immigration offices, customs and the courts behind them, prisons, the military, and so on. If the state and sovereignty cannot be completely eliminated on a global scale, and an "open society" or "world harmony" cannot be formed in which everyone moves freely on a global scale, then the individual freedom advocated by liberalism can only be downgraded to "civil liberty" , that is, civil liberties that presuppose the political community or the state. Therefore, true liberals never adopt an ostrich policy to hate sovereignty, but take it seriously and lead it. Hobbes, the originator of liberalism, organized free individuals into powerful sovereignty such as "Leviathan", and used sovereignty to oppose sovereignty, which constitutes the basic principle of modern international law.

 

Today, the Chinese people's right to pursue freedom is not only subject to various internal constraints, but also to external coercion, which often exacerbates internal conflicts. It is conceivable that if the energy and markets required for China's economic development are unreasonably restricted by other sovereign countries, what will happen to the Chinese people's pursuit of freedom. In fact, the reason why the economic policy after 1949 has moved towards a planned economy and even collectivization is inseparable from the complete blockade of China by the Western world. A free people must presuppose strong national sovereignty to curb the hegemony of other sovereigns, establish a fair and reasonable international order, ensure economic growth, and thus provide a good external environment for resolving internal conflicts.

 

National sovereignty is not a force imposed from outside, but is precisely the product of individual freedom. It comes from everyone's desire and will to pursue freedom, and it is the legal manifestation of popular sovereignty. State sovereignty is nothing but a tool for everyone to achieve freedom, and the extension of state sovereignty is also the extension of civil liberties. Civil liberties and state sovereignty constitute the two wings of modernity. In the age of globalization, national sovereignty is so important because everyone urgently needs to realize their freedom through national sovereignty.

 

The real dilemma of Chinese modernity is that while liberating civil liberties, the state is unable to satisfy its liberties. Today, our products have been exported all over the world, and our production raw materials rely on resources on a global scale. The closer we are to the world, the more we need national sovereignty to protect the supply chain of free trade on a global scale. In the era of globalization, the concept of national security has gone beyond the traditional scope, and it is in this sense that the Taiwan issue is closely linked to the fate of a free China.

 

 

▍China's Geographical Environment and National Security

 

National security is first and foremost the state's protection of its citizens' life, property and the pursuit of happiness and other basic human rights from being deprived by other countries. Therefore, a strong state is a necessary condition for ensuring the freedom of citizens. There are many accidental factors in the strength of a country, of which geographical environment is an important factor. Montesquieu linked the country's polity with its geographic environment, and when Tocqueville explored American democracy, the first thing Tocqueville saw was its unique geographic environment.

 

The gestation and maturity of Chinese civilization are closely related to its unique geographical environment. The vast seas in the east and south and the high mountains and mountains in the west provided a safety barrier for the development of civilization on the East Asian continent. The only shortcoming was the open plateau in the north. The division of the country or the demise of the dynasty also mostly came from the invasion of the northern forces, and the Great Wall became the last barrier to build the security of the empire and a symbol of national security. But it was the constant intrusion from the north that stimulated the growth of civilization. This relatively safe geographical environment has formed the historical cycle theory of "divide for a long time, and join for a long time", and also promoted the integration between ethnic groups and cultures, making Chinese civilization open to any other ethnic group and culture. The pursuit of classical Chinese politics has always been the universalism of "taking the world as one's own responsibility", with only the view of "world" and "civilization", but no narrow view of the state or nation, so much so that Lucian W.Pye said , "China is a civilization that pretends to be a country".

 

​​

 

Since the nineteenth century, the invasion of the Western world has meant that China's ancient security concept has been comprehensively challenged. Because of the development of modern technology, the importance of geographical barriers in national security has been reduced. The southeastern coast, once a security barrier, has become the most insecure open door, and China's frontier faces a full-scale crisis. "A long period of separation must be united, and a long-term alliance must be divided" has also become an old Chinese calendar. The Chinese people are facing not only a crisis of national domination, but also a crisis of civilization being destroyed and races being wiped out. The Western world defeated the "civilized state" with a "nation-state" attitude. Since then, China has experienced a painful transition from a "civilized state" to a "nation-state".

 

It was in the face of the invasion of Western powers that the Chinese launched an internal revolution in order to resist foreign invasions. The Chinese people's struggle for state rights abroad has naturally become a domestic struggle for human rights. Human rights are intertwined with state rights, individual liberties and state sovereignty from the very beginning. The history of the Chinese people's construction of a "nation-state" is also the history of their construction of an international political order. "The country wants independence and the people want liberation." The history of Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong's construction of the republic is also the history of the Chinese nation's opposition to foreign oppression and the pursuit of civil liberties.

 

The "May Fourth" generation intertwined "enlightenment" with "salvation", because national independence is the guarantee of individual freedom, and individual freedom is the driving force of national independence. Civil liberties and the construction of the nation-state are thus closely linked, and the republic is founded on civil liberties and popular sovereignty. In this historical process, the fates of Taiwan and the mainland are closely linked. Even after 1949, cross-strait relations have always been in a "state of civil war" in international law. Whether it is resolved through peace or war depends on the political situation on both sides of the strait. development of.

 

The construction of the nation-state has been China's political effort to respond to the international order from the very beginning, so the establishment and development of the People's Republic, including the Taiwan issue, must also be understood in the context of the international political order. After the founding of New China, national security has always faced threats from the Soviet Union in the north and the US-Japan alliance in the east. Under the situation of the Soviet Union and the United States competing for hegemony, our alliance with the Soviet Union in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China also included considerations for the security of the North, and China's choice must be regarded as an enemy by the United States. The Korean War began, and the United States based on the strategy of "blocking China" Consider, including Taiwan in its "encirclement chain" in eastern China. In such an international security environment, the external environment of China's free economy is limited. In order to ensure the supply of capital and raw materials necessary for modernization, the planned economic model has gradually become a historical necessity.

 

The Sino-Soviet alliance did not mean that China would become a vassal state of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union tried to bring China into its sphere of influence, our first generation of leaders categorically rejected the request, even at the cost of fighting against the Soviet Union. Since then, China's national security has been in a situation of being attacked on both sides. "If you drop your pants, you will also have to use the atomic bomb." Chen Yi's words express the aspirations of a generation of Chinese people to pursue freedom. For this freedom from foreign domination, a generation of Chinese has paid a heavy price for future generations. The Great Leap Forward, the People's Commune and the "Cultural Revolution" all gave priority to the development of heavy industry, military industry and the construction of these countries on the third line under the total blockade of the United States and the Soviet Union. Strategies are closely related, and it is impossible to understand the origins of domestic conflicts of interest without seeing such a hostile external environment. Such a security strategy will undoubtedly come at a huge price, but it has also created an environment for us to build peace for decades.

 

In order to counter the global hegemony of the Soviet Union, the United States established diplomatic relations with China in 1972, and the United States recognized Taiwan as a part of China. The blockade on China's eastern coast began to be lifted, and China's economic construction began from the southeast coast. Absorbing foreign capital and export trade became China's economic development strategy. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait entered a stage of benign interaction, and economic and trade continued to grow. However, when the disintegration of the Soviet Union made China's northern frontier relatively secure, the ensuing global hegemony of the United States not only expanded its influence into Central Asia, threatening China's northwestern frontier, but also reintroduced Taiwan as its fulcrum to contain China's rise, strengthening the its military alliance with Japan. Although the current global strategy of the United States is still in flux, Taiwan has undoubtedly become the strategic focus of the United States against China.

 

 

▍Taiwan in the International Order and Chinese Politics

 

As part of China's territory, Taiwan did not play an important role in traditional national security strategies, and thus did not become the focus of the painstaking efforts of the Ming and Qing empires. With the rise of modern capitalism in China, the vast overseas world has become an indispensable part of economic development, and China's concept of national security has extended from the mainland to the world, and Taiwan's strategic position in China's territory has also become more and more important. The more important it is, it is not only an important barrier to protect China's energy and products from free trade on a global scale, but also an important fulcrum for the United States to contain China's rise.

 

​​Ross Terrill, a sinologist active in U.S. politics, pointed out that once Taiwan ceases to exist as an independent entity, the balance of power in East Asia will also change, Japan will reduce its trust in U.S. security guarantees, and the Philippines and Vietnam will also reconsider Views on China. Of course, his policy advice to the U.S. government is to dismember China and support Taiwanese independence. In "Clash of Civilizations", Huntington even imagined that a war in the Taiwan Strait would trigger an Asian war and eventually destroy China.

 

American strategists have given us a very clear map. On the surface, the international political struggle is a struggle for political leadership among different countries, but in fact it is a struggle for discourse leadership, and ultimately for the dominance of civilization. In a clash of civilizations, each civilization needs a core state to maintain the power of that civilization. In the tradition of Confucian civilization, China is the undisputed core country, but in the modern transformation of Confucian civilization, Japan has become a world power by "separating from Asia and joining Europe", and exerting considerable influence in East Asia and Southeast Asia. If it forms an alliance with China and Japan, the power of the United States will definitely withdraw from its domination of East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, based on the historical contradictions and actual conflicts of interests between the two sides, unless China gains a decisive advantage over Japan, Japan will inevitably "rely on the world" and form an alliance with the United States to against China.

 

In the competition between China and Japan in East Asia, Taiwan is undoubtedly a key element. If China achieves reunification, occupies the strategic high ground of the entire East Asia geopolitically, and still maintains economic growth and political stability, and forms a stable strategic partnership with ASEAN, North Korea and South Korea, Japan’s wise choice can only be to “get rid of Europe into Asia”, restoring the entire East and Southeast Asia to the Confucian civilizational tradition. If the power of the United States withdraws from East Asia, its hegemony over South Asia and the Persian Gulf will also weaken, and the Confucian civilization will thus gain enough space for a comprehensive revival. The world may form a North American bloc, a European bloc, a Russian Central Asian bloc, and an East Asian bloc. co-governance with the South Asian Group. On the other hand, if the United States or Japan controls Taiwan, China's rise will be like a lion in a cage.

 

Therefore, if China wants to revive its traditional civilization, it must obtain political leadership in East Asia, and to achieve political leadership in East Asia, it must achieve reunification with Taiwan; conversely, if China wants to achieve Taiwan reunification, it must obtain political leadership in East Asia. To gain political leadership in East Asia, it is necessary to rebuild the influence of traditional civilization in East Asia. The Taiwan issue involves the contest between two civilizational forces in Asia, and the result affects the future of human civilization.

 

​​From the perspective of international law, Taiwan is undoubtedly a part of China's territory, and the realization of reunification with Taiwan must also be considered from the perspective of China's internal affairs. The Taiwan issue originated from the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party for political dominance in 1945. This civil war has continued to this day. It is actually the difference between the two modernity paths in China's transition from a "civilized country" to a "nation-state". choice.

 

Since the 1980s, with the continuous sublation of socialism on the mainland, the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in the direction of modernity have gradually narrowed. Taiwan's economic transformation and political democratization were once regarded as a successful model to indicate China's future, because how to achieve a stable modern political transformation has always been a difficult problem faced by the Chinese nation in the "nation-state" transformation. Taiwan's achievements are seen as It is the pride of the Chinese nation and traditional civilization. It is a pity that the Taiwan authorities have transformed the drive for political democratization into the struggle for unification and independence between the people of this province and those of other provinces, and turned it into a force that divides the country, so that peaceful reunification is fading away, and the danger of war is increasing. Recently, historical opportunities have passed by the Chinese people.

 

Fate will bless great statesmen and not political clowns. In the poor performance of Taiwan's political clowns, democratization exposed its most vulnerable side, and also exposed the darkest side of modernity: that is, democratization has become an incentive to provoke regional conflicts, ethnic conflicts, class conflicts, and cultural conflicts, and it has also become a The justification for the division of the country and the nation is that the Taiwanese separatist forces are using cultural means to transform the minds of the Taiwanese and split Taiwan from their hearts and minds in order to achieve complete political division. National sovereignty and cultural unity are in crisis.

 

​​In this critical autumn, mainland China must use the greatest tenacity and will to provoke the important task of national reunification, regard it as a test of destiny, and realize it with the political ambition and superb political wisdom of civilization revival. National unity. It is necessary to think about the Taiwan issue not only from the perspective of international politics, but also from the perspective of domestic politics. While preventing division, we must adopt new thinking and explore ways to unify.

 

 

▍War and Peace: The Protracted War of Civilizations

 

In history, the rise of a great power often requires one or two iconic war victories to gain self-identity and world recognition, and there are also great powers that eventually collapsed due to wars in the process of their rise. The peaceful rise of great powers requires historical opportunities in addition to the superb political wisdom of political leaders. Behind the success and failure, virtue and destiny, often reflects the inevitability of the rise and fall of civilization.

 

Therefore, in the process of the rise of great powers, war must be taken seriously, war must be grasped and controlled tightly, and war must be considered carefully, not only to avoid collapse due to war, but also to seize the opportunity to take advantage of the rapid rise of war , but also in the ability to strive for victory without a fight and a peaceful rise. In the process of such thoughtful political decision-making, it is necessary not only to have a sober consideration of the pattern of international interests, but also to have a clear understanding of the comparison of national strengths, not only to have a clear understanding of the purpose, nature, impact and consequences of wars It is necessary to take into account and make full use of various economic, political and cultural means to achieve the goals of the war.

 

In any case, we must realize that war is only a means of politics, and it is a dangerous means to be used as a last resort. If war is necessary, it must be inevitable, and it must be a necessary requirement to serve the established strategic goals. If a country does not have an overall strategy for its rise and the tenacity to achieve its strategic goals, any rash consideration of war is dangerous.

 

​​In today's situation, we must think about war as a necessary part of realizing the reunification of Taiwan, and think about war as a necessary and possible means of politics. Such considerations are precisely a necessary part of the overall national strategy, which is the rise of the Chinese nation. Without the reunification of Taiwan, this grand strategy cannot be realized, and in order to realize this grand strategy, the current strategy is to firmly grasp the strategic opportunity period of the 20 years of this century. , try to avoid war as much as possible.

Therefore, whether it is the country's grand strategy or the strategic steps to realize the country's grand strategy, war must be taken into account. This includes both fully preparing for war and avoiding it as much as possible. Only by taking war seriously and truly preparing for war can it be possible to avoid war, to create peace, or to create a lasting peace through a war of limited cost. This dialectic of war and peace is rooted in unalterable human nature, because only ambition can curb ambition and maintain political balance.

 

​​

 

The reason why the current situation in the Taiwan Strait is so dangerous is that the political power of the entire East Asia is in an unbalanced confrontation. The US-Japan alliance is trying to contain China's rise with an overwhelming advantage in East Asia. Taiwan is just a bargaining chip for its hegemonic ambitions. If this containment develops into a war, it will not only be a distressing civil war, but a worrying regional international conflict. If it is not effectively controlled, it is likely to evolve into a worldwide conflict. If we are defeated in this conflict, the result is not only the division of the country and the collapse of the political system, but also the revival of the nation and civilization may be far away. This war is too critical, too important, and we must be soberly aware of who our enemy is and what the consequences of the war will be. The more serious the danger of Taiwan independence, the more urgent the task of realizing Taiwan's reunification, and the greater the possibility and danger of war; the more serious the consequences of war, the more serious the real war must be, and the more efforts must be made to prevent Taiwan independence and avoid war.

 

 

Avoiding a losing war requires as much political foresight as waging a winning one. The Qing government recklessly launched a doomed Sino-Japanese naval battle, which directly led to the collapse of the empire, while the victory of New China in the Korean War in 1951 established its voice in international politics. It is also focused on the Korean peninsula, and it is also a war with a powerful country. Behind the defeat and victory, not only the difference in the international situation, the difference in the comprehensive strength of the country, but also the difference in the political wisdom of statesmen and the political will of the people. If politicians don't consider these three, they can't talk about war in vain.

 

On the issue of war, we must not only oppose naive pacifism and cowardly capitulationism, but also oppose pure economism, believing that war will destroy economic development, while failing to see that national security is the cornerstone of economic development, but we must also oppose ignoring The adventurism of strength and the blindness of the timing prevent war from becoming an end and a reckless gamble. Both of these tendencies are naive manifestations of a nation's political immaturity. The former lacks political will and the latter lacks political rationality. A truly mature politician, on the other hand, must balance strong political will and strong political instinct with cold political restraint and thoughtful political calculation, must rationally choose suitable and feasible tools for noble political principles, must be aware of To the extent that war is but one of the possible tools, it must be subordinate to the grand strategy of the state.

 

​​Today's situation in the Taiwan Strait does not seem to have developed to the critical juncture of the year, but it is already in a situation of "difficulties and difficulties", and this will become a dilemma we face for a long time, and our thinking is still "exchange space for space" time" and still insist on "protracted war". Of course, the "protracted war" mentioned here is not a purely military war, but a protracted political, economic and cultural war that the Chinese have waged in the face of the invasion of Western civilization since modern times. This is a "protracted war of civilization".

 

Deng Xiaoping’s strategy of focusing on economic construction, keeping a low profile, never taking the lead, and never participating in the arms race, is actually still the strategic idea of ​​“exchanging space for time”, that is, giving up political and military space and immersing ourselves in economic construction in exchange for valuable time during a period of strategic opportunity. The Taiwan issue must be considered in the context of this "protracted war". If we can maintain "Taiwan is not independent, the mainland is not armed" and realize economic and cultural interaction between the two sides of the strait, we will gain precious time to strengthen our national strength. Although we are currently in a weak position, we have survived the dangerous period of colonial wars in the 19th century and the Cold War in the 20th century. We have passed the stage of strategic defense since the end of the Qing Dynasty, stabilized our feet, and entered the stage of strategic stalemate. This means that we must start to "make a difference", whether internationally or domestically, whether politically, militarily, or economically and culturally, we must take a positive and steady offensive, and even take offense as defense in local areas. Actively expand base areas, accumulate small victories into big victories, and create conditions for national reunification.

 

​​In this comprehensive "protracted war of civilization", military warfare is undoubtedly its component and the most dangerous part. In particular, the danger of "fighting with incompetence to destroy the country" must be considered, because the people are always easy to be hollowed out. Inspired by the great truth of the war, politicians must consider the consequences of war, and must always keep in mind that reunification is not our only goal, the revival of civilization is our real goal. During the period of strategic opportunity, if the Taiwan independence forces blatantly declare independence with the support of the United States and Japan, and force China into a corner, war or peace? This still requires a calm and comprehensive assessment of the current situation, strength, and the consequences of the war. It cannot be led by the nose of impulsive public opinion, and it is also impossible to take the war as an irresponsible gamble with the slightest fluke and illusion. If this war is unavoidable, there must be a strong will that is not afraid of "shattering pots and pans." Only this kind of determination and will to "break the net" will it be possible to contain the war or win the victory. If this is a war of "death by war", such a war must be avoided and other unified ideas must be sought. Therefore, regardless of war or peace, responsible politicians must make prudent decisions and obey the grand strategy of national rise and civilization revival.

 

​​

▍National strategy in the stage of strategic stalemate

 

Thinking from the perspective of a "protracted war of civilizations", the rise of a country only means that we have entered a stage of stalemate, one in which only the revival of civilization moves the situation to the stage of strategic counter-offensive. The strategic opportunity period in the first two decades of this century is a critical period when China begins to enter the stage of strategic stalemate. It determines the future and destiny of China and changes the future and destiny of the world.

 

Optimists once believed that if China maintains sustained economic growth and political stability, by the 2020s, China will far surpass Japan in economic power and be close to the United States, and its military power will also be greatly enhanced. In order to avoid a catastrophic conflict, the United States will withdraw from its influence in East Asia, recognize and encourage China's political leadership in Asia, and establish lasting cooperative relations with China internationally, thereby laying the political foundation for national unity and civilized renewal.

 

Pessimists believe that, in order to contain China's rise, the US-Japan alliance and the EU have launched a strategy of dismantling China and instigating Taiwan's independence. Sino-US relations will deteriorate in an all-round way, China's economy will decline, domestic social conflicts will be intensified, and internal and external problems will be intensified. In this situation, the outcome of an all-out war could destroy Taiwan, batter Japan, dismember China, and bring down the United States, while Europe, Russia, and India are fully revived. If we compare the two future scenarios, then China's development strategy has a clear goal and blueprint, which is to strive for the bright future offered by optimists and avoid the tragic fate described by pessimists. Formulate a complete set of national strategies at the stage of strategic stalemate, and strive for a "China with a bright future".

 

​​First, strategic restraint must be exercised. On the one hand, it is political strategic restraint, including avoiding direct conflict with the United States and even Japan, avoiding direct challenges to the hegemony of the United States, and supporting the United States’ dominance in other international issues in exchange for the United States’ status as a major power over China on East Asian issues. On the other hand, it is the restraint in economic strategy, taking the road of new industrialization, developing high-tech industries, and gradually reducing industries with high energy consumption and low added value, which is not only conducive to the long-term development of China's economy, but also It can avoid fierce conflicts of economic interests with the western world due to energy shortage and product sales.

 

However, we must clearly recognize that strategic restraint is by no means a strategic retreat, but a positive, restrained, realistic and conditional way of attack. The small-step incremental strategy, consolidates and strengthen  power by means of the active establishment of bases. In the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of that year, the Communist Party adopted the strategy of ceding the south of the Yangtze River and marching into the Northeast, and in the Northeast it adopted the strategy of giving up the road and occupying the two sides, which are typical examples of this kind of strategic restraint. Today, we must apply this strategy and tactics to international politics.

 

​​Second, it must actively participate in the establishment of the international order, consciously establish its own bases in Latin America, Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, consolidate its position in East Asia, and establish a cooperative institutional mechanism conducive to national security. On the one hand, it is necessary to make full use of the United Nations and its traditional advantages in the "third world", establish its own strategic base in the third world, and play the role of a major power in global affairs, so as to form necessary constraints on the United States; The policy of good-neighborliness and friendship, selectively developing strategic alliances with certain neighboring countries, and building buffer zones to prevent conflicts through various institutional mechanisms, such as making full use of the "six-nation mechanism" to positively promote the peace and reunification of the Korean Peninsula; using The "9+3" mechanism coordinates and maintains the stability and prosperity of ASEAN; promotes political cooperation with Central Asian countries through the "Shanghai Organization"; uses the traditional friendship with Pakistan to promote reconciliation between India and Pakistan, and becomes the de facto core country in Asia with a low-key attitude , the United States is forced to respect China's political leadership in Asia.

 

​​Third, we must make full use of our economic advantages, be good at transforming economic advantages into political advantages, and ultimately into cultural and ideological advantages, and play the role of "soft power". China's biggest advantage in Asia and the world at the moment is its economic advantage, and its biggest disadvantage is its ideological disadvantage, not only because the communist ideology lost its appeal after the end of the Cold War, but because the Western world has mastered modern discourse .

 

In order to change this disadvantage, in addition to continuously absorbing Western culture and updating Marxist ideology, the key is to take the activation and revival of traditional cultural ideology as the mission of civilization revival, so as to consciously return to traditional cultural values ​​and give full play to Chinese The influence of traditional culture in Asia and its appeal to Western civilization. On the one hand, it is necessary to use traditional Chinese culture to promote the value identity, cultural identity and the shared identity of Asian countries, strengthen the political identity of Asian countries in handling Asian affairs, encourage and support Japan's "Brexit into Asia", and reintegrate Japan into the Asian world. On the other hand, while actively absorbing Western culture, we must release cultural and ideological goodwill to Western civilization through political democratization, eliminate some Westerners’ doubts about the development direction of Chinese civilization, and serve as a builder of world order. Rise as a collaborator.

 

​​Fourth, the foundation of the entire external strategy lies in the internal strategy. The internal strategy must be in harmony with the external strategy and promote each other instead of deteriorating each other. Fundamentally speaking, only the healthy and stable internal development of a country can achieve national security externally. Economically, it is necessary to carry out intellectual property innovation in accordance with the national economic and military strategy, and at the same time, it is necessary to balance the regional development differences between urban and rural areas and narrow the class contradiction caused by the income gap; politically, it is necessary to actively respond to modern democratization challenges, explore the governing law of the ruling party under the democratic system, improve the governing capacity, establish a modern administrative management system, improve the rule of law and constitutional construction, and explore a new path of democratization; in terms of culture, we must establish the dominant position of Chinese culture. , restore the cultural self-esteem and self-confidence of the Chinese people, so as to unite people's hearts, take Marxist thought and Western liberal thought as the organic composition of Chinese civilization, and revive and rebuild Chinese civilization on the basis of modernity.

 

​​Fifth, we must fully understand the cultural and personal estrangement caused by the isolation of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and the complexity caused by it. Therefore, we must use new thinking on the Taiwan issue and take the road of gradual reunification. The Anti-Secession Law sets the bottom line for Taiwan's reunification, but how to achieve reunification still has a lot of room for imagination and requires political imagination.

 

On this basis, on the one hand, China must truly regard Taiwan as a local internal affairs issue, actively influence Taiwan’s politics, and exert influence in Taiwan’s elections; to boldly and imaginatively  apply  strategies of institutional innovation. In this regard, the "one country, two systems" solution to the return of Hong Kong and Macau is an example of institutional innovation.

 

​​If we can adopt an international strategy of strategic restraint, cooperative system building and cultural integration externally, and a coordinated development and gradual unification domestic strategy internally, the future of China's peaceful rise is at hand, and the revival of civilization will follow. Therefore, we must realize that "we are engaged in a great cause unprecedented in human history", and we should have full confidence and calm response to this, but we must also be aware of the difficulties we are facing, be prepared for a rainy day, and take a long-term perspective. There can be no slack.

 

​​▍The challenge of the Taiwan issue to mainland intellectuals

 

For every Chinese, the Taiwan issue has always been a pain in the heart. Taiwan's current state of division and the tendency to split not only harms national security and interests, but more importantly harms the dignity and significance of the Chinese people. Taiwan's pain for the Chinese lies in the memory of civilized humiliation, because human beings are different from animals, that is, human beings are not a nihilistic existence, but an existence that is endowed with meaning by civilization. History has never been a physical concept of time, but the carrier of cultural meaning, the soil for nurturing subject consciousness, and the source of all values, ethics, and legitimacy. History is by no means a record of the past, but a testimony to the present. History is civilization, a philosophy about eternal existence. To defend history is to defend human existence. This is a life-and-death battle between becoming a master or becoming a slave. This is an instinctive battle for survival. The purpose of philosophy is to defend this war at its highest level. . The pain of the Taiwan question lies in the fact that it poses a comprehensive challenge to the existence of the Chinese people, to the philosophical basis for the existence of the Chinese people, and to Chinese civilization.

 

​​As we all know, Taiwanese thought after 1949 was mainly under the potential domination of liberal discourses from Hu Shi to Yin Haiguang. This discourse became mainstream due to the Taiwan democratization movement in the 1980s, and freedom and autocracy became Its ideological axis echoes the mainstream discourse of mainland intellectuals in the 1980s, but behind the discourse of freedom and autocracy in mainland intellectuals, there is a larger background of enlightenment discourse originating from the "May Fourth": tradition and modernity, China and the West. In the 1990s, a philosophical revolution was launched in Taiwan's intellectual circles, and civil society and localization became the dominant discourse in the ideological circle, which also quickly affected the intellectual circles in mainland China, triggering the Chinese exception of civil society theory and "local knowledge" Argument. Since the late 1990s, Taiwan's philosophical revolution has developed in a more extreme direction. Localization has led to ethnic issues between people in the province and other provinces. The ethnic issue has finally been linked to the "imagined community" and has become the philosophical defense of the Taiwan independence movement. . The history and civilization that are the basis for the survival of the Chinese people have been torn apart, and the philosophical foundation of China's unification has encountered unprecedented challenges.

 

​​Since the 1980s, the closely related ideological interaction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has finally broken for the first time in philosophy due to the cruel political reality, because China is not a false construction of symbolic imagination, nor is it a state machine constructed by legal technology, but through history. and a political community constructed from civilization. The Chinese nation is not a race in the biological sense, and the Chinese are not citizenship in the legal sense, but a philosophical subject with historical and ethical significance. In a word, China and the Chinese nation, shaped by historical civilization, are fundamental to each Chinese in the sense of existentialism, and have the significance and value of civilization. It contains philosophical truth and moral absoluteness. . The Taiwan independence forces defend Taiwan's independence by tearing up history and fabricating it. In fact, they are destroying history, destroying civilization, and ultimately destroying the philosophical basis for the existence of every Chinese. Because the fundamental question is: What is the philosophical basis for our existence as Chinese people? This cannot be answered by international law, nor can it be answered by the political consequences of unification and division, nor can it be answered by war.

 

​​Facing the philosophical challenge of Taiwan independence forces, the mainland intellectuals and even the entire Chinese intellectual community suddenly fell into "aphasia" and lost their ability to respond philosophically. The right to speak, this "aphasia" highlights the basic situation of the mainland intellectuals over the past 20 years.

 

​​First of all, we must admit that a considerable number of intellectuals hold an indifferent attitude towards Taiwan independence in their bones, because in their minds, the Chinese people or China itself has no meaning, and they identify as "citizens of the world", after all It's a citizen who identifies with the Western world, or a citizen of the United States. In the eyes of these people, as long as people live freely, anyone can do anything, but these people do not seriously think about what freedom is. These people opposed taking back Hong Kong in the 1980s, and wanted to be "one-night Americans" in the 1990s. Later, they argued that it was a historic mistake for the United States to overthrow the New China by not crossing the Yalu River during the Korean War.

 

​​Second, the disciplinarization of knowledge has made intellectuals all concerned about issues in the professional field. The Taiwan issue has therefore been specialized and turned into an issue for Taiwan issue experts to think about, while it is not seen that the Taiwan issue involves freedom, sovereignty, and civilization that China faces. The problem of modernity. In the professional field, the development of political science is undoubtedly the weakest. It has been almost replaced by administrative science in university departments, lacking attention and thinking about political philosophy. As for our philosophers, almost all of them have become academic philosophy professors, unable to think about the philosophical challenges that the Taiwan issue poses to the survival of the Chinese people.

 

​​Finally, in the above context, those intellectuals who truly care about the Taiwan issue and are eager to defend national unity face theoretical difficulties in philosophical defense, because liberals have monopolized the legitimate discourse of modernity such as freedom, human rights, and cultural identity. , any theoretical reflection will be slapped with a discredited political hat. If you advocate a military solution to the Taiwan issue, you will be accused of Machiavellianism; if you emphasize the unity of the nation, you will be accused of nationalism; if you emphasize the meaning of traditional culture, you will be accused of conservatism. Therefore, if the boundaries of disciplines cannot be overcome and the entire discourse of modernity cannot be reflected theoretically, it will be difficult to establish the subjectivity of Chinese civilization, the meaning of existence of the Chinese people will be difficult to gain legitimacy, and it will be difficult for the issue of Taiwan reunification to be given the highest philosophical status. defend.

 

 

▍Reconstruction of History and Modernity

 

From the above-mentioned basic pattern of mainland intellectuals, it can be seen that the Chinese have lost the ability to defend the meaning of their own existence. The reason is that the mainland intellectuals have a one-sided understanding of the issue of modernity and a one-dimensional understanding of the issue of freedom. Human freedom is understood as an existence without history and culture, and an existence without roots. And culture is all regarded as the traditional authority that restricts freedom and destroyed, and people become the naked subject of desire. How, however, is it possible for an unfounded subject of desire to establish a state and submit to the rule of political authority? The subject of this desire can destroy the country at any time, because the state and political authority have no authority in themselves, and the autonomy of the individual is the highest authority. This one-dimensional liberal approach leads to nihilism and postmodernism.

 

So, with liberalism, the real question is how can a free person become an ethical subject? How do free people establish the authority and stability of the political system? This is exactly the theme of the liberal master Rousseau's thinking. From the subject of desire to the subject of ethics, a person must be trained to become a "citizen" through education, and then he can establish a government through a social contract and rely on "civil religion" to maintain a political community. The presence. And such "civil religion" must be national. Therefore, true liberalism must be based on nationalism. Only the sense of belonging and identity cultivated by nationalism can lay the foundation of the republic. The real foundation of free citizenship lies in in history and culture. It was from Rousseau's standpoint that Tocqueville explored the meaning of modern democracy.

 

​​From this point of view, since the May Fourth Movement, Chinese liberals have been in a state of paradox. On the one hand, they have spared no effort to advocate liberalism, and on the other hand, they have spared no effort to deny the historical and cultural traditions that support liberalism. To the extent that it denies the Chinese people's survival ethics and turns the Chinese people into pure and unrooted subjects of desire, freedom is equal to the satisfaction of pure desire without any ethical meaning of survival. The reason for the monopoly of economic liberalism. Therefore, the difficulty of modernity facing China lies not only in how to solve the contradiction between population and resources and satisfy the desires of every free person, but also in conforming to the restoration of traditional culture, giving philosophical significance to the existence of the Chinese people, and making the existence of the Chinese people ethical of dignity and pride.

 

​​Today, Chinese people's wealth is increasing every day and happiness is decreasing every moment, because the country lacks the direction of civilization and the individual lacks the foundation of ethical life. The ethical foundation and survival meaning endowed by traditional culture have been destroyed by the anti-tradition since the May Fourth Movement, and the ethical foundation and survival meaning endowed by communism were once again destroyed by the post-Cold War ideology. Today, in addition to the never-ending greed, we Survival can depend on what. This destruction of the foundation of existence is accomplished every time through the deconstruction of history and the ethical virtues established in history.

 

​​Therefore, in order to respond to the philosophical challenge raised by the Taiwan question, we must rebuild the important position of history in modernity, link history with the meaning of life, link history with the cultivation of virtue and ethical life, and understand more comprehensively and completely Issues of liberalism and modernity, defend the significance of Chinese history and civilization to the free life of the Chinese people, and provide a philosophical basis for the ethical life of the Chinese people. Therefore, in China's intellectual circles in the future, historical issues will inevitably become the main issues of philosophical thinking again, because the Chinese people's survival beliefs and ethical life are not given by any religion, but by their ancestors. When our intellectuals understand history according to the standards of modern Western disciplines, they have not considered the pros and cons of history for life at all.

 

​​To think about history as a philosophy and as a basis for Chinese people to settle down is neither a theoretical reflection in academies nor a wishful effort by intellectuals, but must be rooted in a deep realistic foundation. When our intellectuals lost their survival instinct, this survival instinct was expressed in a rude way among the people. The continuous domestication of civilization since the "May Fourth" has made our intellectuals obsessed with the "last aristocracy" and become too civilized, having lost their simple natural nature and healthy life force. Today, only by returning to the masses, to their own historical and cultural traditions, and to the political community, can intellectuals regain their strong vitality and provide a philosophical basis for the ethical life of the Chinese people.

 

​​▍Academic and Politics

 

The Taiwan issue, as an issue that the people, politicians and scholars must face seriously, is not only a political issue, but also a philosophical issue. The reunification of Taiwan is not only conducive to the peaceful rise of China, but also to the revival of Chinese civilization, because national reunification will lay the political foundation for the revival of civilization, liberate Chinese politics from forced defense, and become confident, open, and calm. As a result, China's political development has also gained a wider space, providing political impetus for the revival of civilization, and establishing a dominant position for Chinese culture, enabling China to gradually return to the tradition of "civilized state" while completing the construction of a "nation-state".

 

 

The fundamental challenge is: How are we prepared to construct the international political order as nations unify and rise? What ethical virtues are we prepared to take responsibility for as human beings? In addition to providing products and markets to the world, what kind of ideology and culture, what way of life, and what kind of future vision can we provide? The rise of China is not only to allow the Chinese people to maximize their free creativity, but also to assume their responsibilities to other countries and people, and to provide an example for the way of life of mankind. In the final analysis, the reconstruction of ethical life is the revival of civilization. Depend on. The mission of civilization revival is to provide meaningful and universal answers to the ethical life of all mankind. This is undoubtedly the mission that history has given the Chinese nation. The Taiwan issue should be understood not only in the political picture of the clash of civilizations, but also in the philosophical picture of the revival of civilization and the reconstruction of ethical life. If we do not have this ethical impulse to pursue a better life, political unity will not be able to guarantee long-term stability. .

 

​​The revival of civilization seems to be the mantra of the Chinese at present, and it is easy to go to extreme conservatism. In fact, the revival of civilization must answer the challenges posed by modernity and the challenges of Western civilization to traditional civilization. As Liang Qichao said back then, today's China has become the world's China, and the revival of Chinese civilization must integrate multiple elements in cultural and ideological aspects to create a brand-new modern Chinese civilization, which means that this civilization is both modern and Chinese. . This means that Chinese scholars must view their past achievements in civilization and the achievements of world civilization with an open mind, and they must also abandon all kinds of shackles and dogmas, including various "foreign dogmas" and "ancient dogmas", especially to prevent one This kind of slave mentality of bowing down to "foreign dogma" and "ancient dogma", Chinese scholars must first establish the self-awareness of contemporary Chinese civilization creation, and revive our civilization with a high degree of imagination and creativity towards the future.

 

As far as the reality is concerned, Chinese scholars on both sides of the Taiwan Strait should first overcome the hostility caused by ideological differences, and must get rid of ideological dogma and "liberalism" and "communism", "democracy" and "authoritarianism". The narrow mentality caused by political ideological labels such as "leftist" and "rightist", "liberal" and "conservative" breaks the inertia of ideological thinking. The long-term politicization of Chinese scholars has hindered serious and long-term thinking, limited the horizons of thinking about Chinese politics and the future of Chinese civilization, and suffocated the creativity of thinking about human history and future destiny. For this reason, Chinese scholars must be freed from the Cold War mentality, from the consciousness of "the end of history", and from the consciousness of slavery. How to rebuild ethical life in the face of the impact of modernity. Only through the reconstruction of this ethical life can Chinese civilization have hope of rejuvenation, and Chinese scholars can make real contributions to human civilization.

 

​​Looking back, the biggest obstacle to solving the Taiwan issue at present is that we lack a set of civilized forces to exert cultural influence to win the unification of hearts and minds. Because Chinese civilization is under the pressure of Western civilization, our culture can only absorb Western culture, and it is difficult to form its own cultural creativity. This cultural stagnation is misaligned with vigorous economic growth.

 

Faced with this situation, Chinese scholars tend to attribute the responsibility to political forces restricting the freedom of thought, while politicians tend to see “public intellectuals” as sellers of Western culture or destroyers of the political order, and there is no real culture. create. This situation of mutual distrust between politics and ideas has become a real obstacle to the current political transformation and the revival of civilization. We must make conscious efforts to break this deadlock and establish a benign interaction between politics and academia, between politicians and scholars, which requires each other to find a balance between Weber's so-called "ethics of belief" and "ethics of responsibility", and also It is necessary for each other to support each other in the future facing the renaissance of civilization, and it is even more necessary for them to jointly build up self-confidence in their own history and cultural traditions. It is a heavy task. All Chinese scholars must, with profound civilized care and arduous academic efforts, transcend various ready-made dogmas, transcend the selfish interests of regions and parties, and provide the Chinese with a picture of the future of civilization; and Chinese politicians also Political power must be transformed into a civilized power with a sense of responsibility to undertake historical missions.

 

From the perspective of civilization revival, whether the Taiwan issue can be successfully resolved is not only a severe test for the revival of Chinese civilization, but also the core key to the success or failure of the revival of Chinese civilization. Today's China needs both great politicians who undertake the mission of civilization rejuvenation, who regard safeguarding national unity as the cornerstone of civilization rejuvenation, and the prosperity of cultural ideas as the primary task of civilization rejuvenation; today's China also needs great scholars who undertake civilization revival, and take contemporary Think of Chinese history and world history as a part of Chinese civilization, and treat the real political forces as the pillars for the future of civilization. Chinese politicians and Chinese scholars must shoulder the arduous destiny of modern China with a reinforced iron body, and make unremitting creation with strong will and grand spirit. We are convinced that when the Taiwan issue is resolved, it will also be the day when ancient China becomes a powerful country and a great civilization standing in the world again, and it is also the beginning of the Chinese people's new attempt to provide an ethical example for human life.