The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia describes Liu Yawei this way: "
Yawei Liu, Ph.D., is the senior advisor on China at The Carter Center and an adjunct professor of political science at Emory University. An expert on U.S.-China relations and Chinese grassroots democracy, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the associate director of the China Research Center in Atlanta. He is regularly invited to speak about Chinese public opinion, and his previous engagements include the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, and the Institute for China-America Studies. . . He is chief editor of the Center’s U.S.-China Perception Monitor (Mandarin) and China-America Stories websites. He also publishes the Center’s Finding Firmer Ground report series, which explores how dialogue, conflict management, and collaboration between the U.S. and China can sustain peace and prosperity in East Asia.
On 13 January 2024 Liu Yawei gave a quite interesting interview (in Chinese:美学者刘亚伟：美国“中国通”群体在特朗普任期前后发生巨变 [American scholar Liu Yawei: The "China experts" group in the United States has undergone tremendous changes before and after Trump's term of office] for the state owned Radio France Internationale. The audio of the interview may be accessed HERE. The printed transcript may be accessed HERE and follows below in the original Chinese and in a crude English translation.
Among the many interesting takeaways is this:
现在的情况就是脱钩已经发生了，就是对中国整个制度的失望，对领导人决策的不稳定，对中国不可能允许国外企业平等地与中国企业竞争等，他们可能现在已经有了比较固化的看法。至于正确不正确，我觉得现在都不重要了。就是说，（他们）现在就是这么看，有可能正确，有可能不正确。但是问题是能不能相互坐下来，把各自的底线都搞清楚，然后在知道对方底线的情况下，谈我们怎么去合作、怎么可以一起挣钱、怎么按国际的规定和法律各自做好自己挣钱的事，同时呢，也要遵纪守法。["The current situation is that decoupling has already occurred. They are disappointed with China's entire system, the instability of leaders' decision-making, and China's inability to allow foreign companies to compete equally with Chinese companies. They may now have a more solidified view. Views. As for whether they are correct or not, I think it doesn’t matter now. That is to say, (they) see it this way now. It may be correct or it may not be correct. But the question is whether we can sit down with each other and work out our respective bottom lines. Be clear, and then, knowing each other's bottom line, talk about how we can cooperate, how we can make money together, how we can each do our own thing to make money in accordance with international regulations and laws, and at the same time, we must abide by the law.]
On November 30, 2023, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger passed away at the age of 100, symbolically announcing the end of an era in Sino-US relations. In July 1971, as National Security Advisor to the US President, Kissinger made a secret visit to Beijing at the request of President Nixon, which took the first step in the Cold War-era Sino-US relations to abandon antagonism and move towards each other. In the following decades, Kissinger continued to visit China and the United States frequently, but the relationship between the two countries had already fallen from the honeymoon period after the formal establishment of diplomatic relations in 1978 to a comprehensive strategic competition in recent years. In mid-July 2023, this "China expert" who is known as China's "old friend" visited Beijing for the last time and received a very high-level reception, which was in sharp contrast to the atmosphere of high-level interactions between China and the United States at that time. The meeting between the leaders of China and the United States in San Francisco a few months later apparently did not bring about a resurgence in the tense bilateral relations. Dr. Liu Yawei, director of the China Program at the Carter Center in the United States, believes that the difficulties encountered in Sino-US relations show that there are still too many misunderstandings and myths between them. How do you view Kissinger’s role in Sino-US relations? In 2024, the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, how to understand that after decades of exchanges and interactions, there is still so much misunderstanding between each other? The two major political parties in the United States, the ruling and opposition parties, now have surprisingly consistent positions on China policy, but why do the "China experts" in the United States continue to be divided into "hawks" and "pandas"? Mr. Liu Yawei was interviewed by this station and introduced his observations and analysis.
Dr. Liu Yawei, director of the China Program at the Carter Center in the United States, believes that there are still too many misunderstandings between China and the United States on the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. via REUTERS-POOL
Kissinger's secret ice-breaking trip to China originated from President Nixon's idea
FRF: Former US Secretary of State Kissinger passed away not long ago. He is undoubtedly an important figure in Sino-US relations, but his role in Sino-US relations has mixed evaluations from all walks of life. The Beijing authorities treat him as a guest all year round and call him an "old friend." Taiwan blamed him for the United States' announcement to break off diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, which retreated to Taiwan. In recent years, some people believe that he has misled the United States' China policy. First of all, what role did his secret visit to Beijing in July 1971 play in the formulation of then US President Richard Nixon's China policy?
Liu Yawei: "First of all, Kissinger is an immigrant, born in Germany, and later naturalized as an American. As overseas (naturalized Americans) like us, we all know that others may doubt the strength of our loyalty (loyalty to the United States). think this may be very important to him, that is, everything Kissinger does is not for any other country or to help other countries. Everything he does is based on the interests of the United States, which comes first. No one should forget that.”
"Therefore, Taiwan cannot be said to have been 'betrayed' by Kissinger, because for Kissinger, when weighing whether Taiwan maintains relations with the United States or China maintains relations with the United States. From the perspective of the future national security interests of the United States, of course it is more important to maintain relations with the mainland. Therefore, the mainland speaks highly of Kissinger. "
"I think the mainland has given Kissinger enough high marks. In fact, the so-called ice-breaking trip was Nixon's own idea from the beginning. At the beginning, Kissinger even thought that Nixon (the idea) was whimsical. He once told Haig (Alexander Haig, who was the leader of the advance team for Nixon's icebreaking trip to China - France and Guangdong Note): Nixon is really crazy. He wants to visit China and let me go... These are all well documented. However, as a diplomat, Kissinger, I think his diplomatic skills were very high, so he was able to discuss this matter with Zhou (Enlai) and Zhou's assistant, and later with Mao (Zedong) with success. That is to say, he should have made his own contribution in terms of specific procedures. Some Americans criticized him, thinking that he was attracted by the demeanor, wisdom, and humor of Mao (Zedong) and Zhou (Enlai), so sometimes he occasionally would sacrifice the critical interests of the United States... I don’t know if this is true. What I want to emphasize is that Kissinger is serving the United States. How other countries explain it is based on their personal feelings and positions. Yes. There’s no need to care too much about what Taiwanese say or what mainlanders say.”
FRF: As the China project leader of the Carter Center, Mr. Liu Yawei emphasized that the person who promoted the formal establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States was Nixon’s successor Jimmy Carter:
Liu Yawei: "Of course I am biased because I work for the Carter Foundation. Carter is another person who has made great contributions to Sino-US relations, and has made greater contributions than Kissinger and Nixon. That is President Jimmy Carter. President Nixon went to China in 1972 and signed the "Shanghai Communique" between China and the United States. However, from 1972 to 1978, China and the United States were not able to establish diplomatic relations. Kissinger had the power to turn things around, and in the end he There was no way to change this status quo, and in the end it was Carter who changed the status quo (Jimmy Carter served as President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. Although he did not visit China during his term, he promoted the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. The two countries signed a formal agreement on December 16, 1978. Issued a Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations - France and Guangdong Note). This was of course related to the internal political crisis that Nixon was facing at the time, especially the Watergate incident. In addition, he had no choice or courage (at the time), so he just risked the world and went to made such a decision. In the end, it was Carter who had such foresight. Of course, China (at that time) also had people with courage and a sense of reality like Deng Xiaoping. Both of them realized that it was time for China and the United States to establish diplomatic relations. So they hit it off immediately. Although both men paid a high political price for this, especially Carter himself (France's Note: Carter failed to seek re-election in November 1980). Deng Xiaoping was criticized for being "rightist" at the time, but he was finally able to reform The results of the openness convinced the people and others that his decision was correct."
Kissinger’s 100th visit to China was mostly for business needs
FRG: Kissinger has been traveling frequently between China and the United States for many years after China and the United States established diplomatic relations. What role has he played in Sino-US relations over the years?
Liu Yawei: "Kissinger said he couldn't remember how many times he went to China. Some people said he went dozens or hundreds of times. I think his travels between China and the United States were more for business reasons related to his consulting company, a commercial venture that charges fees and pursues profits. He went to China to seek various government concessions for major companies. Of course, if China and the United States encounter some issues, he will take the initiative to communicate to the Chinese side: If you have any requirements or ideas for the US government, I can convey them... So what happens after he goes back? I just mentioned the American writer James Mann. According to Meng Jiemu when Kissinger returns from overseas (of course, not just China, but also other countries, because Kissinger's company's business was worldwide), he will take the initiative to go to the U.S. State Department or the White House and say: I just came back from a specific country, or I just came back from China, these are some thoughts of the Chinese leaders that I have been charged with conveying to you... The last time he went to China was in July 2023. I listened to Lampton (France Note: John David M. Lampton, former director of the China Institute at Hopkins University, said that in fact, before Kissinger went to China, he found some China experts and talked with them on zoom for more than two hours. Question: If I go to China, will it make the Biden administration angry or unhappy? Or will it interfere with the US policy towards China... In the end, they made the decision that he went because he thought (including giving him The consultant also believed): Sino-US relations have indeed reached a relatively dangerous stage, and maybe this trip will have some effect... That is to say, he was not sent by the (US) government. As for whether the Chinese government invited him He goes? I think this possibility may be more likely. "
Misperceptions between China and the United States can lead to wrong decisions
FRG: You mentioned the lack of understanding between China and the United States. You also host the website "China-US Impressions", hoping to introduce the views of all parties and strengthen communication and understanding between the two parties. In your opinion, in what aspects does this lack of understanding mainly manifest?
Liu Yawei: "I think this incomprehension may be reflected in many aspects. For China, after seeing the 2020 US election, the Capitol Hill riots on January 6, 2021, and seeing the discrimination against Asian Americans, Seeing how many people died and were infected at the beginning of the United States’ (new crown) fight against the epidemic, (the Chinese government) felt that there was something wrong with the entire system and the entire infrastructure of the United States. It was “rising in the east and falling in the west”... …In fact, many people are not aware of the United States’ self-correction ability. You must know that the people of the United States can retaliate against those who make (wrong) decisions, because there is an election every two years or every four years. If the people think If you don’t do well, you can be kicked out. But the Chinese media and some scholars are staring at the chaos in the United States and making unrealistic conclusions.”
"The United States also has an (unrealistic) view of China, believing that China not only has the desire but also the strength to pose a threat to the United States. I think their assessment of China's strength is too high and is not viewed in a realistic context. China, to comprehensively assess China's strength. This mutual misunderstanding between the two sides will lead to wrong decisions, and wrong decisions may eventually lead to conflicts. "
FRG: But China and the United States have established diplomatic relations for more than 40 years. Before Trump launched a trade war in 2018 and relations between the two countries took a turn for the worse, although there were often some conflicts and frictions in Sino-US relations, overall they were still very close. How do you understand that after so many years of exchanges, there are still so many things that China and the United States do not understand about each other?
Liu Yawei: "I think we don't understand each other because first of all, the political systems are different and the cultural backgrounds are different. Then, the control of the entire media is also different, especially in the United States, where cable TV and wireless media represent different views. What kind of TV you watch, what kind of newspaper you read, and whose podcast or radio you listen to will determine what kind of thoughts you have. In China, because of the control of news media and propaganda, the information that people get is actually from the government. I hope you get the information. Of course, does the leader have a true understanding of the situation of the other party (country)? I think sometimes the people around the leader are always guessing what the leader wants to hear, so they may just If he doesn't want to hear anything, he just throws it out. This leads to incorrect views of the other party from top to bottom, including in the United States. Although there is freedom of the press here, the president also has people he can trust and people he cannot trust. It is always possible that he would trust the State Department more, or the CIA, or the National Security Council. When Kissinger was in the National Security Council, Nixon only listened to him on issues related to China. When Carter was president, On the China issue, they actually only listened to [Zbigniew Brzezinski], excluding the State Department. Of course, they may trust more in the intelligence briefings (intelligence briefings) provided by the CIA and other intelligence agencies every day. We are actually not very clear now about what kind of information was in those briefings. Those who engage in intelligence analysis may sometimes wear tinted glasses, and their judgments may not be completely correct. "
From engagement policy to decoupling and breaking links
FGU: Every time a new U.S. president takes office, China is very concerned about which “China experts” join the new president’s team, because it may directly affect U.S. policy toward China. These "China experts" seem to be divided into "Panda Faction" and "Hawk Faction". Now that the ruling and opposition parties in the U.S. Congress can reach consensus on the China issue and the Taiwan issue, why are there still such differences among scholars? What are their main differences?
Liu Yawei: "The so-called "Panda Faction" believes that the United States' "engagement policy" is beneficial to the United States, China, and world peace and prosperity. The so-called "Blue Team" is the anti-China faction. They believe that the United States' "engagement policy" is beneficial to the United States, China, and world peace and prosperity." The policy is actually to help China become bigger and stronger, but in the end China will not abide by the rules of the international order. Now everyone often talks about the international order based on rules. They think that China is a country that does not abide by the rules and laws, so it must follow China decoupling…”
"I think the reason why China-U.S. relations have been able to develop over the years is first because of the existence of the Soviet Union, which was a common threat, and then because of economic reciprocity, and then when we need to face it together. Challenges like climate change. I think the longest period was the engagement policy. Mainly because American companies and Wall Street believe that China is a big market and believe that the return on investment in China is the greatest. They believe that China’s The manufacturing capacity is the strongest, so they have always supported China’s most-favored-nation status and China’s accession to the WTO (World Trade Organization). Now because of China’s specific non-tariff trade obstacles, China’s disrespect for intellectual property rights, China’s subsidies, etc., Many American companies have lost a certain degree of confidence in China. Recently, both sides have "national security" (tendency) to "national security" enterprises, businesses, and trade. More companies in the United States now feel that doing business in places like China ) is unsustainable. So there are many companies in the United States and other countries that have either left or are considering leaving."
Differences between “New” and “Old” China Tong
FGU: Many of today's "China Hands" actually grew up when Sino-US relations were in a relatively good state. They may have a better understanding of contemporary China. In a sense, is this new batch of "China Hands" more influencing the United States' China policy?
Liu Yawei: "Yes, now the older generation of scholars like Lampton, including former ambassadors to China (Winston Lord) and other so-called "China experts", they all It is believed that because they actually participated in many decisions at that time, and their research on China also made their academic achievements greater. California scholar David M. McCourt (University of California, David A sociologist from the University of Sri Lanka) conducted a special interview with China Hands. He believes that this community (China Hands Group) has actually undergone tremendous changes before and after Trump’s presidential term. These new generations of China Hands are not They have never been to China, but their understanding of China seems to be more negative. I can understand this. For example, after you arrive in China, you cannot access your social media, or after you arrive in China, you cannot use Google, this is a big blow to students and young people. In addition, these China experts are not in school, so they are not academically affected by China research. In other words, they are more objective , more detached. It is different from the previous China Hands. In addition, some China Hands now can read Chinese and have read a lot of criticism of the United States on Chinese social media, or exaggerations of China’s own strength, and then, these It has become their own understanding of China. Especially people like Rush Doshi who is now in the National Security Council. , he wrote "The Long Game: China's Grand Strategy to Displace American Order" (The Long Game: China's Grand Strategy to Displace American Order) is actually the same as "The Centennial Marathon" (The Centennial Marathon) written by Michael Pillsbury: American strategic issues scholar. Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower) does not make any big difference. It means: the Chinese Communist Party has a long-term plan. This plan is to replace the United States in East Asia and the Western Pacific... In fact In fact, the Communist Party of China may not even know whether it has a long-term strategy on international issues. But in the eyes of these people, the Communist Party is moving step by step toward an ambitious goal. So we have to disrupt their journey to their goal now. "
"Taiwan's direction represents freedom and democracy in China in the future."
FRG: What do you personally think of the current situation of Sino-US relations?
Liu Yawei: "The current situation is that decoupling has occurred;
They are disappointed with China’s entire system, the instability of leaders’ decision-making, and China’s inability to allow foreign companies to compete equally with Chinese companies, etc.
They may have a more solidified view now. As for whether it's correct or not, I think it doesn't matter now. That is to say, (they) see it this way now, which may or may not be correct. But the question is whether we can sit down with each other, figure out each other's bottom lines, and then, knowing each other's bottom lines, talk about how we can cooperate, how we can make money together, and how we can do our best to make money in accordance with international regulations and laws. When it comes to money, you must also abide by the law. I think you should not have excessive expectations now. For example, if I want to do business with you, I also hope that you will be more consistent with our political system in the future... I think this may not be realistic, at least not realistic at the moment. Nonetheless, I personally believe that China, as an ancient civilization, as a nation that has a new life after reform and opening up, will sooner or later move towards advanced civilization and advanced culture. Therefore, China’s political system will definitely be in the future will become more and more free. I think it may go in the same direction as Taiwan. I think the Chinese people must also hope that Taiwan's direction represents freedom and democracy in China in the future. "
美学者刘亚伟：美国“中国通”群体在特朗普任期前后发生巨变
发表时间：
2023年11月30日，前美国国务卿亨利-基辛格在百岁高龄辞世，象征性地宣告着中美关系一个时代的结束。1971年7月，身为美国总统国家安全事务助理基辛格奉总统尼克松的嘱托秘访北京，让冷战中的中美关系摒弃对立、走向彼此迈出了第一步。此后的数十年间，基辛格继续频繁走访于中美之间，但两国关系早已从1978年正式建交后的蜜月期，跌落到近年来的全面战略竞争。2023年7月中，这位被称作是中国的“老朋友”的“中国通”最后一次访问北京，受到极高规格的接待，与其时中美高层互动的气氛形成强烈反差。中美两国领导人几个月后在旧金山的会晤显然也没能让紧张的双边关系重新春暖花开。美国卡特中心中国项目负责人刘亚伟博士认为，中美关系遇到的困难显示彼此间尚有太多的误解和迷思。如何看待基辛格在中美关系中的作用？2024年中美建交45周年，如何理解数十年的交流与互动后，彼此间仍有如此多的不理解？美国朝野两大政党如今在对华政策上立场出奇地一致，但美国的“中国通”为什么持续有“鹰派”-“熊猫派”之分呢？刘亚伟先生接受本台采访，介绍了他的观察与分析。
基辛格秘密访华的破冰之旅源自总统尼克松的想法
法广：美国前国务卿基辛格不久前去世。他无疑是中美关系中一个重要人物，但各界对他在中美关系中所扮演的角色评价不一。北京当局常年将他奉为座上宾，称他是“老朋友”。台湾方面则将美国宣布与退守台湾的中华民国断交归咎于他。近年更有人认为他误导了美国的对华政策。首先，他1971年7月他秘访北京，在时任美国总统尼克松的对华政策制定中发挥了怎样的作用呢？
刘亚伟：“首先，基辛格是移民，出生在德国，后来入籍成为美国人。作为我们这样的来自海外的（归化美国人），我们都知道别人会有对我们的loyalty（对美国是否忠诚）有所怀疑。我觉得这一点可能对他非常重要，就是说，基辛格做的所有的事不是为任何一个其他国家，不是去帮助其它国家。他做的所有的事都是以美国的利益为重的。这一点任何人都不应该忘记。”
“所以，台湾也犯不着说被基辛格‘出卖’，因为对基辛格来说，权衡台湾跟美国保持关系还是大陆与美国保持关系，从对未来的美国国家安全利益来说，当然是跟大陆保持关系更重要。所以，大陆高度评价基辛格。 ”
“我觉得大陆给基辛格戴的高帽子已经够多的了。实际上所谓的破冰之旅从一开始就是尼克松自己的想法，开始的时候，基辛格甚至认为尼克松（的想法）是异想天开，他曾告诉黑格（亚历山大-黑格，曾任尼克松访华破冰之旅的先遣小组负责人——法广注）说：尼克松真是疯了，要到中国去访问，让我去……这些都有记录在案。但是，基辛格作为一个外交官，我觉得他的外交手段应该还是非常高，所以他能够跟周（恩来）和周的助手，后来和毛（泽东）把这个事情谈成。就是说在具体的程序方面，他应该是有自己的贡献。 有些美国人批评他，认为他被毛（泽东）和周（恩来）的风度、智慧、幽默所倾倒，所以有时候偶尔会放弃美国的最高利益……这是不是真的，我就不知道了。我想强调的是，基辛格是为美国服务。其他国家怎么去解释也都是从他们个人的感情、立场出发的。用不着太计较台湾人怎么说，或者大陆人怎么说。”
法广：作为卡特中心的中国项目负责人，刘亚伟先生强调，推动中美两国正式建交的功臣更是尼克松的继任者吉米-卡特：
刘亚伟：“当然我说话是有倾向性的，因为我是为卡特基金会工作，卡特是另外一个在中美关系上立了大功的，而且比基辛格和尼克松的功劳更大的人，就是吉米-卡特总统。尼克松总统1972年去中国，签了中美“上海公报”。 但是从1972年到1978年间，中美两国并没有能够建交。基辛格就是有回天之力，最后也没有办法改变这个现状，最后还是卡特改变了现状（吉米-卡特1977年-1981年间担任美国总统。虽然任内不曾访问中国，但推动了中美邦交正常化。两国于1978年12月16日发表建交公报——法广注），这当然跟当时尼克松面对的内政危机，特别是水门事件有关系。另外他（当时）也没有办法、没有那样的勇气，就是冒天下之大不讳，去做出这样的决定。最后还是卡特有这样的远见。当然中国（当时）也有邓小平这样的有勇气、有现实感的人，两人都认识到已经到了中美建交的时候。所以他们俩一拍即合，虽然两个人都为此付出了很高的政治代价，特别是卡特自己本人（法广注：1980年11月，卡特谋求连任失败）。邓小平当时被人批评“右倾”，但是他最后能够以改革开放的成果，让老百姓和其他人信服：他的决定是正确的。”
基辛格百次访华更多是为商业需求
法广：基辛格在中美建交之后，多年来一直在频繁往返于中美之间。他在这些年的中美关系中扮演什么样的角色？
刘亚伟：“基辛格说他记不清去中国去了多少次了，有的人说他去了几十次、上百次。我觉得他，往返中美两国更多的是商业上的需求，因为基辛格的公司是一个收费的、追求利润的商业性公司。他是为各大公司寻求政府的各种优惠而到中国去。当然，如果中美两国某个时候遇到一些问题，他会主动地向中方说：你们对美国政府有什么要求或者想法，我可以传达……所以他回去以后呢？我刚才提到美国作家孟捷慕（James Mann)。据孟杰慕说，基辛格从海外回来（当然不只是中国的，还有其他的这些国家，因为基辛格的公司的生意应该是遍及全球了），他会主动的到美国国务院或白宫说：我刚从哪个国家回来，或者我刚从中国回来，这是中国领导人对你们的一些想法，我负责传达……他最后一次去中国是2023年7月。我听兰普顿 （法广注：约翰·霍普金斯大学中国研究所前所长戴维·兰普顿 David M. Lampton）说，实际上基辛格去中国之前找了一些中国通，在zoom上一起交谈了两个多小时，就是问：我如果到中国去，会不会让拜登政府生气、不高兴？或者会不会干扰美国的对华政策…… 最后他们做出的决定是，他去，因为他认为（包括给他提供咨询的人也认为）：中美关系的确是到了一个比较危险的阶段，也许此行会起到一些作用……就是说这并不是（美国）政府派他去的。至于中国政府是不是邀请他去？我觉得这个可能性可能更大一点。 ”
中美彼此间的错误认知会导致错误决定
法广：您提到中美两国之间彼此缺乏了解。您也主办网站“中美印象”，希望能介绍各方观点，加强双方沟通和理解。在您看来，这种不理解主要体现在哪些方面？
刘亚伟：“我觉得这种不理解可能体现在很多方面。对于中国来讲，在看到2020年美国大选之后，2021年1月6号国会山暴动，看到亚裔美国人受到的歧视，又看到美国（新冠）抗疫之初，那么多人死亡和感染，（中国政府）就觉得美国的整个制度、美国整个的infrastructure（基础设施）都出问题了，就是“东升西降”了……实际上，很多人意识不到美国的自我纠错的能力，要知道美国的老百姓可以报复这些做出（错误）决策的人，因为每两年或者每四年都有一次选举，老百姓如果认为你做得不好，可以把你扫地出门。而中国媒体以及一些学者盯着美国的这些乱象，做出不符合实际的结论。 ”
“美国对中国的看法也是（不切实际），认为中国现在不但有愿望而且有实力对美国构成威胁。我觉得他们对中国实力的这种评估过高，并没有在一个现实的上下文里去看中国、去综合评估中国的实力。两边这种相互的认知上的错误会导致错误的决定，错误的决定最后有可能会导致冲突。 ”
法广：但是中美建交已经四十多年。在2018年特朗普发动贸易战、两国关系急转直下之前，中美关系虽然时常也会有一些矛盾、摩擦，但是整体还是走的非常密切。如何理解有这么多年的交往，中美两国间居然还有这么多彼此不了解、不理解的地方？
刘亚伟：“我觉得彼此不了解首先是因为政治制度不同，文化背景也不一样。然后，整个媒体的管控也不一样，特别是在美国，美国的有线电视和无线媒体所代表的观点不一样。你看什么样的电视、读什么样的报纸、听什么人的podcast或者是广播，你就会有什么样的想法。中国呢，因为新闻媒体和宣传的管控，老百姓得到的信息实际上是政府希望你得到的信息。当然，领导人对对方（国家）情况是不是有真实的了解？我觉得有时候，领导人身边的人老是在猜测领导人想听什么样的话，所以有可能就把他不愿意听到的话就篦出去了。这就造成从上到下对对方的看法都有不正确的地方。包括在美国。这里虽然有新闻自由，但总统也有自己信得过的人和信不过的人，他总有可能更信国务院，或者更信中央情报局，或更信国家安全委员会。基辛格在国安会的时候，尼克松在对华问题上就只听他的。卡特做总统的时候，在中国的问题上实际上只听布洛金斯基的，把国务院排除在外。当然，他们可能更信的是美国中央情报局和其他情报部门每天提供的intelligence briefing（情报简报）。 那些简报提供什么样的信息，我们现在实际上不是特别清楚。这些搞情报分析的人有的时候可能也是带着有色眼镜，判断也不一定是完全正确的。 ”
从接触政策到脱钩断链
法广：每次新的美国总统上任，中国方面都非常关注有哪些“中国通”进入新总统的团队，因为它可能直接影响到美国对华政策。这些“中国通”好像被分为“熊猫派”和“鹰派”。在如今美国国会朝野两党能够在中国问题上、在台湾问题上达成共识的情况下，学者中为什么还会有这样的区别？他们的主要区别又是什么呢？
刘亚伟：“所谓的“熊猫派”认为美国的“接触政策”有利于美国，也有利于中国、有利于世界的和平和繁荣。那所谓“蓝队”，就是反华派，他们就认为美国的接触政策实际上是帮助中国做大做强，而最后中国不会遵守国际秩序的规则。现在大家经常说的是基于规则的国际秩序。他们认为中国是一个不遵纪守法的国家，所以必须要跟中国脱钩…… ”
“我觉得，这么些年来，中美两国关系之所以能够一路走下来，先是因为有苏联的存在，这是一个共同的威胁，那后来则是经济上的互惠，然后又到了需要共同面对像气候变化这样的挑战（的时候）。 我觉得，期间历时最长的是接触政策，主要是美国的企业以及华尔街等认为中国是一个大市场，认为在中国投资的回报最大，他们认为中国的制造能力最强，所以他们一直支持给中国最惠国待遇，一直支持中国加入WTO（世界贸易组织）。现在因为中国的这些具体的非关税贸易障碍，中国对知识产权的不尊重，中国的补贴等，让很多的美国企业，对中国失去了一定的信心。最近，双方都有把企业、生意、贸易”国家安全化“（的倾向）。 美国有更多的企业现在觉得在中国这样地方做（生意）难以为继。所以有很多美国和其他国家的企业要么离开了，要么正在考虑离开。”
“新”“老”中国通间的差异
法广：现在的很多”“中国通其实是在中美关系处于比较好的状态下成长起来的。他们对当代中国可能有更多的了解，在某种意义上，现在是不是这新一批的”中国通“在更多地影响着美国的对华政策呢？
刘亚伟：“对，现在像兰普顿这一批老一辈的学者，包括以前的像洛德这样的驻华大使（温斯屯·洛德Winston Lord） 等所谓的”中国通“，他们都是认为，因为他们当时实际参与了很多决策，另外，他们对中国的研究，也让他们学术的成就更大。加州的学者戴维·M·麦考特 (David M. McCourt，加州大学戴维斯分校社会学家) 就专门做了一个对中国通的采访，他认为这个community（中国通群体）实际上在特朗普总统任期前后，发生了巨大的变化。这些新一代中国通，不是说他们没去过中国，但是他们对中国的了解似乎更负面一些。对此我也可以理解，比如说，你到了中国以后，你就上不了你的社交媒体，或到了中国以后，你就不能用谷歌了，这些对学生，对年轻人来说都是很大的打击。另外，这些中国通他们没有在学校里边，所以他们学术上不太受中国的研究的影响。就是说，他比较更客观、更超然一些。和之前的中国通是不太一样。另外现在有些中国通能读中文，就读了很多中国社交媒体上对美国的批评，或者对中国自己的实力的夸张，然后呢，这些就变成了他们自己对中国的认知。特别是像现在在国安会的杜如松(Rush Doshi) ，他写的《长期博弈：中国取代美国的大战略》(The Long Game: China's Grand Strategy to Displace American Order) 实际上跟白邦瑞（Michael Pillsbury：美国战略问题学者）当年写的《百年马拉松》（The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower）没有任何太大的区别，意思就是：中国共产党有一个长远的计划，这个计划就是要在东亚和西太平洋对美国取而代之……实际上中国共产党到底在国际问题方面是否有一个什么长期的战略，其实他自己可能都不是特别清楚。但是在这些人看来，共产党在按照一个远大的目标按部就班地朝那个目标奋进。所以我们必须现在要扰乱他们奔向目标的旅途。 ”
“台湾的方向代表着未来中国的自由和民主”
法广：那您个人怎么看中美关系目前状况？
刘亚伟：“现在的情况就是脱钩已经发生了，就是对中国整个制度的失望，对领导人决策的不稳定，对中国不可能允许国外企业平等地与中国企业竞争等，他们可能现在已经有了比较固化的看法。至于正确不正确，我觉得现在都不重要了。就是说，（他们）现在就是这么看，有可能正确，有可能不正确。但是问题是能不能相互坐下来，把各自的底线都搞清楚，然后在知道对方底线的情况下，谈我们怎么去合作、怎么可以一起挣钱、怎么按国际的规定和法律各自做好自己挣钱的事，同时呢，也要遵纪守法。我觉得，现在不要有过分的期待，比如我要跟你做生意，我同时还希望将来你能够跟我们的政治制度更一样一点……我觉得这可能就是不太现实，至少在目前不太现实，虽然我自己认为，中国作为一个古老的文明，作为一个改革开放之后有了新的生命的一个民族，迟早它是朝着先进的文明和先进的文化方向迈进的。所以中国的政治制度肯定将来会变得越来越自由。我觉得可能会像台湾那样地方向去走，我觉得中国老百姓肯定也是希望，台湾的方向代表着未来中国的自由和民主。 ”
No comments:
Post a Comment