评论
打印
Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University has been battling the declinist heresy for more than two decades. In 1990 — at a time when it was fashionable to predict that Japan might eventually eclipse the US — he published Bound to Lead, arguing that America was likely to remain the world’s dominant power for many years to come. Now, 25 years later, Nye has written a book with a similar theme but a different target. In Is the American Century Over?, he takes on the current wave of declinism — which these days is usually based on the idea that China will displace America as “number one”.
20多年来，美国哈佛大学(Harvard University)教授约瑟夫•奈(Joseph Nye)一直在与美国衰落论者的异端邪说作斗争。1990年，他出版了《注定的领导》(Bound to Lead)一书，主张美国在接下来的许多年里很可能仍将是世界的主导力量——当时，预言日本或许最终将超越美国是一件很时髦的事。25年后的今天，奈写了一本类似主题的书，但靶子换成了另一个。在《美国世纪结束了吗？》(Is the American Century Over?)一书中，他向当前这波美国衰落论发起挑战——当前这波衰落论一般建立在中国将取代美国成为世界“头号强国”的观点上。
Once again, Nye begs to differ, arguing the case for America’s continued dominance on the basis of its political, economic, cultural and diplomatic strengths. The fact that, back in 1990, Nye was correct to debunk the idea that America was on the slide is just one good reason to take his new book seriously. His writing is illuminated by a calm authority and the ability to clarify issues by breaking them down into their constituent parts.
这一次，奈依然提出了反对意见，他认为基于政治、经济、文化和外交优势，美国的世界主导地位将会持续下去。奈在1990年正确地指出美国正在衰落不符合事实，这一成就只是他这本新书值得认真对待的理由之一。他的著述展现出一种无声的权威、以及以分析的方法澄清问题的能力。
Thus Nye argues that a nation’s power has several components. It was he who coined the much-used term “soft power” to describe the way in which nations can achieve their aims through persuasion and the ability to attract. He argues that the power of a modern nation-state can be broken down into three main elements: economic power, hard (or military) power and soft power. China, he points out, can so far challenge America on only one of these indices — the economic.
奈主张，国家实力包含几个部分。正是他发明了被很多人使用的“软实力”(soft power)一词，来描述国家如何可通过说服和吸引力达成其目标。他主张，现代民族国家的实力可分解为三个主要部分：经济实力、硬实力（或军事实力）以及软实力。他指出，到目前为止，中国仅有能力在这三项中的一项（即经济实力）上挑战美国。
According to the International Monetary Fund, China’s economy is now larger than that of the US, measured in purchasing power. Nye concedes that the Chinese economy will also probably surpass that of the US in absolute terms during the next decade. But he argues that America is likely to maintain its lead in military and soft power for much longer. And he also points out that America benefits from much more favourable geographic and strategic conditions than China. The US is surrounded only by oceans and allies. China, by contrast, finds itself boxed in by potential competitors, such as India or Russia, or US treaty allies, such as Japan or South Korea.
国际货币基金组织(IMF)数据显示，以购买力平价衡量，中国的经济规模现已超过美国。奈承认，未来10年内，以绝对价值衡量的中国经济规模多半也会超过美国。但他主张，美国在军事实力和软实力上保持领先地位的时间很可能会比这长得多。他还指出，美国受益于较中国有利得多的地理与战略环境。美国周围只有大洋和盟国。与此形成对照的是，中国周边是印度或俄罗斯等潜在竞争对手、以及日本或韩国等美国的条约盟国。
Much of what Nye has to say is convincing. But while his distinction between the three sorts of power makes sense, he does not fully address the possibility that one aspect of power — the economic — could ultimately be more important than the other two. After all, it is economic wealth which pays for military muscle and China’s military budget is increasing fast. Growing wealth also creates a form of “soft” power. We have seen a vivid example of that in recent weeks, as China persuaded several US allies to join a new Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, despite opposition from Washington. As more and more countries find that their most important economic relationship is with China, rather than the US, we are likely to see China’s “power to attract” also increase.
奈所讲的很多内容都是令人信服的。但是，尽管他对三种实力的划分是合理的，可他没有充分考虑到一种可能性：作为三种实力之一，经济实力可能归根结底要比另外两种更重要。毕竟，舒展“军事肌肉”要靠经济实力，而且中国的军事预算正在快速增加。财富的增长还会造就某种形式的“软”实力。我们在最近几周已看到一个鲜活的例子：尽管遭到华盛顿方面的反对，中国还是说服了美国的几个盟国加入总部位于北京的、新生的亚洲基础设施投资银行(AIIB)。随着越来越多的国家意识到其最重要的经济关系是对华经济关系而非对美经济关系，我们很可能会看到中国的“吸引力”也在增强。
It is clear that China is still a long way from challenging America’s global reach. The US is the dominant military power and strategic player in the Middle East, Europe and Latin America — a status that China is not even close to challenging. However, it is now possible to see China posing a serious challenge to America’s military dominance of the Asia-Pacific region. Given that this is the region that is increasingly emerging as the core of the global economy, a loss of American predominance here would certainly have global implications.
显而易见的是，中国距离对美国的全球影响力构成挑战还有很长的路要走。美国目前是中东、欧洲和拉美的主导性军事强权及战略玩家，中国在这方面还远不能对美国构成挑战。然而，现在也许能够看到，中国正对美国在亚太地区的军事主导地位构成严重挑战。鉴于亚太地区正日益成长为世界经济的核心，美国在亚太失去主导地位无疑将产生全球性的影响。
As Nye repeatedly and correctly points out, events have a habit of making fools of those who predict the future trajectory of great nations. Past prophets of American decline failed to foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union or the bursting of the Japanese bubble — which may be another way of saying that they failed to understand the relative strengths and resilience of the American system.
正如奈多次正确指出的那样，局势的发展往往会捉弄那些预测大国未来轨迹的人。过去，那些预言美国将衰落的人未能预见到苏联的解体或日本泡沫的破灭——也可以说，他们未能认识到美国制度的相对优势和弹性。
However, as well as being a leading academic analyst, Nye is also a patriot and a former senior official in the Pentagon. At one point he remarks revealingly that predictions of American decline are potentially “dangerous” because they could encourage countries such as Russia or China to pursue more aggressive policies. In other words, the maintenance of power has a lot to do with perception. If people around the world believe that the “American century” is set to continue for many more decades that will — in itself — help to sustain America’s role.
不过，奈不仅是一位知名的学术分析家，也是一位爱国者和前五角大楼(Pentagon)高官。在书中某处，他发人深省地谈到，有关美国将衰落的预言可能是“危险的”，因为这些预言可能会鼓励俄罗斯或中国等国采取更咄咄逼人的政策。换言之，实力的维持在很大程度上跟认知有关。如果世人都相信“美国世纪”注定还要延续几十年，那么这一认知本身就会帮助维持美国的地位。
But power, as Nye makes clear, has many facets — and one of the strengths of his book is his ability to look at all aspects of the problem. On several occasions, I thought I had found a gap in the argument and scribbled something in the margin such as “education?” — only to find the topic dealt with, a couple of pages later. As a result, even those (like me) who do not completely buy Nye’s argument will benefit from his succinct and clear review of the state of the “decline” debate.
但正如奈阐明的那样，实力涵盖多个方面，他这本书的优点之一是他能够对问题展开全方位考察。有几次，我以为自己发现了书中观点的欠缺，并在页边空白处草草写下“教育？”等字，结果却发现该书在两三页后便谈到了这个主题。所以说，即便是那些不完全认可奈的观点的人（比如我），也会从他对“美国衰落”辩论形势的简明评述中受益。
