傅立民 美国对华竞争是恶意对抗，一切只为削弱中国

傅立民：美国对华竞争是“恶意对抗”，一切只为削弱中国

 傅立民美国前驻华公使，尼克松访华时美方首席翻译 2023-05-17 观察者网

傅立民（Charles W. Freeman Jr.）1965年进入美国国务院工作，在此后近50年时间里曾担任美国驻沙特阿拉伯大使、克林顿政府的助理国防部长，有丰富的外交工作经验。他最为中国人熟知的印象，是在1972年尼克松总统历史性的访华之旅中担任美方首席翻译。

2023年3月，傅立民接受美国赞巴卡里咨询公司CEO克里斯托弗·赞巴卡里博士的视频采访，两人讨论了从乌克兰危机、中美关系到美国外交现状等问题。部分采访内容发布在英国杜伦大学全球政策研究所网站。观察者网基于原文翻译，未经作者审阅，仅供参考。

【翻译/观察者网 郭涵】

问：美国能在多大的程度上左右当前乌克兰冲突的结果？

傅立民：许多证据表明，乌克兰总统泽连斯基先生必须听从来自外国的建议、意见乃至指令。最明显的证据是2022年4月，时任英国首相鲍里斯·约翰逊造访基辅。当时俄罗斯与乌克兰似已非常接近达成停火协议，约翰逊的从中作梗显然破坏了这一努力。

我们已见识到，外部力量有能力干预并要求泽连斯基先生抛弃和平的机会；这些力量是否会引导他追求实现和平，则是另外一回事。然而，不应忘记，尽管这个人作为演员非常出色，但他终究只是一名演员。有相当多的理由去怀疑他所说的话是否发自内心。泽连斯基先生的表态显然服务于我们美国正在讨论的地缘政治目标。所以，回答你的问题：是的，如果我们愿意，当然有可能实现和平。但老实说，没有证据证明美国现在想要实现和平。

前美国驻沙特大使、资深外交官傅立民

问：您认为由欧洲主持推动乌克兰危机解决方案的意义在哪里？

傅立民：在国际冲突解决的研究中有一项基本原则，那些有能力破坏和平方案的势力，必须参与方案的制定。有些势力的利益与这场冲突息息相关，因此必须争取这些势力的支持，说服他们同意（和谈）。

我对和平的定义非常直白，意味着那些有能力扰乱和平的力量能够充分接受和谈安排，打消再动干戈的念头。相比通常的描述，这种和平可能听起来没那么高尚，但我认为这是现实的。因此，俄乌冲突最终会迎来什么样的和平，在乌克兰境内实现和平是否意味着俄罗斯与其它欧洲国家间的和解，这才是核心问题。

问：您如何看待快速变化的美中关系？

傅立民：我倾向于使用一种区分中美不同竞争形式的分析框架，并确定了三种形式。第一种是“相互较劲”式的竞争，如果中美双方（有时可能涉及多方）通过不断提升本国在各领域的表现，相互超越，最终将形成良性竞争而非零和博弈，并带来积极的结果。在过去相当长一段时期内，这就是美中关系的情况。

接下来是“恶意对抗”般的竞争，好比一场田径比赛中的某位选手认为，他/她只能靠绊倒或妨碍其他选手，而不是努力提升个人表现的方式赢得比赛。采取这种竞争形式的唯一目标就是削弱对手，也是目前美国在处理对华关系时的做法。

最后则是“不共戴天”式的竞争，意味着彼此都渴望彻底消灭对方。也许这个词适用于美国曾经参与的全面战争——美国内战，第一次与第二次世界大战，冷战——美国当时的目标是彻底击垮对手，并按照一种更符合美国价值观的方式重构对手的体制。

现在美国与中国已经脱离了“相互较劲”式的良性竞争，陷入非常不健康的第二种竞争形式。对美国来说，竞争的基本原则不是为了提升自己，而是为了削弱中国。

问：您能否谈一谈美国外交的现状？

傅立民：现在美国没有人在认真地开展外交。如果你不信，只用看拜登政府执政之初，布林肯、苏利文与杨洁篪、王毅2021年3月在阿拉斯加州安克雷奇举行的会谈。那场会谈基本上是什么性质？美方官员走进会场撂下话：“我们不喜欢你们（中国），我们在道德上鄙视你们，如果有办法拖你们的后腿，我们一定会付诸实践。我们肯定会遏制你们的发展。但是，现在有几件事需要拜托中国，你们愿意帮帮忙吗？”

2021年3月，杨洁篪在安克雷奇中美高层战略对话开场白中阐明中方有关立场 图自：新华网

这就是今天美国开展外交的方式，水平之低劣，令人“叹为观止”。那次会谈的结果也完全在意料之中——双方陷入相互指责，完全没有取得任何建设性的成果。

问：如何培养下一代美国外交官？

傅立民：根本无从谈起。一个标志性的案例是，美国国会众议院正在认真考虑发起提案，将中国“踢出”二十国集团（G20）。难不成二十国集团是美国开的？我不这么认为。也许这些美国政客对哗众取宠产生了偏执妄想，但更重要的是，这件事背后体现出一种完全与现实脱节的世界观。

今天的世界不再是美国一手主导、唯我独尊的格局，也许只有在冷战刚结束时有过这样一段短暂的时期。今天的世界包含多个相互竞争的区域力量中心——这种格局在很大程度上是美国造成的——在美国人的脑海中，国际法与相关规章被所谓“基于规则的秩序”所取代，也就是我们制定规则，我们决定规则适用于哪些国家，不适用于哪些国家。这根本没有说服力。

我们必须重新认识到外交的价值，它首先源于一种同理心。与你对话的这位代表来自哪里？美国外交官现在不可能有效地说服任何人，也许只能恐吓他们的谈判对象。但如果你不愿意倾听对方的关切、了解他们对世界的看法，就不可能实现说服。

问：关于“全球南方”国家未来可能扮演的角色。

傅立民：我认为所谓的“全球南方”——有些国家地理上未必在南方——希望能够实现独立自主，建立符合他们自身愿景的社会，而不是遵从外部的指令或者干涉。

以非洲为例，到本世纪末，非洲总人口有可能达到20亿，将孕育全球最庞大、最年轻的劳动力群体，目前的经济发展动能非常活跃。那些正在取得成功的非洲国家，未来可能在国际舞台上扮演更重要的角色。

然而，这些国家的发展，势必会进一步扩大对国际合作的需求。我有点怀疑，比如说印度、日本、更多的非洲国家、欧盟而非英国、法国等等，未来能否找到一种途径，给予他们目前不具备的、在全球治理当中能发挥更大作用的角色。这是通往未来的必由之路。显然当人们需要认真研究这个问题，我早已作古多时，所以我也没啥可抱怨的。

'We don't do diplomacy anymore': An interview with U.S. Ambassador Chas W. Freeman Jr.

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/05/2023/we-dont-do-diplomacy-anymore-interview-us-ambassador-chas-w-freeman-jr

By Christopher Zambakari - 10 May 2023   CONFLICT AND SECURITY

Recently, The Zambakari Advisory sat down with Ambassador Freeman in a wide-ranging Zoom call, posing questions on a series of subjects relating to the war in Ukraine, U.S. relations with China, the state of U.S. diplomacy, and the role of Africa and its emerging countries in a world shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity.

Considered one of the “whiz kids” of the U.S. State Department when he entered the foreign service in 1965, Chas Freeman Jr. was for nearly 50 years involved in diplomatic service to his country including serving as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President George W. Bush, assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration, and interpreter for President Richard Nixon during the path-breaking 1972 China visit.

Below are other excerpts from the March interview with Ambassador Freeman.

On the ability of the U.S. to dictate to Ukraine the outcome of the current conflict:

“Well, there’s a lot of evidence that Mr. Zelensky responds to foreign advice and counsel and direction. The clearest evidence of that was [British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv [in April 2022], and his apparent sabotage of what appeared to be something very close to an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end this fight.

“We’ve seen that foreigners can direct Mr. Zelensky away from peace. Whether they could direct him toward peace is another question. Let’s remember, however, that this man, although he is a brilliant actor, is an actor. And there is a considerable reason to doubt that the lines he is delivering are original to him. They certainly serve geopolitical purposes of the sort we were discussing. So, I think the answer is yes, if we wanted to have peace, we could, but frankly, there’s no evidence we want peace.”

On the importance of a European-driven resolution in Ukraine:

“There is a basic principle of conflict resolution, which is that those with the capacity to overthrow the solution have to be part of the solution. You have to have buy-in from those who have a stake in what happens, and you have to convince them.

“My definition of peace is a very bland one. It is a situation that is sufficiently acceptable to those with the capacity to disturb it so that they don’t disturb it. That may make peace sound less noble than it is often portrayed, but I think it’s realistic. So the question of what kind of peace is established eventually, if one is established in Ukraine and therefore between Russia and the rest of Europe, is the core question.” 

On the changing U.S.-China relationship:

“I like an analytical framework that distinguishes forms of competition, and I identify three. One form is rivalry. That can be very healthy because it consists of each side — sometimes more than two sides — but each side striving to improve its own performance, and thereby out-compete, outdo the others. That is a competition which is not a zero-sum game. It is positive in its outcomes. And that is what we had for a considerable period of time in the U.S.-China relationship.”

“[There is] ‘adversarial animosity.’ Adversarial animosity is what happens when a runner in a race decides that he or she can win only by tripping up or hamstringing the competitor. Rather than trying to improve his or her own performance, someone who practices this form of competition strives to cripple the opposition. That is where we are with China at the moment.

“[Then, there] is enmity, which implies a desire to annihilate the other side. Perhaps this is the word to describe the total wars that the United States has fought — the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War — in which the objective was to destroy the enemy and reconstitute the enemy in a form more congenial to the values of the United States.”

“So, with China, we have moved from rivalry — healthy competition — to a very unhealthy competition in which our basic effort to compete is not to improve ourselves very much but to cripple the Chinese.”

On the state of U.S. diplomacy:

“We don’t do diplomacy anymore. If you doubt that, look at the [March 2021] Anchorage [Alaska] meeting between Anthony Blinken, [Chinese officials] Wang Yi and Yang Jiechi, and [U.S. National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan back at the start of the Biden administration. What was the nature of that meeting? We went in there and we said, ‘We don’t like you. We think you are a moral reprobate; if we can pull you down, we will. We’re certainly going to try to block your progress, but there are a few things we need you to do for us, and could you help us?’ That was the approach. That was remarkably inept, and the result was entirely predictable — an exchange of diatribe rather than anything constructive.”

On the training of tomorrow’s diplomats:

“We’re not. The symbol of this is that the House of Representatives is seriously considering a bill to remove China from the G20. Does the United States control the G20? I don’t think so. So, delusions of grandeur, perhaps, but more importantly, a worldview that is totally out of date.

“The world is now composed not of a dominant, single, unified domain dominated by the United States, as it may have been briefly after the Cold War. The world is composed of multiple competing regional centers — and we’ve done a good deal to bring that about … [International law and regulation] has been replaced in our minds by something called the ‘rules-based order,’ in which we make the rules and decide who they apply to and who is exempt from them. That’s not very persuasive.”

“We need to rediscover the merits of diplomacy, which begins with empathy. Where is the other guy coming from? You can’t persuade anybody effectively, you can intimidate them, but you can’t persuade them, if you don’t address their concerns and their worldview.”

On the role of the “Global South” moving forward:

“I think what the so-called ‘Global South’ — some of which isn’t very far south — wants is their own self-determination, building their own societies to match their own aspirations, not being subjected to outside dictation or interference.

“Let’s take Africa for example … You see Africa at the end of a century with perhaps two billion people, the largest labor force, the youngest labor force on the planet, and currently very robust economic development. These are countries that are succeeding, and that are going to be far more important internationally.

“But, as these countries grow there’s still going to be a need for international global cooperation. And I suspect we will find a way to, for example, give countries like India or perhaps one or more African countries, certainly Japan, perhaps the EU instead of Britain and France, a role in global governance that they don’t have now. That’s a requirement. But that’s for somebody to work out long after I’m dead. So I’ll not croak on about it.”

 

 

Dr. Christopher Zambakari, Founder & CEO, The Zambakari Advisory.

Hartley B. and Ruth B. Barker Endowed Rotary Peace Fellow, Assistant Editor, Bulletin of The Sudan Studies Association.

The Zambakari Advisory is a Phoenix-headquartered international consultancy in the areas of strategic intelligence, program design and transitional processes. Twice annually, The Advisory publishes an online Special Issue surrounding issues of global impact as seen through the eyes of recognized leaders in the subject areas. The interview was conducted by Christopher Zambakari, LP.D., founder and CEO of The Zambakari Advisory; Estève Giraud, Ph.D., assistant research professor at Arizona State University’s Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems; Dr. Benjamin Abelow, author of How the West Brought War to Ukraine; and Stephen Des Georges, content development and communications consultant and TZA editor-at-large.