美国学者：美国才是给世界制造风险的“房间里的大象”
2023-07-28 16:33 来源：国际在线
国际在线报道（记者 任丽君）：近来，美西方政客频频将所谓“去风险”挂在嘴边，鼓动对华“脱钩断链”。美国政治学学者、中国问题专家约瑟夫·格雷戈里·马奥尼（Josef Gregory Mahoney）在接受国际在线专访时指出，“去风险”是美方为实现“脱钩”目的玩弄的文字游戏，美国才是给世界制造风险的“房间里的大象”。
马奥尼分析称，“去风险”一词从表面上看似乎是中性的，然而其背后意图有待深究。G7峰会公报强调对华“去风险”，而不“脱钩 ”。G7为何会作这种改变，马奥尼认为， “脱钩 ”一词意味着一场新的冷战，增加了国际体系彻底崩溃的可能性，将对各领域国际合作产生不利影响，大多数人觉得这是一条不可接受的危险道路。相比之下，“去风险”似乎降低了“脱钩”的危险性，所以G7选择了“去风险”这个说词。
马奥尼指出，虽然美西方声称不“脱钩”，但在关键领域，他们仍然截断了与中国的联系。例如，一些国家针对华为等中国高科技企业，以这些公司可能存在“与间谍活动相关的不可接受的风险”为借口，将使用中国公司产品定为非法，从而实现所谓“去风险”的目的。马奥尼提到，被视为“去风险”举措的美国《芯片和科学法案》，本质旨在加速美国关键技术的开发与商业化，同时遏制中国的芯片技术发展。
马奥尼称，有理由担心“去风险”实际上是更彻底的“脱钩”前奏。他认为，“去风险”更像是一个文字游戏，一种修辞策略，通过该策略可以实现逐步“脱钩”，却能避免对此承担责任。一方面，它明确否认“脱钩”，另一方面，它还险恶地暗示了中国是“增加风险的来源”。
马奥尼引用“房间里的大象”这一表述指出，许多国家忽视了一个事实，即美国输送给世界的风险要比中国大得多。G7峰会指责中国实施“经济胁迫”但提供不了相关依据，相反，几十年来美国常常使用经济胁迫手段阻挠中国与其他国家的能源合作；2022年美国通过《芯片和科学法案》实施经济胁迫，迫使一些国家停止与中国开展技术合作。形成鲜明对比的是，中国只在某些国家企图干涉中国内政、威胁中国国家安全时，才会采取反制措施。他强调，美国的主动胁迫与中国面对威胁作出合理反应这两者之间是有本质区别的。
马奥尼表示，美国胁迫其他国家中止与中国的技术合作，毫无根据地污蔑和打压中国科技公司，美方对中国企业的指控内容却已被证实正是美国科技公司过往的行径。这相当于用一个未经论证的风险来隐藏一个真正的风险，同时又创造了新的风险：对许多国家而言，假如不服从美国指令对华“去风险”，那么他们就得面临美国施加的风险。因此，部分国家不得不为了规避来自美国的巨大风险而对华“去风险”。这种妥协则指向了一条使霸权主义和帝国主义更加嚣张的黑暗道路。与此同时，至关重要的一点被忽略了，那就是：中国比世界上任何其他国家都更关心发展中国家的未来，也比任何其他国家都更加致力于促进世界和平、安全与发展。
Beijing must take ensure it avoids repeating past missteps as it advances new monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate growth and recovery. Otherwise, it risks creating a tech bubble that could hamstring its long-term ability to compete globally.
videocam
OpinionWhy science, not ideology, is guiding China’s Covid-19 policy
Beijing is risking popular displeasure because many citizens still remain vulnerable and unvaccinated. While the US could see up to 100 million new cases this year, China is focused on keeping the Omicron surge at bay while building testing capacity ahead of the next wave.
The risks facing the US now are not dissimilar from those the Soviets faced. Yet it’s not clear Washington has learned the deeper lessons of history, including why Beijing has avoided the Soviet Union’s fate.
Experts, and US policymakers, subscribing to a zero-sum view of international relations normalise and even goad conflict. The only solution is to break this cycle of violence and normalise peace and cooperation instead.
A distinct strain of pandemic capitalism is present in the United States as stock prices soar and the government and markets prioritise profits over people. Women, the working poor and minorities have experienced the brunt of the suffering while drug companies, tech firms and friends of the government have lined their pockets.
The White House has sent mixed signals on China, agreeing to hold talks while announcing a ban on Chinese apps. But the hope that these are just Washington’s negotiation tactics is fading, amid worries of a potential armed conflict.
US President Donald Trump’s provocative rhetoric raises questions about how far he is willing to go in his confrontation with China. While countries and businesses are reluctant to pick sides, the spectre of a US-China military conflict might force them to.
For a coronavirus with a lower fatality rate than peak flu season in the US, millions are quarantined, borders are closed, flights are cut, and economic and political costs are mounting. With human rights swept aside and public health politicised, are we creating more problems than we hope to solve?
The US’ targeting of Huawei is rooted in long-standing fears that China might challenge the idea of civilisational superiority on which the West constructs itself. Focusing on Chinese surveillance effaces the threat posed by Western tech giants.
The leaders of China’s Communist Party learned from both Tiananmen and the fall of the Soviet Union not to give in. The mainland Chinese public also appears to have little sympathy for Hongkongers, which will free Beijing’s hand to act decisively.
China’s young people, once at the forefront of politics, are increasingly disenfranchised, and part of a worrying generational gap as a result of the nation’s unprecedented cultural and economic development.
With the unveiling of the Indo-Pacific Economic Vision, the apparent resolution of the trade dispute with the EU and the cosying up with Russia, it is now clear that the US president has been working towards a strategy of turning other countries against Beijing.
Xi Jinping is pitting himself against Deng Xiaoping’s legacy, particularly his vision of collective leadership.
Behind Poland’s controversial new law lurk some disturbing suspicions regarding the country’s Jewish community – but also anti-EU and anti-German sentiment, not to mention nationalist and economic concerns over potential Holocaust reparations.
