Who Is the Real Enemy of the US?

Published in View China
(China) on 2 April 2014
by Wang Jin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Kartoa Chow. Edited by Bora Mici.
Following the continual dispute between the United States and Russia on Ukraine’s problems, the attention of the American public seems to have been drawn to Russia. However, the academic world of U.S. domestic affairs introduced a new viewpoint, different from actual international conflicts. Many American scholars suggest to not solely focus on Russia, because "China is the real enemy of the United States."

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently said that U.S. support for Ukraine "has not pulled any assets away" from Asia or any other region. The main reason for Obama’s minimal military response to the crisis in Ukraine is to avoid an escalation of conflict. Hagel stated that even if Russia decided to invade eastern Ukraine, the U.S. would not send troops in response. Although having guessed the last card that comrade Putin would play, the U.S. does not plan on changing its basic strategy of global focus on China.

Some people believe that the crisis in Ukraine foreshadows a delay in the "pivot to Asia" strategy, long promised by the Obama administration, even suggesting that the strategic focus will once again be diverted to Europe. Hagel’s tour deliberately targeted this view, and he insisted that this situation would not occur. He said that the U.S. was supporting its NATO allies in response to the conflict with Russia, but did not plan on increasing the number of troops in Europe. After the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the U.S. clamored for sending troops to support Eastern Europe, but in reality, the U.S. presence was not excessive in this region: Only 18 warplanes have been deployed to Poland and Lithuania thus far, a naval destroyer extended its patrol in the Black Sea, and approximately 300,000 boxes of field rations were distributed to the troops in Ukraine. These provisions are insignificant on the U.S. global strategic scale.

In fact, accurately and objectively identifying the circumstances of global relations is the cornerstone for any country’s foreign policies. Under these circumstances, one of the most important first steps is to ascertain the main threat. During World War II, the U.S. viewed Germany, Italy and Japan, or the Axis powers, as the main threat to the security of the United States, as well as the rest of the world. As a result, the U.S. became not only the world’s most crucial player in the war against fascism, but also the protector of world justice and peace, greatly boosting America’s global position. Postwar, the U.S. was able to establish a new international order, on one hand because of its military power and economic strength, and on the other, its moral stance and authority.

After the Cold War ended, the U.S. fell into a state of emptiness and confusion from the "lack" of a strategic competitor. To a large extent, the U.S. possessed an ingrained "enemy" complex. Consequently, the U.S. began an incessant search for enemies and redefined itself through the process. At the turn of the century, the U.S. seemed to have identified a suitable "enemy" — China.

In fact, the U.S. has always viewed China as an "outsider." When the Cold War ended, Sino-American relations continued to remain turbulent. Between the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia during the Clinton era and the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency, an event as drastic as the Hainan Island incident happened between the U.S. and China. American hostility toward China had always existed. Bush publicly proclaimed that China was not a strategic partner, but a strategic competitor of the United States. The American government at that time was full of optimism upon this realization, making significant changes to its strategies, with its "pivot to Asia" policy looking more imminent.

The 9/11 incident disrupted the American strategic plan. With the next eight years, the U.S. marked the beginning of a controversial era of global counterterrorism. However, we have to be clear that even if the U.S. had locked in its enemies as al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, as well as related terrorist activities, the U.S. would continue to employ traditional nation-state and geostrategic tactics. For example, the wars launched by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq not only eradicated the al-Qaida headquarters and those harboring them, but they also allowed American forces to penetrate and expand into Central Asia and the Middle East.

Whether intentionally or not, the U.S. used "counterterrorism" as a reason to expansively establish or lease military bases in the Caucasus and Africa. The locations of these bases were chosen with geostrategic consideration against Iraq, North Korea and other nations part of the "axis of evil" and "outposts of tyranny," instead of a simple goal of fighting terrorism. From this perspective, it is still too early to conclude whether the Bush administration’s foreign strategy was a success or failure. However, after experiencing eight years of a global war against terrorism, one point became clear for the United States. Pinpointing a vague and abstract target like terrorism as an "enemy" was absurd and unsustainable.

Accompanying the end of the Bush administration were not only the two wars in which the U.S. was heavily involved, a damaged international image and a broken American economy, but also an important geostrategic challenge from the Russo-Georgian War in August of 2008. Interestingly, six years later, the Obama administration faces the same dilemma. Because of the issue in Ukraine, the U.S. and Russia find themselves once again in the arena. With Russia-U.S. relations "reset" during Obama’s first term, or even coming to a halt after this incident, the U.S. and Europe’s new geostrategic conflict with Russia begins to take shape.

From the current point of view, based on these two events, the U.S. seems to be taking on a relatively passive role. As a result, there are not many countermeasures available to the United States, nor will they necessarily be effective. Whether the political promises that the U.S. made to its allies could be fulfilled remains a mystery to the international community. Consequently, on March 20, 2014, Obama addressed the issue in Ukraine by emphasizing that the U.S. "will never waver. NATO nations never stand alone." On March 26, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Obama once again reiterated this point.

In fact, on a larger scale and in the long run, the Obama administration seems to have affirmed that the Asia-Pacific region is the most important to American interests. Exports from Asia to the U.S. far exceed those from Europe. And while Europe has a peacekeeping NATO, Asia lacks a similar type of regional organization and continues to rely on the presence of American troops. Unlike Russia, China is a rising power full of potential. The current mission for the U.S. is to persuade the Asian leaders of its serious intention, and that the U.S. will not shift its strategic focus from the Pacific because of the crisis in Ukraine or other locations.

After the Cold War, in a global sense, the so-called enemies of the U.S. referred to three targets: China, terrorism and Russia, with terrorism referring to specific countries such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime, and Iran, widely disdained by the Americans. The U.S. adopted a conservative perception to calm its inner fears, labeling whatever entity it focused its attention on as a "competitor" or "enemy." The bottom line is, regardless of whether Ukraine will be in turmoil again or the situation will worsen, the U.S. still cannot let go of China.


随着美国与俄罗斯在乌克兰问题上不断争锋,美国的国内注意力似乎都已经被吸引到了俄罗斯身上。不过与国际上风风火火的针锋相对不同,美国国内学术界却开始了另外一场辩论,不少美国学者建议不要紧盯着俄罗斯,因为“中国才是美国的敌人”。

美国防长哈格尔近日就表示,美国对乌克兰的支持“并没有将任何资产(从亚洲及其他地区)撤走”。对乌克兰危机最低限度的军事反应主要是因为奥巴马希望避免冲突升级。哈格尔说,即便俄罗斯派遣军队进入乌克兰东部地区,美国仍不会出兵。看来,美国虽然已经猜到了普京同志的底牌,但仍不打算改变把美国力量的全球矛头仍然对准中国的基本战略。

一些人认为乌克兰的危机意味着奥巴马政府应推迟一直以来承诺的“重返亚洲”的战略计划,甚至应当将战略重心再次转向欧洲。哈格尔的访问行程是有意针对这种看法做出了回应。哈格尔坚称上述情况不会发生。他说,在与俄罗斯的冲突中,美国将支持自己的北约盟友,但尚未有计划增加美国在欧洲的军队数量。在俄罗斯“吞并”克里米亚后,白宫曾大肆鼓噪派遣美军支持东欧。但事实上,美国并没有向该地区部署过多的军队:目前仅向波兰和立陶宛部署了18架战机、延长了一艘海军驱逐舰在黑海的巡航,以及向乌克兰武装部队派送了约30万份战地食品,而这些对于美国全球战略格局而言,都是无关痛痒的。

其实对于任何一个国家来说,对外政策的基石就在于准确客观的认清国际关系的大环境。正在这种大环境下,其中的重要前提就是厘清主要威胁。二战期间,美国将德意日“三国同盟”视为对美国乃至世界安全的最大威胁。因此,美国不仅成为世界反法西斯战争中最重要的基础性力量,而且也成为维护世界正义、和平的化身,美国的国际地位空前高涨。战后,美国之所以能够建立新的国际秩序,一方面源自于美国强大的军事、经济实力,另一方面也得益于它的道德感召力与权威性。

冷战结束后,美国陷入到战略对手“空缺”的失落与迷茫之中。很大程度上来说,美国有着一种根深蒂固的“敌人”情结。于是,美国开始不断地寻找敌人,并在此进程中重新界定自己。新世纪之初,美国似乎找到了一个合适的“敌人”——中国。

其实中国在美国的眼中一直是一个分析上的“他者”。在冷战结束之后,中美关系一直磕磕碰碰。从克林顿时期北约轰炸我驻南联盟大使馆,到在小布什政府执政伊始,中美之间发生的“南海撞机”这样的严重事件。美国对中国的敌意一直存在。小布什就曾公开声称,中国不是美国的战略伙伴,而是美国的战略竞争者。当时的美国政府对于这个发现是充满欣喜的,并且在战略上作出了重大调整,“重返亚太”政策已箭在弦上。

“9-11事件”打破了美国的战略部署。此后八年,美国开启了颇具争议的全球反恐时代。不过,我们需要清楚的是,尽管美国将其敌人“锁定”在“基地”等恐怖主义组织以及与此相关的恐怖主义活动上,但美国所投入的重大战略力量仍然是置于对传统民族国家与重要地缘战略地区的经略之上。例如,美国所发动的阿富汗、伊拉克战争,不仅拔除了“基地”组织的大本营和庇护者,而且其势力还渗透、扩大到中亚、中东地区。

不管有心还是无心,美国利用“反恐”之名,在高加索地区、非洲地区广泛建立或租用军事基地,对伊朗、朝鲜等国家冠之以“邪恶轴心”“暴政前哨”等名号,这一切都是基于地缘战略考虑,而非是简单地打击恐怖主义。从这个角度来说,小布什政府的外交战略究竟成败几何,现在似乎还不是下结论的时候。可是,经历过八年的全球反恐战争,美国在一点上是弄明白了,即将恐怖主义这一缺少实体存在的对象作为美国的“敌人”是荒谬且不可持续的。

伴随小布什政府任期终结的不仅是美国深陷的两场战争、受损的国际形象、支离破碎的美国经济,还有一个重要的地缘战略挑战,即2008年8月间的俄格战争。颇为有趣的是,六年以后,奥巴马政府同样面临着这样的困境。因为乌克兰问题,美国与俄罗斯又一次站到了博弈场的中央。在奥巴马第一任期内,美俄关系“重启”进程或因为此次事件而戛然而止,美欧与俄罗斯新的地缘战略之争似初见端倪。

从现象上来看,在这两起事件当中,美国似乎都处于相对被动的地位。并且,美国所可采取的反制措施并不多,也未必有效,但美国对其盟友所做的政治承诺是否可信,在国际社会中着实打下了大大的问号。因此,2014年3月20日,奥巴马在就乌克兰问题发表讲话时强调,“美国对北约(NATO)盟国的支持毫不动摇”。3月26日,奥巴马在与北约秘书长拉斯穆森会晤时再次强调了这一点。

其实从更大范围和长远来看,奥巴马政府看来已经认定:对美国的利益而言,亚洲和太平洋是最重要的地区。在贸易方面,美国对亚洲的出口规模大大超过对欧洲的出口。欧洲有维持和平的北约组织.而亚洲缺乏类似的区域性组织,仍需依赖美国的军事存在。不同于俄罗斯,中国是一个充满活力、正在崛起的大国。美国现在的任务是,要尽力使亚洲的领导人相信美国真的是在少花钱多办事,而且并不会因为乌克兰或其他地区的硬实力危机使其战略重心从太平洋转移。

美国在冷战后将其所谓的敌人(全球意义上)指向了三个目标:中国、恐怖主义、俄罗斯,其中恐怖主义这个敌人,仍然被指向了一些国家,如萨达姆治下的伊拉克、美国人厌恶的伊朗等。美国人紧盯着的,从来都是“对手”、“敌人”,以敏感的战略神经平复内心的恐惧。因此说来说去,无论乌克兰再动荡,局势再糟糕,美国还是放不下中国。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Topics

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Related Articles

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem