娜夫塔斯博士是俄國通和國際權力競逐學者。她在《美國利益》雜誌這篇文章指出一個簡單的道理:「備多力分」。
娜夫塔斯博士認為,美國目前已經沒有實力在全球各地跟對手爭一日之長;所以她建議美國放棄在中亞和南半球與中、俄競逐影響力。
如果我們延伸這個邏輯:當美國實力更加衰退,不足與中國平起平坐時,美國需要考慮退出西太平洋地區。更進一步而言,當美國淪落到跟二戰後英國的地位一般時,她勢必也應該考慮在世界舞台上扮演配角或龍套的角色。此之謂「形勢比人強」。
America Cannot Compete with Russia and China for the Entirety of the Global South
The United States does not need to and cannot afford to seek primacy everywhere; and for geographical reasons alone, there are some regions where American influence will be inferior.
Suzanne Loftus, 06/02/23
As Joe Biden concluded his attendance at the Group of 7, or G7, meeting in Hiroshima, at which his administration orchestrated the group’s opposition to China, Xi Jinping unveiled a plan of his own in a counter-diplomatic move. After a China-Central Asia Summit in northwest China last week, Xi announced plans to boost Central Asia’s development by increasing trade, building infrastructure, and helping bolster its defense production capabilities and law enforcement. This points towards a considerably increased Chinese role in Central Asia.
China’s new initiative in the region is likely to instinctively cause hostility in Washington, but that would be a mistake. The United States does not need and cannot afford to seek primacy everywhere; and for geographical reasons alone, Central Asia will always be a region where American influence will be inferior to that of China and Russia. By engaging in great power competition there, Washington would only divert the United States’ attention and resources from more important regions. In the worst case, it would contribute to regional instability and even conflict.
China’s move comes at a time of waning the United States’ influence in Central Asia after its withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as waning Russian influence as Russia wages its war in Ukraine. Central Asia has historically been part of Moscow’s traditional sphere of influence, but in the last decade, the region has seen an exponential increase in economic cooperation with Beijing. Last year, trade between China and Central Asia reached a record of $70 billion, with Kazakhstan at the forefront with $31 billion.
Because Russia and China share something similar to a great power “entente” in Central Asia, where Russia is the primary security partner and China is the primary economic power, neither struggles with the other for influence. Both, however, fear that of the United States, and would (successfully) unite strongly to resist it. In addition, both fear the spread of Islamist extremism and ethnic nationalism, which could increase problems with their own Muslim minorities—something that would, it should be pointed out, also threaten American interests. The lack of major terrorist attacks against the United States in recent years does not mean that this threat has gone away.
China’s generous package to Central Asia of 26 billion yuan ($3.8 billion) of financing support and grants makes an embarrassing contrast with the pitiful $50 million offered to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken during his trip there earlier this year—a difference however that accurately reflects the relative importance of the region to China and to the United States. While the G7 issued a statement condemning China’s belligerence in the South China Seas and its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, Central Asian governments appear to welcome a greater role for China.
China last Saturday expressed “strong dissatisfaction” with the communique issued by G7 leaders. China’s foreign ministry retaliated with protest and stated that the G7’s “approach has no international credibility whatsoever" and that the G7 was conducting a smear campaign against China. China also expressed issues with the bloc not showing clear opposition to Taiwanese independence. Additionally, contrary to what the G7 touts, China insisted the bloc was instead responsible for “hindering world peace and inhibiting the development of other countries.”
The G7 and China’s response demonstrate all too clearly that confrontation between the West on one side and China and Russia on the other is increasing and spreading throughout the world, with both sides vying for influence in the Global South. As the global reactions to the war in Ukraine demonstrate, Russia and China have been successful at getting the Global South to see the West as an entity that exploits non-Western states for selfish reasons, and certain Western policies concerning third-party sanctions violations are only adding fuel to the fire.
G7 leaders are adopting new sanctions on Russia designed to reduce Moscow’s ability to circumvent sanctions through third-party deals with states in the Global South. Yet seeking to “punish” non-Western states for trading with Russia will only exacerbate already existing resentment in the Global South over an overly imposing America and what countries may perceive as a violation of the right to their sovereign decision-making.
During the G7 meeting, issues concerning economic dependence on Russia and China were also raised among the group of industrialized nations with their invitees Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. While the diplomatic pressure for less dependence on Russia and China is understandable for American geopolitical aspirations, it would be naive to assume that the Global South would sacrifice any significant source of income to their country for the sake of American power. In fact, America would probably lose influence if it pressed countries to act in ways that would be counter to their own national interests.
In a similar effort to sway the Global South, at the G7 summit, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky met with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and Indonesian president Joko Widodo to pressure their respective nations into “taking sides” in the war in Ukraine. As traditionally non-aligned countries stemming from the time of the Cold War, and possessing colonial histories that make them deeply skeptical of the West, these nations are unlikely to succumb to rising pressure to overtly support Ukraine. The West should understand that before it pushes them any further away.
On that score, Central Asia is one region where the United States should not try to compete for primacy. Russia and China have far more economic, political, and military investment than the United States does in that region and always will have. If Washington starts to compete with them in Central Asia, it will only turn the region into a zero-sum game between great powers where the United States would be unlikely to gain more influence than Russia and China due to their geographic proximity. Spending valuable resources just to create a constant competition that Washington will inevitably lose is a very poor investment—especially as, following its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States has no vital or even significant interests in this region. Such competition would also put the region's stability at risk. So far, countries in Central Asia have been comfortably applying a multivector foreign policy towards China, Russia, and the United States, with America very much third in line. This policy has allowed them to develop economically without encouraging great power competition in their region.
China’s plan for Central Asia risks setting the stage for a new domain of great power competition in the Global South. The United States should refrain from taking the bait, as it were, and should apply similar pragmatism and restraint to other nations in the world that have chosen to be non-aligned in this renewed global struggle. If Washington tries to pressure them into allying with America, it may actually end up driving them into the arms of China and Russia.
Suzanne Loftus is Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia program. She specializes in Russian foreign and domestic policy, nationalism and identity, and strategic competition between the great powers.
本文於 修改第 3 次