为了礁石和珊瑚礁不值得与中国开战
2024-05-06 12:42阅读：
美国愿意为东海和南海无人居住的岩礁作出牺牲——这是日本和菲律宾领导人赴美访问传达出的主要信息之一。在印太地区，华盛顿理应表现得敏锐和明智，但拜登政府却怂恿地区国家与中国作对，这是鲁莽的战略。
首先，美国的切身利益与钓鱼岛或南海的领土争端无关。相关岛屿、岩礁和浅滩无人居住、面积很小，几乎没有任何战略价值。此外，中国不可能阻碍在东海和南海的商贸航行活动，因为中国是这些活动的主要受益方。退一步说，人们能够改变商贸航行的线路，只要多付出一些成本即可。没必要为了稍微便宜的商品牺牲任何人的生命，遑论让世界被摧毁。
美国政府称《美日安保条约》和《美菲共同防御条约》适用于钓鱼岛和南海，此举加剧了与中国关系紧张和爆发冲突的风险。中国认为这两处地点事关中国核心或切身利益。
此外，（拜登政府）对争议领土作出的“坚如磐石”安全保证，将怂恿日菲两国的冒险行为。日本2012年对钓鱼岛采取的“国有化”行为加剧了与中国的争端。只要华盛顿完全支持日本的主张，可能缓和紧张局势的举措就不大可能被提上日程。
马科斯政府治下的菲律宾选择加剧与中国的紧张关系。马尼拉拒绝中方提出的共同开发南海等务实建议，并选择扩大在该地区的军事行动，甚至允许美军进入菲北部的更多基地。华盛顿不但没有寻求降低其盟国与亚洲最强大国之间的关系紧张，反而用越来越多的联合巡逻来“奖赏”马尼拉，这对维护和平无济于事。
华盛顿不应该拿美国的切身利益冒险，而是应该放弃“保卫”南海和东海无人居住的岩礁、珊瑚礁和岛屿的承诺。这些承诺本身就不可信。美国真的会为一片数千英里外的浅滩而甘冒发生核战争的风险吗？印太的和平取决于美国和中国学会彼此共处，而非依赖扩大化的安全关系。
Rocks and Reefs Are
n't Worth a War with China
A peaceful Indo-Pacific hinges on the United States and China
learning to live with one another, not more expansive security
relationships.
by Quinn Marschik
America is willing to sacrifice for uninhabited rocks and reefs in
the East and South China Seas. This is one of the main messages
from Japanese prime minister Kishida Fumio and Philippines
president Ferdinand Marcos’ official visits to the United States.
The Biden administration’s doubling down on advancing Indo-Pacific
countries’ interests vis-à-vis China represents a reckless strategy
in a region where Washington should be especially shrewd and savvy.
Instead of fighting others’ battles and setting itself up to fail,
Washington should adopt a restrained regional policy to secure its
interests.
Primarily, the United States has no vital interest in the outcome
of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or the South China Sea territorial
disputes. The islands, rocks, and shoals in question are
unpopulated, small, and hold little strategic value. Military
outposts on these disputed territories are highly susceptible to
attacks, face resupply nightmares, and inherent environmental
issues—making any existing or potential Chinese bases more
distractions than threats. Additionally, while freedom of
navigation in the East and South China Seas is a legitimate
concern, Beijing is highly unlikely to halt commerce since it is
the prime beneficiary. Not to mention, trade can be rerouted at
monetary cost. No lives need to be sacrificed or the world
destroyed for mildly cheaper goods.
President Joe Biden’s insistence on U.S. defense treaties with
Japan and the Philippines covering the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and
the Philippines’s military activity in the South China Sea
increases tensions and risks conflict with China. Beijing views the
two disputes as “core” or vital interests. As such, China is
willing to risk war to assert its claim if necessary. Indeed,
Beijing became more assertive after Washington announced its “Pivot
to Asia,” out of fear it could effectively lose its territorial
claims. China’s assertiveness will not disappear with stronger
U.S.-Japan-Philippines ties but will likely intensify to test the
relationship and attempt to deter it.
Moreover, the “ironclad” security guarantees for Japan and the
Philippines’ disputed territory encourage risky behavior. While
Japan has been relatively restrained in the East China Sea, its
2012 nationalization of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands intensified the
dispute with China. Denationalizing the islands and regulating
their ownership, which could cool tensions, are likely off the
table so long as Washington fully underwrites Japan’s claims.
Unlike Japan’s restraint, the Philippines has seen increased
tensions with China under the Marcos administration. Manilla turned
down China’s compromises for joint development in the South China
Sea and opted to expand military operations in the region, even
permitting U.S. troops to access more bases in the northern
Philippines—directly across from Taiwan. This growing U.S. military
activity in the region puts pressure on Beijing to respond,
increasing the risk of an accident that could spiral into conflict.
Instead of seeking to lower tensions between its ally and the most
powerful country in Asia, Washington rewards Manilla with more and
more joint patrols, which do little to keep the peace.
As the United States would be drawn into a war to defend Japanese
and Filipino claims against China, Washington risks losing the
Indo-Pacific. While ties with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand
would likely survive a conflict—Southeast Asia could very well be
lost. For the first time, Southeast Asian elites might choose
Beijing over Washington if forced. Besides lost economic
opportunities, counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts could
be damaged, as could cooperation on global health—all issues that
directly impact American security, prosperity, and
well-being.
At best, a U.S.-China war would see the United States severely
weakened militarily and economically, possibly even politically
fractured at home. Americans would be less able to provide for
their families’ basic needs and security.
Instead of risking U.S. vital interests, Washington should walk
back its commitments to defend uninhabited rocks, reefs, and
islands in the South and East China Seas. These commitments are
already not credible. Would the United States really risk a nuclear
war over a shoal thousands of miles away? Though highly uncredible,
the reassurances should still be revoked to minimize the risks and
replaced with a firm reassurance that the main islands of the
Philippines and Japan would be resolutely defended if
attacked.
A peaceful Indo-Pacific hinges on the United States and China
learning to live with one another, not more expansive security
relationships. While centered on China, expanding these
relationships without care for vital U.S. interests puts national
security in danger. The Biden administration’s persistence in
defining international affairs as a grand struggle between
democracies and autocracies and the cornerstone of its regional
partnerships makes the situation worse. In response, Beijing
increasingly sees U.S. policy as a threat to its sovereignty. As an
alternative to an ideology-based and military-first approach, a new
operating model centered on vital interests and diplomacy is
needed.
