經濟實力決定軟硬實力

Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University has been battling the declinist heresy for more than two decades. In 1990 — at a time when it was fashionable to predict that Japan might eventually eclipse the US — he published Bound to Lead, arguing that America was likely to remain the world’s dominant power for many years to come. Now, 25 years later, Nye has written a book with a similar theme but a different target. In Is the American Century Over?, he takes on the current wave of declinism — which these days is usually based on the idea that China will displace America as “number one”.

20多年來，美國哈佛大學(Harvard University)教授約瑟夫•奈(Joseph Nye)一直在與美國衰落論者的異端邪說作鬥爭。1990年，他出版了《註定的領導》(Bound to Lead)一書，主張美國在接下來的許多年裏很可能仍將是世界的主導力量——當時，預言日本或許最終將超越美國是一件很時髦的事。25年後的今天，奈寫了一本類似主題的書，但靶子換成了另一個。在《美國世紀結束了嗎？》(Is the American Century Over?)一書中，他向當前這波美國衰落論發起挑戰——當前這波衰落論一般建立在中國將取代美國成爲世界“頭號強國”的觀點上。

Once again, Nye begs to differ, arguing the case for America’s continued dominance on the basis of its political, economic, cultural and diplomatic strengths. The fact that, back in 1990, Nye was correct to debunk the idea that America was on the slide is just one good reason to take his new book seriously. His writing is illuminated by a calm authority and the ability to clarify issues by breaking them down into their constituent parts.

這一次，奈依然提出了反對意見，他認爲基於政治、經濟、文化和外交優勢，美國的世界主導地位將會持續下去。奈在1990年正確地指出美國正在衰落不符合事實，這一成就只是他這本新書值得認真對待的理由之一。他的著述展現出一種無聲的權威、以及以分析的方法澄清問題的能力。

Thus Nye argues that a nation’s power has several components. It was he who coined the much-used term “soft power” to describe the way in which nations can achieve their aims through persuasion and the ability to attract. He argues that the power of a modern nation-state can be broken down into three main elements: economic power, hard (or military) power and soft power. China, he points out, can so far challenge America on only one of these indices — the economic.

奈主張，國家實力包含幾個部分。正是他發明了被很多人使用的“軟實力”(soft power)一詞，來描述國家如何可通過說服和吸引力達成其目標。他主張，現代民族國家的實力可分解爲三個主要部分：經濟實力、硬實力（或軍事實力）以及軟實力。他指出，到目前爲止，中國僅有能力在這三項中的一項（即經濟實力）上挑戰美國。

According to the International Monetary Fund, China’s economy is now larger than that of the US, measured in purchasing power. Nye concedes that the Chinese economy will also probably surpass that of the US in absolute terms during the next decade. But he argues that America is likely to maintain its lead in military and soft power for much longer. And he also points out that America benefits from much more favourable geographic and strategic conditions than China. The US is surrounded only by oceans and allies. China, by contrast, finds itself boxed in by potential competitors, such as India or Russia, or US treaty allies, such as Japan or South Korea.

國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)數據顯示，以購買力平價衡量，中國的經濟規模現已超過美國。奈承認，未來10年內，以絕對價值衡量的中國經濟規模多半也會超過美國。但他主張，美國在軍事實力和軟實力上保持領先地位的時間很可能會比這長得多。他還指出，美國受益於較中國有利得多的地理與戰略環境。美國周圍只有大洋和盟國。與此形成對照的是，中國周邊是印度或俄羅斯等潛在競爭對手、以及日本或韓國等美國的條約盟國。

Much of what Nye has to say is convincing. But while his distinction between the three sorts of power makes sense, he does not fully address the possibility that one aspect of power — the economic — could ultimately be more important than the other two. After all, it is economic wealth which pays for military muscle and China’s military budget is increasing fast. Growing wealth also creates a form of “soft” power. We have seen a vivid example of that in recent weeks, as China persuaded several US allies to join a new Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, despite opposition from Washington. As more and more countries find that their most important economic relationship is with China, rather than the US, we are likely to see China’s “power to attract” also increase.

奈所講的很多內容都是令人信服的。但是，儘管他對三種實力的劃分是合理的，可他沒有充分考慮到一種可能性：作爲三種實力之一，經濟實力可能歸根結底要比另外兩種更重要。畢竟，舒展“軍事肌肉”要靠經濟實力，而且中國的軍事預算正在快速增加。財富的增長還會造就某種形式的“軟”實力。我們在最近幾周已看到一個鮮活的例子：儘管遭到華盛頓方面的反對，中國還是說服了美國的幾個盟國加入總部位於北京的、新生的亞洲基礎設施投資銀行(AIIB)。隨着越來越多的國家意識到其最重要的經濟關係是對華經濟關係而非對美經濟關係，我們很可能會看到中國的“吸引力”也在增強。

It is clear that China is still a long way from challenging America’s global reach. The US is the dominant military power and strategic player in the Middle East, Europe and Latin America — a status that China is not even close to challenging. However, it is now possible to see China posing a serious challenge to America’s military dominance of the Asia-Pacific region. Given that this is the region that is increasingly emerging as the core of the global economy, a loss of American predominance here would certainly have global implications.

顯而易見的是，中國距離對美國的全球影響力構成挑戰還有很長的路要走。美國目前是中東、歐洲和拉美的主導性軍事強權及戰略玩家，中國在這方面還遠不能對美國構成挑戰。然而，現在也許能夠看到，中國正對美國在亞太地區的軍事主導地位構成嚴重挑戰。鑑於亞太地區正日益成長爲世界經濟的核心，美國在亞太失去主導地位無疑將產生全球性的影響。

As Nye repeatedly and correctly points out, events have a habit of making fools of those who predict the future trajectory of great nations. Past prophets of American decline failed to foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union or the bursting of the Japanese bubble — which may be another way of saying that they failed to understand the relative strengths and resilience of the American system.

正如奈多次正確指出的那樣，局勢的發展往往會捉弄那些預測大國未來軌跡的人。過去，那些預言美國將衰落的人未能預見到蘇聯的解體或日本泡沫的破滅——也可以說，他們未能認識到美國製度的相對優勢和彈性。

However, as well as being a leading academic analyst, Nye is also a patriot and a former senior official in the Pentagon. At one point he remarks revealingly that predictions of American decline are potentially “dangerous” because they could encourage countries such as Russia or China to pursue more aggressive policies. In other words, the maintenance of power has a lot to do with perception. If people around the world believe that the “American century” is set to continue for many more decades that will — in itself — help to sustain America’s role.

不過，奈不僅是一位知名的學術分析家，也是一位愛國者和前五角大樓(Pentagon)高官。在書中某處，他發人深省地談到，有關美國將衰落的預言可能是“危險的”，因爲這些預言可能會鼓勵俄羅斯或中國等國採取更咄咄逼人的政策。換言之，實力的維持在很大程度上跟認知有關。如果世人都相信“美國世紀”註定還要延續幾十年，那麼這一認知本身就會幫助維持美國的地位。

But power, as Nye makes clear, has many facets — and one of the strengths of his book is his ability to look at all aspects of the problem. On several occasions, I thought I had found a gap in the argument and scribbled something in the margin such as “education?” — only to find the topic dealt with, a couple of pages later. As a result, even those (like me) who do not completely buy Nye’s argument will benefit from his succinct and clear review of the state of the “decline” debate.

但正如奈闡明的那樣，實力涵蓋多個方面，他這本書的優點之一是他能夠對問題展開全方位考察。有幾次，我以爲自己發現了書中觀點的欠缺，並在頁邊空白處草草寫下“教育？”等字，結果卻發現該書在兩三頁後便談到了這個主題。所以說，即便是那些不完全認可奈的觀點的人（比如我），也會從他對“美國衰落”辯論形勢的簡明評述中受益。