具有中國(guó)特色的政府行為和政治組織，作為一種穩(wěn)定、有序且可持續(xù)的增長(zhǎng)模式，逐漸在國(guó)際上獲得信譽(yù)。雖然美國(guó)政策制定者與知識(shí)分子（以及青少年）尚未做好承認(rèn)的準(zhǔn)備，但他們已經(jīng)開始意識(shí)到，控制個(gè)人不理智和充滿短見的貪欲，是未來(lái)集體政治行為和全球倫理的根本, 對(duì)中國(guó)是如此， 對(duì)整個(gè)世界也是如此。無(wú)論如何稱呼中國(guó)的新型意識(shí)形態(tài)，集體主義，社會(huì)主義，或是帶有市場(chǎng)特色的社會(huì)主義，有一點(diǎn)是肯定的：?jiǎn)螒{自由市場(chǎng)這只“看不見的手”，是無(wú)法使人類實(shí)現(xiàn)一切抱負(fù)的。這種市場(chǎng)萬(wàn)能理論我想已經(jīng)失效了。

在西方，特別是美國(guó)，老一代的人拘泥于舊觀念，認(rèn)為個(gè)人能夠而且應(yīng)該免于承擔(dān)集體義務(wù)，生存下去。鑒于西方人長(zhǎng)年累月耳濡目染受到的影響，他們這樣想無(wú)可厚非。但今天的美國(guó)年輕一代，他們生活在網(wǎng)絡(luò)和資本市場(chǎng)充斥著暴力的時(shí)代，又如何看待這個(gè)問(wèn)題？真相可能會(huì)讓你感到詫異。

30歲以下美國(guó)人更贊同社會(huì)主義而非資本主義（藍(lán)柱為社會(huì)主義，紅柱為資本主義），來(lái)源：YouGov調(diào)查網(wǎng)

在過(guò)去15年里，我不僅生活在中國(guó)大陸，而且親歷了這個(gè)國(guó)家成長(zhǎng)以及改革所經(jīng)歷的陣痛，我在這里學(xué)到的最簡(jiǎn)單、也最深刻的一課是：集體主義精神，集體目標(biāo)和集體努力，對(duì)未來(lái)人類繁衍生存不可或缺。鑒于當(dāng)前的社會(huì)環(huán)境，它們的重要性不亞于、甚至已經(jīng)超過(guò)歐洲啟蒙哲學(xué)強(qiáng)調(diào)的個(gè)人自由與能動(dòng)性。在西方社會(huì)建構(gòu)過(guò)程中，備受推崇的主流思想是以個(gè)人替代集體對(duì)話、集體正義和集體進(jìn)步。從當(dāng)前的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選就能看出，雙方極盡妖魔化彼此之能事，但很少拿得出改善美國(guó)民生狀況的實(shí)質(zhì)性政策。

在某種意義上，個(gè)人欲望和想法凌駕于集體之上的古典自由主義理論，助長(zhǎng)了企業(yè)資本主義，而后者的巨幅擴(kuò)張，反而開始扼殺自由主義思想。如今，大公司掌握著經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)力，成為公共服務(wù)的供應(yīng)商（Facebook、Google等），但卻擺脫了國(guó)家政府的約束和管控。隨著公司越來(lái)越無(wú)國(guó)籍，越來(lái)越向云端發(fā)展，運(yùn)營(yíng)越來(lái)越跨境化，我們虛擬環(huán)境的污染問(wèn)題也越來(lái)越突出，因此監(jiān)管的必要性也越來(lái)越顯而易見。人們?cè)絹?lái)越清楚地意識(shí)到，科技不但能創(chuàng)造新的奇跡，也會(huì)帶來(lái)新的危險(xiǎn)。當(dāng)科技開始普遍侵犯人們的隱私，當(dāng)科技開始傳播不和諧的、片面的、缺乏根據(jù)的故事，我們意識(shí)到市場(chǎng)、社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)、大眾出版是全球互聯(lián)互通的，在這些領(lǐng)域里人們的行為不再限于個(gè)體空間，而能夠影響全世界。比這些媒體技術(shù)和出版公司更危險(xiǎn)的，只有跨國(guó)工業(yè)巨頭們可憎的污染行徑了。

因此，我們的繁榮、安全、道德和人權(quán)，都有賴于集體達(dá)成的諒解、守則、目標(biāo)和行動(dòng)。這些更高尚的目的，超越了平庸的利潤(rùn)追求，或者科技帶給我們的麻木、浮華的享樂(lè)。

古典自由主義理論認(rèn)為，不受約束的、以市場(chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的資源配置是人的自然狀態(tài)，然而正是在這種思想的指導(dǎo)下，科技和跨國(guó)公司破壞了普通人的環(huán)境、隱私、個(gè)人，世代以及經(jīng)濟(jì)安全。顯然，這是一種過(guò)時(shí)的理論。世界各地的青年民意調(diào)查表明，人們都在呼喚新的集體精神、集體方向和集體靈感，不光為自己，也是為彼此、為大家。我堅(jiān)信，在人民的推動(dòng)下，社群、國(guó)家、國(guó)際社會(huì)完全可以在保持固有身份的同時(shí)，朝著高尚的共同目標(biāo)邁進(jìn)。為了跨越經(jīng)濟(jì)障礙，克服資源匱乏，解決沖突，以及應(yīng)對(duì)迫在眉睫的挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇，人類必須結(jié)合為一個(gè)整體，形成更和諧的嶄新基礎(chǔ)。

中美兩國(guó)批準(zhǔn)《巴黎協(xié)定》，是朝正確方向邁出的一步。我支持此類由集體理智產(chǎn)生的行為，因?yàn)樗鼈兪菍?shí)質(zhì)性的、公有的、超國(guó)家的、可執(zhí)行的?！栋屠鑵f(xié)定》的意義，遠(yuǎn)非古典自由主義短暫的經(jīng)濟(jì)單位所帶來(lái)的（空洞的）快樂(lè)能夠度量的，它不但能治療地球的創(chuàng)傷，更可以迫使油氣利益集團(tuán)減少對(duì)化石燃料的依賴，終止沒(méi)完沒(méi)了的能源戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)（從中東到委內(nèi)瑞拉）。此類協(xié)定證明人類開始意識(shí)到，每個(gè)人的行動(dòng)都將給其他人的生活造成實(shí)際的影響，人與人之間存在依存關(guān)系，只有當(dāng)每個(gè)人都做好自己份內(nèi)的事，所有人才能過(guò)上共同憧憬的生活—這才是一個(gè)有機(jī)的集體，就像馬丁·路德·金說(shuō)的， 這才是現(xiàn)實(shí)的本質(zhì)，而非一場(chǎng)純粹基于資本收益的道德競(jìng)次。我希望諸如《巴黎協(xié)定》之類的協(xié)議能傳遞一種信號(hào)：是時(shí)候與過(guò)時(shí)的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)形態(tài)說(shuō)再見了，過(guò)去那種把增長(zhǎng)（資本積累）置于正義、環(huán)境和物種生存之上的模式應(yīng)該終結(jié)了。目前最重要的，是清楚地意識(shí)到人與人之間與日俱增的連通性。

很多人不會(huì)同意我的觀點(diǎn)，但我相信歷史將證明，集體主義的互通性擁有我所信仰的超越個(gè)人主義奇想和機(jī)會(huì)主義貪婪的重要地位。不管發(fā)生什么事，中國(guó)都一直致力于實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)集體主義理想，并視其為人類秩序、正義、發(fā)展的頂點(diǎn)。雖然我不一定支持中國(guó)所有的政策、所有的行動(dòng)，但我致力于推動(dòng)?xùn)|西方文化之間坦率的對(duì)話理解，為中國(guó)在國(guó)際上勾勒一幅更清晰的圖景，向世界展示中國(guó)的發(fā)展目標(biāo)和悠久歷史，并盡可能消除美國(guó)和西方對(duì)中國(guó)的一些誤會(huì)，便于制定更合理的對(duì)華政策。在未來(lái)的幾十年中，中美如果爆發(fā)武裝沖突，或任憑恐怖主義肆虐，或刻意無(wú)視氣候變化對(duì)人類生存造成的威脅，都可能毀滅世界。當(dāng)然，它們?nèi)绻芎献鞴タ诉@些難題，也必將拯救世界。

在世界歷史上，從沒(méi)出現(xiàn)過(guò)中美這樣強(qiáng)大的國(guó)家彼此交會(huì)；也從未有過(guò)兩個(gè)如此命運(yùn)與共的國(guó)家，人民卻如此互不了解、互不信任。雖然中美雙方都懷著難以根除的疑慮， 美國(guó)人的弊端是他們狹隘的世界觀，以及四年一度、無(wú)休止的政治大秀——總統(tǒng)選舉。在美國(guó)政治里，妖魔化對(duì)手已經(jīng)成為游戲的規(guī)則，政客的目的是撈選票，而不是考慮如何讓政策落地實(shí)施。民主制度有許多優(yōu)點(diǎn)，但靠相互辱罵、誹謗中傷、人身攻擊來(lái)嘩眾取寵，一定是民主制度最致命的弱點(diǎn)。

中美兩國(guó)必須搭建起一座互信、互知、互通的橋梁，雙方在溝通時(shí)既要開誠(chéng)布公的同時(shí)，也須注意方式方法，因?yàn)槲覀兪侨虼蠹彝ブ凶钅觊L(zhǎng)的成員。無(wú)論道德智慧是否已經(jīng)做好準(zhǔn)備，不可否認(rèn)，我們是同呼吸、共命運(yùn)的一家人?？茖W(xué)研究清楚地顯示，唯一適合人類居住的星球——地球——已被一場(chǎng)源于歐洲的“工業(yè)革命”嚴(yán)重破壞。現(xiàn)在與其討論環(huán)境問(wèn)題是誰(shuí)的錯(cuò)，不如共同面對(duì)人類生存的嚴(yán)重威脅。中國(guó)人、美國(guó)人以及全世界人民，如今有一種共同的（或者說(shuō)“集體的”）責(zé)任，那就是幫助地球“滅火”，防止人類走向自我毀滅。我們只有10-15年的時(shí)間（采取極端措施來(lái)刺激可再生經(jīng)濟(jì)和綠色經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)，減少臭氧層空洞，以及遏止工業(yè)時(shí)代180年來(lái)的碳排放）。例如，必須限制碳排放，控制全球溫度較前工業(yè)時(shí)代水平不超過(guò)1.5攝氏度，否則全球變暖將造成不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的后果。當(dāng)前溫度較前工業(yè)時(shí)代上升了3~5攝氏度，可以預(yù)期海平面將上升10米左右，每年都將產(chǎn)生巨型風(fēng)暴，西伯利亞永凍層融化，暴露生物尸體，傳播炭疽病。此外還將出現(xiàn)大規(guī)模旱災(zāi)、水資源匱竭（尤其是中東和中亞地區(qū)），糧食嚴(yán)重歉收。到2050年， 一個(gè)干旱缺水的地球，是無(wú)法養(yǎng)活全球100億人口的。任由這些趨勢(shì)繼續(xù)，人類必將陷入沖突和災(zāi)禍。1.5攝氏度，這是一場(chǎng)關(guān)乎子孫后代的斗爭(zhēng)。人類必須停止各自為政，而要作為一個(gè)集體投入斗爭(zhēng)，才能取得勝利。

如不控制溫室氣體排放，21世紀(jì)氣溫將上升4.5攝氏度，來(lái)源：climatescoreboard.org

我們沒(méi)有時(shí)間耗在任何戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)上，無(wú)論是經(jīng)濟(jì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、網(wǎng)絡(luò)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，還是其他戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。此時(shí)此刻，人類處于歷史上前所未見的關(guān)頭，每個(gè)人都肩負(fù)著拯救地球的集體責(zé)任，以應(yīng)對(duì)關(guān)乎全人類存亡的真正威脅。

中國(guó)是現(xiàn)代史上頭一個(gè)歐美之外的超級(jí)大國(guó)。中國(guó)規(guī)劃、控制和資助幾乎所有本土大型公司（包括國(guó)企和私企），而且操控貨幣，因此飽受歐美經(jīng)濟(jì)理論學(xué)家詬病。但中國(guó)認(rèn)為，其經(jīng)濟(jì)政策是監(jiān)管調(diào)節(jié)國(guó)際市場(chǎng)力量的方式。親兄弟可以意見不同，但一旦家中失火，大家必須齊心協(xié)力拯救這個(gè)家。

經(jīng)濟(jì)挑戰(zhàn)當(dāng)前，中美卻進(jìn)入了一段相愛(ài)相殺的關(guān)系。中國(guó)成為美國(guó)最大的貿(mào)易伙伴，以極低的價(jià)格向我們提供了幾乎所有商品，使美國(guó)消費(fèi)者對(duì)低價(jià)商品習(xí)以為常。為了人類的集體利益，中國(guó)提出了一條迥異于美國(guó)的新路：匯集有限的全球資源、社會(huì)正義和政府管控，集體意識(shí)以及為了更大的利益而犧牲自己，更好地利用地球資源。對(duì)美國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，中國(guó)是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的黑洞，是有時(shí)難以打入的市場(chǎng)，是最大的離岸外包“制造廠”，以及最大的債權(quán)國(guó)。中國(guó)有著多層意義重大的身份，可是我們的總統(tǒng)候選人卻只顧在競(jìng)選宣傳中彼此詆毀和咒罵，對(duì)中美關(guān)系的重要性和隨之而來(lái)的機(jī)遇缺乏認(rèn)識(shí)。如果沒(méi)有行動(dòng)，沒(méi)有信息靈通、教育程度良好、甘愿奉獻(xiàn)的民眾，沒(méi)有人在重大議題上進(jìn)行理性討論。那么民主便只是一個(gè)詞語(yǔ)，而詞語(yǔ)的解讀權(quán)并不為任何國(guó)家所專有，民主這個(gè)詞本身不是一種行動(dòng)，它不能造福社會(huì)。我們必須銘記在心。語(yǔ)義的蓬勃發(fā)展從某些方面來(lái)說(shuō)等于優(yōu)秀的政府， 經(jīng)濟(jì)正義、、穩(wěn)定、教育和和平、科學(xué)和文化的集體進(jìn)步是唯一的方法，我相信政府的表現(xiàn)是可以客觀地衡量的。

雖然中美兩國(guó)的政策方針有很大的不同，無(wú)論我們喜歡還是厭惡彼此，事實(shí)就是中美兩國(guó)人民已經(jīng)緊密相連。我們一定要隨時(shí)記住，地球就這么小，身處其中的中國(guó)和美國(guó)無(wú)疑是親兄弟，是休戚相關(guān)的一家人。我們可以各自發(fā)展道德觀，但命運(yùn)已把我們連在一起，這個(gè)趨勢(shì)是不可改變的。偉大的美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)亞伯拉罕·林肯的箴言還縈繞在耳邊：“我們不能成為陌生人或者敵人，我們要成為朋友?！?/p>

中美伙伴關(guān)系才剛起步，是21世紀(jì)的特殊關(guān)系。它打破窠臼，沖破舊世界的限制。我們?cè)僖膊荒芎鲆暠舜?，我們之間的線已牢牢拴緊無(wú)法解開，就像連體嬰一樣，從頭到尾都連在了一起。我們之間會(huì)發(fā)生摩擦和口角嗎？當(dāng)然，但是誰(shuí)會(huì)失心瘋，對(duì)命運(yùn)與共的兄弟起歹意呢？頭腦清醒的人都會(huì)回答說(shuō)“沒(méi)人會(huì)”。真正理智、可行的方案，是中美全方位合作。兄弟之間存在健康的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)關(guān)系，其初期表現(xiàn)可能是兄弟倆比誰(shuí)個(gè)子高、誰(shuí)更漂亮或者強(qiáng)壯，但是他們不會(huì)永遠(yuǎn)都在這些事上較真。當(dāng)他們逐漸長(zhǎng)大，會(huì)意識(shí)到最重要的責(zé)任是一起照顧好父母——地球?yàn)槟福瑫r(shí)代為父。良好的兄弟關(guān)系必須建立在雙方對(duì)愛(ài)、全面合作和長(zhǎng)期承諾的共同認(rèn)識(shí)之上，這絕不是外交上的陳詞濫調(diào)，而是人類作為感情生物，對(duì)地球上諸多問(wèn)題的唯一解決方式，也是我們必須深思并為之努力的答案。這一點(diǎn)至關(guān)重要。

在美國(guó)未被傳頌的故事和歷史

在21世紀(jì)，美國(guó)和中國(guó)會(huì)因爭(zhēng)奪勢(shì)力范圍，在繁雜的小矛盾中爭(zhēng)論不休；還是攜手并肩，共同維護(hù)地球的生態(tài)呢？這個(gè)雙向選擇簡(jiǎn)單直白，但是我們必須超越短期經(jīng)貿(mào)盈虧、就業(yè)崗位流失、非理性遏制和貨幣操縱；必須超越集體vs.個(gè)人權(quán)利自由的表述；摒棄關(guān)于零和博弈的錯(cuò)誤敘事。我們必須快速做出團(tuán)結(jié)合作的選擇，因?yàn)榈厍蛭C(jī)不等人，人類需要分秒必爭(zhēng) 。

我在中國(guó)拍攝電視節(jié)目和開展商業(yè)活動(dòng)已經(jīng)有十五年了，親歷了中國(guó)的蛻變。中國(guó)話語(yǔ)從溫和的“和平崛起”，到更強(qiáng)勢(shì)的表述。這種語(yǔ)氣變化，跟美國(guó)1823年宣布門羅主義并無(wú)太大不同。美國(guó)這個(gè)曾經(jīng)殖民過(guò)菲律賓的國(guó)家，在面對(duì)中國(guó)崛起時(shí)，竟自封“亞洲監(jiān)察員”，一邊秀軍事肌肉，一邊占據(jù)道德制高點(diǎn)，對(duì)中國(guó)自然而然的崛起指手畫腳。

美國(guó)門羅主義的目標(biāo)本來(lái)是通過(guò)劃分勢(shì)力范圍，保護(hù)南北美洲免受重商而好戰(zhàn)的歐洲勢(shì)力侵?jǐn)_。結(jié)合當(dāng)時(shí)的時(shí)代背景來(lái)看，即美國(guó)通過(guò)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)把英國(guó)殖民者趕回大西洋彼岸，門羅主義是有道理的。但是放在今天，美國(guó)自己的勢(shì)力范圍超過(guò)夏威夷群島，一直延伸到關(guān)島和塞班島，卻跑去規(guī)定另一個(gè)崛起大國(guó)（也是世界人口最多的國(guó)家）不得與其鄰國(guó)提出類似的雙邊對(duì)話，不免顯得有些虛偽。更何況，中國(guó)和鄰國(guó)的對(duì)話，并沒(méi)有什么逾矩的地方?；仡櫭绹?guó)種種“助紂為虐”的歷史，從在上海劃分租界，到韓國(guó)的李承晚政權(quán)，再到菲律賓的馬科斯政權(quán)，應(yīng)該時(shí)刻警戒我們不要再犯相同的錯(cuò)誤，別再想著要美國(guó)去指揮亞洲如何正確地開展地區(qū)內(nèi)對(duì)話。

西方很多人為中國(guó)新展現(xiàn)出的強(qiáng)硬態(tài)度感到惋惜，但他們不應(yīng)覺(jué)得太意外。自2012年來(lái)，隨著中國(guó)綜合國(guó)力的提升，中國(guó)人的民族自豪感和民族主義情緒越來(lái)越強(qiáng)烈，在最近的南海仲裁案后達(dá)到高點(diǎn) 。中國(guó)為了讓世界聽到她的訴求以及被平等地對(duì)待，共產(chǎn)黨需要?jiǎng)訂T和利用一切媒體/網(wǎng)絡(luò)/輿論、經(jīng)濟(jì)、軍事力量，來(lái)“爭(zhēng)取信息時(shí)代傳統(tǒng)戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)以外的地區(qū)沖突的勝利”。為什么要聚焦于綜合國(guó)力？在中國(guó)的“屈辱百年”（關(guān)于這段歷史西方學(xué)生知之甚少）中，她飽受外國(guó)列強(qiáng)鐵蹄蹂躪，被大英帝國(guó)的鴉片毒害，終于掙脫了桎梏。中國(guó)人堅(jiān)信，在歷史性的科技和環(huán)境挑戰(zhàn)面前，如果保持團(tuán)結(jié)，捍衛(wèi)中華文明的權(quán)利，便能守衛(wèi)住自己的歷史地位——也就是英國(guó)漢學(xué)家李約瑟所說(shuō)的，中國(guó)過(guò)去兩千年靠貿(mào)易（而非征服），取得的卓越經(jīng)濟(jì)文化成就。

開戰(zhàn)的理由？

中國(guó)崛起意味著中美之間必有一戰(zhàn)嗎？我不這么認(rèn)為。除非西方（及其盟國(guó)）與中國(guó)嚴(yán)重誤判對(duì)方，或因情緒過(guò)激導(dǎo)致對(duì)話退化，否則中美之間不會(huì)發(fā)生高強(qiáng)度沖突。對(duì)中共而言，介入武裝沖突的前提必須是為了捍衛(wèi)領(lǐng)土完整；或者是為了維護(hù)執(zhí)政黨的地位和秩序。

雖然許多人可能有不同意見，但中國(guó)這個(gè)人口最多的國(guó)家要快速和平地發(fā)展，不用擔(dān)憂外國(guó)勢(shì)力干涉或入侵，就必須擁有強(qiáng)大而統(tǒng)一的中央政府?？纯?8世紀(jì)以后的中國(guó)歷史，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)中國(guó)人的這種觀念不是憑空出現(xiàn)的理論，而是在一次次汲取經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)之后總結(jié)出來(lái)的。當(dāng)中央政府軟弱無(wú)能時(shí)，山河破碎、生靈涂炭、文化瑰寶被洗劫。中國(guó)人以史為鑒，自然將中央政府（中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨）的統(tǒng)治視為國(guó)家領(lǐng)土完整的保證。從理性角度來(lái)看，這種看法無(wú)可指摘。

值得注意的是，中國(guó)在國(guó)際上打交道時(shí)，經(jīng)常被指責(zé)在全球沖突中作壁上觀。雖然中國(guó)越來(lái)越多地參加維和行動(dòng)，但中國(guó)一直遵守不干涉別國(guó)內(nèi)政的原則，在非洲、東盟和歐洲均是如此。雖然這條原則不無(wú)值得商榷的地方，但是我們很難想象一個(gè)遭受過(guò)被殖民苦難的大國(guó)，面對(duì)西方在亞非拉等地留下的所謂“更優(yōu)越”的舊范式，能夠立即推出更加穩(wěn)定、更公平的政策。中國(guó)對(duì)內(nèi)重視發(fā)展，對(duì)外表現(xiàn)得謙謹(jǐn)克制（除了在南海問(wèn)題上——但即使如此也比殖民時(shí)代的西方列強(qiáng)溫和得多），這種做法應(yīng)該得到國(guó)際社會(huì)的高度肯定。中國(guó)不打算把自身的道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、價(jià)值觀或經(jīng)濟(jì)制度強(qiáng)加于人，僅這一點(diǎn)，對(duì)文藝復(fù)興之后的世界事務(wù)來(lái)說(shuō)，便是革命性的。

與此同時(shí)，中國(guó)以身作則，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界經(jīng)濟(jì)從化石燃料向綠色可再生能源轉(zhuǎn)型。這樣一來(lái)，中國(guó)的傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì)支柱——靠化石燃料推動(dòng)的出口制造業(yè)——便面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，中國(guó)在環(huán)保戰(zhàn)略上邁出重要一步，應(yīng)該得到肯定。這種巨大的轉(zhuǎn)型，意味著中國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層決定犧牲部分短期增長(zhǎng)，換取全世界的長(zhǎng)期繁榮。

政策風(fēng)向?yàn)楹瓮蝗晦D(zhuǎn)變？為什么是現(xiàn)在？

在領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端和外國(guó)投資問(wèn)題上，西方必須重新審視中國(guó)看似夸張的民族主義立場(chǎng)。就像哥白尼的“日心說(shuō)”和孔子的儒家學(xué)說(shuō)剛問(wèn)世時(shí)，都飽受質(zhì)疑和評(píng)判，我們需要一種全新又大膽的眼界來(lái)看待中國(guó)越來(lái)越高漲的民族主義。中國(guó)成為世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體（很快將成為第一大經(jīng)濟(jì)體）的事實(shí)，以及由此而來(lái)的民族自豪感，以及政府引導(dǎo)，足以解釋民族主義情緒的上升。今天我們看到的中國(guó)，不是個(gè)主動(dòng)制造爭(zhēng)端的國(guó)家，而是個(gè)為了經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化、生活方式，為了讓“綠色革命”爭(zhēng)取到群眾基礎(chǔ)，為了地球的生存而勇敢轉(zhuǎn)型的國(guó)家。面對(duì)如此巨大的挑戰(zhàn)，她自然要展示實(shí)力、激勵(lì)國(guó)家意志。

中國(guó)正在積極采取措施，努力實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展，擺脫新自由主義的約束，推翻跨國(guó)企業(yè)來(lái)的苛刻條款，建立監(jiān)管制度約束企業(yè)股東利益不損害環(huán)境和人類長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)利益。向可持續(xù)發(fā)展快速轉(zhuǎn)型注定需要部分人做出犧牲，中國(guó)已經(jīng)開始為公眾做這方面的心里鋪墊。

中國(guó)可以說(shuō)“不”

中國(guó)是一個(gè)堅(jiān)持不結(jié)盟政策的國(guó)家，她敢于對(duì)西方國(guó)家說(shuō)“不”，并且在過(guò)去三百年里形成了一套獨(dú)特的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)文化范式。對(duì)所有人來(lái)說(shuō)，中國(guó)代表著一個(gè)前所未有的新現(xiàn)象。中國(guó)為什么這樣做？我認(rèn)為有兩大原因：其一，中國(guó)開始向外部強(qiáng)加于她的條款說(shuō)“不”，因?yàn)橹袊?guó)另有一套維護(hù)內(nèi)部穩(wěn)定和開展國(guó)際合作的方法，并且也能夠在國(guó)際上表述這套方法。中國(guó)不依賴固定的盟友，更注重不斷變化的雙邊文化、經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境交流狀況。其次，中國(guó)認(rèn)為只要維持內(nèi)部團(tuán)結(jié)，從碳排放大國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)為綠色科技先鋒，她定能再次完成令世界震撼的轉(zhuǎn)型。必要的轉(zhuǎn)型將無(wú)可避免地給執(zhí)政黨和人民造成壓力，但中國(guó)意識(shí)到，轉(zhuǎn)型的長(zhǎng)期回報(bào)值得當(dāng)前的付出，因此她在變革道路上作出表率。

與自由主義民主國(guó)家4到6年的選舉周期不同，中國(guó)以一種長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)眼光看待自身國(guó)家和歷史地位。數(shù)千年來(lái)，中國(guó)看待自身角色的方法在不斷演化。領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端只不過(guò)是個(gè)表象，共同利用資源的問(wèn)題終究會(huì)通過(guò)雙邊談判得到解決。鄰國(guó)們擔(dān)心中國(guó)很明白，中國(guó)也同樣希望解決這些問(wèn)題，振奮國(guó)民精神。民族主義話語(yǔ)能為國(guó)家注入更大的“方向感”，凝聚民族精神。雖然短期內(nèi)不免招來(lái)鄰國(guó)的怨恨，甚至可能產(chǎn)生低強(qiáng)度沖突，但中國(guó)在領(lǐng)土問(wèn)題上站穩(wěn)腳跟，是為了讓社會(huì)團(tuán)結(jié)一致，更持久地發(fā)力，解決更尖銳的轉(zhuǎn)型問(wèn)題。中國(guó)選擇了一條智慧而正確的道路，在民族復(fù)興和以身作則的基礎(chǔ)上，無(wú)私地迎接中國(guó)及全世界的理想及擔(dān)負(fù)拯救環(huán)境的責(zé)任。

2009年，中國(guó)對(duì)清潔能源投資346億美元，據(jù)世界首位，來(lái)源：皮尤慈善信托組織

中國(guó)話語(yǔ)轉(zhuǎn)變調(diào)門是必然的，西方卻沒(méi)能理解其背后的原因。

我們必須貼近中國(guó)人民、聆聽中國(guó)的故事，認(rèn)識(shí)中國(guó)的未來(lái)，站在他們歷史與未來(lái)的交匯處，重新發(fā)現(xiàn)人類過(guò)往至今的集體精神。如果這個(gè)深入靈魂的精神得到不同年齡層次的認(rèn)同與接受，無(wú)疑中國(guó)將在環(huán)保戰(zhàn)略中發(fā)揮決定性作用，拯救地球并讓其重?zé)ㄉ獠省?/p>

（翻頁(yè)閱讀英文原文）

China Seeks to Create a Sustainable Environment through Galvanising Nation

Slowly but surely, China’s brand of governmental action and political organisation is gaining increased international credence as a model for stable, orderly and sustainable growth.  Many surmise (though they may not yet be ready to admit it) that American policy-makers and intellectuals (and certainly American youth) are beginning to realise that finding ways to temper the irrational and shortsighted greed of the individual is the very soul of future collective political action and global ethics, for China and the World. By whatever name we choose to call it: collectivism, socialism, socialism with market characteristics. The notion that the invisible hand of free markets alone will hold our species' aspirations in good stead, is a theory that has outlived its usefulness.

In the West, and particularly in the United States, older cohorts maintain their adherence to the notion that the individual can and should subsist without obligation to the collective. This is to be expected given lifelong indoctrination. But what of today’s American youth who have experienced the invective-filled nature of the Internet and our capital markets? How do they feel? The results may surprise you.

The most critical lesson I have learned in the past 15 years living and participating in Mainland China’s growth and its growing pains, is simple, yet profound: collective spirit, collectively indicated goals, and noble collective effort, are just as and perhaps in the future more indispensable to our posterity given society’s current circumstance, than the European enlightenment’s focus on individual “freedom” and agency in lieu of collective dialogue, justice, and advance; it is a school of thought that survives as the dominant social construct in the West to this day, note America’s current presidential race, with demonisation aplenty but very little in the way of substantive policies that better real American lives.

In a sense Classical Liberal theory, where individual want and whim supersede that of the collective is dying by virtue of the very gargantuan corporations and, capitalism that liberal thought first inspired. We now have corporations with the economic power and status as genuine public utilities (Facebook, Google, and others) that are stateless and in general thus unregulated. As the need to control these stateless, cloud-based, multinational corporations that abet the pollution our virtual environment becomes obvious, so does the need to control the corporations that pollute our real environment. Technology’s and corporate potential wonder and danger become self-evident. The danger is the wholesale erosion of privacy, and proliferation of divisive, unwholesome and unsubstantiated myth (often called “astroturfing”). With these dangers we realize that our actions in markets, social networks, and mass publishing in which we habitually engage are not confined, rather their effects are universal because they are universally accessible. These media technology and publishing firms danger is superseded only by the danger posed by MNC industrial juggernauts whose pollutive affect is an abomination. It follows then that our prosperity, security, morality and human rights depend on collectively formed understandings, guidelines, goals and action, born of purpose rising beyond the banal profit motive or crass, numbing glossy entertainment available as opiates on our device screens.

And thus Classical Liberal theory, which says unfettered market-based resource allocation is the natural state of man, has by virtue of technology and the multi-national corporation robbed the common man of his true environment, his privacy and his personal, generational and economic security. This is clearly a theory showing signs of obsolescence. As polls of youth demonstrate across the globe, I am not alone in the belief in the need for renewed collective spirit, direction, and inspiration, for and towards each other, not merely for ourselves. I have come as many others must, to a deeply ingrained belief in the power of collective communities, nations and groups of nations to maintain their own identity but act with common purpose, mobilised by noble intent fomented by the People. People joining with one another to form a new and more harmonious basis for humanity’s traverse of the economic, resource scarcity, conflict and environmental challenges and opportunities sure to come.

I unabashedly support substantive, communal, supranational, and enforceable acts of collective sanity like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. China and America’s ratification is a step in the right direction. Agreements like these transcend Classical Liberalism’s transient economic units of measure of (empty) happiness and boldly look toward healing the planet; weaning big gas and oil interests off of death-dealing fossil fuels and bringing a halting (from the Middle East to Venzuela) to the wars started ad nauseam to acquire and control them. Agreements like the Paris Accords prove that humanity’s nascent recognition that every human action now tangibly affects the life outcomes of every other, that I cannot be all that I am to be unless and until you are all that you ought to be– this is the very definition of a collective organism, and as MLK Junior said, this is the true nature of reality, not a rat race toward the debasement of a morality based purely on capital accrual. I am hopeful this landmark agreement and others like it signal the end of adherence to outdated economic and social modalities that place growth (capital accumulation) above justice, the environment, and species survival. Sanity and consciousness of our heightened connectedness may yet rule the day.

Many will disagree with my thesis, but I am convinced that history will exonerate the primacy of my belief in our collective inter-connectedness over individual whim and opportunistic greed. China is obviously the nation who has remained committed to the ideals of social collectivism, come what may, as the apogee of human order, justice, and development. While I cannot advocate for all their policies and certainly not their every action, my passion is to facilitate candid cultural understanding to help paint a clearer picture of China’s developmental goals, rich history, and where possible, to dispel some of the misperceptions that currently drive (and often misdirect) America and the West’s China policy. China and America will together in the coming decades, either destroy the world via armed conflict, the unchecked spread of terror, and willful ignorance of the existential threat posed by climate change. They will do that or rather save the world by jointly eradicating these scourges permanently.

Never have two more powerful nations intersected at one point on the world stage. Yet, never have two so interconnected people, trusted or known less about each other. And while this endemic misunderstanding goes both ways, this is largely an American malady born of a parochial world-view and the incessant grandstanding made necessary by the prolonged quadrennial spectacle that are America's presidential elections. A time in American politics when demonization is the rule of the game, the goal being the collection of votes with very little thought of how pragmatic policies will be implemented once the winning candidate is actually elected. Democracy has many strengths, but this vituperative public grandstanding, backbiting and name calling, in the American context, is almost certainly one of democracy's most debilitating weaknesses.

We must bridge the gap in trust, knowledge and rational discourse, truth speaking to other valid truth with candid but gentle tongues because we (China and America) are the largest siblings in a global family. We share a common destiny and single home whether our moral intelligence is ready to accept this fact or not. We are One. We know today with scientific certainty that our only habitable home- the earth- has been scorched by a European-spawned “industrial revolution” that like many things one may consider contagion has gone global. Assessing blame is not important, recognising the emergency and its existential threat is critical. The people of China and America along with all the peoples of the world have a joint (dare I say “collective”) responsibility to put the house fire out, and draw humanity back from the precipice of self-inflicted destruction. We have less than 10–15 years (assuming drastic measures to increase renewable and green economic growth while bringing ozone depleting and earth-warming carbon emissions of the 180-year industrial age to an abrupt end. As an example, curbing carbon emissions in order to maintain no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase above pre-industrial temperature averages in any given year must be adhered to or many of the effects of climate change will soon become irreversible. At the current 3–5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial norms, we can expect a 10-meter rise in sea levels, yearly super storms, anthrax epidemics caused by their release from deer carcasses long-frozen and buried beneath Siberia's melting permafrost. In addition, massive droughts, drastic decreases in water supply especially in the Middle East and central Asia, as well as food supply. The planet if affected by drought and water shortages will not be able to feed the 10 billion inhabitants of Earth estimated to be alive in 2050. All leading predictably to unbridled conflict and misery. This is a fight for our children and their children’s very existence. 1.5 degrees Celsius, that is the golden number, we as a collective community, not whimsical abstracted individuals must together fight to reach.

We have no time for war, be it economic, cyber, conventional or otherwise.  This moment and the concomitant collective human responsibility to save our planet, are a unique moment in our species’ and planet’s history.  

China is the first superpower in the modern era not of European origin, and China- in a sharp rap to the heads of almost every European economic theorist- plans, controls and subsidizes almost all of its large indigenous corporations (public and private) as well as its currency (many say, China to stimulate growth, manipulates both) while China would argue her economic policies area means of regulating and tempering the indelible exuberance of global market forces. Opinions will differ, but there is broad agreement that the siblings must together save the home from inferno.

And so as the fire blazes, in our sister China we are presented with a new type of sibling rivalry. She is at once our largest trading partner, providing most of the goods, at low cost, the American consumer takes for granted today. She provides a sharp counter-proposal about how limited global resources, social justice and governmental regulation and collective will and self-sacrifice for a larger good can make optimal use of the planet’s resources for the betterment of the collective human family. China is also our largest source of IP loss and her markets at times seem impenetrable, she is the largest locus of corporate manufacturing “offshoring”, and our largest foreign creditor. China represents all these things and no invective-laced twitter soundbite from our presidential candidates can encompass either the gravity or the opportunity this intermingling of two great nations represents.  We must speak in substance not soundbite.  Democracy is a mere semantic, and semantic understandings are not owned by any one nation, the word democracy itself is not a social good, it is not an action, and it means absolutely nothing without an informed, educated, self-sacrificing public engaged in rational discourse about the matters that affect our species’ advance.  This we must remember for a thousand years.  Semantic flourish does in any way equate to good government, collective progress in economic justice, stability, education and peaceful scientific and cultural advance are the only ways I believe government’s performance can be objectively measured

And while their governmental policies broadly differ, the relationship between the US and China could not be more close-knit, whether we today feel we like everything about each other or not. It is important to bear in mind, given the minuscule size of earth, that China and America ARE siblings, of one family. Tied inexorably by destiny. It can not be otherwise, and this we shall realize as our moral facilities continue to develop. One great American president Abraham Lincoln's words echo, "We must not be aliens or enemies, we must be friends."

The Sino/US partnership is a new, uniquely 21st Century relationship. It breaks the mold. We can not skip out on one another, the tethers that bind us one to another can not be untied. We are Siamese twins, joined at the heart, lung, and hip. Will there be squabbles? Yes, but which of us shall incite the insane and do indelible harm to our blood sibling on whom our own life depends? Sanity demands that the answer be- no one will. The only sane, viable choice is comprehensive cooperation. Healthy sibling rivalry may begin with intense competition about who is taller, prettier, or stronger, but it can not end there.  Good siblings ultimately learn that their most fundamental responsibility is to take care of their mother and father- mother Earth and Father time. Good siblings grow in the collective realisation that love, comprehensive cooperation, and enduring compromise is not diplomatic platitude, it is the only viable answer we have as sentient beings, gifted this gorgeous blue planet.  An answer we must reflect on and mightily strive to turn into reality. The stakes could not be higher.

This is a story and history that is not being told in America.

From my vantage point, it is The Story of our Age. Will the United States and China decide to engage in petty squabbles for spheres of influence in the 21st Century or will they join together to sustain our tiny planet’s critical biosphere? The choice is stark, binary and will require a paradigmatic leap of love over the notional fiscal quarter, trade surplus/deficit, job offshoring, irrational containment or currency manipulation, and notions of collective versus individual rights and freedoms; all conversations that, along with false narratives about zero-sum (status and war) games, while perhaps necessary are dilatory at precisely the moment in history where every cooperative second counts, for the sake of our dying mother.

Having built TV programs and businesses in China for 15 years, I have of late born witness to China’s metamorphosis from the more gentle rhetoric of “Peaceful Rise” to the increasingly bombastic rhetoric, “Asia is our yard, and we do intend to be its primary player.” This change in tone, while the subject of much media speculation in the West is not at all different from America’s Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It defies logic that a nation (America) that used to count the Philippines as a colony finds it necessary to use military muscle and the role of self-anointed ombudsman and moral high-hand to adjudicate China’s own complex and natural rise in its own Asian neighbourhood.

The goal of the American Monroe doctrine, as stated, was to enable peace through delineating spheres of influence and keep a mercantilistic and war-like Europe out of the Americas. This made sense after an American revolution to throw tyranny back across the Atlantic. So it is somewhat hypocritical for a nation whose Western boundaries to this day extend beyond the formerly sovereign Hawaiian Islands and all the way to Guam, Saipan and beyond to claim that a rising power and the world’s most populous nation should not undergo a similar dialogue, sans outside interference, with its neighbours. Indeed the dialogue seems natural, and our own occasional crime-abetting history from Shanghai’s concessions to the Rhee regime in South Korea and the Marcos regime in the Philippines post-colonisation should chasten America’s desire to dictate how Asia pursues this conversation today.

More to the point, while many in the West find this new Chinese assertiveness lamentable, they should in no way have found it unexpected. The rise in national pride and nationalist tenor since 2012, rising to a crescendo post the recent Hague ruling came in tandem with China’s “surge” in what it terms “Comprehensive National Power” (CNP) to wit: the theory that China, in order to be heard and dealt with equably as a great power, will need to harness its full media/cyber/public opinion, economic, and military power, mobilized, managed and leveraged by the ruling Party to “wage and win regional conflicts under informatization conditions,” conflicts that extend beyond the traditional battlefield. Why this focus on CNP? Because after The Century of Humiliation (something Western schoolchildren learn far too little about) foreign concessions, genocide, the forced sale of opium to China’s citizenry by the British Empire, followed by China’s liberation from unprecedented foreign incursion and injustice, the Chinese people believe that if they remain united, and reclaim their cultural birthright now, especially as historic technological and environmental challenges loom on the horizon, then she will have earned her place renowned British Sinologist Joseph Needham theorized China has naturally enjoyed for most of the last 20 millennia: a place of trade (not conquest) based economic and cultural pre-eminence among its sister nations.

Casus Bellis

Does this mean war? To that I would say no, certainly not high intensity conflicts, unless the West or its Asian alliance partners totally misperceive China’s intent or vice versa. For the Chinese CCP armed conflict has first always been about the preservation of territorial integrity post Century of Humiliation and the sustenance of the Party as a guiding force of administration and order in a nation larger than any history has yet countenanced.

While perspectives certainly may differ, China has found that in the world’s most populous country, a strong, unified central government has provided the environ for rapid, peaceful development without the fear of foreign meddling and incursion. Again one need only view China’s history since the 18th Century to understand why this concern is not mere theory, it is a hard lesson learned time and time again: when China’s central government is weak, its borders and then its mainland have been encroached upon, its resources both natural and human treasure ignominiously drained. With that historical marker as the lodestar, it is quite easy to see why China’s territorial integrity and maintenance of Central Government (Party) rule are beyond reproach from a rational Chinese perspective.

It is noteworthy that China, which is often the subject of sharp criticism for sitting on the sidelines of global conflict, has extended its firm principle of non-interference/non-intervention in the domestic norms and politics of the nations with which it engages, I liken this to Star Trek’s prime directive, and though an imperfect policy, I find it the much better choice when compared to America’s determination to interpose itself and its values wherever and whenever it deems prudent. Perhaps American’s should watch more Star Trek. Though China peacekeeping missions are on the rise, China, as a rule still refrains from inserting itself into the domestic politics of the nations of Africa, ASEAN, NE Asia, Europe, and Latin America except in matters of bilateral trade and investment. The same surely cannot be said for European and American Corporate and Government entities whose 4 centuries of interventions and conquest are well documented. While the principle of non-interference in places like Darfur may give rise to critique, it is hard to imagine a more stable and even-handed policy by a great power in the wake of the misery colonialism and the supposed superiority of European paradigms over indigenous people’s has left the world in Central Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the horrors visited on China in the past itself. China looks inward to guide internal development and looks outward with a restraint and humility that must be recognized as a new and laudable paradigm on the world stage. China is not looking to impose its morals, values or economic system on anyone. That sentence alone is revolutionary in the history of post-renaissance great power world affairs.

At the same time, China’s become the world’s leader by example in making the difficult transition from fossil fuel to a renewable and green technology economy (see graph below), and in doing so has risked its traditional economic pillars of easy reliance on fossil fuels to power its domestic manufacture for export. This is an extremely laudable long-term environmental protection strategy, as demonstrated in China and America’s signing of the Paris Agreement. This dramatic shift, given China’s historical reliance on fossil fuel powered manufacture and export, is a clarion call that China’s leadership is ready to trade some short-term growth and countenance millions of short-term layoffs for the sake of the entire planet’s long-term prosperity. Given its progressive arms development, China no longer fears ruinous land invasion from any quarter, it only fears fracturing and fissures from within, and this it is fair to say, China and the Party will stop at nothing to avoid.

So Why the Sudden Shift in China Policy, and Why Now?

A reassessment of China’s seemingly bombastic nationalist stance with regard to various territorial disputes and foreign investment must be engendered. Demonising new paradigms is as old as the welcome Copernicus and Confucius’ ideas first received, but a bold new context for viewing China’s advancing nationalist rhetoric and earned national pride of place as the world’s second (and soon to be first) largest economy can make sense of the uptick in nationalist sentiment, encouraged by the government. What we see in the upswing in Chinese nationalism and economic protectionism today is not a China looking for conflict, rather what we should see, is a China preparing to exhibit strength and galvanise national will for the challenging economic, cultural and lifestyle transformation that is inevitable if China’s “green Revolution” is to find grassroots support and success, and the planet is to survive.

China is taking the measure of what it will take to achieve true sustainability, sans neo-liberal legislative gridlock, and the diktat of multinational corporations who, if unregulated, will always put shareholder interests before sound environmental policy or posterity. China is mentally preparing its citizens to make sacrifice, if needed, for the collective, via a rapid transition toward sustainable growth.

A Nation that is prepared when necessary to say “No”

A non-aligned nation saying “no” to the West and its 3 century-long dominant economic and sociocultural paradigms is a new phenomenon to anyone alive today. So why, we might ask has China seen fit to do so?  I think there are two primary reasons: First, China is beginning to say no to certain conditions placed on it from the outside, because they have a different construct for internal stability and global cooperation in mind and feel ready to articulate it, their construct is less reliant on fixed alliances and more on dynamic, bilateral assessments of cultural, economic and environmental circumstance.  Secondly, China is prepared to say no because China believes if she maintains domestic solidarity, and if she demonstrates that she can move from the one of the two largest emitter of carbon to the most avid green tech catalyst, she can again create a transformation that will shock the world just as her economic growth has. And while the transition China has planned will inevitably put great pressure on both the Party and the people to do the hard but necessary transformative work, the leadership’s calculus is that receiving the some ire today, in an effort to galvanise the populous, is well worth the long-term return in a world transformed and a China recognized for its willingness and ability to again change and lead by example.

China views its position and its place in history not in the 4 or 6 year units liberal democracy uses as the lens of progress. China views its evolving and changing role over the course of millennia. The territorial disputes are a shell game, that will be resolved by shared utilisation of the resources via bilateral negotiations at some later date. China understands the nations surrounding it are worried and these issues, which China does not view as hypercritical, but does view as historically and nationally galvanising, will need to be addressed, but for today the nationalist rhetoric serves another purpose. The purpose of imbuing in their nation a greater "sense of purpose." a national galvaniser. And while the short-term rancor and even possible low-level conflict is a possibility, China, in taking the long view believes that using these territorial claims as a foil to prepare its collective community for the radical environmental, culturally deep and economic transition ahead, is the right move and will bear ultimate proof of China’s scientific ingenuity, altruism, example based leadership, and perhaps, national greatness.

China’s change in tone was inevitable, the West’s misread of it in the run-up to the G20 summit and Paris Agreement ratification was not.

We must learn to learn about China's future, by living among its people, hearing the stories of their present, the hopes of their future and the echoes of generations past and their rediscovered collective ethos. If that deep, soulful, ethos is returned to by young and old alike, I have no doubt China will play a decisive role in saving and more vitally, renewing this planet and her inhabitants

（博大龍  普林斯頓大學(xué)伍德羅·威爾遜學(xué)者，電視節(jié)目制作人 青年觀察者胡怡瑩譯，楊晗軼校）