Author: Stephen Middot; Walter
Zhou Shunzi is translated from April 2, 2019, US Foreign Policy Magazine website
Not long ago, I attended the annual meeting of the International Research Association in Toronto.People outside the circle may not be familiar with. This meeting gathers scholars from all over the world, and the diversity is increasing. In addition to the majority of political scholars, there are scholars in other disciplines such as history, sociology, law, and economics.They read the papers or publish insights around the topics such as international relations, global affairs and multinational issues.The extensive scope of the topic of the discussion is amazing.
However, after browsing materials, participating in discussions, and turning through the publication, I found that no one (at least in the meeting I participated in) could answer questions in my mind.So I started to reflect on some important issues, and I felt uncomfortable on these issues.
Let me talk about the five questions I want to know the answer.
The first question is China's future development trajectory.There is almost nothing to affect the world's situation than China.Regardless of China's continued rise, slowing, stagnation, or backward, it will have a profound impact on global average, the speed and degree of the relationship between Eurasia, the speed and degree of climate change, and other various problems.But on this issue, experts from all walks of life can't be argued, I don't know who should believe.
Middot; Andrea Gilli/Maurogilli believes that China's strength is much weaker than the United States, and it is unlikely to surpass the United States in the future.Should I believe them?I still believe that some other observers predicts MDash; mdash; China, the behemoth of China is unstoppable, is destined to throw the United States behind and become the new number one power?
Is the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative of the Belt and Road Initiative is a big conclusion of consolidating the global influence, or is it a hodgepodge that tries to take into account both domestic and foreign but chewy policies?Will China fall into a medium -income trap, or will it cross it by continuously increasing the full factor productivity?
I don't know the answer.Not only do I learn but do not know, but those experts who have made a living in China do not know, which is very disturbing.They have made various predictions on China's future, and they say everything.If the impact on the world itself is not great, then the words of various experts are not a big problem, but this is not the case.Assuming those who think that China cannot match the United States is right, then the United States can adopt a relatively relaxed attitude when facing Chinese competition to prevent two defeats caused by excessive reaction.
On the contrary, if China does continue to rise, even if the growth rate is slightly slowed, then China will inevitably become the key goal of US foreign policy (in fact, such a trend has now appeared).I was eager to know the answer to this question, or at least to learn more about various possibilities. Therefore, I look forward to further discussion of political scholars and insiders in the field of decision -making.
The second question, how strong is the American network ability?Nowadays, many people are alarmist that the United States is facing various threats in the Internet field, and people have become accustomed to such warnings.In addition to well -known virus problems, cybercrime, extortion software, we also face DOS attacks (distributed refusal service attacks, also known as flood attacks), business spies, and various strange threats.For example, Russia was suspected of using a hacker to attack the Email system of the National Committee of the Democratic Party in 2016; and whether Huawei network devices would become Trojan horses and give the Chinese government's ability to access user equipment.I don't know how many such things.
These issues are very important, even if they are too exaggerated, they are still worth taking it seriously.But what I care about is actually the other side of this issue: How strong is the United States' own network ability?Most of the reports we have read are disclosing what other countries have done for the United States, what they are doing, and what may be done in the future; they know very little about the National Security Agency and other federal agencies.
Of course, we don't know nothing about the United States.The United States has long been a leader in the field of signal intelligence (including digital penetration). We have reasons to believe that the United States' network capabilities are also very powerful.We know that the United States has developed a virus of the virus, and may have heard Merkel's mobile phones and other operations.We also know that the Trump administration has launched a higher degree of freedom to the US Cyberspace Command to launch an attack.However, based on national security reasons, the public information of US network capabilities and network operations is still very limited.
I understand the reason why such information is strictly confidential, but if the public is completely unaware, it will also have a negative impact.If the public does not know what actions in the United States are targeting other countries (because those countries may not announce such information), then people will think that foreign countries will launch cyber attacks against the United States for no reason, but in fact, this is just the daily routines between the two parties.a part of.In addition, because people do not understand what the United States does, it is difficult to judge how much credibility of the information of intelligence agencies is, such as their claims that Russia has invaded the Email system of the Democratic Party Committee.
Although many people have accepted this statement, the United States has never disclosed any evidence to support it (I believe that this allegations may be true through indirect evidence, but I must admit that I am not sure).I really want to know the real network capabilities of the United States, but unless I returned to school to study computer and enter the National Security Agency to work, I can only be helplessly covered in the drum.
The third question, where will the EU's future go?The European Union is very important. It has 28 member states (at least 28 member states over the United Kingdom overcome mental disorder and make final decisions).The European Union is responsible for the unified economic and regulatory framework for this total economic and US $ 1.8 trillion comprehensive system, management and circulation of general currencies of some member states, and formulating common standards for European European issues on core issues such as human rights.Over the past 60 years, although the EU is not the only factor in ensuring peace and stability in Europe, it has still played a key role in successful after the war after the war.
But as I used to write an article, the future of the European Union is not optimistic.Britain is stagnant away from the European Union (although the chaos of Brexit and the possible possibilities of Brexit may stimulate the unity of other EU member states in the short term), the protracted crisis of the euro zone has not been resolved.The non -liberal regime in Hungary and Poland challenges certain core principles of the European Union, and the nationalism that the European Union was originally overcome was reunited.Coupled with the extremely short hostile attitude of the Trump administration, the trouble facing the European Union has continued.
The hundred -footed insects are dead but not stiff, so I don't worry about the EU will fall apart in a short period of time, but I hope to see the EU more clearly in the next 5, 10 years, or even 20 years later.In 1995, no one could foresee the European Union's current sluggish, and today we go to predict the future of the European Union.
The fourth issue is how many countries will have nuclear weapons in the next 20 years?There is an old reason for maintaining global military deployment: even if it reduces military existence slightly, it will cause some countries to seek nuclear weapons and destroy stability.The American argument is that if all allies no longer regard it as a reliable security guarantee, then Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Germany and other countries may develop nuclear weapons quickly.Therefore, if you want to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, you should support Uncle Sam as the world police.
Don't rush to criticize this argument.When the state is worried about their own security and there is no other way to protect it, they may indeed seek development nuclear deterrent power.Therefore, once those countries that rely on the United States cannot continue to be sheltered, they are completely likely to build their own nuclear arsenal.In fact, some allies have begun to suggest this intention from time to time to convince the United States to continue to provide military protection in this less vague way.
However, the world does not necessarily go to the nuclear diffusion, and we are not finished eitherWhat is clear about the policy of nuclear diffusion means in the future.The cost of obtaining nuclear weapons and maintaining credibility of nuclear is expensive, and revenue and risks coexist.A country with nuclear weapons will inevitably make neighboring countries be vigilant, and then prompts them to follow up, which eventually leads the country to become the goal of combating other nuclear countries.It is for such a reason that the predictions on nuclear diffusion in the past are often too exaggerated, and countries that really cross the nuclear threshold are much less than expected.Dozens of countries have the technical capabilities of developing nuclear bombs, but only a few countries have tried it, and less successful in the end.
For these reasons, we can also think that many potential nuclear countries will eventually abandon the development of nuclear weapons. Even if the military umbrella from the United States is completely or partially removed, they will choose other non -nuclear ways to strengthen land security.At the same time, we must also remember that because of the existence of pervasion in the United States and continuously showing muscles, North Korea and Iran will have nuclear weapons or try to develop nuclear weapons.
I mean, we don't know how many countries will have nuclear weapons in the next decades, and we don't even know which policies in the United States will promote or suppress nuclear diffusion.If you can know that the answer to this question is not good?
Fifth question, who will win in the debate of the US strategy?As Stephen Middot; Wateheim recently recorded, a debate that should have happened has finally come to mdash; mdash; what role should the United States play in the world?In fact, when the Cold War ended, the United States should conduct such a debate, but it is often contrary to their wishes. The United States has to try the mistakes options in order to go on the right way.
In view of the various frustrating realitys in the past 25 years, the United States has now been expected to have extensive discussions.When all Democratic presidential candidates decide to ignore the annual publicity activities of the Israeli Public Affairs Commission, you should realize that large fission may happen.
Suddenly, very serious characters began to put forward large -scale overseas military commitments in the United States very seriously.There are John Middot; Mills Heimer and people like me believe that the United States should gradually abandon part of the overseas military commitment.Some people think that the status quo should be maintained, but you need to find a new way to persuade the public.There are also Trumpists who hold high the banner of the United States. They seem to attach importance to national interests but have actually met with some ethical allies, or they have been played by their opponents, and even splurge in the United States because of their rude and incompetence.
Who will win this debate?I hope I know the answer.Driven by strong structural forces, US foreign policy will be more restrained, including more attention to China, escape from the Middle East quagmire, eliminating the increasingly gap between the United States and Europe.Very powerful.In Washington's political circles, the defenders of liberal hegemony are sufficient and are still in an advantageous position. Many experts and politicians are still keen to defend the United States as an indispensable position.
Because the United States is still wealthy and is generally safe, it can also maintain this current ambitious but unprepared foreign policy.It is not difficult to promote such a policy by relying on volunteers and expanding deficits.This means that the current debate on the US strategy will not have a clear result in the short term.
Of course, I hope that things that understand in -depth understanding are far more than above.For example, I also want to read the full text of the special prosecutor Robert Middot; Mueller's complete report on Tong Russia, and Trump repeatedly promised to be disclosed but never disclosed.But I guess we will always be covered in these issues.
