【本文8月21日原载于美国《赫芬顿邮报》旗下《世界邮报》，原题“For the Rest of Asia, America Might Be a Friend, but China Cannot Be an Enemy”，观察者网杨晗轶译。】

中日间钓鱼岛主权归属的争议，导致中美关系越绷越紧。美国战略家们已开始思考如何在支持盟友日本的同时，调和与中国的关系。

或许，站在亚洲的角度看待当前的局势更有助于解决问题。纵观东亚和东南亚历史，在西方人到来以前，中国是地区内唯一的大国。中国历经王朝更迭、盛衰交替。当她国力昌盛时，周边国家最好能顺应天朝，换取可观的经济利益。

千百年来，富饶的中国一向是整个东亚和东南亚繁荣的保证。所以，今天的亚洲国家或许可以把美国当作有价值的朋友；但没人想让中国成为自己的敌人。如果美国主动拉近与中国和其他亚洲国家的距离，各方都会从中获益。如果美国为了应对中国崛起而在亚洲内部站队搞对抗，各方都将成为输家。其实，亚洲存在一个让各方皆大欢喜的微妙平衡点，摸索这个平衡点的边界，是治国之道和外交工作的一部分。

亚洲存在一个让各方皆大欢喜的微妙平衡点

日本是第一个通过走帝国主义道路迎接西方挑战的亚洲国家。战败后，日本实际上成为了美国附属国。不寻常的是，中国和美国或许都乐于让日本长久保持这样的“非正常”地位；而安倍首相等日本领导人则希望日本成为“正常”国家。对于美国来说，“正常化”的日本或许有助于其抗衡正在崛起的中国。

日本重新“入亚”

只要日本拒不承认历史错误，中国就不能接受日本的“正常化”。日本的“再亚洲化”是个尚需下一代人继续努力才能完成的复杂过程。中日之间围绕钓鱼岛的争端，仅仅是日本“再亚洲化”的一个表现。“再亚洲化”或“正常化”并不一定要把日本拖向战争。日本国内和国际社会应向精英阶层施压，迫使他们承认历史错误，这种做法不但正确、可行，而且还能缓和太平洋地区的紧张局势，并为包括日本在内的所有相关国家指向一个更美好的未来。各方必须达成共识，即日本的“正常化”必须是全方位的，这需要中国和美国扮演好各自的角色。

传教士式的超级大国

美国将自身定位为一个“传教士式”的超级大国。美国不但按自己的标准来评判别国，并且试图通过恩威并施，以自己的模式去塑造别国。如果中国步苏联——另一个传教士式的超级大国——后尘的话，那么中美两巨头之间的对抗将不可避免。然而，中国已明确表示不具弥赛亚情结，不会干涉别国。对于中华人民共和国以及历代华夏王朝来说，一条根本的治国之道是：除非核心利益遭到威胁，否则不干涉别国内政。

实际上，中国到今天还坚守着不干涉别国内政的原则。中国在与非洲、中东国家打交道时秉持“非道德”立场，已招致西方的批评。但正因为中国不具有弥赛亚情结，不像美国那样热衷于输出价值观，亚洲地区的未来才有希望。

（点击下一页，查看英语原文）

For the Rest of Asia, America Might Be a Friend, but China Cannot Be an Enemy

SINGAPORE -- As tensions rise between the U.S. and China over China's islands dispute with Japan, American strategists have been thinking about how to accommodate China while at the same time standing behind their Japanese ally.

It may be helpful to look at the situation also from an Asian perspective. Historically, in East and Southeast Asia -- until the Western arrival -- there has only been one major power rising and ebbing: China. When it rises, it is best to accord it some respect in return for which one derives considerable economic advantage.

Over the centuries, a rich China invariably brought prosperity to all of East and Southeast Asia. Therefore, while Asian countries might value the U.S. as a friend, no one wants China as an enemy. There is a spot that is sweet for everyone. If the U.S. moves closer to China and to other countries of Asia, all will benefit. If the U.S., in response to China's rise, moves too close to some as a move against others, everyone is caught in a lose-lose situation. Finding the limits of that sweet spot is part of statecraft and diplomacy.

Japan is the first Asian country to meet the Western challenge by becoming an imperial power itself. After its defeat, it effectively became an adjunct power of the U.S. In a curious way, both China and the U.S. may be happy to keep Japan in that "abnormal" position for as long as possible. Prime Minister Abe and other Japanese leaders want Japan to become a "normal" country. For the U.S., such a Japan may help counterbalance a rising China.

THE RE-ASIANIZATION OF JAPAN

For China, such a Japan is only acceptable if it acknowledges history. This re-Asianization of Japan is a complex process that will take another generation to achieve. The Diaoyu/Senkaku issue is only one manifestation of it. The re-Asianization or "normalization" of Japan need not lead to war. Domestic and international pressure on the Japanese elite to recognize history is not only right and doable, it will also relax tension in the Pacific and lead to a better future for everyone, including Japan. But it also requires China and the U.S. to do their part. The common objective must be the "normalization" of Japan on all dimensions.

THE MISSIONARY SUPERPOWER

The U.S. is, by self-identification, a missionary superpower. It judges others by its own standards and tries to shape them in the U.S.' own image -- by hard and soft power. If China is also a missionary power, like the Soviet Union, perhaps a titanic struggle will again be inevitable. However, China is, by self-proclamation, not a missionary power. For China, a cardinal principle of statecraft, not just the PRC but also its earlier incarnations, is non-interference in the internal affairs of others unless those affairs affect China's core interests.

In fact, this is now a western criticism of China -- that it is "amoral" in the way it deals with countries in Africa and the Middle East. But it is precisely the fact that China is unlike the U.S. in missionary zeal that there is hope for the future.