文章概述：

美国《外交官亚太时事》杂志2019年5月8日发表了题为《不，中美之间没有“文明冲突”！》的文章，针对美国国务院政策规划司司长凯润•斯金纳关于中美“文明冲突”的言论发表评论。文章称，斯金纳误解了“文明冲突”的概念。亨廷顿主张从世界政治的角度来认识世界文明，而不是用文明的观点来讨论“冲突”或“争斗”。换句话说，“文明冲突”背后的推动力无非是在我们进入冷战后时代时，根据不同的文明或文化对世界政治结构进行分类。而以二战结束后资本主义阵营和社会主义阵营的分歧的例子来看，当意识形态对抗趋于弱化时，地区利益集团之间及其内部的冲突将很快凸显出来，其根本原因与文明的差异无关，而与地区利益集团所属国家的国家利益有关。

随着中国崛起，文章不认为中美之间会有一场争夺霸权的斗争。“修昔底德陷阱”和“文明冲突”的说法受到广泛运用和关注，主要是和美国的国际话语权有关——西方媒体仍在世界占据主导地位，影响着世界各地的众多受众。

文章指出，中国提出构建人类命运共同体，希望建立人类理想的未来世界。外界不应错误地将其视为政治辞令，而应知道这一主张可以追溯到中国古代历史上，当时孔子提出的“大同”或“大一统”的思想。但是这个构想很容易被误解。以孔子学院在美国的地位和目前遇到的困境为例，尽管孔子学院在全世界范围内取得了巨大成功，但美国政府和一些学者却对其越来越持怀疑态度。虽然有些问题可以通过孔子学院内部的改革来解决，但主要问题是近年来由于中国在澄清其意图方面缺乏经验以及美国对中国未来意图的担忧及不确定性，导致美国和中国之间的战略不信任日益加深。因此，中国在国际事务中承担更多建设性责任的同时，提高中国在国际舞台上的话语权，有效扩大中国在海外的话语权，对于消除西方的疑虑具有重要意义。

文章最后强调，中美两国之间没有文明冲突。虽然中美两国在某些领域仍存在摩擦，但合作和相互依存也应得到重视。如果美国继续过分强调和关注矛盾，根本无法解决问题。

英文原文：

The world has changed  dramatically over the past few decades and is trending today toward  greater complexity and diversity. The popular “clash of civilizations”  theory proposed by Samuel P. Huntington is somewhat too simple for  modern society. However, this thought is now coming back to life, and  might even be unilaterally implemented into policy practice in the  United States toward China. Kiron Skinner, the U.S. State Department’s  policy planning head, has reignited this discussion with her recent  observation that China is “not Caucasian” at a recent event. Her broader  remarks made clear that the U.S. State Department taking pains to  prepare for a “clash of civilizations” with China.

From once a “economic  competitor” to now a rival on the level of civilization, what is behind  these perceptions in the U.S. bureaucracy toward China?

To understand that, it  is first necessary to get a taste of the policymakers in the American  government today. These practitioners who cope with China on a  day-to-day basis at both the policy and implementation levels see China  as more energetic, assertive, and less reserved over the past few years.  But they are missing memories of a time when China was weak and poor,  mainly due to the process of internal generational replacement.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

As Douglas Paal  explained in a commentary last year, “those with experience with  pre-reform China have retired and been replaced by much younger  officials with no personal memory of the ‘three communiqués’ that are  the foundation of US-China relations.” Consequently, the lack of  appreciation in their counterparts leads otherwise responsible American  officials to impatience along with insecurity. China’s rise keeps  haunting their minds, making them thirst for a negative-oriented label  to defend against this potential “turnover.” The term “clash of  civilizations,” therefore, is not only a simplified explanation for the  intricate status quo, but also a justification thereof and a defense  mechanism.

There will not be a clash of civilizations between the United States and China.

First, the concept of a  “clash of civilizations” was misinterpreted by Skinner. What Huntington  argued is to perceive the global civilizations from the perspective of  world politics, instead of using the viewpoint of civilizations to  discuss a “clash” or “conflict.” In other words, the thrust behind  “clash of civilizations” is nothing but to categorize the world  political structure based on different civilizations or cultures as we  embarked into the post-Cold-War era. The Chinese scholar Luo Liang  unscrambles the idea that countries born with the same civilization can  establish a world order that is generally recognized; on the contrary,  among countries without blood relationship, plenty of roadblocks remain.

As a case in point, at  the end of World War II, two camps — capitalism and socialism — were at  odds. During that period, the opposition of ideology was more obvious  and prominent. However, when confronting the Soviet Union, the United  States was playing the China card by holding fast to the alienation  between the two communist countries for a long time, in favor of  national interests. Since then national interests have gradually  prevailed over ideology. During the period of weakening ideological  confrontation, conflicts among regional interest groups and within them  will soon become prominent. The underlying reason has nothing to do with  the difference in civilization, but in the national interest of   countries to which regional interest groups belong.

So is there really a struggle for hegemony behind China’s aspirations accompanying its rise?

We don’t think so.  Distinctions between east and west extend to each different angles to  approach the world. Neither a “Thucydides trap” nor a “clash of  civilizations” is a fact, but instead are explanations and arguments  about the nature of the world. The reason why these ideas gain a great  amount of popularity is concerned with the international discursive  power of the U.S., and also due to the fact that Western media still  dominates, reaching a multitude of audiences across the world.

From the perspective of  the Chinese, it is a community of shared future for mankind that they  would like to envision as the ideal situation of the prospective world.  Rather than wrongly regarding it as the political rhetoric, outsiders  are supposed to know that this proposal can be traced back the history  of ancient China, when Confucius put forward an idea of “datong” or  “Great Unity.”

But this idea can be  misunderstood very easily. A related example is the status of China’s  many Confucius Institutes in the United States particularly. Despite the  overall success of these Confucius Institutes around the world (there  are more than 500 now), they are increasingly viewed with suspicion by  the U.S. government and some academics. Although some of the issues can  be addressed by reforms within the CIs, the main issue, however, is the  increasing strategic distrust between the U.S. and China in recent  years, resulting from China’s lack of experience in clarifying its  intentions and the United State’s conerns about China’s future  intentions.

Hence, to clear up  doubts from the west, it is significant for China to improve its power  of discourse on the global stage and efficiently amplify its voice  overseas when shouldering more constructive responsibilities in multiple  world affairs.

There is no clash of  civilization between these two giants. While conflicts between the U.S.  and China remain in certain areas, cooperation and interdependence  should be noticed as well. There will be no help to fundamentally  resolve the issue if the U.S. keeps overemphasizing and fixating itself  on contradictions.