摘要
顶层大国实力占比面临“关键门槛”时,霸权国为维护霸权地位有可能对崛起国施加“战略阻断”行为,动用经济、政治、军事等多种手段对其崛起进程予以阻断。崛起国对霸权国GDP占比存在60%到80%两个“关键门槛”,二战后作为霸权国的美国一般选择在60%门槛前后对崛起国实施“战略阻断”行为。自2018年3月美国发起对华贸易战始,特朗普、拜登两届政府先后以极限施压和“高强度竞争”对中国实行了两轮全面遏制打压,造成中美关系深度恶化。这是霸权国对崛起国实施“战略阻断”行为的最新案例。由于中国崛起势头不可逆转和对美实力占比已经越过3/4线,美国对华“战略阻断”行为实际上已经陷入困境。在充分认识和把握规律的基础上,作为崛起国的中国制定正确的国家战略并推行成功外交,能够有效反制霸权国的“战略阻断”行为,从而维护自己的核心利益和世界和平发展大局。
When the strength of the top power faces a"critical threshold,"a hegemonic power may impose""strategic blockade"on the rising countries,using economic,political,military and other means to block the rise of the rising country to maintain their hegemonic status.There are two critical thresholds"of 60%to 80%for rising countries to account for a hegemonic country's GDP.After World War II,the United States,as a hegemonic power,generally chose to implement"strategic blockade"actions against rising countries around the 60%threshold.Since the United States launched a trade war with China in March 2018,the Trump and Biden administrations have implemented two rounds of comprehensive containment and suppression against China through extreme pressure and high intensity competition,resulting in a deep deterioration of bilateral relations.This is the latest case of a hegemonic country implementing"strategic blockade"actions against a rising country.Due to the irreversible momentum of China's rise,and the proportion of its power to the United States has already crossed the three-quarters line,the"strategic blockade"imposed by the United States on China has fallen into a predicament.On the basis of fully understanding and grasping the laws,China,as a rising power,formulates the correct national strategy and implements successful diplomacy,which can effectively counter the"strategic blockade"imposed by a hegemonic country,safeguard its core interests and the world peaceand development.Keywords:US,competition with China,critical thresholds,strategic blockage,strategic choices.
关键词
美国
对华竞争
“关键门槛”
“战略阻断”
战略选择
US
competition with China
critical thresholds
strategic blockage
strategic choices