Chapter 10 9. Centering on China

The current main focus of interest is China.It was vast and in turmoil; besides, China was surrounded by other rich land and sea regions, which constituted the East Asian world from Java to Japan. The escalating interstate struggle stemming from unrest in China has reached the point where the statue will be unveiled.The existence of the statue is no secret, but layers of coverings conceal its outline, and until the day of its unveiling, it will not be noticed too much.From the past to the future, things are always changing.But we shall know empirically how much the change has taken place and what its effects will be, only when the curtain falls and facts long concealed are revealed.We've moved across years of change without much moving our feet.Actions that could have been postponed indefinitely now appear to have been postponed for too long, and opportunities that could have been seized today appear to be gone forever.Through carelessness or laziness, we have missed many things.However, as mentioned earlier, China is not the only area of ​​dispute.With slight modifications, what can be said about China can also be applied to Afghanistan, Persia, and Asiatic Turkey at the other end.

When considering how to act, it must be reiterated that concerns for the people of Asian countries should be placed above external national interests.This is not a cover-up or a pretext for measures taken in the country's self-interest.Self-interest is not only reasonable but also the fundamental reason for national policy, and there is no need to make any hypocritical cover-ups for this.Acting in self-interest as a principle generally requires no proof, although it may be so in specific cases.However, from the perspective of being prepared, in order to correctly deal with the main problems and prevent the emergence of unexpected situations, any government must be mentally prepared in time for this. The decisions we make can only give priority to the countries directly related to them. Natural rights and future development can be called correct and long-term.The term natural rights is used to describe those things that one is born with, as opposed to political and legal rights, which are not inherently enjoyed by just being a person.The claim of the peoples of a certain area to retain absolute control over their territory is not only related to natural rights, but also to political rights.Political rights are embodied in political behaviors of domination, management and development. It requires these methods to ensure the natural rights of the whole world, that is, resources should be developed and utilized to promote general interests, and should not be put aside or wasted.In principle, if this is not possible, external coercion is justified.Of course, in a specific case, consideration should be given to whether the situation requires it and whether the timing is appropriate.

The interests of the masses of the Eastern countries are by no means necessarily coincident with those of the present or succeeding governments, either in form or in the persons concerned.Because the latter are unrepresentative, they do not reflect the will of the nation, nor do they promote the welfare of the nation as much as possible.At best they show that the people cannot govern themselves, that a poor system with no proper opposition exists over generations leading to defects.This being the case, whatever the occasion may require, it is necessary to end the existence of the above-mentioned governments, and there is no need to treat them with tenderness.

In fact, it is the above-mentioned incompetence of the government that is causing all the current unease.If the reverse were the case, given that there is now a balance of power between land powers and sea powers, and that the commercial interests of the latter depend on the maintenance of the peace, it would be relatively easy for the sea powers to prevent trampling on the general interests of nations and endangering their existence or independence occurrence of aggression.In reality, there is quite a possibility that the existing government will collapse, and the reasons can be internal or external, but it is not yet known what it will look like.To protect their own interests, other countries will either use the current rulers or replace them.Needless to say, both of these practices are contrary to the spirit or tradition of the United States.The United States may wish to promote in the East an approach which is not of immediate interest; but on the other hand, no government in the United States will tolerate the obvious injury to the interests of its citizens by the extension of the system of monopoly or sphere of influence.

Once you recognize the existing problem, you should try to solve it.With the acceptance of external intervention, the successful solution of the problem depends on achieving a political equilibrium of external forces that prevents any harmful dominance by any country or combination of countries, while also being able to rely on healthy development , to promote the material and spiritual progress of Eastern countries.This desirable situation will come more quickly if the peoples of the Orient succeed in imbuing themselves with elements of European civilization while retaining their identities.European civilization, despite its shortcomings, has achieved a great deal in promoting the personal, social, and political well-being of its members.Once the above-mentioned key changes have taken place in the Eastern countries, the newly injected factors will also perform the functions they have for the self-dependent and self-governing people who constitute the international community today.The changes already seen in Japan, a smaller country, have been well documented.Moreover, the changes in Japan are revealing the possibility that we can absorb some tangible or intangible beneficial elements from foreign institutions and implant them in ourselves, while still preserving our own national characteristics.Although Japan did not suffer from the paralysis of the government like China, it has experienced an institutional revolution since then when it felt the impetus of external forces, and has become a full enjoyer of international dignity and rights in recent years.Of course, the length of such a process obviously depends to a large extent on the size of the country.In a country as large as China, the intensity of the influence of external forces is related to the number of problems and the size of the scope of the problem.Leaving aside the adaptability of the Japanese people, to which much of Japan's success is owed, it is reasonable to assume that Japan's smaller size and smaller population facilitated its progress.In connection with this, the increase of external contact points is conducive to the development of a much wider region like China, and external influences can be distributed around these points and play their respective roles.

The presence of many countries and the differences in their interest requirements tend to shape this distribution and keep the balance.The involvement of multiple countries can lead to multiple influences with different characteristics from each other, which is not without benefits.In a country as large as China, diversity of influence is inherently beneficial.Even if this promotes political division, it is not bad for China's internal management and the overall political balance of the world.As mentioned earlier, it is not ideal for the Chinese, as a large part of the human race, to be governed by only one spirit, one person.Even if China does not have multiple governments, at least it hopes that there will be opposition factions that embody different policy concepts, which will help China itself and other countries to achieve a healthy balance.It is not without reason that some ancients lamented the fall of Carthage and its disappearance of influence on international relations when the abuse of power resulting from the absence of external checks sank Rome into corruption.

Therefore, there is no reason to worry about the struggles and conflicts in China between different countries out of their own urgent interests. This is an irreversible reality that should be accepted as it is.Current actions can only be based on the current situation.Instead of unrealistically bemoaning the inevitable, we should use it to motivate us to action.The immediate need is to make the next step as consistent as possible with the ultimate goal.In other words, efforts should be made to clearly understand the situation, and on this basis, strive for a balance of influence between land powers and sea powers and try to reduce conflicts between them.Such problems, by their nature, especially demanded the attention of the Teutonic states of Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, because of the need for cooperation among them, and cooperation depended on a consensus of understanding and a fusion of interests.In a country like Russia, whose government embodies the simplest idea of ​​political unity, Russia is not, as in other countries, inevitably troubled by organizational complications.In such an organization there is both deference and agreement between the different wishes of citizens, and this has implications for both national policy and international understanding.

Among other countries, France may be considered to be in some degree connected with Russia's policy in the East by virtue of its alliance with Russia, the nature of which depends on the degree to which Russian policy coincides with France's own interests.From the current point of view, the Franco-Russian alliance is mainly aimed at the differences of interests within the Latin countries.These divergences are inevitable, both as a result of their historical proximity to one another, and as a result of their present conflicting objectives in the Mediterranean.It should be mentioned here that the English-speaking countries have a strong interest in the progress and completion of Italian unification.The existence of the Franco-Russian alliance strengthened the ties of common interests between the countries concerned in the Mediterranean region, which were formed by France's unremitting efforts to establish hegemony in the Mediterranean that other countries could not tolerate.In the face of such an immediate crisis, it is unrealistic to resort to fantasies like common Latinness, especially when France is backed by Russia.For France, Latin imperfection is institutional rather than sentimental.Whatever the strengths of the French character, what is conspicuously lacking is that firmness which is so essential to political union.The above-mentioned hostile relationship will mainly have these two consequences: First, France's geographical control over the Western Mediterranean will be greatly weakened; than political influence.

Attention also needs to be paid to Japan, which is of obvious importance because it, although an Asian country in terms of culture and location, has acquired and retained the status of a full member of the international community through effective internal and external measures.As mentioned earlier, Japan, an island nation, must be among the maritime powers because of its power composition.Moreover, Japan's territorial ambitions for the mainland, however large, are limited, because Japan's population is relatively small compared with neighboring continents.Furthermore, it is unreasonable for Japan to wish to expand its territory.Regions such as West Asia and the Mediterranean Sea, although an integral part of world problems now centered on China, are clearly out of Japan's reach.Geographical conditions also concentrated the main interests of the United States in a particular region and the American continent.Moreover, unlike the United States, Japan's small size prevents it from wishing to have surplus power that can be used in distant lands; moreover, great power competition in Asia will weaken Japan's possibility of exploring distant lands, although it is close to the mainland.In fact, with the possible exception of Russia, all countries were limited in their pursuit of land occupation.Japan, due to its small size, and other countries due to their distance, should expect to change China by motivating the Chinese people through commercial and political connections.This can be done militarily with the help of sea power.Sea power, because of its mobility, can be used locally or used in other parts of the world to deter hostile influence, such as commercial control to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy.

The Teutonic states and Japan were identical in the type of power held and how it was exercised, as well as in their current interests.But the nature of their influence is different, because the original culture and inherited traditions of the two are not the same.Japan has shown extraordinary ability and conscientiousness in assimilating and applying European methods, but European culture is still for it an external acquisition, not an inherent part of itself.For Europeans, the above-mentioned ways reflect the characteristics of the nation and the habit of thinking, and are the result of centuries of evolution.During this evolution, foreign civilizations have undergone a process of assimilation under the influence of the local special ethnic endowment and environment.The product of this process has the characteristics of eternity, but what it presents is not static, but has a changing nature and development direction.In our view, Japan is still in a disadvantage which is by no means irremediable, and has only of late been quick to accept European civilization, and the external qualities of these things have not yet been completely dissolved by her.In the short time since the political change began, it has not been possible for the changes in Japan to penetrate deep enough to change fundamental habits and ways of thinking.This change can only be done healthily through a gradual process.

As far as the present is concerned, cooperation between Germany, Great Britain, and the United States without a formal alliance is a very natural thing, and it is very likely that it will continue to exist.This is because the collaboration is based on common interests and guided by ideas that are very much the same in origin, tradition and spirit.If Japan enters into this cooperation, as hoped, it will mark the beginning of a long and desirable political period whose keynote will be one in which land and sea powers are in confrontation, the latter achieving initiative.But even so, even when the four nations acted in unison towards a common goal, essential differences in ethnic identity would remain perceptible and lead to inconsistencies in views and roles among nations in ways that were not necessarily hostile.Japan, like China, is an Asian country, but its admiration and enthusiasm for assimilating European civilization is a good omen, and it can be reasonably expected that European civilization will enter the Asian way of life of the Japanese and transform it, just like Roman civilization. Affects the same as Teutonic tribes.However, what the latter situation produced was Teutonic civilization, not a mere extension of Roman civilization.So, what we should expect is a transformed Asia, not another Europe.For this reason, cheerfully accepting an emerging Asian state may be the right thing to do. However, it must be truly acknowledged that differences in racial identity sometimes lead to corresponding differences in ideas or behaviors, which can easily lead to misunderstandings and even conflicts.We all hope that justice and peace will dominate the future world, and mutual tolerance in terms of racial differences is indispensable and extremely important for planning the future.Even within a family, differences of interest can lead to quarrels, but as long as there are common feelings and traditions, reconciliation is not impossible, although misunderstandings arising from different personalities and emotions often make it difficult to find reconciliation. road.The source of difficulty lies in the problems we face.The competing interests and geopolitical conditions of land and sea powers have been elaborated on.But the differences in the temperaments of the countries which converge in Asia have not been much spoken of.These temperaments may be reduced to three great classes: Asiatic, Slavic, and Teutonic, none of which may perhaps be fully understood by the other.Different temperaments must be identified, analyzed, and accepted as difficulties to be resolved rather than grounds for complaint.It is impossible not to abolish them, but to give them equal opportunities, as long as they arise from their own internal motives and do not spread themselves by means of hostility such as forceful coercion.Such a tolerant temper can only lead to harmony consistent with the real interests of any country concerned.If we ignore the essential differences, use the pursuit of unity instead of emphasizing the similarities, and confuse the unity of spirit with the unity of action, there will be no such coordination.For the common interests of Europe and Asia, the permanent solution that the three races should pursue is not to abandon Asian culture or system, but to peacefully introduce European civilization into it.And that can only happen in an environment of mutual respect and kindness.Such an environment would guarantee the spread of European civilization, so long as the latter possesses what we consider to be superior. What seems contradictory is the fact that the maintenance of an equal and friendly environment cannot be separated from the existence of force and the persistence of one's own position.The latter manifests itself in insisting on equality of opportunity, and in supporting one's own claims in ways sufficient to attract attention.Sufficient preparation is the premise guarantee for any idea, and any idea must be based on prudence, which cannot be separated from sufficient research and understanding of the situation.Adequate preparation and comprehensive vision will promote peace by removing the negative factors that prevent geography, strength, race, temperament, political institutions, and national capabilities from fully and normally functioning, and will facilitate the only safe result of progressive coordination. True planning means accepting all factors as they are and analyzing them patiently.The process has a lot of detail and is thus somewhat complex, but recognizing a few salient features helps to distill it down to something conceptual.First, it is necessary to make inferences and predictions about the distant future, to advance step by step and realize what will happen at a certain moment; second, it is necessary to properly put the sense of the country's primary mission in mind and fully consider the reality dangers and the needs of other countries.These two are partial expressions of the above process.Moreover, both States and individuals should have a communal spirit that enables them to prioritize their own interests in the conviction that their own interests are best served by properly meeting the demands of others rather than by obsessively obstructing their progress. With this understanding in mind, let us examine today's needs from the perspective of the long-term to be accepted.The current backward political environment in Asia accurately reflects the lack of political talent in Asian countries.In this environment, the lack of effective organizational mechanisms deprives the people of Asia of the power to take effective action, leaving stagnation and passive resistance to change.These are factors that cannot be ignored in future changes, but there is no need to take any measures against them for the time being.Japan represents Asia in terms of organized preparation for development; but a small Japan is not enough to be a source of great impetus.Currently, Japan is considering which of the other two competing races is most supportive of Japan's short-term interests and the maximum future development of Asia in terms of character and intention.Japan will determine its own course based on these. The other two races, the Slavs and the Teutonics, were markedly different in terms of political institutions, social progress, and personal development.There is reason to believe that some of these differences are fundamental, rooted in the races themselves; others are the product of centuries of upbringing in the two races.There is also hostility between the two that stems from a lack of mutual understanding, as well as conflicts of interest.The relative geopolitical positions of the two in Asia, and the ambitions that come with them, have contributed to these conflicts.Addressing this situation satisfactorily starts with acknowledging that the problem exists, rather than whitewashing reality with hypocritical rhetoric while being defensive.If this is done, it can be hoped that there will be two parallel lines that are not in the same direction, but will not collide.While we may not be completely one, we can accept each other as they are, not exaggerate our differences, and find common ground rather than disagreement over shared concerns.This can only be done if both parties recognize the basic needs of the other. The difference in racial identity is expressed in behavior, because behavior is the physical expression of spirit.In addition, the distinction between land power and sea power also highlights the division between the two major races, limiting their interests and wishes.Their current ownership and needs reflect this difference.The distinction between land power and sea power exists in the geographical situation of the two major races, and is related to their interests and goals in Asia. It also clearly involves the problem of transportation, that is, the problem of passage toward the goal.The Teutonic nations occupied the seas, while the Slavic races were practically cut off from the seas.But in terms of land power, the Teutons are at a disadvantage. It is geographically far away from Asia, while a large area of ​​​​the Slavs is adjacent to Asia.Almost all of Asia's external traffic is by sea, so the Teutons have an unparalleled control advantage in this regard, and it is the same in terms of ocean and commercial development. In essence, the above relative conditions are irreversible.Although there may be some changes, but only within a limited range, it is absolutely impossible to lead to equality.The existence of the above conditions based on natural factors is the basis of policy.It determines or influences the claims of the State to expansion or occupation, and affects the monopoly of a race over the elements on which its power depends.Again, it must also be admitted that each race absolutely needs some foothold in lands not primarily held by it, though they will certainly be at a disadvantage.This common mutual need suggests that there are areas where both sides must make concessions to try to coordinate. For example, it is clear that Russia will never be satisfied with its current flawed and politically dependent access to the ocean via the Baltic and Black Seas.It is also clear that the European Teutonic states Germany and Great Britain could not allow Russia to dominate in the Levant, and thus on the Suez route.Russia can do this if it can occupy the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, thereby converting its naval bases enclosed in the Black Sea into impregnable bases with easy access.The advantages of a solidly developed, solidly trained, and powerful Russian fleet with free access are unrivaled in this world.If it is aimed at the Suez Canal, then the business situation closely linked to sea power will undergo fundamental changes.I am very emphatic about this, so while I sincerely hope that Britain wins the current war in South Africa, I would prefer that Britain make up for its own failures and losses by concentrating on the Mediterranean and Levant, and jointly defending the war with Germany. Control of the Isthmus of Suez and the peninsula of Asia Minor, thereby ensuring the safety of the Suez route, which is essential to both countries and cannot be replaced by the route via the Cape of Good Hope. How and where are Russia's maritime demands likely to be met?There are only two regions, but the acquisition of any one of them will not completely satisfy Russia, and Russia's isolation from the sea cannot be changed for this reason.Among the two areas, one is the Persian Gulf, which Russia can reach through Persia from the shore of the Black Sea; the other is the Chinese coast, which Russia can already reach through Siberia.Russia's access to the Persian Gulf means it must either invade Persia or take concessions from it.Reaching the Persian Gulf would not satisfy Russia's ambitions unless it was accompanied by the occupation of a vast territory from the southernmost point of Russia's border in Eastern Turkey to the Persian Gulf.If this were to happen, Russia would be on India's flank and would be able to intervene in a possible railway from the Mediterranean through Mesopotamia to India.In addition, although the Persian Gulf cannot exercise absolute control over the sea route to the East via Suez as from the Levant, the Persian Gulf has a flank significance, from which it can exert a long-term threat in wartime.Moreover, it should be noted that if Russia had a navy in the Persian Gulf worthy of the British fleet and its allies, the latter might be so exhausted that they would have to abandon naval activity in the Black Sea and Chinese waters.Because if the naval power is dispersed in the above two areas, it is unlikely that they will respond to each other.The obvious weaknesses revealed by such a situation would, of course, be to Russia's advantage, preventing the countries concerned from adopting an arrangement which would put them at risk.Moreover, opposition to Russian forays into China's shores would seem irrational and would unnecessarily arouse Russian animosity.Thus, if there is really little resistance to Russia, we shall see a confluence of powers at the eastern end as well as at the western end of the disputed zone.The central interests around which they revolve are contested by the dying state of the Chinese state. Maritime powers needing a presence on China's coast and opening up its free communication with the world can bluntly state that the navigable reaches of the Yangtze River are their only way into China's interior and the center of their local influence.A reciprocal agreement between the maritime powers and Russia should not take the form of a formal treaty, but a mere understanding; nor should it be arbitrated by men, but should be based on the recognition of reality in a spirit of reciprocity.It should include the recognition that there should be no military occupation along the Yangtze River that would forcibly close certain waters to maritime powers.Under such conditions, the latter should also avoid using naval power to prevent other countries from enjoying the commercial use of the Yangtze River in peacetime. The guarantee lies in the guarantee agreement concluded between countries with powerful navies, and in the mutual cooperation between them. supervision.In this regard, the cooperation between naval states is inseparable from the common opposition to certain activities that are essentially opposed to them, and is also closely related to the common interests of each other.These commonalities would prevent a situation where one country exerts undue influence. In reality, in terms of the possibility of aggression against China, land power concentrated in one country and close at hand is much more terrifying than sea power, because there is far more than one maritime power, and the power base is relatively far away.In addition, they are more interested in making profits, and put their source of vitality first in business, and second in the use of force.So the maritime states were more interested in promoting the development of the nations they dealt with than in subjugating them.For the good of the world as a whole, they are more concerned with the promotion of their own influence than with coercion; with the gradual development of native peoples through material advancement and spiritual contact with civilizations which have produced the highest personal and social achievements, rather than occupying their country.After all, it is regrettable that such a process is based on the intervention power of forceful foreign forces and local resistance power, but this is just a repetition of history.Armed force has been the instrument by which ideas have brought the European world to its present level, and it still helps our political institutions and social organisation. All in all, for the future and the present, the development of the situation in China and the Levant sea area and the east and west ends of Asia cannot be separated from the existence of force.The objective and inescapable situation called for the cooperation of the Teutonic states, both because of their fundamentally identical interests, which were material factors, and because the actions motivated by the nature of their interests and powers were motivated by the same spirit.This is the spirit of commercial exchange that is essentially free and pursues the expansion of influence.Commercial influence needs to exist through the deployment of navies in various places, but it cannot be spread widely with the help of navies, because the characteristics of naval power greatly limit its extensive use inland, and make it inseparable from the support of the country anytime and anywhere.Judging from the results, no matter now or in the future, many interests that are inseparable from naval power are the basis for the existence of a maritime power; using the navy as a tool, you can ask others to follow your own opinions, instead of forcing them to obey.The navy can thus only be used against exclusive moves.Or to help the countries concerned fight against acts of conquest.To this end, maritime powers should work together.Not in a binding alliance, but in the spirit of heart-to-heart. Judging by the current state of confrontation, military considerations will continue to determine Asia's future until hostility is replaced by coordination.However, the geopolitical situation on which the current strategic situation is based is influencing the nature and direction of effective cooperation, as discussed a lot in the previous paragraphs.It also needs to be reiterated that the main current focus of interest is China, which is vast and in turmoil; besides, China is surrounded by other rich land and sea regions that make up the East Asian world from Java to Japan .The future market value of the region is at the heart of an intensifying political and military debate.In addition, with the vision that a politician should have, one should also consider the long-term impact of the absorption of European civilization on Asian countries.What kind of society will these influences make Asia?Spiritually the same as us, or inferior or even superior? With the exception of Russia and Japan, the other relevant powers depended heavily on support from their distant home bases.Therefore, we can divide countries into two categories: one is the country that mainly uses land as its transportation channel, and the other is the country that relies on sea transportation.Sea routes have the advantages of quantity and convenience, and they largely determine trade routes.Two of these routes are of incomparable importance, the one from Europe via Suez and the other from America across the Pacific.The opening of the Panama Canal will have a major impact on the latter, because it connects this route with the Atlantic coast of America. Traffic conditions determine the success or failure of a war.In a broad sense, transportation is the most important factor in political and military strategy.Sea power has a prominent role in controlling traffic, as it has historically done, and will continue to do so as long as there are navies.The reason is that in terms of long-distance mass transportation, water transportation is much more convenient than land transportation, and the transportation volume is much larger, so the ocean has become the most important commercial transportation medium.The word commerce brings to mind the sea, since maritime commerce is in any age the chief source of wealth, which in turn symbolizes the material and spiritual vitality of a nation.So, just as armies are essential to military operations on land, and rain and sunlight are essential to the growth of plants, sea communications determine the fundamental vitality of a nation by being used to secure its own interests or to confuse its adversaries.The above conditions confer certain privileges on the maritime powers, which they can use to offset their geographical and material disadvantages in Asia compared with the land powers.Applying pressure elsewhere can alleviate local dangers, which is why Napoleon took Pondicherry on the Vistula River in India.However, if the maritime powers all adopt the policy pursued by the United States, do nothing to the enemy's commerce in time of war, and cede control of sea traffic, they also give up sea power and give up pressure in one place to ease the war. The main means of pressure in another area.Such a retreat would be more perilous than ever if it took place today, as the confrontation in Asia is at stake. Among the three Teutonic countries, Germany, Britain, and the United States, the former two countries have obvious interests in the Levant, which is the most vulnerable part of the communication line between the two countries and the East.For this reason, they need to use naval power to fully defend the local area, and Egypt and Cyprus, with Aden, Malta, and Gibraltar as the two wings respectively, are the most important.In addition, in the area between the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf, the two countries should undoubtedly use their political influence to prevail, but this influence must take into account the interests of the local people and the security needs of preventing deadly attack. These influences are enhanced by commerce that is conducive to the development of the host country, and the country concerned can support commerce with financial resources and when necessary, the use of force.Countries that see the Suez Canal as a shortcut to the Far East need to keep this in mind.This is especially the case with Great Britain, whose vast interests in India may at any time demand this short-cut, both commercially and militarily.Even the transshipment of troops and cargo caused by the closure of the Suez Canal would reduce the time advantage of the Suez route over the Cape of Good Hope route.As for Germany, her interests in the region were real, though not in the same kind and degree as England's.The inescapable fact is that from the mouth of the Black Sea, the Mesopotamian valley, and the highlands of Asia Minor, decisive control over the Eastern Mediterranean could be exercised, as the Ottoman Turks had done centuries before.In the age of sailing, loss of control did not mean being squeezed out of the most lucrative sea lanes to the East, which is not the case today.Germany and Great Britain were naturally very concerned about this, and Italy was no exception, for France had conspired with Russia, which was necessarily aimed at the control of the Latin and Teutonic states in the Mediterranean.The actions of the United States do not yet involve the region, but this does not indicate indifference to it.It is related to the freedom and convenience of some countries in communicating with the East. Since these countries are consistent with us in terms of interests and characteristics, their policies in the above-mentioned regions are also closely related to us. If the long-term needs are clearly recognized, the above situation is not difficult to understand.To use a sailing analogy, if the wind is favorable, we only need to steer the rudder forward.But reality has its complications, and every generation of statesman has to learn to deal with them, just as sailors have to deal with headwinds and currents.However, even if we do this, we lose our final goal in the face of all the current perplexities, and we will still be helpless, just like a sailor who forgets his destination while paying attention to the direction of the wind.Politics is like sailing. If we forget the port we are sailing to, we will not be sure of the course; if we ignore the navigation data, we will not succeed. The American people and the U.S. government have not yet linked the future of Asia to consider the complexities associated with, say, the Suez Canal and the Levant.Our problems do not come from the outside world, but from our inherent way of thinking.In the past, we hated studying external political issues, and even refused to admit their existence. As a result, we were often forced by sudden crises.最近的導致菲律賓落入我們手中的非常事件使美國大眾吃驚不已，不過應相信，當時間的延續使人們逐漸習慣了與西班牙的戰爭所帶來的驚訝和不安時，經過了多個世紀的根深蒂固的精神狀態肯定會趨於轉變。大多數美國人都已經曆了一個形成新觀念或破除舊觀念的過程。在一股儘快擺脫心理矛盾的情緒驅使下，這個過程一開始進行得比較容易，但隨後往往被一個乏味單調的心理鬥爭階段所替代，許多人結果又麻木不仁地後退到了原先的狀態中去。在任何國家都可能出現這種情形。如需防止它，必須認清現實，從中找到任務和利益，這些正是國家政策的緣由與動機所在。 本文基於的一個業已被普遍認同的前提就是，在作為本世紀結束之際重大特徵的廣泛的擴張運動之中，太平洋地區，尤其是東亞，成為了所有國家近期和遠期利益的焦點所在。在歐洲和美洲地區，已不可能再發生重大的領土上的變化；但是在此之外的那些局勢未定眾人關注的世界，某塊地區的現實意義更多地是在於它和上述焦點地區的交通上的關係，而不是其自身的價值。舉個例子，金礦資源只使南非具有暫時的重要性，這種重要性會隨著金礦的枯竭而消失；但作為通往印度和遠東的道路上的重要據點，南非就有著長期的、在任何時候都不會被忽視的價值。 同樣的，蘇伊士地峽、利凡特和波斯有著根本的重要性。不過，前文已試圖表明，當前更急迫的事情是在這些地區建立一種將決定對蘇伊士航線的未來控制的政治環境。 這些地區以及其他因素，由於它們的獨特價值與相互影響，構成了體現在亞洲問題之中的世界總體局勢的戰略特徵。在這種背景下，一個國家應依照自身利益而行事，同時適當地照顧到其他國家的權利，對這些權利不能僅僅用世俗的、本質上因時而變的眼光來衡量，還需要參照人類的法則並不能完美表達的那些永恆的正義標準。在這樣的框架中，強大的情感力量必須處於適當的位置，情感因素只有恰如其分，才可能處於理性思維的正確引導之下並發揮積極的作用。不過，一個國家的聰明才智更多地是體現在是否能通過和他國的合作來加強自身力量方面。這種合作基於利益的相當一致，如果這種一致又表現在了國家特性和傳統方面，就會有助於共同理想的生成，而持久、和諧的合作的產生前景也會大為明朗，因為從休戚與共的感情中產生的健康思維將使利益更少地具有自私性。德國、英國和美國就應該被維繫在這樣的一條三邊紐帶之上。它們不必結成同盟，但必須以被血緣關係所加固的共同利益為基礎，步調一致地行動。 在東亞和太平洋，美國和德國、英國的利益雖不盡相同，也十分接近。如果認識正確，那麼這三個國家雖然是追求同一目標的競爭對手，但不應成為敵人。因此，美國在感情上應站在英、德一邊，幫助擴大它們的影響，從而增進共同的利益。有關英、德與東方的交通對我們的影響是間接的，又是在我們自己的日常活動遠未涉及的地區進行，因此很不容易引起我們的關注和同情，而更多的理解也就顯得十分必要了。假如我們能有這樣的明智認識，美國和英國、德國之間自然也會有更多的相互關照。 於是反過來我們也會要求並得到來自德國和英國的與我們之所施相應的注意和同情。在這種情況下，即使我們三國各有各的方向和要求，我們也能達成默契，在利益重合的地方一致行動。在蘇伊士航線和巴拿馬航線這兩條最重要的交通線中，前者從政治上看只關係到德國和英國，而後者則對我們必不可少。如果雙方都能夠顧及對方的需要，並給予或是積極干預或是道義支援之類的幫助，就像英國在美西戰爭伊始不支持組成反美聯合那樣，大家也就不需要考慮對當地進行政治干涉了。當共同利益需要時，我們應根據對形勢的正確理解共同行動；在此之外，每一方的份內之事應不受干涉，錯誤的插手常常使最親密的朋友反目為仇。 基於上述道理展開的關於巴拿馬周邊戰略局勢的討論已有很多，不過在此再就門羅主義說一兩句也並非不合時宜。將持續存在下去的新的形勢已極大地改變了美國的對外政策，使其走上了擴張之路，但這並沒有削弱反而還加強了美國的如下觀念：可以對巴拿馬地峽輕易地施加軍事影響的地區不能受歐洲政治制度的波及。舉個例子，如果某些人預計的一個變化確實會發生，也就是說荷蘭併入了德意志帝國，最好讓人們現在就知道，我們也必須明確表示：我們不同意將庫拉索島也併入德國。巴拿馬地峽對我們的特殊意義是它將美國的太平洋和大西洋海岸連接了起來，另外它也是對我們至關重要的連接大西洋和遠東的兩條主要交通線之一，所以我們不會同意將庫拉索這個加勒比海中的堡壘再行轉讓，就如我們也不會考慮獲得地中海上的馬洪港以作為我們打贏和西班牙的戰爭的一個成果一樣。 因此我們必須公正、冷靜地考慮當事雙方的利益，切實顧及我們所打交道的國家的想法和基本需要。在思考過程中，既要拋棄任何成見，也不能感情用事，感情的作用不應妨礙形成客觀、公正的判斷。亞洲問題的演化需要幾年而不是幾天的時間，在這個過程中傳統的信條或許不會發生什麼變化，但根據當前現實依然需要考察它們。一條交通線是否重要很大程度上由東方問題決定，因此經由蘇伊士的較短航線才日益重要，這條線經過地區的政治和軍事局勢也更多地處於變動之中，地中海地區也成為了重點關注對象，重新獲得了以前曾享有的突出地位。出於同樣的原因，加勒比海由於其對巴拿馬地峽的意義，也具有了從未有過的地位，而門羅主義對該地區的運用也顯得更重要了。太平洋地區對美國也日益具有多方面的意義，它既是一個日益開放的廣大市場，也是一個交通要道。而且美國在該地區新獲得的地盤也給它帶來了更多的機會，加大了它對於該地區的責任。而已經存在的蘇伊士運河和將要出現的巴拿馬運河的重要性則集中體現了當前變化的本質特徵，與此同時這兩條運河的使用又是這些變化的促進因素。無疑，麥哲倫海峽的地位將由巴拿馬地峽取代，而地中海的頂端則取代了好望角。 這樣，新的形勢導致了非洲和美洲南端的相對孤立和重要性的下降，它們過於遠離作用於各國政策的當前變化趨勢。這些地區對於交通要道的意義已經較小，它們的重要性只能來自於自身的物產了。因此，是否還有國家利益上的緣由促使我們運用門羅主義去支持那些對我們並無好感、地理上又處於對巴拿馬地峽有效影響範圍之外的亞馬孫流域以南的美洲國家？這樣做究竟是出於認真的政策考慮，還是出於情感或純粹的習慣？現實是否證明我們應該保持對上述地區的責任，即使這可能干擾我們在更至關重要的地區採取有效行動？一言以蔽之，儘管門羅主義所依憑的觀念並未過時，反而還由於最近的變化而被強化，門羅主義的運用難道不可能需要變革，以加強它在某個區域的作用，或減少它在另一個地區的運用？ 西班牙殖民帝國的瓦解和東亞危機的臨近導致的另一個影響重大的情形是兩個偉大的英語國家的接近。這個事實鮮活可見，而且由於英、美清晰可辨的當前和未來的利益一致性，正處於客觀的發展之中，雖然雙方間還有著不少由不愉快因素導致的瘤疾。英美接近不僅僅是一個情感上的過程，雖然雙方間由來已久的情感適逢其時地發揮著非常強大的作用。起首要作用的依然是物質因素利益的一致；緊接其後的是感情上的互助，從美西戰爭的起源中雙方都看到了這一點。這場戰爭明顯地表明這兩個國家都有著支持被壓迫的受苦者的理想，只不過相對的孤立淡化了對世界其他地區的這種同情。 在美國，人們已睿智準確地看清了上述情形。不過，存於人們心中的一些簡單的迷惑又不無道理地影響著對於正在南非進行戰爭的英國人的同情，因為南非戰爭所圍繞的問題正是當初的美國革命為之戰鬥的，而且一旦人民沒被給予代表權，向他們徵稅就是粗暴的壓迫。這個原則其實為英國和我們所共知，只是英國暫時的違背令我們反感。由於英美兩國都認識到彼此間有著共同的觀念和理想，在美西戰爭和南非戰爭中都有著一方對於另一方的同情。這也表明了整個人類正趨於統一，這將在時機成熟時得以實現，而不能為強力或急躁所驅使。美國內戰的結局、義大利的統一、新的德意志帝國的倔起、大不列顛帝國聯邦思想的活力都說明了人類正趨向於集合為更大的集團，並進而形成或多或少正式且範圍清晰的政治同盟。而戰爭則在推動並鞏固這些進步方面起著首要作用。借助於戰爭，美國的團結得以維護，義大利的政治統一得以實現，而德國人則擁有了共同的情感和一致的利益，這是德意志帝國的存在基礎。戰爭也促進了英國和其殖民地之間的心心相印，從而使帝國聯邦設想能儘快轉化為具體行動。沒有戰爭，這個轉化是不可能的。同樣，為了將英國與美國間的相互同情轉化為積極的行動，並使美國樂於歡迎並報答由此而來的英國給它的無價支援，也需要戰爭的壓力，需要在一國受外來干涉威脅時，它的姐妹國家能予它以支持。 當然，戰爭肯定是一種災難，給人類帶來最多痛苦的災難之一。不過，此時需要認識到，雖然仲裁這個詞頗為人所喜愛，但這僅是因為這個詞的美好內涵，而不是因為人們對於當前形勢已經有了全面、理性的分析。在兩年之中已經發生了兩場戰爭，而任何一場戰爭所關係到的正義目標都不可能依靠溫和方法得以實現。當美西戰爭爆發時，西班牙的殖民地區已有四十萬人死於悲慘的長期饑餓，這很大程度上是西班牙人為鎮壓由自己幾個世紀的壓迫和一次又一次的違背諾言激起的反抗而採取的重新集中政策造成的。進行對西班牙的戰爭的理由在於我們有權出於簡單的人道原因進行干涉，以及西班牙業已不可能以對被統治者無害的方式來管理它的殖民地。用不著再相信西班牙人的新允諾，這不一定是出於對他們的誠實的懷疑，而是因為持續的失敗已證明他們根本不具備實行正義的、健康的統治的政治能力。 英國進行與南非的德蘭士瓦共和國的戰爭的理由既在於與以上相似的解除壓迫的干涉權利，也在於一個多世紀之前我們的先輩為之而與宗主國開戰的普遍原則，即不是以代表權為基礎的徵稅就是暴政。一般地，英國並不為住在海外且處於不良統治之下的英國臣民強行索取公民權。不過，德蘭士瓦百分之九十的收入由英國居民所創造，為此英國主張德蘭士瓦國家給予後者平等的待遇以作為回報，但這被拒絕了。需要記住的是，在南非，不僅英國和美國的首要信條自由遭到了踐踏，而且曾鼓勵外國人前往德蘭士瓦的五年內可獲公民權的法律競在五年期未到之時就被修改了，於是應有的權利遭到了剝奪。 說英語的英國和美國分別參加了上述兩次戰爭，而且參戰的一方都從沒有參戰的另一方，且僅從這一方得到了真誠的同情。相對而言，這種情形在德蘭士瓦戰爭中顯得不是那麼引人注目，部分因為南非的問題不是非常明朗，讓人一目了然，但主要是因為美國的許多生於異國的公民對他們的出生之地仍有著一股親近之情，而不怎麼受對於美國利益的認識的影響。 不過，英、美之間依然有著堅實的聯合基礎。我們兩國的相互理解已經開始，不僅在利益和傳統方面，也在平等和法制這些觀念方面。只要這種認識日趨深入，兩國之間就會越來越為共同的精神所維繫，並可能建立聯盟意義上的聯繫。為使這個集團在種族和精神上都更臻完美，其他的條頓大家庭成員也應加入，而德意志帝國尤為重要。對此可以等待，人為強求這一過程的早早實現絕非明智之舉。當然，需指出的是，英、美日益接近作為這個過程的初始階段，對於協力廠商的加入有著最大的促進作用。 作為結論，可有如下的認識。當前的時代和行動的需要業已表明了英語種族之間進行長期合作的可能，而且和我們有著同一的語言和種族起源的德意志帝國也可能加入共同行動之列。充滿希望的跡象已經出現在未來的地平線上。在過去的世紀中，各種因素使歐洲拉丁國家的權力和影響與條頓國家相比顯得相形見細，然而意大利的統一卻使事情有了明顯的變化。而且，新的義大利在地中海上處於戰略中心位置，而地中海對於歐洲的重要性甚至遠大於加勒比海對於美國的重要性；另外，政治考慮還使義大利和法國分別位於了政治平衡天平的各一端。 義大利的上述態度和拉丁和條頓國家的根本需要是吻合的。後者要保證其在對其至關重要的利凡特地區的主導地位，因為蘇伊士運河的安全對作為海上強國的它們必不可少。頗具意義的是，形勢使義大利這個最具傳統的拉丁性的國家和條頓國家有著密切的政治聯繫。這樣就保證了我們能繼續發展與對基督教文明的博大精深貢獻甚多的拉丁文明的合作。而且，對當今時代尤為重要的是，義大利這個偉大羅馬的直系繼承者已清楚地明白了其利益所在，並且將以義大利為中心恢復拉丁文明的光榮，而這會增進已從拉丁文明中獲益甚多的各國的普遍利益。