【文/汤姆·福迪 译/宁栎】

最近，英国外交大臣利兹·特拉斯在伦敦发表了极具挑衅性的演讲，她将矛头指向了俄罗斯和中国。这次演讲是典型的利兹式演讲，竭力将全球政治打扮为民主和独裁间的意识形态零和斗争，她将其描述为“自由网络”。

然而，这次演讲比以前的讲话更进一步，更有侵略性，并试图压中国“按规则行事”，称中国崛起“并非不可避免”。她还发誓要让英国和北约干预台湾问题。可以说，这是有史以来英国外相最具“侵略性”的对华讲话。

自英国脱欧以来，英国的外交政策一直困于错觉，沉迷于怀念早已逝去的时代。在那个时代，“不列颠统治海洋”，拥有日不落帝国，能迫使其他国家服从。当然，中国对这个时代并不陌生。通过鸦片战争，英国强加给中国“百年国耻”。当时的欧洲列强发现能用其不断增长的军事力量，来迫使正在衰落的清朝在政治和经济上让步。利兹外相显然相信伦敦有能力再干一次，并且渴望与北京对抗。

2021年英美外长在G7会议上（来源：法新社）

但这些夸张的言辞都没有任何现实基础。世界已经改变，环境不再对英国有利。英国脱欧是一个自作自受的伤口，对英国经济产生巨大损害。脱欧造成了供应短缺、劳动力不足，通胀加剧，严重冲击了服务业，还导致能源价格飙升和生活水平下降。事实是，在英国脱欧后，英中经济关系是至关重要的，约翰逊首相早就明白，他明确表示英国不能疏远全球最大的消费市场和贸易国。

然而，首相正在与保守党内的极端鹰派斗争，这些鹰派试图举起英国例外主义旗号，将英国脱欧塑造成一场更广泛的意识形态和文明之争。这些人如利兹外相等，并没有将英国的经济和贸易利益建立在现实基础上，而是放在身份政治和帝国怀旧情绪上。他们认为，英国应该主要与盎格鲁撒克森国家即澳、加、新、美，以及印度进行贸易。英国也对这些国家发出了后殖民主义的怀旧呼声，虽然这些国家不能对英国有什么实际贡献。

例如，根据下议院的研究，英澳自贸协定每年只会提高GDP的0.08%，同时还被广泛批评破坏英国农业。这说明了英国政府用认同搞贸易政策与经济现实之间的不协调。中国与英国的双边贸易每年达1000亿英镑，而中国被忽视了。

更进一步说，脱欧后的英国正在包庇一项纯粹基于民族主义情绪和帝国怀旧感的外交政策，因此对国家的战略现实或国家利益没有连贯的把握，最终导致自我毁灭的决策。正如一句古语所说，疯子管着疯人院。

尽管英中关系有着深厚的相互依存和共同利益，但没有什么能比英国穿上其旧帝国的外套来施压中国更能激怒中国人了。中国的政治意志是历史不会重演。中国是世界第二大经济体，GDP估计超过17万亿美元，而英国停滞不前，其未来的繁荣将取决于进入中国市场的机会。

如果英国要像其政府宣传的那样真正走向“全球”，那么明智的选择是退一步，从美国手中夺回对英国外交政策控制权，在务实、现实和独立的条件下与中国对话。不然，狂热的冷战沙文主义将造成几十年的倒退。

（本文系作者赐稿。）

Britain's Pursuit of Cold War is Dangerous

Last week British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss pursued a highly provocative speech at a London event where she took aim at both Russia and China. The speech was typical of Liz, in that it sought to frame global politics as a zero-sum ideological struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, of which she likes to describe as a “network of liberty”. Yet, it went further than previous addresses that it was intentionally more aggressive and sought to demand that China “play by the rules” stating that its rise was “not inevitable”, with Truss also vowing to involve the UK and NATO in the Taiwan region. Arguably, it is the most single aggressive address ever given by a British foreign secretary concerning Beijing.

British Foreign Policy since Brexit has been premised on an effective delusion, that is the nostalgia of a long-gone era whereby “Britannia ruled the waves” and wielded the power of a global empire of which allowed it to impose its will on others. China of course is no stranger to that legacy. With the opium wars, Britain opened what Chinese people understand as the “century of humiliation” when European powers learnt they could use their growing military might to force political and economic concessions on a declining Qing Dynasty. Liz Truss clearly believes that London is capable of doing the same thing to China again, and is hungry for confrontation with Beijing.

But none of this fiery rhetoric has any basis in reality. The world has changed, and circumstances are no longer favourable for the UK. Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union was a self-inflicted wound which has had a huge detrimental impact on the economy across the board. It has created supply shortages, labour shortages, added to burgeoning in inflation and severely hurt services too. This has coupled with surging energy prices and shrinking standards of living. The truth is that in lieu of Brexit, Britain’s economic relationship with China is of critical importance and Boris Johnson had long understood this and made it clear. The United Kingdom cannot afford to distance itself from the largest consumer market and trading nation on Earth.

However, the Prime Minister is increasingly struggle for influence with these ultra-hawks within the Conservative Party who are attempting to mould Brexit into a broader ideological and civilizational struggle in the name of Anglophone exceptionalism. These people, such as Liz Truss, do not base Britain’s economic and trade interests on empirical realities see it also as an extension of identity politics and Imperial nostalgia. They argue that Britain should be primarily trading with the nations of the Anglosphere (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) as well as of course India, which Britain also heralds a post-colonial nostalgia towards, and not of course on the actual merits of what these countries can contribute to Britain.

For example, according to House of Commons Research, Britain’s “free trade agreement” with Australia will only increase GDP by 0.08% per annum (which also has been widely criticized for undermining British agriculture), illustrating the bizarre decision making of the British government premising trade on identity and economic reality. Whereas China, which has a bilateral trade with Britain in terms of £100 billion per annum, is seemingly off limits. If it wasn’t clear already, post-Brexit Britain is harbouring a foreign policy which is based purely on nationalistic sentiment and Imperial good feeling, and as a result has no coherent grasp of the country’s strategic realities or national interest, leading to self-destructive decision making. As an old saying goes: “the lunatics are in charge of the Asylum”.

Despite the deep interdependence and mutual self-interest of the British-China relationship, there is nothing that could be more offensive to the Chinese people themselves to a Britain roleplaying its Imperial past and believing that it has the right to bring China to keel, there is a political will in Beijing that history won’t be allowed to repeat itself. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world with a GDP estimated over $17 trillion, whilst the UK is a stagnating country whose future prosperity will hinge upon access to its markets. If Britain is to be truly “global” as its government markets its to be, then the sensible choice is to step back from the brink, regain control of its foreign policy from the United States, and engage with China on pragmatic, realistic and independent terms. Fanatical Cold War chauvinism will undermine decades worth of progress.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。