2006年小布什(George W. Bush)对印度进行历史性的访问时，反复强调美国和印度同为民主国家。巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)本月6日开始访问印度时，最该铭记的也应该是这一点。他会如何构筑这两个大国的关系？他会不会让印美关系成为对两国共同核心政治价值观——选举、言论、迁徙和信仰自由，以及对宗教和民族多样性的宽容——的一种表达？他会不会让两国关系成为世界新秩序的一块基石，尤其是考虑到崛起中的中国缺乏政治自由？他会不会迈出极为重要的一步，支持印度当选联合国安理会(UN Security Council)常任理事国？他应当这样做。
冷战期间，美国和印度的对话就像鸡同鸭讲。两国关系的三个基本点——安全担忧、经济信条和政治价值观——均不一致。两国同为民主国家这一背景未能压倒两国在经济理念和安全利益方面的分歧。柏林墙倒塌后，这些分歧才逐渐消失。与此同时，印度加快了经济增长步伐，放松了对商业的控制。迄今为止，印度企业家已经开创了一场经济革命。的确，如果没有印度的软件，成千上万的美国公司就不会具有今天这样的国际竞争力。
在这种局面下，出现了两个新的因素，让两国关系变得更加紧密：在美国的印度族裔，以及中国的崛起。
作为企业高管、教授、医生、工程师和作家，印度裔美国人获得了巨大的成功。上世纪六、七十年代，他们在本国社会向上攀升的机会很少，而美国却向他们的勤奋和才能给予了巨大的回报。他们虽然仍然喜爱印度，但已经深深热爱上了美国的生活方式。如今，他们已成为美国政坛的一支新的力量，推动美印关系变得更加紧密。
中国的崛起进一步改变了格局。美国和印度对中国取得的成就感到艳羡之余，也日益对其在经济和战略方面的强硬主张感到担忧。中国与日本和印度都发生过争执，其他邻国也对中国的领土和领海主张忧心忡忡。世界并不想孤立中国，但在中国接受民主价值观前，国际社会的深层忧虑不会消失。
这正是奥巴马的机遇所在。印中两国的反差十分明显，中国的经济繁荣是由国有企业主导的，印度则是由私营企业家。印度汇率由市场决定，中国却坚持将汇率维持在被低估的水平。中国将诺贝尔奖得主关押在狱中，而一位获得布克奖(Booker Prize)的印度作家虽然最近因呼吁克什米尔独立而引起争议，但并未、也不会被监禁。中国不允许农村人口自由进城。而孟买虽然有贫民窟，却反而证明了印度的自由，因为穷人可以进城找工作，而且只要能找到块立足之地就能安家。
站在更广的视野观察，则会有更深层次的认识。普选权在工业革命以后才在西方降临，亚洲四小龙中，韩国和台湾在经济繁荣三十年之后才实现民主化。印度经济最近才开始高速发展，然而即使是在经济增长缓慢的时期，印度也并未曾放弃民主。在国民收入水平较低的情况下，能长期维持普选民主的国家只有印度。印度从未宣称公民首先要富裕起来才能享有自由。
如果奥巴马站在共同的民主价值观的立场上看待不断演变的印美关系，他将向穷国传达这样的信息：民主和经济增长并非不可兼得。中国模式建立在优先发展经济而抑制政治自由的基础上。如果奥巴马公开支持印度竞争安理会永久席位，他还将启动建立世界新秩序的进程。这个新秩序中，实力不再仅仅取决于军事和经济力量，也取决于政治价值观。
奥巴马总统应当公开支持印度竞争安理会永久席位。这将成为一项颇具雄心的举措，堪比小布什那次访印的突破之旅。它还将是对印度坚守民主制的认可，并将把印度纳入到解决全球问题的伙伴行列中。为什么非要把这一使命留给第二任期、或者下一任总统呢？
本文作者是布朗大学(Brown University)政治学教授
译者/王柯伦
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035393
When George W. Bush went to India on his historic trip in 2006, he repeatedly stressed America's and India's shared democratic credentials. This should be at the forefront of Barack Obama's mind as he starts his visit to India on Saturday. How will he frame the two powers' relationship? Will he present the India-US friendship as an expression of core political values – freedom to vote, speak, move and worship, and tolerance of religious and ethnic diversity – that they share? Will he present that bond as a cornerstone of a new order, especially given the absence of political freedoms in a rising China? Will he even take the momentous step of endorsing India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? He should.
During the cold war, US and India had a dialogue of the deaf. The three pillars of the relationship – security concerns, economic beliefs and political values – were misaligned. Democracy could not trump the differences in economic philosophies and security interests. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the contradictions began to disappear. India also shifted economic gear, lifting controls over business. India's entrepreneurs have by now ushered in an economic revolution. Without Indian software, indeed, thousands of US companies would not be as internationally competitive.
Into these currents have entered two new factors, pushing the two nations closer: India's American diaspora, and the rise of China.
As business executives, professors, doctors, engineers and writers, Indian Americans are hugely successful. In the 1960s and 1970s, their chances of upward mobility were limited at home. America gave them huge rewards for their efforts and talents. They have developed profound admiration for the American way even as their fondness for India endures. They are now a new force in US politics, bringing America and India closer.
The rise of China has further altered the context. Admiration for China's achievements is increasingly blended in the US and India with concern over its economic and strategic assertions. China has had spats with Japan and India; other neighbours are also worried about China's territorial and maritime claims. The world does not wish to isolate China. But underlying concerns will remain until China embraces democratic values.
This is where Mr Obama's opportunity lies. The contrasts between India and China are stark. China's economic boom is led by state-owned enterprises; India's by private entrepreneurs. India's exchange rate is market-driven; China insists on keeping its currency undervalued. China keeps its Nobel Laureate in jail; a Booker prize-winning Indian writer, who recently gave a contentious call for Kashmir's independence, is neither imprisoned, nor will be. China does not allow its rural citizens to come freely to cities; Mumbai's slums are paradoxically part of India's freedoms, as the poor move in search of jobs and make homes wherever they can find a few square feet.
The broader point is more fundamental. Universal franchise came to the west only after the industrial revolution. Among the so-called first Asian tigers, South Korea and Taiwan also turned democratic only after three decades of economic boom. India's economic surge is recent. Even when growth was sluggish, India did not abandon democracy. At low levels of income, no other country has maintained a universal-franchise democracy so long. India has never claimed freedoms should be suspended until citizens have become rich.
If Mr Obama casts the evolving India-US friendship in terms of shared democratic values, he will send a message that poor nations do not have to choose between democracy and economic growth. The Chinese model is premised upon the priority of economic growth over political freedoms. If Mr Obama publicly supports India's bid for permanent membership of the Security Council, he will also begin the process of founding a new world order, where power will also be a function of political values, not simply of military and economic might.
Mr Obama should openly back India for permanent membership. That would be an ambitious way to match Mr Bush's Indian breakthrough. It would also give recognition to India's democratic perseverance and recruit India as a partner in global problem-solving. Why leave it for the second term, or for the next president?
The writer is professor of political science at Brown University
没有评论:
发表评论