China Goes Global: The Partial Power, by David Shambaugh, OUP USA, RRP£20/$29.95, 320 pages 《中国走向全球：不完全大国》(China Goes Global: The Partial Power)，沈大伟(David Shambaugh)著，牛津大学出版社(OUP)美国出版，建议零售价20英镑/29.95美元，320页

China is now the world’s second-largest economy and the only plausible challenger to the US as dominant global superpower. So it is hard to disagree when David Shambaugh asserts that the country’s rise is “the big story of our era”. 中国目前已经是全球第二大经济体，并且是唯一有可能对美国主导全球的超级大国地位构成挑战的国家。因此当沈大伟教授断言中国的崛起是“我们所处时代的大事件”时，你很难不表示同意。

And yet, oddly enough, Professor Shambaugh’s China Goes Global is dedicated to proving that the rise of China is not such a big story, after all. With admirable clarity, he asserts early on: “The elements of China’s global power are actually surprisingly weak and very uneven. China is not as important, and it is certainly not as influential, as conventional wisdom holds.” Nor is this just a snapshot of today’s situation. “China has a very long way to go before it becomes – if it ever becomes – a true global power. And it will never ‘rule the world’.” 但奇怪的是，沈大伟教授所著《中国走向全球》一书的主旨，却是为了证明中国崛起的意义并非如此重大。他一开篇就以令人钦佩的清晰笔触写道：“事实上中国在全球范围内的影响力疲弱得令人惊讶，并且分布极不均衡。与传统观念认为的相比，中国并没有那么重要，也没有那么大的影响力。”此言并不仅仅是对当今形势的概括。“中国距离成为一个真正的全球大国还有很长一段路要走——如果这一天真的到来的话。而且中国永远也不会‘统治世界’。”

Such an analysis is likely to be music to the ears of many in Shambaugh’s home town, Washington DC, where he is director of the China programme at George Washington University. The professor is no propagandist, however: he has spent a lifetime studying China and is a former editor of The China Quarterly. 对于沈大伟家乡华盛顿特区的很多人来说，以上分析听起来很可能就像音乐般美妙。他本人在乔治华盛顿大学(George Washington University)担任中国政策项目主任。但沈大伟并不是一个意识形态的鼓吹者：他把毕生精力都用于研究中国，还曾在《中国季刊》(The China Quarterly)担任主编。

In making his assertion that China is “a partial power”, Shambaugh leans heavily on an analysis of the nature of power made by Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard – in particular Nye’s belief that the essence of power lies in the conversion of resources into influence. 在有关中国是一个“不完全大国”的论断中，沈大伟大量借鉴了哈佛大学(Harvard University)教授约瑟夫•奈(Joseph Nye)对于大国本质的分析——特别是后者有关大国的本质在于整合资源并将其转化为影响力的观点。

It is here that Shambaugh believes Beijing falls down. Most of his book is given over to a sector-by-sector analysis of China’s global impact. When it comes to diplomacy, he argues that China is a reactive, lonely power with no real allies. In security terms, unlike the US, China has no network of global bases and alliances – and is not even the dominant power in its own region. Shambaugh is particularly dismissive of China’s global cultural presence, arguing that the country has “very little influence on global cultural trends, minimal soft power and a mixed-to-poor international image”. 正是按照这一标准，沈大伟认为中国不满足全球大国的条件。在他的书中，绝大部分篇幅被用于逐一分析中国在各个领域的全球影响力。在外交方面，他认为中国是一个被动回应型的孤立国家，缺乏真正的盟友。在安全防卫领域，中国不像美国那样拥有全球范围内的军事基地网络以及盟国——中国甚至未在自身所处区域建立起主导地位。沈大伟对于中国在全球文化中的地位格外不屑，认为中国“对于全球文化潮流的影响微乎其微，国家软实力可以忽略不计，国际形象则在毁誉参半和糟糕之间徘徊。”

The argument of China Goes Global is made forcefully, systematically and with plenty of evidence. It marshals information and research in a way that is valuable – and often fascinating. For example, I found the analysis of the different schools of Chinese thought on foreign policy crystal-clear. 《中国走向全球》一书的论述十分有力、系统，并得到详实的证据支持。它以一种可贵的方式将信息和研究成果整合起来——所得的结果常常引人入胜。例如，书中对于中国各不同学派外交政策观点的分析，让我感觉非常清晰明了。

Ultimately, however, I was unconvinced by the thesis of China Goes Global – for two main reasons. First, the argument that China is only a “partial power” is least persuasive when it comes to the most important area: economics. And second, the book risks presenting a static picture of a very dynamic situation. As China’s economic weight in the world continues to grow, so its power in other areas – military, cultural and diplomatic – will also grow. 不过，最终我对《中国走向全球》的论点并不信服，原因有二。首先，在最为重要的领域——经济领域，中国只是“不完全大国”这一论点变得最没有说服力。其次，这本书有用一幅静止的图画描绘急剧变化的国际形势之虞。随着中国占全球经济的比重日益加大，其在其他领域——军事、文化和外交——的影响力也会增强。

Shambaugh seems to be in two minds about exactly where China stands economically. He starts his chapter on the topic with an impressive list of statistics. Over the past two decades, China alone has accounted for about 40 per cent of global growth. It is now the world’s largest energy consumer, the world’s largest exporter and holder of the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves. Yet, in line with the theme of his book, Shambaugh asserts that China, nonetheless, “remains a partial economic power”. 沈大伟似乎对中国经济实力究竟多强拿不定主意。在这个话题上，章节开始他就列出了一连串令人印象深刻的统计数据。在过去20年间，仅中国就贡献了全球经济增长的约40%。如今中国是全球最大的能源消费国、最大的出口国，持有全球最庞大的外汇储备。然而，沈大伟在本书中的观点一以贯之，他断言中国不管怎么说“依然是一个不完全经济大国”。

The evidence for this seems a bit thin. China, he points out, has an under-developed financial sector – but this might not be such a bad thing, in the light of recent western experience. It also “does not even rank among the world’s top 10 donor nations” when it comes to foreign aid – which seems a relatively minor problem. 这一观点的论据似乎有点薄弱。他指出，中国金融业发展不充分——但鉴于近年来西方经历的金融危机，这似乎算不上什么坏事。在对外援助方面，中国“甚至无法跻身全球前10大捐助国之列”——但这个问题似乎相对并不重要。

Moreover, China has few leading multinational corporations and is “only the world’s fifth-largest overseas investor”. And yet, as the book goes on to illustrate, China is likely to increase its foreign investments massively in the coming years – and has now begun to develop companies with genuine global reach and global brands in areas such as telecommunications and home appliances. 此外，中国没有什么领先的跨国企业，“海外投资仅能排全球第5”。然而，本书接着指出，未来数年中国很可能大规模增加对外投资，现在已经开始在通信和家电等领域培育出真正具有全球影响力和品牌的企业。

It is clearly true that economic strength does not automatically translate into a similar amount of political, military, diplomatic and cultural power. So it is likely that China will become the world’s largest economy – Shambaugh suggests, a little conservatively, that this is likely to happen in 2025 – without becoming the world’s pre-eminent political power. 显而易见的是，经济实力不会自动转化为相应的政治、军事、外交和文化力量。因此，沈大伟指出，保守点说，中国很有可能在2025年成为全球最大的经济体，但不会同时成为全球最重要的政治强国。

And yet you do not need to be a vulgar Marxist to believe that economic power is, ultimately, the basis for most other forms of power. There is not much “soft power” to be derived from poverty. As for the hard stuff, contrast the spectacle of China’s double-digit increases in military spending with the way in which the sequestration of the US budget is likely to erode the Pentagon’s military muscle. 不过，你不必成为庸俗的马克思主义者也会认为，经济力量最终构成多数其他形式力量的基础。贫穷不会产生什么“软实力”。在硬实力方面，中国军费开支增长达到惊人的两位数，而相比之下，美国预算自动减支很可能侵蚀美国的军事实力。

Whether or not you buy Shambaugh’s thesis, however, his book sets out one side of the argument with clarity and lucidity. As such, it is a valuable contribution to a critical debate. 不过，不管你是否接受沈大伟的论点，本书都清晰透彻地阐明了辩论一方的观点。从这个角度来说，他对一场关键的论战做出了宝贵贡献。