China’s One Belt One Road Justification for PLA Expeditionary Deployment // 中國解放軍遠征部署的一帶一路理由
By National Defense University Professor Lieutenant General Qiao Lang 責任編輯︰姜紫微
“One Belt, One Road” cannot open up safety awareness
The Chinese have a problem, they like to talk about strategy, they don’t like to talk about strategies; they like to talk about goals, they don’t like to talk about indicators, so the final result is big and big. If there is no strategy, there is no possibility that this strategy will be realized. If there are targets and no indicators, then to what extent is this goal achieved? This time, the “One Belt and One Road” was proposed. The most worrying thing is that the thunder is loud and the rain is small. The talk is vigorous and vigorous, and finally it is gone. We have done this kind of thing many times, I hope this time is not. Because if the “Belt and Road” fails, it can be a very heavy blow to the revival of the Chinese economy and even the Chinese nation.
Many officials now talk about the “Belt and Road” without talking about security issues, nor about political issues, and no one talking about military issues. Some officials even emphasized that the “Belt and Road” has no political appeals and no ideological appeals. It is entirely an economic behavior. This kind of statement, if it is propaganda to countries along the line, is ok, because strategic intentions always have to be concealed. You say to others that I came with political intentions, with ideological intentions, who? Still accepting you? This is very necessary from the external publicity. However, if this becomes the consciousness of our officials, it is a big mistake. External propaganda said that we have no political demands, no ideological appeals, no military appeals, no geopolitical demands. Our only consideration is to develop the economy, mutual benefit and win-win. It is not wrong to use it as a propaganda, but it must not become our own consciousness. .
Now I feel that some officials really want to exclude these things. When he says these words, he has already excluded the political demands that are inevitable in the “One Belt, One Road” strategic concept in his own consciousness, especially geopolitics. Appeals, as well as security claims and ideological appeals. In fact, no matter whether you are prepared to “export revolution”, President Xi has repeatedly said that China does not export revolutions, but since we now emphasize Chinese values, there is no doubt that you will export your values through the “Belt and Road”. Then, this value output is actually an ideology output. In addition, in the process of advancing the “Belt and Road”, if you do not have political appeals, you do not have political binding with countries along the route, which will put you in an insecure state. In particular, the “one belt” of the land is accompanied by a very complicated factor, the so-called “Ottoman Wall”. That is, in the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and its enormous empire became the “Ottoman Wall” that blocked the East and West. 300 years later, with the end of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and the “Ottoman Wall” collapsed, but if you follow this path, the places along the way are all Islamic worlds. This means that the implied “Ottoman Wall” is still there. How to break through this invisible wall? Your values are different from those of the Islamic world. Don’t expect that you can completely tie everyone together by simply bundling economic interests. You know, those Islamic countries may just want to make a profit, and then take advantage of it before you open it. What should I do at that time? The biggest lesson for Chinese companies to go out is that after economic cooperation with those countries, people will open us after they have benefited, or they may not open our intentions subjectively, but the objective situation has changed. For example, in Sudan, we invested in it.
The West has to give us trouble. Then there are people in the local area who messed up with us. We bite our heads and start to fail to make a big impact on us. We should earn the money we earned. At this time, the Americans are paying their salaries and turning the Sudan into a North and South Sudan. We are dumbfounded. Your investment is in North Sudan, and the oil field is in South Sudan. At this time, you must suffer losses. However, we Chinese have a very strong ability, which is the ability to “engage” relations. Although the Sudan has split, we have “taken the way” to win South Sudan. It is said that the North and South Sudan will let you take it, should it be able to settle? But the United States has provoked the civil war in South Sudan, and the final goal is to make your investment in this place squander. This is just one example. In fact, our cooperation with all countries, the United States that the United States does not participate in, must oppose. The final outcome is that we have lost in many places, which is why we lacked the necessary security awareness from the beginning.
Original Mandarin Chinese :
“一帶一路”不能甩開安全意識
中國人有一個毛病,喜歡談戰略,不喜歡談策略;喜歡談目標,不喜歡談指標,這樣談來談去最後的結果就都是大而化之。有戰略沒有策略,這個戰略就沒有實現的可能性,有目標沒有指標,那這個目標實現到什麼程度算是實現?這次提出“一帶一路”,最擔心的就是雷聲大、雨點小,談得轟轟烈烈,最後不了了之。這樣的事情我們已經干過多次,但願這次不是。因為如果“一帶一路”失敗的話,那對于中國經濟甚至中華民族的復興都可能是非常沉重的打擊。
現在有很多官員談“一帶一路”都不談安全問題,也不談政治問題,更沒有人談軍事問題。甚至有些官員專門強調,“一帶一路”沒有政治訴求,沒有意識形態訴求,完全是一種經濟行為。這種說法,如果是對沿線國家的宣傳,是可以的,因為戰略意圖總是要有隱蔽性的,你對人家說我是帶著政治意圖來的,帶著意識形態意圖來的,那誰還接受你?這從對外宣傳上講是非常必要的。但是,假如這成了我們官員的自身意識,就大錯特錯了。對外宣傳說我們沒有政治訴求,沒有意識形態訴求,沒有軍事訴求,沒有地緣訴求,我們唯一的考慮就是發展經濟,互利共贏,把它作為一個宣傳口徑沒有錯,但是絕對不能變成我們自身的意識。現在感覺有些官員是真的要排除這些東西,當他說出這些話的時候,就已經在自己的意識中排除“一帶一路”戰略構想中不可避免地內含著的政治訴求,特別是地緣政治訴求,以及安全訴求、意識形態訴求。實際上,不管你準不準備“輸出革命”,習主席多次講到,中國不輸出革命,可是既然我們現在強調中國價值觀,毫無疑問你會通過“一帶一路”輸出自己的價值觀。那麼,這個價值觀輸出其實就是一種意識形態輸出。另外,在推進“一帶一路”的進程中,如果你沒有政治訴求,你沒有與沿線國家的政治綁定,這將使你處于不安全狀態。尤其是陸路的“一帶”,幾乎全程伴有一個非常復雜的因素,就是所謂的“奧斯曼牆”。即15世紀奧斯曼帝國攻克拜佔庭首都君士坦丁堡,使其龐大的帝國之軀成了阻斷東西方的“奧斯曼牆”。300年後,隨著第一次世界大戰的結束,奧斯曼帝國解體,“奧斯曼牆”轟然倒塌,但是如果你沿這條路走下去,沿途所經之地,全都是伊斯蘭世界。這就意味著隱含的“奧斯曼牆”還在。如何去突破這個隱形之牆?你的價值觀和伊斯蘭世界的價值觀不同,不要指望僅僅靠經濟利益的捆綁,就能把大家完全拴在一起。要知道,那些伊斯蘭國家也可能只想獲利,獲了利之後再把你踹開。那個時候怎麼辦?中國企業走出去,我們最大的教訓,就是跟那些國家進行經濟合作之後,人家得利後把我們甩開,或者人家主觀上可能並沒有甩開我們的意圖,但是客觀情況發生了變化。比如蘇丹,我們投資進去了,西方要給我們搗亂,然後當地也有人給我們搞亂,我們硬著頭皮頂住,開始沒給我們造成太大的影響,我們該掙的錢還是掙到了。這時美國人釜底抽薪,把蘇丹變成南北蘇丹,我們傻眼了,你的投資在北蘇丹,而油田在南蘇丹,這個時候,你肯定要受損失。但我們中國人有一項很強的能力,就是攻無不克的“搞關系”的能力,雖然蘇丹分裂了,但是我們“想辦法”把南蘇丹也拿下。按說,南北蘇丹都讓你拿下,應該能擺平了吧?可美國又挑起了南蘇丹的內戰,最後的目標就是讓你在這個地方的投資打水漂。這只是其中一例。實際上我們與所有國家的合作,凡是美國沒有參與的美國都要反對。最後的結局是我們在很多地方都鎩羽而歸,這是我們一開始就缺乏必要的安全意識所致。
“One Belt” is the main one, and “One Road” is the supplement.
Now, we have started a new round of “going out” strategic action. I have suffered so much in the past. Should I accept some lessons?
How to go “One Belt, One Road”? The author believes that we should take a multi-pronged approach, and we should let politics and diplomacy go ahead and the military back. Rather than letting the company go out on its own, it is almost impossible for the company to go out alone.
From now on, the “Belt and Road” seems to be a two-line attack, both sides. In fact, the “band” is the main one, and the “road” is secondary. Because you want to take the “road” as the main direction, you will die. Because of the sea route, a scholar from the American War College recently wrote an article saying that they have found a way to deal with China, that is, as long as the sea passage is cut off, China will die. Although this statement is somewhat large, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no reason at all, because the United States now has this capability from the military. This also confirms from the opposite side that in the choice of the primary and secondary direction of the “Belt and Road”, we should determine who is the main road and who is the auxiliary road. If the “Belt and Road” is likened to a combat operation, then “all the way” is the auxiliary direction, and the “one belt” is the main direction.
Therefore, for us, what really matters in the future is how to manage the “one area” problem, rather than the “one way” problem. Then, the operation of the “Belt” will first face a relationship with the countries along the route, that is, how to first open up the relationship with the countries along the route. Judging from our current practice, it is obviously not enough to ensure the smooth and smooth operation of the “Belt and Road”. why? We used to always like to deal with the government, like to deal with the ruling party, like to deal with the rich people in this country, who is dealing with who is in position, who has money to deal with who. In this case, it will be difficult to succeed. In fact, what is the work we are going to do? It is necessary to deal with the government, with the ruling party, with the opposition party, and more importantly, with the tribal elders in the entire “Belt”. These tribal elders are often much more influential than the opposition parties and the ruling party. What we can do in the Taliban-occupied areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan is almost always achieved through tribal elders, and basically nothing can be done through the government. Therefore, our foreign ministry and our enterprises cannot ignore the important relationships in these regions.
Why not Latin America and Japan “take in”?
“One Belt, One Road” has another problem that no one has touched until today. It is the question in some people’s hearts. Does China want to use the “Belt and Road” to exclude the United States? There is no doubt that the United States plays a chaotic role in almost all international organizations and international operations in which it does not participate. As long as it doesn’t play a leading role, even if it’s not the initiator, it will give you trouble. Take a look at APEC. Why is there a TPP after APEC? It is because the United States finds itself unable to play a leading role in APEC, it must do another set and start a new stove. If the “Belt and Road” completely excludes the United States, it will make the United States spare no effort to suppress it, and since the United States is not in it, it will not be scrupulous if it is suppressed, because it has no interest in it, so it will be unscrupulous and unscrupulous when it is suppressed. Soft hands.
Therefore, the author believes that China’s “Belt and Road” should skillfully include the United States. It should allow US investment banks, US investment institutions, and American technology to play a role in the “Belt and Road” to complete the “Belt and Road” approach to the United States. Bundle. After completing this bundle, the United States will vote for it when it starts. Take a look at China and the United States to fight for economic shackles and trade, why do they end up every time? It is because the economic interests of China and the United States are very closely tied to each other. Every time the United States wants to impose sanctions or punishment on a certain industry or enterprise in China, there must be a related out-of-hospital system in which the United States and our enterprise are bound together. The group went to Congress to lobby and finally let it die. Therefore, we must let the United States enter this interest bundle. In terms of capital and technology, the “Belt and Road” should not only exclude the United States, but also pull it in and complete the bundling of it.
From this I think that we can’t even exclude Japan. Can’t think that who is not good with us, make trouble with us, I will set aside to open you up. In fact, this is not good for the other side, and it is not good for yourself. Once you open it, it will be unscrupulous when you hit it. Only when its interests are in it, it will only be scrupulous when it hits you, and it will be careful to protect its interests. And if the benefits are completely tied, it can’t be picked up, so I think this is something we must consider.
“One Belt, One Road” to lead the reform of the Chinese army
Up to now, there is no precise strategic positioning for our country, and the national strategy is somewhat vague. As a result, various so-called “strategies” emerge in an endless stream. What is most screaming in 2014 is not the “Belt and Road”. What is it? It is China’s desire to become a major ocean power and to launch China’s marine development strategy. What kind of marine development strategy do you want? Some people say that they have to break through the three island chains and go out to the Pacific. What are you going to the Pacific Ocean? Have we thought about it? Think through it? If you don’t think through it, you shouldn’t put forward a strategy that is extremely hard to burn and has no results. Now that we have proposed the “Belt and Road”, we suddenly discovered that what we need more is the Army’s expeditionary ability. So what is our Army today? The Chinese closed their doors and thought that the Chinese Army was the best in the world. The British military leader Montgomery said that whoever wants to play against the Chinese army on land is a fool. The Americans’ conclusion from the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea is that the Chinese must not tolerate the military boots of American soldiers on the land of China. This is no problem. The Chinese Army has no problem with its existing capabilities to protect the country. However, once faced with the “Belt and Road”, the task of the Chinese Army is not to defend the country, which requires you to have the ability to display the land expedition along the way. Because the light is on land, there are 22 countries that can count. This requires us to have to go to the sword. Instead of invading others, we must be able to protect our own national interests across borders.
The last point is how to focus on the development of military power. If we have made it clear that the “one belt” is the main direction, it is not just an effort to develop the navy. The Navy must of course develop according to the needs of the country, and the problem that is now emerging is precisely how to strengthen the Army’s expeditionary capabilities. There are no more problems in China’s more than one million army, and there is no problem in defending the country. Is there any problem in going abroad to fight? Are we now in the right direction for the Army? Is it reasonable? When the world is now abandoning heavy tanks, we are still proud of the heavy tanks we have just produced. In what areas will these things be used in the future? In the entire “one belt” road, heavy tanks have no room for development. The heavy tanks of the former Soviet Union allowed the guerrillas to knock casually in Afghanistan. Why? Where can you go in all the ravines? The tank can’t fly anymore. In the end, the people take the rocket launcher and aim at one. It is all one, and it will kill you all. Therefore, the Army’s combat capability must be re-enhanced, that is, to strengthen its long-range delivery capability and long-range strike capability. In this regard, the author thinks that we are far from realizing it, and it is even more impossible. If the Army does not have the ability to go abroad, in the future, in any “one area”, if there is civil strife or war in any country, China needs support, and we need to protect our facilities and interests along the way, the Army can go, Is it useful? This is a question we must think about today.
So what should the Army do? The author believes that the Chinese Army must fly and must achieve aviation aviation, which means a revolution in the entire Chinese Army. Today, when we talk about the reform of the military system, if you don’t know the country’s strategy at all, don’t know the country’s needs, and close the door to reform, what kind of army will you reform? What is the relationship between this army and national interests? If you don’t start from the national interests and needs, just draw your own scoops like the US military’s gourd, take it for granted that you should be an army, but the country does not need such an army, but needs a development demand with the country. Match the army, what do you do then? Therefore, if we don’t understand what the country’s needs are, and don’t know where the country’s interests are, we will close the door to carry out reforms. What kind of army will this change? The author believes that the “Belt and Road” is a huge drag on the reform of the Chinese military with national interests and needs. It is through the strategic design of the “Belt and Road” that the country has determined its strategic needs for the military. The conclusion is: China must have a stronger army, and a navy and air force that can work together and act in concert, an army, navy, and air force that can cross the country’s expedition, and still have thousands of miles away. With sufficient support and combat capability of the Expeditionary Force, we can make the “Belt and Road” truly secure in terms of security, thus ensuring the ultimate realization of this ambitious goal.
Original Mandarin Chinese:
“一帶”為主,“一路”為輔
現在,我們又開始新一輪的“走出去”戰略行動了,前面吃了那麼多苦頭,總該接受點教訓吧?
“一帶一路”怎麼走? 筆者認為應該多管齊下,應該讓政治、外交先行,軍事做後盾。而不是讓企業自己單打獨斗走出去,凡是企業單獨走出去的幾乎就沒有能夠全身而退的。
從現在來看,“一帶一路”好像是兩線出擊,雙路並舉。其實,“帶”是主要的,“路”是次要的。因為你要是以“路”為主攻方向,你就死定了。因為海路這一條,美國戰爭學院的一個學者最近專門撰文,說他們已經找到了對付中國的辦法,就是只要掐斷海上通道,中國就死定了。這話雖然說的有些大,但也不能說完全沒有一點道理,因為美國眼下從軍事上講確有這個能力。這也從反面印證,在“一帶一路”主次方向的選擇上,我們應確定誰為主路,誰為輔路。如果把“一帶一路”比喻成一次作戰行動,那麼,“一路”是輔攻方向,“一帶” 則是主攻方向。
所以說,對于我們來講,將來真正重要的是如何經營“一帶”的問題,而不是經營“一路”的問題。那麼,經營“一帶”首先就面臨一個與沿途國家的關系問題,即如何先把與沿途國家的關系全部打通。從我們現在的做法來看,顯然不足以保證“一帶一路”的順利通暢和成功。為什麼呢?我們習慣上總是喜歡跟政府打交道,喜歡跟執政黨打交道,喜歡跟這個國家的有錢人打交道,誰在位跟誰打交道,誰有錢跟誰打交道。這樣的話,要想成功就很難。實際上我們要做的工作是什麼呢?既要跟政府、跟執政黨打交道,還要跟在野黨打交道,而更重要的是,跟整個“一帶”上的部落長老們打交道。這些部落長老往往比在野黨和執政黨的影響力大得多。我們在阿富汗、巴基斯坦的塔利班佔領地區能辦成什麼事,幾乎都是通過部落長老去實現,通過政府基本上干不成什麼事情。所以,我們的外交部、我們的企業,都不能忽略這些區域內的重要關系。
何不拉美日“入伙”?
“一帶一路”還有一個到今天都沒有人去觸及的問題,就是一些人心中的疑問︰中國是否想用“一帶一路”排斥美國?毫無疑問,美國幾乎在所有它沒能參與的國際組織和國際行動中,都會扮演搗亂的角色。只要它起不了主導作用,甚至只要它不是發起人,它就會給你搗亂。看一看APEC。APEC之後為什麼會出現TPP?就是因為美國發現自己在APEC中不能起主導作用,它就一定要另搞一套,另起爐灶。如果“一帶一路”完全排斥美國,那將使美國不遺余力地打壓它,而且由于美國不在其中,它打壓起來就沒有顧忌,因為它沒有利益在里邊,所以它打壓起來就會無所顧忌、毫不手軟。
所以筆者認為,中國的“一帶一路”應該巧妙地把美國納入進來,應該讓美國的投行、美國的投資機構,以及美國的技術,在“一帶一路”中發揮作用,完成“一帶一路”對美國的捆綁。完成了這個捆綁之後,美國在它下手的時候就會投鼠忌器。看一看中國和美國打經濟仗、打貿易仗,為什麼每一次都無疾而終?就是因為中國和美國的經濟利益互相捆綁得非常緊密,每一次美國要對中國的某一個行業或企業進行制裁或者是懲罰的時候,一定會有美國和我們這個企業綁定在一起的相關的院外集團跑到國會去游說,最後讓其胎死腹中。所以,一定要讓美國進入這個利益捆綁。“一帶一路”在資金上、技術上,不但不應排斥美國,還要把它拉進來,完成對它的捆綁。
由此筆者想到,我們甚至也不能排斥日本。不能認為誰不跟我們好,跟我們鬧,我就另外搞一套把你甩開,其實這于對方不利,對自己同樣不利。你一旦甩開了它,它打你也就無所顧忌,只有當它的利益也在其中的時候,它打你才會有所顧忌,它才會小心翼翼,保護它那一份利益。而如果利益完全捆綁的話,它想摘都摘不清,所以筆者覺得這一點也是我們必須考慮的。
“一帶一路”牽引中國軍隊改革
到現在為止,就是對我們國家沒有精確的戰略定位,國家戰略有些模糊。結果,各種所謂的“戰略”層出不窮。2014年喊得最響的不是“一帶一路”,是什麼呢?是中國要成為海洋大國,要推出中國的海洋發展戰略。你要什麼樣的海洋發展戰略?有人說要突破三條島鏈,走出去,走向太平洋。到太平洋去干什麼?我們想過嗎?想透了嗎?如果沒想透,就不宜提出那些遠水不解近渴的極度燒錢又不見成果的戰略。現在提出“一帶一路”,我們突然發現,我們更需要的是陸軍的遠征能力。那今天我們的陸軍究竟如何?中國人關起門來認為中國陸軍天下第一。英國人蒙哥馬利說,誰要在陸上跟中國的陸軍交手,誰就是傻瓜。而美國人由抗美援朝戰爭得出的結論是︰中國人絕對不能容忍美國大兵的軍靴踏到中國的陸地上。這都沒問題,中國陸軍以它現有的能力保家衛國一點問題都沒有。可是一旦面對“一帶一路”,中國陸軍擔負的任務就不是保家衛國,這就需要你具備在沿途展示陸上遠征的能力。因為光是陸上,能夠數出來的就有22個國家。這就需要我們必須劍到履到。不是去侵略別人,而是要有能力跨境保護我們自己的國家利益。
最後一點,就是如何有側重地發展軍事力量的問題。如果我們明確了以“一帶”為主攻方向,那就不僅僅是要努力發展海軍的問題。海軍當然要根據國家的需求去發展,而現在凸現的問題,恰恰是如何加強陸軍的遠征能力。中國100多萬陸軍,保家守土沒有問題,跨出國門去作戰有沒有問題?我們現在陸軍的發展方向正確嗎?合理嗎?當現在全世界都開始放棄重型坦克的時候,我們卻還在以剛剛生產出來的重型坦克為榮,這些東西將來準備用在什麼地區作戰?在整個“一帶”這條路上,重型坦克根本沒有施展余地。前蘇聯的重型坦克在阿富汗讓游擊隊隨便敲,為什麼?在所有的山溝溝里,你還能往哪走?坦克又不能飛,最後人家拿火箭筒瞄準一輛就是一輛,全部給你干掉。所以說,陸軍的作戰能力必須重新提升,就是加強它的遠程投送能力和遠程打擊能力。這方面,筆者覺得我們遠遠沒有認識到,更不可能做到。如果陸軍沒有能力走出國門,將來在這“一帶”上,任何一個國家發生了內亂或戰爭,需要中國的支援,而且更需要我們出手保護自己在沿途的設施和利益時,陸軍能走得出去、派得上用場嗎?這是我們今天必須思考的問題。
那麼,陸軍要怎麼辦?筆者認為中國陸軍必須飛起來,必須實現陸軍航空化,這意味著整個中國陸軍的一場革命。今天,當我們談軍隊編制體制改革的時候,如果你根本不知道國家的戰略,也不知道國家的需求,關起門來搞改革,你會改革出一支什麼樣的軍隊來?這支軍隊和國家利益有什麼關系?如果你不從國家利益和需求出發,僅僅比照美軍的葫蘆畫自己的瓢,想當然地認為自己應該是怎樣一支軍隊,可是國家不需要這樣一支軍隊,而是需要一支與國家的發展需求相匹配的軍隊,那時你怎麼辦?所以說,不了解國家的需求是什麼,不知道國家的利益在哪里,就關起門來搞改革,這將會改出一支什麼樣的軍隊?筆者認為,“一帶一路”就是國家利益和需求對中國軍隊改革的一個巨大牽引。國家正是通過“一帶一路”的戰略設計,確定了對軍隊的戰略需求。結論是︰中國必須有一支更強大的陸軍,以及一支能與之聯合作戰、協同行動的海軍和空軍,一支能夠跨出國門遠征的陸軍、海軍和空軍,組成在千里萬里之外仍然有足夠的保障和戰斗能力的遠征軍,我們才可能使“一帶一路”真正在安全上獲得可靠的保障,從而確保這一宏偉目標的最終實現。
Referring url: http://www.81.cn/big5/