崔洪建
By Cui Hongjian
借着不断延续并借助俄乌冲突的热度，北约有意将它在月底的峰会搞成一场大型“越界派对”。除30个成员国外，有意入约的瑞典、芬兰和远在亚太地区的日本、韩国、澳大利亚和新西兰等“伙伴”都在受邀参会之列。目前，日本首相岸田文雄和韩国总统尹锡悦都表态将参加这次峰会。
Riding on the waves of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has a mind to make its summit scheduled for the end of the month a large crossover party. In addition to its 30 members, eager applicants Sweden and Finland and faraway partners in Asia Pacific, including Japan, ROK, Australia, and New Zealand, were all invited. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol both confirmed their attendance at the summit.
继冷战结束之初在欧洲搞大规模东扩、以“反恐”为名在阿富汗参战之后，北约正急切地想把俄乌冲突做实成第三次“机遇”，搞出一个像模像样的“全球化”来。
Right after the end of the Cold War, NATO expanded eastward in Europe to a great extent; later it participated in the Afghan War in the name of counterterrorism; now it is busy grasping the opportunity presented by the Russia-Ukraine conflict to make itself genuinely globalized.
在“跨大西洋关系”这一内核之外，北约多年来苦心经营起一整套“伙伴关系网络”，先后将触手伸向欧亚地区（“和平伙伴关系”）、中东北非（“地中海对话”）、海湾地区（“伊斯坦布尔合作倡议”）和亚太地区（“全球伙伴关系”），成为北约彼时向欧洲以外地区搞扩张并向非军事安全领域搞渗透的主要工具，也成为它此时要搞“全球化”的主要抓手。
With the trans-Atlantic relationship as the core, NATO has made great efforts over the years to develop a partnership network, reaching out to the Eurasian region (Partnership for Peace ), to Middle East and North Africa (Mediterranean Dialogue ), to the Gulf region (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative ), and to Asia Pacific (global partners ) in succession. These initiatives and partnerships were the main tools with which NATO expanded beyond Europe and infiltrated non-military security domains back then, and they are also the instruments with which NATO is pushing its globalization now.
北约在构建和推广“伙伴关系”时精心谋划、周密部署，采取了“越界+跨界”的策略。
NATO carefully planned the building and promotion of these partnerships and made meticulous deployments every step of the way, tearing down the geographical and geopolitical boundaries gradually.
首先，是从地区安全议题入手，通过与北约毗邻国家的对话交流，逐渐突破地理界限，向周边的欧亚内陆和地中海南岸渗透。其次，是为了服务于美国的全球战略，北约早已不满足于只在欧洲一隅发挥作用，通过议题跨界来进一步突破地理局限。
First, starting with regional security, it held talks with neighboring countries and made inroads into inland Eurasia and the south of the Mediterranean Sea. Second, to serve America’s global strategy, NATO is no longer satisfied with staying in its corner in Europe, but tries to further break the geographical limitations by engaging in more international affairs.
自冷战结束以来，北约就不断通过泛化安全概念、扩张安全议题来“提升站位”，拉拢一些在地理上与北约分离但在地缘上至关重要的国家参与，在海湾及亚太地区投棋布子，形成跨区域的网络结构。
Ever since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been trying to elevate its position by abusing the security concept. It has brought in some countries that are geographically far away but geopolitically vital, and made deployments in the Gulf region and Asia Pacific, weaving a cross-regional network.
然而“政治化”是和“全球化”几乎同时提出的北约“改革方向”，其核心就是要将北约锻造成输出西方价值观、制度观和安全观的可靠工具。无论从安全环境、地区格局还是战略文化来说，北约和亚太都扯不上什么关系。亚太地区一方面不是冷战的主战场，另一方面地区政治生态丰富多样，不结盟运动影响深远，没有形成集团式对抗的历史基因和现实需求。但出于美国的战略需要，北约正试图激活并提升它的“伙伴关系网络”来掺和亚太地区的安全事务，进而改造地区的安全结构。
While NATO is reforming itself to be more globalized, it is also getting increasingly politicized, with the aim of making itself a reliable platform to output western values, institutions, and security. It essentially has nothing to do with Asia Pacific, either in terms of security environment, regional situation, or strategic culture. The Asia Pacific is neither a main battlefield of the Cold War, nor does it have the historical legacy or realistic need for bloc confrontation, given its diverse political ecology and the far-reaching influence of the Non-Aligned Movement. Yet, to meet America’s strategic needs, NATO is trying to activate and reinforce its partnership network to meddle in the security affairs in the region, with a view to rebuilding its security architecture.
因此北约为自己插手亚太找了两个借口：一是充分利用一些地区国家对俄乌冲突的片面认知来重提“国强必霸、捍卫民主”的陈词滥调，渲染“中国威胁”、恫吓地区国家，从而创造出亚太地区对“北约式集体安全”的需求。二是，盗用“安全不可分割”原则，制造出“欧洲与亚洲安全不可分割”这类似是而非的理论，把失败的教训当作成功的经验来对亚洲说教。
NATO even found two excuses for its meddling. One, taking advantage of certain countries’ one-sided perception of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it trumpeted the cliché that a strong country is bound to be a bully, called upon them to defend democracy, and hyped up the so-called China threat to intimidate regional countries, in hopes of producing in Asia Pacific the demand for NATO-style collective security. Two, fiddling with the principle of indivisible security , NATO concocted the specious theory that the security for Europe and Asia is indivisible, preaching to Asia with its own failure story as some kind of successful experience.
如果集体安全的定义是“在集团式对抗中获胜”，那么北约可以将它对俄罗斯形成的围攻之势标榜为“成功”，但如果地区安全的目的是维系和平、不战不乱，那么俄乌冲突让欧洲重燃战火则绝对是地区安全的失败。
If collective security is defined as winning in bloc confrontation , NATO might as well tag its containment of Russia as a success. But if the purpose of regional security is to keep peace and prevent war and turmoil, letting the Russia-Ukraine conflict lead to the flames of war in Europe again would definitely be a complete failure for regional security.
眼前的欧洲安全困境的确可以给亚太国家提供一个活生生的例子，但得出的结论与北约试图用来蛊惑“亚太伙伴”的谬论恰恰相反：排他性对抗性的集体安全只会在亚太制造出更多纷争和恐惧，集体安全的“成功”是以地区安全的“失败”为代价的，亚太国家没有任何理由接受一个失败者的说教和引诱。
The security dilemma in Europe today can indeed serve as a living example for Asian Pacific countries, which, however, may lead to a conclusion contrary to the fallacy used by NATO to deceive its Asian Pacific partners. The conclusion is that collective security built on exclusion and confrontation will only create more disputes and terror in Asia Pacific. If the price of successful collective security is failed regional security, there is no reason why the Asian Pacific countries should listen to it.
（作者是中国国际问题研究院欧洲所所长）
(The author is director of the Department of European Studies, China Institute of International Studies)
Editor's Note: This article is originally published on huanqiu.com, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
