21世紀中共海權發展及其對亞太安全之影響：決定論與路徑論的對話

Abstract

摘 要\n本文旨在研究中共所謂「具中國特色」的海權思想，及探究其海權實務發展趨勢對未來亞太安全的影響。具體研究目的在於︰確認中共主觀上所謂「具中國特色」海權思想的具體理念內涵；探究中共在美國形塑的亞太客觀戰略環境中，其海上武力發展實務，是否與其理念相符；並藉由評斷理念與實務的落差，檢視中共的海權發展，對於亞太區域安全的衝擊。\n迄今有關中共海權發展的研究，可歸納為歷史決定論與路徑依賴論兩大類。前者主張︰中共的海權發展將使其成為威脅美國的霸權挑戰者；後者則主張︰基於傳統王道文化，中國的海權將依循和平發展的道路，與國際社會和平共處以共創和諧社會。\n本研究發現︰中共官方的海權思想，向來強調和平主義、和平互惠、和平發展、維護世界和平與促進共同發展，深刻體現路徑依賴論。然而，在美國圍堵政策的刺激下，中共習核心「中國夢」的戰略指導，透露挑戰現狀、取代美國領導權的企圖；易言之，中共的海權軍備戰略指導與實務發展，深刻體現歷史決定論。\n美國的圍堵與中共的反圍堵，彼此間的矛盾攻防布局，實為決定亞太地區衝突或和平的關鍵。21世紀以來，美國歷任政府的「防範戰略」、「戰略再平衡」、及「印太戰略」，力求鞏固自西太平洋至印度洋的制海權。而中共的「海洋強國」、「中國夢」、「一帶一路」，志在取得與美國抗衡的實力。美中之間的較量，使得15世紀末之「教皇子午線」儼然有重現之虞。\n在漸次升高的對峙和緊張中，亞太的衝突或和平，終究可能取決於中共是否具備改變現狀的決心與能力。隨著美國強化圍堵布局，中共無可避免必須強化在亞洲濱海的反介入╱區域拒止能力以為因應。因此之故，具有中國特色的海權發展，主觀上體現路徑依賴論導向、理想性的和平主義，但客觀的外部嚴峻挑戰，迫使其核心的海洋控制軍備建設趨向歷史決定論。這種官方文獻宣傳理想和平主義與核心實務追求攻勢現實主義結合的弔詭，毋寧是具有中國特色海權思想之無奈而真實的寫照。

This paper is dedicated to the study of the PLA’s development of seapower “with Chinese characteristics” and its influence on security in the Asia-Pacific region in the foreseeable future. The research goals include: identifying the tangible ideas of the subjective concept of seapower “with Chinese characteristics”; exploring whether the practices of China’s seapower conform to such a concept; and examining the impact of the PLA’s development of seapower upon regional security.\nThe large volume of works exploring China’s advance in seapower can theoretically be divided into two categories: historical determinism and path dependency. The former argues: China’s development of seapower will make it a challenger to the existing US hegemony; while the latter argues: based on its traditional culture, China’s seapower will stick to the path of peaceful development, and commit to peaceful engagement with the international community for the creation of a harmonious world.\nThe research findings can be summarized as follows: the PLA’s documents on seapower consistently stress peaceful development and commitment to world peace and common development, all typical arguments of path dependency theory. However, in response to America’s “hedging strategy,” “rebalancing strategy,” and “Indo-Pacific strategy” which are all devised to enhance containment for sustaining hegemony by assuring sea control from the Western Pacific to the Indian Ocean since the 2000s, China articulates “maritime power,” “Chinese Dream,” and “Belt and Road” to guide the PLA’s naval buildup to challenge US domination of Asia-Pacific, suggesting an obliged choice of determinism.\nSeapower competition and cooperation between China and America is seemingly evoking the “papal meridian” in the late 15th century. Regional peace and stability may ultimately rest upon whether China has the determination and capabilities to challenge the status quo defined by America. Consequently, the development of seapower “with Chinese characteristics” is on the one hand inherently inclined toward pacifist path dependence theory. However, on the other hand, external containment compels the PLA to advance its core sea control capabilities toward historical determinism. The paradoxical combination of pacifism at large and aggressive realism at the core may well depict the helpless truth of the PLA’s seapower “with Chinese characteristics.”