最近，美国一家名为“国际民主研究论坛”（International Forum for Democratic Studies）的智库发表一份长达150多页的报告，标题是《锐实力：上升中的集权主义影响》。报告说，中国和俄罗斯花费数十亿美元巨款，运用各种手段，诸如人文交流、各类文化活动、教育项目以及传媒和信息项目，在世界各地营造公共舆论和观念。这种影响既不像硬实力那样具有强制性，也不是软实力那样的“魅力攻势”，因此他们称之为“锐实力”。报告耸人听闻地说，这种“锐实力”是中国的“投枪匕首，甚至是注射器”。报告详细讲述了中国与俄罗斯在拉丁美洲、中东欧一些国家影响力的增长，但显然作者心里想的是它对美国的影响。实际上，去年年底美国国会－行政部门委员会就举办了“中国伸展长臂输出特色威权主义”的听证会，被有的外媒称为“反击中共意识形态入侵的美国号角”。于是“锐实力”这个词在美国和一些西方国家热门起来，有的大学拒绝了中资基金会的资助，甚至特朗普总统都下令调查“中国在美国的影响力”。在我们中国学者看来，这真是有点“倒转乾坤”了。

对于中国的改革开放和现代化建设，西方尤其美国常常是有误解的。

一百多年来，美国人在对华关系中一直有一种“传教士的心结”，希望把中国基督教化，希望按照美国的方案来改造中国。中国实行改革开放以后，许多美国人以为改革必定导致“自由化”，中国必定走上西方民主道路，美国人憧憬了一个多世纪的梦想就要实现了。苏联解体及冷战结束以后，美国政学两界更是普遍认为“共产主义已经终结”， 自由民主制度是“人类意识形态发展的终点”和“人类最后一种统治形式”，中国将步苏联的后尘。在中美谈判中国加入WTO时，不少美国人又认为，中国融入国际体系后，自由市场经济必定带来政治上的民主化和多元化。但美国对中国这种不切实际的幻想一次又一次地破灭。经过近40年的探索和努力，中国成功地走出了一条有中国特色的社会主义的道路，它既不同于前苏联的体制，更有别于西方的期望。于是不少美国政界、学界人士在感到幻灭的同时，又把中国的发展道路视为对美国的一种挑战。

所谓“锐实力”的说法，正是“中国挑战”的具体体现。其实，不干涉别国内政是中国长期奉行的对外政策原则，尤其是实行改革开放以来中国聚精会神搞建设，严格实行不干涉别国内政，这一点连美国前副国务卿佐利克也是公开承认的。他在2005年9月有名的“利益攸关方”的演讲中就说：“今天的中国不是20世纪40年代后期的苏联，中国不寻求输出激进的反美意识形态”。但是，今天的世界是一个用互联网连接起来的世界，中国与美国相互之间各种各样的联系比以前的时代多了不知多少，这种联系是割不断的。毋庸置疑的是，在过去近40年中，美国对中国的影响远远多于中国对美国的影响。在教育、影视、音乐、体育等各个方面都是这样。中国球迷如痴如狂地观看美国NBA联赛的转播，中国的电影城里放映着好莱坞大片，从《星球大战》到《血战钢锯岭》。就我们国际关系研究来说，大学老师在课堂里讲的，学生在论文里写的国际关系理论，无论是现实主义、自由主义，还是建构主义，都是美国的国关理论，以致近年来一些学者呼吁要建立有中国特色的国际关系理论。国关如此，很多别的学科也差不多。但是随着中国国力的增长，中国对外部世界也是必定会产生影响的。中国的文化也要走出去，如同中国的产品、技术和资金一样。只是中国软实力增长大大滞后于硬实力的增长，以致一段时间来媒体上一直在讨论如何讲好“中国故事”。关于“锐实力”的这个报告把正常的人文交流都看作是中国拓展“锐实力”的渠道，这种说法表明作者对自己太不自信了，对中国的影响则是太过敏感，“警惕”过分了。美国至今仍然是全球最大的技术输出国，也是最大的精神产品输出国，世界上没有一个国家对别国的干涉、渗透能力比得上美国，这是不争的事实。中国刚刚开始对外部世界产生一点影响，一些美国学者就大呼小叫“狼来了”，这真是让我们这些研究美国的学者非常出乎意料。

世界各国的文化和文明都是相互影响、相互借鉴的，在古代尚且隔不开，更不要说在全球化时代，在互联网时代了。在商品和资本全球流通的时代，要把各国的文化隔绝开来真是异想天开了。邓小平在改革开放初期就说得很明确，中国一定要打开国门，把人类优秀文明成果都学习借鉴过来，建设自己的国家。中国这样做了，并取得了成功。特朗普要在美墨边境筑一堵墙尚且不易，要在中美人文交流中构筑起无形的墙，实在是逆历史潮流的想法。

美前副国务卿斯坦伯格2009年9月在著名的“战略再保证”讲演中说，美国已经准备好中国登上国际舞台，准备接受中国在国际舞台上发挥更大的作用。但实际上，美国并没有真正准备好，尤其是心理上没有准备好。中国登上了舞台，美国还是不舒服。但中国总是要继续发展的，不论美国喜欢不喜欢，中国的影响力也是要继续增长的。美方还是要逐渐做些心理方面的调整才是。不论哪个国家，我们都要做顺应历史潮流的事情，不能做违背历史潮流的事情。在过去多年中，中美两国的人文交流不断拓展和深化，取得了丰硕成果，两国人民都受益、都高兴。希望两国今后的人文交流比以前做得更好，而不是倒退。

Recently, the American think tank International Forum for Democratic Studies released a 150-page report titled Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence. The report alleged that China and Russia had spent billions of dollars and resorted to all kinds of means, such as cultural exchanges, educational projects, media or publicity programs, to shape public opinion around the world. Such a way of spreading influence around does not possess the coerciveness of “hard power”, nor does it show the charm of “soft power”, hence it was given the name “sharp power”. The report called China's sharp power “the tip of their dagger or indeed their syringe”. It described at length how China and Russia increased their influence in Latin America and central and eastern European countries. What the author was really interested, obviously, was discussing such an influence on the United States. Late last year, the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a hearing on “China's long arm” in the spread of its specific authoritarianism, which was hailed by US media as “sounding the clarion call” against the “infiltration of Chinese communist ideology”. This explains why Chinese “sharp power” has become a hot topic lately in America and several other Western countries. Some American universities have since declined financial contributions from Chinese foundations. President Trump has also ordered a probe into so-called Chinese influence on the US. In the eyes of this Chinese scholar, the world is being turned upside down.

There is no doubt that the West in general and the US in particular has always had a certain misunderstanding of China, including its reform, opening up, and efforts to build a modern society.

For more than a hundred years, many in the US have entertained a “missionary complex” towards China. They wanted to make China a Christian country and remold it in accordance with American designs. After China embarked on a path of reform and opening up, they thought this would lead China to liberalization and Western-style democracy, thus realizing their centuries-old dream. After the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, many in US political and academic circles believed that communism was finished, liberal democracy had emerged as mankind's final ideology and ultimate form of rule, and China would have no choice but to follow suit. As the US negotiated China's entry into the WTO, many Americans believed that bringing China into the global free market economy would lead it to political democratization and pluralism. Again and again, American designs and predictions regarding China have proven wrong. After nearly 40 years of explorations and endeavors, China has found a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is different from the system of the former Soviet Union and certainly different from Western expectations. The disenchantment has hence led some in American political and academic circles to see rising China as a challenge to the US.

The “sharp power” theory is yet another description of a “Chinese challenge”. As a matter of fact, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries has been a consistent principle of China's foreign policy. This is particularly true as China is busily engaged in reform, opening up and development. Robert Zoellick, former US Deputy Secretary of State, recognized this publicly. In his speech best remembered for the term “stakeholders” in September 2005, he said, “the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late 1940s. It does not seek to spread radical and anti-American ideologies”. On the other hand, the world of today is one of the Internet, in which links between China and the US are not only infinitely greater in number but also too entrenched to cut off. It is beyond any doubt that in the past 40 years or so, US influence on China has been far greater than the other way round, such as in the field of education, motion picture, music, and sports. NBA games are closely followed by Chinese fans. China's movie theaters are packed with people watching the latest Hollywood blockbusters ranging from Star Wars to Hacksaw Ridge. In the study of international relations as we know it, college professors lecture about, and students write essays on, Western theories, be they realism, liberalism, or constructivism, so much so that many of my colleagues at home are calling for establishment of a body of Chinese-style international relations theories. The same is more or less true in other fields of learning. But along with its rising strength, China is bound to have some influence on the rest of the world. Chinese culture will definitely go global just as Chinese products, Chinese knowhow and Chinese capital have. If anything, the increase of Chinese soft power is far slower than its hard power. That is why people often hear in the media about how to better tell the Chinese story. By taking China's normal cultural exchanges with other countries as a vehicle to expand its sharp power, the author displays a regrettable lack of self-confidence, an over sensitivity about and excessive vigilance against Chinese influence. The US remains the world's biggest exporter of technology and the biggest exporter of intellectual products. There is no country in the world that can rival the US in terms of capacity to intervene in and infiltrate other countries. Can anyone honestly challenge this conclusion? These American scholars have indeed startled many longtime US watchers like me with their crying wolf, just because China has begun to build a little influence.

Cultures and civilizations around the world have never ceased influencing and learning from one another. No one has succeeded in keeping them apart in the past, and no one can in the current era of globalization. Blocking cultures from reaching out in a cyber age when merchandise and capital flow freely across frontiers is wishful thinking. At the beginning of China's reform, Deng Xiaoping called for an open-door approach so that the country could benefit from all the achievements of other countries. China has done exactly that and made itself a success story. As difficult as it is for President Trump to build a fence at the US-Mexico border, no one should go against the tide of history by foolishly constructing an invisible wall to China-US cultural exchanges.

Another former US Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, said in his September 2009 speech that the US was ready for China's arrival and ready to accept a growing role for China on the international stage. But to me, the US is not really ready, especially in psychological terms. Seeing China on the international stage makes the US uncomfortable. But like it or not, China will go on progressing and its influence will continue to grow. The US will do itself a service by adjusting its mindset gradually, because all countries should move forward along with the tide of history and not go against it. China-US cultural exchanges have achieved huge progress over the years to the benefit of both peoples. It is hoped that future years will see further progress.