個人資料
正文

斯蒂格利茨 歐美必敗 政客關心霸權 不關心人權

(2023-06-29 11:58:02) 下一個

美國如何輸掉新冷戰

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-squandering-soft-power-appeal-in-cold-war-with-china-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2022-06

2022 年 6 月 17 日約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨

由於美國似乎認真地想在一場長期的全球霸主爭奪戰中與中國對抗,它最好開始收拾好自己的家。其他國家不會願意與一個經濟、社會和政治基礎日益不確定的大國結盟。

美國似乎與中國和俄羅斯都進入了新冷戰。美國領導人將這場對抗描述為民主與威權主義之間的對抗,這一點並沒有通過嗅覺測試,尤其是,在這些領導人正在積極討好像沙特阿拉伯這樣的係統性侵犯人權者的時候。這種虛偽行為表明,真正關心的至少一部分是全球霸權,而不是價值觀,這確實很危險。

鐵幕倒塌後的二十年裏,美國顯然是第一。但隨後發生的中東災難性的誤導戰爭、2008年金融危機、不平等加劇、阿片類藥物泛濫以及其他危機似乎讓人們對美國經濟模式的優越性產生了懷疑。此外,在唐納德·特朗普當選、美國國會大廈未遂政變、多起大規模槍擊事件、共和黨一心壓製選民以及QAnon等陰謀邪教興起之間,有足夠的證據表明,美國政治的某些方麵 社會生活已經變得非常病態。

當然,美國不想被廢黜。但無論使用什麽官方指標,中國在經濟上超越美國是不可避免的。它的人口不僅是美國的四倍,而且,多年來,其經濟增長速度也是原來的三倍(事實上,按購買力平價計算,早在2015年,它就已經超過了美國)。

盡管中國尚未采取任何行動來宣稱自己對美國構成戰略威脅,但這種跡象已經不妙了。在華盛頓,兩黨達成共識,認為中國可能構成戰略威脅,而美國為減輕風險至少應該停止幫助中國經濟增長。根據這種觀點,先發製人的行動是有必要的,即使這意味著違反美國自己為製定和推動所做的大量工作的世界貿易組織規則。

新冷戰的這條戰線早在俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭之前就已經展開。美國高級官員此後警告說,戰爭決不能轉移人們對真正的長期威脅的注意力:中國。鑒於俄羅斯的經濟規模與西班牙大致相同,其與中國的“無限製”夥伴關係在經濟上似乎並不重要(盡管其願意在世界各地從事破壞性活動可能對其更大的南方鄰國有用)。

但處於“戰爭”狀態的國家需要戰略,美國無法獨自贏得新的大國競爭;它需要朋友。它的天然盟友是歐洲和世界各地其他發達民主國家。但特朗普竭盡全力疏遠這些國家,而共和黨 — 仍然完全受製於他 — 已經提供了充足的理由來質疑美國是否是一個可靠的合作夥伴。此外,美國還必須贏得世界發展中國家和新興市場數十億人民的支持 — 不僅是為了獲得更多支持,而且是為了確保獲得關鍵資源。

為了贏得世界的青睞,美國將不得不收複大量失地。它剝削其他國家的悠久曆史和其根深蒂固的種族主義 — 特朗普熟練而憤世嫉俗地引導了這一力量 — 也無濟於事。最近,美國政策製定者助長了全球“疫苗種族隔離”,即富裕國家獲得了所需的所有疫苗,而貧窮國家的人民則隻能聽天由命。與此同時,美國的新冷戰對手已經以成本或低於成本的價格向其他國家提供了疫苗,同時還幫助各國開發自己的疫苗生產設施。 

在氣候變化方麵,可信度差距甚至更大,氣候變化對南半球那些應對能力最弱的人造成了不成比例的影響。盡管主要新興市場已成為當今溫室氣體排放的主要來源,但美國的累計排放量仍然是迄今為止最大的。發達國家繼續增加援助,更糟糕的是,他們甚至沒有兌現幫助貧窮國家應對富裕國家造成的氣候危機影響的微薄承諾。相反,美國銀行助長了許多國家迫在眉睫的債務危機,往往表現出對由此造成的痛苦的墮落冷漠。

歐洲和美國擅長向他人宣講什麽是道德上正確的和經濟上合理的。但正如美國和歐洲農業補貼的持續存在所表明的那樣,通常傳達的信息是“照我說的做,而不是做我做的”。尤其是特朗普時代之後,美國不再擁有任何道德製高點,也不再有提供建議的可信度。新自由主義和涓滴經濟學從未在南半球國家得到廣泛接受,現在它們在各地都已經過時了。

與此同時,中國的長處不在於講課,而在於為貧窮國家提供硬件基礎設施。 是的,這些國家常常負債累累;但是,考慮到西方銀行自身作為發展中國家債權人的行為,美國和其他國家幾乎無法指責。

我可以繼續說下去,但要點應該很清楚:如果美國要開始一場新的冷戰,它最好了解如何才能獲勝。冷戰最終是靠吸引和說服的軟實力贏得勝利的。為了脫穎而出,我們必須說服世界其他國家不僅購買我們的產品,而且購買我們正在銷售的社會、政治和經濟體係。

美國可能知道如何製造世界上最好的轟炸機和導彈係統,但他們不會在這裏幫助我們。相反,我們必須向發展中國家和新興市場國家提供具體幫助,首先是放棄所有與新冠病毒相關的知識產權,以便它們能夠自己生產疫苗和治療方法。

同樣重要的是,西方必須再次使我們的經濟、社會和政治製度令世界羨慕。在美國,首先是減少槍支暴力、改善環境法規、打擊不平等和種族主義以及保護婦女的生殖權利。在我們證明自己值得領導之前,我們不能指望其他人跟隨我們的腳步前進。

How the US Could Lose the New Cold War

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-squandering-soft-power-appeal-in-cold-war-with-china-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2022-06 

Joseph Stiglitz 

Since the United States seems serious about confronting China in an extended contest for global supremacy, it had better start getting its own house in order. Other countries will not want to ally themselves with a power that rests on increasingly uncertain economic, social, and political foundations.

NEW YORK – The United States appears to have entered a new cold war with both China and Russia. And US leaders’ portrayal of the confrontation as one between democracy and authoritarianism fails the smell test, especially at a time when the same leaders are actively courting a systematic human-rights abuser like Saudi Arabia. Such hypocrisy suggests that it is at least partly global hegemony, not values, that is really at stake.

For two decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US was clearly number one. But then came disastrously misguided wars in the Middle East, the 2008 financial crash, rising inequality, the opioid epidemic, and other crises that seemed to cast doubt on the superiority of America’s economic model. Moreover, between Donald Trump’s election, the attempted coup at the US Capitol, numerous mass shootings, a Republican Party bent on voter suppression, and the rise of conspiracy cults like QAnon, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that some aspects of American political and social life have become deeply pathological.

Of course, America does not want to be dethroned. But it is simply inevitable that China will outstrip the US economically, regardless of what official indicator one uses. Not only is its population four times larger than America’s; its economy also has been growing three times faster for many years (indeed, it already surpassed the US in purchasing-power-parity terms back in 2015).

While China has not done anything to declare itself as a strategic threat to America, the writing is on the wall. In Washington, there is a bipartisan consensus that China could pose a strategic threat, and that the least the US should do to mitigate the risk is to stop helping the Chinese economy grow. According to this view, preemptive action is warranted, even if it means violating the World Trade Organization rules that the US itself did so much to write and promote.

This front in the new cold war opened well before Russia invaded Ukraine. And senior US officials have since warned that the war must not divert attention from the real long-term threat: China. Given that Russia’s economy is around the same size as Spain’s, its “no limits” partnership with China hardly seems to matter economically (though its willingness to engage in disruptive activities around the world could prove useful to its larger southern neighbor).

But a country at “war” needs a strategy, and the US cannot win a new great-power contest by itself; it needs friends. Its natural allies are Europe and the other developed democracies around the world. But Trump did everything he could to alienate those countries, and the Republicans – still wholly beholden to him – have provided ample reason to question whether the US is a reliable partner. Moreover, the US also must win the hearts and minds of billions of people in the world’s developing countries and emerging markets – not just to have numbers on its side, but also to secure access to critical resources.

 

In seeking the world’s favor, the US will have to make up a lot of lost ground. Its long history of exploiting other countries does not help, and nor does its deeply embedded racism – a force that Trump expertly and cynically channels. Most recently, US policymakers contributed to global “vaccine apartheid,” whereby rich countries got all the shots they needed while people in poorer countries were left to their fates. Meanwhile, America’s new cold war opponents have made their vaccines readily available to others at or below cost, while also helping countries develop their own vaccine-production facilities.

The credibility gap is even wider when it comes to climate change, which disproportionately affects those in the Global South who have the least ability to cope. While major emerging markets have become the leading sources of greenhouse-gas emissions today, US cumulative emissions are still the largest by far. Developed countries continue to add to them, and, worse, have not even delivered on their meager promises to help poor countries manage the effects of the climate crisis that the rich world caused. Instead, US banks contribute to looming debt crises in many countries, often revealing a depraved indifference to the suffering that results.

Europe and America excel at lecturing others on what is morally right and economically sensible. But the message that usually comes through – as the persistence of US and European agricultural subsidies makes clear – is “do what I say, not what I do.” Especially after the Trump years, America no longer holds any claim to the moral high ground, nor does it have the credibility to dispense advice. Neoliberalism and trickle-down economics were never widely embraced in the Global South, and now they are going out of fashion everywhere.

At the same time, China has excelled not at delivering lectures but at furnishing poor countries with hard infrastructure. Yes, these countries are often left deeply in debt; but, given Western banks’ own behavior as creditors in the developing world, the US and others are hardly in a position to point the finger.

I could go on, but the point should be clear: If the US is going to embark on a new cold war, it had better understand what it will take to win. Cold wars ultimately are won with the soft power of attraction and persuasion. To come out on top, we must convince the rest of the world to buy not just our products, but also the social, political, and economic system we’re selling.

The US might know how to make the world’s best bombers and missile systems, but they will not help us here. Instead, we must offer concrete help to developing and emerging-market countries, starting with a waiver on all COVID-related intellectual property so that they can produce vaccines and treatments for themselves.

Equally important, the West must once again make our economic, social, and political systems the envy of the world. In the US, that starts with reducing gun violence, improving environmental regulations, combating inequality and racism, and protecting women’s reproductive rights. Until we have proven ourselves worthy to lead, we cannot expect others to march to our drum.

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.