風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
我們不再從事外交活動：采訪美國大使查斯·弗裏曼 (Chas W. Freeman Jr.)
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/05/2023/we-dont-do-diplomacy-anymore-interview-us-ambassador-chas-w-freeman-jr
作者：克裏斯托弗·讚巴卡裏 - 2023 年 5 月 10 日
最近，Zambakari Advisory 在一次內容廣泛的 Zoom 電話會議中與弗裏曼大使進行了交談，就烏克蘭戰爭、美國與中國的關係、美國外交狀況以及非洲及其非洲的作用等一係列主題提出了問題。 世界從單極向多極轉變的新興國家。
小查斯·弗裏曼 (Chas Freeman Jr.) 於 1965 年進入外交部門，被認為是美國國務院的“神童”之一，他在近 50 年的時間裏參與了美國的外交工作，包括在喬治·W 總統領導下擔任美國駐沙特阿拉伯大使 布什在克林頓政府期間擔任助理國防部長，並在 1972 年開創性的中國訪問期間擔任理查德·尼克鬆總統的翻譯。
以下是弗裏曼大使三月份采訪的其他摘錄。
關於美國向烏克蘭決定當前衝突結果的能力：
“嗯，有很多證據表明澤連斯基先生對外國的建議、忠告和指示做出了回應。 最明顯的證據是[英國首相]鮑裏斯·約翰遜[2022年4月]對基輔的訪問，以及他對俄羅斯和烏克蘭之間似乎非常接近達成結束這場戰鬥的協議的明顯破壞。
“我們已經看到外國人可以引導澤連斯基先生遠離和平。 他們能否引導他走向和平則是另一個問題。 然而，我們要記住，這個人雖然是一位出色的演員，但他畢竟是一名演員。 我們有充分的理由懷疑他所講的台詞是否是他原創的。 它們當然服務於我們正在討論的那種地緣政治目的。 所以，我認為答案是肯定的，如果我們想要和平，我們可以，但坦率地說，沒有證據表明我們想要和平。”
關於歐洲推動的烏克蘭問題解決方案的重要性：
“解決衝突有一個基本原則，那就是那些有能力推翻解決方案的人必須成為解決方案的一部分。 你必須得到那些與所發生的事情有利害關係的人的支持，並且你必須說服他們。
“我對和平的定義非常平淡。 對於那些有能力擾亂它的人來說，這種情況是足夠可以接受的，因此他們不會擾亂它。 這可能會讓和平聽起來不像人們通常描述的那樣崇高，但我認為這是現實的。 因此，如果在烏克蘭以及俄羅斯和歐洲其他國家之間建立了和平，最終會建立什麽樣的和平，這是核心問題。”
關於不斷變化的中美關係：
“我喜歡區分競爭形式的分析框架，我確定了三種。 一種形式是競爭。 這可能是非常健康的，因為它由每一方組成——有時不止兩個方——但每一方都在努力提高自己的表現，從而在競爭中勝過其他人。 這是一場競爭，而不是零和遊戲。 其結果是積極的。 這就是我們在相當長一段時間內的美中關係。”
“[存在]‘對抗性敵意’。對抗性敵意是指當跑步者在比賽中認為隻有絆倒或限製競爭對手才能獲勝時，就會發生對抗性敵意。 實行這種競爭形式的人不是試圖提高自己的表現，而是努力削弱對手。 這就是我們目前與中國的處境。
“[然後]就是敵意，這意味著想要消滅對方。 也許這個詞可以形容美國所打的全麵戰爭——內戰、第一次世界大戰、第二次世界大戰、冷戰——其目標是消滅敵人並以一種更有效的形式重建敵人。 符合美國的價值觀。”
“因此，對於中國，我們已經從競爭——良性競爭——轉向了非常不健康的競爭，我們競爭的基本努力不是大幅提高自己，而是削弱中國人。”
關於美國外交狀況：
“我們不再做外交了。 如果您對此表示懷疑，請看看安東尼·布林肯、[中國官員]王毅和楊潔篪以及[美國]在[2021年3月]安克雷奇[阿拉斯加州]舉行的會議。 國家安全顧問]傑克·沙利文回到拜登政府上任之初。 那次會議的性質是什麽？ 我們進去後說：‘我們不喜歡你。 我們認為你是一個道德敗壞者； 如果我們能把你拉下來，我們就會的。 我們當然會試圖阻止你的進步，但我們需要你為我們做一些事情，你能幫助我們嗎？”這就是方法。
這是非常無能的，結果完全是可以預見的——隻是互相謾罵，而不是任何建設性的東西。”
關於未來外交官的培訓：
“不是。 其標誌是眾議院正在認真考慮一項將中國逐出G20的法案。 美國控製著G20嗎？ 我不這麽認為。 所以，宏偉的幻想，也許，但更重要的是，一種完全過時的世界觀。
“現在的世界不再像冷戰後那樣，由一個由美國主導的、單一的、統一的領域組成。 世界是由多個相互競爭的區域中心組成的——我們已經做了很多事情來實現這一目標……[國際法和法規]在我們的腦海中已被所謂的“基於規則的秩序”所取代，在這種秩序中，我們製定 規則並決定它們適用於誰以及誰可以免受這些規則的約束。 這不太有說服力。”
“我們需要重新發現外交的優點，這始於同理心。 另一個人從哪裏來？ 你無法有效地說服任何人，你可以恐嚇他們，但如果你不解決他們的擔憂和世界觀，你就無法說服他們。”
關於“全球南方”向前發展的作用：
“我認為所謂的‘全球南方’——其中一些並不遙遠的南方——想要的是他們自己的自決，建立自己的社會來滿足自己的願望，而不是受到外界的指令或幹涉。
“讓我們以非洲為例……你會看到，本世紀末的非洲可能擁有 20 億人口，是地球上最大的勞動力、最年輕的勞動力，目前經濟發展非常強勁。 這些國家正在取得成功，並且在國際上將變得更加重要。
“但是，隨著這些國家的發展，仍然需要國際全球合作。 我懷疑我們會找到一種方法，例如，讓印度等國家或一個或多個非洲國家，當然是日本，也許是歐盟而不是英國和法國，在全球治理中發揮他們現在所沒有的作用。 這是一個要求。 但這是為了在我死後很長一段時間內有人可以鍛煉。 所以我不會在這件事上喋喋不休。”
Christopher Zambakari 博士，Zambakari Advisory 創始人兼首席執行官。
Hartley B. 和 Ruth B. Barker 捐贈扶輪和平研究員、《蘇丹研究協會公報》助理編輯。
Zambakari Advisory 是一家總部位於鳳凰城的國際谘詢公司，專注於戰略情報、項目設計和過渡流程領域。 該谘詢每年兩次發布在線特刊，圍繞主題領域公認領導者眼中具有全球影響力的問題。 本次采訪由 The Zambakari Advisory 創始人兼首席執行官 Christopher Zambakari, LP.D. 主持； Estève Giraud 博士，亞利桑那州立大學 Swette 可持續食品係統中心助理研究教授； 本傑明·阿貝洛博士，《西方如何給烏克蘭帶來戰爭》一書的作者； Stephen Des Georges，內容開發和傳播顧問兼 TZA 特約編輯。
We don't do diplomacy anymore: An interview with U.S. Ambassador Chas W. Freeman Jr.
By Christopher Zambakari - 10 May 2023
Recently, The Zambakari Advisory sat down with Ambassador Freeman in a wide-ranging Zoom call, posing questions on a series of subjects relating to the war in Ukraine, U.S. relations with China, the state of U.S. diplomacy, and the role of Africa and its emerging countries in a world shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity.
Considered one of the “whiz kids” of the U.S. State Department when he entered the foreign service in 1965, Chas Freeman Jr. was for nearly 50 years involved in diplomatic service to his country including serving as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President George W. Bush, assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration, and interpreter for President Richard Nixon during the path-breaking 1972 China visit.
Below are other excerpts from the March interview with Ambassador Freeman.
On the ability of the U.S. to dictate to Ukraine the outcome of the current conflict:
“Well, there’s a lot of evidence that Mr. Zelensky responds to foreign advice and counsel and direction. The clearest evidence of that was [British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv [in April 2022], and his apparent sabotage of what appeared to be something very close to an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end this fight.
“We’ve seen that foreigners can direct Mr. Zelensky away from peace. Whether they could direct him toward peace is another question. Let’s remember, however, that this man, although he is a brilliant actor, is an actor. And there is a considerable reason to doubt that the lines he is delivering are original to him. They certainly serve geopolitical purposes of the sort we were discussing. So, I think the answer is yes, if we wanted to have peace, we could, but frankly, there’s no evidence we want peace.”
On the importance of a European-driven resolution in Ukraine:
“There is a basic principle of conflict resolution, which is that those with the capacity to overthrow the solution have to be part of the solution. You have to have buy-in from those who have a stake in what happens, and you have to convince them.
“My definition of peace is a very bland one. It is a situation that is sufficiently acceptable to those with the capacity to disturb it so that they don’t disturb it. That may make peace sound less noble than it is often portrayed, but I think it’s realistic. So the question of what kind of peace is established eventually, if one is established in Ukraine and therefore between Russia and the rest of Europe, is the core question.”
On the changing U.S.-China relationship:
“I like an analytical framework that distinguishes forms of competition, and I identify three. One form is rivalry. That can be very healthy because it consists of each side — sometimes more than two sides — but each side striving to improve its own performance, and thereby out-compete, outdo the others. That is a competition which is not a zero-sum game. It is positive in its outcomes. And that is what we had for a considerable period of time in the U.S.-China relationship.”
“[There is] ‘adversarial animosity.’ Adversarial animosity is what happens when a runner in a race decides that he or she can win only by tripping up or hamstringing the competitor. Rather than trying to improve his or her own performance, someone who practices this form of competition strives to cripple the opposition. That is where we are with China at the moment.
“[Then, there] is enmity, which implies a desire to annihilate the other side. Perhaps this is the word to describe the total wars that the United States has fought — the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War — in which the objective was to destroy the enemy and reconstitute the enemy in a form more congenial to the values of the United States.”
“So, with China, we have moved from rivalry — healthy competition — to a very unhealthy competition in which our basic effort to compete is not to improve ourselves very much but to cripple the Chinese.”
On the state of U.S. diplomacy:
“We don’t do diplomacy anymore. If you doubt that, look at the [March 2021] Anchorage [Alaska] meeting between Anthony Blinken, [Chinese officials] Wang Yi and Yang Jiechi, and [U.S. National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan back at the start of the Biden administration. What was the nature of that meeting? We went in there and we said, ‘We don’t like you. We think you are a moral reprobate; if we can pull you down, we will. We’re certainly going to try to block your progress, but there are a few things we need you to do for us, and could you help us?’ That was the approach. That was remarkably inept, and the result was entirely predictable — an exchange of diatribe rather than anything constructive.”
On the training of tomorrow’s diplomats:
“We’re not. The symbol of this is that the House of Representatives is seriously considering a bill to remove China from the G20. Does the United States control the G20? I don’t think so. So, delusions of grandeur, perhaps, but more importantly, a worldview that is totally out of date.
“The world is now composed not of a dominant, single, unified domain dominated by the United States, as it may have been briefly after the Cold War. The world is composed of multiple competing regional centers — and we’ve done a good deal to bring that about … [International law and regulation] has been replaced in our minds by something called the ‘rules-based order,’ in which we make the rules and decide who they apply to and who is exempt from them. That’s not very persuasive.”
“We need to rediscover the merits of diplomacy, which begins with empathy. Where is the other guy coming from? You can’t persuade anybody effectively, you can intimidate them, but you can’t persuade them, if you don’t address their concerns and their worldview.”
On the role of the “Global South” moving forward:
“I think what the so-called ‘Global South’ — some of which isn’t very far south — wants is their own self-determination, building their own societies to match their own aspirations, not being subjected to outside dictation or interference.
“Let’s take Africa for example … You see Africa at the end of a century with perhaps two billion people, the largest labor force, the youngest labor force on the planet, and currently very robust economic development. These are countries that are succeeding, and that are going to be far more important internationally.
“But, as these countries grow there’s still going to be a need for international global cooperation. And I suspect we will find a way to, for example, give countries like India or perhaps one or more African countries, certainly Japan, perhaps the EU instead of Britain and France, a role in global governance that they don’t have now. That’s a requirement. But that’s for somebody to work out long after I’m dead. So I’ll not croak on about it.”
Dr. Christopher Zambakari, Founder & CEO, The Zambakari Advisory.
Hartley B. and Ruth B. Barker Endowed Rotary Peace Fellow, Assistant Editor, Bulletin of The Sudan Studies Association.
The Zambakari Advisory is a Phoenix-headquartered international consultancy in the areas of strategic intelligence, program design and transitional processes. Twice annually, The Advisory publishes an online Special Issue surrounding issues of global impact as seen through the eyes of recognized leaders in the subject areas. The interview was conducted by Christopher Zambakari, LP.D., founder and CEO of The Zambakari Advisory; Estève Giraud, Ph.D., assistant research professor at Arizona State University’s Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems; Dr. Benjamin Abelow, author of How the West Brought War to Ukraine; and Stephen Des Georges, content development and communications consultant and TZA editor-at-large.
