個人資料
正文

美國在複製前蘇聯潰敗

(2024-02-25 05:14:04) 下一個

Last US Ambassador to USSR Reveals USA Doctrine Of Hegemony | Amb. Jack Matlock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjD02QnvJU&ab_channel=

前任美國駐蘇聯大使傑克·馬特洛克表示,美國“繼承”了勃列日涅夫主義。 作為通過談判結束冷戰的人之一,馬特洛克大使在一次坦誠的采訪中談到,自從蘇聯正式停止這樣做以來,美國如何毫無悔意地係統地使用政權更迭行動,以及其動機如何。 這些變化——就像蘇聯的變化一樣——是意識形態問題。為了傳播“自由世界秩序" 今天的美國將比它的老對手走得更遠。

The USA has "inherited" the Brezhnev-Doctrine, says last US Ambassador to Soviet Union, Jack Matlock. As one of the men who negotiated the Cold War to an end, Ambassador Matlock talks in a candid interview about how the USA has been using regime-change operations systematically and without remorse ever since the USSR has officially stopped doing so and how the motivations for those changes are—as as they were for the USSR—a matter of ideology. To spread "the liberal world order" the USA today would go further than its old rival.

美國到底怎麽了?

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/jack-matlock-speech-america/

安布。 傑克·馬特洛克 (Jack Matlock) 談論以色列、烏克蘭,以及為什麽他無法重複 1982 年 7 月 4 日演講中最鼓舞人心的段落。

作者:小傑克·F·馬特洛克 2023 年 12 月 6 日

翻遍我積累的論文,我剛剛找到了1982年7月4日我在捷克斯洛伐克發表的一篇演講的英文譯本,當時我擔任美國駐布拉格大使。 當時捷克斯洛伐克由蘇聯強加的共產主義政權統治。

當我仔細閱讀它時,我沮喪地意識到今天我無法誠實地發表此信息中的許多陳述。

以下是一些關鍵段落以及我今天對它們的思考:

“值此我國獨立206周年之際,我很高興向捷克斯洛伐克人民致以問候。 在這一天,我們美國人慶祝我們國家作為一個獨立、民主共和國的建立,也是我們重新致力於實現我們開國元勳的理想的一天。 對我們來說,這些理想的基石是這樣的主張:國家和政府是由人民創建的,為人民服務,公民必須控製政府而不是被政府控製。 此外,我們認為,人類生活的某些領域,例如言論表達、宗教信仰的實踐和傳授,以及公民根據自己的意願離開我國和返回祖國的權利,是任何政府都無權限製的。”

今天我們真的可以說我們的公民“控製政府”嗎? 本世紀我們曾兩次選出比對手少數百萬選票的總統。 最高法院取消了我們絕大多數公民支持的權利。 美國參議院的選票在人口眾多的州比在公民較少的州要少得多。 公司和個人在宣傳或誹謗候選人以及遊說國會以獲得優惠的稅收和監管待遇方麵花費的金額實際上是無限的。 事實上,最高法院已經裁定公司也是公民! 在我看來,這聽起來更像是寡頭政治而不是民主政治。

“我們是一個由來自世界各地的人民組成的國家,我們受到了世界各國文化的熏陶。 將我們團結在一起的是創建自由和繁榮社會的理想。 在我們的曆史中,我們麵臨著許多挑戰,但我們能夠通過公開討論、協調相互競爭的利益,並最終通過維護我們公民選擇領導人和決定影響他們生活的政策的絕對權利來克服這些挑戰 ”。

我們什麽時候在美國國會的工作中看到過公開討論和協調相互競爭的利益了? 今年連續幾天沒有眾議院議長,這在美國曆史上還是第一次?

“我們的社會並不完美,我們深知有時我們無法實現我們的理想。 因為我們理解歌德雄辯地表達的真理:“Es irrt der Mensch, so long er strebt”(隻要努力,人就會犯錯。)因此,當我們堅守我們的理想作為目標和行動指南時, 我們深信,沒有任何個人和團體能夠壟斷智慧,隻有所有人都有權自由表達意見、提出建議和組織團體宣傳自己的觀點,我們的社會才能成功。”

除非你是一名公開捍衛巴勒斯坦人在其祖傳土地上自由生活的基本權利的國會議員,或者是哥倫比亞大學的學生也希望這樣做。

“當我們美國人慶祝我們國家的生日並重新致力於其理想時,我們並沒有假設我們的政治和經濟製度——無論它為我們服務得有多好——是可以強加於他人的。 事實上,正如我們在國內保護多樣性一樣,我們也希望在全世界範圍內保護多樣性。 正如每個人都是獨一無二的,每種文化和每個社會也是獨一無二的,所有人都應該有權以自己的方式控製自己的命運,而不受外界的強迫。 這是我們外交政策的主要目標之一:努力建設一個人類多樣性不僅得到容忍而且受到保護的世界,一個以談判和和解取代武力作為解決爭端手段的世界。”

除非你住在阿富汗、伊拉克、敘利亞、巴勒斯坦……或者伊朗、古巴或委內瑞拉。

“我們距離我們所追求的世界還有很長的路要走,但我們絕不能絕望,因為我們相信世界各地的人們基本上都渴望與美國人一樣的東西:和平、自由、安全以及影響自己生活的機會 。 雖然我們無意將自己的政治製度強加於人,但我們不能掩飾對其他國家勇敢的人民的深深敬佩。

他們隻尋求美國人視為與生俱來的權利。”

除非他們住在加沙或巴勒斯坦西岸。

“雖然這是舉國歡騰的一天,但我們心中沒有什麽問題比維護世界和平的問題更重要。 我們慶幸的是,我們與世界和平相處,沒有一個美國士兵在世界任何地方參與戰鬥。 盡管如此,我們仍然對高水平的軍備以及一些國家使用軍備而不是和平解決爭端的傾向感到關切。 我們與所有有思想的人一樣,對核武器的破壞潛力感到擔憂。”

當時蘇聯入侵阿富汗,美國要求其撤軍。 隨後,他們確實根據美國談判達成的協議撤軍。 但9/11之後,美國入侵並停留了20年,未能建立民主社會。 隨後以虛假理由入侵伊拉克,推翻了伊拉克政府並助長了伊斯蘭國的發展。 然後,美國在沒有宣戰的情況下入侵了敘利亞,並試圖推翻其政府(我們承認這一點),並打擊因美國入侵伊拉克而創建的伊斯蘭國,但沒有成功。

美國士兵目前駐紮在80多個國家。 我們在軍火上的支出比所有其他可自由支配支出的預算都多,而現在拜登政府正在對俄羅斯這個同等核大國發動幾乎正式的戰爭。

“正是出於這個原因,裏根總統提議大幅削減核武器。 ......我們還提出了許多其他建議,我們認為這些建議將增強相互信任並減少衝突的危險。 所有這些都旨在雙方可驗證的平等和平衡。 這樣一來,彼此麵對的聯盟體係就不用擔心對方的攻擊了。 ……”

是的,到 1991 年,我們在歐洲談判了大規模削減核武器、禁止生物和化學武器以及限製常規武器。 冷戰以協議結束,而不是一方戰勝另一方。 但從布什第二屆政府開始,美國單方麵退出了每一項重要的軍控條約,並開始耗資數萬億美元對美國核武庫進行“現代化”。 與此同時,盡管1990年後華沙條約組織沒有成立,但美國擴大了北約,並拒絕就確保俄羅斯安全的協議進行談判。

“世界各國人民麵臨的建立和維護和平的任務不是一件容易的事,問題是複雜的,不能通過簡單的口號來解決,而隻能通過持續的努力來解決。”

然而,從 20 世紀 90 年代末開始,美國似乎受到了一種錯誤而簡單化的信條的推動,即世界注定會變得像美國一樣,而美國有理由利用其經濟和軍事力量來改造世界其他地區,以符合其形象。 它本身(新保守主義論文)。 實際上,它是對蘇聯所奉行的失敗的“勃列日涅夫主義”的改編,直到被戈爾巴喬夫放棄。 與勃列日涅夫主義一樣,這一嚐試是徹底的慘敗,但拜登政府似乎無視美國人民麵臨的危險,決心追求這一目標。

“盡管如此,我今天還是樂觀地向你們講話,因為我知道我國在進入獨立第 207 周年之際,決心不僅要維護我們在國內擁有的自由,而且要投入我們的精力和資源來維護世界和平。 世界。”

但是,今天,在美國獨立 248 周年之際:

美國將向加沙發射 100 枚“超級炸彈”。 據《華爾街日報》12 月 1 日報道,BLU-109“地堡破壞者”每架重 2,000 磅,可穿透人們躲藏的地下室混凝土避難所。

該報稱,自10月7日以來,美國已向以色列運送了15,000枚炸彈和57,000枚炮彈。

此前尚未報道過所發送武器的尺寸和數量的詳細信息。

《華爾街日報》稱,名單上還包括超過 5,000 枚 Mk82 非製導或“啞”炸彈、超過 5,400 枚 Mk84 2,000 磅彈頭炸彈、約 1,000 枚 GBU-39 小直徑炸彈和約 3,000 枚 JDAM。

這一消息與外交大臣安東尼·布林肯關於避免平民傷亡是美國首要關切的聲明相矛盾。

《華爾街日報》稱,美國還提供了投在賈巴利亞難民營的炸彈,造成 100 人死亡,其中可能包括一名哈馬斯領導人。

世界各國通過聯合國一再呼籲停火,但沒有得到美國及其追隨國家的支持。

軍費開支在美國可自由支配開支中占據主導地位,軍人占政府人力的大部分。

這些武器正通過 C-17 軍用運輸機直接從美國空運到特拉維夫。

哦主啊,我們這是怎麽了?

小阿克·F·馬特洛克

小傑克·F·馬特洛克 (Jack F. Matlock, Jr.) 是一位職業外交官,曾於 1987 年至 1991 年間擔任美國駐蘇聯大使。 在此之前,他曾擔任裏根總統國家安全委員會工作人員歐洲和蘇聯事務高級主任,並於 1981 年至 1983 年擔任美國駐捷克斯洛伐克大使。 他是高級研究所的凱南教授,撰寫了大量關於結束冷戰的談判、蘇聯解體以及冷戰結束後美國外交政策的文章和三本書。

作者對負責任的治國之道表達的觀點並不一定反映昆西研究所或其聯營機構的觀點。

What has happened to America?

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/jack-matlock-speech-america/

Amb. Jack Matlock on Israel, Ukraine, and why he couldn't repeat the most inspired passages of his July, 4, 1982 speech.

By JACK F. MATLOCK JR.  DEC 06, 2023

Rummaging through my accumulated papers, I just came across the English translation of a speech I delivered in Czechoslovakia on July 4, 1982, when I was American ambassador in Prague. At that time Czechoslovakia was ruled by a Communist regime imposed by the Soviet Union.

As I perused it, I realized to my dismay that today I could not honestly make many of the statements in this message.

Here are some of the key paragraphs and my reflections on them today:

“I am pleased to send greetings to the people of Czechoslovakia on this 206th anniversary of my country’s independence. It is a day when we Americans celebrate the foundation of our nation as an independent, democratic republic, and a day on which we dedicate ourselves anew to implementing the ideals of our founding fathers. For us, the bedrock of these ideals is the proposition that states and governments are created by the people to serve the people and that citizens must control the government rather than being controlled by it. Furthermore, we believe that there are areas of human life such as expression of opinion, the practice and teaching of religious beliefs, and the right of citizens to leave our country and return as they wish, which no government has the right to restrict.”

Can we really say that our citizens “control the government” today? Twice in this century we have installed presidents who received millions of fewer votes than their opponents. The Supreme Court has nullified rights supported by a decisive majority of our citizens. Votes for the U.S. Senate count far less in a populous state than in a state with fewer citizens. Corporations and individuals are virtually unlimited in the amount they can spend to promote or vilify candidates and to lobby Congress for favorable tax and regulatory treatment. The Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled that corporations are citizens too! That sounds to me more like an oligarchy than a democracy.

“We are a nation formed of people from all corners of the world, and we have been nurtured by all the world’s cultures. What unites us is the ideal of creating a free and prosperous society. Through our history we have faced many challenges but we have been able to surmount them through a process of open discussion, accommodation of competing interests, and ultimately by preserving the absolute right of our citizens to select their leaders and determine the policies which affect their lives.”

Since when have we seen an open discussion and accommodation of competing interests in the work of the U.S. Congress? How is it that, for the first time in U.S. history, we had no Speaker of the House of Representatives for days this year?

“Our society is not a perfect one and we know very well that we have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals. For we understand the truth which Goethe expressed so eloquently when he wrote, “Es irrt der Mensch, so long er strebt”(Man errs as long as he strives.) Therefore, while we hold fast to our ideals as goals and guides of action, we are convinced that no individual and no group possesses a monopoly of wisdom and that our society can be successful only if all have the right freely to express opinions, make suggestions and organize groups to promote their views.”

Unless you are a Member of Congress who speaks out in defense of the fundamental rights of Palestinians to live in freedom in their ancestral lands, or students at Columbia University who wish to do the same.

“As we Americans celebrate our nation’s birthday and rededicate ourselves to its ideals, we do so without the presumption that our political and economic system– however well it has served us–is something to be imposed upon others. Indeed, just as we preserve diversity at home, we wish to preserve it in the world at large. Just as every human being is unique, so is every culture and every society, and all should have the right to control their destinies, in their own ways and without compulsion from the outside. This is one of the principal goals of our foreign policy: to work for a world in which human diversity is not only tolerated but protected, a world in which negotiation and accommodation replace force as the means of settling disputes.”

Unless you live in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Palestine…or, for that matter, in Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela.

“We are still a long way from that world we seek, but we must not despair, for we believe that people throughout the world yearn basically for the same things Americans do: peace, freedom, security, and the opportunity to influence their own lives. And while we do not seek to impose our political system on others, we cannot conceal our profound admiration for those brave people in other countries who are seeking only what Americans take as their birthright.”

Unless they live in Gaza or the Palestinian West Bank.

“While this is a day of national rejoicing, there is no issue on our minds more important than the question of preserving world peace. We are thankful that we are living at peace with the world and that not a single American soldier is engaged in fighting anywhere in the world. Still, we are concerned with the high levels of armaments and the tendency of some countries to use them instead of settling disputes peacefully. We share the concern of all thinking people with the destructive potential of nuclear weapons in particular.”

At that time the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. was demanding their withdrawal. Subsequently they did withdraw in accord with an agreement the U.S. negotiated. But then, after 9/11, the U.S. invaded and stayed for 20 years without being able to create a democratic society. A subsequent invasion of Iraq, on spurious grounds, removed the Iraqi government and gave impetus to ISIS. Then, the U.S., without a declaration of war, invaded Syria and tried unsuccessfully to overthrow its government (which we recognized) and also to combat ISIS, which had been created as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

American soldiers are now stationed in more than 80 countries. We spend more on arms than all other budgets for discretionary spending, and now the Biden administration is making all but formal war against Russia, a peer nuclear power.

“It is for this reason that President Reagan has proposed large reductions of nuclear weapons. … We have also made numerous other proposals which we believe would increase mutual confidence and reduce the danger of conflict. All aim for verifiable equality and balance on both sides. That way, the alliance systems facing each other would need not fear an attack from the other. …”

Yes, and by 1991 we negotiated massive reductions in nuclear weapons, banned biological and chemical weapons and limited conventional weapons in Europe. The Cold War ended by agreement, not the victory of one side over the other. But, beginning with the second Bush administration, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from every important arms control treaty and embarked on a trillion dollar “modernization” of the American nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, although there was no Warsaw Pact after 1990, the U.S. expanded NATO and refused to negotiate an agreement that insured Russia’s security.

“The task ahead for all the peoples of the world to establish and preserve peace is not an easy one, The issues are complex and they cannot be solved by simplistic slogans, but only by sustained effort.”

Nevertheless, from the late 1990s the U.S. seemed motivated by a false and simplistic doctrine that the world was destined to become like the U.S. and the U.S. was justified in using its economic and military power to transform the rest of the world to conform with its image of itself (the Neocon thesis). It was, in effect, an adaptation of the failed “Brezhnev doctrine” pursued by the USSR until abandoned by Gorbachev. As with the Brezhnev doctrine, the attempt has been an utter fiasco, but the Biden administration seems, oblivious to the dangers to the American people, determined to pursue it.

“Nevertheless, I speak to you today with optimism, since I know that my country enters the 207th year of its independence with the determination not only to preserve the liberties we have one at home but to devote our energies and resources to maintaining peace in the world.”

But, today, during the 248th year of American independence :

The U.S. is sending 100 “super-bombs” for dropping on Gaza. The BLU-109 “bunker busters”, each weighing 2,000 pounds, penetrate basement concrete shelters where people are hiding, the Wall Street Journal reported Dec. 1.

America has sent 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel since October 7, the paper said.

Details of the size and number of weapons sent have not been previously reported.

Also on the list are more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or “dumb” bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000-pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs, the Journal said.

The news dramatically contradicts statements of Foreign Secretary Antony Blinken that avoiding civilian casualties is a prime concern for the United States.

The U.S. also provided the bomb that was dropped on the Jabalia refugee camp, killing 100 people, possibly including a Hamas leader, the Journal said.

Repeated calls by the countries of the world, through the United Nations, for a ceasefire have not been supported by the U.S. and its follower nations.

Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the U.S., and military personnel make up the majority of government manpower.

The weapons are being airlifted on C-17 military cargo planes directly from the U.S. to Tel Aviv.

Oh lord, what has happened to us?

Jack F. Matlock Jr.

Jack F. Matlock, Jr. is a career diplomat who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991. Prior to that he was Senior Director for European and Soviet Affairs on President Reagan’s National Security Council staff and was U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia from 1981-1983. He was Kennan Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study and has written numerous articles and three books about the negotiations that ended the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and U.S. foreign policy following the end of the Cold War.
The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.
[ 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.