風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
美國外交政策的失敗
https://thesciencesurvey.com/editorial/2023/01/18/the-failures-of-americas-foreign-policy/
由於糟糕的外交政策決定，美國在全球舞台上的影響力幾十年來首次下降，而我們已經沒有時間阻止這種情況了。
奧利弗·惠蘭，本刊記者|2023 年 1 月 18 日
總統 約翰 肯尼迪+與國家安全理事會執行委員會成員會麵,關於古巴的危機,10月1962, 被視為黃金時代的美國實力和國際關係。
1962 年 10 月，約翰·F·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy) 總統就古巴危機會見了國家安全委員會 (EXCOMM) 執行委員會成員，當時的時代被視為美國實力和國際關係的黃金時代。
作為美國人，我們不斷被提醒我們國家最近的失敗。 在新聞中，大膽的印刷標題描述了最新的挫折。 由於即將到來的經濟衰退，投資組合貶值，股市下跌。 即使在國內，由於石油製裁和供應削減，能源和燃料費用也飆升。 我們的國際盟友也遭受苦難； 烏克蘭正在抵禦俄羅斯的入侵，一些人認為這是現任總統約瑟夫·R·拜登的錯；台灣麵臨與中國的戰爭威脅；歐洲國家開始對美國保護他們的能力失去信心，這導致 他們以危險程度的軍事化來彌補。 無可否認，全世界都感受到了美國衰弱的影響，現在是時候麵對一個殘酷的事實了：美國的外交政策正在失敗，我們已經沒有時間對此采取行動了。
二十年前，如果你說美國在未來幾十年不會成為卓越的超級大國，沒有人會相信你。 現在，美國似乎隻是在爭奪全球主導地位的競賽中落後於中國和俄羅斯的競爭對手。 中俄聯盟的加強令歐洲感到震驚，因為它們的經濟和軍國實力綜合起來可以與北約相抗衡，進而可以與美國相抗衡。為了使這種關係更加複雜，中國和俄羅斯努力與阿富汗等反美國家建立關係。 將勢力範圍擴大到可能對美國國際安全構成威脅的地區。
美國人知道這種權力轉移不是一夜之間發生的，甚至不是單一總統任期的結果。 自本世紀初以來，我們目睹了落後的政策、國際讓步以及對外部依賴的強調削弱了美國的誠信。 但直到現在我們才開始感受到它的影響。
我與美國企業研究所公共政策智囊團的高級研究員邁克爾·魯賓進行了交談，他同意：美國的外交政策已不再像以前那樣有效。 “美國已經有四分之一個多世紀沒有實施連貫的戰略了，”他說。 “要麽國務院完全是被動反應而不是主動出擊，要麽是喬治·W·布什的民主議程等戰略完全沒有得到實施。” 這是真的。 許多人都認為，美國在 1990 年代參與《代頓協議》，結束了波斯尼亞長達四年的戰爭，是美國外交政策的最後一次偉大勝利。
“冷戰期間，美國非常非常積極地參與歐洲和亞洲其他國家的事務。 [美國]深入參與這些國家並支持他們的政府，向他們投入大量資金和投資，特別是為了對抗俄羅斯而向這些國家投入軍事資源，”該委員會的一位研究員解釋道。 不願透露姓名的外交關係（CFR）人士。 “當 9/11 發生時，我認為這是一個巨大的衝擊，因為美國意識到我們並不是無敵的，我們很脆弱，即使在我們的祖國也是如此。”
大多數美國人認為2000年是美國實力的頂峰，但他們也同意此後一切都走下坡路。 《晨報》進行的一項調查顯示，美國人在那一年感受到了“更大的安全感”，考慮到美國在冷戰結束近十年後剛剛成為世界唯一的超級大國，這是有道理的。 次年，9/11 的襲擊使美國擺脫了短暫的無可爭議的實力時期，進入了一個新的戰爭時代和美國中心主義意識增強的時代。 正如40年代的珍珠港襲擊和50年代的“核恐怖”讓美國進入了一個新階段一樣，9月11日改變了美國，從此以後情況就不一樣了。
“[這些攻擊]讓我們變得更加防禦性，並且不太關注與他人一起環遊世界，”CFR 解釋道。 “我們仍然非常關注國際關係，但這讓我們更加脆弱
d讓美國更加擔心可能的威脅。”
來自全球各地的一個非政府實體對美國本土造成的損害比兩次世界大戰和與俄羅斯的核對峙還要嚴重。 2001年後，人們自然而然地傾向於采取更加防禦性和以自我為中心的政策。“美國優先”意識形態由此重新出現。 該術語由伍德羅·威爾遜 (Woodrow Wilson) 在 1916 年總統競選中創造。 盡管“美國優先”的出現大約一個世紀前，但它仍然吸引了 9/11 事件後的政策製定者，因為正如威爾遜的意圖，該政策強調不幹涉主義，而且許多人認為美國幹涉中東，例如美國與以色列的關係 經常被稱為“反伊斯蘭”的國家引發了這些襲擊。
今天，我們仍然感受到民族主義和不幹涉主義對我們外交政策的影響。 就在幾年前，前總統唐納德·J·特朗普製定了一項重點關注“美國優先”的外交政策。 在整個任期內，他優先考慮的是讓美國受益，這意味著放棄許多聯盟和夥伴關係，往往會導致國際關係的削弱。
我采訪了喬治城大學政府與外交事務學教授兼政府係主任安東尼·阿倫德（Anthony Arend），他詳細闡述了以自我為中心的美國的影響。 “這種[‘美國優先’]理念——在美國曆史上並不新鮮——產生了災難性的影響。 它賦予普京入侵烏克蘭的權力，並可能讓許多國家的獨裁者更加膽大妄為。 此外，這讓我們的盟友懷疑我們是否是可靠的聯盟夥伴。”
每次新總統就職時都會大幅改變外交政策，這是最近的總統趨勢。 特朗普在總統任期內以撤銷許多前總統巴拉克·奧巴馬(Barack Obama)的協議而聞名，比如《巴黎氣候協議》和《北美自由貿易協議》(NAFTA)，他表示這些協議迫使美國做出讓步。 現在，拜登總統試圖通過重新加入《巴黎協定》並重新開放中斷的外交關係來扭轉特朗普的一些變化。 盡管如此，由於美國外交政策中的這種“忽冷忽熱”的動態引起了國際社會的厭倦，已經造成了重大損害。 最重要的是，過去兩屆總統的任期標誌著一個更大的主題：美國的削弱和內部結構反過來對我們的國際關係產生了負麵影響。
雖然美國政治兩極分化何時開始尚不確定，但我們知道，前總統特朗普 2016 年的競選引發了前所未有的政治分歧。 這種疏遠超出了選民的範圍。 在前總統特朗普提名艾米·科尼·巴雷特、布雷特·卡瓦諾和尼爾·M·戈薩奇之後，最高法院目前以 6 比 3 的共和黨多數席位。 我們還看到其他政府機構，如國會，由於兩極分化而越來越難以達成一致並通過立法，這阻礙了整體進展。
CFR 繼續說道：“由於這個國家如此分裂，共和黨和民主黨如此兩極分化……因此，通過需要兩黨支持的國際關係法案或協議變得越來越困難。” 有趣的是，在外交政策方麵，右翼傾向於民族主義（並且越來越“美國優先”），而左翼則傾向於幹預主義，盡管雙方最終都朝著同一目標努力。 “我認為[‘美國優先’]的概念背叛了自己，”CFR 補充道。 “我的意思是，‘美國優先’的理念是，不要在世界各地投入這麽多資金和軍事資源……讓我們關注我們自己的公民。 我認為問題是，因為我們是世界上最強大的國家。 如果美國真正實施“美國優先”政策，那麽俄羅斯和中國等國家將在全球舞台上采取更積極的做法，因為我們無法阻止他們。”
雖然政治光譜雙方都認為自己的外交政策比對方更有效，但事實上，兩者都不是特別好。 這是因為美國政府，特別是在處理國際關係時，嚴重依賴內部協作，不僅是政黨的協作，還有戰略、理念等各個方麵的協作。 我們已經看到，一個分裂的政府在麵對真正的全球逆境——COVID-19 時是如何崩潰的。 我們的 COVID-19 大流行應對措施是災難性的失敗，僅僅是因為政府無法就如何應對這一威脅達成一致。
魯賓先生也強調了合作的重要性，他表示：“外交永遠不會單獨發揮作用。 戰略家談論 DIME 模型：每項戰略都應包含外交、信息、軍事和經濟組成部分。 美國人通常會按順序排列策略，但實際上整體總是大於部分之和。 以伊朗為例。 特裏伊
外交固然很好，但在達成協議之前解除製裁是否會降低影響力，從而使達成良好協議變得更加困難？”
盡管美國外交政策麵臨的最迫在眉睫的威脅是內部分裂，但美國必須努力克服的迫在眉睫的威脅卻是中國。 近年來，中國已成為世界第一大經濟體，超過美國約20%。 由於中國人口已經是美國的四倍多，而技術先進性和軍國主義資產才是中國與美國的區別因素，許多人表示，中國超越美國成為世界新強國隻是時間問題。 超級大國。 當然，按照我們目前的軌跡，美國正在落後。
很難預測中國作為唯一超級大國的世界會是什麽樣子，但很明顯，如果這種情況發生，美國將失去其外交“黃金時代”中殘留的大部分全球影響力。 我們已經開始看到中國將其影響力擴展到亞洲以外並進入遙遠的國家，特別是非洲國家。 可以預見，像伊朗核協議談判這樣的例子，美國被迫做出讓步才能達成協議，但即便如此，協議也隻是讓雙方都感到不安。 最近，美國和伊朗討論了重新開啟談判的問題，但這一次，中國更多地參與其中。
如果有的話，這意味著美國現在比以往任何時候都更必須回歸與外國合作的根源。 無論哪個國家更強大，美國的國際參與已經並將繼續是維護全球和平的重要方麵。 我們未來幾十年的外交政策必須強調國內外合作。
美國必須自力更生。 現在，美國在外交政策方麵缺乏統一戰線，這隻會反過來傷害我們。 “並非所有事情都應該成為刀耕火種的政治戰爭的主題，”魯賓先生表示同意。 “政客們應該為了美國的利益而在幕後工作。 在媒體聚光燈之外就戰略達成共識至關重要……[此外，]參議院應該更加認真地發揮其監督作用，就像卡特和裏根時代那樣，當時高層領導人跨黨派合作，拒絕允許國家幹預 部門自主權可以追求最壞的本能而不產生任何後果。”
在這個充滿變化和不確定性的時代，美國向過去尋找答案，重新提出“美國優先”和民族主義等理念。 這一解決方案帶來的隻是國際關係的惡化和國際舞台影響力的下降。 如果美國想在未來幾十年保持影響力，我們不僅必須適應我們可能不再是卓越超級大國的想法，而且還要進行內部變革。 隻有這樣，我們的外交政策才能像幾個世紀以來那樣成功地保護美國的完整性。
“並非所有事情都應該成為刀耕火種的政治戰爭的主題……政客們應該為了美國的利益而在幕後工作。 在媒體聚光燈之外就戰略達成共識至關重要……[此外，]參議院應該更加認真地發揮其監督作用，就像卡特和裏根時代那樣，當時高層領導人跨黨派工作，拒絕允許國家這樣做 美國企業研究所公共政策智囊團的高級研究員邁克爾·魯賓（Michael Rubin）表示：“部門擁有自主權，可以追求最壞的本能而不產生任何後果。”
The Failures of America's Foreign Policy
https://thesciencesurvey.com/editorial/2023/01/18/the-failures-of-americas-foreign-policy/
For the first time in decades, America’s influence on the global stage is declining after poor foreign policy decisions, and we’re running out of time to stop it.
Oliver Whelan, Staff Reporter|January 18, 2023
President John F. Kennedy meets with members of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOMM) regarding the crisis in Cuba in October 1962, during an era regarded as a golden age of U.S. strength and international relationships.
As Americans, we’re constantly reminded of our country’s recent failures. In the news, bold print headlines describe the latest setbacks. Investment portfolios depreciate and the stock market falters due to an impending recession. Even at home, energy and fuel bills skyrocket, caused by oil sanctions and supply cuts. Our international allies suffer as well; Ukraine is fending off a Russian invasion, which some believe to be the current President Joseph R. Biden’s fault, Taiwan faces the threat of a war with China, and European countries have begun to lose faith in America’s ability to protect them, which has led them to compensate with a dangerous level of militarization. As the impacts of a weakened America are undeniably felt throughout the world, it is time to address the hard truth: America’s foreign policy is failing, and we’re running out of time to do something about it.
Twenty years ago, if you said America wouldn’t be the preeminent superpower for decades to come, nobody would believe you. Now, it seems as if America is merely a trailing competitor against China and Russia in a race for global dominance. A strengthening Russo-China alliance has alarmed Europe since their combined economic and militaristic power could rival NATO, and by extension, the U.S. To compound it, China and Russia have worked to establish relationships with anti-American states, such as Afghanistan, which has spread their spheres of influence into regions that could possibly pose a threat to U.S. international security.
Americans know this shift of power didn’t happen overnight, or even as the result of a single presidency. Since the start of the millennium, we have witnessed backward policies, international concessions, and an emphasis on external reliance chip away at America’s integrity. But only now are we starting to feel its impacts.
I spoke with Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at a public policy think tank called the American Enterprise Institute, who agreed: U.S. foreign policy is not nearly as effective as it once was. “The United States has not implemented a coherent strategy for more than a quarter century,” he said. “Either the State Department has been entirely reactive rather than proactive, or there has been a strategy such as George W. Bush’s democracy agenda that went entirely unimplemented.” It’s true. Many agree that the U.S.’s involvement with the Dayton Accords in the 1990’s, which brought an end to a four year war in Bosnia, was the last great triumph of American foreign policy.
“During the Cold War, America was very, very involved in other countries in Europe and Asia. [America was] deeply involved in those countries and propping up their governments, putting a lot of money and investments into [them, especially] putting military resources to those countries for the sake of countering Russia,” explained a research associate for The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who wished to remain unnamed. “When 9/11 happened, I think it was a big shock because America realized that we were not invincible and we were vulnerable, even in our homeland.”
Most Americans view the year 2000 as the pinnacle of American strength, and they also agree that everything went downhill after it. A survey conducted by the Morning Consult said Americans felt “a greater sense of security” in that year, which makes sense given that America had just emerged as the sole superpower of the world after the end of the Cold War nearly ten years before. The year after, the attacks of 9/11 wrenched America out of its brief period of uncontested strength, and into a new era of war and a heightened sense of American-centrism. Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor in the ’40s and the “Nuke Terror” of the ‘50s had launched America into a new phase, September 11th changed America, and it hasn’t been the same since.
“[The attacks] made us a little more defensive and a little bit less focused on going around the world involved with others,” CFR elaborated. “We are still very focused on international relations, but it made us more vulnerable and made the U.S. more concerned about possible threats.”
A non-governmental entity from across the globe had managed to do more damage to the mainland U.S than two world wars and a nuclear standoff with Russia had. Naturally, people gravitated to more defensive and self-centered policies after 2001. From this re-emerged the “America First” ideology. The term was coined by Woodrow Wilson in his 1916 presidential campaign. Despite its emergence being roughly a century before, “America First” appealed to post-9/11 policy makers because, as Wilson intended, the policy emphasized non-interventionism, and many believed U.S. interference in the Middle East, like America’s association with Israel, a state frequently characterized as “anti Islamic”, caused the attacks.
We still feel the impacts of nationalism and non-interventionism in our foreign policy today. Only a couple years ago, former President Donald J. Trump instated a foreign policy that focused heavily on “America First.” Throughout his term, he prioritized benefiting America, which meant reneging many alliances and partnerships, often leading to weakened international relations.
I interviewed Anthony Arend, Professor of Government and Foreign Service and Chair of the Department of Government at Georgetown University, who elaborated on the impacts of a self-centered America. “This idea [of “America First”] – which is not new to U.S. history – produced disastrous effects. It empowered Putin to engage in the invasion of Ukraine and likely emboldened authoritarians in a variety of countries. Moreover, it raised doubts among our allies that we were reliable alliance partners.”
It has been a recent presidential trend to drastically change foreign policy every time a new president takes office. Mr. Trump’s presidential term is known for rolling back many of former President Barack Obama’s deals, like the Paris Climate Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he said forced the U.S. to make concessions. Now, President Biden has tried to reverse some of Mr. Trump’s changes by re-entering the Paris Agreement and reopening diplomatic ties that were severed. Despite this, significant damage has already been done as this “hot and cold” dynamic within U.S. foreign policy has caused international weariness. More than anything, these past two presidencies signify a larger theme of how America’s weakened and internal structure has in turn negatively impacted our international relations.
While it’s uncertain when political polarization started in the U.S., we know that former President Trump’s run for office in 2016 ignited an unprecedented amount of political division. This estrangement spanned beyond voters. The Supreme Court now has a 6-3 republican majority after former President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil M. Gorsuch. We also see other governmental bodies, like congress, find it increasingly more difficult to agree on and pass legislation due to polarization, which has stalled overall advancement.
“Because the country is so divided and because the Republican and Democratic Parties are so polarized…, it’s getting harder to pass international relations bills or agreements that need support from both political parties,” continued CFR. Interestingly, when it comes to foreign policy, the right tends toward nationalism (and increasingly “America first”) while the left tends toward interventionism, despite both parties ultimately working towards the same goal. “I think the concept [of “America First”] betrays itself,” CFR added. “What I mean by that is that the idea of “America First” is, instead of putting so much money and military resources all around the world…let’s focus on our own citizens. I think the problem is, because we are the greatest power in the world. If the U.S. truly enacted an “America First” policy, that would allow countries like Russia and China to take a more aggressive approach on the global stage because we wouldn’t be there to stop them.”
While both sides of the political spectrum believe that their foreign policies are more effective than the other’s, in fact, neither is singularly better. This is because the U.S. government, especially when dealing with international relations, relies heavily on internal collaboration, not only on parties, but on strategies, ideas, and other aspects. We have seen how a divided government crumbles when faced with true, global adversity — COVID-19. Our COVID-19 pandemic response was a catastrophic failure simply because the government couldn’t agree how to address the threat.
Mr. Rubin emphasized the importance of cooperation as well, stating, “Diplomacy never works alone. Strategists talk about the DIME model: every strategy should have diplomatic, informational, military, and economic components. Often, Americans sequence the strategies but in reality the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. Consider Iran, for example. Trying diplomacy is all well and good, but does sanctions relief prior to agreements reduce leverage in a way that makes a good agreement more difficult?”
Though the most imminent threat to U.S. foreign policy is internal division, the impending threat, and one that the U.S. will have to struggle to overcome, is China. In recent years, China has become the world’s largest economy, overtaking the U.S. by about 20 percent. With its population already more than four times that of the U.S.’s, and only technological sophistication and militaristic assets being the differentiating factor between it and the U.S., many say it is only a matter of time before China overtakes the U.S. as the world’s new superpower. Certainly, on our current trajectory, the U.S. is falling behind.
It’s hard to predict what a world where China is the sole superpower will look like, but it’s clear that if it happens, the U.S. will lose much of its global influence that lingered from its “golden days” of diplomacy. We are already starting to see China expand its presence beyond Asia and into distant countries, particularly in African countries. We can expect to see more instances like the negotiation of the Iran Nuclear Deal, where the U.S. was forced to make concessions to reach agreement, and even still, the deal only made both sides uneasy. Recently, the U.S. and Iran have discussed reopening negotiations, but this time, with China’s increased involvement.
What this signifies, if anything, is that now more than ever, America must return to its roots of collaborating with foreign nations. Regardless of which country is more powerful, America’s international involvement has, and will continue to be, a crucial aspect in maintaining global peace. Our foreign policy for the next few decades must emphasize collaboration, both foreign and domestic.
The U.S. must work with itself. Now, America lacks a united front when it comes to foreign policy, which has only come back to hurt us. “Not everything should be the subject for slash-and-burn political warfare,” agreed Mr. Rubin. “Politicians should work behind-the-scenes across the aisle for the good of the United States. It’s crucial to form a consensus on strategy outside the media spotlight… [Additionally,] the Senate should take its oversight role more seriously, as it did in the Carter and Reagan-eras when top leaders worked across the aisle and refused to allow the State Department autonomy to pursue its worst instincts without consequence.”
In this time of change and uncertainty, the U.S. has looked to the past for answers, re-purposing ideas like “America First” and nationalism. This solution has brought nothing but deteriorating international relations and a declining presence on the global stage. If America wants to remain relevant for the coming decades, we must adapt, not only to the idea that we may no longer be the preeminent superpower, but to change internally as well. Only then will our foreign policy succeed in protecting America’s integrity, just as it has for centuries.
“Not everything should be the subject for slash-and-burn political warfare … Politicians should work behind-the-scenes across the aisle for the good of the United States. It’s crucial to form a consensus on strategy outside the media spotlight… [Additionally,] The Senate should take its oversight role more seriously, as it did in the Carter and Reagan-eras when top leaders worked across the aisle and refused to allow the State Department autonomy to pursue its worst instincts without consequence,” said Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at a public policy think tank called the American Enterprise Institute.
