重振美國不能僅靠抨擊奧巴馬

On one thing everyone lining up for next year’s US presidential race can agree. Barack Obama has led from behind on the global stage. The president has been shy about deploying US might, accomModating of adversaries and reticent about standing up for allies. His successor in the White House, we are to believe, will restore America’s global prestige by standing up to China, facing down Russia and sorting out the Middle East.

所有準備角逐明年美國總統大選的候選人都會同意一點。美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)已經退居世界舞臺幕後領導。奧巴馬一直不願動用美國軍力，他遷就對手，也不怎麼熱心支持盟友。我們相信，他在白宮的繼任者將會恢復美國在全球的聲望，對抗中國、打壓俄羅斯以及恢復中東秩序。

An old friend in Washington, a foreign policy veteran of the Reagan administration, calls this a “bumper sticker” view of the world. He is right.

我在華盛頓的一位老朋友曾在里根(Reagan)政府時期負責外交政策工作，他將上述說法稱爲關於世界的“保險槓貼紙”觀點。他說得沒錯。

The chatter in an already crowded Republican field is that 2016 will be a “foreign policy election”. Republicans fear that a buoyant economy will narrow the range of domestic targets. National security offers obvious opportunities. The march across Syria and Iraq of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has revived fears of attacks on the US. Mr Obama’s proposed deal with Iran falls short of the scrapping of Tehran’s nuclear programme. Russia’s Vladimir Putin is menacing America’s European allies.

已然擁擠不堪的共和黨候選人陣營總是說，2016年將是“外交政策選舉年”。共和黨人擔心，經濟強勁將縮小國內選舉議題的範圍。國家安全將是顯而易見的選舉議題。自稱“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)的組織在敘利亞和伊拉克的推進令人再次擔憂美國遭受恐怖襲擊。奧巴馬提議與伊朗簽署的協議沒有包括廢止德黑蘭的核項目。俄羅斯的弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)正在威脅美國在歐洲的盟友。

The 2016 hopefuls are as hawkish as they are inexperienced in foreign affairs. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and the rest all promise to be tough-guy presidents. Even Rand Paul, who once flirted with isolationism, has hardened up the rhetoric. Mr Bush blames Mr Obama’s hesitations for the rise of Isis. Mr Rubio, who marches under the old neoconservative standard of “a new American Century”, would slam the door again on Cuba. They are all against the nuclear deal with Iran.

角逐2016年美國總統大選的共和黨候選人選不僅在外交事務上缺乏經驗，而且還非常強硬。傑布•布什(Jeb Bush)、馬可•魯比奧(Marco Rubio)、克里斯•克里斯蒂(Chris Christie)、特德•克魯茲(Ted Cruz)、斯科特•沃克(Scott Walker)以及其他候選人全都承諾要做一位強勢的總統。即便是一度表現出孤立主義思想的蘭德•保羅(Rand Paul)也說了狠話。傑布•布什指責奧巴馬沒有對ISIS的崛起採取果斷行動。魯比奧按照過去建立“一個新美國世紀”的新保守主義標準行事，他會再次對古巴關上大門。他們全都反對與伊朗的核協議。

Republican hawks are not alone. Hillary Clinton served as Mr Obama’s secretary of state. Now she is running for the office he denied her in 2008. Admirers say she too would be more robust. Had she not argued for arming moderate Syrian rebels and for a reset of the reset with Moscow when Mr Putin started throwing his weight around? Were she to set a “red line” there would be real consequences for those who crossed it. Mrs Clinton, of course, is under attack from Republicans for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi. All the more reason to show her mettle.

並非只有共和黨人在外交事務中持強硬立場。希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)曾經是奧巴馬政府的國務卿。現在她將角逐2016年的總統大選——在2008年的總統大選中，希拉里敗給了奧巴馬。她的擁躉們說，希拉里也會更加強硬。她難道沒有主張爲溫和的敘利亞叛軍提供武器，以及在普京開始耀武揚威的時候提出重置美俄關係的“復位”嗎？如果她劃定了“紅線”，那些跨過紅線的人將會受到切實的影響。當然，由於美國外交官在班加西遇襲身亡，希拉里正在遭受共和黨人的抨擊。這讓希拉里更有理由展示自己的魄力了。

Some of the criticisms of Mr Obama’s approach to global affairs have a point. Most of them miss a bigger one.

對奧巴馬解決全球事務方法的部分批評是有道理的。這些方法大多忽視了全局。

In one respect, to say that the president has often been reluctant to throw America’s weight around is simply to describe the circumstance of his election in 2008. He inherited two wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and the US was losing both of them. George W Bush had tested to destruction the notion that American military power could remake the Middle East. Mr Obama’s task was to get the troops home.

從某個方面來看，如果說奧巴馬往往不願在全球施加美國的影響力，這只是奧巴馬在2008年剛剛當選時的情況。他繼承了（在伊拉克和阿富汗的）兩場戰爭，而美國輸掉了這兩場戰爭。小布什(George W Bush)已經進行過試驗，結果表明美國利用軍事力量改造中東地區的想法是行不通的。奧巴馬當時的任務是讓軍隊回國。

The charge against the president that half-sticks is that the imperative to end these military entanglements has encouraged him to be overcautious elsewhere. Officials who have served in the administration say he is slow to weigh the costs of inaction. Power is about perception as well as economic strength and military hardware. It is one thing to draw a tighter definition of America’s national interests; another to forget that if the US steps back in one part of the world, allies and enemies elsewhere draw their own conclusions.

人們指責奧巴馬因爲不得不結束這些軍事糾葛，以致在其他地區過於謹慎，這樣的說法有幾分道理。曾在奧巴馬政府任職的官員們表示，他在衡量不作爲的代價時行動遲緩。實力與觀念、經濟實力和軍事裝備都有關。給美國國家利益作出更狹窄的界定是一回事，但忘記了以下事實就是另一回事：如果美國在世界某個地區後退一步，其他地區的盟友和敵手會得出它們自己的結論。

The impact of Mr Obama’s decision to allow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to cross a red line was felt as much in east Asia as in the Middle East. China’s new assertiveness in the East and South China seas has been grounded in a calculation that the White House wants to avoid confrontation.

奧巴馬放任敘利亞總統巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)跨過紅線，東亞和中東一樣都感受到了該決定帶來的影響。中國在東中國海和南中國海表現出的新的自信源於如下考量，即白宮不想與中國發生對抗。

It is easier to say that Mr Obama has never got it right than to come up with a strategy to tilt the balance back in the other direction. Risk-taking is not just about military force. The diplomacy with Iran has been bold. Save in the dreams of diehard neoconservatives, the US lacks the resources and political will for “generational projects” to transform the Middle East.

指責奧巴馬從來沒有弄明白過是很容易，但要提出一項扭轉局面的戰略恐怕就不容易了。冒險不僅僅與武力有關。與伊朗建立外交關係是一個非常大膽的舉措。美國還缺乏推出“世代項目”以改變中東地區的資源和政治意願，它只是存在於頑固的新保守主義者的夢想之中。

The Republican contenders do not want to admit that, relatively speaking, the US is weaker. You do not have to be a US declinist to observe the rising economic and military weight of China, India and others. Nor, with the end of the cold war, can foreign policy be framed as a simple fight between good and evil. Not so long ago, Republicans were talking about Isis as the big threat. Now the danger comes from Iran. And yet Tehran is a fierce enemy of the jihadis.

共和黨候選人選不願承認，美國實力相對來說有所下降。即使你不是美國衰落主義者，你也會看到中國、印度以及其他國家經濟和軍事實力的崛起。同樣，隨着冷戰的結束，外交政策也不能簡單地界定爲正義與邪惡之戰。不久前，共和黨人還認爲ISIS是巨大的威脅。現在威脅來自伊朗，而德黑蘭與伊斯蘭聖戰分子(Jihadis)勢不兩立。

The neat lines drawn by the contest with communism have disappeared. The new international disorder is being defined at once by the return of great power rivalry — think of China and Russia — and, paradoxically, by the collapse of the post-imperial state system in the Middle East. The US remains the most powerful nation but, on its own, it is insufficient.

與共產主義對抗而形成的涇渭分明的界限已經消失。國際上迅速出現了新的混亂局面：大國間重新展開競爭（想想中國、俄羅斯），同時有些矛盾的是，中東地區后帝國時代的國家體系開始崩潰。美國依然是最強大的國家，但憑藉其一己之力還不足以穩定局面。

The case for Mr Obama is that in seeking to deploy economic and diplomatic power, and to leverage US influence through multinational coalitions, he has recognised the complexities of this new landscape. The case against is that he has sometimes gone too far in drawing the limits of US power.

支持奧巴馬的理由是，爲了尋求使用經濟和外交力量，以及通過多邊聯盟利用美國的影響力，他已經認識到這種新局面的複雜性。反對他的理由是，在劃定美國實力的侷限方面，他有時做得過頭了。

What has been missing is an overarching framework — a set of principles clear and practical enough to deter adversaries and to reassure allies. A grand strategy, in other words, that balances ambition and realism. Republicans used to have a reputation for such thinking. Now they prefer bumper stickers.

奧巴馬缺少的是一個全局性的框架——一套足以威懾對手、安撫盟友的明確而務實的原則，也就是一項既有抱負又切合實際的宏大戰略。共和黨人曾經被認爲具備這種思維。現在他們更偏愛保險槓貼紙式的做法。