Politics

美国外交政策的失败

Jul 29, 2016 Christopher R. Hill

丹佛——已经漫长动荡的美国总统竞选活动无疑将在未来几个月变得更加动荡，因为现在正式选定的两党候选人已经开始了11月的大选对抗。但特别是在外交政策领域，选民将面临明确的选择。

What’s Driving Africa’s Protests?
Luis Tato/AFP via Getty Images
Free to read

Politics 0

What’s Driving Africa’s Protests?

Kehinde A. Togun highlights three fundamental issues fueling popular anger in Kenya, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
The Water-Security Crisis
Getty Images

Longer Reads 0

The Water-Security Crisis

Mariana Mazzucato, et al. call attention to a global problem that demands far more attention from policymakers at all levels.
The Future of Conservatism
Getty Images

Quarterly 0

The Future of Conservatism

Elizabeth Corey, et al. consider whether the populist “new right” in America, Europe, and elsewhere is here to stay.

民主党提名人希拉里·克林顿承诺将继续现有外交政策。克林顿内阁将仍然是美国朋友和盟国热情的合作伙伴，希拉里内阁将明确告诉美国的对手美国外交政策的大致宗旨不会改变。实用主义指导下植根于实力的现行美国外交政策数十年来在确保和平和稳定方面总体来看是成功的。

随着唐纳德·特朗普的提名，共和党方面的情况已经发生了很大变化。但候选人仅仅是次要问题——即老大党本身迅速转型的表象，共和党的转型对国内和国外受众都是一种令人困惑的现象。

共和党机构整个初选阶段都在捶胸顿足，疑惑像特朗普成为候选人的情况是如何发生的。比如，2016年3月，代表形形色色外交政策观点的数百名共和党顾问签署了一封公开信反对特朗普。虽然在得到特朗普支持他们观点的“保证”后，这些顾问中有些人可能会在今年秋天支持他，但绝大多数仍然会反对特朗普。

共和党产生的总统候选人极端看淡美国前景，以至于认为美国已经陷入深渊而且可能永远无法自拔。虽然全世界仍然期待美国英明的国际领导，但正式确认特朗普提名的克里夫兰共和党全国代表大会所展现的却仅仅是恐惧和厌恶。

共和党大会上特郎普讲话最引人注目的内容是攻击上一届共和党政府。他形容乔治·W·布什是希拉里·克林顿在各类国外纠葛中的同谋，包括战争和比战争更糟的贸易协议的签署。

PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024

PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024

Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.

但在整个讲话过程中，特朗普却从未提到余下的共和党162年历史。亚伯拉罕·林肯？他算什么。修建特朗普口中破败不堪的州际公路体系的战斗英雄兼总统艾森豪威尔将军？从来没听说过。共和党代表似乎对这样的遗漏毫不在意，反而在特朗普每次发出咄咄逼人的攻击和世界末日的警告时兴奋地咆哮。

在赢得初选之前很少有人重视从未担任过公职的电视真人秀明星特朗普。现在他却已经成为共和党的名义党魁和总统竞选的旗手。究竟是怎样走到现在这一步？

现代共和党守护神罗纳德·里根曾说与其说政府解决问题，还不如说是它问题的制造者，这样的宣言体现了从那以后成为共和党烙印的基本的反政府态度。现在无法摆脱的讽刺是任何竞选公职的共和党人只想尽快废除政府，而不是实际为政府服务。因此，难怪共和党选民提名的候选人从未在政府担任过任何职务。

上述反政府观点的唯一例外一直是国防。但即使在这个问题上，共和党也已经改变了态度。特朗普已经表示他将无视美国的北约义务、抛弃全球治理机构并将与他国谈判视为背叛美国立场，而不是双向磋商。

但如果共和党外交机构真想了解像特朗普这样的候选人来源于何处，那么老大党的党员应当好好审视一下队伍中某些人的言行。即使今天没有给予特朗普实际支持，但经常呼吁在全球动荡地区单方面使用武力的马克斯·布特等人为特朗普铺平了道路。还有些人在他将民事政策分歧演变为个人偏见攻击的下流选战中为他提供了帮助。

据民意调查机构和专家预测，特朗普很有可能11月选举中告负。如果过去8年共和党未能进行调整，也许再过四年或八年能够完成这项任务。希望他们能取得成功。美国民主——以及美国外交政策——至少需要两大政党，不能只有一个主流政党而另一个极端边缘化。

翻译：Xu Binbin

PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024

Featured

What a Trump Victory Would Mean for Latin America

What a Trump Victory Would Mean for Latin America

Sep 5, 2024 Jorge Heine
China’s Economic Paradox

China’s Economic Paradox

Sep 4, 2024 Yuen Yuen Ang
A New Trilemma Haunts the World Economy

A New Trilemma Haunts the World Economy

Sep 9, 2024 Dani Rodrik
Authoritarian Countries’ AI Advantage

Authoritarian Countries’ AI Advantage

Sep 4, 2024 Angela Huyue Zhang
The US Election Will Overturn Europe’s Strategic Status Quo

The US Election Will Overturn Europe’s Strategic Status Quo

Sep 6, 2024 Mark Leonard

Christopher R. Hill

Writing for PS since 2010
103 Commentaries

Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009. He is Chief Adviser to the Chancellor for Global Engagement and Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of Denver, and the author of Outpost: A Diplomat at Work.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 Comments on this article

ROHIT CHANDAVARKER Jul 30, 2016

The run up to US elections seems like a replication of the scenario during the run up to Brexit in UK. In both cases, a lot of hype & heat was generated, often based on lies, half baked truths, bluster & a generous dose of latent nationalism. Ironically two blonds held centrestage on either side of the Atlantic. Post Brexit, Britain is woefully floundering with prominent voices of Brexit clueless & searching for solutions. The quick withdrawal by many Brexiters suggests their real agenda was suspect from the very beginning. Another striking similarity is the reins have now been thrust into the hands of a woman. If one were to extrapolate the UK experience to the US landscape, Trump seems much like in Boris Johnson's mould apparently bumbling, relying on questionable means to success & disparaging every single segment of society barring the true White US citizenry. One dreads to think of a Trump led US much like one dreads to contemplate Britain's future post Brexit. Disruption is the new normal but what will it do to the world at large??
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 29, 2016

Christopher R. Hill says the Grand Old Party has itself to blame for producing an unorthodox presidential candidate, it reluctantly supports. Most Republicans see Trump as an "enfant terrible," but they clench their teeth and say they will support the face of the party, bending to his will. At the party's convention in Cleveland, Ohio last week, anti-Trump delegates had failed to block his nomination, and they reportedly backed out. Some accused the Republican National Convention (RNC) of sabotaging their efforts on purpose. Their final push was the last hope for those who wished to see another candidate than Trump get the nomination, which has become a source of conflict, that divides the party.
The long-simmering tensions between Trump and anti-Trump factions in the party broke into open warfare, when the two former presidents, George HW Bush and his son George W, had refused to endorse Trump, after the billionaire criticised the younger Bush over the Iraq war, and consistantly mocked Jeb Bush during his unsuccessful candidacy. Even the governor of the state hosting the convention, the popular Republican John Kasich, stayed away. It was an embarassment for the GOP, and a humiliation for Trump. In retaliation, "one of the more striking elements of Trump’s speech at the convention was his attack on the last Republican administration. He characterized George W. Bush as a co-conspirator with Hillary Clinton in various foreign entanglements, such as wars and, worse, trade deals."
Unlike his Republican peers, who have always spoken the voice of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. Trump has "projected nothing but fear and loathing." And his "dim view of America’s prospects that he thinks the country has entered an abyss from which it may never emerge," hadn't been a more welcome gift, inspiring the Democrats to offer just the opposite - patriotism, humanity, humility, the spirit of 1776, and most of all, optimism. Contrary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the RNC was helplessly lacking in star power. The event helped assure the international community, that "still looks to the US for wise international leadership," that it can still count on America to maintain the status quo.
Although the GOP has done its best not to display dissent, cracks in the Republican foundation were quite visible at the start of the convention, Hill says "Trump will most likely lose in November. If the last eight years wasn’t enough for Republicans to fix their party, perhaps another four or eight will suffice." The question is whether the GOP is capable of re-inventing itself. It had lost much of its character since its foundation in the 1850s. Lincoln could hardly identify himself with his GOP peers today. Initially radical and supportive of voting and civil rights for blacks, the Republicans were slowly forced to moderate their position to maintain their electoral dominance enabling their candidates to win five out of seven presidential elections between 1868 and 1892. By the late 1880s the rise of industry and corporations transformed America and Republicanism along with it, as industrial and business interests began to dominate the party. The party also became associated with groups, that called themselves WASPs - White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestants, who felt threatened by the new waves of immigration, from Ireland, Italy and then later from Eastern Europe. In 1912 the rise of the Progressive Party, led by Theodore Roosevelt, split the Republican vote.
The post-World War II era saw the rise of conservatism, with an emergent right wing, first witnessed in Barry Goldwater's 1964 candidacy, that began to push out liberal Republicans. Since Rupert Murdoch expanded his media empire to America, it had produced media outlets like Fox News and editors like Max Boot - an advocate of American values in foreign policy, and a hardline hawk - that have inspired Trump to capitalise on the grievances of those in America's Rust Belt states, to advance his cause. These people feel they have been victims of elitism, because the political establishment benefits from globalisation and free trade deals, while leaving them to their devices.
Hill hopes that the Republicans will succeed in reforming the party, saying "American democracy – and US foreign policy – needs at least two major parties, not one in the mainstream and the other on the extreme fringe" to sustain as a nation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jul 29, 2016

I applaud the sentiments here, but the line "Current US policy, rooted in strength and guided by pragmatism, has been generally successful in ensuring peace and stability for decades" caused me to do a double take.

_Current_ U.S. foreign policy has been trending in the right direction, in my view, for less than a decade. And "over the span of decades" it can hardly lay claim to having ensured "peace and stability" (particularly the former). It would be interesting to know what formulas Mr. Hill and his State Department colleagues use to quantify their notions of "peace" and "stability" over time, and how those formulas compare to those in use in, say, Baghdad or Hanoi.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 29, 2016

First sentence of the article. In fact there are at least 4 parties running, just to remind everyone. It just so happens that the 2 lesser parties have much more electable (meaning, less widely hated) candidates than the 2 major parties. That should tell us something about where the problem lies.

Second pragraph - continuity. Clinton, as Secretary of State, demonstrated a continuity of GW Bush's fine work in Iraq action with her fine work in Libya. In this, Trump's criticism is deadly accurate, despite all the flaws that make him otherwise unacceptable.

The unfortunate reality is, on foreign policy, both Clinton and Trump give every indication of being massive disasters - Clinton in her record as Sec. of State, and Trump in his rhetoric.

If we care about foreign policy as the main factor for choosing a president, we must do everything in our power to prevent the US political system for suggesting that these 2 are our only choices.
- Petey Bee Jul 30, 2016
  
  @Norm (part 3)
  So that's where we are in this election. My ideal way out of this dilemma would be to kill off the 2 party system -- by advocating for instant runoff voting and proportional representation. (starting at the state level).
  
  The next best choice is to force the 2 parties out of the "third" corner which neither of their constituents want, and at least get them back on the "left-right" spectrum where the "center" position once again represents a compromise between the voters of the two parties, instead of the "third corner" where the 2 parties meet being something very few people approve of. That's a scary game, it involves riding protest candidates into who knows where. But that's where we are this year, in my opinion.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jul 30, 2016
  
  @Norm (part 2)
  But you might ask, what's wrong with the US system? Well to begin with we are stuck with two awful choices. I think this is systematically guaranteed, --IF-- we take it for granted that we must pick from only 2 choices. With that assumption as the starting point, lets say there is a "left" and a "right" party. The left party can simply move as far to the right as they dare, lets say until they're almost touching the right party. They are safe in the knowledge that their far-left voters are trapped and have absolutely no choice but to vote for the center-left party. The right party would do the mirror image strategy.
  
  So you might say, ok, fine, what's wrong with centrists? Moderation is a good thing, right? So consider this -- Imagine if instead of a left-right line, we have a triangle. In the triangle, there is the left corner, the right corner, and the corrupt corner. The 2 parties move toward the corrupt corner, and guess what, ordinary left/right voters are stuck... they have to choose between corrupt and a tiny bit left, and corrupt and a tiny bit right. How do you like that choice? Or perhaps, instead of corrupt, they're honest but they just happen to cling to some economic and policy ideas that have been disproved by experience. Same idea with the triangle.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jul 30, 2016
  
  @Norm,
  Thanks for your response. That there "isn't a choice" is a peculiarity of the US electoral systems specific voting rules. In many other first world countries, they have one of two things that make this better.
  
  One is what's called "ranked choice voting" aka "instant runoff voting". Instead of making a single mark from a list of candidates running for a particular office, you rank them in your order of preference. For me it would be: 1. jill stein, 2. gary johnson 3. hillary 4. trump. look it up on wiki. -- This allows voters to vote their interest rather picking exclusively from the 2 choices they like least. You'd be surprised the difference it makes.
  
  The second thing is proportional representation and the parliemantary system, where instead of single-seat districts (winner-take-all in your congressional district/senate race), legislature seats are assigned in proportion to the % of the total vote - so if the imaginary "purple party" gets 10% of the vote nationwide, but wouldn't win any single district -- they would get 10% of the seats. Again this makes a huge difference, since legislatures will be composed of more than just 2 parties, and coalitions have to form. This is pretty much the only way minority groups can negotiate to have some of what they want represented. In the parliamentary system, the national leader is then picked from a parliamentary coalition who can form a majority, but I'm not saying we should do this in the US.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Norm Winn Jul 29, 2016
  
  In many ways, this election cycle is about selecting the person than may do the least amount of harm. I have some very real reservations about a Clinton presidency, but the thought of a Trump presidency scares the hell out of me. As a veteran, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. And after 40+ years of voting, it bothers me the realistic choice comes down to picking "the lessor of two evils". Then again, there really isn't a choice.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Norm Winn Jul 29, 2016
  
  Unfortunately, in spite of 4 parties, one of the two main party candidates will ultimately be elected. Many of the founding fathers cautioned AGAINST for formation of political parties, fearing they would inevitably place the party interests above the interests of both the people and the nation. We have arrived. Ain't you proud?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.