【外交政策 111025】两手空空 — 奥巴马外交政策失败的十大原因
【中文标题】两手空空 — 奥巴马外交政策失败的十大原因
【原文标题】Coming Up Empty Ten reasons why Obama's foreign policy is not a success
【登载媒体】外交政策
【原文作者】STEPHEN WALT
【原文链接】http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/25/obama_foreign_policy_coming_up_empty?page=0,0
我的同事（也是外交专家）Dan Drezner在几天前发表了一篇绝妙的文章，在大老党各种各样的挑战面前（他管这些人叫傻瓜）为奥巴马的外交政策辩护。文章的核心内容实际上是Dan对奥巴马以下政治演讲所浮现出的一些幻想。
作为总统，我必须要谈一谈本土政策和外交政策。总司令的角色让我在行使外交政策时所遇到的障碍，大大少于我在行使本土政策时遇到的障碍。所以，让我们思考一下这个问题。在外交层面，美国的地位已经从后伊拉克时代恢复，基地组织只是一种新的恐怖主义形式。在北非，解放力量的延伸困难重重，但毕竟有所进展。卡扎菲的政权已经不复存在，美国为此没有折损一人。阿富汗和伊拉克的战争逐渐平息。环太平洋区域的所有非共产主义国家都在试图与我们保持更加密切的关系。
想一想，如果没有议会对议案的阻挠，我在本土政策方面能成功地达成哪些成就呢？这实际上已经比我本人更加不受欢迎了。我并不想让大老党卑躬屈膝地乞求，只是在提醒，做好你们的工作，让我提名的人在参议院全院表决。我在外交政策方面成就显著，与北约和东南亚继续保持合作关系。请想一想，如果共和党能像法国一样愿意妥协，我可以多做多少事情啊。
就像Andrew Sullivan所指出的，最后一句话是个重磅炸弹。但是Dan说“越来越难断定奥巴马的外交政策是彻底失败的”，这对吗？如果你考虑一下他在就职时给自己列出的重大事项，这种说法其实是错误的。即使我们承认Dubya（译者注：指老布什和小布什两任总统，这里是嘲弄他们的得克萨斯口音）给他挖了一个很深很深的坑，我们依然可以找到10个理由来让我们慎重考虑是否要承认奥巴马的外交政策是成功的。
1，环境变化
这是奥巴马在2008年竞选时的重要承诺，他在当选第一年也的确以高姿态参加了哥本哈根的峰会。但是后来，他没能让能源法案通过议会的审核，人类文明赖以生存的未来问题几乎从人们的视野中完全消失了。如果你碰巧住在海边，就发现没有什么好消息。
2，巴以问题
就像Dan提到的，这明显是现任政府为完成的一个课题。实际上，他们让问题更加恶化了，双方共同寻求的解决方案已经不大可能达成了。由于新的阿拉伯国家政府对民众在几年前的情绪更加敏感，这样的局面更加让美国在当地的形象大打折扣。究竟责任在谁，我们可以永久争论下去，但这毫无疑问是奥巴马的负面得分。
3，伊朗
这里也是一样，奥巴马先是摆出浮夸的姿态，但很快回到布什第二任期的状态：不断要求伊朗人先满足美国的需求，然后再讨论其它问题。伊朗的内部混乱局面和对外界的怀疑态度当然是事情没有进展的重要原因，但是至少，奥巴马没有改善美伊关系，没能阻止核浓缩项目，也没有能说服其它国际势力（比如中国）坚定地支持美国的立场。政府更没有想办法拓展思路，采取另外一种方法来解决问题，毕竟我们现行的策略早在十年前就已经失败了。
4，阿富汗
对于奇迹的发生，我们或许还怀有微小的期望。但是北约已经明显失去了开战的欲望，而美国和它的盟友也没有能力决定阿富汗的未来政治走向。奥巴马在2009年增兵的决定或许仅仅是为事态的发展罩上一层遮羞布，可以为延迟几年撤兵提供充足的理由。但是，我们将额外投入数千亿美元，还有将近2000名士兵的生命。而离解决冲突的目标依然很遥远。
5，巴基斯坦
与此同时，我们与巴基斯坦之间的关系也愈加恶化。阿富汗或许还是一个与美国战略无关的国家，但是巴基斯坦持有核武器，是反美力量的温床，而且在政治上还很难撼动。处理与它之间的关系要比设想谁是利比亚下一届领导人难上一千倍，我们的政府在这方面丝毫没有作为。猎杀奥萨马•本•拉登当然是一项成就，但是如果巴基斯坦彻底崩溃，就无法挽回我们所付出的一切。
6，伊拉克
Dan脑海中的演说词把这一项列为功绩，但伊拉克绝对是个失败。当然，始作俑者是布什，但奥巴马在任期间局势丝毫没有进展。美国和其它驻扎在波斯湾的盟国领导人都在担心，美国撤军后的局势如何。这就是为什么政府希望继续驻军的原因，但是他们又无法说服伊拉克政府给予美军外交豁免权。这虽然是伊拉克法院的决定，但我们始终无法在那里实现我们的期望。
7，利比亚
对于卡扎菲的流放和死亡，没有人会表示哀悼，美国人更加兴奋地宣称实现这样的目的没有折损一兵一卒。但是，难道2003年伊拉克的“任务完成”宣言没有让我们了解宣布永久性的胜利是危险的吗？我们都希望利比亚的革命能够实现理想主义者的期望，并且可以躲避前方的陷阱，但现在自我吹嘘并且宣称这将是未来干涉战略的模板还为时尚早。如果利比亚在未来的局势每况愈下，人们对“奥巴马学说”的热情要比利比亚国旗上水彩颜色退却的速度更快。
8，朝鲜
奥巴马在2009年把朝鲜列为外交重点，甚至还指派一名“特使”处理朝鲜问题。可结果是，不但外交事务毫无进展，而且朝鲜还在去年“偶露峥嵘”，炸沉一艘韩国军舰、炮轰韩国岛屿。平壤的核计划依然我行我素，中国对朝鲜外交保护的姿态没有动摇的迹象。这让美国加强了与韩国之间的同盟关系，但是奥巴马在处理朝鲜棘手的领导人的问题上，没有超越其前任。
9，世界经济
奥巴马不但没能让美国经济继续前行，而且美国对于世界经济的复苏也丝毫没有贡献。自由贸易毫无进展，欧洲领导人一如既往地对美国在财政方面的意见不屑一顾。近期与韩国之间的双边贸易或许加强了两国间的政治纽带，但对经济的作用微乎其微。奥巴马当然不应该为此负全部责任，但这也不能成为他的加分项。
10，美国地位
Dan有一点是正确的，就是奥巴马让美国形象在布什时代之后得到了复兴，但其实，形象的变化空前只有上升。除了中东地区，全世界对美国形象的满意度都在上升，但更重要的是，如今越来越少的人愿意相信山姆大叔的判断了。亚洲国家依然需要美国的保护，以抵御崛起的中国（老式的实力制衡理由）。但是在关塔那摩、阿布格莱布和美军对无人轰炸机的青睐之后，还有谁会尊重我们的人权标准呢？谁愿意遵循我们管理经济、规范财政机构的方式？美国式民主曾经是众人仰慕的对象，但是现在连美国人自己都搞不懂政治机构的运作模式。很明显，奥巴马比布什在海外更受欢迎，但是人们对他当选时的狂热期望（这同时让他把诺贝尔奖预先收入怀中）连同他的魅力，开始逐渐消退。或许你可以给他一个综合及格的分数，但他绝对不在好学生之列。
然而，Dan和我意见一致之处是国内政治的强大力量。如果你看过上面所列举的失败清单，令人吃惊的是其中大部分都受到了国内力量的限制。对气候采取实质性的动作会对商业和消费者产生影响，当我们还在经济衰退的大环境中蹒跚时，这绝不可能发生。如果想在巴以问题和伊朗问题上有所进展，必然意味着在中东增兵，而奥巴马在2009年6月开罗的讲话中否定了这样的行动。他之所以决定在阿富汗增兵并继续驻扎伊拉克，明显是因为受到了国内政治的影响，尤其是民主党长久以来在国家安全问题上担心被视为“软弱”。贸易自由化在国内是个永远有争议的话题，在经济脆弱的条件下更是难以触及。
简言之，Dan对奥巴马外交政策的总体评分还是颇具洞察力的：在那些相对次要的领域，也就是受国内政治影响不大、他可以相对自由地行使自己权力的领域，总统的表现还算不错。但是在比较重要的方面，当需要说服美国人民来追随你走上一条新路时，他几乎一无所获。
然而，奥巴马还有一项“成就”值得宣扬，这可以回应Dan那篇文章中的潜台词。奥巴马利用右倾的外交政策手段（类似于布什的第二任期）和克林顿风格多边主义的宽泛化和理想化修辞，让外交政策这个话题在2012年大选中完全消失了。鉴于目前的经济形势，外交政策不会再成为一个主要议题，而且大老党也没有机会用外交政策来攻击他，除非他们是白痴。对总统连任的前景来说，这是个好消息。像Dan和我这样的外交政策专家在选举期间不会有太多的争论，但是不要指望这可以阻止我们未来的争吵。
原文：
My FP colleague (and Zombie maven) Dan Drezner had an excellent post up a couple of days ago, defending Obama's foreign policy against various GOP challenges (most of them, as he points out, silly). The payoff pitch is Dan's fantasy of what an Obama stump speech on this topic might say:
As president, I have to address both domestic policy and foreign policy. Because of the way that the commander-in-chief role has evolved, I have far fewer political constraints on foreign policy action than domestic policy action. So let's think about this for a second. On the foreign stage, America's standing has returned from its post-Iraq low. Al Qaeda is now a shell of its former self. Liberalizing forces are making uneven but forward progress in North Africa. Muammar Qaddafi's regime is no longer, without one American casualty. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winding down. Every country in the Pacific Rim without a Communist Party running things is trying to hug us closer.
Imagine what I could accomplish in domestic policy without the kind of obstructionism and filibustering that we're seeing in Congress -- which happens to be even more unpopular than I am, by the way. I'm not talking about the GOP abjectly surrendering, mind you, just doing routine things like subjecting my nominees to a floor vote in the Senate. I've achieved significant foreign policy successes while still cooperating with our allies in NATO and Northeast Asia. Just imagine what I could get done if the Republicans were as willing to compromise as, say, France.
As Andrew Sullivan points out, that last line is a killer. But is Dan correct to say (as he does at the beginning of his piece) that "it's becoming harder and harder to argue that Barack Obama's foreign policy is a failure"? Not if you consider some of the major items on his agenda when he took office. Even allowing for the fact that Dubya dug him a very, very deep hole, here are ten reasons why one might hesitate to label Obama's foreign policy a "success."
1. Climate Change. This was a major item in Obama's 2008 campaign, and he made a big show of attending the Copenhagen summit during his first year. But then he couldn't get an energy bill passed, and the whole issue -- on which the future course of civilization may depend -- has dropped off the radar screen almost entirely. Not good news if you happen to live near the coast.
2. Israel-Palestine. As Dan acknowledges, this is one issue where the administration has whiffed completely. Indeed, they may well have made things substantially worse, and hastened the moment when the two-state solution that they claim to seek is acknowledged to be impossible. And because new Arab governments are going to be more sensitive to popular sentiment in the years ahead, the damage this situation is doing to America's position in the region is growing. We could argue forever about who deserves the blame for this failure, but it clearly goes in the loss column.
3. Iran. Here, too, Obama began with some flashy gestures, but U.S. policy quickly reverted back to the status quo of Bush's second term: ramping up sanctions and demanding Iranian compliance with U.S. demands as a precondition for progress on any other issues. Iran's internal disarray and deep suspicions have made a tough task even more difficult, but the bottom line is that Obama hasn't improved U.S.-Iranian relations, hasn't halted their nuclear enrichment program, or didn't persuade other key powers (e.g., China) to support the U.S. position consistently. Nor has the administration managed to think outside the box and try a different approach, even though the policy we've been following has been failing for at least a decade.
4. Afghanistan. We can still hope for a minor miracle here, but NATO has lost the stomach for the fight and it is increasingly clear that the United States and its allies will not be able to determine Afghanistan's political future. Obama's decision to escalate in 2009 may have created a fig leaf of progress that will make it politically feasible to withdraw in a couple more years, but we will have poured several hundred billion more dollars into Afghanistan, as well as the lives of nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers, without getting closer to ending the conflict on our terms.
5. Pakistan. In the meantime, our relationship with Pakistan has gone from bad to worse. Afghanistan is largely a strategic irrelevance, but Pakistan is nuclear-armed, a hotbed of anti-Americanism, and politically unstable to boot. Managing that relationship is a hell of lot more important than figuring out who gets to run Libya, and the administration wins no bonus points here. Getting Osama bin Laden is an obvious achievement, but no consolation if Pakistan goes south completely.
6. Iraq: Dan's mythical speech puts this item in the success column, but Iraq is ultimately a defeat. The main failure is George W. Bush's, of course, but Obama failed to achieve even his own rather limited aims. U.S. leaders are deeply worried about what will happen after the United States leaves, and so are key U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. That's why the administration wanted to keep a larger U.S. presence there, but they failed to convince Iraq's government to give U.S. troops immunity. That is the Iraqis' prerogative, of course, but the fact remains that we are not getting the outcome there that we wanted.
7. Libya: Nobody is mourning Muammar al-Qaddafi's ouster or his death, and Americans can be pleased that this feat was accomplished without the loss of a single American life. But didn't the "Mission Accomplished" moment in 2003 in Iraq teach us about the dangers of declaring victory prematurely? We can all hope that the Libyan revolution fulfills its idealistic hopes and avoids the various pitfalls that lie ahead, but it is way too early to start bragging about it, or declaring it the model for future interventions. And if Libya does go south, enthusiasm for the "Obama Doctrine" will fade faster than watercolors in the Libyan sun.
8. North Korea. Obama made North Korea a priority back in 2009, and even appointed one of his "special envoys" to handle that portfolio. Not only has there been scant diplomatic progress ever since, but North Korea engaged in one of its occasional episodes of belligerence last year, sinking a South Korean naval vessel and shelling a South Korean island. Pyongyang's nuclear program remains unconstrained, and China continues to provide North Korea with diplomatic protection. These developments have helped reinforce U.S. relations with our South Korean ally, but Obama has done no better than his predecessors at handling the prickly regime in the North.
9. The World Economy. Not only has Obama failed to get the U.S. economy going again, but the United States has done little to help the rest of the world get out of its present doldrums. There has been little progress in promoting trade liberalization, and European leaders have steadfastly ignored U.S. advice on how to deal with their own fiscal and financial problems. Bilateral trade deals such as the recent pact with South Korea are useful for cementing political ties, but will have modest economic impact. Obama hardly deserves all the blame here, but there's also precious little for which he can take credit.
10. America's Standing. Dan is correct to note that Obama has resurrected the U.S. image from its Bush-era lows, but there really was nowhere to go but up. While it's true that the percentage of people with a favorable view of America has increased almost everywhere except the Middle East, the more important point is that fewer and fewer people trust Uncle Sam's judgment these days. Asian countries still want U.S. protection from a rising China (for good old-fashioned balance of power reasons), but does anybody respect our views on human rights after Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, or our increasing reliance on drone attacks? Who wants to follow our lead on how to run an economy, or regulate the financial sector? American democracy used to attract admiration, but not even Americans are wild about how our political institutions are functioning these days. Obama is obviously more popular abroad than Bush ever was, but the ecstatic hopes that greeted his election (and won him a pre-emptive Nobel Prize) have been dashed and his early charisma has faded. You might give him a passing grade overall on this broad subject, but he doesn't make the honor roll.
Where Dan and I agree, however, is the crucial role of domestic politics. For if you look at the failures listed above, what is striking is that most of them are heavily shaped by domestic constraints. Doing something serious about climate change would have real consequences for business and consumers, and that wasn't going to happen when we are teetering on the brink of another recession. Making progress on Israel-Palestine or on Iran would require bringing in a new Middle East team and taking on the Israel lobby (including the Christianist wing of the GOP), and Obama abandoned that course after the Cairo speech in June 2009. His decisions to escalate in Afghanistan and to try to stay in Iraq were clearly shaped by domestic political concerns, and especially the perennial Democratic fear of being perceived as "weak" on national security. Trade liberalization is always a contentious issue here at home, and especially tough to tackle with a weak economy.
In short, Dan's broader point about Obama's foreign policy successes is insightful: the president has done well in those relatively minor areas where domestic politics do not loom large and where he can exercise unilateral authority. But on the more important and more difficult issues where you would have to convince the American people to follow a new path, he's come up mostly empty.
There is one other "success" that Obama can claim, however, and it forms a revealing subtext to Dan's original post. By combining a center-right approach to foreign policy (akin to Bush's second term) with the inclusive and idealistic rhetoric of Clinton-style multilateralism, Obama has taken foreign policy entirely off the table for the 2012 election. It was never going to be a major issue anyway given the state of the economy, but the GOP simply doesn't have any foreign policy issues on which to attack him without sounding either ignorant or unhinged. That's good news for the president's prospects for re-election, but it won't give foreign policy mavens like Dan and me much to argue about during the campaign itself. Not that this will stop us, of course.
先抢沙发，漫漫看 奥巴驴靠一张嘴就黑白通吃的时代已经过去了！ 奥巴马这次大选是悬乎了 玄了，谁让他没赶上好时候呢 这几任就克林顿比较幸运;P 呵呵，看来布什政府留下的屁股果然很难擦，奥巴马政府用了近4年的时间还没擦干净
页:
[1]