[新聞] 下任美國總統的意義

[pursuistmi (common people)]

標題:What the presidential choice could mean

By Martin Wolf

Published: September 2 2008 19:02 | Last updated: September 2 2008 19:02

We are all Americans now. By this I do not merely mean that the leadership of
the US shapes the world in which we live. The world we live in is the world
the Americans or, more precisely, the Anglo-Americans have made. The US will
retain a huge influence. How will it use it? That is the question we should
ask about the presidential election. The choice also seems clear: it is
between those who expect a world of conflict and those who believe in seeking
co-operation.

我們現在都是美國人。我不只是在說我們活在美國領導下塑成的世界。我們活著的世界
就是美國人（或更精確地說）盎格魯美國人造出的世界。美國保有極大的影響力。美國
要怎麼用他的影響力？這就是這次總統大選應該要提出的問題。選擇項目也很明顯：
選擇那些預期一個充滿爭端的世界的人，或那些相信應該尋求合作的人。

In a brilliant new book, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign
Relations places today’s US in a tradition of global power which originated
in the Netherlands of the 17th century, developed in the Britain of the 18th
and the 19th centuries and continued in the US of the 20th century.* Theirs,
he says, is the “Anglo-American” system.

外交關係委員會的MEAD在他精彩的書裡把今日的美國定位在自十七世紀的荷蘭開始，
發展成十八、十九世紀的英國、以及二十世紀的美國的全球權力傳統內。他認為
那套就是他所謂的「盎格魯美國」系統。

What is this system? It has three central features: it is maritime; it is
global; and it combines commerce with military power. The Anglo-Americans
have a distinctive civilisation: civilian, yet bellicose, commercial, yet
moralistic, individualistic, yet organised, innovative, yet conservative, and
idealistic, yet ruthless. To its foes, it is brutal, shallow and
hypocritical. To its friends, it is the fount of freedom and democracy.

這是什麼系統？這系統有三個中心特徵：海權的、全球的、綜合商業與軍事力量的。
盎格魯美國人有個獨特的文明：平民而好戰的、商業而道德的、個人而有組織的、
創新而保守的、理想而無情的。對他的敵人來說他是兇殘、淺漏、虛假的。對他的
友人來說，他是自由與民主的前線。

Over the past three centuries, the Anglo-Americans have brought to the world
the rule of large countries by executives responsible to elected assemblies.
They brought market-driven capitalism and the ongoing industrial and
technological revolutions. Not least, they overthrew many powerful enemies:
the Spanish empire; royal and imperial France; imperial and Nazi Germany,
militaristic Japan; and, most recently, Soviet communism. They destroyed the
Mughal empire in India, the shogunate in Japan and, indirectly, the last
imperial dynasty of China.

過去三個世紀以來，盎格魯美國人為世界帶來行政官對選民負責的大國制度。他們帶來
市場趨向的資本主義，以及仍在進行的工業與科技革命。他們也推翻過許多強大的敵人
：西班牙帝國、王室與帝制法國、帝制與納粹德國、軍權日本、以及最近的共產蘇聯。
他們摧毀了印度的蒙兀爾帝國、日本的幕府，也（間接地）推翻了中國最後的帝制朝代。

The Anglo-Americans have also confronted many opposing ideologies. Marxism
was just the most important alternative ideology of modernity. Its downfall
as an ideological system offered Francis Fukuyama the chance to write of the
“end of history”. Liberal democracy, he argued, had proved itself to be the
only system consistent with modernity.

盎格魯美國人也對抗了許多相斥的意識型態。馬克斯主義是相對於現代性而言最重要
的意識型態。其作為意識型態系統的衰亡讓法蘭西斯‧福山有機會寫下「歷史的終結」
。他認為，自由派民主已證明了自己是唯一能與現代性匹敵的系統。

The grand historical narrative of the past three centuries has been that of
the Anglo-American revolution and of the reactions it has evoked among the
peoples and civilisations it has destroyed, defeated, humiliated and, above
all, transformed. For this shift in global power was not merely external. The
British and Americans brought with them internal transformation. The greatest
civilisations – Islamic, Indian and even Chinese – were overwhelmed. The
British and Americans are prone to regard their interventions as
well-intentioned and their impact as beneficent. This is not, to put it
mildly, how it has looked to the rest of humanity. One of the virtues of this
book is its appreciation of the contempt and hatred felt, from Louis XIV to
Osama bin Laden and Vladimir Putin, for Anglo-Americans.

過去三世紀的大歷史敘述就是關於盎格魯美國革命，以及其革命在各種人眾之間所激
起的迴響和其所摧毀、擊敗、羞辱，以及（最重要的）其革命所轉化的文明。這個全球
權力變動不只是外部的。英國人和美國人自己也帶給自己內部轉化。最偉大的幾個文明
─伊斯蘭、印度、甚至中國─都承受不住。英國人和美國人傾向認為他們的介入都是
充滿善意，且造成的影響是有建設性的。好聽點說，對於其他人類，這並非如此。這
本書其中的一個優點，就是該書懂得路易十四、賓拉登、以及普丁對於盎格魯美國人的
蔑視和恨意。

So what is the future of this system and of the world it has shaped, in the
21st century? What, too, might this have to do with the presidential election
now under way?

所以，在二十一世紀裡，這個系統的未來，以及他所塑造的世界的未來，會是什麼？這個
問體與正在進行中的總統大選又有什麼關連性？

The first and biggest point is that the world has now largely bought into the
market economy and its corollary of globalisation. This is now transforming
the world’s two giants, China and India. As a result, the US is in relative
economic decline.

第一個也是最重要的一個重點，是這個世界已經進入市場經濟以及全球化（其必然
結果）。這已經轉化了中國和印度這世界的兩大國。結果，則是美國進入相對的經濟
衰退。

Second, the US will, nevertheless, retain the world’s most powerful, most
technologically advanced and most innovative economy over the next quarter
century. It is equally sure to possess the world’s dominant military and so
to remain the biggest global power over this period. It will remain the one
global power.

第二，在接下來四分之一個世紀裡，美國不論如何都會維持世界最強、科技最先進、
經濟最有創新力的國家。美國也穩作世界武力最強大的國家，同時也會維持全球各國
力量最強的國家。美國仍會是唯一的全球強權。

Third, Barack Obama and John McCain are both Americans. Inside the US what
seems striking is their differences. To most of the rest of the world what is
obvious is the similarities. Both represent the Anglo-American tradition,
this being a matter of culture, not of ancestry. They both believe in US
destiny and the beneficence of its great power.

第三，歐巴馬和馬坎都是美國人。在美國國內，最令人訝異的是他們的差異。對世界
各國來說，最明顯的就是他們的相似性。兩人都代表盎格魯美國傳統，這是個文化問題，
不是血緣問題。他們兩人都相信美國的天命，以及美國強大力量能帶來的美好。

Yet they also reflect divergent elements in the tradition: the instincts for
conflict and for co-operation. The first instinct seeks enemies and the
latter deals. The former is manichean and the latter conciliatory.

但，他們也反應此傳統內分歧的元素：對衝突的本能，以及對合作的本能。第一個本能
會尋找敵人，第二個則搞談判。前者是善惡二元論，後者相信和諧。

The Bush administration has been a devotee of the former point of view. it
has even embraced evil – torture, most notably – in order to fight it. Mr
McCain, too, is a warrior against evil. In another fascinating book, Robert
Kagan, most intelligent of the neo-conservatives, has laid out the ground for
a new era of conflict.** The world’s democracies must, argues Mr Kagan,
unite to shape the world, against opposition from “the great autocratic
powers, along with the reactionary forces of Islamic radicalism”. This is an
impressive “axis of evil”, one that links China to Russia, Iran and Osama
bin Laden.

布希政府一向是前者的信徒。該政府甚至還擁抱邪惡─最著名的就是用酷刑─來對抗
邪惡。馬坎也是個對抗邪惡的戰士。在另一本同樣精彩的書裡，最智慧的新保守主義
學者Robert Kagan則譜出了一個以爭端為本的新時代的基礎。世界的民主國家必須要
聯合起來塑造世界，對抗「強大的及集權主義國家，以及伊斯蘭極端主義的反動派力
量」。這是個可觀的「邪惡軸心」，裡頭把中國和俄國、伊朗、和賓拉登畫做一類。

This vision is seductive, plausible and dangerous. It is dangerous because it
could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is dangerous because, as the
world becomes smaller and the challenges of managing the global commons
greater, co-operation is essential. It is dangerous, not least, because the
so-called new autocracies pose no existential threat and offer no compelling
new ideology. This is a huge over-reaction to a modest threat.

這個景象誘人、可能、且危險。這景象是危險的，因為這可能會成為自我實現的預言。
這是危險的，因為世界越來越小，而管理全球共同性的挑戰變大，合作勢在必行。這
願景危險，因為一些所謂新集權主義並不造成生存危機，也沒有提出令人信服的新意
識型態。這願景是對普通威脅的過度反應。

It is reasonable for a westerner to dislike the governmental systems of
China, and Russia. But it is evident to any dispassionate observer that these
are far from being the countries of three decades ago. This is particularly
true of China, which has made a huge bet on integration into the world
economy and the concomitant opening of Chinese society. Whether this will
ultimately lead to a democratic China nobody knows. But it would be a brave
person indeed who ruled it out.

西方人會討厭中國和俄國政府是可理解的。但對任何旁觀的觀察者來說，這兩個國家
與他們三十年前的樣子已經完全不同了。特別是中國：這個國家為了融入世界經濟體
系，以及隨之而來的中國社會開放，下了極大的賭注。這是否會實現一個民主中國，
沒人知道。但誰要把這個可能性排除，必定大膽。

This presidential election might well determine the character of the next,
possibly final, epoch of Anglo-American global hegemony. The question is
whether the American people will choose the instinct for conflict or that for
co-operation.

這次總統大選可能會為下一個（或許最後一個）盎格魯美國世界霸權時代定調。問題是，
美國人在爭端本能或是合作本能之間會作何選擇。

Neither Mr McCain nor Mr Obama will, in practice, embrace just one
alternative. Nor will just one approach be the only answer. But the
difference in tendency is clear. Is the US girding its loins for another
great crusade against evil? Or is it prepared to sit down with the rest of
the world and talk. The right approach for today’s complex world is not that
of those who see agreement and appeasement as synonyms. The choice seems
clear. It will shape our era.

馬坎或歐巴馬都不會真的只採用其中一條路子。兩條路子的任一個都也不會是唯一
答案。但兩者傾向上的差異是明顯的。美國是否正在綁緊束腰準備進行又一次對抗
邪惡的十字軍東爭？或者美國已經準備與世界一起坐下進行對話。對今日複雜的
世界來說，正確的方法不是誰視共識與姑息為同義。選擇相當明顯：選擇會塑出
我們的世紀。

*God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2007); ** The Return of History and the End of Dreams
(London: Atlantic; 2008).

[email protected]

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78274ce0-7917-11dd-9d0c-000077b07658.html


新聞來源:                                 (需有正確連結)

--

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.129.167.223
推 hunmir:感謝分享
推 qilai:皇家跟帝制的差別在哪?
→ qilai:改成王室會比較好...
→ pursuistmi:謝謝指正
※ 編輯: pursuistmi      來自: 140.123.43.212       (09/04 09:35)
噓 jody893011:典型的左派論點，多邊主義、結盟、分散風險。
推 peterander:美國處于轉型期 轉型成功 美國繼續繁榮50年
→ peterander:沒成功 2020年 就開始落寞
→ peterander:下個8年  對于美國未來是至關重要的8年
推 hunmir:不是左，是鴿。
→ hunmir:Martin Wolf是全球化與市場經濟的支持者。
推 chirmanmao:應該是政治左派，經濟右派..FT，經濟學人都是一個老板
→ chirmanmao:所以基本上都是同樣的調調...
推 undusted:其實這一套全世界很少國家會反對,而且97年還搞到
→ undusted:中國大亂,新疆搞爆炸案,廣東鬧獨立,軍區對調
→ undusted:美國想對付其他霸權最好方法就是軟釘子
→ undusted:只有笨蛋才會認為跟俄國中國來硬的可以換來妥協(比方現任
→ undusted:總統)
→ undusted:假如說馬侃又當選,那我也要改變我的牆頭草觀念
→ undusted:準備倒向"軸心國"(俄中第三世界)去了(因為美國人沒救了)
→ undusted:現在還是牆頭草,因為一但歐巴馬當選,我還是相信美國真
→ undusted:可以再主導1/4個世紀,當然美國人要是腦子熱投給馬侃
→ undusted:那有沒有25年我就很懷疑了
推 undusted:感覺好像古代到底要學漢唐的和親政策(左派結盟)
→ undusted:還是要搞宋朝的對抗政策(右派衝突對立)一樣
推 hunmir:1.俄羅斯領導人的腦袋未必合乎時宜。
→ hunmir:2.美國人不是一個集體，法國人也不是，民主擔保了這一切。
→ hunmir:  即使有可恨的美國人與法國人，民主分散了風險。
→ hunmir:3.我不認為這是關於左與右之間的抉擇。
→ hunmir:4.如果這場選戰最後被定調為冷戰時期左右之爭的延續，那太
→ hunmir:  可悲了。(要認清Change的本質)
→ hunmir:6.有兩套關於世界未來的預言，我們有過很多預言了。這裡準
→ hunmir:  備了第三個。
→ hunmir:7.有一天，或許是最樂觀且不切實際的情形下，兩方被綁架的
→ hunmir:  人們將能獨立出來。
→ hunmir:8.但在那之前，實際與程序上我們還是必須作出選擇(做一個
→ hunmir:  較相近的選擇)