美国外交政策的失败

https://thesciencesurvey.com/editorial/2023/01/18/the-failures-of-americas-foreign-policy/

由于糟糕的外交政策决定，美国在全球舞台上的影响力几十年来首次下降，而我们已经没有时间阻止这种情况了。

奥利弗·惠兰，本刊记者|2023 年 1 月 18 日

总统 约翰 肯尼迪+与国家安全理事会执行委员会成员会面,关于古巴的危机,10月1962, 被视为黄金时代的美国实力和国际关系。

1962 年 10 月，约翰·F·肯尼迪 (John F. Kennedy) 总统就古巴危机会见了国家安全委员会 (EXCOMM) 执行委员会成员，当时的时代被视为美国实力和国际关系的黄金时代。

作为美国人，我们不断被提醒我们国家最近的失败。 在新闻中，大胆的印刷标题描述了最新的挫折。 由于即将到来的经济衰退，投资组合贬值，股市下跌。 即使在国内，由于石油制裁和供应削减，能源和燃料费用也飙升。 我们的国际盟友也遭受苦难； 乌克兰正在抵御俄罗斯的入侵，一些人认为这是现任总统约瑟夫·R·拜登的错；台湾面临与中国的战争威胁；欧洲国家开始对美国保护他们的能力失去信心，这导致 他们以危险程度的军事化来弥补。 无可否认，全世界都感受到了美国衰弱的影响，现在是时候面对一个残酷的事实了：美国的外交政策正在失败，我们已经没有时间对此采取行动了。

二十年前，如果你说美国在未来几十年不会成为卓越的超级大国，没有人会相信你。 现在，美国似乎只是在争夺全球主导地位的竞赛中落后于中国和俄罗斯的竞争对手。 中俄联盟的加强令欧洲感到震惊，因为它们的经济和军国实力综合起来可以与北约相抗衡，进而可以与美国相抗衡。为了使这种关系更加复杂，中国和俄罗斯努力与阿富汗等反美国家建立关系。 将势力范围扩大到可能对美国国际安全构成威胁的地区。

美国人知道这种权力转移不是一夜之间发生的，甚至不是单一总统任期的结果。 自本世纪初以来，我们目睹了落后的政策、国际让步以及对外部依赖的强调削弱了美国的诚信。 但直到现在我们才开始感受到它的影响。

我与美国企业研究所公共政策智囊团的高级研究员迈克尔·鲁宾进行了交谈，他同意：美国的外交政策已不再像以前那样有效。 “美国已经有四分之一个多世纪没有实施连贯的战略了，”他说。 “要么国务院完全是被动反应而不是主动出击，要么是乔治·W·布什的民主议程等战略完全没有得到实施。” 这是真的。 许多人都认为，美国在 1990 年代参与《代顿协议》，结束了波斯尼亚长达四年的战争，是美国外交政策的最后一次伟大胜利。

“冷战期间，美国非常非常积极地参与欧洲和亚洲其他国家的事务。 [美国]深入参与这些国家并支持他们的政府，向他们投入大量资金和投资，特别是为了对抗俄罗斯而向这些国家投入军事资源，”该委员会的一位研究员解释道。 不愿透露姓名的外交关系（CFR）人士。 “当 9/11 发生时，我认为这是一个巨大的冲击，因为美国意识到我们并不是无敌的，我们很脆弱，即使在我们的祖国也是如此。”

大多数美国人认为2000年是美国实力的顶峰，但他们也同意此后一切都走下坡路。 《晨报》进行的一项调查显示，美国人在那一年感受到了“更大的安全感”，考虑到美国在冷战结束近十年后刚刚成为世界唯一的超级大国，这是有道理的。 次年，9/11 的袭击使美国摆脱了短暂的无可争议的实力时期，进入了一个新的战争时代和美国中心主义意识增强的时代。 正如40年代的珍珠港袭击和50年代的“核恐怖”让美国进入了一个新阶段一样，9月11日改变了美国，从此以后情况就不一样了。

“[这些攻击]让我们变得更加防御性，并且不太关注与他人一起环游世界，”CFR 解释道。 “我们仍然非常关注国际关系，但这让我们更加脆弱

d让美国更加担心可能的威胁。”

来自全球各地的一个非政府实体对美国本土造成的损害比两次世界大战和与俄罗斯的核对峙还要严重。 2001年后，人们自然而然地倾向于采取更加防御性和以自我为中心的政策。“美国优先”意识形态由此重新出现。 该术语由伍德罗·威尔逊 (Woodrow Wilson) 在 1916 年总统竞选中创造。 尽管“美国优先”的出现大约一个世纪前，但它仍然吸引了 9/11 事件后的政策制定者，因为正如威尔逊的意图，该政策强调不干涉主义，而且许多人认为美国干涉中东，例如美国与以色列的关系 经常被称为“反伊斯兰”的国家引发了这些袭击。

今天，我们仍然感受到民族主义和不干涉主义对我们外交政策的影响。 就在几年前，前总统唐纳德·J·特朗普制定了一项重点关注“美国优先”的外交政策。 在整个任期内，他优先考虑的是让美国受益，这意味着放弃许多联盟和伙伴关系，往往会导致国际关系的削弱。

我采访了乔治城大学政府与外交事务学教授兼政府系主任安东尼·阿伦德（Anthony Arend），他详细阐述了以自我为中心的美国的影响。 “这种[‘美国优先’]理念——在美国历史上并不新鲜——产生了灾难性的影响。 它赋予普京入侵乌克兰的权力，并可能让许多国家的独裁者更加胆大妄为。 此外，这让我们的盟友怀疑我们是否是可靠的联盟伙伴。”

每次新总统就职时都会大幅改变外交政策，这是最近的总统趋势。 特朗普在总统任期内以撤销许多前总统巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)的协议而闻名，比如《巴黎气候协议》和《北美自由贸易协议》(NAFTA)，他表示这些协议迫使美国做出让步。 现在，拜登总统试图通过重新加入《巴黎协定》并重新开放中断的外交关系来扭转特朗普的一些变化。 尽管如此，由于美国外交政策中的这种“忽冷忽热”的动态引起了国际社会的厌倦，已经造成了重大损害。 最重要的是，过去两届总统的任期标志着一个更大的主题：美国的削弱和内部结构反过来对我们的国际关系产生了负面影响。

虽然美国政治两极分化何时开始尚不确定，但我们知道，前总统特朗普 2016 年的竞选引发了前所未有的政治分歧。 这种疏远超出了选民的范围。 在前总统特朗普提名艾米·科尼·巴雷特、布雷特·卡瓦诺和尼尔·M·戈萨奇之后，最高法院目前以 6 比 3 的共和党多数席位。 我们还看到其他政府机构，如国会，由于两极分化而越来越难以达成一致并通过立法，这阻碍了整体进展。

CFR 继续说道：“由于这个国家如此分裂，共和党和民主党如此两极分化……因此，通过需要两党支持的国际关系法案或协议变得越来越困难。” 有趣的是，在外交政策方面，右翼倾向于民族主义（并且越来越“美国优先”），而左翼则倾向于干预主义，尽管双方最终都朝着同一目标努力。 “我认为[‘美国优先’]的概念背叛了自己，”CFR 补充道。 “我的意思是，‘美国优先’的理念是，不要在世界各地投入这么多资金和军事资源……让我们关注我们自己的公民。 我认为问题是，因为我们是世界上最强大的国家。 如果美国真正实施“美国优先”政策，那么俄罗斯和中国等国家将在全球舞台上采取更积极的做法，因为我们无法阻止他们。”

虽然政治光谱双方都认为自己的外交政策比对方更有效，但事实上，两者都不是特别好。 这是因为美国政府，特别是在处理国际关系时，严重依赖内部协作，不仅是政党的协作，还有战略、理念等各个方面的协作。 我们已经看到，一个分裂的政府在面对真正的全球逆境——COVID-19 时是如何崩溃的。 我们的 COVID-19 大流行应对措施是灾难性的失败，仅仅是因为政府无法就如何应对这一威胁达成一致。

鲁宾先生也强调了合作的重要性，他表示：“外交永远不会单独发挥作用。 战略家谈论 DIME 模型：每项战略都应包含外交、信息、军事和经济组成部分。 美国人通常会按顺序排列策略，但实际上整体总是大于部分之和。 以伊朗为例。 特里伊

外交固然很好，但在达成协议之前解除制裁是否会降低影响力，从而使达成良好协议变得更加困难？”

尽管美国外交政策面临的最迫在眉睫的威胁是内部分裂，但美国必须努力克服的迫在眉睫的威胁却是中国。 近年来，中国已成为世界第一大经济体，超过美国约20%。 由于中国人口已经是美国的四倍多，而技术先进性和军国主义资产才是中国与美国的区别因素，许多人表示，中国超越美国成为世界新强国只是时间问题。 超级大国。 当然，按照我们目前的轨迹，美国正在落后。

很难预测中国作为唯一超级大国的世界会是什么样子，但很明显，如果这种情况发生，美国将失去其外交“黄金时代”中残留的大部分全球影响力。 我们已经开始看到中国将其影响力扩展到亚洲以外并进入遥远的国家，特别是非洲国家。 可以预见，像伊朗核协议谈判这样的例子，美国被迫做出让步才能达成协议，但即便如此，协议也只是让双方都感到不安。 最近，美国和伊朗讨论了重新开启谈判的问题，但这一次，中国更多地参与其中。

如果有的话，这意味着美国现在比以往任何时候都更必须回归与外国合作的根源。 无论哪个国家更强大，美国的国际参与已经并将继续是维护全球和平的重要方面。 我们未来几十年的外交政策必须强调国内外合作。

美国必须自力更生。 现在，美国在外交政策方面缺乏统一战线，这只会反过来伤害我们。 “并非所有事情都应该成为刀耕火种的政治战争的主题，”鲁宾先生表示同意。 “政客们应该为了美国的利益而在幕后工作。 在媒体聚光灯之外就战略达成共识至关重要……[此外，]参议院应该更加认真地发挥其监督作用，就像卡特和里根时代那样，当时高层领导人跨党派合作，拒绝允许国家干预 部门自主权可以追求最坏的本能而不产生任何后果。”

在这个充满变化和不确定性的时代，美国向过去寻找答案，重新提出“美国优先”和民族主义等理念。 这一解决方案带来的只是国际关系的恶化和国际舞台影响力的下降。 如果美国想在未来几十年保持影响力，我们不仅必须适应我们可能不再是卓越超级大国的想法，而且还要进行内部变革。 只有这样，我们的外交政策才能像几个世纪以来那样成功地保护美国的完整性。

“并非所有事情都应该成为刀耕火种的政治战争的主题……政客们应该为了美国的利益而在幕后工作。 在媒体聚光灯之外就战略达成共识至关重要……[此外，]参议院应该更加认真地发挥其监督作用，就像卡特和里根时代那样，当时高层领导人跨党派工作，拒绝允许国家这样做 美国企业研究所公共政策智囊团的高级研究员迈克尔·鲁宾（Michael Rubin）表示：“部门拥有自主权，可以追求最坏的本能而不产生任何后果。”

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.

Cecil Stoughton, White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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.