评论 | 美国大选解析：对军事力量的依赖在美国内政外交中扮演着什么角色？

Editor's note: The 2020 U.S. presidential election is a once-in-a-lifetime event to watch. The American public and politicians are drowning in international conflicts, domestic crises, political divide and civil unrest. The U.S. and its relationship with other countries and the international system today stand at a crossroads. What's in store for us from now until November 3? What will the future look like after this crucible? CGTN is inviting scholars from U.S. think tanks and universities to break down the election and share their views on its various aspects. This is part fourth of the series, with Andrew Bacevich explains the role of interventionism - the reliance on military force - in American politics and foreign policy. He is the president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University. The opinions expressed here are his own, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

编者按：2020年美国总统大选是人生难得几回见的大事，确实值得关注。美国民众和政治家们正在疲于应对国际冲突、国内危机、政治分歧和骚乱。美国及其外交关系、当今的国际体系全都处在十字路口。美国将面临哪些考验？经历了这些考验之后，未来又会是怎样的呢？CGTN邀请来自美国智库和大学的学者对此次大选进行剖析，分享他们对大选各方面的看法。本篇是《美国大选解析》系列的第四部分，安德鲁·巴切维奇解析了对军事力量的依赖在美国内政外交中扮演的角色。巴切维奇是美国昆西国家事务研究所所长和波士顿大学国际关系和历史学荣誉教授。本篇仅代表专家观点，不代表本台观点。

Dr. Martin Luther King once warned about "racism, extreme materialism and militarism" in the United States. Do you think these illnesses are still affecting the U.S. today?

马丁·路德·金博士曾经提醒人们注意美国的“种族主义、极端物质主义和军国主义”， 你认为如今这些问题是否还在影响美国？

Dr. King at that famous presentation denounced militarism, materialism, and racism, and I think it is, from the perspective of this conservative, fair to say that that indictment still applies. Now, the George Floyd killing and other similar incidents have, in this moment, evoked a greater awareness of the legacy of racism in American society. That’s a good thing. 

金博士在那场著名的演讲中谴责军国主义、物质主义和种族主义。站在我这位保守派人士的角度上看，这种控诉仍然适用。当今，乔治·弗洛伊德的死亡以及其他类似事件让民众更清醒地认识到美国社会中种族主义的问题。这是件好事 

What hasn’t happened, I think, is an awareness of the problems of materialism and militarism. I think the policies of Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama gave us Donald Trump. In other words, the policies of interventionism - the great reliance on using military force - that by 2016 had produced the so-called endless wars. And that created the opportunity for Donald Trump to advertise himself as the president who is going to end endless wars which, of course, he has not done. 

但民众对物质主义和军国主义问题的认识依然尚未觉醒。我认为克林顿、小布什和奥巴马等人的政策导致了唐纳德·特朗普的上台。换句话说，极大依赖于军事力量的干预主义政策到2016年酿成了所谓的无限战争。这为唐纳德·特朗普创造了机会。他将自己标榜为结束无限战争的总统。当然，他并没有说到做到。

Our penchant for relying on armed force, particularly as an instrument of foreign policy, dates back to World War II, the World War II as the American people have been coached to remember it. So the so called lessons of World War II, compounded by the lessons of the Cold War, compounded by the experience of the post-Cold War era have created a sense of expectations that armed forces are strong suit. And therefore, there’s this rarely questioned inclination to spend lots of money on the military, to design the military as an instrument for projecting power as opposed to simply defending the United States, to maintain this broad network of bases, to export vast amounts of arms. 

我们习惯于使用武力，特别是作为外交政策工具。这种现象可以追溯到第二次世界大战那种美国民众被教育灌输的“第二次世界大战”。因此所谓二战的经验教训和冷战的经验教训，以及后冷战时期的经验教训，让民众觉得拳头硬才是王道。这导致美国很少质疑庞大的军费开支；很少质疑将军队打造成为施加影响力，而非单纯为了保卫美国的工具的行为；很少质疑维持广泛的全球军事基地网络和大量出口武器。 

And sadly, that set of practices doesn’t get a lot of critical attention. It’s just more or less, in Washington, accepted as the way we do business. 

遗憾的是，这套做法并没有引起足够多的关注和批评。在华盛顿，官员们只是将其视作美国一贯的行为方式。

What's your opinion on the argument that "it is in the U.S.' national interests to maintain a dominant position in the world"?
你如何看待“保持世界主导地位符合美国的国家利益”这种说法？  

Well, I don’t think we do maintain a dominant position in the world. When the Cold War ended, such claims were made. There was a claim made that we could describe the world as a unipolar order, that the United States was the sole superpower. I think that was always an illusion. And even to the extent that it had some substantive merit in the 1990s, it has none today. 

我不认为美国在世界上占据主导地位。冷战结束时，有人提出这样的主张，声称世界已经走向单极化，美国是唯一的超级大国。我认为那始终是一种错觉。即便这种说法在1990年时还讲得过去，今天还这么说肯定就不对了。

Ours is a multipolar order. The United States is still a very important player in that multipolar order, but we’re not the only one. Obviously, China is another. And then there is a very important, what we might call, second tier. Now, who is in the second tier? Well, Japan, the EU, Russia, probably we should add India, Turkey, and so on. None of these nations can be ignored, can be set aside. And so if there is any hope for having this international stability in the 21st century, It’s going to come as a result of taking into account the vital interests of all of these different nations, so that everybody is satisfied. 

我们生活在一个多极世界中。在多极秩序中，美国仍然是一个非常重要的大国，但并不是唯一一个。显然，中国是另一个重要的大国。还有一些国家也很重要，我们可以称之为第二梯队国家。现在哪些国家和地区在第二梯队？包括日本、欧盟、俄罗斯，也许还应该加上印度、土耳其等。这些国家都不容忽视，不能将他们撂在一旁。因此，如果希望在21世纪实现国际和平稳定就必须通盘考虑这些国家的切身利益，让大家都感到满意。

I think that, you know, challenge of doing that is just enormous. And again, the challenge becomes more urgent when we factor in problems like climate change. So, all the talk of a global dominion, unipolar order, sole superpower, that just all gets in a way of serious thinking about the problems that we are facing in this century. 

这是一项艰巨的任务。此外，气候变化等问题使得上述任务显得更为紧迫。所有关于全球主导权、单极秩序、唯一超级大国的言论都会妨碍我们认真思考本世纪我们所面临的问题。

Do you think this kind of army-oriented policy has truly kept American citizens safe? Do you think the U.S.' security challenges are changing?
你认为这种以军事为导向的政策能否真正保证美国公民的安全？你是否认为美国面临的安全挑战正在发生变化？  

Well, yes. And there is no question, I think, that the security challenges facing the United States are changing. And the pandemic - one of the reminders of that change – we were not prepared, we did not respond well, and so we ended up with over 200,000 dead Americans. It’s a catastrophic failure. 

没错，毫无疑问美国面临的安全挑战正在发生变化。此次疫情让我们意识到了我们没有做好准备，我们应对不力。这导致20多万美国人死于疫情。这是灾难性的失败 

And it’s a failure, in some respects, reflected misplaced priorities. So there is a new national security agenda that is begging to be recognized, and disease is going to have a place on that agenda, climate is going to have a place on that agenda, the movement of populations is going to have a place on that agenda, and so are more traditional concerns, like terrorism or great power rivalry. I don’t think that the national security establishment in the United States has yet fully embraced the complexity of this new environment that is emerging. 

从某些方面来看，这一失败反映出政府本末倒置。各界迫切地需要认清和制定新的国家安全议程。这项议程必须包括疾病问题、必须包括气候问题、也必须包括移民问题，当然也包括传统安全挑战、例如恐怖主义和大国博弈等。我认为美国国家安全机构尚未完全领悟到新形势下问题的复杂性。  

National security elites need to be open to learning, and they’re not - or at least sufficiently. And so we fixate on traditional security concerns. And I think there is a strong argument to be made that, in the 21st century, it’s the non-traditional security concerns that are actually going to pose a greater threat to the well-being of the American people. That doesn’t mean you ignore traditional concerns. It means that you need to be able to do more things at the same time. 

国家安全方面的领导人和精英们需要虚心学习。美国在这方面做得不好，至少做得不够充分。因此，我们只盯着传统安全问题。我强烈认为在21世纪，非传统安全问题实际上会对美国人民的福祉构成更大的威胁。这并不意味着忽略传统威胁，而是要多管齐下，同时应对不同类型的挑战。

推荐阅读：