美国的“民主峰会”关注的是民主吗？

Editor's note: A "Summit for Democracy" is to be held by the Biden administration from December 9 to 10. But it is worth noting that countries like China, Russia, Hungary, etc, are not invited. Carlos Martinez, a co-founder of No Cold War campaign and an author and activist based in London, shares his views on why this summit is not entirely about democracy. The views expressed in this video are his and not necessarily those of CGTN.

编者按：美国将于12月9日至10日举办所谓的“民主峰会”，但中国、俄罗斯、匈牙利等国家却未受到邀请。此次“民主峰会”真的关乎民主吗？国际倡议组织“拒绝冷战”的创办者之一卡洛斯·马丁内斯分享了其看法。本文仅代表受访者的观点，不代表CGTN的观点。

Biden tries to shape his political milestone by holding this "Summit (for Democracy)"

——Carlos Martinez

拜登试图通过举行这次“（民主）峰会 ”来塑造自己的政治里程碑。

——卡洛斯·马丁内斯

I think to some extent, the political context in the West is that anti-China propaganda, particularly in the U.S., has reached a stage where politicians seem like they are forced to engage in China-bashing. It's become like a form of populism. The media and politicians have been blaming China for everything - for COVID-19, for unemployment, for declining or slow economic growth.我认为在某种程度上，西方反华宣传的政治环境，特别是在美国，已经达到了政客们似乎被迫参与抨击中国的程度。这已经成为民粹主义的一种形式。媒体和政客一直在把一切问题都归咎于中国，不论是疫情、失业，还是经济下滑或增长缓慢。
So Biden feels that he has to prove to people that he's not going to be soft on China. He made it clear from the start that he planned to continue Trump's basic policy of hostility towards China. But at the same time, Biden wants to put some kind of distance in people's minds between himself and Trump. And he's doing that in two key ways, and both of them sort of feed into the summit.因此拜登觉得他有必要向人们证明自己不会对中国手软。但与此同时，拜登又希望自己在人们心目中的形象能和特朗普有所不同，于是他正通过两种关键方式来做到这一点，而且这两种方式都与“峰会”有关。
On an ideological level, he wants to establish himself as a strong representative of the so-called liberal democratic system, which a lot of people felt was in danger under Trump. So Biden wants to revive the reputation of Western democracy.在意识形态层面，他想把自己打造成所谓的自由民主制度的有力代表。很多人都觉得在特朗普的领导下自由民主制度面临着危险，所以拜登想重振西方民主的声誉。
And the other difference with Trump is that in terms of international relations, Trump was very much a unilateralist. He thought the U.S. should set the agenda, and its allies should follow its lead.拜登与特朗普的另一个区别是，在国际关系方面，特朗普是一个典型的单边主义者，认为美国应该制定议程，盟友都应跟随美国的步伐。
Biden, on the other hand, wants to establish more of a coalition of the U.S. traditional allies, particularly Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan. An obvious example of this is the announcement of this AUKUS pact in September. It's very obviously part of a broader strategy of China containment.而拜登更想与美国的传统盟友之间建立一种联盟，特别是与加拿大、欧洲、澳大利亚、日本，一个明显例子就是9月份宣布成立的所谓“澳美英三方安全伙伴关系（AUKUS）”。这很明显是遏制中国的更广泛战略的一部分。
I think, in a sense, this "Summit for Democracy" brings these elements together. Biden gets to build a pro-U.S., anti-China, anti-Russia club, and at the same time presents the West's very specific version of democracy as a kind of universal truth. I think he may well be hoping that it's going to be a major political milestone of his presidency.我认为，从某种意义上说，这次“民主峰会”把这些因素结合了起来。拜登可以借此建立一个亲美、反华、反俄的俱乐部，并把西方的民主版本当作一种普适的真理。我认为他很可能希望这成为他总统任期内的一个重要的政治里程碑。

The U.S. democratic system has flaws.

——Carlos Martinez

美国的民主制度有缺陷。

——卡洛斯·马丁内斯

The limits of the Western democratic model are increasingly plain for people to see. Under this model, people have the right to vote for one or the other party. But they never really see substantive improvements in their conditions. They can vote for a personality, a party, a brand, but they can't vote for the type of economic and political change that they really need.
西方民主模式的局限性越来越明显。在这种模式下，虽然人们有权投票支持一个或另一个政党，但他们并没有真正看到自己的情况有实质性的改善。他们可以投票给一个人、一个政党、一个品牌，但他们不能投票给自己真正需要的那种经济上和政治上的变革。
Poverty is rising in the West; the number of people living on the streets is increasing every year; life expectancy in the U.S. actually decreased by one year in 2020. And for African Americans, it decreased by three years. There's an epidemic of child poverty - one in six children in the U.S. live in poverty. Did people vote for that? Is that a manifestation of democratic infrastructures collapsing?西方的贫困率正在上升；流落街头的人数每年都在增加；美国的人均预期寿命在2020年实际上缩短了一年；非裔美国人的预期寿命缩短了三年；儿童贫困形势十分严峻，美国六分之一的儿童生活在贫困中。是人们投票支持的这种情况吗？还是说这是民主基础设施崩溃的一种表现呢？
But governments prefer to spend their money, their tax revenue on weapons. The Biden administration has signed off on a military budget of $750 billion for a single year. And at the same time, there are tens of millions languishing in poverty. The Western powers waged brutal wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Did people vote for those wars? Have ordinary people benefited from those wars?但政府却更愿意把纳税人的钱花在武器上。拜登政府已经签署了一年7500亿美元的军事预算。而与此同时，有数千万人在贫困中煎熬。西方大国在伊拉克、南斯拉夫、阿富汗、利比亚、叙利亚发动了残酷的战争，杀害了数十万人。是人们投票支持的这些战争吗？普通人从这些战争中受益了吗？
Meanwhile, the U.S. has by far the largest prison population in the world, and African Americans, again, are several times more likely to be incarcerated than European Americans. Black, Latino, indigenous people suffer significantly lower life expectancy, lower-income (and) higher infant mortality. There are 27 million Americans who don't have access to health care. Did people vote for these things? And could they change it by voting?此外，美国的监狱人口是世界上最多的，且非裔美国人被监禁的可能性比欧裔美国人高数倍。非裔、拉丁裔、原住民的预期寿命大大降低，收入较低，婴儿死亡率较高。有2700万美国人无法获得医疗保健服务。人们为这些事情投票了吗？他们能通过投票改变现状吗？
A truly representative government in the U.S. or Australia or Britain, or Canada would build real rights for its people. Why don't they end homelessness? Why don't they do what China's done and literally employ tens of thousands of people to go into poor neighborhoods and work with families, work with communities to help lift them out of poverty? Why don't they put a huge priority on containing the pandemic and saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? I mean, in the U.S., nearly 800,000 people have died from COVID-19. What can we say about how those people have experienced democracy?在美国、澳大利亚、英国或加拿大，一个真正的具有代表性的政府会为其民众构建真正的权利。他们为什么不管一管那些无家可归的人？他们为什么不借鉴中国所做的事，即雇用数万人进入贫困地区，与家庭合作、与社区合作，帮助他们摆脱贫困？他们为什么不把控制新冠疫情和拯救数十万人的生命作为当务之急？在美国，近80万人死于新冠病毒感染。那些人又经历了什么样的民主？
Background information: According to a new report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, "the U.S. was knocked down a significant number of steps on the democratic scale". Besides, a UN human rights expert says that electoral measures in parts of the U.S., such as Texas, may damage democracy by depriving people of minority groups of the equal right to vote.背景信息：国际民主和选举援助学会（IDEA）的一份新报告指出，“美国的民主倒退了很多步。”此外，一位联合国人权专家说，美国部分地区的选举措施，如得克萨斯州，可能会因剥夺少数群体的平等选举权而损害民主。

The liberal democracy should be re-examined.

——Carlos Martinez

应该重新审视自由主义民主。

——卡洛斯·马丁内斯

I think what the report (by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) says and what people see in Texas is essentially a new set of restrictions that appear to be directly aimed at making it harder for the Black, Latino, and Asian American people to vote.我认为（国际民主和选举援助学会）的报告所说的，以及人们在得克萨斯州所看到的，基本上是一套新的限制措施，其直接目的似乎是为了让非裔、拉丁裔和亚裔美国人更难投票。
Why would authorities in Texas introduce those measures? Because they worry the Black, Latino, and Asian Americans might try to elect people who will represent their interests (and) that will represent the interests of ethnic minorities and poor and working-class communities.为什么得克萨斯州会推出这些措施？因为他们担心非裔、拉丁裔和亚裔美国人可能会试图选出代表他们利益的人或代表少数族裔、穷人及工薪阶层利益的人。
So, I think it's really ironic that, on the one hand, you have this big push by the U.S. to present itself as the world's greatest democracy and the country that essentially gets to define what democracy is.所以，我认为这真的很讽刺，一方面，美国热衷于以世界上最伟大的民主国家自居，热衷于定义什么是民主。
But on the other hand, it's engaged in actively denying the whole community its access to that democracy. So I would urge politicians in the U.S. to listen to their own words and apply basic principles of democracy to their own population.但另一方面，它又极力阻止整个社会获得这种民主。因此，我强烈建议美国政治家听听他们自己说的话，把民主的基本原则用在本国民众身上。

推荐阅读：