小约瑟夫奈最新文章《美国例外论的两面》
发表时间：2018.9.4
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/two-sides-of-american-exceptionalism-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-09
（转载自微信公号“人定湖学者”）
In July, I joined 43 other scholars of international relations in paying for a newspaper advertisement arguing that the US should preserve the current international order. The institutions that make up this order have contributed to “unprecedented levels of prosperity and the longest period in modern history without war between major powers. US leadership helped to create this system, and US leadership has long been critical for its success.”
7月，我与其他43位国际关系学者一起在报纸上作付费广告，这一秩序促成了“前所未有的繁荣和现代史上大国无战事的最长持续时间”。美国的领导力帮助建立了这一体系，也是长期以来保证这一秩序得以成功的关键。
But some serious scholars declined to sign, not only on grounds of the political futility of such public statements, but because they disagreed with the “bipartisan US commitment to ‘liberal hegemony’ and the fetishization of ‘US leadership’ on which it rests.” Critics correctly pointed out that the American order after 1945 was neither global nor always very liberal, while defenders replied that while the order was imperfect, it produced unparalleled economic growth and allowed the spread of democracy.
但一些严肃的学者拒绝签署，不仅是因为这些公开声明在政治上是没有效力的，而是因为他们不同意“美国两党对'自由主义霸权'的承诺以及对其所依赖的'美国领导'的迷恋。”批评者正确地指出，1945年以后的美国秩序既不是全球性的，也不是很自由，而赞成者则认为，虽然秩序不完善，但却产生了无与伦比的经济增长，并使民主得以传播。
Such debates are unlikely to have much effect on President Donald Trump, who proclaimed in his inaugural address that, “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First, America First […] We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”
这样的辩论对唐纳德特朗普总统产生不可能产生大的影响，唐纳德特朗普在就职演说中宣称：“从今天开始，它将只是美国优先，美国第一[...]我们将寻求与美国的友好和善意。但我们的理解是，所有国家都有权将自己的利益放在第一位。”
But Trump went on to say that “we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example.” And he did have a point. This approach can be called the “city on the hill” tradition, and it has a long pedigree. It is not pure isolationism, but it eschews activism in pursuit of values. American power is, instead, seen as resting on the “pillar of inspiration” rather than the “pillar of action.” For example, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams famously proclaimed on Independence Day in 1821 that the United States “does goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
但特朗普接着说，“我们不是要把我们的生活方式强加给任何人，而是要让它作为一个榜样发光发亮。”他说得有道理。这种方法被称为“山巅之城”的意识源远流长，它不是纯粹的孤立主义，但它避开了激进主义的价值追求。美国的权力被认为是“以灵感为柱石”而非“以行动为柱石”。例如美国国务卿约翰·昆西·亚当斯(John Quincy Adams)在1821年的独立日发表了著名的声明，称美国“不会出海去搜寻要毁灭的怪物”。她是自由和独立的祝福者，她是唯一的冠军和维护者。
But the soft power of inspiration is not the only ethical tradition in American foreign policy. There is also an interventionist and crusading tradition. Adams’s speech was an effort to fend off political pressure from those who wanted the US to intervene on behalf of Greek patriots rebelling against Ottoman oppression.
但她并不是美国外交政策中唯一的道德传统，干涉主义和十字军传统是现实存在的，亚当斯的演讲旨在抵御那些希望美国代表希腊爱国者去反对奥斯曼帝国压迫的政治压力。
That tradition prevailed in the twentieth century, when Woodrow Wilson sought a foreign policy that would make the world safe for democracy. At mid-century, John F. Kennedy called for Americans to make the world safe for diversity, but he also sent 17,000 American military advisers to Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been involved in seven wars and military interventions, and in 2006, after the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush issued a National Security Strategy that was almost the opposite of Trump’s, promoting freedom and a global community of democracies.
这一传统在20世纪盛行，当时伍德罗·威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)寻求一种外交政策，以确保世界民主的安全。约翰·f·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)呼吁美国人为了多样化而保护世界安全，但他也向越南派遣了1.7万名美国军事顾问。自冷战结束以来，美国参与了七场战争和军事干预。2006年在入侵伊拉克之后，乔治·w·布什(George W. Bush)发布了一项与特朗普截然相反的国家安全战略，即促进自由和全球民主共同体。
Americans often see their country as exceptional, and most recently President Barack Obama described himself a strong proponent of American exceptionalism. There are sound analytical reasons to believe that if the largest economy does not take the lead in providing global public goods, such goods – from which all can benefit – will be under-produced. That is one source of American exceptionalism.
美国人常常将自己视为特殊国家，最近巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)称自己是美国例外论的强烈支持者。有充分的分析理由相信，如果这个最大的经济体不带头提供全球公共产品，这种所有人都能从中受益的商品将会生产不足。这是美国例外论的一个来源。
Economic size makes the US different, but analysts like Daniel H. Deudney of Johns Hopkins University and Jeffrey W. Meiser of the University of Portland argue that the core reason that the US is widely viewed as exceptional is its intensely liberal character and an ideological vision of a way of life centered on political, economic, and social freedom.
经济规模使美国与众不同，但约翰霍普金斯大学的Daniel H. Deudney和波特兰大学的Jeffrey W. Meiser等分析家认为，美国被视为特殊的核心原因是其强烈的自由主义特征和意识形态愿景。以政治，经济和社会自由为中心的生活方式。
Of course, right from the start, America’s liberal ideology had internal contradictions, with slavery written into its constitution. And Americans have always differed over how to promote liberal values in foreign policy. According to Deudney and Meiser,
当然，从一开始美国的自由主义意识形态就有内部矛盾，奴隶制被写入宪法。美国人一直在外交政策中如何推广自由主义价值观方面存在分歧。
“For some Americans, particularly recent neo-conservatives, intoxicated with power and righteousness, American exceptionalism is a green light, a legitimizing rationale, and an all-purpose excuse for ignoring international law and world public opinion, for invading other countries and imposing governments […] For others, American exceptionalism is code for the liberal internationalist aspiration for a world made free and peaceful not through the assertion of unchecked American power and influence, but rather through the erection of a system of international law and organization that protects domestic liberty by moderating international anarchy.”
“对一些美国人，尤其是新近的新保守主义者而言，他们陶醉于权力和正义之中，美国例外论是一盏绿灯，是一种合法化的理由，是无视国际法和世界舆论，入侵其他国家和强加给其他国家政府的万能借口…但对另一些人来说，美国的例外主义是自由国际主义者对自由和平的世界的渴望，是要通过建立一个国际法和组织体系，通过缓和国际无政府状态来保护国内自由，而不是通过主张美国权力不受控制来保护自由。”
Protected by two oceans, and bordered by weaker neighbors, the US largely focused on westward expansion in the nineteenth century and tried to avoid entanglement in the struggle for power then taking place in Europe. Otherwise, warned Adams, “The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.”
美国在两个大洋的保护下，接壤的邻国实力也较弱，19世纪美国主要集中于向西扩张，并试图避免卷入当时在欧洲发生的权力斗争，否则就会如亚当斯所警告的：“她额头上的前额将不再闪耀着自由和独立的光辉，很快就会代之以一个帝国的王冠，闪烁虚假的和暗淡无光的统治和权力。”
By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, America had replaced Britain as the world’s largest economy, and its intervention in World War I tipped the balance of power. And yet by the 1930s, many Americans had come to believe that intervention in Europe had been a mistake and embraced isolationism. After World War II, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman – and others around the world – drew the lesson that the US could not afford to turn inward again.
而到了20世纪初，美国已经取代英国成为世界上最大的经济体，而它对第一次世界大战的干预打破了力量平衡。到20世纪30年代，许多美国人开始认为对欧洲的干预是一个错误，并接受了孤立主义。二战后，美国总统富兰克林•罗斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)和哈里•杜鲁门(Harry Truman)以及世界其他国家的总统都吸取了这样的教训：美国再也不能闭关自守了。
Together, they created a system of security alliances, multilateral institutions, and relatively open economic policies that comprise Pax Americana or the “liberal international order.” Whatever one calls these arrangements, for 70 years it has been US foreign policy to defend them. Today, they are being called into question by the rise of powers such as China and a new wave of populism within the world’s democracies, which Trump tapped in 2016, when he became the first candidate of a major US political party to call into question the post-1945 international order.
他们共同创建了一个由安全联盟、多边机构和相对开放的经济政策组成的体系，这些政策包括“美国治下的和平”(Pax Americana)或“自由的国际秩序”(liberal international order)。无论人们如何称呼这些安排，70年来美国的外交政策一直在捍卫这些安排。而现在中国等大国的崛起，以及世界民主国家内的新一轮民粹主义浪潮，正令此受到质疑。2016年特朗普利用这股浪潮，成为第一个公开质疑1945年后国际秩序的美国主要政党的候选人。
The question for a post-Trump president is whether the US can successfully address both aspects of its exceptional role. Can the next president promote democratic values without military intervention and crusades, and at the same time take a non-hegemonic lead in establishing and maintaining the institutions needed for a world of interdependence?
对于一个后特朗普时代的总统来说，关键的问题在于美国能否成功处理其特殊角色的两面性。下一任总统能否在不进行军事干预和十字军东征的情况下，促进民主价值观，同时还要以非霸权的方式在建立和维持一个相互依存的国际体系上发挥领导作用?
（本文转载自微信公号“人定湖学者”）