【英语社会】奥巴马重构世界格局

Who can fail to be impressed by Barack Obama's energy, or a little stunned by his self-confidence? Show this man a financial crisis, sufficient to occupy or overwhelm an ordinary president, and he sees the chance to “remake” – as he puts it – the entire US economy. You might dismiss that as rhetorical exuberance, but it becomes ever more apparent that his ambition is real. For good or ill, he means to do it.

In foreign policy, one sees the same disposition – the same appetite, the same willingness to bring new thinking to old problems. In recent days, the administration has conceived a spate of new approaches and initiatives.

Just as the financial breakdown is too small a domestic canvas, so Iraq and Afghanistan – where the US currently has most at stake and which constitute by themselves a crushing workload – are too mild a test. The White House has recently made approaches to Cuba and Iran, alongside diplomatic “resets” on Mexico and Latin America, Russia, China, the Middle East, Nato, global summitry, global warming, the international financial institutions and almost anything you care to name.

In every case, Mr Obama seems to say, this administration starts afresh – and if it can break with the diplomatic and strategic failures of George W. Bush, remaking the world as well as the US economy is so much the better.

In domestic policy, an organising principle directs the innovation. Mr Obama wants to shove the US in the direction of a more social democratic – Americans say “progressive” – social contract, with universal healthcare and a tax and benefits system much more attuned to reducing inequality. Whether this is wise, feasible or what the country even wants is questionable, but the connecting theme is clear.

Is any such theme emerging in foreign policy? Can one begin to talk of an “Obama doctrine”?

If style and temperament can constitute a doctrine, the answer is yes. The intellectual traits that Mr Obama says he most prizes in himself and those around him are pragmatism and perseverance. Many would say that Mr Bush also had perseverance, carried to the point of dull-witted obstinacy, but nobody ever accused him of pragmatism. Mr Obama's willingness to start anew, ask what works, offer respect to governments that crave it (even if they may not deserve it) and patiently seek progress where he may is refreshing.

One aspect of this pragmatism is the president's desire to build alliances and cool old enmities, and work towards US aims through co-operation rather than confrontation. The trouble is, most US presidents – including Mr Obama's predecessor – felt the same way until the world beat it out of them. Foreign policy doctrine is put to the test only when co-operation in pursuit of mutual interests fails to achieve results, and the hard choices that Mr Obama insists he is willing to make actually present themselves.

Though it is much too soon to write off Mr Obama's friendly overtures, you could hardly describe them so far as a notable success. He travelled to Europe this month and received ovations at every step; presidents and prime ministers jostled like giddy teenagers to be photographed with him. Yet he went away with nothing: no co-ordinated fiscal stimulus; no meaningful commitments of new military support in Afghanistan. Judged by the outcome, could his predecessor have done much worse?

The world agreed that North Korea's missile test should be opposed; the US even hinted it might shoot the rocket down. The launch went ahead without repercussions. The US and its allies could not agree on a response.

The world believes that Iran should be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, but the allies drag their feet over sanctions. Privately, the US tells Russia it would not build missile defence sites in Poland or the Czech Republic if it received help on Iran in exchange; publicly, Russia says no. Next, the new administration tries outreach, signalling a willingness to talk to Iran without preconditions – and an American-Iranian journalist is sentenced to eight years in jail for spying. At this, Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, say they are “deeply disappointed”.

The persevering president will no doubt keep plugging away and for a while will be right to do so. The new opportunities afforded by his global popularity are worth exploring – where this can be done at low cost.

In Iran, despite the great stakes, there is not much to lose because the Bush administration's unyielding line had failed in any case. The debacle in Iraq rendered the threat of US military intervention not credible: Israel permitting, Iran was on track to get its nukes regardless. On many other issues as well – Cuba is an obvious instance – the preference for confrontation over co-operation has failed to advance US goals. In both Cuba and Iran, moreover, the US and its foes have real interests in common, so a warming of relations is at least possible. More generally, as Mr Obama would doubtless point out, most nations have a shared interest in peace and security.

Unfortunately, not all are as willing as the US to pay for them. Soon, the leaders who say they so admire Mr Obama will have to return more than warm feelings. Europe should bear more of the burden in Afghanistan. Iran would be better induced to co-operate if US overtures were combined with solidarity among the allies should those overtures be rejected. If US allies keep demanding the benefits of co-operation without the costs, Mr Obama's respect for them will evaporate and so will his country's – and that will be that for the Obama doctrine on foreign policy.

谁能不对巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)的干劲印象深刻？或对他的自信而略感震惊？让这个男人面对一场足以让一般总统手忙脚乱或不知所措的金融危机，他看到的是“重构”（用他自己的话）整个美国经济的机会。你或许会不以为然，认为这不过是华丽的说辞，但情况越来越明显，他的野心是真实的。无论好坏，他确实打算这么做。

在外交政策方面，我们看到了同样的倾向——同样的给老问题带来新思路的欲望和意愿。近些日子以来，奥巴马政府祭出了一连串新措施和新行动。

正如金融问题不是一个多大的国内问题一样，伊拉克和阿富汗问题——眼下美国在上述两个地区的利害关系尤为重要，而且两者本身的工作量已经让美国政府不堪重负——也算不上什么考验。白宫最近与古巴和伊朗进行了接洽，还“重新安排”了美国在墨西哥及拉丁美洲、俄罗斯、中国、中东、北约、全球峰会、全球变暖和国际金融机构等问题上的外交政策，几乎涉及你所能列举出的任何问题。

每一次，奥巴马似乎都在表示，这届政府是从头开始的——而且如果它能够摆脱乔治•布什(George W. Bush)的外交与战略失败，那么美国经济和世界的重构就会更好。

在国内政策方面，一种组织性原则指导着政策创新。奥巴马希望推动美国走向更加社会民主化的（也就是美国人嘴里的“进步的”）契约社会，实施全民医疗保健和与缩小贫富差距的宗旨更协调的税收和福利制度。这是否明智、是否可行、乃至这个国家是否想要，都值得怀疑，但其中的脉络十分清晰。

那么外交政策中是否出现了类似的脉络呢？我们是不是可以开始讨论一种“奥巴马教义”了呢？

如果风格和禀性能够构成一种教义的话，那么答案是肯定的。奥巴马表示，在自己和周围人身上，他最欣赏的智性特征是实用主义和锲而不舍。许多人会说，布什也曾经锲而不舍，甚至达到了愚蠢固执的程度，但从没有人认为他是个实用主义者。奥巴马愿意重新开始，寻找有效方法，给予希望获得尊重的政府以尊重（即使它们并不配得到尊重），尽其所能耐心寻求进展，这让人耳目一新。

这种实用主义，体现了奥巴马寻找新盟友、消除旧敌意的愿望，以及通过合作而不是对抗来实现美国的目标。问题是，大多数美国总统——包括奥巴马的前任——都曾经这样想，直到现实世界击破了他们的理想。只有以追求互利互惠的合作未能取得成果，奥巴马强调自己愿意做出的艰难选择成为事实时，外交政策原则才会真正受到考验。

虽然否认奥巴马的友好表示还为时过早，但你目前也很难说这些表示取得了显著成功。奥巴马出访欧洲，在每一站都受到了热烈欢迎，各国总统和首相就像头脑发昏的年轻人一样抢着与他合影。然而，他离开时却没有带走任何成果：没有协调一致的财政刺激，没有在阿富汗提供新军事支持的有意义承诺。以结果来判断，他前任的表现会差得很多吗？

全世界都同意，应该反对朝鲜的导弹试射；美国甚至暗示可能会击落火箭。但发射行动继续推进，没有造成任何反响。美国及其盟友无法就回应达成一致。

全世界都认为，应该阻止伊朗发展核武器。但同盟国却迟迟不愿实施制裁。私下里，美国向俄罗斯表示，如果能换得俄罗斯在伊朗问题上的帮助，美国不会在波兰或捷克建设导弹防御基地。但俄罗斯公开表示拒绝。接下来，新政府尝试采取出格行动，示意愿意无条件与伊朗展开对话——结果一位美裔伊朗记者因从事间谍活动被判处8年监禁。对这一事件，奥巴马及国务卿希拉里•克林顿(Hilary Clinton)表示他们“深感失望”。

这位锲而不舍的总统无疑还会不懈努力，而且在一段时间内，他这么做是正确的。他的全球声望所提供的新机遇值得探索——前提是不用付出很高的代价。

在伊朗问题上，虽然事关紧要，但由于布什政府毫不让步的方针已告失败，所以无论怎样也不会有太多损失。在伊拉克的彻底失败使美国武力干涉的威胁失去了可信度：只要以色列允许，伊朗无论如何都有望获得核武器。同样，在其它许多问题上——古巴就是一个明显例证——不愿合作而选择对抗的做法未能帮助美国实现目标。此外，在古巴和伊朗，美国及其宿敌存在切实的共同利益，因此关系回暖至少是可能的。更宽泛的说，就像奥巴马本人必定会指出的那样，大多数国家对和平与安全都有共同的兴趣。

不幸的是，不是所有国家都像美国那样愿意为和平与安全付出代价。很快，那些宣称自己对奥巴马无限景仰的领导者们就不能只拿好感作为回报。欧洲应该在阿富汗问题上承担更多责任。如果在美国的友好表示之外还能辅以盟国的团结一致，以防这些表示遭到拒绝，就更有可能诱使伊朗合作。如果美国的盟友们继续要求不付出代价就得到合作的好处，奥巴马及美国人民对他们的敬意会很快消逝——奥巴马的外交政策教义也就到此为止了。

译者/管婧