经济学人04:The political waning of America 美国在衰落吗?

搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号：tingroom，领取免费英语资料大礼包。

　　文艺；书评；

　　The political waning¹ of America;

　　美国在衰落吗？？？

　　Unconvincing;

　　不足为信；

　　Every Nation For Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World. By Ian Bremmer.

　　《独自为战：G零世界的赢家与败者》，作者伊恩·布雷默

　　Brazil and Turkey, once reliable backers of America's geostrategic goals, conspicuously² went their own way in 2010 when they sought to broker³ a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme, even as America pushed for new sanctions. Their new-found assertiveness⁴ was a product of both their growing economic weight and America's diminished clout⁵.

　　巴西和土耳其都曾经是美国地缘政治中可靠的盟友，但是2010年在美国已经对伊朗推行新的制裁政策时，这两个国家却追求以仲裁和和谈的形式让伊朗走出核危机，这标志着它们开始奉行相对独立的外交政策。这种新的魄力是它们经济增长的结果，也是美国影响力下降的结果。

　　This is an example of what is in store for the world, predicts Ian Bremmer in “Every Nation For Itself”. Countries like Brazil and Turkey want the status of a bigger global role. But they “balk at assuming the risks and burdens” that global leadership entails⁶. Ideally a web of multilateral institutions and laws would impose order and hold wayward countries in line. But with America unable to afford, or unwilling⁷ to exercise, global leadership, and China still not ready to assume its responsibilities, there is no one to enforce these rules.

　　这就是伊恩·布雷默在他新著《各自为战》中所预言的世界。像巴西和土耳其这样的国家想要在全球政治中扮演更重要的角色。但是“他们想要避免领导全球所必须承担的风险和负担”。理想主义的观念认为，一个多元化的组织网络和法律可以带来秩序，让那些不驯服的国家服从。但是随着美国没有能力或者不愿意承担全球领导的角色，而中国目前还没有做好准备承担责任，没有一个国家可以来强制执行这些规则。

　　In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson could divert a fifth of America's wheat crop to alleviate⁸ starvation in India. That could not happen now, when biofuels are aggravating⁹ food shortages and exporters hoard¹⁰ supplies for their own people. Global warming, nuclear proliferation and internet regulation are all harder to address, with the G7 and G20 supplanted¹¹ by what the author calls the “G-Zero”.

　　20世纪60年代，总统林登·约翰逊可以将美国小麦产量的五分之一用于缓解印度的饥荒。现在这根本不可能发生，因为生物燃料的发展正在造成并加剧粮食短缺现象，而且出口商们正为了他们自己的人民储存粮食。随着G7和G20被被作者称为G-0的世界所代替，全球变暖、核扩散以及网络管理等都将是更难处理的问题。

　　Mr Bremmer, founder¹² of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, specialises in big thoughts. His previous books tackled the path that developing countries travel from autocracy¹³ to democracy, and the growth of state-sponsored capitalism¹⁴. “Every Nation For Itself” enters a more crowded field. Innumerable books and essays have already plumbed¹⁵ the consequences of America's loss, or possible loss, of global leadership, with the best providing either fresh insight or original reporting. Unfortunately, “Every Nation For Itself” does neither. It devotes endless pages to describing disparate arenas¹⁶ of global conflict, from cyberspace¹⁷ to water shortages, but these are largely a rehash of headlines and conventional wisdom. Their only purpose is to provide Mr Bremmer with repeated opportunities to assert that “in a G-Zero world” such conflicts can no longer be solved from above.

　　布雷默是一家政治风险咨询机构欧亚集团的创始人，该机构专门从事大的战略思想研究。他的前一本书主要追述了发展中国家从专制独裁到民主的转变以及国有资本主义的增长。而这本《各自为战》进入了一个更加拥挤的领域。已经有无数本专著和论文在探究美国衰落或者可能衰落可能会带来的结果，其中好的著作要么有创新的视角要么在原始材料方面比较突出。但是很不幸，《各自为战》这两方面都没有做到。作者花了大量的篇幅描述全球问题的冲突，从网络空间到水资源短缺，但是这些论述大部分只是对已经报道过的文章和传统观点进行了重新处理。它们唯一的用处只是给布雷默机会让他重复了一个观点，即在G零世界中这些冲突都不可能自上而下得到解决。

　　Mr Bremmer is certainly right that a world without America's global leadership is a more dangerous place, but he overstates his case. Even when it stood alone as the world's superpower, America struggled to impose its will. In 1993 it pulled its troops out of Somalia when murderous warlords foiled its attempts to deliver food relief to the starving country. The global groups that Mr Bremmer imagines once ran the world were seldom that effective. The G7 occasionally influenced the direction of the dollar or the relations between rich countries and the emerging markets, but more often it issued anodyne¹⁸, forgettable communiqués.

　　当然，布雷默认为一个失去美国领导的世界将会更加危险，在这一点上他是正确的，但是关于这一点他却有所夸大了。即使美国独霸世界，美国也很难强制执行它的意志。1993年，当时残忍的军阀阻止美国将粮食救援输送到饥饿的国家时，美国将军队撤出了索马里。可见布雷默所认为的曾经掌控全球的各个团体事实上并没有那么有效。G7峰会偶尔会影响美元的方向或者富裕国家与新兴市场之间的关系，但是更多情况下，它只是发布一些类似于止痛剂一样的公告，那些公告也很快就被会被人们抛诸脑后。

　　Neither America nor the multilateral institutions are as impotent today as Mr Bremmer claims. Brazil and Turkey failed in their negotiation¹⁹ over Iran's nuclear programme. The fact that Iran has been dragged back to the negotiating table and Myanmar is veering²⁰ back towards democracy contradict Mr Bremmer's thesis that sanctions are becoming ever less effective. He is right that the World Bank and the International Monetary²¹ Fund have been weakened by China's growing power. But the opposite is true for the World Trade Organisation²², whose clout has been enhanced significantly by the fact that both America and China abide²³ by its rulings. “Every Nation For Itself” is a useful summary of current events. But as a guide to a complex world, it falls short.

　　其实目前不管是美国还是多国体系都不像布雷默所认为的那样虚弱无力。巴西和土耳其在他们的伊朗科项目问题的谈判中失败了。事实上， 伊朗已经从谈判桌上撤退，缅甸正在向民主的方向转变，这些事实都驳斥了布雷默认为制裁变得无效的观点。他认为世界银行和国际货币基金组织由于中国力量的崛起受到了削弱，这一点是正确的。但是另一方面由于美国和中国都支持世界贸易组织的裁决，所以世贸组织的影响力显著地加强了。《各自为战》对当前重大事务做了很好的总结，但是并没有对当前复杂世界形势提出有益的分析和指导。

分享到：