看来他终究不是吉米•卡特(Jimmy Carter)。美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)上周与俄罗斯总统德米特里•梅德韦杰夫(Dmitry Medvedev)在捷克首都布拉格签署了一项战略核裁军条约。本周他在华盛顿迎接世界各地的50位领导人，共商加强有关核安全的安排。同时他还公布了一项新的军事战略，大幅收窄了美国动用核武的想定范围。
换言之，现在奥巴马看起来像是一位对自己要办的事情颇有把握的领导人。这三件事标志着他一年前在布拉格勾画的路线上的一个重要站点。我们距离他当时倡议的“无核世界”仍很遥远。但我们已经不再朝着错误的方向走下去了。最近这些举措恢复了多边裁军的势头。《核不扩散条约》破裂的必然性看起来不那么大了。
这在一定程度上扭转了奥巴马的形象。仅仅两个月前，丑化嘲讽奥巴马还是家常便饭。那时候，即使是同情的观察家，也狠狠地把他与卡特时代的外交政策灾难相提并论。他们提出，奥巴马上任头一年忙于发表有关如何恢复美国威望的演讲，看来他注定要用第二年来解释自己为何失败。
奥巴马热衷协商的作风，与现代政治文化中的急躁心态格格不入。这种文化是由24小时滚动新闻塑造而成的。他不是承诺要推动中东和平、说服伊朗理智行事吗？然而，以色列和巴勒斯坦并没有离达成协议更近一步，伊朗也在继续制造核弹。批评奥巴马的阵营不断壮大。在这些人看来，接触政策看上去可疑地像是绥靖。
失败的观感总是过早。与不耐烦一样，它反映了一种不现实的信念，认为世界上最强大的国家永远能够摆平一切。如果说过去有过这种格局，那么在新强国陆续崛起、挑战美国霸权的时代，现实就肯定不是这样了。
不是所有外交政策挑战——不管是伊朗核野心、阿富汗战争，还是阿拉伯和以色列的冲突——都能够“解决”。有些只能加以控制。乔治•凯南(George Kennan)提出“遏制”的说法，用于框定美国在冷战期间的政策，就是这个道理。美国与竞争的大国（不管是俄罗斯还是中国）之间的双边关系总会充满坎坷。
奥巴马的转机出现在医改法案通过的时候。没有人能够指责评论员前后说法不一：一位陷于困境的领导人，一夜之间变成了一位巨人，取得了许多最杰出的前任都未能取得的成就。
这些事会产生连锁效应。很难肯定地说，假如奥巴马还在国会的战壕中苦战，中国国家主席胡锦涛会同意出席本周的华盛顿峰会。外交界的朋友说，大概不会。
无论如何，奥巴马在国内已重新树立政治威信的观感，意味着他在海外也更加受到重视。从一些迹象看，美国经济有望以相当强劲的势头走出全球衰退，这也对奥巴马有利。民主党看来仍会在中期选举输掉一些地盘，但全盘皆输的局面已经不像几周前看起来那么难免了。
就总统本人来说，在取得医改胜利一事上，奥巴马展现出了以往没有的坚韧精神。一位精明的华盛顿人对我说，奥巴马不再表现得像一位总理，而开始像一位总统那样行事了。
在政治上，成功会带来下一个成功。但是，就像几周前把他贬得一无是处很愚蠢一样，现在幻想今后他将一帆风顺也是错误的。奥巴马此前关于外交政策的见解是：在维护全球安全上，美国是至关重要、但力不从心的大国。这意味着美国将经常不得不妥协。
去年7月，我把奥巴马比作同时下好几盘棋的象棋大师。他不是依次应对外交政策挑战，而是在所有重要棋局上都开了局。后来这个比喻流行了起来。现在用它来形容奥巴马的做法依然恰当。然而，每一盘棋都证明比他原来想象的更难走。
美国政府太晚才告诉以色列总理本杰明•内塔尼亚胡(Benjamin Netayahu)，停止在巴勒斯坦占领地建设定居点，是围绕“两国制”解决方案展开谈判的必要条件之一。然而，这本身不能保证事情会取得进展，尤其是因为巴勒斯坦方面尚未表现出认真寻求和解的意思。
如果奥巴马希望给自己一个真正的机会，去促成一项和平协议，他就必须提出自己的建议，作为谈判基础。他还必须设法引导巴勒斯坦哈马斯组织加入这个进程——这是一项十分艰巨的政治任务。
同样，阿富汗总统哈米德•卡尔扎伊(Hamid Karzai)近期的古怪姿态，突显出在与塔利班的斗争中，即便是取得平局也很困难。巴格达政治瘫痪，则危及美军撤出伊拉克的时间表。
我还可以举出一些。俄罗斯虽然在新的《裁减战略武器条约》(START)上签了字，但它在前苏联地盘重建影响力的野心丝毫没有减弱。中美关系解冻，可能证明就像之前的冰冻期一样短暂。
还有就是伊朗问题。别的挑战或许能够控制，尽管有些难度。必要的话，奥巴马还能争取打个平手。而伊朗核野心让他进入更危险的境地——不管是从美国的战略态势来说，还是从伊朗如果制成核弹将在美国国内引起的反响来说，都是如此。这是一场赌注最高的游戏，而从现状来看，奥巴马很有可能会输掉。
在其它方面，奥巴马不妨采取更多行动，为自己创造有利条件。欧洲人固然令人恼火，但他们并不难成为盟友：他们基本上就是想听到自己是不可或缺的。奥巴马也应更加关注日本。与美国自身一样，这个重要的战略盟友也在设法适应中国的崛起。
甩掉与卡特的比较后，奥巴马可以松一口气；但这不意味着世界上的种种问题都会按照他的心愿消失。有一个终局方案——不管是下棋还是在外交政策上——并不保证一定会成功。话说回来，这仍是一个相当有益的开局。
译者/杨远
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001032202
So he's not Jimmy Carter after all. Barack Obama was in Prague this week to sign a strategic arms treaty with Russia's Dmitry Medvedev. Next week the US president plays host to 50 world leaders to discuss strengthening arrangements for nuclear security. In between times, he published a new military strategy that significantly narrows the circumstances in which the US would use its nuclear arsenal.
Mr Obama, in other words, looks like a leader pretty much in command of his agenda. These three events mark an important way station on a route he mapped during a speech in the Czech capital a year ago. We are still light years away from the nuclear-free world he mentioned then. But we have stopped heading in the wrong direction. The latest initiatives have restored momentum to multilateral arms reduction. The collapse of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not look quite so inevitable.
This takes Mr Obama some distance from the commonplace caricatures of only a couple of months ago. Then, even sympathetic observers were drawing baleful comparisons with the foreign policy calamities of Mr Carter's presidency. Mr Obama, the argument ran, had spent his first year making speeches about restoring American prestige. He looked destined to spend his second explaining why he had failed.
The president's deliberative style jarred with the impatience of a modern political culture shaped by 24-hour rolling news. Hadn't he promised to pursue peace in the Middle East and to persuade the Iranians to see reason? But the Israelis and Palestinians were no closer to a deal, and Tehran was still building the bomb. For a growing band of critics, engagement looked suspiciously like appeasement.
The perception of failure was always premature. Along with the impatience, it reflected an unrealistic belief that the world's most powerful nation can always get its own way. If that was ever true, it certainly does not hold in an era when new powers are contesting US primacy.
Foreign policy challenges – whether Iran's nuclear ambitions, the war in Afghanistan or the Arab-Israeli conflict – cannot all be “fixed”. Some have to be managed. That is why George Kennan invented something called containment to frame US policy during the cold war. Bilateral relationships with rival powers – whether Russia or China – will always be bumpy.
The turning point for Mr Obama came with the passage of healthcare legislation. No one could ever accuse commentators of consistency: a beleaguered leader overnight became a titan who had achieved something that had eluded his most illustrious predecessors.
These things rub off. It is hard to say with certainty whether Hu Jintao, China's president, would have agreed to attend next week's Washington summit had Mr Obama still been fighting in the Congressional trenches. My diplomat friends say probably not.
Either way, the perception that he has rebuilt his political authority at home means that he is being taken more seriously abroad. Mr Obama has been helped too by signs that the US economy will emerge quite strongly from the global recession. The Democrats still look set to lose ground in the mid-term elections but the meltdown predicted only weeks ago is no longer a certainty.
On the president's part, the manner of the health victory suggested a grit that had earlier been absent. As one shrewd Washingtonian told me, Mr Obama stopped behaving like a prime minister and acted instead like a president.
Success in politics begets success. But foolish as it was to write him off a few weeks ago, it would be equally mistaken to imagine all is plain sailing from now on it. The president's foreign policy insight had been that the US is the vital but insufficient power in safeguarding global security. That means it will often have to compromise.
Last July I likened Mr Obama to a chess master playing several games simultaneously. Instead of taking foreign policy challenges sequentially, he had made the opening moves in all the important games. Since then the metaphor has gained currency, and it remains a good description of his approach. Each of the games, though, is proving tougher than he imagined.
The White House has belatedly told Israel's Benjamin Netayahu that a halt to settlement building on occupied Palestinian land is a necessary condition for negotiations about a two-state solution. But that in itself does not guarantee progress, not least because the Palestinians have yet to show they are serious about a settlement.
If Mr Obama wants to give himself a real shot at brokering a peace deal he will have to present his own proposals as the basis for talks. Somehow – and this is a really tough one politically – he will also have to find a way to draw the Palestinian Hamas movement into the process.
Likewise, the recent antics of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, have underscored how difficult it will be to secure even a draw in the contest against the Taliban. Political paralysis in Baghdad puts in jeopardy the timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
I could go on. Russia's signature on a new Start treaty will not dampen its ambitions to re-establish its influence over the former Soviet space. The thaw in relations with China may prove as short-lived as the freeze that preceded it.
Then there is Iran. The other challenges can be managed, albeit with difficulty. If necessary, Mr Obama can play for a draw. Tehran's nuclear ambitions take him on to more perilous territory – both in terms of America's strategic position and of the domestic fall-out were Iran to get the bomb. This is the game with the highest stakes, and, on present form, it is one Mr Obama could well lose.
Elsewhere, the president could do more to help himself. Infuriating though they are, Europeans come fairly cheap as allies: they basically want to be told that they are wanted. Mr Obama should also pay closer attention to Japan – a vital strategic ally that, like the US itself, is trying to come to terms with China's rise.
By shaking off analogies with Mr Carter, Mr Obama has made life easier for himself; it does not mean he can wish away the world's problems. Having an endgame – in chess or foreign policy – is no guarantee of success. On the other hand, it is a pretty useful start.
没有评论:
发表评论