本站停止更新. 請訪問新站 cq99.us 長青論壇 多謝支持 .

托馬斯•弗里德曼:打敗普京要靠經濟

Thomas L. Friedman(紐約時報)

如果你一直在跟進關于烏克蘭的辯論,你可以看到三種趨勢:一些人把這場危機當作幽默的素材,一些人用它來強化既定的看法,還有些人則試圖弄清它是否告訴了我們一些關于當今世界的新的特點。

在幽默方面,我喜歡塞斯•邁爾斯(Seth Meyers)的段子:“盡管過去幾周媒體連篇累牘地報道有關烏克蘭的新聞,一項調查卻發現,64%的美國學生還是不能在地圖上找到烏克蘭的位置。普京說,‘很快就沒人能找到了。’”

在強化既定看法方面,觀點文章的頁面上充斥著這樣的說點:普京吞並克里米亞是一個信號,顯示著它要麼重返傳統的19世紀的強權政治,要麼回到冷戰的老路上——任何認為全球化已經戰勝了這種地緣政治的人都很幼稚。

至于新的思考,俄羅斯裔美國記者瑪莎•格森(Masha Gessen)和地緣政治顧問、路透社專欄作家納德•穆薩維扎德(Nader Mousavizadeh)的觀點以不同的方式吸引了我。他們認為,普京代表了一種新的混合型領導者——用穆薩維扎德的話說,這種領導者借助全球化工具和全球化帶來的利潤,宣揚跟“西方價值觀和利益直接對立的戰略選擇”。或者如格森在《華盛頓郵報》上所說:“俄羅斯正在把自己重新塑造為反西方世界的領導者……這正是俄羅斯人對烏克蘭事件的看法:西方正在佔領世界,只有俄羅斯軍隊可以為斯拉夫國家毫無戒備心的市民阻擋從布魯塞爾來襲的同性戀者。”

我自己的看法是,當今全球經濟和科技相互依存的狀況當然不至于淘汰戰爭——人類總是會令你大吃一驚——但是全球化確實造成了一種實實在在的約束,它對如今地緣政治的塑造遠比你認為的更加有力。上周,美聯社自莫斯科報道:“最近的數據表明,俄羅斯今年前三個月的資本外流高達約700億美元,超過了2013年的總和。”普京不會看不到這一點。

為了支持這個觀點,我要談談約翰•霍普金斯大學外交政策專家邁克爾•曼德爾鮑姆(Michael Mandelbaum)對這件事情的非常有創見的看法。曼德爾鮑姆在其新書《全球繁榮之路》(The Road to Global Prosperity)中表示,盡管全球經濟並不會抹除地緣政治,但如今它的確戰勝了全球地緣政治。這也是打敗普京的關鍵所在。

正如曼德爾鮑姆(以前我有本書是跟他合著的)在他的書所說,地緣政治和全球經濟並不是非此即彼的關係。地緣政治從來不曾消失,即使全球化已經變得更加重要。要讓全球化蓬勃發展,就需要一種力量來維持市場的穩定。英國在19世紀提供了這種力量。如今的美國也是這樣,而且就算以后普京成為了和平主義素食者,美國也不得不繼續提供這種力量。

但是要明白,曼德爾鮑姆在接受採訪時說:“普京並不是來自過去的奇怪生物。他跟達沃斯人(Davos Man)一樣,也是全球化的產物。”(注:達沃斯是瑞士一個城市,因每年的全球經濟論壇在那裡召開而知名。“達沃斯人”意指現代經濟中的一員。)

普京管理著一個石油國家。如果不是因為全球化造成了全球市場的增長,以及它給俄羅斯帶來的能源收入,普京和構成其權力基礎的寡頭們就得靠伏特加和魚子醬出口過日子。沒有全球化帶來的收入來收買俄羅斯人以及前蘇聯加盟共和國,普京就無以為繼了。

而這就告訴我們該如何“結束普京主義”,曼德爾鮑姆說,“這不僅對世界是件好事,對俄羅斯來說尤其有益。手段主要是經濟層面的:不讓俄羅斯寡頭利用西方金融體系,減少普京財政庫房的能源收入。”

這是一種新型的遏制方式。冷戰時期的遏制主要是軍事層面的,在西方承受的負擔中,美國擔負的份額格外沉重。而現在的遏制是經濟層面的,“歐洲人就不得不做出遠遠更多的貢獻,”曼德爾鮑姆表示。“德國必須願意放棄對俄銷售機械工具和汽車,法國必須削減或放棄向普京政權出售軍火,而英國必須讓倫敦不再成為俄羅斯寡頭的玩樂和洗錢場所。最重要的是,歐洲人將不得不戒掉對俄羅斯天然氣的依賴。”

作為美國人,我們需要支付更高的能源稅來促進節約,並且以安全的方式擴大天然氣和可再生能源生產,這些方法並用可以降低全球對石油的需求,減少普京可以動用的資金。如果我們大家都做好準別,而不是要求軍隊裡的極少數人承擔所有一切,那麼明天我們就可以兵不血刃地打垮那個家伙。這正是普京認為我們沒有膽量做的事情。

“在全球化時代,地緣政治的手段更傾向于經濟層面,每個人都需要做出一點犧牲——而不是讓我們中的某一部分人放棄很多——來維持一種我們的價值觀佔主導地位的全球秩序,”曼德爾鮑姆說。他認為,克里米亞事件測試的不是全球化在塑造當今世界方面是否仍然非常強大有力,“那一點已經很清楚。該事件是對西方的一個測試,測試我們是否會利用這個系統,以我們的方式來塑造局面。”

——2014年4月1日《紐約時報》弗里德曼專欄

翻譯:土土

原文:

Follow the Money

By Thomas L. Friedman

The New York Times, APRIL 1, 2014

If you follow the debates about Ukraine, you can see three trends: those who use the crisis for humor, those who use it to reinforce preconceived views and those trying to figure out if it’s telling us something new about today’s world.

For humor, I like Seth Meyers’s line: “Despite the fact that the Ukraine has been all over the news for the past few weeks, a survey found that 64 percent of U.S. students still couldn’t find Ukraine on a map. Said Vladimir Putin, ‘Soon nobody will.’ ”

For self-reinforcement, the op-ed pages are full of the argument that Putin’s seizure of Crimea signals a return of either traditional 19th-century power politics or the Cold War — and anyone who thought globalization had trumped such geopolitics is naïve.

For new thinking, I’m intrigued by an argument made by Masha Gessen, a Russian-American journalist, and Nader Mousavizadeh, a geopolitical consultant and Reuters columnist, in different ways: That Putin represents a new hybrid — leaders who are using the tools, and profits, from globalization to promote, as Mousavizadeh put it, “strategic choices in direct opposition” to Western “values and interests.” Or as Gessen said in The Washington Post: “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world. ... This is exactly how Russians see the events in Ukraine: The West is literally taking over, and only Russian troops can stand between the Slavic country’s unsuspecting citizens and the homosexuals marching in from Brussels.”

My own view is that today’s global economic and technological interdependence can’t, of course, make war obsolete — human beings will always surprise you — but globalization does impose real restraints that shape geopolitics today more than you think. The Associated Press reported from Moscow last week that “recent figures suggest that Russia suffered roughly $70 billion of capital outflow in the first three months of the year, which is more than in all of 2013.” Putin didn’t miss that.

For reinforcement, I’d point to the very original take on this story offered by Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert whose new book, “The Road to Global Prosperity,” argues that while global economics does not eliminate geopolitics, it does indeed trump global geopolitics today. It’s the key to trumping Putin, too.

As Mandelbaum (my co-author on a previous work) explains in his book, it is not either-or. Geopolitics never went away, even as globalization has become more important. For globalization to thrive, it needs a marketplace stabilized by power. Britain provided that in the 19th century. America does so today and will have to continue to do so even if Putin becomes a vegetarian pacifist.

But get a grip, Mandelbaum said in an interview: “Putin is not some strange creature from the past. He is as much a product of globalization as Davos Man.”

If I was fortunate enough to be paid to blather away, instead of merely having an opinion and an overwhelming need to share it, I too would...

And that tells us how to “end Putinism,” says Mandelbaum, “which would be good not only for the world, but also, and especially, for Russia. The tools are primarily economic: denying Russian oligarchs access to the Western financial system and reducing the energy revenues flowing into Putin’s coffers.”

It is a new kind of containment. When containment was primarily military in the Cold War, America bore a disproportionate share of the Western burden. Now that it’s economic, “the Europeans will have to contribute much more,” argues Mandelbaum. “The Germans will have to be willing to forgo their sales of machine tools and cars to Russia, the French will have to cut back or give up arms sales to the Putin regime, and the British will have to stop the Russian oligarchs from using London as a playground and money-laundering site. Most importantly, the Europeans will have to wean themselves from Russian gas.”

As for Americans, we’ll need to pay higher energy taxes to promote conservation, and safely expand natural gas and renewable energy, which together will lower the demand for oil worldwide and reduce the money Putin has to play with. We can deflate this guy tomorrow without firing a shot if we’re all ready to do something rather than asking the 1 percent in the military to do everything. That is what Putin thinks we don’t have the guts to do.

“In the age of globalization, when the tools of geopolitics are more economic, everyone needs to sacrifice a little — rather than just a few of us giving up a lot — to sustain a global order where our values predominate,” said Mandelbaum. Crimea is not a test of whether globalization is still enormously powerful in shaping today’s world, he added, “that is already clear. It is a test of the West and whether we will use this system to shape events our way.”

2014-04-12

http://www.caochangqing.com (轉載請指明出處)


Follow caochangqing on Twitter

© Caochangqing.com all rights reserved.