本站停止更新。 请访问新站 cq99.us 长青论坛 多谢支持。
如果简体有乱码,请在这里看繁体版(BIG5)

托马斯•弗里德曼∶打败普京要靠经济

Thomas L. Friedman(纽约时报)

如果你一直在跟进关于乌克兰的辩论,你可以看到三种趋势∶一些人把这场危机当作幽默的素材,一些人用它来强化既定的看法,还有些人则试图弄清它是否告诉了我们一些关于当今世界的新的特点。

在幽默方面,我喜欢塞斯•迈尔斯(Seth Meyers)的段子∶“尽管过去几周媒体连篇累牍地报道有关乌克兰的新闻,一项调查却发现,64%的美国学生还是不能在地图上找到乌克兰的位置。普京说,‘很快就没人能找到了。’”

在强化既定看法方面,观点文章的页面上充斥著这样的说点∶普京吞并克里米亚是一个信号,显示著它要麽重返传统的19世纪的强权政治,要麽回到冷战的老路上——任何认为全球化已经战胜了这种地缘政治的人都很幼稚。

至于新的思考,俄罗斯裔美国记者玛莎•格森(Masha Gessen)和地缘政治顾问、路透社专栏作家纳德•穆萨维扎德(Nader Mousavizadeh)的观点以不同的方式吸引了我。他们认为,普京代表了一种新的混合型领导者——用穆萨维扎德的话说,这种领导者借助全球化工具和全球化带来的利润,宣扬跟“西方价值观和利益直接对立的战略选择”。或者如格森在《华盛顿邮报》上所说∶“俄罗斯正在把自己重新塑造为反西方世界的领导者┅┅这正是俄罗斯人对乌克兰事件的看法∶西方正在占领世界,只有俄罗斯军队可以为斯拉夫国家毫无戒备心的市民阻挡从布鲁塞尔来袭的同性恋者。”

我自己的看法是,当今全球经济和科技相互依存的状况当然不至于淘汰战争——人类总是会令你大吃一惊——但是全球化确实造成了一种实实在在的约束,它对如今地缘政治的塑造远比你认为的更加有力。上周,美联社自莫斯科报道∶“最近的数据表明,俄罗斯今年前三个月的资本外流高达约700亿美元,超过了2013年的总和。”普京不会看不到这一点。

为了支持这个观点,我要谈谈约翰•霍普金斯大学外交政策专家迈克尔•曼德尔鲍姆(Michael Mandelbaum)对这件事情的非常有创见的看法。曼德尔鲍姆在其新书《全球繁荣之路》(The Road to Global Prosperity)中表示,尽管全球经济并不会抹除地缘政治,但如今它的确战胜了全球地缘政治。这也是打败普京的关键所在。

正如曼德尔鲍姆(以前我有本书是跟他合著的)在他的书所说,地缘政治和全球经济并不是非此即彼的关系。地缘政治从来不曾消失,即使全球化已经变得更加重要。要让全球化蓬勃发展,就需要一种力量来维持市场的稳定。英国在19世纪提供了这种力量。如今的美国也是这样,而且就算以后普京成为了和平主义素食者,美国也不得不继续提供这种力量。

但是要明白,曼德尔鲍姆在接受采访时说∶“普京并不是来自过去的奇怪生物。他跟达沃斯人(Davos Man)一样,也是全球化的产物。”(注∶达沃斯是瑞士一个城市,因每年的全球经济论坛在那里召开而知名。“达沃斯人”意指现代经济中的一员。)

普京管理著一个石油国家。如果不是因为全球化造成了全球市场的增长,以及它给俄罗斯带来的能源收入,普京和构成其权力基础的寡头们就得靠伏特加和鱼子酱出口过日子。没有全球化带来的收入来收买俄罗斯人以及前苏联加盟共和国,普京就无以为继了。

而这就告诉我们该如何“结束普京主义”,曼德尔鲍姆说,“这不仅对世界是件好事,对俄罗斯来说尤其有益。手段主要是经济层面的∶不让俄罗斯寡头利用西方金融体系,减少普京财政库房的能源收入。”

这是一种新型的遏制方式。冷战时期的遏制主要是军事层面的,在西方承受的负担中,美国担负的份额格外沉重。而现在的遏制是经济层面的,“欧洲人就不得不做出远远更多的贡献,”曼德尔鲍姆表示。“德国必须愿意放弃对俄销售机械工具和汽车,法国必须削减或放弃向普京政权出售军火,而英国必须让伦敦不再成为俄罗斯寡头的玩乐和洗钱场所。最重要的是,欧洲人将不得不戒掉对俄罗斯天然气的依赖。”

作为美国人,我们需要支付更高的能源税来促进节约,并且以安全的方式扩大天然气和可再生能源生产,这些方法并用可以降低全球对石油的需求,减少普京可以动用的资金。如果我们大家都做好准别,而不是要求军队里的极少数人承担所有一切,那麽明天我们就可以兵不血刃地打垮那个家伙。这正是普京认为我们没有胆量做的事情。

“在全球化时代,地缘政治的手段更倾向于经济层面,每个人都需要做出一点牺牲——而不是让我们中的某一部分人放弃很多——来维持一种我们的价值观占主导地位的全球秩序,”曼德尔鲍姆说。他认为,克里米亚事件测试的不是全球化在塑造当今世界方面是否仍然非常强大有力,“那一点已经很清楚。该事件是对西方的一个测试,测试我们是否会利用这个系统,以我们的方式来塑造局面。”

——2014年4月1日《纽约时报》弗里德曼专栏

翻译∶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 (转载请指明出处)


Follow caochangqing on Twitter

© Caochangqing.com all rights reserved.