五
“Obama Contends With Arc of Instability Unseen Since '70s”
By JAY SOLOMON and CAROL E. LEE
Wall Street Journal
7/14/2014
----Convergence of Security Crises Poses Serious Challenge to Barack Obama's Foreign Policy
----Developments have fueled debate over Obama’s foreign policy, which the president said would rely on U.S. leadership, but not troop developments.
WASHINGTON—A convergence of security crises is playing out around the globe, from the Palestinian territories and Iraq to Ukraine and the South China Sea, posing a serious challenge to President Barack Obama's foreign policy and reflecting a world in which U.S. global power seems increasingly tenuous. [全球各地幾樁安全危機同時出現，從巴勒斯坦與伊拉克到烏克蘭與
The breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn't been seen since the late 1970s, U.S. security strategists say, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, revolutionary Islamists took power in Iran, and Southeast Asia was reeling in the wake of the U.S. exit from Vietnam. [美國的安全事務戰略家說，現在浮出的全球性不穩定是從1970
In the past month alone, the U.S. has faced twin civil wars in Iraq and Syria, renewed fighting between Israel and the Palestinians, an electoral crisis in Afghanistan and ethnic strife on the edge of Russia, in Ukraine.
Off center stage, but high on the minds of U.S. officials, are growing fears that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program could collapse this month, and that China is intensifying its territorial claims in East Asia. [美國的國安官員最關注的熱點與事件，包括以巴衝突與在伊拉克和
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), in a CNN interview Sunday, said the world is "in greater turmoil than at any time in my lifetime." Many of the seeds of instability in the Middle East have taken root since the upheaval that followed the Sept. 11 terror attacks. At the same time, post-Cold War shifts are continuing as superpower influence has receded. [參議員麥肯說，當今的世界是他有生以來處於較大的動亂的時刻。
The developments have fueled debate over the Obama foreign-policy doctrine, which the president said in a May speech at West Point would rely on U.S. leadership, but not troop deployments. [世界各地爆炸性的發展導致各界對歐巴馬的外交政策原則加以論辯
The president's critics in Washington, as well as some diplomats abroad, believe Mr. Obama's policies have fueled today's conflicts. They cite his decision to pull back from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his rejection of a more decisive U.S. and allied role in the Syrian civil war, and what they see as his reluctance to provide greater support to American allies in Asia and Europe as they face down the newly aggressive foreign polices of China, Iran and President Vladimir Putin's Russia.[一些國安事務的專家學者及外國的外交界人士相信
"I think our country acting like such a paper tiger to the world on this and so many other fronts is doing incredible long-term damage to our nation," said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) at a hearing last week on Ukraine. "And I do hope at some point the administration will actually follow through on the things that it continues to tout publicly." [參議院外交委員會共和黨首席委員Bob Corker指出，他認為美國在當今世界各地所發生的衝突與事件
The chaos has meant that the Obama administration finds itself in the middle of a second term reacting to rather than directing world events. Dangers for the president and for the U.S. are growing as militant groups gain greater control. The organization known as the Islamic State, which now holds parts of Iraq and Syria, poses a particular danger.
"If they are able to consolidate their gains in that area, I think it's just a matter of time before they start looking outward and start looking at the West and at the United States in particular," Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday in an ABC News interview. "So this is something that we have to get on top of and get on top of now."[美國司法部長Eric Holder以中東的伊斯蘭國為例，他說倘若該國在中東地區站穩
Mr. Obama's top aides say the U.S. remains as heavily engaged in resolving conflicts as ever, citing the administration's diplomatic initiatives in Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. In Kabul over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry forged an agreement between political rivals for an audit of the country's disputed presidential vote, an accomplishment for the administration.
"In every one of these crises, the common factor is that the United States is the one country that's providing leadership," said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, in an interview.
In some cases, U.S. allies are complicating matters. European countries have balked at imposing tough new sanctions on Russia, according to U.S. officials. And divisions between South Korea and Japan have undermined U.S. efforts to present a united front against China. [根據美國若干官員的說法，在某些案例中，美國的盟國的作為也使
Some foreign diplomats believe the Middle East is weathering a historic intra-Islamic feud between its Sunni and Shiite sects that no outside power could significantly affect and that is undermining the very structure of the region's nation states.
"You are seeing the collapse of the post-Ottoman order in the Middle East," said Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to Washington, referring to the states created after the Ottoman Empire's dissolution in 1918. "One event affects another. I think the order is collapsed. And the new order is shifting itself out."
Mr. Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 as the alternative to George W. Bush, as a leader who would wind down the U.S.'s Mideast wars and reach out diplomatically to historic adversaries such as Iran, Syria and Russia. He promised to de-emphasize the role of U.S. military force and intensify the country's diplomatic and moral persuasion.
Mr. Obama's supporters and opponents alike say he has largely followed through on those promises. But many of his critics say he has overcorrected, further eroding the national-security architecture Washington built in the Mideast and Asia during the Cold War and allowing avenues for terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and competing states to fill the security vacuum. [歐巴馬之所以得到天命，是因為他主張要將小布希的政策加以反轉
"The U.S.'s regional order in the Middle East is in disarray," said Emile El Hokayem, a Mideast expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank.
The renewed instability in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent weeks is rekindling criticism that the White House hasn't pushed hard enough to maintain a U.S. military presence in these countries.
Many Middle East leaders also have said Mr. Obama has been too reluctant to use force, which has emboldened terrorist groups and rogue states. They cite the president's failure last year to follow through on a threat to strike Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime after it allegedly used chemical weapons on its political opponents.[許多中東的領導人也說，由於歐巴馬一直不
"The state structure in the Middle East has been quickly changing, and the boundaries are shifting in Iraq and Syria," said Vali Nasr, a former Obama administration official who is now dean of Johns Hopkins's School of Advanced International Studies. "And then you have this sudden withdrawal of the U.S., which was the stabilizing force in the region."
Mr. Obama's aides said that no single issue links today's crises. Many are still tied to the Arab revolutions that broke out beginning in late 2010.
"It's not really the first time it's been like this," said Mr. Rhodes, referring to the simultaneous revolutions the U.S. faced in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia during the Arab Spring. "The fact that you have a crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with Gaza."
Still, many diplomats and security experts see in Ukraine a similar dynamic of post-Cold War borders being challenged during Mr. Obama's tenure—this time by Mr. Putin.
The Kremlin moved to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine. And U.S. officials say Moscow continues to supply arms, money and intelligence to pro-Russia militias who are fighting the Kiev government for control of territories in eastern Ukraine.
Obama administration officials said the sanctions the U.S. and European Union imposed on Russia this year have deterred Mr. Putin from grabbing more Ukrainian territory. They also said Kiev's signing last month an Association Agreement with the European Union shows Ukraine's government now has confidence in joining the West. [歐巴馬政府的官員說，美國與歐洲國家對俄國的制裁已收到阻止俄
Ukrainian officials contend that the U.S. and its allies haven't done enough. They note that the Western countries have so far failed to enact the broader sanctions on Russia's economy known in Europe as "third-stage" measures. "We do deeply believe that the third stage of sanctions is the means that may heavily influence Putin," said Andriy Parubiy, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council. "If we don't stop Putin right now, here in Ukraine… [his security forces] will appear in Kazakhstan, in Belarus, in the Baltics." [烏克蘭的政府官員則說，美國與其西方的盟國根本做得不夠，若我
U.S. officials have exhibited a greater interest than European counterparts in applying those stricter sanctions.
U.S. and Asian officials also remain concerned that Northeast Asia could emerge as a flash point if territorial disputes between China and its neighbors continue to fester.
There is a growing skepticism in Asia about whether the U.S. would abide by its commitment to defend Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries if their territorial disputes with China escalate into conflict, according to Asian diplomats.[亞洲的外交家說，亞洲國家懷疑美國是否會
在中國把領土的爭執升
Messrs. Obama and Kerry have worked to assure Japan and South Korea that Washington remains wholly committed to its defense treaties. But even some security analysts who are close to the White House say the Obama administration's perceived hesitancy in responding to international threats is unnerving U.S. allies in the region. [一些與白宮接近的安全分析家說，外界對歐巴馬政權在對國際安全
"Our allies are looking for a quarterback to call some plays here, and our body language sometimes doesn't show that we're doing that," said Brian Katulis of the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "Obama's always been a look-before-you-leap guy. And I think that leads to some of the confusion here at home, but also abroad."
六
在半個月前及前幾天，類似上面那樣的報導與分析不少，我們再挑一
“ As World Boils, Fingers Point Obama’s Way”
By PETER BAKER
New York Times
Aug. 16, 2014
WASHINGTON — In this summer of global tumult, the debate in Washington essentially boils down to two opposite positions: It is all President Obama’s fault, according to his critics; no, it is not, according to his supporters, because these are events beyond his control. [在今年這個全球性動亂的夏天，發生在華盛頓的辯論基本上可以分
Americans often think of their president as an all-powerful figure who can command the tides of history — and presidents have encouraged this image over the years because the perception itself can be a form of power. But as his critics have made the case that Mr. Obama’s mistakes have fueled the turmoil in places like Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, the president has increasingly argued that his power to shape these seismic forces is actually limited. [美國人總是認為，他們的總統是一個無所不能的、能夠引導歷史潮
“Apparently,” he said in frustration the other day, “people have forgotten that America, as the most powerful country on earth, still does not control everything around the world.” [因為有無力感而感到沮喪的歐巴馬說: 人們已經忘記，做為世界上最強大的國家的美國也一樣無法控制世界
While as a statement of fact Mr. Obama’s assertion may be self-evident, it was seen by adversaries as a cop-out and even by more sympathetic analysts as a revealing moment for a president whiplashed by international instability.
“At least since World War II, presidents have been unwilling to discuss deficiencies in capability because they’re expected to do everything, and they like that sense of omnipotence,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a former Obama State Department official now at the Brookings Institution. “Obama has been trying to change that in the last year because he senses that the requirements of omnipotence have gotten so far out of whack with what he can actually accomplish that he needs to change the expectations.”
The risk, naturally, is that the president looks as if he is simply trying to excuse his own actions, or inactions, as the case may be. [歐巴馬所說的的確也有道理，不過，他這番解釋當然也存在著風險
“It’s become a refrain to the point where I think people are becoming quite critical that that’s his response to everything,” said Daniel L. Byman, a former member of the Sept. 11 commission staff now teaching at Georgetown University. “He’s not differentiating between things he can influence and those that he can’t.”
The bill of particulars against Mr. Obama is long. In the view of his critics, he failed to stanch the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria when he rejected proposals to arm more moderate elements of the Syrian resistance. He left a vacuum in Iraq by not doing more to leave a residual force behind when American troops exited in 2011. And he signaled weakness to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, encouraging the Kremlin to think it could intervene in Ukraine without fear of significant consequence.
“I certainly do not think President Obama is responsible for all of the world crises that have taken place during his time in office,” said William C. Inboden, a former national security aide to President George W. Bush and executive director of the William P. Clements Jr. Center on History, Strategy and Statecraft at the University of Texas. “But he is responsible for actions and attitudes he took that have contributed to some of those crises — and he is also responsible for how he responds, or fails to respond.”[William C. Inboden說，他當然不認為歐巴馬要在他的任內為世界各地所
Republicans are not the only ones voicing such sentiments. In her interview with The Atlantic that caused a recent furor, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said “the failure” to build up moderate Syrian rebels left a vacuum for the more ruthless forces of ISIS to fill.
In a Wall Street Journal opinion article on Friday, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired NATO commander and Mr. Obama’s first national security adviser, said the president should have left some troops in Iraq, retaliated against Syria for crossing his “red line” by using chemical weapons, and pressured the Baghdad government to arm the Kurds.
Such criticisms exasperate Mr. Obama and his team. In some cases, they argue, the crises that have emerged were wholly unforeseen. In others, they said, the solutions proffered by critics would not have worked and, in fact, may have made things worse. And besides, they often add, Mr. Obama inherited a situation that was broken when he got it, pointing to Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in the first place.
In his recent interview with Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times, Mr. Obama said “it’s always been a fantasy” to think providing arms to moderate Syrian rebels would have helped them against hardened Islamic extremists. And he said if he had left troops in Iraq, “The difference would be we’d have 10,000 troops in the middle of this chaos as opposed to having a much more limited number.”
Former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana, said presidents can influence but not dictate events. “Americans have a very strong tendency to think that whatever we do is the most important thing happening everywhere, and we have so much power and so much clout that we can control events everywhere,” said Mr. Hamilton, now director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. “That’s part of what he’s wrestling with here.”
As it happens, Mr. Obama’s policy of restraint seems to match the public mood — polls find little appetite for robust American intervention in Ukraine, Syria or Iraq. And yet, there is a palpable sense of disappointment with Mr. Obama’s leadership on the world stage as well. Fifty-eight percent of Americans in a recent New York Times/
Presidents often find their popularity suffers when the world seems off kilter and they are held responsible even for events that may be beyond their sway. The who-lost-China debate during the early Cold War has been replicated repeatedly ever since in various forms. [美國總統畢竟還是會害怕「誰失去中國」或「誰失去越南」這種論
Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and a former deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said what makes this period different is the diffusion of power from states to nonstate forces, the rapid spread of technology and the rise of Islamic extremism.
“We have an overall contagion of diffusion which makes it much harder to advance the cause of regional and global governance,” he said.
Some Democrats said Mr. Obama’s challenge has not necessarily been his approach to these crises, but his ability to explain and sell it.
“What he’s come up with in Iraq and in Ukraine are sensible strategies,” said former Representative Jane Harman of California, now president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “He now needs to link them with a narrative that explains to the American people why we have to re-engage in foreign policy matters, and I hope he does that.”
Tom Donilon, another former national security adviser to Mr. Obama, said the president has had to exercise leadership in situations he inherited as well as in others that were not of his making, but added that to avoid letting them consume his remaining time in office, he should set the agenda for positive international initiatives.
“With almost two and a half years left in his presidency,” said Mr. Donilon, “it’s important to get beyond the incoming of crises around the world and look to a set of strategic initiatives that the United States can pursue that can bring change of a permanent nature.”
(待續)
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
沒有留言:
張貼留言