历史的弧线：奥巴马外交政策评说（2）

奥巴马的外交政策纪录

在外交政策上，巴拉克 奥巴马与他的几位前任有无数相似之处。与之最为相似的，可能是布什政府和克林顿政府在第一个任期实施的政策。但即便是乔治 沃克 布什执政后期的许多政策，奥巴马政府依然在沿用或仅仅稍作修改，尽管奥巴马一直以来都决心要改变美国。颇具讽刺意味的是，奥巴马和乔治 布什一样，很显然，他们一方面都在参与战争，另一方面却也都在中东地区推进民主。不过可以肯定的是，奥巴马在执政期间，没有主动发起新的战争挑衅。可以说，奥巴马在外交政策上最具体的成就是在打击恐怖主义的战场上取得的，而反恐也正是布什任总统时最为关注的焦点。其实，2011年5月本 拉登被击毙，许多“基地”组织头目在国外被消灭，其中包括安瓦尔 奥拉基在也门被击毙，这些主要应该归功于美国情报人员和特种作战部队一直在苦苦追寻这些恐怖组织头目，并抓准时机采取行动将其击毙。但奥巴马确实也投入了大量精力，他在继续推行沿袭自其前任的政策时态度冷静而强硬，他决定派遣突击队击毙本 拉登，而不是靠远程投射炸弹。这些都应该给奥巴马本人记上一功。

极为讽刺的是，奥巴马的一个重大的成就是他比乔治 沃克 布什更加成功地“隔离”了某些极端主义国家。在处理朝鲜和伊朗问题时，比尔 克林顿采用的是无赖政权1，乔治 沃克 布什采用的是“邪恶轴心”2，而奥巴马找到了合理有效的方式。最初，他向德黑兰和平壤的领导人隔空喊话，表示愿意谈判接触，但遭到拒绝。但鉴于这一结果是可以预见的，绝不可能等同于全盘皆输。在总统就职演说中，奥巴马向金正日和阿亚图拉 哈梅内伊发出了“松开紧攥的拳头”的要求，但遭到拒绝，这时的美国完全有充足的立场来说服别国对这两个国家收紧制裁。在推行布什制定的议程方面，奥巴马比布什本人做得更出色。当然了，即便受到了制裁，这两个国家仍然继续在开发核武器。因此，与其说奥巴马的成就是历史性突破，毋宁说是有效了避免损失更恰当。这也意味着，在外交事务中，防控一些问题可能产生的副作用——在可能的范围之内求全——会比尝试不可能的事而最终失败来得有成效。

除此之外，奥巴马还有一些决策是非常明智的。奥巴马政府在一开始就安排一些有经验、高效率的人任职一些关键岗位。他继续留任布什执政时的国防部长罗伯特 盖茨，这一举动非常明智，而且这样的安排也是史无前例的。他任命自己的政治对手希拉里 克林顿为国务卿，这一做法团结了整个民主党。他为美国选择了这样一位工作高效、勤奋的国务卿，事实证明，这位国务卿的政治手腕对于总统改善美国在世界上地位的决心意义重大。奥巴马也很好地安排了大卫 彼得雷乌斯将军，先是将其派往阿富汗，现在任美国中央情报局局长。（高菲 译）

——————

1.无赖政权:或称“流氓国家”，是主要由美国政府使用的政治概念，用来指集权体制、违背其他国家的愿望，试图获得其他国家设法控制的武器、对内或对外挑起其他国家憎恶的战争，进行反人类的罪行、窝藏恐怖分子、容许其他国家不容许的犯罪活动（如贩毒）、或者寻求颠覆或损害其他国家的政治试题。

2.邪恶轴心：美国总统小布什用“邪恶轴心”一词称呼萨达姆 侯赛因时代的伊拉克、伊朗、朝鲜三国，由于他们违背美国的意愿，试图获得核武器及远程导弹。

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY RECORD

Barack Obama’s foreign policy has numerous elements of continuity with his predecessors. The continuity is perhaps greatest with the first Bush and Clinton administrations. But even relative to the latter days of the administration of George W. Bush, many policies have been sustained or modified only modestly, notwithstanding Obama’s determination to set a different course. Ironically, the continuity from George W. Bush to Obama has been most evident in regard to war fighting on the one hand and democracy promotion in the Middle East on the other. To be sure, there has been no new case of preemption. Arguably, Obama’s greatest concrete foreign policy accomplishments have been on the battlefield in the war against terrorism—the arena that was the central focus of the Bush presidency. The killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 and, more generally, the decimation of much of al Qaeda’s leadership abroad, including Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, were primarily a credit to the American intelligence operatives and the Special Operations Forces who painstakingly pursued these individuals and then carried out operations to kill them. But president Obama deserves personal credit for devoting substantial resources to the effort, for his cool-headed and tough-minded determination in ratcheting up the resources that he inherited from his predecessor, and for his decision to dispatch commandos against bin Laden rather than bomb him from afar.

A significant accomplishment—and a supreme irony—of this presidency is that Obama has managed to isolate certain extremist actors more effectively than George W. Bush did. In dealing with North Korea and Iran—Bill Clinton’s rogue states, George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”—Obama has found his way to a reasonably effective approach. His initial efforts to extend a hand to leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang were rebuffed. But that predictable outcome did not amount to a complete failure by any means. When, in response to the new American president’s entreaties, Kim Jong-il and Ayatollah Khamenei refused to unclench their own fists as Obama in his inaugural address had called on them to do, the United States was better placed to persuade others to tighten sanctions on these countries. Here Obama was more effective than Bush at pursuing Bush’s own agenda. Of course, both countries have continued to develop their nuclear weapons programs despite the sanctions. Obama’s accomplishments are thus better understood as effective damage control than historic breakthroughs. That said, in foreign affairs, limiting the fallout from problems—practicing the art of the possible—is more productive than attempting the impossible and failing.

President Obama has made other good decisions, too. They began with placing experienced and effective individuals in key jobs. Retaining Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, was a wise and unprecedented move. The appointment of his political rival Hillary Clinton as secretary of state unified the Democratic Party while giving the nation a highly effective and diligent lead diplomat whose political skills proved critical in sustaining the president’s determination to improve America’s standing in the world. Obama has made good use of General David Petraeus as well, first in Afghanistan and now as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.