網路城邦
回本城市首頁 時事論壇
市長:胡卜凱  副市長:
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【時事論壇】城市/討論區/
討論區政治和社會 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
《新保守主義者的最後殘喘》評論
 瀏覽650|回應1推薦1

胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (1)

胡卜凱

0.  前言

山琶教授這篇文章批評美國「新保守主義」的外交政策(請見本欄第2篇文章)頗有一些看頭。它也能幫助說明我在「中國突然間面臨崩潰」之胡說八道》一文裏用「『盡信書不如無書』之『漢兒盡作胡兒語』」這個標題的深意。進入正題之前,我簡單概括山琶教授此文要點於下。

1) 
列舉冷戰結束後在「新保守主義者」主導下,一系列失敗的戰爭,以及毫無成效的對他國事務之干預

2) 
認為克里斯托先生當下發動「支持烏克蘭的共和黨員」這波宣傳攻勢,是過去30年來「新保」錯誤外交政策
最後殘喘
3) 
引用(和支持)標瑞卡夫和沙特懷兩位先生認為,美國軍力和資源應該用在「圍堵」中國的觀點


1. 
美國外交政策

1.1
概述

略為注意時事的人都知道,有三個關於美國外交政策的流行詞:「干涉主義」、「孤立主義」、和「兩黨外交
。第三個可以望文生義,就不多做說明;但它足以顯示:不論在國內政治中如何為爭權奪利罵臭娘,打破頭;在國際事務上,美國佬可是槍口一致對外

信奉「干涉主義」的人又稱「國際派」;這些人主張美國政府運用實力在世界各地明槍或暗火的掠奪資源
。這一陣營又分三個流派,下一小節再進一步討論

信奉「孤立主義」的人又稱「國內派」;這些人主張美國政府將國家資源用在國內建設發展上;不宜四出興風作浪;但在美洲地區則應扮演霸主角色


1.2
干涉主義的本質和流派

所謂「干涉主義」,其實相當於第二次世界大戰前的「帝國主義」
第二次世界大戰結束後,明目張膽的「帝國主義」黯然下台;但它借著「干涉主義」的姿態還魂成為我說的帝國主義餘孽干涉主義陣營內由於對地區優先順位認定的不同,又分為三個流派。我在拙作《台海戰爭將拖垮美軍戰鬥力》讀後》中有以下這段話:

因此,我相信在絕大多數美國老百姓和政治、經濟菁英中,美國『核心利益』的優先順位是:美國、歐洲、中東(或以色列)、和亞洲。

美國今天的實力已經不可能面面俱到。由於備多力分的現實和不可兩面作戰的鐵律」,在認定必須保護地區的優先順位上,美國干涉主義陣營可以分成:歐洲派、亞洲派、和中東派(或以色列派)

歐洲派可以拿山琶教授此文所批評的「新保」大將克里斯托先生為代表;山琶教授本人克魯格門教授和上述標瑞卡夫和沙特懷兩位先生(0.-3)小段)則是亞洲派代表(我推測)戴維斯中校的觀點應該代表中東派(或以色列派)

雖然這三派都主張美國政府應該繼續執行「羊頭化」的帝國主義政策
,例如:高唱「人權」、「民主」、或「基於規則的國際秩序(1);但在如何配置美國當前捉襟見肘的軍力這個議題上卻針鋒相對的吵翻了天。這就是山琶教授這篇文章之緣由

1.3
美國干涉主義政論家的盲點

山琶教授此文的問題在於:前言」中所述,他一方面批評克里斯托先生支持烏克蘭政策策是「致命錯誤」;一方面又引用主張「圍堵中國」的觀點。換言之,他批評克里斯托先生支持烏克蘭的理由不是基於「和平主義」;也不是因為後者主張的政策撈過界過於雞婆;而是因為:後者的政策瓜分了執行「圍堵中國」政策的軍力和資源。換句話說山琶教授和克里斯托先生的爭執,實際上是帝國主義餘孽彼此間的風波

在我看來,此文顯示:同屬干涉主義陣營,彼此之間卻為了如何配置美國軍力而相互攻訐。說穿了美國軍力配置除了涉及「那裏才是美國核心利益所在」的「認知」議題外,也涉及豢養這些政論家」和「政策推手」們各個智庫老闆/財團不盡相符的利益

干涉主義政論家的盲點在於;他/她們不了解(或裝作不了解)美國已經不再具有執行帝國主義政策的實力
「圍堵」也好嚇阻」也罷都是這批學者/政客/援嘴/圍事之類自欺欺人的文字遊戲;缺乏實際上的可行性

美國有識之士(阿理森
雅菲)則主張美國領袖應該審時度勢,尋求跟中國和平共存

2. 
政治和政治論述的本質

我認為「政治是爭奪資源分配權的活動」。國內政治如此,這是有「千里為官只為錢」這句話的原因;國際政治亦復如是,這是有「殖民地」和「帝國主義」這些詞彙或概念的原因
。不了解政治」的這個面向,談政治還不如去打打麻將或看看A片;反正都是在打發時間嘛,後兩者還有可能贏兩文的機會或紓解壓力的愉悅

生存需要足夠的資源生物世界如此人類社會亦如是把以上我對政治的定義放在這個現實中,我們就能了解盧卡契為什麼會認為「『政治論述』」實際上是一種生存鬥爭」句話是我讀了歷史與階級意識》一書後的領悟,並非直接引用原文

以上則是我:「凡論述必有前提凡判斷必有立場凡決策必涉私利這句名言的現實及理論基礎

證諸
山琶教授的文章,我可以說

1)  大多數美國外交政策政論家的「論述前提」是帝國主義;
2)  
大多數美國外交政策政論家的「判斷立場」是美國帝國主義;
3)  
大多數美國外交政策政論家宣揚的「決策基礎是他/她認同的「美國利益」。

推而廣之
,其它國家大多數外交政策政論文章亦類似(如德國《世界報)

3. 
「『盡信書不如無書』之『漢兒盡作胡兒語』」

在反駁
德國《世界報》的拙作中,以「『盡信書不如無書』之『漢兒盡作胡兒語』」做為該文兩個「結論」之一的標題。申論如下:

3.
1 盡信書不如無書

1)  我們看書或讀評論,要有分辨作者意見是否「說得通」的能力;不可照單全收。在沒有能力反駁相關拙作論點之前,一個人應該不得不承認德國《世界報》那篇文章有如竹籃打水 -- 漏洞奇多。我們看書或讀評論,更不可有「洋大人放個屁都香」這種亡國奴心態。尤其在今天,中國共產黨千錯萬錯,但我們不能否定它領導中國人民,使中國儕身G-2地位之功

2) 
我們看書或讀評論,要有了解作者「論述前提」和「判斷立場的能力。不可像黃口小兒般牙牙學語;把別人的「前提」和「立場佔為己有;上演一齣漢兒盡作胡兒語」的鬧劇

3.2
漢兒盡作胡兒語

如以上第2節所分析美國政論家們的「判斷立場」是美國帝國主義;他/她們宣揚的「政策」是為了捍衛「美國利益」。如果一個中國人不了解這個道理,像黃口小兒般牙牙學語;那就不僅上演了一齣漢兒盡作胡兒語」的鬧劇;更演出了一齣卻向城頭罵漢人」的醜劇

我之所以劃分胡兒語/漢兒語並不是因為我有「狹隘的民族主義思維(該欄為王劍事覆胡卜凱》一文);而是大聲疾呼,試圖避免有人再度演出上述醜劇」,讓人作嘔

4. 
結論 --
「內部矛盾」和「敵我矛盾」

反對中國共產黨的某些政策和/或措施,是毛主席所說的「內部矛盾」反對帝國主義,則是毛主席所說的「敵我矛盾」;或大儒王夫之所說的夷夏之大防。希望王劍先生、SCFtw2、和其他忠貞反共人士能夠分辨這兩種「矛盾」,則網民幸甚!中國幸甚!中華民族幸甚

附註

1.  我的其它
文章可以「證明」以上這句話不能解讀成:胡某人反對「人權」「民主」和「基於規則的國際秩序」。我胡某人反對的是:帝國主義餘孽們拿「人權」「民主」和「基於規則的國際秩序」這些具有正面意義的概念來替帝國主義遮羞

本文於 修改第 7 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=7212888
 回應文章
新保守主義者的最後殘喘 ---- Francis P. Sempa
推薦1


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

胡卜凱

Last Gasp of the Neoconservatives

Francis P. Sempa, 09/02/23

The Washington Post on August 15, 2023, in a story by Mariana Alfaro, writes about Bill Kristol’s launch of “Republicans for Ukraine,” which is using a $2 million ad campaign “to get congressional Republicans to commit to continue funding aid for Ukraine ahead of what is likely to be a lengthy appropriations fight.” According to Alfaro, advertisements, which will include “testimony” from pro-Ukraine Republican voters, will appear on television, billboards, and online. After two decades of promoting failed and costly wars and interventions, Kristol and what is left of the neoconservative movement are making a last gasp at relevance by once again promoting American involvement in another war.

Fortunately, neoconservatives are a dying breed in American politics. At least in the Republican Party. Having achieved relevance in the latter stages of the Cold War by breaking with the Democratic Party (where most of them came from) and supporting President Ronald Reagan’s policies that won the Cold War, the neoconservatives spent much of the post-Cold War world finding new “monsters to destroy” (to use the famous phrase of John Quincy Adams). They first picked Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But after the U.S. military achieved a quick victory on the battlefield in 1991 and forced Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait, the neoconservatives criticized the Bush 41 administration for not toppling the Iraqi regime. During the Clinton administration, the neocons were ardent champions of U.S. intervention in the Balkans. Then, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the neoconservatives persuaded the George W. Bush administration not only to retaliate against our enemies in Afghanistan but to declare a “Global War on Terror” and launch a crusade to democratize the Arab regimes of the Middle East. Bush 43, backed by the neoconservatives and using Wilsonian rhetoric, preemptively attacked Iraq, overthrew the heinous Hussein regime, declared “victory,” and then needlessly expended the lives of American soldiers and American treasure in failed efforts to remake the Middle East in America’s image.

At the same time that the neoconservatives promoted the democratization of the Middle East, they also urged the Bush 43 administration to expand NATO closer to Russia’s border, ignoring the prudent counsel of Bush 41 Secretary of State James Baker (who told Russian leaders that NATO would not expand if Russia didn’t contest German reunification), and Russian expert and elder statesman George F. Kennan who presciently warned that NATO expansion would revive the worst aspects of Russian nationalism and imperialism. Bush 43 not only expanded NATO further (Romania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia were given membership in 2004, while Albania, and Croatia were invited during the Bush 43 administration but formally joined in 2009), he also publicly called for Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance. The neocons also urged U.S. intervention in Syria and Libya in 2011 as part of their championing of the so-called “Arab Spring,” which led not to democracy but instead to anarchy, chaos, and increased Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

Last year Jeffrey Sachs wrote that Ukraine is “the latest neocon disaster.” He described the war in Ukraine as “the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement.” Sachs in that piece recounted the neocon track record of promoting disastrous military adventures that have resulted in diminishing U.S. influence abroad and, in the case of Ukraine, risking a wider European war. Sachs concluded that “[i]nstead of risking this disaster, the real solution is to end the neocon fantasies of the past 30 years and for Ukraine and Russia to return to the negotiating table, with NATO committing to end its commitment to the eastward enlargement to Ukraine and Russia in return for a viable peace that respects and protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Sachs' call for a negotiated solution to the Ukraine War was echoed recently in the pages of The National Interest by Russia expert Alex Burilkov and State Department consultant and military intelligence officer Wesley Satterwhite. Burilkov and Satterwhite call for an American-led peace effort in Ukraine before Russia launches a new offensive in the wake of Ukraine’s failed summer offensive. They call their proposed solution a “Korea scenario,” which will result in Ukraine trading parts of four regions occupied by Russia for “robust Western (American) security guarantees.” This, the authors write, would enable the United States to “defuse tensions with Moscow” and focus on the Pacific and China, where we face a “true peer rival.” The authors worry, however, that Russia might seek victory instead of a negotiated solution, and if Russia achieves a victory it would be a “significant setback for the United States and NATO. A Russian victory would also strengthen the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. America, the authors write, must pursue serious peace negotiations now with both Ukraine and Russia. “Only then,” they write, “will the United States be able to focus entirely on containing China, which is of paramount importance to American security and prosperity.

It seems, however, that the last thing the neocons want is peace in Ukraine. Instead, Kristol’s group wants to “put pressure on Republicans to do the right thing on Ukraine”--which means providing more military aid and training to Ukrainian forces to enable them to achieve victory in the war. As Kelly Beaucar Vlahos notes in Responsible Statecraft, the neocons’ focus is more war, not diplomacy. That also seems to be the focus of the Biden administration, which recently asked Congress for $24 billion more in aid to Ukraine. It is high time for Republicans and America’s leaders to ignore the advice of the Bill Kristols, Max Boot, and David Frums of the American political spectrum. They have been wrong--disastrously wrong--for the last thirty years. The words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament in 1653 and Leo Amery to Neville Chamberlain in 1940 should be directed at the neoconservatives who still seek to exercise influence over U.S. foreign policy: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.” 

Francis P. Sempa writes on foreign policy and geopolitics. His Best Defense columns appear at the beginning of each month.

索引

Kristol, W.:美國「新保」大將之一
Neoconservative新保守主義,簡稱「新保」(建議以英文版《維基百科》說明為準)

本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=7212891