基于规则的国际秩序将结束
来源：
作者：James O’Neill* 点击：
发布时间：2021-04-15 10:52:41
美国官员及其像澳大利亚这样的忠实追随者说过的最令人厌烦的话之一是，美国声称其外交政策并其反复提到的政策，即“基于规则的国际秩序”。美国（以及国务卿安东尼·布林肯 (Anthony Blinken) 反复使用这个词）真正想表达的是一套由历届美国政府制定的规则体系。这些政府反复使用这个规则，令人生厌，仿佛这个词带有魔力，意在平息任何对其行动的批评。
布林肯最近在推特上谈到他参加的布鲁塞尔北约会议时使用了这个短语。他在推特上写道，“我们建立联盟是为了捍卫共同的价值观。要保持我们的承诺，就需要重申我们承诺保护的价值观和国际关系的基础：一个基于规则的自由和开放的秩序。”
“基于规则的秩序”这句话是一种开放的准则，它告诉世界上的其他国家，规则是由美国制定的，而世界其他国家的责任是毫无疑问地遵守规则。这个短语的起源可以追溯到第二次世界大战结束时。其目的有两方面。一方面，它旨在将美国与其两个主要的共产主义对手，即俄罗斯和中国区分开来。其次，这是在阐明在第二次世界大战之后的世界新秩序中，美国是制定规则的主导政党。
美国人急于维持这种秩序，因为多年来这种秩序一直由他们主导。1990年冷战结束和苏联的解体并没有减弱美国继续控制的欲望。然而，这种世界观存在两个基本问题。
首先，它声称要维护一个由一国主导的体系——美国。世界上大多数国家都不喜欢这一立场。第二个问题是概念本身的问题。美国及其盟友所谓的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”，实际上是指“他们的规则”和“他们的体系”。
美国坚决地推行其国际法概念，而不顾实际的法律定义，即不承认一个国家有权将其意志强加于其他国家，也不承认与其政策相左的其他国家的权利。
在二战后美国发动的多次入侵中，很难说明美国对法律的尊重，因为美国导致世界上的一些地方几乎一直处于战争状态。它以暴力推翻了各种没有充分尊重美国观点的政府。
自1959年以来，美国企图推翻古巴政府，就无法调和对国际法的信念。令人惊讶的是，美国人在古巴的关塔纳摩湾（ Guantanamo Bay ）保留了一个军事监狱基地，实际上无视了古巴政府要求他们离开的意愿。
要将对基于规则的国际秩序的真正信念与对伊拉克和叙利亚完全不合理的入侵和占领协调起来，是非常困难的。就前者而言，萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）制造“大规模杀伤性武器”作为美国入侵的理由，这显然是入侵的借口。由于侯赛因的死亡和未能发现任何这类武器的存在，这本应该成为大规模道歉、赔偿和撤退的理由。然而，将近20年后，美国仍然在那里，并没有急于通过离开来尊重伊拉克议会的意愿。
美国入侵阿富汗是对于“911”事件的借口，为几个月前实际作出的决定提供了遮羞布。同样，入侵的最初原因早已消失。特朗普在 2021年的阿富汗撤军计划目前正在审查中。美国消息人士称，拜登计划在今年9月完成阿富汗撤军。
具有讽刺意味的是，特朗普也是最不尊重基于规则的国际秩序的人，他强调“美国第一”的态度来发表自己的观点。
美国人是否接受世界已经改变，他们无法重新获得他们在上世纪90年代和本世纪初享有的主导地位，这是一个悬而未决的问题。从拜登和布林肯的报道评论来看，他们还需要一段时间来接受这一现实。世界不接受西方民主国家是“善”的化身，而世界其他国家则是“恶”的化身这一划分。
这个一部分反映在越来越多的国家拒绝以美元进行国际贸易。美元在过去的主导地位，除了支撑陷入困境的美国经济体系外，还有数万亿美元的赤字，这也使美国对多个国家的经济结构产生了巨大影响力。这样的日子正在迅速减少，对越来越多的国家来说，美元霸权的终结越来越快。美国对这一角色被削弱的反应值得关注。在过去，对于他们来说，这是一个历史上独一无二的位置。他们无疑会努力维持霸权。最大的危险就在这里。除非美国认识到世界已经发生了变化，否则我们正处在一个非常艰难的时期。
One of the most tiresome phrases uttered by officials of the United States and its loyal acolytes such as Australia is its claim that its foreign policy and adheres to what it repeatedly refers to is the “rules based international order.” What the Americans (and the secretary of state Anthony Blinken uses the phrase repeatedly) really mean is a system of rules dictated by successive US governments and repeated ad nauseam as though the phrase carried magical properties intended to quell any criticism of their actions.
Blinken use the phrase recently when he tweeted about the NATO meeting in Brussels that he attended. He tweeted “our alliances were created to defend shared values. Retaining our commitment requires reaffirming those values and the foundation of international relations we vow to protect: a free and open rules-based order”
The phrase “the rules-based order” is an open code, telling the rest of the world that the rules are set by America and the rest of the world’s duty is to obey them unquestionably. The origins of the phrase have a history going back to the end of the Second World War. The purpose was twofold. On the one hand it was intended to differentiate the United States from its two major Communist adversaries, Russia and China. Secondly, it was a way of spelling out that in the new world order that followed World War II, the United States was the dominant party that set the rules.
The Americans are anxious to maintain this order because for many years it has been dominated by them. The collapse of the Cold War with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990 did not diminish the appetite for continued control. There are two fundamental problems with this worldview however.
The first is that it purports to uphold a system that is dominated by one country; the United States. That is not a position that finds favour with the bulk of the world’s nations. The second problem is that of the concept itself. By the “rules based international order” the United States and its allies actually mean “their rules” and “their system.”
The United States has ruthlessly pursued its notion of international law regardless of the actual legal definition that does not recognise the rights of one nation to impose its will upon the rest and to ignore the rights of other nations with whose policies it finds itself in disagreement.
It is very difficult to locate a respect for the law in the multiple invasions mounted by the United States in the post-World War II period when it has been almost continually at war somewhere in the world. It has violently overthrown governments of all persuasions that failed to pay sufficient regard for the United States’ view of things.
It is impossible to reconcile a belief in International Law with the attempted overthrow of the Cuban government since 1959. Astonishingly the Americans maintain a military prison base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, actually defying the wishes of the Cuban government that they depart.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile a true belief in a rules based international order with the wholly unjustified invasions and occupations of both Iraq and Syria. In the case of the former a patently manufactured excuse of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” was the ostensible reason for the invasion. With the death of Hussein and the failure to discover the existence of any such weapons it should have been the basis for massive apologies, compensation and withdrawal. Instead, nearly 20 years later the United States is still there and showing no hurry to respect the wishes of the Iraqi parliament by leaving.
The invasion of Afghanistan was solely based on a lie with the events of 11 September 2001 providing a fig leaf of justification for a decision actually made months earlier. Again, the original reasons for invading have long since disappeared. Trump’s plan to withdraw during 2021 is currently under review. With American sources suggesting Biden plans to complete the withdrawal by September of this year.
Ironically, it was Trump that also had the least respect for the international rules-based order referring a more blatant, and honest, “America first” approach to imposing his views.
It is an open question as to whether or not the Americans accept that the world has changed and they are unable to re-capture the dominance they enjoyed in the 1990s and earlier this century. Judging by the reported comments of both Biden and Blinken that reality has some way to go before it is accepted. The world does not accept a division between good and evil, with the western democracies personifying the “good” and the rest of the world the “evil”.
Part of that change is reflected in the refusal by an increasing number of countries to conduct their international trade in United States dollars. The previously dominant role of the dollar, apart from propping up the ailing United States economic system with its multi trillion-dollar deficits, also gave the Americans unparalleled influence over the economic structure of multiple countries. Those days are rapidly diminishing, and for an increasing number of countries the end of the dollars hegemony cannot come soon enough.
The United States’ reaction to this diminished role will be interesting to watch. It was an historically unique position for them to be in for the past 75 years. They will undoubtably strive to maintain the hegemony. Therein lies the greatest danger. Unless the United States recognises that the world has changed, we are in for some very rough times.
(责任编辑：James O’Neill*)
布林肯最近在推特上谈到他参加的布鲁塞尔北约会议时使用了这个短语。他在推特上写道，“我们建立联盟是为了捍卫共同的价值观。要保持我们的承诺，就需要重申我们承诺保护的价值观和国际关系的基础：一个基于规则的自由和开放的秩序。”
“基于规则的秩序”这句话是一种开放的准则，它告诉世界上的其他国家，规则是由美国制定的，而世界其他国家的责任是毫无疑问地遵守规则。这个短语的起源可以追溯到第二次世界大战结束时。其目的有两方面。一方面，它旨在将美国与其两个主要的共产主义对手，即俄罗斯和中国区分开来。其次，这是在阐明在第二次世界大战之后的世界新秩序中，美国是制定规则的主导政党。
美国人急于维持这种秩序，因为多年来这种秩序一直由他们主导。1990年冷战结束和苏联的解体并没有减弱美国继续控制的欲望。然而，这种世界观存在两个基本问题。
首先，它声称要维护一个由一国主导的体系——美国。世界上大多数国家都不喜欢这一立场。第二个问题是概念本身的问题。美国及其盟友所谓的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”，实际上是指“他们的规则”和“他们的体系”。
美国坚决地推行其国际法概念，而不顾实际的法律定义，即不承认一个国家有权将其意志强加于其他国家，也不承认与其政策相左的其他国家的权利。
在二战后美国发动的多次入侵中，很难说明美国对法律的尊重，因为美国导致世界上的一些地方几乎一直处于战争状态。它以暴力推翻了各种没有充分尊重美国观点的政府。
自1959年以来，美国企图推翻古巴政府，就无法调和对国际法的信念。令人惊讶的是，美国人在古巴的关塔纳摩湾（ Guantanamo Bay ）保留了一个军事监狱基地，实际上无视了古巴政府要求他们离开的意愿。
要将对基于规则的国际秩序的真正信念与对伊拉克和叙利亚完全不合理的入侵和占领协调起来，是非常困难的。就前者而言，萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）制造“大规模杀伤性武器”作为美国入侵的理由，这显然是入侵的借口。由于侯赛因的死亡和未能发现任何这类武器的存在，这本应该成为大规模道歉、赔偿和撤退的理由。然而，将近20年后，美国仍然在那里，并没有急于通过离开来尊重伊拉克议会的意愿。
美国入侵阿富汗是对于“911”事件的借口，为几个月前实际作出的决定提供了遮羞布。同样，入侵的最初原因早已消失。特朗普在 2021年的阿富汗撤军计划目前正在审查中。美国消息人士称，拜登计划在今年9月完成阿富汗撤军。
具有讽刺意味的是，特朗普也是最不尊重基于规则的国际秩序的人，他强调“美国第一”的态度来发表自己的观点。
美国人是否接受世界已经改变，他们无法重新获得他们在上世纪90年代和本世纪初享有的主导地位，这是一个悬而未决的问题。从拜登和布林肯的报道评论来看，他们还需要一段时间来接受这一现实。世界不接受西方民主国家是“善”的化身，而世界其他国家则是“恶”的化身这一划分。
这个一部分反映在越来越多的国家拒绝以美元进行国际贸易。美元在过去的主导地位，除了支撑陷入困境的美国经济体系外，还有数万亿美元的赤字，这也使美国对多个国家的经济结构产生了巨大影响力。这样的日子正在迅速减少，对越来越多的国家来说，美元霸权的终结越来越快。美国对这一角色被削弱的反应值得关注。在过去，对于他们来说，这是一个历史上独一无二的位置。他们无疑会努力维持霸权。最大的危险就在这里。除非美国认识到世界已经发生了变化，否则我们正处在一个非常艰难的时期。
One of the most tiresome phrases uttered by officials of the United States and its loyal acolytes such as Australia is its claim that its foreign policy and adheres to what it repeatedly refers to is the “rules based international order.” What the Americans (and the secretary of state Anthony Blinken uses the phrase repeatedly) really mean is a system of rules dictated by successive US governments and repeated ad nauseam as though the phrase carried magical properties intended to quell any criticism of their actions.
Blinken use the phrase recently when he tweeted about the NATO meeting in Brussels that he attended. He tweeted “our alliances were created to defend shared values. Retaining our commitment requires reaffirming those values and the foundation of international relations we vow to protect: a free and open rules-based order”
The phrase “the rules-based order” is an open code, telling the rest of the world that the rules are set by America and the rest of the world’s duty is to obey them unquestionably. The origins of the phrase have a history going back to the end of the Second World War. The purpose was twofold. On the one hand it was intended to differentiate the United States from its two major Communist adversaries, Russia and China. Secondly, it was a way of spelling out that in the new world order that followed World War II, the United States was the dominant party that set the rules.
The Americans are anxious to maintain this order because for many years it has been dominated by them. The collapse of the Cold War with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990 did not diminish the appetite for continued control. There are two fundamental problems with this worldview however.
The first is that it purports to uphold a system that is dominated by one country; the United States. That is not a position that finds favour with the bulk of the world’s nations. The second problem is that of the concept itself. By the “rules based international order” the United States and its allies actually mean “their rules” and “their system.”
The United States has ruthlessly pursued its notion of international law regardless of the actual legal definition that does not recognise the rights of one nation to impose its will upon the rest and to ignore the rights of other nations with whose policies it finds itself in disagreement.
It is very difficult to locate a respect for the law in the multiple invasions mounted by the United States in the post-World War II period when it has been almost continually at war somewhere in the world. It has violently overthrown governments of all persuasions that failed to pay sufficient regard for the United States’ view of things.
It is impossible to reconcile a belief in International Law with the attempted overthrow of the Cuban government since 1959. Astonishingly the Americans maintain a military prison base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, actually defying the wishes of the Cuban government that they depart.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile a true belief in a rules based international order with the wholly unjustified invasions and occupations of both Iraq and Syria. In the case of the former a patently manufactured excuse of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” was the ostensible reason for the invasion. With the death of Hussein and the failure to discover the existence of any such weapons it should have been the basis for massive apologies, compensation and withdrawal. Instead, nearly 20 years later the United States is still there and showing no hurry to respect the wishes of the Iraqi parliament by leaving.
The invasion of Afghanistan was solely based on a lie with the events of 11 September 2001 providing a fig leaf of justification for a decision actually made months earlier. Again, the original reasons for invading have long since disappeared. Trump’s plan to withdraw during 2021 is currently under review. With American sources suggesting Biden plans to complete the withdrawal by September of this year.
Ironically, it was Trump that also had the least respect for the international rules-based order referring a more blatant, and honest, “America first” approach to imposing his views.
It is an open question as to whether or not the Americans accept that the world has changed and they are unable to re-capture the dominance they enjoyed in the 1990s and earlier this century. Judging by the reported comments of both Biden and Blinken that reality has some way to go before it is accepted. The world does not accept a division between good and evil, with the western democracies personifying the “good” and the rest of the world the “evil”.
Part of that change is reflected in the refusal by an increasing number of countries to conduct their international trade in United States dollars. The previously dominant role of the dollar, apart from propping up the ailing United States economic system with its multi trillion-dollar deficits, also gave the Americans unparalleled influence over the economic structure of multiple countries. Those days are rapidly diminishing, and for an increasing number of countries the end of the dollars hegemony cannot come soon enough.
The United States’ reaction to this diminished role will be interesting to watch. It was an historically unique position for them to be in for the past 75 years. They will undoubtably strive to maintain the hegemony. Therein lies the greatest danger. Unless the United States recognises that the world has changed, we are in for some very rough times.
版权及免责声明
1、本网转载媒体稿件旨在传播更多有益信息，并不代表同意该观点，本网不承担稿件侵权行为的连带责任；
2、在本网博客/论坛发表言论者，文责自负。
推荐文章
热点内容
-
三分钟！首医研究生带你走进学术盛
11月13日下午，首都医科大学2024年研究生三分钟学术演讲比赛决赛在附属北京安贞医院通州院区举行。本次比赛由首都医科大学研究生思想工作部主办，附属北京安贞医院
-
首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在
5月26-28日，“瓷韵留香”——首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在浙江龙泉青瓷博物馆隆重开幕。
- ・《少林点穴的隐秘力量》纪录片在郑州圆满杀青
- ・北京市侨联召开海外北京会座谈交流会
- ・侨智未来·创新人才发展活动举办
- ・2024首都侨智发展大会开幕式暨主活动在北京经开区举
- ・医生创新之家、京津冀生命健康产业国际合作联盟在北京亦
- ・2024首都侨智发展大会新闻发布会在北京经开区举行
- ・侨智未来·信息产业发展专场活动在北京亦庄举办
- ・ “追梦中华·侨创未来”2024海外华文媒体北京采访
- ・美国迈阿密大学访问学者项目
- ・2012第二届中国国际积极心理学大会
- ・首届世界香具文化大会暨高峰论坛在浙江龙泉圆满召开
京公网安备 11010602130070号