中国外交部网站发布《美国民主情况》报告
12/06/2021
新华社北京12月5日电（记者郑明达）外交部网站5日发布《美国民主情况》报告，通过列举事实、数字和各国相关机构、人士及专家观点，梳理美国民主制度的弊端，分析美国国内民主实践的乱象和对外输出民主的危害，以期美国完善自身民主制度和实践，对外改弦易辙。
报告全文约1.5万字，除序言和结束语外，还包括“何为民主”“美国民主的异化及三重弊害”两部分。
报告说，民主是全人类的共同价值，是各国人民的权利，而不是哪个国家的专利。实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。每个国家的政治制度应由这个国家的人民自主决定。
报告说，历史上，美国民主的发展有其进步性，政党制、代议制、一人一票、三权分立等是对欧洲封建专制的否定和革新。但是，随着时间的推移，美国的民主制度逐渐异化和蜕变，已经越来越背离民主制度的内核和制度设计的初衷。报告从“制度痼疾积重难返”“民主实践乱象丛生”“输出所谓民主产生恶果”三个方面详述了美国民主的异化及其弊害。
报告说，当下的美国，对内应切实保障民众的民主权利、完善自身民主制度，对外应承担更多的国际责任，提供更多的公共产品，而不是对内只讲程序民主、形式民主而忽视实质民主和结果民主，对外将美式民主强加于人，以价值观为手段划分阵营，打着民主的旗号行干涉、颠覆、侵略之实。
报告说，当前，国际社会正在应对新冠肺炎疫情、经济增长放缓、气候变化危机等全球性紧迫挑战。各国应该超越不同制度分歧，摒弃零和博弈思维，践行真正的多边主义，弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，相互尊重、求同存异、合作共赢，共同构建人类命运共同体。
美国民主情况
12/05/2021
新华社北京12月5日电 外交部网站5日发布《美国民主情况》报告。全文如下：
美国民主情况
目录
序言
一、何为民主
二、美国民主的异化及三重弊害
（一）制度痼疾积重难返
1、美式民主沦为“金钱政治”
2、名为“一人一票”，实为“少数精英统治”
3、权力制衡变成“否决政治”
4、选举规则缺陷损害公平正义
5、民主制度失灵引发信任危机
（二）民主实践乱象丛生
1、国会暴乱震惊全球
2、种族歧视根深蒂固
3、疫情失控酿成惨剧
4、贫富分化不断加剧
5、“言论自由”名不副实
（三）输出所谓民主产生恶果
1、“颜色革命”危害地区和国家稳定
2、强推所谓民主造成人道悲剧
3、滥用制裁破坏国际规则
4、“民主灯塔”招致全球批评
结束语
序言
民主是全人类的共同价值，是各国人民的权利，而不是哪个国家的专利。实现民主有多种方式，不可能千篇一律。用单一的标尺衡量世界丰富多彩的政治制度，用单调的眼光审视人类五彩缤纷的政治文明，本身就是不民主的。每个国家的政治制度应由这个国家的人民自主决定。
美国民主制度是美国一国实践的结果，具有独特性，不具普遍性，更远非尽善尽美。但长期以来，美国无视自身民主制度的结构性缺陷与国内民主实践的不足，自诩为“民主样板”，频频打着民主的旗号肆意干涉他国内政、发动对外战争，引发地区动荡和人道主义灾难。
本报告旨在通过列举事实和专家观点，梳理美国民主制度的弊端，分析美国国内民主实践的乱象和对外输出民主的危害，希望美国完善自身民主制度和实践，对外改弦易辙。这既有利于美国人民，也有利于世界人民。如果没有哪个国家试图垄断民主标准，没有哪个国家试图把本国政治制度强加于人，没有哪个国家试图把民主当作工具打压别国，各国各美其美、美美与共，这个世界会更美好。
一、何为民主
民主一词源自古希腊语，本意是“人民统治”、“主权在民”。作为一种政体形式，民主迄今已有2500多年历史，涵盖了从古代雅典公民直接民主政府到现代代议制政府等多种形式，是人类政治文明发展的结果。
民主不是装饰品、不是宣传品，而是要用来解决人民需要解决的问题的。一个国家民主不民主，关键在于是不是真正做到了人民当家做主。要看人民有没有投票权，更要看人民有没有广泛参与权；要看人民在选举中得到了什么口头许诺，更要看选举后这些承诺实现了多少；要看制度和法律规定了什么样的政治程序和政治规则，更要看这些制度和法律是不是真正得到了执行；要看权力运行规则和程序是否民主，更要看权力是否真正受到人民监督和制约。
一个行之有效的民主制度不仅要有完整的制度程序，而且要有完整的参与实践，能够做到过程民主和成果民主、程序民主和实质民主、直接民主和间接民主、人民民主和国家意志的相统一。如果人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，只有竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号、竞选后就毫无发言权，只有拉票时受宠、选举后就被冷落，这样的民主绝不是真正的民主。
一个国家是不是民主，应该由这个国家的人民来评判，而不是由外部少数人来指手画脚。
世界上没有哪一套民主制度是完美的，不存在适用于一切国家的政治制度模式。各国民主制度的建立和民主进程的发展都有其历史性和民族性，都有自身独特价值。国际社会应在相互尊重、平等相待基础上就民主问题进行交流对话，共同为全人类进步作出更大贡献。
二、美国民主的异化及三重弊害
历史上，美国民主的发展有其进步性，政党制、代议制、一人一票、三权分立等是对欧洲封建专制的否定和革新。法国著名思想家托克维尔在其《论美国的民主》一书中也对此予以积极评价。《独立宣言》、“权利法案”、废奴运动、民权运动、平权运动等成为了美国民主进程中的亮点。林肯的“民有、民治、民享”三原则更是脍炙人口。
但是，随着时间的推移，美国的民主制度逐渐异化和蜕变，已经越来越背离民主制度的内核和制度设计的初衷。金钱政治、身份政治、政党对立、政治极化、社会撕裂、种族矛盾、贫富分化等问题愈演愈烈，民主制度的功能出现衰退。
美国还以民主为名频频干涉他国内政，引发地区国家政局动荡和民不聊生，破坏世界和平稳定和各国社会安定。美国和世界上的许多人都在问，美国还是一个“民主国家”吗？世界需要对美国的民主情况作深入检视，美国自己也需要好好反躬自省。
（一）制度痼疾积重难返
美国一贯以“山巅之城”、“民主灯塔”自称，标榜其自诞生之初就设计了一套为保障民主自由而生的政治体制。然而，民主这一理念同今天的美国已经貌合神离。从金钱政治到精英统治，从政治极化到制度失灵，美式民主已身染沉疴。
1、美式民主沦为“金钱政治”
美式民主是建立在资本基础上的“富人游戏”，与人民民主有着本质区别。
100多年前，美国俄亥俄州共和党联邦参议员马克·汉纳这样形容美国政治：“在政界，有两样东西很重要，第一是金钱，第二个我就不记得了。”100多年后再看，金钱依旧是美国政治的“硬通货”，而且作用更无可替代。以2020年美国总统和国会选举为例，此次选举总支出高达140亿美元，是2016年的2倍和2008年的3倍，被称为“史上最烧钱的大选”。其中，总统选举花费再创历史纪录，达到66亿美元；国会选举花销超过70亿美元。
美国民众不得不面对的事实是，金钱政治贯穿美国选举、立法、施政的所有环节，实际上限制了民众的参政权利，经济地位的不平等已经转变为政治地位的不平等，只有口袋里有足够多资本的人才能享受宪法规定的民主权利。金钱政治越来越成为美国社会难以根除的一颗“毒瘤”，成为美国民主的莫大讽刺。
一位美国联邦参议员一针见血地指出：“有些人认为美国国会控制着华尔街，然而真相是华尔街控制着美国国会”。据统计，91%的美国国会选举都是由获得最多资金支持的候选人赢得，而大企业、少数富人以及利益集团出手更加阔绰，成为选举资金的主要来源。这些所谓“民意代表”成功当选后，往往为其背后的金主服务，化身既得利益的代言人，而不是为普通民众发声。
2020年3月，加州大学伯克利分校公共政策教授、美国前劳工部长罗伯特·莱克出版《系统：谁操纵它，我们如何修复它》一书。该书认为，过去40多年，美国的政治系统被极少一部分人操控。政治献金几乎被视为“合法的贿赂”，让富人拥有了更强大的政治影响力。2018年中期选举中，巨额政治献金占到了竞选资金的40%以上，这些巨额资金主要来自占美国总人口0.01%的富豪。金钱政治和游说团体正在扭曲美国普通民众发声的渠道，绝大多数人表达真实意愿的声音都被少数利益集团盖过了。这些寡头又用手中的权力来充实自己的财富，而普通民众的利益则被抛诸脑后。
2020年9月23日，哈佛大学法学院教授马修·史蒂芬森在接受“今日哈佛法律”采访时表示，美国在廉政方面绝不是世界领袖，游说、政治献金等做法在其他国家被认为是腐败，但在美国不仅被允许，还受宪法法律保护。
2、名为“一人一票”，实为“少数精英统治”
美国是一个典型的由精英阶层主导的国家，“多元政治”只是一种表面现象，精英们把持政治、经济、军事等方面的统治地位，操控国家机器，制定规章制度，把握舆论风向，主导商业公司，行使各种特权，等等。特别是自19世纪60年代以来，民主、共和两党轮流“坐庄”分享国家权力，多党制名存实亡。普通选民把选票投给第三党或独立候选人等于浪费投票机会，只能在两党推出的候选人之间做出非此即彼的选择。
在“驴象之争”背景下，两党始终将大众政治参与限定在狭小范围。对于普通选民而言，选举时召之即来，选举后挥之即去，大多数人都只是选举游戏的“群众演员”，“民治”在美国政治实践中很难有所体现。
美国麻省理工学院政治评论家与社会活动家诺姆·乔姆斯基指出，美国是“真实存在的资本主义民主”，美国人对政策制定的影响力与他们的财富水平之间呈正相关性，约70%的美国人对政策制定没有任何影响，他们在收入水平、财富等方面处于劣势，相当于被剥夺了参政权利。
美国马萨诸塞州大学教授贾拉拉贾在《大西洋月刊》发表文章表示，美国目前的民主只是形式上的民主，而不是实质民主。总统选举的全国范围初选完全受富人、名人、媒体和利益集团的操纵，民众投票支持的总统参选人往往不真正代表民意。
3、权力制衡变成“否决政治”
美国政治学家弗朗西斯·福山在其专著《政治秩序与政治衰退》中指出，美国存在根深蒂固的政治瘫痪现象，美国的政治体制中有太多的制衡，以致集体行动的成本大大增加，有时甚至寸步难行。这是一种可被称为“否决制”的体制。20世纪80年代以来，美国的“否决制”变成了通往政治僵局的“灵丹妙药”。
美国民主程序分散、冗长，存在大量否决点，个别否决行为即可影响体系行动，所谓“相互制衡蕴涵纠偏能力”的预设在实际操作中日益走样。美国政治极化加剧，两党诉求大相径庭，共识不断压缩，甚至出现“最自由的共和党人也比最保守的民主党人大大右倾”的极端状况，对立制约已成家常便饭，“否决政治”成为政治生态，“我办不成事也不能让你办成”蔚然成风。
华盛顿的政客关注的是保住党派利益，国家发展的宏图伟略早已抛诸脑后。否决对手会加强自身阵营身份认同，身份认同的加强又迅速巩固自身阵营支持力量，美国两党痴迷于“否决”，陷入难以自拔的恶性循环，其结果必然是政府效能被弱化、公正法治被践踏、发展进步被迟滞、社会分裂被放大。当今美国，“我是美国人”正渐次被“我是共和党人”“我是民主党人”所替代，“身份政治”“部落政治”向美社会各层面恶性传导加剧“否决政治”。
2021年10月美国智库皮尤研究中心对美国、德国、韩国等17个发达经济体所做调查结果显示，美国被视为政治极化最严重国家，90%的美国受访者认为不同党派的支持者之间存在严重分歧，近六成美国受访者认为民众不仅在政策领域意见相左，在基本事实方面也难以达成共识。
韩国庆熙大学政治学教授徐正健指出，美国政治两极化愈演愈烈，依靠选举推进改革的民主主义自净程序无法正常运行。美国国会参议院陷入“冗长辩论”议事程序陷阱，不能发挥立法应对社会变化的代议机构作用。
4、选举规则缺陷损害公平正义
美国总统选举遵循古老的选举人团制度，总统和副总统并非由选民直接选出，而是由选举人团投票决定。美国现有选举人票538张，赢得超过一半选举人票（270张）的候选人即当选总统。这种选举制度弊端十分明显：一是当选总统可能无法赢得多数普选票，代表性不足；二是具体选举规则由各州自行决定，易发生乱象；三是“赢者通吃”制度加剧各州地位不平等、各党地位不平等，造成巨大选票浪费并抑制投票率，深蓝州、深红州选民往往遭忽视，摇摆州获得相对非对称重要性，成为两党竞相拉拢的对象。
美国历史上出现过5次赢得了全国普选票却输掉总统选举的情况。最近的一次是，2016年大选共和党总统候选人唐纳德·特朗普获得6298万多张普选票，得票率45.9%。民主党总统候选人希拉里·克林顿获得6585万多张普选票，得票率48%。特朗普虽然输掉普选票，但赢得304张选举人票，希拉里仅获得227张选举人票，特朗普以选举人票数优势当选总统。
美国民众公认的选举制度另一大弊病是“杰利蝾螈”。1812年，马萨诸塞州州长杰利为谋求本党利益，签署法案将州内一个选区划成类似蝾螈的极不规则形状。这种做法后被称为“杰利蝾螈”，即指通过不公平的选区划分，帮助本党赢得尽可能多的议席，巩固优势地位。美国每10年进行一次人口普查，然后按“各选区人口大致相等”原则并结合人口变化情况重新划分选区。美国宪法将划分选区的权力赋予各州立法机构，为州议会多数党“杰利蝾螈”提供操作空间。“杰利蝾螈”主要靠两种操作，一是“集中”，即尽可能将反对党选民集中划入少数特定选区，牺牲这些选区以换取其他选区绝对安全；二是“打散”，即将反对党选民相对集中的地区拆分划入周边不同选区，从而稀释反对党选票。
民主党主政的俄勒冈州于2021年9月27日在全美率先完成选区重新划分，民主党牢牢控制的选区由原来的2个增至4个，“摇摆选区”由2个减至1个，这意味着该党可凭借57%的实际选民占比，控制该州83%的国会选区。反之，共和党控制的得克萨斯州于今年10月25日确定新的选区划分，牢牢控制的选区由原来的22个增至24个，“摇摆选区”由原来的6个减为1个，共和党可凭借52.1%的实际选民占比，占据该州65%的国会众议院席位。
2021年8月YouGov舆观调查网民调显示，仅16%选民认为本州能够公平划分选区，44%认为不能，其余40%表示不确定。随着美政治极化加剧，两党均竭力谋求自身利益最大化，“杰利蝾螈”成为不二选择。
民主党的“超级代表”制度也阻碍选举公平。“超级代表”由民主党主要领袖、全国委员会成员、参议院和众议院所有民主党议员、民主党现任州长组成，提前“内定”产生，其投票意向完全根据个人喜好和党内高层意志，无法反映民意。《国会山报》政治专家马克·普洛特金撰文表示，美国总统选举民主党党内初选中的“超级代表”制度既不公正也非民主。这样的“精英做法”应该立即被废除。
5、民主制度失灵引发信任危机
美式民主如同好莱坞刻意布置的场景，展现的都是精心打造的人设，台前大喊人民、背后大搞交易，党同伐异、金钱政治、否决政治根本不能带来民众所希望的高质量治理。美国民众对美国政治愈发反感，对美式民主愈发消极。
2020年10月，美国盖洛普民调公司调查显示，对总统选举非常有信心的美国受访者比例仅有19%，创下自2004年以来该调查的最低纪录。11月，《华尔街日报》网站指出，在2020年大选中，人们对美国民主制度的信心下降到20年来最低点。
根据美联社－NORC公共事务研究中心的一项民意调查，只有16%的美国人表示民主运作良好或非常好，45%的美国人认为民主运作不正常，而另外38%的美国人认为民主运作得不太良好。美国皮尤研究中心调查显示，仅有20%的美国人一直或多数时候都信任联邦政府。
2021年5月，布鲁金斯学会网站撰文指出，在2020年大选结束后，美国全部50个州认证选举结果，但仍有77%的共和党选民以选票欺诈为由质疑拜登当选总统的合法性。这是自20世纪30年代以来第一次。9月，美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）民调显示，56%的美国民众认为美国民主“正在遭受攻击”，52%认为选举没有或很少反映民意，51%认为未来几年美国官员可能因本党败选而推翻选举结果。
2021年，皮尤对16个发达经济体的1.6万人和2500名美国人的调查结果显示，57%的国际受访者和72%的美国人认为美国已经不是可供他国效仿的“民主典范”。
（二）民主实践乱象丛生
美国民主的异化不仅表现在制度设计等结构性层面，更体现在其实践中。美国不是民主的优等生，更遑论“民主典范”。国会山的枪声与闹剧彻底揭开美式民主的华丽外衣。黑人弗洛伊德之死揭露了美国社会长期存在的系统性种族歧视，激起全美乃至全世界此起彼伏的抗议浪潮。新冠疫情持续失控，是否戴口罩、打疫苗成为社会分裂和对立的新导火索。经济发展红利分配不均，普通民众收入长期停滞。美式民主难以有效维护公序良俗，无法充分提供公共福祉。
1、国会暴乱震惊全球
2021年1月6日下午，数千名美国民众聚集在华盛顿国会山并强行闯入国会大厦，以阻止美国国会联席会议确认美国新当选总统。事件导致美总统权力过渡进程中断并造成5人死亡，140多人受伤。此次事件是自1814年白宫遭英军纵火焚烧以来华盛顿最严重的暴力事件，200余年来国会大厦首次被占领。美国国会参议院共和党领袖将这一事件称为“失败的叛乱”。美国对外关系委员会学者惊呼，美国不像许多美国人想的那样与众不同，国会暴乱事件应给“美国例外论”和“山巅之城”的说法画上句号。
冲闯国会事件动摇了美式民主制度三大基石。一是所谓“民主”并不民主。美国一些政客拒绝承认选举结果，其支持者暴力冲闯国会大厦，重挫美国民主“公信力”。二是所谓“自由”并不自由。推特、脸书等社交媒体冻结美国一些政客的个人账号，宣布其“社交性死亡”，戳破美“言论自由”的假象。三是所谓“法治”并不法治。美执法部门对待“黑人的命也是命”示威抗议和冲闯国会事件态度一严一宽，不同执法尺度再次暴露美“法治”的双标本性。
冲闯国会事件震惊了国际社会，“哀其不幸，怒其不争”。英国首相约翰逊发推特表示，美国国会发生的事件非常可耻。法国总统马克龙讲话称，在世界最古老民主国家之一的美国，“一人一票”的普世价值正遭受重创。南非总统拉马福萨表示，这动摇了美国民主的基础。印尼前总统苏西洛发推特表示，美国政治闹剧值得深思，没有完美的民主制度，民主实践更不完美。
2、种族歧视根深蒂固
种族主义问题是美国民主无法磨灭的耻辱烙印。美国的开国元勋一边说着“人人生而平等”，一边却在1789年施行的宪法中保留了蓄奴制度。时至今日，美国虽然表面上废除了种族隔离制度，但白人至上主义甚嚣尘上，对黑人等少数族裔的歧视依然系统性存在。
美国的种族问题每隔一段时间就会“复发”。2020年5月25日，明尼苏达州警察暴力执法导致黑人弗洛伊德不治身亡。弗洛伊德死前“我无法呼吸”的绝望哀求点燃了汹涌民愤，全美50个州上百个城市随后爆发游行示威，为弗洛伊德伸张正义，抗议种族歧视问题。直到事件发生百余天后，有关游行仍在持续。
弗洛伊德的遭遇只是美国黑人百年来悲惨境遇的缩影。正如美国心理学会主席舒尔曼所说，美国始终处于一场种族主义的大流行病中，民权运动领袖马丁·路德·金的梦想至今并未实现。印度主流媒体《印度快报》发表社论称，美国的种族主义颠覆了美民主制度。
2021年2月，斯坦福大学新闻网发表文章检视美各领域系统性种族歧视：在教育领域，有色人种儿童在学校受到更为密切的监视；在司法领域，有色人种尤其是黑人更容易成为被针对的目标；在经济和就业领域，从应聘职位到获取贷款，黑人等其他少数族裔群体在职场和整体经济环境中受到歧视。美国华盛顿大学研究报告显示，1980年至2018年间，美国约有30800人因警察暴力死亡，这一数字比官方公布的人数多出约17100人，其中非洲裔因警察暴力死亡的可能性是白人的3.5倍。
美各地爆发的愤怒不只来自黑人，已跨越种族界限。以色列《耶路撒冷邮报》网站刊文指出，美国犹太人对白人至上主义团体驱动的右翼反犹主义和暴力行为感到担忧。美国犹太人委员会年度民调显示，2020年43%的在美犹太人认为其安全感比上一年更低，2017年有41%的人认为反犹主义在美国是一个严重问题，该比率远高于2016年的21%、2015年的21%和2013年的14%。
美国国内对亚裔群体的欺凌也在不断加剧。新冠疫情暴发以来，亚裔美国人在公共场合遭受羞辱甚至攻击的事件此起彼伏。美国联邦调查局公布的数据显示，2020年全美针对亚裔的仇恨犯罪案件数量上升76%。从2020年3月到2021年6月，“停止仇恨亚裔美国人”组织接到了9000多起投诉报告。美国全国广播公司网站一项针对美国亚裔年轻人的调查显示，在过去1年中，四分之一的美国亚裔年轻人成为种族欺凌目标，近一半受访者对自身所处境遇表示悲观，四分之一的受访者对自己及家人所处的境遇表示恐惧。
3、疫情失控酿成惨剧
美国号称具有世界上最丰富的医疗资源，应对新冠肺炎疫情却一片混乱，成为世界上确诊人数和死亡人数最多的国家。
截至2021年11月底，根据约翰斯·霍普金斯大学统计数据，美国累计报告新冠肺炎确诊病例超过4800万例，累计死亡逾77万例，两项数据均名列世界第一。今年1月8日，美国单日新增新冠肺炎确诊病例300777例，达到疫情在美暴发以来最高；1月13日，4170名美国人因感染新冠肺炎去世，远超“9·11”恐怖袭击事件丧生人数。11月末，美国日均新增确诊病例数量超过7万例，新增死亡病例逾700例，美国平均每500人就有1人死于新冠肺炎。截至目前，美国新冠病亡人数已超越1919年大流感病亡人数，也超过美在一战、二战、朝鲜战争、越南战争、伊拉克战争、阿富汗战争死亡人数之和。如果美国能够科学应对，很多人不必付出生命代价。美国流行病学家、疾病控制与预防中心原负责人威廉·福格认为“这是一场屠杀”。
疫情重创美国经济。美国企业倒闭和失业潮发生速度及规模超乎想象，大量民众长期失业，社会不稳定因素增加等加剧了美国人的焦虑感和无力感。美国预算与政策优先事项中心2021年7月29日的《新冠困境报告》显示，尽管情况比2020年12月有所改善，但2021年上半年美国人生活困难情况依旧十分普遍，仍有2000万成年人所在家庭没有足够食物，1140万成年租房者无法按时交纳房租，面临被赶出租屋的风险。美国人口普查局数据显示，截至2021年7月5日，有未成年人的家庭中至少有一人失去收入来源的比例仍高达22%。美民众消费信心大幅下滑，就业市场复苏放缓。高盛、摩根士丹利、牛津经济研究院等机构纷纷显著下调美经济增长预期。同时，疫情、三轮大规模经济刺激计划等因素叠加导致美港口拥堵和供应短缺，进而推升美通货膨胀率。今年10月，美消费者价格指数（CPI）同比上涨6.2%，连续6个月同比上涨幅度达到或超过5%，创2008年来最大涨幅。
疫情在美延宕，症结并非在于美国没有科学，而是不信科学、不用科学。美国一些政客为了选举，将党派利益置于国家利益之上，将抗疫问题政治化，一门心思对外“甩锅”推责。美联邦与各州一盘散沙，不仅形不成合力，反而彼此争斗。在这个大背景下，抗疫举措已被严重政治化，疫苗打与不打、口罩戴与不戴都成为了政党、民众争执的焦点，反智主义甚嚣尘上。
法国《世界报》报道指出，新冠疫情危机揭示了美国民主制度的脆弱性。美国把昂贵的医疗卫生体系留给富人，放任贫穷者被剥夺社会保障，使美国这一世界上最发达国家因社会不公而变得落伍，这是民主偏差导致无法有效管控疫情的经典案例。斯坦福大学新闻网指出，在医疗卫生领域，新冠疫情对有色人种造成了更严重的影响，凸显了白人和有色人种之间健康水平差距。
4、贫富分化不断加剧
美国是贫富分化最严重的西方国家。2021年美国基尼系数升至0.48，几乎是半个世纪以来的新高。美国智库政策研究院报告称，1990年至2021年，美国亿万富翁的总体财富增长了19倍，而同期美国中位数财富只增加了5.37%。这揭示了美国“富者愈富、穷者愈穷”的残酷现实。
美联储2021年10月统计数据显示，截至今年6月，美国收入在中间60%的“中产阶级”拥有的财富在国家总财富中占比已经跌至26.6%，创过去30年来新低，而收入前1%的富人却拥有27%的国家财富，超过了“中产阶级”。
加州大学伯克利分校经济学家伊曼努尔·萨兹发表的统计数据显示，美国前10%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的9倍多，前1%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的40倍，而前0.1%富人人均年收入是后90%人口的196倍之多。
新冠疫情暴发以来，美国实施“大水漫灌”政策，在推高股市的同时也进一步拉大了贫富差距。美国亿万富翁拥有的总资产增加了1.763万亿美元，涨幅高达59.8%。排名前10%的美国富人持有89%的美国股票，创下历史新高。
美国的贫富分化是由美国政治制度及其政府所代表的资本利益所决定的。从“占领华尔街”运动，到近期的“大猩猩”对视华尔街铜牛事件，美国民众对贫富分化的声讨从未停止，但现状毫无改变。美国治理者放任贫富差距扩大，疫情之下，资本优先、富人先行的社会规则更加横行。
5、“言论自由”名不副实
在美国，媒体被称为与行政、立法、司法三权并立的“第四权力”，记者更是被誉为“无冕之王”。美国媒体虽然标榜独立于政治、为自由和真相服务，但早已服务于金钱和党派政治。
少数传媒集团垄断美国新闻业，成为一手遮天的政治力量。1996年美国颁布了《电信法》，要求联邦政府放松媒体所有权监管，由此掀起史无前例的兼并狂潮，对美国媒体的多样性和独立性造成毁灭性打击。随着美国媒体数量锐减，少数几家公司不断做大，形成垄断巨头。今天的美国，少数几家企业控制90%以上的媒体，年收益甚至超过某些发展中国家的经济总量。这些媒体“巨无霸”一边大肆扩张商业版图，一边将触手伸向美国政坛，通过游说公关和竞选献金左右政治进程。
被垄断的美国媒体成为公民政治权利的“隐形杀手”。美国传播政治经济学派代表人物、伊利诺伊大学香槟分校教授罗伯特·麦克切斯尼在《富媒体穷民主》一书中指出，出于追逐利润的本性，媒体公司将民众封锁在娱乐节目的世界中，使民众失去获取多元化信息的渠道、关心公共问题的兴趣以及明辨是非的能力，在社会政策制定过程中逐渐失声。民主政治文化在媒体高度发达的美国社会变得极度萎缩，“政治疏离”导致民主成为一种“没有公民”的政治游戏。迈阿密《新先驱报》报道称，在精英和财团控制的媒体诱导下，民众已无法辨别哪些是事实真相，哪些是政治宣传。
美国媒体不再是民主的“守门员”。媒体行业的“左右之争”无形中加深了美国两党之间、精英与平民之间的隔阂与分歧，造成“左的更左”、“右的更右”，并导致极端思想和民粹主义在美国登堂入室。
韩国智库世宗研究所刊文指出，超过80%的美国保守派选民将《纽约时报》等主流媒体报道视为虚假消息，对媒体的信任呈偏向性。选民只听信特定媒体，无视国家层面沟通，大喊大叫、消极党争代替了冷静讨论和共识。牛津大学－路透社新闻研究所发布《2021全球数字新闻洞察报告》指出，在对46个国家的92000名新闻消费者调查后发现，美国民众对媒体的信任度排名垫底，受调查人群中仅有29%的民众信任媒体。
在传统媒体衰落的信息时代，社交媒体一跃成为公众“新宠”，但也免不了复制传统媒体被大资本和利益集团控制的老路。社交媒体公司为了赚取流量，利用算法为用户编织起“信息茧房”，对提供的极端内容不加管控，从而导致使用者日益自我固化，身份政治和民意撕裂更加严重。
2021年10月，前脸书公司员工豪根公布了数万份关于脸书公司内部运作的爆炸性文件。豪根向美国哥伦比亚广播公司透露，脸书公司为了保持用户粘度，不惜牺牲公众利益而攫取利润。脸书平台是社会极端分子的主要阵地，充斥着仇恨言论、虚假信息和错误信息，而只有3%至5%的仇恨以及约0.6%的暴力和煽动性言论得到管控。
（三）输出所谓民主产生恶果
美国政府不顾世界上不同国家和地区在经济发展水平和历史文化方面存在的巨大差异，将自己的政治制度和价值理念强加于人，推行“民主改造”，策划“颜色革命”，肆意干涉他国内政，甚至颠覆他国政权，造成灾难性后果。美国按照自己的形象塑造其他国家、“输出民主”的行为本身就不民主，从根本上违背了民主的核心价值理念。美式民主嫁接之地，不但没有产生“化学反应”，反而引发“水土不服”，导致许多地区和国家深陷动荡、冲突和战争泥潭。
1、“颜色革命”危害地区和国家稳定
美国惯于打着所谓“民主价值”的旗号，大肆干涉别国内政、甚至策动政权更迭、扶持亲美政府。前美国中央情报局高官曾宣称“把人们塑造成为我们需要的样子，让他们听我们的。只要把脑子弄乱，我们就能不知不觉改变人们的价值观念，并迫使他们相信一种经过偷换的价值观念”。美国前国务卿蓬佩奥曾公开表示：“我曾担任美国中央情报局局长。我们撒谎、我们欺骗、我们偷窃。我们还有一门课程专门来教这些。这才是美国不断探索进取的荣耀。”
美国已形成了一整套实施“和平演变”的套路：首先借所谓“文化交流”、经济援助、控制舆论等方式，为发动“颜色革命”制造舆论氛围，尽量夸大现政权的错误、弊端，以激起群众的不满和反政府情绪；同时，向民众灌输美国的价值观，使人们认同美国的经济政治制度；培养大量非政府组织，全方位培训反对派领导人，抓住重要选举或突发事件的时机，通过各种街头政治活动，推翻当地政权。
历史上，美国借“推广民主”之名在拉美推行“新门罗主义”，在欧亚地区煽动“颜色革命”，在西亚北非国家遥控“阿拉伯之春”，给多国带来混乱和灾难，严重损害世界和平、稳定和发展。
在拉美和加勒比地区，“美式民主”的美颜滤镜早已破碎，美国“民主典范”的自我表演充满了尴尬。1823年，美国发表“门罗宣言”，宣称“美洲是美洲人的美洲”，鼓噪“泛美主义”。此后，美国无数次打着“传播民主”的旗号，对拉美和加勒比地区进行政治干涉、军事介入和政权颠覆。无论是敌视封锁社会主义古巴近60年，还是颠覆智利阿连德政府等，都是“顺我者昌，逆我者亡”的霸权行径。
2003年起，东欧、中亚地区接连发生格鲁吉亚“玫瑰革命”、乌克兰“橙色革命”和吉尔吉斯斯坦“郁金香革命”。美国国务院公开承认在这些“政权更迭”中发挥了“中心作用”。2020年10月，俄罗斯对外情报局披露美国计划在摩尔多瓦掀起“颜色革命”。
始于2010年的“阿拉伯之春”造成整个中东地区的强烈震荡，而美国在其中扮演着幕后“操盘手”的重要角色。2011年《纽约时报》披露，少数由美国政府资助的核心组织正在“专制的”阿拉伯国家推广民主。参与“阿拉伯之春”的若干组织和个人曾从美国“国际共和研究所”“国际事务民主协会”和“自由之家”获得培训和资助。埃塞俄比亚非洲和国际事务专家穆斯塔法·阿哈马迪在“金字塔在线”网站发表文章《应许之地》指出，埃及人民在奥巴马“现在就意味着现在”的口号煽动下推翻了穆巴拉克，但埃及人民也因政局变动付出了沉重代价。美国的所作所为使阿拉伯人民认识到，美国希望将一种刻板的民主模式强加于阿拉伯人，而不管他们的意愿如何。
环顾被美国强行“推销”价值观的国家，真正的民主、自由、人权不见踪迹，持久混乱、发展停滞和人道主义灾难却随处可见。美国对多国的价值观输出，阻断了这些国家正常的发展进程，阻碍了这些国家探索适合本国国情的发展道路和模式，给当地带来政治、经济、社会的强烈动荡，毁灭了一个个曾经美好的家园，滋生恐怖主义等长期后患，威胁和破坏地区乃至全球安全。正如法国《大晚报》所指出的，“民主”在美国手中早已成为对异见国家的“大规模杀伤性武器”。
美国在评价国内外民主方面秉持不同标准，是褒是贬由美国自说自话、随心所欲。2021年1月6日，美国发生冲闯国会山事件后，有位美国政客将其比作“9·11”恐怖袭击，声称这是对美国国会、宪法和民主“可耻的攻击”。但讽刺的是，2019年6月，此人却将发生在香港立法会的暴力示威活动描绘成“一道美丽的风景线”，并对暴徒展现出的“勇气”大加赞赏，暴露出赤裸裸的“双重标准”。
2、强推所谓民主造成人道悲剧
美国强制输出所谓民主，酿成多国人道灾难。美国发动长达20年的阿富汗战争让阿富汗满目疮痍，民生凋敝。据统计，总共47245名阿富汗平民以及6.6万至6.9万名与“9·11”事件无关的阿富汗军人和警察在美军行动中丧生，1000多万人流离失所。阿富汗战争毁坏阿经济发展基础，让阿富汗人民一贫如洗。
2003年，美国以所谓伊拉克持有大规模杀伤性武器为由，对伊拉克发动军事打击。战争导致的平民死亡人数有20万至25万人，其中美军直接致死的超过16000人，并造成100多万人无家可归。美军还严重违反国际人道主义原则，频频制造“虐囚”事件。时至今日，美国也拿不出所谓“伊拉克持有大规模杀伤性武器”的证据。
2016年至2019年，叙利亚有记载死于战乱的平民达33584人。其中，美国领导的联军轰炸直接致死3833人，有半数是妇女和儿童。美国公共电视网2018年11月9日报道，仅美军对拉卡市发动的所谓“史上最精确的空袭”，就导致1600名叙平民被炸死。
2018年，美国以“阻止叙利亚政府使用化学武器”为由，再次对叙展开空中打击。但后来所谓叙利亚政府使用化学武器的证据，被证明只不过是美国等国情报部门资助的“白头盔”组织自编自演的摆拍视频而已。
3、滥用制裁破坏国际规则
单边制裁是美国的对外大棒。长期以来，美国滥用自身金融霸权和技术优势，频频采取单边霸凌行径。美国制订了《国际紧急经济权力法》《全球马格尼茨基人权问责法》《以制裁反击美国敌人法》等国内恶法并炮制了一系列行政令直接对特定国家、组织或个人进行制裁，以“最低联系原则”“效果原则”等模棱两可的规则任意扩大美国内法管辖范围，还滥用国内司法诉讼渠道对其他国家实体和个人搞“长臂管辖”，其中最典型的案例就是“阿尔斯通案”和“孟晚舟案”。据统计，特朗普政府累计实施逾3900项制裁措施，相当于平均每天挥舞3次“制裁大棒”。截至2021财年，美净制裁实体和个人高达9421个，较2000财年增长933%。美实施非法单边制裁与“长臂管辖”，严重损害他国主权安全，严重影响有关国家国计民生，严重违反国际法和国际关系基本准则。
2021年以来，美对外制裁没有收手。美国政府联合欧洲盟国加大对俄罗斯遏制打压，以纳瓦尔内事件、俄对美网络攻击、干预美大选等为由对俄实施全面制裁，并发动外交战，驱逐俄外交人员。在“北溪-2”天然气管道项目和数字税等问题上，美国制裁欧洲盟友也毫不客气。自中美第一阶段经贸协议生效以来，美国不断对华采取打压遏制措施，将940多个中国实体和个人列入各类限制清单。根据美财政部外国资产控制办公室数据，截至10月19日，美制裁含香港、澳门在内的中国实体和个人数量达391个。
美国塔夫茨大学教授、布鲁金斯学会高级研究员丹尼尔·德雷兹纳今年9月在《外交》杂志发表文章，批评美国历届政府将制裁作为解决外交问题的首选方案，非但起不到效果，还造成人道主义灾难，称“美利坚合众国”已成为“制裁合众国”。
美国实施单方面制裁，持续严重侵犯本国及他国人民的人权。其中最恶劣的例子就是对古巴持续实施封锁。60多年来，美国罔顾联合国大会的多项决议，基于通过禁运政策和《托里切利法》《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法》等国内法构筑起针对古巴的全面封锁体系，实施了现代历史上持续时间最长、程度最严厉的系统性贸易禁运、经济封锁和金融制裁，严重损害古经济社会发展，令古蒙受直接经济损失逾千亿美元。
自上世纪70年代末，美国对伊朗开始了长期封锁和制裁。40多年来，美单边制裁力度和频度不断加大，逐步形成以金融、贸易、能源和实体个人等多领域制裁为主要手段的严密体系，对伊朗施加全方位、多管齐下的制裁压力。2018年5月，美国政府单方面退出伊朗核问题全面协议，随后重启并新增一系列对伊制裁。许多国家和相关实体被迫放弃与伊合作，大批国外石油企业陆续撤出伊，伊制造业难以正常运行，经济增速下滑，同时造成通胀高企、货币大幅贬值。
美国还对白俄罗斯、叙利亚、津巴布韦等国实施多年制裁，加大对朝鲜、委内瑞拉等国“极限施压”。
4、“民主灯塔”招致全球批评
全球民众的眼睛是雪亮的，对于美国民主存在的种种缺陷、美国输出“民主价值观”的虚伪性以及美借民主之名在全球横行霸道看得一清二楚。
俄罗斯外交部发言人指出，美国早已习惯于自诩为“世界民主灯塔”，要求别国人道对待和平请愿，但在自己国内却采取截然相反的做法，美国根本不是照亮民主的灯塔。美国政府首先应倾听本国民众呼声，不要一边在国内搞“猎巫行动”，一边还道貌岸然地大谈别国人权问题。美国在人权和公民自由问题上根本没资格对别国指手画脚。
2021年5月，德国民调机构拉塔纳和由北约前秘书长、丹麦前首相拉斯穆森创建的民主国家联盟基金会在53个国家对5万多人进行的“2021年民主认知指数”调查结果显示，44%的受访者担心美国对本国民主构成威胁，50%的美国受访者担心美国是非民主国家，59%的美国受访者认为美国政府只代表少数集团利益。
2021年6月，英国伦敦大学政治学副教授克拉斯在《华盛顿邮报》发表文章《美国民主失灵令世界震惊》。文章援引的皮尤民调显示，美国不再是“山巅之城”，美多数盟友将美国民主视为“破碎的过往”，新西兰、澳大利亚、加拿大、瑞典、荷兰和英国分别有69%、65%、60%、59%、56%和53%的民众认为美国政治体制运行得不太好或者很不好。法国、德国、新西兰、希腊、比利时、瑞典等国均有超过四分之一的民众认为“美国从来都不是民主典范”。
民调机构“欧盟观点”发布的报告显示，欧盟对美国制度的信心下滑，52%的人认为美国民主制度无效，这一比例在法国和德国分别为65%和61%。
2021年9月，英国知名学者马丁·沃尔夫在《金融时报》发表文章《美国民主的奇异消亡》指出，美国的政治环境已走到快无法挽回的程度，民主共和国进一步向专制主义转变。
2021年11月，瑞典智库“国际民主及选举协助研究所”发布年度报告《2021年全球民主现状》，将美国首次列入“退步的民主国家名单”。该组织秘书长表示，美国民主状况明显恶化，体现为对可信的选举结果提出质疑的趋势愈发明显、对参与选举的压制以及日益严重的极化现象。
印度政治活动家亚达夫指出，美国并非“民主典范”，世界认识到美式民主急需自我反思，美国需向其他民主国家学习。墨西哥《进程》杂志评论称，在看似民主自由的表象下，美国民主制度存在巨大缺陷。南非比勒陀利亚大学政治学系高级讲师姆贝特在《邮卫报》上撰文称，自由和公平选举的许多标志，比如普遍的选民名册、集中的选举管理、统一的规则和条例，其实在美国系统中是缺失的。非洲人所接受民主培训中的良好选举行为在美国从未存在。
结束语
山巅之城的美国，灯塔效应不再。
——《以色列时报》
当下的美国，对内应切实保障民众的民主权利、完善自身民主制度，对外应承担更多的国际责任，提供更多的公共产品，而不是对内只讲程序民主、形式民主而忽视实质民主和结果民主，对外将美式民主强加于人，以价值观为手段划分阵营，打着民主的旗号行干涉、颠覆、侵略之实。
当前，国际社会正在应对新冠肺炎疫情、经济增长放缓、气候变化危机等全球性紧迫挑战。面对这些风险和挑战，谁都无法独善其身，团结合作是最有力的武器。把民主一元化、绝对化、工具化、武器化，人为制造集团政治和阵营对立，这与同舟共济的精神背道而驰。
各国应该超越不同制度分歧，摒弃零和博弈思维，践行真正的多边主义，弘扬和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，相互尊重、求同存异、合作共赢，共同构建人类命运共同体。
The State of Democracy in the United States
2021-12-05 10:00
Contents
Preamble
I. What is democracy?
II. The alienation and three malaises of democracy in the US
1. The system fraught with deep-seated problems
(1) American-style democracy has become “a game of money politics”
(2) “One person one vote” in name, “rule of the minority elite” in reality
(3) The checks and balances have resulted in a “vetocracy”
(4) The flawed electoral rules impair fairness and justice
(5) Dysfunctional democracy triggers trust crisis
2. Messy and chaotic practices of democracy
(1) The Capitol riot that shocks the world
(2) Entrenched racism
(3) Tragic mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic
(4) Widening wealth gap
(5) “Freedom of speech” in name only
3. Disastrous consequences of US export of its brand of democracy
(1) The “color revolutions” undermine regional and national stability
(2) The US imposition of its brand of democracy causes humanitarian tragedies
(3) The abuse of sanctions breaches international rules
(4) The “beacon of democracy” draws global criticism
Conclusion
Preamble
Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity. It is a right for all nations, not a prerogative reserved to a few. Democracy takes different forms, and there is no one-size-fits-all model. It would be totally undemocratic to measure the diverse political systems in the world with a single yardstick or examine different political civilizations from a single perspective. The political system of a country should be independently decided by its own people.
The United States’ system of democracy is derived from its own practices. This system is unique, not universally applicable, and it is far from perfect. However, over the years, the US, despite the structural flaws and problematic practice of its democratic system, has claimed itself as the “model of democracy”. It has incessantly interfered in other countries’ internal affairs and waged wars under the guise of “democracy”, creating regional turbulence and humanitarian disasters.
Based on facts and expert opinions, this report aims to expose the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of its exporting such democracy. It is hoped that the US will improve its own system and practices of democracy and change its way of interacting with other countries. This is in the interest of not only the American people, but also the people of other countries. If no country seeks to dictate standards for democracy, impose its own political system on others or use democracy as a tool to suppress others, and when all countries can live and thrive in diversity, our world will be a better place.
I. What is democracy?
Democracy is a term that derives from the ancient Greek language. It means “rule by the people” or “sovereignty of the people”. As a form of government, democracy has been practiced for over 2,500 years, though in different forms, such as direct democracy of the ancient Athenian citizens and representative government in modern times. Democracy is a manifestation of the political advancement of humanity.
Democracy is not an adornment or publicity stunt; rather, it is meant to be used to solve problems faced by the people. To judge whether a country is democratic, it is important to see whether its people run their own country. In addition to voting rights, it is important to see whether people have the rights to extensive participation. It is important to see what promises are made in an election campaign and, more importantly, how many of those promises are honored afterwards. It is important to see what political procedures and rules are instituted by a country’s systems and laws and, more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly executed. It is important to see whether the rules and procedures governing the exercise of power are democratic and, more importantly, whether power is truly put under the oversight and checks of the people.
A functional democracy must have a full set of institutional procedures; more importantly, it should have full participation of the people. It must ensure democracy in terms of both process and outcomes. It must encompass both procedural and substantive democracy, both direct and indirect democracy. It must ensure both people’s democracy and the will of the State. If the people of a country are only called upon to vote and then are forgotten once they have cast their votes; if the people only hear high-sounding promises during an election campaign but have no say whatsoever afterwards; or if they are wooed when their votes are wanted but are ignored once the election is over, then such a democracy is not a true democracy.
Whether a country is democratic should be judged and determined by its own people, not by a minority of self-righteous outsiders.
There is no perfect system of democracy in the world, nor is there a political system that fits all countries. Democracy is established and developed based on a country’s own history and adapted to its national context, and each country’s democracy has its unique value. Members of the international community should engage in exchanges and dialogues on democracy on the basis of equality and mutual respect, and work together to contribute to the progress of humanity.
II. The alienation and three malaises of democracy in the US
From a historical perspective, the development of democracy in the US was a step forward. The political party system, the representative system, one person one vote, and the separation of powers negated and reformed the feudal autocracy in Europe. The well-known French writer Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this in his book Democracy in America. The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, abolitionist movement, civil rights movement and affirmative action were highlights in the advancement of American democracy. The principle of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” articulated by Abraham Lincoln is recognized worldwide.
However, over the years, democracy in the US has become alienated and degenerated, and it has increasingly deviated from the essence of democracy and its original design. Problems like money politics, identity politics, wrangling between political parties, political polarization, social division, racial tension and wealth gap have become more acute. All this has weakened the functioning of democracy in the US.
The US has often used democracy as a pretext to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, causing political chaos and social unrest in these countries, and undermining world peace and stability and social tranquility in other countries. This makes many people in the US and other countries wonder if the US is still a democracy. The world needs to take a closer look at the current state of democracy in the US, and the US itself should also conduct some soul-searching.
1. The system fraught with deep-seated problems
The US calls itself “city upon a hill” and a “beacon of democracy”; and it claims that its political system was designed to defend democracy and freedom at the time of its founding. Yet, the vision of democracy has lost its shine in the US today. The self-styled American democracy is now gravely ill with money politics, elite rule, political polarization and a dysfunctional system.
(1) American-style democracy has become “a game of money politics”
The American-style democracy is a rich men’s game based on capital, and is fundamentally different from democracy of the people.
Over a hundred years ago, Republican Senator from Ohio Mark Hanna said of American politics: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second.” More than one hundred years have passed, and money has not only remained “the currency” in US politics, but also become even more indispensable. For example, the 2020 presidential election and Congressional elections cost some US$14 billion, two times that of 2016 and three times that of 2008; indeed, they are known as the most expensive elections in American history. The cost of the presidential election reached another record high of US$6.6 billion, and the Congressional elections cost over US$7 billion.
The fact that the American people have to face is that money politics has penetrated the entire process of election, legislation and administration. People in fact only have a restricted right to political participation. The inequality in economic status has been turned into inequality in political status. Only people with enough capital can enjoy their democratic rights provided by the Constitution. Money politics have increasingly become an “irremovable tumor” in American society and a mockery of democracy in the US.
A US Senator had a sharp observation, “Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress.” According to statistics, winners of 91% of US Congressional elections are the candidates with greater financial support. Big companies, a small group of rich people, and interest groups are generous with their support and have become the main source of electoral funding. And those so-called representatives of the people, once elected, often serve the interests of their financial backers. They speak for vested interests rather than the ordinary people.
In March 2020, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, published a book entitled The System, Who Rigged It, How We Fix It. According to him, the American political system has been hijacked by a tiny minority over the past four decades. Political donations are almost seen as “legitimate bribery”. They enable the rich to have more political clout. During the 2018 midterm elections, the huge political donations, mostly coming from the top 0.01% ultra-rich of the American population, accounted for over 40% of campaign finance. Money politics and lobby groups are restricting channels for ordinary Americans to speak out, whose voices expressing genuine concerns are overshadowed by a handful of interest groups. The oligarchs would enrich themselves with the power they have got while totally ignoring the interests of ordinary Americans.
On 23 September 2020, in an interview with Harvard Law Today, Harvard Law School Professor Matthew Stephenson said that the US is by no means the world leader in clean government, and certain practices related to lobbying and campaign finance that other countries would consider corrupt are not only permitted but constitutionally protected in the US.
(2) “One person one vote” in name, “rule of the minority elite” in reality
The US is a typical country dominated by an elite class. Political pluralism is only a facade. A small number of elites dominate the political, economic and military affairs. They control the state apparatus and policy-making process, manipulate public opinion, dominate the business community and enjoy all kinds of privileges. Since the 1960s in particular, the Democrats and Republicans have taken turns to exercise power, making the “multiparty system” dead in all but name. For ordinary voters, casting their votes to a third party or an independent candidate is nothing more than wasting the ballot. In effect, they can only choose either the Democratic candidate or the Republican one.
In the context of Democratic-Republican rivalry, the general public’s participation in politics is restricted to a very narrow scope. For ordinary voters, they are only called upon to vote and are forgotten once they have cast their ballots. Most people are just “walk-ons” in the theater of election. This makes “government by the people” hardly possible in US political practice.
Noam Chomsky, a political commentator and social activist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that the US is a “really existing capitalist democracy”, where there is a positive correlation between people’s wealth and their influence on policy-making. For the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale, they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They are effectively disenfranchised.
Ray La Raja, Professor at the University of Massachusetts, notes in an article for The Atlantic that America’s current system is democratic only in form, not in substance. The nominating process is vulnerable to manipulation by plutocrats, celebrities, media figures and activists. Many presidential primary voters mistakenly back candidates who do not reflect their views.
(3) The checks and balances have resulted in a “vetocracy”
American political scientist Francis Fukuyama points out in his book Political Order and Political Decay that there is an entrenched political paralysis in the US. The US political system has far too many checks and balances, raising the cost of collective action and in some cases making it impossible altogether. Fukuyama calls the system a “vetocracy”. Since the 1980s, the “vetocracy” of the US has become a formula for gridlock.
The US democratic process is fragmented and lengthy, with a lot of veto points where individual veto players can block action by the whole body. The function of “checks and balances”, which was purportedly designed to prevent abuse of power, has been distorted in American political practice. Political polarization continues to grow as the two parties drift further apart in political agenda and their areas of consensus have reduced significantly. An extreme case is the fact that “the most liberal Republican now remains significantly to the right of the most conservative Democrat”. Antagonism and mutual inhibition have become commonplace, “vetocracy” has defined American political culture, and a vindictive “if I can’t, you can’t either” mentality has grown prevalent.
Politicians in Washington, D.C. are preoccupied with securing their own partisan interests and don’t care at all about national development. Vetoing makes one identify more strongly with their peers in the same camp, who may in turn give them greater and quicker support. Consequently the two parties are caught in a vicious circle, addicted to vetoing. Worse still, the government efficacy is inevitably weakened, law and justice trampled upon, development and progress stalled, and social division widened. In the US today, people are increasingly identifying themselves as a Republican or a Democrat instead of as an American. The negative impacts of identity politics and tribal politics have also spilled over into other sectors of American society, further exacerbating “vetocracy”.
According to a Pew Research Center report in October 2021 based on a survey of 17 advanced economies (including the US, Germany and the Republic of Korea), the US is more politically divided than the other economies surveyed. Nine in ten US respondents believe there are conflicts between people who support different political parties, and nearly 60% of Americans surveyed think their fellow citizens no longer disagree simply over policies, but also over basic facts.
Jungkun Seo, Professor of Political Science at Kyung Hee University, observes that as political polarization intensifies in the US, the self-cleaning process of American democracy, which aims to drive reform through elections, will no longer be able to function properly. With the Senate trapped in a filibuster, the US Congress no longer serves as a representative body for addressing changes in American society through legislation.
(4) The flawed electoral rules impair fairness and justice
The US presidential election follows the time-honored Electoral College system, where the president and vice president are not elected directly by popular vote, but by the Electoral College consisting of 538 electors. The candidate who achieves a majority of 270 or more electoral votes wins the election.
The flaws of such an electoral system are self-evident. First, as the president-elect may not be the winner of the national popular vote, there is a lack of broader representation. Second, as each state gets to decide its own electoral rules, this may create confusion and disorder. Third, the winner-takes-all system exacerbates inequality among states and between political parties. It leads to a huge waste of votes and discourages voter turnout. Voters in “deep blue” and “deep red” states are often neglected, while swing states become disproportionately more important where both parties seek to woo more supporters.
There have been five presidential elections in US history in which the winners of nationwide popular vote were not elected the president. The most recent case was the 2016 presidential election in which Republican candidate Donald Trump won 62.98 million popular votes or 45.9% of the total, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won 65.85 million or 48% of popular votes. Although Trump lost the popular vote, he won 304 electoral votes while Clinton secured only 227, which gave Trump his presidency.
Another flaw of the electoral system widely acknowledged by the US public is gerrymandering. In 1812, Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry signed a bill in the interest of his own party, creating in his state an odd-shaped electoral district that was compared to a salamander. Such practice was later called gerrymandering, which refers to an unfair division of electoral districts in favor of a particular party to win as many seats as possible and cement its advantage.
The US conducts a census every ten years. Following the completion of the census, redistricting or the redrawing of electoral district boundaries will take place under the principle of maintaining roughly equal population in every voting district while considering demographic shifts. Under the US Constitution, each state legislature has the power to redistrict. This leaves room for the majority party in state legislatures to manipulate the redrawing of electoral districts. Two principal tactics are often used in gerrymandering. One is “packing”, i.e. concentrating the opposition party’s voters in a few districts, thus giving up these districts to secure the others. The other is “cracking”, i.e. splitting up areas where the opposition party’s supporters are concentrated and incorporating them into neighboring districts, thus diluting votes for the opposition party.
On 27 September 2021, the Democratic-governed state of Oregon became the first in the country to complete redistricting. Electoral districts firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party have increased from two to four, and swing districts reduced from two to one. This means that the Democratic Party can control 83% of the state’s congressional districts with 57% of voters. On the contrary, the Republican-controlled state of Texas, with new electoral district boundaries determined on 25 October 2021, has seen districts held by Republicans grow from 22 to 24 and swing districts shrink from six to one. The Republican Party now occupies 65% of state House seats with just 52.1% of voters.
According to a YouGov poll in August 2021, just 16% of US adult citizens say they think their states’ congressional maps would be drawn fairly, while 44% say they think the maps would be drawn unfairly and another 40% of adults say they are unsure if the maps will be fair. As US politics grows more polarized, both the Republican and Democratic parties are seeking to maximize their own interests, and gerrymandering becomes the best approach.
The superdelegate system of the Democratic Party is also an impediment to fair election. The superdelegates include major Democratic leaders, members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of Congress, and incumbent Democratic governors, and are seated automatically. The superdelegates may support any candidate they choose or follow the will of the Party leadership without giving any consideration to the wishes of the general public.
The late political analyst Mark Plotkin wrote on The Hill that the “Democrats’ superdelegate system is unfair and undemocratic”, and “the process of eliminating this elitist exercise should immediately begin”.
(5) Dysfunctional democracy triggers trust crisis
The American-style democracy is more like a meticulously set up scene in Hollywood movies where a bunch of well-heeled characters publicly pledge commitment to the people, but actually busy themselves with behind-the-scene deals. Political infighting, money politics, and vetocracy make it virtually impossible for quality governance to be delivered as desired by the general public. Americans are increasingly disillusioned with US politics and pessimistic about the American-style democracy.
A Gallup survey in October 2020 shows that only 19% of the Americans surveyed are “very confident” about the presidential election, a record low since the survey was first conducted in 2004.
In November 2020, an online Wall Street Journal report argues that the 2020 general election can be seen as the culmination of a two-decade decline in faith in democracy in the US.
According to a poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, only 16% of Americans say democracy is working well or extremely well; 45% think democracy isn’t functioning properly, while another 38% say it’s working only somewhat well. A Pew Research Center survey finds that just 20% of Americans say they trust the federal government just about always or most of the time.
A Brookings online article in May 2021 indicates that the certification of the 2020 election results by all 50 states still leaves 77% of Republican voters questioning the legitimacy of President Biden’s election victory due to allegations of voter fraud. This is the first time such things happen since the 1930s.
A CNN poll in September reveals that 56% of Americans think democracy in the US is under attack; 52% reply they are just a little or not at all confident that elections reflect the will of the people; 51% say it’s likely that elected officials in the next few years will overturn the results of an election their party did not win.
A 2021 Pew survey conducted among 16,000 adults in 16 advanced economies and 2,500 adults in the US shows that 57% of international respondents and 72% of Americans believe that democracy in the US has not been a good example for others to follow in recent years.
2.Messy and chaotic practices of democracy
That democracy in the US has gone wrong is reflected not only in its system design and general structure, but also in the way it is put into practice. The US is not a straight A student when it comes to democracy, still less a role model for democracy. The gunshots and farce on Capitol Hill have completely revealed what is underneath the gorgeous appearance of the American-style democracy. The death of Black American George Floyd has laid bare the systemic racism that exists in American society for too long, and spurred a deluge of protests rippling throughout the country and even the whole world.
While the COVID-19 pandemic remains out of control in the US, the issue of mask-wearing and vaccination has triggered further social division and confrontation. Dividends of economic growth are distributed unfairly, and income growth has stalled for most ordinary people for a long period of time. The American-style democracy can hardly uphold public order and ethics, nor advance public well-being to the fullest.
(1) The Capitol riot that shocks the world
On the afternoon of 6 January 2021, thousands of Americans gathered on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. and stormed the Capitol building in a bid to stop the joint session of the Congress from certifying the newly-elected president. The incident interrupted the transfer of US presidential power, leaving five dead and over 140 injured. It is the worst act of violence in Washington, D.C. since 1814 when the British troops set fire to the White House, and it is the first time in more than 200 years that the Capitol was invaded. Senate Republican leader described it as a “failed insurrection”. A scholar from the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) exclaims that the US is not nearly as unique as many Americans believe, and that the Capitol riot should put an end to the notion of American exceptionalism, of an eternal shining city on a hill.
The assault on the Capitol has undermined the three major bedrocks of the American-style democracy.
First, “democracy” in the US is not democratic as it claims. The refusal of some US politicians to recognize the election results and their supporters’ subsequent violent storming of the Capitol building have severely undercut the credibility of democracy in the US.
Second, “freedom” in the US is not free as it claims. Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms suspended the personal accounts of some US politicians, a de facto announcement of their “death on social media”. This has bust the myths of “freedom of speech” in the US.
Third, the “rule of law” in the US is not bound by the law as it claims. The totally different attitudes taken by US law enforcement agencies toward the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) protests and the Capitol riot are yet another reminder of the double standards in the US “rule of law”.
The assault on the Capitol sent shock waves throughout the international community. While deploring the violence, many people also expressed disappointment at the US.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that what happened in the US Capitol were “disgraceful scenes”.
French President Emmanuel Macron said that “in one of the world’s oldest democracies … a universal idea — that of ‘one person, one vote’ — is undermined.”
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa commented that it “shook the foundations” of democracy in the US.
Former Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono tweeted that the political farce in the US offers much food for thought, and that there is no perfect democracy, especially when it comes to its practices.
(2) Entrenched racism
Racism is an indelible blot on democracy in the US. While advocating “all men are created equal”, the founding fathers of the US left the institution of slavery untouched in the Constitution of 1789. Today, although racial segregation has been ostensibly abolished in the US, white supremacy is still rife and rampant across the country. Discrimination against Black Americans and other racial minorities remains a systemic phenomenon.
American society has experienced relapses of its malaise of racial discrimination from time to time. On 25 May 2020, George Floyd, a Black American, lost his life in Minnesota because of law enforcement violence by the police. “I can’t breathe” — Floyd’s desperate plea for life before his death — sparked public outrage. Afterwards, protests and demonstrations erupted in about 100 cities across the 50 states of America, demanding justice for Floyd and protesting against racial discrimination. The demonstrations continued more than 100 days after the incident.
What happened to George Floyd is merely an epitome of the tragic plight of Black Americans over the past centuries. Sandra Shullman, Past President of the American Psychological Association, says that America is in “a racism pandemic”. The dream of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. remains unrealized. According to an editorial of The Indian Express, a mainstream newspaper of India, American racism has endured, subverting the country’s deepest democratic institutions in the process.
In February 2021, Stanford News, a website of Stanford University, carried an article examining systemic racism in the US. The article suggests that in education, youth of color are more likely to be closely watched; in the criminal justice system, people of color, particularly Black men, are disproportionately targeted; and in the economy and employment, from who moves forward in the hiring process to who receives funding from venture capitalists, Black Americans and other minority groups are discriminated against in the workplace and economy-at-large. A study by the University of Washington finds that around 30,800 people died from police violence between 1980 and 2018 in the US, which is about 17,100 higher than the official figure. It also indicates that African Americans are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police violence than white Americans.
The anger erupting across America is not just Black anger, but across racial lines. An article published on the website of The Jerusalem Post of Israel notes that American Jews are concerned about right-wing antisemitism and violence driven by white supremacist groups. According to annual surveys conducted by the American Jewish Committee, in 2020, 43% US Jews feel less secure than a year ago, and in 2017, 41% say antisemitism is a serious problem in the US, up from 21% in 2016, 21% in 2015, and 14% in 2013.
The bullying of Americans of Asian descent is increasing in the US. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been growing cases of Asian Americans humiliated or attacked in public places. Statistics from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that hate crimes against people of Asian descent rose by 76% in the US in 2020. From March 2020 to June 2021, the organization Stop Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Hate received over 9,000 incident reports. A survey of young Asian Americans on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) website shows that in the past year, a quarter of young Asian Americans became targets of racial bullying, nearly half of the respondents expressed pessimism about their situation, and a quarter of the respondents expressed fear about the situation of themselves and their families.
(3) Tragic mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic
With the best health and medical resources in the world as it claims, the US has been a total mess when it comes to COVID response. It has the world’s highest numbers of infections and deaths.
According to figures released by Johns Hopkins University, as of the end of November 2021, confirmed COVID-19 cases in the US had exceeded 48 million, and the number of deaths had surpassed 770,000, both the highest in the world.
On 8 January this year, 300,777 new confirmed cases were reported, a record single-day increase since the COVID-19 outbreak in the US. On 13 January alone, 4,170 Americans died of COVID-19, far exceeding the death toll of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
At the end of November, the average daily increase of confirmed cases in the US had climbed to over 70,000, and daily death toll to over 700.
One in every 500 Americans have died of COVID-19. Up to now, COVID-19 deaths in the US have surpassed its total death toll from the 1919 Influenza Pandemic, and its combined deaths in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan.
If the US had taken a science-based response, a lot more lives could have been saved. The pandemic, as epidemiologist and former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention William Foege put it, is a “slaughter”.
The pandemic has taken a heavy toll on the US economy. The rate and scale of business shutdown and unemployment in the country are beyond imagination, leaving a large number of Americans jobless. People’s anxiety and sense of powerlessness has been exacerbated by growing factors of social instability.
The COVID Hardship Watch released by the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on 29 July 2021 suggests that while there have been improvements over the situation in December 2020, hardship is widespread for Americans in the first half of 2021. Some 20 million adults live in households that have not got enough to eat, 11.40 million adult renters are behind on rent, facing the risk of being evicted.
As indicated in the statistics released by the US Census Bureau, by 5 July 2021, at least one member in 22% of all households with underage dependents had lost their source of income.
US consumer confidence has dropped substantially, and progress in job market recovery has stalled. Institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Oxford Economics have significantly revised down growth forecasts for the US economy. At the same time, the pandemic, coupled with three rounds of massive economic stimulus plans, among other factors, has caused port congestion and supply shortages, pushing inflation higher. In October of this year, US CPI surged by 6.2% from a year earlier, marking a year-on-year rise of no less than 5% for six consecutive months, and a record high since 2008.
The root cause of the continued spread of the coronavirus in the US is not a dearth of science, but the refusal to trust and rely on science. For the sake of elections, some politicians have prioritized partisan interests over national interests, politicized pandemic response, and focused on shifting blames on others. The federal and state governments have failed to galvanize a concerted response to the pandemic, and are mired in infighting instead. As a result, pandemic response measures have been severely politicized. The choices with regard to vaccination and mask-wearing have become a bone of contention between the parties and among the people. There appears a growing trend of anti-intellectualism.
A report by the French newspaper Le Monde observes that the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the fragility of democracy in the US. The extremely expensive health system, reserved for the rich and leaving the poorest without social security, has made this country, yet one of the most developed in the world, fall behind due to social injustice. This is a typical case of a democratic drift that makes it impossible to effectively manage a crisis.
Stanford News notes that, in the area of public health, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted communities of color and has highlighted the health disparities between Black Americans, whites and other demographic groups.
(4) Widening wealth gap
The US is more polarized than any other Western country in terms of wealth distribution. Its Gini coefficient has increased to 0.48 in 2021, almost the highest in 50 years. As revealed by reports of the Institute for Policy Studies, a US think tank, the combined wealth of US billionaires soared 19-fold between 1990 and 2021, while over this same period, US median wealth only increased 5.37%. The harsh reality in the US is the rich is becoming richer, and the poor poorer.
According to Fed’s October 2021 statistics, the middle 60% of US households by income, defined as the “middle class”, saw their combined assets drop to 26.6% of national wealth as of June this year, the lowest in three decades, while the first 1% had a 27% share, surpassing the “middle class”.
A report by UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez shows that in terms of average annual income, America’s top 10% rich earn over nine times as much as the bottom 90%; the wealthiest 1% are about 40 times more than the bottom 90%; and the ultra-wealthy top 0.1% are 196 times of the bottom 90%.
The stimulus policy that the US has introduced in response to COVID-19 has, while pushing up stock markets, further widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The wealth of US billionaires has grown US$1.763 trillion, or 59.8%, over the 16 months since the COVID outbreak in the US. The wealthiest 10% now own 89% of all US stocks, registering a new historic high.
The wealth polarization in the US is inherent to its own political system and the interests of the capital that its government represents. From the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, to the recent “Harambe stares down Wall Street’s Charging Bull”, the American people have never stopped condemning the widening wealth gap. Yet, nothing has changed. Those governing the US choose to do nothing about the growing wealth inequality. And the pandemic has further exposed a rule in American society — capital first and the rich first.
(5) “Freedom of speech” in name only
In the US, the media is juxtaposed with the executive, the legislative and the judiciary as the “fourth branch of government” and journalists are considered “uncrowned kings”. Though US media organizations claim to be independent from politics and serve freedom and truth, they are actually serving financial interests and party politics.
A few media conglomerates maintain control of the US news media and have morphed into a political force with outsize influence.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government is required to relax regulation over the ownership of media outlets. This has led to an unprecedented wave of mergers and a crippling erosion of the diversity and independence of the US media. The drastic reduction in the number of media outlets has enabled a few companies to expand into monopolies.
In the US, a few media conglomerates are now in control of over 90% of media outlets, netting them an annual profit even higher than the gross domestic product (GDP) of some developing countries.
These media behemoths, while eager to make more business footprints, have extended their reach into American politics, attempting to sway political processes through lobbying, public relations campaign or political donations.
The US media monopolies have become “invisible killers” of civil and political rights.
Robert McChesney, a leading US scholar in the studies of political economy of communications and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, notes in his book Rich Media, Poor Democracy that media companies, profit-driven by nature, confine people to the world of entertainment programs, depriving their access to diversified information, distracting their interest in public affairs, diminishing their ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and muting their voice in the decision-making of social policies. In an American society dominated by media narratives, traditional notions of civic and political involvement have shriveled. Depoliticization has turned democracy into a political game without citizens.
A report in Miami’s New Herald argues that as the media is controlled by the elite and conglomerates, people are not able to distinguish between facts and political propaganda.
The US media is no longer a “gatekeeper” of democracy. The political wrangling between the Left and Right in the US media has further entrenched the estrangement and division between the two parties and between the elite and the mass public. It has aggravated political polarization in the US, pushing the political Left further left and the Right further right. And it has fueled the spread of extremist ideologies and populism in the US.
According to a study by Sejong Institute, a think tank in the Republic of Korea, over 80% of conservative voters in the US see news reports by mainstream media outlets, such as New York Times, as false information and have a biased trust in media. Voters believe in only a few media outlets and would ignore communications at the national level. Levelheaded discussions and consensus-building have been replaced by megaphone politics and negative partisan strife.
The Digital News Report 2021 issued by the University of Oxford and Reuters Institute indicates that among 92,000 online news consumers surveyed in 46 markets, those in the US have the lowest level of trust in news, a mere 29%.
In the information age when traditional media is on the decline, social media has become a new favorite for the general public. Yet, like traditional media, social media is also under the control of big capital and interest groups. To increase their website traffic, social media sites use algorithms to create “information cocoons”, leaving extreme content unchecked and uncontrolled. This drives users toward self-reinforcing their existing views, exacerbates identity politics, and further divides public opinion.
In October 2021, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaked tens of thousands of pages of explosive internal documents of Facebook. She disclosed to Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) that Facebook would not hesitate to sacrifice public interests to keep users on its platform and make profits. Facebook has become a main platform for social extremists and is fraught with hate speech, disinformation and misinformation. Action is only taken on 3-5% of hate and about 0.6% of violence and incitement on the platform.
3. Disastrous consequences of US export of its brand of democracy
Without regard to huge differences in the level of economic development and in the historical and cultural backgrounds of countries around the world, the US seeks to impose its own political system and values on other nations. It pushes for what it calls “democratic transition”, and instigates “color revolution”.
It wantonly interferes in other countries’ internal affairs and even subverts their governments, bringing about disastrous consequences for those countries. In other words, the US has attempted to model other countries after its own image and export its brand of democracy. Such attempts are entirely undemocratic and at odds with the core values and tenets of democracy. Without producing the expected chemistry, the American-style democracy has turned out to be a “failed transplant” that plunges many regions and countries into turmoil, conflicts and wars.
(1) The “color revolutions” undermine regional and national stability
The US has a habit of interfering in other countries’ internal affairs in the name of “democracy” and seeking regime change to install pro-US governments.
A former senior CIA official once talked about making people “what we want them to be” and “follow our directions”, and the possibility of confusing people’s minds, changing their values, and making them believe in the new values before they know it.
Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo openly admitted “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”
The US has developed a system of strategies and tactics for “peaceful evolution”. It would start with “cultural exchanges”, economic assistance, and then public opinion shaping to foster an atmosphere for “color revolution”. It would exaggerate the mistakes and flaws of incumbent governments to foment public grievances and anti-government sentiments.
In the meantime, it would brainwash local people with American values and make them identify with America’s economic model and political system. It would also cultivate pro-US NGOs and provide all-round training to opposition leaders. It would seize the opportunity of major elections or emergencies to overthrow targeted governments through instigating street political activities.
In recent history, the US has pushed for the neo-Monroe Doctrine in Latin America under the pretext of “promoting democracy”, incited “color revolution” in Eurasia, and remotely controlled the “Arab Spring” in West Asia and North Africa. These moves have brought chaos and disasters to many countries, gravely undermining world peace, stability and development.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, people have long been under no illusion about “the American-style democracy”. Any attempt of the US to promote its self-styled “model of democracy” would be only self-defeating and self-humiliating.
In 1823, the US issued the Monroe Doctrine, declaring “America for the Americans” and advocating “Pan-Americanism”.
In the following decades, the US, under the excuse of “spreading democracy”, repeatedly carried out political interference, military intervention, and government subversion in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The US pursued a policy of hostility toward socialist Cuba and imposed blockade against the country for nearly 60 years, and subverted the government of Chile under Salvador Allende. These were blatant acts of hegemonism. “My way or no way.” That’s the US logic.
Since 2003, Eastern Europe and Central Asia have seen the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, and the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan. The US State Department openly admitted playing a “central role” in these “regime changes”.
In October 2020, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service revealed that the US planned to instigate “color revolution” in Moldova.
The “Arab Spring” that started in 2010 was an earthquake that shook the entire Middle East. The US orchestrated the show behind the scene, and played a key role. The New York Times revealed in 2011 that a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in “authoritarian” Arab states. A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the “Arab Spring” revolts received training and financing from US organizations like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House.
Mustafa Ahmady, an African and international affairs specialist in Ethiopia, contributed an article to Ahram Online entitled “Promised Lands”, explaining that it was largely due to Obama’s famous statement “Now means now” that furious Egyptian protesters overthrew Mubarak, and that they paid a heavy price as a result of the political change.
Seeing what the US had done, the Arab people have come to realize that the US wants to force a stereotyped model of democracy on them regardless of their own will.
In countries forced to copy and paste American values, there is no sign of true democracy, true freedom, or true human rights. What have been left in these countries are prevailing scenes of persisting chaos, stagnation and humanitarian disasters.
The US export of its values has disrupted the normal development process in the recipient countries, hindered their search for a development path and model befitting their national conditions, brought political, economic and social turmoils, and destroyed, one after another, what used to be other peoples’ beautiful homelands. The turmoils, in turn, have given rise to terrorism and other long-term challenges that threaten and jeopardize regional and even global security.
As suggested by the French website Le Grand Soir, democracy has long become a weapon of massive destruction for the US to attack countries with different views.
The US applies different standards in assessing democracy of its own and other countries. It praises or belittles others entirely according to its own likes or dislikes. Following the Capitol attack on 6 January 2021, an American politician compared the incident of violence to the 9/11 terror attack, calling it a “shameful assault” on the US Congress, constitution and democracy. It is ironic that in June 2019 the same politician called the violent demonstrations at the Hong Kong Legislative Council building as a “beautiful sight to behold” and commended the rioters for their “courage”. What a blatant double standard.
(2) The US imposition of its brand of democracy causes humanitarian tragedies
The US export of its brand of democracy by force has led to humanitarian disasters in many countries. The 20-year US war in Afghanistan has left the country devastated and impoverished. A total of 47,245 Afghan civilians and 66,000 to 69,000 Afghan soldiers and police who had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks were killed in US military operations, and more than 10 million people were displaced. The war destroyed the foundation for Afghanistan’s economic development and reduced Afghans to destitution.
In 2003, the US launched military strikes against Iraq for its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. The civilian death toll of the Iraq war is between 200,000 and 250,000, including over 16,000 directly killed by the US military. More than a million people lost their homes. Moreover, the US troops seriously violated international humanitarian principles, as evidenced by the frequent incidence of prisoner abuse. Until now the US has not been able to produce any credible proof of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.
According to records available, 33,584 civilians were killed in war and conflict in Syria between 2016 and 2019. Among the victims, 3,833 were directly killed in bombings by the US-led coalition and half of them were women and children. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) reported on 9 November 2018 that the “most accurate air strike in history” launched by US forces on Raqqa alone killed 1,600 Syrian civilians.
In 2018, the US launched airstrikes on Syria again for the purpose of, what they called, preventing the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. But the “evidence” of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government turned out to be a fake video footage directed and produced by the White Helmets, an organization funded by intelligence agencies of the US and other countries.
(3) The abuse of sanctions breaches international rules
Unilateral sanction is a “big stick” the US wields in dealing with other countries. Over many years, the US has exercised its financial hegemony and abused its technological clout to carry out frequent, unilateral bullying against other countries.
The US has enacted some draconian laws, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, and issued a series of executive orders to target and sanction specific countries, entities or individuals.
The ambiguous rules contained in these acts and executive orders, such as the “minimum contacts principle” and “doctrine of effects”, are in fact a willful expansion of the jurisdiction of US domestic laws.
These acts and executive orders make it possible for the US to abuse its domestic channels for prosecution and exercise “long-arm jurisdiction” over entities and individuals in other countries. The two most prominent examples are the case of French company Alstom and that of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.
Statistics show that the Trump administration had imposed over 3,900 sanction measures, which means the US wielded its “big stick” three times a day on average. As of fiscal year 2021, the entities and individuals on US sanction lists topped 9,421, 933% higher compared to the previous fiscal year.
The US unwarranted unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” have gravely undermined the sovereignty and security of other countries, severely impacting their economic development and people’s wellbeing. The sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” constitute a gross violation of international law and basic norms of international relations.
The US sanctions against other countries have continued unabated into 2021.
The US administration, in collaboration with its European allies, have ramped up containment and suppression against Russia, imposed blanket sanctions allegedly in response to the Navalny incident and alleged Russian cyber attacks and interference in US elections, among others, and launched a diplomatic war by the expulsion of Russian diplomats.
With regard to issues such as the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project and the digital service tax, the US has not hesitated to sanction even its European allies.
Following the entry into force of the China-US phase one trade agreement, the US has taken further measures to suppress and contain China. It has placed over 940 Chinese entities and individuals on its restricted lists. According to statistics from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury, as of 19 October 2021, a total of 391 entities and individuals from China (including Hong Kong and Macao) have been sanctioned by the US.
In an article published in the September/October 2021 issue of Foreign Affairs, Daniel Drezner, Professor at Tufts University and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, criticizes successive US administrations for using “sanctions as the go-to solution for nearly every foreign policy problem.” He notes that sanctions not only are ineffective, but also “exert a humanitarian toll”, and that the United States of America has become the “United States of Sanctions”.
US unilateral sanctions are a continuous, grave violation of human rights of Americans and other peoples. The worst example is the protracted US blockade against Cuba.
For more than 60 years, in total disregard of the many resolutions of the UN General Assembly, the US has continued its comprehensive blockade against Cuba based on its embargo policies and domestic laws such as the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act.
The Cuba blockade is the longest and cruelest systemic trade embargo, economic blockade and financial sanctions in modern history. The blockade has been gravely detrimental to Cuba’s economic and social development, causing US$100 billion direct losses to Cuba’s economy.
US blockade and sanctions against Iran began in late 1970s. Over the past 40-plus years, US unilateral sanctions have increased in both intensity and frequency. They have gradually evolved into a rigorous sanction regime that covers finance, trade and energy, and are targeted at both entities and individuals. The purpose is to intensify pressure on Iran from all dimensions.
In May 2018, the US government announced its unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and soon after resumed and expanded sanctions against Iran. Many countries and relevant entities have been forced to give up their cooperation with Iran. A large number of foreign oil enterprises left the country. Iran’s manufacturing industry has been unable to keep up normal operations. The country has suffered economic slowdown, coupled with heightened inflation and massive currency depreciation.
The US has imposed sanctions on Belarus, Syria and Zimbabwe, among others, over the years, and ratcheted up “maximum pressure” against the DPRK, Venezuela, etc.
(4) The “beacon of democracy” draws global criticism
The people of the world have a discerning eye. They see very well the flaws and deficiencies of democracy in the US, hypocrisy in exporting US “democratic values”, and US acts of bullying and hegemony around the world in the name of democracy.
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson once noted that the US is accustomed to posing as the “global beacon of democracy” and urging everyone else to take a humane approach to what they call “peaceful protests”, but adopting completely opposite measures at home. She further noted that the US is “not a beacon of democracy”, and that the US administration “would do well to, first of all, listen to its own citizens and try to hear them, instead of engaging in witch-hunts in their own country and afterwards talking hypocritically about human rights in other countries”. The US is in no position to lecture other countries on human rights and civil liberties, she noted.
In May 2021, Latana, a German polling agency, and the Alliance of Democracies founded by former NATO Secretary General and former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, released a Democracy Perception Index which is based on a survey of over 50,000 people in 53 countries. The findings reveal that 44% of respondents are concerned that the US may pose a threat to democracy in their country, 50% of Americans surveyed are concerned that the US is an undemocratic country, and 59% of US respondents think that their government acts in the interest of a small group of people.
In June 2021, Brian Klaas, Associate Professor of Politics at University College London, contributed an article to The Washington Post entitled “The world is horrified by the dysfunction of American democracy”. The article quotes data from Pew Research Center, which suggest that “America is no longer a ‘shining city upon a hill’” and that most US allies see democracy in the US as “a shattered, washed-up has-been”, and that 69% of respondents in New Zealand, 65% in Australia, 60% in Canada, 59% in Sweden, 56% in the Netherlands and 53% in the United Kingdom do not think that the US political system works well. More than a quarter of people surveyed in France, Germany, New Zealand, Greece, Belgium and Sweden believe that American democracy has never been a good example to follow.
A report by the polling agency Eupinions indicates that the EU’s confidence in the US system has declined, with 52% of respondents believing the US democratic system does not work; 65% and 61% of respondents in France and Germany hold the same view.
In September 2021, Martin Wolf, a renowned British scholar, pointed out in his article “The strange death of American democracy” contributed to The Financial Times that the US political environment has reached an “irreversible” point, and “the transformation of the democratic republic into an autocracy has advanced”.
In November 2021, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, a Sweden-based think tank, released The Global State of Democracy listing the US as a “backsliding democracy” for the first time. The Secretary General of the institute said that “the visible deterioration of democracy in the United States” is “seen in the increasing tendency to contest credible election results, the efforts to suppress participation (in elections), and the runaway polarization”.
Indian political activist Yogendra Yadav points out that the United States is not “an exemplar of democracy”, that the world has realized that the US needs to reflect on its democracy and learn from other democracies.
Mexican magazine Proceso comments that behind a seemingly free and democratic facade, the US system of democracy has major flaws.
Sithembile Mbete, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria, writes in an article published in Mail and Guardian that “many of the markers of free and fair elections — a universal voters’ roll, centralized election management, uniform rules and regulations — are absent in the American system. Much of what we Africans have been trained to recognize as good electoral conduct has never existed in the US.”
Conclusion
America: no longer the beacon on the hill
— The Times of Israel
What is now imperative for the US is to get to work in real earnest to ensure its people’s democratic rights and improve its system of democracy instead of placing too much emphasis on procedural or formal democracy at the expense of substantive democracy and its outcome.
What is also imperative for the US is to undertake more international responsibilities and provide more public goods to the world instead of always seeking to impose its own brand of democracy on others, use its own values as means to divide the world into different camps, or carry out intervention, subversion and invasion in other countries under the pretext of promoting democracy.
The international community is now faced with pressing challenges of a global scale, from the COVID-19 pandemic, economic slowdown to the climate change crisis. No country can be immune from these risks and challenges. All countries should pull together. This is the best way forward to overcome these adversities.
Any attempt to push for a single or absolute model of democracy, use democracy as an instrument or weapon in international relations, or advocate bloc politics and bloc confrontation will be a breach of the spirit of solidarity and cooperation which is critical in troubled times.
All countries need to rise above differences in systems, reject the mentality of zero-sum game, and pursue genuine multilateralism.
All countries need to uphold peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom, which are common values of humanity.
It is also important that all countries respect each other, work to expand common ground while shelving differences, promote cooperation for mutual benefit, and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind.
在美召开峰会前发布《中国的民主》白皮书 中国加大与美国民主话语权之争
来自 / 联合早报 | 文 / 王纬温 重庆特派员
12/04/2021
中共中央宣传部副部长徐麟回答《联合早报》提问时，批评美国自诩民主领袖组织操弄民主峰会，实为以民主为幌子，打压遏制与其社会制度不同、发展模式不同的国家。“这种假民主之名、行反民主之实的行径，将是人类民主发展史上的笑话，注定是不得人心的。”
美国总统拜登本周将召开民主峰会，中国昨天（12月4日）抢先发布《中国的民主》白皮书，中共中央宣传部副部长徐麟并在发布会上回答《联合早报》提问时点名批评该峰会将是“人类民主发展史上的笑话”，注定不得人心。
徐麟也加大与美国的民主话语权之争，为中国的全过程人民民主辩护，形容其是“全链条、全方位、全覆盖的民主”“最广泛、最真实、最管用的社会主义民主”，为人类民主事业发展贡献中国智慧和中国方案，并暗指美国自身民主劣迹斑斑，国内治理一团糟，却对别国的民主指手画脚、横加指责。
徐麟昨早在国新办新闻发布会上，发布系统介绍中国民主价值理念、发展历程、制度体系等方面的《中国的民主》白皮书。白皮书指全过程人民民主是中共带领人民追求、发展、实现民主的伟大创造，既有完整的制度程序，也有完整的参与实践，有效防止选举时漫天许诺、选举后无人过问的现象。
白皮书也暗示美式民主“不是真正的民主”“好的民主”，指好的民主应凝聚社会共识而不是造成社会撕裂和冲突，应维护社会公平正义而不是导致社会阶层和利益固化，应保持社会稳定有序而不是带来混乱和动荡。
徐麟会上回答《联合早报》提问时，批评美国自诩民主领袖组织操弄民主峰会，实为以民主为幌子，打压遏制与其社会制度不同、发展模式不同的国家。“这种假民主之名、行反民主之实的行径，将是人类民主发展史上的笑话，注定是不得人心的。”
指冠病暴露美式民主弊端
出席发布会的中共中央政策研究室副主任田培炎也对美式民主火力全开，批评美国长期自称世界“民主样板”，但冠病疫情却暴露美式民主种种弊端，政治极化严重、政党纷争不止导致疫情防控不力。“这样的民主，带给选民的不是幸福而是灾难。”
田培炎指出，美式民主下政治人物是利益集团的代理人，为了选举可随意许诺，当选后却很少能兑现承诺；他们表面上受选民监督，但只要当选选民就拿他们没办法，只能等下一次选举。他说：“中国人民不喜欢更不需要这样的民主。”
田培炎认为，全过程人民民主比美式民主更广泛、更真实、更管用，各级中共党员领导干部必须接受全过程、全方位、全领域监督；对不能履职或违法违纪的人大代表也可取消代表资格或罢免，无须等到换届选举。
田培炎也强调，坚持中共领导是发展中国的全过程人民民主的根本保证，并指搞西方那一套民主，是很容易搞散、搞乱的，民主必然会走向其反面。
南京大学国际关系研究院院长朱锋接受《联合早报》采访时说，拜登政府上台后将价值观外交作为发起新冷战的重要招数，以及对华进行战略遏制打击的重要筹码。
朱锋说，中国官方对价值观外交非常反感之余，白皮书的发布展现其政策决心，对美国抹黑中国制度进行全面坚定的反击，“尤其是面对美国对华战略竞争压力，中国正在进行非常重要也具有战略意义的话语权争夺。”
针对美国民主峰会，中国国务委员兼外长王毅前晚同巴基斯坦外长库雷希通电话时，指美国假借民主的名义，维护其在世界上的独霸地位；以民主为旗号，借机干涉别国的内政；滥用民主的价值，在世界上制造分裂。
朱锋指出，民主峰会不仅是价值观外交的重要产品，最重要的还是动员号召同盟和伙伴国家建立抗中联盟。“民主峰会只会加剧中美之间的政治上的不信任，以及让战略上关系稳定的努力变得更加困难……肯定会给中美关系带来新的障碍和压力。”巴基斯坦是受拜登邀请出席民主峰会的国家之一。
（记者是《联合早报》重庆特派员）
中国发表白皮书强调民主不是少数国家权利
文 / 杨丹旭
12/04/2021
中国国务院新闻办今天发布《中国的民主》白皮书，强调中国的全过程人民民主“是最广泛、最真实、最管用的社会主义民主”，并称民主不是少数国家的权利。
中国长期由中国共产党一党执政，没有政党轮替的制度安排。白皮书称，中国采取的中共领导的多党合作和政治协商制度，“有效避免了议而不决、决而不行的弊端和一党缺乏监督、多党恶性竞争的弊端”。
白皮书批评西方式的民主称，如果人民只有在投票时被唤醒，投票后就进入休眠期；只有竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号，竞选后就毫无发言权；只有拉票时受宠，选举后就被冷落，这样的民主不是真正的民主。
白皮还称，好的民主，一定是实现良政善治、推动国家发展的，绝无国家治理“失灵”“失效”，国内问题成堆，民主却是“世界样板”的荒谬现象。
美国下周将以视频形式，召开以意识形态和价值划界的民主峰会，抗衡由中国和俄罗斯主导的威权主义力量。共有110个国家与地区受邀参会，包括亚太地区的日本、韩国、印度、澳大利亚、新西兰、台湾等。中国近期也加大力度阐释中国对民主的定义，以及中国式民主的优势，并对美国的民主展开批评，以争夺民主话语权。
中共中央宣传部副部长、国务院新闻办公室主任徐麟今早在白皮书发布会上，抨击美国自诩“民主领袖”，组织和操弄所谓“民主峰会”，实为以民主为幌子，对与其社会制度不同、发展模式不同的国家进行打压遏制，这种假民主之名、行反民主之实的行径，将是人类民主发展史上的笑话，注定是不得人心的。
(联合早报北京特派员杨丹旭）
西方究竟畏惧中国什么？
西方为何敌视中国？丹麦外交官点明中国原罪，美国最担心这个
By Hastur
12/01/2021
借用气候问题遏制中国？丹麦外交专家一言指出西方重大涉华战略，西方究竟畏惧中国什么？
11月13日，美国《国家利益》网站发表题为“气候变化和资源匮乏正在重塑世界秩序”的文章，本文作者为丹麦外交部前国务秘书约恩·厄尔斯特伦·默勒。在这篇不算长的文章中默勒揭示了西方借目前困扰全人类的气候问题共同遏制中国的基本战略，同时，默勒也揭穿了一个终极秘密：西方到底畏惧中国什么。
在文中，默勒先是陈述了人类目前陷入的生存环境问题，具体包括气候问题、资源匮乏等，并强调日趋严峻的生存环境危机极有可能会酿成战争。紧跟着，默勒就借今年早些时候北约秘书长斯托尔滕贝格的话揭穿了一个事实，在这个关乎人类生死存亡的严峻时刻，北约或将在2022年夏天采取新的环境战略，但目的不是为了拯救人类，而是共同抗衡中国崛起。默勒还列举了包括美印日澳四国集团等在内的几个由美国牵头的组织，为的都是制衡中国。
为什么西方如此畏惧中国？默勒说出了真相：北京拒绝接受西方分配给它的角色。这也成了西方世界眼中所谓中国的“原罪”。而美国更是担心新兴市场发展中经济体可能会在争夺资源的过程中与中国联手。
这不仅仅是为了西方集体抗衡中国的理由，同时也是一直以来西方将中国视为敌人的最根本原因。
中国和西方社会、政治体制存在不同是尽人皆知的事情。但是这不仅仅是一个体制问题，而是涉及整个社会财富、资源走向的终极差异。西方是资本主义社会，强调资本的重要性，对“私有制”的尊重超出寻常，尊重个人对其财产的所有权，但其更大的特征是，还从根本上维护了一种从上到下的剥削机制。也就是说，西方的社会体制本身和“均富”概念是相冲突的，他们只崇尚个人奋斗，你赚的多你就富有，你赚的少你就贫穷。
这在一定程度上固然对社会发展有积极作用，因为鼓励个人奋斗有利于群体发展，但这也纵容了资本家对一般工薪阶层的剥削。而中国却不同，中国也尊重个人奋斗，但是不会纵容富人对穷人的过度剥削，中国很重视“共同发展”的理念，因此会从宏观角度将大量社会财富转移到社会底层身上，帮助他们摆脱贫穷，今年2月底人民日报一则报道就足以说明中国社会体制的优越性，报道中提到，自改开以来，中国成功为7.7亿人实现了顺利脱贫。这一成绩不仅仅是西方国家，也是过去整个人类文明史上从未有过的辉煌成绩，真正的“史无前例”。
而现在中国以“一带一路”倡议为代表，将中国特有的发展模式辐射到大量发展中国家。而且中国不是搞价值观输出，而是仅仅将发展模式推出，这一切让西方如临大敌。因为西方本质上是维护上层阶级的利益，内部也就只维护发达国家的利益，他们一定要对发展中国家保持一定优势，好利于未来的资源争夺。
但是如果中国将发展中国家都提振起来，数十个发展中国家组成的集团，会导致西方在未来的资源争夺中优势全无。现在西方唯一能做的，就是将牵头这一切的中国扼杀掉。正好中国作为制造业大国和人口大国，碳排放一直是个问题，所以未来，整个西方都将串联起来借气候问题共同对抗中国。
但是扼杀中国只能是西方一厢情愿的幻想罢了。须知中国现在已经足够强大，不会被任何强权所欺凌！
华尔街大佬警告美国: 企图控制中国只会适得其反
来源：今日西澳网
11/24/2021
澳大利亚“今日西澳网”11月23日文章，原题：华尔街亿万富翁警告美国：企图控制中国只会适得其反 瑞·达利欧因成功预测2008年的金融危机而一举成名。他创立了世界上规模最大的对冲基金——桥水基金，管理的资产达2230亿美元。两周后，他5年内的第3本书《正在变化的世界秩序》即将出版发行，该书通过深入研究几个世纪以来的经济起伏，尝试更好地理解当前的经济环境和挑战。
Jun 30, 2021
When China opened up to foreign investment four decades ago, many predicted capitalism would bring democratic change. But they were wrong. Emboldened by the 2008 financial crisis and now America’s catastrophic handling of the pandemic, Beijing is offering up its authoritarian model as a thriving alternative to the liberal values of the West.
瑞·达利欧指出，美国人误解了中国人和他们自己在历史上的地位。他写道：“对于美国人来说，300年好像是很久以前的事了，然而对于中国人来说，300年一点都不长。尽管发生革命或者战争推翻美国制度的前景对于大多数美国人来说是不可想像的，但是对于中国人来说，这两种前景看来是必然会发生的，因为他们（在漫长的历史中）一次又一次地经历这些事情。当大多数美国人专注于特定的事件时，尤其是那些正在发生的事情，大多数中国领导人则从更宏观、更具进化性的模式这一角度来观察事情。”
他认为，美国任何控制或者改变中国的企图都只会适得其反。他说：“鉴于中国了不起的过往表现以及背后的文化有多么深入人心，正如美国人不会放弃他们的价值观和制度一样，中国人也绝不会放弃他们的价值观和制度。企图迫使中国人和他们的制度变得更加美国化，对于他们来说，这意味着对他们最基本信仰的征服，他们将誓死保护他们的基本信仰。要想和平共处，美国人必须得明白：中国人认为他们的价值观以及他们实现这些价值观的方法是最好的，正如美国人认为他们的美国价值观和实现这些价值观的方式是最好的一样。”
他得出结论：“如果美国继续衰退、中国继续崛起的话，最重要的是每一方是否都能表现得优雅一点。”（作者安德鲁·罗斯·索尔金，陈康译）
Wall Street billionaire warns US that trying to control China will backfire
By Andrew Ross Sorkin
11/24/2021
Ray Dalio made his name by predicting the financial crisis of 2008. He has built the world’s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, with some $US223 billion ($308 billion) under management. He has also become something of a public intellectual and life coach, advocating a particular style of management he describes as “radical transparency.”
In two weeks, his third book in five years, The Changing World Order, will be published. It is an attempt to better understand the current economic environment and the challenges that it presents by delving into centuries of economic ups and downs.
The book is a provocative read for those of us questioning where in the arc of history the American empire resides and what may happen to the economy next. There are few tomes that coherently map such broad economic histories as well as Dalio’s. Perhaps more unusually, Dalio has managed to identify metrics from that history that can be applied to understand today. He examined four empires: the Dutch, British, American and Chinese.
He writes that each followed almost the exact same path:
“Rising education leads to increased innovation and technology, which leads to an increased share of world trade and military strength, stronger economic output, the building of the world’s leading financial centre, and, with a lag, the establishment of the currency as a reserve currency. And you can see how for an extended period most of these factors stayed strong together and then declined in a similar order. The common reserve currency, just like the world’s common language, tends to stick around after an empire has begun its decline because the habit of usage lasts longer than the strengths that made it so commonly used.”
Today, Dalio is most concerned about the end of the American empire and the beginning of another Chinese empire, a transition he believes could lead to war. He writes that Americans misunderstand the Chinese and their own place in history:
“300 years seems like a very long time ago to Americans, but for the Chinese, it isn’t long at all. While the prospect of a revolution or a war that will overturn the US system is unimaginable to most Americans, both seem inevitable to the Chinese because they have seen those things happen again and again and have studied the patterns that inevitably precede them. While most Americans focus on particular events, especially those that are happening now, most Chinese leaders view current events in the context of larger, more evolutionary patterns.”
He believes any attempt by the United States to control or change China will only backfire:
“Given China’s impressive track record and how deeply imbued the culture behind it is, there is no more chance of the Chinese giving up their values and their system than there is of Americans giving up theirs. Trying to force the Chinese and their systems to be more American would, to them, mean subjugation of their most fundamental beliefs, which they would fight to the death to protect. To have peaceful coexistence Americans must understand that the Chinese believe that their values and their approaches to living out these values are best, as much as Americans believe their American values and their ways of living them out are best.”
Ultimately, he concludes that “If the US continues to decline and China continues to rise, what matters most is whether or not each can do so gracefully.”
I spoke to Dalio by video call, and he acknowledged that before doing the research, he “really didn’t have much of an understanding of the connection with internal conflicts, external conflicts, the cost of war — financial and non-financial — and the impact of nature.”
He was particularly shocked by the role of natural disasters on economies. “Nature, meaning climate, it was surprising to me — that it caused more revolutions and more deaths and wars and depressions,” he said.
Dalio said he’s not a pessimist. “I’m not trying to be fatalistic,” he said. “I am trying to give that arc. I’m trying to get measurements that are objective.”
Asked to name a comparable period in history that ended well, Dalio pointed to the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty, when the value of the dollar was decreasing and inflation was increasing rapidly. “We got through that with adjustments,” he said, “though we didn’t have an external power that was as strong as China.”
Another point of optimism, he said, is that “the worst case doesn’t affect most people as badly as it sounds when you read it.” He cited the Great Depression as an example. “Most people remained employed, and going through the wars, most people remained alive.”
Still, he is not convinced that central bankers can solve current challenges such as supply chain shortages and inflation, which is one of the reasons that he has become intrigued by cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin.
He said one of the superpowers of the central bank is that most people don’t understand the relationship between monetary policy and the value of their money.
“It’ll be hidden,” he said. “People will look at how much they’re worth in nominal dollars, not in inflation-adjusted dollars. So they’ll say, ‘I’m safe,’ as they will lose 4, 5, 7 per cent per year.”
Dalio is convinced that if people better understood this and understood the various cycles of economies, their outcomes would be better, and crises would be easier to avert.
“I have a principle: If you worry, you don’t have to worry. And if you don’t worry, you have to worry.”
美国前国务卿：我不认为中国未来10年会打台湾
文章来源: 联合新闻网
11/20/2021
美国前国务卿季辛吉在预定周日（21日）播出的CNN专访中表示，他不认为中国在未来10年会以武力入侵台湾，但”绝对可能”寻求削弱台湾的地位。
季辛吉在接受CNN节目主持人扎卡利亚（Fareed Zakaria）访问时表示：”我不预期会全面攻击台湾，这么说吧，在10年的期间内，我只能看到这么远。”
高龄98岁的季辛吉也曾任国家安全顾问，促成1972年尼克松访问大陆。他说，”人人都想当对中国的鹰派，大家都认为中国决心称霸世界，这是中国的最大目标”。
但他说，美中之间不应该有想当然尔的敌对和竞争，他认为美国总统拜登在与习近平的视讯峰会上，”开始朝不同的方向移动”。
季辛吉说：”我们的最大目标应该是避免冲突，可以预见，中国将采取削弱台湾看起来已实质自治的能力。”
Kissinger Doesn’t See China Invasion of Taiwan in Next Decade
11/20/2021
(Bloomberg) — Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said he doesn’t foresee a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan in the next decade, though it’s “perfectly possible” that China will seek to weaken the island’s status.
“I don’t expect an all-out attack on Taiwan in, say, a 10-year period, which is as far as I can see,” Kissinger said in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” to air Sunday.
Oct 9, 2021
Kissinger, 98, who also served as national security adviser and helped pave the way for President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China, offered that “everyone wants to be a China hawk” and “everyone assumes that China is determined to dominate the world and that that is its primary objective.”
But he said there shouldn’t be an automatic rivalry and competition with the U.S., and that he thinks President Joe Biden during the virtual summit this week with Chinese leader Xi Jinping “began to move in a direction of a different road.”
China’s claim that Taiwan is a breakaway province to be retaken by force if necessary was a contentious part the Biden-Xi talks. A Chinese Communist Party resolution reflecting Xi’s agenda advocated pushing for union with Taiwan, though it stopped short of listing unification as a near-term goal.
“We should have a principal goal of avoiding confrontation,” Kissinger told CNN. Still, he said it’s “foreseeable” that China “will take measures that will weaken the Taiwanese ability to appear substantially autonomous.”
李显龙总理谈中美关系与台海局势
文 / 黎康
11/19/2021
李显龙总理星期三（17日）在彭博创新经济论坛（Bloomberg New Economy Forum）的晚宴上，接受了彭博社总编辑米思伟（John Micklethwait）的访问。
在长达45分钟的对谈中，李总理回答了关于国际形势、冠病疫情和新加坡相关的多个问题，尤其是就中美关系和台海局势问题展开了20分钟的交流。
中美思维方式的根本区别是什么？如何看待“东方崛起西方衰落”论？台海局势又是否一触即发？点击视频，听李显龙总理回答。
以下是文字实录：
米思伟：总理，如同迈克所说的，非常感谢你让我们来到这里，也感谢你再次与我对话。
李显龙：感谢你来，也感谢你再次组织这次对话。这是我们的第四次或第五次了。
米思伟：我想我们从国际形势开始，然后再具体谈冠病疫情以及新加坡。首先，中国和美国，今年早些时候或去年年底，你曾呼吁休战。我想知道，过去一周我们在联合国气候变化大会（COP）上看到了关于气候变化的协议，现在看到了习近平和拜登的谈话，这算得上是你呼吁的休战吗？
李显龙：我认为这是个必要的开始，两国之间的分歧多且深。分歧并不局限于个别课题，而是涉及到基本的思维方式。这不是一场会议或一份协议就能解决或缓解的。但美国和中国能在联合国气候变化大会（COP）达成一些共识是好事。两位领导人能够举行这次视讯会议并坦率交谈，也至关重要。
米思伟：你如何描述这两种不同的思维方式？你看到的根本区别是什么？
李显龙：这两个国家看待世界的方式非常不一样，看待彼此的方式也非常不同。对美国人来说，中国不仅是一个潜在的威胁，而是一个挑战者以及一个严重的问题，几乎是一个对手，这已成为两党非常强烈的共识。我不是说行政部门都是这样想的，但我认为这是美国社会的普遍看法，至少智库是这样想的。
与此同时，与中国的关系不仅是对抗性的战略平衡问题，它还涉及道德层面——对与错，我维护民主，你不是，我是人权，你不是。如果你以这样的方式定义问题，要过渡到谈共存，谈大家都生活在同一个地球上，就变得很困难。
在中国方面，我认为他们的许多记者和民众都有一个已经固定的观点，我想象一些领导也是一样，就是美国要拖慢中国并阻止中国崛起，以及美国后曾经帮助中国，给予他们永久最惠国待遇（MFN），允许他们加入世贸组织，促进了投资增长，让他们变成今天的样子。
第二点，他们有一种感觉，中国的时代已经到来，将在世界上占据应有的位置，这是可以理解的。但是，你以何种方式在世界上占据你应有的位置，作为一个非常大的玩家为许多不太大的玩家留出空间，这是一种敏感度和艺术，而它不是与生俱来的。
米思伟：你描述的这种有问题的思维方式，是否也涉及中国的时代已经到来，而美国的时代即将逝去？
李显龙：是的，也有那方面。有一种强烈的感觉，认为东方正在崛起，西方正在衰落，美国尤其是一个衰落的大国。我认为这是错误的。我可以了解什么让他们这样想。其他人有时也会这样想。但如果你从长远来看，你真的必须押注美国会从它对自己做的事情中恢复过来。
米思伟：我们可以看看它现在对自己做的其中一件事情吗？我们早些时候在会议上听到了雷蒙多的谈话。她在这里，非常卖力地推销美国印太经济框架。这是没有贸易协议的贸易协议，背后没有贸易协议。我猜想像新加坡这样的国家会更希望现在称为《跨太平洋伙伴全面进展协定》（CPTPP）的《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（TPP）能重启。美国在推销一个你们很难自然就倾向的概念。
李显龙：这些都是政治现实。《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（TPP）原本是理想的作法。美国花了一些时间才认识到这一点，去决定这就是它希望与这个区域接触的方式，并推动这个旗舰性的实质性项目，它将不仅展示而且实际上深化美国与亚洲的接触和关系。
奥巴马亲自采纳了它。他花了很多时间推动领导人并使谈判取得进展。但我认为他没有做到的，也许就是不可能做到的，是在国内和国会中给予足够的推力。最后，他的时间不够了，不可能透过国会跛脚鸭会期将它夹带通过。反正，希拉里（克林顿）也不认同，当特朗普获胜时，事情也就到此为止了。而现在处于它已死的位置。我不是说它不能复活，但复活不会在三天或三年后发生。
所以，如果不能这样做，美国还能做什么？好，你仍需要以实质性的议程参与，而如果我不能，我可以谈数码化合作、绿色合作、人力资源合作。虽然缺了一块，但至少我不会在互动中缺席。
米思伟：你从一个卖家的角度非常热衷地谈论发言，但你其实是买家。你是必须决定它是好是坏的那个人。你是否还觉得它有用？
李显龙：它可以是有用的。我们正向美国以及亚太经合组织（APEC）一些成员国提出数码经济协议的想法。我们希望美国能参与其中。要民主党政府这么做并不容易，因为该政府上任时答应要照顾美国的中产阶级，所有事情都需要与此有联系。其实，所有事情最终都会与此有联系，但如果你坚持要立即和直接联系，那你或许会错失很多间接但有价值的计划。
米思伟：中国正申请加入《跨太平洋伙伴全面进展协定》（CPTPP）。台湾也是。你如何评估其中一方或是双方加入的机会？
李显龙：《跨太平洋伙伴全面进展协定》（CPTPP）的构建方式，欢迎任何愿意、且达到该协定相当高门槛与符合其精神的国家加入。在《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（TPP）的构想下，我们就设想有一天中国会感兴趣，而中美同处一个TPP框架，将比两国签订双边自由贸易协定（FTA）来得更可能。我认为双方都逐渐想通，连最初不以为然、认定这个协定就是要针对自己的中国，后来也决定研究它。他们考虑了很久，终于说或许我们应该感兴趣。令人遗憾的是，美国人如今已不在里头了。
从经济角度来说，我认为这是理性的。从程序角度来说，CPTPP所有成员国达成共识后才能做出决定。当他们在考虑时，考虑的就不只是经济层面，也会有政治考量，战略和安全因素，以及其它任何他们或许正在讨论的双边关系问题和关注。
米思伟：而南中国海也是其中一部分……
李显龙：南中国海不是贸易议题，但亚太经合组织经济体或CPTPP成员国与中国之间也有贸易议题。我希望他们能解决所面对的问题。从长远来看，更多贸易要比少贸易来得好。我仍相信这点，尽管现在已不太流行。我希望这些事情获得解决的方法，能促进稳定和各国的整合。
米思伟：新加坡一直是多边主义的重要施惠者或受惠者。今早有趣的是，我们看到王岐山（中国国家副主席）的致辞，他提到多边和多边主义大概有20次。这个新的中国，带着礼物向你走来，承诺他是多边主义者。你相信吗？
李显龙：我认为他们说了正确的话，也尝试在做正确的事。我的意思是，如果中国说出我是一个单边主义者，你会觉得不对劲。他们声称是多边主义者，也想加入所有这些组织。事实上，他们希望投选一些自己人领导这些组织，一些联合国的组织就出现了激烈的竞争。他们（中国）想影响这些组织的条规，这都是合理的，因为他们已是一股可观的力量，他们要在世界上有相应的影响力。问题是，当一个非常主要的势力加入一个组织时，你要如何让该组织真正饯行多边主义。原则上，根据各国无论大小和平共存的五项原则，我们都是平等的，但在联合国的实际操作中，大家都知道有些国家比其他国家更平等。
米思伟：这就是说，房间里出现了一头大象。它可能比其他所有伙伴要大得多。
李显龙：是的，而且你必须与这个力量互动，它也需要对自己的运作方式有些自我意识，确保获得大家的接受，从而可以在不动用赤裸裸武力的情况下延续影响力。
米思伟：中国是否已达到这么考虑问题的境界，让你能想象他们坐在你身边，并差不多平等地对待所有人？
李显龙：没有强权平等对待所有人，但有些会做得比其它好些。
米思伟：他们做得更有礼一些。
李显龙：不，我不会说更有礼些。看看美国人，他们从二战结束后就待在亚太地区，在那之前已在菲律宾。七八十年后，依然受到这个地区的欢迎，而不是被视为丑陋的美国人，这说明了一些什么。
米思伟：如果中国加入CPTPP或没加入，会怎么反映出美国在这一区域的角色？
李显龙：如果中国加入CPTPP，美国在这一地区仍有角色可扮演。你在这里有投资、贸易、利益、朋友和盟友。我们希望在（美国）遍布全世界的关注事务时，你有时间经营世界这一部分，吱声不大，却有价值和有经济回报的关系。
米思伟：如果你是乔拜登，你会做什么来改变这个平衡？你说的一切，听起来你认为美国需要为这个区域投入的比现在稍多些。
李显龙：首先，我会尝试推动贸易。你不能签订自贸协议，但你会想推进贸易，尽管民主党的规则不允许。其次是发展与中国的关系，因为如果这个关系搞僵了，这个地区每个国家的处境都会变得更难。第三，不要止步于与中国发展关系，而也要经营你在这个地区的其他朋友和盟友。第二部分拜登正尝试在做。这是一段漫长旅程，但他已开始。朋友和盟友，他采取的方式相当明确，我认为人们都相信这点。他可以做的最后一件事，是确保2024年之后的（美国）总统，无论是哪个政党，也有和他相同想法。
米思伟：这非他力所能及……
李显龙：可惜的是，这非他力所能及，但这是非常重要的事。你必须能放远目光，因为美国的利益远远持续到2024年之后。
米思伟：关于这方面的最后一个问题，涉及到台湾。对于台湾将发生的事情，我们应该多担心？
李显龙：我认为我们应该关注。我不认为战争会在一夜之间发生，但这是一个可能出现意外或误判、需要细致处理的处境。有关国家都说对的话。上午的视频峰会上，拜登说，美国将坚持它的一个中国政策，他也提到了存在很久的台湾关系法。习近平则说，我们并不急于解决两岸问题。这是一个暗号，但我们都知道它的意思。在台湾，蔡英文博士说，我们呼吁各方维持现状。所以，每个人都说对的话，但如果你观察正在发生的事事态的发展，会发现情况并非静态。美国已显著提高与台湾的外交、甚至军事接触的能见度、级别和强度。
中国大陆一直在测试台湾的防空能力。大陆几乎每天都派遣飞机飞到台湾的防空识别区。这些飞机没有进入台湾的直接空域，但大陆是在测试台湾的防御能力，并压缩台湾的国际空间，在五年前或好几年前，大陆在这个问题上可以对台湾有些让步。在台湾方面，本届民进党政府不接受两岸各自表述的九二共识，并说，不，这不是一个可接受的构想，并采取了其他行动，例如，在他们的护照上，用英文印上“台湾护照”的字眼。
这些行动都引起了猜疑、紧张和焦虑，导致误判或意外更有可能发生。而且真的，你需要后退一步，“降温”这个词太强烈—冷静一点，想想如果你尝试了另一个选项后，你将有多后悔失去这个选项。
米思伟：你真的认为大陆是这么想的吗？你认为大陆会不会，当然、如果另一个选择是大陆控制台湾？
李显龙：不，我认为如果大陆相当清楚局势是稳定的，如果事态不会逐渐朝着不利于他们的方向发展，他们也许会更放松、慢慢观察事态演变。难点是，如果他们担心情况是往渐渐远离他们的方向发展，不是在经济层面上的离开，因为在经济层面上，我认为大陆将成为台湾经济越来越重要的因素，而是就台湾人民的态度以及国际环境而言。那么他们可能会判断，如果迟些，事态会变得更加复杂。因此，我认为这并不是大陆想马上解决的问题。不过我应该如何处理一个非常困难的问题？我的意思是，他们已经有香港这一个棘手的问题了。
米思伟：你提到了香港，我们就很快地谈一下。你认为香港是一个大陆增加管线权的地方吗？哪里的限制已经收紧了。
李显龙：我认为，根据香港在去年之前所发生的事情，很难想象这种情况能持续到2047年，到50年。这是不可能的。你不能这样治理这样一个地方。法律无法通过；政府的令状无法执行，而且有蔓延到越过一国两制边境的风险。所以，他们现在的情况是，问题被很坚决地压制了。我认为国际上，甚至是香港内部，都为此付出了代价；我也认为他们（中国）将从这里观察事态的演变。我不认为他们希望或寻求让香港变得与其他大陆城市一样。这将使得香港对大陆而言没有价值，因为大陆已经有许多繁荣的城市。香港是不同的，所以有价值。不过，在不给一国两制的另一端构成不可容忍的问题的前提下，香港能够有多不同，这是难点所在。
米思伟：香港损失了多少，新加坡得到了多少？
李显龙：我想有些人可能会决定他们更喜欢待在一个地方而不是另一边，但是总的来说，我毫不怀疑，如果香港繁荣，新加坡和香港做生意、竞争，新加坡得到的会更多。
新加坡防长：台湾问题是“深红线” 美国应远离
来源：瞰天下
11/05/2021
新加坡国防部长黄永宏在第12届阿斯彭安全论坛上说，台湾问题是一条深红线。他事后接受本地媒体访问时重申，各国应该远离这条深红线，因为靠得太近就会有误判形势的可能。
Nov 3, 2021
到美国华盛顿参加第12届阿斯彭安全论坛（Aspen Security Forum）的新加坡国防部长黄永宏，当地时间11月3日（本地时间4日凌晨）发表他此行的主旨演说。他过后回答主持人阿斯彭战略集团联合主席约瑟夫·奈（Joseph Nye）的提问时，提出他对台海局势的看法。
约瑟夫·奈问黄永宏是否担心美国目前处理台湾问题的方式，以及过程中是否可能出现形势误判的情况。
黄永宏回答说，误判的情况可能发生，这是一条深红线。“若为了台湾动武，我想到时无论是什么局面都不会有赢家，所以我的劝告是应该避而远之。”
他事后接受本地媒体访问时重申，各国应该远离这条深红线，因为靠得太近就会有误判形势的可能。而一旦动武将各方皆输，不仅是美国和中国，东南亚甚至是全球都会陷入混乱。
Nov 3, 2021
马凯硕： 西方不应错误地认为中国需要照搬其模式
10/19/2021
新加坡前资深外交官马凯硕（Kishore Mahbubani）昨天（18日）说，西方认为中国应该照搬其模式，这是错误的假设，因为中国是一个更加强韧和更加自信的文明，而西方亟需明白这一点。
根据中新社报道，也是新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院创始院长的马凯硕在接受德国“中国平台”网站专访时说，一个崛起的中国并不会步美国的后尘寻求称霸，因为中国专注于改善本国14亿人的生活，而不是卷入毫无必要的战争。
Jul 1, 2021
Kishore Mahbubani of the Asia Research Institute and former diplomat says U.S.-China tension regarding China’s “reunification” with Taiwan “may lead to a war.” He says pushing China into a corner would be unwise.
谈及西方国家习惯于将美国视作“民主伙伴”，而将中国视作“挑战和威胁”，马凯硕直言，这种观念并不正确。他指出，中国是世界上最古老的文明之一，在其历史上有超过4000年的时间是领先世界的，只有近代以来才有200年左右的时间落后于西方，但后者只是很短的时期。他说，西方认为中国应该照搬其模式，这是错误的假设，因为中国是一个更加强韧和更加自信的文明，“西方亟需明白这一点”。
马凯硕认为，关于“新冷战”的表述是错误的。在美苏冷战期间，东西方两大阵营相互隔绝，而今天的中美两国在经济领域已经紧密地联系在一起。在他看来，当前的确存在大量的地缘政治博弈，但今天的世界已是相互依存的状态，需要共同应对越来越多的全球性挑战，例如冠病疫情和气候变化。
马凯硕强调，一个崛起的中国不会步美国后尘。他认为，中国不希望以一种“传教士”的方式去改变世界，更不会让自身陷入类似伊拉克或者叙利亚那样毫无必要的战争当中，“这是因为中国要专注于改善本国14亿人的生活，这已经够忙了。”
Sep 23, 2021
谈及对下届德国政府对华政策的期许，马凯硕表示，情绪化是处理地缘政治时最大的误区，德国应该避开这一误区，“过去十年间，中国市场增长了三倍，你不应忘记你的汽车正在销往何处。”
马凯硕曾作为新加坡常驻联合国代表担任安理会轮值主席，他的最新著作《中国的选择：中美博弈与战略抉择》近日被翻译成德文出版发行。
新加坡外交部长维文：维系新中关系窍门 是要保持有用但不被利用
来自 / 联合早报
文 / 杨浚鑫
10/12/2021
外交部长维文医生日前上澳洲访谈节目时，被问及是否对澳中关系出现波折感到惊讶，他以分享新加坡的经验做出回应。“维系与中国的关系在于保持相关性，有用处却不被利用。这是我们所有人都须要找到的微妙平衡，新加坡找到了。”
新中关系的维系，在于我国通过政府间合作项目等方式，对中国保持相关性，有用处却不被利用。外交部长维文医生说，这是各国须找到的微妙平衡。
由澳大利亚前国防部长派恩（Christopher Pyne）主持的访谈节目《环球焦点》，前天（10月10日）在澳洲天空新闻台（Sky News Australia）播出第一集，邀请到维文担任嘉宾。
根据外交部提供的访谈文本，派恩就澳中目前的紧张关系询问维文，是否对这两个国家的关系出现波折感到惊讶。维文回应时强调，他没有资格告诉澳洲如何施展外交，他能做的只是分享新加坡的经验。
维文说，中国是新加坡最大的贸易伙伴，新加坡自2013年起也是中国最大的外资来源国。“因此，从新加坡的角度，我们有着切身利益，而我们对中国的态度向来是展示我国的相关性。”
他举出三个新中政府间合作项目，即苏州工业园、天津生态城，以及重庆战略性互联互通示范项目。其中，重庆项目下的“国际陆海贸易新通道”，将通过新加坡连接中国西部和东南亚。
维文说：“维系与中国的关系在于保持相关性，有用处却不被利用。这是我们所有人都须要找到的微妙平衡，新加坡找到了。”
他强调，新中关系极佳，中国国务委员兼外长王毅不仅上个月访新，两人过去12个月也面对面会见了约四次。“双方互动水平和节奏向来很高。或许较鲜为人知的是，即使在冠病疫情期间，双方仍在关键时刻彼此低调相助。”
长期关系必生分歧 维文：出现时须解决
维文说，新中关系并不对称，因为新加坡太小了，也不是基于完全一致的立场，因为这不可能，但两国找到合作方式，并在出现分歧时共同解决。
他认为，分歧是任何长期关系不可避免的一部分，必须去处理。“这如同一场每周都有同样玩家围坐一桌的游戏。即使你有分歧也要去解决它，并理解这其中有大的格局和更长远的角度。”
派恩进一步追问，新加坡的做法是不是亚细安国家普遍采取的做法。对此，维文说，亚细安已超越欧盟和美国，成为中国最大的贸易伙伴。
“这种贸易相互依存关系是真实的，并仍在增长。”
就中国的“一带一路”项目而言，东南亚对此的主要兴趣在于投资，尤其是基础设施和连通性方面的投资。可见，双方的中长期利益有明显交集。
因此，尽管中国在南中国海问题上与东南亚声索国存在分歧和争端，但这只是双方广泛关系中的一个面向。维文说：“没有人希望情况失控或破坏关系的长期轨迹。”
他坦言，领土声索可能需要数年乃至数十年才能解决，任何国家都不会轻易放弃，但它不是各国继续往来和建立关系的绝对障碍。这正是东南亚目前的情况。
维文也重申，亚细安坚持维护包容开放的区域架构。这当然牵涉美国。事实上，美国在东南亚的投资额，超过它在印度、中国和韩国的投资总额，因此在本区域拥有切身利益。
“我曾对美国历届政府说：‘你们已经占得先机。美国仍是东南亚最大的外资来源国。美国在本区域的存在受到欢迎且具建设性。不要失去这个领先优势。’”
派恩也问维文，是否认为北京正在制定一个能允许澳中有尊严地走出目前混乱局面的方式。对此，维文说，中国在地缘战略上有长远和开阔的眼光，他相信有这方面的计划，虽不清楚何时发生，但希望两国关系能早日改善。
北美法律公益讲座安排
时间：周二到周五 晚间
5:30-7:00(西部时间）8:30-9:30(东部时间）
重播：第二天
上午9:00（西部时间）
中午：12:00（多伦多时间）
周二:遗嘱和授权书（Lisa讲）
周三:数据泄露和个人身份保护&事业机会说明会
周四：北美常见法律问题和案例分享(3686601060，密码在群里@我
周五：小企业法律常见法律问题
Zoom：除了周四以外，其它时间zoom: 6045004698
周四：3686601060，密码请在群里@我
另外：周三6:30（西部时间）美国专场
95190929213，
密码：请在群里@我
Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Interview on Sky News Australia’s “Global Focus with Christopher Pyne” on 15 September 2021
10/12/2021
Christopher Pyne (Sky News Australia): Hello, I am Christopher Pyne, and this is “Global Focus” on Sky News Australia. Today, my guest is Vivian Balakrishnan, who is Singapore’s Foreign Minister and a good friend to Australia over a long period of time. Vivian, welcome to the show, and thank you very much for being with us.
Minister: Thank you. Always great to see you. A blast from the past, and we have been up to a lot together.
Pyne: That is definitely true. I am sorry we cannot be together in person. But you know, it would not be too long before we can be again.
Minister: Hope so, hope so.
Pyne: The relationship between Australia and China is clearly strained at the moment, economically and politically. Does it surprise you that the relationship has taken this turn?
Minister: Well, first I would say, I am not really in a position to advise Australia. But what I would say, shared as a perspective from Singapore – this tiny city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. The biggest success story in the last 40 years really has been China after the reform started by Deng Xiaoping. As a result of that, and especially the last 20 years since they joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), China has become our largest trading partner. But the other surprising fact, perhaps, may be that Singapore is also the largest foreign investor in China, has been since 2013. So, the point is that from a Singapore perspective, we have got skin in the game. And our attitude to China has been to demonstrate relevance. For instance, we have got three Government-to-Government projects. The first one was in Suzhou. It was an industrial park – bring in foreign companies, build manufacturing plants. Second was in Tianjin – that was an eco-city, when this whole thing of sustainable development came about. Our most recent project was in Chongqing – in a sense, part of the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) but really an attempt to connect Western China and through this new corridor which we call the “Chongqing Connectivity Initiative-New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor”. This corridor links Western China through into Southeast Asia via Singapore. So, it has been about relevance, about being useful, but not being made use of. This is a delicate balance which all of us need to find, and we have been able to find that. Right now, if you were to ask me, I would have to say our relations are excellent. (Chinese) Foreign Minister Wang Yi was just in town. I have seen him personally face-to-face about four times in the last 12 months. The level of interaction, (and) the tempo has been high. Perhaps the lesser-known fact is that even during this COVID pandemic, at critical moments, quietly, both sides have helped each other at critical points in time. So, there is a relationship not based on symmetry – you cannot, because we are so small – not based on complete congruence – it is not possible – but we find ways to work together and where there are differences, we work through them. The point is that you have to treat the issues as they come up – the differences as part and parcel of a longer-term relationship that has to be managed. It is like a game in which the same players are going to be at the table week after week. Even if you have differences, work it out and understand that there is a much larger account and a much longer-term horizon. That is just my take from Singapore. I am in no position to tell Australia how to conduct foreign policy. Julie Bishop and Marise Payne are more than capable of doing this.
Pyne: Yes, indeed. My former House mate in Canberra for 20 years, Marise Payne, would not be appreciative at all of you giving her advice about how to manage our relationships. But she likes you very much.
Minister: She does not need my advice.
Pyne: I know how well you get along.
Minister: We get along perfectly.
Pyne: I have been in some of those meetings of ministers for trade, defence, and foreign affairs, and I know how close you and Marise are. This is a great relationship that we have got.
Minister: Chris, you have been there. You have seen it up close.
Pyne: I had, and (I) enjoyed it too. The approach that you have just outlined that Singapore is taking with China, is that generally the approach of the ASEAN nations? That they all see similarly that they can have a relationship with China, which does not have to exclude others?
Minister: Well, I would characterise the relationship with ASEAN and China along the following dimensions. First, China is now the largest trading partner for virtually all of us. But a more recent development which may not be fully appreciated yet, is that if you ask China who their largest trading partner is, in fact, ASEAN has now overtaken the EU (European Union) and the US (United States). This trade interdependence is real, and it is growing. So that is the first point. The next point is that even if you look in terms of China’s Belt and Road signature project, the key interest of Southeast Asia is investments, and particularly investments in infrastructure, in connectivity, and still there again you see that there is an obvious confluence of interests – medium and long term interests. Are there problems or differences? You know fully well that there are. For instance, in the South China Sea, where there are differences over claims, for each of the Southeast Asian countries with claims – and I would exclude Singapore because we have no claims in the South China Sea – but for each of the claimant states, their differences, their disputes – even if you want to call it that – with China are just one dimension of a much broader relationship, and therefore would be looked at strategically. No one wants them to get out of hand or to disrupt the long-term trajectory of relationships. Now, one final point I would make about ASEAN, is that ASEAN is very insistent on maintaining an inclusive and open regional architecture. This is something which Australia would be familiar with because you know that we have always been advocates, champions for Australia’s economic and political engagement with our part of the world. (The) same thing applies to China. Even as China is our biggest trading partner, even as China is a significant source of investment, and we are key investors into China, we want to keep our region open, inclusive, and that of course relates to the elephant in the room – America, which has in fact, invested more in Southeast Asia than America has invested in India, China, and (Republic of) Korea combined. That is another fact which is not fully appreciated – the amount of skin that America has in Southeast Asia. I used to tell successive administrations: “You have got a head start. You still remain – when I say “you” (I mean) America – the biggest foreign investor in Southeast Asia. You are a welcome, constructive presence. Do not lose the head start. You are welcome.” So, the key word there is inclusivity. We want Southeast Asia to continue to engage with China, with America, with Australia, New Zealand and of course, you have got Japan, (Republic of) Korea, and India, and that in a sense, creates the larger outer arc. Another example of that is the RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The only one that could not get onto and sign was India. But for 15 countries – and the combined economy is a huge big chunk – to get on this platform, and to get on at a time when there is a pushback globally against free trade and economy integration, makes it all the more significant. So I would say it is a big, deep, and evolving account. But Australia is part of this account too, and that is important to emphasise, especially back home for you.
Pyne: Yes. Well, it is interesting because here in Australia, the media commentary is very much the only issue that people talk about is the tension between China and the rest of the nations in the Indo Pacific, and the South China Sea is, as you know, often used as the primary example of tension. But what you are saying, if I could paraphrase, is that the countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, (and) others that have claims over the South China Sea, see that as just one part of a multi-faceted relationship with, what is clearly the largest economy in the region, and 1.3 billion people who are not suddenly going to go away. So, managing that relationship and that South China Sea tension is just another thing to discuss, as opposed to becoming the most important part of the relationship.
Minister: It is a long-term game. You are not dealing with an adversary, (and) you do not want to make them (an) adversary. But it is a stakeholder. You will have differences, and there will be divergence. The question is, can you resolve it? Even if you cannot (right) now – frankly territorial claims are very difficult to resolve; it may take years, decades even, and no country is going to walk away from claims lightly. But it does not have to be an absolute block to ongoing engagement and (the) building (of) those relationships. So that is really what is happening in Southeast Asia.
Pyne: Do you think that there is a party, and you cannot also comment on foreign policy out of Beijing, but would it surprise you if there was not a group in Beijing formulating, now, a dignified exit for both Australia and China out of the current imbroglio that we find ourselves in?
Minister: China thinks long term and takes a wide view in geo-strategy. I am sure there would be a paper somewhere in a drawer on what happens when we press the green button and say, the sun is out and it is (a) good day mate. When that will happen? I do not know. But I hope it happens soon.
Pyne: Yeah, me too. Well, Vivian that has been great. We have to go to a break now, but Sky News Australia will come back after the break and continue our conversation. It might switch to the role of the US in the Indo Pacific. So, thank you very much so far, and we look forward to talking to you again in a couple of minutes.
Christopher Pyne (Sky News Australia): Welcome back to Global Focus here on Sky News Australia. My guest today is Vivian Balakrishnan, Singaporean Foreign Minister. We have been talking about ASEAN, Singapore, Australia, the role of China in our region, and now we will shift to the other great superpower in the Indo Pacific, which is the US. Vivian, the Afghanistan war has effectively come to an end, Taliban is back in power in Kabul after 20 years. I know you cannot speak for all of ASEAN, but you can speak for the Singaporean Government. Is it your view and Singapore’s that this is the combination of the US completing its mission and now extricating itself from a very difficult conflict or is it being seen as a significant defeat for the US, which is going to take many years to recover from in terms of their prestige in the Indo Pacific region?
Minister: That is a profound question. Actually, both Australia and Singapore, and you would be familiar with this, were part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Why did America go in? And why was Australia and even Singapore part of the ISAF? It was because of terrorism. In fact, more specifically because of 9/11. In Singapore’s case, we even discovered a local terrorist cell. Fortunately, we discovered it before they could actually take any action. But even this local homegrown cell had links with Al-Qaeda. So we fully understand why in the aftermath of 9/11, America had to go in (to Afghanistan). The question then is, is this threat from terrorism resolved? The answer is that it is certainly acute. (The) immediate threat 20 years ago was settled, but the nature of terrorism has now metastasised and (is) turbocharged with internet technologies. In fact, the risk has gone up, not gone down. But really, if you think, and here we put ourselves in the Biden Administration’s shoes, the truth is they inherited a very difficult situation. Actually, they are not the first Administration to want to come out of Afghanistan. So, they were in a difficult pickle and I think you, as a former Defence Minister will know as well as I do, there is no easy, neat, tidy way to get out of a sticky situation like that. So, we understand why they had to get out. Of course, everyone wishes it was done more elegantly, but that is more easily said than done. We hope Afghanistan will not become another haven for terrorists again. But we have no illusions; I think both in Australia and in Southeast Asia, we have got homegrown terrorists. We have got terrorists in our own region. The question is whether they will be activated or at least enthused by current events in Afghanistan to try their luck. So, we will have to be vigilant. That is what confronts us. As far as the people in Afghanistan is concerned, I think there is an emerging humanitarian disaster. We hope that the Taliban leaders – you know, 20 years is a new generation – we hope that they will take good care of their own people. We hope that they will also build functional relationships with their neighbours and the rest of the world, but time will tell. In the end, I think the other point is that Afghanistan has always been the graveyard of empires. The British discovered it, the Russians re-learnt it. It looks like America’s nation building effort there has been another footnote in history of this recurring pattern. So, there we have it – a difficult situation. We have great sympathy for the Biden Administration.
Pyne: It will be very interesting to see if the new model for combating terrorism is similar to what happened in the Philippines a few years ago when the Australian government, the defence forces provided intelligence (and) surveillance support for the Philippines military in addressing the ISIS conflicts that occurred in the Philippines, and you would be familiar with that. ASEAN nations gave their support to the Philippine government, which was a much more clinical and specific engagement, as opposed to what happened in Afghanistan which was something like 25 different nations joining the coalition and whether we learned our lesson from that particular conflict. And of course, your point you made previously is a good one – the Biden Administration came to the Afghanistan conflict at the end. The Obama Administration announced the drawing down on forces almost 10 years ago. Of course, the Trump Administration announced that they were leaving and allowed 5,000 Afghan, Taliban fighters to be free. So, nobody comes to this, what appears to have been something of a fiasco, with entirely clean hands.
Minister: It is a messy situation. You mentioned the Southern Philippines, Marawi. There are no neat surgical operations. When there is a terrorist attack, it is not just a military operation. You also have to deal with the hearts and minds of the people. The solution, ultimately, lies locally. That is where the battlefront really is. It shows the limit of external intervention. To assume that we can do this remotely without leadership and resolve on the ground, locally – that is just a bridge too far. At least within Southeast Asia, I think all the governments are focused on this. We have got good counterintelligence operation information sharing. Australia has also been a critical part of this. You would know from your previous life. Like I said, we are just going to have to deal with it and to get on with it, and to know that this is a clear and present danger.
Pyne: Definitely. The Biden Administration, I think will be quite different to the Trump Administration in managing of the Indo-Pacific (and) China, and its superpower status. How do you see the Biden Administration in its early days, certainly being just over half a year? Here in Australia, we see it very much as a return to a more consistent and probably predictable response to issues. How has Singapore and the ASEAN nations in general, seen the Biden approach to the Indo-Pacific and particularly, he has made the Quad quite preeminent in his and his Secretary of State’s views about American foreign policy. How do you see that all playing out in the next three years?
Minister: Well, I share your view that at least in terms of style, in terms of the personalities involved, this is a return to a more conventional establishment, a more conventional way of operating the State Department. (US Secretary of State) Antony Blinken and the others, including (US National Security Advisor) Jake Sullivan, are not strangers to Australia and Asia. So that is familiar. You are on familiar ground. But I would say that the real question for us in Southeast Asia is that trade and investment is strategy. The fact that the US, having been a key locomotive for the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), at the end of the day had to walk away from it – and mind you this is not because of the Biden Administration, – it is not just President Trump, but even candidate Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, in her campaign also had to back away from the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). Now, I know this is because of domestic pressures, the polarisation and the division in the American body politic. Frankly, America cannot come to the table until it resolves its internal situation, achieves unity of purpose, (and) achieves confidence to engage in this. But herein lies the apparent contradiction, because if you look at the past seven decades, the spectacular growth in Southeast Asia and the equally spectacular, uninterrupted growth of Australia, a key reason for that has been the US presence here, (and) its investments in our economy – and I already told you, America is more invested here (Southeast Asia) than it is in India, China, and (Republic of) Korea combined. I am sorry I do not have the figure for Australia, but I am sure it is a very big number. And not just money – access to technology, access to markets, becoming part of global supply chains with multinational corporations, this belief that free trade, properly negotiated free trade agreements, norms, rules and regulations, create a fertile environment for peace and prosperity. So I think we are all missing a key architect of that architecture and we have left the door open, certainly in terms of the CPTPP, for America to come back. I think both Australia and Singapore certainly hope America comes back. But in the meantime, while America is out, what has happened? The RCEP was signed last year. In fact, China and Singapore were the first two countries to ratify the RCEP. Now, China has also told us that they are interested in exploring and becoming part of the CPTPP. Of course, so has the UK (United Kingdom). And again, coming from a city-state that believes in free trade because, after all, trade is more than three times (Singapore’s) GDP, we have to welcome such overtures. The point is that all these big things are happening, and America does need to work out its strategy, and understand that the game in Southeast Asia is trade and investments. So that is what we are waiting for. I would not lose hope. I will continue to make that point, and to also remind America that the door remains open, and that you (America) have a head start. Do not miss out. Because after all, the real growth is in the Pacific, and America is a Pacific power. That is my elevator pitch to them.
Pyne: I think it is a good point you make. It is a good point you make, and the truth is Australia, Japan, and Singapore – when the Trump Administration withdrew from the TPP – we made it clear that we believe strongly in it, and that we would keep going with it, which I think was very important. Well Vivian, we could talk all evening and we have got lots more questions I could ask you, but we have run out of time. So, can I thank you very much for coming on Global Focus. It is great to see you again and I look forward to seeing you in person. And I send also Julie Bishop’s best wishes, who I was speaking with today.
Minister: Please tell her I miss her too. Great seeing you, thank you.
李光耀谈阿富汗问题讲了什么？
文 / 联合早报网
8/20/2021
美国从阿富汗撤军没多久，扶植的政权迅速崩塌，以伊斯兰原教旨主义运动与恐怖主义活动起家的塔利班重新上台，山姆大叔投入了20年的资源和心血一夜间付诸东流……
这几天，一些网站上载了新加坡已故建国总理李光耀2009年10月接受美国著名电视记者、谈话节目主持人查理·罗斯（Charlie Rose）专访时谈及阿富汗问题的视频片段，有的中国网站的标题更称其为“神预言”。
首先要交代一下背景。美国是在2001年九一一事件后进军阿富汗，两个月间就推翻了被指为九一一事件主谋基地组织提供庇护的塔利班政权。2002至2008年，美国一方面继续与塔利班在军事上缠斗，另一方面则致力重建阿富汗国家核心机构。到了2009年，美国总统奥巴马增加在阿富汗的驻军，以实施一项保护民众免受塔利班袭击并支持叛乱分子重新融入社会的战略，同时也定下从2011年起逐步将安全责任移交给阿富汗军警并撤军的计划。但上述战略和计划都不甚成功，美国与北约的作战任务直至2014年12月才算正式结束。
李光耀2009年接受查理·罗斯专访时，正是美军加大投入阿富汗战争之际。
至于是怎么“神”呢，就来看看整理自视频的问答录：
查理·罗斯：当您审视美国与其对外关系，还有它对石油和中东政治的关注时，您是否认为这是一种分心？你认为……
李光耀：不，我不是说中东会让人分心。我认为试图在阿富汗打造出一个国家来是一种分心。在过去三四十年来，那里根本没有国家可言，末代国王被赶出去后就内战不止。
查理·罗斯：对。
李光耀：你们到底要怎么把这些小碎片拼在一起？这是不可能的。
查理·罗斯：所以，要怎么做？
李光耀：我不是专家，但我觉得你们在阿富汗获胜不是因为跟塔利班作战，而是因为你们让北方联盟与塔利班作战，并为北方联盟提供了情报和轰炸、瞄准塔利班的能力，以致他们成功取下南方。
查理·罗斯：是的，但他们在那里也面对治理问题。
李光耀：没错，但那是他们的问题，你们为什么要把它变成你们的问题？
查理·罗斯：那怎么办？你会撤出所有的军队，任由阿富汗发生的事情发生吗？反正他们对美国没有那么大的威胁，是这个论点吗？
李光耀：我不知道，因为我认为再怎么难，也难不过美国让他们的军队被困在那里了。苏联军队冷酷无情，他们中有12万人在那里，但也不得不离开。
查理·罗斯：我们帮了一点忙，因为我们支持了圣战者组织。他们得到了来自世界各地的很多支持，因为后者希望看到苏联挨打。
李光耀：但不管苏联人是否帮助他们把美国人赶出去，我认为……北约成员国对结果非常怀疑。
查理·罗斯：甚至到了不想将军队派往某些战区的地步。
李光耀：没错。是的，当然，因为那样你就会白白被枪杀。
查理·罗斯：但那些争论阿富汗是否被离弃的人首先会说，你看，苏联撤军后你曾经离弃过一次阿富汗，现在你又要离开了。美国必须坚持某些事情，并且必须对外展示它已准备好留下来。你完全不认同吗？
李光耀：不。
查理·罗斯：那你一定和你的朋友基辛格聊得很开心吧？
李光耀：不，不。
Aug 18, 2021
查理·罗斯：对于美国在世界上的角色，你和基辛格的看法有何不同？
李光耀：我不觉得我们有任何区别。
查理·罗斯：是吗？那你怎么定义呢？
李光耀：我认为美国可以成为世界秩序的良性稳定器，没有美国，东亚当初就不会增长，你们带来了和平与技术、贸易和投资，东亚因此繁荣昌盛。
查理·罗斯：很明显，东亚发生了这种情况，你说的是新加坡和韩国。我们如何在中东做到这一点？当我们发生这样的冲突时，你要怎么做到这点？
李光耀：（笑）你不能解决世界上所有的问题。
据新加坡时政网站慈母舰（Mothership）报道，除了上述专访，李光耀2008年2月2日接受合众国际社采访时，也曾谈及阿富汗问题，他在这次访问中的谈话比较坦率，并提出部分解决方案。
李光耀说，如果美国给困在阿富汗，不应尝试做太多事情，而是让军阀之间去解决，条件是他们不会去建立一个新的塔利班国家。
他认为，要改造一个社会，是超出了任何国家的能力，以美国当年攻打伊拉克为例，应该快进快出，进去了只要委任继任者就完事了，并警告说“如果你表现得像（倒台的伊拉克前总统）萨达姆，我就会回来”，那就够了。
美前高官傅立民：美正与中国打着注定会输的比赛
5/10/2021
美国前资深外交官、前助理国防部长傅立民（Chas W Freeman Jr）批评美国政府的对华政策“自欺欺人”（self-defeating），指华盛顿正在打一场注定会输的对华比赛。
傅立民周日发表在澳洲亚太事务研究网站东亚论坛（ East Asia Forum）上发发表题为《华盛顿正在打一场注定会输的对华比赛（Washington is playing a losing game with China）的文章，指美国应在全球性问题上加强与中国的合作，如果继续选择与中国对抗，只会在国际社会上失道寡助。
他认为目前的美中关系，凸显了弗里曼的战略动力学第三定律（Freeman’s third law of strategic dynamics），即每一次敌对行为都会引来更加敌对的反应。
文章指华盛顿发起贸易战，只是因为对中国超越美国的潜力感到担忧，并试图通过不断升级的“极限施压”来削弱、遏制中国。
他说，在国际象棋中，美国就是一个很容易被识别的选手：除了激进的开局外，没有其他的战略。
傅立民在文中以数据证明，美国老百姓深受政府发起贸易战的伤害。他指出，美国农民失去了价值240亿美元（318亿新元）的大部分中国市场；美国公司利润降低，转而削减员工工资和工作岗位、推迟加薪，并提高美国消费品的价格；据估计，美国损失了24.5万个就业岗位，同时减少了约3200亿美元的国内生产总值（GDP），美国家庭平均每年要多花1277美元购买消费品；预计到2025年，美国将失去32万个工作岗位，GDP将比预期的低1.6万亿美元。
文章指出，在另一边，中国正稳步前进。2020年，中国总体贸易顺差达到5350亿美元，再创新高；与此同时，中国正通过降低贸易壁垒、与美国以外的国家达成自由贸易协议、发起贸易争端解决机制等方法，提高了自己的地位。
此外，傅立民还称，中国给美国带来的挑战主要是经济和技术上的，并不是军事上的。但现实是，“美国的飞机和战舰总在中国边界周围活动，中国的飞机和战舰并没有在美国的海岸外巡逻；中国周围到处是美军基地，而美国附近却没有中国的基地”。
傅立民强调：“如果美国继续选择对抗，只会发现自己越来越孤立。如果美国对华政策被定义为一种道德努力，大多数其他国家将选择远离，而不是被吸引”。他指出，各国想要的是获得多边支持来应对挑战，而不是美国的单边对抗；希望在主权最大化的条件下容纳中国，而不是让中国成为敌人。
傅立民认为，除对抗无益外，中美两国合作还有许多必然性。首先，在美国国内，没有中国的参与，市场投资、供应链等很多问题都无法解决；其次，在国际上，两国应合作改革全球治理，解决共同关心的全球性问题，如环境恶化、流行病、核武器扩散、全球经济和金融不稳定、全球贫困等等，并为新技术制定标准。
在文章最后，傅立民强调，“为了在与中国（竞争中）保持优势，美国必须提升竞争力，建设一个治理更好、教育更好、更平等、更开放、更创新、更健康和更自由的社会”。他断言，显然对抗不是通往这一美好愿景的方式，合作才是。
傅立民目前是美国布朗大学沃森国际与公共事务研究所访问学者，曾作为美国前总统尼克逊的首席中文翻译陪同访华，之后他先后在国务院主管中国事务、担任美国驻华公使和负责国际安全事务的助理国防部长。
陆克文斥莫里森草率介入台海议题幼稚
5/10/2021
在中澳关系持续恶化的背景下，澳大利亚前总理陆克文撰文批评，莫里森政府最近声称若台海爆发战争，澳洲将支援美国等盟友的有关言论，“在政治上是幼稚的”（politically juvenile），可能损害澳洲核心国家安全利益。
莫里森上周接受澳洲3AW电台的访问时说，澳洲政府对台政策将坚定不变，若中国大陆武力进攻台湾，澳洲将会履行支援美国及盟友的承诺。
对此，陆克文前天（8日）在《悉尼先驱晨报》发表署名文章称，莫里森政府最近对澳洲军事介入未来美中对台湾战争的可能性所发表的草率评论，在政治上是幼稚的，可能损害澳洲核心国家安全利益。
文章说，50年来，澳洲历届政府都没有在台海冲突的课题上，公开猜测澳洲会怎么做，但在过去两周，总理莫里森、国防部长达顿，以及内政部秘书长佩祖洛，都严重违反了这一澳洲两党共识。
陆克文在文章中指出，澳洲政府此前有充分理由对潜在的台湾军事方案保持沉默（tight-lipped），因为该冲突将涉及中美两个世界上最大的军事力量，并有可能成为自1945年以来亚洲最暴力和最具破坏性的战争。因此，澳洲现阶段不应该损害国家决策的独立性和灵活性。
文章也说，澳洲官员一直周旋在华盛顿、北京和台北之间，竭尽全力防止此类战争发生。面对美国，澳洲官员要同美国一道，确保美国在亚太地区的军事威慑力，以此对中国大陆产生遏制效果；面对中国大陆，澳洲官员则进行游说，试图让北京相信美国会武装介入台海冲突；而面对台湾，澳洲官员要试图阻止台湾单方面宣布“台独”（或采取走向“台独”的步骤），因为这将越过北京最基本的红线。
文章接着称，莫里森政府在台湾问题上像不成熟地捶胸示强（adolescent chest-thumping），不仅让美国人感到困惑，让大陆民众感到愤怒，让台湾百姓不解，也让亚太地区其他国家感到迷惑。
陆克文随后在文章中质问，为什么莫里森、达顿等要在台湾问题上，公开发出“红色警报”信号？难以想象（inconceivable）澳洲的国家安全机构会建议他们这样做，因为这不符合国家利益。“事实上，这在战略上将适得其反。”
陆克文在文中指出，目前澳洲疫苗和检疫程序一团糟、债务和赤字居高不下、执政党自由党内歧视女性问题严重，莫里森政府此时发表草率涉台言论唯一可能的动机是想转移国内视线，以获得多数支持赢得选举。对自由党来说，把工党打成“亲共”是最好的伪装。
文章称，坎培拉还有一个最广为人知的秘密：达顿和莫里森之间存在未公开的领导权之争。达顿认为，在自由党内部，中国议题是击败莫里森的最佳工具。这是可耻的，纯粹为了政治私利，用澳洲核心国家经济和安全利益做赌注。
陆克文最后在文中说，中国日益增长的实力以及特朗普政府的失败，让莫里森政府难以处理澳中关系。面对复杂的挑战，澳洲领导者需要有明智、冷静和慎重的判断，国家安全不是政治游戏。然而，莫里森和达顿过去两周的表现无疑表明，面对复杂的国家安全性势，这届澳洲政府缺乏应对挑战的勇气。
China beating US by being more like America
Cultivating human capital will be essential if the US rather than China is to be the base of the next industrial revolution
By BRANDON J WEICHERT
4/25/2021
The United States transitioned from an agrarian backwater into an industrialized superstate in a rapid timeframe. One of the most decisive men in America’s industrialization was Samuel Slater.
As a young man, Slater worked in Britain’s advanced textile mills. He chafed under Britain’s rigid class system, believing he was being held back. So he moved to Rhode Island.
Once in America, Slater built the country’s first factory based entirely on that which he had learned from working in England’s textile mills – violating a British law that forbade its citizens from proliferating advanced British textile production to other countries.
Samuel Slater is still revered in the United States as the “Father of the American Factory System.” In Britain, if he is remembered at all, he is known by the epithet of “Slater the Traitor.”
After all, Samuel Slater engaged in what might today be referred to as “industrial espionage.” Without Slater, the United States would likely not have risen to become the industrial challenger to British imperial might that it did in the 19th century. Even if America had evolved to challenge British power without Slater’s help, it is likely the process would have taken longer than it actually did.
Many British leaders at the time likely dismissed Slater’s actions as little more than a nuisance. The Americans had not achieved anything unique. They were merely imitating their far more innovative cousins in Britain.
As the works of Oded Shenkar have proved, however, if given enough time, annoying imitators can become dynamic innovators. The British learned this lesson the hard way. America today appears intent on learning a similar hard truth … this time from China.
By the mid-20th century, the latent industrial power of the United States had been unleashed as the European empires, and eventually the British-led world order, collapsed under their own weight. America had built out its own industrial base and was waiting in the geopolitical wings to replace British power – which, of course, it did.
Few today think of Britain as anything more than a middle power in the US-dominated world order. This came about only because of the careful industrial and manipulative trade practices of American statesmen throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century employed against British power.
The People’s Republic of China, like the United States of yesteryear with the British Empire, enjoys a strong trading relationship with the dominant power of the day. China has also free-ridden on the security guarantees of the dominant power, the United States.
The Americans are exhausting themselves while China grows stronger. Like the US in the previous century, inevitably, China will displace the dominant power through simple attrition in the non-military realm.
Many Americans reading this might be shocked to learn that China is not just the land of sweatshops and cheap knockoffs – any more than the United States of previous centuries was only the home of chattel slavery and King Cotton. China, like America, is a dynamic nation of economic activity and technological progress.
While the Chinese do imitate their innovative American competitors, China does this not because the country is incapable of innovating on its own. It’s just easier to imitate effective ideas produced by America, lowering China’s research and development costs. Plus, China’s industrial capacity allows the country to produce more goods than America – just as America had done to Britain
Once China quickly acquires advanced technology, capabilities, and capital from the West, Chinese firms then spin off those imitations and begin innovating. This is why China is challenging the West in quantum computing technology, biotech, space technologies, nanotechnology, 5G, artificial intelligence, and an assortment of other advanced technologies that constitute the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Why reinvent the wheel when you can focus on making cheaper cars and better roads?
Since China opened itself up to the United States in the 1970s, American versions of Samuel Slater have flocked to China, taking with them the innovations, industries, and job offerings that would have gone to Americans had Washington never embraced Beijing.
America must simply make itself more attractive than China is to talent and capital. It must create a regulatory and tax system that is more competitive than China’s. Then Washington must seriously invest in federal R&D programs as well as dynamic infrastructure to support those programs.
As one chief executive of a Fortune 500 company told me in 2018, “If we don’t do business in China, our competitors will.”
Meanwhile, Americans must look at effective education as a national-security imperative. If we are living in a global, knowledge-based economy, then it stands to reason Americans will need greater knowledge to thrive. Therefore, cultivating human capital will be essential if America rather than China is to be the base of the next industrial revolution.
Besides, smart bombs are useless without smart people.
These are all things that the United States understood in centuries past. America bested the British Empire and replaced it as the world hegemon using these strategies. When the Soviet Union challenged America’s dominance, the US replicated the successful strategies it had used against Britain’s empire.
Self-reliance and individual innovativeness coupled with public- and private-sector cooperation catapulted the Americans ahead of their rivals. It’s why Samuel Slater fled to the nascent United States rather than staying in England.
America is losing the great competition for the 21st century because it has suffered historical amnesia. Its leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as its corporate tycoons and its people must recover the lost memory – before China cements its position as the world’s hegemon.
The greatest tragedy of all is that America has all of the tools it needs to succeed. All it needs to do is be more like it used to be in the past. To do that, competent and inspiring leadership is required. And that may prove to be the most destructive thing for America in the competition to win the 21st century.
Source: https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/china-beating-us-by-being-more-like-america/
Feb 18, 2021
Aug 4, 2020
