中国推动和平，美国别挡道
2023-03-24 08:43阅读：
曾几何时，通往和平的道路都要经过华盛顿。从1978年卡特总统促成的以色列和埃及的《戴维营协议》到1993年在白宫签署的《奥斯陆协议》……美国曾是建立和平不可或缺的国家。但随着时间推移，美国外交政策变得更加军事化，维持所谓的“基于规则的秩序”越来越意味着美国凌驾于所有规则之上，美国似乎已放弃公正调停的美德，刻意选择一条不同道路，且越发为自己不是个公正调解者而自豪。我们着力选边站，因为把治国视为善恶之战，而非对冲突的务实管理。这点也许在巴以冲突中表现最明显。
但如今，这越来越多定义美国的总体姿态。我们开始奉行一套不同游戏规则。华盛顿通过协助冲突中的“我们”一方推进自己的立场，而非建立持久和平。这样做是为展示与美国结盟的价值。这种趋势已持续二十多年，现在随着与中国的竞争成为美国外交政策的主导原则，它变得根深蒂固。用美国副防长科林·卡尔的话说，这“不是国家竞争，而是一种联盟竞争”。按他的逻辑，美国通过向盟友提供我们作为“偏袒的调停者”的服务，使外交天平倾向他们。
美国变了，世界也变了。因此，虽然美国可能对推动和平丧失兴趣，但世界没有。正如乌克兰危机所显示的，美国动员西方很有效，激励全球南方却无可奈何。全球南方国家寻求为乌克兰带来和平——这方面，美国乏善可陈。
美国不仅自己不关心推动和平，还越来越不屑于其他大国调停。白宫对沙特和伊朗正常化协议表示欢迎，却无法掩饰对中国在中东地区新赢得调停角色的恼怒。北京提出的调解俄乌冲突的提议被华盛顿视为干扰。欧亚集团基金会的马克·汉纳最近指出，“（美西方）称赞乌克兰自主应战，却不称赞乌克兰自主追求和平”，这是彻底的虚伪。中国的方案能否结束俄乌冲突，有待观察。但正如更加稳定的中东对美国有利一样，让俄乌坐到谈判桌前也会令美国受益。
中国似乎并不气馁。除了访问莫斯科，中方还计划与乌方对话。这似乎是为积极调停做准备。北京还成功地将
沙伊拉到一起，正是因为没站在任何一方。中方对两国争执保持中立，没将冲突道德化，也没纠结于历史，更没利用安全保障、军火交易或军事基地来贿赂沙伊——而这往往是我们的惯常做法。
在一个多极化世界，共同承担安全责任是种美德。长期以来美国人一直被告知，若我们不掌控世界将陷入混乱。但正如中国调停所显示的，其他大国很可能站出来承担安全及推动和平的重任。若我们成为其他人有志于推动和平的世界的挡道者，才是对自己的安全和声誉的最大威胁。
The U.S. Is Not an Indispensable
Peacemaker
By Trita Parsi
Mr. Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft.
There was a time when all roads to peace went through Washington.
From the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt brokered
by President Jimmy Carter to the 1993 Oslo Accords signed on the
White House lawn to Senator George Mitchell’s Good Friday Agreement
that ended the fighting in Northern Ireland in 1998, America was
the indispensable nation for peacemaking. To Paul Nitze, a longtime
diplomat and Washington insider, “making evident its qualifications
as an honest broker” was central to America’s influence after the
end of the Cold War.
But over the years, as America’s foreign policy became more
militarized and as sustaining the so-called rules-based order
increasingly meant that the United States put itself above all
rules, America appears to have given up on the virtues of honest
peacemaking.
We deliberately chose a different path. America increasingly prides
itself on not being an impartial mediator. We abhor neutrality. We
strive to take sides in order to be “on the right side of history”
since we view statecraft as a cosmic battle between good and evil
rather than the pragmatic management of conflict where peace
inevitably comes at the expense of some justice.
This has perhaps been most evident in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict but is now increasingly defining America’s general
posture. In 2000, when Madeleine Albright defended the Clinton
administration’s refusal to veto a U.N. Security Council Resolution
condemning the excessive use of force against Palestinians, she
cited the need for the United States to be seen as an “honest
broker.” But since then, the United States has vetoed 12 Security
Council resolutions expressing criticisms of Israel — so much for
neutrality.
We started to follow a different playbook. Today, our leaders
mediate to help “our” side in a conflict advance our position
rather than to establish a lasting peace. We do it to demonstrate
the value of allying with the United States. While this trend is
more than two decades long, it has reached full maturity now with
great-power competition with China becoming the organizing
principle of U.S. foreign policy. This rivalry is, in the words of
Colin Kahl, the under secretary of defense for policy, “not a
competition of countries. It is a competition of coalitions.”
Following Dr. Kahl’s logic, we keep our coalition partners close by
offering them — in addition to military might — our services as a
“partial broker” to tilt the scales of diplomacy in their
favor.
It’s what you do when you see the world through the prism of a
Marvel movie: Peace is born not out of compromise but out of total
victory.
But just as America has changed, so has the world. Elsewhere in the
world, Marvel movie logic is seen for what it is: Fairy tales where
the simplicity of good versus evil leaves no space for compromise
or coexistence. Few have the luxury of pretending to live in such
fantasy worlds.
So while America may have lost interest in peacemaking, the world
has not. As the Ukraine crisis has shown, America has been
immensely effective in mobilizing the West but hopelessly clueless
in inspiring the global south. While the Western nations wanted the
United States to rally them to defend Ukraine, the global south was
looking for leadership to bring peace to Ukraine — of which the
United States has offered little to none.
But America not only has moved beyond peacemaking. It is also
increasingly dismissive of other powers’ efforts to mediate. Though
the White House officially welcomed the Saudi-Iranian normalization
deal, it could not conceal its irritation at China’s new-won role
as a broker in the Middle East. And Beijing’s earlier offer to
mediate between Ukraine and Russia was quickly dismissed by
Washington as a distraction, even though President Volodymyr
Zelensky of Ukraine welcomed it on the condition that Russian
troops would withdraw from Ukrainian territory. As Mark Hannah of
the Eurasia Group Foundation recently pointed out, there is an
inherent hypocrisy “in touting Ukraine’s agency when it prosecutes
war, but not when it pursues peace.”
Still, Xi of China seems undeterred. He traveled to Moscow this
week and also plans to speak directly to Mr. Zelensky in what
appears to be the preparation for an active mediation attempt to
bring the war to an end.
Mr. Xi succeeded in bringing Iran and Saudi Arabia together
precisely because he was on neither’s side. With stubborn
discipline, Beijing maintained a neutral position on the two
countries’ squabbles and didn’t moralize their conflict or bother
with whose side history would take. Nor did China bribe Iran and
Saudi Arabia with security guarantees, arms deals or military
bases, as all too often is our habit.
Whether Mr. Xi’s formula will work to end Russia’s war on Ukraine
remains to be seen. But just as a more stable Middle East where the
Saudis and Iranians aren’t at each other’s throats benefits the
United States, so too will any effort to get Russia and Ukraine to
the negotiating table.
In a multipolar world, shared responsibility for security can be a
virtue that reduces the burden on Americans without increasing
threats to U.S. interests. It is not security that we would give
up, but the illusion that we are — and have to be — in control of
developments far away. For too long, Americans have been told that
if we do not dominate, the world will descend into chaos. In
reality, as the Chinese mediation has shown, other powers are
likely to step up to shoulder the burden of security and
peacemaking.
The greatest threat to our own security and reputation is if we
stand in the way of a world where others have a stake in peace, if
we become a nation that doesn’t just put diplomacy last but also
dismisses those who seek to put diplomacy first.
In tomorrow’s world, we should not worry if some roads to peace go
through Beijing, New Delhi or Brasília. So long as all roads to war
do not go through Washington.
https://oversea.huanqiu.com/article/4CCUh9Sp4Hy
