American Values Diplomacy Showing Diminishing Returns

American Values Diplomacy Showing Diminishing Returns
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2015

Executive Summary: The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.

Full Text Below:

On Christmas eve US President Barack Obama publicly announced the full withdrawal of US combat troops from Afghanistan. This will end the longest foreign war in America's history. Beginning this year, the number of US troops training Afghan national security teams will be gradually reduced to 1000. Their only role in the future will be to guard US Embassy personnel.

This difficult to win, financially burdensome war on terror has cost the United States dearly. Over 2,000 Americans have been killed and nearly 20,000 wounded. According to Pentagon estimates, merely training Afghan security forces and providing it with weapons has cost the US tens of billions of dollars. Yet Afghan military and police combat effectiveness has not been improved. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan will cost 6 billion dollars. If one includes military equipment, weapons, and ammunition, then estimates run as high as 260 billion dollars, far more than the cost of withdrawal from Iraq. The US economy and US financial resources have been battered by global financial turmoil. They can no longer bear the cost of this expensive and risky war.

After the Cold War, feeling compelled to promote its own values, the United States launched or participated in one war after another. In 2001, Bush Junior attacked Afghanistan. In 2003, he started a war with Iraq. This showed that US national security strategy combines both American values and practical interests. As President Clinton put it, when the United States promotes its political values, it is safeguarding its national interests.

Samuel Huntington, author of "The Clash of Civilizations", said that the United States continually wages foreign wars because it wants to promulgate its values throughout the world. Over the past decade it has used its superpower status to establish an alliance of values with others, based on the universal values of  democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Toward nations that contravene American values, it has often applied pressure, imposed sanctions, and adopted "pre-emptive" strategic measures.

After World War II, realism became the norm in international policy. The premise was that the international system was a state of anarchy. The United States assumed a "world policeman" role and established a global political and economic system. This included the Bretton Woods international finance plan, the Marshall Plan to aid Europe, NATO, and the East Asian island containment chain. All these embody the United States' strategic values.

Freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are generally recognized as universal values for all of mankind. The US adopted these as the core of its diplomatic strategy. No one can object to this. But the means by which it implemented these universal values externally, has often been criticized. American culture is rife with missionary zeal, a sense of superiority, of entitlement, and of pragmatism. These are often incompatible with the culture and religion of other nations. The US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. But it could not improve bureaucratic corruption or eliminate sectarian conflict. Instead, US military personnel mocked the Koran, and burned copies of it. This revealed total US failure on the non-military level, as well as a wide culture gap.

Since the beginning of the century, the US Congress has been permeated with American neoconservative thinking. Neocons say the Middle East is plagued by political tyranny, economic failure, and cultural backwardness. They say these "failed states" are breeding grounds for terrorism. When Washington policymakers affirm the core values of the United States, they are often arrogant in their attitude. America during the Bush Jr. era adopted a "forward strategy of freedom" toward the Middle East. It frequently imposed sanctions against dissenting nations. Last September President Obama appeared on the CBS television show "60 Minutes." Obama said, "When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation... We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world." Obama betrayed a typically American presumption of superiority. Not long ago, Obama criticized Mainland China for not fulfilling its responsibility to maintain international security. He openly accused Beijing of getting a free ride from the United States for 30 years. This flagrant “If not for America” presumption of moral superiority has repeatedly mired the US in other countries' affairs, and the consequences have been bitter indeed.

"The United States does not want war, but it must fight wars." That is the consensus of Washington political elites. It is a convenient catch phrase that rolls off the tongue. It also reveals the United States' hegemonic mindset. Compare the outcome of the Vietnam War in the 1960s with the outcomes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. American hegemony is gradually declining. The same effort is achieving diminishing results.

Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and Harvard professor Joseph Nye was blunt. He said America cannot remain a hegemon forever. It cannot cling to its sense of superiority and arrogance, and refuse to understand the outside world. Doing so will merely squander US soft power, the risk of external intervention, and accelerate the erosion of American values.

Democracy, freedom, and human rights are fundamental to good governance. They represent a global trend in national development. The United States feels obligated to spread these political values. But it must not apply these values to every nation in the world. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recent spoke to the US media. He criticized Washington for launching a war without considering the interests of Afghanistan. Today US forces are withdrawing. The Afghan political situation remains volatile. Terrorist organizations are waiting for an opportunity to make a comeback. This has forced Afghanistan to turn to Mainland China for assistance. According to Karzai, if Afghanistan has the chance, it will follow the Mainland Chinese model of development.

The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.

社論－美國價值觀外交 效應正在遞減
2015年01月08日 04:10
本報訊

美國總統歐巴馬耶誕節前夕公開宣稱，美軍作戰部隊即將全數撤出阿富汗，結束美國史上歷時最長的境外戰爭。今年開始，負責培訓阿國安全部隊的美軍會逐步減至千名，未來只專責維護美國使館安全。

為了這場難以獲勝、財政負擔沉重的反恐戰爭，美國已付出無法估計的代價：2千餘生命犧牲，近2萬人受傷。根據五角大廈的估算，僅僅為了阿富汗安全部隊訓練和武裝所耗的資金已達數百億美元，阿國軍警的戰鬥力卻未能提升，目前美軍撤出阿富汗的運費就需要60億美元，若連同軍事裝備和武器彈藥，預估已高達260餘億美元，遠遠超過從伊拉克撤軍的費用。受到全球金融風暴衝擊的美國經濟和財力，實難再繼續承擔這種高成本與高風顯險的戰爭。

冷戰結束後，美國頻頻對外發動或參與戰爭，源於對自身價值觀的堅持。小布希總統2001年進軍阿富汗與2003年春點燃的美伊戰爭，印證了美國國家安全戰略已是將價值觀與現實利益相結合，即如同柯林頓總統所謂的「美國宣揚政治價值觀，本質上就是維護國家核心利益。」

《文明衝突論》的作者杭亭頓曾經說過，美國是想在全球傳播其價值觀的超級強權，近十多年來基於民主，自由、人權、法制的普世價值，才會不斷對外發動戰爭，尋求與盟邦建立「價值同盟」。對牴觸到美國價值觀的國家動輒批評、施壓、制裁，採取戰略上的「先發制人」。

上個世紀二次大戰之後，現實主義思維成為國際政治的主流，認為國際體系屬無政府狀態，美國以「世界警察」的強勢姿態主導建立全球政治與經濟體系，從國際金融的「布列敦森林體系」至援助歐洲的「馬歇爾計畫」，從歐洲成立北約組織至東亞的島鏈圍堵，體現的都是美國的戰略價值觀。

自由、民主、人權、法制是人類普遍認可的共同價值，美國制定以此為核心的外交戰略，固然無可厚非，但是在對外推行普世價值的手段上，經常為人詬病。美國文化充沛著天賦使命感、民族優越論、主導意識、實用主義等思維，往往融不入他國文化和宗教。美國長時間占領阿富汗與伊拉克，卻無法改善治理官僚腐敗問題，未能消弭宗教派系衝突，反而出現美軍焚燒可蘭經的輕慢 ，顯示美國的失敗已非全然在軍事層面，它還反映出深層次的文化問題。

本世紀初以來，美國府會充斥著新保守主義思維，認為中東地區普遍存在政治專制、經濟失敗和文化落後現象，確信這些「失敗國家」是滋生恐怖主義的溫床。華府決策者肯定美國核心價值觀之際，經常存有「傲慢」意識。小布希時代美國對中東的「自由前進戰略」如此，美國動輒制裁異己的作法，亦復如此。歐巴馬總統去年9月接受哥倫比亞電視《60分鐘》節目專訪時就聲稱，「全球任何地區若出現動盪，不會有人尋求北京或莫斯科的援助，最終還是需要美國出面解決。」呈現出典型美國的優越感。　不久前，歐巴馬再批評中國未善盡維護國際安全之責，明指北京搭了美國30年的便車。這種炫耀式美國捨我其誰的「道德優越感」，導致美國再三涉入他國事務，也不斷嘗到苦果。

「美國不喜歡戰爭，卻需要戰爭」是華府政治菁英的共識，也是琅琅上口的一句話，儼然點出美國維繫全球霸主地位的邏輯思維。由1960年代越戰至2000年代初阿富汗與伊拉克戰爭的結果來看，美國霸權正逐漸式微，價值觀輸出效應亦逐漸遞減。

美國前助理國防部長及哈佛大學教授奈伊就明白指出，美國不可能永遠維繫霸權地位，持續優越自大疏於了解外在世界，無異於虛擲美國的軟實力，增加外力入侵的風險，加速喪失美國價值觀的優勢。

民主、自由、人權是善治的根本，也是全球國家發展的大勢所趨。美國負有傳播政治價值觀的傳統使命，卻不宜僅用此標準衡量全球所有的國家。阿富汗總統卡扎伊日前接受美國媒體訪問時，就直言批評華府發動的這場戰爭，並未顧及阿富汗的利益。如今美軍撤離，阿國政局依然動盪，恐怖組織伺機再起，逼使阿富汗轉而尋求中國援助。根據卡扎伊的說法，阿富汗若有機會重新選擇，將追隨中國的模式發展。

中國和新興國家勢力的崛起，已衝擊美國單極霸權的國際格局。此時此刻，美國若持續以全球領導者的姿態處理大國關係，執著於價值觀的輸出，無意改變霸權式的戰略觀與道德優越感，則今後無論是中國、俄羅斯或眾多開發中國家，勢難與美國建立起政治互信。解難之道視美國何時調整自己的心態。