布魯斯·阿克曼：美國，再這樣鬧就沒有夥伴了

第二次世界大戰後，德國和日本的復甦非常漫長。兩國均經受了屈辱的軍事佔領，並做出不再威脅和平的保證，才重新獲得主權。德國新憲法規定，只有在防衞或在集體安全協作時才有權動用軍事力量。日本憲法第九條則更進一步，“永遠放棄以國權發動的戰爭、武力威脅或武力行使作為解決國際爭端的手段。”

戰後國際格局正在我們眼前瓦解。德國和日本經歷過二戰的一輩人逐漸逝去。崛起的後輩們以新的方式定義他們的根本利益；1989年以後，他們無法再指望美國替他們去戰鬥。事實上，美國發動的軍事幹預——比如伊拉克戰爭——可能極大地損害了德國與日本的國家利益。

間諜醜聞嚴重傷害了美德關係

美國與德日之間逐漸疏遠，如美國找不到一條具有創造性的馭國之道，一些具體問題會使長期存在的諒解遭到更深的質疑。不出一二十年，戰後合作伙伴很可能不再志同道合。多年來，美國與德日的夥伴關係一直是聯結當代世界的樞紐，正因如此，奧巴馬政府才會理所當然地假定這種關係將繼續保持穩定；也正因如此，五角大樓和中情局才得以無視政治根本面，主導美國的關鍵對外政策。

上週的新聞已向美國證明，繼續以自動駕駛模式應對與德日的關係，將是危險的。讓我們先説德國。在冷戰期間，為了對抗共產主義的威脅，中央情報局曾滲透西德政府。如果説這還算名正言順的話，那麼時至今日，普京針對德國的間諜活動已不構成重大威脅，我們應該相信德國完全有能力應對。可中情局卻無視基本前提，對德國的監控一點沒落下。

更糟糕的是，當默克爾要求中情局柏林站站長離開德國時，美國政府擺出了一副不屑一顧的姿態——認為中情局的作為符合“情報界”的標準作業程序，默克爾的公開指責乃小題大做。奧巴馬本應該藉此機會好好安撫德國——要知道，只有27%的德國人認為美國“值得信賴”，而有多達46%德國人視美國為“具有侵略性的大國”。

美國支持安倍解禁集體自衞權，將會助長日本野心。圖為今年4月，安倍在壽司店請奧巴馬喝清酒

在日本問題上，美國國家安全機構的傾向將造成更具破壞性的影響。日本首相安倍晉三是個頑固的民族主義者，在他的領導下，自民黨極力抹黑和平憲法，宣稱其為美佔時期麥克阿瑟非法強加於日本的畸形產物。安倍的第一個目標是憲法和平條款。一開始，他試圖通過憲法框架內的公投來修訂憲法。在這一舉措招致輿論和議會重重反對後，他改弦易轍，設法通過違憲手段達到同樣的目的。

7月1日，安倍悍然推翻前兩代人的憲法解釋，宣佈其政府將“重新解釋”憲法第九條，允許日本擁有憲法聲明將“永遠”放棄的“武力威脅或武力行使”權。

此舉已引發自1960年代以來最大的抗議示威活動，並招致日本民眾的極力反對。作為回應，日本政府許諾將進行更慎重的討論，並修改了原定於九月執行的立法計劃。

如果美國坐視安倍成功修憲，他對憲法激進的修改將為自民黨開啓先河，而後者早欲破除日本憲法對政治和公民權利的根本承諾。茲事體大、攸關者眾，數月後日本將迎來其現代史上最重要的大辯論之一。

在此關鍵性時刻，美國國防部長哈格爾選擇了介入——可他竟然站在錯誤的立場上。在上週五美國軍方的新聞發佈會上，他宣稱美國政府“大力支持”安倍政府“大膽的、歷史性的、標誌性的決定”，對其涉及的嚴重的憲法問題竟隻字未提。

哈格爾表態對美國的標誌性意義，並不亞於安倍修憲對日本的意義——它推翻了前兩代美國人極力促成的憲法秩序程序。鑑於安倍晉三逆襲憲法的劃時代意義，美國的立場輪不到哈格爾在五角大樓新聞發佈會上來宣佈。日本修憲將給亞洲自由民主的未來造成毀滅性打擊，美國總統應在與國務卿深入商議後，由奧巴馬本人在白宮針對此事表態。

但克里和奧巴馬都忙於在中東和其他地方救火，沒工夫思考宏觀戰略的大問題。德國間諜醜聞與日本修憲這兩件事，均反映出美國無意反思調整戰後夥伴關係，一再縱容國家安全機構染指重大對外政策。

上週的新聞為美國敲響了警鐘。奧巴馬政府必須學會分辨輕重緩急。美國若不重新思考二戰後建立夥伴關係，等待我們的將是一個日益威權的日本和與我們離心離德的德國——二十世紀美國最偉大的遺產將毀於一旦。

（本文原刊於2014年7月15日赫芬頓世界郵報，原標題America’s Tragic Turn in Germany and Japan；觀察者網楊晗軼/譯，翻頁查看英文原文）

 

   

America’s Tragic Turn in Germany and Japan

Bruce Ackerman

It’s taken a long time for Germany and Japan to recover from the Second World War. After enduring the indignity of military occupation, they regained sovereignty only by guaranteeing against future threats to peace. Germany’s new constitution only authorized military force in self-defense or in collaboration with collective security agreements. Japan’s Article Nine went further, “forever renounc[ing] … the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.”

This post-war settlement is unraveling before our eyes. Germans and Japanese who lived through the 1940s are passing away. Rising generations are defining their fundamental interests in new ways; and, after 1989, they can’t count on the United States to fight on their behalf. Indeed, American military interventions may be profoundly damaging to their national interests, as the Iraqi tragedy suggests.

The stage has been set for an escalating cycle of estrangement. Without creative statecraft, particular problems will provoke deeper doubts about long-established understandings. Within a decade or two, post-war partners may well be viewing one another with deep suspicion. Yet, precisely because the American partnerships with Germany and Japan have been fixtures of the modern world, the Obama Administration implicitly supposes that they will continue to remain stable in the future -- allowing the Pentagon and CIA to dominate key decisions without rethinking political fundamentals.

The last week’s news demonstrates the danger of proceeding on auto-pilot. Begin with Germany. During the Cold War, it made sense for the CIA to counter the on-going Communist effort to infiltrate the West German government. But we should trust modern Germany to handle the far lesser threats posed by Putin’s espionage operations. Yet the CIA continues with business-as-usual, without rethinking basic premises.

Worse yet, when Angela Merkel responded by demanding the departure of the CIA’s chief of mission, the administration was dismissive -- expressing annoyance that Merkel had publicly denounced a practice that the “intelligence community” views as standard-operating-procedure. Obama should instead view Merkel’s gesture as an occasion to take dramatic steps to reassure a country in which only 27% of the public views the United States as trustworthy, and 46% consider it an aggressive power.

The national security mindset is having yet more damaging effects in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is an unreconstructed nationalist, who is leading his Liberal Democratic Party on a campaign to discredit Japan’s post-war Constitution as an illegitimate imposition of the MacCarthur occupation. His first target is the Peace Article, which he initially sought to repudiate by calling a referendum as provided under the Constitution. When this initiative generated broad popular and parliamentary resistance, he switched gears and is now trying to achieve the same end by unconstitutional means.

On July 1, Abe announced that his government would “reinterpret” Article Nine to allow the “the threat or use of force” that the Constitution renounced “forever,” repudiating two generations of contrary legal understanding.

This move has precipitated the largest protest demonstrations since the 1960s, as well as dramatic shows of public disapproval in opinion polls. In response, the government has revised its plan to push through implementing legislation in September, and has now promised a more deliberate debate.

If Abe is allowed to succeed, his radical reinterpretation will serve as a precedent for the Liberal Democratic Party’s announced plans to break free of Japan’s constitutional commitments to fundamental political and civil rights. With the stakes so high, the coming months will see one of the most important debates in modern Japanese history.

Yet this is just the moment that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has chosen to intervene -- and on the wrong side. At a Pentagon news conference last Friday, he announced the administration’s “strong support” for the “bold, historic, landmark decision” of the Abe government, without mentioning the grave constitutional issues involved.

This announcement represents a landmark for the United States no less than Japan -- repudiating a constitutional order that America has helped promote for two generations. Given the epochal significance of Abe’s constitutional coup, it should not have been left to Hagel to announce America’s position at a Pentagon press conference. The president himself should have addressed the matter at the White House, after consulting with his Secretary of State on its devastating impact on the future of liberal democracy in Asia.

But Kerry and Obama are too busy fighting fires in the Middle East and elsewhere to focus on large questions of grand strategy. As in the case of the German spy scandal, they are allowing the national security establishment to proceed without rethinking the terms of the post-war partnership.

Last week’s news was a wake-up call. The administration must learn to distinguish the urgent from the truly fundamental. Unless it rethinks our traditional post-war partnerships, it risks an authoritarian Japan and a profoundly alienated Germany -- destroying one of the greatest legacies of the twentieth century.

原文鏈接：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ackerman/americas-tragic-turn-in-g_b_5587493.html