北約前秘書長想免籤去美國，結果被拒了，理由你肯定想不到_風聞

6月27日，北約前秘書長索拉納想免籤去美國，結果被拒了！更搞笑的是，拒籤的理由居然是“五年前去過伊朗”，政治家訪問某個國家居然成了“原罪”，如此魔幻的事估計只有特朗普美國能幹出來了。不過索拉納貴為北約前秘書長，一向是懟特朗普不手軟的，剛好他去之前一個星期發表了一篇署名文章《西方解體》，誰知道和他被拒簽有沒有關係呢，哈哈哈哈哈，這個梗夠我們笑一年。

西方解體

作者：索拉納2018.6.21

編譯：學術plus

魁北克舉行的七國集團峯會之後，再也不會有人懷疑西方處於危機之中。是的，“西方”國家經常奉行不同的外交政策，甚至“西方”本身就是一個模糊的概念，但它依賴於一系列共同的意識形態支柱，而這些支柱現在正在美國總統唐納德特朗普的“美國優先”的壓力下崩潰。

特朗普和他的核心團隊不斷誹謗盟友：“我們不能讓我們的朋友利用我們”。拋開他對沙特阿拉伯和以色列無條件的支持，特朗普似乎準備摧毀美國長期以來對其盟國的基本戰略認識。

放在幾年前，美國拒絕簽署G7聯合公報是不可想象的。也沒有人會認為美國會以特朗普及他的貿易顧問納瓦羅那樣的方式，攻擊加拿大總理賈斯汀特魯多。

在與金正恩的新加坡首腦會之後，特朗普堅稱他與特魯多有着“良好的關係”。但他急忙補充説，他現在“還與金正日主席建立了非常良好的關係。”這表明美國與這兩個國家的領導人的關係是可以類比的，這不僅是笨拙，而且絕對是愚蠢的，反映了特朗普方面對此缺乏透徹的看法。

如果不禮貌是特朗普政府的唯一問題，我們都可以輕鬆休息。但該政府也在推行削弱美國最重要聯盟的具體政策。美國對加拿大和歐盟的鋼鐵和鋁進口的關税，要在最近七國集團峯會上達成共識幾乎是不可能的。

特朗普的關税不僅會傷害外國出口商，還會傷害依賴鋼鐵和鋁投資的美國工人和企業。但特朗普似乎不受現實經濟邏輯的影響。為了證明他的自我失敗政策的合理性，他挑選了一些孤立的案例，比如加拿大對乳製品的高關税，沒有任何背景的介紹，同時忽略了美國的加權平均關税實際上高於歐盟，日本，以及加拿大的事實。

當七國集團（G7）峯會陷入相互指責時，另一場意義重大的會議正在世界的另一端舉行。在中國城市青島，由中國、印度、哈薩克斯坦、吉爾吉斯斯坦、巴基斯坦、俄羅斯、塔吉克斯坦和烏茲別克斯坦組成的上海合作組織正在舉行年度峯會。正如中國官方媒體指出的那樣，中國國家主席與俄羅斯總統之間的會晤，遠比特朗普與其他G7領導人之間的會晤要親切得多。

可以理解的是，特朗普在七國集團（G7）峯會上提出讓該集團重新接納俄羅斯招致了更多的批評。2014年俄羅斯吞併克里米亞後，俄羅斯被趕了出去。儘管如此，他還是觸及了一個不應被忽視的問題：地緣政治俱樂部的過度區域化。全球治理的碎片化可能會越來越不利於西方國家的利益。西方領導人應該擴大合作的範圍和規模，尋求解決全球問題的辦法，而不是退縮到孤立和削弱在世界舞台上的影響力。為此，他們應該促進對話（比如G20）將當今的主要大國匯聚在一起。

但特朗普對俄羅斯的態度面臨巨大障礙。普京的外交政策越來越敵視西方的安全，而特朗普與克里姆林宮的關係也引發了國內外的嚴重擔憂。他對美國的歐洲盟友的傲慢態度加劇了這種擔憂。

可以肯定的是，在經歷了一些猶豫之後，特朗普確實在去年重申了他對北約共同防禦條款的承諾。但這並不意味着緊張局勢已經消散，特朗普繼續要求其他北約成員國增加軍事開支。特朗普似乎不明白的是，這樣的支出增長不會用於北約預算，也不會為美國的保護而付費，而是用於增強各自的國防能力。

事實上，歐盟已經建立了所謂的永久性有組織的合作，以增加安全和防衞資源，並以集體的方式，從而更有效地利用這些資源。特朗普政府應該歡迎這些措施。然而特朗普似乎對歐盟發起的每一項聯合行動都持懷疑態度。

在2016年美國總統大選期間，特朗普支持英國退出歐盟。自上任以來，他的政府毫不猶豫地在任何可能的時候削弱歐元區。就在幾天前，美國駐德國大使理查德•格倫內爾(Richard Grenell)表示，他正在努力“讓歐洲的其他保守派人士獲得權力”，這明顯背離了外交禮儀。當然特朗普和格倫內爾支持的歐洲人並非真正的保守派，而是反動派。他們的目標是扭轉我們歐洲人在推進我們共同項目方面取得的進展。

顯然，當特朗普能夠與其他國家進行雙邊接觸時，他會感到更自在。因此多邊主義的堡壘——歐盟不受他的歡迎。但是，歐洲和美國在相互支持的同時，在以共同準則為基礎的機構框架內運作時，一直是最成功的。特朗普對分而治之策略的偏好，催生了一種只會產生輸家的遊戲，從西方開始，到世界末日。

——————————

After the recent G7 summit in Quebec, there can no longer be any doubt that the West is in crisis. Yes, “Western” countries have often pursued divergent foreign policies (as illustrated by the Iraq War), and “the West” is itself a vague concept. But it is one that rests on a set of common ideological pillars, which are now crumbling under the weight of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Trump and his coreligionists’ incessant slandering of allies – “we cannot let our friends take advantage of us” – is leaving its mark. Putting aside his apparently unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump seems prepared to destroy the essential strategic understanding that the US has long maintained vis-à-vis its allies.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable for the US to refuse to sign a joint G7 communiqué. Nor would anyone have thought that an American administration could attack a Canadian leader using the languagethat Trump and his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, recently directed at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

After his summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Singapore, Trump insisted that he has a “good relationship” with Trudeau. Yet he hastened to add that he also has “a very good relationship with Chairman Kim right now.” Suggesting that US relations with these two leaders are comparable is not just clumsy; it is absolutely foolish, and reflects a chilling lack of perspective on Trump’s part.

If bad manners were the only issue with the Trump administration, we could all rest easier. But that administration is also pursuing concrete policies that are undercutting America’s most important alliances. The US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and the European Union made reaching a consensus at the recent G7 summit all but impossible.

Trump’ tariffs will hurt not only foreign exporters, but also US workers and firms in sectors that depend on steel and aluminum inputs. Yet Trump seems impervious to facts and economic logic. To justify his self-defeating policies, he cherry picks isolated cases such as Canada’s high tariffs on dairy products, presenting them without any context, while overlooking the fact that America’s weighted average tariff rate is actually higher than that of the EU, Japan, and Canada.

While the G7 summit was descending into mutual recrimination, another highly significant meeting was taking place on the other side of the world. In the Chinese city of Qingdao, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – comprising China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – was holding its annual summit. And as the Communist Party of China’s main official newspaper took pleasure in noting, the encounter between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin was far more cordial than the one between Trump and the other G7 leaders.

Understandably, Trump drew additional fire at the G7 summit when he suggested that the group readmit Russia, which was kicked out after its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Still, he was touching on something that can no longer be ignored: the excessive compartmentalization of geopolitical clubs. The fragmentation of global governance is likely to prove increasingly unfavorable to Western interests. Rather than recede toward isolation and diminished influence on the world stage, Western leaders should expand the scope and scale of cooperation in the search for solutions to global problems. To that end, they should promote forums for dialogue – such as the G20 – that bring together today’s major powers.

But Trump’s conciliatory approach toward Russia faces tall hurdles. Putin’s foreign policy has become increasingly hostile to Western security arrangements, and Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin has given rise to serious concerns, domestically and internationally. This has been exacerbated by his arrogance toward America’s European allies.

To be sure, after some hesitation, Trump did affirm his commitment to NATO’s mutual-defense clause last year. But that doesn’t mean tensions have dissipated: Trump has continued to demand that other NATO members increase their military spending. What Trump doesn’t seem to understand is that such spending increases would go not toward the NATO budget or toward paying America for its protection, but rather toward enhancing each country’s own defense capabilities.

In fact, the EU has already established the so-called Permanent Structured Cooperation to increase security and defense resources and use them in a collective – and thus more efficient – manner. The Trump administration should welcome such measures. And yet it seems to respond with skepticism to every joint initiative that the EU launches.

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, Trump supported the United Kingdom’s bid to withdraw from the EU. Since taking office, his administration has not hesitated to weaken the bloc whenever it can. Just a few days ago, Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, said that he is working to “empower other conservatives in Europe” – a clear departure from diplomatic protocol. Of course, the Europeans whom Trump and Grenell would support are not really conservatives, but reactionaries. Their goal is to reverse the progress that we Europeans have made in advancing our shared project.

Trump evidently feels more comfortable when he can engage with other countries bilaterally. It is little wonder that the EU – a bastion of multilateralism – is not to his liking. But Europe and America have always been most successful when they have supported each other, while operating within a framework of institutions based on shared norms. Trump’s preference for a divide-and-rule strategy produces a game that will create only losers, beginning with the West and ending with the world at large.