雙語閱讀｜削減對外援助和外交經費進一步「毀」美國形象

ALMOST exactly a hundred years ago, America was poised to send troops to Europe to fight in a war which was not in the country』s narrow, short-term self-interest. Fifty thousand of them would die, more than fell in either Vietnam or Korea. That carnage started an argument that has not let up since: does America have a broad interest in maintaining global stability and prosperity? Or should it conserve its blood and treasure and let the rest of the world go to hell? A couple of months into his presidency it is clear that Donald Trump』s campaign slogan, 「America First」, means something like the latter. He wants a more powerful army, but can treat allies with contempt and thinks aid and diplomacy are a waste of time. He believes that the multilateral institutions where countries try to work together, built by America at great cost in money and lives during the 20th century in the hope of preventing war, are riddled with bad deals.

差不多就在100年前，美國準備著派軍隊到歐洲參戰，儘管這場戰爭（即第一次世界大戰）並不是美國自身和眼前的利益。在戰爭中喪身的美國士兵多達5萬人，超過其在越南戰爭或朝鮮戰爭中的陣亡人數。如此巨大的傷亡讓人們不禁開始爭論這麼一個問題：維護全球穩定和繁榮是美國廣泛的利益之所在？還是美國應該不顧其他國家和地區的死活，保存自己的實力和財力？川普在上任幾個月後，作出了清楚的回答，「美國優先」的競選口號意味著選擇後者。川普想要更強大的軍隊，卻輕視與盟友的關係，同時認為對外援助和維護外交關係都是浪費時間。在20世紀，美國希望阻止戰爭，耗費巨資並以生命為代價建立並由各國共同合作的多邊機構，可是，在川普看來，充斥著糟糕的交易。

Enemies of State

全民公敵

His budget proposes to cut funding to the State Department and spending on foreign aid by 28%. It also suggests big cuts to America』s contribution to the United Nations and World Bank, including withdrawing all funding for anything to do with climate change (see article). When Angela Merkel, leader of America』s biggest European ally, visited Washington the president treated her frostily, and after she left he publicly scolded Germany for not spending more on its defence. He refused to withdraw an accusation that Britain, another steadfast ally, had spied on him—a charge for which he has no evidence, and which his own National Security Agency said would be 「epically stupid」 had it actually happened, which it did not.

川普在預算報告中提議削減28%的國務院撥款和對外援助，還提議大幅削減美國向聯合國和世界銀行的捐款，其中包括撤回所有為應對氣候變化投入的資金。當美國最大的歐洲盟國的領導人安吉拉·默克爾訪問華盛頓時，川普對她態度冷淡，並在她離開后，公然譴責德國沒有投入更多資金在國防上。他還拒絕撤回對另一個堅定盟友英國的無端指責：英國對他實施了暗中監視。就連川普政府下屬的國家安全局也表示，如果這件事是真的，那就是「非同一般的愚蠢」，而事實上，英國並沒有監視川普。

His treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, removed a vow to resist protectionism from a recent G20 statement. His secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who heads a department suffering from a crippling lack of direction, went to China, accompanied by a single reporter from a friendly news website, and used language about the need for mutual respect and non-confrontation that delighted Communist Party bosses—without obvious concessions in return. Some of this may be attributed to inexperience. But there is a thread running through it all that suggests an overarching design based on two assumptions. The first is that America cannot afford the costs of aid and diplomacy. The second is that multilateral institutions make America weaker. Both are wildly mistaken.

川普政府的財政部長斯蒂芬·努欽在最近發布的20國集團聯合聲明中撤回了反對保護主義的承諾。國務卿雷克斯·蒂勒森領導下的國務院毫無頭緒。不久前，蒂勒森僅在一名關係緊密的新聞網站的記者陪同下訪問，談及兩國需要相互尊重，反對對抗等內容，以取悅共產黨領導人，卻沒有得到任何作為回報的明顯讓步。這一定程度上可能是經驗不足所致，但其中也隱藏著一個威脅，即體現了人們對美國的整體認知。這個認知有兩個前提：一是美國無法負擔對外援助和外交關係的成本；二是多邊機構削弱了美國。這兩種想法都大錯特錯。

No doubt some of the money spent on aid and diplomacy is wasted. But they account for only 1% of federal expenditure, and cutting them could do great harm. Aid helps make poor countries richer and therefore more stable. Soft power is cheaper than hard power, and nearly always a necessary complement to it. For example, after America helps its Iraqi allies to defeat Islamic State, it will need diplomacy and aid to make sure that the terrorist group does not make a comeback. Mr Trump』s secretary of defence, General James Mattis, once put it well: 「If you don』t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.」

毫無疑問，一些花費在對外援助和外交關係上的錢的確浪費了。不過，這隻占美國政府開支的1%，而削減這部分開支卻有可能會對美國造成巨大損害：對外援助可以幫助窮國變得富裕、穩定。比起硬實力，軟實力的建立其實花費更少，卻幾乎一直是對硬實力的必要補充。比如，美國幫助伊拉克盟友擊退「伊斯蘭國」后，它還需要外交和援助確保恐怖組織不會捲土重來。川普的國防部長詹姆斯·馬蒂斯（James Mattis）將軍曾很好地詮釋了這一點：「如果你不能夠為國務院提供充分的資金，那麼最終我將需要購買更多的軍火。」

Multilateral institutions such as the UN, World Trade Organisation, IMF and World Bank may occasionally constrain America, but overall they enhance its influence. Most have their headquarters in America. And yes, Uncle Sam foots a disproportionate share of the bills. Yet this has also given Americans exceptional sway over global rules covering everything from trade to security. Walk away, and the result will not be a better deal. It will be China first and America』s allies diminished; not peace through strength so much as weakness somehow conjured out of primacy.

諸如聯合國、世界貿易組織、國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行等多邊機構可能會偶爾限制美國，總體而言，它們都增強了美國的影響力。這些國際組織中的大多數都將總部設立在了美國。的確，山姆大叔承擔了這些機構花銷中不成比例的一部分。然而，這也使美國對一切全球規則都有著非一般的影響力，包括貿易、安全等。若背道而馳，結果必將得不償失。這將造成「優先」，美國盟友大量減少。最終，世界第一的地位幻滅后，美國不是通過強大，而是通過虛弱取得和平。

翻吧·與你一起學翻譯

翻吧