风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
我们不再从事外交活动：采访美国大使查斯·弗里曼 (Chas W. Freeman Jr.)
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/05/2023/we-dont-do-diplomacy-anymore-interview-us-ambassador-chas-w-freeman-jr
作者：克里斯托弗·赞巴卡里 - 2023 年 5 月 10 日
最近，Zambakari Advisory 在一次内容广泛的 Zoom 电话会议中与弗里曼大使进行了交谈，就乌克兰战争、美国与中国的关系、美国外交状况以及非洲及其非洲的作用等一系列主题提出了问题。 世界从单极向多极转变的新兴国家。
小查斯·弗里曼 (Chas Freeman Jr.) 于 1965 年进入外交部门，被认为是美国国务院的“神童”之一，他在近 50 年的时间里参与了美国的外交工作，包括在乔治·W 总统领导下担任美国驻沙特阿拉伯大使 布什在克林顿政府期间担任助理国防部长，并在 1972 年开创性的中国访问期间担任理查德·尼克松总统的翻译。
以下是弗里曼大使三月份采访的其他摘录。
关于美国向乌克兰决定当前冲突结果的能力：
“嗯，有很多证据表明泽连斯基先生对外国的建议、忠告和指示做出了回应。 最明显的证据是[英国首相]鲍里斯·约翰逊[2022年4月]对基辅的访问，以及他对俄罗斯和乌克兰之间似乎非常接近达成结束这场战斗的协议的明显破坏。
“我们已经看到外国人可以引导泽连斯基先生远离和平。 他们能否引导他走向和平则是另一个问题。 然而，我们要记住，这个人虽然是一位出色的演员，但他毕竟是一名演员。 我们有充分的理由怀疑他所讲的台词是否是他原创的。 它们当然服务于我们正在讨论的那种地缘政治目的。 所以，我认为答案是肯定的，如果我们想要和平，我们可以，但坦率地说，没有证据表明我们想要和平。”
关于欧洲推动的乌克兰问题解决方案的重要性：
“解决冲突有一个基本原则，那就是那些有能力推翻解决方案的人必须成为解决方案的一部分。 你必须得到那些与所发生的事情有利害关系的人的支持，并且你必须说服他们。
“我对和平的定义非常平淡。 对于那些有能力扰乱它的人来说，这种情况是足够可以接受的，因此他们不会扰乱它。 这可能会让和平听起来不像人们通常描述的那样崇高，但我认为这是现实的。 因此，如果在乌克兰以及俄罗斯和欧洲其他国家之间建立了和平，最终会建立什么样的和平，这是核心问题。”
关于不断变化的中美关系：
“我喜欢区分竞争形式的分析框架，我确定了三种。 一种形式是竞争。 这可能是非常健康的，因为它由每一方组成——有时不止两个方——但每一方都在努力提高自己的表现，从而在竞争中胜过其他人。 这是一场竞争，而不是零和游戏。 其结果是积极的。 这就是我们在相当长一段时间内的美中关系。”
“[存在]‘对抗性敌意’。对抗性敌意是指当跑步者在比赛中认为只有绊倒或限制竞争对手才能获胜时，就会发生对抗性敌意。 实行这种竞争形式的人不是试图提高自己的表现，而是努力削弱对手。 这就是我们目前与中国的处境。
“[然后]就是敌意，这意味着想要消灭对方。 也许这个词可以形容美国所打的全面战争——内战、第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战、冷战——其目标是消灭敌人并以一种更有效的形式重建敌人。 符合美国的价值观。”
“因此，对于中国，我们已经从竞争——良性竞争——转向了非常不健康的竞争，我们竞争的基本努力不是大幅提高自己，而是削弱中国人。”
关于美国外交状况：
“我们不再做外交了。 如果您对此表示怀疑，请看看安东尼·布林肯、[中国官员]王毅和杨洁篪以及[美国]在[2021年3月]安克雷奇[阿拉斯加州]举行的会议。 国家安全顾问]杰克·沙利文回到拜登政府上任之初。 那次会议的性质是什么？ 我们进去后说：‘我们不喜欢你。 我们认为你是一个道德败坏者； 如果我们能把你拉下来，我们就会的。 我们当然会试图阻止你的进步，但我们需要你为我们做一些事情，你能帮助我们吗？”这就是方法。
这是非常无能的，结果完全是可以预见的——只是互相谩骂，而不是任何建设性的东西。”
关于未来外交官的培训：
“不是。 其标志是众议院正在认真考虑一项将中国逐出G20的法案。 美国控制着G20吗？ 我不这么认为。 所以，宏伟的幻想，也许，但更重要的是，一种完全过时的世界观。
“现在的世界不再像冷战后那样，由一个由美国主导的、单一的、统一的领域组成。 世界是由多个相互竞争的区域中心组成的——我们已经做了很多事情来实现这一目标……[国际法和法规]在我们的脑海中已被所谓的“基于规则的秩序”所取代，在这种秩序中，我们制定 规则并决定它们适用于谁以及谁可以免受这些规则的约束。 这不太有说服力。”
“我们需要重新发现外交的优点，这始于同理心。 另一个人从哪里来？ 你无法有效地说服任何人，你可以恐吓他们，但如果你不解决他们的担忧和世界观，你就无法说服他们。”
关于“全球南方”向前发展的作用：
“我认为所谓的‘全球南方’——其中一些并不遥远的南方——想要的是他们自己的自决，建立自己的社会来满足自己的愿望，而不是受到外界的指令或干涉。
“让我们以非洲为例……你会看到，本世纪末的非洲可能拥有 20 亿人口，是地球上最大的劳动力、最年轻的劳动力，目前经济发展非常强劲。 这些国家正在取得成功，并且在国际上将变得更加重要。
“但是，随着这些国家的发展，仍然需要国际全球合作。 我怀疑我们会找到一种方法，例如，让印度等国家或一个或多个非洲国家，当然是日本，也许是欧盟而不是英国和法国，在全球治理中发挥他们现在所没有的作用。 这是一个要求。 但这是为了在我死后很长一段时间内有人可以锻炼。 所以我不会在这件事上喋喋不休。”
Christopher Zambakari 博士，Zambakari Advisory 创始人兼首席执行官。
Hartley B. 和 Ruth B. Barker 捐赠扶轮和平研究员、《苏丹研究协会公报》助理编辑。
Zambakari Advisory 是一家总部位于凤凰城的国际咨询公司，专注于战略情报、项目设计和过渡流程领域。 该咨询每年两次发布在线特刊，围绕主题领域公认领导者眼中具有全球影响力的问题。 本次采访由 The Zambakari Advisory 创始人兼首席执行官 Christopher Zambakari, LP.D. 主持； Estève Giraud 博士，亚利桑那州立大学 Swette 可持续食品系统中心助理研究教授； 本杰明·阿贝洛博士，《西方如何给乌克兰带来战争》一书的作者； Stephen Des Georges，内容开发和传播顾问兼 TZA 特约编辑。
We don't do diplomacy anymore: An interview with U.S. Ambassador Chas W. Freeman Jr.
By Christopher Zambakari - 10 May 2023
Recently, The Zambakari Advisory sat down with Ambassador Freeman in a wide-ranging Zoom call, posing questions on a series of subjects relating to the war in Ukraine, U.S. relations with China, the state of U.S. diplomacy, and the role of Africa and its emerging countries in a world shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity.
Considered one of the “whiz kids” of the U.S. State Department when he entered the foreign service in 1965, Chas Freeman Jr. was for nearly 50 years involved in diplomatic service to his country including serving as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President George W. Bush, assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration, and interpreter for President Richard Nixon during the path-breaking 1972 China visit.
Below are other excerpts from the March interview with Ambassador Freeman.
On the ability of the U.S. to dictate to Ukraine the outcome of the current conflict:
“Well, there’s a lot of evidence that Mr. Zelensky responds to foreign advice and counsel and direction. The clearest evidence of that was [British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv [in April 2022], and his apparent sabotage of what appeared to be something very close to an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end this fight.
“We’ve seen that foreigners can direct Mr. Zelensky away from peace. Whether they could direct him toward peace is another question. Let’s remember, however, that this man, although he is a brilliant actor, is an actor. And there is a considerable reason to doubt that the lines he is delivering are original to him. They certainly serve geopolitical purposes of the sort we were discussing. So, I think the answer is yes, if we wanted to have peace, we could, but frankly, there’s no evidence we want peace.”
On the importance of a European-driven resolution in Ukraine:
“There is a basic principle of conflict resolution, which is that those with the capacity to overthrow the solution have to be part of the solution. You have to have buy-in from those who have a stake in what happens, and you have to convince them.
“My definition of peace is a very bland one. It is a situation that is sufficiently acceptable to those with the capacity to disturb it so that they don’t disturb it. That may make peace sound less noble than it is often portrayed, but I think it’s realistic. So the question of what kind of peace is established eventually, if one is established in Ukraine and therefore between Russia and the rest of Europe, is the core question.”
On the changing U.S.-China relationship:
“I like an analytical framework that distinguishes forms of competition, and I identify three. One form is rivalry. That can be very healthy because it consists of each side — sometimes more than two sides — but each side striving to improve its own performance, and thereby out-compete, outdo the others. That is a competition which is not a zero-sum game. It is positive in its outcomes. And that is what we had for a considerable period of time in the U.S.-China relationship.”
“[There is] ‘adversarial animosity.’ Adversarial animosity is what happens when a runner in a race decides that he or she can win only by tripping up or hamstringing the competitor. Rather than trying to improve his or her own performance, someone who practices this form of competition strives to cripple the opposition. That is where we are with China at the moment.
“[Then, there] is enmity, which implies a desire to annihilate the other side. Perhaps this is the word to describe the total wars that the United States has fought — the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War — in which the objective was to destroy the enemy and reconstitute the enemy in a form more congenial to the values of the United States.”
“So, with China, we have moved from rivalry — healthy competition — to a very unhealthy competition in which our basic effort to compete is not to improve ourselves very much but to cripple the Chinese.”
On the state of U.S. diplomacy:
“We don’t do diplomacy anymore. If you doubt that, look at the [March 2021] Anchorage [Alaska] meeting between Anthony Blinken, [Chinese officials] Wang Yi and Yang Jiechi, and [U.S. National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan back at the start of the Biden administration. What was the nature of that meeting? We went in there and we said, ‘We don’t like you. We think you are a moral reprobate; if we can pull you down, we will. We’re certainly going to try to block your progress, but there are a few things we need you to do for us, and could you help us?’ That was the approach. That was remarkably inept, and the result was entirely predictable — an exchange of diatribe rather than anything constructive.”
On the training of tomorrow’s diplomats:
“We’re not. The symbol of this is that the House of Representatives is seriously considering a bill to remove China from the G20. Does the United States control the G20? I don’t think so. So, delusions of grandeur, perhaps, but more importantly, a worldview that is totally out of date.
“The world is now composed not of a dominant, single, unified domain dominated by the United States, as it may have been briefly after the Cold War. The world is composed of multiple competing regional centers — and we’ve done a good deal to bring that about … [International law and regulation] has been replaced in our minds by something called the ‘rules-based order,’ in which we make the rules and decide who they apply to and who is exempt from them. That’s not very persuasive.”
“We need to rediscover the merits of diplomacy, which begins with empathy. Where is the other guy coming from? You can’t persuade anybody effectively, you can intimidate them, but you can’t persuade them, if you don’t address their concerns and their worldview.”
On the role of the “Global South” moving forward:
“I think what the so-called ‘Global South’ — some of which isn’t very far south — wants is their own self-determination, building their own societies to match their own aspirations, not being subjected to outside dictation or interference.
“Let’s take Africa for example … You see Africa at the end of a century with perhaps two billion people, the largest labor force, the youngest labor force on the planet, and currently very robust economic development. These are countries that are succeeding, and that are going to be far more important internationally.
“But, as these countries grow there’s still going to be a need for international global cooperation. And I suspect we will find a way to, for example, give countries like India or perhaps one or more African countries, certainly Japan, perhaps the EU instead of Britain and France, a role in global governance that they don’t have now. That’s a requirement. But that’s for somebody to work out long after I’m dead. So I’ll not croak on about it.”
Dr. Christopher Zambakari, Founder & CEO, The Zambakari Advisory.
Hartley B. and Ruth B. Barker Endowed Rotary Peace Fellow, Assistant Editor, Bulletin of The Sudan Studies Association.
The Zambakari Advisory is a Phoenix-headquartered international consultancy in the areas of strategic intelligence, program design and transitional processes. Twice annually, The Advisory publishes an online Special Issue surrounding issues of global impact as seen through the eyes of recognized leaders in the subject areas. The interview was conducted by Christopher Zambakari, LP.D., founder and CEO of The Zambakari Advisory; Estève Giraud, Ph.D., assistant research professor at Arizona State University’s Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems; Dr. Benjamin Abelow, author of How the West Brought War to Ukraine; and Stephen Des Georges, content development and communications consultant and TZA editor-at-large.
