美国如何输掉新冷战

美国如何输掉新冷战

https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/joseph-e-stiglitz/how-us-could-lose-new-cold-war 

Joseph E. Stiglitz  2022 年 6 月 20 日 

纽约——美国似乎与中国和俄罗斯都进入了新冷战。 美国领导人将这场对抗描述为民主与威权主义之间的对抗，这一点并没有通过嗅觉测试，尤其是在这些领导人正在积极讨好像沙特阿拉伯这样的系统性侵犯人权者的时候。 这种虚伪表明，真正受到威胁的至少部分是全球霸权，而不是价值观。

铁幕倒塌后的二十年里，美国显然是第一。 但随后发生的中东灾难性误导战争、2008年金融危机、不平等加剧、阿片类药物泛滥以及其他危机似乎让人们对美国经济模式的优越性产生了怀疑。 此外，在唐纳德·特朗普当选、美国国会大厦未遂政变、多起大规模枪击事件、共和党一心压制选民以及QAnon等阴谋邪教兴起之间，有足够的证据表明，美国政治的某些方面 社会生活已经变得非常病态。

当然，美国不想被废黜。 但无论使用什么官方指标，中国在经济上超越美国是不可避免的。 它的人口不仅是美国的四倍，而且, 多年来，其经济增长速度也是美国的三倍，事实上，早在 2015 年，按购买力平价计算，它就已经超过了美国。

尽管中国尚未采取任何行动来宣称自己对美国构成战略威胁，但这种迹象已经不妙了。 在华盛顿，两党达成共识，认为中国可能构成战略威胁，而美国为减轻风险至少应该停止帮助中国经济增长。 根据这种观点，先发制人的行动是有必要的，即使这意味着违反美国自己为制定和推动所做的大量工作的世界贸易组织规则。

新冷战的这条战线早在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰之前就已经展开。 美国高级官员此后警告说，战争决不能转移人们对真正的长期威胁的注意力：中国。 鉴于俄罗斯的经济规模与西班牙大致相同，其与中国的“无限制”伙伴关系在经济上似乎并不重要（尽管其愿意在世界各地从事破坏性活动可能对其更大的南方邻国有用）。

但处于“战争”状态的国家需要战略，美国无法独自赢得新的大国竞争； 它需要朋友。 它的天然盟友是欧洲和世界各地其他发达民主国家。 但特朗普竭尽全力疏远这些国家，而仍然完全受制于他的共和党人提供了充分的理由来质疑美国是否是一个可靠的合作伙伴。 此外，美国还必须赢得世界发展中国家和新兴市场数十亿人民的支持，不仅是为了获得更多的支持，而且是为了确保获得关键资源。

为了赢得世界的青睐，美国将不得不收复大量失地。 它剥削其他国家的悠久历史和其根深蒂固的种族主义——特朗普熟练而愤世嫉俗地引导的一种力量——也无济于事。 最近，美国政策制定者助长了全球“疫苗种族隔离”，即富裕国家获得了所需的所有疫苗，而贫穷国家的人民则只能听天由命。 与此同时，美国的新冷战反对者以成本或低于成本的价格向其他国家提供疫苗，同时还帮助各国发展自己的疫苗生产设施。

在气候变化方面，可信度差距甚至更大，气候变化对南半球那些应对能力最弱的人造成了不成比例的影响。 尽管主要新兴市场已成为当今温室气体排放的主要来源，但美国的累计排放量仍然是迄今为止最大的。 发达国家继续增加援助，更糟糕的是，他们甚至没有兑现帮助贫穷国家应对富裕世界造成的气候危机影响的微薄承诺。 相反，美国银行助长了许多国家迫在眉睫的债务危机，往往表现出对由此造成的痛苦的堕落冷漠。

欧洲和美国擅长向他人宣讲什么是道德上正确的和经济上合理的。 但正如美国和欧洲持续存在的农业补贴所表明的那样，通常传达的信息是“照我说的做，而不是做我做的”。 尤其是特朗普时代之后，美国不再拥有任何道德制高点，也不再有提供建议的可信度。 新自由主义和涓滴经济学从未在南半球国家得到广泛接受，现在它们在各地都已经过时了。

与此同时，中国的长处不在于讲课，而在于为贫穷国家提供硬件基础设施。 是的，这些国家常常负债累累； 但是，考虑到西方银行自身作为发展中国家债权人的行为，美国和其他国家很难指责。

我可以继续说下去，但要点应该很清楚：如果美国要开始一场新的冷战，它最好了解如何才能获胜。 冷战最终是靠吸引和说服的软实力赢得胜利的。 为了脱颖而出，我们必须说服世界其他国家不仅购买我们的产品，而且购买我们正在销售的社会、政治和经济体系。

美国可能知道如何制造世界上最好的轰炸机和导弹系统，但他们不会在这里帮助我们。 相反，我们必须向发展中国家和新兴市场国家提供具体帮助，首先是放弃所有与新冠病毒相关的知识产权，以便它们能够自己生产疫苗和治疗方法。

同样重要的是，西方必须再次使我们的经济、社会和政治制度令世界羡慕。 在美国，首先要减少枪支暴力、改善环境法规、打击不平等和种族主义以及保护妇女的生殖权利。 在我们证明自己值得领导之前，我们不能指望其他人跟随我们的脚步前进。

约瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E. Stiglitz），诺贝尔经济学奖获得者，哥伦比亚大学教授，国际公司税制改革独立委员会成员。

How the US could lose the new cold war

https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/joseph-e-stiglitz/how-us-could-lose-new-cold-war

Joseph E. Stiglitz  Jun 20,2022

NEW YORK  —  The United States appears to have entered a new cold war with both China and Russia. And US leaders’ portrayal of the confrontation as one between democracy and authoritarianism fails the smell test, especially at a time when the same leaders are actively courting a systematic human-rights abuser like Saudi Arabia. Such hypocrisy suggests that it is at least partly global hegemony, not values, that is really at stake.

For two decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the US was clearly number one. But then came disastrously misguided wars in the Middle East, the 2008 financial crash, rising inequality, the opioid epidemic and other crises that seemed to cast doubt on the superiority of America’s economic model. Moreover, between Donald Trump’s election, the attempted coup at the US Capitol, numerous mass shootings, a Republican Party bent on voter suppression, and the rise of conspiracy cults like QAnon, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that some aspects of American political and social life have become deeply pathological.

Of course, America does not want to be dethroned. But it is simply inevitable that China will outstrip the US economically, regardless of what official indicator one uses. Not only is its population four times larger than America’s; its economy also has been growing three times faster for many years, indeed, it already surpassed the US in purchasing-power-parity terms back in 2015.

While China has not done anything to declare itself as a strategic threat to America, the writing is on the wall. In Washington, there is a bipartisan consensus that China could pose a strategic threat, and that the least the US should do to mitigate the risk is to stop helping the Chinese economy grow. According to this view, preemptive action is warranted, even if it means violating the World Trade Organisation rules that the US itself did so much to write and promote.

This front in the new cold war opened well before Russia invaded Ukraine. And senior US officials have since warned that the war must not divert attention from the real long-term threat: China. Given that Russia’s economy is around the same size as Spain’s, its “no limits” partnership with China hardly seems to matter economically (though its willingness to engage in disruptive activities around the world could prove useful to its larger southern neighbour).

But a country at “war” needs a strategy, and the US cannot win a new great-power contest by itself; it needs friends. Its natural allies are Europe and the other developed democracies around the world. But Trump did everything he could to alienate those countries, and the Republicans, still wholly beholden to him, have provided ample reason to question whether the US is a reliable partner. Moreover, the US also must win the hearts and minds of billions of people in the world’s developing countries and emerging markets, not just to have numbers on its side, but also to secure access to critical resources.

In seeking the world’s favor, the US will have to make up a lot of lost ground. Its long history of exploiting other countries does not help, and nor does its deeply embedded racism  —  a force that Trump expertly and cynically channels. Most recently, US policymakers contributed to global “vaccine apartheid”, whereby rich countries got all the shots they needed while people in poorer countries were left to their fates. Meanwhile, America’s new cold war opponents have made their vaccines readily available to others at or below cost, while also helping countries develop their own vaccine-production facilities.

The credibility gap is even wider when it comes to climate change, which disproportionately affects those in the Global South who have the least ability to cope. While major emerging markets have become the leading sources of greenhouse-gas emissions today, US cumulative emissions are still the largest by far. Developed countries continue to add to them, and, worse, have not even delivered on their meager promises to help poor countries manage the effects of the climate crisis that the rich world caused. Instead, US banks contribute to looming debt crises in many countries, often revealing a depraved indifference to the suffering that results.

Europe and America excel at lecturing others on what is morally right and economically sensible. But the message that usually comes through, as the persistence of US and European agricultural subsidies makes clear, is “do what I say, not what I do”. Especially after the Trump years, America no longer holds any claim to the moral high ground, nor does it have the credibility to dispense advice. Neoliberalism and trickle-down economics were never widely embraced in the Global South, and now they are going out of fashion everywhere.

At the same time, China has excelled not at delivering lectures but at furni