美国政要第4课
U.S. Foreign Relations
--Interview with Former National Security Advisor Dr. Anthony Lake (April 20, 1998) 访前总统国家安全事务肋理安东尼•莱克博士
MR. CHEN BOJIANG: How do you view the implications of the two triangular1 relationships, Sino-U.S.-Japan and Sino-U.S.-Taiwan, to the security situation of the Asia-Pacific region?
DR.LAKE: I’m afraid I anticipated2 again in my last question, but let me tell you what I repeatedly said when I was in Taiwan, which is that the Taiwanese have a deep security interest in the improving relationship between Washington and Beijing, because that helps produce stability and stability is in Taiwan’s interest. Stability allows economic advancement3 and social advancement for their people, however defined. And Taiwan has been doing very well in the last ten years, economically and in the reinforcement of their democracy. The Mainland is also doing very well economically and in other ways. All of this is based on stability. It is the same message for everybody, whether Japan or Russia or Beijing or Taipei. I think the future is very bright for all of Northeast Asia as long as there is stability, that’s the purpose of all of these triangular relationships.
MR. CHEN: In recent years, China and Russia have built a strategic partnership oriented towards the 21st century. At the same time, China is also making efforts to develop a constructive strategic partnership with the U.S. oriented towards the 21st century. What do you think of the Sino-U.S.-Russia relationship?
DR. LAKE: I would argue with some here in Washington who are very suspicious of the China-Russian relationship. I think all of these relationships, Moscow-Beijing, Moscow-Washington, Beijing-Washington are good. Strategic dialogues among each can help each understand the other’s purposes. It reduces the chances of miscalculations4. With the end of the Cold War, during the contemporary era at least, it is no longer necessary to calibrate5 those relationship in terms of whether any two are necessarily opposing the third. During the Cold War, there was an American and Chinese strategic interest in a closer cooperation against the polar bear6. That kind of thinking is no longer necessary. The more transparent7 each relationship is, the better, because that will reinforce confidence for each of us. Each of us sees two of the legs and doesn’t see the third. The more transparent all of this is, the less likely that suspicions about “the third leg” will get us back into a competitive triangular relationship rather than a stable one.
MR. CHEN: President Clinton announced that he would visit China in June, ahead of his original schedule. Does this mean that there are some changes to American policy towards China? How do you view the development of Sino-U.S. relations?
DR. LAKE: No, I don’t think this a reflection of any change in American policy. I think it is a reflection of the things that are going better. Moving the date up is welcome. I believe China-U.S. Summit meetings should be regular and not subject then to negotiation each year. To the degree they are respective scheduled, it takes them out of our respective politics. The summit meetings wouldn’t be seen as a barometer8 of the health of our relationship. It becomes simply a contribution to a healthy relationship.
MR. CHEN: According to media reports, France, Russia and Germany hold a summit in his month. Some believe that the symbolism of this summit is to balance the influence of the United States to Europe. What are your comments about this?
DR. LAKE: I have discussed this with a number of European diplomats, including British diplomats whose government was also not included in these meetings. Obviously we should always watch all of this very carefully, but I don’t think that Washington should see this as terribly threatening. Strategically, this is a part of a larger issue, of whether there is an American interest in a more integrated Europe. This is an issue that has been debated since the Kennedy administration first took it as American doctrine that a Europe that is coming together is essentially in American interest. At the time, largely in a Cold War context, a unified or integrated Europe would be seen as a better ally against the Soviets. But even in the wake of the Cold War, it would make Europe a bit easier for us to engage on NATO common issues, common security issues, such as Bosnia or NATO enlargement. So I think it’s to be welcomed and I do not believe that the realities of the coming decades would suggest that Europe is then going to go off on its own and sever security ties to the United States. I think those will remain strong and we should not be paranoid9 about a strengthening Europe. In fact, a Europe that is divided diplomatically is less able to make a significant contribution on issues like Bosnia. Europeans bearing more burdens rather than Washington, is in our interest.
MR. CHEN: There were two events that caught the attention of the international society last year: one was NATO enlargement in Europe and the other was the signing of the U.S.-Japanese Guidelines of Security Cooperation in Asia. Some thought that this was Cold War thinking. What is your opinion of NATO enlargement and the U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty?
DR. LAKE: Well, on NATO enlargement I think we have to be very clear about what the goal is. It is not to isolate or offend Russia, assuming that Russia continues to evolve in democratic directions and does not pose a threat to her neighbors. In fact, as the President has said, we believe that the enlargement of NATO over the course of a generation, can potentially include Russia and others, and become over time, not simply a defensive security alliance-a military alliance, but a broader security arrangement and institution that can help to integrate Russia and all of Europe: a more efficient and more powerful OSCE. On the U.S.-Japan security relationship, let me simply repeat what I said in my 1996 meetings in Beijing. It is very, very important that the PRC, and especially the Chinese military understand that the purpose of the American military presence in the Pacific is stability. And the second purpose is stability. And the third purpose is stability. That is the purpose-it is not containment. It is not to threaten anybody, it is stability. Ask yourself what would happen, for example, if there were a withdrawal of American military forces from Northeast Asia. The result almost certainly would be an arms race, possibly a nuclear arms race10, involving China, South Korea, North Korea and Japan. This would be in nobody’s interest. I think that’s an illustration of the stabilizing effect of the American presence. Or we could ask ourselves what might Japanese policies have looked like if there had not been an American security relationship with Japan fifty years ago. And I think the answer is, well we can’t know what the answer would be, but it is very likely that Japan would have developed a much greater military capacity or very different military doctrines had they not had the certainty of the American security tie. So these are illustrations of a central fact, which cannot be repeated too often: stability is the purpose of the American military presence and policy, which is good for the People’s Republic. It’s good for us. It’s good for Japan. It’s good for Taiwan. And it’s good for everybody.
MR. CHEN: How do you view the relationship between the means of diplomacy and the means of military? Some thought that the solution of the Iraqi crisis was a victory for diplomacy. Is that true?
DR. LAKE: No. It was a victory for diplomacy-but it was a victory for diplomacy because it was backed up by force. Kofi Annan said that his ability to gain that agreement in Baghdad rested on the very real threat of the use of force. Unhappily there are certain governments and leaders who only understand the use of force and that includes Saddam Hussein. It is better to succeed diplomatically through the threat of the use of force rather than through actual use. It was a good thing that Kofi Annan was able to pull that off.
MR. CHEN: Can you elaborate the relationship between the means of diplomacy and the means of military in general?
DR. LAKE: Until human nature changes there should be two rules. First, diplomacy is most effective when it is backed up by power. Rule two is that one should never use force unless one has exhausted all diplomatic avenues.
WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS 词汇提示
1.triangular [] a. 三角形的
2.anticipate [] v. 预先提到
3.advancement [] n. 发展
4.miscalculation [] n. 误算，估错
5.calibrate [] v. 校准
6.polar bear n. 北极熊（指苏联）
7.transparent [] n.透明，透明度
8.barometer [] n. 气压表
9.paranoid [] a. 满怀疑虑的，过分妄想的
10.arms race n. 军备竞赛
QUESTIONS AFTER LISTENING听后答题:
1. Which two triangular relationships are there in the Asia-Pacific region?
A.Sino-Korea-Russia and Sino-U.S.-Russia.
B.Sino-U.S.-Russia and Sino-U.S.-Japan.
C.Sino-U.S.-Japan and Sino-U.S.-Taiwan.
D.Sino-Japan-Taiwan and Sino-U.S.-Japan.
2. What is vital important for the all of the triangular relationships in Dr. Lake’s view?
A.Freedom. B.Democracy.
C.Human right. D.Stability.
3. What’s the effect of strategic dialogues according to Dr. Lake’s view?
A.It can help each understand the other’s purposes and reduce the chances of miscalculations.
B.It can avoid the conflicts.
C.It can enhance the friendship.
D.It can reduce the disputes.
4. What is the meaning of the phrase “the third leg”?
A.The third leg of the stool.
B.The third leg of the dog.
C.The third leg of the triangle.
D.The third leg of the triangular relationships.
5. What is Dr. Lake’s view about China-U.S. Summit meetings?
A.It is not very important for the mutual relationship.
B.It should be regular.
C.It should be held each year.
D.It should be held twice each year.
6. What’s the meaning of the phrase “in the wake of the Cold War”?
A.In the Cold War.
B.After the end of the Cold War.
C.During the Cold War.
D.Before the Cold War.
7. How did Dr. Lake think Europe would be going to do in the coming decades?
A.It would cut down the security ties with U.S..
B.It would keep the security ties with U.S..
C.It would keep apart from U.S..
D.It would eatablish the security ties with Russia.
8. What is the purpose of the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region on Dr. Lake’s words?
A.Containment. B.Prevention.
C.Engagement. D.Stability.
9. What did he mean when he said “there are certain government and leaders who only understand the use of force.”
A.He meant they would use force to resolve disputes.
B.He meant they would not use force to resolve disputes.
C.He meant it was unnecessary for the use of force in resolving disputes.
D.It means it is harmful for the use of force in resolving disputes.
10. What kind of means should be taken in resolving Iraqi crisis in Dr. Lake’s view?
A.Diplomatic means.
B.Military means.
C.Other secret means.
D.Diplomacy backed up by power.
【参考译文】
美国的对外关系
陈伯江：您怎样看待“中－美－日”和“中－美－台湾地区”两个三角关系对亚太地区安全形势的影响？
莱克：我想在前面我已谈到这个问题。我想告诉你我前不久在台湾时反复说过的观点，这就是华盛顿与北京改善关系，符合台湾的长远安全利益。因为这将有助于稳定，而稳定符合台湾的利益。不管如何定义，稳定总是有利于经济发展和人民的社会进步。近１０年来，台湾在经济上和加强民主方面发展良好，大陆也在经济上和其他方面发展良好。所有定切都是以稳定为基础。对各方，无论日本、俄罗斯、中国和台北都是这样。我认为对于所有东北亚国家来说，只要保持稳定，前途就是光明的。稳定是所有这些三角关系的目的。
陈：近年来，中国和俄罗斯已经建立了面向２１世纪的战略伙伴关系。在这同时，中国还在致力于发展与美国的面向２１世纪的建设性战略伙伴关系，您怎样看待中、美、俄之间的关系？
莱克：华盛顿有些人对中俄之间的关系持怀疑态度。我认为所有这些关系即莫斯科-北京、莫斯科-华盛顿、北京－华盛顿之间的关系都是有益的。各方之间的战略对话能够有助于互相了解对方的意图，减少误解。
由于冷战的结束，在当今时代，已不再有必要揣摩任何两方之间的关系是否必然针对第三方。冷战期间，在密切合作对付北极熊方面，中国与美国存在着战略利益，这种考虑已不再有必要。双方之间的关系越透越明越好，因为这将加强我们每一边之间的相互信任。我们每个国家都发展双边关系，而不针对第三方。三角形所有各边的这种关系越透明，引起第三方怀疑、并把我们带加过去那种竞争而非稳定的三角关系的可能性就越小。
陈：克林顿总统已宣布他将比他原定计划提前于６月访问中国，这是意味着美国对中国的政策有所变化？您对中美关系的发展有何看法？
莱克：我认为这并不反映美国的对华政策有什么变化，而是反映了情况向着更好的趋势发展。克林顿提前访华是值得欢迎的。我认为中美首脑会谈应正常化，而不要取决于每年的协商。定期举行首脑会谈可使之脱离我们各自的政治的影响。首脑会谈就看作促进中美关系健康发展的动力。
陈：据媒体报道，法国、俄罗斯和德国最近举行了三 首脑会谈。有人认为这次三国首脑会谈的象征意义是要平衡美国对欧洲的影响，您对此有何评论？
莱克：我曾经与欧洲的一些外交官讨论过此事，包括也未能参加这次首脑会谈的英国的外交官。很明显我们应该经常非常仔细地注意所有这类事情，但我认为华盛顿不应把这件事看作可怕的威胁。从战略上说，这是一个重大问题的一部分，那就是一个更加一体化的欧洲，是否有利于美国的利益？自肯尼迪政府首次把“一个走向一体化的欧洲基本上符合美国利益”纳入美国政策之后，这就一直是一个存在着争议的问题。在冷战期间的大多数时间里，统一或一体化的欧洲被看作是对抗苏联的更好的同盟。但即使在冷战之后，在我们处理共同的问题、共同的安全问题（如波斯 尼亚或北约东扩问题）时，一个更为统一的欧洲将更容易与我们合作。因此我认为三国会谈应受到欢迎，并且我认为，在今后几十年的客观条件下，欧洲不会切断与美国的安全联系离我们而去。我认为美国与欧洲的联系将会牢固地保持下去，我们也不必因欧洲的强大而满怀疑虑。事实上，一个外交上的分裂的欧洲更不利于诸如波斯尼亚这类问题的解决。欧洲人而不是华盛顿承担更多的义务，这符合美国的利益。
陈：去年有两件事引起了国际社会的广泛注意:一是欧洲的北约东扩;二是在亚洲美日签定了安全合作指导方针.有人认为这是冷战思维,您对约东扩和美日签订安全合作指导方针有何看法?
莱克：关于北约东扩,我认为必须非常明确这样做的目的.东约东扩不是要孤立或冒犯俄罗斯,因为我们认为俄罗斯将继续朝着民主的方向发展,不会给其邻国造成威胁。事实上，正如克林顿总统所说，我们认为，北约东扩在经历了一代人的时间后，有可能包括俄罗斯和其他国家。随着时间的推移，北约将不只是一个防务安全联盟－一种军事联盟，而是一种扩大了的安全部署和有助于把俄罗斯与整个欧洲结为一体的组织：即一种更加有效和更为有力的欧安组织。关于美日安全关系，我想简单地重复１９９６年我在北京会谈时所说的观点，那就是中华人民共和国特别是中国人民解放军，应该认识到美军在太平洋地区存在的目的是稳定。第二个目的还是稳定，第三个目的更是稳定。目的是稳定，而不是遏制。不是要威胁任何人。认识这一点非常非常重要。例如，你们可以扪心自问，如果美国从东北亚撤军，将会发生什么情况。几乎可以肯定，结果将是一场军备竞赛，很可能是一场涉及中国、南朝鲜、北朝鲜和日本的核军备竞赛，这将对谁都 没有好处。我认为这可以说明美军在亚洲的军事存在的稳定作用。或者，我们也可以问问我们自己，假设５０年前美国与日本没有建立安全关系，日本的政策会是什么样。我认为如果没有与美国的这种确定的安全纽带，答案（我不知道确切的答案应当是什么）很可能是日本早已发展了强大得多的军事能力或制定了一个重要事实，对这一事实如何重复都不为过份，即稳定是美国军事存在和军事政策的目的。这对中国有好处，对我们有好处，对日本、台湾有好处，对各方都有好处。
陈：您怎样看待外交手段与军事手段的关系？有人认为伊拉克武器核查危机的解决是外交的胜利，是否如此？
莱克：伊拉克武器核查危机的解决是外交的胜利-但它之所以是外交的胜利，原因是有军事力量为后盾。联合国秘书长安南说，他之所以能与巴格达达成协议，是因为有使用武力的非常现实的威胁。遗憾的是有些政府和国家领导人只有靠使用武力才能说服－这包括萨达姆•侯赛因。上策是通过威胁使用武力而非实际使用武力去争取外交上的成功。安南能获得成功是一件好事。
陈：您能概括地解释一下外交手段与军事手段之间的关系吗？
莱克：除非人性改变，否则就存在着两个规则：规则一是，以实力为后盾的外交最为有效；规则二是，在穷尽所有的外交努力之前，绝不要使用武力。
KYS TO THE QUESTIONS 参考答案：
1.c 2.d 3.a 4.d 5.b 6.b 7.b 8.d 9.a 10.d
