U.S. National Security Strategies
--Interview with Former National Security Advisor Dr. Anthony Lake 访前总统国家安全事务助理安东尼•莱克博士
MR.CHEN BOJIANG:I feel honored to have this opportunity to gain your insightful1 views on the issues of national security and international relations. I am researching American views of military revolution, future warfare and national defense development, which are closely related to your field. So your insights will be very helpful to my research. I really appreciate that you have given me this chance to interview you，given your full schedule.
During your appointment as the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs2, there was a major adjustment of U.S. national security strategy from ”Containment3” to ”Engagement and Enlargement4” What prompted this new strategy? What were the main points of this strategy?
DR.ANTHONY LAKE: Well, I think the strategies reflect the view of the President for many years before he became President and were developed in a number of his speeches during the campaign in 1992 in which he spoke about the importance of democracy5 and open markets for the United States—and, we believe, to the world. I would simply emphasize that the spread of democracy, which is not created by the United States, is I believe in the interest of everybody. For two reasons. One, democratic nations do tend to have better relationships in part because of the transparency of their systems. And secondly, I think that the shape of the emerging global economy and the effect of globalization6 encourages democracy. Because we have seen for example, in some of the areas in Southeast Asia, that when you lack the transparency that democracy brings, then you can get the kind of crony capitalism7 that can lead to very ill-advised economic policies. Also, to attract foreign investment it is necessary to create a rule of law，the law of contracts, etc. that can allow more regular investment practices. So I think that democratic systems both are good for security and match the requirements of the new global economy. That is why while American diplomats8 as you know raise human rights and democracy with governments around the world, I do not believe we can or should try to impose democracy on others. That is not within our power. We don't have the right to do it. And in any case democracy as a system, represented in different ways in different cultures, simply fits the requirements of the modern world. Therefore, the United States doesn't have to impose it on others.
MR.CHEN: It has been several years since the implementation of the ”Engagement and Enlargement” strategy. In your opinion, does this strategy reflect the security needs of the United States in the post-Cold War? Is there a need to make changes to the strategy in the near future?
DR. LAKE: As I said, I think it is in our security interest. I don't think we need to make changes in the strategy as a goal. But I do believe that we should always be very flexible. It should be managed in a way that gives due consideration to the importance of others' cultures and to their sovereignty9. And to make sure that we do not become so rigid10 as to be self defeating. We should not go around insisting that everybody should look like the United States.
MR. CHEN: How do you view the international situation after the Cold War? Some have argued that there will be a relatively secure interlude11 in the future. What do you think of this ”interlude?” How long will this ”interlude” last?
DR.LAKE:I hope it's not just an interlude. I hope it will last a long time. But there are two kinds of security threats, both to the United States and to international security generally. One of them，coming out of the Cold War, I would call classic security threats. The other are the more modern security threats that flow largely from or are exacerbated12 by globalization. The first includes the possibility of two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts，which obviously potentially include the Persian Gulf Area，either Iraq or Iran and North Korea. Those all remain possibilities. I think the most dangerous is North Korea. Because there we have an organic13 crisis. I think that the North Korean system will collapse14 at some point. I don't know whether it is within months, years or decades, but at some point it will collapse. It cannot manage. And at that point, there are obvious dangers that can affect South Korea, China, Japan, Russia as well as the U.S. There is also always, to be frank15, the possibility of conflict with the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. We saw the dispatch16 of two aircraft carriers in the crisis of 1996. I doubt very much that that will happen. and I think our relationship through our strategic dialogue, summit meetings, through military to military contacts with the People's Republic is much better. And that kind of communication will help to avert17 that. And also I was very encouraged by my recent visit to Taiwan at how the senior leaders that I spoke with all were emphasizing prudence18 and care as they head into a new election in the year 2000. So I am encouraged with regard to China. The other possible classic threat could come were Russia to evolve back towards a nationalist direction and the ways of the past. That could have the most severe consequences for all of us: a new Cold War. But I don't think that's going to happen either. The more interesting threats are the very modern threats. They are not new in terms of human nature，but they are new in terms of technology and instant19 communications and borders that are eroding20 .One has to do with the potential combination of a terrorism whose nature is changing towards more individual and less organized forms, as we see in the World Trade Center or Oklahoma City, with the prospect of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction21. And then the possibility for the use of computers in the hands of terrorists or criminals who can break into businesses or critical infrastructures also poses a real threat. And finally I think we have to redefine security. If you define security as the security of individuals within nations, as increasingly we should，as the world shrinks22 with the global communications revolution, then we need to take as security issues such questions as the environment or the economic welfare of great numbers of people who are not benefiting from globalization. I think that one of the great security dangers twenty years down the road or so, is that if we simply assume that growth is our object，then there will be an increasing disparity between rich and poor in a lot of nations and that will create new political problems in those nations that can affect our security. So even while exercising the necessary economic reforms that flow from globalization，we also have to work on making sure that these economic reforms are politically sustainable23 by emphasizing also employment, housing, education, social safety nets, etc.
Practise Listening to Words 词汇听力练习:
1.insightful  adj. 富有见解的
2.the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 总统国家安全事务助理
3.Containment [ ]n. 遏制（战略）
4.Engagement and Enlargement 参与与扩展战略）
5.democracy  n. 民主
6.globalization n 全球化
7.capitalism  n. 资本主义
8.diplomat [ ]n. 外交官
9.sovereignty  n. 主权
10.rigid [ ]adj. 僵化的
11.interlude  n. 间歇
12.exacerbate [ ] vt. 恶化
13.organic  adj. 器官的
14.collapse [ ]vi. 崩溃
15.frank  adj. 坦率的
16.dispatch  vt. 派遣
17.avert  vt. 防止
18.prudence  n. 审慎
19.instant  adj. 即时的
20.erode  vt. 侵蚀，淡化
21.proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 大规模破坏性武器的扩散
22.shrink  vi. 收缩
23.sustainable  adj. 可以承受的