美国政要第22课
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
【参考译文】
美国的安全战略
陈伯江:今天能有机会就国家安全与国际关系问题听取你的高见，我感到非常荣幸。我正在进行有关军事革命、未来战争与美国国防发展问题的研究，这都与你所从事的领域有着密切关系，因而你的看法会对我的研究有所帮助。非常感谢你在百忙中接受我的访谈。
在你担任总统国家安全事务助理期间，美国的国家安全战略进行了重大调整，即由“遏制”战略调整为“参与与扩展”战略，促成战略调整的动因是什么?新战略的主要内容是什么？
莱克:我认为“参与与扩展”战略反映了克林顿总统在成为总统之前多年的思想。这一战略形成于1992年他竞选总统的多次演说中。在那些演说中，他谈到了民主与开放市场对美国及对世界的重要性。我想强调说明，民主的扩展不是由美国发起的，但我认为它符合大家的利益。原因有二:一是民主国家之间趋向于有着越来越好的关系，部分原因在于他们的体制的透明度;二是全球经济的出现和世界一体化的影响推动着民主的发展。因为在东南亚一些地区，我们已经看到了这样的例子，当一个国家缺乏由民主带来的透明度时，就会出现那种任人唯亲的资本主义，结果导致采纳有着严重错误的经济政策建议。同样，为了吸引外国投资，建立法律制度，如合同法等，也是必要的。这样可更好地规范投资活动。所以我认为，民主制度既有利于安全，又能满足新的全球经济的需要。这就是美国的外交官们向世界各国的政府提出人权和民主的原因。但是，我并不认为我们需要、能够或者应该向别的国家强加民主。我们没有这个能力，也没有这样的权力。总之，民主作为一种制度，在不同的文化背景下有不同的表现方式，很容易适合现代社会的要求。因此，美国不必把它强加于其他国家。
陈:美国采取“参与与扩展”战略已有好几年了，在你看来，这一战略是否反映了冷战之后美国的安全需要？在近期有无必要对这一战略进行修改?
莱克:我已说过，这一战略符合我们的安全利益。我认为我们不需要对这一战略的目标进行修改，但我觉得我们应当始终保持高度的灵活性。我们在推行这一战略时要充分考虑到其它国家的文化及其主权的重要性，并确实注意不要变得过于僵化以致自取失败。我们也不要坚持让所有的国家都像美国一样。
陈:你怎样看待冷战后的国际形势？有人认为未来将会有一段相对安全的“间歇期”，你对“间歇期”的说法有何看法？这一“间歇期”将会持续多长时间？
莱克:我希望它不只是一段“间歇期”，而能够长期持续下去。但是，一般来说，对美国也对国际安全的威胁有两种:一种威胁来自于冷战，我称之为传统的安全威胁;另一种威胁属于更为现代的安全威胁，主要来自于世界一体化或者说被世界一体化所加重。第一种威胁包括两场几乎同时发生的地区冲突的可能性。很明显，爆发冲突的潜在地区包括波斯湾地区（伊拉克或伊朗）和北朝鲜。这些地区都存在着危险的可能性。我认为最危险的是北朝鲜。因为那里面临的是一种机体危机。我认为北朝鲜的社会制度在某个时候必将崩溃。我不知道它会在几个月、几年还是几十年内发生，但在某个时候，它将会走向崩溃。这不可避免。而且到那时，就有可能出现影响南朝鲜、中国、日本和俄罗斯以及美国的明显危险。
坦率地说，在台湾问题上，也一直存在着与中华人民共和国发生冲突的危险性。在1996年的危机中，美国曾经派出过两艘航空母舰。我不相信这种事还会发生。我认为通过战略对话、高级会谈，通过军方接触，我们之间的关系已好得多。这种相互的交流将有助于消除危险。我最近的台湾之行也使我很受鼓舞。与我会谈的所有高层领导人都强调在他们即将进行的2000年的新一轮选举中，将采取谨慎而又小心的态度。因此，我对中国问题抱有信心。
另一个可能的传统威胁是俄罗斯倒退到民族主义和过去的行为方式。那样的后果对所有人都非常严重:即爆发新的冷战。但我认为这种情况将不会发生。
最有意思的威胁是那些非常现代的威胁。这些威胁之所以新并不是因为人性的变化，而是因为技术的发展，瞬息通信手段的出现和国界的淡化。威胁之一与恐怖主义活动有关，就像纽约世贸中心或俄克拉阿马城发生的惨案那样，恐怖活动会越来越趋向于个人行为而非组织行为，并带有大规模毁伤武器扩散的征兆。其次是恐怖主义者和犯罪分子有可能使用电子计算机，他们有可能闯入商业或关键的基础系统，也会使我们面临一种现实的威胁。最后，我认为我们必须重新定义安全的概念。如果我们把安全定义为国家内个人的安全，随着全球通信革命的发展世界会越来越小，我们则需要把环境问题或大量未能从全球化中得到好处的人的经济福利问题当作安全问题来考虑。如果我们仅把经济增长作为我们的目标，那么在许多国家都出现贫富差别的扩大，并造成可能影响我们安全的新政治问题。我认为这是今后20年左右最大的危险之一。因此，既使我们在因全球化而进行必要的经济改革的同时，我们也必须重视就业、住房、教育、社会保障网络等问题，确保经济改革具有政治上的承受力。
