What Is a Moral Foreign Policy?
约瑟夫·奈（Joseph S. Nye）
哈佛大学教授
最新著作：《道德重要吗？从罗斯福到特朗普的总统与外交政策》（牛津大学出版社，2020年）
Many Americans say they want a moral foreign policy, but disagree on what that means. Using a three-dimensional scorecard encourages us to avoid simplistic answers and to look at the motives, means, and consequences of a US president’s actions.
许多美国人说，他们想要有道德的外交政策，但究竟指的是什么，他们各有说辞。用三维记分卡看美国总统行事的动机、手段和后果，可以让我们避免得出简单的答案。
Consider, for example, the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. When people call for a “Reaganite foreign policy,” they mean to highlight the clarity of his rhetoric in the presentation of values. Clearly stated objectives helped educate and motivate the public at home and abroad.
譬如，拿罗纳德·里根和两位乔治·布什总统来说，当人们呼唤“里根式外交政策”的时候，他们强调的是里根表达价值观的措辞非常清晰。清楚地讲明白目标，更可以教育和激励国内国外的公众。
But that was only one aspect of Reagan’s foreign policy. The success of his moral leadership also relied on his means of bargaining and compromise. The key question is whether he was prudent in balancing his objectives and the risks of trying to achieve them.
但这不过是里根外交政策的一个方面。他的德性领导之所以成功，还有赖于他的讨价还价和妥协手段。关键的问题在于，他是否谨慎地平衡了目标与实现这些目标的风险。
Reagan’s initial rhetoric in his first term created a dangerous degree of tension and distrust between the United States and the Soviet Union, increasing the risk of a miscalculation or accident leading to war. But it also created incentives to bargain, which Reagan later put to good use when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union. Reagan advanced US national interests, and he did so in a manner that did not exclusively benefit American interests.
里根在他第一任期开始时的言论，制造了美苏之间危险的紧张和不信任，增加了误判或意外引发战争的风险。但这也成为讨价还价的引子，后来，里根在戈尔巴乔夫执掌苏联大权时很好地利用了这一点。里根增进了美国国家利益，而他所用的方式并不只对美国的利益有好处。
In contrast, George H.W. Bush, by his own admission, did not promote a transformative foreign-policy vision at the end of the Cold War. His goal was to avoid disaster during a period of rapid and far-reaching geopolitical change. While he referred to a “new world order,” he never spelled out what it would look like. As Bush and his team responded to forces that were largely outside of his control, he set goals that balanced opportunities and prudence.
相比之下，老布什本人也承认，在冷战结束时，他并没有推行那种变革式的外交政策愿景。他的目的，是在一个地缘政治发生疾速而深远变化的时期避免灾难的出现。虽然有提到“新的世界秩序”，但他从未明确加以描述。布什和他的班子要对付的力量，在很大程度上不受他的控制，因此他定下的目标是在机会和谨慎之间寻找平衡。
Bush limited his short-term aims in order to pursue long-term stability, prompting some critics to complain that he did not set more ambitious objectives. Instead, he was prudent in a turbulent time, and managed to achieve American goals in a manner that was not unduly insular and did minimal damage to the interests of foreigners. He was careful not to humiliate Gorbachev and to manage Boris Yeltsin’s transition to leadership in Russia.
布什约束短期目标，为的是追求长期稳定，这让一些批评人士抱怨他缺少更远大的抱负。而他在那个动荡时期行事谨慎，努力以一种既不过分孤立又尽量不损害他国利益的方式达到美国的目的。他小心翼翼地避免让戈尔巴乔夫难堪，并设法应对了叶利钦向俄罗斯领导层的过渡。
With better communication skills, Bush might also have been able to do more to educate the American public about the changing nature of the world they faced after the Cold War. But given the uncertainties of history, and the potential for disaster as the Cold War ended, Bush had one of the best foreign policies of the period after 1945. He allowed the US to benefit from the Cold War’s outcome while avoiding calamity.
凭借更好的沟通技巧，布什也许还能做更多事情。他可以教育美国公众，让他们知道冷战过后所面临的世界不断变化的本质。但考虑到历史的不确定性，以及冷战后发生不幸的可能，布什采取了1945年以来最好的外交政策之一。他让美国从冷战结果中获益，同时避免了灾难。
His son, George W. Bush, started his first term in office with limited interest in foreign policy, but his objectives became transformational after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. He became focused on national security but turned to the rhetoric of democracy to rally his followers in a time of crisis. His 2002 national security strategy, which came to be called the “Bush Doctrine,” proclaimed that the US would “identify and eliminate terrorists wherever they are, together with the regimes that sustain them.”
他的儿子小布什在上任之初对外交政策兴趣寥寥，但2001年9月11日的恐怖袭击后，他的目标开始成为变革性的。他开始关注国家安全，然而在那个危机时刻，他转向利用民主说辞来团结他的追随者。他的2002年国家安全战略宣称，美国将“识别并且消灭恐怖分子以及供养他们的政权，无论他们在哪里”。这就是后来人们所谓的“布什主义”。
In this new game, there were few rules and inadequate attention to the means. Bush’s solution to the terrorist threat was to spread democracy, and a “freedom agenda” thus became the basis of his 2006 national security strategy. But he lacked the means to democratize Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein did not accomplish the mission, and inadequate understanding of the context, together with poor planning and management, undercut Bush’s grand objectives. The result was a sectarian civil war in Iraq and a strengthening of the terrorist groups that eventually became the Islamic State (ISIS).
这场新的游戏没有规则，也不在乎手段。布什解决恐怖主义威胁的办法就是传播民主，也因此，“自由议程”成为他2006年国家安全战略的基础。但是，他缺少让伊拉克实现民主的手段，推翻萨达姆·侯赛因并没有完成这项使命。对背景了解不足，规划和管理不善，让布什的宏伟目标大打折扣。其结果是伊拉克内部爆发宗派战争，恐怖组织势力抬头，最终演变成了“伊斯兰国”。
A perpetual problem in US foreign policy is the complexity of the context, which increases the likelihood of unintended consequences. Prudence is sometimes dismissed as mere self-interest, but in foreign policy, it becomes a virtue. Negligent assessment and reckless risk-taking often lead to immoral consequences, or what in legal terms is called “culpable negligence.” Prudence also requires the ability to manage one’s emotions. In both respects, President Donald Trump’s rejection of intelligence and reliance on television sources raises serious moral as well as practical questions about his foreign policy.
美国外交政策的一个长久问题是承上启下的复杂性，这加大了出现意外后果的可能。谨慎有时被视为单纯的利己主义，为人所不齿，但在外交政策中它却是一种美德。草率地评估和不顾一切地冒险，常常会带来不道德的后果，法律术语称为“有罪的过失”。谨慎还需要有管理自我情绪的能力。从这两方面看，特朗普总统拒绝情报，依赖电视消息，这些都引起人们对其外交政策道德性和实用性的严重质疑。
That leads, in turn, to the question of the role of institutions and how broadly a president defines America’s national interest. A president’s foreign policy depends not just on specific actions, but also on how a pattern of actions shapes the environment of world politics. Leadership by the world’s most powerful country in the supply of global public goods is consistent with “America First,” but it rests on a broader understanding of that term than Trump has shown. As Henry Kissinger has put it, “calculations of power without a moral dimension will turn every disagreement into a test of strength … Moral prescriptions without concern for equilibrium, on the other hand, tend toward either crusades or an impotent policy tempting challenges; either extreme risks endangering the coherence of the international order itself.”
这转而又引出行政机构的作用，以及总统界定美国国家利益的宽泛度问题。总统的外交政策不仅在于具体行动，还在于其行动模式如何塑造世界政治环境。在提供全球公共产品方面，全球最强大国家的领导地位是符合“美国优先”概念的，但它靠的是对这个词汇的理解比特朗普所表现出来的更广。正如基辛格所说，“没有道德维度的实力算计，将把所有分歧都变成力量测试……另一方面，不顾及均衡的道德处方要么是走向十字军东征，要么是政策的无能引来挑战。这两种极端情况都危及国际秩序本身的连贯性”。
Prudence is a necessary virtue for a good foreign policy, but it is not sufficient. American presidents have been prudent when they needed to embrace a broader institutional vision. In the future, a sense of vision and strategy that correctly understands and responds to new technological and environmental changes – such as cyber threats, artificial intelligence, climate change, and pandemics – will be crucial.
对于好的外交政策而言，谨慎是必要的美德。但这还不够。美国总统需要有更广阔的制度视野时，他们一直都很谨慎。在未来，以有远见的眼光和策略去正确理解和应对网络威胁、人工智能、气候变化和流行病等新技术和环境变化，将是至关重要的。
A moral foreign policy not only makes Americans safer, but also makes the world a better place. We judge moral policy by looking at behavior and institutions, acts of commission and omissions, and at all three dimensions of motives, means, and consequences. Even then, the nature of foreign policy – with its many contingencies and unforeseen events – means that we will often wind up with mixed verdicts.
有道德的外交政策不仅使美国人更安全，而且让世界变得更美好。我们是通过观察行为与制度、作为与不作为，以及动机、手段和后果所有三个方面来评判道德政策。即便如此，外交政策的性质（有许多意外和不可预测事件）意味着我们最后的结论通常是褒贬不一。
英文原文摘自报业辛迪加（Project Syndicate） 中文翻译转自中美聚焦。
道德在外交政策中的重要性 约瑟夫·奈
我告诉一位朋友，我刚刚写了一本关于道德和外交政策的书，她打趣说：“那肯定很薄。”这种怀疑很正常。一项互联网研究表明，关于美国总统的道德观如何影响他们的外交政策的书籍少得令人吃惊。著名政治理论家迈克尔•沃尔泽（Michael Walzer）曾描述过 美国研究生在1945年后国际关系方面的训练：“道德观点与通行学科法则相悖。”
怀疑的理由显而易见。历史学家大谈美国例外论和道德论，而现实主义外交家，如乔治•凯南（George F. Kennan，冷战时期美国“遏制”思维之父）一直警告美国以德治国（moralist-legalist）传统的危险。国际关系是无政府主义王国；不存在提供秩序的世界政府。国家必须为自己提供防务，当面对生存危机问题时，可以不择手段。有有意义的选择，就没有伦理。哲学家说，“应该即能够。”没人能够因为你没有完成不可能之事而怪罪你。
根据这一逻辑，将伦理与外交政策相提并论是一个分类错误，就像是在问刀声音怎么样，而不是切起来怎么样，或者扫帚甲舞跳得是否比更贵的扫帚乙更好。因此，在评判总统的外交政策时，我们只需要问它是否有效，而不是它是否道德。
这一观点不无道理，但过于简化，规避了困难的问题。世界政府的缺失并不意味着所有一切国际秩序缺位。一些外交政策问题与民族国家的存亡相关，但大部分并非如此。比如，二战后，美国卷入了多场战争，但没有一场威胁到它的生存。许多关于人权、气候变化和互联网自由的重要外交政策选择也与战争完全无关。
事实上，大部分外交政策问题都包含着需要从中做出选择的不同价值观之间的权衡，而不是生搬硬套生存状态公式。一位犬儒主义法国官员曾经对我说，“我将好定义为对法国利益好。道德无关紧要。”他似乎没有认识到，他这番话本身便是一个道德判断。说所有国家都试图按照国家利益行动，这是同义反复，或毫无意义。重要的问题是领导人如何在不同环境下定义和追求这一国家利益。
此外，不管我们喜不喜欢，美国人一直在对总统和外交政策作道德评判。在特朗普打那通著名的电话之前——要求乌克兰总统帮个忙——其政府的行为已经将道德和外交政策问题从一个理论问题变成了热议话题。比如，2018年沙特异见记者贾马尔•卡舒吉（Jamal Khashoggi）在沙特驻伊斯坦布尔领事馆被杀后，特朗普被批忽视显而易见的残忍犯罪证据，以维持与沙特王储的良好关系。
自由派的《纽约时报》给特朗普关于卡舒吉的评论贴上了“冷酷的场面话，根本不关心事实，”而保守的《华尔街日报》发表社论说“我们知道，没有哪位总统，哪怕是像尼克松和约翰逊这样的冷酷无情的务实主义者，会写这样一份公开声明无视美国始终坚持不辍的价值观与原则。”石油、军售和地区稳定是国家利益，吸引其他国家的人的价值观和原则亦然。它们如何结合？
不幸的是，许多关于伦理和当代美国外交政策的评判颇为随意，没有经过深思熟虑，而当前争论又过多地集中在特朗普的个性上。我的新书《道德重要吗？》（Do Morals Matter?）试图纠正这一点，指出特朗普的一些行为在二战后的美国总统中没有先例。一位敏锐的记者曾经向我评论说：“特朗普不是独特，他是极端。”
更重要的是，美国人很少弄得清他们用什么标准评判外交政策。我们赞美里根等总统的声明道德明晰，好像良好意愿被良好表达就足以让人做出伦理评判似的。但威尔逊和小布什证明，良好意愿如果没有足够的手段实现，可能带来糟糕的伦理结果，如一战结束后的凡尔赛和约和小布什入侵伊拉克。或者，我们完全根据结果来评判总统。一些观察者将结束越南战争的功劳记在了尼克松头上，但他牺牲了21000名美国人的生命炮制了挽回颜面的“体面间隔”，最终证明这只是通往战败之路上的短暂休止。
好的道德理性应该有三个维度，权衡且平衡的意图、后果，以及手段。外交政策应该据此进行评判。此外，道德的外交政策必须考某些后果，比如维持鼓励道德利益（moral interests）的制度秩序，还要有特别有新闻价值的行为，比如帮助他国的异见分子或受迫害群体。将“不作为”的伦理后果也很重要，比如在朝鲜战争期间，杜鲁门愿意接受僵局和国内政治惩罚，而没有遵循麦克阿瑟上将的建议使用核武器。福尔摩斯有一句名言，你可以从不吠的狗身上学到很多。
认为伦理在今年的外交政策争论中毫无作用完全不得要领。我们应该承认，我们总是用道德理性来评判外交政策，并且我们应该学习更好地这样做。
