【转】2015年美国外交政策专家和政策执行者调查报告—— ...

来源:百度文库 编辑:超级军网 时间:2024/03/28 17:46:54


A survey shows which countries matter more to U.S. policymakers—and which matter less
调查显示,哪些国家对美国决策者而言更重要,而哪些更不重要

【全文】


(颜色从浅到深表示重要性从小到大)
Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会

Foreign policy often involves making difficult and debatable choices about which parts of the world matter more to a given country—and which, by extension, matter less. It's about defining national interests and determining where those interests are most evident and endangered. This is why the United States has done far more to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq than, say, sectarian war in the Central African Republic.
外交政策往往包括选择哪些国家或地区对一国而言更重要,以及哪些更不重要,这并不容易,且富有争议性。这既关系到明确国家利益,也关系到确定国家利益在何处最突出和最受威胁。这就是为什么美国更多地费心于叙利亚和伊拉克的反ISIS斗争而不是中非共和国的教派战争的原因。

In short, it's about priorities. And according to a new survey of U.S. foreign-policy experts and practitioners, those priorities could look a lot like the map above in 2015, at least from America's point of view. The map sorts potential conflicts around the world into three tiers of risk: red for high-priority threats, orange for moderate-priority threats, and yellow for low-priority threats. According to Paul Stares, the report's lead author, it's a color-coded snapshot of "where the balance of U.S. attention and resources should be devoted" in the coming year. As such, it's also a guide to the places and conflicts that are likely to receive relatively little attention from America's national-security apparatus in the months ahead.
简而言之,就是一个优先级的问题。美国外交政策专家和政策执行者的一份新的调查报告显示,这些不同优先级的国家分布像极了上述的2015年的图,至少从美国的角度讲是这样。这张图把潜在的全球冲突归为三级:红色表示高优先级的威胁,橙色表示中优先级的威胁,黄色表示低优先级的威胁。根据Paul Stares——这份报道的主要作者,这张用颜色示意的简图给出了明年美国的注意力和资源的分配会如何维持平衡。如上所述,也可就此推断出未来几个月美国国家安全局可能相对较少关注的地方和冲突。

The survey, this year's edition of a study conducted annually by the Council on Foreign Relations' Center for Preventive Action, flagged violence in Iraq between ISIS and the Iraqi military, and between Sunnis and Shiites more broadly, as the top priority for the U.S. in the coming year. Other high-priority potential scenarios include a major attack on the United States or a U.S. ally; a cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure; a crisis involving North Korea; the prospect of Israeli military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites; a confrontation between China and its neighbors over territorial claims in the South China Sea; an escalation of the Syrian civil war; and growing instability in Afghanistan. Notably, they also include two contingencies that weren't raised in last year's report: an intensification of fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed militias in Ukraine, and heightened violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
预防行动中心发布的一年一度的调查研究中,今年的版本突出了伊拉克内部的ISIS和伊政府军的冲突以及更广泛的逊尼派和什叶派的冲突,并将此作为美国来年的首要关注对象。其他潜在的重要选项包括针对美国或其盟友的重大袭击,针对美国基础设施的网络攻击,北朝鲜危机,以军即将对伊朗核设施发动的攻击,中国与邻国的南海纷争,叙利亚内战的升级,阿富汗不稳定局势的恶化。值得关注的是,去年未出现的两个突发事件出现在今年的调查研究里:乌克兰军方和俄罗斯支持的武装分子的冲突升级,以及巴以冲突的升级。
"We're going to be preoccupied with the  greater Middle East for the foreseeable future."
Respondents in this year's survey reported more concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan unraveling than they have in past reports, along with "growing unease about confrontation with Russia and China," Stares, the director of the Center for Preventive Action, told me. Respondents were also more worried than last year about the potential outbreak of a Third Intifada in Israel and the consequences of a possible collapse of nuclear talks between Iran and Western powers. They were less worried than last year about conflicts in countries such as Somalia, South Sudan, and Mali. This doesn't necessarily mean that instability has receded from this latter set of countries; just that these countries appear to have receded as a priority for those surveyed.
“在可预见的未来里,我们的心思将会全放在整个中东地区。”
今年这份调查里,被调查者相比以往的调查者而言,更多地表现出了对伊拉克和阿富汗的关注,以及,引用预防行动中心主任Stares对我说的话——“与俄罗斯和中国对抗而增长的不安”。被调查者同样比去年更关注以色列境内第三次巴勒斯坦大起义的爆发,以及伊朗与西方关于核问题对话失败的可能性,对于像索马里、南苏丹、马里等国家的冲突事件,被调查者的关注度比去年有所降低,这未必表明这些非洲国家的不稳定局势有所缓解,而仅仅表明对于被调查者而言,它们的重要性降低了。

"What is interesting is how people rank the relative importance of these conflicts," Stares explained. "The risk of U.S. military engagement, [nuclear] proliferation, terrorism—these are the leading criteria for how most people judge [a conflict's] importance to U.S. interests. Humanitarian concerns definitely fall down the list in terms of hierarchy of interests."
Stares解释称,“有趣的地方在于,人们是如何衡量不同冲突间的相对重要性的。美国军方介入导致的风险、核武器扩散以及恐怖主义——大多数人用来考量对美国利益冲突的严重性,就是基于这几个主要因素。人道主义的考量不在利益层级考虑之内。”
"Homeland security [and] instability in the Middle East and East Asia dominate the tier-one contingencies," he continued. "In tier two there are more African contingencies, more South Asian contingencies. You can see how, despite the U.S. desire to ... put more emphasis on Asia, we're still going to be preoccupied with the greater Middle East for the foreseeable future."
“国土安全、中东动荡以及东亚的议题占据了最高的预防优先级”,他补充道,“在中预防优先级,更多的是非洲、南亚。你可以看到,即使美国希望对亚洲提高重视程度,在可预见的未来仍然全身心关注着整个中东。”


Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会

These maps do not depict where violence will be fiercest in 2015, or where turmoil will be the most destabilizing or transformative. They are not the product of a sophisticated algorithm for predicting the world's next trouble spots. Instead, they offer a broad view of the world through the lens of U.S. national security—more a reflection of current anxieties among experts than a forecast of future developments (last year's report, for instance, did not foresee the rise of ISIS or Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea, though it did warn of civil war in Iraq). The report's results are "often just an extrapolation of the recent past," Stares said.
这些分布图并不能指出2015年哪里的冲突最激烈,也不能说明哪里骚乱破坏大、传播广。它们也不产生于一套用于计算世界下一波冲突分布的算法。相反,它们提供了美国国家安全视角下的看待世界的广阔视野——与其说是预测了未来的发展趋势,不如说反映了专家们近来担心的事件(例如去年的报道,尽管对伊拉克内战进行了警示,但没有预见ISIS的崛起或是普京对克里米亚的占领)。这份报告结果“往往仅仅是近来局势的外推”,Stares如上说。

To arrive at the results, Stares and his fellow researchers asked 2,200 U.S. government officials, academics, and experts to assess the impact and likelihood of 30 scenarios, whittled down from a universe of more than 1,000 suggestions solicited online. Their answers were then sorted into the matrix below.
为了得到这些结果,Stares和他手下的研究人员问卷调查了2200名美国政府官员、学者和专家,来评估30种未来情景的可能性及其影响,这30种未来情景是从网上征询的1000多个情景里筛选出来的。这些问卷答案归结成下边的矩形表格。

Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会
The exercise depends, of course, on how U.S. "interests" are defined. In the report, a "high-impact" scenario is one that "directly threatens the U.S. homeland, is likely to trigger U.S. military involvement because of treaty commitments, or threatens the supply of critical U.S. strategic resources." A "low-impact" scenario is one that "could have severe/widespread humanitarian consequences but in countries of limited strategic importance to the United States."
这些行动当然是基于美国的“国家利益”是如何定义的。报告称,“高影响”情景是那些“直接威胁到美国本土,可能因履行缔约而促使美国军队的介入,或威胁美国关键战略资源的保障”的情景。“低影响”情景是那些“造成严重而广泛的人道主义恶果,但发生在对美国而言战略重要性较低的国家”的情景。

If you interpret the meaning of "interests" another way, the world might look very different.
如果以另外的方式解读“国家利益”,美国眼中的世界局势可能会发生很大的变化。

http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/forum.p ... id%3D1%26typeid%3D1



A survey shows which countries matter more to U.S. policymakers—and which matter less
调查显示,哪些国家对美国决策者而言更重要,而哪些更不重要

【全文】


(颜色从浅到深表示重要性从小到大)
Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会

Foreign policy often involves making difficult and debatable choices about which parts of the world matter more to a given country—and which, by extension, matter less. It's about defining national interests and determining where those interests are most evident and endangered. This is why the United States has done far more to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq than, say, sectarian war in the Central African Republic.
外交政策往往包括选择哪些国家或地区对一国而言更重要,以及哪些更不重要,这并不容易,且富有争议性。这既关系到明确国家利益,也关系到确定国家利益在何处最突出和最受威胁。这就是为什么美国更多地费心于叙利亚和伊拉克的反ISIS斗争而不是中非共和国的教派战争的原因。

In short, it's about priorities. And according to a new survey of U.S. foreign-policy experts and practitioners, those priorities could look a lot like the map above in 2015, at least from America's point of view. The map sorts potential conflicts around the world into three tiers of risk: red for high-priority threats, orange for moderate-priority threats, and yellow for low-priority threats. According to Paul Stares, the report's lead author, it's a color-coded snapshot of "where the balance of U.S. attention and resources should be devoted" in the coming year. As such, it's also a guide to the places and conflicts that are likely to receive relatively little attention from America's national-security apparatus in the months ahead.
简而言之,就是一个优先级的问题。美国外交政策专家和政策执行者的一份新的调查报告显示,这些不同优先级的国家分布像极了上述的2015年的图,至少从美国的角度讲是这样。这张图把潜在的全球冲突归为三级:红色表示高优先级的威胁,橙色表示中优先级的威胁,黄色表示低优先级的威胁。根据Paul Stares——这份报道的主要作者,这张用颜色示意的简图给出了明年美国的注意力和资源的分配会如何维持平衡。如上所述,也可就此推断出未来几个月美国国家安全局可能相对较少关注的地方和冲突。

The survey, this year's edition of a study conducted annually by the Council on Foreign Relations' Center for Preventive Action, flagged violence in Iraq between ISIS and the Iraqi military, and between Sunnis and Shiites more broadly, as the top priority for the U.S. in the coming year. Other high-priority potential scenarios include a major attack on the United States or a U.S. ally; a cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure; a crisis involving North Korea; the prospect of Israeli military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites; a confrontation between China and its neighbors over territorial claims in the South China Sea; an escalation of the Syrian civil war; and growing instability in Afghanistan. Notably, they also include two contingencies that weren't raised in last year's report: an intensification of fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed militias in Ukraine, and heightened violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
预防行动中心发布的一年一度的调查研究中,今年的版本突出了伊拉克内部的ISIS和伊政府军的冲突以及更广泛的逊尼派和什叶派的冲突,并将此作为美国来年的首要关注对象。其他潜在的重要选项包括针对美国或其盟友的重大袭击,针对美国基础设施的网络攻击,北朝鲜危机,以军即将对伊朗核设施发动的攻击,中国与邻国的南海纷争,叙利亚内战的升级,阿富汗不稳定局势的恶化。值得关注的是,去年未出现的两个突发事件出现在今年的调查研究里:乌克兰军方和俄罗斯支持的武装分子的冲突升级,以及巴以冲突的升级。
"We're going to be preoccupied with the  greater Middle East for the foreseeable future."
Respondents in this year's survey reported more concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan unraveling than they have in past reports, along with "growing unease about confrontation with Russia and China," Stares, the director of the Center for Preventive Action, told me. Respondents were also more worried than last year about the potential outbreak of a Third Intifada in Israel and the consequences of a possible collapse of nuclear talks between Iran and Western powers. They were less worried than last year about conflicts in countries such as Somalia, South Sudan, and Mali. This doesn't necessarily mean that instability has receded from this latter set of countries; just that these countries appear to have receded as a priority for those surveyed.
“在可预见的未来里,我们的心思将会全放在整个中东地区。”
今年这份调查里,被调查者相比以往的调查者而言,更多地表现出了对伊拉克和阿富汗的关注,以及,引用预防行动中心主任Stares对我说的话——“与俄罗斯和中国对抗而增长的不安”。被调查者同样比去年更关注以色列境内第三次巴勒斯坦大起义的爆发,以及伊朗与西方关于核问题对话失败的可能性,对于像索马里、南苏丹、马里等国家的冲突事件,被调查者的关注度比去年有所降低,这未必表明这些非洲国家的不稳定局势有所缓解,而仅仅表明对于被调查者而言,它们的重要性降低了。

"What is interesting is how people rank the relative importance of these conflicts," Stares explained. "The risk of U.S. military engagement, [nuclear] proliferation, terrorism—these are the leading criteria for how most people judge [a conflict's] importance to U.S. interests. Humanitarian concerns definitely fall down the list in terms of hierarchy of interests."
Stares解释称,“有趣的地方在于,人们是如何衡量不同冲突间的相对重要性的。美国军方介入导致的风险、核武器扩散以及恐怖主义——大多数人用来考量对美国利益冲突的严重性,就是基于这几个主要因素。人道主义的考量不在利益层级考虑之内。”
"Homeland security [and] instability in the Middle East and East Asia dominate the tier-one contingencies," he continued. "In tier two there are more African contingencies, more South Asian contingencies. You can see how, despite the U.S. desire to ... put more emphasis on Asia, we're still going to be preoccupied with the greater Middle East for the foreseeable future."
“国土安全、中东动荡以及东亚的议题占据了最高的预防优先级”,他补充道,“在中预防优先级,更多的是非洲、南亚。你可以看到,即使美国希望对亚洲提高重视程度,在可预见的未来仍然全身心关注着整个中东。”


Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会

These maps do not depict where violence will be fiercest in 2015, or where turmoil will be the most destabilizing or transformative. They are not the product of a sophisticated algorithm for predicting the world's next trouble spots. Instead, they offer a broad view of the world through the lens of U.S. national security—more a reflection of current anxieties among experts than a forecast of future developments (last year's report, for instance, did not foresee the rise of ISIS or Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea, though it did warn of civil war in Iraq). The report's results are "often just an extrapolation of the recent past," Stares said.
这些分布图并不能指出2015年哪里的冲突最激烈,也不能说明哪里骚乱破坏大、传播广。它们也不产生于一套用于计算世界下一波冲突分布的算法。相反,它们提供了美国国家安全视角下的看待世界的广阔视野——与其说是预测了未来的发展趋势,不如说反映了专家们近来担心的事件(例如去年的报道,尽管对伊拉克内战进行了警示,但没有预见ISIS的崛起或是普京对克里米亚的占领)。这份报告结果“往往仅仅是近来局势的外推”,Stares如上说。

To arrive at the results, Stares and his fellow researchers asked 2,200 U.S. government officials, academics, and experts to assess the impact and likelihood of 30 scenarios, whittled down from a universe of more than 1,000 suggestions solicited online. Their answers were then sorted into the matrix below.
为了得到这些结果,Stares和他手下的研究人员问卷调查了2200名美国政府官员、学者和专家,来评估30种未来情景的可能性及其影响,这30种未来情景是从网上征询的1000多个情景里筛选出来的。这些问卷答案归结成下边的矩形表格。

Center for Preventive Action/Council on Foreign Relations
预防行动中心/外交关系委员会
The exercise depends, of course, on how U.S. "interests" are defined. In the report, a "high-impact" scenario is one that "directly threatens the U.S. homeland, is likely to trigger U.S. military involvement because of treaty commitments, or threatens the supply of critical U.S. strategic resources." A "low-impact" scenario is one that "could have severe/widespread humanitarian consequences but in countries of limited strategic importance to the United States."
这些行动当然是基于美国的“国家利益”是如何定义的。报告称,“高影响”情景是那些“直接威胁到美国本土,可能因履行缔约而促使美国军队的介入,或威胁美国关键战略资源的保障”的情景。“低影响”情景是那些“造成严重而广泛的人道主义恶果,但发生在对美国而言战略重要性较低的国家”的情景。

If you interpret the meaning of "interests" another way, the world might look very different.
如果以另外的方式解读“国家利益”,美国眼中的世界局势可能会发生很大的变化。

http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/forum.p ... id%3D1%26typeid%3D1