北约前秘书长想免签去美国，结果被拒了，理由你肯定想不到_风闻

6月27日，北约前秘书长索拉纳想免签去美国，结果被拒了！更搞笑的是，拒签的理由居然是“五年前去过伊朗”，政治家访问某个国家居然成了“原罪”，如此魔幻的事估计只有特朗普美国能干出来了。不过索拉纳贵为北约前秘书长，一向是怼特朗普不手软的，刚好他去之前一个星期发表了一篇署名文章《西方解体》，谁知道和他被拒签有没有关系呢，哈哈哈哈哈，这个梗够我们笑一年。

西方解体

作者：索拉纳2018.6.21

编译：学术plus

魁北克举行的七国集团峰会之后，再也不会有人怀疑西方处于危机之中。是的，“西方”国家经常奉行不同的外交政策，甚至“西方”本身就是一个模糊的概念，但它依赖于一系列共同的意识形态支柱，而这些支柱现在正在美国总统唐纳德特朗普的“美国优先”的压力下崩溃。

特朗普和他的核心团队不断诽谤盟友：“我们不能让我们的朋友利用我们”。抛开他对沙特阿拉伯和以色列无条件的支持，特朗普似乎准备摧毁美国长期以来对其盟国的基本战略认识。

放在几年前，美国拒绝签署G7联合公报是不可想象的。也没有人会认为美国会以特朗普及他的贸易顾问纳瓦罗那样的方式，攻击加拿大总理贾斯汀特鲁多。

在与金正恩的新加坡首脑会之后，特朗普坚称他与特鲁多有着“良好的关系”。但他急忙补充说，他现在“还与金正日主席建立了非常良好的关系。”这表明美国与这两个国家的领导人的关系是可以类比的，这不仅是笨拙，而且绝对是愚蠢的，反映了特朗普方面对此缺乏透彻的看法。

如果不礼貌是特朗普政府的唯一问题，我们都可以轻松休息。但该政府也在推行削弱美国最重要联盟的具体政策。美国对加拿大和欧盟的钢铁和铝进口的关税，要在最近七国集团峰会上达成共识几乎是不可能的。

特朗普的关税不仅会伤害外国出口商，还会伤害依赖钢铁和铝投资的美国工人和企业。但特朗普似乎不受现实经济逻辑的影响。为了证明他的自我失败政策的合理性，他挑选了一些孤立的案例，比如加拿大对乳制品的高关税，没有任何背景的介绍，同时忽略了美国的加权平均关税实际上高于欧盟，日本，以及加拿大的事实。

当七国集团（G7）峰会陷入相互指责时，另一场意义重大的会议正在世界的另一端举行。在中国城市青岛，由中国、印度、哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯斯坦、巴基斯坦、俄罗斯、塔吉克斯坦和乌兹别克斯坦组成的上海合作组织正在举行年度峰会。正如中国官方媒体指出的那样，中国国家主席与俄罗斯总统之间的会晤，远比特朗普与其他G7领导人之间的会晤要亲切得多。

可以理解的是，特朗普在七国集团（G7）峰会上提出让该集团重新接纳俄罗斯招致了更多的批评。2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚后，俄罗斯被赶了出去。尽管如此，他还是触及了一个不应被忽视的问题：地缘政治俱乐部的过度区域化。全球治理的碎片化可能会越来越不利于西方国家的利益。西方领导人应该扩大合作的范围和规模，寻求解决全球问题的办法，而不是退缩到孤立和削弱在世界舞台上的影响力。为此，他们应该促进对话（比如G20）将当今的主要大国汇聚在一起。

但特朗普对俄罗斯的态度面临巨大障碍。普京的外交政策越来越敌视西方的安全，而特朗普与克里姆林宫的关系也引发了国内外的严重担忧。他对美国的欧洲盟友的傲慢态度加剧了这种担忧。

可以肯定的是，在经历了一些犹豫之后，特朗普确实在去年重申了他对北约共同防御条款的承诺。但这并不意味着紧张局势已经消散，特朗普继续要求其他北约成员国增加军事开支。特朗普似乎不明白的是，这样的支出增长不会用于北约预算，也不会为美国的保护而付费，而是用于增强各自的国防能力。

事实上，欧盟已经建立了所谓的永久性有组织的合作，以增加安全和防卫资源，并以集体的方式，从而更有效地利用这些资源。特朗普政府应该欢迎这些措施。然而特朗普似乎对欧盟发起的每一项联合行动都持怀疑态度。

在2016年美国总统大选期间，特朗普支持英国退出欧盟。自上任以来，他的政府毫不犹豫地在任何可能的时候削弱欧元区。就在几天前，美国驻德国大使理查德•格伦内尔(Richard Grenell)表示，他正在努力“让欧洲的其他保守派人士获得权力”，这明显背离了外交礼仪。当然特朗普和格伦内尔支持的欧洲人并非真正的保守派，而是反动派。他们的目标是扭转我们欧洲人在推进我们共同项目方面取得的进展。

显然，当特朗普能够与其他国家进行双边接触时，他会感到更自在。因此多边主义的堡垒——欧盟不受他的欢迎。但是，欧洲和美国在相互支持的同时，在以共同准则为基础的机构框架内运作时，一直是最成功的。特朗普对分而治之策略的偏好，催生了一种只会产生输家的游戏，从西方开始，到世界末日。

——————————

After the recent G7 summit in Quebec, there can no longer be any doubt that the West is in crisis. Yes, “Western” countries have often pursued divergent foreign policies (as illustrated by the Iraq War), and “the West” is itself a vague concept. But it is one that rests on a set of common ideological pillars, which are now crumbling under the weight of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Trump and his coreligionists’ incessant slandering of allies – “we cannot let our friends take advantage of us” – is leaving its mark. Putting aside his apparently unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump seems prepared to destroy the essential strategic understanding that the US has long maintained vis-à-vis its allies.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable for the US to refuse to sign a joint G7 communiqué. Nor would anyone have thought that an American administration could attack a Canadian leader using the languagethat Trump and his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, recently directed at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

After his summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Singapore, Trump insisted that he has a “good relationship” with Trudeau. Yet he hastened to add that he also has “a very good relationship with Chairman Kim right now.” Suggesting that US relations with these two leaders are comparable is not just clumsy; it is absolutely foolish, and reflects a chilling lack of perspective on Trump’s part.

If bad manners were the only issue with the Trump administration, we could all rest easier. But that administration is also pursuing concrete policies that are undercutting America’s most important alliances. The US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and the European Union made reaching a consensus at the recent G7 summit all but impossible.

Trump’ tariffs will hurt not only foreign exporters, but also US workers and firms in sectors that depend on steel and aluminum inputs. Yet Trump seems impervious to facts and economic logic. To justify his self-defeating policies, he cherry picks isolated cases such as Canada’s high tariffs on dairy products, presenting them without any context, while overlooking the fact that America’s weighted average tariff rate is actually higher than that of the EU, Japan, and Canada.

While the G7 summit was descending into mutual recrimination, another highly significant meeting was taking place on the other side of the world. In the Chinese city of Qingdao, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – comprising China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – was holding its annual summit. And as the Communist Party of China’s main official newspaper took pleasure in noting, the encounter between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin was far more cordial than the one between Trump and the other G7 leaders.

Understandably, Trump drew additional fire at the G7 summit when he suggested that the group readmit Russia, which was kicked out after its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Still, he was touching on something that can no longer be ignored: the excessive compartmentalization of geopolitical clubs. The fragmentation of global governance is likely to prove increasingly unfavorable to Western interests. Rather than recede toward isolation and diminished influence on the world stage, Western leaders should expand the scope and scale of cooperation in the search for solutions to global problems. To that end, they should promote forums for dialogue – such as the G20 – that bring together today’s major powers.

But Trump’s conciliatory approach toward Russia faces tall hurdles. Putin’s foreign policy has become increasingly hostile to Western security arrangements, and Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin has given rise to serious concerns, domestically and internationally. This has been exacerbated by his arrogance toward America’s European allies.

To be sure, after some hesitation, Trump did affirm his commitment to NATO’s mutual-defense clause last year. But that doesn’t mean tensions have dissipated: Trump has continued to demand that other NATO members increase their military spending. What Trump doesn’t seem to understand is that such spending increases would go not toward the NATO budget or toward paying America for its protection, but rather toward enhancing each country’s own defense capabilities.

In fact, the EU has already established the so-called Permanent Structured Cooperation to increase security and defense resources and use them in a collective – and thus more efficient – manner. The Trump administration should welcome such measures. And yet it seems to respond with skepticism to every joint initiative that the EU launches.

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, Trump supported the United Kingdom’s bid to withdraw from the EU. Since taking office, his administration has not hesitated to weaken the bloc whenever it can. Just a few days ago, Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, said that he is working to “empower other conservatives in Europe” – a clear departure from diplomatic protocol. Of course, the Europeans whom Trump and Grenell would support are not really conservatives, but reactionaries. Their goal is to reverse the progress that we Europeans have made in advancing our shared project.

Trump evidently feels more comfortable when he can engage with other countries bilaterally. It is little wonder that the EU – a bastion of multilateralism – is not to his liking. But Europe and America have always been most successful when they have supported each other, while operating within a framework of institutions based on shared norms. Trump’s preference for a divide-and-rule strategy produces a game that will create only losers, beginning with the West and ending with the world at large.