布鲁斯·阿克曼：美国对德日的战略错误将贻害世界和平

第二次世界大战后，德国和日本的复苏非常漫长。两国均经受了屈辱的军事占领，并做出不再威胁和平的保证，才重新获得主权。德国新宪法规定，只有在防卫或在集体安全协作时才有权动用军事力量。日本宪法第九条则更进一步，“永远放弃以国权发动的战争、武力威胁或武力行使作为解决国际争端的手段。”

战后国际格局正在我们眼前瓦解。德国和日本经历过二战的一辈人逐渐逝去。崛起的后辈们以新的方式定义他们的根本利益；1989年以后，他们无法再指望美国替他们去战斗。事实上，美国发动的军事干预——比如伊拉克战争——可能极大地损害了德国与日本的国家利益。

间谍丑闻严重伤害了美德关系

美国与德日之间逐渐疏远，如美国找不到一条具有创造性的驭国之道，一些具体问题会使长期存在的谅解遭到更深的质疑。不出一二十年，战后合作伙伴很可能不再志同道合。多年来，美国与德日的伙伴关系一直是联结当代世界的枢纽，正因如此，奥巴马政府才会理所当然地假定这种关系将继续保持稳定；也正因如此，五角大楼和中情局才得以无视政治根本面，主导美国的关键对外政策。

上周的新闻已向美国证明，继续以自动驾驶模式应对与德日的关系，将是危险的。让我们先说德国。在冷战期间，为了对抗共产主义的威胁，中央情报局曾渗透西德政府。如果说这还算名正言顺的话，那么时至今日，普京针对德国的间谍活动已不构成重大威胁，我们应该相信德国完全有能力应对。可中情局却无视基本前提，对德国的监控一点没落下。

更糟糕的是，当默克尔要求中情局柏林站站长离开德国时，美国政府摆出了一副不屑一顾的姿态——认为中情局的作为符合“情报界”的标准作业程序，默克尔的公开指责乃小题大做。奥巴马本应该借此机会好好安抚德国——要知道，只有27%的德国人认为美国“值得信赖”，而有多达46%德国人视美国为“具有侵略性的大国”。

美国支持安倍解禁集体自卫权，将会助长日本野心。图为今年4月，安倍在寿司店请奥巴马喝清酒

在日本问题上，美国国家安全机构的倾向将造成更具破坏性的影响。日本首相安倍晋三是个顽固的民族主义者，在他的领导下，自民党极力抹黑和平宪法，宣称其为美占时期麦克阿瑟非法强加于日本的畸形产物。安倍的第一个目标是宪法和平条款。一开始，他试图通过宪法框架内的公投来修订宪法。在这一举措招致舆论和议会重重反对后，他改弦易辙，设法通过违宪手段达到同样的目的。

7月1日，安倍悍然推翻前两代人的宪法解释，宣布其政府将“重新解释”宪法第九条，允许日本拥有宪法声明将“永远”放弃的“武力威胁或武力行使”权。

此举已引发自1960年代以来最大的抗议示威活动，并招致日本民众的极力反对。作为回应，日本政府许诺将进行更慎重的讨论，并修改了原定于九月执行的立法计划。

如果美国坐视安倍成功修宪，他对宪法激进的修改将为自民党开启先河，而后者早欲破除日本宪法对政治和公民权利的根本承诺。兹事体大、攸关者众，数月后日本将迎来其现代史上最重要的大辩论之一。

在此关键性时刻，美国国防部长哈格尔选择了介入——可他竟然站在错误的立场上。在上周五美国军方的新闻发布会上，他宣称美国政府“大力支持”安倍政府“大胆的、历史性的、标志性的决定”，对其涉及的严重的宪法问题竟只字未提。

哈格尔表态对美国的标志性意义，并不亚于安倍修宪对日本的意义——它推翻了前两代美国人极力促成的宪法秩序程序。鉴于安倍晋三逆袭宪法的划时代意义，美国的立场轮不到哈格尔在五角大楼新闻发布会上来宣布。日本修宪将给亚洲自由民主的未来造成毁灭性打击，美国总统应在与国务卿深入商议后，由奥巴马本人在白宫针对此事表态。

但克里和奥巴马都忙于在中东和其他地方救火，没工夫思考宏观战略的大问题。德国间谍丑闻与日本修宪这两件事，均反映出美国无意反思调整战后伙伴关系，一再纵容国家安全机构染指重大对外政策。

上周的新闻为美国敲响了警钟。奥巴马政府必须学会分辨轻重缓急。美国若不重新思考二战后建立伙伴关系，等待我们的将是一个日益威权的日本和与我们离心离德的德国——二十世纪美国最伟大的遗产将毁于一旦。

（本文原刊于2014年7月15日赫芬顿世界邮报，原标题America's Tragic Turn in Germany and Japan；杨晗轶/译，作者为耶鲁大学法学与政治学教授）

英文原文：

America's Tragic Turn in Germany and Japan

Bruce Ackerman

It's taken a long time for Germany and Japan to recover from the Second World War. After enduring the indignity of military occupation, they regained sovereignty only by guaranteeing against future threats to peace. Germany's new constitution only authorized military force in self-defense or in collaboration with collective security agreements. Japan's Article Nine went further, "forever renounc[ing] ... the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes."

This post-war settlement is unraveling before our eyes. Germans and Japanese who lived through the 1940s are passing away. Rising generations are defining their fundamental interests in new ways; and, after 1989, they can't count on the United States to fight on their behalf. Indeed, American military interventions may be profoundly damaging to their national interests, as the Iraqi tragedy suggests.

The stage has been set for an escalating cycle of estrangement. Without creative statecraft, particular problems will provoke deeper doubts about long-established understandings. Within a decade or two, post-war partners may well be viewing one another with deep suspicion. Yet, precisely because the American partnerships with Germany and Japan have been fixtures of the modern world, the Obama Administration implicitly supposes that they will continue to remain stable in the future -- allowing the Pentagon and CIA to dominate key decisions without rethinking political fundamentals.

The last week's news demonstrates the danger of proceeding on auto-pilot. Begin with Germany. During the Cold War, it made sense for the CIA to counter the on-going Communist effort to infiltrate the West German government. But we should trust modern Germany to handle the far lesser threats posed by Putin's espionage operations. Yet the CIA continues with business-as-usual, without rethinking basic premises.

Worse yet, when Angela Merkel responded by demanding the departure of the CIA's chief of mission, the administration was dismissive -- expressing annoyance that Merkel had publicly denounced a practice that the "intelligence community" views as standard-operating-procedure. Obama should instead view Merkel's gesture as an occasion to take dramatic steps to reassure a country in which only 27% of the public views the United States as trustworthy, and 46% consider it an aggressive power.

The national security mindset is having yet more damaging effects in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is an unreconstructed nationalist, who is leading his Liberal Democratic Party on a campaign to discredit Japan's post-war Constitution as an illegitimate imposition of the MacCarthur occupation. His first target is the Peace Article, which he initially sought to repudiate by calling a referendum as provided under the Constitution. When this initiative generated broad popular and parliamentary resistance, he switched gears and is now trying to achieve the same end by unconstitutional means.

On July 1, Abe announced that his government would "reinterpret" Article Nine to allow the "the threat or use of force" that the Constitution renounced "forever," repudiating two generations of contrary legal understanding.

This move has precipitated the largest protest demonstrations since the 1960s, as well as dramatic shows of public disapproval in opinion polls. In response, the government has revised its plan to push through implementing legislation in September, and has now promised a more deliberate debate.

If Abe is allowed to succeed, his radical reinterpretation will serve as a precedent for the Liberal Democratic Party's announced plans to break free of Japan's constitutional commitments to fundamental political and civil rights. With the stakes so high, the coming months will see one of the most important debates in modern Japanese history.

Yet this is just the moment that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has chosen to intervene -- and on the wrong side. At a Pentagon news conference last Friday, he announced the administration's "strong support" for the "bold, historic, landmark decision" of the Abe government, without mentioning the grave constitutional issues involved.

This announcement represents a landmark for the United States no less than Japan -- repudiating a constitutional order that America has helped promote for two generations. Given the epochal significance of Abe's constitutional coup, it should not have been left to Hagel to announce America's position at a Pentagon press conference. The president himself should have addressed the matter at the White House, after consulting with his Secretary of State on its devastating impact on the future of liberal democracy in Asia.

But Kerry and Obama are too busy fighting fires in the Middle East and elsewhere to focus on large questions of grand strategy. As in the case of the German spy scandal, they are allowing the national security establishment to proceed without rethinking the terms of the post-war partnership.

Last week's news was a wake-up call. The administration must learn to distinguish the urgent from the truly fundamental. Unless it rethinks our traditional post-war partnerships, it risks an authoritarian Japan and a profoundly alienated Germany -- destroying one of the greatest legacies of the twentieth century.

原文链接：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ackerman/americas-tragic-turn-in-g_b_5587493.html