U.S. President Barack Obama presented world leaders at the United Nations with an image of America as a reluctant superpower, ready to confront Iran's nukes and kill its enemies with targeted drone strikes, but unprepared to embark on open-ended military missions in Syria and other troubled countries. That, he hinted, should give the world cause for anxiety.
"The United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries," he said in his address before the 193-member General Assembly. "The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn't borne out by America's current policy or public opinion."
Obama said that "the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war -- rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world -- may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill."
Obama said that for the time being, American foreign-policy priorities in the Middle East will focus primarily on two key priorities: "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the region's problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace."
In addressing the conflict in Syria, Obama said U.S. aims were largely humanitarian.
"There's no 'great game' to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe haven for terrorists," he said.
Obama affirmed his commitment to the U.S.-Russian plan to place the Assad regime's chemical weapons under international control, acknowledging that the Syrian president had taken a positive initial step by declaring his stockpiles.
"My preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue," he said, stressing the importance of a Security Council resolution that will hold Assad to his commitments. "There must be consequences if they fail to do so," he said. "If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws."
The president presented the U.S.-Russian plan as a catalyst for a broader international effort to bring the conflict to an end, but emphasized that America should not determine who will eventually lead in Syria. In keeping with his characteristically small-bore approach, he announced an additional $340 million in U.S. humanitarian assistance but shied away from any mention of toppling Bashar al-Assad.
The United States and Russia remain sharply divided over how to implement their chemical weapons agreement; the U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the pact has been delayed several times. The United States insists that Syria face the threat of unspecified "consequences" if it fails to comply with its obligation to disarm, while Russia prefers a more consensual approach that includes no explicit or implicit threat of force.
Speaking before Obama, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the U.N. Security Council to hold the Syrian government to "fully and quickly honor[ing]" the obligations it has undertaken to destroy its chemical weapons, and he pleaded with the Security Council to move forward with an "enforceable" resolution ensuring that Syria complies.
But Ban added that removing unconventional arms can't be the international community's only goal in Syria. "We can hardly be satisfied with destroying chemical weapons while the wider war is still destroying Syria. The vast majority of the killing and atrocities have been carried out with conventional weapons," he said.
Ban urged Syria's combatants and their foreign backers to "stop fueling the bloodshed in Syria" and halt all arms shipments to the fighters. "Military victory is an illusion," he said. "The only answer is a political settlement." Ban also raised the possibility of sending U.N. human rights monitors to Syria, where they "could play a useful role in reporting and deterring further violations."
Obama, meanwhile, laid out a rather modest account of American "core interests" in the Middle East and North Africa: countering military aggression against U.S. partners in the region, protecting global energy reserves, and confronting the dual threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
"The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region," he said. "But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action -- particularly with military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with the countries and people of the region."
Accordingly, he defended the U.S. decision to work with Egypt's new military regime, which came to power through a July 3 military coup and launched a bloody crackdown on its political opposition. "Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests," Obama said.
Obama added that he is willing to work even with America's traditional rivals, singling out Iran, to achieve his goals. Speaking several hours before Iranian President Hasan Rouhani was due to address the U.N. General Assembly, Obama offered assurances that "we are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions."
"We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable."
Earlier in the day, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff took to the U.N. podium to blast the massive electronic spying program that Obama has overseen in office. The surveillance, she claimed, constitutes a breach of international law and an affront to America's allies. Obama sought to assure leaders like her that he is listening. "We have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share," Obama said. But he went on to defend the controversial eavesdropping effort, saying it was a just approach to combating terrorism by a superpower that is "shifting away from a perpetual war-footing."
演变中的“奥巴马主义”
25/09/2013｜DAVID E. SANGER｜纽约时报
五年来，美国总统奥巴马在公众面前面对这个问题时一直感到相当纠结：美国什么时候愿意出面担当世界警察？而他什么时候会要求别国冲锋在前，或者至少分担这种行动产生的风险、代价和反感情绪？
他曾向阿富汗大幅增兵，此后又很快扭转了立场，加速撤军进程，同时宣称“是时候集中力量，致力于本国的国家建设了”。他一度短暂地加入了制止利比亚屠杀的武装行动，但很快就撤离了，而后又拒绝出兵叙利亚——在他看来，该国那场复杂得多的内战只可能成为一滩泥沼。
他周二在联合国的演讲，显示出了一些人所说的“奥巴马主义”(Obama Doctrine)再度发生嬗变的方式。
奥巴马的第一届任期里，界定这种原则的内涵的，是他在美国受到直接威胁时的从容应对，而同时又毫不讳言他不愿将美国的力量用在旷日持久、耗费国力，而又不紧密涉及本国利益、缺乏盟友支持的冲突中。
而在联合国，奥巴马向众人分享了他的一条结论，这一结论似乎是他在提议对叙利亚造成超过1000多人死亡的化学武器攻击事件采取军事反应，却遭到自己政党的抛弃后得出的。他提出：未来数年世界面临的最大风险，并非美国试图在海外打造其帝国，而是美国若选择退而专注本国事务，将会造成动荡和失序，令世界承受其代价。
最近的一个月是不寻常的：奥巴马先是计划、而后又放弃了以“战斧”式(Tomahawk)导弹袭击叙利亚总统巴沙尔·阿萨德(Bashar al-Assad)的军事设施。而今，奥巴马在周二告诉世界各国领导人，他已再度担当起重任，将以接下来的总统任期致力于两件高风险的外交行动：寻求通过谈判解决与伊朗的对峙，以及为巴勒斯坦人建立一个既独立，又能让以色列与之安然相处、无须畏惧的国家。
在奥巴马的首要事务中，明显缺失的是叙利亚问题的长期解决方案。他只是向世界保证，无论是通过谈判还是武力，叙利亚的化学武器储备都不再会被施用，该国也不会成为恐怖组织的乐土。然而，他并未勾画任何长远的策略。
令此任务更为艰巨的是这样一种感受，即美国在该地区的力量已经削弱了——这一部分是因为美军已经撤离了伊拉克，另一部分是因为奥巴马自己的团队在何时介入的问题上分歧严重，还有一部分原因在于奥巴马本人宣称的“转向亚洲”(pivot to Asia)被解读为他放弃中东的证据，无论这种理解正确与否。
这种无奈感的回响可以从他在联合国大会上的讲话中听出来。演讲中，他对那些指责美国在全球打造其帝国的人给出的几乎是嘲讽。他说，即使就在美国“被指责未能做得更多”，并且“对穆斯林民众承受的苦难表现得无动于衷”之时，还有人谴责美国“干预该区域事务，指责其参与了形形色色的阴谋”。
可是，这种争论的某个版本一直以来都在白宫战情室(Situation Room)里反复上演。当时的国防部长罗伯特·盖茨(Robert Gates)和国家安全顾问汤姆·多尼隆(Tom Donilon)对他说，他如果介入利比亚——用盖茨的话说，那是一个美国“并无显著国家利益”所在的国家——简直就是疯了；而国务卿希拉里·罗德姆·克林顿(Hillary Rodham Clinton)和多尼隆日后的继任者苏珊·赖斯(Susan Rice)却提到克林顿总统任内，夺去80万卢旺达人性命的大屠杀，并表示奥巴马不应该允许又一场正在酝酿中的种族灭绝事件发生。
奥巴马很不情愿地同意了，并下令与北约(NATO)和阿拉伯国家联盟(Arab League)一道，对利比亚进行轰炸。
日后，他表示，美国不能坐视不管，因为“我们不是那样的人”。
然而上个月，当他就美国对叙利亚似乎迫在眉睫的军事打击，与幕僚展开争论时，他谈起了当前左右为难的局面，与之前面对的利比亚问题是何等地不同。
“他指出，利比亚问题要简单的多，”一位会谈参与者近期说道。他复述起总统一路经历的各个阶段：起初是试探性地接受一个轰炸计划，然后是未能取得国会授权，最后又转向俄罗斯提出的现行外交方案。“在利比亚问题上，留给他作决定的时间窗口很有限，错过了就为时晚矣。当时他也有联合国安理会决议作为依据。”
这名幕僚称，总统逐一查阅了清单上一长串要点并得出了结论，在叙利亚“这些都是缺失的”。
然而还有一些更深层次的缘由：奥巴马吸取了一些苦涩的教训。他在阿富汗保持驻军的决定，并未增强该地区对美国实力的认可，而利比亚在轰炸结束后也立刻陷入了新的动荡。上周盖茨表示，他从叙利亚对策的周折反复上看出，总统正在从美国十年来所犯错误中汲取教训，并且经历了最为糟糕的过程而得出了正确的结论。
盖茨反问道，“关于军事行动会产生始料未及的后果，难道伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚都没有给我们带来教训吗？”
目前还悬而未决的问题是，奥巴马在经历了十分复杂的五年曲折后，他何时还会再有动武的意愿。现今他所表达是，盟友和区域内的周边国家未能与美国步调一致，这已经对美国民众支持武力行动的意愿产生了持续的侵蚀作用。
的确，在他提出对叙利亚进行极为短暂的军事威胁也遭到国会的抵抗后，看起来已经难以设想，一旦阿萨德背弃交出化学武装的承诺，奥巴马还如何能够令人信服地以武力进行震慑。
伊朗的情况也许有所不同。对奥巴马和他的亲密盟友以色列而言，那里牵扯的利益要重大得多。而且他业已明确表示，不能容许伊朗在他任内取得核武器。问题在于，经历了“奥巴马主义”五年来的多次演变后，伊朗方面是否会相信他。
