论文部分内容阅读
the international community has long been accustomed to living in a globalized， U.S.-dominated world. While many are aware of the turmoil and injustices caused by the United States， they may also worry about what a world would look like without the world’s only super power. U.S. President Barack Obama seems inclined to lead the country onto a path that lies somewhere between isolationism and interventionism， enraging right-wing hawks in Washington and provoking a backlash amid fears of the gradual rise of emerging countries， including China. another point of concern is that Beijing and Washington have yet to conceive a mature strategy for mutual interaction， which is necessary for their ability to avoid risky exchanges.
A change of heart？
For the past six years， the Obama administration has focused more on domestic affairs and tried to settle international disputes through mediation and negotiation rather than conflict. However， the complicated realities of global politics have poured cold water on his idealist diplomacy. The relationship between the United States and its European ally Germany has cooled following revelations of eavesdropping and spying； the divergence between the Obama administration and Israel over the Palestinian issue has estranged their alliance； Obama’s commitment to protecting allies in asia is seen as empty talk； and his efforts to address the crises in Ukraine and Iraq have been interpreted as ineffective. The whole world seems to be asking the same question： Can the United States continue to lead the world？
In a speech at West Point in May， Obama reaffirmed his commitment to maintaining U.S. global leadership. He dismissed suggestions that the United States is in decline as either a misreading of history or pure partisanship. He argued that military action cannot be the only component of U.S. power， calling for a broadening of tools to include diplomacy and development； sanctions and isolation； international law and—if just， necessary， and effective—multilateral military action. Obama’s speech， however， won little praise domestically and was mocked overseas.
When Obama first took office in 2008， the United States was still bogged down with wars in Iraq and afghanistan， and was facing the most serious financial crisis since World War II. Considering these immense challenges， it is unfair to say that the Obama administration has achieved nothing in the past six years. at home， the U.S. economy will soon recover all the 8.7 million jobs lost in the crisis and healthcare reform was passed in spite of intense Republican opposition. On a global scale， his administration has not only moved to end the two wars in Iraq and afghanistan but also initiated a strategic shift to address new perceived dangers—the rising powers and diversified security threats. However， Obama’s inauguration undoubtedly came at a bad time—the United States had just entered a new readjustment cycle； polarized political parties created legislative gridlock； and the international landscape underwent the biggest shift in 30 years. The president’s eight-year tenure is simply not long enough for Obama to cure all of the U.S. “diseases，” such as a widening income gap， a shrinking middle class， complicated post-World War II partnerships， as well as difficult relations between the established power and rising powers. It is generally acknowledged that the United States will need at least 10 years to regain confidence in its economy and foreign strategy. The public will have to endure the consequences of the economic recession and income gap for years to come. Meanwhile， a sharp increase in the partisan divide is sure to continue. In the long run， Obama may come to be seen as a placeholder in the long-term national strategic transition of the United States.
Interaction with China
High-ranking officials in the Obama administration acknowledge that the rapid rise of China is the most important side issue of the “U.S. decline” as well as a reason for the spreading pessimism in Washington. On the one hand， these patriots find solace by claiming that the United States still possesses an unparalleled military， a strong economy， innovative industries and institutional advantages. and on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean， Chinese officials and scholars are also making careful assessments regarding whether the Obama administration is really weak in foreign affairs， or if the supposed “decline” is mere posturing. For a rising power， its interpretation of the strategic trend of the established power is critical for shaping its own foreign strategy.
Many foreign policy watchers foresee a period of flux. While none of them doubt that the United States will continue to be the primary world power， an increasing number believe that U.S. power is shrinking—or at least is being detracted—and that the strength gap between China and the United States is narrowing， providing an unprecedented strategic opportunity for China to gain the status of a major power. China hopes to be involved in international affairs more creatively and safeguard its legitimate rights and interests， rather than reacting passively in maritime disputes with some neighboring countries. The internal and external conundrums of the United States have undoubtedly contributed to the boost in China’s self-confidence.
Washington has interpreted China’s stance in the East China and South China seas as an“aggressive” maritime strategy. To counterbalance China’s influence in the region， the Obama administration has given up its neutral policy over the disputes by welcoming Japan’s lifting of its bans on collective self-defense. The moves in return have instigated Japan， the Philippines and viet Nam in pursuing more radical and provocative actions toward China， further inflaming tensions in East asia. The White House clearly does not want a deteriorating state of Sino-U.S. relations to dominate its long list of problems. Obama’s representatives have seized many opportunities to claim that the United States has no intention to contain China. But the real reason for the U.S. gesture is the deeply intertwined economic interests of the two countries. Washington needs the cooperation of Beijing over a series of major global issues， thus it cannot afford confrontations with China. However， the Obama administration’s “pivot to asia” strategy—aimed at strengthening its alliance with regional countries and reinforcing its military bases—has strongly suggested a policy of containing China， in spite of claims to the contrary.
domestic plight
Obama’s leadership has been the target of fierce criticism since he took office in 2008. Conservative Congress members and interventionists from both the right and left wings have launched a public opinion campaign ahead of this year’s congressional races as well as the preliminary stage of the 2016 general election. Republicans have concentrated their attacks on Obama’s foreign policy， accusing the president of being weak and indecisive in the face of disorder around the globe. They claim Obama’s policies have given the U.S. an image of weakness， and even those who oppose sending troops abroad have criticized the Obama administration for a perceived lack of executive leadership.
Observers in Washington have claimed that the constant barrage of criticism has taken a toll on the president， whose public relations efforts are now laced with cynicism. Perhaps weary of the capital， Obama is often seen at the golf courses or at fundraisers among supporters—far more frequently than his predecessors. as the divide between Democrats and Republicans grows wider than ever， Obama is already heading toward a “lame duck second term.”
A change of heart？
For the past six years， the Obama administration has focused more on domestic affairs and tried to settle international disputes through mediation and negotiation rather than conflict. However， the complicated realities of global politics have poured cold water on his idealist diplomacy. The relationship between the United States and its European ally Germany has cooled following revelations of eavesdropping and spying； the divergence between the Obama administration and Israel over the Palestinian issue has estranged their alliance； Obama’s commitment to protecting allies in asia is seen as empty talk； and his efforts to address the crises in Ukraine and Iraq have been interpreted as ineffective. The whole world seems to be asking the same question： Can the United States continue to lead the world？
In a speech at West Point in May， Obama reaffirmed his commitment to maintaining U.S. global leadership. He dismissed suggestions that the United States is in decline as either a misreading of history or pure partisanship. He argued that military action cannot be the only component of U.S. power， calling for a broadening of tools to include diplomacy and development； sanctions and isolation； international law and—if just， necessary， and effective—multilateral military action. Obama’s speech， however， won little praise domestically and was mocked overseas.
When Obama first took office in 2008， the United States was still bogged down with wars in Iraq and afghanistan， and was facing the most serious financial crisis since World War II. Considering these immense challenges， it is unfair to say that the Obama administration has achieved nothing in the past six years. at home， the U.S. economy will soon recover all the 8.7 million jobs lost in the crisis and healthcare reform was passed in spite of intense Republican opposition. On a global scale， his administration has not only moved to end the two wars in Iraq and afghanistan but also initiated a strategic shift to address new perceived dangers—the rising powers and diversified security threats. However， Obama’s inauguration undoubtedly came at a bad time—the United States had just entered a new readjustment cycle； polarized political parties created legislative gridlock； and the international landscape underwent the biggest shift in 30 years. The president’s eight-year tenure is simply not long enough for Obama to cure all of the U.S. “diseases，” such as a widening income gap， a shrinking middle class， complicated post-World War II partnerships， as well as difficult relations between the established power and rising powers. It is generally acknowledged that the United States will need at least 10 years to regain confidence in its economy and foreign strategy. The public will have to endure the consequences of the economic recession and income gap for years to come. Meanwhile， a sharp increase in the partisan divide is sure to continue. In the long run， Obama may come to be seen as a placeholder in the long-term national strategic transition of the United States.
Interaction with China
High-ranking officials in the Obama administration acknowledge that the rapid rise of China is the most important side issue of the “U.S. decline” as well as a reason for the spreading pessimism in Washington. On the one hand， these patriots find solace by claiming that the United States still possesses an unparalleled military， a strong economy， innovative industries and institutional advantages. and on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean， Chinese officials and scholars are also making careful assessments regarding whether the Obama administration is really weak in foreign affairs， or if the supposed “decline” is mere posturing. For a rising power， its interpretation of the strategic trend of the established power is critical for shaping its own foreign strategy.
Many foreign policy watchers foresee a period of flux. While none of them doubt that the United States will continue to be the primary world power， an increasing number believe that U.S. power is shrinking—or at least is being detracted—and that the strength gap between China and the United States is narrowing， providing an unprecedented strategic opportunity for China to gain the status of a major power. China hopes to be involved in international affairs more creatively and safeguard its legitimate rights and interests， rather than reacting passively in maritime disputes with some neighboring countries. The internal and external conundrums of the United States have undoubtedly contributed to the boost in China’s self-confidence.
Washington has interpreted China’s stance in the East China and South China seas as an“aggressive” maritime strategy. To counterbalance China’s influence in the region， the Obama administration has given up its neutral policy over the disputes by welcoming Japan’s lifting of its bans on collective self-defense. The moves in return have instigated Japan， the Philippines and viet Nam in pursuing more radical and provocative actions toward China， further inflaming tensions in East asia. The White House clearly does not want a deteriorating state of Sino-U.S. relations to dominate its long list of problems. Obama’s representatives have seized many opportunities to claim that the United States has no intention to contain China. But the real reason for the U.S. gesture is the deeply intertwined economic interests of the two countries. Washington needs the cooperation of Beijing over a series of major global issues， thus it cannot afford confrontations with China. However， the Obama administration’s “pivot to asia” strategy—aimed at strengthening its alliance with regional countries and reinforcing its military bases—has strongly suggested a policy of containing China， in spite of claims to the contrary.
domestic plight
Obama’s leadership has been the target of fierce criticism since he took office in 2008. Conservative Congress members and interventionists from both the right and left wings have launched a public opinion campaign ahead of this year’s congressional races as well as the preliminary stage of the 2016 general election. Republicans have concentrated their attacks on Obama’s foreign policy， accusing the president of being weak and indecisive in the face of disorder around the globe. They claim Obama’s policies have given the U.S. an image of weakness， and even those who oppose sending troops abroad have criticized the Obama administration for a perceived lack of executive leadership.
Observers in Washington have claimed that the constant barrage of criticism has taken a toll on the president， whose public relations efforts are now laced with cynicism. Perhaps weary of the capital， Obama is often seen at the golf courses or at fundraisers among supporters—far more frequently than his predecessors. as the divide between Democrats and Republicans grows wider than ever， Obama is already heading toward a “lame duck second term.”