论文部分内容阅读
The stunning victory of Donald Trump marks a new phase in United States politics. He appealed to the working class and to the dwindling middle class which was crushed by Wall Street’s domination. He inspired the revolt of Main Street against international finance capitalism. His victory has domestic and international implications.
What happened？
Trump’s victory is bigger than Brexit， but it is rooted in the same rejection by the common people of business as usual by elite politicians owned by Wall Street and the City of London.
This repudiation is part of a larger awakening in the Western world of a group which is opposed to uncontrolled finance capitalism and to its malignant influence over Western politics and economics.
The same phenomenon that catapulted Trump to victory in the United States， and Brexit supporters to victory in the United Kingdom， is on display in continental Europe. In France， in Greece， in Italy， in Portugal， and in Spain， millions of citizens are rallying against the financiers and their dominance over national and European politics.
In Eastern Europe， voters in several countries elect leaders who defend their national sovereignty against the schemes of international casino capitalists. In Russia， the people are behind President Vladimir Putin and his strong patriotic leadership.
Overall， it is clear that in the West， significant numbers of voters are dismissing uncontrolled finance capitalism as a suitable model for economic and social organization. Instead， people want to liberate productive forces in society and in the economy and orient them toward peaceful development.
So it is no wonder that Trump has triumphed. The American people have been ill-served and exploited by incompetent politicians subservient to Wall Street during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
This election was a chance to strike back against massive corruption， endless war， and economic and social decline. Like President Ronald Reagan， Trump gathered the blue collar working class vote， which clearly put him over the top in battleground states throughout the Rust Belt such as Michigan， Pennsylvania， and Ohio.
This is not a new phenomenon by any means if seen in the context of American history. During the latter part of the 19th century， millions of voters backed populist and progressive forces opposing Wall Street. For example， President Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin， President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported progressive policies against monopolistic financial and industrial interests. A new foreign policy？
Trump’s victory， like Brexit， came as a surprise to ruling elites who thought they controlled the political process. A little over a year ago， it was common wisdom among mainstream pundits and the corporate press that 2016 would see Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush.
In this game of financier-controlled puppets， Wall Street hoped to win either way because both candidates would continue the same basic domestic and foreign policy trend of their predecessors.
But Jeb Bush and the entire Republican Party array of candidates collapsed except for Trump， who gained in strength throughout the nation. He won because he is a maverick outside the corruption of the present party system.
The establishment elites in finance， media， and entertainment joined forces to block Trump and to support Clinton. Significantly， foreign policy experts who supposedly were Republican shifted over to the Clinton campaign and condemned Trump.
This behind-the-scenes move grew out of the remains of the 2012 Mitt Romney election campaign. Back then， within the Republican Party， a foreign policy network led by neoconservatives coalesced around the candidate. After his defeat， this network looked ahead and morphed into a group that advised almost all of the 2016 election’s Republican candidates. All except Trump that is.
What has been at stake in foreign policy is a continuation of the hawkish U.S. policy of imperialism in support of unipolar hegemony. The mantra of the foreign policy establishment is that because the United States “won” World War II， it had the right to step into the shoes of the former British Empire to become the selfappointed “indispensable” state in charge of organizing and policing world order.
In contrast to this imperial vision， Trump in his first major foreign policy speech rejected conventional foreign policy. He called into question the utility of obsolete Cold War alliance structures. He denounced hawkish foreign policy networks such as those led by neoconservatives. He called for a new form of diplomacy which emphasizes negotiation rather than coercion.
In this context， Trump became well known for his view that U.S.-Russia relations must be truly reset on a sustainable basis. He constantly emphasizes that， as a businessman， he is focused on negotiations and winwin outcomes.
This working style can be appropriately translated into constructive foreign policy and statesmanship. Instead of the foreign policy incompetence and failures of the Bush-Obama administrations， it is possible that the United States can now provide positive input and cooperation to solve pressing challenges facing the international community. What about Asia？
Trump has indicated that U.S. allies in Europe and in Asia need to do more for themselves. He correctly notes that the present arrangements are an economic burden to the United States at a time when the U.S. financial system and economy are in a shambles.
As to U.S.-China relations， like all U.S. politicians at election time， he has called into question China’s currency and trade policies. But once in office it is likely that he will gain a better understanding of the economic situation and of the benefits of cooperation.
His emphasis on negotiation rather than on coercion gives some hope that intensive but friendly dialogue and discussion can solve many problems.
As Trump becomes more familiar with the overall Asian situation and the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative development concept， it is possible that he will want to participate in its evolution.
The Obama administration not only rejected the Belt and Road Initiative， but actively sought to undermine it through diplomacy and coercion by various means. Trump as a businessman should see that there are great opportunities for U.S. interaction with the development strategy.
Trump will have to reverse the negative effects of the so-called “pivot to Asia” policy. This will require some new thinking to be sure.
For example， Washington must update its overall Pacific policy. During the failed BushObama years， the continuation of Cold War alliance structures was at the center of strategic policy. But these old alliances are obsolete in the present changing international situation.
Today， current trends are clearly leading toward a multipolar or polycentric international system. The international community wants peace and development， not dangerous and destabilizing Cold War geopolitics.
To say that these Cold War alliances are obsolete does not mean that the United States will become unfriendly to allies such as Japan， Australia， New Zealand， or the Philippines. It simply means that the old“hub and spokes” alliance structure must be updated and replaced with new forms of mutually beneficial cooperation.
To update U.S. Pacific policy， it is logical that in the emerging multipolar world， future policies must be based on cooperation with major powers. To create a peaceful and prosperous Pacific Community， the United States must work on a win-win basis with China， Japan， and Russia， for example. When thinking about a Pacific Community concept， the upcoming Trump administration must think holistically about the entire Pacific basin. This means not only that the eastern and southern Pacific be considered， but also that the Americas—from Canada to Chile—be taken into account.
From an American perspective， there is nothing new in this. In fact， this has been the traditional American viewpoint reaching back as far as the days of President George Washington. Being good neighbors in the Americas and engaging in peaceful and mutually beneficial commerce with Asia was the core geostrategic concept of the early American Republic.
After the American Revolution， and even before the creation of the constitutional republic， the first U.S. ship to visit China back in 1784 was named The Empress of China， and it departed New York City harbor on George Washington’s birthday.
It can be hoped that the new U.S. president hailing from New York City can revive this spirit of friendship and win-win commerce and cooperation.
When looking toward the next steps in the U.S. political process， people will first witness what is called the “transition” phase， which envelops the time between the presidential election and the day the new president takes office in January next year.
So during the coming weeks， presidentelect Trump will add to his foreign policy team and task it with forming the basic outline of his overall policy. Once in office he will undertake to staff out his administration， but this process takes time and can take a number of months. He will have to review many policies—a complicated and time-consuming governmental process.
Although U.S. foreign policy tends not to shift dramatically in short time frames， Trump must begin to implement his vision in a timely and businesslike manner. Meanwhile， the whole world will be watching and hoping for real change in Washington.
What happened？
Trump’s victory is bigger than Brexit， but it is rooted in the same rejection by the common people of business as usual by elite politicians owned by Wall Street and the City of London.
This repudiation is part of a larger awakening in the Western world of a group which is opposed to uncontrolled finance capitalism and to its malignant influence over Western politics and economics.
The same phenomenon that catapulted Trump to victory in the United States， and Brexit supporters to victory in the United Kingdom， is on display in continental Europe. In France， in Greece， in Italy， in Portugal， and in Spain， millions of citizens are rallying against the financiers and their dominance over national and European politics.
In Eastern Europe， voters in several countries elect leaders who defend their national sovereignty against the schemes of international casino capitalists. In Russia， the people are behind President Vladimir Putin and his strong patriotic leadership.
Overall， it is clear that in the West， significant numbers of voters are dismissing uncontrolled finance capitalism as a suitable model for economic and social organization. Instead， people want to liberate productive forces in society and in the economy and orient them toward peaceful development.
So it is no wonder that Trump has triumphed. The American people have been ill-served and exploited by incompetent politicians subservient to Wall Street during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
This election was a chance to strike back against massive corruption， endless war， and economic and social decline. Like President Ronald Reagan， Trump gathered the blue collar working class vote， which clearly put him over the top in battleground states throughout the Rust Belt such as Michigan， Pennsylvania， and Ohio.
This is not a new phenomenon by any means if seen in the context of American history. During the latter part of the 19th century， millions of voters backed populist and progressive forces opposing Wall Street. For example， President Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin， President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported progressive policies against monopolistic financial and industrial interests. A new foreign policy？
Trump’s victory， like Brexit， came as a surprise to ruling elites who thought they controlled the political process. A little over a year ago， it was common wisdom among mainstream pundits and the corporate press that 2016 would see Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush.
In this game of financier-controlled puppets， Wall Street hoped to win either way because both candidates would continue the same basic domestic and foreign policy trend of their predecessors.
But Jeb Bush and the entire Republican Party array of candidates collapsed except for Trump， who gained in strength throughout the nation. He won because he is a maverick outside the corruption of the present party system.
The establishment elites in finance， media， and entertainment joined forces to block Trump and to support Clinton. Significantly， foreign policy experts who supposedly were Republican shifted over to the Clinton campaign and condemned Trump.
This behind-the-scenes move grew out of the remains of the 2012 Mitt Romney election campaign. Back then， within the Republican Party， a foreign policy network led by neoconservatives coalesced around the candidate. After his defeat， this network looked ahead and morphed into a group that advised almost all of the 2016 election’s Republican candidates. All except Trump that is.
What has been at stake in foreign policy is a continuation of the hawkish U.S. policy of imperialism in support of unipolar hegemony. The mantra of the foreign policy establishment is that because the United States “won” World War II， it had the right to step into the shoes of the former British Empire to become the selfappointed “indispensable” state in charge of organizing and policing world order.
In contrast to this imperial vision， Trump in his first major foreign policy speech rejected conventional foreign policy. He called into question the utility of obsolete Cold War alliance structures. He denounced hawkish foreign policy networks such as those led by neoconservatives. He called for a new form of diplomacy which emphasizes negotiation rather than coercion.
In this context， Trump became well known for his view that U.S.-Russia relations must be truly reset on a sustainable basis. He constantly emphasizes that， as a businessman， he is focused on negotiations and winwin outcomes.
This working style can be appropriately translated into constructive foreign policy and statesmanship. Instead of the foreign policy incompetence and failures of the Bush-Obama administrations， it is possible that the United States can now provide positive input and cooperation to solve pressing challenges facing the international community. What about Asia？
Trump has indicated that U.S. allies in Europe and in Asia need to do more for themselves. He correctly notes that the present arrangements are an economic burden to the United States at a time when the U.S. financial system and economy are in a shambles.
As to U.S.-China relations， like all U.S. politicians at election time， he has called into question China’s currency and trade policies. But once in office it is likely that he will gain a better understanding of the economic situation and of the benefits of cooperation.
His emphasis on negotiation rather than on coercion gives some hope that intensive but friendly dialogue and discussion can solve many problems.
As Trump becomes more familiar with the overall Asian situation and the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative development concept， it is possible that he will want to participate in its evolution.
The Obama administration not only rejected the Belt and Road Initiative， but actively sought to undermine it through diplomacy and coercion by various means. Trump as a businessman should see that there are great opportunities for U.S. interaction with the development strategy.
Trump will have to reverse the negative effects of the so-called “pivot to Asia” policy. This will require some new thinking to be sure.
For example， Washington must update its overall Pacific policy. During the failed BushObama years， the continuation of Cold War alliance structures was at the center of strategic policy. But these old alliances are obsolete in the present changing international situation.
Today， current trends are clearly leading toward a multipolar or polycentric international system. The international community wants peace and development， not dangerous and destabilizing Cold War geopolitics.
To say that these Cold War alliances are obsolete does not mean that the United States will become unfriendly to allies such as Japan， Australia， New Zealand， or the Philippines. It simply means that the old“hub and spokes” alliance structure must be updated and replaced with new forms of mutually beneficial cooperation.
To update U.S. Pacific policy， it is logical that in the emerging multipolar world， future policies must be based on cooperation with major powers. To create a peaceful and prosperous Pacific Community， the United States must work on a win-win basis with China， Japan， and Russia， for example. When thinking about a Pacific Community concept， the upcoming Trump administration must think holistically about the entire Pacific basin. This means not only that the eastern and southern Pacific be considered， but also that the Americas—from Canada to Chile—be taken into account.
From an American perspective， there is nothing new in this. In fact， this has been the traditional American viewpoint reaching back as far as the days of President George Washington. Being good neighbors in the Americas and engaging in peaceful and mutually beneficial commerce with Asia was the core geostrategic concept of the early American Republic.
After the American Revolution， and even before the creation of the constitutional republic， the first U.S. ship to visit China back in 1784 was named The Empress of China， and it departed New York City harbor on George Washington’s birthday.
It can be hoped that the new U.S. president hailing from New York City can revive this spirit of friendship and win-win commerce and cooperation.
When looking toward the next steps in the U.S. political process， people will first witness what is called the “transition” phase， which envelops the time between the presidential election and the day the new president takes office in January next year.
So during the coming weeks， presidentelect Trump will add to his foreign policy team and task it with forming the basic outline of his overall policy. Once in office he will undertake to staff out his administration， but this process takes time and can take a number of months. He will have to review many policies—a complicated and time-consuming governmental process.
Although U.S. foreign policy tends not to shift dramatically in short time frames， Trump must begin to implement his vision in a timely and businesslike manner. Meanwhile， the whole world will be watching and hoping for real change in Washington.