特朗普会打破全球秩序吗

The “global rules-based order” is a yawn-inducing phrase but it means something important. All countries in the world, bar a few rogue states, deal with each other according to an agreed set of legal, economic and military rules.

“基于规则的全球秩序”虽然是个乏味的短语，但它在某些方面意义重大。世界上所有国家（除了少数流氓国家）按照一套公认的法律、经济和军事规则相互交往。

Ignore or overturn them and confusion and conflict break out. Some non-western countries have long believed that the phrase is little more than a cloak for US global domination. Since America effectively wrote the rules, it was assumed that the whole system must be biased in favour of the US.

无视或推翻这些规则，就会爆发混乱和冲突。有些非西方国家一直认为，这个短语不过是美国在全球占据支配地位的幌子。既然这些规则实际上是美国拟定的，人们想当然地认为整个体系必然偏袒美国。

But Donald Trump does not see it that way. The US president thinks that clever foreigners have manipulated the international system, so that America now trades at a massive disadvantage and is forced to accept hostile rulings by international tribunals. When it comes to security, Mr Trump complains that America spends billions giving cheap protection to ungrateful allies. He is demanding change.

但唐纳德?特朗普(Donald Trump)不这么看。美国总统认为，聪明的外国人操纵了这个国际体系，以至于让美国如今在贸易方面处于巨大劣势，被迫接受国际法庭作出的敌意裁决。在安全问题上，特朗普抱怨美国花费巨资为那些不懂得感恩的盟友提供廉价保护。他要求改变这一切。

“You break it, you own it,” runs the pottery shop slogan. But when it comes to the global rules-based order, the Trump administration’s view seems to be, “We no longer own it, so we are going to break it.” America is turning against the world it made — and the consequences are unpredictable and potentially dangerous.

“打破了就归你，”瓷器店这样宣称。但当谈到基于规则的全球秩序时，特朗普政府的观点似乎是：“既然它不再属于我们所有，我们就打破它。”美国正与自己塑造的世界“反目”——其后果不可预料，且具有潜在危险性。

The coming year will be a big test of how far the Trump administration is willing to go with the US potentially launching a multi-pronged assault on the international trading system: demanding radical changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, hobbling the World Trade Organization and slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. Tension between the US and South Korea, or within the Nato alliance, could easily surface this year — raising questions about America’s commitment to the rules that govern world security.

未来一年是一个重要关头，美国将有可能对国际贸易体系发起多管齐下的攻击，从中将可以看出，特朗普政府愿意朝着这个方向走多远。可能的攻击包括：要求彻底修改《北美自由贸易协定》(NAFTA)、掣肘世界贸易组织(WTO)，以及对中国商品加征关税。美韩之间的紧张关系，或者北约(Nato)内部的紧张关系，很有可能在今年浮出水面——令人对美国是否会致力于奉行那些维持世界安全的规则产生疑问。

The underlying question is what the world will look like, after a few years of a US administration committed to radical change in the international system.

更深层次的问题是，在美国政府致力于对国际体系进行根本变革的情况下，几年之后，世界将会变成什么样子。

Broadly speaking, there are four possibilities. The first is that America succeeds in getting the changes it wants and the system survives, in a modified form, with the US still the clear global leader.

大致说来，有四种可能。第一种，美国成功地推动了它想要的变革，当前的国际体系以一种修正的形式存续，美国仍是明确的全球领袖。

Option two is that a new system emerges, with the rest of the world operating under multilateral rules and ignoring unilateralist America, as far as possible.

第二种可能是出现一个新体系，世界其他国家在多边规则下运作，尽可能无视奉行单边主义的美国。

The third possibility is that the withdrawal of US leads to a collapse in the rules-based order — and general chaos.

第三种可能是，美国的退出导致基于规则的秩序崩溃——和普遍的混乱。

Option four is that the US is satisfied with essentially cosmetic changes, and the system continues much as it is now.

第四种可能是，美国满足于基本上流于表面的变革，国际体系大体保持现状。

It is too early to say which of these scenarios will prevail. The Trump administration would argue that option one: a changed system — still led by America — is already in the making. Canada and Mexico have entered into negotiations about a revised Nafta. The European members of Nato are increasing their military spending. China will probably make trade concessions, if enough pressure is applied.

现在说哪种情景会成真还为时过早。特朗普政府会辩称，第一种可能——一个仍由美国领导的、变革了的体系——已在酝酿之中。加拿大和墨西哥已经参加了重新修订《北美自由贸易协定》的谈判。北约的欧洲成员国正在增加各自的军费支出。如果施加足够的压力，中国很可能将在贸易方面作出让步。

Set against that, there are also elements of option two — a world without America — emerging. When the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the other 11 members decided to go ahead without America. Last week, Mr Trump signalled that the US might rejoin a revised TPP — but it is probably too late for that. Meanwhile, the EU has been energised by Mr Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric and is now close to concluding trade deals with Japan and with the Mercosur group of South American nations. And China is forging ahead with its Belt and Road initiative, co-operating with other nations to create infrastructure across the Eurasian landmass and the Pacific.

在这种背景下来看，也有推动第二种可能——一个没有美国参与的世界——的因素在显现。美国退出《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP)时，其他11个成员国决定在没有美国的情况下继续推进TPP。上周特朗普发出信号，称美国可能重新加入修订后的TPP——但这可能为时已晚。与此同时，受到特朗普反贸易言论刺激的欧盟，如今正接近与日本以及由南美国家组成的南方共同市场(Mercosur)分别达成贸易协定。而中国正大力推进其“一带一路”(Belt and Road)倡议，在亚欧大陆和太平洋地区与其他国家合作建设基础设施。

However, the US is too important for an effective new world order to be constructed without American participation. That is why there are also strong arguments for option three — chaos.

然而，美国太过重要了，一个有效的世界新秩序不太可能在没有美国参与的情况下构建起来。这就是为什么说出现第三种可能——混乱——也有强有力的依据。

If the Trump administration continues to block the appointment of judges to the WTO’s appellate court, then the entire world trading system will pay a price. There are also certain functions that America performs — in particular, providing military muscle and the world’s reserve currency — that are impossible to replicate under current circumstances.

如果特朗普政府继续阻挠WTO上诉机构法官的任命，那整个世界贸易体系将为此付出代价。美国还发挥了一些特定作用——尤其是在提供军事力量和世界储备货币方面——这些作用在当前形势下是不可复制的。

If the US withdrew its security guarantees in the Pacific, for example, the combined efforts of Japan, India and Australia would not fill the gap. And neither the euro nor the renminbi is ready to serve as the world’s reserve currency, even if America’s management of the dollar becomes irresponsible.

例如，如果美国撤销其对太平洋地区的安全保障，以日本、印度和澳大利亚联合之力是无法填补空白的。而且，即便美国对美元的管理变得不负责任，欧元和人民币都未准备好充当世界储备货币。

But the fact that nothing very serious has yet happened also supplies some evidence for option four — in which the US contents itself with cosmetic changes that allows Mr Trump to claim some “wins”. Big business in America might revolt if the Trump administration does try to break up Nafta. And, whatever Mr Trump says, the US gains security and political advantages from playing the role of “world policeman” and will not abandon those lightly.

但目前还没有发生非常严重的事件，这也为第四种可能提供了些许依据——美国让自身满足于表面上的变革，这可以让特朗普宣称取得了一些“胜利”。如果特朗普政府真的试图撕毁《北美自由贸易协定》，美国的大企业可能出面反对。而且，无论特朗普怎么说，美国都从扮演“世界警察”的角色中获得了安全和政治上的种种优势，所以不会轻易放弃这一切。

Those factors make me think that cosmetic change is the likeliest outcome of the Trump administration’s assault on the global rules-based order. But the US is playing a high-risk game. Nationalistic gestures are always likely to provoke nationalistic responses, particularly from a rising power, such as China. Mr Trump may not really intend to break the current global order. But he could still do it by accident.

这些因素让我觉得，流于表面的变革是特朗普政府攻击“基于规则的全球秩序”最有可能出现的结果。但美国正在玩一场高风险游戏。民族主义的姿态常常可能激起民族主义的回应，尤其当对方是一个崛起中的大国时，譬如中国。特朗普或许并非真的想要打破当前的全球秩序。但他也有可能意外地造成这种结果。