川普对朝鲜的狂人架势是招数还是乱象

编辑:给力英语新闻 更新:2017年10月5日 作者:美国之音帕登(Brian Padden)

在首尔火车站,有人看着电视荧屏上的美国总统川普和朝鲜领导人金正恩(2017年8月10日)
在首尔火车站,有人看着电视荧屏上的美国总统川普和朝鲜领导人金正恩(2017年8月10日)

美国总统川普在国际谈判中采取“狂人”战略的报道在支持者和批评人士中激起辩论。一些人认为这是一种高风险但有效的战略,另一些则将其视为外交政策混乱的证据。

美国前总统尼克松的外交政策被认为是所谓的“狂人理论”。在为了能以优惠条件结束越南战争的谈判中,尼克松试图扮成一个疯狂、变化无常的领导人。为了迫使苏联介入以结束战争,1969年,他甚至升级了战略空军司令部备战级别,使得在外界看来他可能在准备一场核打击。

尼克松战略的有效性至今仍是一个辩论的话题,因为停火协议直到1973年才最终达成,且共产党军队最终在1975年接管了整个越南。

深思熟虑的推文

一些分析人士说,川普总统现在采取“狂人”方式来阻止朝鲜研发能打到美国大陆的装载核弹头的洲际弹道导弹。

“今天,在川普领导的美国,狂人战法又大行其道,”新学院学术事务副主任、世界政策研究所高级研究员妮娜·赫鲁晓娃在市场观察网站上写道。

据Axios网站的一篇文章报道,在上个月的一次椭圆形办公室会议上,川普本人敦促他的贸易代表罗伯特·莱特希泽将他描绘成一个疯子。至少有三名内阁部长出席了那次会议。

报道称,“熟悉这次谈话”的匿名消息来源说,莱特希泽建议告诉他的韩国对等官员们,他们有30天的时间做出让步,否则美国将退出与首尔的贸易协议。

Axios的报道说,“不,不,不,”川普回答,“你不能这样这样谈判。你不能告诉他们有30天时间,你对他们说,‘这个人是个疯子,他随时都可能退出。”白宫没有否认这一说法。

川普更近期的推文说,与朝鲜的对话是“浪费时间”,显然是指责国务卿蒂勒森所说的与朝鲜的谈判已在进行中。一些分析人士说,这可能是精心策划的一招儿,为的是使美国的对手处于招架的地位。

“让川普以他的方式发推,说他想说的话,我认为在朝鲜人心中,这些为美国方式增添了一些不确定性,或许对于中国人,甚至俄罗斯人这一点也是同样重要的,” 东京战略研究论坛的安全分析师格兰特·纽斯汉姆说。

川普对朝鲜的对抗性言论,警告将对可能的袭击做出全面的“烈焰与愤怒” 的军事反应,管朝鲜领导人金正恩叫“小火箭人”,这些都与过去历届总统试图通过传统外交缓和紧张局势的做法截然不同。

批评人士说,总统富于攻击性的、往往和他自己安全团队中高级成员相矛盾的推文反映出川普政府内部在朝鲜政策上的分歧。后者淡化军事冲突的可能性。

“华盛顿发出了很多鲁莽的,和在我看来自相矛盾的言论,美国陷入了一场领导危机,”首尔特洛伊大学东北亚安全分析师丹尼尔·克林斯顿说。

死胡同

川普政府表现出倾向于用经济制裁和外交来迫使朝鲜政权在去核化和生存之间做出选择。但是美国拒绝北京的提议,即以停止美韩联合军事演习作为交换条件,让朝鲜冻结其核和导弹项目。

华盛顿需要国际合作,特别是中国的合作来向平壤施加严厉制裁。朝鲜这个孤立的国家90%的贸易依赖于中国。

但是失踪研究所的朝鲜分析师大卫·斯特劳布说,总统一再强调可能采取军事行动或许会起反作用,如果中国和俄罗斯得出结论说,“美国说其政策是寻求谈判的解决方式是在撒谎”。他说,作为回应,北京和莫斯科可能放宽制裁,增加对其盟友平壤的支持。

朝鲜也有违反过往核冻结协议的历史,包括违反1994年的协议从事秘密核武器项目,拒绝遵循2007年的协议,允许国际检察人员进入被怀疑为核设施的地点;2009年在美国将朝鲜从支持恐怖主义的国家名单上删除后,进行了一次核试验。

斯特劳布说,面对武力威胁或单纯的经济压力,平壤不太可能放弃其核威慑。

“我非常怀疑会有谈判的可能,因为我认为朝鲜做这一切的真实意图是在美国身上施加影响力,最终将美国踢出朝鲜半岛,” 斯特劳布说。他在乔治·W·布什执政期间也曾作为美国外交官,参与朝鲜去核化谈判。

高风险

纽斯汉姆说,如果朝鲜不屈服于压力,或由于某些误判或无法预见的事件,所谓的狂人方式可能将美国引向用军事力量终结平壤研发核洲际弹道飞弹的能力。

他说:“我们正向那个方向走去。风险即将到来,除非你能打断朝鲜动向的趋势线。”

Some See Strategy, Others Chaos in Trump's Unpredictability

Supporters and critics are debating reports that U.S. President Donald Trump has adopted a "madman" strategy in international negotiations, with some viewing it as a high-risk but effective tactic and others seeing it as evidence of a foreign policy in disarray.

The "madman" theory is ascribed to former U.S. President Richard Nixon's foreign policy. To negotiate an end to the Vietnam War on favorable terms, Nixon tried to portray himself as a crazy and volatile leader. He even raised the Strategic Air Command's readiness level in 1969 to make it seem as if he was possibly preparing for a nuclear strike, in an attempt to pressure the Soviet Union to intervene to end the war.

The effectiveness of Nixon's strategy remains a point of debate, as a cease-fire agreement was not reached until 1973 and the communist forces ultimately took over all of Vietnam in 1975.

Calculated tweets

Trump, some analysts say, is now employing the "madman" approach to try to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of targeting the U.S. mainland.

"Today, with Donald Trump leading the United States, the madman doctrine is back with a vengeance," Nina Kruschchva, professor of international affairs and associate dean for academic affairs at The New School, a private research university in New York, and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, wrote on the MarketWatch website.

Trump himself urged his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, to portray him as a madman during an Oval Office meeting last month attended by at least three Cabinet secretaries, according to an article on the website Axios.

According to the account, attributed to unnamed sources "familiar with the conversation," Lighthizer proposed to tell his South Korean counterparts they had 30 days to make concessions or the United States would pull out of its trade deal with Seoul.

"No, no, no," Trump replied, according to the Axios account, which has not been denied by the White House. "That's not how you negotiate. You don't tell them they've got 30 days. You tell them, 'This guy's so crazy he could pull out any minute.' "

Trump's more recent tweets, saying dialogue with North Korea was a "waste of time," and apparently rebuking Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for saying talks with Pyongyang were happening, may be part of a calculated effort to put America's adversaries on the defensive, some analysts say.

"Having Mr. Trump sending out tweets like he sends, saying the things he says, I think those put some unpredictability into the American approach, and presumably into the minds of the North Koreans, and maybe as importantly with the People's Republic of China and even the Russians as well," said security analyst Grant Newsham of the Forum for Strategic Studies in Tokyo.

Trump's confrontational rhetoric on North Korea, warning of an overwhelming "fire and fury" military response to a possible attack, and calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "Little Rocket Man," is a sharp departure from the method of past presidents who tried to reduce tensions through traditional diplomacy.

Critics say the president's aggressive tweets, which often contradict senior members of his own security team who have downplayed the possibility of military conflict, reflect growing disagreements over North Korea policy within the Trump administration.

"There's a lot of reckless talk, and it seems to me with the incoherence coming out of Washington, the U.S. is embroiled in a leadership crisis," said Northeast Asia security analyst Daniel Pinkston with Troy University in Seoul.

Dead ends

The Trump administration has indicated a preference for economic sanctions and diplomacy to force the Kim regime to choose between denuclearization and survival. Yet the U.S. has rejected Beijing's proposal that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises.

Washington needs international cooperation to impose harsh sanctions on Pyongyang, especially from China, which is responsible for 90 percent of all trade with the isolated nation.

But David Straub, a North Korea analyst with the Sejong Institute, said the president's repeated emphasis on possible military action could backfire if China and Russia concluded the "United States is lying when it says that its policy is to seek a negotiated settlement." Beijing and Moscow, he said, could respond by easing sanctions and increasing support for their ally in Pyongyang.

North Korea also has a history of breaking past nuclear freeze deals by operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of a 1994 agreement, refusing to comply with a 2007 agreement to allow international inspectors access to suspected nuclear sites, and conducting a nuclear test in 2009 after the U.S. removed North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

Straub said it was unlikely that Pyongyang would give up its nuclear deterrent under the threat of force or because of economic pressure alone.

"I am very skeptical that there is a potential for negotiations because of what I believe to be North Korea's true objectives in all of this, which are eventually to use leverage over the United States, to kick the United States off the Korean Peninsula," said Straub, who also participated in North Korea denuclearization talks as a U.S. diplomat during the administration of George W. Bush.

High risk

If North Korea will not yield to pressure, the "madman" approach may draw the U.S. into using military force to stop Pyongyang from developing nuclear ICBM capability, or because of some miscalculation or unforeseen event, Newsham said.

"We are headed that way anyway," he said. "And that risk is coming unless … you can interrupt that trend line North Korea is on."