Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览詹姆斯·彼得拉斯(James Petras)档案
美国谈判:失败大师
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

介绍

美国目前正在与至少十二个国家进行谈判。 其中涉及基本的政治,军事和经济问题。

面对“无力”获得军事胜利的情况,美国采取了外交战略。 采取外交方式的目的是通过部分或全部谈判,确保通过军事手段无法实现的目标和优势。

外交较少遭受军事和经济损失 它确实需要做出让步。 谈判只有在对双方都有互惠互利的情况下才能成功。

那些要求最大优势和最小让步的政权通常会失败或成功,因为它们基于非常不平等的权力关系。

我们将继续评估华盛顿在最近的谈判中的成败,并分析结果的原因和后果。

美国-朝鲜谈判

特朗普总统和朝鲜领导人金正恩已经进行了将近一年的谈判。 白宫将半岛的“非核化”列为优先事项,其中包括拆除核武器,导弹,测试装置和其他战略军事目标。

朝鲜寻求结束经济制裁,签署美朝和平条约并获得外交承认。 两者之间的决定性会议于26年27月2019日至XNUMX日在河内举行。

谈判完全失败。 华盛顿没有取得任何成果,也没有促进和平进程; 而且没有未来的前景。

朝鲜提供了三项重要的让步,但都没有兑现。 金正恩总统提议(1)拆除核试验场(2)宣布暂停核试验和洲际射程导弹试验(3)同意部分拆除导弹发动机试验场。

华盛顿没有提供任何回报,而是要求彻底裁军; 不取消制裁; 没有签署美韩战争结束的标志。

华盛顿的不对称“谈判”被预先确定为失败。 美国低估了朝鲜人坚持互惠的能力。 他们认为,未来的口头承诺将诱使朝鲜解除武装。 朝鲜人充分意识到美国最近拒绝遵守与伊朗,中国及其“一带一路”协议中的伙伴签署的协议的记录。

此外,朝鲜在中国和俄罗斯拥有强大的盟友,并拥有核武器来抵抗美国施加的更大压力。

美国-伊朗谈判

美国和伊朗谈判达成了一项终止经济制裁的协议,以换取终止核武器的发展。 它暂时取得了成功,但很快被特朗普政权推翻。 白宫要求伊朗取消其导弹防御计划,并威胁要发动军事攻击。 华盛顿没有讨价还价,而是试图采取单方面的“解决方案”。 该协议的共同签署国英国,法国,德国,俄罗斯和中国拒绝了特朗普的命令,但一些主要的欧盟跨国公司屈服于白宫的要求,以加强制裁。

结果,美国蓄意破坏谈判,使伊朗更靠近俄罗斯,中国和其他市场,而美国仍与沙特阿拉伯和以色列保持联系。 前者与也门进行了一场失败的战争,后者仍然是国际上的贱民,接受了数十亿美元的援助。

美中谈判

美国已与中国进行谈判,以降级其经济并保留美国的全球至高无上的地位。 北京已经同意增加从华盛顿的进口,并加强对中国使用美国技术的控制,但是美国没有提供任何让步。 相反,华盛顿要求中国结束国家在资助其尖端技术,人工智能和通信创新方面的作用。

换句话说,预计中国将放弃其结构优势,以避免苛刻的白宫关税降低中国的出口量。

没有互惠。 特朗普政权是通过对中国的威胁来运作的,然而,这将对依赖中国市场的美国农民造成负面影响。 美国进口商,尤其是进口中国产品的零售部门; 从中国购买的商品将承受更高价格的消费者。

此外,中国将加深与亚洲,非洲,俄罗斯,拉丁美洲和其他地方的替代市场的联系。

截至最近一年(2018 年),中国对美贸易顺差上升至 419 亿美元,而美国被迫增加对美国农产品出口商的补贴,以弥补对中国的销售损失。

经过几个月的谈判,美国代表获得了贸易让步,但未能强加破坏中国的经济模式。

到2019年年中,尽管谈判仍在继续,但``大交易''的可能性微乎其微。 在很大程度上,这是因为华盛顿未能意识到其削弱的全球地位需要美国进行“结构性改变”,这意味着美国财政部在技术上进行了投资。 劳动力升级和教育。 美国应该与有活力的贸易伙伴建立互惠关系;为此,华盛顿需要投资数十亿美元来升级其国内基础设施; 并将联邦支出从军事支出和战争中重新分配到国内优先事项和富有成效的海外协议。 基于威胁和关税的美国与中国的外交关系正在失败,经济谈判也在恶化。

 

美国–委内瑞拉:不谈判败局

在过去的五年(2015年至2019年)中,华盛顿通过军事政变,政治干预和经济压力成功地恢复了拉丁美洲的客户政权。 结果,白宫成功“谈判”了该地区的单方面政治,经济,社会和外交成果……古巴和委内瑞拉除外。

特朗普总统违反了与古巴的谈判协议,无济于事。 美国的威胁导致古巴在不影响古巴旅游业务的情况下,与欧洲,中国,俄罗斯和其他地区建立了更紧密的联系。

特朗普政权升级了针对委内瑞拉的政治和经济宣传以及社会战争。 从2002年2019月到XNUMX年XNUMX月,多次公开的政变努力适得其反。

尽管美国在巩固拉丁美洲其他国家的霸权地位方面取得了成功,但在委内瑞拉,华盛顿却遭受了外交失败和更大范围的民众抵抗。

美国的干预主义和制裁政策大大减少了逃往国外的中产阶级和中下阶层支持者的人数。 美国的宣传未能获得委内瑞拉军队的支持,委内瑞拉军队已成为更多的“民族主义者”,很少有逃兵。

白宫任命被定罪的重罪犯埃利奥特·艾布拉姆斯(Elliott Abrams),被称为“中美洲屠夫”,无疑破坏了有利外交解决的任何前景。

美国对政治和军事领导人的制裁排除了选拔和招募领导人的努力。 美国任命胡安·吉多(Juan Guido)为“临时统治者”,他很少得到国内支持-在国内被广泛视为帝国的st脚。

美国在拉丁美洲的非谈判成功使华盛顿对委内瑞拉的不同情况视而不见。 结构性社会经济改革和民族主义军事训练巩固了政治支持。

就委内瑞拉而言,美国拒绝参加谈判导致了更大的两极分化和多次失败,包括23年24月2019日/ XNUMX日的政变失败。

美俄:勾结失败的外交

立即订购

Washington succesfully‘negotiated’ the surrendered and break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent pillage of Russia. It was the US’ most successful ‘negotiations’ of the century. The US ‘negotiations’ allowed it to expand NATO to the Russian frontier, incorporated most of East Europeans into the EU and NATO and led the US to boast of creating a ‘unipolar world’.

Excess hubris led the US to launch prolonged (and losing) wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and elsewhere.

With the election of President Putin, Russia made a comeback, which led to the Kremlin reconstituting its military, economic and geopolitical power.

The White House reacted by attempting to ‘negotiate’ Russia’s military encirclement and to undermine Moscow’s economic growth.

When Russia refused to submit to US dictates, Washington resorted to economic sanctions and power grabs in the Ukraine, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq and Syria).

Washington rejected a diplomatic approach in favor of economic intimidation, especially as 一些 US backed oligarchs were arrested or fled with their wealth to the UK and Israel.

The US refused to recognize the opportunities which still existed in Russia – a neo-liberal economic elite, a mainly mineral export economy and Moscow’s conciliatory approach toward US military engagement in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iran.

US ‘negotiations’ were non-starters. The White House defined Russia as an enemy to be undermined. Sanctions became the weapon to deal with Russia’s attempt to regain its world standing. Washington’s aggressive posture included its refusal to recognize that the world had become multi-polar; that Russia had allies in China, partners in Germany, military bases in Syria; and has a loyal and advanced scientific elite.

The US ,operating from a past image of Russia from the Yeltsin era. failed to adapt to the new realities – a resurgent Russia willing to bargain and secure reciprocal advantages.

The US failed to recognize potential allies and economic advantages in open negotiations with Russia. Many Russian economists close to the Kremlin were neo-liberals, ready and willing to open the economy to US penetration. Russia was willing to concede the US a major role in the Middle East and offered to negotiate their oil export policies.

Instead the US refused to negotiate power sharing .US sanctions forced Russia to embrace China; Washington’s drive for global dominance encouraged Russia to build ties with Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and other independent nations.

Washington’s unipolar policies turned a potentially lucrative and long-term strategic relation into costly confrontations and failed diplomacy.

US and the European Union: Dead End Deals

Bullying Europe has been a successful endeavor, which the US has put on display on innumerable occasions in recent times. Washington negotiates agreements with the French, English and German to end economic sanction on Iran and then reneges and turns around to apply sanctions on European firms which comply with the US and disobey their own government.

The US negotiates with Europe on trade policies and then abruptly threatens to impose sanctions on its crucial auto exports.

Europe negotiates with Washington on NATO security issues and then the White House threatens them in order to raise their military spending.

The US claims that the EU is a strategic ally but treats it as a junior partner.

Negotiations between the two has been a one-sided partnership: the US sells arms and names adversaries ,while Europe argues, dissents and submits, sending troops to fight US wars in Syria. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

The US dictates sanctions against Russia, increasing the price of EU imports of gas and oil . Germany debates, discusses, hems and haws and avoids an outright rejection.

The US has steadily encroached on EU prerogatives to the point where it claims if the EU fails to comply with the White House’s “America First” agenda, it would cause the US to withdraw from NATO.

Despite a longstanding alliance, the White House no longer negotiates policies – it threatens and expects compliance. Despite a history of EU submission and pro forma debates, as Washington has hardened its opposition to Russia, China and Iran it no longer considers EU trade relations a point of negotiations. While Europe might consider the US as an ally, it will not be allowed to be treated as such, because it is viewed as a trade adversary.

 

总结

Washington has succeeded in securing non-reciprocal agreements with weak countries. This was the case in post war Europe, post Gorbachev Russia and among Latin America’s current colonized regimes.

In contrast Washington’s rejection of reciprocal agreements with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has been a failure. US trade wars with China have led to the loss of markets and allowed China to pursue global agreements through its massive ,billion dollar Belt and Road infrastructure projects.

US one-sided hostile policies toward Russia has increased ties between the Kremlin and Beijing.

Washington has lost opportunities to work with neo-liberal oligarchs in Russia in order to undermine President Putin. Washington has failed to negotiate reciprocal ties with North Korea which would ‘de-nuclearize’ the peninsula in exchange for lifting economic sanctions and opening the door for a capitalist restoration.

Demanding unilateral concession and submission has led to uniform failures; whereas negotiated compromises could have led to greater market opportunities and long-term political advances.

President Trump and his top policy makers and negotiators have failed to secure any agreements.

The Democratic Congress has been as ineffective and even more bellicose – demanding greater military threats to Russia, expanded trade wars with China and less negotiations with North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

In a word, failed negotiations and non-reciprocal diplomacy has become the hallmark of US foreign policy.

 
• 类别: 对外政策 •标签: 中国, 北朝鲜, 俄罗斯, 委内瑞拉 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有James Petras评论