|
资料提示：
（原文） America’s singular approach to international affairs did not develop all at once, or as the consequence... |
（原文）
America’s singular approach to international affairs did not develop all at once, or as the consequence of a solitary inspiration. In the early years of the Republic, American foreign policy was in fact a sophisticated reflection of the American national interest, which was, simply, to fortify the new nation’s independence. Since no European country was capable of posing an actual threat so long as it had to contend with rivals, the Founding Fathers showed themselves quite ready to manipulate the despised balance of power when it suited their needs indeed, they could be extraordinarily skillful at maneuvering between France and Great Britain not only to preserve America’s independence but to enlarge its frontiers.
Because they really wanted neither side to win a decisive victory in the wars of the French Revolution, they declared neutrality. Jefferson defined the Napoleonic Wars as a contest between the tyrant on the land (France) and the tyrant of the ocean (England) -in other words, the parties in the European struggle were morally equivalent. Practicing an early form of nonalignment, the new nation discovered the benefit of neutrality as a bargaining tool, just as many an emerging nation has since.
(参考译文）
美国对国际事务所采取的那种独特手法并非一蹴而就，或纯粹缘起于一种心血来潮，异想天开。在立国之初，美国的外交政策实质上错综复杂地折射出了美国的国家利益，即，一言以蔽之，强化这一新兴国家的独立。既然任何一个欧洲国家，只要它不得不与其对手们展开竞争，就不足以构成一种实际威胁，故美利坚共和国的奠基者们表现得十分愿意去利用受人鄙视的均势，因为均势确实能顺应他们的需要。他们极其擅长于在英法之间挑拨离间，不仅仅得以维护美国的独立，而且得以拓展其疆域。
因为他们并不真正希望任何一方在法国大革命的战争中赢得决定性的胜利，他们便宣布中立。杰佛逊总统将拿破仑战争定义为陆地霸主（法国）和海洋霸主（英国）之间的一场搏杀--换言之，这场欧洲争斗中的双方在道德层面上实乃一丘之貉。通过推行一种早期的不结盟政策，美国这个新兴国家尝到了中立作为一种讨价还价的工具的甜头，正如自此以后，许多崛起中的国家大多乐此不倦那样。
|
|
网友评论：（只显示最新10条。评论内容只代表网友观点，与本站立场无关！）
