For almost 30 years after the Cold War ended, American foreign policy elites argued that the United States should use its unmatched(无与伦比的) military and economic power as a force for transformation(作为变革的力量). For some, this meant working to expand the role of multilateral institutions such as NATO, promoting unfettered(不受约束的) free trade, and protecting human rights worldwide, even by using military force. Others believed that the United States should wield its military power as democracy’s spear by subduing violent terrorists, overthrowing tyrannical regimes, and deterring potential revisionist powers. These views, however, were two sides of the same coin(同一枚硬币的两面): underlying both was a belief that the United States must maintain its dominant position in the world and, when necessary, wield its might to defend liberal rights.
冷战结束后的近30年里，美国外交政策精英一直主张，美国应当利用其无与伦比的军事和经济实力作为变革的力量。对一些人而言，这意味着致力于扩大北约等多边机构的作用，推动完全自由的贸易，并在全球范围内保护人权——甚至不惜动用武力。另一些人则认为，美国应当将军事力量作为民主的长矛，通过打击暴力恐怖分子、推翻暴政政权和威慑潜在的修正主义大国来发挥作用。然而，这两种观点实为同一枚硬币的两面：其共同基础是认为美国必须维持其在世界上的主导地位，并在必要时运用武力捍卫自由主义权利。
But after the failures of U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rise of rival great powers, and the weakening of American democracy at home, this era of relative bipartisan consensus(两党共识) has ended. U.S. foreign policy is in disarray(混乱、紊乱), with no obvious vision for what should come next. For Emma Ashford, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, the path forward lies in(在于) what she calls “realist internationalism.” Grounded in a long tradition of realist thought, this strategy places the national interest—not ideology—at the center of foreign-policy making and views the pursuit of democratization abroad as unnecessary, even foolish.
但在美国干预阿富汗和伊拉克的失败、竞争对手大国的崛起以及美国国内民主的削弱之后，这种两党相对共识的时代已经结束。美国外交政策陷入混乱，对未来方向缺乏清晰愿景。对斯廷森中心高级研究员艾玛·阿什福德而言，前进之路在于她所称的“现实主义国际主义”。这一战略扎根于悠久的现实主义思想传统，将国家利益——而非意识形态——置于外交政策制定的核心，并将追求海外民主化视为不必要甚至愚蠢的。
Ashford also pushes back against(反驳、抵制) what she sees as excessively purist calls for retrenchment(紧缩、削减) or even isolationism. International engagement, she argues, is no longer a choice; the United States’ security and prosperity are tethered(拴住、紧密相连) to an open global market. In practice, a Washington that followed her realist internationalism would retrench militarily from places where the United States lacks a national interest, such as the Middle East; draw down its support in places where partners can manage security threats on their own, such as Europe; and accept that it cannot determine Ukraine’s fate. Provocatively(挑衅地、具有煽动性地), Ashford encourages the United States to accept great powers’ “spheres of influence” while also ensuring that it can use nonmilitary instruments, especially economic tools, to counter aggression that could cripple the global economy.
阿什福德还反驳了她眼中过于纯粹主义的紧缩甚至孤立主义呼声。她指出，国际参与已不再是选择；美国的安全与繁荣与开放的全球市场紧密相连。在实践中，一个遵循她现实主义国际主义的华盛顿将从美国缺乏国家利益的地区（如中东）进行军事收缩；在合作伙伴能够自行应对安全威胁的地区（如欧洲）削减支持；并接受它无法决定乌克兰的命运。具有挑衅意味的是，阿什福德鼓励美国接受大国的“势力范围”，同时确保能够使用非军事手段——尤其是经济工具——来反击可能摧毁全球经济的侵略行为。
FROM CHAOS TO ORDER
从混乱到秩序
PEACE IN RETREAT
撤退中的和平
THE POWER OF PARABLE
寓言的力量
THE PRAGMATIST’S TRAP
实用主义者的陷阱