On the US Ruling Group’s View of War and Peace after the Cold War

World War II made the United States the dominant force in the world capitalist system and the leader of the West. After the war, in order to establish a “world family” under its own leadership and create a global order under its own dominance, the United States employed both war and peace as means to implement its foreign policy, so as to guarantee the “political and economic interests of the United States and its allies on a global scale.” US foreign and military policy accordingly shifted to target primarily the socialist countries and the Third World. Beginning with the Truman administration, US political figures, major news media, and some scholars continuously put forward various so-called “views” on the question of war and peace, far exceeding any previous period, providing the theoretical basis for policy choices by successive post-war US administrations. Among post-war US presidents, Nixon wrote and published the most. Although Nixon was forced from office over the Watergate scandal, during his lifetime every subsequent US president consulted him on major international issues when they arose, which shows Nixon’s influence over the US ruling group. Therefore, Nixon’s views on the question of war and peace relatively comprehensively and systematically represent the views of the US ruling class. Because of America’s position of strength and leadership role, these views were also basically accepted by America’s allies, becoming the mainstream view in the West.

第二次世界大战使美国成为世界资本主义体系的主导力量和西方的领导者。战后，美国为建立自己领导的“世界大家庭”、创建自己主导下的全球秩序，运用战争与和平两种手段推行对外政策，以保证美国及其盟友“在全球范围的政治和经济利益”。美国的对外政策与军事政策也随之转为主要针对社会主义国家和第三世界。从杜鲁门政府起，美国的政要、主要新闻媒体和一些学者，对战争与和平问题不断提出各种各样的所谓“ 观点”，远超以前任何时期，为美国战后历届政府进行政策选择提供理论依据。在战后美国历届总统中，尼克松著书立说最多。尼克松虽然因“水门事件”下台，但其在世期间，后任历届美国总统在遇到一些重大国际问题时无不向他咨询，由此可见尼克松对美国统治集团的影响力。因此，尼克松对战争与和平问题的观点较为全面系统地代表了美国统治阶级的看法。由于美国的实力地位和领导作用，这些观点也为美国的盟国基本接受，成为西方的主流观点。

I. “War is an instrument for gaining power and influence”

一、“战争是获得权力和势力的一种工具”

US political figures believe that war is an instrument, a means for gaining power and influence and advancing national interests; that war arises from political differences, and the use of military means is for the purpose of obtaining specific political objectives; that US leaders can only engage in war with the firm support of public opinion; and that on the question of involvement in Third World conflicts, the United States should exercise selectivity. Nixon said, “When a nation enters a war, achieving victory is of paramount importance” and “Victory should be defined as using military means to obtain specific political objectives”; when America’s “interests are threatened,” it should take “the ability and will to resort to force as the primary means,” which “will reduce the likelihood of ultimately resorting to force” and “always use force as the last resort”;[1]1 “Peaceful evolution” (和平演变): A US Cold War strategy, articulated by Eisenhower and Dulles, aiming to transform socialist states from within through ideological, economic, and cultural influence rather than direct military confrontation.(p.265) “The greatest danger of war breaking out between superpowers is when their interests clash, a small war can escalate. Small wars always have the potential to trigger a world war.”

美国政要们认为，战争是一种工具，是借以获得权力和势力、增进国家利益的一种手段；战争是由政治分歧引起的，使用军事手段是为获得具体的政治目标，美国领导人只有在舆论的坚决支持下才能从事战争；在卷入第三世界冲突问题上，美国应有所选择。尼克松说，“国家参加战争，实现胜利是至关重要的”“胜利应该界定为使用军事手段去获得具体的政治目标”；当美国的“利益受到威胁时”，要将“诉诸武力的能力和意志作为首要手段”，这“将减少最终诉诸武力的可能性”，并“永远把使用武力作为最后的手段”；[1](p.265)“超级大国之间爆发战争的最大危险是当它们的利益发生冲突时，一场小型战争便可能升级。小型战争总是具有引发世界大战的潜力”。

(I) After World War II, the United States launched a worldwide Cold War against communism

（一）第二次世界大战后，美国在全世界展开反对共产主义的冷战

Nixon believed that the United States in the 20th century “had already experienced three major wars – World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.” After World War II, the United States “launched a worldwide Cold War against communism.”

尼克松认为，美国在20世纪“已经历了3次大战——第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战和冷战”。第二次世界大战后，美国便“在全世界展开反对共产主义的冷战”。

First, the Cold War was a total war of intense struggle between political ideas and economic systems.

第一，冷战是一场政治观念和经济制度激烈斗争的全面战争。

On March 5, 1946, Britain’s Churchill, in a speech in Fulton, Missouri, USA, lifted the curtain on the Cold War. On March 12, 1947, US President Truman submitted a message to Congress (later called the Truman Doctrine), marking the official beginning of the US-Soviet Cold War. “The Cold War covered every region of the world and involuntarily drew most of them into this intense struggle between political ideas and economic systems.” From the Truman administration’s launch of the Cold War to its end under the George H.W. Bush administration, the political figures of every US administration during this period were active promoters of the Cold War.

1946年3月5日，英国的丘吉尔在美国密苏里州富尔敦的演说中揭开了冷战序幕。1947年3月12日，美国总统杜鲁门向国会提出了一篇咨文（后被称为杜鲁门主义），标志着美苏冷战的正式开始。“冷战覆盖了世界上的每一地区，并使其中的大部分地区身不由己地卷入到这场政治观念和经济制度的激烈斗争之中。”从杜鲁门政府发动冷战，到老布什政府时冷战结束，这一期间美国各届政府的政要们都是冷战的积极推行者。

Nixon believed that the Cold War was not a conventional war as defined in our history books, but rather “a war called peace.” “If this war is not to escalate to the level of actual armed conflict, we must conduct this war effectively on the non-military front.” “What is at stake in the outcome of this conflict is not only our own freedom, but also the freedom of all nations of the world.” It was a great struggle deciding the fate of nations. “The survival of freedom depends on America’s actions.” On this, US political figures mainly held the following views: First, the Cold War was a substitute for hot war, especially nuclear war, between the two superpowers, the US and the USSR. “The Cold War spurred intense arms races, triggered hot wars in Korea and Vietnam” [1]1 “Peaceful evolution” (和平演变): A US Cold War strategy, articulated by Eisenhower and Dulles, aiming to transform socialist states from within through ideological, economic, and cultural influence rather than direct military confrontation. and dozens of smaller-scale military conflicts, but “did not bring the superpowers into direct combat with each other.” Second, the United States must resolve the question of which type of nation will dominate “the destiny of the world.” Therefore, the United States had no choice but to make winning the Cold War the primary goal of its foreign policy. Third, the Cold War combined military, economic, philosophical, political, and diplomatic forces, each of which was extremely important to the outcome of this war and would dominate the world situation. Fourth, the United States must distinguish between vital interests, important interests, and peripheral interests. So-called vital interests of the United States refer to those interests that are vital not only to the United States but also to the free world; they are part of the great struggle between two worlds. What the United States should defend most preferentially are its vital interests. [2]2 Kennan: George F. Kennan (1904–2005), US diplomat and historian, architect of the Cold War containment policy, served as US Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1952. Fifth, the United States not only “saved the world from the clutches of communism, but also helped turn the world into one where freedom is no longer threatened.”

尼克松认为，冷战不是我们历史书上下了定义的那种常规意义的战争，而是“一场被称为和平的战争”“如果要这场战争不升级到实际武装冲突的水平，我们就必须在非军事方面有效地进行这场战争”。“这场冲突的成败所系不仅是我们自身的自由，而且还有世界各国的自由”，是决定各国命运的大搏斗，“自由的存亡取决于美国的行动”。对此，美国政要主要有如下观点：一是冷战是美苏两大国之间的热战，特别是核战争的替代物。“冷战促成了激烈的军备竞赛，引发了朝鲜和越南的热战”等几十起较小规模的军事冲突，但“却没有把超级大国带入相互敌对的战斗”。二是美国必须解决由哪一类国家来支配“世界的命运”问题。因此，美国除了将获取冷战胜利作为对外政策的首要目标外，别无其他选择。三是冷战是把军事、经济、哲学思想、政治和外交的力量结合起来，其中每一点对这场战争的结局都十分重要，并将支配世界形势。四是美国要区别切身利益、重要利益与边缘利益。所谓美国的切身利益，是指那些不仅对美国而且对自由世界也是切身的利益，它是两种世界之间巨大斗争的一部分。美国最优先捍卫的应该是美国的切身利益。2五是美国不仅“从共产主义魔掌中拯救了世界，而且还帮助把世界变成一个自由不再受到威胁的世界”。

Second, the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of conflicts between regions and small countries; the threat of small-scale wars increased sharply.

第二，冷战的结束并不意味着地区和小国之间冲突的结束，小规模战争的威胁急剧增长。

Nixon believed that the end of the Cold War did not usher in a “new world order.” “In the ‘new era’ of world history, ideological conflict may not be dominant, but the violent character of this era may become even more intense than the previous one”; “The collapse of communism in the Cold War” and “the disappearance of the Cold War does not mean the end of international conflict”; “Instability in the developing world will continue to pose a major threat to America’s interests”; “Dozens of civil wars and regional wars are still caused by ancient struggles based on tribal, racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.”

尼克松认为，冷战的结束并未使“新的世界秩序”到来。“在世界历史的‘新时代’中，意识形态冲突也许不占主导地位，但是这个时代的暴力色彩可能变得比前一个时代更浓”；“共产主义在冷战中崩溃”和“冷战趋于消失并不意味着国际冲突结束”，“发展中世界的不稳定将继续对美国的利益构成重大威胁”，“几十场内战和区域性战争仍然是建立在部落、种族、民族或宗教仇视基础上的古老的斗争引起的”。

On the one hand, in a world of competing nations, conflicts of interest and national conflicts are inevitable, a necessary state of affairs. Nixon believed that the core of relations between nations is competition, and this competition makes conflict “a necessary state of affairs in the world.” “Some nations are dissatisfied with what they already possess” and “attempt, for various reasons” and “through various means, to obtain more”; other nations “resist the schemes of these reaching-out nations,” which means “conflict will occur between nations in these two positions”; “If they cannot resolve their conflicts peacefully, they will ultimately attempt to resolve them by violent means.” “The end of the Cold War between the superpowers does not mean the end of conflicts between small countries.”

一方面，在国家间相互竞争的世界中，利益冲突和民族冲突不可避免，是一种必然事态。尼克松认为，国家相互关系的核心是竞争，这种竞争使冲突成为“世界上的一种必然事态”。“某些国家对于它们已经拥有的东西”感到不满足，“试图以种种理由”和“通过种种手段来取得更多的东西”；另外一些国家“抵制这些想伸手的国家的图谋”，这使“处在这两种地位的国家之间”“将发生冲突”；“如果不能和平解决它们的冲突，它们最终将试图以暴力手段来解决”“超级大国之间冷战的结束，并不意味着小国之间冲突的结束”。

On the other hand, the United States must not allow “the clash of civilizations” to become the defining characteristic of the post-Cold War era. Nixon agreed with the view put forward by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington and others that “‘the clash of civilizations’ will place the West and the Islamic world in a state of hostility,” and believed that “military conflicts since the 1990s have confirmed this thesis.” Nixon said that if the United States “continues to tolerate” such conflicts, “it will inevitably bring disaster upon itself, leading to conflict between the Muslim world and the West”; “The civilized world must establish a unified policy for dealing with terrorism,” and “once military retaliation becomes appropriate, they should be prepared to act together.”

另一方面，美国一定不能让“文明之间的冲突”成为冷战结束后的重要时代特征。尼克松赞同哈佛大学教授塞缪尔·亨廷顿等提出的“‘文明之间的冲突’将使西方和伊斯兰世界处于敌对的状态”的观点，并认为20世纪90年代以来“军事冲突证实了这种论点”。尼克松说，美国如“继续听任”这种冲突，“必将引火烧身，导致穆斯林世界与西方之间的冲突”；“文明世界必须为对付恐怖主义确立统一的政策”，“一旦适于进行军事报复，它们应该做好准备共同行动”。

(II) The developing world is the current battlefield of the East-West struggle

（二）发展中世界是目前正在进行的东西方战斗的战场

US political figures believe that “the war in the Third World began before the end of World War II,” a war determining “the future of the developing countries” and a war “fought to save freedom.” The “developing world” became “the current battlefield of the East-West struggle.” Kennedy said, “This kind of war is unique,” “its intensity is new,” requiring “a completely new strategy” and “an entirely different kind of force.”

美国政要认为，“在第二次世界大战结束之前，第三世界的战争就开始了”，这是一场决定“发展中国家的前途”和“为了挽救自由”而进行的战争。“发展中世界”成为“目前正在进行的东西方战斗的战场”。肯尼迪说，“这种战争是独特的”，“它的激烈程度是新的”，需要“一套全新的战略”和“一种全然不同的力量”。

First, the United States cannot stand aloof from the wars in the Third World.

第一，美国在第三世界的战争中不能置身事外，站在一旁。

US political figures believe that between peace and war there exists a broad gray area of neither war nor peace, and that the competition between the United States and communism “will be concentrated mainly in the Third World.” The Third World is the epicenter of war and revolution throughout the world, and “the struggle will be decided in large part in this arena… We must engage our adversaries in this arena.” The importance of the Third World means that the United States cannot “stand aloof” from this war, “cannot stand on the sidelines.” If the United States stands aloof, the West is certain to lose. Since in the 21st century “the price of open aggression will become increasingly high,” if we “hope to win without war, or even to avoid losing without war,” we “must be determined to use our power in ways that do not involve war.” In every part of the world, the United States must not only hold the defensive line but also expand “freedom” across the globe.

美国政要认为，在和平与战争之间，存在着一个广阔的不战不和领域，美国与共产主义之间的竞争“将主要集中在第三世界”。第三世界是全世界战争和革命的震中，“斗争将在很大程度上在这个领域决定……我们必须在这个领域内同对手交锋”。第三世界的重要性使美国不能在这场战争中“置身事外”，“不能站在一旁”。如果美国置身事外，西方是输定了。由于21世纪“进行公开侵略的代价将愈加高昂”，我们如果“期望不战而胜，或者哪怕只是期望免于不战而败”，“就必须决心以不进行战争的方式使用我们的力量”。在世界任何地方，美国不光是防守战线，而且更要在全世界扩大“自由”。

Second, the goal of the East-West struggle for the United States is to establish a “world community” that includes all countries and is broadly similar to the US political system.

第二，美国进行东西方战斗的目标，是要建立同美国的政治制度大体上一样，把所有国家包括在内的“世界大家庭”。

US political figures believe that the United States must “do all in its power” to build a world community that includes all countries, that is, an “ideal world” broadly similar to the US political system, in which “all countries have free economic and political systems and are forever faithful to social justice and human rights.” This has been the “purpose of the United States since its founding”; in realizing “these unchanging purposes, every generation of Americans has encountered different problems. The problems have changed, but the purpose remains the same.” The US goal runs directly counter to the goal of the Communist Party; the struggle between the United States and the socialist countries is a “struggle between two mutually incompatible systems and concepts,” and the struggle “will continue until freedom wins.”

美国政要认为，美国要“尽我们的力量”建立一个把所有国家包括在内的世界大家庭，即大体上同美国的政治制度一样，“所有国家都有自由的经济制度和政治制度，永远忠实于社会正义和人权”的“理想世界”。这是美国“开国以来的目的”，在实现“这些不变的目的时，每一代美国人都碰到了一些不同的问题。问题虽然改变了，但目的依然不变”。美国的目标与共产党的目标背道而驰，美国与社会主义国家之间是“两个互不相容的制度和概念之间的斗争”，斗争“将继续下去，直到自由取得胜利为止”。

Nixon said that in the latter half of the 20th century “we have been living in a world dominated by the conflict of two superpowers driven by two mutually contradictory ideologies. The East-West struggle is the outstanding feature of this era.” Rostow, former chairman of the US State Department’s Policy Planning Council, believed that the “ultimate question” of the struggle is “whether this small planet is to be organized according to the principles of the communist bloc, or according to the principles of voluntary cooperation among independent states dedicated to human freedom,” moving toward a “commonwealth of free nations.”

尼克松说，20世纪的后半叶“我们—直生活在两种互相矛盾的意识形态引起的两个超级大国的冲突占支配地位的世界上。东西方斗争是这个时代的突出特点”。美国国务院前政策计划委员会主席罗斯托认为，斗争的“最终问题”是“这个小小的星球应根据共产主义集团的原则组织起来呢，还是根据致力于人类自由的独立国家之间的自愿合作的原则组织起来”，走向“自由国家大家庭”。

US political figures believe that the “roots of the conflict” between the United States and the Soviet Union “lie in the profound differences in ideology, interests, and intentions between the two superpowers,” that it is “part of a great struggle between two worlds” and “directly involves our own most vital interests”; “the Soviet Union seeks to expand communism” while “the United States seeks to stop communism”; “the US-Soviet conflict is not a problem, but a condition”; “problems can be solved, but conditions can only be managed”; competition is the core of US-Soviet relations and will determine who wins the superpower struggle.

美国政要认为，美国同苏联“冲突的根子在于两个超级大国在意识形态、利益及意图上存在着深刻的差异”，“是两种世界之间的巨大斗争的一部分”“直接牵涉到我们自己的最切身的利益”；“苏联企图扩张共产主义”“而美国则要阻止共产主义”；“美苏冲突不是一个问题，而是一种状态”“问题可以加以解决，而状态只能对待”；竞争是苏美关系的核心，并会决定谁将在超级大国的争斗中取胜。

More importantly, we must recognize that US political figures represented by Nixon believe that although war as a means of implementing policy has become obsolete, the instruments of war must continue to play a role in maintaining peace. “The era in which war was an option is past. Peace is the only choice for the future. We are now in a dangerous intermediate state between peace and war.” “Military deterrence, including nuclear forces, is an indispensable component of any lasting peace. When each side holds an equally good hand, potential aggressors are likely to think twice before acting rashly.”

更为重要的是，我们要认识到，以尼克松为代表的美国政要认为，尽管战争作为推行政策的一种手段已经过时，但是战争工具必须在维持和平方面继续起作用，“战争是一种可供选择的办法的时代已经过去。和平是今后唯一的选择。我们目前正处在和平与战争之间的充满危险的中间状态”，“军事威慑，包括核力量在内，是任何持久和平必不可少的组成部分。当每一方都持有一手同样好的牌时，潜在的侵略者很可能就不敢轻举妄动”。

II. “True peace is a means of tolerating conflict”

二、“真正的和平是容忍冲突的一种手段”

Among all US presidents, Nixon discussed the issue of peace the most and held the most distinct views. His views on peace are relatively free of concealment, hypocrisy, and taboo, and rather frankly reflect some of the real views of the US ruling group on peace. Nixon divided peace into two types: “true peace” and “perfect peace,” and repeatedly stated that what he spoke of was “not a mythical perfect peace,” but “a true peace based on a common recognition of harsh realities.” This kind of peace acknowledges that “there are deep, irreconcilable differences between them, but their survival depends on their finding ways to manage their differences without having to fight.”

在美国历届总统中，尼克松是对和平问题论述最多、观点最为鲜明的一位。他的和平观点没有那么多掩饰、虚伪和忌讳，较坦率地反映了美国统治集团对和平的一些真实看法。尼克松将和平分为“真正的和平”与“完美的和平”两种，并一再申明自己所说的“不是神话式的完美的和平”，“而是一种建立在对于严峻的现实的共同认识上的真正的和平”。这种和平承认“它们之间有深刻的、不可调和的分歧，但是它们的生存有赖于它们找到一些途径，以便不必打仗就能处理好它们的分歧”。

Nixon believed that true peace would not emerge “suddenly, once and for all” from some formula, but is “a continuous process of managing and controlling conflicts that arise between competing nations, systems, and international ambitions.” This kind of “peace is not the disappearance of conflict” and “not the end of contradiction”; “it is, on the contrary, a means of tolerating conflict,” and is the only kind of peace that has ever existed. “Without the United States, peace and freedom could not be maintained.”

尼克松认为，真正的和平不会“突然地、一劳永逸地”在某种方案中产生，而是“一个处理和控制竞争中的各国、各种制度和各种国际野心之间发生的冲突的持续过程”。这种“和平不是冲突的消亡”“不是矛盾的终结”“反倒是容忍冲突的一种手段”，是迄今存在过的唯一一种和平。“没有美国，和平和自由就没有可能继续保持下去。”

Nixon also believed that “contradiction is a natural state in the world” and “inherent to humanity”; “nations will inevitably have contradictions on multiple issues and through various means, and the danger that these contradictions will lead to violence will always exist”; realistic peace is “a means of learning to coexist with contradiction,” “a way of managing contradiction so that it does not erupt into war”; “the greatest test of a nation’s character is not how it bears the misfortunes of war, but how it meets the challenges of peace.”

尼克松还认为，“矛盾是世界上的一种自然状态”“是人类固有的”；“各国必定会在多种问题上、通过各种手段发生矛盾、这些矛盾会导致暴力的危险将永远存在”；现实的和平就是“学会与矛盾共存的一种手段”，“是处理矛盾使之不致爆发为战争”，“最能考验某一国家特性的不是看它如何承受战争带来的不幸，而是看它如何应付和平的挑战”。

(I) Peace and power are inseparable in the real world

（一）和平与实力在现实世界中不可分

Nixon believed that “world peace and national power are inseparable.” For countries with fundamentally opposed ideologies, “the peace they seek cannot be based on mutual friendship; it can only be based on mutual respect for each other’s power.”

尼克松认为，“世界和平与国家实力是不可分的”。对于意识形态根本对立的国家来说，“所谋求的和平不可能建立在彼此友好上，它只能建立在互相尊重对方的实力上”。

First, perfect peace exists only in the fantasies of diplomats and in the grave.

第一，完美的和平只存在于外交家的空想和坟墓中。

Nixon believed that “in a world where conflict between people is ever-present and pervasive,” perfect, permanent peace exists only in “two places: in the grave and on the typewriter.” This kind of peace “is an illusion,” “fashioned from beautiful thoughts and fine words”; “it has never existed and never will exist”; “idealists yearn for a world without conflict,” but this is “a world that has never existed and never will exist.” Nixon warned people that “the real world does not revolve around wishful thinking about the ‘full realization of peace,’ but around the enduring realities of geopolitics.” [5](p.3) “Confusing true peace with perfect peace” is a danger; “we should not futilely search for perfect peace, but should instead turn our efforts to forging a realistic peace”; true peace requires that the United States have the determination to use American power in every way except war.

尼克松认为，“在一个人们之间的冲突始终存在且到处扩散的世界上”，完美的、永久的和平只存在于“两个地方：在坟墓里和在打字机上”，这种和平“是个幻想”，“是用美好的思想和漂亮的言词塑造出来的”；“它过去从未有过，今后也永远不会有”；“理想主义者们盼望一个没有冲突的世界”，这是“一个过去从来不曾有过、将来也永远不会出现的世界”。尼克松告诫人们，“现实的世界不是环绕着关于‘和平全面实现’的一厢情愿的想法运转的，而是环绕着地缘政治学的持久的现实情况运转的”[5](p.3)“把真正的和平跟完美的和平混为一谈”是一种危险；“我们不应徒劳无功地探寻完美的和平，而应转而努力缔造现实的和平”；真正的和平要求美国有决心以除战争以外的各种方式来使用美国的力量。

Second, the idea of achieving peace through trade and friendship is a myth.

第二，以贸易和友谊求和平是神话。

Nixon believed that achieving peace through trade and friendship is a myth, a mistaken idea. The view that “economic power has replaced military power as the main tool of foreign policy” is a philistine view. “Trade alone can never produce peace or prevent war.” “Seeking peace through trade has not worked in the past and will never work now.” “Economic relations can never replace deterrence and competition.” “Although economic interdependence limits the freedom of action of each country, it does not render military power meaningless.” “When a vital national interest is at stake, a great power will abandon even the strongest economic ties to achieve victory.” “If economic relations are handled correctly, they can strengthen deterrence and competitiveness,” making trade “an important additional force to deter potential aggressors,” but “it can never replace the real deterrent power based on military force.” “Shaking hands and making up” cannot change a nation’s ambitions or interests.

尼克松认为，以贸易和友谊求和平是一种神话，是错误的想法。“经济力量已经取代军事力量，成为外交政策的主要工具”是一种庸人的观点。“贸易本身决不能产生和平或防止战争”“以贸易求和平过去没有奏效，现在也决不会奏效”“经济关系永远不能代替威慑和竞争”“虽然经济上的相互依靠限制了每个国家的行动自由，但是这并没有使军事力量变得没有意义。”“一个问题涉及生命攸关的国家利益，为了取得胜利，一个大国甚至会抛弃最牢固的经济联系”；“如果正确地处理经济关系，就能够加强威慑和竞争力”，使贸易“成为一种对潜在的侵略者起遏制作用的重要附加力量”，但“它从来不能代替建立在军事力量基础上的实实在在的威慑力量”。“握手言欢”改变不了国家的野心或利益。

(II) Peace is not an end in itself; peace should be a means to achieve a higher end

（二）和平不是最后的目的，和平应当是实现一个更高目的的手段

Nixon believed that “we should not allow ourselves to be tempted by the proposition of peace at any price” and that “if peace were really our only goal, we could achieve it at any time we wished—by surrendering.” “The peace we seek must be a peace combined with justice.” Peace should be a means to realize “a new world where everyone can enjoy the blessings of freedom, justice, and progress.” If peace is taken as “our only goal, then the freedom already won may be endangered.” Peace is a great objective, but it is not a panacea for all ills.

尼克松认为，“我们不应当让自己受到不惜一切代价换取和平的主张的诱惑”“假如和平真的是我们的唯一目标，我们毕竟能够在我们希望的任何时候得到它——投降就是了”“我们谋求的和平必须是同正义结合在一起的和平”。和平应当是实现“人人都能享受自由、正义和进步的福祉的新世界”的手段。如果把和平作为“我们的唯一目标，那么已经赢得的自由可能受到危害”。和平是一个伟大的目标，但它不是包治百病的灵丹妙药。

(III) To maintain peace and defend freedom, a sober policy of détente must be pursued

（三）为保持和平和保卫自由必须奉行一种清醒的缓和政策

During the Cold War, the United States successively implemented policies of containment and détente toward socialist countries. American political figures and scholars debated which policy would be more effective against socialist countries until the end of the Cold War. Nixon said: “The debate over this term is so charged with emotion that the argument over substance has become a semantic dispute. Therefore, we must clarify what sober détente is and what it is not.”

冷战期间，美国对社会主义国家先后实行了遏制与缓和的政策。美国政要、学者们关于哪一种政策用来对付社会主义国家会更有效的问题，一直争论到冷战结束。尼克松说：“对于这个词的辩论充满了太多的感情色彩，以致对实质的争论变成了语义学的争论。因此，我们必须弄清楚清醒的缓和是什么和不是什么。”

Nixon’s views on détente can be summarized in the following five points: First, détente is not a substitute for the Cold War; both détente and the Cold War are substitutes for hot war between the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, especially for nuclear war between them. Second, US policy must combine détente with deterrence. Third, détente is an attempt to expand cooperative elements and impose certain limits on competitive elements. Fourth, détente without deterrence is a prescription that inevitably leads to retreat and defeat. Fifth, implementing sober détente requires using both “carrots” and “sticks.”

尼克松有关缓和的观点可以概括为以下五条：一是缓和不是冷战的替代物，缓和与冷战都是美苏两大国之间热战的替代物，特别是两大国之间核战争的替代物。二是美国的政策必须把缓和与威慑结合起来。三是缓和是为了扩大合作因素和对竞争因素实行某种限制的尝试。四是没有威慑的缓和是一张必然引向退却和失败的处方。五是实行清醒的缓和，既要用“胡萝卜”，也要用“大棒”。

III. Nuclear weapons have fundamentally changed the way the world operates

三、核武器大大改变了世界运行的方式

US political figures, some scholars, and news media believe that the new force of nuclear weapons has changed “the nature of war” and “will also change the nature of peace.” In 1953, Truman said: “We have now entered the atomic age, and war has undergone a technological change that makes it completely different from wars of the past.” The US nuclear strategy has changed along with changes in its nuclear advantage.

美国政要、一些学者和新闻媒体认为，核武器这个新的力量改变了“战争的性质”，“也将改变和平的性质”。1953年杜鲁门说：“我们现在已进入了原子时代，战争已经发生了技术上的变化，这种变化使它和过去的战争迥然不同。”美国的核战略随着其核优势的变化而变化。

First, when the US held a nuclear advantage over the Soviet Union, it consistently regarded fighting a nuclear war as an option.

第一，美国在对苏联拥有核优势时一直把打核战争作为一种选择。

In 1962, then-US Secretary of Defense McNamara said: “Although no nation can rationally take steps that would lead to nuclear war, this fact does not guarantee that nuclear war will not break out.” “Only in situations where nuclear weapons can be used reliably—where the alternative might be worse than the risk of nuclear war (for example, gradually yielding to communist aggression)—are nuclear weapons a reasonable weapon.” Former US President Kennedy said: “In certain circumstances, we must be prepared to use nuclear weapons from the outset.” On the one hand, the cutting edge of US action was non-nuclear forces, with nuclear forces held in the background.

1962年，美国时任国防部长麦克纳马拉说：“虽然任何国家在有理性的情况下都不可采取导致核战争的步骤，但是这样一个事实并不能保证就不会爆发核战争”“只有发生可以可靠地使用核武器的情况——采取替代办法也许比核战争的风险更糟（例如逐步向共产党人的侵略屈服）的情况——核武器才是一个合理的武器。”美国前总统肯尼迪说：“在某些情形下，我们必须准备一开始就使用核武器。”一方面，美国行动的刀刃是非核力量，核力量放在背后。

In 1959, former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Taylor argued that the US strategy of “atomic deterrent forces would serve as a shield,” providing security for the US, “but not as a flexible instrument.” This was because “in future military operations, limited war forces will play an active role, while atomic retaliatory forces can only play a passive role.” The US “massive retaliation strategy may have prevented the outbreak of a major war,” but it failed to “eliminate local disturbances.”

1959年，美国前参谋长联席会议主席泰勒认为，美国的战略“原子威慑力量，将成为一面盾牌”，为美国提供保障，“但不是一种灵活运用的工具”。这是因为，“在未来的军事行动中，有限战争力量将起一种积极的作用，而原子报复力量则只能起一种消极的作用”。美国“大规模报复战略可能阻止了大战”的爆发，但未能“消除局部地区的骚动”。

US political figures and military leaders believed that nuclear forces could not be used in “brushfire” peripheral wars. The US must possess sufficient non-nuclear forces to allow conventional options in marginal situations, so that the US would not be forced into nuclear war for lack of any other choice. The outcome of world conflicts might depend on unconventional, limited wars. The US’s powerful nuclear weapons had little impact on conflicts in the Third World, and superior conventional military forces might be unable to deal with an enemy waging unconventional warfare. The US could not face a choice between either waging all-out war or accepting total defeat.

美国政要和军界将领们认为，核力量不能用于“灌木林火式”的外围战争。美国必须拥有足够的非核力量，在边缘局势中可进行常规选择，这样美国就不会由于没有其他选择而不得不进行核战争。世界冲突的结局将可能取决非常规、有限的战争，美国强大的核武器对第三世界的冲突影响不大，占优势的常规军事力量可能对付不了一个采取非常规战的敌人。美国不能面对这样一种选择：或者进行全面战争，或者接受全面失败。

On the other hand, “limited nuclear war” was the most effective US strategy.

另一方面，“有限核战争”是美国最有效的战略。

In 1957, Kissinger proposed that “in fighting against a nuclear-armed nation or against a great power that can substitute manpower for science and technology, limited nuclear war is our most effective strategy.” “The policy of limited nuclear war should also not be regarded as a means to relax our preparations for all-out war.” In 1959, Taylor also proposed that “under relatively rare circumstances and conditions consistent with our national interests,” “tactical atomic weapons” could be used.

1957年，基辛格提出，“与拥有核武器的国家作战或与能够以人力代替科学技术的大国作战，有限核战争是我们最有效的战略”“有限核战争的政策也不应该被当作使我们放松全面战争准备的手段”。1959年，泰勒也提出，“在比较罕见的情况和符合我国利益的条件下”，可以“使用战术原子武器”。

Second, after the Soviet Union achieved strategic nuclear parity with the US, the US believed that a superpower could no longer use war as a policy tool against another superpower.

第二，在苏联取得与美国的战略核均等后，美国认为一个超级大国再也不能用战争作为对付另一个超级大国的政策工具了。

Nixon said that during the Cold War, the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, “possessed the power to destroy each other and the rest of the world. This greatly reduced the likelihood of global nuclear war.” “Neither superpower could afford to fight the other,” and resorting to war, “that last resort, would be suicide. In the age of nuclear war, continuing our political differences by means of war would destroy today’s civilization.”

尼克松说，冷战期间，美苏两个超级大国“拥有相互摧毁并摧毁其余世界的力量。这大大降低了发生全球核战争的可能性”。“两个超级大国都经受不起相互打仗”，诉诸战争“这一最后手段，就是自取灭亡。在核战争时代，用战争手段把我们的政治分歧继续下去，就会使我们今天的文明毁灭”。

US political figures and some scholars believed that direct conflict between superpowers would almost certainly escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. Any local war could suddenly spread into a nuclear holocaust, and nuclear war could lead to the destruction of all nations and societies. In any conventional or nuclear world war, there would be no victors, only losers. Nuclear parity changed the nature of US-Soviet conflict; nuclear weapons made war between great powers obsolete as a means of resolving contradictions. Due to the destructive power of nuclear weapons, there would be no more world wars in the 21st century. Besides maintaining sufficient nuclear deterrent forces, the US must also learn to compete without direct military intervention.

美国政要和一些学者认为，超级大国之间的直接冲突几乎肯定会升级到动用核武器。任何局部战争都可能突然蔓延成一场核子屠杀，核战争可能导致一切国家和社会毁灭。在任何常规或核的世界大战中，将不会有胜利者，只有失败者。核均势改变了美苏冲突的性质，核武器使大国之间的战争作为解决矛盾的手段过时了。由于核武器的摧毁力，21世纪不会再有世界大战了。美国除保持足够的核威慑力量，还必须学会在不进行直接军事干预的情况下进行竞争。

Third, developing countries attempting to become nuclear states made the nightmare of nuclear war a potential reality. Nixon believed: “All countries in the developing world are now trying to become nuclear states.” “As a result, the danger of nuclear war is now more serious than during the Cold War.”

第三，发展中国家试图成为核国家，使核战争的噩梦有可能成为现实。尼克松认为：“发展中世界的所有国家现在都试图成为核国家”“其结果是，现在核战争的危险比冷战时期更严重了。”

Fourth, for the foreseeable future, the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear war will persist, and nuclear weapons must remain part of US strategy. US political figures believed that the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is a basic fact of international life, and nuclear weapons must be part of the US strategy to prevent the outbreak of war. Nixon said that accusing “nuclear deterrence of being immoral is irresponsible.” The US “must possess nuclear weapons to deter potential aggressors from starting a war or forcing us to surrender without a fight.”

第四，在可以预见的未来，核武器和核战争的威胁都将存在，核武器必须成为美国战略的一部分。美国政要们认为，核武器和核战争的威胁是国际生活中的一个基本事实，核武器必须成为美国制止战争爆发的战略的一部分。尼克松说，“指责核威慑是不道德的说法”是不负责任的，美国“必须拥有核武器来遏制潜在的侵略者发动战争或迫使我们不战而降”。

IV. To protect vital US interests, peaceful methods must be combined with resolute action

四、为保护美国切身利益，必须把采取和平的办法和坚决的行动结合起来

US political figures believed that in protecting its vital interests, the US should “combine firmness with flexibility,” using “peaceful methods” and military methods so that these two means complement each other. The US must possess capabilities in six areas: ideology, diplomacy, economic aid, military aid, military force, and covert action. At the same time, the US “must know where and how to use each means.” “It cannot exercise leadership by example alone or by power alone, but must combine the best elements of both.”

美国政要认为，美国在保护自己的切身利益时，应该把“坚定性和灵活性结合起来”，运用“和平的办法”和军事的办法，使这两种手段互相补充；美国必须具备意识形态、外交、经济援助、军事援助、军事力量和秘密行动这六个方面的能力，同时，美国“必须懂得在什么地方以什么方式使用每一种手段”“不能仅靠榜样或是仅靠强权来行使领导，而是必须将两者中最完美的因素结合起来”。

First, the US must maintain a powerful and diverse military force capable of conducting a wide range of military activities.

第一，美国必须保持一支强大的多样化军事力量，能够进行广泛性质的军事活动。

After World War II, regardless of which party or which president came to power, the US consistently regarded strengthening and maintaining its huge and diverse military forces as an available means of defending US interests.

二战后，无论哪一党、哪个总统上台执政，美国都一如既往地把加强和保持美国巨大和多样的军事力量作为保卫美国利益可供选择的手段。

In 1961, as soon as he assumed the US presidency, Kennedy proposed that “first we must strengthen our military tools.” He believed that, “in the face of a new and difficult world,” the United States “must maintain a strong, diversified military force, one capable of conducting military operations of a broad nature.” His successor Johnson stated that the United States would never “let our adversaries gain an advantage in any possible war, be it nuclear war, conventional war, or guerrilla war.” After the Soviet Union’s strategic nuclear forces roughly matched those of the United States, Nixon argued that the United States “urgently needs to greatly increase our general-purpose forces and strengthen our regional capabilities.”

1961年，肯尼迪一就任美国总统就提出，“首先我们必须加强我们的军事工具”。他认为，“在面临着一个新的、困难的世界”，美国“必须保持一支强大的、多样化的军事力量，一支能够进行广泛性质的军事活动的部队”。继任总统约翰逊则称，美国决“不让我们的对手在任何一种可能发生的战争中占优势，不论是核战争，常规战争，还是游击战”。当苏联的战略核力量大体与美国相当后，尼克松认为，美国“迫切需要大大增加我们的一般任务部队和加强我们的地区能力”。

US political figures and military leaders have consistently held that the United States must possess the most advanced weapons, maintain an advantage over the communist bloc, and sustain technological military superiority over it. Otherwise, it would lead to the resurgence of the Soviet Union’s waning revolutionary will. To this end, the United States must maintain a powerful strategic deterrent force, ensuring that both sides use nuclear weapons politically and diplomatically rather than militarily.

美国政要和军界将领们一贯认为，美国必须掌握最先进的武器，保持对共产党集团的优势，在军事技术方面保持对共产党集团的优势。否则，将会导致苏联日益衰退的革命意志死灰复燃。为此，美国必须保持强大的战略性威慑力量，确保双方在政治和外交上利用核武器而不是在军事上使用核武器。

Second, democratic nations cannot win by military might alone.

第二，民主国家单靠军事威力是不能取胜的。

Kennedy said that in our era “no important problem can be solved solely by military force” and that “the world situation must be addressed on social, economic, and political foundations.” US political figures believe: first, in global competition, one of the West’s most powerful weapons is the idea of freedom; the US president must fully utilize this weapon of free thought and use it appropriately and effectively. Second, economic power itself is a powerful weapon; if skillfully employed, it can advance our interests. Third, the United States must learn to achieve strategic goals by providing foreign aid; US military and economic assistance should prevent new opportunities for communist expansion. Fourth, without military strength and the resolve to use it decisively and selectively in major conflicts, we will be defeated without a fight; a combination of moderate rhetoric and tough action is necessary. Fifth, depending on the situation, military, political, economic, and psychological means should be used alternately or in combination.

肯尼迪说，在我们的时代“没有什么重要问题是单靠军事力量而获得解决的”“世界的局势必须要从社会、经济和政治基础上对付”。美国政要认为：一是在世界的竞争中，西方最有力的武器之一就是自由思想，美国总统必须充分运用自由思想这个武器，并且要运用得恰当有效。二是经济力量本身就是一种强有力的武器，如果巧妙地加以使用，就能促进我们的利益。三是美国必须学会通过提供外援来实现战略目标，美国的军事和经济援助应防止为共产主义扩张带来新的机会。四是没有军事实力和在重要的冲突中果断、有选择地使用军事实力的决心，我们将不战自败，要把温和的调子与强硬的行动结合起来。五是根据形势需要，军事、政治、经济和心理的手段要交替采用或兼施并用。

V. Must Use All Peaceful Means to Induce the Communist Bloc

五、必须利用一切和平手段来诱导共产党集团

In April 1956, Eisenhower delivered a speech titled “The Search for World Security,” proposing a policy of “peaceful evolution” toward communist countries. He said: “We must use all peaceful means to induce the Soviet bloc to correct the existing injustices.” The following year, at a NATO meeting, he stated that “before the free nations lies the clear possibility of achieving victory by peaceful means,” calling this a “noble strategy.” Eisenhower’s Secretary of State Dulles, commenting on certain actions of Soviet leaders at the time, said, “There are now some signs that a new era may be dawning” and that “the result of this change may produce—not this year, nor next year, but several years hence.” The United States must “go all out” to implement Eisenhower’s “noble strategy”; “its cost will be high, not only in terms of money, but especially in terms of will, perseverance, and confidence.” Thus, “peaceful evolution” alongside the Cold War became a means for the United States to deal with socialist countries.

1956年4月，艾森豪威尔发表了名为《寻求世界安全》的演说，提出对共产党国家实施“和平演变”的方针。他说：“我们必须利用一切和平手段来诱导苏联集团，使它纠正现存的一些不合乎正义的事情。”第二年，他又在北约组织会议上说，“在自由国家面前摆着用和平手段取得胜利的明显可能性”，这是一个“高尚战略”。艾森豪威尔政府的国务卿杜勒斯，针对当时苏联领导人的一些做法说，“现在有些征象表明新的时代也许正在破晓”“这种变化的结果也许会产生——不是今年，也不是明年，而是若干年后”。美国必须“全力以赴”地执行艾森豪威尔的“高尚战略”，“它的代价将是高昂的，这不仅仅是就金钱来说，而且特别是就意志、坚韧性、信心来说”。由此，“和平演变”与冷战一起成为美国对付社会主义国家的手段。

First, “in the long run, we can encourage ‘peaceful evolution’ within the communist bloc itself; this will take many years to complete.”

第一，“从长期看，我们可以鼓励共产党集团本身内部的‘和平演变’，这要许多年才能完成”。

From the Eisenhower administration onward, US political figures and some scholars have believed that within communist countries there exist “forces demanding greater liberalism,” and if these forces can persist, they may cause “fundamental changes” within those countries. “We cannot predict when or by what means the countries and peoples still under communist rule may move toward freedom. But we must always keep the lamp of freedom burning before them.” “We look forward to the day” when, “within a decade or a generation,” we can “achieve the greatest goal of our policy.” Kennedy believed that “how to eradicate the communist movement clearly has no easy solution”; one way is for the communists “to do it themselves,” and “another way is through action from outside.” Nixon argued: “This task cannot be completed in a few decades; it will take many generations.”

从艾森豪威尔政府起，美国政要和一些学者们都认为，共产党国家内部“有要求较大的自由主义的力量”，如果这些力量能够坚持下去，就有可能使共产党国家“内部发生基本的变化”。“我们无法预料，仍在共产党统治下的国家和人民可能在什么时候或者用什么手段走向自由。但是我们必须始终在他们面前燃起自由之灯”，“我们盼望着这么一天”，“在10年或者1代期间”“达到我们政策的最大目标”。肯尼迪认为，“怎样铲除共产主义运动，这个问题显然还没有轻而易举的解决办法”，一个办法是由共产党人“自己来干”，“另一个办法是通过来自外间的行动”。尼克松认为：“这项任务不是几十年就能完成的，而是要许多代才能完成。”

In April 1963, Kennedy said that achieving “peaceful evolution” “depends on the gradual evolution of institutions by people.” In June of the same year, former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union Kennan stated: “From the perspective of world peace prospects, Russia’s approach is relatively encouraging and hopeful.” Nixon believed that the United States and the Western bloc would win without fighting in the “peaceful evolution.” In 1984, he said: “If we are firm in our will, we need not be pessimistic about the outcome of the competition. As one generation replaces another, we will begin to see the process of peaceful evolution within the Eastern bloc… In the long run, we will win, and win without a fight.”

1963年4月，肯尼迪说，实现“和平演变”“是依靠人的制度的逐步演变”。同年6月，美国前驻苏大使凯南认为：“从世界和平的前景这一角度来看，俄国的做法是比较鼓舞人心和使人抱有希望的。”尼克松则认为，美国等西方集团将在“和平演变”中不战而胜。1984年，他说：“如果我们坚定自己的意志，我们就不必对竞争的结果感到悲观。随着一代人接替另一代人，我们将开始看到东方集团内部出现和平演变的过程……从长远来说，我们将获胜，而且是不战而胜。”

Second, “in this world, even firmly established communist governments are inevitably influenced by the forces of evolution.”

第二，“在这个世界上，即使是站稳脚跟的共产党政府，都不可避免地受到演变力量的影响”。

Some in the United States believe that “military evolution” toward communist countries is too dangerous, while “peaceful evolution” is impossible. Nixon did not fully agree with this view. He said: “They are correct on the first point, but wrong on the second. In this world, everything, even firmly established communist governments, is inevitably influenced by the forces of evolution.” As long as the United States “adopts responsible policies in competition, we can help shape and accelerate the process of positive change.” The United States must seek cooperation with communist leaders who desire “genuine reform.”

美国一些人认为，对共产党国家实行“军事演变太危险，而和平演变不可能”。对此，尼克松不完全赞同这种观点。他说，“他们在第一点上是正确的，然而在第二点上是错误的。在这个世界上，任何事务，即使是站稳脚跟的共产党政府，都不可避免地受到演变力量的影响”。只要美国在竞争中“采取负责任的政策，我们就能够帮助积极变化进程的形成和加速发展”。美国必须寻求与希望实行“真正改革”的共产党领导人进行合作。

US political figures and scholars believe that contact between their society (i.e., socialist society) and our society will sow seeds of discontent, which may one day bear the fruit of peaceful evolution; the United States must adopt policies that maximize such exchanges. Applying various economic weapons to communist regimes and increasing trade contacts can promote “peaceful evolution” within the communist bloc. Trade must be used as a weapon, not a gift, ensuring that communism suffers defeat years or even decades before its own collapse. Different communist countries should be treated with friendly or hostile policies to “intensify divisions within the communist world”; “this is extremely important.” Third, “the development of US-China relations has a limit that cannot be exceeded.”

美国政要和学者认为，他们的社会（指社会主义）和我们的社会之间的接触会播下不满的种子，这些种子有朝一日将结出和平演变之果，美国必须采取最大限度地增加这种交流的政策。对共产党政权施以各种经济实力武器，增加贸易接触，能够促进共产党集团内部的“和平演变”。必须把贸易当作一种武器，而不能当作一种礼物，这确保了共产主义在自行崩溃的前几年，甚至前几十年便遭到失败。要对不同共产党国家区别采取友好或敌视的政策以“加强共产主义世界内部的分歧”，“这是极为重要的”。第三，“美国和中国关系的发展有一个不能超越的限度”。

Nixon believed that the United States should “first consider long-term investment in China, an investment that will make China’s future progress dependent on continued cooperation with the West.” Since the United States and China “are not allies,” the development of relations “has a limit that cannot be exceeded”; the United States “will not sacrifice our Chinese friends in Taiwan.” “In the face of changing international realities, we share no common experience, struggle, or ideal that can bind us inseparably. Unless a large-scale political reform movement occurs in China, our basic views on how to govern the country will remain diametrically opposed.” “The future of Sino-US relations lies not only in the hands of American politicians but also in the hands of American business leaders.” Which path China might take could ultimately determine the survival of the West.

尼克松认为，美国对中国“首先考虑进行长期投资，这种投资将使中国未来的进步依靠同西方继续合作”。由于美国与中国“不是盟国”，关系的发展“ 有一个不能超越的限度”，美国“不会牺牲台湾的中国朋友”。“在变幻不定的国际现实面前，我们之间没有什么共同的经历、斗争或理想可以使我们永不分离。除非中国发生一场大规模的政治改革运动，否则我们对于如何治理国家的基本观点仍将是针锋相对的”，“中美关系的前途既掌握在美国政治家手中，也掌握在美国企业界人士手中”。中国可能采取哪条路线，最后可能决定西方的存亡。

Fourth, “defeating communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 20th century is merely the first step toward the victory of freedom worldwide in the 21st century.”

第四，“20世纪在苏联和东欧击败共产主义，仅是21 世纪自由在全世界获胜的第一步”。

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Nixon claimed that the Western countries had “defeated communism” in the Cold War. “It is not only a military victory, but also an ideological, political, and economic victory,” and “one of the most brilliant achievements of free people in the entire history of civilization.” Nixon said: “While celebrating the failure of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, we must seize the opportunity to achieve the victory of peace and freedom throughout the world.”

苏联解体后，尼克松称西方国家在冷战中“击败共产主义”。“不仅仅是军事的，也是意识形态、政治和经济诸方面的胜利”，还是“自由的人民在整个文明史上所取得的最辉煌的成就之一”。尼克松说，“当庆祝东欧和苏联共产主义失败的时候，必须抓住时机争取和平与自由在全世界获得胜利。”

Nixon said, “The Communists have lost the ideological struggle worldwide. But the fact that they lost the struggle does not mean the West won it.” In the 21st century, “nothing will have a greater political impact on the world than whether political and economic freedom takes root and thrives in Russia and other former communist countries,” and “until this transition becomes irreversible into political freedom, economic freedom, and a nonaggressive foreign policy, there will always be the danger that the remnants of the shattered Soviet empire will stage a comeback and bring disastrous consequences to the world.” Nixon believed that the challenges the United States faces after the Cold War are greater than those during the Cold War. This is because, since the end of the Cold War, choosing how and when to fight for peace and freedom has become even more complex than before. The end of the Cold War between superpowers does not mean the end of conflicts between small states.

尼克松说，“共产党在世界范围内的意识形态斗争中失败了。但是，他们输掉这场斗争的事实并不意味着西方赢得了斗争的胜利”。在21世纪，“没有任何一桩事比政治自由和经济自由能否在俄国和其他前共产主义国家生根并茁壮成长对世界的政治影响更大”，“在这一过渡最终转化为不可逆转的政治自由、经济自由和非侵略性对外政策之前，始终存在着被粉碎的苏联帝国的残余力量对世界杀一个回马枪并带来灾难性后果的危险”。尼克松认为，美国在冷战以后面临的挑战比冷战期间更大。这是因为，自冷战结束以来，选择以何种方式和在什么时间为和平与自由而战甚至变得比以往更复杂了。超级大国之间冷战的结束，并不意味着小国之间冲突的结束。

Fifth, one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century is dealing with the deep divisions that still exist and will always exist among peoples who hold opposing ideologies.

第五，21世纪最重大的挑战之一，是处理信奉针锋相对的意识形态的各国人民之间依然并将永远存在的深刻分歧。

Nixon believed that the 21st century would still see “two revolutionary changes threatening the Third World.” “The first is communist revolution,” and the second is Islamic fundamentalism, which “has replaced communism as the primary means of violent revolution.” The United States must care about what happens in the Third World because it involves huge U.S. strategic and economic interests. If the 21st century is to be a century of peace, the suffering and wars of the Third World must be resolved; otherwise, “when one revolution subsides, another revolution will occur.” The term “Third World” is outdated; now there are only two “worlds” composed of developed and developing countries. “If there is still a ‘story of two worlds’ in the future, the foundation of future peace and stability will be built on sand.”

尼克松认为，21世纪仍将“有两种革命变革正威胁着第三世界”。“第一种是共产主义革命”，第二种是伊斯兰原教旨主义，后者“取代共产主义成为暴力革命的主要手段”。美国必须关心第三世界发生的事情，因为这涉及美国巨大的战略利益和经济利益。如果21世纪要成为和平的世纪，就必须解决第三世界的困苦和战争，不然“当一场革命平息后，另一场革命还将会发生”。“第三世界”的说法已经过时，现在只存在由发达国家和发展中国家组成的两个“世界”。“如果今后仍然存在着‘两个世界的故事’，未来的和平和稳定的基础就是建立在沙滩之上。”

VI. Armaments Are Not the Cause of War, and Arms Control Cannot Achieve Peace

六、军备不是引起战争的原因，军备控制也不能实现和平

Nixon argued that war is not caused by the existence of weapons, but by political differences between countries that lead to the use of weapons; arms expansion is a symptom of political conflict, not its cause. While we should try to alleviate the symptoms, we should not ignore the disease itself. The idea of disarmament is based on the logical fallacy of equating people’s intentions with the means by which they realize those intentions. “Because of this fundamental misunderstanding, disarmament advocates believe that the most promising way to achieve peace is precisely a prescription for international disaster.”

尼克松认为，战争并不是武器的存在引起的，而是各国之间的政治分歧导致使用武器而引起的，扩军是政治冲突的一种症状，而不是病因。我们固然应设法缓解症状，但不应忽视疾病本身。裁军的主张，是建立在把人们的意图与人们借以实现他们意图的手段等同起来这种逻辑谬误上的。“由于这一根本性的误解，裁军主义者们认为最有希望实现和平的办法，恰恰是导致国际灾难的一张处方。”

U.S. political figures believe that armaments are determined by political differences and adversarial relations; attempting to disarm before eliminating these conflicts of interest is putting the cart before the horse. The disarmament myth is the progenitor of all peace myths.

美国政要认为，军备是由政治上的分歧与对抗关系决定的，在消除这些利益冲突之前企图解除军备，是本末倒置的行为。裁军神话是各种和平神话的鼻祖。

First, the United States must simultaneously pursue both the path of disarmament negotiations and the path of arms expansion, maintaining a high level of military effectiveness.

第一，美国必须同时走裁军谈判和扩充军备这两条道路，保持高度的军事效能。

U.S. political figures advocate that the U.S. goal is not disarmament, but the achievement of a stable strategic balance, never weakening the means to defend the American system. The U.S. government will not put forward any proposal that would shift the balance of power to the disadvantage of the United States.

美国政要主张，美国的目标不是裁军，而是实现一种稳定的战略均势，决不削弱保卫美国制度的手段。美国政府不会提出会使力量平衡转变为不利于美国的任何建议。

Second, comprehensive nuclear disarmament is an impossible dream.

第二，全面核裁军是一个不可能实现的梦想。

Nixon said that those who advocate eliminating nuclear weapons live in a fantasy. “One of the most reckless and dangerous fallacies of the nuclear disarmament movement is that the world would necessarily be a better place without nuclear weapons.”

尼克松说，主张消除核武器的人生活在梦幻之中。“核裁军运动的最轻率、最危险的谬论之一是：假如没有核武器，世界上的日子必定能好过一些。”

U.S. political figures and some scholars believe that nuclear weapons will exist forever; as long as people know how to make nuclear weapons, the United States cannot simply fantasize about eliminating them from the earth and must accept these harsh realities. Although nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated, many things can be done to prevent their use. Only by learning to coexist peacefully with America’s adversaries can the United States learn to coexist with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, the United States will die from atomic bombs. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to other countries is in the U.S. interest; to stop nuclear proliferation, the superpowers must work together. Without U.S. leadership in the world, “avoiding nuclear anarchy” cannot be resolved.

美国政要和一些学者们认为：核武器将永远存在下去，只要人们知道怎样制造核武器，美国就不能一味幻想从地球上消灭核武器，必须接受这些残酷的现实。虽然不能消灭核武器，但能够做许多事情来防止使用核武器。只有通过学会同美国的敌手和平共存，美国才能学会同核武器共存。否则，美国会死于原子弹。防止核武器技术扩散到其他国家，符合美国的利益；为制止核扩散，超级大国必须共同做出努力。没有美国对世界的领导，“避免核无政府状态”是得不到解决的。

(Author bios: Li Shenming, Director of the World Socialism Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, former Vice President and Researcher of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Yin Bin, Xu Shiping, Wang Liqiang, Distinguished Research Fellows of the World Socialism Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Hong Yuan, Researcher at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者简介：李慎明，中国社会科学院世界社会主义研究中心主任，中国社会科学院原副院长、研究员；尹斌，许石坪，王立强，中国社会科学院世界社会主义研究中心特邀研究员；洪源，中国社会科学院美国研究所研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心