【國際關係深度評 🇺🇸】 特朗普回朝之後，已經顛覆了國際關係主流學者的四大假設（四）「秩序摧毀論」是騙局嗎？
Added 2025-02-11 01:01:00 +0000 UTC特朗普公然要求加拿大、格陵蘭、巴拿馬運河領土等一類大動作，普遍被標籤為「新帝國主義」，傳統學者往往視之為一手破壞美國二戰後建立的所謂「rule-based」世界秩序的罪人。拜登上台之時，聲言盡力收復這個「rule-based」秩序，得到自由派一致讚好。他們覺得特朗普回朝又把一切打回原型，空悲痛。
然而這個論述有一個大盲點：究竟此刻的 status quo 是甚麼？其實早就不是冷戰終結時美國獨大的那個世界。由那一刻的 status quo，變成今天的 status quo，究竟是誰的責任？為甚麼這一個改變過程，不是摧毀舊秩序？
我們強調過很多次，自由主義「rule-based」世界秩序的漏洞，其實早就被其他國家、特別是中國所洞察，然後加以利用、破壞、再為己用。中國通過民主國家不能施加的手段，先影響一大批非民主國家領袖，去在「一國一票制」屈機；然後再用經濟為槓桿，一併影響部份民主國家的取態；繼而重新按自己的方式，定義甚麼是「普世價值」和「世界秩序」。
如果自由主義者要守衛一個 status quo，誰是 status quo challenger，應該清晰不過。而誰讓這些 status quo challenger 坐大？我不認為當年克林頓、奧巴馬等相信和平演變論、engagement policy 有單一責任，畢竟 engagement 確有成功的經驗。問題是到了挑戰已經成型，還要內耗搞政治正確的歷史平權、性別平權諸如此類，就足以致命。
根據以往美國總統的作風，包括奧巴馬、拜登在內，面對這一套無賴戰術，已經一籌莫展。所以現在特朗普打破的，已經不是二戰後美國建立的「rule-based」世界秩序，而是被中俄「奪舍」下的「偽rule-based」世界秩序。
他能否建立有效運作的國際新秩序，還是最終依然難逃西方文明衰落的結局，尚是未知之數。但慢慢下來，相信會越來越多人理解真正打破舊有秩序的是誰，而特朗普的出現，只是一種結構性回應，是果、而不是因。
這就像2019年的香港，大家都看見長此下去，以習近平時代對香港的政策，結局已經清晰不過。如果對摧毀原有共識、status quo 的始作俑者不去批評，卻要怪責香港抗爭者，就是本末倒置了。
▶️ 【堅離地傾｜國際關係生活教室｜國際哲學人生 002A】與特朗普談人性之方法論大辯論（沈旭暉 x 陶國璋・上篇公海區）
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny7qI7b8CAA
Comments
Will have another discussion about DOGE and PRC's CRG tomorrow
堅離地書院 College
2025-02-12 11:57:30 +0000 UTCWe can already see one imminent risk emerging. Elon, the person doing the crunching on behalf of Trump, will not stop, therefore DOGE will not stop. As it goes on when more people come to a consensus that this as illegal, and the consequences start mattering to them, but they can’t stop it legally, they may stop the DOGE people physically from entering federal buildings. Now both are illegal and you can’t resolve it. Are you going to lock up the DOGE people? Don’t think so. Will they pardon the rioters? Maybe not. Elon will get fired, but he still got a global megaphone, and he still controls Starlink. Both sides now conclude that the system is rigged. The democratic process is about solving problems through pieces of paper, if that fails then people may resort to violence, similar to what happened on 6 Jan at Capitol building, except this one is initiated from the other side. From this point onwards both sides got their hands dirty and reconciliation is beyond imagination. This is only the first few moves and you can already see how dangerous this is becoming.
lyk
2025-02-12 04:29:56 +0000 UTC純粹理想主義地說，右翼運作得好，應該可以起碼engage到各地既得利益者、派餅派得好啲，否則當然有反效果。基辛格用政變推翻智利民選左翼政府，特朗普鼓勵右翼盟友選贏選舉，都有根本分別。
堅離地書院 College
2025-02-11 10:58:53 +0000 UTCyes certainly that's the risk
堅離地書院 College
2025-02-11 10:56:13 +0000 UTCThe real question is — can it work? And at what cost?
lyk
2025-02-11 09:33:55 +0000 UTC想請教下 咁同基辛格所做同帶嚟既後果（例如南美現在普遍 疑美有冇唔同）？
Kin Lim
2025-02-11 09:17:48 +0000 UTC👍🏽最後一段嘅總結
Sunny Wong
2025-02-11 08:48:26 +0000 UTC這四篇來，我大抵同意教授嘅理論。但可能因為我反美底或者 whatever 令到我 bias，我有 d 唔服氣嘅係，既然所有問題之所以有問題，係有其他國家洞悉美國做主嘅社會跌序漏洞而產生，咁點解而家你搞嘅係全世界而唔係單單搞事嘅國家？事實係，由 36 年前到近 5/6 年，佢地都滿有藉口俾你去開拖，但無論共和兩黨邊一黨當政，其實都冇選擇用一 d 直接嘅打擊方法去改變。咁到呢一刻用呢 d 藉口去整治全世界，我就唔多 gur。 而到最後，今日你侵話打邊個就打邊個，我完全睇唔到美國邊道係舊跌序受害者。再者，如果照教授咁講，其實佢同中共做緊嘅野係冇兩樣。一樣嘅只係想做世界新跌序霸者要其他人聽話，一樣都係覺得全世界可以並存，你唔好搞我我唔好搞你。而最重要嘅係，只要右翼枱頭，各家自掃門前雪，就只會同光時越走越遠。
Gary Lee
2025-02-11 07:45:35 +0000 UTC以前美國著哂禮服講哂禮儀咁去傾，點知遇著爛仔打交方式回應，美國無哂辦法。Trump決定換過套衫去同敵人打爛仔交，點知比自己人話佢係爛仔，係唔啱嘅
CT
2025-02-11 04:52:39 +0000 UTC“他能否建立有效運作的國際新秩序，還是最終依然難逃西方文明衰落的結局，尚是未知之數” — It is not improbable that we see what is not working, try to dismantle it, but also bringing down together with it the good parts that have been working wonderfully all along. Newspapers show us minute by minute what is not working, but they don’t make a headline on what is working day after day and we take them for granted without thinking. How much is not working really, 80%? We will find out how much has actually been working once we take them down. Domestically once we dismantle something it is hard to bring it back, this move-fast-and-break-things Silicon Valley ethos is very dangerous when applied to a government, it is not a place for you to experiment because there are consequences, and you could well end up with a situation far worse than before. To prove something is false is easy, proving something is true is difficult. There are good anti-DEI/woke arguments etc, but they don’t automatically translate to pro-Trumpian arguments. How we go about it matters.
lyk
2025-02-11 03:13:22 +0000 UTC完全同意沈教授的分析 ~
Elaine Yip
2025-02-11 02:00:39 +0000 UTC
