超级大国的地位岌岌可危，但美国的政客们并不在乎

在古希腊的神话故事中，宙斯降罪给位阶较低的神明阿特拉斯，让他用肩膀支撑天穹。矗立在纽约第五大街洛克菲勒中心（Rockefeller Center）前面的纪念铜像，刻画的就是这一形象。在小说家艾茵•兰德的描绘中，阿特拉斯支撑着整个世界。她笔下的另一个角色问道，如果他不堪重负了，那会怎么样？答案是：他耸了耸肩。这就是如今许多美国选民的感觉。他们厌倦了让美国扮演现代的阿特拉斯，已经准备抖落掉世界超级大国这个地位带来的负担了。

从伍德罗•威尔逊到富兰克林•罗斯福、约翰•F•肯尼迪，再到如今，在多任总统的治下，美国一直承担着很大一部分全球责任。长期以来，美国国会全力支持这一做法，国家摒弃了袖手旁观的孤立主义，转而对抗法西斯主义和世界共产主义。同时，为了提高全世界人民的生活水平，美国还建立了世界银行（World Bank）以及其他一系列发展机构。在二战后大规模推行马歇尔计划（Marshall Plan），重建被战火摧残的欧洲的过程中，这种精神体现得淋漓尽致。这不纯粹是一种利他行为，而是出于国家利益的考虑。

美国需要保持全球领袖的地位，这种想法曾是美国人的共识，但如今，信念已然黯淡。部分原因在于，美国参与海外事务并未取得满意的效果。民众的不满在某种程度上始于朝鲜战争，其后在越南战争、海湾战争、阿富汗的战事以及如今中东地区的混乱中，美国公众形象的破灭又让这种不满继续发酵。

在全球化和科技变革的压力下，财富分配变得越来越不均衡，这种强烈的感觉进一步增强了美国本土的厌世情绪。得益于《退伍军人法案》（GI bill）的“最伟大的一代”建立了州际公路，纵情于新发明和优渥的生活中，他们感觉美国无所不能。但如今，他们的孙辈和曾孙辈面临着沉重的学生贷款、稀缺的高薪岗位和逐渐开始损毁的国家基础设施。后一点随处可见，我们的高速公路和大桥年久失修，相比东亚装潢华丽的机场，许多美国机场看起来是那么寒酸。

情况还不至于太糟糕。从任何角度看，无论是在经济上还是军事上，美国仍然是最强盛的国家，有着强大的盟友和亲密的贸易伙伴。但国内弥漫着摆脱世界其他国家的强烈情绪：“我们为什么要当世界警察？”不正是因为我们参与了全球经济，才让自己陷入了如此不利的处境吗？今年的总统大选把类似的情绪带上了台面，甚至还在助推它蔓延，以至于它已经成为了一种主流的声音。

唐纳德•特朗普和伯尼•桑德斯告诉选民，现行的国际贸易协议——那些要在美国的带领下创造更好世界的协议——不值得提倡，它们对美国实际上是有害的。

中国有可能取而代之。中国在亚洲投资建设基础设施，却并不强硬推行“民主自由理念”，也未曾强求别国开放市场。与此同时，中国正在借助自身的实力，巩固他们在争议海域的主权。

美国可以通过更好、更具建设性的方式与亚洲接触，只需要让《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（Trans-Pacific Partnership）生效。这是20年来的第一个大范围的贸易协定，它由美国牵头，有其他11个太平洋沿岸国家加入。想要着手改善世界贸易的不仅有这12个国家，该地区还有另外6个国家也表现出了强烈的加入意愿。它的重要性不仅在于美国适度调低了关税，海外市场壁垒更是大幅降低，而且它有助于美国在亚洲的积极布局，加强了历任美国总统相继提出并执行了一个多世纪的政策，让这块地区变得更加安全，更加美好。

但这一计划陷入了严重的麻烦。随着美国政府遭遇近八年的僵局，国内政治环境前所未有的糟糕，未来国会还可能会更加不作为——甚至是在这次选举之后。没有哪个总统候选人支持这个协议，国会凭什么通过它呢？

如今，我们需要在选举之后新旧总统交接的国会会议上实现突破——孤注一掷地在今年为数不多的日子里通过这一贸易协定。因为情势十分明显，2017年以后会是很长的一段间歇期。可以肯定，无论美国人民选择了哪个新政府，在接下来至少几年内，他们都难以推行贸易协定。

其他国家不会原地踏步等着美国一起行动。他们也在努力出台彼此之间的特惠贸易协定，美国的商品和服务会受到排斥。这对美国收入分配不均和经济发展可不是好事。国内的惰性会深深伤害美国的地缘政治和经济利益。

我的忠告：不要太靠近第五大道的铜像。阿特拉斯可能要耸肩了。 （财富中文网）

作者艾伦•沃尔夫（Alan Wolf）曾任美国助理贸易代表。他长期从事国际贸易律师的工作，现为美国全国对外贸易委员会主席。

译者：严匡正

In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus condemned a lesser god, Atlas, to hold the heavens on his shoulders, an image captured in a monumental bronze statue standing in front of Rockefeller Center on New York’s Fifth Avenue. As pictured by novelist Ayn Rand, Atlas is holding up the world itself, when one of her characters asks what would happen if the weight became unbearable. The answer: He shrugs. That is what all too many American voters appear to feel today—tired of the United States playing the role of a modern-day Atlas, ready to cast off the burden of having world superpower status.

America has borne a large part of the weight of the world under a series of presidents—from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, right up through the present. For a long time, this vision was fully supported by Congress, converted from isolationism to a need to fight fascism and world communism, and by a mission to raise living standards around the world through the creation of the World Bank and a series of other development institutions. It was best manifested on a very large scale with the post-World War II Marshall Plan—the rebuilding of a war-ravaged Europe. It was not done solely out of altruism, but national interest.

What was once a common vision of the need for America’s world leadership has dimmed. In part, this is due to unsatisfactory foreign engagements, starting with the Korean War to some extent, but with a growing sense of public disillusionment building up through the Vietnam War, the second Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the current chaos in the Middle East.

This world-weariness has been compounded by a strong feeling at home that prosperity is increasingly less evenly shared under the pressures of globalization and technological change. The “Greatest Generation” benefitted from the GI bill, created the interstate highway system, reveled in new inventions and a better life, and therefore felt that the United States could do it all. Now their grandchildren and great-grandchildren see a mountain of student debt, less well-paying jobs, and a crumbling national infrastructure. This is visible in absolute terms, with our highways and bridges in bad repair, and many of America’s aging airports looking shabby as compared with East Asia’s spectacular ones.

The picture is not that dark. The United States is still the most well off of any country by any measure—whether economic or military. It has strong alliances and close trading partners. But there is a strong mood in the country of moving toward disengagement from the rest of the world: “Why do we have to be the world’s policeman?” Isn’t our international economic engagement leaving us holding the wrong end of the stick? This year’s presidential election has brought those feelings to the surface, and even encouraged them, so much so that they’re now a dominant theme.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders tell voters that current international trade agreements—the instruments that with America’s leadership will help create a better world—are not worth having, but are in fact harmful.

China is presenting an alternative. It offers investment in infrastructure to Asia without pressing the ideals of democratic freedom or providing an opportunity for individuals to improve their economic well being through freer markets. At the same time, China is using its power to solidify its claims over large areas of disputed ocean.

America has at hand a far better and more constructive approach to Asia—putting into place the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is the first major broad trade agreement negotiated in 20 years, led by the United States and joined in by 11 other Pacific-Rim countries. It is more than a start toward improving world trade among these 12—a half dozen other economies in the region have expressed a strong interest in joining. Its importance transcends modest reductions in U.S. tariffs more than matched by larger reductions in foreign market barriers. It maintains the positive presence of America in Asia. By doing so, it fosters the policies begun and carried on by American presidents for well over a century of making that part of the world a more secure and better place.

This enterprise is in very serious trouble. With the U.S. government characterized by nearly eight years of gridlock, and with domestic politics far more poisonous than ever before, the expectation is of yet more congressional inaction—even after this election has come and gone. Why should Congress act to approve this agreement when no presidential candidate has embraced it?

What is needed is a breakthrough in the lame duck session of Congress meeting after the election—a “Hail Mary” pass, approving this trade pact during the few days remaining this year. For what follows in 2017 is all too clear—a long pause. It is certain that any new administration that the American people choose will find it difficult to act on any trade agreement, at least for a few years.

Other countries are not going to stand around waiting for America to get its act together. They are working on preferential trade agreements among themselves that will discriminate against American goods and services. That will not help with America’s income inequality or economic growth. National inertia is deeply harmful to America’s geopolitical and economic interests.

A word of advice: Don’t stand too close to that statue on Fifth Avenue. Atlas may be about to shrug.