特朗普主义：世界是一场零和博弈
The Trump Doctrine: The World Is a Zero-Sum Game

What is President Trump up to? This is arguably the most important question in the world right now — and perhaps the toughest to answer.
特朗普总统想干什么？这可以说是目前世界上最重要的问题——或许也是最难回答的问题。

Mr. Trump’s words and actions seem to revolve around a central idea: The world is a zero-sum game. Whoever pays the most into the pot is the loser; whoever gets the most is the winner.
特朗普的言行似乎都围绕着一个中心思想：世界是一场零和博弈。谁付出的最多，谁就是输家；谁得到的最多，谁就是赢家。

That may sound like a mere difference of perspective or negotiation style. But most of the postwar international order is based on the idea that the world is a positive-sum game: a collection of overlapping systems that benefit all who participate in them, even if the costs and benefits of participation aren’t distributed equally.
这听起来可能只是出于不同的视角或谈判风格。但战后国际秩序的大部分都是基于这样的理念：世界是一场正和博弈：这是指一个重叠体系的集合，即使参与的成本和收益分配不均，参与其中的所有人都能从中获益。

This positive-sum concept is a foundation of the international trade, international law, and international alliances that have been engines of prosperity and peace for decades — and indeed of democracy itself.
这种正和概念是国际贸易、国际法和国际联盟的基础，几十年来，它们一直是繁荣与和平的引擎，实际上也是民主本身的引擎。

Since World War II, the United States has been a powerful anchor of that system. But Mr. Trump has signaled he is playing a very different game.
自第二次世界大战以来，美国一直是这一体系的强大支柱。但特朗普已经表明，他在玩一种截然不同的游戏。

Since the 1980s, his words and actions have suggested that he places little value on positive-sum dynamics. Where others see positive-sum games generating gains for all, he seems to see only zero-sum winners and losers. And now, in his second term, that worldview appears to be a primary driver of his foreign policy.
自20世纪80年代以来，他的言行就表明他不太重视正和动态。在其他人看来，正和博弈能为所有人带来收益，而他似乎只能看到零和博弈的赢家和输家。现在，在他的第二个任期内，这种世界观似乎成为他外交政策的主要驱动力。

That is already upending norms, alliances, markets and economies. It is threatening many of the United States’ longstanding relationships, transforming friends into adversaries and strengths into weaknesses.
这已经在颠覆规范、联盟、市场和经济。它正在威胁美国的许多长期关系，将朋友变成对手，将优势变成劣势。

Understanding this zero-sum thinking helps to explain the Trump administration’s approach toward global trade, its acquisitive and extractive foreign policy, its friendliness toward many autocratic regimes and its hostility toward liberal democracies.
理解这种零和思维有助于解释特朗普政府对待全球贸易的态度、它那贪婪和掠夺性的外交政策、乃至它对许多专制政权的友好和对自由民主国家的敌意。

Positive-sum games
正和博弈

The basic concept of a positive-sum game is that players do not win at each other’s expense, but instead all gain from participating. The interaction between the players creates aggregate benefits that exceed the aggregate costs.
正和博弈的基本概念是，参与者不以牺牲对方为代价而赢，所有参与方都从参与之中获益。参与者之间的互动创造的总收益超过总成本。

In simple terms, cooperation makes the overall pie larger, so everyone’s piece gets bigger.
简单来说，合作将整个蛋糕做大，所以每个人分到的那份也就更大。

In a zero-sum game, by contrast, the total rewards are fixed, so every gain comes at someone’s expense — one person getting more pie means another gets less. My colleague Damien Cave recently wrote about some of the anthropological reasons why humans are prone to zero-sum thinking, including a psychological bias toward perceiving themselves as being in cutthroat battles, even when they are not.
相反，在零和博弈中，总回报是固定的，所以每一次收益都是以某个人的损失为代价——一个人得到更多蛋糕意味着另一个人得到的变少。我的同事达米安·凯夫最近的文章从人类学角度分析了人类容易产生零和思维的一些原因，其中包括一种心理偏见，认为自己处于残酷的战斗之中，即使事实并非如此。

But once they are established, positive-sum games can work on the basis of cooperation rather than coercion, as people become aware of the benefits they offer. That’s true even if the costs and benefits aren’t equitable: Some participants can gain more than others, but if everyone gains something, it’s still worthwhile to participate.
但是，正和博弈一旦建立起来，就可以在合作而不是强制的基础上发挥作用，因为人们会意识到正和博弈所提供的好处。即使成本和收益并不公平也是如此：一些参与者可能比其他人获得更多，但如果每个人都有所收获，那么参与仍然是值得的。

Positive-sum systems of international trade, security, and democracy reinforce one another: It is easier to invest in another country, or rely on goods imported from it, if you aren’t worried that war might sever your relations. But the opposite can also be true. Without trust and cooperation, the interlocking systems can collapse — one by one, and then all at once.
国际贸易、安全和民主的正和体系相辅相成：如果你不担心战争可能会切断你与另一个国家的关系，那么你就更容易在另一个国家投资，或依赖从该国进口的商品。但反之亦然。没有信任与合作，环环相扣的系统就会崩溃——一个接一个，然后突然全部崩溃。

International Trade
国际贸易

The modern system of international trade is built on the assumption that trade not only makes individual buyers and sellers better off, but also that countries benefit from being able to specialize.
现代国际贸易体系是建立在这样一种假设之上的：贸易不仅使买卖个体双方更加富裕，而且各国也能从专业化中受益。

Exporters get the benefits of foreign markets, while importers get access to goods and services without having to produce them themselves, freeing up resources for other sectors that are more profitable. All participants get to focus on their areas of comparative advantage: the United States, for example, might have fewer clothing factories but more Silicon Valley tech giants, which leads to more growth for the U.S. economy as a whole.
出口商获得国外市场的好处，而进口商不必自己生产就能获得商品和服务，从而为其他更有利可图的行业腾出资源。所有参与者都可以专注于自己的相对优势领域：例如，美国的服装厂可能较少，但拥有更多硅谷科技巨头，这可以为整个美国经济带来更多增长。

Americans have enjoyed the benefits of that system for so long that they may not realize how much they depend on it, said Heather Hurlburt, a former Biden administration trade official.
前拜登政府贸易官员希瑟·赫尔伯特说，美国人享受这一体系的好处已经太久了，他们可能没有意识到自己有多依赖它。

“Americans are very used to being able to get the best of the best from other countries, whether that is fun consumer goods or whether it’s medications,” she said.
“美国人已经非常习惯于从其他国家买到最好的东西，无论是用于玩乐的消费品还是药物，”她说。

There are longstanding debates about trade policy, and whether protectionism can help develop key industries, or what policies benefit workers the most. But Mr. Trump appears to be hostile to the underlying concept that trade can be mutually beneficial at all.
关于贸易政策，保护主义是否有助于发展关键产业，或者哪些政策对工人最有利，争论由来已久。但特朗普似乎对贸易可以互惠互利这一基本概念怀有敌意。

In his worldview, any country that imports more than it exports is a loser, and any country with a trade surplus is a winner. He has initiated large tariffs against the three biggest U.S. trading partners: Mexico, China and Canada and threatened to soon do the same against the European Union. (In reality, there is little evidence that tariffs can reduce trade deficits.)
在他的世界观里，任何进口大于出口的国家都是输家，任何贸易顺差的国家都是赢家。他已经对墨西哥、中国和加拿大这三个美国最大的贸易伙伴征收了高额关税，并威胁很快会对欧盟采取同样的措施。（实际上，几乎没有证据表明关税可以减少贸易逆差。）

Although Mr. Trump gave Canada and Mexico a temporary reprieve from most of the new tariffs this week, his on-again, off-again tactics have only reinforced the message that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner.
尽管特朗普本周让加拿大和墨西哥暂时免除了大部分新关税，但他时断时续的策略只会强化这样一个信息——美国不再是一个可靠的贸易伙伴。

International Law
国际法

The post-World War II world is built on a rules-based system of international law. The idea is that the positive-sum benefits of the system create an incentive for countries to respect the U.N. Charter and comply with treaty obligations and the laws of war, even if there are no international cops to enforce them.
第二次世界大战后的世界建立在以规则为基础的国际法体系之上。其理念是，即使没有国际警察来执行，该体系的正和利益也会激励各国尊重《联合国宪章》，遵守条约义务和战争法。

The strong post-World War II norm against territorial conquest, for example, is a collective sacrifice of the ability to invade and take over other countries. In exchange, nation states receive the greater collective benefit of avoiding costly wars and forgoing the need to constantly defend themselves against annexation.
例如，“二战”后反对领土征服的有力准则是各国共同放弃了入侵和接管其他国家的能力。作为交换，民族国家获得了更大的集体利益，避免了代价高昂的战争，也无需时刻防备吞并。

Countries do still violate international law, of course. But even then, they tend to do so in ways that signal support for the system itself by denying that they violated the law, or claiming some kind of defense to accusations that they did. (Russia, for example, claimed that its invasion of Ukraine was necessary to defend Russian speakers there against genocide.)
当然，有些国家仍然违反国际法。但即便如此，他们也倾向于通过否认自己违反了法律，或对违反国际法的指控进行某种辩护，来表达对国际法体系本身的支持。（例如，俄罗斯声称入侵乌克兰是必要的，为的是保护那里的俄语使用者免遭种族灭绝。）

Mr. Trump has made a point of undercutting this system. He has talked of annexing Greenland and Gaza and making Canada the 51st state. More acutely, he has undercut Ukraine’s right to maintain its territorial integrity by offering to let Russia keep the land it has invaded — and by threatening to cut Ukraine out of peace talks altogether.
特朗普致力于削弱这一体系。他曾表示要吞并格陵兰和加沙、把加拿大变成第51个州。更严重的是，他提出让俄罗斯保留其入侵的土地，并威胁要将乌克兰完全排除在和平谈判之外，从而削弱了乌克兰维护领土完整的权利。

NATO
北约

Defensive alliances like NATO work on a similar principle: Jointly investing in deterrence produces greater value for the United States and its allies by preventing wars, even if all participants don’t contribute equally.
像北约这样的防御联盟也遵循类似的原则：共同投资于威慑，通过防止战争，为美国及其盟国创造更大的价值，即使所有参与者的贡献不尽相同。

The United States has always paid an outsized share of defense costs for its allies because it saw those alliances as positive-sum.
美国一直为其盟国支付巨额国防费用，因为它认为这些联盟是正和的。

Mr. Trump does not seem to place a value on the intangible benefits of the security arrangement. He has said he would “encourage” the Russians “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO members that do not spend enough on defense. By signaling that U.S. protection is uncertain, he has radically weakened NATO’s deterrent power.
特朗普似乎不重视安全安排的无形利益。他曾表示，他将“鼓励”俄罗斯对防务支出不足的北约成员国“为所欲为”。他表明美国的保护是不确定的，因而从根本上削弱了北约的威慑力量。

“The invisible gains, or the gains that are hard to quantify, like NATO, like the fact that there’s been peace for a long time, is just very alien to him,” said Elizabeth Saunders, a professor of international relations at Columbia University. “He doesn’t count that in the sum.”
“看不见的收益，或者难以量化的收益，比如北约，比如已经很长一段时间没有战争，这些对他来说都是非常陌生的，”哥伦比亚大学国际关系教授伊丽莎白·桑德斯说。“他没有把这个算在内。”

Democracy
民主

Democracy is perhaps the ultimate positive-sum game.
民主也许是终极的正和博弈。

Democracy can only survive as a system of government when politicians believe they are better off playing by the rules of the game.
只有政界人士相信按照游戏规则行事对他们更有利时，民主才能作为一种政府制度存活下来。

In established democracies that usually isn’t difficult, because the benefits of having a system in which election results are respected are predictably big enough to outweigh the costs of accepting an individual loss. The positive-sum gains of democracy include the stability and safety that come from predictable, peaceful transfers of power.
在成熟的民主国家，这通常并不困难，因为拥有一个尊重选举结果的制度所带来的好处可以预见，足以超过接受个人失败的代价。民主的正和收益包括可预测的和平权力交接带来的稳定与安全。

But Mr. Trump’s refusal to accept the result of the 2020 election, and his blanket pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, suggest that he cares little for the core organizing principle of democracy: Election losers are better off acknowledging their defeats in order to preserve the legitimacy of the system and their own opportunities to run again.
但特朗普拒绝接受2020年大选的结果，而他对1月6日暴徒的全面赦免表明他并不关心民主的核心组织原则——选举失败者最好承认自己的失败，以保持制度的合法性，以及他们自己再次参选的机会。

So it is perhaps not surprising that he does not appear to see liberal democracies as natural allies of the United States, taking a hostile stance toward Canada and the European Union, while praising the leaders of Russia and Hungary.
因此，他似乎不把自由民主国家视为美国的天然盟友也就不足为奇了——他对加拿大和欧盟采取敌对立场，同时却赞扬俄罗斯和匈牙利的领导人。

For eight decades, the United States and its allies have built a positive-sum world, confident in the rewards it would bring them and the wider world. The U.S. has offered other countries an implicit guarantee that they, too, play by the rules and will share in the system’s rewards.
80年来，美国及其盟友建立了一个正和世界，坚信这将给它们乃至更广泛的世界带来回报。美国向其他国家提供了一个不言自明的保证：只要按规则行事，它们就可以分享这个体系的回报。

But now, by signaling that the United States no longer believes in that system or intends to play by its rules, Mr. Trump is sending the opposite signal: The United States is now playing a zero-sum game. Any country that expects otherwise will face disappointment, or worse.
但现在，特朗普发出的信号表明，美国不再相信这个体系，也不再打算按照它的规则行事，他发出的是相反的信号：美国现在玩的是零和博弈。任何抱有相反期望的国家都将面临失望，甚至更糟。