现在在跨大西洋区域正在进行的是潜在的革命进程，这个进程的背后是那些全球化进程中的输家——也就是在过去的几十年里，尤其是在小布什和奥巴马政府期间，生活水平持续下降的人口占总人口比重越来越大
文｜海尔格·策普·拉鲁旭（Helga Zepp-LaRouche） 翻译｜徐巍
欧洲的当权派和主流媒体的一些代表对于唐纳德·特朗普当选美国总统的反应是前所未见的。虽然我们不得不承认特朗普在竞选期间讲话非常坦率，甚至有时会比较粗鲁，但是许多希望希拉里获胜的支持者的措辞也并没有文明多少，甚至有时候也很歇斯底里。德国国防部长乌尔苏拉·格特鲁德·冯德莱恩将特朗普的当选描述为“让人非常地震惊”。欧盟委员会主席让-克洛德·容克曾经取笑过特朗普对欧洲的“无知”，德国《明镜》周刊专栏作家甚至直接称特朗普为一个“法西斯主义者”。
这里所引用的说法只是从前所未有的侮辱性语言的一部分。同时对于欧洲官员来说，如此评价一位民主选举出来的美国总统也是前所未有的。这也反映出这些预测希拉里获胜的特朗普的反对者与现实是多么脱节。他们对于美国国内的社会进程是如此熟视无睹，正如他们对于英国国内民众的声音也熟视无睹，并最终导致了“英国脱欧”一样。特朗普当选所引发的最大不安是因为他表达了与普京总统改善关系的愿望，并且愿意与俄罗斯合作来寻求叙利亚危机的解决办法。
我们应该认识到，欧洲人应该很乐意地看到政治进程向着危险的方向偏离，很多专家认为如果局势一旦失控就会比古巴导弹危机更危险。这一局势就是俄罗斯与北约之间的对立，这一对立是因为北约向俄罗斯边境扩张以及北约致力于将战略平衡向不利于俄罗斯的方向倾斜而引发的。
我们应该认识到，如果新冷战变成了一个真正的武装冲突，欧洲可能变得寸草不生。所以欧洲应该很宽慰地看到这种对立的终结。同时，正如特朗普在大选接近尾声时所强调的，希拉里·克林顿所谓的叙利亚政策——也就是在叙利亚设立一个禁飞区的设想——将会直接带来俄罗斯与美国进行军事冲突的风险，并可能进一步引发第三次世界大战。
奇怪的是，欧洲的大西洋主义者觉得随着新总统的当选以及美俄之间关系改善甚至比俄罗斯在叙利亚问题上与美国进行一次大规模战争更加令人不安。鉴于特朗普暗示他将寻求与普京改善关系，有几个欧洲的大西洋主义者立刻要求欧洲应该承担更多的责任，毫不考虑他们本来也可以终止与俄罗斯的对抗，包括停止制裁措施，恢复对话作为解决争端的主要途径。然而，北约秘书长斯托尔滕贝格以及其他人却警告特朗普不要与俄罗斯达成任何协议。
为什么他们在“华盛顿共识”的华盛顿部分，尤其是关于白宫的那部分，瞬间消失的时候表现出了这样一种行为呢？为什么他们不能提出一个更加为欧洲利益考虑的一个政策呢？答案在于同样的意识形态至上，这也是他们未能理解希拉里在大选中失败的深层次原因。希拉里的失败并不是由于美国联邦调查局针对她的“邮件门”事件展开调查并随后终止调查这一事件，这一事件至多只能算是位列第三的败因。
泛大西洋的当权派被他们的新自由主义原理的意识形态误导如此之深，以至于他们被“英国脱欧”的投票结果完全惊到了，正像他们被特朗普的胜利所惊到一样。在这两个事件中，分析人士几乎都做出了错误的预测。希拉里·克林顿轻蔑地将特朗普的支持者描述为“一个装满了可悲人士的篮子”，这一傲慢实际上代表了一种愚蠢。它（这种傲慢）误把其所属的精英阶层的价值观当作现实。
现在在跨大西洋区域正在进行的是潜在的革命进程，这个进程的背后是那些全球化进程中的输家——也就是在过去的几十年里，尤其是在小布什和奥巴马政府期间，生活水平持续下降的人口占总人口比重越来越大。他们大多身兼数职，但仍然不能糊口，甚至面临破产。他们的儿子已经去伊拉克服役五次了。他们有史以来第一次想到，他们的后代甚至可能比他们过得还糟糕。因此这些跨大西洋世界的人们决定起来反抗。同时这一状况还将会继续，并且在未来的欧洲大选中继续对结果产生影响，直到政府能够克服这一社会的不公平，履行他们为普通民众谋取利益的义务。2016年12月初，意大利将会就修订宪法举行公投。2017年，荷兰、法国、挪威、希腊和德国等国都会举行大选。这些大选结果都会揭示更多的反全球化的思潮以及对现有体制进行终结。
事实上，在2014年的亚太经合组织峰会上，奥巴马总统从未正式地响应习近平主席关于共建“一带一路”、实现双赢合作的倡议。欧盟也一直躲避中国提出的类似倡议。这也反映了同样的问题：这就是跨大西洋地区的大部分领导层正深陷于一种陈旧的地缘政治的思维范式当中。
与此同时，全球重力场的中心已经转向了亚洲。中国的经济模式以及共建“一带一路”倡议所带来的史上前所未有的双赢合作的势头都清晰地表明中国将互惠互利的经济发展带给各方的合作模式是优于地缘政治对抗模式的。这一双赢合作的势头在符拉迪沃斯托克经济论坛，在欧盟与“一带一路”倡议的深度融合，在展示中国领导力的杭州G20峰会，在东盟领导人老挝峰会，在果阿金砖国家领导人年度峰会以及在秘鲁举行的亚太经合组织领导人峰会都有清晰地展现。
如果中国、俄罗斯与即将迎来新总统的美国能够在这种精神的指引下深入合作，那么毫无疑问欧洲国家也能够在这个世上最大的经济和文化项目中展开合作。
英文版：
European politics in transition:Will the old continent find its way?
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
The reactions in Europe to the election of Donald Trump as US President by some representatives of the establishment and the mainstream media have been absolutely unprecedented. While admittedly Trumps choice of language during the election campaign was frank and sometimes rude, the formulations found for Trump by many of those, who had counted on the victory of Hillary Clinton, were not less rude and sometimes hysterical. The German defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, suffered according to her own description, a“severe shock”, the President of the EU commission, Jean Claude Juncker, ridiculed Trumps supposed ignorance concerning Europe, and the columnist of the weekly magazin “Der Spiegel” called Trump outright a “fashist”.
These statements cited here, representative for an unprecedentet fludd of insulting language, are absolutely unprecedented for European officials concerning a democratically elected American president. Among other things, it reflects a gigantic disconnect of those critics of Trump, who beleived so much in their own predictions, that Hillary Clinton would win, that they were as blind to the social processes going on in the United States, as they had been blind to those in Great Brittain resulting in the“Brexit” in June. It is also more than telling, that the greatest upset was caused by Trumps expressed intension, that he would improve the relation with Putin and work with Russia to find solutions to the crisis in Syria.
One should have thought, that Europeans would be happy, to get away from a political course, that many experts recently had characterized as having created a situation “more dangerous than at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis”, namely the confrontation between NATO and Russia as a result of the extension of NATO to the Russian border and the effort, to change the stragic balance to the permanent disadvantage of Russia. One should have thought that, since if that New Cold War, would have turned into a hot war, very little of Europe if anything would have survived, that Europe would be reliefed to end the confrontation. Also in light of Trumps undebatable emphasis toward the end of the election campaign, that Hillary Clintons proposed Syria policy, namely to establish a No-Fly-Zone in Syria meant the immediate risk of a US- Russia conflict, which had the potential to lead to World War III.
Strangely enough the European atlanticists found the perspective of an improvement of US- Russian relations with the new US president-elect more upsetting, than a possible big war with Russia over Syria. In light of Trumps hints, that he would seek an improved relation with Putin, several of them immediately demanded, that Europe has now to take more responsibility, without considering for a moment, that they also could now end the confrontation against Russia, such as the sanctions, and resume dialogue as a method of conflict resolution. Instead, NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg and others warned Trump, not to make any deals with Russia.
Why did they portray such a behaviour, when the Washington part of the“Washington consensus”, at least concerning the White House, suddenly had vanished? Why could they not articulate a policy, more in the interest of Europe itsself? The answer lies in the same ideological rationalisation, which also prevents most of them to understand the deeper reasons for Hillary Clintons defeat. Her cited failure to win, was not caused by the FBI opening and than closing an investigation concerning her email- affair, which was at best a tertiary contributing factor.
The transatlantic estabishment is so blinded by their beleif in the ideology of their neoliberal axioms, that they were as completely “surprised” by the“Brexit”- vote, as they were by the victory of Trump, which in both cases the analysts had mispredicted. The arrogance, expressed in Hillary Clintons contemptous characterisation of the Trump voters as a“basket full of deplorables”, actually represents a social stupidity. It mistakes the beleif structure of the elite club one belongs to, for reality.
What is going on in the transatlantic sector is an underlying revolutionay process, where the loosers of the system of globalisation,- the growing part of the population whos living standard has been going down for the last decades and in particular the last 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations. Those people, who work several jobs, and still cant make ends meet, who have sons coming back from the fifth rotation to Irak, broken, and who for the first time in memory think, that future generations will be worse off, than them, -these people in the transatlantic world are in a state of revolte. And that condition will continue and manifest itsself in future elections, untill the profound sense of injustice is overcome by governments, which fullfill their obligation for the common good of the people. In Europe, the referendum about a change of the constitution beginning of December in Italy, elections in 2017 in Netherland, France, Norway, Greece, Germany,- many if not all of these situations will as of now bring to the surface more anti- globalisation sentiment and the likely end of existing institutions.
The fact, that President Obama never officially answered to President Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in 2014 to join the One Road One Belt/New Silk Road win-win cooperation, or that the EU has been“shy”to answer to similiar offers by China, is a reflection of the same problem, that the majority of the leadership of the transatlantic sector is stuck in an old paradigm of geopolitical thinking.
In the meantime, the center of gravitation has shifted to Asia. The attraction of the Chinese economic modell, the historically unprecedented momentum of the win-win cooperation of the One Belt One Road/ Silk Road Initiative, especially visible since the Vladivostock Economic Forum with the integration of the Eurasian Union and the OBOR, the Hangzhou G20 summit,where China demonstrated world leadership, the ASEAN summit in Laos, the BRICS annual meeting in Goa, and the APEC summit in Peru have clearly shown, that the chinese approach of offering economic development to the mutual benefit of all is the superior modell to geopolitical confrontation.
If China, Russia and the United States with the new president could work together in this spirit, there is no question, that all European nations would cooperate in the greatest economic and civilisational project in history.