批评者近日很不客气的将美国总统特朗普在联合国的火辣言行与华盛顿特区后院失火（政府停摆）做了对比。
但即使是特朗普最坚定的支持者，也一定想知道他在广为人知的联合国大会上的演讲和行为，如何符合美国选民寄予他厚望去实现“让美国再次伟大”的宏伟计划。
特朗普在联合国大会（简称联大）向193个成员国代表阐述的要点主要包括：
攻击联合国和全球主义：他强烈抨击联合国，将其描述为“无能”、“腐败”和未能履行其宗旨的“有害全球力量”。他明确拒绝全球主义和多边主义的概念和原则，转而支持国家主权。
移民和边境管制：一个主要焦点是移民问题，他称之为对西方国家的“生存威胁”。他敦促各国，特别是欧洲国家，“结束开放边境的失败试验”，“关闭边境”，并“驱逐外国人”，并警告说，如果西方不采取行动，这些国家将“完蛋”。他指责联合国主导和资助“全球主义移民议程”，称这是对西方国家的“攻击”。
气候变化和能源政策：他谴责气候变化是“有史以来对全世界最大的骗局”，并严厉批评“绿色能源议程”。他嘲讽风力发电等可再生能源，并提倡使用“传统能源”，包括“清洁、美丽的煤炭”，声称高昂的能源成本和“自杀式的能源理念”正在“摧毁自由世界的大部分地区”。
贸易和关税：他重申了对那些他声称破坏国际贸易规则并“掠夺”了美国人工作机会的国家提高关税的政策。早前宣布美国关税战时，他曾使用类似的激烈言辞来描述美国在二战后帮助建立并从中受益的全球贸易体系，称“我们的国家被其他国家抢劫、洗劫、强奸、掠夺”。
全球对特朗普演讲的看法
各国的外交官和评论员都认为特朗普在联合国的演讲是一场令人尴尬的表演，是一次漫长而丢脸的咆哮。许多人认为这是一场“灾难”，是联合国建立所旨在防止的一切事物的讽刺性写照。特朗普表现出对联合国全球合作的核心使命以及将各国聚集在一起以确保和平与安全、应对时代挑战的宗旨的蔑视。
特朗普的演讲似乎主要是针对发达国家，因为其言词中特别指出欧洲盟友的政策问题。然而，这加剧了人们对美国作为全球伙伴可靠性的担忧。分析人士此前就指出，外国领导人被迫因美国外交政策承诺的不可预测性而重新评估其国家战略。
特朗普的演讲不仅强化了这种看法。它还向欧盟和亚洲盟友充分展示了一种新的美国决心，专注于从盟友那里榨取资金和投资，以使美国重回“美好旧时光”，那时美国是全球制造业的领导者，其经济令世界羡慕。
一些分析人士认为，虽然特朗普的讲话有人听，但却没有人相信，并指出他曾经令人震惊的言辞如今正变得常态化，这削弱了美国总统作为自由世界领袖的观点。
检验特朗普言行
批评者广泛指出，这次演讲充斥著夸大其词、半真半假和虚假陈述。
西方分析人士和媒体未能指出的是，特朗普谴责联合国的讲话似乎忽略了一个事实，即正是美国一直是联合国要成为一个更有效全球力量的主要绊脚石。美国在遵守国际法规则方面的记录非常糟糕，自联合国成立以来，历任总统领导下的美国在多边主义和遵守联大多数投票方面的衡量指标上通常处于低排名阶段。
新设计的、以联合国为基础的“多边主义指数”（UN-Mi）将美国列为联合国成员国或大型国家集团中最不致力于联合国多边主义的国家。该指数衡量因素包括，联合国主要条约的批准情况、与联大国际多数投票一致的百分比、对联合国预算的贡献以及使用单边主义强制手段。
美国政府机构似乎对其在联合国中扮演的阻挠和适得其反的角色感到非常自豪，美国国务院2022年的报告指出，在有争议的决议上，美国与其他联大国家的一致投票率平均为48%。美国还在2022年对53%的有争议联大决议投了反对票，是除以色列以外所有成员国中最高的。近年来（例如2018-2022年），美国投票立场与国际多数一致的百分比，据报导还不到25%。
也许特朗普演讲中唯一的积极面是他呼吁世界各国领导人打击核武器和生物武器的扩散。但这不会给目前正在审议今年诺贝尔和平奖得主的委员会留下任何特殊的印象。
特朗普目标群
总体共识是，特朗普此次联合国演讲中的讯息，主要是激发特朗普在国内政治支持者，而不是认真地与国际社会沟通。特朗普对国际秩序的攻击很可能转移人们对美国政治、经济和社会内部动荡和骚乱的注意力，并在支持率进一步下降时为其提供一些缓冲。
然而，这为金砖国家组织（BRICS）和上海合作组织成员国提升其作为更公平全球体系捍卫者的地位和声誉创造了机会。特朗普对自身利益、作秀和个人恩怨的痴迷，同时加剧了对美国的严重生存威胁，也很可能成为国际政治中一个关键的“游戏规则改变者”。
林德宜《特朗普联合国放火 华盛顿后院失火》原文：Trump Fiddles At UN Whilst Washington Burns
The analogy by critics that US President Donald Trump was fiddling in the United Nations whilst Washington D.C. is starting to burn or is already burned may appear unkind.
But even his most fervent supporters must be wondering how his speech and behaviour in the widely publicized appearance at the UN fits with the game plan of “ Making America Great Again” which the American electorate has put their faith in him to accomplish.
The main points he made to the representatives of the 193 member countries at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) included:
Attack on the United Nations and Globalism: He launched a strong assault on the UN, describing it as "feckless," "corrupt," and a "pernicious global force" that was not fulfilling its purpose. He explicitly rejected the concepts and principles of globalism and multilateralism in favor of national sovereignty.
Immigration and Border Control: A major focus was on immigration, which he called an existential threat to Western nations. He urged countries, particularly in Europe, to "end the failed experiment of open borders," "close their borders," and "expel foreigners," warning that their countries were "going to hell" otherwise. He accused the UN of leading and funding a "globalist migration agenda" that was an "assault" on Western countries.
Climate Change and Energy Policy: He denounced climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world" and heavily criticized the "green energy agenda." He ridiculed renewable sources like wind farms and promoted the use of "traditional energy sources," including "clean, beautiful coal," claiming that high energy costs and "suicidal energy ideas" were "destroying a large part of the free world."
Trade and Tariffs: He reaffirmed his policy of raising tariffs on countries that he claimed had broken international trade rules and "plundered" the factories of nations that followed the rules. Earlier when announcing the US tariff war, he had used similar aggressive rhetoric to describe a global trade system that the US helped to build after World War II and benefited enormously from, saying “our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, plundered” by other nations.
Global Opinion on Trump Address
Critics, including diplomats and commentators from around the world, have viewed the speech as an embarrassing performance and a long and humiliating rant. Many saw it as a debacle and a caricature of everything the UN was built to prevent. It showed disdain for the organization's core mission of global cooperation and objective to bring countries together to ensure peace and security, and meet the challenges of our time.
The address appears to have been mainly directed at developed nations as it singled out European allies over their policies. By doing so, he amplified concerns about the reliability of the US as a global partner. Analysts had earlier noted that foreign leaders were being forced to recalculate their national strategies around the unpredictability of US commitments in foreign policy making.
Trump’s speech not only reinforced this perception. It also brought into full view to European Union and Asian allies the spectacle of a new American determination to focus on extraction from allies the monies and investment required for the US to return to the good old days when America was a global manufacturing leader and its economy was the envy of the world.
Some analysts have suggested that while Trump was listened to, he was not believed, noting that his rhetoric, once shocking, was now becoming normalized, which chips away at the notion of the US President as the leader of the free world.
Fact-Checking Trump
Critics have widely noted the speech was filled with exaggerations, half-truths, and false statements.
What western analysts and media have failed to point out is that Trump’s speech condemning the UN appears ignorant of the fact that it is the US that has been the main stumbling block to the UN becoming a more effective global force. The record of the US in adherence to the rules of international law has been abysmal with the country under all its presidents since the beginning of the UN generally ranking low on measures of multilateralism and adherence to UNGA majority votes.
The newly devised UN-based Multilateralism Index (UN-Mi) ranks the US as the least committed country to UN-based multilateralism among UN member states or large country groups. This index considers factors such as ratification of major UN treaties, percentage of votes aligned with the international majority at the UNGA. contribution to the UN budget and use of unilateral coercive measures.
US agencies of government appear to be very proud of the country’s obstructionist and counter-productive role in the UN with the Department of State report for 2022 noting that the average voting coincidence between the US and other UNGA countries was 48 percent for contested resolutions. The US also voted against 53 percent of contested UNGA resolutions in 2022, the most of any member state besides Israel. The percentage of US votes aligned with the international majority has been reported to be less than 25 percent in recent years (e.g., 2018-2022).
Perhaps the only positive takeaway from Trump’s speech was his call for world leaders to combat the spread of nuclear and biological weapons. This won’t make any impression on the committee now deliberating on the Nobel peace prize winner for this year to take special notice.
Uncovering Trump’s Real Audience
The overall consensus is that the speech was primarily aimed at energizing Trump’s domestic political base rather than engaging seriously with the international community. The attack on the international order may well distract from the internal strife and turmoil churning in US politics, economy and society and provide Trump with some relief as his approval rating drops further.
However, it is creating an opening for BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization member countries to enhance their position and standing as defenders of a fairer global system. Trump’s obsession with self-interest, spectacles, and personal grievances while exacerbating the serious existential threats to his nation, may well turn out to be a key game changer in international politics.
公共政策分析学者
