英语翻译Fourth,expectations of US leadership past and future.The

英语翻译
Fourth,expectations of US leadership past and future.The tension may center on Tay’s observation in his book that “The US presence has benefited Asia on balance and – so long as they do not seek to contain China or Asian regionalism,nor to dominate and exploit the region – Americans will be the essential partners in Asia’s rise.” Words like “on balance,” domination,exploitation,and his references in other parts of the book to US hegemony and the need for “post-American American leadership” are closer to the views of Mahbubani than Desker’s steadfast realism that eschews moral judgment or Koh’s more benign portrayal of the US as a “stakeholder in Asia’s peace and prosperity.”
Predicting trend lines in the regional and global distribution of power,getting the right mix of values and interests in building trans-Pacific ties,connecting the alliance system and US involvement in Asian-driven institutions,getting the right historical time lines – these are the heady but unavoidable issues of the day.Is there a national capital where these issues are not being debated,even if the policy nuances differ?Is there a national capital where a careful assessment of the debates within Singapore is not of value?Stay tuned for the next and possibly bigger installment:“Debating China.”

第四,过去和未来美国领导力期望.压力可能集中在泰河书中的观察——“美国的存在总的来说助益亚洲,前提是只要他们不寻求围堵中国或亚洲地区主义,也不控制和剥削这个地区——美国人将在亚洲的崛起中成为必要的合作伙伴.”像“总的来说”、控制、剥削这样的词,和他该书其他部分对美国霸权和后美国领导需求的参考文献,更接近马布巴尼的观点,相较于达斯克避开了道德裁判的坚定的现实主义,或者可夫对美国更为温和描述——“亚洲和平与繁荣的利益相关者”.
权力在区域和全球分布的预测趋势线,找到了建立跨太平洋纽带过程中正确的价值观和利益关系组合,联系了亚洲主导的组织中联盟系统和美国的参与,得到了正确的历史时间线,这些是今天激烈却不可避免的问题.有没哪个国家首都没在讨论这些问题的呢?即使政策有细微差别.有没哪个国家首都对在新加坡的争论的仔细评估是不重要的呢?请继续收看下一期节目,可能更大型的部分：“讨论中国”.