华盛顿认为真正的威胁是在美国领导的全球体系之外出现一个对手模式的可能性，

 苏联解体后，华盛顿也没有改变其对古巴的立场。

华盛顿没有缓和对哈瓦那的压力或尝试不同的策略，而是收紧了螺丝，在1992年通过了《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法》，惩罚所有与古巴做生意的公司。

但古巴仍然坚韧不拔。

卡斯特罗很冷静，该岛通过重新引入资本主义并依靠旅游业，度过了所谓的 "特殊时期"，该时期的贫困程度比20世纪50年代以来都要严重。

Nor did Washington change its stance toward Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 Instead of moderating pressure on Havana or trying a different tactic, Washington tightened the screws, passing the Helms-Burton Act in 1992 and penalizing all companies doing business with Cuba.

 But Cuba remained resilient.

 Castro buckled down, and the island made it through a so-called “Special Period,” marked by deprivation worse than it had seen since the 1950s, by reintroducing capitalism and relying on tourism.

很难将美国对古巴的行为解释为对苏联共产主义的恐惧的回应，或解释为对自由的捍卫。

从1960年到现在，古巴远不是西半球最压抑的政治制度，也不是最严重的人权侵犯者。

It’s hard to explain US behavior toward Cuba as a response to the fear of Soviet Communism, or as a defense of freedom.

 From 1960 to the present, Cuba was very far from the most repressive political system, or the worst violator of human rights, in the hemisphere.

也许卡斯特罗犯下了不可饶恕的罪行，

他非常公开地在多次政变和暗杀企图中幸存下来，

这让华盛顿感到尴尬。

或者，

华盛顿认为真正的威胁是在美国领导的全球体系之外出现一个对手模式的可能性，

与我们现在知道的1954年危地马拉、1955年万隆和1973年智利困扰美国官员的事情一样。

Perhaps Castro had committed the unforgivable sin of very publicly surviving repeated coup and assassination attempts in a way that embarrassed Washington.

 Or perhaps the real threat Washington perceived was the possibility of a rival model outside the global American-led system, the same thing that we now know bothered US officials about Guatemala in 1954, Bandung in 1955, and Chile in 1973.

还有一件事美国肯定没有改变。

冷战结束后，美国官员，特别是乔治-H-W-布什总统，立即谈到了 "和平红利"。

这个想法是，随着苏联共产主义的消失，华盛顿将削减军事开支和暴力的对外交往。

但情况恰恰相反。

90年代的支出有小幅下降，然后五角大楼的预算在世纪之交后再次爆炸。

巴拉克-奥巴马作为反战候选人参选，然而当他在2016年结束任期时，美国正在积极轰炸至少七个国家。

There’s another thing the US certainly didn’t change.

 Immediately after the end of the Cold War, US officials, especially President George H. W. Bush, had talked about a “Peace Dividend.”

 The idea was that, with Soviet Communism gone, Washington would cut back on military spending and violent foreign engagements.

 The exact opposite happened.

 There was a small decrease in spending in the ’90s, and then the Pentagon budget exploded again after the turn of the century.

 Barack Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, yet when he finished his term in 2016, the United States was actively bombing at least seven countries.63