英国在世界上的角色通常围绕核武器、恐怖主义以及与美国的特殊关系展开。英国曾在150年间是世界超级大国，直到第二次世界大战。在那场战争中，它成功阻止了拿破仑征服欧洲的企图，随后又阻止了德国在二十世纪初占领欧洲的企图。同样，英国再次站在抵抗希特勒征服欧洲企图的最前线。英国的利益多年来从未改变。

Britain's role in the world usually centres on nuclear weapons, terrorism and the special relationship with the US. Britain’s was the worlds superpower for 150 years until WW2 where it successfully halted Napoleon’s attempt at conquering Europe, then Germany’s attempts at occupying Europe in the early 20th century. It was again Britain who was at the forefront of facing against Hitler’s attempts at conquering Europe. British interests have not changed over the years.

第二次世界大战使英国遭受重创，以至于它终结了大英帝国及其国际地位。这是因为英国在第一次世界大战后几乎已经破产。其军队负担过重，英国也无力再投入另一场战争。因此，在战后时代，英国的全球目标受到其经济现实的限制。出于这一原因，英国努力通过参与全球事务在世界上发挥作用，并持续至今，然而它无法彻底改变全球权力格局。《新闻周刊》国际专栏作家法里德·扎卡里亚在其著作《后美国世界》中概括了英国的政策："1945年2月雅尔塔会议上罗斯福、斯大林和丘吉尔的照片有些误导性。雅尔塔并不存在所谓的'三巨头'。实际上是'两巨头'加上一位杰出的政治投机者，他使自己和自己的国家保持在博弈之中，因此英国在20世纪后期仍保有大国地位的诸多要素。"29

World War Two consumed Britain to such an extent that it brought an end to the British Empire and its international standing. This was because Britain was virtually bankrupt from WW1. Its army was overstretched and Britain was not in a position to enter another war. This is why in the post war era, British global aims have been restricted by its economic reality. For this reason Britain worked and continues to have a role in the world by partaking in global issues, however it is unable to completely shift the global balance of power. Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek international columnist in his book ‘The Post American World,’ encapsulated British policy: "The photographs of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 are somewhat misleading. There was no 'big three' at Yalta. There was a 'big two' plus one brilliant political entrepreneur who was able to keep himself and his country in the game, so that Britain maintained many elements of great powerdom well into the late 20th century."29

英国当今的外交政策建立在两个基础之上：在欧洲发挥作用，以及对美国施加影响。二战之后，英国决策者承认了本国实力的衰落，于是采取了一种以保全为主的政策，而不是与美国直接争夺。英国通过与美国和欧盟合作来维护其全球抱负，从而实现自身利益，同时又努力转移、改变、复杂化并限制两者的目标。英国近期为实现其利益所采取的政策表明，在政治层面上，英国作为一个国家将始终与美国存在竞争，但除此之外，它缺乏实现任何实质性成果所需的资源或经济实力。

British foreign policy today is built upon having a role in Europe and influencing the US. British policy makers have accepted the nation's weakness after WW2 and developed a policy of preservation rather then outright competition with the US. Britain has managed to achieve its interests through a policy of preserving its global ambitions by working with the US and the EU, whilst at the same time working to divert, alter, complicate and limit the aims of both. Britain’s recent policies to achieve its interests show that politically Britain as a nation will always compete with the US, however beyond this it lacks the resources or the economy to achieve anything substantial.

英国挫败了美国的计划,将卡扎菲政权从美国新保守派的掌控中拯救出来。"9·11"事件之后,这些人想要在利比亚实现政权更迭。英国诱使卡扎菲接受利比亚在洛克比空难中的责任,并于2009年促成了梅格拉希的释放,从而换来了非洲石油的稳定供应。

Britain frustrated US plans by rescuing Gaddafi's government from the clutches of American neoconservatives who after September 11 wanted regime change in Libya. Britain manipulated Gaddafi into accepting Libya’s role in the Lockerbie disaster and secured the release of Al-Megrahi in 2009, securing in turn a stable supply of Africa’s oil.

在阿富汗，英国扮演了一个不祥的角色。经过八年的战争，西方盟国离击败塔利班并不更近。2009年1月，所有在阿富汗有利益关系的各方在伦敦会面，商讨以政府职位诱使塔利班的方案，而英国似乎却使美国在阿富汗南部的处境更加复杂，而那里仍是大部分战斗发生的地区。英国军队驻扎的赫尔曼德省，历经多年仍未安定。英国曾在南部与塔利班达成交易，其中包括贿赂塔利班，《泰晤士报》2007年的调查显示，超过150万英镑被用于贿赂塔利班成员。同样，总部设在喀布尔的独立智库阿富汗分析人士网络（Afghanistan Analysts Network）发布的题为《黄金投降》（Golden Surrender）的报告，对英国支持的2005年设立的和平与和解计划（PTS）提出了严厉批评，报告称该计划领导不力，既缺乏所需的政治资源，也缺乏财政资源，任其陷入困境。

In Afghanistan the UK has played an ominous role. After eight years of war the western allies are no closer to defeating the Taliban. Whilst all those with interests in Afghanistan met in London in January 2009 to hammer out a deal to entice the Taliban with offers of government positions, Britain appears to have complicated America's presence in South Afghanistan where most of the fighting still continues. The Helmand province where British troops are stationed is still not secure after all these years. Britain cut deals with the Taliban in the South which included bribing the Taliban, the London Times investigation in 2007 revealed over £1.5 million was spent in bribing members of the Taliban.30 Similarly Research by the independent Afghanistan Analysts Network, a Kabul-based think tank, in a report, titled Golden Surrender, was highly critical of the British-backed Peace and Reconciliation Scheme (PTS), established in 2005, which it says has been left to flounder under bad leadership with neither the political nor the financial capital it required.

美国在2005年斡旋促成了纳瓦沙和平协议，最终结束了主要反叛组织苏丹人民解放运动/军（SPLM/A）与苏丹政府之间的内战。协议条款包括一系列措施，赋予南方自治权，并规定期满的2011年可以寻求分离。英国和法国都向乍得提供了武器，而乍得支持并武装达尔富尔的反叛武装，由此产生了达尔富尔问题。两国成功地将达尔富尔问题国际化，并使美国将苏丹南部分离、建立独立国家的计划变得复杂。结果，美国现在必须处理达尔富尔问题，从而推迟了其对南方的计划。

America brokered the Naivasha peace accord in 2005, which culminated in the eventual termination of the civil war between the main rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Sudanese government. The terms of the agreement included a variety of measures that gave the South autonomy and the prospects of secession in 2011 when the deal expires. Both Britain and France provided arms to Chad, which supports and arms the rebels in Darfur, which created the Darfur issue. Both nations have successfully internationalised the issue of Darfur and complicated US plans to separate the South of Sudan and turn it into an independent nation. Instead the US must now deal with the Darfur issue thus delaying its plans for the South.

在黎巴嫩，多位知名政治人物遭暗杀，使黎巴嫩深度分裂为亲叙利亚/真主党阵营与亲欧盟阵营。由真主党领导的三月八日联盟动用其否决票，使组建政府的进程复杂化。英国和法国都与由哈里里的未来运动领导的三月十四日联盟保持接触，以维持其在黎巴嫩政治中的影响力。真主党成功地通过动用否决票，确保了美国的利益在黎巴嫩得到保护，导致亲欧盟各党派均未能取得多数席位，从而无法单方面组建政府。通过这种方式，美国未能将黎巴嫩变为其据点。

In Lebanon the assassinations of prominent politicians have deeply divided Lebanon into pro-Syrian/Hizbullah and pro-EU camps. The Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition utilised its veto vote to complicate the forming of a government. Both Britain and France have engaged with the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri's Future Movement to maintain their relevance in Lebanese politics. Hizbullah has successfully ensured US interests are protected in Lebanon by utilising its veto vote resulting in none of the pro-EU parties from achieving a majority and therefore unilaterally forming a government. In this way the US has been unable to turn Lebanon into a US stronghold.

在英国作为P5+1委员会成员，试图使伊朗就范并阻止其将铀浓缩至武器级标准的同时，它也利用这一角色使美国的利益变得复杂。2009年伊朗大选期间，英国与欧洲一道将选举结果渲染得过于夸大，并设法利用这一局势。英国主张伊朗政权需要回应抗议者的合理诉求；同时，它也不承认艾哈迈迪内贾德的合法性。另一方面，美国正谋求对该国实施严厉制裁，却支持了该政权，理由是这一问题属于伊朗的国内事务。英国和法国曾试图影响这些抗议活动，但这只是推翻艾哈迈迪内贾德政权的一次软弱无力的尝试。同样，面对英国施加的更大压力，美国利用联合国的非常任理事国，推动对伊朗实施足以致命的汽油制裁。对美国而言，核僵局实现了其在该地区的若干目标，这正是为何无论当时的言辞如何，这场僵局从未获得任何结论性进展。英国通过与美国在这一问题上合作，实际上却在削弱美国。

Whilst Britain is member of the P5 + 1 commission attempting to bring Iran in line and halt its attempts to enrich Uranium to weapons grade standard, it has used its role to complicate American interests. In the Iranian elections in 2009 Britain alongside Europe blew the election result out of proportion and worked to exploit the situation. Britain argued that the Iranian regime needs to address the legitimate concerns of the protesters; they also didn’t recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad. The US on the other hand, who is looking to impose harsh sanctions on the country, actually supported the regime by arguing that the issue was an Iranian domestic matter. Britain and France had tried to influence the protests, but it was a weak attempt to bring down the Ahmadinejad’s regime. Similarly the US made use of the non-permanent members of the United Nations in the face increased pressure from Britain to push ahead with crippling gasoline sanctions against Iran. For the US the nuclear stand-off achieves a number of its aims in the region, this is why the stand off never reaches anything conclusive, whatever the rhetoric at the time. By working with the US on the issue Britain has worked to undermine the US.

英国建制派认为完全与欧盟隔绝是不现实的。欧洲距离太近、规模太大，不可能被简单地忽视。历届英国政府都相信，通过接触与合作，伦敦可以影响欧盟的发展以及其政策的最终走向。英国并不反对建立欧洲政治联盟，只要伦敦不会变成卢森堡那样融入欧盟之中。它希望在这样一个联盟的议事桌上占据一个显要的席位。

The British establishment views complete isolationism from the EU as unrealistic. Europe is too close and too large to be simply ignored. Successive British governments believe that through engagement, London can influence the EU’s development and the ultimate direction of its policies. It is not opposed to a European political union, as long as London does not turn into Luxemburg and melt into the EU, it wants a prominent seat at the table of such a union.

英国通过参与所有国际事务,成功地使自己保持在国际舞台上的地位。阿富汗战争就是一个例子:英国在该国并没有至关重要的利益,但它参与了由美国主导的战争,以保持自身的影响力,从而得以左右冲突的结果。这就是英国所能取得的全部成就;它永远无法撼动世界超级大国的地位,因为它缺乏相应的实力、经济和资源。

Britain has successfully kept itself in the international game through participating in all international issues. An example of this is the Afghan war, Britain has no overriding interests in the country, however it has participated in the US led war to keep itself relevant and in this way it is able to shape the outcome of the conflict. This is all Britain will achieve; it will never shift the worlds superpower from its post as it lacks the power, economy or resources.

This passage is not an Islamic text, but I'll translate it faithfully as instructed. 英国的国内生产总值为1.5万亿英镑，是世界第六大经济体，但英国缺乏足以对美国构成任何挑战的工业基础。英国拥有全球性的战略目标，并且精于政治上的纵横捭阖；然而，它的实际能力却远远超出其自身的分量。一战的巨额开支使英国陷入破产，它无力应对纳粹德国的崛起，这在某种程度上解释了内维尔·张伯伦奉行的绥靖政策。然而，当希特勒的德国占领了欧洲大部分地区，并且即将使英国失去世界强国的地位时，英国便发动战争，以扭转德国的推进。随着苏联发动东线攻势，英国和美国又发动了臭名昭著的诺曼底登陆，即法国的D日进攻，德国于1945年被击败。然而，击败德国的并不是英国——而是苏联和美国。英国遭受重创，国家满目废墟，在经济上，大英帝国已无力支撑其全球性的殖民帝国。

Whilst Britain has a £1.5 trillion economy, the 6th largest in the world Britain lacks the industrial base to pose any challenge to the US. Britain has global aims and has mastered the art of political manoeuvring; however it punches above its weight. Britain was bankrupt due to the costs of WW1, it was in no position to challenge the rise of Nazi Germany, and this in some way explains Neville Chamberlain appeasement. However with Hitler’s Germany occupying most of Europe and on the verge of removing Britain as the world’s superpower Britain went to war to reverse Germany’s advance, with the Soviet Union launching an Eastern offensive and with Britain and the US launching the infamous D-day offensive landings in France, Germany was defeated by 1945. However it was not Britain who defeated Germany – it was the Soviet Union and the US, Britain was devastated, the country lay in ruins and economically the British Empire was in no position to fund its global empire.

紧缩年代导致美国、苏联、日本和德国的经济超过了英国。英国工业相形见绌,无法与美国正在发生的技术发展相比。到撒切尔于1979年上台时,英国正在放弃其形成于18世纪的工业基础。英国是世界上最早实现工业化的国家,这是它成为世界强国的核心所在。

The austerity years resulted in the economies of the US, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany to overtake Britain’s. British industry paled into insignificance to the technological developments taking place in the US and by the time Thatcher arrived in office in 1979 Britain was abandoning its industrial base which was developed in the 18th century – Britain was the first country in the world to industrialise, it was central to it becoming a world power.

英国如今的经济以服务业为主导，而服务业又以金融业为主。过去三十年间，英国将经济从工业转向服务业，工业领域因此失去了一代工程师和专业人才。结果是英国无法推行独立、单边的外交政策，因为它在实际上无法单打独斗。正因如此，英国几十年来一直擅长组建联盟，借助他人来实现自身目标。与此同时，英国的核威慑仍是人们审视该国外交政策的主要视角。英国的核武器，无论是导弹、弹头、启动装置还是生产工厂，都已经卖给了美国。英国将其核威慑外包出去，这虽然使其在安全问题上失去了独立性，却也减轻了英国财政预算的负担。

英国的全球战略建立在保护其诸多利益的基础之上。这可以概括为：英国通过使其他大国的计划复杂化、改变其走向或使其偏离方向，来维持自身的重要性。由于英国的经济现实，它已不再有能力追求更多。英国能够让其他世界大国的计划变得复杂，从而使自己在世界上受到重视，这也是为什么美国很少单独行动，通常会拉上英国一起。对英国而言，它坐在世界超级大国身边的前排位置，能够亲眼看到美国计划的演变，这使其处于有利位置，可以从美国的目标中获益，并在符合自身利益时选择使美国的计划复杂化。 英国必须应对俄罗斯复兴的前景，以及伊拉克和阿富汗局势日益复杂的问题。在《里斯本条约》之后，英国还将面临德国和法国在欧洲进一步巩固地位、按照自身利益塑造欧盟的局面。英国将继续在巴勒斯坦、伊拉克和阿富汗问题上与美国合作，并继续改变和复杂化美国的计划，以不断增强自身实力。这种双重的、有时相互矛盾的做法，正是英国在国际政治中维持自身重要性的方式。这也是英国在国际政治中所接受的角色定位：它已不再有能力取得更为实质性的成就。英国以令人钦佩的政治技巧经营其日益削弱的筹码，但这不足以使其成为世界超级大国。

Britain’s global outlook is based upon protecting the array of interests it has. This can be encapsulated as Britain complicating, altering and diverting the plans of other powers. This is how Britain keeps itself relevant. Due to the economic reality of Britain, it has no propensity to achieve anything more. Britain can complicate the plans of other world powers to the extent that it is taken seriously in the world, this is why the US very rarely goes it alone, and it usually takes Britain along with it. For Britain it has the front seat with the world’s superpower and can see at first hand US plans evolve, this places it in pole position to benefit from US aims and giving it the option to complicate US plans if this serves its aims. Britain has to deal with the prospect of a resurgent Russia and both Iraq and Afghanistan becoming ever more complex. Britain will also face the prospect of both Germany and France further entrenching themselves into Europe after the Lisbon treaty, shaping the EU in their interests. Britain will continue to work with the US in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and continue to alter and complicate US plans in order to keep strengthening itself. This dual, sometimes contradictory approach is how Britain keeps itself relevant in international politics. This is what Britain has resigned its role to in international politics; it no longer has the ability to achieve anything more substantial. Britain plays its weakening hand with impressive political skill, however this is insufficient in becoming the worlds superpower.