从萨科齐的冲动说起 Hotheads, fainthearts and Gaddafi

飞雪寒冰

The argument over whether to fight in Libya had many aspects to it – ideology, national interest, diplomacy, military calculation. But the most important divide in the western world was temperamental. The Libyan debate pitted the hotheads against the ditherers. The leaders of the hotheads are Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, and David Cameron, the prime minister of Britain. The ditherer-in-chief is Barack Obama, the US president, backed up by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.



要不要对利比亚动武？围绕这个问题的争论涉及多个方面——意识形态、国家利益、外交政策、军事运筹。但西方世界最重要的差异在于领导人的禀性。有关利比亚的辩论形成了冲动派与犹豫派的对立。冲动派的领头者是法国总统尼古拉•萨科齐(Nicolas Sarkozy)和英国首相戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)。而犹豫派的最高统领是美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)，站在他这边的是德国总理安格拉•默克尔(Angela Merkel)。

飞雪寒冰

Mr Obama’s late decision to switch sides and throw America’s weight behind military action tipped the balance in favour of the hotheads and led to the UN resolution paving the way for war. But the divide between ditherers and hotheads still matters. This is the beginning not the end of the western-led intervention in Libya. With the Middle East in turmoil, further huge decisions loom. The temperamental divide between western leaders will continue to be crucial.
奥巴马在最后一刻调转阵营、支持军事行动的决定打破了均势，让天平偏向了冲动派那一边，推动联合国(UN)通过了为开战铺路的决议。但是犹豫派和冲动派的差异仍很重要。以西方世界为首的国际社会对利比亚的干预刚刚开始，远没有结束。鉴于整个中东都处于动荡之中，未来还会有许多重大决定要做。西方领导人之间的禀性差异将继续扮演关键角色。

Hotheads, such as Mr Sarkozy, tend to be guided by emotion and gut instinct. They prefer short declaratory statements such as “this shall not pass” and “something must be done”. The hero of many hotheads is Winston Churchill. President George W. Bush, the self-styled “decider”, placed a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. Mr Obama had it removed.
萨科齐这样的冲动派往往被情感与直觉所主导。他们更喜欢简短有力的宣言，比如：“我们不会让他们得逞”，或是“我们必须采取行动”。许多冲动派眼中的英雄人物是温斯顿•丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)。自我标榜为“决策者”的小布什(George W. Bush)在白宫椭圆办公室里放了一尊丘吉尔的半身像。奥巴马上任后让人把它搬走了。

飞雪寒冰

Ditherers prefer questions to declarations. They ask things like “how will this end?” and “what precedent does it set?” Their heroes tend to be the Cassandras who warned against military involvements that turned out badly – the people who stood aside from the cheering crowds in 1914, or who warned against ever deeper involvement in Vietnam.
犹豫派更喜欢问问题而不是发表宣言。他们会问，“这件事的终局将会是什么样的？”或是“这会确立什么样的先例？”他们眼中的英雄，往往是事先对那些最后酿成恶果的军事介入提出警告的预言家——例如1914年站在欢呼的人群一旁冷眼旁观的人，或是那些对美军在越南越陷越深提出警告的人。

Mr Obama is a natural ditherer. He took many months to review policy on Afghanistan and then announced a policy that was a compromise – more troops now, but a faster withdrawal later. His television address to the American people on the action in Libya was careful and low-key. The president spent as much time emphasising what the US will not do (commit ground troops), as the goals of the mission.
奥巴马是天生的犹豫派。他花了好几个月来审议美国对阿富汗战争的政策，然后宣布了一个折衷的决定——先增兵，但以后更快撤兵。在对利比亚采取军事行动一事上，他对美国人民发表的电视讲话措辞谨慎低调。他花在强调美国不会采取的行动（派遣地面部队）上的时间，与阐述行动目标的时间一样多。

飞雪寒冰

Ditherers prefer questions to declarations. They ask things like “how will this end?” and “what precedent does it set?” Their heroes tend to be the Cassandras who warned against military involvements that turned out badly – the people who stood aside from the cheering crowds in 1914, or who warned against ever deeper involvement in Vietnam.
犹豫派更喜欢问问题而不是发表宣言。他们会问，“这件事的终局将会是什么样的？”或是“这会确立什么样的先例？”他们眼中的英雄，往往是事先对那些最后酿成恶果的军事介入提出警告的预言家——例如1914年站在欢呼的人群一旁冷眼旁观的人，或是那些对美军在越南越陷越深提出警告的人。

Mr Obama is a natural ditherer. He took many months to review policy on Afghanistan and then announced a policy that was a compromise – more troops now, but a faster withdrawal later. His television address to the American people on the action in Libya was careful and low-key. The president spent as much time emphasising what the US will not do (commit ground troops), as the goals of the mission.
奥巴马是天生的犹豫派。他花了好几个月来审议美国对阿富汗战争的政策，然后宣布了一个折衷的决定——先增兵，但以后更快撤兵。在对利比亚采取军事行动一事上，他对美国人民发表的电视讲话措辞谨慎低调。他花在强调美国不会采取的行动（派遣地面部队）上的时间，与阐述行动目标的时间一样多。

飞雪寒冰

It is not always a bad thing to hesitate. There is, in fact, a long and honourable tradition of dithering in US foreign policy. The Americans waited until 1917 before entering the first world war and until Pearl Harbor before entering the second.
犹豫不决有时也是件好事。事实上，美国的外交政策在犹豫不决方面有着悠久历史和优良传统。美国一直等到1917年才加入第一次世界大战，等到珍珠港事件之后才加入二战。

Mr Obama also had good reason to dither over this particular conflict. He campaigned as the man who would get the US out of Iraq, not into Libya. American troops are heavily committed in Afghanistan and are still not fully out of Iraq. The president knows that France and Britain are capable of starting a fight with Muammer Gaddafi, but may not be capable of finishing it. He knows that support from the Arab League is fickle. And he could see that, even as some Europeans pressed for action in Libya, they were pushing to cut their contributions to Afghanistan.
奥巴马也有充分的理由对这场冲突犹豫不决。在竞选时，他将自己定位于将带领美国从伊拉克撤军，而不是再去打利比亚。目前大量美军投入阿富汗战场，同时也没有完全从伊拉克撤军。奥巴马知道，法国和英国有能力发动对穆阿迈尔•卡扎菲(Muammer Gaddafi)的打击，但可能没有能力打到底。他也知道阿拉伯国家联盟(Arab League)的支持靠不住。他还明白，即便一些欧洲国家正敦促各方对利比亚采取行动，但他们同时也在要求缩减本国在阿富汗的兵力。

飞雪寒冰

The ditherers classic questions – “how will this end?”; and “what is the precedent we are setting?” remain the right questions to ask about Libya. What happens if Col Gaddafi holds on, or if the conflict is stalemated and the country semi-permanently divided? Will the west then have to think about committing ground troops, or will it have to commit to many years of policing a no-fly zone?
就利比亚而言，典型的犹豫派问题——“这件事的终局将会是什么样的？”；以及“这会确立什么样的先例？”——都是应该问的问题。如果卡扎菲顽抗到底会怎样？或是如果冲突陷入僵局，利比亚处于半永久性***的状态该怎么办？到那时，西方国家将不得不考虑派遣地面部队吗？或是不得不将禁飞区维持多年？

The revolt in Libya is part of a widespread uprising against dictatorial government across the Middle East. Demonstrations have broken out against the Assad regime in Syria. What happens if, in two weeks’ time, the Syrians are shooting large numbers of people in the streets? Do we intervene there as well?
利比亚的反抗只是席卷中东的反独*政府斗争的一部分。叙利亚也爆发了反阿萨德(Assad)政权的示*游*。如果两周后，在叙利亚的大街上也有大量平民被枪杀，又会如何？我们也要出兵干涉吗？

飞雪寒冰

The situations in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain pose another set of conundrums. The Saudis have backed intervention in Libya to help the rebels, at the same moment as they have sent troops into Bahrain to help suppress a rebellion. Whatever the misdeeds of the Bahraini or Saudi royal families, they are not Gaddafi-style dictators. But the Bahraini and Yemeni governments have also killed and beaten demonstrators. Does the UN’s “responsibility to protect” also extend to the citizens of these western allies?
沙特、也门以及巴林的局势构成了另一组谜题。沙特一直支持对利比亚的军事干涉，以援助*政府军，但同时向巴林派遣军队帮助镇压叛乱。无论巴林和沙特的王室有什么过错，他们都不是卡扎菲那样的独*者。但巴林与也门政府也曾经杀害和殴打示*者。联合国的“保护责任”原则是否也适用于这些西方盟国的公民呢？

These are all vital questions. But the problem with dithering as a style of government is that, if you take too long to answer all the important questions, the decision is sometimes made for you. That was what was threatening to happen in Libya, as Col Gaddafi’s troops advanced on Benghazi.
这些都是至关重要的问题。但是，犹豫不决作为主政风格的问题在于，如果你为了解答一切重要问题而耗费太长时间，有时候局势会替你做好决定。在效忠卡扎菲的军队向班加西进发之际，利比亚就似乎可能发生这样的事情。

飞雪寒冰

For all the justified anxiety about the Libyan conflict, it is important to remember the potential gains. The first goal is humanitarian. The Gaddafi regime is extremely brutal and would have extracted a horrible revenge on the people and cities involved in the rebellion.
尽管对于利比亚冲突的各种焦虑都事出有因，但有必要记住潜在的好处。第一个目标是人道主义的。卡扎菲政权极其残暴，将对参与叛乱的人民与城市进行可怕报复。

If things go well, intervening in Libya might also help to turn the tide against the gathering forces of reaction in the Middle East. A democratic Middle East remains in the long-term interests of its people, and of the rest of the world. If Col Gaddafi succeeds in hanging on, unlike neighbouring leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, a powerful message would be sent to despots from Iran to Syria to Saudi Arabia – violence pays, compromise is folly.
如果一切顺利，对利比亚进行干预，或许还有助于扭转中东局面，使其不利于该地区正在聚集的反动势力。归根结底，一个民主的中东才符合中东人民乃至全世界人民的长期利益。如果卡扎菲不像邻国埃及和突尼斯的领导人那样下台，而是成功地撑下去，那将向伊朗、叙利亚、沙特等国的专制统治者们传递一个强有力的信息：暴力管用、妥协是傻子。

For all the justified anxiety about the Libyan conflict, it is important to remember the potential gains. The first goal is humanitarian. The Gaddafi regime is extremely brutal and would have extracted a horrible revenge on the people and cities involved in the rebellion.
尽管对于利比亚冲突的各种焦虑都事出有因，但有必要记住潜在的好处。第一个目标是人道主义的。卡扎菲政权极其残暴，将对参与叛乱的人民与城市进行可怕报复。

If things go well, intervening in Libya might also help to turn the tide against the gathering forces of reaction in the Middle East. A democratic Middle East remains in the long-term interests of its people, and of the rest of the world. If Col Gaddafi succeeds in hanging on, unlike neighbouring leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, a powerful message would be sent to despots from Iran to Syria to Saudi Arabia – violence pays, compromise is folly.
如果一切顺利，对利比亚进行干预，或许还有助于扭转中东局面，使其不利于该地区正在聚集的反动势力。归根结底，一个民主的中东才符合中东人民乃至全世界人民的长期利益。如果卡扎菲不像邻国埃及和突尼斯的领导人那样下台，而是成功地撑下去，那将向伊朗、叙利亚、沙特等国的专制统治者们传递一个强有力的信息：暴力管用、妥协是傻子。

飞雪寒冰

For that reason, now that the decision to intervene has been taken, it is vital that this story ends with the fall of Col Gaddafi. There should be no dithering about that.
有鉴于此，既然各方已经决定干预，就必须确保这件事的终局是卡扎菲倒台。在这个问题上不应有任何犹豫。