doubleThinkr
doubleThinkr

【译文】卫报:辨析“利比亚革命经验” The right and the wrong lessons to draw from Libya's liberation

【译文】卫报:辨析“利比亚革命经验” The right and the wrong lessons to draw from Libya's liberation原译文链接: http://article.yeeyan.org/view/143354/215142
The hunter, hunted. The predator, prey. The strutting tyrant who threatened to "cleanse" Libya "street by street, house by house" is on the run himself. For those who hold that democracies sometimes have both the right and the obligation to take up arms against dictators, the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi is a relief. After the horrors of Iraq and the agonies of Afghanistan, the ideal of liberal interventionism could probably not have survived another humiliation. A large industry of analysis is already producing "lessons from Libya". There are lessons that appear sound. There are lessons that sound attractive, but turn out on closer inspection to be dangerously wrong.

扩展阅读:
1.自由干涉主义(Liberal Interventionism):
Is Liberal Interventionism ended ?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124059156528253421.html
Intervention: Western Coalition Changes Balance of Power in Libyan Civil War
http://www.ekemeuroenergy.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185:intervention-western-coalition-changes-balance-of-power-in-libyan-civil-war&catid=35:analyses&Itemid=57
2.联合国决议案(UN Resolution):
Libya UN Resolution 1973: Text analysed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972





曾经的猎人,今日的猎物。曾经的捕食者,如今的祈祷者。趾高气扬的暴君曾扬言要“一个街道一个街道,一所房子一所房子”地“清洗”利比亚,现在,轮到他自己遭殃了。
对于那些认为民主国家有权利和义务拿起武器打击独裁者的人而言,卡扎菲最终被推翻是一种解脱:经过伊拉克的恐怖和阿富汗的阵痛,假使再蒙受一次屈辱,这些人心中的自由干涉主义(Liberal Interventionism)理想很可能完全垮塌。
总结“利比亚的经验教训”的文章已经多到快形成一个产业了,有的经验教训看上去经得起推敲;有的经验“看上去很美”,在仔细考量时却会发现是一些危险的谬误。

One lesson – a rather familiar tutorial this – is that conventional wisdom is often wrong. We were told that it would be impossible to get a UN resolution – and one was secured. We were told that Arab support would not stay solid – and, by and large, it did. We were told, as recently as 10 days ago, that the campaign was stuck in a stalemate which exposed the folly of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy in pursuing the enterprise. So much for the wisdom of the conventional.
经验一:我们早就对此耳熟能详了——惯常的智慧往往是错误的。
有人告诉我们,联合国不可能通过对利比亚决议——他们错了;还有人告诉我们,对阿拉伯国家的支持不会长久——他们又错了;就在最近10天,有人还告诉我们,因为卡梅伦和萨科齐在愚蠢地追逐利益,利比亚的抵抗运动正在陷入僵局。
惯常的智慧可真不少。

Another lesson is that sometimes there really is no alternative to decisive military action by outside powers to prevent a tyrant from unleashing atrocities. Western leaders, anxious for this to be seen as a home-grown Libyan revolution rather than the result of American and European arms, have been shy of spelling this out. They have been nervous, too, of any echo of the "mission accomplished" hubris of George W Bush in the immediate aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. So David Cameron – saying: "This has not been our revolution" – depicts the fall of Gaddafi as the work of the Libyans themselves with Britain, France and America just lending a modest helping hand. The untriumphalist tone is well-judged. David Cameron is bound to derive considerable satisfaction from his credit-worthy role in rallying and sustaining the anti-Gaddafi international coalition, but the prime minister is sensible not to let his head swell too visibly before the cameras. It is diplomatic to suggest that the Libyans did this almost all by themselves. It is also disingenuous. I asked a member of the National Security Council whether there was any chance that the rebellion could have overthrown Gaddafi without outside assistance. He responded bluntly: "None at all. There's no chance they could have done it without us."
经验二:有时,为了阻止一个暴君发动暴行,来自外部的军事行动确实能起到难以替代的作用。
西方国家的领导人经常有这样的焦虑:这次利比亚革命将是土生土长的,而非借助于美国和欧洲提供的武力——当然,他们可能早就羞于说出这两个字了。
自从布什在2003年4月闪电推翻萨达姆政权,并放出了 “任务完成”的傲慢说法之后,他们也始终神经紧张,生怕这一说法产生的回音。所以卡梅伦说:“这不是我们的革命”——他将卡扎菲的倒台归功于利比亚人民,而英法美只是适当地伸出了援助之手。明显的必败主义者口气。
卡梅伦势必对他在组建和维持“反卡扎菲国际联盟”方面扮演的可靠角色感到相当满意,但首相同时也很明智,不让自己的头在镜头前胀得太大。暗示利比亚的成果“几乎全靠自己奋斗得来”是一种外交手腕,同时也是虚伪的。
我问过一个国家安全委员会的成员:没有外部援助,反对派是否能推翻卡扎菲。他直言不讳:“没有任何机会,没有我们,他们绝对做不到。”

That sounds right. For all their flag-waving, victory signs and shooting into the sky, the ragtag rebel militiamen were never by themselves militarily strong enough to prevail against a ruthless, highly armed and well dug-in regime. The initial uprising sprang from the courage of Libyans who wanted to be free of a dictator who seized power when Richard Nixon was in the White House. But without western airpower, the rebellion would have been crushed five months ago and Gaddafi would have gone on to wreak a terrible vengeance on all who had defied him. The anti-Gaddafi forces acknowledge that they could not have done it alone. At the outset, western warplanes prevented a massacre in Benghazi. At the finale, reconnaissance units calling in Nato air strikes on Gaddafi forces played an indispensable role in the sudden liberation of Tripoli.
听起来的确是这样。反对派们挥舞旗帜,摆出V字手势,对天鸣枪:反叛民兵组成的乌合之众从未强大到足以战胜冷酷无情、高度武装、扎根牢固的政权。最初的起义仰赖于利比亚人民的勇气——推翻一个从尼克松时代就开始当政的独裁者的勇气。
但是,如果没有西方的空中支援,叛乱早在5个月前就已经被粉碎了,而卡扎菲则会倾泻出对所有胆敢违抗者的可怕报复。
反对派也承认,他们不能只靠孤军奋战。最开始,西方派出的战机阻止了在班加西的大屠杀。更关键的是,侦察部队呼叫的北约空袭对闪电解放的黎波里起到了不可或缺的作用。

The danger of this lesson is that it is taken too far. Some voices are seductively suggesting that in Libya we have found a new, improved formula for armed intervention against dictatorships. After the searing experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a natural inclination to want to find a better template for future interventions and Libya seems to offer it. Not a single British pilot was killed in combat. The number of civilian casualties inflicted by the airstrikes seems to have been mercifully light. The absence of visible Nato forces on the ground is also attractive to western policy-makers because it reduces any imperialist taint to intervention. In his celebratory statement, Barack Obama said pointedly: "All this was done without putting a single US troop on the ground."
这一经验的危险之处在于,它可能被滥用。有些声音提出了诱人的暗示:在派出武装,干涉独裁政权方面,我们已经在利比亚找到了新的良方。
经 过阿富汗和伊拉克的懊恼教训,人们有一种自然而然的倾向:要为未来的武装干涉找到一个更好的模式,而利比亚似乎恰好提供了这样的模式——英国飞行员无一阵 亡,空袭造成的平民伤亡又大发慈悲似地少。北约不派出地面作战部队的战略对西方政客而言也是有吸引力的,因为它抹消了不少 “帝国主义干涉”的污点。奥巴马在他的庆祝声明中明确地说:“直到一切结束,都没有哪怕一个美国士兵被放到地面上。”

You can see why some will think that air power supporting indigenous ground forces will always be the way to go in future. Strike from the skies, but keep western boots off the ground to gain the benefits of intervention – doing the right thing and ridding the world of a horrible dictator – without having to take too much risk. You might call it intervention-lite. We should be very wary of this emerging doctrine. Just because this style of action worked in Libya is no guarantee that it will work everywhere. It is worth recalling that precisely the opposite lesson was drawn after some previous interventions. During the Kosovo confrontation in 1999, the refusal to back up Nato air power with the threat to deploy ground troops was seen as a cardinal mistake – and so it was – because it encouraged Slobodan Milosevic to believe he could prevail, thus prolonging that conflict. Iraq started its slide into bloody anarchy in the three months after the invasion not because there were too many western troops in Baghdad, but because there were too few to maintain law and order and contain insurgents and sectarian fighters before they could grow in strength. Western leaders currently sound judicious when they forswear putting any troops on the ground, even as peacekeepers. They will not be so acclaimed for their wisdom if mayhem should break out in Tripoli. Beware anyone who says we have now found a perfect formula for intervention or a magic bullet for dispatching dictators.
现在你就会明白,为什么有些人会认为空中力量辅助“土著”地面部队的战略将是今后永远要走的路:只是实行空中打击,而不让西方人的军靴踏上当地(以获得武装干涉的好处)——做正确的事情,同时阻止一个可怕的独裁者世界诞生,又不必承担太多风险。
你可以称之为“干涉- LITE”。
我们应当十分警惕这种新兴的学说。因为这样的行动模式在利比亚能用,但不代表它会放之四海而皆准。
在这里,值得我们回忆一下以前的一些武装干涉留给我们的相反教训。1999年的科索沃冲突中,北约在威胁投放地面部队的同时拒绝派出空中力量被看作是一个关键性错误——因为它使米洛舍维奇相信自己能获胜,从而延长了这一冲突。
在被入侵3个月后,伊拉克滑入血腥的无政府状态,不是因为巴格达的西方军队太多,而是因为西方军队里负责维护法律和秩序、打击武装分子和教派武装的成员太少,以至于助长了各路反对势力。
当今的西方国家领导人断然放弃投放任何地面部队(哪怕是作为维和人员),这看上去很明智。但假使的黎波里在未来陷入混乱,他们的明智就不会这么广受好评了。小心任何诸如“我们已经找到了武装干涉的完美范式”或者“我们已经找到了瓦解独裁者的妙法”之类的说法。

Another thing that Libya hasn't done is bring us any closer to a true consensus about when armed intervention in another sovereign state can be justified in the name of democracy and human rights. The Libyan example does not do much to clear up the legal confusions and moral contradictions. Time and again, David Cameron and others have stressed that this intervention was "legal" because it had the blessing of the UN Security Council. It is true that resolution 1973 robed this action with an international legitimacy that was so conspicuously lacking in the invasion of Iraq. Even so, to bring about the fall of Gaddafi, the resolution had to be stretched to the very limit of its wording. Many would contend that the allies went well beyond their original mandate as an operation to protect civilians swiftly evolved into a mission to achieve regime change. I don't have much of a problem with that. I argued from the beginning that no civilian could be said to be safe in Libya until that one-family tyranny was gone. The non-combatant members of the Security Council clearly didn't have much of a problem either because they didn't complain about the manipulation of the terms of the resolution. But let us not kid ourselves that sanctification by the Security Council is the sole arbiter of what is ethical and just.
此外,利比亚事件仍没有让我们达成一个真正的共识:在对另一个主权国家进行武装干涉时,什么时候以“民主”和“人权”的名义出兵才显得合理。利比亚经验在理清法律的头绪和道德上的混乱方面并没有起到什么作用。
一遍又一遍,卡梅伦等人强调着这次干涉是“合法”的,因为它被加持了“联合国安理会的祝福”。的确,1973年的同类决议为原本出师无名的伊拉克入侵行动披上了“国际合法”的长袍。即便如此,为了给推翻卡扎菲找借口,该决议的措辞也已经被解释到了极限。
很多人会争辩说,盟国转变行动策略的做法是正确的:从保护平民迅速演变成确保政权更替。我对此较为同意。从一开始我就在说,在家族式暴政被推翻之前,没有一个利比亚平民会是安全的。
安理会的非军事人员们显然也不会对此说法有太大的意见。因为他们没有抱怨过有人在操纵安理会决议。
但,别自欺欺人了,安理会颁发的神圣小纸条根本不是道德和公正的仲裁者。

The resolution was only passed in the first place because the Russians and the Chinese chose to abstain rather than wield the veto. On moral grounds, there are as many compelling reasons to intervene in Syria as there were in Libya. Yet the equally brutal President Assad and his cronies will not have to duck and cover as Nato warplanes scream overhead. That is, at least in part, because the Russians, sponsors of the Syrian dynastic dictatorship since the early years of the cold war, won't have it. We remain in an unhappy world where western powers may intervene in the name of humanity only if they feel inclined to do so and only if they are not opposed by autocrats in Moscow and Beijing.
安理会决议被一次通过了,因为俄罗斯和中国选择了弃权,而不是去挥舞他们的否决票。
同样,基于道义,我们可以像对待利比亚那样干预叙利亚。然而,残忍的阿萨德总统和他的亲信们在北约战机呼啸飞过时却不用缩头寻找掩体。这至少有一部分是因为俄​​罗斯——自冷战初期就一直是叙利亚专政王朝的扶植者,不希望看到这一结果。
我们仍然生活在一个“不快乐的世界”里,西方势力会以人道的名义进行武装干涉,但只有在他们觉得时机已到,并且不触犯到身在莫斯科和北京的独裁者时。

And only if Washington is up for it. To an extent that hasn't been generally visible, the intervention was crucially dependent on the military muscle of the United States. It just hasn't looked that way because it has suited everyone for America to appear to take a backseat. It has suited the uprising. It has suited David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy who have been able to claim a leadership role. It has suited the Americans to have had a low profile in a third conflict in a Muslim state.
而且, 只有在当华府准备好了的时候。尽管不那么明显,但武装干涉的关键实际上取决于美国的军事实力。很多时候事情看起来不是这样,但这只是因为每个人都希望看到 美国在行动中处在次要位置。美国的这种姿态切合于这次的利比亚起义,也能让担当领导角色的卡梅伦和萨科齐合意,更是迎合了美国人在第三次插手穆斯林国家冲 突时希望保持低调的愿望。

The truth is that none of this would have happened without the Americans. The UN resolution would almost certainly not have been passed without strenuous US diplomatic activity. It was US cruise missiles striking radar and anti-aircraft installations which initially made the air safe for British, French and allied warplanes. Eleven weeks into the campaign, the Europeans were running out of munitions and had to go to the Americans for replenishment. US surveillance aircraft, intelligence satellites and mid-air refuelling tanker planes were vital. One senior adviser to David Cameron says candidly: "We simply couldn't have done it without American support."
事实是,如果没有美国人,这一切都不会发生。没有美国艰苦的外交干预,联合国决议将几乎肯定不会被通过。是美国的巡航导弹,在战争初期摧毁了雷达和防空设施,为英法盟军扫清了道路。战争进行到11周时,盟军的弹药接近枯竭,也是美国给他们提供了弹药。至关重要的侦察机、情报卫星和空中加油机同样也都是美国提供的。
卡梅伦的一位资深顾问坦率地说:“没有美国的支持,我们根本不可能成功。”

Libyans now have a chance to take the path of freedom, peace and prosperity, a chance they would have been denied were we to have walked on by when Muammar Gaddafi was planning his rivers of blood. Britain and her allies broadly got it right in Libya. That won't make it any easier to get it right in other places at other times.
现在,利比亚人民有机会走上自由、和平与繁荣的道路,如果我们容忍卡扎菲继续策划他的“血流成河”,利比亚人永远也没有今天。
英国和她的盟友们在利比亚大致做得不错,但这不代表参考“利比亚经验”也能让我们在其它地方做得更好。