A force for good正义之师

Charlemagne
查理曼专栏

 

A force for good
正义之师

 

France and Britain are leading the intervention in Libya. Rightly so
法国和英国在对利比亚的军事干预中发挥了领导作用。这理所应当

 

Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition

 

 

 

WHETHER it was out of rashness or conviction, Nicolas Sarkozy has certainly acted boldly. The French president was first to recognise the "national council" in Benghazi, first to talk of the need for air strikes and first to send planes to repel Muammar Qaddafi's marauding forces. It was easily the biggest diplomatic and military moment of his presidency. So much for the old American canard about cheese-eating surrender monkeys[译注1].
无论是出于鲁莽抑或是信念，萨科奇此举堪称大胆。这位法国总统首先承认了Benghazi（班加西）的"全国委员会"，首先谈及对对利比亚进行空袭的必要性，又首先派出飞机帮助打击卡扎菲烧杀抢夺无恶不作的军队。在他的任期中，这轻而易举地成为了外交和军事上最具意义的一刻。美国人关于法国人胆小的谣言该停止了。

 

Mr Sarkozy did not act alone, of course. His alliance with Britain's David Cameron was essential. And America, belatedly, played an indispensable political and military role. Yet this action differs from the previous pattern of America leading and Britain following, with France opportunistically backing the Americans (Iraq, 1991) or opposing them (Iraq, 2003). This time America wants to stand back. So for the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis[译注2], Britain and France are at the forefront of military action in the Middle East. This is not to say they are reverting to old-style imperialism; both are too enfeebled for that. The British and French know they must act together to exert any influence. And to do that, they must overcome the legacy of Suez.
当然，萨克齐先生并不孤单。他与英国结成的联盟必不可少。虽然美国行动稍有滞后，在政治和军事方面却起到了不可替代的作用。以前总是美国领导，英国追随而法国则时不时的支持（1991 伊拉克）或者反对（2003 伊拉克）美国，这次却大不相同。这次美国想要退居二线。自1956年苏伊士危机之后，英法两国首次在中东地区发起军事行动。这并不意味着二者重回早已过气的帝国主义时代，因为二者都不再拥有这种能力。英法两国知道他们必须合作才能发挥影响，为了实现这一目标，他们必须克服苏伊士事件所留下的阴影。

 

In 1956 the two colluded with Israel to attack Egypt and retake the Suez Canal, which had been nationalised by Gamal Abdel Nasser[译注3] .Anthony Eden[译注4] ,the British prime minister, saw him as a new Hitler. The French resented his support for resistance to their rule in Algeria. America considered the assault as an act of imperialism that would inflame the Arab world and benefit the Soviet Union. It forced the invaders to withdraw, granting Nasser a victory, bringing about Eden's downfall, hastening decolonisation and ushering in an era of American dominance in the region.
由于Gamal Abdel Nasser将苏伊士运河国有化，1956年英法两国串通以色列共同对埃及发动了攻击并夺回了苏伊士运河。当时的英国首相Anthony Eden将Gamal Abdel Nasser比作希特勒二世。法国也因埃及支持阿尔及利亚反抗法国统治而对其愤恨不已。相反美国认为这次攻击是帝国主义行为，害怕此举会激怒阿拉伯国家并使苏联受益，于是迫使侵略者撤军。由此埃及获得了胜利，Eden也因此下台。这一事件加快了去殖民地化的进程，同时也标志着美国在该地区起主导作用的时代的到来。

 

Britain and France, whose alliance dated to the entente cordiale[译注5] of 1904 and two world wars, drew opposite lessons from this humiliation. The British resolved to cleave to America. Even their nuclear missiles were provided by the Americans. France chose greater autonomy. It sought to build up the European project as a counterweight to America and to create its independent nuclear force de frappe. A decade later it withdrew from NATO's integrated military command.
英法两国虽然自1904年签署一系列互相谅解的协定和两次世界大战开始就结成联盟，但他们从苏伊士事件的侮辱中得到的教训却迥然不同。英国坚定地忠于美国，甚至英国的核弹都由美国提供。而法国则更加倾向自治。他寻求把欧盟打造成为一支可与美国抗衡的力量，并自行发展了核威慑力量。十年后的1966年，法国退出了北约的统一领导。

 

As two medium-sized European powers, both with permanent seats on the UN Security Council and a legacy of empire, Britain and France are at the same time natural partners and natural rivals. These days, they are being pushed into greater co-operation. One reason is Mr Sarkozy's decision to return France fully to the NATO fold. Another is the weakening of French demands for the EU to develop its own military capability. Finally, the rising cost of advanced weapons is driving both to seek defence savings. In November Britain and France signed a defence pact to share capabilities, including research on nuclear warheads and the operation of aircraft-carriers. Welcome to the entente frugale, said the wags.
英法两国都是欧洲的中型国家，都是联合国常任理事国，都曾是称霸一时的帝国，二者向来既是伙伴又是冤家。最近受国际局势的影响，二者关系正越发紧密。原因之一是萨科奇想使法国全面回归北约。此外，法国对于欧盟增强自身军事实力的要求也逐渐减弱。最后，先进武器不断上涨的价格使得二者必须节约使用国防资金。11月,英法两国签署了一项国防协定,旨在互相帮助,内容涉及核导弹研究以及航母经营.欢迎加入这一节俭联盟,有人戏谑道.

 

It is striking how in the European�led intervention in Libya the two big Europe-based institutions, NATO and the EU, have so far been left on the sidelines. This is in part because both have members who are sceptical or even hostile to the Libyan adventure, notably Germany and (in NATO) Turkey. In part it is because old habits die hard, even in the heat of military action in Libya. France resisted Britain's wish to see NATO take over the mission. Britain opposed French attempts to get the EU to lead a naval force to enforce the arms embargo. A compromise is emerging: NATO will provide military co-ordination, but politicians from the allied parties will give political direction (see article, article). The EU may then use its embryonic military tools to offer humanitarian aid.
令人惊讶的是，在由欧盟主导的这次对利比亚的军事干预中，北约，欧盟这两个以欧洲国家为基础的组织却并没有起到太大作用。这部分归因于两个组织中都有成员怀疑甚至抵制这次行动，最明显的要数德国和土耳其（北约成员）。其次要归因于各国冥顽不灵的旧习，即便利比亚的军事行动正如火如荼的进行。英国希望北约领导此次行动，法国不接受;法国希望欧盟率领一支海军执行武器禁运，英国却表示反对。一种妥协的方式正在酝酿中：北约将协调军事行动，但各成员国领导人将主导政治。接下来，欧盟则可能会用原始的军事设备提供人道主义援助。

 

Given such cacophony, one begins to sympathise with the unilateralism of Donald Rumsfeld[译注6] ,the American defence secretary during the second Iraq war, who decreed that "the mission determines the coalition". But as America has found in both Iraq and Afghanistan, institutional backing helps to maintain a coalition. Italy, among others, demanded NATO leadership. Another timeless lesson is the benefit of securing UN and Arab support. "Suez? This is different. In Suez, we did not have the Arabs," says Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister.
鉴于这种不和谐因素，人们开始越发赞同Donald Rumsfeld（第二次伊拉克战争时期美国的国防秘书）的单边主义，他宣称"任务决定联盟"。但是美国从伊拉克和阿富汗战争中得出这样的结论：国际组织的支持可以帮助维持联盟稳定。意大利和其他国家一样希望北约主导这次行动。另外一项亘古不变的真理就是确保联合国和阿拉伯国家的支持。"苏伊士？这不一样，那时，没有阿拉伯国家的参与。"法国外交部长Alain Juppé如是说。

 

The rest is silence
其他国家保持沉默

 

The Libyan crisis also punctures some inflated hopes about other European countries. Italy, the former colonial power, was hopelessly out of touch at first and remains a minor player. The east Europeans have been quiet. For all the talk of Germany emerging as a "normal" power, liberated from post-war guilt, it remains handicapped, with the pacifist impulse still extremely powerful. Germany wanted sanctions against Colonel Qaddafi, but balked when they failed to stop him. It would not even let its ships enforce the arms embargo on Libya. Germany's aversion to the use of force, even by its allies, must raise new doubts about its demand for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
利比亚的危机使其他欧洲国家膨胀的欲望迅速冷却下来。意大利虽然也曾是殖民大国，但是在利比亚问题上他开局不利，现在仍然影响不大。东欧国家则较为平静。尽管大家抛弃前嫌，将德国视为一支"正常"力量，由于和平主义者的巨大影响，其仍难发挥较大作用。德国本想制裁卡扎菲，但是在行动未果之后却开始踌躇不前。德国甚至不愿派军舰参加对利比亚的武器禁运。考虑到德国忌讳实施武力的表现，连他的同盟都会怀疑他是否在觊觎联合国常任理事国的位置。

 

Libya has equally exposed the absurdity of the dream of a European army. What good would this be if Germany (or some other peacenik country) refused to allow it to protect people against a tyrant on Europe's doorstep? So the use of military force will remain a matter largely for those willing and able to exert it. That means Britain and France will continue to dictate the terms of European military engagement. They account for nearly half of Europe's total defence spending and more than two-thirds of what it spends on military research and development. The more Britain and France can share resources, the better for Europe's military power. Success in Libya could spur them to deeper integration; failure might push them apart again. The stakes in Libya are obviously high for the future of the Libyan people. But spare a thought for the future of European defence co-operation.
看似荒谬，但是利比亚也同样期待欧洲军队的到来。在欧洲层面上讲，德国（或者其他反战国家）拒绝派出力量帮助利比亚民众摆脱暴君统治会有什么好处呢？所以武力解决对于那些有能力并愿意实施的国家来说仍然不愧为首选。这意味着英法两国仍将统帅欧洲军队。毕竟二者的国防开支占欧洲总开支的将近一半，其在军备研发上的花销也超过了欧洲总额的三分之二。英法两国分享的资源越多，欧洲的整体军事实力也会越强。如果在利比亚获得成功，二者会进一步联合，如果失败，二者又将分道扬镳。现在利比亚人民的未来危在旦夕。还是为欧盟未来的防御合作着想一下吧。Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne

 

from the print edition | Europe