評論
打印
How many revolutions in history have been “successful”? How many have delivered lasting and stable political change? These are interesting intellectual questions, which are provoking new debate inside America's security and foreign policy apparatus, particularly when looking at the Middle East.
歷史上有多少革命是“成功的”？有多少場革命帶來了長久而穩定的政治新格局？這兩個有趣的學術問題，正在美國國防與外交部門內引發新的辯論，尤其是就中東問題而言。
Two years ago, when tumultuous change swept across the region, it was common to refer to events as the “Arab spring”. The sight of young crowds congregating in the streets of Cairo or Tunis seemed inspiring. It was easy for us all to cheer or at least post a message of support on Twitter or Facebook.
兩年前，劇變席卷中東時，人們通常稱其為“阿拉伯之春”。當時，在開羅或突尼斯，一群群年輕人走上街頭，那情景看上去激動人心。那時，我們大家很容易歡呼事件的發生，或至少在Twitter或Facebook上發條信息、以示支持。
These days, some key US leaders have quietly made a subtle linguistic shift. Instead of talking about the “Arab spring”, they are discussing the “Arab revolution(s)”. And while that “r” word might sound hopeful too, there is a crucial catch. “If you look at revolutions in history - say, the American, Russian, French, Chinese or Cuban - there is perhaps only one that turned out well: America,” a Washington grandee declared to a high-powered group of business leaders and policy officials earlier this month in Aspen. Thus, if the “normal” course of history plays out, he added, then “we had better be planning for a generation of turmoil and unrest”. Far from being an aberration, in other words, the current mess in Egypt or Syria will come to seem like the tragic norm - or so this new “revolution” argument goes.
如今，美國一些關鍵領導人物悄悄地改了口。他們不再說“阿拉伯之春”，而開始說“阿拉伯革命”。雖然“革命”一詞聽起來也充滿希望，但有一個重大隱患。上月初在阿斯彭(Aspen)，華盛頓一名顯要人物面對一群位高權重的商界領袖和政策官員宣稱：“如果你回顧一下史上歷次革命，比如，美國、俄羅斯、法國、中國和古巴的革命，你會發現結局不錯的或許只有一場，那就是美國革命。”因此，他補充道，如果情況按照“正常”的歷史進程發展，那么“我們最好計劃一下如何應對未來一代人時間里的混亂和動蕩”。換句話說，埃及或敘利亞當前的混亂遠非異常現象，而似乎是一種悲哀的正常現象。至少，這種新的“革命”論是這樣認為的。
Some non-Americans might find this vision of history objectionably slanted. For one thing, America's “revolution” did not immediately produce an entirely stable and peaceful democracy. Instead, it eventually delivered a very violent civil war. And some revolutions beyond US soil have produced much better outcomes than the cynics expected, if not always entirely peacefully. The collapse of the Berlin Wall did not deliver mass bloodshed in eastern Europe. The Baltic states broke free from Russia without too much dramatic upheaval (a development I remember only too well, since I started my career as a journalist writing about those Baltic revolutions and found the lack of cataclysmic drama frustrating). And if you want another reminder that history can sometimes deliver pleasant surprises, take a look at the brilliant new biopic of Nelson Mandela being released in the UK in January: as it shows, the “revolution” that took place in South Africa was almost as extraordinary as anything that occurred inAmerica.
在美國以外其他國家的人看來，這種歷史觀或許有失偏頗、令人反感。一方面，美國“革命”并未馬上產生一個完全穩定、和平的民主制國家。相反，美國革命后來帶來了一場極其暴力的內戰。而美國之外的某些革命，即便過程不總是完全和平，其結果也大大好于懷疑者的預期。柏林墻(Berlin Wall)的倒塌并未導致東歐發生大規模流血沖突。波羅的海國家脫離俄羅斯，也沒有引發太劇烈的動蕩（我清楚地記得這件事，因為我的記者生涯就始于報道波羅的海革命，而革命過程的平淡無奇讓我很郁悶）。如果你還不相信歷史有時會產生讓人驚喜的結果，那你可以看看英國今年1月新推出的一部關于納爾遜?曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)的精彩紀錄片。影片表明，南非的“革命”跟美國革命一樣了不起。
But irrespective of what you think about individual revolutions, it is crystal clear that the new “r” word poses big problems for America's establishment, particularly in the Middle East. What has been overlooked during the recent drama over the debt ceiling is that fiscal policy is not the only question splitting the nation: the political world is now also deeply divided about what it should do about foreign policy - and those revolutions-cum-springs.
但不管你怎么看待個別革命，新的“革命”一詞明顯對美國當局構成了重大問題，尤其是在中東地區。在最近的美國債務上限風波中，人們忽視了這樣一個問題：財政政策不是唯一分裂美國的問題。在如何處理外交政策、以及阿拉伯革命（或曰阿拉伯之春）的問題上，美國政界如今也存在嚴重分歧。
The debate at Aspen, which featured numerous former and present foreign policy players, illustrated this split. One chunk of the establishment feels strongly that America needs to intervene more forcefully in the Middle East, not just for humanitarian reasons but also to protect the aspirations of people wanting a “revolution” against despotic regimes - and to prevent extreme versions of Islam gaining ground. But other parts of the establishment feel equally strongly that it would be madness to get involved - that this would probably make things worse, particularly given the sorry, messy history of revolutions. “The American public is overwhelmed with globalisation, they are war weary,” complained one former military leader.
在阿斯彭，無數昔日和當今外交政策決策者的辯論凸顯出這種分歧。當權者中有一派非常肯定地認為，美國必須加大對中東地區的干預力度，不僅僅是出于人道主義，還是為了保護人們想要揭竿而起、推翻暴政的愿望，以及為了防止伊斯蘭極端勢力得勢。但當權者中另一派則同樣肯定地認為，瘋子才會去摻和中東問題——干預只會讓局勢變得更糟，尤其是有鑒于革命往往難逃悲劇和一團糟的結局。一名前軍方領袖不滿地說：“美國公眾已經被全球化搞得焦頭爛額，他們對戰爭感到厭煩。”
Indeed, the only thing upon which everyone agrees is that the current fiscal fights make the policy options far worse by undercutting US economic power, military muscle and credibility. Or as one policy grandee thundered: “The biggest threat to national security today is not what is happening elsewhere [say, the Middle East] but in the two square miles in Washington.”
確實，唯一得到每個人認同的一點是，當前圍繞財政預算的爭斗削弱了美國經濟和軍事實力、損害了美國的信譽，從而導致美國面臨的政策選擇形勢大大惡化。或如一位政界大佬怒吼的那樣：“眼下美國國家安全面臨的最大威脅，不是正在別處發生的事情，而是正在華盛頓的兩平方英里內發生的事情。”
Such battles are not entirely new. In the 18th century, founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson argued bitterly about whether to support the French revolution. But when Jefferson was worrying about Paris, America was a minor player on the world stage. Today, it is not. Either way, the key point is this: the next time an American politician talks or tweets about the Middle East, watch if that “s” word - “spring” - crops up or if the controversial “r” word appears instead. Subtle semantic shifts can matter deeply - particularly when they are barely noticed at all.
這樣的爭斗并不新鮮。18世紀，亞歷山大?漢密爾頓(Alexander Hamilton)和托馬斯?杰斐遜(Thomas Jefferson)等美國的開國之父，曾就是否應支持法國大革命展開激辯。但在杰斐遜操心巴黎的事情時，美國還只是世界舞臺上的小角色。如今的美國，與那時大不相同。無論如何，問題的關鍵在于：下一次哪位美國政界人士談論中東（或在Twitter上發有關中東的消息）時，留心觀察他用的是阿拉伯之“春”、還是有爭議性的“革命”一詞。微妙的用詞變化可能具有深遠意義，尤其是在這種變化幾乎完全無人注意到的時候。
