经济学人480:叙利亚偏离正轨

 　　Syria A step too far

　　叙利亚 偏离正轨
　　If Bashar Assad really has used chemical weapons on his own people in a big way, America must intervene
　　如果巴沙尔阿萨德真的对其子民大规模使用了化学武器，美国必须干涉了。
　　Aug 24th 2013 |From the print edition
　　“WE HAVE been very clear to the Assad regime…that a red line for us is [if] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised,” said Barack Obama a year ago this week. “That would change my calculus 1.” If reports from the Syrian opposition 2 that hundreds of people have been killed by rocket-launched chemical weapons turn out to be true, then Mr Obama should keep his promise.
　　一年前的这个星期，奥巴马表示，阿萨德政权要很清楚自己的警戒线，如果我们看到大规模的化学武器运送或者是使用的话，这会改变我的计划。如果反对党所说的数百人被火箭发射的化学武器谋杀属实，奥巴马应该遵守自己的诺言。
　　In recent months, those who previously 3 argued for intervention 4 in Syria have gone quiet. That’s not because the Syrian people are suffering any less—far from it. The death toll 5 is now reckoned to be more than 100,000, 2m people have fled the country and a quarter of the population of 23m is reckoned to be displaced within it. But failure to intervene early has had consequences which strengthen the arguments against intervention. Sectarian chaos 6 in the country has grown, undermining hopes that toppling Mr Assad would bring peace. The more fighting there is between rebel groups, the more damage giving them weapons would do. And al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups have gained strength at the expense of the more moderate ones the West would be happy to see take power. The stronger the radicals 7 become, the weaker the case for arming the rebels.
　　最近几个月，之前争论干涉叙利亚的人安静了。不是因为叙利亚人民的苦难有所减少，而是更多了。死亡人数现在被认为超过了10万，200万人离开这个国家，2300万人中的四分之一被迫在国内转移。但是之前没有干涉导致的结果增强了反对干涉的声音。叙利亚教派纷争增加，破坏者希望阿萨德的下台会带了和平。反对派之间纷争越多，给他们武器带来的破坏就越大。与基地组织有关的反对派在牺牲西方乐意看到的温和派的情况下实力有所增强。激进分子越强大，武装反对派的理由就越弱。
　　But the use of chemical weapons would tip the argument back in favour of intervention, for three reasons. First, they are banned by international agreement, and if the rules of war are to have any force, then the world must do its best to ensure that they are respected. Second, however unwilling 8 outside powers are to intervene, the world accepts that there are limits to the atrocities 9 that governments may perpetrate on their people: it was the massacre 10 of 8,000 Bosnians by Serbs at Srebrenica in 1995 that provoked outside powers to intervene decisively in Yugoslavia’s civil war. Third, America’s credibility depends on intervening. Mr Obama made no response to a previous claim of chemical-weapons use. It seems likely that Mr Assad was testing the water to see if he could get away with a bigger one. If he is allowed to, nobody will take American threats seriously, at least while Mr Obama is president. Why should Iran or North Korea, for instance, listen to him hector them about their nuclear weapons programmes?
　　但是化学武器的使用会使得争论再次回到是否应该干涉的问题上。原因有三。第一，化学武器是国际协议禁止的，如果战胜的规则有效力，世界必须尽最大努力确保规则得以遵守。第二，无论外界力量如何不想干涉，国际社会要承认国家对自己子民的暴行是有限度的。1995年在斯瑞不里尼卡，塞维利亚人杀害了8000名波斯尼亚人，此事件导致外界力量直接干预南斯拉夫的内战。第三，美国的信誉来源于对国际事务的干预。奥巴马对此前关于化学武器使用的声明没有作出回应。看起开阿萨德正在试水，看他能不能发起更大的袭击。如果被允许了，没有国家把美国的警告当回事儿，至少奥巴马任职期间。比如说，为什么伊朗或者朝鲜听从美国对他们核项目的威吓呢？
　　Tread carefully but firmly
　　一步一个脚印
　　Nobody should act rashly in the wake of this report. The opposition’s claims need to be verified. A United Nations inspection 11 team, already in the country to investigate the earlier allegations, needs to do its utmost to get to the site where the latest attacks are said to have taken place.
　　看完这份报告，大家都不应贸然行动。反对派的发言需要证实。联合国观察团已经进入叙利亚调查早期的指控，需要尽力到达最近袭击发生的现场。
　　If the reports turn out to be correct—or the inspectors 12 are not given a chance of verifying them—then the world needs to take action. America should not shoulder the burden alone. China and Russia, who have supported Mr Assad’s regime, must also accept their responsibility to uphold a standard of behaviour to which even they have signed up. But if they are not persuadable, then America and its allies should consider the full range of hard options, from strikes to limit Mr Assad’s fighting capacity, to destroying his air force, to imposing 13 no-fly zones in the country.
　　如果报告属实，或者观察员没机会证实这些报告，国际社会就需要采取行动了。美国不应该自己承担这个责任，支持阿萨德政府的中国和俄罗斯也应该承担起维护行为规范的责任。因为他们已经在行为规范上签上了自己的名字。但是如果他们执意不配合，美国及其盟国就只能选择限制阿萨德的战斗力，破坏其空军，在叙利亚设立禁飞区。
　　This paper believes that America is generally a force for good in the world. If Mr Obama does not keep his promises, it will no longer be much of a force at all.
　　这份报告相信美国一向是为世界造福的力量。如果奥巴马总统不遵守自己的诺言，那美国就称不上是一支力量了。