|
|
Pro-Russian supporters gather near a Ukrainian military base in the village of Perevalnoye outside
Simferopol, March 7, 2014. (Reuters)
亲俄支持者聚集在辛菲罗波尔郊外的一个靠近乌克兰军事基地的名为Perevalnoye村庄中，2014年3月7日。（路透社）
There is an old English saying: “The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine”. Or to put it more colloquially, “What goes around comes around.” Nowhere is this truer than in the sphere of international relations.
有一句古老的谚语这样说：“天网恢恢，疏而不漏”，或者通俗点说“恶有恶报”。没有哪有比国际关系领域更贴合这句话了。
To fully appreciate events in the Ukraine and what they mean, it’s necessary to know a bit about the current state of global affairs. During the Cold War international institutions – especially the UN Security Council – failed to perform, primarily because topics on which any degree of consensus existed between East and West were scarce on the ground. It is slightly misleading to say that this led to the USA and USSR carving up (sometimes quite literally) the world between them, because no one was precisely under an obligation to engage in this kind of behavior, but it certainly provided a handy, and not entirely spurious, excuse.
为了充分了解发生在乌克兰的事件及其蕴含的意义，你必须对当前的全球形式稍有了解。冷战时期的国际机构—特别是安理会—未能发挥它应有的作用，主要是因为东西方在任何议题上都只能达成少得可怜的共识。这导致美国和苏联肆意的在世界各地瓜分（有时候毫不夸张地说）， 这样子说可能会有点误导，但它确实发生了。因为没有国家有义务或者能阻止它们这样做，但这的确给美国和苏联在世界各地动武提供了一个便利，有所依凭的借口。
The winner takes it all
赢家通吃
When the Cold War ended, Western nations and their allies were abruptly presented with an open playing field. They dominated the international institutions (especially the UN, IMF and World Bank), as well as the global economy (via the G-7), and were now free to wield these tools to remake the world in an image more consonant with the values they had spent the last half century so loudly professing. Democracy, freedom, human rights, economic prosperity – now that the Wall was down all of this stuff would shortly be coming everyone’s way as we entered into a Golden Age of international law and multilateral cooperation. Might would no longer be quite so right, realpolitik would give way to principle.
当冷战结束后，西方国家和他们的盟友们突然站到了一个广阔的天地中。他们主宰了国际机构（特别是联合国、国际货币组织和世界银行）以及全球经济（通过G7）。现在他们可以自由的以一种更为和谐的形象利用这些工具重塑世界，推广他们花了半个世纪时间努力宣传的价值观，即：民主、自由、人权、经济繁荣。既然柏林墙已经倒塌，那么当我们准备进入在国际法和多方合作约束下的黄金发展阶段时，所有这一切很快将成为每个国家的行事方式。力量将不再主导一切，权力政治将给法则让路。
That was the theory, anyway. What happened, unfortunately, was that a few people – by and large based in Western nations, but by no means representative of their fellow citizens – took this opportunity to “take it all”, or at least as much of it as they could swallow without choking. Historically, this type of behavior has been de rigeur in international relations and old habits die hard. This “take it while it’s going” attitude meant using all the old institutions (the UN, the IMF) and the new ones (like the International Criminal Court) purely in pursuit of their own self-interests. These were quite narrow, as the people in charge of Western nations at this point were by and large corporate-friendly types who didn’t harbor too much sympathy for the unwashed masses. As a result, the post-War Keynesian economic framework was systematically dismantled, whole new nations entered the bond-servitude of IMF debt, and the new International Criminal Court was wielded effectively against recalcitrant third world leaders (Laurent Gbagbo, Muammar Gaddafi), while intervention-happy first world countries like Britain and the United States disingenuously claimed that over the 70 years since the Second World War they had been unable to come up with a definition of “aggression” (a feat all the more amazing, when one considers that the whole realm of international criminal law was kicked off by exactly these nations prosecuting leading Nazis for precisely this crime).
无论怎样，这只是个理论。不幸的是，西方国家的少数人，但绝不代表他们的民众，利用这一机会“窃取了全部果实”，至少尽可能的吞食这些果实。 历史上看，这种做法在国际关系中一直很正常并且是积习难改。这种“索取”的态度意味着西方利用所有的旧机构（UN和IMP）以及新机构（国际法庭）来纯粹追逐他们自己的私利。而且现在的西方领导人都是企业友好型的，根本不会对其他下层民众施以过多同情，这种做法则显得过于狭隘。结果，战后凯恩斯经济结构被系统的拆解，所有的新兴国家都陷入IMF的债务之中，并且新的国际刑庭有效地制裁了那些敢于反抗的第三世界国家领导人（卡扎菲等）。而乐于干预他国的第一世界国家如英国和美国则伪善地宣布从二战结束70年来他们从未实施过“侵略”。（当人们考虑到整个国际刑法都恰恰是这些国家制定来审问纳粹领导人的侵略罪名时，我们就知道英美国家的侵略行径是多么的壮举啊！）
Through all of these short-sighted policies, the message came through loud and clear: my way or the highway. Nothing’s changed.
通过所有这些缺乏眼光的政策，发出的声音响亮并且清晰，即不听我的就滚蛋。什么都没变。
Pro-Russian demonstrators clash with riot police during a protest rally in Donetsk March 6, 2014. (Reuters)
2014年3月6日，在顿涅茨克的抗议集会中，亲俄派游行示威者和防暴警察发生冲突。
The multipolar world as an answer?
多级世界就是答案吗?
International law practitioners could not fail to notice that in some respects our world was getting worse. In particular, inequality was increasing and control of our political and economic framework was rapidly devolving on fewer and fewer individuals, who made decisions that very few people could even understand, much less partake in. We were less well-off than our parents were and shut out from the very political processes that we had been trained to participate in. Money and connections were fast becoming the only qualifications one needed to get any job involving public responsibility, and ideas of economic and political equality that had once been mainstream were dismissed as “radical” and “na?ve” with a vehemence that increased with each passing year.
国际法律从业者不能不注意到，在某些方面我们的世界正在恶化。特别是，不平等在增加，我们的政治和经济框架的控制权正迅速地被转交给越来越少的人手上，他们做出的决定只有极少数人可以理解，更不用说参加制定决策了。相比我们的父母，我们都不太富裕。我们曾经接受训练、参与政治进程，现在却被拒之门外。金钱、门路都迅速成为一个人获得任何涉及公共责任的职位时必须具备的入场券。而且曾经是主流的经济和政治平等的思想被斥之为“激进”与“天真”不予采纳，其粗暴程度逐年增加。
And this is why, for at least the past ten years, the multipolar world is a vision that has gained increasing traction in the international relations realm as possibly a fairly decent alternative to rule by the 1 percent. In this particular scenario, the world is again carved up, but this time four or five superpowers are in play.
这就是为什么，至少在过去十年，多极化的世界变成了在国际关系领域不断获得欢迎支持的愿景，它被人们看成为可能替代由百分之一的人统治世界的一个相当正当的方法。在这种特殊情况下，世界正再次瓜分，但这次是四五个超级大国参与瓜分。
Who are these superpowers? Certainly, the USA and the EU, which work in tandem on many issues. The EU is, of course, still the lesser partner, but the more human and economic resources at its disposal, the more powerful the EU is going to be ten or twenty years down the line; hence, the impetus for rapid eastward expansion. China is also a certainty. With a billion people at its disposal, it is already the world’s second largest economy and has managed to translate this into spot number three in voting power at the World Bank. In this global chess game, Russia (the fourth power here) has adopted a position that has thus far mainly been defensive, not because of any inherent goodness, but merely because that’s where the chips are lying. Traditional client-States, like Syria and Iran, are firmly in Western crosshairs and the EU has already snapped up much of its former sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. While the EU is expanding as far as possible, Russia is trying to double down on what has traditionally been its sphere of influence in order to stay in the game. These familiar actors may eventually be rounded out by India and/or a more integrated South America spearheaded by Brazil.
这些超级大国都有哪些。当然有美国和欧盟，他们在很多问题上合作一致。欧盟当然仍旧是次要的跟随者，但如果有更多的人力和经济资源可供支配，未来10到20年，欧盟的势力会越来越大；因此才会有向东扩展的动力。中国当然也会成为超级大国。拥有十几亿人口，中国已经成为世界第二大经济体，并且已经将这些转化为在世界银行中影响力排在第三位的国家。在这场类似象棋的全球竞争游戏中，俄罗斯（排名第四位）已经确立了一个主要采取守势的位置，并非因为其固有的善良，而仅仅在于棋就是这么下的。而传统的附庸国例如叙利亚和伊朗，则牢牢被锁定在西方国家的瞄准器上，并且欧盟已经将其触角伸到了东欧。当欧盟尽其所能的扩张之时，俄罗斯为了能继续保留在游戏中，也尽力扩大在其传统领域的影响。其他主要角色或许还包括印度以及巴西领导下的南美。
The current wrangling over the Ukraine has really only exposed some of the ways great powers do business with each other, i.e. testing where the boundaries lie. Will the boundary between the EU and Russia be on the eastern border of the Ukraine, the western border of the Ukraine, or smack down the middle? It’s hardly the type of question where you just sit back and see how things shake out when you are literally responsible for the fate of your nation (especially when military facilities are at stake), and it is a bland truism to point out that when two powerful nations set sights on each other, anyone in between them is in for a rough ride. This painful process is deeply rooted in an international system which shows no mercy for losers and very little for the hapless bystander.
当前乌克兰的乱局暴露了大国之间彼此交往的方式，也就是检验大家的底线在哪里。欧盟与俄罗斯的边界将在乌克兰东部还是西部？或者以乌克兰中间为边界？当国家的命运掌握在你手上时（特别是当军事设施处于危险中时），你不可能坐在那里看事情如何发展，肯定要采取行动。 当两个强国互相盯着对方时，位于中间的弱小国家肯定不好过。这种痛苦过程根植于这样的国际体系之中：对于失败者没有丝毫同情，对于倒霉的旁观者也几乎没有同情。
As this indicates, the multipolar world is in many respects regressive and nationally-oriented, but it does present a sea change from what we have been experiencing over the past twenty years, which is rule by an unchecked 1 percent and a world descending into modern feudalism. Russia before Putin was run by oligarchs with many a conservative Western analyst openly proposing emulating them. Had that continued and had China’s thousands of billionaires and millionaires gotten onboard, we might be looking at a much worse picture.
这表明，多极化世界在很多方面来说是一种退化并且以国家为导向。但却是对我们过去20年来所经历的一次重大改变。过去20年被那不被管束的1%所统治，可谓现代版的封建主义。俄罗斯在普京之前被寡头政治所统治，许多保守的西方分析家公开提议效仿他们。如果这一局面得到继续，而中国无数的百万富翁和亿万富翁也入伙的话，那我们可能会看到一个更加糟糕的画面.
Pro-Russian demonstrators take part in a rally in the Crimean town of Yevpatoria March 5, 2014. (Reuters)
2014年3月5日，亲俄示威者在克里米亚地区的叶夫帕托里亚镇参加集会。
Now I admit that a choice between Cold War Version 2.0 with new and improved superpowers, or global serfdom is hardly inspiring stuff. But if we want to avoid making that choice, we’re going to have to consider some deep changes.
现在我承认在在新的、更强大的超级大国间展开的冷战2.0版和全球农奴制度之中做出选择并不是件鼓舞人心的事情。但若我们要避免这一选择，就得考虑深刻变革。
When I talk about the slow-grinding mills of God, I’m not primarily referring to Eastern or Western powers’ ability to call “humanitarian intervention”, “minority rights” or “propaganda black ops” on each other, terms which after decades of misuse retain a legal meaning, but have lost much currency in the broader area of public consumption. I’m referring to us as citizens, citizens primarily in the Western world, because we are still, despite everything, in the strongest position to affect international relations. As citizens we haven’t demanded a great deal of accountability from our governments over the past two decades and have turned a blind eye to policies that have not only served to virtually dispossess us, but also to alienate us from other people whom we, at the end of the day, have no choice but to get along with, given as we’re all inhabiting the same rock. Years of sitting back and hoping that someone else will take care of this mess is all catching up on us now.
当我提到上帝的缓慢转动的磨盘，我主要不是指东、西方大国在“人道主义干涉”、“少数族群权利”、“秘密宣传行动”等方面上互相干涉的能力——经过几十年的滥用，这些词保留着法律含义，但在更广泛的、公众的消费领域中已经失去大部分本钱。我是指我们这些西方世界的公民，因为无论如何，我们仍然居于影响国际关系的最有力地位。作为公民，在过去二十年中我们不曾对政府进行过多的问责，并且对不仅在实质上剥削我们，而且对剥削我们和分离人类的政策睁一只眼闭一只眼。犹豫并幻想着将有人处理这些事情的多年时光现在全都报应在我们身上了。
The good news is that it is perfectly possible to have an international system which does a far better job of providing a principled framework for dispute resolution than the current one does, but only if we all ditch the “my way or the highway” attitude, which has prevented the World Trade Organization, International Criminal Court, International Monetary Fund and United Nations from fulfilling their roles by putting short-term gains for the few ahead of long-term sustainability for everyone. It does require some effort though. Time to ditch reality TV in favor of tracking your MP’s voting record, and replace general complaint hour at the pub with volunteering for any of the myriad causes that don’t just talk about change, but actually do it. Rolling Jubilee which buys up and then writes off debt is a good example, but there are literally thousands of others. Demanding a (truly) independent investigation into sniper attacks on protesters in the Ukraine also comes to mind. Considering EU Foreign Policy Coordinator Catherine Ashton’s lukewarm response when this point was raised with her by the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, that might well be necessary. Then there are all the legacy issues: drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq… the usual. They’ve blurred the lines of international law – in public perception – and if we want to move forward, those lines need to get sharp again; it means dealing with those issues head on and owning up to what went wrong.
好消息在于只要我们能够摒弃“我说什么就是什么”的态度（而正是这种态度导致现有的世界贸易组织、国际刑事法庭、国际货币基金组织在为所有国家的长期可持续性利益考虑之前率先为少数国家提供短期利益，从而未履行好自己的职责），我们完全有可能建立一个为纠纷解决提供原则性框架的更好的国际体系。尽管这确实需要一些努力。别再总是看能够帮你跟踪你所支持的国会议员的投票记录的电视真人秀，别总在酒吧抱怨而应该去做些志愿活动。别总在讲改变，无论出于什么原因，都应该实实在在做一些事情。像Rolling Jubilee网站那样购入而后注销掉债务就是一个很好的例子，但确实有数以千计的如此的案例。我又想到了关于对攻击乌克兰抗议民众的狙击手展开一次真正独立的调查的要求。当爱沙尼亚外交部长Urmas Paet提出这个观点时，欧盟外交政策协调员Catherine Ashton反应冷淡，这说明改变态度可能是极其必要的。再有就是很多其他的遗留问题：无人驾驶飞机袭击事件，关塔那摩监狱，伊拉克......一切较寻常的问题。这些事情已经模糊了公众眼里国际法律的界限，如果我们想要继续前进，国际法律的界限就需要重新明确化。这意味着我们应当迎面处理这些问题并且坦白地承认错误。
The bottom line is that we have worked ourselves into a corner over the past twenty years by dismantling the very international legal system that would have enabled us to achieve our hopes of peace and prosperity. Trust is at an all-time low. We need to start rebuilding confidence in our international system and international law. Together!
过去20年来我们破坏了本可以给我们带来繁荣与和平希望的国际法律系统，这就是底线。信任是空前的低。我们需要重建我们对国际体系和国际法律的信心。凝聚起来！
Not willing to go that effort? Well, welcome to the multipolar world then. And just remember, that’s the good option.
不愿付出那样的努力？那好吧，欢迎来到多极世界。并且记住，那是很好的选项。
作者：Currently a Research Associate at the INSYTE Group, Dr. Roslyn Fuller has previously lectured at Trinity College and the National University of Ireland. She can be reached at [email protected]
作者：目前在INSYTE小组的研究助理，Roslyn Fuller博士先前曾在剑桥大学三一学院以及爱尔兰国立大学当讲师。你可以通过[email protected]联系她。
http://www.sugongmu.com/lswh/ |
|
发表于 2024-10-30 06:29:12
