|
|
发表于 2017-8-6 16:41:43
|
显示全部楼层
A different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that
we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply
force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s
failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only
violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
然而，干涉主义者对此持不同观点。他们认为，无视这些冲突最终会危及我们自身，美国在全球充当“世界警察”角色的意愿能
够最彻底地保卫世界安全，使其免于陷入混乱。而若美国对叙利亚的暴乱或俄罗斯的挑衅撒手不管、无所作为的话，那么这不仅违背我们的良心，也会使得这些行径
在未来愈演愈烈。
And each side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe
neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true
that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have
a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not
secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.
尽管双方的观点从历史角度看都成立，但我认为他们并没有充分反映当前形势下的需求。显然，对21世纪的美国而言，孤
立主义行不通。我们无法对发生在世界其他地区的事情漠然视之。例如，如果核燃料不安全，那么它就会威及美国人民的生命。
As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of
battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional
aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China
Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could
draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
随着叙利亚内战战火跨越边境，受战争洗礼的极端组织攻击美国的能力也在增强。地区冲突接踵而至，无论是在乌克兰南部地区、南海亦或是世界其他地方，如果我们对此坐视不管，最终这将危及美国盟友的利益，美军也会卷入其中。因此，我们必须时刻关注外界事态。
And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake --
abiding self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow
up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t
slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.
此外，跳出这些狭隘的理论框架来看，我认为大家还存在着一个真正的共同关切——持久的个人利益，那就是要始终确保我们的子孙后代成长在这样一个世界当中，在那里，人们不会因为种族、信仰或政治理念的迥异而劫持女学生或滥杀无辜。
I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral
imperative; it also helps keep us safe.
我认为，建设一个更加自由及包容的世界不仅在道德上势在必行，而且有助于维护我们自身安全。
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond
our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since
World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but
from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through
the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our
action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required.
Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General
Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this
ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or
advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”
尽管我们有意向在全球倡导和平与自由，但这并不意味着我们要借助军事手段来解决每个问题。二战结束以来，我们所犯的那些严重的错误，皆源自我们倾向于以诉诸武力的方式来解决问题，而对后果考虑不周、缺乏国际支持及法律支持，也没有向美国人民交代他们需要作出的牺牲，以使他们心中有数。虽然强硬的表态时常占据报纸头条，但战争却很少与口号
“步调一致”。正如对这个问题深有体会的艾森豪威尔将军(General
Eisenhower)，于1947年在西点军校毕业典礼上所说的那样：“战争是人类最悲惨、最愚笨的蠢行，无论是蓄意挑起战争，还是为其献计献策，这都是对全人类犯下的滔天罪行。”
Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too
well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point. Four
of the service members who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of
our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot more were
wounded.
与他一样，这一代的军人——无论男女，都对战争理解深刻。这其中也包括了你们西点毕业生。在我宣布增兵阿富汗时，听众当中的4名服役人员后来就在那里壮烈牺牲。此外，还有许多西点士兵受伤。
I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted
by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to
you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I
saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was
worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for
America to avoid looking weak.
我认为，出于维护美国国家安全的考虑，这些军事部署是很有必要的。但是，这些伤亡者的英魂和伤痛一直萦绕在我的脑海、令我难安。如果我将你们派上战场，仅仅是因为世界某地出现问题需要处理，或是担心批评家会将军事不作为视作是美国软弱的表现，那么，我就违背了自己对你们、对这个我们所爱国家的职责了。
Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we
don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will
be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only
-- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just
because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.
我的底线是：美国必须在世界范围保持领导力。如果我们不能，没人能。你们所加入的美军，永远都是美国领导世界的中坚力量。但是美国的军事行动不是我们展现领导力的唯一方式，更不是主要部分。因为虽然我们有最好的锤子(美军)，但并不意味着每个问题都是钉子。
And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you
should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief --
to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the
rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and
our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that
leadership.
因为军事行动代价极大，所以你们应该期望每个平民领袖——尤其是你们的总司令——清楚如何使用这一令人生畏的力量。所以，让我用剩下的时间来描述一下我的想法：关于美国和美军在未来几年应怎样领导世界，而你们将会成为领导世界力量的一部分。
First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my
presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if
necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened;
when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in
danger.
首先，让我重申一下我在就任总统时提出的原则：当我们的核心利益需要的时候——我们的人民受到威胁、生计受到威胁、盟友的安全处于危险之中——如果有必要，美国将单方面使用军事力量。
In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether
our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion
matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our
homeland or our way of life. (Applause.)
当然在这些情况下，我们仍然需要扪心自问，我们的行动是否合适有效公正。虽然国际舆论很重要，但是在保护我们的人民、祖国和生活方式这些问题上，美国不需要得到别人的许可。(掌声)
On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct
threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise
that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do
not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher.
In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize
allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to
include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to
international law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military
action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective
action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be
sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
另一方面，当引起世界关注但没有直接威胁到美国利益的危机产生时，当这些问题亟待解决时，当能触动我们的良心或推动世界向更危险的方向发展但不对美国构成直接威胁的危机出现时，我们更不能轻易采取军事行动。在这种情况下，我们不应该单打独斗。相反，我们必须动员盟友和合作伙伴采取集体行动。我们应该广泛使用各种手段，包括外交和发展、制裁和孤立、诉诸于国际法，甚至在必要情况下采取多边军事行动。在这些情况下，我们必须与其他国家合作，因为集体行动更容易成功，持续性强，还可以减少代价惨痛的错误。”
This leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct
threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that
involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and
unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on
the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to
more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a
foothold.
这引出了我的第二个观点。在可预见的未来，不管国内还是国外，对美国最直接的威胁仍是恐怖主义。但是，那种对每个包庇恐怖主义组织的国家都采取进攻手段的战略未免过于天真，也不可能长期进行。我认为，我们必须从伊拉克和阿富汗问题上汲取经验和教训，将美国打击恐怖主义的战略转变为与那些国内有恐怖组织基地的国家进行有效的伙伴合作。
|
|
