恐襲之後 歐洲需要自救 Paris must shake Europes complacency
There is an impulse in Europe’s political discourse, by no means the exclusive property of the left, that assumes nothing bad happens in the world without it being somehow the fault of the west in general and the US in particular. This is the mindset that casts Saddam Hussein as a victim, Hugo Chávez a hero and Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a bulwark against Nato expansionism. The mass murder of Parisian concertgoers and Russian tourists may be crimes, but they are surely also the product of unprincipled great power intervention.
歐洲的政治話語中存在一種衝動（絕非左翼特有），它假定世界上一切壞事在某種程度上都是西方——尤其是美國——的過錯。正是這種心態把薩達姆侯賽因(Saddam Hussein)說成受害者，將烏戈查韋斯(Hugo Chávez)說成英雄，將俄羅斯的弗拉基米爾渠京(Vladimir Putin)說成抵禦北約(Nato)擴張主義的堡壘。對巴黎音樂會觀衆和俄羅斯遊客的大規模殺戮也許是犯罪行爲，但它們肯定也是大國無原則干預的產物。
Listen to Jeremy Corbyn. The leader of Britain’s Labour party cannot censure the outrages of extremist jihadis without reference to the supposed crimes of the US: the siege of Falluja, say, or killing rather than arraigning Osama bin Laden. “We have created a situation where some of these forces have grown,” was Mr Corbyn’s reflection on the slaughter in Paris.
聽聽傑里米科爾賓(Jeremy Corbyn)的言論吧。這位英國工黨(Labour)領導人在譴責極端主義聖戰者的暴行時，非要提及美國的所謂罪行不可：比如對費盧傑(Fallujah)的圍攻（指2004年伊拉克戰爭期間美軍對盤踞在該市的武裝分子發起的掃蕩戰役——譯者注），或者擊斃奧薩馬本拉登(Osama bin Laden)而沒有將其移送司法。對於巴黎恐襲，科爾賓是這樣反思的：“我們創造了令這些勢力中的一部分壯大的背景。”
There is no shortage of criticisms to be made of the west — and they do not start or end with the invasion of Iraq. I find it shocking that Saudi Arabia is still treated as a staunch ally even as it exports the extreme version of Islam that informs the murderous credo of the jihadis. Then there is a welcome afforded Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi whose violent repression of the Muslim Brotherhood opens the door to Isis. With its oil and autocrats, the Middle East is a graveyard for anything pretending to be a principled foreign policy.
可以批評西方的地方多得很，入侵伊拉克只是其中一件值得批評的事。我感到震驚的是，沙特阿拉伯仍被視爲一個堅定盟友，即便該國對外輸出極端版本的伊斯蘭，爲聖戰者的殘暴信條提供理論“啓發”。此外，埃及總統阿卜杜勒法塔赫帠罘(Abdel Fattah al-Sisi)上臺也受到歡迎，而正是他對穆斯林兄弟會(Muslim Brotherhood)的暴力鎮壓，爲“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)開啓了大門。中東的石油和威權統治者，令該地區成爲任何貌似有原則的外交政策的墳場。
None of these hypocrisies can be held up in exculpation of the tyranny of the self-styled Islamic State. Those who think it better to explain than condemn forget that by far the greatest number of victims of Isis’ crimes are fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and, most recently, Beirut. Or that the caliphate replaces liberty with theocratic intolerance, subjugates women and murders homosexuals. The idea that the west should shoulder blame rests on a corrosive moral relativism blind to the essential evil of those who kill and maim. Indiscriminate murder is wicked. It demands unvarnished condemnation. Full stop.
但這些虛僞不能用來爲“伊斯蘭國”的暴行開脫。那些更願意解釋——而不是譴責——的人們忘了，ISIS罪行的絕大多數受害者是伊拉克、敘利亞境內（最近還有貝魯特）的穆斯林。他們還忘了，這個“哈里發”用不容異端的神權取代自由，剝奪女性地位，殺戮同性戀者。那種認爲西方應該受到譴責的觀點，源自一種腐蝕性的道德相對論，對那些濫殺無辜的人的基本邪惡視而不見。不分青紅皁白的殺戮是邪惡的。這種行爲應該受到沒有保留的譴責。其它都是廢話。
You could ask whether anyone cares what Mr Corbyn thinks. The Labour leader’s formative memories are of the Vietnam war and the nasty campaigns waged by the CIA in central and Latin America during the 1970s. He has not stepped out of the time warp. He will never be prime minister. Even Fidel Castro thinks it is time to move on.
你可能會問，有誰會關心科爾賓的想法嗎？對這位工黨領導人來說，塑造其思想的記憶是越南戰爭，以及1970年代美國中央情報局(CIA)在中美洲和拉丁美洲發起的下三濫行動。他至今沒有走出這種時間上的錯位。他永遠都不會成爲英國首相。就連菲德爾慍斯特羅(Fidel Castro)都認爲該跟上時代了。
Yet Mr Corbyn’s response illuminates a broader strand of European thinking — a complacency that takes for granted the Enlightenment and has sapped the willingness to defend its essential underpinnings. Somehow it is easier to blame the west than to admit that there are those for whom freedom, tolerance and the rule of law are natural enemies.
不過，科爾賓的迴應反映了一股更廣泛的歐洲思潮，一種對啓蒙運動(Enlightenment)採取想當然態度、捍衛其根本支柱的意願逐漸淡薄的自滿。不知怎麼地，比起承認世界上有一些人把自由、寬容和法治視爲天敵，責怪西方更容易一些。
We saw this when Mr Putin overturned the continent’s postwar security order by sending his army into Ukraine. The reaction of many on the right as well as the left was to mutter that the fault lay with Nato’s decision to welcome the new democracies of eastern and central Europe.
當普京把部隊派往烏克蘭，從而顛覆歐洲戰後安全秩序時，我們就曾看到這種情況。許多左翼（以及右翼）人士的反應是，抱怨這是北約的過錯，因爲這個聯盟決定歡迎中、東歐新的民主政體。
There are many more who have decided in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations that the principal threat to Europe’s freedoms comes from the electronic “snooping” of domestic intelligence services rather than from jihadis wielding Kalashnikovs and wearing suicide vests. Hopefully the balance will shift somewhat in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.
在愛德華斯諾登(Edward Snowden)爆料之後，更多人認定，歐洲自由面臨的首要威脅來自國內情報機構的電子“窺視”，而不是手持AK47突擊步槍、身穿自殺式炸彈馬甲的聖戰者。巴黎遭遇恐怖襲擊後，這種觀念有望轉變。
The original sin was the assumption that the end of the cold war did indeed mark the end of history. The complacency straddled the boundary of economics and politics. Liberal markets would create permanent prosperity, while political pluralism would become the default system of governance. The international order would be remade in the image of European multilateralism.
這一切的原罪在於假定冷戰結束真的標誌着歷史終結。這種自滿瀰漫了經濟和政治兩個領域。自由化的市場將創造永恆的繁榮，而政治多元化將成爲默認的治理體制。國際秩序將以歐洲的多邊主義爲模板得到重塑。
The first of the illusions was shattered by the financial crash of 2008, but governments and electorates have held on more tenaciously to the idea that democracy is the natural destination of politics. When things have gone wrong — the terrorist attacks of al-Qaeda and now Isis and Russia’s revanchism — the instinct has been to treat them as exceptions. The curtains, though, have now been torn open, not least by the influx of refugees fleeing violent chaos on Europe’s periphery.
上述幻覺中的第一個被2008年金融危機打破，然而各國政府和選民更爲執着地堅守“民主政體是政治的天然目的地”這個觀念。當事情出錯時——比如基地組織(al-Qaeda)和現在的ISIS發動的恐怖襲擊，以及俄羅斯的復仇主義——他們的本能是將其視爲例外現象。不過，如今幕布已被撕開，其推動因素包括逃離歐洲外圍的暴力動盪局勢的難民涌入歐洲。
What is required is a readiness to Fight. This means a lot more than simply sending more warplanes to attack Isis in its strongholds, though the case for fiercer military action is a strong one. Fighting means recognising that the values that form our societies cannot be taken for granted; that the postmodern order imagined after 1989 is at very best some way off; and that even as they confront the enemies of freedom and tolerance European governments must address deprivation and marginalisation within their societies.
目前需要的是對抗意願。這其中的內涵遠不止出動更多戰機打擊盤踞在窩點的ISIS——儘管加大軍事行動力度的理由十分充足。所謂對抗，意味着要認識到這樣幾點：不能對構成西方社會的價值觀抱想當然態度；1989年之後想象出來的後現代秩序，往好了說也還有相當長一段路要走；即便在與自由和寬容的敵人作鬥爭之際，歐洲各國政府也必須解決其社會內部的貧窮和邊緣化問題。
This in turn demands a willingness to admit there will be costs. But then anyone who has glanced at the history of the 20th century will know that today’s liberties came at a price. Nor should we imagine that governments will not have to make ugly compromises — not least in Syria — if some order is to be restored.
這進而要求各方願意承認會有代價。不過，只要看一看20世紀的歷史就會明白，當今的自由也是付出一定代價後纔得到的。我們也不應該想象，爲了恢復一定程度的秩序，政府將不必做出醜陋的妥協——尤其是在敘利亞問題上。
Above all, it is time for Europeans to celebrate what they have built and recognise it is under threat. The streets of Paris this week have seen a heartening resolve not to be cowed by the murderers. If Europe does not stand up for its values, who else will?
最重要的是，歐洲人應該慶祝他們取得的成就，同時意識到這種成就面臨威脅。最近，人們在巴黎街頭上表現出不被兇手嚇倒的令人鼓舞的決心。如果歐洲不堅守其價值觀，還有誰會這麼做呢？
