紐約時報社論：從未結束的冷戰

發表於 5 天前   來源  獨家網



【原文題目】The Never-Ending Cold War
【中文題目】從未結束的冷戰
【來    源】http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/2 ... ng-cold-war.html?hp
【發表日期】2012年3月28日
【原文作者】紐約時報社論
【譯       者】Howard
【校       對】Howard
【聲       明】譯文為原創，轉載務必註明譯者及出處「獨家網dooo.cc」。
【摘      要】美國總統奧巴馬和俄羅斯總統梅德韋傑夫在核安全峰會上的談話泄露，引起了共和黨候選人羅梅尼的指責和攻擊，認為奧巴馬是在向俄羅斯、伊朗屈服。本文主要談及美俄兩大國關係，解釋奧巴馬的政策，當然也不忘以西方固有的觀點和立場指責一番本月剛重新當選俄總統的普京。
【譯      文】
      

    冷戰已經結束了二十年，Mitt Romney仍然將俄羅斯看做是美國的「世界頭號政敵」。他的言論顯示的不是令人震驚的對國際事務認識的貧乏，就是膽怯的政治學。無論哪一個，都是魯莽的，而且不配成為一個主要總統競選者。

    當Obama總統告訴俄羅斯總統Dmitri Medvedev ——在一次核安全峰會的會議上通過麥克風獲取——選舉后他將在導彈防禦和其他武器問題上有更多的靈活性的時候，Romney先生迫不及待的發起猛攻。
.
    首先，就如同Romney先生的反應所表明的，這是一種對於現實的忠實看法。華盛頓的政治氣候毒害之深，以至於目前在任何問題上的合作都幾乎不可能了，Romney先生指責Obama先生，暗示選舉后他將使導彈防禦「塌陷」。在周二的外交政策雜誌，Romney現實指責他在核武器削減問題上向俄羅斯和伊朗屈服。可這並非真實。
   
    兩年前，Obama總統與俄羅斯簽署了一項協定，實現了雙方核武器問題上誠實的削減，而且他承諾努力尋求更多的削減。雖然Romney先生反對這項條約，但13位共和党參議員聯合全部共和黨人批准了它。自從Ronald Reagan之後的每位總統都儘力削減核武器庫。我們簡單地說不需要——也不能承擔——手頭上仍然有幾千枚武器。

    說自己會在導彈防禦問題上有更多的靈活性不意味著Obama先生將「屈服」。兩年前，他做出了一個明智的戰略決定，撕碎了前總統George W. Bush毫無把握的在波蘭和捷克建立長距離導彈防禦系統的計劃。五角大樓正在布置一項野心更小——但是更可行的——包含攔截者和感應器的系統，首先是在船上，然後在陸地上。俄羅斯反對歐洲的系統，說這將使得他們的長距離導彈遭受危險。這並非美國的意圖——真正的目標是伊朗——而Obama先生正在努力尋求找到一個折中的方法。

    至於伊朗，Obama總統和他的外交官們已經說服俄羅斯支持聯合國安理會有限但是十分重要的制裁措施。他們還遊走莫斯科——向德黑蘭施加他們的比布希總統所實施的更強硬的制裁措施。俄羅斯在利比亞和阿富汗問題已經和美國取得了卓有成效的合作。

    俄羅斯是一個名聲不好的選手。在12月，Vladimir Putin的政黨嘗試竊取議會選舉；這月，他在重新當選為總統後面臨國際觀察員指責欺詐。他制裁反對者並限制民主，他對於敘利亞總統Bashar al-Assad的支持無知荒謬。

    但是俄羅斯不可能就這樣悄然離去，接受指責，變成我們希望的那樣。它需要挑戰，用警惕和批判處理關係。政府將要表達關於竊取議會選舉的擔憂——對國務卿Hillary Rodham Clinton進行口頭攻擊——儘力在敘利亞問題上羞辱Kremlin。Obama先生也需要更堅定的支持俄羅斯，提醒Putin先生許多合作的阻礙都是他自己製造的。

    真正的威脅在於：基地組織和它的模仿者、伊朗、朝鮮、經濟壓力。Romney先生需要向美國人討論國家真正面臨的挑戰和他的解決之道。

【原       文】
The Never-Ending Cold War


Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America』s 「No. 1 geopolitical foe.」 His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

Mr. Romney couldn』t wait to pounce when President Obama told President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia — in a conversation at a nuclear arms summit meeting picked up by a microphone — that he would have more flexibility on missile defense and other arms issues after the election.

First, this is an honest statement of fact, as Mr. Romney』s reaction clearly demonstrated. The political atmosphere in Washington is so poisonous that cooperation on any issue right now is near impossible. Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of signaling that, postelection, he would 「cave」 on missile defense. In Foreign Policy Magazine on Tuesday, Mr. Romney accused him of bowing to Russia on nuclear arms cuts and Iran. That is not true.

Two years ago, President Obama signed a treaty with Russia that makes modest cuts in each side』s nuclear weapons, and he has promised to pursue more reductions. Although Mr. Romney opposed the treaty, 13 Republican senators joined all the Democrats to ratify it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has reduced the nuclear arsenal significantly. We simply don』t need — and cannot afford — the thousands of weapons still on hand.

Saying he will have flexibility on missile defense doesn』t mean Mr. Obama will 「cave.」 Two years ago, he made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bush』s dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Pentagon is deploying a less-ambitious — but-more-feasible — system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land. Russia objects to a system in Europe, saying it will put their long-range missiles at risk. That is not America』s intent — the real target is Iran — and Mr. Obama is right to work to find a compromise.

As for Iran, President Obama and his diplomats have managed to persuade Russia to go along with limited but important sanctions at the United Nations Security Council. They also have rightly gone around Moscow — imposing their own sanctions on Tehran that are tougher than President Bush ever achieved. Russia has worked productively with the United States on Libya and Afghanistan.

Russia is an unsavory player. In December, Vladimir Putin』s party tried to steal a parliamentary election; this month, he faced fraud charges from international observers after his own re-election as president. He has cracked down on critics and restricted democracy. His support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is unconscionable.

But Russia can』t be wished away or denounced away. It has to be challenged and the relationship managed with vigilance and skepticism. The administration was right to express concerns about the stolen parliamentary election — drawing verbal attacks on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — and to try to publicly shame the Kremlin on Syria. Mr. Obama also needs to more firmly support democracy in Russia and remind Mr. Putin that many obstacles to cooperation are of his own making.

There are real threats out there: Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses. Mr. Romney owes Americans a discussion of the real challenges facing this country and his solutions to them.