6/28/2009

扎卡里亚:1989年的历史不会在伊朗重演



Photos: Sea of Green, From NEWSWEEK

墙没有倒塌

历史不会在伊朗重演

The Wall Isn’t Falling

Historical parallels don't work in Iran.



作者:法里德-扎卡里亚(Fareed Zakaria,《新闻周刊》国际版主编)
翻译:福禄祯祥http://fulue.com/

美国《新闻周刊》(NEWSWEEK)网站6月27日发布,杂志7月13日出版

两周来,每当我们看到发生伊朗的各种画面,我们就会回想起1989年和东欧。那是,当人们你走向街头挑战他们的政府,那些看似稳固的政权被证明是空洞的,并且很快就崩溃了。取而代之的是自由民主。难道伊朗也在经历它自己的天鹅绒革命吗?

可能但未必如此。尽管政权的合法性已经碎裂——从长远来看是一个致命的伤口——但现在它很有可能使用它的枪和钱巩固权力。并且两者它都很充分。记着,1989年时的石油价格每桶低于20美元,而现在却是69美元。更重要的是,正如布热津斯基(Zbigniew Brzezinski,美国原卡特政府的国家安全顾问——译注)所指出的那样,1989年很不寻常。作为一个历史的先例,它没有证明一个有用的准则,去指导其他的反独裁运动。

现代世界有三种最强大的力量,分别是民主、宗教和民族主义。在1989年的东欧,所有的三种力量同仇敌忾反对当政者。市民憎恶他们的政府,因为政府剥夺了人民的自由和参与政治的权利。共产党的领导人被信徒们鄙视,因为他们是无神论者,在信仰受到深深珍爱的国家取缔了宗教。并且人民拒绝他们的政权,因为它们被看成是一个来自国外的非常不受欢迎的傲慢势力,苏联,强加给他们的。

伊朗的形势非常复杂。民主很显然反对这个压迫的政权。然而宗教的力量不会如此轻易地也站出来反对它。许多,也许是大多数,伊朗人显然讨厌神权政治。但是这并不意味着他们讨厌宗教。看起来好像许多非常虔诚的伊朗人——贫穷,农村——投票支持艾哈迈迪-内贾德(Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)总统。

有一种宗教的办法能够被用来反对伊朗的领导人,但它可能更像是电影剧本:以伊拉克为根据地的最高领袖阿里-希斯塔尼(Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani)用任何形式发表一个宣告(fatwa)谴责德黑兰,这将是一个惊天动地的事件,也许能导致伊朗政权的崩溃。记着,希斯塔尼是伊朗人,或许比任何其他的最高领袖更受整个什叶派世界的尊敬,并且他反对创立伊朗伊斯兰共和国的伊斯兰教法学家管教制度(velayat-e faqih, 由伊朗前最高领袖霍梅尼自创——译注)的基本教义。他自己的看法是神职人员不应参与政治,这也正是他在伊拉克指导那些充当此类角色的原因。但是他不可能公开批评伊朗的政权。(2008年3月他曾拒绝去看望访问伊拉克的内贾德。)

民族主义是三种力量中最复杂的。历史上的大多数时期,伊朗的政权都利用了民族主义情绪。霍梅尼(Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)通过与被广泛认为是美国的傀儡的伊朗国王沙赫(shah)战斗夺取政权。革命后不久,伊拉克入侵伊朗,伊斯兰教学者毛拉再次把自己包裹进民族主义的旗帜。在那场战争中,美国支持伊拉克,不顾萨达姆-侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)用化学武器对付伊朗人——这些伊朗人永志难忘。过去8年,布什(Bush)政府含蓄恫吓攻击伊朗,使得毛拉鼓动支持者。(每一位伊朗异议人士,从阿克巴尔-甘吉(Akbar Ganji) 到希琳•艾巴迪(Shirin Ebadi,2003年诺贝尔和平奖得主——译注),已经明确表示对伊朗的空中打击只会巩固现政权。)并且不要忘了美国仍然在资助试图颠覆伊斯兰共和国的游击队的全套装备和反对派。资助这些大多是没有机会取得成功的小组织,主要是为了满足那些右翼的国会议员。但是德黑兰政府却能够把这些组织描绘成反伊朗的运动。

由此来看,奥巴马(Obama)总统所采取的谨慎态度是非常明智的,给予伊朗抗议者道德上支持,但不使政治卷入其中。美国总是低估贯穿全世界的民族主义的自然力量,总是假定人们不会相信那些廉价的和赤裸裸的呼吁反抗外国统治的说辞。但是看看现在的伊拉克,努里-马利基(Nuri al-Maliki)总理竟然声称美国军队的撤离是“外国占领者孤注一掷的挫败”("a heroic repulsion of the foreign occupiers.")。当然,那时马利基可能已经卷铺盖离寺了,但对于那些占领军来说,他保护了他的政府。但是他是一个精明的政客,并且知道呼吁对于伊拉克人意味着什么。

内贾德也是一名有着相当多呼吁的政客。并且他已经正在谴责美国和英国的干涉。我们的策略应该确保这些指责看起来尽可能愚笨和毫无根据。如果奥巴马总统表现得看起来哗众取宠并且能操控抗议活动,那他就是在帮助内贾德的战略,而非美国的。

Zakaria is the host of CNN’s GPS With Fareed Zakaria on Sundays at 1 p.m. ET.

扎卡里亚(Zakaria)是CNN的GPS With Fareed Zakaria节目的主持人,该节目美国东部时间周日下午1点播出。

~~~



Photos: Sea of Green, From NEWSWEEK

英汉对照:

The Wall Isn’t Falling

Historical parallels don't work in Iran

Fareed Zakaria

NEWSWEEK, Published Jun 27, 2009, From the magazine issue dated Jul 13, 2009

墙没有倒塌

历史不会在伊朗重演

作者:法里德-扎卡里亚(Fareed Zakaria)
翻译:福禄祯祥http://fulue.com/

《新闻周刊》(NEWSWEEK)网站6月27日发布,杂志7月13日出版

Whenever we see the kinds of images that have been coming out of Iran over the past two weeks, we tend to think back to 1989 and Eastern Europe. That time, when people took to the streets and challenged their governments, those seemingly stable regimes proved to be hollow and quickly collapsed. What emerged was liberal democracy. Could Iran yet undergo its own velvet revolution?

两周来,每当我们看到发生伊朗的各种画面,我们就会回想起1989年和东欧。那是,当人们你走向街头挑战他们的政府,那些看似稳固的政权被证明是空洞的,并且很快就崩溃了。取而代之的是自由民主。难道伊朗也在经历它自己的天鹅绒革命吗?

It's possible but unlikely. While the regime's legitimacy has cracked—a fatal wound in the long run—for now it will probably be able to use its guns and money to consolidate power. And it has plenty of both. Remember, the price of oil was less than $20 a barrel back in 1989. It is currently $69. More important, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has pointed out, 1989 was highly unusual. As a historical precedent, it has not proved a useful guide to other antidictatorial movements.

可能但未必如此。尽管政权的合法性已经碎裂——从长远来看是一个致命的伤口——但现在它很有可能使用它的枪和钱巩固权力。并且两者它都很充分。记着,1989年时的石油价格每桶低于20美元,而现在却是69美元。更重要的是,正如布热津斯基(Zbigniew Brzezinski,美国原卡特政府的国家安全顾问——译注)所指出的那样,1989年很不寻常。作为一个历史的先例,它没有证明一个有用的准则,去指导其他的反独裁运动。

The three most powerful forces in the modern world are democracy, religion, and national-ism. In 1989 in Eastern Europe, all three were arrayed against the ruling regimes. Citizens hated their governments because they deprived people of liberty and political participation. Believers despised communist leaders because they were atheistic, banning religion in countries where faith was deeply cherished. And people rejected their regimes because they were seen as having been imposed from the outside by a much--disliked imperial power, the Soviet Union.

现代世界有三种最强大的力量,分别是民主、宗教和民族主义。在1989年的东欧,所有的三种力量同仇敌忾反对当政者。市民憎恶他们的政府,因为政府剥夺了人民的自由和参与政治的权利。共产党的领导人被信徒们鄙视,因为他们是无神论者,在信仰受到深深珍爱的国家取缔了宗教。并且人民拒绝他们的政权,因为它们被看成是一个来自国外的非常不受欢迎的傲慢势力,苏联,强加给他们的。

The situation in Iran is more complex. Democracy clearly works against this repressive regime. The forces of religion, however, are not so easily aligned against it. Many, possibly most, Iranians appear to be fed up with theocracy. But that does not mean they are fed up with religion. It does appear that the more openly devout Iranians—the poor, the rural—voted for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

伊朗的形势非常复杂。民主很显然反对这个压迫的政权。然而宗教的力量不会如此轻易地也站出来反对它。许多,也许是大多数,伊朗人显然讨厌神权政治。但是这并不意味着他们讨厌宗教。看起来好像许多非常虔诚的伊朗人——贫穷,农村——投票支持艾哈迈迪-内贾德(Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)总统。

There is one way religion could be used against Iran's leaders, but it would involve an unlikely scenario: were Iraq-based Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to issue a fatwa condemning Tehran in any way, it would be a seismic event, probably resulting in the regime's collapse. Remember, Sistani is Iranian, probably more revered in the entire Shia world than any other ayatollah, and he is opposed to the basic doctrine of velayat-e faqih that created the Islamic Republic of Iran. His own view is that clerics should not be involved in politics, which is why he has steered clear of any such role in Iraq. But he is unlikely to publicly criticize the Iranian regime. (He did, however, refuse to see Ahmadinejad when the latter visited Iraq in March 2008.)

有一种宗教的办法能够被用来反对伊朗的领导人,但它可能更像是电影剧本:以伊拉克为根据地的最高领袖阿里-希斯塔尼(Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani)用任何形式发表一个宣告(fatwa)谴责德黑兰,这将是一个惊天动地的事件,也许能导致伊朗政权的崩溃。记着,希斯塔尼是伊朗人,或许比任何其他的最高领袖更受整个什叶派世界的尊敬,并且他反对创立伊朗伊斯兰共和国的伊斯兰教法学家管教制度(velayat-e faqih, 由伊朗前最高领袖霍梅尼自创——译注)的基本教义。他自己的看法是神职人员不应参与政治,这也正是他在伊拉克指导那些充当此类角色的原因。但是他不可能公开批评伊朗的政权。(2008年3月他曾拒绝去看望访问伊拉克的内贾德。)

Nationalism is the most complex of these three forces. Over most of its history, the Iranian regime has exploited nationalist sentiment. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to power by battling the shah, who was widely seen as an American puppet. Soon after the revolution, Iraq attacked Iran, and the mullahs wrapped themselves in the flag again. The United States supported Iraq in that war, ignoring Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iranians—something Iranians have never forgotten. Over the past eight years, the Bush administration's veiled threats to attack Iran allowed the mullahs to drum up support. (Every Iranian dissident, from Akbar Ganji to Shirin Ebadi, has noted that talk of airstrikes on Iran strengthened the regime.) And it is worth remembering that the United States still funds guerrilla outfits and opposition groups that are trying to topple the Islamic Republic. Most of these are tiny groups with no chance of success, funded largely to appease right-wing congressmen. But the Tehran government is able to portray this as an ongoing anti--Iranian campaign.

民族主义是三种力量中最复杂的。历史上的大多数时期,伊朗的政权都利用了民族主义情绪。霍梅尼(Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)通过与被广泛认为是美国的傀儡的伊朗国王沙赫(shah)战斗夺取政权。革命后不久,伊拉克入侵伊朗,伊斯兰教学者毛拉再次把自己包裹进民族主义的旗帜。在那场战争中,美国支持伊拉克,不顾萨达姆-侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)用化学武器对付伊朗人——这些伊朗人永志难忘。过去8年,布什(Bush)政府含蓄恫吓攻击伊朗,使得毛拉鼓动支持者。(每一位伊朗异议人士,从阿克巴尔-甘吉(Akbar Ganji) 到希琳•艾巴迪(Shirin Ebadi,2003年诺贝尔和平奖得主——译注),已经明确表示对伊朗的空中打击只会巩固现政权。)并且不要忘了美国仍然在资助试图颠覆伊斯兰共和国的游击队的全套装备和反对派。资助这些大多是没有机会取得成功的小组织,主要是为了满足那些右翼的国会议员。但是德黑兰政府却能够把这些组织描绘成反伊朗的运动。

In this context, President Obama is quite right to tread cautiously, extend his moral support to Iranian protesters, but not get politically involved. The United States has always underestimated the raw power of nationalism across the world, always assuming that people will not be taken in by cheap and transparent appeals against foreign domination. But look at what is happening in Iraq right now, where Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki boasts that America's troop withdrawals are a "a heroic repulsion of the foreign occupiers." Of course Maliki would not be in office but for those occupying forces, who protect his government to this day. But he is a canny politician and knows what will appeal to the Iraqi people.

由此来看,奥巴马(Obama)总统所采取的谨慎态度是非常明智的,给予伊朗抗议者道德上支持,但不使政治卷入其中。美国总是低估贯穿全世界的民族主义的自然力量,总是假定人们不会相信那些廉价的和赤裸裸的呼吁反抗外国统治的说辞。但是看看现在的伊拉克,努里-马利基(Nuri al-Maliki)总理竟然声称美国军队的撤离是“外国占领者孤注一掷的挫败”("a heroic repulsion of the foreign occupiers.")。当然,那时马利基可能已经卷铺盖离寺了,但对于那些占领军来说,他保护了他的政府。但是他是一个精明的政客,并且知道呼吁对于伊拉克人意味着什么。

Ahmadinejad is also a politician with considerable mass appeal. And he is already accusing the United States and Britain of interference. Our strategy should be to make sure that these accusations seem as loony and baseless as possible. Were President Obama to be seen as grandstanding and taking ownership of the protest movement, he would be -helping Ahmadinejad's strategy, not America's.

内贾德也是一名有着相当多呼吁的政客。并且他已经正在谴责美国和英国的干涉。我们的策略应该确保这些指责看起来尽可能愚笨和毫无根据。如果奥巴马总统表现得看起来哗众取宠并且能操控抗议活动,那他就是在帮助内贾德的战略,而非美国的。

Zakaria is the host of CNN’s GPS With Fareed Zakaria on Sundays at 1 p.m. ET.

扎卡里亚(Zakaria)是CNN的GPS With Fareed Zakaria节目的主持人,该节目美国东部时间周日下午1点播出。

6/29/2009 1:10:00 AM 6/29/2009 2:23:17 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment