|
时事经纬
13-09-13
遵守国际法，和平解决叙利亚问题
最近关于叙利亚的问题促使我开始与美国人民以及他们的政治领袖直接对话。在这样一个彼此社会交流不足的时刻，这样做很重要。
我们之间的关系经历了不同阶段。冷战期间，我们站在了彼此的对立面。但是，我们也曾经是盟友，曾一起打败了纳粹。随后，全球性的国际组织——联合国——得以成立，其目的就是为了防止那样的惨剧再次发生。
联合国的创立者知道，关于战争与和平的决定只应该在各国达成一致的情况下做出，而且美国也同意，安理会常任理事国的否决权是受到联合国宪章保护的。这种做法所蕴含的深刻智慧，数十年来为国际关系的稳定提供了保证。
没人希望联合国会步国际联盟(League of Nations)的后尘。后者之所以会崩溃，就是因为缺乏真正的影响力。倘若较有影响力的国家不理会联合国的态度，在未经安理会授权的情况下采取军事行动，这种情况就有可能发生。
美国提出打击叙利亚之后，遭到了很多国家及主要政治和宗教领袖的强烈反对，其中还包括教皇。倘若发动袭击，就将出现更多的无辜受害者，而且还会加剧局势的紧张程度，很可能会使冲突远远超出叙利亚的范围。袭击将增加暴力冲突，催生新一轮的恐怖主义。它很可能会对致力于解决伊朗核问题以及巴以冲突的多边行动构成危害，加剧中东和北非的动荡，也可能会使国际法和国际秩序的整个体系失去平衡。
叙利亚的战争不是为了民主，而是一个多宗教国家的政府和反对派之间的武装冲突。在叙利亚，民主的倡导者少之又少。但是，那里有很多基地组织的武装分子和各种各样的极端主义者在与政府对抗。美国国务院已经认定，与反对派一同作战的努斯拉阵线和伊拉克与黎凡特伊斯兰国是恐怖组织。叙利亚的这场内部冲突，在外国为反对派提供武器的情况下，成了世界上最血腥的一场冲突。
在那里作战的有来自阿拉伯国家的雇佣兵，以及来自西方国家乃至俄罗斯的数百名武装分子，这是我们极为担忧的问题。他们会不会带着从叙利亚获得的经验回到我们的国家呢？毕竟，那些在利比亚作战的极端分子后来就转战到了马里。这对我们所有人造成了威胁。
从一开始，俄罗斯就提倡通过和平对话，让叙利亚人为本国的未来制定一个妥协计划。我们并不是在保护叙利亚政府，而是在保护国际法。我们应该利用联合国安理会，并且相信，在当今复杂而动荡的世界中，为法律和秩序提供保护是为数不多的能防止国际关系陷入混乱的途径之一。法律还是法律，不管喜不喜欢，我们都必须遵守它。根据现有的国际法，只有在出于自卫或得到安理会授权的情况下，才能使用武力。根据联合国宪章，其他任何情况都是无法接受的，而且还会构成侵略。
没人怀疑叙利亚发生了毒气袭击。但我们有很多理由相信，使用毒气的不是叙利亚军队，而是反对派，他们这样做是为了使他们力量强大的外国金主开始插手干预，而金主们会去支持那些原教旨主义者。有消息称，这些武装分子正在准备另一场袭击——这次是针对以色列的，对此我们不能掉以轻心。
令人担忧的是，对其他国家的内部冲突进行军事干预已经成为了美国的常态。这符合美国的长期利益吗？我很怀疑。世界各地有很多人越来越觉得，美国不是一个民主的榜样，而是只知一味诉诸野蛮的武力，打着“非友即敌”的口号拉帮结派。
然而武力经证明是无效和无意义的。阿富汗举步维艰，谁也不知道等多国部队撤离后会发生什么。利比亚已经分裂为许多部落和宗派。伊拉克的内战还在持续，每天数十人丧生。在美国，很多人把伊拉克和叙利亚相提并论，他们问政府，为什么要重复不久前刚犯下的错误。
不管打击目标多么明确，武器多么精良，平民伤亡是不可避免的，这其中包括老人和孩子，那些本想通过打击行动来保护的人。
世界的反应是一个疑问：如果你不能指望国际法，那你只能找别的途径来确保自己的安全。这样一来，越来越多的国家会去尝试获得大规模杀伤性武器。这很合理：你手上有原子弹，就没人敢动你。我们一边说着需要加强武器不扩散，却又在现实中削弱相关努力。
我们一定不能再用武力说话，要回到文明的外交和政治和解途径上来。
在过去几天里出现了一个避免军事行动的新机遇。叙利亚现在愿意把自己的化学武器交给国际社会管理，并最终予以销毁，美国、俄罗斯以及国际社会全体成员一定要充分利用这一点。从奥巴马总统的声明看，美国看到了军事行动以外的途径。
对于总统有意和俄罗斯继续就叙利亚问题进行对话，我表示欢迎。正如6月在北爱尔兰厄恩湖的G8会议上商定的那样，我们必须联手保住这个希望，重新回到谈判中来。
如果我们能避免对叙利亚动武，国际事务的氛围将得到改善，相互信任得到加强。那将是我们共同的胜利，为其他危急问题打开合作之门。
我和奥巴马总统在工作和私人往来中正在建立起信任。对此我是珍惜的。我仔细研读了他在周二对国民发表的讲话。我非常不同意他就美国卓异主义进行的阐述，声称是美国的政策“让美国与众不同，让我们卓尔不群”。鼓励国民把自己看作一个卓异的群体，无论动机为何都是极端危险的。这世上有大国有小国，有富国和穷国，有的拥有悠久的民主传统，有的还在摸索通往民主的道路。它们的政策也是不同的。我们都是不同的，但是当我们祈求神的福佑时，我们一定不能忘记上帝创造了我们，所有人生而平等。
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
|
