[国际新闻] 美国为什么“经常支持坏蛋”？

记者来鸿：美国为什么“经常支持坏蛋”？ 2011年 3月 4日! b/ q4 Y* I( @$ `7 G

BBC马克•马戴尔 Mark Mardell. T5 y0 j& H- O& Z# F- _) g

让美国人引以为荣的是，美国也是在反抗专制的革命中诞生的。BBC记者马戴尔反思中东的民主浪潮给美国外交政策带来的冲击，质疑美国为什么好像经常选择支持坏蛋？" l9 n2 }- z2 Q' b8 j% a2 ~

美国总统奥巴马就利比亚动乱第一次公开讲话时，态度非常坚决：他强烈谴责利比亚政府使用武力镇压示威者“骇人听闻”，并且表示支持利比亚人民的普世人权。; J2 R" {7 D+ c  g6 H' C
人在德国社区" f7 \9 U. j9 e( F! l
做到这一点并不难，因为没有多少人把卡扎菲看作“好人”、或者“美国的盟友”。但是，评价朋友，就不那么简单了。  k( T& g& o3 p* M$ h# E. x
# g8 I! {9 v# l* W: \& U8 w
离开华盛顿去外地采访，收获之一就是能听到意料之外的声音。5 P' W8 _( m9 K

我到南方一家军事地去采访。吃着土豆色拉，喝着甜茶，和一名教会牧师就中东地区的革命浪潮聊了起来。% ^+ E# M; S! Q* e4 N' Q) g
1 V- z* y% Y" h3 K- w- I9 @
他说，“埃及的结果糟透了、真可怕”。我还没来得及请他解释为什么如此不安，他反而向我发问，请我解释英国和荷兰面临的所谓“穆斯林麻烦”。人在德国社区" h# \. N3 {8 D: q  N4 m* L8 w; Q

这下子，我也就明白了他对埃及感到如此不安的出发点。我想，我也知道他观点的来源。7 T$ Z) v1 W4 `; f* J8 E) ^; Q4 D
$ C; P2 p( x% r! s( y' s* H
一家有线电视台每天晚上都会播出一名评论人士的警告：这些动乱是阴谋，目的是要在整个中东建立激进的伊斯兰政府……然后扩展到欧洲……。他还暗示，示威者受到共产党、甚至奥巴马本人的支持，目的是要通过原油价格飞涨摧毁美国。
坏蛋，还是大坏蛋？
8 V) r* h8 u1 |- W+ C5 j
但是，如此肯定的人是少数。美国的左、中、右派存在异见、分歧。阿拉伯国家大街上的冲突也反映在美国各派更隐约、含蓄的抵触、抗衡中。. e4 ^6 \- S' O0 z' d
" Q3 Q+ A6 a; z
美国曾经多次面临抉择：是支持可靠、但却专制的老盟友以及随之带来的稳定、还是支持对民主的热切追求？

几多往复之后，人们质疑“美国为什么经常支持坏蛋”，也是合乎情理的。: L! S/ W- C) L8 c
$ U* R4 f3 f* x& o. @5 ^& E" H' v
这不仅仅是因为美国自私自利。3 b7 h( \( A' T$ Y

美国人大多乐观、理想。让美国人引以为荣的是，美国也是在反抗专制的革命中诞生的。许多美国人坚信，美国对英国的抗争，吹响了争取普世自由的号角，直到今天仍然在世界各地回荡。
2 ~( s; M" T  V
但是，美国人也看重美国的利益。在今天这样一个世界，美国的政策人经常会发现，自己需要在坏蛋、还是更大的坏蛋两者之间作出选择。3 ]1 [8 a; a3 A# N

这种现象并不是今天才有。美国的两个建国之父杰弗逊和亚当斯围绕法国革命争吵了许多年。杰弗逊支持法国革命，尽管后果是血腥的恐怖；亚当斯却支持美国最古老的对手----英国。0 e9 B% Q5 V- x2 {" s9 A0 V* K

此后，美国从来没有对革命表露出太多的热情。但是，真正给理想主义当头一棒的是俄国革命以及第二次世界大战后咄咄逼人的苏维埃政权。

大把的美钞确实流入了坏蛋的手中。民主和自由很好，但是，如果民主和自由的后果是，执迷不悟的外国人投共产主义的支持票，可就不好玩了。
& `. B) q% E% J& T" u5 y! l! v
柏林墙的倒塌原本应该给这个矛盾画上了句号，但是，9·11之后，伊斯兰分子成了新的共产分子，可能是危险的民主潜在的受益者。
“双输”的战略

这不是一个左与右的纷争。共和党的新保守主义给布什政府的外交政策定了调。他们高调宣扬普世自由，称美国必须对暴君更加强硬。但是，主政期间，只有“敌人”被轰炸出局，“朋友”拿到了大笔的美元、隔三差五地听美国给上一课。
7 ^& U1 [! g: n, _
布什的国务卿赖斯在开罗时说，美国以民主为代价追求中东地区稳定的策略结果是“双输”。但是，穆巴拉克继续拿到了数以十亿计的美元。
. j) ?9 m6 k) G, T1 q" g: w& ?
所以，“阿拉伯之春”很有看点。

历史不会经常给人提供控制实验的机会，但是，中东这口大锅炉却有可能给奥巴马政府这样一个机会。
* O4 G/ v% @  K* J% y
他们在所有的地方都表示支持和平、人权，但是，埃及政府摇摇欲坠时，他们心里却非常矛盾。说起政府倒台，轮到巴林，美国会担心；利比亚----高兴；也门----不安；沙特----惊恐；轮到伊朗，美国人就要狂喜了。& l9 ~( b( z4 U" h
坏蛋成为历史之后
rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de6 S: i5 b  _4 s# Y/ K
奥巴马当选是因为他反布什，他不希望美国被外人批评指手画脚、主观强权，不愿意让理想凌驾于美国利益之上。但是，我有一种感觉，看到大街上和平的抗议人群，他的心跳加快了一点。! X5 a$ V/ F4 j. I

为什么这么说呢？

奥巴马才华横溢，但却是个很奇怪的演说家。一半的时候，他苍白、冷酷，好像不加思索地背着写好的稿子，只有间或的语调起伏，才让听讲人相信，说话的人还活着呢。8 B3 c! g4 t" D; [3 n* N

当他真想让你脊梁骨上的汗毛跳舞的时候，演讲，可能也真是发自肺腑的。

穆巴拉克倒台，解放的好像是奥巴马，而不是埃及。他发表的演讲慷慨激昂。

当他开始引用历史名言----“宇宙的道德轨迹终究归于正义”（马丁·路德·金根据19世纪一位主张奴隶解放的白人牧师的名言改编）的时候，你知道，奥巴马是势如破竹、要乘胜出击了。rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de0 l# Z( r& B4 r

但是，这不过是奥巴马的一次演讲。随后，他并没有向巴林、也门、约旦人讲话，更甭提就中国的抗议示威说教了。
8 E1 }; b# N# ~" x
也许，这不过是政治。当示威者被指控为与险恶的外国权势结伙的“蟑螂”时，美国总统最好保持沉默。+ a7 h  I8 c" j

但是，宇宙的道德轨迹可能并不永远朝着美国自私的战略利益倾斜……只有当“坏蛋”成了历史的时候，总统才会给他贴上坏蛋的标签。
) G1 s- F: F. p+ C' }+ L
bad guys.jpg

, @. d% {. P7 ~) q4 x5 s

, x1 x( |' [; L% `% w/ q1 W
Why does the US so often back the bad guys?

Why is it that the United States - forged as a nation in a revolution against tyranny, explicitly dedicated to liberty - has so often found itself backing the bad guys?
Barack Obama has now put himself on the side of democracy in Egypt, but it took a time. Indeed, it took the US more than 30 years. . _* C, ?$ G$ V: X9 C+ ~
! e7 `+ B6 l* X1 J; q7 S) @9 L4 o3 Z
The quandary is not new. Part of the problem is deciding who the bad guys are. One of the founding fathers and the third president, Thomas Jefferson, believed the American Revolution had sparked a fire that would set the world alight.

He was an enthusiast for the French Revolution, defending it even when its nascent democracy descended into dictatorship and terror.

By contrast, his old sparring partner, fellow founding father and the second President, John Adams, was more sceptical from the start and signed a treaty with the country many Americans saw as the foe of liberty: Great Britain.
人在德国社区2 Q5 X* y/ [1 X# q+ `1 d4 n
And so it has gone on. Skip lightly over the Spanish war. A war against one imperialism for sure, but American domination might not have felt like liberty to the people of Cuba and the Philippines.

rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de6 a2 o) I$ ]6 N; Q( {. ~( H% E! F) b
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt couldn't have been more forthright in his early belief that Hitler was a threat to the whole world. To Churchill's irritation, he demanded that the post-war world should banish the days of empire and colonialism. He didn't live to see it, but the new problem was the clash of new empires.0 S/ K6 c9 c4 N; V! n

Belief in universal liberty comes up hard against the real world where policymakers often see the choice as between the bad guys, and the worse guys.

The real problem for the US came with its opposition to the expanding Soviet empire. Communism was a new tyranny, but it cloaked itself in the language of liberty, and attracted those fighting foreign rule and domestic domination. In opposing the Soviet Union and its allies, the USA often found itself in bed with a promiscuous parade of the dodgiest of characters - dictators, torturers and thieves - whose only virtue was not being "Commies".rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de5 j8 j2 @3 |- _
0 G+ s0 V) @: L1 H4 |9 A. b
The US never successfully pulled off the trick of encouraging genuine liberal democracies.

When the Iron Curtain was torn down, the US was definitely on the right side of history but did not seize the opportunity to knock down the bulwarks against communism they no longer needed. Reagan, the first Bush and Clinton did not urge people living in dictatorships in the Middle East and Central Asia to seize the freedoms newly enjoyed in the European east.
( T/ u9 i* X* W; p
Of course, the neo-cons wanted a revolution against this hypocrisy. They wanted the United States to aggressively promote democracy with revolutionary fervour. But in power they targeted old enemies, never old friends. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were dictators, but in the scale of sin, their enmity weighed more heavily than their tyranny. As jihadists replaced communists as America's favourite existential threat, the old corrupt and undemocratic bulwarks were again seen as better than the alternative.# [1 T( E9 O; W2 W

It is Barack Obama's reaction to this pattern that initially locked his administration into an awkward ambivalence to the Egyptian revolution. He was elected, in part, in reaction to George W Bush's foreign policy.
rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de$ I9 a6 B6 A; |6 ^- j( f
So on the one hand Mr Obama seems to genuinely believe that it is not the place of the leader of the world's only superpower to pick and choose the leaders of other countries. That is a value consistent with the American Revolution. So is his other instinct, pulling him in the opposite direction. He believes it is the USA's job to promote what he sees as universal values, and he grows more forthright about this day by day.rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de) Z* J4 ]- g" D J( i
rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de& D+ O/ v. k3 \0 M" c0 y) i, U+ y
It will be interesting to see if he follows up with tough conversations with Saudi King Abdullah, Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and other allies who may not share his enthusiasm for the freedoms the president is urging upon Egypt.人在德国社区0 o+ g# q- [% R7 ^& P. K4 S
9 Y6 j( z1 G) r$ A- Q: W
For the old dilemma remains. There is some worry in Washington about what follows, and the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood playing a big role in the future. Many observers warn against building them up into a huge bogeyman. But it is also true that any new Egyptian government that encompasses them would be less friendly to Israel, the peace process and the West in general.

The danger of backing revolution and democracy is that the moral arc of the universe does not always bend towards American foreign policy interests.

★2020 SinoJobs Career Days 中欧企业招聘会（斯图—3月27日、杜塞—11月4日、慕尼黑—11月6日）门票免费预定★

返回列表

[国际新闻] 美国为什么“经常支持坏蛋”？

[收藏此主题] [关注此主题的新回复]

[通过 QQ、MSN 分享给朋友]