Wednesday, September 17, 2014
3

干涉行动的困境

发自剑桥——国家应当在何时采取军事干涉行动以制止在其他国家境内发生的暴行?这是一个古老且通行于世界的问题。而如今它降临到了叙利亚头上。

在1904年,美国总统西奥多·罗斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)就指出:“有一些偶尔发生的罪行,其波及范围极广且极端恐怖”以致我们必须动用武力干涉。就在一个世纪前的1821年,当时欧美双方正在就是否干涉希腊独立运动进行辩论,美国总统约翰·昆西·亚当斯(John Quincy Adams)就警告自己的同胞不要去“远赴国外消灭恶人”。

更近的例子则有1994年导致80万人死亡的卢旺达大屠杀,以及1995年斯雷布雷尼察地区数千名波斯尼亚男性遭屠杀的事件,当时许多人都发誓不会再让这类惨剧重演。但当原南斯拉夫联盟共和国(南联盟)前总统斯洛博丹·米洛舍维奇(Slobodan Milošević)于1999年在科索沃地区发动大规模种族清洗时,联合国安理会通过了一项决议,将这起事件认定为人道主义灾难,但却由于俄罗斯的否决票而无法在第二项干涉行动决议上达成共识。结果北约国家轰炸南联盟的行为被许多观察家认为是“有合法性但却不合法”。

作为对事件的反思,时任联合国秘书长的科菲·安南创立了一个国际委员会,专门提出符合联合国宪章第二条第七款的人道主义干涉建议,同时维持成员国对本国的管辖权。该委员会认为各国都负有保护其公民的责任,其他各国也应当利用和平方式协助实现这一目的,但如果某国无视这一责任并屠杀本国公民,国际社会就应当考虑武装干涉。

所谓“保护责任(responsibility to protect)”的理念在联合国世界峰会上一致通过,但后续发生的事件却表明各国对此的理解大不相同。比如俄罗斯就一直坚称只有安理会决议——而非联合国大会决议——才具备国际法效力。与此同时该国还对安理会叙利亚决议投了反对票,而有点讽刺的是,安南还被请了回来,并参与了一个旨在制止大屠杀但目前却依然未能收获任何实质性成果的行动。

直到去年,许多观察家都仅仅将这种保护责任视为一个无法实现的希望或者是一场华丽的失败。但在2011年,当时利比亚前总统卡扎菲上校正准备把他在班加西的反对者们斩尽杀绝,联合国安理会则在保护责任的基础上通过了一项决议,授权北约对该国使用武力。在美国,总统奥巴马小心翼翼地等待阿拉伯联盟和安理会的决议出台,因此也避免损害美国的软实力——小布什政府2003年干涉伊拉克的行为已经将其削弱了好些。但俄罗斯,中国和其他国家则认为北约不仅是为了保护利比亚人民,而是想借该决议推动政权更替。

事实上,相对于对国际法的强制执行,保护责任更多涉及的是在政治合法性和软实力上的斗争。一些西方律师认为它赋予了在各个国际人道主义公约框架下对抗种族灭绝,反人类罪和战争罪行的责任。但俄罗斯,中国以及其他国家则不情愿去提供一个法律或者政治基础来应对在利比亚发生的事件。

而保护责任之所以无法在叙利亚实行还有其他的原因。源自于传统的“正义战争”理论,保护责任不仅构建于一个良好的意愿,还需要一个合理的成功预期。许多观察家强调利比亚和叙利亚两国在实力和军力上的差异将使叙利亚禁飞区和车辆禁行区的设立困难重重。而那些反对总统阿萨德的叙利亚人也担心2005年在巴格达发生的情况会在自己身上重演,因为一场派系内战往往比一个独裁者更加可怕。

这些因素正是人道主义干涉某些更大问题的征兆。一开始,各种动机往往是混乱地捆绑在一起(比如当年罗斯福的目标其实是古巴)。此外,我们生活在一个多文化的世界上,而且对如何推动社会进程以及如何建立国家所知甚少。当我们无法确定如何改善这个世界的时候,谨慎就成为了一种重要的美德,傲慢自大则会引发巨大的风险。跟吃药一样,外交政策必须在一定原则的指导下进行——“首先,不能伤害病人。”

但谨慎并不意味着在叙利亚问题上无动于衷。各国政府可以持续尝试说服俄罗斯,使其相信推翻当前政权要比让阿萨德的支持者逐渐陷入极端更有助于实现其利益。更强力的制裁则可以继续令这个政权丧失合法性,还可以说服土耳其对这个邻国采取更强硬手段。

此外,谨慎并不意味着人道主义干涉经常会遭到失败。在一些事件中,即便存在各种动机,取得成功的预期却是有望实现的。对塞拉利昂、利比亚、东帝汶和波斯尼亚的军事干涉并未一次解决所有问题,但却改善了该地人民的生活。其他干涉——比如在索马里——却没有取得这样的效果。

最近对伊拉克和阿富汗的大规模干涉,虽然主要不是基于人道主义原因,却削弱了公众对军事行动的支持。为此我们应该牢记马克·吐温对自家猫的记述:在不小心坐在了热炉子上之后,它永远不会干同样的事,但同时也对一个冷的炉子敬而远之。

虽然逐渐变得时间更短,牵涉部队更少并依赖那些在远距离展开行动的技术,但干涉行动依然会继续存在。在这个网络战和骚扰战的时代,保护责任或者人道主义干涉可不会那么容易走向终结。

翻译:邹驰骋

Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (3)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedMukesh Adenwala

    I don't think there can be a clear answers on the topic:
    One more dimension of this issue is this question: If my neighbor is psychologically tormenting his family members (though not physically not physically beating his spouse or children) whether I should intervene? If yes, when, and how?
    When North Korea or a warlord in African country, subjugates its population keeping them in perpetual deprivations, does it make a case for active intervention or not? Can there ever be clear answers to such questions?

  2. CommentedMariana Kalil

    I humbly offer a comment of mine over Brazil's stance on humanitarian interventions and its intentions to be increasingly recognized as a significant actor, which follows Dr. Nye's always rather contributing considerations.
    http://theworldoutline.com/2013/08/humanitarian-interventions-and-brazils-bid-for-a-unsc-permanent-seat/

  3. CommentedZsolt Hermann

    I truly do not have an answer to the main question, as on one hand it is very difficult to justify standing by while thousands of people die in different conflicts or from other causes, on the other hand even the recent experience with military interventions show that usually the state after those interventions became worse than it was before.
    Basically the question relates to the "firefighting", how to reduce the symptoms, but it does not deal with the main problem, the source.
    To use a different example when the Mexican Gulf oil leak happened huge efforts were invested to treat the problem on the surface and it is still dealt with as far as I know, but until the leak was stopped at the bottom of the Gulf there was no hope for any resolutions.
    All our present problem in the Middle East or any other region are the result of hatred, incitement, based on very deep cultural, racial or religious differences.
    We can fight or use diplomatic power as much as we want, but until we close the "tap", correct the source of the problem we will keep fighting a losing battle.
    And the only way of stopping the hatred, incitement, separation along the lines of any of our inherent differences is education.
    We need a completely new global education program for all of us, which instead of simply producing "good workers, and consumers" as it happens today, we should try to truly "educate", raise human beings instead of robots necessary for the consumer society.
    If this new education program concentrates on what connects us, how much we are interdependent, and how much we can achieve and benefit with mutual cooperation, then new generations and adults alike would be able to rise above their differences and start working as a global unit in that new mutual space we create.
    And then suddenly we will find we do not need to answer the main question of the article. And this could happen much sooner than we think.

      CommentedIan Arbuckle

      As always, I am positively impressed by your comment, but you write;

      "We can fight or use diplomatic power as much as we want, but until we close the "tap", correct the source of the problem we will keep fighting a losing battle."

      You put it as clearly as it can be put, but the other "tap" or source that has to be governed, and the one that is far trickier is the one of the greater outside political interests which "use" the same turmoil to further their interests and ends. Example: Syrian civil war ; Assad's thugs against local Saudi and Qatari backed thugs with Israel and US doing their part in the shadows and in a haze of half propaganda half truths all being milked by all sides. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, is certainly not concerned about saving lives of Syrian women and children as much as weakening Iran and destabilizing Hezbollah by insisting on regime change. She is perfectly aware that such a regime change would create a vacuum of power filled with sectarian extremism and vengeance, killing thousands more.

      If only nations with power gave a little more than lip service to the ideals of the UN rather than wearing the organization as a fig leaf for domination, interference, and regime change, the fundamental question of this article would certainly be easier to answer.

      In this complex interdependent world some conflicts are fueled and fired for completely spurious reasons. And if the intentions were honestly to preserve the lives of ordinary people other nations wouldn't keep throwing matches into tinderboxes.

Featured