恐袭之后 欧洲需要自救 Paris must shake Europes complacency
There is an impulse in Europe’s political discourse, by no means the exclusive property of the left, that assumes nothing bad happens in the world without it being somehow the fault of the west in general and the US in particular. This is the mindset that casts Saddam Hussein as a victim, Hugo Chávez a hero and Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a bulwark against Nato expansionism. The mass murder of Parisian concertgoers and Russian tourists may be crimes, but they are surely also the product of unprincipled great power intervention.
欧洲的政治话语中存在一种冲动（绝非左翼特有），它假定世界上一切坏事在某种程度上都是西方——尤其是美国——的过错。正是这种心态把萨达姆侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)说成受害者，将乌戈查韦斯(Hugo Chávez)说成英雄，将俄罗斯的弗拉基米尔渠京(Vladimir Putin)说成抵御北约(Nato)扩张主义的堡垒。对巴黎音乐会观众和俄罗斯游客的大规模杀戮也许是犯罪行为，但它们肯定也是大国无原则干预的产物。
Listen to Jeremy Corbyn. The leader of Britain’s Labour party cannot censure the outrages of extremist jihadis without reference to the supposed crimes of the US: the siege of Falluja, say, or killing rather than arraigning Osama bin Laden. “We have created a situation where some of these forces have grown,” was Mr Corbyn’s reflection on the slaughter in Paris.
听听杰里米科尔宾(Jeremy Corbyn)的言论吧。这位英国工党(Labour)领导人在谴责极端主义圣战者的暴行时，非要提及美国的所谓罪行不可：比如对费卢杰(Fallujah)的围攻（指2004年伊拉克战争期间美军对盘踞在该市的武装分子发起的扫荡战役——译者注），或者击毙奥萨马本拉登(Osama bin Laden)而没有将其移送司法。对于巴黎恐袭，科尔宾是这样反思的：“我们创造了令这些势力中的一部分壮大的背景。”
There is no shortage of criticisms to be made of the west — and they do not start or end with the invasion of Iraq. I find it shocking that Saudi Arabia is still treated as a staunch ally even as it exports the extreme version of Islam that informs the murderous credo of the jihadis. Then there is a welcome afforded Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi whose violent repression of the Muslim Brotherhood opens the door to Isis. With its oil and autocrats, the Middle East is a graveyard for anything pretending to be a principled foreign policy.
可以批评西方的地方多得很，入侵伊拉克只是其中一件值得批评的事。我感到震惊的是，沙特阿拉伯仍被视为一个坚定盟友，即便该国对外输出极端版本的伊斯兰，为圣战者的残暴信条提供理论“启发”。此外，埃及总统阿卜杜勒法塔赫帠罘(Abdel Fattah al-Sisi)上台也受到欢迎，而正是他对穆斯林兄弟会(Muslim Brotherhood)的暴力镇压，为“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国”(ISIS)开启了大门。中东的石油和威权统治者，令该地区成为任何貌似有原则的外交政策的坟场。
None of these hypocrisies can be held up in exculpation of the tyranny of the self-styled Islamic State. Those who think it better to explain than condemn forget that by far the greatest number of victims of Isis’ crimes are fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and, most recently, Beirut. Or that the caliphate replaces liberty with theocratic intolerance, subjugates women and murders homosexuals. The idea that the west should shoulder blame rests on a corrosive moral relativism blind to the essential evil of those who kill and maim. Indiscriminate murder is wicked. It demands unvarnished condemnation. Full stop.
但这些虚伪不能用来为“伊斯兰国”的暴行开脱。那些更愿意解释——而不是谴责——的人们忘了，ISIS罪行的绝大多数受害者是伊拉克、叙利亚境内（最近还有贝鲁特）的穆斯林。他们还忘了，这个“哈里发”用不容异端的神权取代自由，剥夺女性地位，杀戮同性恋者。那种认为西方应该受到谴责的观点，源自一种腐蚀性的道德相对论，对那些滥杀无辜的人的基本邪恶视而不见。不分青红皂白的杀戮是邪恶的。这种行为应该受到没有保留的谴责。其它都是废话。
You could ask whether anyone cares what Mr Corbyn thinks. The Labour leader’s formative memories are of the Vietnam war and the nasty campaigns waged by the CIA in central and Latin America during the 1970s. He has not stepped out of the time warp. He will never be prime minister. Even Fidel Castro thinks it is time to move on.
你可能会问，有谁会关心科尔宾的想法吗？对这位工党领导人来说，塑造其思想的记忆是越南战争，以及1970年代美国中央情报局(CIA)在中美洲和拉丁美洲发起的下三滥行动。他至今没有走出这种时间上的错位。他永远都不会成为英国首相。就连菲德尔愠斯特罗(Fidel Castro)都认为该跟上时代了。
Yet Mr Corbyn’s response illuminates a broader strand of European thinking — a complacency that takes for granted the Enlightenment and has sapped the willingness to defend its essential underpinnings. Somehow it is easier to blame the west than to admit that there are those for whom freedom, tolerance and the rule of law are natural enemies.
不过，科尔宾的回应反映了一股更广泛的欧洲思潮，一种对启蒙运动(Enlightenment)采取想当然态度、捍卫其根本支柱的意愿逐渐淡薄的自满。不知怎么地，比起承认世界上有一些人把自由、宽容和法治视为天敌，责怪西方更容易一些。
We saw this when Mr Putin overturned the continent’s postwar security order by sending his army into Ukraine. The reaction of many on the right as well as the left was to mutter that the fault lay with Nato’s decision to welcome the new democracies of eastern and central Europe.
当普京把部队派往乌克兰，从而颠覆欧洲战后安全秩序时，我们就曾看到这种情况。许多左翼（以及右翼）人士的反应是，抱怨这是北约的过错，因为这个联盟决定欢迎中、东欧新的民主政体。
There are many more who have decided in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations that the principal threat to Europe’s freedoms comes from the electronic “snooping” of domestic intelligence services rather than from jihadis wielding Kalashnikovs and wearing suicide vests. Hopefully the balance will shift somewhat in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.
在爱德华斯诺登(Edward Snowden)爆料之后，更多人认定，欧洲自由面临的首要威胁来自国内情报机构的电子“窥视”，而不是手持AK47突击步枪、身穿自杀式炸弹马甲的圣战者。巴黎遭遇恐怖袭击后，这种观念有望转变。
The original sin was the assumption that the end of the cold war did indeed mark the end of history. The complacency straddled the boundary of economics and politics. Liberal markets would create permanent prosperity, while political pluralism would become the default system of governance. The international order would be remade in the image of European multilateralism.
这一切的原罪在于假定冷战结束真的标志着历史终结。这种自满弥漫了经济和政治两个领域。自由化的市场将创造永恒的繁荣，而政治多元化将成为默认的治理体制。国际秩序将以欧洲的多边主义为模板得到重塑。
The first of the illusions was shattered by the financial crash of 2008, but governments and electorates have held on more tenaciously to the idea that democracy is the natural destination of politics. When things have gone wrong — the terrorist attacks of al-Qaeda and now Isis and Russia’s revanchism — the instinct has been to treat them as exceptions. The curtains, though, have now been torn open, not least by the influx of refugees fleeing violent chaos on Europe’s periphery.
上述幻觉中的第一个被2008年金融危机打破，然而各国政府和选民更为执着地坚守“民主政体是政治的天然目的地”这个观念。当事情出错时——比如基地组织(al-Qaeda)和现在的ISIS发动的恐怖袭击，以及俄罗斯的复仇主义——他们的本能是将其视为例外现象。不过，如今幕布已被撕开，其推动因素包括逃离欧洲外围的暴力动荡局势的难民涌入欧洲。
What is required is a readiness to fight. This means a lot more than simply sending more warplanes to attack Isis in its strongholds, though the case for fiercer military action is a strong one. Fighting means recognising that the values that form our societies cannot be taken for granted; that the postmodern order imagined after 1989 is at very best some way off; and that even as they confront the enemies of freedom and tolerance European governments must address deprivation and marginalisation within their societies.
目前需要的是对抗意愿。这其中的内涵远不止出动更多战机打击盘踞在窝点的ISIS——尽管加大军事行动力度的理由十分充足。所谓对抗，意味着要认识到这样几点：不能对构成西方社会的价值观抱想当然态度；1989年之后想象出来的后现代秩序，往好了说也还有相当长一段路要走；即便在与自由和宽容的敌人作斗争之际，欧洲各国政府也必须解决其社会内部的贫穷和边缘化问题。
This in turn demands a willingness to admit there will be costs. But then anyone who has glanced at the history of the 20th century will know that today’s liberties came at a price. Nor should we imagine that governments will not have to make ugly compromises — not least in Syria — if some order is to be restored.
这进而要求各方愿意承认会有代价。不过，只要看一看20世纪的历史就会明白，当今的自由也是付出一定代价后才得到的。我们也不应该想象，为了恢复一定程度的秩序，政府将不必做出丑陋的妥协——尤其是在叙利亚问题上。
Above all, it is time for Europeans to celebrate what they have built and recognise it is under threat. The streets of Paris this week have seen a heartening resolve not to be cowed by the murderers. If Europe does not stand up for its values, who else will?
最重要的是，欧洲人应该庆祝他们取得的成就，同时意识到这种成就面临威胁。最近，人们在巴黎街头上表现出不被凶手吓倒的令人鼓舞的决心。如果欧洲不坚守其价值观，还有谁会这么做呢？
