大家论坛

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1009|回复: 4

[2006.11.23][Special Report] Nato's future 预言其亡,为时尚早

[复制链接]

118

主题

1万

帖子

9万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
55236
发表于 2010-3-17 20:24 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Special Report

NATO's future
来日北约

Predictions of its death were premature
预言其亡,为时尚早

Nov 23rd 2006
2006年11月23日

From The Economist print edition
译自:经济学家印刷版

The transatlantic alliance has survived the end of the cold war. But as it battles the Taliban in Afghanistan, its problems are acute
冷战结束后,大西洋两岸的跨洋合作仍然得以延续。但是随着针对塔利班的阿富汗战争的打响,个中问题也开始尖锐化。



IN THE mythologised history of NATO, the transatlantic military alliance has been so effective that it won the cold war without ever firing a shot. So it is one of history's ironies that NATO should now find itself waging its first ever ground combat operations in the very place where the Soviet armed forces finally came to grief: Afghanistan.
北约的历史颇具传奇色彩,这一跨越大西洋的军事合作组织未开一枪一炮便赢得冷战,战功卓越。因此,北约选择在阿富汗发动其首场地面战争不啻于历史的嘲讽,因为苏联恰恰曾在这里一败涂地。

This is not NATO's first military operation. It fought in Kosovo in 1999, but that campaign was an air war. NATO's ground forces entered Kosovo unopposed, and most of those who died in the subsequent mission were victims of traffic accidents. By contrast, NATO soldiers in Afghanistan have been fighting and dying since they extended their presence to the south of the country this summer.
阿富汗战争并非北约的首次军事行动,1999年的科索沃战争才是,但是仅限于空中打击。北约地面部队进入科索沃并未遭到抵抗,而在后续任务中的士兵牺牲又多因交通事故。但是阿富汗战争则不然,自从北约今夏向阿南部拓进以来,军队就始终处于战斗状态,且不断有人牺牲。

For some NATO members it has been the most intense fighting since the Korean war. This year 49 soldiers, 34 of them Canadians, have been killed in NATO operations, and a further 14 British servicemen died in a plane crash. A few thousand Afghans—including Taliban, government forces and civilians—are believed to have died in the conflict.
对某些北约成员来说,阿富汗行动是自朝鲜战争以来最为激烈的战斗。今年,在北约的军事行动中共有48名士兵牺牲,其中34人来自加拿大,另外还有14名英国保障人员死于飞机失事。数千阿富汗人——包括塔利班、政府军和平民——相信也在冲突中丧命。

General David Richards, the British commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, says the operations have been a military and political success, so far. They asserted NATO's readiness to fight; averted the danger of Kandahar city falling into the hands of the resurgent Taliban; and forced the insurgents to revert to hit-and-run attacks plus suicide or roadside bombings. America paid NATO the compliment of placing 11,000 of its soldiers under General Richards's command last month.
北约部队英军指挥官大卫.理查兹中将称,到目前为止北约的行动在军事和政治上都取得了成功。这些行动证明了北约有能力随时准备战斗;解除了坎大哈被塔利班复辟的危险;迫使暴徒回到游击战加自杀或路边炸弹袭击的老套路。上月,美国为了表示赞许,将11,000美军士兵交给理查兹中将指挥。

Although the fighting has abated for the moment, NATO knows it cannot defeat the Taliban militarily, not least because the insurgents find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. Instead, General Richards says that the outside world must seize the opportunity to improve the lives of Afghans in the south during the winter months. If not, he gives warning, the next campaigning season could be worse. Indeed, NATO might by then have lost its last chance of preventing the Pashtun population in the south from throwing in its lot with the Taliban.
目前,虽然战斗已经减少,但是北约清楚无法从军事上打败塔利班,不仅仅是因为反抗分子跨界藏匿于巴基斯坦那么简单。相反,大卫将军指出,外部世界应当抓紧时机在冬季提高阿富汗南部人民的生活水平,否则,他警告说下一个战季将更加困难,北约甚至可能丧失最后的机会,防止南部普什图地区的人民将自己与塔利班绑在一起。

That the return of the Taliban would be dangerous, not only for Afghanistan but for the world, is something that just about everybody can agree upon, from the most red-blooded American Republican to the softest pink European. So it seems rather strange that the leaders of the 26 NATO member countries are to meet in Riga on November 28th with so little sense of urgency. Instead of a crisis meeting, even a council of war, the gathering looks like being a low-key affair, more concerned with papering over doctrinal disputes than solving acute immediate problems.
塔利班复辟对阿富汗来说是危险的,对整个世界而言更是如此,无论是美国的热血共和党人还是欧洲最温和的粉红派别,所有人对这一结论都不会表示反对。北约26国领导人将于11月28日在里加举行会谈,但并未显示出对该问题的任何紧迫感,这就更让人奇怪了。里加峰会不是紧急会议,甚至不专门讨论战况,这次聚首看起来意义不大,可能仅限于纸上谈兵,而无法解决尖锐的即时问题。

The operation in Afghanistan has exposed many weaknesses. The brunt of the fighting has been borne by just a few countries: principally the Americans, Canadians, British and Dutch (and non-NATO Australians). Other governments have imposed “caveats” on their forces, refusing to let them move out of their comparatively safe areas in the north and west or to share their equipment, such as helicopters.
阿富汗战争暴露了许多弱点。战斗均由少数几国发起:主要是美国、加拿大、英国和荷兰(还有并非北约成员的澳大利亚)。其他国家则对本国军队执行任务有诸多限制,拒绝派遣士兵到相对安全的北部和西部以外的地区,也不提供军事物资,例如直升机。



General Richards says he is one of the few commanders ever to be sent into a theatre of war without a proper reserve. NATO has pressed for months for an extra 2,200 troops, including a 1,000-strong mobile force with no caveats, able to support other troops where needed. At the height of the fighting in September, NATO's military chiefs asked informally whether it would be possible to send out NATO's “strategic reserve” battalion in France. The answer from Paris was non, on the ground that it should remain available for duty in the Balkans. On top of this there are problems with equipment. Helicopters able to fly “high and hot” (at high altitude, especially in summer) are in short supply. Some radios are incompatible, and units have had to swap communications gear to stay in touch.
理查兹中将称自己没有得到足够军备就被投入战争,是极少数这样的指挥者之一。北约几个月来一直迫切要求增加2,200名士兵,包括1,000名不受战区限制的快速机动部队,以便支援其他部队。在9月份战事集中期间,北约军事指挥们曾私下要求能否出动位于法国的北约“战略储备”军。但法国认为应当按兵不动以应对巴尔干局势,因此不同意出兵。还有一个更严峻的问题,就是战备物资短缺。能够“高热”(即能在高空尤其是夏季)执行任务的直升飞机供应短缺。部分无线电设备不兼容,必须不断改变频率以保持联系。

At NATO's headquarters in Brussels, and at its military nerve centre in Mons, also in Belgium, there are deepening worries that too many countries treat Afghanistan as a “discretionary” operation rather than one that is likely to determine the future of the alliance. One concern is that NATO members will come to see the trouble in Afghanistan in the same hopeless light as the American-British fiasco in Iraq, and try to pull out. Another is that an Afghan failure could unravel the alliance, even as it helped wreck the Soviet Union.
在北约总部布鲁塞尔及其位于比利时另一城市芒斯的军事指挥中心,相当多的国家将阿富汗战争视为“草率”行动,而非决定北约命运之战,这让人深感忧虑。人们担心美英在伊拉克的惨况,让北约成员看到阿富汗也可能出现的无望困境。还担心阿富汗战争失败可能会导致北约解体,虽然该联盟在苏联解体方面功不可没。

What is the alliance for?
北约缘何尚在?

The NATO alliance has been struggling to define its role since the demise of the Warsaw Pact. The latest version of an evolving new doctrine is contained in a five-page document called “Comprehensive Political Guidance” which will be published at Riga. Instead of a common Soviet enemy, the allies must confront common threats; and instead of defending their borders from invasion, they must go far beyond them. The document declares that terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are likely to be the “principal threats” to the alliance over the next ten to 15 years. Other dangers include the instability that follows failed or failing states, regional conflicts, the growing availability of conventional weapons and disruption in the flow of resources such as oil and gas.
北约在华约解散后一直在重新定位问题上争论不休。里加峰会上将在5页纸的一份政治文件——“广泛合作政治纲领”中阐述最新的理论。没有了苏联这个共同的敌人,该联盟必须面对其他普遍威胁;不单是守卫边疆防止入侵,他们还将走得更远。文件宣称恐怖主义及大规模杀伤性武器扩散将是接下来10-15年内北约面临的“主要威胁”,其他威胁包括,失败或即将失败的国家带来的动荡局势,地区冲突,常规武器的泛滥, 诸如石油和燃气等能源的供应中断。

The allies, says the doctrine, still need to be able to carry out all military tasks, from peacekeeping to full-scale war. Terrorism has gone global, and NATO too must be ready to respond to challenges “from wherever they may come”. It should be able to deal simultaneously with several crises, large and small, in far-flung and inhospitable places. In many ways, this codifies what NATO already does. Apart from its deployment in Kosovo and Afghanistan, it flies air patrols over the Baltic states and Slovenia, carries out anti-terrorist naval patrols in the Mediterranean, runs military headquarters in Macedonia and Bosnia, trains the Iraqi army and gives logistical support to African peacekeepers in Darfur.
该理论指出,北约需要执行包括从维和到全面战争在内的所有的军事任务,恐怖主义已经弥漫全球,所以北约必须随时准备应对“来自任何地方的”挑战。北约应当具备同时处理多项危机的能力,从大到小,从遥远之地到荒蛮之境。在许多方面,北约已经开始按照上述理论执行任务。驻军科索沃和阿富汗,空中警戒于波罗的海诸国和斯洛文尼亚,海上巡逻在地中海地区,组建马其顿和波斯尼亚军事指挥中心,训练伊拉克军队,提供后勤保障给非洲达尔富尔维和部队。

When communism in Europe came to an end, the alliance busied itself with making the continent “whole, free and at peace”. This has been as much a political function as a military one. It absorbed many of the ex-communist states of eastern Europe, offering a club membership on the way to joining the European Union. But this eastward expansion has paused. For the first time since 1999, there will be no firm moves for bringing in new members at the Riga summit. Three countries—Albania, Croatia and Macedonia—are in the NATO antechamber known as the Membership Action Plan. America would also like Ukraine and Georgia to join. But Ukraine has rejected the idea, for the moment. And bringing in Georgia is problematic, at least while the problem of its secessionist regions is unresolved.
共产主义在欧洲消逝以后,北约致力于这片大陆的“团结,自由,和平”事业,政治功能和军事作用并举。北约吸收了数个前共产主义东欧国家,为其提供加入欧盟的机会。但是这一自1999年起开展的东扩进程已经暂停。里加峰会在吸收新成员方面将不再坚定地有所行动。在北约新成员加入计划中,阿尔巴尼亚,克罗地亚和马其顿正候选国。美国希望乌克兰和乔治亚也加入其中,但是目前乌克兰拒绝了该提议。吸收乔治亚也存在疑问,至少要待其解决掉地区分离主义问题再议。

Apart from membership, the alliance has a variety of relationships with dozens of countries: special joint councils with Russia and Ukraine, and a series of “partnerships” and “dialogues” with a broad fringe of countries stretching from Morocco to Central Asia. These days, NATO looks ever more like a kind of United Nations in military uniform.
除了会员关系,北约还和许多国家保持多种联系:与俄罗斯和乌克兰建立特别联合委员会,与从摩洛哥到中亚边缘地带一系列国家维持“伙伴”和“对话”关系。现在,北约看起来就像是身着战服的联合国。

The alliance's military operations in the Balkans in the 1990s established that it could pursue “out of area” operations, but also exposed how difficult it was for many of the European allies to do so. Much of the precision bombing in the Kosovo war, for instance, was carried out by America and a handful of allies. Since then, America has constantly called on European armies to modernise themselves, but progress has been slow.
上世纪九十年代北约在巴尔干半岛展开军事行动,这开启了北约在“区域外”执行任务的先河,但也暴露出对于许多欧洲盟国来讲,这种行动难度不小。例如,在科索沃,多数精准轰炸都是由美国进行的,只有少数盟国参与其中。自那时起,美国就一直要求欧洲盟国现代化本国的军事力量,但是进展缓慢。

The European allies collectively have economies comparable to that of the United States, and larger populations and armies. But they spend only about half as much on defence. America, partly because of its global interests, devotes 3.8% of GDP to defence, compared with an average of 1.9% for the European allies (see chart). Moreover, the Europeans tend to spend their meagre resources inefficiently, generally devoting the lion's share to salaries rather than equipment, and frittering resources on countless national projects. A study by the European Parliament bemoans the fact that there are four different kinds of European battle tank compared with one in America, and 16 models of armoured fighting vehicle in Europe compared with three in America. America plans in theory to be able to fight two wars in distant places; the Europeans would find it hard to fight one small war close to home without American help.
欧洲盟国的经济情况同美国相若,人口和军队则比美国多。但其国防支出仅为美国的一半。美国出于全球利益考虑,将国民生产总值的3.8%投入到国防事业,而欧洲盟国平均只投入1.9%(见图)。而且,他们还似乎没有把有限的钱花在刀刃上,经常是拿来发工资而不是投入到设备上,还把资源浪费到无数的国内项目上。一项欧洲议会的研究表明令人沮丧,欧洲有四种不同类型的坦克,而美国只有一种;欧洲有16类装甲战车,美国只有3类;但是理论上,美国能够保证同时进行两场局域战争;而如果没有美国的帮助,欧洲人会发现可能连一场发生在家门口的小规模战争也打不赢。



The need for modernisation has been starkly shown up by the operations in Afghanistan. The lack of airlift, for instance, has made it difficult for some countries to move their men and equipment. Europe's armed forces have medium-sized cargo aircraft for “tactical airlift” but are desperately short of the large aircraft needed for “strategic airlift” over long distances. Increasingly, governments are pooling their money, either to rent large aircraft from Russian and Ukrainian firms, to buy American planes or to make their own.
在阿富汗的军事行动凸显了欧洲盟国军队现代化的需求。例如,缺乏空运设备令许多国家无法运输人员和设备。欧洲盟国装备有中型货机满足“战术空运”,但却极其缺乏大型货机进行长途“战略空运”。他们正不断增加投资,向俄国和乌克兰的公司租借大型货机,购买美国飞机,或者自行制造飞机。

Trying to redress the disparity between America and the rest, NATO has drawn up lists of “capabilities” that countries must acquire. A more important development, strongly supported by America, is the formation of a 20,000-strong deployable standing army, known as the NATO Response Force (NRF), with land, air and sea components. This is supposed to begin deploying in troublespots around the world at five days' notice, making a “forced entry” if necessary and sustaining itself for up to two months before handing over to follow-on troops. Elements of the NRF have been used for humanitarian relief, but the force still has too many gaps for it to be declared fully operational at the Riga summit.
为了弥补与美国和其他力量的差距,北约已经列出这些国家应当获得的“能力”清单。美国则强烈提议一项更加重要的计划,建立一支由20,000名士兵组成常规部队,强大且可以灵活部署,称作是北约快速反应部队(NRF),拥有海陆空三栖作战功能。可以在接到命令后5天内派遣至任何问题地点,如有必要即展开“军事介入”,在后续部队换防之前保持两个月的作战能力。快速反应部队责任在于人道主义救援,里加会议将宣布其全面开始运作,但是在这一问题上各国仍存在诸多分歧。

General James Jones, an American and NATO's most senior commander, says the tradition that each national contingent should pay its own way (a policy known as “costs lie where they fall”) has been a huge disincentive for many countries. He wants more of the expenses to be paid jointly by all the allies. If not, he says, many countries will hold back for fear that they will bear the cost of an expensive operation if the NRF happens to be activated on their watch.
詹姆士.琼斯上将是美国和北约最为资深的指挥官,他指出各国各自负担本国军队的传统做法可能受到很大挑战。他希望盟军统收统支,称若非如此,许多国家都将不参加北约快速反应部队,因为他们担心一旦快速反应部队在本国负责范围内开展行动,自己将承担昂贵的成本。

Rather than spend money on making their armies more able to operate overseas, some Europeans have turned instead to the internal business of creating a defence arm for the EU, known as the European Security and Defence Policy. Even as NATO builds up the NRF, the EU is also building its own rapid response forces.
某些欧洲国家并不增加开支用于提高本国军队的海外行动能力,转而将注意力投至欧洲内部事务上,从而为欧盟建立一支防卫力量。就在北约筹建北约快速反应部队之际,欧盟也着手建立自己的快速反应力量。

The EU's original aim of creating a 60,000-strong force, able to deploy at 60 days' notice for tasks ranging from disaster relief to crisis management, has been all but abandoned. Instead, the union is now creating 13 smaller and more flexible formations of 1,500 men, known as battlegroups, which are meant to deploy in troublespots within ten days. But many defence experts doubt whether European countries have the resources for the EU, the NRF and other demanding operations such as the UN mission in Lebanon.
欧盟原计划建立60,000强力部队,能够在接到通知后60天内执行从灾难救援到危机处理之类的任务,但该计划现在相当于取消了。取而代之的是建立13支小型而更加灵活的编队,由1,500人组成。称之为战地军团,意思是可以在10天内部署至问题区域。不过,许多国防专家怀疑欧洲国家是否有足够资源以支持欧盟,北约反应部队以及其他被要求参与的行动,例如在黎巴嫩的联合国维和任务。

Along with the development of an autonomous EU military staff and a separate EU “cell” within NATO's operational headquarters, critics accuse the EU of creating a wasteful rival army that will duplicate NATO's functions and break up the transatlantic alliance. Advocates of the policy say that Europe needs its own forces to encourage investment in defence and to take part in missions, such as peacekeeping in Africa, in which the United States does not want to become involved.
既要发展欧盟自主管理的军事机构,又要在北约军事总部内建立独立存在的欧盟“分队”,批评家指责欧盟浪费资源建立与自己竞争的军队,导致北约职能重迭,从而瓦解这一跨洋合作组织。而支持人士则指出欧盟需要发展自己的军事力量以鼓励防务投资并参与执行维和任务,例如开展非洲维和活动,而联合国并不愿意卷入其中。

On the ground, the EU and NATO have co-operated relatively well. NATO has handed over its stabilisation missions in Bosnia and Macedonia to the EU. But in Darfur, the two organisations have competed to provide support for African peacekeepers. And in Brussels, headquarters to both organisations, the two groups have little contact at the political level—not least because of the conflict between Cyprus (a member of the EU) and Turkey (a member of NATO). With 19 members in common (soon to be 21 when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU), the two bodies are like Siamese twins awkwardly joined together. They share many organs—soldiers, equipment and military planners—but their separate heads do not get on.
在战场上,欧盟和北约合作还是相当默契的。北约将其在波斯尼亚和马其顿已进入稳定阶段的维和任务移交给欧盟处理。但是在达尔富尔,他们却竞相为欧洲维和军队提供支持。而在布鲁塞尔,两大组织的总部所在地,他们却在政治层面鲜有接触——不仅是因为塞浦路斯(欧盟成员国)和土耳其(北约成员国)之间存在争端。还因为北约和欧盟如同连体婴儿,拥有19个共同成员(随着保加利亚和罗马尼亚即将加入欧盟,很快就会变成21个),共享许多器官——军队,设备,军事策划——但是两个独立的大脑却相处不佳。

After the attacks of September 11th 2001, it was America's turn to go its own way. In a show of solidarity, NATO invoked Article 5 of its treaty which asserts that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. The United States, however, preferred to act alone, picking allied units in “coalitions of the willing” to go to war in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, led by America and Britain but opposed by France and Germany, pulled the alliance farther apart.
2001年9/11袭击之后,美国开始自行起道。为了显示团结,北约引用结盟条约第五款之规定声称袭击某一缔约国即意味着袭击所有缔约国。但是美国却倾向于独自行动,选择“自愿加盟”的国家参与阿富汗战争。2003年美英又带头入侵伊拉克,却遭到法德两国的反对,这使得北约进一步分裂。

America's disdain for multilateral institutions appeared to be vindicated by the speed with which the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were toppled from power. But as the “war on terror” proceeded to go badly, particularly in Iraq, the Bush administration had to rediscover the value of having friends. European countries also sought reconciliation. Though NATO as a whole declined to send troops to Iraq (apart from a small training mission), it agreed in August 2003 to take over the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and extend its remit beyond Kabul. The Afghan operation was presented as a stabilisation mission, much like the ones NATO ran after the wars in the Balkans; in some parts of the country it now looks more like the counter-insurgency operation that America is struggling with in Iraq.
塔利班和萨达姆.侯赛因迅速倒台,这在表面上为美国对多边组织的蔑视进行了辩白。但是随着“反恐战争”,特别是在伊拉克的战局恶化,布什当局不得不重新审视联盟观念,欧洲国家也在寻求和解。尽管北约总体上拒绝将军队派往伊拉克(除了执行少量训练任务),但是仍然同意于2003年8月接管阿富汗的国际安全援助部队,并将其执行任务的范围扩大到喀布尔以外。阿富汗的军事行动呈现出稳定态势,同北约在巴尔干战后执行任务的情况非常类似;而在该国部分地区,北约的任务看起来则更像是当前美国正在伊拉克开展的反暴乱行动。

Please ask the general
请问将军

Though there is nothing new in the idea that stabilisation missions should involve police reform and economic development, the question of who should co-ordinate such actions has become contentious within the alliance. France says NATO should not extend its remit to civilian matters and duplicate UN functions. The French defence minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, says this would cause NATO to “lose both its soul and effectiveness”. Many NATO officials retort that it is French obstructionism that is soul-destroying.
在局势稳定后,应当重建警察队伍,促进经济发展,在这个问题上没有什么新观点。但是谁来协调这些行动却存在争议。法国认为北约不应涉足非军事领域,避免与联合国的职能重叠。法国国防部长指出,如果北约不这样做就会导致其“失去灵魂和效力”。但是许多北约官员则反驳说,正是法国的蓄意阻挠侵蚀了北约的灵魂。

On the ground, however, NATO is taking the initiative. It has been instrumental in the creation of the Policy Action Group (PAG), a body bringing together Afghan ministers, NATO officers, UN officials and diplomats to co-ordinate intelligence, security, communications and economic development. It is chaired by Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, with General Richards sitting beside him. Indeed, some quip that PAG really stands for “Please Ask the General”.
虽然如此,北约在冲突发生国家还是采取了主动。大力促进建立政策执行组织(PAG),将阿富汗部长、北约官员、联合国官员以及外交官们联合起来,开展情报,安全,沟通,和经济发展方面的协调工作。该组织由阿富汗总统哈米的.卡尔扎伊主持工作,大卫中将则从旁支持。而实际上,有人讽刺说政策执行组织真正的行动准则是“请问将军”。

The Afghan operation, where 11 non-NATO countries have joined ISAF, has raised another difficult issue: whether Western countries outside the alliance, such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand, should be accorded a special relationship. Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, says NATO should turn itself into a global club of democracies. “Since the challenges NATO faces are global, its membership should be as well,” he says.
在阿富汗维和行动中,11个非北约国家加入国际安全援助部队,这又提出了一个难题:是否应当给予日本、澳大利亚和新西兰一种特殊关系。艾维奥.达尔德是位于华盛顿特区的布鲁克林学院的资深人士,他认为“鉴于北约面临的是全球挑战,其成员也应该全球化”。

America has proposed something less: a kind of associate membership that would give kindred governments an early role in planning operations and better access to NATO training. But again France has resisted. Ms Alliot-Marie maintains that NATO should remain a Euro-Atlantic partnership rather than a “vague ensemble” that would “send a bad political message” to the rest of the world.
美国的提议更简单:给予友好政府某种联盟关系可以使他们在参与行动策划和参加北约训练方面更早的进入角色。但是法国在此问题上又一次表示反对。埃里尔特.玛利奥女士主张北约仍应维持欧洲-大西洋合作关系,而不是“面目不清的集合”,后者可能对其他国家和地区“传达出不正确的政治信息”。

Pax Americana
美国治下的“和平”

The final outcome of the Riga summit may well depend on the mood of the two old antagonists, George Bush and Jacques Chirac, both of them now politically weakened and in the final phase of their presidencies. The alliance is also being undermined by a change of public perception. A transatlantic opinion poll released by the German Marshall Fund of the United States shows that Europeans now have more misgivings (see chart).
里加峰会的最终结果可能取决于两个传统意义上的冤家对头的态度,乔治.布什和雅克.希拉克,目前两人都处于政治弱势而且其总统任期都行将结束。公众对于北约态度的转变也对这一联盟构成潜在损害。美国的德国马歇尔基金针对欧洲民众进行的一次调查显示,当前欧洲人对北约的存在必要性存在更多疑虑。



And yet the poll also indicates that Americans and Europeans share broadly similar views of the dangers facing them: terrorism, Islamist radicalism and a nuclear Iran. The difference is over the means of dealing with them. Americans tend to favour confronting foes, whereas Europeans may want to engage them; the former advocate leadership, the latter consensus; in military matters Americans emphasise counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency, Europeans are more comfortable with peacekeeping and stabilisation.
该调查还指出,美国人和欧洲人对于所面临的危险存在广泛共识:恐怖主义,伊斯兰极端主义,核武化的伊朗。分歧则在于如何应对这些危险。美国人倾向于直面敌人,而欧洲人则主张同化他们;前者鼓吹领导力,后者则希望达成普遍共识;在军事问题上,美国人强调要与恐怖主义和暴乱分子针锋相对,欧洲人则对维持和平与稳定更加情有独钟。

Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defence think-tank based in Washington, DC, says that Europe and America have reversed historical roles. “A hundred years ago America was like Europe today,” he argues. Europeans preserved the balance of power, and the British fleet protected trade, while America criticised military adventures, such as the Boer war, as immoral. “America got a free ride on the Pax Britannica. Now it is the Europeans who are getting a free ride on the Pax Americana,” he says.
安德鲁.克利普涅卫齐是战略和预算评估中心的主管,该中心位于华盛顿,主要研究防卫问题。他指出欧洲和美国互换了传统意义上彼此扮演的角色,他说“一百年前,美国就像现在的欧洲一样,”欧洲保持力量均衡状态,英国舰队保护贸易往来,美国则批评波尔战争一类的军事冒险是不道德的。“美国曾经搭了不列颠治下的和平便车。如今,轮到欧洲人搭美国的便车了”。安德鲁如是说。

Despite many predictions of its imminent death, NATO soldiers on. Other organisations can offer much but they cannot match NATO's military power. This is why so many countries still want to join the alliance: it offers an insurance policy in uncertain times, with its promise of protection by the world's superpower.
尽管预见到会有很多人命丧黄泉,但是北约士兵仍然整装待发。其他国际组织可以提供很多支持,但却无法同北约的军事力量相比较。这就是为什么仍有诸多国家意图加入北约:因为它可以提供不时之需,伴之超级强权的保障承诺
回复

使用道具 举报

159

主题

1万

帖子

9万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
56446
发表于 2010-3-17 20:24 | 显示全部楼层
What a shock of losing my previous article, whatever, just reload it. Expecting for ur comments.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

0

主题

1万

帖子

9万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
55630
发表于 2010-3-17 20:25 | 显示全部楼层
翻译得非常非常不错!
欢迎加入社会政治组。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

0

主题

1万

帖子

9万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
55630
发表于 2010-3-17 20:25 | 显示全部楼层
To dgrkl, tks for ur encouragement, my honor to join it, but how?
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

382

主题

1万

帖子

14万

金币

大家网教授

Rank: 23Rank: 23Rank: 23Rank: 23Rank: 23

积分
103048

终身成就奖英语达人才华横溢优秀斑竹二级笔译三级笔译

发表于 2010-3-17 20:25 | 显示全部楼层
Just wait for a moment,I'll do it.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则



诚聘英才|移动端|Archiver|版权声明|大家论坛 ( 京ICP备06071611号,京公网安备11010802018363号 )

GMT+8, 2019-11-15 16:32 , Processed in 0.154267 second(s), 7 queries , Redis On.

Powered by Discuz!

© Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表