【世事关心】袭击叙利亚 美国外交政策发生了何种变化?

【新唐人北京时间2018年04月17日讯】【世事关心】(466)袭击叙利亚 美国外交政策发生了何种变化?


A surprise announcement:
“My fellow Americans ashort time ago,I ordered the United States armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.”
Despite the tough rhetoric,Russia did not respond to the joint attack.What’s its calculation?
Douglas E.Streusand(美国海军陆战队指挥参谋学院教授):“俄罗斯其实急于避免与美国直接发生冲突。”
“the Russians are also anxious to avoid adirect confrontation with the United States.”
What exactly is Russia’s role in Syria?
ELLiott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“在冷战期间,叙利亚是前苏联在中东地区的唯一盟友,俄国人一直想维持和叙利亚的关系。”
“During the Cold War,Syria was really the only ally that the Soviet Union had in the Middle East.And the Russians have wanted to maintain arelationship with Syria.”
The world is watching what the U.S.will do next:what are China and North Korea looking for?
Douglas E.Streusand(美国海军陆战队指挥参谋学院教授):“当习近平研究川普的时候,他会得出一个什么印象?他看见的是一个信守承诺,敢于使用力量的人,还是一个没有意志力,更像欧巴马的人?”
“Xi Jinping looks at Trump.What does he see?Does he see someone who keeps his promises,keeps his word,is willing to use force?Or someone who isn’t,who’s more Obama-like.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“大家好,欢迎观看《世事关心》,我是萧茗。本月早些时候叙利亚化武袭击事件造成的后果令世界震惊。川普总统在那之前不久曾表示,他希望美军尽快撤出叙利亚。世界在期待美国对化武袭击事件的反应。4月13日,总统宣布美国、英国、和法国对阿萨德军事目标进行联合精确打击。这能阻止阿萨德再次使用化学武器吗?美俄关系已经非常紧张。而俄国正是叙利亚政府最大的支持者。俄罗斯会做出什么回应?中国和朝鲜将从美国的危机处理中看到什么?本期节目中,我们将关注这些问题。”
Welcome to《Zooming In》.I’m Simone Gao.The world was shocked to see the aftermath of the chemical attack in Syria earlier this month.It came shortly after President Trump said he wanted to withdraw US troops from Syria as soon as possible.The world waited to see what the US would do.On Friday,April 13,the president announced joint precision strikes against Assad military targets by the US,UK,and France.Will these strikes be enough to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again?Relations were already tense with Russia,which is the Syrian government’s biggest supporter.Will they do anything in response?And what will China and North Korea learn from how the US handles this crisis?We’ll look at these questions and more in this episode of《Zooming In》.
Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles(TLAM)launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey in the Arabian Sea.It was all over in 2minutes.
U.S.,French and British forces hit three suspected Syrian chemical weapons facilities with atotal of 105 weapons that all struck their targets at about 4am on April 14 local time.
The attack involved ships,aircraft,and one submarine operating from the Eastern Mediterranean,the Red Sea,and the Northern Arabian Sea against three targets–one on the outskirts of Damascus and two others 90 miles to the north.The US Ambassador to the United Nations said the US is ready to keep the pressure on in Syria.
Nikki Haley(美国驻联合国大使/United States Ambassador to the United Nations):“昨天的军事行动清楚的表明:美国不会允许阿萨德政权继续使用化学武器。昨晚我们夷平了它用来制造大规模杀伤性武器的主要研究设施。我今天早上和总统谈过,他说如果叙利亚政权再次使用这种有毒气体,美国将全力奉陪到底。我们的总统言必行,行必果。”
“With yesterday’s military action our message was crystal clear:the United States of America will not allow the Assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons.Last night we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder.I spoke to the president this morning and he said if the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again the United States is locked and loaded.When our president draws ared line,our president enforces the red line.”
The strikes came about ayear after the US fired cruise missiles into Syria the first time.That was in response to the April 4th,2017,chemical attack that killed over 90 people.
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday night that the strikes sent aclear message.
Jim Mattis(马蒂斯/美国国防部长):“今晚法国、英国、和美国决定性的打击了叙利亚的化学武器基础设施。显然阿萨德政权对我们去年发出的警告置若罔闻。这次,我们和盟友们发动了更强的袭击。我们一起向阿萨德和他帮凶发出了一个明确的信息:如果他们再发起另一次化武袭击,他们将罪责难逃。”
“Tonight France,the United Kingdom and the United States took decisive action to strike the Syrian chemical weapons infrastructure.Clearly the Assad regime did not get the message last year.This time our allies and we have struck harder.Together we have sent aclear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack for which they will be held accountable.”
The president reiterated on Friday that the US won’t stay in Syria long term.
“America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria.Under no circumstances as other nations step up their contributions.We look forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home and great warriors they are.Looking around avery troubled world,Americans have no illusions.We cannot purge the world of evil or act everywhere there is tyranny.No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East.It’s atroubled place.We will try to make it better,but it is atroubled place.The United States will be apartner and afriend.But the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people.”
海军陆战队联合参谋总监McKenzie说:“三个目标地点超出了俄方防空系统的有效射程,当时俄方防空系统并未工作。Kenneth F.McKenzie(美国海军陆战队联合参谋总监/中将)说:“没有迹象表明俄罗斯部署了防空系统。”不过,周五的联合导弹袭击使得俄罗斯与西方之间的关系更加紧张。
Advanced Russian air defense systems were believed to be out of range of the three target sites and were not activated,according to Marine Lt.Gen.Kenneth McKenzie,the Joint Staff Director,"There’s no indication the Russian air defense systems were deployed."Nevertheless,the joint missile strike on Friday makes relations between Russia and the West even more tense.
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):在发生对叙利亚的袭击之前,我曾与美国海军陆战队指挥参谋学院的Douglas E.Streusand教授进行了讨论。他也是世界政治研究所的兼职教授,我们谈到了俄罗斯的军事能力和可能的反应。
Before the attacks on Syria took place,I had adiscussion with Professor Douglas E.Streusand from the United States Marine Corps Command&Staff College.He’s also an adjunct professor at The Institute of World Politics.We talked about Russia’s capabilities and possible reactions to aU.S.attack.
(Disclaimer:Professor Streusand is not speaking for the United States Marine Corps Command&Staff College or any agency of the U.S.government.)
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“俄国发誓说要拦截每一颗攻击叙利亚的导弹。但是你认为俄方真会这么做吗?他们有能力拦截美国导弹吗?”
“Russia vowed to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria,but what do you think the Russians will actually do?Do they have the ability to shoot down American missiles?”
Douglas E.Streusand(美国海军陆战队指挥参谋学院教授):“先说后一个问题。他们确有能力拦截一些导弹。事实上,有报告显示,叙利亚在前不久成功拦截了一些由以色列发射的导弹,当时以色列正在攻击叙利亚境内的伊朗设施。但是美国有能力发动‘饱和式攻击’,即攻方发射的导弹数量超过守方的拦截能力。尤其当我们的盟国加入攻击的时候,就更是如此。我们还有可观的电子战能力来突破对方防御,只是我们不想无谓的展示实力。因为我们一旦打电子战,我们的对手们,现实的或是潜在的,会立即学会我们的电子战技术。没必要让对手了解我们的真正实力。但是我看到的最新情报表明,美国会尽量避免攻击叙利亚境内的俄国设施,以防止俄国报复。另外,别看俄方前不久发表了措辞强硬的声明,他们也害怕与美国直接对抗。”
“Well,to start with the last question first:They clearly have the ability to shoot down some missiles.As amatter fact,at least one report suggests that the Syrians themselves were able to shoot down some of the missiles that the Israelis employed in their recent strike on an Iranian facility in Syria.But the United States has the ability to saturate Russian defenses.That is,to fire significantly more missiles than they have available.And this becomes even more true if our allies are involved.And we also have substantial electronic warfare capabilities to overcome those defenses,although the less we reveal of those capabilities,the better.Because once we use those capabilities,then our adversaries–actual or potential adversaries–will learn immediately about those techniques,and we would prefer not to reveal that.But the most recent information that I’ve seen suggests that the United States is trying to do everything possible to avoid striking Russian assets in Syria and provoking aRussian response,and that,in spite of that earlier statement,the Russians are also anxious to avoid adirect confrontation with the United States.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“在最近的化学武器攻击之前,川普总统曾表示一旦伊斯兰国被打败,他就会下令美军撤出叙利亚。你认为这样做行吗?你认为美军应该在什么情况下从叙利亚撤军?”
“Before the most recent chemical attack by Assad,President Trump said he wanted to withdraw U.S.troops from Syria as soon as ISIS is defeated.Do you think that would be agood move?At what point do you think the U.S.should withdraw its troops from Syria?”
Douglas E.Streusand(美国海军陆战队指挥参谋学院教授):“说到美军进入叙利亚的目的,从一开始到现在,始终都没有明确过,谁也说不清。只是打败伊斯兰国吗?我更愿意用阿拉伯文DAISH称呼伊斯兰国。还是有广义上的目标?打败伊斯兰国后,或者说解放所有被占各国领土后,还不是撤军的时候,因为促成伊斯兰国的各种条件仍然存在,除非整个大环境发生变化。我们在伊拉克曾经打败过伊斯兰国的前身基地组织,2011年我们撤出,2014年我们不得不重返。这一次我们不会再犯同样的错误,必须严肃对待这个地区政治形势的未来发展,我们要是彻底离开,我们会失去在当地所有的影响力,我们不想看见伊朗真的控制叙利亚。但是有报告说,伊朗人正在有步骤的拉拢叙利亚的什叶派民兵武装,也就是把他们从阿萨德政权方面,拉拢到伊朗方面。所以不管我们喜不喜欢,伊朗是一个战略对手。长远来看,与所谓的伊斯兰国相比,伊朗很可能会对地区稳定和美国利益构成更严重的威胁。”
“Well,there has been,from the beginning,uncertainty,if not confusion,about what exactly US goals in Syria are,whether it is only the defeat of what Iprefer to call by its Arabic acronym,DAISH,or if there is abroader mission.The problem with withdrawing as soon as DAISH is defeated,that is to say,as soon as it holds no more territory,is that,unless there are other changes,the conditions that led to the formation of DAISH will still exist.So we defeated DAISH in the guise of Al Qaeda in Iraq once.We turned away in 2011,and we have had to return in 2014.And we don’t want to leave the job unfinished.There are also serious questions about the whole future of the region.And if we pull out,we lose almost all of our leverage.We do not want to see Iran really in control of Syria.There are reports,however,that the Iranians are systematically attempting to win over the Shia militias in Syria.That is,to shift their loyalty from the Assad regime to Iran.And so we,like it or not,Iran is astrategic adversary.In the long run,Iran probably poses amuch more severe threat,both to regional stability and to American interests,than the so-called Islamic State did.”
Coming up,How long will the US stay in Syria,and what exactly is Russia’s role there?
On April 5th,Pres.Trump said he wanted to withdraw US troops as soon as ISIS is defeated.This was before the poison gas attacks occured in Syria.On Friday night,President Trump explained the purpose of the newest strikes.He also sent amessage to Russia and Iran.
The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish astrong deterrent against the production,spread and use of chemical weapons.Establishing this deterrent is avital national security interest of the United States.The combined American British and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power military economic and diplomatic.We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.I also have amessage tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting equipping and financing the criminal Assad regime.To Iran and to Russia Iask,what kind of anation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men women and children.The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep.No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.In 2013,President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons.Assad’s recent attack and today’s response are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise.Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as aforce for stability and peace.Hopefully someday we’ll get along with Russia,and maybe even Iran.But maybe not.”
Ever since the Syrian conflict began in 2011,Russia has supported the Assad regime politically and with military aid.It has been directly involved militarily since September 2015,when it set up an airbase.It also has anaval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus.
俄罗斯军事专家帕维尔.费尔根豪尔(Pavel Felgenhauer)去年估计,约2,000至3,000名俄罗斯雇佣兵在叙利亚作战。虽然普京声称他不会派遣地面部队,但他的确说过大约48,000名俄罗斯军人参与了在叙利亚的军事行动。
Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer estimated last year that 2,000 to 3,000 Russian mercenaries are fighting in Syria.Although Putin said he won’t send ground troops,he did say about 48,000 Russian servicemen have been involved in the campaign.
The West largely avoided military engagement in the past.Meanwhile,Russia’s military intervention turned the tables in favor of the Assad regime.
Russia uses its UN Security Council membership to protect the Syrian government.It has repeatedly vetoed Western-sponsored draft resolutions demanding Assad’s resignation.
On April 4th,the leaders of Iran,Russia,and Turkey conducted high-level talks about ending the civil war in Syria,but they excluded other Western countries.What exactly is Russia’s role in Syria,and why is he there?
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):为了了解俄国在叙利亚冲突中扮演的角色,稍早我采访了Elliott Abrams先生。他是美国外交关系委员会中东研究部的资深研究员,他也是前总统George W.Bush的助理国家安全事务顾问,主管美国的中东政策。
To help make sense of Russia’s role in Syria,I had earlier spoke to Mr.Elliott Abrams,Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at Council on Foreign Relations.He also served as deputy national security adviser in the George W.Bush administration,where he supervised U.S.policy in the Middle East for the White House.
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“为什么俄罗斯会介入叙利亚内战?普京想在其中得到什么?”
“Why did Russia get involved in Syria’s civil war in the first place?What does Putin want to get out of it?”
Elliott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“叙利亚和俄国有几十年的长期关系。可以追溯到哈菲兹.阿萨德时期,就是现总统巴沙尔.阿萨德的父亲。在冷战期间,叙利亚是前苏联在中东地区的唯一盟友,俄国人一直想维持和叙利亚的关系。特别是,他们想在叙利亚拥有一两个军事基地,他们一直想在地中海拥有一个海军基地,现在叙利亚人已经给了他们海军基地,他们还有一个小规模的空军基地。所以普京要显示他能恢复俄罗斯的国际影响力,他们现在在叙利亚有基地,普京在表明他是叙利亚朋友的忠实盟友。”
“Syria and Russia have along relationship that goes back decades,goes back to the time of Hafez al-Assad,the father of Bashar al-Assad.During the Cold War,Syria was really the only ally that the Soviet Union had in the Middle East.And the Russians have wanted to maintain arelationship with Syria,and in particular,they have wanted to have abase or two military bases there.They have always wanted to have anaval base on the Mediterranean.And the Syrians have now given them that.And they also have asmall air base.So this is Putin showing that he is restoring Russia to global influence,now they have abase in Syria,and showing he’s agood ally to his friends in Syria.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“你认为俄国会和美国在叙利亚直接冲突吗?”
“Do you think Russia will have adirect confrontation with the US in Syria?”
Elliott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“我不认为美俄两国会为了叙利亚开战。3月份的时候我以为会开战,当时俄国武装人员攻击了一个叙利亚反对派武装的据点,有很多美国人在那里,这些武装人员不是穿制服的俄国士兵,但是他们是俄国人,现在被叫做小绿人,意思是没有制服的俄国士兵,他们攻击了美军基地,美军杀死了大概200个俄国人,俄国人没有任何反应,所以我认为俄国人并不想和美国对抗,不会有对抗。我认为美国的反应应该是轰炸叙利亚的军事设施,但是行动的规模应该超过2017年4月那次攻击。那次是作为对叙利亚使用化学武器的回应,那次攻击没起到作用,因为叙利亚这次又使用了化学武器。所以,明显那次的惩罚力度不够,他们之所以使用化学武器,是低估了国际社会的反应,只想着使用化武杀人、制造恐怖,我们要展示使用化学武器代价高昂。叙利亚人和其他人会发现,即使从非道德的实用主义政治的角度来看,成本也是太高了,还是别做了。所以在我看来,打击那些直接使用了化武的军事单位还不够,要教训阿萨德就得摧毁该政权的大部分战争机器。”
“I do not think there will be any kind of war between the United States and Russia over Syria.You know,in March,I think it was,there was an assault on aposition that the Syrian rebels had where there were alot of Americans with them.Now,these were not Russian–uniformed Russia soldiers,but they were Russians.What’s now been called little green men,meaning,basically,Russian soldiers out of uniform.They attacked the American base.The Americans killed roughly 200 of these Russians.And the Russian reaction was nothing.Nonexistent.So Idon’t think the Russians are looking for aconflict with the US.And there isn’t going to be one.I think the American reaction should be to strike,to bomb Syrian military facilities.But it has to be abigger strike than the one that was done in April of 2017.That was areaction to the use of chemical weapons.And it didn’t work,in the sense that the Syrians have done it again.So obviously the punishment was not great enough.When they decide to use chemical weapons,they are making the judgment that the benefits they are going to get in terrorizing people,in killing people,are greater than any particular cost in world opinion,let us say.We have to show that the cost of using chemical weapons is much greater so that the Syrians and others learn that,if they’re making an amoral realpolitik cost-benefit analysis,the costs are too high.Don’t do it.So that means to me that we should not only strike whatever units may have undertaken this use of chemical weapons,but we should really destroy asignificant portion of Assad’s war machine to teach that lesson.”
Coming up,As President Trump deals with the conflict in Syria,China and North Korea look on.What are they looking for?
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):关注叙利亚冲突未来发展的还有两位关键人物,中国领导人习近平和北韩领袖金正恩。他们如何看待川普总统在这场冲突中的表现?我们听一听Elliott Abrams的看法。
While the Syria conflict is unfolding,there are two critical observers:Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.What are they looking for from President Trump’s handling of the Syria crisis?Let’s hear what Elliott Abrams has to say.
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“长期以来,美国一直在两种外交政策哲学之间挣扎。一方面,在这个国家我们珍视自由和民主,认为这些价值应该影响我们的外交政策,也就是说我们有责任在世界保护或推广这些价值。另一方面,很多人认为美国的外交政策应该围绕美国的核心利益,我们不是世界警察,没必要大把花钱、和在别人的土地上流血。你怎么看这两个观点?”
“The U.S.has been struggling between two overarching foreign policy philosophies for along time.On one hand,we in this country value liberty and democracy and think these values should affect our foreign policy.That is,we have aresponsibility to protect or project those values in the world.On the other hand,a lot of us think that U.S.foreign policy should be centered around the core interests of America.We are not the world police and should not spend tons of money and shed our children’s blood on other people’s soil.What is your opinion on these two views?”
Elliott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“像你说的,这是个有关美国外交政策的重要问题。首先,我认为美国每次向外国派兵都是为了维护我们的核心利益。比如,我们出兵阿富汗并不是为了把阿富汗变成民主政体,我们出兵是因为塔利班政权在保护和藏匿基地组织,后者制造了911事件。布希任内我们入侵了伊拉克,因为美、英、法、和以色列的情报部门一致认为,萨达姆在开发核武器和非常规武器,如果情报部门说他没有搞这些,我们绝不会出兵伊拉克搞民主化的。一旦我们占领一个国家,像1945年我们占领日本和德国,近期占领伊拉克和阿富汗,我们都会本能的试图建立民主政体。二战结束时候很多人说,你们不了解日本,他们有天皇,他们文化不同。但是美国的观点是,日本人有享受民主政体的权利,我们是对的,日本是伟大的民主政体。我还想说,在世界实现自由对美国是很重要的,为什么美国1941年决定加入欧洲战场?因为我们相信,纳粹德国在征服欧洲,控制几乎整个欧洲大陆之后,再入侵和征服英国,强化对这一地区的控制后,他们会成为对美国的直接军事威胁。我认为促进世界的自由事业符合美国的利益,但那并不意味着我们每次都要出兵,那是另一个问题。如果你认为自由的成功是美国的利益的话,你就要问一个问题,好,那你要做什么呢?我们做很多和入侵无关的事情,我给你的例子是里根对苏联的政策,他发动对苏联的意识形态战役,他称苏联为邪恶政权,他对苏联开展经济战役,他实施对苏联的代理人战争,比如在第三世界,在阿富汗对抗苏联入侵,但是我们并没有和苏联发生直接战争。我认为有很多可以做的事情,我们可以支持民主团体、非政府组织、民间组织等。我们可以通过联合国开展工作,不是做什么事都得使用武力。但是我不喜欢消极的外交政策,比如,对越来越多的国家变成独裁政权还是民主政体,无动于衷、不感兴趣,说什么没有义务协助世界上的自由力量,我认为那会是一个美国的巨大错误。”
“This is,as you say,a very important question about American foreign policy.First,I would say Ido not believe the United States has ever sent our soldiers abroad when we did not think we had acore interest.We did not,for example,send troops to Afghanistan to turn it into ademocracy.We did that because the Taliban government was protecting and harboring Al Qaeda,which had conducted the 9-11 attacks.We invaded Iraq under President Bush because there was unanimity among intelligence agencies–American,British,French,Israeli–that he had aprogram for developing nuclear weapons and other nonconventional weapons.If the intelligence agencies had said,no he doesn’t,we would never had sent troops to democratize.It is the case that once we have occupied acountry–Japan and Germany in 1945,Iraq and Afghanistan more recently,we do–it is the American practice to try to build ademocracy.There were many people who said at the end of the second world war,oh,Japan,you don’t understand.See,they have the emperor,and they have adifferent culture.But the American view was,no,they have aright to ademocratic system,and we were right.Japan is agreat democracy.I would also say that it is important to the United States that the cause of freedom in the world be successful.Why did the United States decide in 1941 to become involved in the war in Europe?Because we believed that the conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany,in which they would control almost all of continental Europe,and then invade and conquer England,was going to be adirect threat,military threat,to the United States once they consolidated that control.But Ido think that the cause of liberty in the world is an interest of the United States,not that we send our army.That’s adifferent question.If you believe that it is in the interest of the United States,that the cause of liberty be succeeding,then you have to ask the question,okay,what will you do about it?We do many things that have nothing to do with invasion.And the example Iwould give you is Reagan’s policy towards the Soviet Union.He conducted ideological warfare against it.He called it an evil regime.He conducted economic warfare against it.He did engage in what you might call proxy wars against it.In the third world,for example,fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.But we didn’t have awar with the Soviet Union.I think there are many things we can do.We can support democratic groups,NGOs,civil society.We can work through the United Nations.Not everything is use of force.But Iwould not be comfortable with an American foreign policy that said,whether more and more countries become dictatorships or are democracies doesn’t matter to us.We are indifferent.We should take no interest.We should give no assistance to the forces of liberty in the world.I think that would be abig mistake for the United States.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“虽然如此,但我们现在已经不是里根时代或是二战后时代了。我认为全世界都在观察美国接下来会做什么。在这个世界上,美国如何定位自己?在欧巴马政府时期,美国放弃了世界领袖的地位,在国际事务中表现的消极被动。在这方面,川普政府会有什么不同?”
“That said,we are not in the Reagan era or the post WWII era any more.I think the rest of the world is watching what the U.S.will do next.What does America really perceive its role in the world to be?The Obama administration sent the message that America is not interested in maintaining astrong leadership role.It is leading from behind.What signal has the Trump administration sent to the world in this regard?”
Elliott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“我想说川普政府上任一年多之后,美国在国际事务中的定位仍不明朗。一方面,总统想让美国再次伟大,因此一年前,因为化学武器的问题,他攻击了叙利亚,说美国必须负起领导角色。他很可能会再做一次,但是他也确实想从阿富汗和叙利亚撤兵。比如,他甚至说要退出北约组织,但是他毕竟还没有做,他还是听了别人的意见。关于北约你要做的是让它更强大,这样其它国家至少要使用GDP的2%在国防上,我们要让北约更强,不是更弱。他听从了别人的劝告没有从阿富汗撤军,驻军阿富汗对美国来说至关重要,所以我们现在还不知道,总统最终会如何定位美国在世界上的角色,他清楚的觉得我们国家负担太重,他在自由贸易上感到这一点,在安全问题上也感到这一点。我认为数以百万计的美国人同意他的观点,但是说我们的负担太重,并不意味着我们就完全放弃美国的国际义,他不是孤立主义者,我认为这一点很清楚,在很多情况中,比如在委内瑞拉和古巴问题上,他表现出了对民主和人权问题的坚持。”
“I would say that signals from the Trump administration,and we are more than ayear into the Trump administration,are not clear.On the one hand,the president wants to make America great again.So ayear ago,he does strike Syria on the chemical weapons question,saying America must take aleadership role.And he’s probably about to do it again.And,yet,he also wants to certainly withdraw American troops from Afghanistan,from Syria.For example,he even talked about NATO.But you know,he hasn’t done it.He was persuaded.No.What you want to do in NATO is make it stronger so that the other countries have to spend at least 2percent of GDP on defense.We want to make NATO stronger,not weaker.Afghanistan,he did not,in fact,bring the troops home because he was persuaded we have to stay there.It’s an important role for the United States.So Ithink we do not yet know where the president will end up as he makes all of these decisions about the American role.He clearly thinks we have borne too great aburden.He feels this on free trade.He feels this on security as well.And Ithink millions of Americans agree with him.But to say that we have borne too great aburden is not to suggest that no burden is worth bearing.He is not an isolationist.I think that’s become very clear.And in anumber of cases,Venezuela and Cuba are two examples,he has been interested in the question of democracy and human rights.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“让我们再回到叙利亚。关于叙利亚问题的决定会怎样影响美中贸易战?以及即将到来的川普-金正恩峰会?”
“Let’s go back to Syria.How will the decisions on Syria affect the U.S.-China trade war and the upcoming summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-Un?”
Elliott Abrams(中东研究部资深研究员/美国外交关系委员会):“我认为这些问题都是相互关联的,之所以如此,是因为这些问题都关系到美国的实力,和对美国实力这一概念的认识。也关系到川普与外国领导人之间力量的消长,包括莫斯科、北京、和德黑兰的领导人。比如,如果川普重击叙利亚,普京就会说,这个人已经准备好,有意志、有能力使用美国军事力量了,我得记着这点。我认为这甚至会对非军事议题产出影响,比如贸易关系,当习近平研究川普的时候,他会得到一个什么印象?他看见的是一个信守承诺、言出必行、敢于硬碰硬的人,还是一个没有意志力,更像欧巴马的人?我认为这个很重要,这是总统应该在叙利亚使用强力手段的另一个原因。”
“I think that all of these things are related.I think that all these things are related because they relate,in away,to American strength and to the perception of American strength and of Trump’s strength on the part of foreign leaders in Moscow,in Beijing,in Tehran as well.So,for example,if the president does avery powerful strike on Syria,I think Putin sits back and says,this guy is really ready,willing,and able to use American military power.I need to keep that in mind.I think that even affects nonmilitary things such as the trade relationship.Xi Jinping looks at Trump.What does he see?Does he see someone who keeps his promises,keeps his word,is willing to use force?Or someone who isn’t,who’s more Obama-like.I think it’s actually quite important.And that’s another reason why Ihope the president does quite aforceful move in Syria.”
萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):现在美国已经对叙利亚采取了军事行动,我们很快就将看到俄方会如何回应。这次行动向世界表明,美国不会容忍使用化学武器。另外,美朝峰会即将到来,这次行动也向中朝两国展示了美方维护世界和平的坚强决心。我们会持续关注整个事件的未来发展。今天的节目就到这里,我是萧茗,感谢收看。我们下周再见。
Host 5(Conclusion):Now that the US has taken action in Syria,we will soon see if there will be any response from Russia.The strikes sent aclear message to the rest of the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.With US-Korean talks coming up,how the US handles this conflict can reveal alot to China and North Korea.We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks.This concludes today’s program.Thanks for watching,I am Simone Gao,and we’ll see you again next week.

Producer:Simone Gao

Writer:Simone Gao,Jess Beatty

Editors:Julian Kuo,Melodie Von,Charles Wang

Narrator:Rich Crankshaw

Cameraman:Wei Wu

Transcription:Jess Beatty

Translation:Frank Yue,Michelle Wan,Greg Yang,Xiaofeng Zhang

Special Effects:Harrison Sun

Assistant producer:Bin Tang,Sherry Bhang,Merry Jiang


Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television