人文与社会编辑小组译 http://wen.org.cn/
2011年1月27日半岛电视台称，“阿拉伯世界失火了，”此时，在这整个区域，西方力量“正在迅速失去影响力。”
这场浪潮的发源地是突尼斯，那里的一次戏剧性暴动赶跑了西方支持的独裁者，它在埃及的号召力尤其强大，那里的示威者们威慑了一个独裁者的残暴警察力量。
观察者们把这个事件与1989年俄罗斯政权更替相提并论，但两者间其实有重大差异。
一个关键问题是，在支持阿拉伯独裁者们的各种强大力量中，不存在一个戈尔巴乔夫。华盛顿和它的同盟奉行着一个源远流长的原则--民主只有在符合策略与经济追求时才是可行的：在敌人的领地，某种程度的民主一点没问题，不过在自家后院，那还是先让民主乖乖听话再说。
有一个把1989年与当下相比的例子更有效：当时在罗马尼亚，一直到美国与罗马尼亚的联盟崩溃前，美国都支持着东欧地区最凶残的独裁者齐奥赛斯库。两国闹翻后，华盛顿对推翻齐奥赛斯库表示庆祝，并把历史一笔勾销。
这是一个标准的模式：包括马科斯，杜瓦利埃，全斗焕，苏哈托和其他有用的黑道大哥们。穆巴拉克也许也要成为其中一员，同时美国也会照旧试图保证继承者不会偏离轨道太远。
目前看来希望被寄托在忠实于穆巴拉克的奥玛·苏莱曼（Omar Suleiman）将军,他刚成为埃及副总统。示威群众对这个有史以来在情报总局任职最久的局长的敌视几乎跟穆巴拉克差不多。
权威们有一个老生常谈的论调：在实际的层面上，对激进伊斯兰主义的防备需要对民主勉为其难的反对。虽然这说法不是一无可取，但这种表达方式是误导性的。普遍存在的威胁事实上是独立。在阿拉伯世界，美国及其联盟一直在支持激进伊斯兰分子，有时这样做是为了防止世俗民族主义的威胁。
沙特阿拉伯--激进伊斯兰主义意识形态（以及伊斯兰恐怖主义）的中心，是一个熟悉的例子。一个冗长名单中的另一例是巴基斯坦独裁者中最残忍的齐亚·哈克，他也是里根总统的最爱，用沙特阿拉伯提供的资金开展了一系列激进伊斯兰化运动。
“阿拉伯世界内外的一个传统论调是天下太平，万事皆在掌握之中，”前约旦官员、现任卡耐基基金会中东研究主任的马尔旺·姆阿舍说，“延续这种观点，渗透很深的力量辩称那些呼唤改革的对手和外部力量是在夸大事态。”
因此大众可以被忽略。这个教条历史悠久，普适整个世界，在美国领土也是这样。如果发生动乱，策略变动可能是必须的，不过总是需要保证控制力。
突尼斯的活跃民主运动针对一个“缺乏言论和集会自由、人权问题严重的警察国家”，统治者家族贪腐，为人民憎恶。这是维基泄密中一份2009年7月美国大使罗伯特·戈代克所发电报中的评价。
因此对有些观察者来说维基泄密的“文件应该让美国人民能舒心地感到官员们没有玩忽职守”--确实，那些电报支持美国政策的程度让人觉得好像奥巴马本人泄露了它们（雅各布·海尔布鲁恩在《国家利益》中这样说）。
《金融时报》的一篇报道标题为“美国应给阿桑吉颁发奖章”。首席外交政策分析人吉迪恩·拉赫曼写到：“美国的外交政策看来是有原则的、智慧的、实际的--美国在任何状况中采用的公开姿态通常和私下态度吻合。”
按这种观点，维基泄密削弱了“合谋论”的可信度，合谋论质疑的是华盛顿一贯宣布的高贵动机。
戈代克的电报也支持这些判断--如果我们不深究的话。假如深究，就像外交政策分析者斯蒂芬·祖恩斯在《聚焦外交政策》中的报道，我们会发现华盛顿得到戈代克的信息之后，向突尼斯提供了1千2百万美元军事援助。突尼斯恰恰是仅有的五个得到军事援金的国家之一：还有以色列（常规提供），两个中东独裁国家--埃及和约旦，加上哥伦比亚--全世界人权状况最糟糕、南半球接受美国军援最多的国家。
海尔布鲁恩的第一条证据是维基泄密电报中提到阿拉伯世界对美国的伊朗政策的支持。拉赫曼和很多媒体也用了这个例子，赞美这些鼓舞人心的发现。这些反应说明了在有教养的文化中，对民主的蔑视多么根深蒂固。
被忽略的是广大人民怎么想--这是很容易发现的。布鲁金斯八月公布的民调结果显示，有些阿拉伯人同意华盛顿和西方评论员的观点，认为伊朗是一个威胁：这些人数量为10%。相反，认为美国和以色列是主要威胁的：各为77%和88%。
阿拉伯人对美国政策的敌视之深已到了大部分（55%）认为如果伊朗有核武器地区安全能增强的地步。可是，“天下太平，万事皆在掌握之中”（马尔旺·姆阿舍就是这样描写这种盛行的幻想）。独裁者们支持我们。他们的臣民可以被忽略--除非他们挣脱了锁链，那时政策就不得不调整。
维基泄密的其他内容看来也支持对华盛顿之高贵的热情赞颂。2009年7月美国驻洪都拉斯大使雨果·罗伦斯通知华盛顿“对6月28日塞拉亚总统被迫离职的法律和宪法问题”的使馆调查结果。
使馆的结论是：“军队、最高法院、国会无疑在六月28日合谋进行了一次针对行政部门的不合法和违宪的政变。”非常令人敬佩的调查。不过奥巴马总统马上与南美和欧洲差不多全部国家逆道而行，支持政变政府，无视其后的暴行。
维基泄密中最了不得的发现也许是与巴基斯坦有关的那些文件，外交政策分析家弗雷德·布兰夫曼在Truthdig(时政网站)评论了相关内容。
电报显示美国使馆非常了解华盛顿在阿富汗和巴基斯坦的军事行动不但强化了泛滥的反美主义而且“有动摇巴基斯坦国家的危险”，甚至引发了最终噩梦的威胁：核武器有可能落入伊斯兰恐怖主义分子手中。
再说一遍，这些文件“应该让美国人民能舒心地感到官员们没有玩忽职守”（海尔布鲁恩语）--同时，华盛顿正坚定地向着灾难前进。
“The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported on January 27, while throughout the region, Western allies “are quickly losing their influence.”
The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a Western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police.
Observers compared the events to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences.
Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless it is properly tamed.
One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased.
That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo Hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure that a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path.
The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist Gen. Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.
A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the United States and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.
A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological center of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a program of radical Islamization (with Saudi funding).
“The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.”
Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalizes worldwide, to U.S. home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.
The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems,” ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.
Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch”—indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)
“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic—the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”
In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims.
Godec’s cable supports these judgments—at least if we look no further. If we do, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12 million in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most U.S. military aid in the hemisphere.
Heilbrunn’s Exhibit A is Arab support for U.S. policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.
Unmentioned is what the population thinks—easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent).
Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored—unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.
Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel `Mel’ Zelaya.”
The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch.” Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.
Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.
The cables reveal that the U.S. embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.
Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling—that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words)—while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.
请您支持独立网站发展，转载请注明文章链接：
- 文章地址: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/2370
- 引用通告: http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/trackback.php/2370
