【新唐人北京時間2018年04月17日訊】【世事關心】(466)襲擊敘利亞 美國外交政策發生了何種變化?


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(美國海軍陸戰隊指揮參謀學院教授):「俄羅斯其實急於避免與美國直接發生衝突。」
「the Russians are also anxious to avoid adirect confrontation with the United States.」
What exactly is Russia』s role in Syria?
ELLiott Abrams(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「在冷戰期間,敘利亞是前蘇聯在中東地區的唯一盟友,俄國人一直想維持和敘利亞的關係。」
「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(美國海軍陸戰隊指揮參謀學院教授):「當習近平研究川普的時候,他會得出一個什麼印象?他看見的是一個信守承諾,敢於使用力量的人,還是一個沒有意志力,更像歐巴馬的人?」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「大家好,歡迎觀看《世事關心》,我是蕭茗。本月早些時候敘利亞化武襲擊事件造成的後果令世界震驚。川普總統在那之前不久曾表示,他希望美軍盡快撤出敘利亞。世界在期待美國對化武襲擊事件的反應。4月13日,總統宣布美國、英國、和法國對阿薩德軍事目標進行聯合精確打擊。這能阻止阿薩德再次使用化學武器嗎?美俄關係已經非常緊張。而俄國正是敘利亞政府最大的支持者。俄羅斯會做出什麼回應?中國和朝鮮將從美國的危機處理中看到什麼?本期節目中,我們將關注這些問題。」
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(美國駐聯合國大使/United States Ambassador to the United Nations):「昨天的軍事行動清楚的表明:美國不會允許阿薩德政權繼續使用化學武器。昨晚我們夷平了它用來製造大規模殺傷性武器的主要研究設施。我今天早上和總統談過,他說如果敘利亞政權再次使用這種有毒氣體,美國將全力奉陪到底。我們的總統言必行,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(馬蒂斯/美國國防部長):「今晚法國、英國、和美國決定性的打擊了敘利亞的化學武器基礎設施。顯然阿薩德政權對我們去年發出的警告置若罔聞。這次,我們和盟友們發動了更強的襲擊。我們一起向阿薩德和他幫兇發出了一個明確的信息:如果他們再發起另一次化武襲擊,他們將罪責難逃。」
「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.」
海軍陸戰隊聯合參謀總監McKenzie說:「三個目標地點超出了俄方防空系統的有效射程,當時俄方防空系統並未工作。Kenneth F.McKenzie(美國海軍陸戰隊聯合參謀總監/中將)說:「沒有跡象表明俄羅斯部署了防空系統。」不過,週五的聯合導彈襲擊使得俄羅斯與西方之間的關係更加緊張。
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.
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):在發生對敘利亞的襲擊之前,我曾與美國海軍陸戰隊指揮參謀學院的Douglas E.Streusand教授進行了討論。他也是世界政治研究所的兼職教授,我們談到了俄羅斯的軍事能力和可能的反應。
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.)
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「俄國發誓說要攔截每一顆攻擊敘利亞的導彈。但是你認為俄方真會這麼做嗎?他們有能力攔截美國導彈嗎?」
「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(美國海軍陸戰隊指揮參謀學院教授):「先說後一個問題。他們確有能力攔截一些導彈。事實上,有報告顯示,敘利亞在前不久成功攔截了一些由以色列發射的導彈,當時以色列正在攻擊敘利亞境內的伊朗設施。但是美國有能力發動『飽和式攻擊』,即攻方發射的導彈數量超過守方的攔截能力。尤其當我們的盟國加入攻擊的時候,就更是如此。我們還有可觀的電子戰能力來突破對方防禦,只是我們不想無謂的展示實力。因為我們一旦打電子戰,我們的對手們,現實的或是潛在的,會立即學會我們的電子戰技術。沒必要讓對手瞭解我們的真正實力。但是我看到的最新情報表明,美國會盡量避免攻擊敘利亞境內的俄國設施,以防止俄國報復。另外,別看俄方前不久發表了措辭強硬的聲明,他們也害怕與美國直接對抗。」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「在最近的化學武器攻擊之前,川普總統曾表示一旦伊斯蘭國被打敗,他就會下令美軍撤出敘利亞。你認為這樣做行嗎?你認為美軍應該在什麼情況下從敘利亞撤軍?」
「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(美國海軍陸戰隊指揮參謀學院教授):「說到美軍進入敘利亞的目的,從一開始到現在,始終都沒有明確過,誰也說不清。只是打敗伊斯蘭國嗎?我更願意用阿拉伯文DAISH稱呼伊斯蘭國。還是有廣義上的目標?打敗伊斯蘭國後,或者說解放所有被佔各國領土後,還不是撤軍的時候,因為促成伊斯蘭國的各種條件仍然存在,除非整個大環境發生變化。我們在伊拉克曾經打敗過伊斯蘭國的前身基地組織,2011年我們撤出,2014年我們不得不重返。這一次我們不會再犯同樣的錯誤,必須嚴肅對待這個地區政治形勢的未來發展,我們要是徹底離開,我們會失去在當地所有的影響力,我們不想看見伊朗真的控制敘利亞。但是有報告說,伊朗人正在有步驟的拉攏敘利亞的什葉派民兵武裝,也就是把他們從阿薩德政權方面,拉攏到伊朗方面。所以不管我們喜不喜歡,伊朗是一個戰略對手。長遠來看,與所謂的伊斯蘭國相比,伊朗很可能會對地區穩定和美國利益構成更嚴重的威脅。」
「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.
俄羅斯軍事專家帕維爾.費爾根豪爾(Pavel Felgenhauer)去年估計,約2,000至3,000名俄羅斯僱傭兵在敘利亞作戰。雖然普京聲稱他不會派遣地面部隊,但他的確說過大約48,000名俄羅斯軍人參與了在敘利亞的軍事行動。
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?
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):為了瞭解俄國在敘利亞衝突中扮演的角色,稍早我採訪了Elliott Abrams先生。他是美國外交關係委員會中東研究部的資深研究員,他也是前總統George W.Bush的助理國家安全事務顧問,主管美國的中東政策。
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.
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「為什麼俄羅斯會介入敘利亞內戰?普京想在其中得到什麼?」
「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(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「敘利亞和俄國有幾十年的長期關係。可以追溯到哈菲茲.阿薩德時期,就是現總統巴沙爾.阿薩德的父親。在冷戰期間,敘利亞是前蘇聯在中東地區的唯一盟友,俄國人一直想維持和敘利亞的關係。特別是,他們想在敘利亞擁有一兩個軍事基地,他們一直想在地中海擁有一個海軍基地,現在敘利亞人已經給了他們海軍基地,他們還有一個小規模的空軍基地。所以普京要顯示他能恢復俄羅斯的國際影響力,他們現在在敘利亞有基地,普京在表明他是敘利亞朋友的忠實盟友。」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「你認為俄國會和美國在敘利亞直接衝突嗎?」
「Do you think Russia will have adirect confrontation with the US in Syria?」
Elliott Abrams(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「我不認為美俄兩國會為了敘利亞開戰。3月份的時候我以為會開戰,當時俄國武裝人員攻擊了一個敘利亞反對派武裝的據點,有很多美國人在那裡,這些武裝人員不是穿制服的俄國士兵,但是他們是俄國人,現在被叫做小綠人,意思是沒有制服的俄國士兵,他們攻擊了美軍基地,美軍殺死了大概200個俄國人,俄國人沒有任何反應,所以我認為俄國人並不想和美國對抗,不會有對抗。我認為美國的反應應該是轟炸敘利亞的軍事設施,但是行動的規模應該超過2017年4月那次攻擊。那次是作為對敘利亞使用化學武器的回應,那次攻擊沒起到作用,因為敘利亞這次又使用了化學武器。所以,明顯那次的懲罰力度不夠,他們之所以使用化學武器,是低估了國際社會的反應,只想著使用化武殺人、製造恐怖,我們要展示使用化學武器代價高昂。敘利亞人和其他人會發現,即使從非道德的實用主義政治的角度來看,成本也是太高了,還是別做了。所以在我看來,打擊那些直接使用了化武的軍事單位還不夠,要教訓阿薩德就得摧毀該政權的大部分戰爭機器。」
「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?
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):關注敘利亞衝突未來發展的還有兩位關鍵人物,中國領導人習近平和北韓領袖金正恩。他們如何看待川普總統在這場衝突中的表現?我們聽一聽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.
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「長期以來,美國一直在兩種外交政策哲學之間掙扎。一方面,在這個國家我們珍視自由和民主,認為這些價值應該影響我們的外交政策,也就是說我們有責任在世界保護或推廣這些價值。另一方面,很多人認為美國的外交政策應該圍繞美國的核心利益,我們不是世界警察,沒必要大把花錢、和在別人的土地上流血。你怎麼看這兩個觀點?」
「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(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「像你說的,這是個有關美國外交政策的重要問題。首先,我認為美國每次向外國派兵都是為了維護我們的核心利益。比如,我們出兵阿富汗並不是為了把阿富汗變成民主政體,我們出兵是因為塔利班政權在保護和藏匿基地組織,後者製造了911事件。布希任內我們入侵了伊拉克,因為美、英、法、和以色列的情報部門一致認為,薩達姆在開發核武器和非常規武器,如果情報部門說他沒有搞這些,我們絕不會出兵伊拉克搞民主化的。一旦我們佔領一個國家,像1945年我們佔領日本和德國,近期佔領伊拉克和阿富汗,我們都會本能的試圖建立民主政體。二戰結束時候很多人說,你們不瞭解日本,他們有天皇,他們文化不同。但是美國的觀點是,日本人有享受民主政體的權利,我們是對的,日本是偉大的民主政體。我還想說,在世界實現自由對美國是很重要的,為什麼美國1941年決定加入歐洲戰場?因為我們相信,納粹德國在征服歐洲,控制幾乎整個歐洲大陸之後,再入侵和征服英國,強化對這一地區的控制後,他們會成為對美國的直接軍事威脅。我認為促進世界的自由事業符合美國的利益,但那並不意味著我們每次都要出兵,那是另一個問題。如果你認為自由的成功是美國的利益的話,你就要問一個問題,好,那你要做什麼呢?我們做很多和入侵無關的事情,我給你的例子是里根對蘇聯的政策,他發動對蘇聯的意識形態戰役,他稱蘇聯為邪惡政權,他對蘇聯開展經濟戰役,他實施對蘇聯的代理人戰爭,比如在第三世界,在阿富汗對抗蘇聯入侵,但是我們並沒有和蘇聯發生直接戰爭。我認為有很多可以做的事情,我們可以支持民主團體、非政府組織、民間組織等。我們可以通過聯合國開展工作,不是做什麼事都得使用武力。但是我不喜歡消極的外交政策,比如,對越來越多的國家變成獨裁政權還是民主政體,無動於衷、不感興趣,說什麼沒有義務協助世界上的自由力量,我認為那會是一個美國的巨大錯誤。」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「雖然如此,但我們現在已經不是里根時代或是二戰後時代了。我認為全世界都在觀察美國接下來會做什麼。在這個世界上,美國如何定位自己?在歐巴馬政府時期,美國放棄了世界領袖的地位,在國際事務中表現的消極被動。在這方面,川普政府會有什麼不同?」
「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(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「我想說川普政府上任一年多之後,美國在國際事務中的定位仍不明朗。一方面,總統想讓美國再次偉大,因此一年前,因為化學武器的問題,他攻擊了敘利亞,說美國必須負起領導角色。他很可能會再做一次,但是他也確實想從阿富汗和敘利亞撤兵。比如,他甚至說要退出北約組織,但是他畢竟還沒有做,他還是聽了別人的意見。關於北約你要做的是讓它更強大,這樣其它國家至少要使用GDP的2%在國防上,我們要讓北約更強,不是更弱。他聽從了別人的勸告沒有從阿富汗撤軍,駐軍阿富汗對美國來說至關重要,所以我們現在還不知道,總統最終會如何定位美國在世界上的角色,他清楚的覺得我們國家負擔太重,他在自由貿易上感到這一點,在安全問題上也感到這一點。我認為數以百萬計的美國人同意他的觀點,但是說我們的負擔太重,並不意味著我們就完全放棄美國的國際義,他不是孤立主義者,我認為這一點很清楚,在很多情況中,比如在委內瑞拉和古巴問題上,他表現出了對民主和人權問題的堅持。」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「讓我們再回到敘利亞。關於敘利亞問題的決定會怎樣影響美中貿易戰?以及即將到來的川普-金正恩峰會?」
「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(中東研究部資深研究員/美國外交關係委員會):「我認為這些問題都是相互關聯的,之所以如此,是因為這些問題都關係到美國的實力,和對美國實力這一概念的認識。也關係到川普與外國領導人之間力量的消長,包括莫斯科、北京、和德黑蘭的領導人。比如,如果川普重擊敘利亞,普京就會說,這個人已經準備好,有意志、有能力使用美國軍事力量了,我得記著這點。我認為這甚至會對非軍事議題產出影響,比如貿易關係,當習近平研究川普的時候,他會得到一個什麼印象?他看見的是一個信守承諾、言出必行、敢於硬碰硬的人,還是一個沒有意志力,更像歐巴馬的人?我認為這個很重要,這是總統應該在敘利亞使用強力手段的另一個原因。」
「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.」
蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):現在美國已經對敘利亞採取了軍事行動,我們很快就將看到俄方會如何回應。這次行動向世界表明,美國不會容忍使用化學武器。另外,美朝峰會即將到來,這次行動也向中朝兩國展示了美方維護世界和平的堅強決心。我們會持續關注整個事件的未來發展。今天的節目就到這裡,我是蕭茗,感謝收看。我們下週再見。
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