西方干预能挽救叙利亚吗？

The calls for “something to be done about Syria are getting louder in the US and Europe – so loud that they may soon be heeded. The first step, which could come fairly quickly, would be to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons. The second, which is under active consideration, would be to establish a no-fly zone.

在美国和欧洲，要求对叙利亚采取措施的呼声愈来愈高——以至于它可能很快得到重视。第一步是向叙利亚反对派提供武器，这或许将在不久实现。第二步是设立禁飞区，该计划正在积极考虑中。

About 40,000 people have already died in a conflict that Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary-general, says is reaching “new and appalling levels of brutality. A few days ago, the Assad regime bombed a hospital in Aleppo, causing many deaths. Yet, before the west helps the rebels with weapons or air strikes, key questions remain to be answered. Above all, would intervention bring the conflict to an end? Or might it simply move the war into a new phase – in which the Americans and Europeans would now be directly involved?

叙利亚冲突已致4万人死亡，联合国秘书长潘基文(Ban Ki-Moon)称，冲突“已经上升到极其残酷的程度。数天前，阿萨德(Assad)政权炮击阿勒颇一家医院，导致多人死亡。然而，在西方为反政府武装提供武器和空中支援之前，仍需要回答几个重要问题。干预究竟能否让冲突结束？还是只是将战争推向新阶段，引发美国和欧洲直接参战？

This argument for caution is one that the anti-interventionists have made since the conflict started last year. But it is now gaining a less patient hearing. One senior EU diplomat says: “We have hung back for 18 months now and watched people die. That is long enough. In the US, one of the most articulate exponents of intervention is Anne-Marie Slaughter who, until last year, was head of policy planning at the state department. She wrote recently that by failing to intervene, the US is “betraying yet again what America claims to stand for and called for “decisive action to save tens of thousands of Syrian lives and possibly tip the balance of the conflict.

自从冲突去年爆发以来，反干预者便一直持这种谨慎观点。但如今，这种观点却得不到耐心的聆听。一位欧盟(EU)高级外交官说：“我们已经犹豫了18个月，目睹着人们死去。18个月够长了。安妮-玛丽·斯劳特(Anne-Marie Slaughter)是美国最积极的干预倡导者之一，直到去年她还在美国国务院主管政策规划。她最近写道，由于未能干预冲突，美国“再一次背叛了它的主张，并且呼吁“采取果断行动，拯救数万叙利亚人的生命，并在可能的情况下决定冲突的走向。

Alongside the humanitarian arguments, the interventionists also make a more pragmatic case. The rebels are making headway. The eventual fall of the Assad regime seems inevitable. But if the western powers have not provided armed assistance to the eventual victors, the west’s ability to shape post-conflict Syria could be much more limited. As one US official puts it: “We need some skin in the game.

与人道主义的看法相同，干预主义者的论点更加务实。反政府武装正在取得胜利，阿萨德政权的最终覆灭似乎已是板上钉钉，但如果西方国家不为最终的胜利者提供武装援助，西方对战后叙利亚的影响就会大大受限。正如一位美国官员所说：“我们需要有所投入。

The interventionists also make geopolitical arguments. The fall of the Assad regime would be a blow to Iran. Some Americans also fear that by hanging back, they are underlining the perception of declining US influence. How can it be, they ask, that tiny Qatar is having more impact on Syria than the world’s sole superpower?

干预主义者还提出了地缘政治的依据。阿萨德政权的覆灭将对伊朗造成打击。一些美国人还担心，如果在干预问题上犹豫不决，将强化人们对美国影响力式微的印象。他们责问道：弹丸小国卡塔尔对叙利亚的影响力何以能超过世界唯一的超级大国？

One answer to that question is that the Qataris are much less squeamish about funding the various jihadist groups that are fighting Bashar al-Assad. The interventionists counter that by holding back, the west is ensuring that it is precisely the jihadists who are gaining power within the coalition of opposition forces fighting in Syria. In a similar vein, the interventionists argue that all the other western nightmares – the fragmentation of the country and the ethnic cleansing of the Christian and Alawite communities – are becoming ever more likely, the longer the conflict drags on.

一个回答是：在资助抗击阿萨德的多个圣战组织方面，卡塔尔人的顾忌要少得多。干预主义者针锋相对地提出，西方的踌躇不前恰恰将导致圣战分子在叙利亚反政府联盟中的势力壮大。类似地，干预主义者认为，如果冲突拖得越久，西方担忧的其他后果——国家四分五裂，以及对基督教和阿拉维派群体的种族清洗——将更有可能发生。

James Dobbins of the Rand Corporation, a think-tank with close ties to the US military, says a no-fly zone would be a powerful blow against the Assad regime, which is relying increasingly on air power. He points out that, in recent years, America successfully imposed no-fly zones on Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq without losing a single aircraft. Mr Dobbins reckons the US could destroy 80 per cent of the Syrian air force on the ground in 24 hours – with most of the work being done by cruise missiles, drones and stealth aircraft.

与美国军方关系密切的智库兰德公司(Rand Corporation)的詹姆斯·多宾斯(James Dobbins)说，设立禁飞区将有力打击日益依赖空中力量的阿萨德政权。他指出，美国近年来已成功在波斯尼亚、科索沃、阿富汗、利比亚和伊拉克设立禁飞区，并且没有损失一架飞机。多宾斯估计，美国有能力在24小时内将80%的叙利亚空军力量摧毁于地面，大部分任务将由巡航导弹、无人机和隐形飞机完成。

The interventionists also believe the legal objections to military action can be circumvented. Any effort to get armed intervention authorised by the UN would run into Russian and Chinese vetoes. But if the Americans and Europeans were to recognise the Syrian opposition alliance, recently formed in Doha, as the legitimate government of the country, then they could legally provide it with military assistance, without the need for a UN resolution.

干预主义者还认为，军事行动的法律障碍是可以规避的。如果试图获得联合国(UN)对武装干预的授权，必将遭到俄罗斯和中国的否决，但如果美国和欧洲认可最近在多哈成立的叙利亚反对派联盟是叙利亚的合法政府，它们无需联合国决议便能向其提供军事支援。

All of these arguments continue to meet resistance. Lawyers worry about the precedent that would be set by recognising an armed opposition, that is not in control of a country’s territory, as the legitimate government. Military types warn that Syria’s air defences are based near urban areas. Hitting them would risk killing civilians – as well as, quite possibly, some of the more than 2,000 Russian advisers in the country. The risk that Russia might resupply the Assad regime through ships that the US would then feel compelled to intercept, is also discussed.

所有这些观点仍在遭遇阻力。律师担心，认可缺乏对领土控制的反政府武装，为一国合法政府，将开创不良的先例。军方警告，叙利亚的防空力量部署靠近城市地带，如进行打击将可能造成平民伤亡，并很有可能伤及俄罗斯派驻叙利亚的2000多名顾问。见诸议论的还有，俄罗斯可能向阿萨德政权提供补给，而美国届时将认为有必要拦截这些货运船只。

But the biggest argument against intervention remains that the consequences are incalculable. Even if western bombing did trigger the end of the Assad regime, nobody knows what combination of forces would come to power in Syria – or whether they would continue to battle it out for control of the country. The risk is that a western air campaign would not end the fighting in Syria, but simply change the direction of the conflict. To prevent that, the west might then feel compelled to send a large “stabilisation force into Syria. But any such talk immediately raises the spectres of Iraq and Afghanistan.

但反对干预的最重要观点是：干预的后果无法预料。即便西方轰垮了阿萨德政权，也没人知道哪些联合势力将上台执政，或者它们是否将继续互相征伐，夺取对国家的绝对控制权。风险在于，西方空袭可能无法终结叙利亚的战争，只是改变冲突走向而已。为避免这一点，西方可能将被迫向叙利亚派遣庞大的“维稳部队。但一谈到“维稳部队，伊拉克和阿富汗的幽灵便会立即浮现。

All these hesitations and objections anger the interventionists. “We’re already heading for a failed state, with parts of the country controlled by jihadist militias. What could be worse than that? demands one. interventionist. A US official replies: “Anybody who says that western intervention cannot make things worse in Syria simply lacks imagination. It is a telling response. But it may not carry the day forever.

所有这些犹豫和反对都让干预主义者感到愤怒。一位干预主义者质问道：“叙利亚已经面临崩溃，一部分已经被圣战民兵所控制。还有什么比这个更糟的吗？一位美国官员回答道：“任何人说西方干预不会恶化叙利亚局势，都只是缺乏想象力罢了。这个回答固然有力，但恐怕不会永远占据上风。