推翻薩達姆並非伊拉克亂局本源

For the avoidance of doubt, of course the Iraq of 2014 bears, in part, the imprint of the removal of Saddam Hussein 11 years ago. To say otherwise, as a recent editorial in this newspaper implies that I do, would be absurd.

首先要聲明，2014年的伊拉克當然帶有11年前推翻薩達姆•侯賽因(Saddam Hussein)所留下的印記。否認這一點是荒謬的，雖然《金融時報》最近一篇社論就暗指我否定這種觀點。

However, there are two important points that must also be recognised.

不過，人們也必須抓住兩個重點。

We cannot ignore the fact that Isis, the jihadist group advancing across Iraq, rebuilt itself and organised the Iraq operation from the chaos in Syria. Isis and other al-Qaeda-type groups in Iraq were flat on their back four years ago, having been comprehensively beaten by a combination of US and UK forces and Sunni tribes. The civil war in Syria allowed them to get back on their feet. So the first point is that non-intervention is also a decision with consequences. In the case of Syria those consequences have been dire, and as security chiefs in the UK and Europe are warning, they pose a real threat to our security.

我們不能忽視一個事實，正在伊拉克攻城掠地的聖戰組織“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”（Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant，簡稱Isis）是借敘利亞騷亂東山再起，組織起伊拉克作戰行動的。4年前，英美部隊和遜尼派部落合力將Isis及伊拉克境內其他基地式組織全面擊潰。這些勢力本已倒下，敘利亞內戰又讓他們站了起來。因此第一個重點是，不干涉政策也會帶來種種後果。就敘利亞衝突而言，這些後果是可怕的，而且正如英國和歐洲安全部門的負責人們所警告的，它們對我們的安全構成切實威脅。

Second, no analysis of the Middle East today makes sense unless we examine the impact of the Arab revolutions overturning the old regimes. It is odd to argue that revolution would not have come to Iraq. And surely Saddam Hussein’s response would have been more like that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, than that of Hosni Mubarak. Whatever decision had been taken in 2003, in 2014 we would be facing a major challenge.

第二個重點是，只有仔細研究顛覆了舊政權的阿拉伯革命所帶來的影響，分析當今中東局勢纔有意義。認爲革命不會在伊拉克發生是匪夷所思的。而且薩達姆•侯賽因的反應肯定更像敘利亞總統巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)，而不是胡斯尼•穆巴拉克(Hosni Mubarak)。不管我們在2003年作過什麼決策，2014年我們都會面對一個重大挑戰。

There is a tendency to write of the Saddam Hussein time in Iraq as if he were a force for stability and peace. Just to remind ourselves: he began the Iraq-Iran war in which there were more than 1m casualties, many dying from chemical weapons, something which then played a part in pushing Iran towards its nuclear programme; he invaded Kuwait; he used chemical weapons in a genocidal attack against the Kurds; he excluded the Shia majority; and he persecuted the Marsh Arabs. The region’s problems are the result of deep-seated issues that, with the removal of those regimes, have now come to the surface.

現在出現了一種傾向，在寫到薩達姆•侯賽因時代的伊拉克時，作者們將他描述得好像是維持穩定與和平的一股力量。我只想提醒大家：是他發動了兩伊戰爭，這場戰爭導致上百萬人傷亡，許多人死於化學武器，這是促使伊朗發展核計劃的起因之一；他入侵了科威特；他在對庫爾德人發動的種族清洗中使用化學武器，他鎮壓人口占多數的什葉派；他還迫害“沼澤阿拉伯人”(Marsh Arabs)。當今中東局勢是一些深層問題導致的，隨着舊政權被推翻，所有問題也浮上水面。

That is the point I am making. I am not seeking to persuade people about the decision in 2003. I am trying to convince them that the fundamental challenge is not the product of that decision or indeed the decision in Syria. It is a challenge of immense complexity that has not originated in anything we have done since this challenge burst fully on to our consciousness after the attacks of September 11 2001. Its origin lies in the toxic mix of bad politics and bad religion that is not confined to Iraq or Syria but is spread across not just the Middle East but also the world.

這就是我想表達的觀點。我不是在說服人們支持我們在2003年作出的決策。我是在努力讓大家明白，當前的根本挑戰並不是當時的決策所引發的，甚至也不是後來對敘利亞的決策所引發的。這是一個帶有巨大複雜性的挑戰，2001年9月11日襲擊事件發生後我們充分意識到了這一挑戰的存在，它的產生絕不是因爲我們在這一事件後所採取的任何措施。其源頭是糟糕的政治與糟糕的宗教所構成的有毒混合體，這一混合體並不侷限於伊拉克或敘利亞，它不但蔓延到中東，還會擴散到全世界。

The reason we got into such difficulty in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, was precisely because once the dictatorship was removed, extremist Islamist forces then made progress extraordinarily difficult. That is their hideous impact the world over. The fundamental challenge today arises not from the decisions of 2003 or those of 2014. It is the challenge of Islamist extremism and it is global.

我們之所以在伊拉克遇到這樣的困難，就像在阿富汗一樣，正是因爲一旦獨裁政府被推翻，伊斯蘭極端勢力就會跳出來，讓局面變得異常棘手，難以取得進展。這是他們對全世界的可怕影響。今日的根本挑戰並不源於2003年的決策或2014年的決策。這是伊斯蘭極端主義的挑戰，而且是全球性的。

It is a challenge we cannot avoid. Its outcome will dramatically affect our own security. We may be war weary and want to disengage but the people we are fighting do not share that weariness. Leave aside Iraq or Syria; look at Pakistan today. It has powerful institutions; it has a functioning democracy. Yet be in no doubt, the struggle it is waging is existential. Nigeria was two decades ago a model of religious tolerance. Today it is on the rack of extremism. Even in western societies, there are tensions that are real and dangerous.

我們無法逃避這一挑戰。其後果將大大影響我們的安全。我們或許厭倦了戰爭，想要從中脫離，但我們的鬥爭對手沒感到疲倦。且不談伊拉克或敘利亞，看看今日的巴基斯坦。它擁有強大的機構，民主體制也運行良好。然而毫無疑問，它仍在進行關乎生死存亡的鬥爭。20年前尼日利亞曾是宗教寬容的典範，如今它卻深受極端主義的危害。即使在西方社會，這種緊張也真實存在，且十分危險。

The bad news is that this issue is not going away. That is why I am speaking about it. Since leaving office I have spent a large part of my time studying it and through my foundation trying to counter it.

壞消息是這一問題不會消失。這也是我談論此事的原因。自從離任後，我大部分時間都在研究這一問題，並通過我的基金會努力化解這一問題。

Short term, we have to do what we can to rescue the situation in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, without inclusive government this will be hard to do. The US is right in demanding political change as the price of its engagement. In Syria, an outright win for either side is no longer sensible; the majority of Syrians just want the torment to end.

短期來看，我們必須盡一切努力挽回伊拉克和敘利亞的局勢。在伊拉克，不建立一個包容的政府將很難達成此目的。作爲介入的條件，美國要求伊方推行政治變革是正確的。而在敘利亞，任意一方都不太可能獲得絕對勝利；絕大部分敘利亞人只想結束苦難歷程。

Long term, we have to have the right mixture of soft and hard power responses, which fights this extremism wherever it is conducting its terror campaigns. We must deal with the root cause of the problem which lies in the formal and informal systems that educate young people in a closed-minded approach to religion and culture.

長期來看，我們必須恰當地結合運用軟實力與硬實力，無論極端勢力在何地展開恐怖活動，都要與之鬥爭。我們必須從根源入手解決問題，而問題的根源就在於那些培養年輕人形成保守的宗教和文化觀念的正規與非正規體制。

The good news is that this extremism does not represent the majority of Muslims. As the recent elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan show, where despite threats, violence and terror, people came out to vote in their millions. These people want to be free: free of dictators and free of terror. We should help them. It is in our interests that they succeed.

好消息是這種極端主義並不代表絕大多數穆斯林。從伊拉克與阿富汗最近舉行的選舉即可看出，雖然面對威脅、暴力和恐怖，還是有數百萬人來投票。這些人想要自由，他們想擺脫獨裁者，擺脫恐怖。我們應該幫助他們。他們的成功符合我們的利益。