喬姆斯基：“阿拉伯世界失火了”--論埃及危機

喬姆斯基：“阿拉伯世界失火了”--論埃及危機
作者：喬姆斯基
文章發于：wen.org.cn
更新時間：2011-2-12

喬姆斯基：“阿拉伯世界失火了”--論埃及危機

提交者: 人文與社會
日期: 2011/02/09

來源:NYT2011.1.19

摘要:喬姆斯基認爲，埃及事件與1989年的俄羅斯有重大差異。華盛頓和它的同盟奉行着一個源遠流長的原則--民主隻有在符合策略與經濟追求時才是可行的：在敵人的領地，某種程度的民主一點沒問題，不過在自家後院，那還是先讓民主乖乖聽話再說。

人文與社會編輯小組譯 http://wen.org.cn/

2011年1月27日半島電視台稱，“阿拉伯世界失火了，”此時，在這整個區域，西方力量“正在迅速失去影響力。”

這場浪潮的發源地是突尼斯，那裏的一次戲劇性暴動趕跑了西方支持的獨裁者，它在埃及的号召力尤其強大，那裏的示威者們威懾了一個獨裁者的殘暴警察力量。

觀察者們把這個事件與1989年俄羅斯政權更替相提并論，但兩者間其實有重大差異。

一個關鍵問題是，在支持阿拉伯獨裁者們的各種強大力量中，不存在一個戈爾巴喬夫。華盛頓和它的同盟奉行着一個源遠流長的原則--民主隻有在符合策略與經濟追求時才是可行的：在敵人的領地，某種程度的民主一點沒問題，不過在自家後院，那還是先讓民主乖乖聽話再說。

有一個把1989年與當下相比的例子更有效：當時在羅馬尼亞，一直到美國與羅馬尼亞的聯盟崩潰前，美國都支持着東歐地區最兇殘的獨裁者齊奧賽斯庫。兩國鬧翻後，華盛頓對推翻齊奧賽斯庫表示慶祝，并把曆史一筆勾銷。

這是一個标準的模式：包括馬科斯，杜瓦利埃，全鬥煥，蘇哈托和其他有用的黑道大哥們。穆巴拉克也許也要成爲其中一員，同時美國也會照舊試圖保證繼承者不會偏離軌道太遠。

目前看來希望被寄托在忠實于穆巴拉克的奧瑪·蘇萊曼（Omar Suleiman）将軍,他剛成爲埃及副總統。示威群衆對這個有史以來在情報總局任職最久的局長的敵視幾乎跟穆巴拉克差不多。

權威們有一個老生常談的論調：在實際的層面上，對激進伊斯蘭主義的防備需要對民主勉爲其難的反對。雖然這說法不是一無可取，但這種表達方式是誤導性的。普遍存在的威脅事實上是獨立。在阿拉伯世界，美國及其聯盟一直在支持激進伊斯蘭分子，有時這樣做是爲了防止世俗民族主義的威脅。

沙特阿拉伯--激進伊斯蘭主義意識形态（以及伊斯蘭恐怖主義）的中心，是一個熟悉的例子。一個冗長名單中的另一例是巴基斯坦獨裁者中最殘忍的齊亞·哈克，他也是裏根總統的最愛，用沙特阿拉伯提供的資金開展了一系列激進伊斯蘭化運動。

“阿拉伯世界内外的一個傳統論調是天下太平，萬事皆在掌握之中，”前約旦官員、現任卡耐基基金會中東研究主任的馬爾旺·姆阿舍說，“延續這種觀點，滲透很深的力量辯稱那些呼喚改革的對手和外部力量是在誇大事态。”

因此大衆可以被忽略。這個教條曆史悠久，普适整個世界，在美國領土也是這樣。如果發生動亂，策略變動可能是必須的，不過總是需要保證控制力。

突尼斯的活躍民主運動針對一個“缺乏言論和集會自由、人權問題嚴重的警察國家”，統治者家族貪腐，爲人民憎惡。這是維基洩密中一份2009年7月美國大使羅伯特·戈代克所發電報中的評價。

因此對有些觀察者來說維基洩密的“文件應該讓美國人民能舒心地感到官員們沒有玩忽職守”--确實，那些電報支持美國政策的程度讓人覺得好像奧巴馬本人洩露了它們（雅各布·海爾布魯恩在《國家利益》中這樣說）。

《金融時報》的一篇報道标題爲“美國應給阿桑吉頒發獎章”。首席外交政策分析人吉迪恩·拉赫曼寫到：“美國的外交政策看來是有原則的、智慧的、實際的--美國在任何狀況中采用的公開姿态通常和私下态度吻合。”

按這種觀點，維基洩密削弱了“合謀論”的可信度，合謀論質疑的是華盛頓一貫宣布的高貴動機。

戈代克的電報也支持這些判斷--如果我們不深究的話。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》中的報道，我們會發現華盛頓得到戈代克的信息之後，向突尼斯提供了1千2百萬美元軍事援助。突尼斯恰恰是僅有的五個得到軍事援金的國家之一：還有以色列（常規提供），兩個中東獨裁國家--埃及和約旦，加上哥倫比亞--全世界人權狀況最糟糕、南半球接受美國軍援最多的國家。

海爾布魯恩的第一條證據是維基洩密電報中提到阿拉伯世界對美國的伊朗政策的支持。拉赫曼和很多媒體也用了這個例子，贊美這些鼓舞人心的發現。這些反應說明了在有教養的文化中，對民主的蔑視多麽根深蒂固。

被忽略的是廣大人民怎麽想--這是很容易發現的。布魯金斯八月公布的民調結果顯示，有些阿拉伯人同意華盛頓和西方評論員的觀點，認爲伊朗是一個威脅：這些人數量爲10%。相反，認爲美國和以色列是主要威脅的：各爲77%和88%。

阿拉伯人對美國政策的敵視之深已到了大部分（55%）認爲如果伊朗有核武器地區安全能增強的地步。可是，“天下太平，萬事皆在掌握之中”（馬爾旺·姆阿舍就是這樣描寫這種盛行的幻想）。獨裁者們支持我們。他們的臣民可以被忽略--除非他們掙脫了鎖鏈，那時政策就不得不調整。

維基洩密的其他内容看來也支持對華盛頓之高貴的熱情贊頌。2009年7月美國駐洪都拉斯大使雨果·羅倫斯通知華盛頓“對6月28日塞拉亞總統被迫離職的法律和憲法問題”的使館調查結果。

使館的結論是：“軍隊、最高法院、國會無疑在六月28日合謀進行了一次針對行政部門的不合法和違憲的政變。”非常令人敬佩的調查。不過奧巴馬總統馬上與南美和歐洲差不多全部國家逆道而行，支持政變政府，無視其後的暴行。

維基洩密中最了不得的發現也許是與巴基斯坦有關的那些文件，外交政策分析家弗雷德·布蘭夫曼在Truthdig(時政網站)評論了相關内容。

電報顯示美國使館非常了解華盛頓在阿富汗和巴基斯坦的軍事行動不但強化了泛濫的反美主義而且“有動搖巴基斯坦國家的危險”，甚至引發了最終噩夢的威脅：核武器有可能落入伊斯蘭恐怖主義分子手中。

再說一遍，這些文件“應該讓美國人民能舒心地感到官員們沒有玩忽職守”（海爾布魯恩語）--同時，華盛頓正堅定地向着災難前進。

“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.

資料來源：http://wen.org.cn/modules/article/view.article.php/2370
http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class20/201102/214436.html

白宮：埃及動蕩讓伊朗政府「懼怕」

伊朗宗教領袖讚揚埃及起義 (+霍梅尼的預言)

阿爾及利亞親民主派團體呼籲抗議

分析：穆巴拉克下台對中東局勢影響

福特、卡內基和洛克菲勒籌算伊朗

沙特能擋住革命風嗎？