纽约时报社论: 从未结束的冷战

Jinan90

[外媒报道] 纽约时报社论: 从未结束的冷战

朱朱

http://118.192.3.66/thread-10868-1-1.html


【原文题目】The Never-Ending Cold War
【中文题目】从未结束的冷战
【来    源】http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/2 ... ng-cold-war.html?hp
【发表日期】2012年3月28日
【原文作者】纽约时报社论
【译       者】Howard
【校       对】Howard
【声       明】译文为原创，转载务必注明译者及出处“独家网dooo.cc”。
【摘      要】美国总统奥巴马和俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫在核安全峰会上的谈话泄露，引起了共和党候选人罗梅尼的指责和攻击，认为奥巴马是在向俄罗斯、伊朗屈服。本文主要谈及美俄两大国关系，解释奥巴马的政策，当然也不忘以西方固有的观点和立场指责一番本月刚重新当选俄总统的普京。
【译      文】
         

    冷战已经结束了二十年，Mitt Romney仍然将俄罗斯看做是美国的“世界头号政敌”。他的言论显示的不是令人震惊的对国际事务认识的贫乏，就是胆怯的政治学。无论哪一个，都是鲁莽的，而且不配成为一个主要总统竞选者。

    当Obama总统告诉俄罗斯总统Dmitri Medvedev ——在一次核安全峰会的会议上通过麦克风获取——选举后他将在导弹防御和其他武器问题上有更多的灵活性的时候，Romney先生迫不及待的发起猛攻。
.
    首先，就如同Romney先生的反应所表明的，这是一种对于现实的忠实看法。华盛顿的政治气候毒害之深，以至于目前在任何问题上的合作都几乎不可能了，Romney先生指责Obama先生，暗示选举后他将使导弹防御“塌陷”。在周二的外交政策杂志，Romney现实指责他在核武器削减问题上向俄罗斯和伊朗屈服。可这并非真实。
   
    两年前，Obama总统与俄罗斯签署了一项协定，实现了双方核武器问题上诚实的削减，而且他承诺努力寻求更多的削减。虽然Romney先生反对这项条约，但13位共和党参议员联合全部共和党人批准了它。自从Ronald Reagan之后的每位总统都尽力削减核武器库。我们简单地说不需要——也不能承担——手头上仍然有几千枚武器。

    说自己会在导弹防御问题上有更多的灵活性不意味着Obama先生将“屈服”。两年前，他做出了一个明智的战略决定，撕碎了前总统George W. Bush毫无把握的在波兰和捷克建立长距离导弹防御系统的计划。五角大楼正在布置一项野心更小——但是更可行的——包含拦截者和感应器的系统，首先是在船上，然后在陆地上。俄罗斯反对欧洲的系统，说这将使得他们的长距离导弹遭受危险。这并非美国的意图——真正的目标是伊朗——而Obama先生正在努力寻求找到一个折中的方法。

    至于伊朗，Obama总统和他的外交官们已经说服俄罗斯支持联合国安理会有限但是十分重要的制裁措施。他们还游走莫斯科——向德黑兰施加他们的比布什总统所实施的更强硬的制裁措施。俄罗斯在利比亚和阿富汗问题已经和美国取得了卓有成效的合作。

    俄罗斯是一个名声不好的选手。在12月，Vladimir Putin的政党尝试窃取议会选举；这月，他在重新当选为总统后面临国际观察员指责欺诈。他制裁反对者并限制民主，他对于叙利亚总统Bashar al-Assad的支持无知荒谬。

    但是俄罗斯不可能就这样悄然离去，接受指责，变成我们希望的那样。它需要挑战，用警惕和批判处理关系。政府将要表达关于窃取议会选举的担忧——对国务卿Hillary Rodham Clinton进行口头攻击——尽力在叙利亚问题上羞辱Kremlin。Obama先生也需要更坚定的支持俄罗斯，提醒Putin先生许多合作的阻碍都是他自己制造的。

    真正的威胁在于：基地组织和它的模仿者、伊朗、朝鲜、经济压力。Romney先生需要向美国人讨论国家真正面临的挑战和他的解决之道。




      

【原       文】
The Never-Ending Cold War


        
Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

Mr. Romney couldn’t wait to pounce when President Obama told President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia — in a conversation at a nuclear arms summit meeting picked up by a microphone — that he would have more flexibility on missile defense and other arms issues after the election.

First, this is an honest statement of fact, as Mr. Romney’s reaction clearly demonstrated. The political atmosphere in Washington is so poisonous that cooperation on any issue right now is near impossible. Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of signaling that, postelection, he would “cave” on missile defense. In Foreign Policy Magazine on Tuesday, Mr. Romney accused him of bowing to Russia on nuclear arms cuts and Iran. That is not true.

Two years ago, President Obama signed a treaty with Russia that makes modest cuts in each side’s nuclear weapons, and he has promised to pursue more reductions. Although Mr. Romney opposed the treaty, 13 Republican senators joined all the Democrats to ratify it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has reduced the nuclear arsenal significantly. We simply don’t need — and cannot afford — the thousands of weapons still on hand.

Saying he will have flexibility on missile defense doesn’t mean Mr. Obama will “cave.” Two years ago, he made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bush’s dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Pentagon is deploying a less-ambitious — but-more-feasible — system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land. Russia objects to a system in Europe, saying it will put their long-range missiles at risk. That is not America’s intent — the real target is Iran — and Mr. Obama is right to work to find a compromise.

As for Iran, President Obama and his diplomats have managed to persuade Russia to go along with limited but important sanctions at the United Nations Security Council. They also have rightly gone around Moscow — imposing their own sanctions on Tehran that are tougher than President Bush ever achieved. Russia has worked productively with the United States on Libya and Afghanistan.

Russia is an unsavory player. In December, Vladimir Putin’s party tried to steal a parliamentary election; this month, he faced fraud charges from international observers after his own re-election as president. He has cracked down on critics and restricted democracy. His support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is unconscionable.

But Russia can’t be wished away or denounced away. It has to be challenged and the relationship managed with vigilance and skepticism. The administration was right to express concerns about the stolen parliamentary election — drawing verbal attacks on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — and to try to publicly shame the Kremlin on Syria. Mr. Obama also needs to more firmly support democracy in Russia and remind Mr. Putin that many obstacles to cooperation are of his own making.

There are real threats out there: Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses. Mr. Romney owes Americans a discussion of the real challenges facing this country and his solutions to them.