您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 国际 >> 正文

特朗普政府讨论对朝“预防性战争”方案

更新时间:2017-8-22 10:53:37 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Talk of ‘Preventive War’ Rises in White House Over North Korea
特朗普政府讨论对朝“预防性战争”方案

Not since 2002, as the United States built a case for war in Iraq, has there been so much debate inside the White House about the merits — and the enormous risks — of pre-emptive military action against an adversary nation.

自从美国2002年为在伊拉克打一场战争建立论据以来,白宫内部还没有过如此之多的、关于向对手发动先发制人军事行动的优点——以及巨大风险——的辩论。

Like its predecessors, the Trump administration is trying to pressure North Korea through sanctions to dismantle its nuclear program. But both President Trump and his national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, have talked openly about a last-resort option if diplomacy fails and the nuclear threat mounts: what General McMaster describes as “preventive war.”

与前几届政府一样,特朗普政府正在试图通过制裁向朝鲜施压,迫使其取消自己的核计划。但是,特朗普总统及其国家安全顾问H·R·麦克马斯特中将(Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster)都公开表示,如果外交手段失败、核威胁逐步增加的话,会考虑一种最后的选择,麦克马斯特称之为“预防性战争”。

Though the Pentagon has prepared options to pre-emptively strike North Korea’s nuclear and missile sites for more than a decade and the past four presidents declared that “all options are on the table,” the rote phrase barely seemed credible, given the potential for a North Korean counterstrike against Seoul, South Korea, that could result in tremendous casualties in a metropolitan area of 25 million people.

虽然五角大楼对先发制人地打击朝鲜核武器和导弹基地的选择已经准备了10年以上,而且以前的四位总统都宣称“所有选择都在考虑之中”,但鉴于朝鲜对韩国首尔的回击可能给这个有2500万人口的大都会地区带来巨大伤亡的潜在可能,这种老生常谈几乎听起来并不可信。

But as the Trump administration moves ahead on Monday with a new round of long-planned military exercises that involve tens of thousands of American and South Korean troops, computer simulations of escalating conflict and perhaps overflights of nuclear-capable aircraft, the White House is determined to leave the impression the military option is real.

但是,随着特朗普政府周一开启新一轮有数万名美韩部队参与的策划已久的军事演习、对冲突升级的计算机模拟,加上在具有核能力飞机的上空飞跃的可能,白宫决意要给人们的印象是,军事选择是真的。

“Are we preparing plans for a preventive war?” General McMaster asked recently in a television interview, defining the term as “a war that would prevent North Korea from threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon.”

“我们正在为预防性战争制定计划吗?”麦克马斯特最近在接受电视采访时自问道,他把“预防性战争”定义为“一场将会阻止朝鲜用核武器威胁美国的战争”。

He answered his own question: “The president’s been very clear about it. He said he’s not going to tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States.”

他自己回答了自己的问题:“总统在这点上一直很明确。他说,他不会容忍朝鲜威胁美国。”

Much of this could be posturing, designed to convince the North’s unpredictable dictator, Kim Jong-un, and Chinese leaders who are eager to preserve the status quo, that they are dealing with a different American president who is determined to “solve” the North Korean problem, as Mr. Trump puts it, rather than hope that sanctions will eventually take their toll.

这里面的大部分可能是在摆姿态,意在说服朝鲜变幻莫测的独裁者金正恩、以及渴望维持现状的中国领导人,他们需要对付一位不同的美国总统,一位决意要“解决”(用特朗普自己的话来说)朝鲜问题、而不是寄希望于制裁最终会奏效的美国总统。

But even if Mr. Trump has no real intention of using military force, convincing adversaries and allies that he is willing to make a move that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all considered too dangerous has significant value.

但是,即使特朗普没有真正动武的意图,说服对手和盟友他愿意采取比尔·克林顿、乔治·W·布什和巴拉克·奥巴马都认为风险太大的行动,这本身也有相当大的价值。

Whether Mr. Trump is truly prepared or bluffing, presidential advisers, military officials and experts whom the White House has consulted leave little doubt in conversations that the Trump administration is confronting North Korea’s nuclear program with a different set of assumptions than its three immediate predecessors.

无论特朗普是真做好了准备、还是在虚张声势,总统顾问、军事官员,以及白宫咨询过的专家们让人基本上不再怀疑,特朗普政府在用与前三届政府不同的一些假设来处理朝鲜问题。

There are two notable departures from past assumptions.

有两个明显偏离过去的假设的地方。

General McMaster, a military historian, insists that the United States cannot count on containing or deterring North Korea the way it deterred the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. That runs contrary to the conclusion of past senior policy makers that what worked against large nuclear powers will suffice against an economically broken nation with a modest arsenal.

身为军事史学家的麦克马斯特坚持认为,美国不能指望用冷战时期威慑苏联和中国的方法来遏制或威慑朝鲜。这与以前的高级决策者们的结论相左,那些人认为,针对核大国的有效方法,对经济残缺不全、核武库有限的小国来说足够了。

And General McMaster and other administration officials have challenged the long-held view that there is no real military solution to the North Korea problem — though they are quick to acknowledge that it would be “horrible,” as Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis put it.

麦克马斯特和其他政府官员也对一种长期观念提出了质疑,该观念认为,朝鲜问题没有实际存在的军事解决方案——尽管该观念的持有者随即会承认那个方案“非常恐怖”,用国防部长吉姆·马蒂斯(Jim Mattis)的话来说。

Already those two new assumptions have prompted a sharp reaction. President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, in an effort to calm his own public, insisted at a news conference last week that he holds a veto to any military action.

这两个新的假设已经引起了针锋相对的反应。韩国总统文在寅为保持本国公众平静作出努力,在上周的记者会上坚称,他对任何军事行动有否决权。

“No matter what options the United States and President Trump want to use, they have promised to have full consultation with South Korea and get our consent in advance,” he said. “The people can be assured that there will be no war.”

“无论美国和特朗普总统想采取何种选择,他们已经承诺会与韩国提前进行充分的磋商,并且取得我们的同意,”他说。“人们可以放心,不会发生战争。”

The North has also seized upon General McMaster’s line and declared on Sunday that as the military exercises begin, “the Korean People’s Army is keeping a high alert” and “will take resolute steps the moment even a slight sign of the preventive war is spotted.”

朝鲜也在使用麦克马斯特的语言,并在周日宣布,随着军事演习的开始,“朝鲜人民军正保持着高度警惕”,并“在即使只有预防性战争微弱迹象出现的那一刻,就将采取坚决步骤”。

Mr. Trump’s top national security officials seem to be trying to walk a fine line, stopping short of the kind of bald threats that the president has issued in tweets but making clear he is ready to wield a big stick.

特朗普的高级国家安全官员似乎试图在走钢丝,虽然他们不提总统在Twitter上发出的那种大胆威胁,但他们明确表示,总统对使用大棒做好了准备。

Among the skeptics of a pre-emptive strike was Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, who was fired on Friday. Just days before, he had declared in an interview with The American Prospect, a liberal magazine, that “there is no military solution here, they got us.”

对发动先发制人打击持怀疑态度的人包括特朗普的首席战略师斯蒂芬·K·班农(Stephen K. Bannon),他已于上周五被解雇。就在被解雇的几天前,班农在接受自由派杂志《美国展望》(The American Prospect)的采访时宣称,“这个问题没有军事解决方案,我们拿他们没办法。”

That is the conventional view. But General McMaster took issue with his predecessor in the Obama administration, Susan E. Rice, who argued in a recent Op-Ed in The New York Times that preventive war would be “lunacy.” (Preventive war describes a conflict that a stronger power starts to defeat a weaker rival and is widely considered illegal under international legal conventions. A pre-emptive strike involves attacking first when an imminent attack is detected. In American history, the debate over the two goes back 180 years, to an 1837 dust-up with Canada.)

那是传统观点。但是,麦克马斯特与自己在奥巴马政府的前任苏珊·E·赖斯(Susan E. Rice)持不同意见。赖斯最近在《纽约时报》发表的一篇观点文章中说,预防性战争将是“愚蠢行为”。(预防性战争指的是一场由一个更强大的国家发动、旨在打败一个较弱对手的冲突,这种做法在国际法公约下普遍被认为非法。先发制人的打击涉及的是在侦查到即将发生攻击时,首先采取行动。在美国历史上关于这两种做法的辩论可追溯到180年前,既1837年与加拿大发生的一场小摩擦。)

“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote.

“历史表明,如果我们必须那样做的话,我们能够容忍朝鲜的核武器,就像我们在冷战时期容忍了苏联数千枚核弹的更大威胁那样,”赖斯写道。

General McMaster, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” a few days later, shot back, “How does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea?”

几天后,麦克马斯特现身ABC的《本周》节目,他反唇相讥,“这怎么能用到像朝鲜那样的政权上呢?”

Mr. Kim is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Trump have argued. And they have raised the possibility that Mr. Kim’s real motive is blackmail, according to officials familiar with Situation Room discussions about the North. By threatening Los Angeles or Chicago, they argued, he may be hoping to intimidate the United States into providing aid, or cast doubt in South Korea and Japan that the United States would come to their aid if a regional war broke out.

金正恩比苏联更难预测,特朗普的助手争辩说。据对白宫战情室关于朝鲜问题的讨论知情的人士说,助手们提出了金正恩的真实动机是敲诈勒索的可能性。这些人认为,通过威胁洛杉矶或芝加哥,金正恩也许在期望能威胁美国让其为朝鲜提供援助,或者在韩国和日本制造怀疑,如果发生区域性战争的话,也许美国人不会来帮助他们。

White House and Pentagon strategists have internally talked about another scenario, in which an uprising in North Korea leads American, South Korean and Chinese forces into a scramble to find the weapons, or tempts a rogue North Korean military officer to let loose a single nuclear device to take out Americans or their allies in one last blast of retribution.

白宫和五角大楼的战略家也对另一种可能出现的情况进行过内部讨论,这种情况是朝鲜发生起义,导致美国、韩国和中国军队为找到朝鲜的核武器采取紧急行动,或诱使朝鲜一名流氓军官孤注一掷地发射一个核装置,对美国人或其盟友进行最后的一击或报复。

All these factors, American officials insist, lie behind the public talk about taking military action. And they expect diplomacy to fail, they say, doubting that Mr. Kim would ever give up the nuclear deterrent that he views as his only insurance policy. Pyongyang’s official newspaper declared anew on Friday that the country “will never put the nuclear deterrent for self-defense on the negotiating table and flinch even an inch from the road of bolstering up the state nuclear force.”

美国官员坚称,所有这些因素都在公开谈论采取军事行动之前考虑过。他们说,他们认为外交手段不会奏效,他们怀疑金正恩从来都不会放弃他认为是自己唯一保险政策的核威慑。平壤的官方报纸周五重申了该国“永远不会把用以自卫的核威慑放到谈判桌上去,在加强国家核武力的道路上不会有寸步退缩”的决心。

That leaves Mr. Trump facing the potential consequence of his own threats. If he lets Mr. Tillerson try to negotiate a freeze of nuclear and missile tests in North Korea, as many experts argue he should, he will have delayed the crisis, but not resolved it. If he orders more cyber and electronic attacks, he may delay progress on weapons, but little else. And yet the military options he has so openly threatened may prove hollow.

这就让特朗普面临自己威胁言论的潜在后果。如果他像许多专家认为应该做的那样,让国务卿蒂勒森试图就朝鲜冻结核试验和导弹试验展开谈判的话,他将推迟危机,但并未将其解决。如果他下令对朝鲜进行更多的网络和电子攻击的话,他可能会推迟武器计划的进展,但几乎不能解决任何其他问题。然而,他如此公开宣扬的军事威胁选择也许会被证明是空洞的。

“There is no such thing as a surgical strike against North Korea,” Bruce Bennett, a North Korea expert at the RAND Corporation, said in one of its recent publications. “We don’t really know for sure where all their weapons are.’’

“不存在对朝鲜进行外科手术式军事打击这种事儿,”兰德公司(RAND Corporation)的朝鲜问题专家布鲁斯·本内特(Bruce Bennett)在公司最近的一份出版物中这样写道。“我们对他们所有的武器在哪里并不真正了解。”

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表