英國不應對國際事務漠不關心

Shortly after David Cameron’s arrival in Downing Street, an official observed that the UK prime minister showed slight interest in global affairs. In a phrase recalling the biting satire of the television sitcom Yes Minister, the aide continued that Mr Cameron was more inclined to see the world as “somewhere to go on holiday”.

在英國首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)入住唐寧街之後不久，一位官員評論稱，卡梅倫對全球事務興趣不大。這位助手接着說了一句令人想起幽默電視劇《是，大臣！》(Yes Minister)中的辛辣諷刺的話，他說，卡梅倫更傾向於將世界看作一個“度假的地方”。

At the time I thought this a touch unfair. In the British system it is rare for incoming prime ministers to know, or care, much about foreign affairs. Five years later it is evident that the principal markers of Mr Cameron’s foreign and defence policies have been drift and retreat. Some weeks ago he told his office to clear his diary of all “discretionary” travel. America’s Barack Obama and Germany’s Angela Merkel could be left to douse the fires raging in Ukraine and the Middle East. He had an election to fight. So his appearance at this week’s Brussels summit was only a brief break from the campaign.

當時我認爲這有點不公平。在英國體系下，新任首相很少有了解或關心外國事務的。五年過去，卡梅倫外交和防務政策上的主要特點很明顯是放任自流和向後撤退。數週前，他讓首相辦公室取消所有“隨意”旅行的行程。美國的巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)和德國的安格拉•默克爾(Angela Merkel)完全可以自己去撲滅烏克蘭和中東地區的“大火”。卡梅倫得應對選戰，因此他出現在上週的布魯塞爾峯會只是選舉活動中的短暫休息。

In retrospect, the signs were indeed there in the early days. The new government embarked on what was called a strategic defence review, promising to reshape the armed forces in the light of new threats and capabilities. The exercise was anything but strategic. The Treasury took control. Unsurprisingly given the size of the nation’s fiscal deficit, the result was a series of deep and haphazard spending cuts.

回過頭來看，這方面的確早有端倪。新政府當初啓動了所謂的戰略防務評估，承諾根據新的威脅和能力重塑軍力。這絕對和戰略無關。它由英國財政部掌控。考慮到英國財政赤字的規模，該評估的結果是一系列重大而隨意的減支也就不奇怪了。

Politically sensitive projects such as an order for two aircraft carriers and a commitment to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent survived the axe. Much else did not. The army is being cut by a fifth to 82,000 troops. Britain is now among a handful of island nations without any maritime surveillance aircraft. When Russian submarines prowl the waters near Trident’s base, Britain must beg aerial assistance from allies. It struggled to find a few ageing Tornado bombers to join the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

一些政治敏感項目逃過了被裁減的命運，比如兩艘航母的訂單以及更新三叉戟核威懾系統的承諾。其他許多項目則未能倖免。軍隊人數削減五分之一，至8.2萬人。英國現在是少數幾個沒有任何海上偵察機的島國之一。當俄羅斯潛艇在三叉戟基地附近海域潛行時，英國不得不請求盟友的空中支援。它勉強才找到幾架老化的“狂風”(Tornado)轟炸機來參加對“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(ISIS)的作戰。

The aircraft carriers are due in service from 2020 but the Ministry of Defence has yet to work out what to do with them. The problem is money. A carrier group can be a powerful statement of military prowess but the carrier needs the protection of destroyers and frigates as well as aircraft to sit on the deck. A typical US carrier operates with about 72 fixed-wing aircraft. The British ships are promised 12. The shortage of escorts may limit ocean-going deployments to three months. If the carrier were to set off for, say, the Pacific it would have to turn around almost as soon as it arrived.

英國的新航母將從2020年起服役，但英國國防部迄今仍未制定出相關計劃。問題出在資金方面。一個航母編隊可能展示出強大的軍力，但航母需要驅逐艦和護衛艦的保護，而且還要有艦載機。一艘普通的美國航母通常載有大約72架固定翼飛機。而英國的航母被許諾了12架。缺少護衛可能讓遠洋航行時間限制在3個月之內。比如說，如果航母的目的地是太平洋，那它差不多剛抵達那裏就不得不返航。

Mr Cameron has surrendered the security of the realm to the Treasury’s bean counters. A prisoner of fiscal fundamentalism, the Treasury wants five more years of austerity if the Conservatives are re-elected. The prime minister has thus reneged on a pledge that the 2010 defence cuts would be followed by modest increases from 2015. He has refused to renew a commitment to hold spending to a Nato target of 2 per cent of national income. Instead he wants to fiddle the figures by including spending on intelligence in the Nato calculation.

卡梅倫將國家安全拱手交給了財政部那幫精打細算的“數豆人”。如果保守黨再次當選，作爲財政原教旨主義的囚徒，英國財政部希望再過五年的緊縮日子。因此卡梅倫已經食言——他在2010年削減國防預算時曾承諾從2015年起將會小幅增加國防預算。他拒絕繼續承諾將國防開支佔國民收入的比例保持在北約(NATO)制定的2%的目標。相反，他希望將情報支出算作國防開支來糊弄這一目標。

A promise that the army will be spared further cuts has been emptied of meaning by the budgetary arithmetic. A report by the Royal United Services Institute, a respected think-tank, suggests that the army may soon be heading down towards 50,000, the smallest since Britain lost the American colonies during the 18th century. Little wonder the US administration thinks that Britain is becoming an unreliable partner.

此前承諾的不會對英國陸軍進一步裁軍，在預算數字面前也成空頭支票。根據受敬重的智庫英國皇家聯合軍種研究院(Royal United Services Institute)的報告，英國陸軍可能很快會削減至5萬人，縮小至自18世紀失去美洲殖民地以來的最小規模。難怪美國政府認爲英國正變成一個不可靠的夥伴。

Once or twice Mr Cameron has shown a taste for liberal interventionism — in Libya and in a thwarted attempt to back air strikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. He has had some tough things to say about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These are exceptions to prove the rule. His typical response to the present era of tumultuous geopolitical upheaval is insouciant indifference.

卡梅倫有過一兩次表現出他對自由干涉主義的偏好，比如在利比亞局勢上，以及在一個遭到否決的企圖上——卡梅倫曾欲支持對敘利亞巴沙爾•阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)政權的空中打擊。他對俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭也發表過一些犀利言論。這些反常行爲只是證明了一條定律——對於當今時代動盪的地緣政治劇變，他的典型反應是漠不關心。

Even before he promised a referendum that could see Britain quit the EU, Mr Cameron had stepped back from Europe. British policy had been always to keep a seat at the table, even when it chose not to join a particular enterprise. Now the government exults in leaving an empty chair. The prime minister says his preference is for Britain to remain in a “reformed” EU. He never answers the question as to why. As for the rising powers, China, India and the rest are viewed as markets or sources of investment rather than as potential allies or adversaries. The Foreign Office has been rebadged as a sales force for Britain PLC.

甚至在卡梅倫答應舉行可能導致英國退出歐盟(EU)的全民公決前，他就已經退出了歐洲。英國過去的一貫政策是保留一席之地，哪怕是它選擇不加入某個特定計劃時。而現在英國政府正洋洋得意地留下一個空椅子。英國首相表示他更願意讓英國留在一個“改革後”的歐盟裏，卻從不回答爲什麼要這麼說。而對於中國、印度等正在崛起的大國，卡梅倫將它們視作市場或投資來源，而不是潛在的盟友或對手。英國外交部已經改頭換面成了英國這一“商號”的銷售部門。

In some ways all this fits the temper of the times. Economic circumstances have been tough and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have damped public enthusiasm for expeditionary warfare. There is a mood abroad that says Britain has done its fair share.

在某些方面，這一切都順應了當今時代的脾性。經濟環境一直不太樂觀，伊拉克和阿富汗的連番戰火已降低了大衆對遠征作戰的熱情。國外有輿論表示英國已經做好了分內工作。

But why then is Mr Cameron building aircraft carriers and nuclear-armed submarines? Explicable as it may be the temptation to retreat collides with two central facts of geopolitics. The first is that world is a more dangerous and unpredictable place than it has been since the end of the cold war — think, most obviously, of the spread of jihadi terrorism from west Africa to south Asia and, closer to home, of the efforts of Mr Putin to upend the peace in Europe.

但是，那爲什麼卡梅倫還要造航母和核武器潛艇呢？後撤的誘惑雖然可以理解，但與地緣政治兩大核心事實相沖突。首先，現在這個世界比冷戰結束以來的任何其他時候都要危險和不可預測，最明顯的莫過於聖戰恐怖主義從西非一直蔓延到南亞，而且就在英國家門口，普京在努力不懈地顛覆歐洲和平。

Secondly, however much Mr Cameron hides under the bedcovers, Britain’s security and prosperity are inextricably tied to events elsewhere in the world. A nation that aspires to be a global hub cannot be indifferent to international disorder. If nothing else, it must contribute towards making the world safe for the prime minister’s holidays.

其次，無論卡梅倫在牀罩裏藏得多麼好，英國的安全和繁榮都與世界其他地區發生的事件密不可分。一個渴望成爲全球中樞的國家不能對混亂的國際秩序無動於衷。最起碼，它必須出力把世界變成一個安全的地方，好方便首相度假。