In this context, the army, seeking to avoid sole responsibility for reverses, wants a popular government to take charge of policy.	在这种背景下，寻求避免成为唯一承担倒退责任的军队，想要一个受欢迎的政府来对政策负责。


No such government can emerge if the elected parties are unseated.	如果当选的政党被迫下台，那么，就不会出现这样的政府。


Nevertheless, there are signs of disagreement on important matters between the government and the army.	然而，有迹象表明在政府和军队之间在一些重大问题上存在分歧。


The military recently blocked a government move to place Pakistan’s infamous intelligence service, the ISI, under the control of the interior minister rather than the prime minister.	军队最近阻止了政府将巴基斯坦声名狼藉的情报机构ISI置于内政部长而不是总理控制之下的动议。


Musharraf backed the military’s opposition to this reform, gaining some gratitude from military commanders.	穆沙拉夫对军队反对这一改革给予支持，从而为他从军队指挥官那里获得了一些感激之情。


During Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s recent visit to the US, President Bush repeatedly said that his administration supports Pakistan’s democracy, a policy since reiterated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.	在最近总理吉拉尼（Yousaf Raza Gilani）对美国的访问中，布什总统再三强调他的政府支持巴基斯坦的民主是从国务卿赖斯重申以来的政策。


This indicates that the US will not back Musharraf in any confrontation between him and Pakistan’s democratic forces.	这表明在任何穆沙拉夫和巴基斯坦的民主力量的对抗中，美国都不会支持他。


Most Pakistanis hope so.	绝大多数巴基斯坦人也希望如此。


Musharraf must assess what will be his legacy.	穆沙拉夫必须评估他的遗产是什么。


Rather than trying to face down impeachment and prolonging the crisis, he should recognize that Pakistan cannot afford more instability, and that giving up honorably will bring him some respect.	他应该认识到巴基斯坦再也承受不了更多的不稳定，体面地放弃会给他带来更多的尊敬，而不是对抗弹劾并延长危机。


For the sake of argument, even if Musharraf faces impeachment and by some stroke of luck is saved from being thrown out of office, his future will be bleak.	为了论证起见，即使穆沙拉夫对抗弹劾，并由于运气没有被赶下台，他的前景也很黯淡。


In March 2009, the current ruling coalition will gain more seats in the Senate, and the government would almost certainly try to impeach him again.	在2009年3月，当前的执政联盟将会在议会中获得更多席位，政府几乎肯定会再次弹劾他。


Moreover, any attempt by Musharraf to dislodge the government by using his constitutional authority would trigger another election, the results of which would not be much different from the vote in February.	. 而且，穆沙拉夫通过使用他的宪法权力来驱逐政府的任何企图都会导致另一次选举，而选举的结果和二月份的投票结果���会有很大的不同。


It is time for Musharraf’s friends in the West to press him to serve his country one last time, by avoiding confrontation with his country’s democratic forces and calling it quits.	现在是穆沙拉夫在西方的朋友通过迫使他避免与自己国家的民主力量对抗并要求其辞职，最后一次为他的祖国服务的时候了。


The Case for Better Government	更好的政府


LONDON – A recent survey by the World Economic Forum’s Network of Global Agenda Councils rated government lower than either business or media in its ability to respond to global challenges.	伦敦——世界经济论坛全球议程理事会网络最近发布的调查给全球政府挑战响应力的打分低于媒体和企业。


On one level, this is understandable, given the plethora of challenges that governments face and the lack of long-term solutions to many problems that demand one.	一方面这种情况可以理解，因为政府需要解决的挑战太多，而且其中很多找不到长期的解决办法。


But, on another level, the attempt to rate government alongside business and the media is fundamentally misguided: no sector operates at the scale of responsibility, accountability, and expectation that governments do.	但另一方面将政府与媒体企业相提并论从本质上是一种误导：任何部门承担的责任义务和肩负的期待都比不上政府。


Business decides for itself where to invest and grow.	企业自主决策在哪里投资和发展。


Media indulge themselves in a fast-moving news cycle.	媒体则投身于快速变化的新闻之中。


Government enjoys neither luxury.	这两点政府都做不到。


It cannot simply pack up and move on when it faces a loss or is bored with a story.	它在亏损或厌倦时不能简单地打包走掉。


Government must stay put – and must often clean up the messes left behind by those who do not.	政府必须留在原地——而且常常要收拾别人留下的烂摊子。


On a good day, it may even get to make improvements.	如果运气够好，它甚至可以做些改善工作。


The problem for governments, more often than not, is that in attempting to respond to and reconcile often conflicting individual, family, and national needs, their ability to deliver results efficiently and effectively has declined.	政府的问题往往是因为调和矛盾的个体、家庭和国家需求而导致效率下降。


As a result, trust in government has plummeted.	对政府的信任也因此一落千丈。


Just before the WEF’s Summit on the Global Agenda in Abu Dhabi last month, I spent a week in India.	就在上月阿布扎比世界经济论坛全球议程峰会召开前，我在印度待了一个礼拜。


Most of the people with whom I spoke complained endlessly about government shortcomings.	多数和我交谈的人都没完没了地抱怨政府的不足之处。


Government at both the federal and state levels was invariably regarded as slow, indecisive, corrupt, unimaginative, and shortsighted – in general, worthless.	人们无一例外地认为联邦和州政府反应迟缓、优柔寡断、腐败、缺乏想象力、缺乏远见——总之可以说一无是处。


It is easy for business to want government just to get out of the way, and for the media to point fingers and sensationalize events without much depth of analysis – or even, sometimes, grasp of reality.	企业往往想摆脱政府，媒体也往往不深入分析——有时甚至不了解情况就指手画脚、大肆炒作。


True, India may not be the best advertisement for democracy in some respects, given how hard it often seems there to make long-term decisions and implement them without being buffeted – and frequently derailed – by volatile public opinion and hard-nosed vested interests.	诚然，鉴于在长期决策执行过程中经常遭到反复无常的舆论和顽固既得利益群体的打压和破坏，印度在诸多方面或许算不上民主的最好代表。


But the alternative – rule not by law but by dictatorship – is a far nastier prospect.	但独裁而非法制的前景显然更加不妙。


And there are not many problems in India’s governance that state funding of politics could not solve.	解决印度执政的许多问题都可以依靠国家投资政治。


After all, when serving a vast democracy requires non-stop electioneering, and politicians are thus dependent on financial donations, governance is bound to go awry.	毕竟，大规模民主政治需要不停竞选，如果政治家因此而依赖捐款，那么执政势必会出差错。


Governments’ ability to respond to global challenges is a more general problem.	更普遍的问题是政府应对全球挑战的能力。


Globalization – the breaking down of national boundaries and the integration of economies across continents – has resulted in burgeoning demands on governments at the same time that their ability to provide answers has been reduced.	全球化（打破国界和各大洲经济一体化）导致在政府解决问题能力下降的同时政府服务需求快速增长。


In other words, demand for government is exceeding supply.	换言之，政府服务的供给无法满足需求。


Globalization has made many people feel more insecure and in need of government support to cope with the pressures on their livelihoods and quality of life.	全球化让很多人安全感下降，在应对生计和生活质量压力时需要政府提供帮助。


But most of the policy responses needed to meet people’s demand for greater security are beyond the scope and reach of national governments, especially when these governments are trying to cope on their own.	但满足民众安全需求所需的多数政策都超出了国家政府的能力范畴，特别是当这些政府自己还在想办法适应的时候。


That is why, long ago, European countries saw the sense in pooling their weight and reach through the European Union.	这解释了为什么很久以前，欧洲国家愿意携起手来建立欧盟。


Imperfect as the EU is, it still represents the best response to globalization yet seen among any extended group of countries.	尽管欧盟还很不完善，但依然代表了国家团体迎接全球化挑战时的最佳对策。


Governments working together are better than governments working separately – or, worse, against one another.	政府携手合作好于各自为战——各自为战好于相互对抗。


We live in an increasingly multipolar world, in which major emerging economies and their populous societies are transforming the international landscape.	我们生活的世界日益多极化，主要新兴经济体及其众多的社会人口正在改变国际格局。


But, at the same time, multilateral frameworks are in decline, undermining the ability to bring sense and coherence to this world.	但与此同时，多边架构正日趋走向没落，破坏了这个世界的理智和连贯性。


Consider the international trading system and its centerpiece, the World Trade Organization.	以国际贸易体系及其核心机构世贸组织为例。


Since the demise of the Doha Round, the WTO’s standing as a multilateral negotiating forum has declined sharply, salvaged in part by the recent agreement in Bali.	多哈回合谈判失败后，世贸组织多边谈判论坛的地位就急剧下降，最近签署的巴厘岛协议部分改变了这种状况。


It will be essential, after Bali, to reflect seriously on the next phase for the WTO and its role in the international trading system.	巴厘岛协议签署后，我们必须认真反思下一阶段世贸组织及其在国际贸易体系中所起的作用。


The major international financial institutions – the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the regional development banks – are having to work hard to make themselves fit for the twenty-first century.	国际货币基金组织、世界银行，欧洲复兴开发银行以及区域开发银行等国际主要金融机构不得不竭尽全力适应二十一世纪的需求。


The authority of the United Nations has frayed.	联合国的权威地位也已经开始动摇。


Until we reverse the trend of declining multilateralism, governments’ ability to respond to global challenges will not improve.	在扭转多边主义的下降颓势之前，政府应对全球挑战的能力恐怕不会提高。


Business can moan and the media can carp, but the answer to many of the world’s great problems is more – or at least better – government, not less.	媒体尽可以吹毛求疵、企业也不妨满腹牢骚，但解决全球问题需要加强——至少也是改善、而不是削弱政府领导。


A better supply of government meeting the flow of demands.	必须加强政府服务供应以满足不断变化的需求。


Ronald Reagan famously insisted that, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”	众所周知，罗纳德·里根曾坚定地认为，“政府是症结所在，而不是解决办法。


Today we know better: If government is not part of the solution, our problems will only get bigger.	”今天我们对这个问题已经有了清醒的认识：如果政府不参与解决问题，我们的问题只会越来越严重。


The Gospel of Francis	方济各的福音书


GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA – Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II are the odd couple of modern Roman Catholicism.	格兰岱尔，加利福尼亚州—教皇若望二十三世和教皇若望·保禄二世是现代天主教的奇异组合。


The avuncular John XXIII, who wanted to loosen up a hidebound Church, and the combative John Paul II, who struggled to rein in what he viewed as the excesses of the Second Vatican Council that John XXIII had convened, appear to be ideological opposites.	叔辈的若望二十三世希望放松墨守成规的天主教，而好斗的若望·保禄二世致力于遏制在他看来有些越界的第二次梵蒂冈公会（Second Vatican Council），而这次会议的发起人正是若望二十三世。 他俩的思想看起来截然相反。


Yet Pope Francis will canonize the pair this month – a surprising move that may offer a glimpse into his goals for the Church.	然而教皇方济各将在本月将二人封圣——这一出人意料的动作或许可以一窥他对天主教的目标。


The most obvious implication is that Francis is weary of polarization, and hopes that the dual canonization will help to propel a shift toward a “big tent” Catholicism that appeals to a broader range of people.	最显而易见的含义是，方济各对极化十分厌倦，希望两人同时封圣有助于促进“大一统”的天主教，吸引更广泛的教众。


Francis is certainly in a strong position to initiate such a shift; his political capital is extraordinarily high, surpassing even that of US President Barack Obama in his early days in office.	方济各显然强烈反对发动这样的变化； 他的政治资本非常雄厚，成为教皇之初甚至要超过美国总统奥巴马。


People seem to appreciate his preference for teaching by example and dramatic gesture – exemplified by his canonization of the rival stars of Vatican II – rather than by encyclical.	人们似乎十分欣赏他用例子和行动，而不是用教皇通谕教导众人的偏好——协调在第二次梵蒂冈公会问题上立场对立的两位教皇就是明证。


Will this strategy be enough to bring lapsed Catholics back into the fold, or to bridge the gap between the largely conservative generation of “John Paul II priests” and younger, more liberal Catholics?	这一战略足以让松散的天主教回归团结吗？ 足以弥合“若望·保禄二世牧师”的保守一代与更年轻、更倾向自由主义的天主教徒之间的分歧吗？


Will the recalcitrant elements in the ecclesiastical establishment be amenable to Francis’s changes?	牧师公会中的顽固势力会服从方济各的变革吗？


The modernization process that John XXIII initiated was in line with the ebullience of the early 1960’s.	若望二十三世发动的现代化过程与躁动的20世纪60年代初相辅相成。


John Paul II viewed his long tenure, from 1978 to 2005, as a course correction to the moral license and sexual experimentation of that decade.	若望·保禄二世把他在位的1978—2005年视为对那个十年的道德放纵和性自由的航向纠正过程。


Francis has framed his pontificate as a sort of synthesis of this dialectical tension.	方济各将他的教皇生涯定位为这一辩证对立的调和过程。


So far, Francis’s actions have not sparked the kind of confrontational response or mass mobilization this is often associated with regime change in authoritarian systems.	迄今为止，方济各的行动未引起极权制度下体制改变时常常伴随的冲突反应或群众动员。


But that does not mean that it will be smooth sailing.	但这并不意味着方济各会一帆风顺。


Francis still faces widespread apathy among believers, especially in the advanced industrial societies, where disaffected Catholics are increasingly questioning their commitment or simply opting out.	他仍面临着信众之间广泛的漠不关心，特别是在发达工业化社会中，那里心存不满的天主教徒日益质疑自己的信仰甚至脱离天主教。


While Francis’s soothing manner seems to be helping to slow this erosion, whether he will be able to reverse the trend remains far from certain.	尽管方济各的抚慰做法似乎有助于延缓这一不利局面，但能否扭转趋势远未可知。


For starters, it is more difficult to rally support for a positive agenda than it is to build solidarity through opposition to presumed enemies.	首先，组织对积极日程的支持比通过反对推定敌手建立团结更难。


Instead of employing the dyspeptic condemnations of “relativism,” “secularism,” “nihilism,” and other “-isms” that John Paul II and his successor Pope Benedict XVI used to rally their base, Francis has formulated a positive agenda focused on social justice.	方济各没有采用“相对主义”、“世俗主义”、“虚无主义”和其他若望·保禄二世及其继任者本笃十六世用来招徕支持者的各种其他“主义”，而是制定了专注于社会正义的积极日程。


And, while rising global concern about income inequality has put some wind in Francis’s sails, his agenda has yet to make an impact on Catholic policymakers like Republican US Congressmen Paul Ryan and John Boehner or powerful figures in the Church.	而尽管对收入不平等性的日益升级的全球担忧为方济各提供了一些推动力，但他的日程仍没有对天主教决策者（如美国国会议员保罗·莱恩（Paul Ryan）和约翰·博纳（John Boehner）或其他天主教要人）形成影响力。


A second potential obstacle for Francis is that he, like his predecessors, is promoting a revolution from above.	方济各面临的第二个潜在障碍是，与他的前任一样，他推动的是自上而下的革命。


The Vatican II reforms, for example, emerged not from a populist groundswell, but from the preferences of progressive theologians and bishops.	比如，梵蒂冈II改革并非爆发于民粹主义风潮，而是产生于进步论神学家和主教。


This hierarchical approach, in which spectatorship trumps participation among the rank and file, is a major reason for indifference among ordinary Catholics today.	这一层级方针——观众压倒芸芸众生的参与——是如今普通天主教徒如此冷漠的主要原因。


Another key challenge for Francis is the laity’s growing independence from clerical authority.	方济各的另一个重要挑战是平信徒越来越独立于牧师的权威。


In recent decades, lay managers and workers in the church’s network of schools, hospitals, and social-service providers have largely replaced priests and nuns.	最近几十年来，教会的学校、医院和社会服务机构网络中的俗家管理者和员工基本上取代了牧师和修女。


As a result, since Vatican II, episcopal – and ultimately Vatican – control over church-linked ministries has gradually waned.	结果，自梵蒂冈II以来，教会——最终是梵蒂冈——对与教会有关的部门的控制逐渐削弱。


Around half of the budget of Catholic Charities USA, for example, comes from the government.	比如，美国天主教慈善会（Catholic Charities USA）的预算大约有一半来自政府。


Virtually none of these operations is in open rebellion against Rome; many just quietly go their own way.	这些机构基本上都不会公开与罗马分裂； 但许多在悄然自说自话。


So do many ordinary Catholics.	许多普通天主教徒也是如此。


Devout after a fashion, they follow their conscience or their convenience – their lives a more or less amiable standoff between doctrinal prohibitions and vernacular practice.	勉强皈依的他们跟随的是良心和便利——他们的生活或多或少是教义戒律和风俗实践的友好僵局。


As the comedian Bob Newhart observed, “The pope leaves us alone; we leave the pope alone.”	正如喜剧演员鲍勃·纽哈特（Bob Newhart）所观察到的，“教皇让我们孤独； 我们也让教皇孤独。


Papal initiatives are thus subject to significant cultural and institutional constraints.	因此，教皇的所作所为需要受文化和制度的重大约束。


And there is only so far Francis is likely to go.	而方济各的作为空间也十分有限。


A self-described “obedient son of the church,” he is unlikely to surprise the faithful when it comes to matters like sexuality and women’s ordination.	在面临性取向和女性封圣时，自称“教会孝子”的他是不可能惊动信仰的。


At the same time, Francis’s Jesuit background has instilled in him a certain independence and flair for the quirky (like nonchalantly sanctifying John XXIII and John Paul II in one fell swoop).	与此同时，方济各的耶稣会背景让他拥有一定程度的独立性和���聪明（比如若无其事突然同时封圣若望二十三世和若望·保禄二世）。


The Society of Jesus – whose spirituality is based on a seemingly discordant yet enduring combination of mysticism and realpolitik – has forged a paradoxical alliance of fidelity to corporate commands and willingness to give individual talents their due.	耶稣会（The Society of Jesus）的精神建立在看似不和谐但持久的神秘主义和现实政治的结合的基础上，它铸成了一个矛盾的组合，既忠于公司使命，又愿意给予个人应得之物。


Traditional hierarchies routinely cultivate eccentrics as harmless adornments of a rigid order.	传统层级制通常会豢养一些古怪之人作为僵化秩序的点缀。


Catholicism has had mad popes and bad popes and occasionally good popes.	天主教有过许多疯子教皇和坏教皇，间或也有好教皇。


It is used to seeing the world turn upside down for a few days during carnival, and then go back to normal.	世界在短短几天的狂欢中正邪颠倒，然后又回归正常的情况不胜枚举。


But there is something to be said for the fact that Francis is ultimately his own man.	但方济各最终只是他自己，这一事实值得一说。


Now, what Max Weber called the slow grinding of hard boards – leveraging a concrete program of structural reform onto a charismatic personality – begins.	现在，马克斯·韦伯所谓的滴水穿石（the slow grinding of hard boards，利用结构改革的扎实进展改变神赐超凡人格）过程已经开始。


Or the enterprise stays where it often seems to be: mostly smoke and mirrors, a grand illusion.	否则，天主教将依然是老方一帖——它是一团迷雾，一面镜子，一场大幻觉。


Ethics in Gaza	加沙的伦理


MELBOURNE – Is Israel’s military action in Gaza morally defensible?	墨尔本—以色列的加沙军事行动在道德上站得住脚吗？


Different answers to that question are possible.	这个问题可能有不同的答案。


Some depend on answers to prior questions about the founding of the state of Israel, the circumstances that led to many Palestinians becoming refugees, and responsibility for the failure of earlier efforts to reach a peaceful solution.	一些人会围绕关于以色列建国、让众多巴勒斯坦人轮为难民的环境、此前的努力没能形成和平决议的责任等诸多先决问题得出答案。


But let us put aside these questions – which have been explored in great depth – and focus on the moral issues raised by the latest outbreak of hostilities.	但让我们暂且将这些已经得到深入探索的问题放在一边，集中关注最新爆发的敌对态势所引起的道德问题。


The immediate trigger for the current conflict was the murder of three Jewish teenagers in Hebron, on the West Bank.	当前冲突的直接原因是三名十几岁的犹太少年在约旦河西岸的希伯伦（Hebron）被杀。


Israel, blaming Hamas, arrested hundreds of its members in the West Bank, though it has never explained the basis of its accusation.	以色列指责哈马斯需对此事负责，在约旦河西岸抓捕了数百名哈马斯成员，但从未解释这一指控的理由。


The Israeli government may have seized on the outrageous murders as a pretext for provoking Hamas into a response that would allow Israel, in turn, to invade and destroy the tunnels Hamas has dug from Gaza into Israel.	以色列政府或许是抓住这次残酷谋杀作为借口挑衅哈马斯，促使后者做出可以让以色列反对来入侵和摧毁连通加沙和以色列的地道。


Though Israeli leaders claim to have been surprised by the extent and sophistication of the tunnels they discovered, Israel’s military briefed the government on the tunnels more than a year ago, and the government created a special task force to consider how to deal with them.	尽管以色列领导人宣称对他们所看到的地道之广泛和复杂感到震惊，但以色列军方早在一年多前就向政府报告了地道，以色列政府还成立了专案小组研究如何应对这些地道。


Hamas responded to the West Bank arrests with a barrage of rockets that reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, though without causing any injuries.	哈马斯对约旦河西岸抓捕行动的反应是对火箭弹袭击，并且打到了特拉维夫和耶路撒冷，尽管没有造成任何伤亡。


Israel then began its air attacks, followed by a ground invasion.	接着，以色列开始空袭，并在随后派出地面部队。


At the time of writing, more than 1,600 Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians, by Israeli air and ground strikes.	当我撰写本文时，已有1,600多名巴勒斯坦人死于以色列的空中和地面袭击，其中大部分是平民。


Three Israeli civilians have been killed by rocket or mortar fire from Gaza, and 64 Israeli soldiers have been killed since the ground invasion began.	三名以色列人被来自加沙的火箭弹或迫击炮杀死，64名以军士兵在地面入侵行动中丧生。


In firing rockets at Israel, Hamas invited a military response.	哈马斯打向以色列的火箭弹引来了军事反应。


A country subject to rocket attacks from across its border has a right to defend itself, even if its own actions can be construed as having provoked the attacks, and the attacks themselves are relatively ineffective.	一个受到来自境外的火箭弹袭击的国家有权采取自卫，即使可以说是它自己的行为招致了火箭弹袭击，并且袭击相对来说毫无效果。


But a right of self-defense does not mean a right to do anything that can be construed as a defensive act, regardless of the cost to civilians.	但自卫权并不意味着任何可以解读为进攻的权利，不管其平民所遭到的打击。


Despite calls in some Israeli media for Gaza to be bombed “back to the stone age,” the Israeli government seems to accept that that would be wrong.	一些以色列媒体称遭遇轰炸的加沙“退回了石器时代”，但伊斯兰政府似乎接受了这可能是错误的看法。


Israel has taken some steps to minimize civilian casualties by warning Palestinians to evacuate areas that were about to be targeted.	以色列采取了一些行动以最小化平民伤亡，如警告巴勒斯坦人离开即将成为打击目标的地区。


Hamas, by contrast, has shown no interest in avoiding civilian casualties, either in Israel or in Gaza.	相反，哈马斯并未表现出任何避免平民伤亡的意思，不管在以色列还是在加沙。


The whole point of firing rockets at Israeli cities is to inflict civilian casualties, and the fact that the rockets have largely failed to do so is due to their inaccuracy, Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile-defense system, and perhaps some good luck.	向以色列发射火箭弹的全部意图就是造成平民伤亡，而之所以未能成功，原因在于武器本身精确度不够、以色列的“铁穹”导弹防御系统，或许还有以色列的好运气。


Hamas’s strategy of launching rockets from residential areas and storing them in schools clearly reflects its leaders’ willingness to put Palestinian civilians in harm’s way in order to confront Israel with the grim choice of killing civilians or allowing the rocket attacks to continue.	哈马斯从居民区发傻火箭弹，并把火箭弹藏在学校，这明显的反映了其领导人准备让巴勒斯坦平民当肉盾，让以色列面临残酷的选择——要么杀戮平民，要么允许火箭弹袭击继续。


So, whatever moral objections to Israel’s actions over the past month there might be, there are even more serious objections to be made against Hamas.	因此，不管反对以色列在过去的一个月中的行动的道德理由为何，都应该以更强的力度反��哈马斯的行为。


In contrast to previous episodes, Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have been very restrained in their criticism of Israel, though perhaps less for moral reasons and more because they regard militant Islam as a graver threat than Israel to their own regimes.	与前几次相反，埃及、约旦和沙特阿拉伯等阿拉伯国家在批评以色列方面都表现得相当克制，尽管或许道德方面的原因并不大，而是因为它们认为军事化的伊斯兰教是比伊斯兰还要大的政权威胁。


But to say that Israel’s actions are less clearly wrong than those of Hamas is not to say much.	但说以色列的行为比哈马斯错误更小也没有什么意义。


Israel has legitimate military objectives in Gaza: to stop the rockets and destroy the tunnels.	以色列在加沙有着合法的军事目标：阻止火箭弹袭击和摧毁地道。


It should be pursuing those objectives while showing the utmost concern for Gaza’s trapped civilians.	它应该在追求这些目标的同时表现出对加沙受困平民的最大关切。


In a recent article, Fania Oz-Salzberger, writing from Tel Aviv while rockets were being intercepted overhead, urged her government to send medical supplies to the villages of Gaza.	在一篇最近的文章中，萨尔兹伯格（Fania Oz-Salzberger）在特拉维夫上空的火箭弹呼啸声中敦促她的政府为加沙村民提供医疗供给。


Since then, the Israeli military has set up a field hospital on the border with Gaza to treat wounded Palestinians.	此后，以色列军队在与加沙接壤处建立了一座野战医院，收治受伤的巴勒斯坦人。


That is a positive step, but it is outweighed by repeated instances of Israeli airstrikes and shelling that appear to have needlessly killed civilians, from the four boys killed on a beach on July 16 to the 20 Palestinian civilians killed while taking refuge in a United Nations school on July 30.	这是一个积极动作，但在无谓杀戮平民的以色列空袭和炮击面前显得苍白无力：7月16日，四名男孩在海边被杀； 7月30日，20名巴勒斯坦平民在一所联合国学校避难时被杀。


These incidents are reminiscent of past NATO operations in Afghanistan, in which there was manifestly less care taken to safeguard the lives of local civilians than there would have been if the lives of NATO troops, or their civilian compatriots, had been at risk.	这些事件让人想起了过去北约在阿富汗的行动——很显然，对保护本地平民生命的关注远远小于有危险的北约将士或平民同胞。


Some will shrug and say, “War is hell.”	有人会轻描淡写地说“战争是魔鬼。


But between the untenable extremes of pacifism and the elevation of war to something beyond morality, there is a middle ground that seeks to minimize the unquestionable evil of war.	”但在毫无意义的极端和平主义和超过道德边界的战争之间存在一个可以尝试让毫无争议的战争残酷性最小化的中间地带。


We can acknowledge that Israel has made some efforts to do that, but we must still say: It is not enough.	我们可以认为以色列在这方面做了一些努力，但我们仍不得不说：以色列做得还不够。


The Ethical Cost of High-Price Art	高价艺术品的道德成本


MELBOURNE – In New York last month, Christie’s sold $745 million worth of postwar and contemporary art, the highest total that it has ever reached in a single auction.	墨尔本—上个月，佳士得拍卖行在纽约售出了7. 45亿美元的战后和当代艺术品，这是其一次拍卖所达到的最高价格。


Among the higher-priced works sold were paintings by Barnett Newman, Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, and Andy Warhol, each of which sold for more than $60 million.	成交的最高价是巴尼特·纽曼（Barnett Newman）、弗朗西斯·培根（Francis Bacon）、马克·罗斯科（Mark Rothko）和安迪·沃霍尔（Andy Warhol）等人的作品，每件在6,000万美元以上。


According to the New York Times, Asian collectors played a significant part in boosting prices.	据《纽约时报》报道，亚洲藏家在竞价中大出风头。


No doubt some buyers regard their purchases as an investment, like stocks or real estate or gold bars.	毫无疑问，有的买家把买艺术品作为投资，和股票、房地产或金条一样。


In that case, whether the price they paid was excessive or modest will depend on how much the market will be willing to pay for the work at some future date.	据此，他们付出的价格是高还是低取决于市场在未来愿意为这幅作品出价多少。


But if profit is not the motive, why would anyone want to pay tens of millions of dollars for works like these?	但如果不是为了利润，为什么会有人愿意花几千万美元买这样的作品？


They are not beautiful, nor do they display great artistic skill.	它们并不美，也没有表现出高超的技艺。


They are not even unusual within the artists’ oeuvres.	甚至也不算不上艺术家的代表作。


Do an image search for “Barnett Newman” and you will see many paintings with vertical color bars, usually divided by a thin line.	用图片搜索引擎搜索“巴尼特·纽曼”，你可以看到很多画作都采用了通常用细线分隔的纵向色条。


Once Newman had an idea, it seems, he liked to work out all of the variations.	好像纽曼一有想法就喜欢尝试它的所有变化。


Last month, someone bought one of those variations for $84 million.	上个月，有人花8,400万美元买了这些变化中的一个。


A small image of Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol – there are many of those, too – sold for $41 million.	安迪·沃霍尔的玛丽莲·梦露像——也有多幅在世——也卖了4,100万美元。


Ten years ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York paid $45 million for a small Madonna and Child by Duccio.	十年前，纽约大都会艺术博物馆花了4,500万美元买下了杜桥（Duccio）的《圣母和圣婴》（Madonna and Child）。


Subsequently, in The Life You Can Save, I wrote that there were better things that the donors who financed the purchase could have done with their money.	随后，在《你能拯救的生命》（The Life You Can Save）中，我指出购画资金的出资者有更好的方式花掉这笔钱。


I haven’t changed my mind about that, but the Met’s Madonna is beautifully executed and 700 years old.	现在我仍持有这一观点，但大都会博物馆的《圣母和圣婴》是700年前的名作。


Duccio is a major figure who worked during a key transitional moment in the history of Western art, and few of his paintings have survived.	杜桥是西方艺术史关键转型期的重要人物，并且传世作品已经非常稀少。


None of that applies to Newman or Warhol.	纽曼和沃霍尔则并非如此。


Perhaps, though, the importance of postwar art lies in its ability to challenge our ideas.	不过，或许战后艺术的重要性正在与它挑战了我们的观念。


That view was firmly expressed by Jeff Koons, one of the artists whose work was on sale at Christie’s.	这一观点由杰夫·库恩斯（Jeff Koons）明确提出，他的作品也名列此次佳士得拍卖中。


In a 1987 interview with a group of art critics, Koons referred to the work that was sold last month, calling it “the ‘Jim Beam’ work.”	在1987年与一群艺术批评家的访谈中，库恩斯提到了上个月被拍卖的那副作品，称之为“‘占边·波本’（Jim Beam）作品”。


Koons had exhibited this piece – an oversize, stainless steel toy train filled with bourbon – in an exhibition called “Luxury and Degradation,” that, according to the New York Times, examined “shallowness, excess and the dangers of luxury in the high-flying 1980s.”	库恩斯在一次题为“奢侈与退化”（Luxury and Degradation）的展览中展出了这幅作品——一个注满波旁威士忌的超大号不锈钢玩具脑。 据《纽约时报》报道，该作品考察了“高飞的20世纪80年代的奢侈品的肤浅、过度与危险。


In the interview, Koons said that the Jim Beam work “used the metaphors of luxury to define class structure.”	在这次访谈中，库恩斯说占边·波本作品“用奢侈品的隐喻定义阶级结构”。


The critic Helena Kontova then asked him how his “socio-political intention” related to the politics of then-President Ronald Reagan.	批评家伊莲娜·孔塔瓦（Helena Kontova）接着问他，他的“社会政治倾向”是否与时任总统里根的政治学有关。


Koons answered: “With Reaganism, social mobility is collapsing, and instead of a structure composed of low, middle, and high income levels, we’re down to low and high only...	库恩斯回答说：“里根主义导致社会流动性崩坏，我们没有形成由高中低收入水平构成的结构，直接退化到只有高和低两级……我的作品反对这一趋势。


My work stands in opposition to this trend.”	”


Art as a critique of luxury and excess!	作为奢侈与过度的批评的艺术！


Art as opposition to the widening gap between the rich and the poor!	作为对贫富差距扩大的反对声音的艺术！


How noble and courageous that sounds.	这听起来是多么冠冕堂皇、勇气可嘉啊。


But the art market’s greatest strength is its ability to co-opt any radical demands that a work of art makes, and turn it into another consumer good for the super-rich.	但艺术品市场的最大优势就在于它能够点明一件艺术品所能激发的不论多么离谱的需求，并把这件艺术品变为巨富的又一消费品。


When Christie’s put Koons’s work up for auction, the toy train filled with bourbon sold for $33 million.	佳士得拍卖为库恩斯的这件作品——注满波旁威士忌的玩具脑——赢得的价格是3,300万美元。


If artists, art critics, and art buyers really had any interest in reducing the widening gap between the rich and the poor, they would be focusing their efforts on developing countries, where spending a few thousand dollars on the purchase of works by indigenous artists could make a real difference to the wellbeing of entire villages.	如果艺术家、艺术批评家和艺术品买家真的有志于缩小日益扩大的贫富差距，他们可以将时间花在发展中国家，花在与当地艺术家的合作上，在这些国家，几千美元的卖画收入就可以让整个村子的人的福利得到真正的改变。


Nothing I have said here counts against the importance of creating art.	我在这里所说的一切都不是反对艺术创作的重要性。


Drawing, painting, and sculpting, like singing or playing a musical instrument, are significant forms of self-expression, and our lives would be poorer without them.	素描、绘画和雕塑与唱歌和乐器演奏一样，都是自我表达的重要方式，没有它们，我们的生活就会变得乏味。


In all cultures, and in all kinds of situations, people produce art, even when they cannot satisfy their basic physical needs.	在一切文化中——以及任何情况下——人们都在生产艺术品，哪怕他们连基本需要都未必能够得到满足。


But we don’t need art buyers to pay millions of dollars to encourage people to do that.	但我们不需要艺术品买家花几百万美元鼓励人们这样做。


In fact, it would not be hard to argue that sky-high prices have a corrupting influence on artistic expression.	事实上，不难论证一飞冲天的价格在腐蚀艺术表达的影响力。


As for why buyers pay these outlandish sums, my guess is that they think that owning original works by well-known artists will enhance their own status.	至于买家为何要花这么多钱，我的猜测是他们认为拥有著名艺术家的原创作品能够提高他们自身的地位。


If so, that may provide a means to bring about change: a redefinition of status along more ethically grounded lines.	果真如此的话，这倒提供了变化的途径：用更合乎道德的方式重新定义地位。


In a more ethical world, to spend tens of millions of dollars on works of art would be status-lowering, not status-enhancing.	在一个更加道德的世界中，花几千万美元购买艺术品将是被人唾弃而不是受人敬仰的行为。


Such behavior would lead people to ask: “In a world in which more than six million children die each year because they lack safe drinking water or mosquito nets, or because they have not been immunized against measles, couldn’t you find something better to do with your money?”	这种行为会让人们质问：“当今世界，每年都有六百万儿童因为缺乏安全水源或蚊帐而失去生命，或者因为得不到麻疹疫苗而死去，你难道找不到更好的花钱途径吗？ ”


A Statue for Stalin?	斯大林像？


PRINCETON – Hitler and Stalin were ruthless dictators who committed murder on a vast scale.	普林斯顿—希特勒和斯大林都是犯下大屠杀罪行的残忍独裁者。


But, while it is impossible to imagine a Hitler statue in Berlin, or anywhere else in Germany, statues of Stalin have been restored in towns across Georgia (his birthplace), and another is to be erected in Moscow as part of a commemoration of all Soviet leaders.	但是，你无法想象在柏林或德国其他任何地方看到希特勒像，但斯大林像在格鲁吉亚（他的故乡）得到了重建，莫斯科也竖立着一座斯大林像（作为诸位苏联领导人纪念雕像的一部分）。


The difference in attitude extends beyond the borders of the countries over which these men ruled.	对这两人的态度的不同并不局限于他们曾经统治过的国家。


In the United States, there is a bust of Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial in Virginia. In New York, I recently dined at a Russian restaurant that featured Soviet paraphernalia, waitresses in Soviet uniforms, and a painting of Soviet leaders in which Stalin was prominent.	在美国，弗吉尼亚州国家D日纪念仪式上也出现了斯大林半身像在纽约，我最近在一家以苏联时代为卖点的俄罗斯餐馆吃饭，侍者身穿苏联制服，还挂着以斯大林为核心的苏联领导人集体画。


New York also has its KGB Bar.	纽约还有克格勃吧。


To the best of my knowledge, there is no Nazi-themed restaurant in New York; nor is there a Gestapo or SS bar.	就我所知，纽约没有纳粹主题餐馆，也没有盖世太保和党卫军吧。


So, why is Stalin seen as relatively more acceptable than Hitler?	那么，为什么人们觉得斯大林比希特勒相对容易接受？


At a press conference last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin attempted a justification.	在上个月的一次新闻发布会上，俄罗斯总理普京试图做出回答。


Asked about Moscow’s plans for a statue of Stalin, he pointed to Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the Parliamentarian side in the seventeenth-century English Civil War, and asked: “What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin?”	在被问及莫斯科修建斯大林像的问题时，他搬出十七世纪英国内战议会派领袖克伦威尔，反问：“克伦威尔和斯大林的真正区别在哪里？


He then answered his own question: “None whatsoever,” and went on to describe Cromwell as a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”	”接着他又自问自答：“哪里都没有。 ”然后又把克伦威尔说成是“狡猾的人”，“在英国历史上扮演了一个模糊不清的角色。


(A statue of Cromwell stands outside the House of Commons in London.)	”（英国下议院大门外竖立着一座克伦威尔像。 ）


“Ambiguous” is a reasonable description of the morality of Cromwell’s actions.	“模糊不清”用来描述克伦威尔行为的道德性是合适的。


While he promoted parliamentary rule in England, ended the civil war, and allowed a degree of religious toleration, he also supported the trial and execution of Charles I and brutally conquered Ireland in response to a perceived threat from an alliance of Irish Catholics and English Royalists.	尽管他促进了英格兰的议会统治、结束了内战，并有一定程度的宗教容忍，但他也支持对查理一世的审判和处决，并因为认定爱尔兰天主教徒和英格兰保皇党相互勾结而悍然出兵爱尔兰。


But, unlike Cromwell, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of very large numbers of civilians, outside any war or military campaign.	但是，与克伦威尔不同，斯大林导致了为数巨大的平民因为非战争和军事原因死亡。


According to Timothy Snyder, author of Bloodlands, 2-3 million people died in the forced labor camps of the Gulag and perhaps a million were shot during the Great Terror of the late 1930’s.	据蒂莫西·斯奈德（Timothy Snyder）的《鲜血之地》（Bloodlands）一书的数据，200—300万人死于古拉格劳动营，另外20世纪30年代后期的大清洗中可能也有一百万人被枪决。


Another five million starved in the famine of 1930-1933, of whom 3.3 million were Ukrainians who died as a result of a deliberate policy related to their nationality or status as relatively prosperous peasants known as kulaks.	另有五百万人在1930—1933年的饥荒中饿死，其中330万是乌克兰人，他们因为与其国籍和所谓的“富农”身份有关的有意为之的政策而死。


Snyder’s estimate of the total number of Stalin’s victims does not take into account those who managed to survive forced labor or internal exile in harsh conditions.	斯奈德对斯大林受害者总数的估计并未考虑在劳动营和国内流放的严酷环境中幸存下来的人。


Including them might add as many as 25 million to the number of those who suffered terribly as a result of Stalin’s tyranny.	若把他们计算在内，则有多大2500万人在斯大林的暴政中惨遭严重伤害。


The total number of deaths that Snyder attributes to Stalin is lower than the commonly cited figure of 20 million, which was estimated before historians had access to the Soviet archives.	斯奈德所认为的因斯大林而死的总人数低于通常所引用的数字（2000万，该数字为历史学家在无法获得苏联档案的情况下估算的）。


It is nonetheless a horrendous total – similar in magnitude to the Nazis’ killings (which took place during a shorter period).	尽管如此，这仍是一个令人咋舌的数字——与纳粹的屠杀规模相当（但纳粹屠杀为时相对较短）。


Moreover, the Soviet archives show that one cannot say that the Nazi’s killings were worse because victims were targeted on the basis of their race or ethnicity.	此外，苏联档案还表明，很难因为纳粹屠杀以种族或民族划分目标而认为纳粹的屠杀更恶劣，因为。


Stalin, too, selected some of his victims on this basis – not only Ukrainians, but also people belonging to ethnic minorities associated with countries bordering the Soviet Union.	斯大林也用该标准选取了一些受害人——不仅有乌克兰人，也有属于与苏联接壤国家有关的少数民族的人。


Stalin’s persecutions also targeted a disproportionately large number of Jews.	此外，斯大林的迫害目标中有很大一部分是犹太人。


There were no gas chambers, and arguably the motivation for Stalin’s killings was not genocide, but rather the intimidation and suppression of real or imaginary opposition to his rule.	斯大林没有使用毒气室，他的屠杀动机也不太可能是种族灭绝，而是恐吓和镇压他的真正或臆想的反对者。


That in no way excuses the extent of the killing and imprisonment that occurred.	这决不能作为屠杀和关押如此之多的人的借口。


If there is any “ambiguity” about Stalin’s moral record, it may be because communism strikes a chord with some of our nobler impulses, seeking equality for all and an end to poverty.	如果说斯大林的道德记录有什么“模糊不清”的地方，可能是共产主义于我们的崇高目标——人人平等、终结贫穷——有共鸣之处。


No such universal aspiration can be found in Nazism, which, even on its face, was not concerned about what was good for all, but about what was good for one supposed racial group, and which was clearly motivated by hatred and contempt for other ethnic groups.	纳粹主义中就找不到这样的普世目标，即使在表面，纳粹主义也不关心所有人的福祉，而只是关心某一种族群体的福祉，而其背后的动机显然是对其他种族群体的憎恶和蔑视。


But communism under Stalin was the opposite of egalitarian, for it gave absolute power to a few, and denied all rights to the many.	但斯大林手中的共产主义与平等背道而驰，它给予一小撮绝对的权力，而否认大多数的所有权利。


Those who defend Stalin’s reputation credit him with lifting millions out of poverty; but millions could have been lifted out of poverty without murdering and incarcerating millions more.	斯大林名誉的捍卫者说他把数百万人带出了贫困，但这几百万人本可以在没有屠杀和关押另外几百万人的情况下摆脱贫困的。


Others defend Stalin’s greatness on the basis of his role in repelling the Nazi invasion and ultimately defeating Hitler.	也有一些认为斯大林是伟人的人说他抵挡住了纳粹的入侵并最终打败了希特勒。


Yet Stalin’s purge of military leaders during the Great Terror critically weakened the Red Army, his signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 paved the way for the start of World War II, and his blindness to the Nazi threat in 1941 left the Soviet Union unprepared to resist Hitler’s attack.	但斯大林在大清洗时期所杀害的军队领导人削弱了苏联红军，他在1939年所签订的纳粹-苏联互不侵犯条约为二战的开始扫平了道路，而他在1941年对纳粹威胁的视而不见让苏联对希特勒的攻击措手不及。


It remains true that Stalin led his country to victory in war, and to a position of global power that it had not held before and from which it has since fallen.	尽管如此，斯大林领导苏联赢得了战争，并领导苏联获得了此前从未有过的全球超级大国地位（后来也衰落了）。


Hitler, by contrast, left his country shattered, occupied, and divided.	相反，希特勒让他的国家被打败、占领和分裂了。


People identify with their country and look up to those who led it when it was at its most powerful.	人们敬仰最强大的国家，也敬仰把这个国家带上这一巅峰的领袖。


That may explain why Muscovites are more willing to accept a statue of Stalin than Berliners would be to have one of Hitler.	这或许可以解释莫斯科人能接受斯大林像而柏林人不能接受希特勒像。


But that can be only part of the reason for the different treatment given to these mass murderers.	但这或许只是区别对待大屠杀罪魁的一部分原因。


It still leaves me puzzled about New York’s Soviet-themed restaurant and KGB Bar.	纽约之所以有苏联主题餐厅和克格勃吧仍然是一个谜。


America’s Drone Dilemma	美国的无人机两难


PRINCETON – Last month, Faisal bin Ali Jaber traveled from his home in Yemen to Washington, DC, to ask why a United States drone had fired missiles at, and killed, his brother-in-law, a cleric who had spoken out against Al Qaeda.	普林斯顿—上个月，阿里贾比尔（Faisal bin Ali Jaber）从祖国也门来到华盛顿，质问美国为何将导弹瞄准他的反基地组织牧师妻舅并把他杀死。


Also killed in the attack was Jaber’s nephew, a policeman who had come to offer protection to his uncle.	同时死于此次导弹袭击的还有为阿里贾比尔提供保护的外甥。


Congressional representatives and government officials met Jaber and expressed their condolences, but provided no explanations.	国会众议员和政府官员接见了阿里贾比尔并表示了哀悼，但没有给出解释。


Nor has the US admitted that it made a mistake.	美国也没有承认犯了错误。


A week later, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, did apologize for a drone attack that killed a child and seriously wounded two women in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province.	一周后，美国和北约阿富汗司令官小邓福德将军（Gen. Joseph F.


The incident’s timing was particularly unfortunate, as it coincided with efforts to reach an agreement to keep a residual deployment of US troops in Afghanistan beyond the planned 2014 departure of foreign combat forces.	）确实为无人机袭击杀死了阿富汗赫尔曼德省（Helmand Province）一名儿童、重伤两名妇女而道歉。 此次事故发生的时间尤其不幸，因为美国和阿富汗正在达成关于美军在2014年按计划撤出国外战斗任务后在阿富汗的驻军问题的协议。


Afghan President Hamid Karzai had referred to civilian casualties caused by US forces as a reason for not signing the agreement.	阿富汗总统卡尔扎伊援引美军造成的平民伤亡作为理由拒绝签署协议。


“For years,” Karzai said in a statement issued after the strike, “our people are being killed and their houses are being destroyed under the pretext of the war on terror.”	“多年来，”卡尔扎伊在袭击事件后的一份声明中说，“在反恐战争的幌子下，我们��人民被杀害，房子被摧毁。 ”


The war on terror is real enough, and not just a pretext, but so are the civilian casualties that have been occurring for years.	反恐战争当然是实实在在的，而不只是一个幌子，但平民伤亡多年来来持续不断也是事实。


In 2006, I wrote about a US missile attack on a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghan border, in which 18 people were killed, including five children.	2006年，我曾撰文评论了美国导弹袭击位于阿富汗边境附近的巴基斯坦村庄达马多拉的一间房屋的事件，该事件造成18人死亡，包括五名儿童。


Then-President George W. Bush did not apologize for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it.	时任总统小布什没有为袭击道歉，也没有谴责下达袭击命令的人。


This was, I pointed out, difficult to reconcile with his assertion (concerning the ethics of destroying human embryos to create stem cells) that America’s president has “an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.”	我指出，这与他（在评论毁坏人类胚胎创造干细胞时）所宣称的美国总统“有促进和鼓励美国和全世界生命尊严的重要义务”极不相符。


Before Barack Obama became President, he argued that, because the US did not have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan, it was “air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”	在奥巴马成为美国总统前，他指出，美国在阿富汗没有足够的地面部队，因此而“空袭村庄和杀害平民，这给当地造成了极大的问题。


As Karzai’s statement shows, the problems have not gone away.	”卡尔扎伊的声明表明，这一问题从未消失。


Nor have they been limited to Afghanistan.	这一问题也不只局限于阿富汗。


Civilian casualties caused by the US have been a major source of difficulties in US-Pakistan relations as well.	美国造成的平民伤亡同样也是美国-巴基斯坦关系困难的主要原因。


In September, Ben Emmerson, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, reported that the US had caused at least 400 civilian deaths in Pakistan, with another 200 of those killed being “probable noncombatants.”	9月，联合国人权和反恐特别书记员埃莫森（Ben Emmerson）报告说美国在巴基斯坦造成了至少400平民死亡，另有200名被杀者“可能并非战斗人员”。


(Apart from the problem of knowing who was killed, there is the separate question of how, in a war with no armies, one defines a combatant.	（除了了解是谁被杀这一问题外，还有另外一个问题，即，在没有军队参与的战争中，怎样定义战斗人员。


Does cooking for militants warrant being killed?)	为军人埋灶做饭也应该被杀吗？ ）


Emmerson’s report drew on figures supplied by Pakistan’s foreign ministry, but it was promptly undercut by the country’s defense ministry, which issued its own figures indicating that only 67 of the 2,227 people killed by drone attacks since 2008 were civilians.	埃莫森的报告引用了巴基斯坦外交部提供的数字，但巴国防部的数字要小得多，认为自2008年以来死于无人机袭击的2 227人中只有67人是平民。


That low number surprised many observers.	该数字之低震惊了许多观察者。


Last May, in a speech at the National Defense University, Obama defended America’s use of drones.	去年5月，在国防大学（National Defense University）的演讲中，奥巴马为美国使用无人机开脱。


The US, he said, was attacked on September 11, 2001, so the war it is waging against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces is a just one.	他说，2001年9月11日美国遭到了袭击，因此针对基地组织、塔利班以及它们的同谋势力的战争是一场正义战争。


Referring to the key criteria set out in many discussions of traditional “just war” doctrine, he called it “a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.”	奥巴马援引确立于许多关于传统“正义战争”思想的讨论中的关键标准，称“这是一场合理的战争，是最后手段，也是自我防卫战争。 ”


That may be true of the war against Al Qaeda; it is less obviously correct with regard to the Taliban.	对于反基地组织战争，或许正是如此； 但对于塔利班可能并非如此。


Obnoxious as their rule over Afghanistan was, the Taliban did not attack America, and Bush’s war against it was not a war of last resort.	塔利班在阿富汗扮演了极不光彩的角色，但塔利班并没有袭击美国，布什针对塔利班的战争也不是最后手段。


Obama acknowledged that innocent people had been killed in US drone attacks, but defended the strikes on the grounds that by eliminating Al Qaeda operatives, they have disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives.	奥巴马承认美国无人机袭击造成了无辜人民伤亡，但也辩护说这些空袭清除了基地组织据点、摧毁了恐怖分子藏身之所，拯救了生命。


He pointed out that the number of Muslims killed by Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks “dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.”	他指出，基地组织恐怖袭击所杀害的穆斯林数量“比任何无人机空袭伤亡估计数字都要远远过之。 ”


Doing nothing, Obama added, “is not an option.”	奥巴马还说，不作为“不是选项”。


Nor – and here he has reversed himself since 2007 – is “putting boots on the ground” likely to cause fewer civilian casualties than drone strikes.	“地面挺近”所造成的平民伤亡数字也不太可能会比无人机袭击少——这与他本人在2007年的说法相反。


Doing so would only lead to the US being seen as an occupying army – a perception that would yield “a torrent of unintended consequences.”	这样做只能导致美国被视为占领军——这种感觉会造成“一连串意外后果”。


Obama did, however, promise a change of policy, indicating that before any strike was undertaken, he would require “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.”	但是，奥巴马确实承诺要改变政策，指出在任何袭击发动前，他都要求“几乎确定不会有平民被杀或受伤——这是我们所能设立的最高标准。 ”


Since that speech, the frequency of strikes in Yemen and Pakistan has declined, but civilian casualties have continued, albeit at a lower rate.	自这次演讲以来，也门和巴基斯坦的空袭频率降低了，但平民伤亡仍在发生，尽管比率有所减小。


The “near-certainty” standard appears not to have been met.	“几乎确定”标准似乎并没有达到。


As long as Al Qaeda continues to plan terrorist attacks, the US cannot reasonably be required to forego opportunities to kill its leaders and others carrying out these attacks.	只要基地组织继续谋划恐怖袭击，就不可能要求美国放弃清除其领导人的机会和其他发动空袭的理由。


But Obama did promise greater transparency, which is essential to any sound debate over the rights and wrongs of drone attacks, and to democratic control over how the US is waging its war against terrorism.	但奥巴马确实承诺要增强透明度，而这是任何关于无人机空袭对错的争论的根本点，也是民主地控制美国发动反恐战争的根本点。


The administration’s refusal to apologize to Jaber, or even to explain what went wrong, indicates that this promise has yet to be fulfilled.	美国政府拒绝向阿里贾比尔道歉，甚至拒绝解释哪里出了问题，这表明奥巴马的这一承诺并没有兑现。


Philosophy on Top	位于顶层的哲学


MELBOURNE – Last year, a report from Harvard University set off alarm bells, because it showed that the proportion of students in the United States completing bachelor’s degrees in the humanities fell from 14% to 7%.	墨尔本—去年，哈佛大学的一份报告给我们敲响了警钟，报告指出，美国完成文科学士学位的学生比例从14%下降至7%。


Even elite universities like Harvard itself have experienced a similar decrease.	即使如哈佛这样的精英大学，这一比例也出现了类似的下降。


Moreover, the decline seems to have become steeper in recent years.	此外，近几年来，这一下降趋势似乎更加明显了。


There is talk of a crisis in the humanities.	人们开始谈论人文科学危机。


I don’t know enough about the humanities as a whole to comment on what is causing enrollments to fall.	我不是很了解人文科学，不敢妄议学生注册率下降的原因。


Perhaps many humanities disciplines are not seen as likely to lead to fulfilling careers, or to any careers at all.	也许许多人文学科不太容易找工作，或者根本找不到工作。


Maybe that is because some disciplines are failing to communicate to outsiders what they do and why it matters.	也许这是因为一些学科与外界沟通不充分，了解它们是干什么的、为什么重要的人太少。


Or, difficult as it may be to accept, maybe it is not just a matter of communication: Perhaps some humanities disciplines really have become less relevant to the exciting and fast-changing world in which we live.	或者（也许这一解释更难令人接受），也许这根本不是沟通问题：也许一些人文学科确实变得与我们生活其中的令人振奋、快速变化的世界不太相关了。


I state these possibilities without reaching a judgment about any of them.	我只是提出这些可能性，并不讨论如何调整。


What I do know something about, however, is my own discipline, philosophy, which, through its practical side, ethics, makes a vital contribution to the most urgent debates that we can have.	但是，我确实了解一些我的学科——哲学的东西。 哲学通过其实用分支伦理学为我们最紧迫的争论做出了重大贡献。


I am a philosopher, so you would be justified in suspecting bias in my view.	我是哲学家，因此你大有理由质疑我的观点有失偏颇。


Fortunately, I can draw on an independent report by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute (GDI), a Swiss think tank, to support my claim.	幸运的是，我可以找到瑞士智库戈特利布·杜德威勒研究所（Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute）的独立报告支持我的论点。


GDI recently released a ranked list of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders for 2013.	GDI最近发布了2013年全球思想领袖100人排名。


The ranking includes economists, psychologists, authors, political scientists, physicists, anthropologists, information scientists, biologists, entrepreneurs, theologians, physicians, and people from several other disciplines.	这份排名囊括了经济学家、心理学家、作家、政治学家、物理学家、人类学家、信息科学家、生物学家、企业家、神学家、医生和其他各学科的专家。


Yet three of the top five global thinkers are philosophers: Slavoj Žižek, Daniel Dennett, and me.	但排名前五的全球思想家中有三人是哲学家：斯拉沃伊·齐泽克（Slavoj Žižek）、丹尼尔·丹尼特（Daniel Dennett）和我。


GDI classifies a fourth, Jürgen Habermas, as a sociologist, but the report acknowledges that he, too, is arguably a philosopher.	GDI将排名第四的尤尔根·哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）列为社会学家，但报告也承认，说他是哲学家亦无不可。


The only Global Thought Leader in the top five not involved in philosophy is Al Gore.	全球思想领袖前五名中唯一与哲学无关的是阿尔·戈尔（Al Gore）。


There are more economists in the top 100 than thinkers from any other single discipline, but the top-ranking economist, Nicholas Stern, ranks tenth overall.	在思想家100强名单中，经济学家比其他任何一门学科都要多，但排名最靠前的经济学家尼古拉斯·斯特恩（Nicholas Stern）只位列第十。


Can it really be true that four of the world’s five most influential thinkers come from the humanities, and 3-4 from philosophy?	世界前五大最有影响力思想家有四个来人文学科，其中四分之三又来自哲学，这是真的吗？


To answer that question, we have to ask what GDI measures when it compiles its ranking of Global Thought Leaders.	要回答这个问题，我们要看一看GDI在给全球思想领袖排名时根据哪些指标。


GDI aims to identify “the thinkers and ideas that resonate with the global infosphere as a whole.”	GDI旨在识别“���全球总体信息域产生共鸣的思想家和思想”。


The infosphere from which the data are drawn may be global, but it is also English-language only, which may explain why no Chinese thinker is represented in the top 100.	数据收集所基于的信息域也许是全球的，但也只局限于英语，这也解释了为何中国思想家没有一位名列100强名单。


There are three eligibility requirements: one has to be working primarily as a thinker; one must be known beyond one’s own discipline; and one must be influential.	有形的要求有三项：必须以思想家为主业、必须在本身学科之外知名、必须有影响力。


The ranking is an amalgam of many different measurements, including how widely the thinkers are watched and followed on YouTube and Twitter, and how prominently they feature in blogs and in the wikisphere.	这份排名是许多不同指标的混合物，包括思想家在TouTube和Twitter上被观看的次数和粉丝数量，以及他们在博客和维基世界（wikisphere）的主导力。


The outcome indicates each thinker’s relevance across countries and subject areas, and the ranking selects those thinkers who are most talked about and who are triggering wider debate.	结果表明了每一位思想家在不同国家和不同领域的关联度，排名所选择的思想家都是被讨论最多、引起最广泛争论的思想家。


The rankings will no doubt vary from year to year.	毫无疑问，排名每年都会变化。


But we have to conclude that in 2013 a handful of philosophers were particularly influential in the world of ideas.	但我们可以看出，2003年一些哲学家在思想界拥有特别巨大的影响力。


That would not have been news to the Athenian leaders who considered what Socrates was doing to be sufficiently disturbing to put him to death for “corrupting the youth.”	这对于认为苏格拉底的所作所为太令人不安、以至于以“腐蚀年轻人”为由将他处死的雅典领袖来说肯定不是新闻。


Nor will it be news to anyone familiar with the many successful efforts to bring philosophy to a broader market.	对于熟悉让哲学打入更广阔的的市场的成功努力的人来说也不是新闻。


There is, for example, the magazine Philosophy Now, and equivalents in other languages. There are the Philosophy Bites podcasts, many blogs, and free online courses, which are attracting tens of thousands of students.	比如《当代哲学》（Philosophy Now）和其他语言的对应刊物，又比如叮哲（Philosophy Bites）这样的播客、大量博客、免费网络资源等等，它们吸引了成千上万学生。


Perhaps the growing interest in reflecting on the universe and our lives is the result of the fact that, for at least a billion people on our planet, the problems of food, shelter, and personal security have largely been solved.	也许对思考宇宙和生命的兴趣的增加要归因于这样一个事实：至少有十亿地球人，它们的衣食住行和安全问题已经基本得到了解决。


That leads us to ask what else we want, or should want, from life, and that is a starting point for many lines of philosophical inquiry.	这让我们开始探问其他我们想要或者应该从生活中知道的东西，而这就是许多哲学研究的出发点。


Doing philosophy – thinking and arguing about it, not just passively reading it – develops our critical reasoning abilities, and so equips us for many of the challenges of a rapidly changing world.	研究哲学——思考和思辨它，而不仅仅是消极地阅读它——开发了我们的批判性推理能力，也让我们能够应对快速变化的世界的挑战。


Perhaps that is why many employers are now keen to hire graduates who have done well in philosophy courses.	也许正因如此，许多雇主急切地希望聘用哲学成绩好的毕业生。


More surprising, and more significant still, is the way in which taking a philosophy class can change a person’s life.	更让人惊喜也更重要的是，如何教授哲学课能够改变一个人的生命。


I know from my own experience that taking a course in philosophy can lead students to turn vegan, pursue careers that enable them to give half their income to effective charities, and even donate a kidney to a stranger.	从我个人的经验出发，我知道上哲学课能让学生成为素食主义者，让他们追求将一般收入贡献给慈善事业，甚至让他们向陌生人捐献肾脏。


How many other disciplines can say that?	有多少其他学科可以做到这一点》


Choosing Death	选择死亡


PRINCETON – “I will take my life today around noon.	普林斯顿——“我将在今天中午前后结束自己的生命。


It is time.”	现在是时候了。 ”


With these words, posted online, Gillian Bennett, an 85-year-old New Zealander living in Canada, began her explanation of her decision to end her life.	在线发帖说这些话的是居住在加拿大的新西兰人，85岁的吉莉安·贝内特，之后她解释了作此决定的理由。


Bennett had known for three years that she was suffering from dementia.	贝内特得知患有痴呆症3年了。


By August, the dementia had progressed to the point at which, as she put it: “I have nearly lost me.”	今年8月，病情已经发展到，照她自己的话讲，“近乎丧失自我的程度”。


“I want out,” Bennett wrote, “before the day when I can no longer assess my situation, or take action to bring my life to an end.”	贝内特写道，“在我无法评估自身情况、或采取行动结束生命的那一天到来之前，我想要解脱。


Her husband, Jonathan Bennett, a retired philosophy professor, and her children supported her decision, but she refused to allow them to assist her suicide in any way, as doing so would have exposed them to the risk of a 14-year prison sentence.	”她的决定得到了丈夫乔纳森·贝内特，一位退休哲学教授，和她的子女们的支持。 但她拒绝让他们以任何形式为她的自杀提供协助，因为这么做有可能使他们面临14年的刑期。


She therefore had to take the final steps while she was still competent to do so.	因此她不得不在有能力自我了断的情况下迈出这最后的一步。


For most of us, fortunately, life is precious.	幸运的是，对我们多数人而言，生命是种可贵的恩赐。


We want to go on living because we have things to look forward to, or because, overall, we find it enjoyable, interesting, or stimulating.	我们因为有很多期望而要活下去，或者因为总的来讲，我们觉得生命有趣、刺激，是种享受。


Sometimes we want to go on living because there are things that we want to achieve, or people close to us whom we want to help.	有时我们为自我实现想要活下去，或者为了给身边的人以帮助。


Bennett was a great-grandmother; if all had been well with her, she would have wanted to see the next generation grow up.	贝内特是位曾祖母，如果她身体健康，她会希望看着下一代长大。


Bennett’s developing dementia deprived her of all of the reasons for wanting to continue to live.	贝内特逐渐恶化的痴呆症剥夺了她想继续活下去的一切理由。


That makes it hard to deny that her decision was both rational and ethical.	痴呆症让我们很难否认她的决定既理性又道德。


By committing suicide, she was giving up nothing that she wanted, or could reasonably value.	她自杀并没有放弃想要、并且有理由珍视的任何东西。


“All I lose is an indefinite number of years of being a vegetable in a hospital setting, eating up the country’s money but having not the faintest idea of who I am.”	“我所失去的不过是在医院里当不知多少年的植物人，大把浪费国家的钱却根本不知道自己是谁。 ”


Bennett’s decision was also ethical because, as the reference to “the country’s money” suggests, she was not thinking only of herself.	贝内特提到“国家的钱”表明她并非只为自己着想，因此她的决定也符合道德。


Opponents of legal voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide sometimes say that if the laws were changed, patients would feel pressured to end their lives in order to avoid being a burden to others.	合法自愿安乐死或医生协助自杀的反对者有时提出如果修改法律，患者会在压力下觉得应该结束自己的生命，以避免为他人带来负担。


Baroness Mary Warnock, the moral philosopher who chaired the British government committee responsible for the 1984 “Warnock Report,” which established the framework for her country’s pioneering legislation on in vitro fertilization and embryo research, disagrees.	道德哲学家玛丽·沃诺克男爵夫人并不认可这种观点，男爵夫人曾领导英国政府委员会撰写1984年“沃诺克报告”，确立了英国体外受精和胚胎研究领域具有开创性的法律框架。


She has suggested that there is nothing wrong with feeling that you ought to die for the sake of others as well as for yourself. 	她认为绝症患者萌生出死对他人和自己都好的感觉并没有什么不妥。


In an interview published in 2008 in the Church of Scotland’s magazine Life and Work, she supported the right of those suffering intolerably to end their lives.	在2008年发表的一篇接受苏格兰长老会杂志《生活与工作》的采访中，她支持那些忍受难以忍受痛苦的人结束自己生命的权利。


“If somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state,” she argued, “then I think they too should be allowed to die.”	她说，“如果有人因为成为家人或国家的负担而坚决、义无反顾地想要结束生命，那我认为他们也应该拥有死亡的权利。 ”


Because Canada’s public health service provides care for people with dementia who are unable to care for themselves, Bennett knew that she would not have to be a burden on her family; nonetheless, she was concerned about the burden that she would impose upon the public purse.	因为加拿大规定照顾无法自理的痴呆症患者的责任由公共卫生署承担，贝内特知道她不会成为家人的负担； 尽管如此，她还是担心自己会成为公共财政的负担。


In a hospital, she might survive for another ten years in a vegetative state, at a cost she conservatively estimated to be around $50,000-$75,000 per year.	她或许会在医院以植物人的形式存活十年，据她保守估计成本大概在每年50，000到75，000美元。


As Bennett would not benefit from remaining alive, she regarded this as a waste.	因为贝内特无法从自己的余生中获益，她认为这样做是在浪费资源。


She was concerned, too, about the health care workers who would have to care for her: “Nurses, who thought they were embarked on a career that had great meaning, find themselves perpetually changing my diapers and reporting on the physical changes of an empty husk.”	她还担心那些将要照顾她的医护人员：“那些憧憬着职业生涯的意义走上岗位的护士发现她们永远在为我更换尿布，并不断报告一具躯壳的物理改变。


Such a situation would be, in her words, “ludicrous, wasteful, and unfair.”	”用她的话讲，这样的情形“可笑、浪费而且有失公允。 ”


Some will object to the description of a person with advanced dementia as an “empty husk.”	有些人可能反对将晚期老年痴呆症患者说成是一具“空壳”。


But, having seen this condition overtake my mother and my aunt – both vibrant, intelligent women, who were reduced to lying, unresponsive, in a bed for months or (in my aunt’s case) years – it seems to me entirely accurate.	但我亲眼目睹过这种病压垮我的母亲和姑母，她俩都曾是充满活力和智慧的女性，但最后几个月（我姑母甚至长达几年）却只能毫无反应地躺在床上，因此我认为这种描述是非常准确的。


Beyond a certain stage of dementia, the person we knew is gone.	老年痴呆症发展到一定阶段，我们所熟悉的人就已经不在了。


If the person did not want to live in that condition, what is the point of maintaining the body?	如果患者不想在这种状态下生活，那保留一具躯壳又有什么用？


In any health-care system, resources are limited and should be used for care that is wanted by the patient, or from which the patient will benefit.	任何医疗系统资源都非常有限，应该用于提供患者所希望的治疗、或者患者能够受益的治疗上。


For people who do not want to live on when their mind has gone, deciding when to die is difficult.	对那些不愿在思想消失后继续存活的人而言，决定死亡时间往往是很难的。


In 1990, Janet Adkins, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, traveled to Michigan to end her life with the assistance of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who was widely criticized for helping her to die, because at the time of her death she was still well enough to play tennis.	1990年，患有老年痴呆症的珍妮特·阿德金斯前往密歇根州，在杰克·凯沃尔基安博士的协助下结束自己的生命。 协助她自杀的凯沃尔基安博士遭到广泛的批评，因为在阿德金斯死时她还能打网球。


She chose to die nonetheless, because she could have lost control over her decision if she had delayed it.	但她还是选择去死，因为推迟的话她有可能丧失控制权。


Bennett, in her eloquent statement, looked forward to the day when the law would allow a physician to act not only on a prior “living will” that bars life-prolonging treatment, but also on one that requests a lethal dose when the patient becomes incapacitated to a specified extent.	在贝内特意味深长的声明中，她希望有一天法律能允许医生不仅对预先立下“生前遗嘱”，禁止采用生命延续手段的人采取行动，也能应患者要求在其行为能力丧失到一定程度时为其注射致死剂量的药物。


Such a change would remove the anxiety that some patients with progressive dementia have that they will go on too long and miss the opportunity to end their life at all.	这样的改变可以消除某些退行性痴呆症患者的顾虑，让他们不必害怕因为延误太久而失去结束自己生命的机会。


The legislation Bennett suggests would enable people in her condition to live as long as they want – but not longer than that.	贝内特所期望的法案能让人们活到自己想活的那天——而不是更长。


The Bitterness of Sugar	糖之苦


PRINCETON – Sugar is sweet, but the ethics of its production is anything but appealing.	普林斯顿—糖是甜的，但糖产品的伦理学一点也不吸引人。


“Sugar Rush,” a recent report released by Oxfam International as part of its “Behind the Brands” campaign, has shown that our use of sugar implicates us in land grabs that violate the rights of some of the world’s poorest communities.	乐施会国际（Oxfam International）最近发布了一篇《糖果冲冲冲》（Sugar Rush，为其《品牌背后》（Behind the Brands）系列的一部分），披露我们对糖的使用导致我们做出了抢夺土地、破坏某些世界最贫困社区的权利的行径。


Better-informed and more ethical consumers could change this.	更加了解情况和更讲道德的消费者可以改变这一状况。


We are genetically programmed to like sweet things, and when people become more affluent, they consume more sugar.	我们喜欢甜的，这是基因决定的，而当我们衣食无忧时，就会消费更多的糖。


The resulting increase in sugar prices has led producers to seek more land on which to grow sugarcane.	结果是糖价上涨，导致生产商寻找更多的土地种植糖类作物。


It is no surprise that the poor lose when their interests conflict with those of the rich and powerful.	毫不奇怪，当穷人的利于与富贵之士冲突时，吃亏的是前者。


The Oxfam report provides several examples of producers who have acquired land without the consent of the people who live on it, turning farmers into landless laborers.	乐施会的报告中就有不少例子，生产商在居民不同意的情况下兼并土地，导致农民沦为无地劳动力。


Here is one.	请看下例。


In the northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco, a group of fishing families had lived since 1914 on islands in the Sirinhaém River estuary.	在巴西北部的伯南布哥州（Pernambuco），一群渔民家庭自1914年以来便生活在西里尼亚恩河（Sirinhaém River）河口的小岛上。


In 1998, the Usina Trapiche sugar refinery petitioned the state to take over the land.	1998年，Usina Trapiche炼糖厂要求伯南布哥州征用土地。


The islanders say that the refinery then followed up its petition by destroying their homes and small farms – and threatening further violence to those who did not leave.	岛民说，炼糖厂在提出要求后就破坏了他们的家园和小农场，并威胁没有离开的岛民进一步使用暴力。


As recently as last year, the fishing families say, employees of the refinery burned down homes that had been rebuilt.	这些渔民家庭说，去年，炼糖厂雇员还在烧毁重新建起来的房子。


Trapiche moved the families to a nearby town, where they gained access to electricity, water, sanitation, and schooling, but if they want to continue to fish, they have to travel a long distance.	Trapiche公司将渔民家庭迁往附近的城镇，提供水电、卫生服务和教育，但如果他们向继续捕鱼，就得长途跋涉。


Many of them are still seeking to return to the islands.	他们中许多人仍在设法回归捕鱼生活。


Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo use Usina Trapiche sugar in their products.	可口可乐和百事可乐都使用Usina Trapiche糖用于生产。


Does that make them responsible for the wrongs done to the people whose land Trapiche is using to produce that sugar?	它们应该为土地被Trapiche用来生产这些糖的人的悲惨遭遇负责吗？


In the 1990’s, Nike tried to wash its hands of responsibility for the use of child labor and other unconscionable labor practices in the factories that produced its sneakers.	20世纪90年代，耐克试图洗净其运动鞋工厂使用童工和其他不道德用工行为的责任。


That did not go down well with its customers, and in the end Nike decided to do the right thing, inspecting factories, tackling problems, and being transparent about its suppliers.	但其顾客并不买账，最终耐克做出了正确的决定，检查工厂，解决问题，并让其供应商透明化。


Likewise, McDonald’s initial response to criticism of its suppliers’ animal-welfare practices was to sue the activists who made the allegations.	类似地，麦当劳对关于其供应商动物福利方面的批评的最初反应是起诉指责它们的活跃分子。


The company expected that its critics would give up.	麦当劳期望批评者会就此消停。


But when two of them, with nothing to lose, defended themselves in court, the result was the longest libel trial in British legal history – and a public-relations disaster for the corporate giant.	但有两位输无可输的批评者现身法庭为自己辩护，结果造就了英国法律史上最长的诽谤庭讯，庞大的麦当劳公司因此遭遇公共关系灾难。


After the judge held that some of the activists’ claims were not defamatory, because they were true, McDonald’s began to accept responsibility for its suppliers’ practices.	法官判决活跃分子的一些指责并不构成诽谤，因为内容属实。 此后，麦当劳接受了对其供应商行为的责任。


It has since become a much-needed force for improvement in the treatment of animals used for food in the United States.	这也成为美国对待食用动物行为改善的及时雨。


More recently, the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh earlier this year, which killed more than 1,000 people, posed a similar question for the garment industry.	更近的例子有今年早些时候孟加拉国Rana Plaza制衣厂垮塌事件，该事件造成1000多人死亡，也给制衣业带来了类似的问题。


Associated British Foods (ABF), which is both a major sugar producer and the owner of the retail clothing chain Primark, took responsibility for its suppliers by signing up, along with 80 other clothing brands, to a legally binding building-safety agreement supported by trade unions and the Bangladeshi government.	主要糖生产商兼连锁服装品牌Primark所有者英联食品公司（Associated British Food）承担了对供应商的责任，与其他80个服装品牌一起签署了受工会和孟加拉国政府支持的具有法律效力的建筑安全协定。


What applies to the clothing industry should hold for the food industry, too – and not just for sugar, but for all food production.	服装业适用的，食品业也适用——不仅仅是糖，所有食品产品都适用。


Oxfam is asking the ten biggest food brands to show leadership by acknowledging their responsibility for land-rights violations involving their suppliers.	乐施会要求十家最大的食品品牌拿出领导力，承认它们在供应商违反土地权利方面的责任。


In particular, Oxfam wants these global companies to avoid buying from suppliers that have acquired land from small-scale food producers without these producers’ free, prior, and informed consent.	特别地，乐施会希望这些全球公司不要购买在没有获得小型食品生产商自主做出的充分了解情况的先期同意的情况下兼并它们的土地的供应商所提供的原料。


Where land has already been acquired without such consent, and the acquisition is in dispute, Oxfam wants the corporations to insist on fair dispute-resolution procedures.	对于已经发生的未经如此同意的土地兼并，以及存在纠纷的土地兼并，乐施会希望各大公司坚持公正的纠纷解决程序。


“Behind the Brands” includes a score sheet, ranking the Big 10 on a range of issues, including their impact on workers, water, land, women, and climate change.	《品牌背后》给出了一张评分表，就各大问题给十大品牌打分。 这些问题中包括了对员工、水、土地、女性和气候变化的影响。


On land issues, Oxfam rates PepsiCo, and ABF either “poor” or “very poor.”	在土地问题上，乐施会给百事可乐和英联食品的评分是“差”或“很差”。


Nestlé scores better, because its guidelines for suppliers – used for the sourcing of sugar, soy, palm oil, and other commodities – require that they obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous and local communities before acquiring land.	雀巢公司的评分要好一些，因为其供应商指南——用于糖、大豆、棕榈油和其他商品的采购——要求供应商在土地兼并前获得土著和本地社区自主做出的充分了解情况的先期同意。


Nestlé was the first of the Big 10 to support this principle fully.	雀巢公司是十大品牌中第一个全面支持这一原则的公司。


Then, on November 7, Coca-Cola responded to the Oxfam campaign by declaring that it would have “zero tolerance” for land grabbing by its suppliers and bottlers.	随后，11月7日，可口可乐也就乐施会的号召做出了回应，它将对供应商和灌装商的土地掠夺行为“零容忍”。


Coca-Cola committed to disclosing the companies that supply it with sugar cane, soy, and palm oil, so that social, environmental, and human rights assessments can be conducted; it will also engage with Usina Trapiche regarding the conflict with the fishing families of the Sirinhaém River estuary.	可口可乐承诺披露其甘蔗、大豆和棕榈油供应商，以便人们进行社会、环境和人权评估； 在与西里尼亚恩河口渔民冲突的问题上，可口可乐也抨击了Usina Trapiche。


Oxfam’s advocacy is raising the standards for the global food industry.	乐施会主张提高全球食品行业标准。


If PepsiCo and ABF want us to regard them as ethical producers, they need to follow the lead of Nestlé and now Coca-Cola, and accept responsibility for their suppliers’ conduct toward some of the world’s poorest and most powerless people.	如果百事可乐公司和英联食品公司想要我们认为它们是有道德的生产商，那么它们就需要以雀巢公司和现在的可口可乐公司为榜样，接受它们在其供应商对待世界最贫困、最弱势人群问题上的责任。


Is Citizenship a Right?	公民权是一项权利吗？


MELBOURNE – Should your government be able to take away your citizenship?	墨尔本—你的政府应该具有剥夺你公民权的能力吗？


In the United Kingdom, the government has had the legal authority to revoke naturalized Britons’ citizenship since 1918.	在英国，从1918年开始，政府便拥有了剥夺归化英国公民的公民权的法律权力。


But, until the terrorist bombings on the London transport system in 2005, this power was rarely exercised.	但是，在2005年伦敦交通系统恐怖爆炸案发生前，这一权力极少实施。


Since then, the British government has revoked the citizenship of 42 people, including 20 cases in 2013.	2005年后，伦敦政府剥夺了42人的公民权，其中2013年有20起。


British Home Secretary Theresa May has said that citizenship is “a privilege, not a right.”	英国内政大臣特蕾莎·梅（Theresa May）说，公民权是“一项特权，而不是权利。 ”


Most of the 42 held dual nationality. Mohamed Sakr, however, did not.	42个被剥夺公民权的人大多拥有双重国家，但穆罕默德·萨克尔（Mohamed Sakr）不在此列。


His parents came to Britain from Egypt, but he was not an Egyptian citizen.	他的父母从埃及来到英国，但他没有埃及公民权。


Therefore, by stripping him of citizenship, the UK government made him stateless.	因此，在英国政府剥夺了他的公民权后，他成了无国籍人士。


Sakr appealed the decision from Somalia, where he was living.	萨克尔在他的居住地索马里就该决定提起上诉。


His case was strong, because the UK Supreme Court subsequently ruled in a different case that the government does not have the power to make a person stateless.	他的案子是一个重要案件，因为英国最高法院随后在另一宗案件中裁定政府不具有让个人沦为无国籍人士的权力。


Nevertheless, Sakr discontinued his appeal, apparently because he was concerned that the use of his cellphone was revealing his location to US intelligence services.	尽管如此，萨克尔并没有坚持上诉，这显然是因为他担心使用手机将把他的位置暴露给美国情报机构。


Months later, while still in Somalia, he was killed in an American drone attack.	几个月后，身在索马里的他在美国无人机空袭中丧生。


Now, partly in response to fears that Britons who have joined the fighting in Syria may return to carry out terrorism at home, the government has proposed legislation enabling it to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Britons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities – even if this makes them stateless.	如今，部分是因为担心在叙利亚参战的英国人可能回国实施恐怖活动，政府建议立法授权它剥夺被疑月恐怖活动有涉的归化英国人的公民权，即使这会导致他们沦为无国籍人士。


(Since the start of the year, more than 40 Britons have been arrested on suspicion of engaging in military activities in Syria.)	（今年以来，40多位英国人因为被疑参与了叙利亚军事活动而被捕。


The House of Commons passed the legislation in January, but in April the House of Lords voted to send it to a joint parliamentary committee for additional scrutiny.	）下议院在1月通过了该立法，但4月的上议院投票结果是将该立法送交联合议会委员会进行进一步审议。


In the United States, citizenship can be revoked only on limited grounds, such as fraud committed in the citizenship application or service in another country’s military.	在美国，只有有限情形才能被剥夺公民权，如在申请公民资格时弄虚作假或在别国服兵役。


Arguably, joining a terrorist organization hostile to the US is even worse than joining a foreign army, because terrorist organizations are more likely to target civilians.	可以指出的是，参加与美国敌对的恐怖组织比加入外国军队还要糟糕，因为恐怖组织更有可能针对平民。


But one important difference is that if people who join other countries’ military forces lose their US citizenship, they can presumably become citizens of the country for which they are fighting.	但一个重要的区别在于，如果参加别国军队的人被迫放弃美国公民权，他们就很有可能加入他们为之战斗的国家的国籍。


Terrorist organizations usually have no such ties to a particular government.	而恐怖组织通常不会与具体国家的政府有联系。


The 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Britain is a signatory, does allow countries to declare their citizens stateless if it is proved that they have done something “prejudicial to the vital interests of the country.”	1961年联合国减少无国籍状态公约（Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness）确实允许国家在证实公民做了“不利于国家关键利益”的事后宣布公民为无国籍。


The legislation currently before the UK Parliament does not require any judicial or public proof even of the weaker claim that someone’s presence in the country is not conducive to the public good.	英国也是该公约的签约国。 目前正在接受英国国会审议的立法不要求任何司法或公开证据，哪怕是某人出现在该国不利于公共利益的弱指控。


Should the person whose citizenship is revoked mount an appeal, the government is not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence on which it has based its decision.	如果被剥夺公民权的人提起上诉，政府不需要向上诉人披露剥夺决定所基于的证据。


Though governments are bound to make mistakes from time to time in such cases, judges or tribunals will be unable to probe the evidence put before them.	尽管政府在这类案件中不乏冤假错案，但法官和法院将无法调查呈现给他们的证据。


Another, more sinister possibility is deliberate abuse of these powers to get rid of citizens whose presence in the country is merely inconvenient.	另一个更糟糕的可能性是有意滥用这些权力剥夺仅仅给国家造成不便的人的公民权。


There is a strong case for an appeal system that allows for full and fair review of decisions to revoke citizenship.	很有必要建立一个可以对剥夺公民权的裁决进行充分而公正的审议的上诉制度。


But governments will respond that to make the evidence available to a person believed to be involved with a terrorist organization could reveal intelligence sources and methods, thus jeopardizing national security.	但政府会辩解说，公开据信与恐怖组织有染的人的证据可能泄漏情报资源和方法，从而威胁国家安全。


The ability to revoke citizenship without presenting any evidence in public is one reason why a government may prefer this course to arresting and trying terrorism suspects.	在不公开任何证据的情况下剥夺公民权的能力是政府更喜欢以此为借口逮捕和拘禁恐怖嫌疑犯的原因。


And yet simply revoking citizenship does not solve the problem of leaving at large a suspected terrorist, who may then carry out an attack elsewhere – unless, as with Sakr, he is killed.	但光是剥夺公民权并没有解决涉嫌恐怖分子逍遥法外这一问题，他可以在其他地方组织袭击，除非他像萨克尔一样被杀。


The larger question raised by the UK’s proposed legislation is the desirable balance between individual rights, including the right to citizenship, and the public good.	英国审议中的立法所带来的更大的问题是个人权利（包括公民权）和公共利益之间的适当平衡。


Suppose that the government gets it right 19 times out of 20 when it relies on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities to revoke people’s citizenship.	假设政府凭借怀疑与恐怖活动由涉而剥夺某些人的公民权，并且20次中有19次确有其事。


If that were the case with the decisions made by the UK government in 2013, there would still be a high probability that an innocent naturalized citizen was made stateless.	如果这符合2013年英国的情形，那么仍有极高的可能性有无辜归化公民被打为无国籍认识。


That is a grave injustice.	这是巨大的不公。


Suppose, however, that the 19 people correctly suspected of involvement in terrorism were able to return to Britain, and one carried out a terrorist attack similar to the London transport bombings, which killed 52 innocent people (the four bombers also died).	但是，假设被正确地怀疑与恐怖主义有染的19人可以回到英国，并且其中一人实施了类似于伦敦交通系统爆炸（导致52名无辜群众被杀，四名炸弹袭击者也丧生）的恐怖袭击。


In the face of such atrocities, it is difficult to insist that individual rights are absolute.	面对如此暴行，很难坚持绝对的个人权利。


Is it better to have one innocent person unjustly made stateless, or to have 52 innocent people killed and many others injured?	一个无辜的人被不公平地打为无国籍人士，与52名无辜群众被杀、另有众多群众受伤，哪种结果更好？


The much greater harm done by the terrorist attack cannot be ignored; but when a democratic government starts to revoke citizenship and make people stateless, it sets a precedent for authoritarian regimes that wish to rid themselves of dissidents by expelling them, as the former Soviet Union did to the poet and later Nobel laureate Joseph Brodsky – among many others.	恐怖袭击所造成的伤害要大得多，这是不容忽视的； 但当民主政府开始剥夺公民权、让人沦为无国籍状态，它就为极权主义开启了通过放逐处置持异见者的先例——苏联诗人、后来获得诺贝尔奖的约瑟夫·布罗茨基（Joseph Brodsky）等人就有此遭遇。


In the absence of global citizenship, it may be best to retain the principle that citizenship is not to be revoked without a judicial hearing.	在全球公民权缺位的情况下，或许最好还是保留不可在不经司法听证的情况下剥夺公民权的原则。


Migration on the Move	移民动起来


LONDON – In 2000, the United Nations established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to drive progress on important development objectives, such as reducing poverty, promoting gender equality, and curbing disease.	伦敦—2000年，联合国出台了千年发展计划（MDG）以推动减少贫困、促进性别平等和治疗疾病等方面的重要发展目标。


But the architects of the MDGs neglected one critical issue: migration.	但MDG的设计者忽略了一个关键问题：移民。


Fortunately, it looks like world leaders will not make the same mistake with the post-2015 development agenda.	幸运的是，世界领导人在2015年后的发展日程中似乎不会再犯同样的错误。


The scale of remittances alone should be enough to convince the world that migration deserves a prominent spot in the post-2015 agenda.	光是侨汇规模便应已足以让世界确信移民应该在2015年后的发展日程中获得重要的一席之地。


Last year, migrants from developing countries sent an estimated $414 billion to their families – triple the total of official development assistance.	去年，发展中国家移民向国内家人汇去4,140亿美元——是正式发展援助的三倍。


More than a billion people rely on such funds to help pay for education, health care, water, and sanitation.	超过十亿人依赖于这一资金来源支付教育、医疗、水和卫生服务。


As if that were not enough, remittances have important macroeconomic benefits, enabling countries to pay for essential imports, access private capital markets, and qualify for lower interest rates on sovereign debt.	更进一步地看，侨汇还有重要的宏观经济好处，让国家能够支付重要的进口品、获得进入私人资本市场的机会、拉低主权债务的利率。


But many of migration’s benefits are squandered.	但许多移民的好处被白白浪费了。


Financial intermediaries extract 9% of remittances, on average, for an estimated total of $49 billion in migrant earnings last year.	金融中介平均要从侨汇中抽头9%，去年因此赚得490亿收入。


Rapacious recruiters, who often keep one-third of a migrant’s pay, skim billions more.	贪得无厌的招工头往往会拿走移民收入的三分之一，他们也赚得数百亿。


Meanwhile, smuggling, trafficking, exploitation, and discrimination take an incalculable human toll.	与此同时，走私、拐卖、剥削和歧视都在对移民造成着不可估量的伤害。


This is where the post-2015 development agenda comes in.	这就是2015年后发展日程需要解决的问题。


With the right incentives, governments and companies can be encouraged to pursue policies aimed at ensuring that more funds reach poor families, while working to protect migrants’ rights and prevent discrimination.	有了正确的激励，政府和公司就会受到鼓励采取措施确保更多资金送到贫困家庭手中，同时致力于保护移民权益、防止歧视。


At the same time, the agenda can help to transform perceptions of migrants.	与此同时，发展日程可以有助于改变对移民的看法。


As it stands, migration is often viewed as a sign of a home country’s failure to offer adequate opportunities, while locals in destination countries believe that migrants are stealing their jobs, depressing their wages, or exploiting their welfare systems.	从实际情况看，移民常常被看成祖国不能提供足够机会的信号，而目的国当地人往往认为移民抢走了他们的饭碗、压低了他们的工资、钻了他们福利制度的控制。


But the fact that 9% of British citizens live abroad demonstrates that people move regardless of their home country’s wealth.	但9%的英国人生活在国外这一事实证明人们移民未必是因为祖国的财富。


Moreover, evidence shows that migrants contribute more than they appropriate, as they foster knowledge transfers, trade, tourism, investment, and even job creation through entrepreneurship, while doing important jobs – from caring for children and the elderly to staffing hotels and restaurants to picking crops – that are undesirable to locals.	此外，证据表明移民的贡献远大于他们所占的比例，因为他们通过企业家精神和从事本地人看不上的重要工作（如儿童和老人看护、饭店和餐饮服务员、收割庄稼等）促进了知识传播、贸易、旅游、投资甚至就业创造。


Given the undeniable benefits of migration, it might be surprising that it was not included in the MDGs.	移民具有不可否认的好处，因此MDG没有将其纳入其中令人惊讶。


The problem is that, in 2000, there was neither enough evidence about migration’s effects on development nor sufficient political support to secure its addition to the agenda.	问题在于，2000年时既没有足够的证据证明移民对发展的积极影响，也没有足够的政治支持确保它被纳入日程。


That is no longer the case.	这些情况已经一去不复返了。


A group of countries, international agencies, and NGOs has made a strong case to the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (the body responsible for facilitating deliberations on the post-2015 agenda) that migration can help reduce poverty and generate economic growth.	一个由国家、国际机构和非政府组织组成的小组有力地向联合国可持续发展目标工作小组（负责促进审议2015年后日程的机构）证明，移民能够有助于减少贫困、促进经济增长。


The group’s proposal – which includes lower remittance costs, increased pension portability, and strong action against human trafficking – calls for a specific set of targets and indicators, which would substantially enrich the next development agenda.	该小组的方案——包括降低侨汇成本、增加退休金可转移性以及严厉打击人口贩卖——呼吁采取具体的目标和指标，从而极大地丰富下一批发展日程。


It even calls for migrants to be considered when measuring progress toward other goals, such as ensuring decent work and equitable access to health-care services.	该方案甚至还呼吁在衡量其他目标的进展时考虑移民因素，如保证移民在获得体面工作和平等取得医疗服务等方面的指标。


There is a groundswell of political support behind this effort.	在这一方案背后是巨大的政治支持。


Last October, when the UN General Assembly met to discuss migration for only the second time, member states unanimously approved a declaration that called for migration’s inclusion in the post-2015 agenda.	去年10月，联合国大会开会讨论移民问题——这是历史上第二次——各成员国一致同意批准呼吁将移民问题纳入2015年后日程的宣言。


The International Organization for Migration Council issued a similar resolution in November, and the campaign has attracted additional support from civil-society groups and international organizations.	国际移民组织委员会（International Organization for Migration Council）也在11月通过了类似的决议，该动议还获得了公民社会团体和国际组织的更多支持。


The international community has pledged to place people at the center of the post-2015 development agenda.	国际社会承诺将人置于2015年后发展日程的核心。


There is no better expression of this commitment than recognizing the indispensable role that migrants play – and protecting their rights.	对于这一承诺，最好的表达方式莫过于承认移民所扮演的不可或缺的角色并保护他们的权益。


To this end, the agenda must create the basis for sustained and meaningful global partnerships on migration and human mobility, similar to efforts under the MDGs, to make trade and technology transfer work for development.	在这方面，2015年后日程必须为移民和人口流动方面的全球合作创造有意义的持续基础（如同根据MDG采取的各项行动一样），从而让贸易和技术转移为发展做出贡献。


But not everyone stands behind these goals.	但并非所有人都支持这些目标。


A handful of national leaders could veto the inclusion of migration, owing to misplaced fears of its domestic political consequences.	一些国家领导人可能否决将移民纳入发展日程，因为他们不正确地担心移民的国内政治影响。


To avoid such an outcome, it is important to note that opinion polls usually reveal public anxiety about unregulated migration, not legal migration or legitimate asylum-seekers.	为了避免这样的结果，一个重要的方面是注意到民意调查所揭示的公共忧虑通常是针对非法移民而不是针对合法移民或合法避难人士的。


Even in Europe, where populism is on the rise, citizens are more enlightened than their leaders: 69% of Europeans say that they are not worried about legal migration, and 62% do not believe that migrants take jobs from locals.	即使在民粹主义日盛的欧洲，公民也比领导人更开明：69%的欧洲人表示不担心合法移民，62%不认为移民会夺走本地人的饭碗。


Governments like those in Germany and Sweden that manage migration well and invest in integration have the strongest public support.	德国和瑞典等移民管理工作出色、投资于融合的国家的政府获得的公众支持最高。


The number of migrants that a country welcomes is a matter that only it can decide.	欢迎多少数量的移民是一国自己才能决定的事情。


But how migrants are treated, whether they are allowed to keep what they earn, and what they contribute to social and economic development are issues that matter to everyone.	但如何对待移民，是否允许他们保留自己挣来的成果，以及他们对社会和经济发展做出了什么贡献则是所有人的问题。


International law requires that the human rights of all migrants, whatever their status, are respected, which is also a fundamental precondition for individual and collective development.	国际法要求所有移民的人权，不管他地位如何，都要得到尊重，这也是个体和集体发展的一个基本前提。


Migration – when it is safe, legal, and voluntary – is the oldest poverty-reduction and human-development strategy.	移民——安全、合法和自愿的移民——是最古老的减贫和人类发展战略。


It seems that this long-ignored reality is finally sinking in, pushing discussion of the post-2015 development agenda in the right direction.	这一被长期忽视的现实终于引起了人们的注意，推动2015年后发展日程朝正确的方向前进。


Dying for Europe	为踏上欧洲大陆而丧生


LONDON – This summer, a gruesome tragedy unfolded aboard a ship in the Mediterranean Sea.	伦敦——这个夏天，地中海一艘船上发生了可怕的悲剧。


Twenty-nine men, women, and children fleeing crisis-torn countries succumbed to engine fumes in the vessel’s hold.	逃离危机蹂躏国的29名男人、女人和儿童在船舱中吸入了引擎废气。


As 60 others scrambled to escape, the human traffickers carrying them to Europe stabbed them and threw them into the sea off the coast of Lampedusa.	另外60人仓促逃离时，将他们运往欧洲的人贩用刀刺向他们，并把他们丢到兰佩杜萨岛沿岸的海里。


Eventually, a Danish petrol tanker rescued 569 survivors.	最后，一艘丹麦油轮挽救了569生还者。


More recently, some 500 migrants died off the coast of Malta, when a group of human traffickers responded to the passengers’ refusal to move onto smaller vessels by deliberately ramming the boat that had carried them from Egypt.	最近，约500名移民在马耳他海岸离开了人世，运送他们的人贩因为这些非法移民不肯换乘小船而故意撞沉了载着他们驶离埃及的船只。


Less than a week later, dozens of asylum-seekers perished when their boat capsized near the Libyan coast.	短短一周后，另一艘船在利比亚沿岸沉没，船上的数十名寻求庇护者遇难。


Such large numbers of deaths in and around Europe should do more than briefly seize headlines.	欧洲领土及其附近死那么多人不应只是短暂地成为报纸的头条新闻。


But Europeans seem inured to the plight of asylum-seekers and migrants, almost 3,000 of whom have died in the Mediterranean this year.	但欧洲人似乎对避难者和移民的处境无动于衷，仅6月1号以后已经有超过1,600人死于地中海。


This situation is untenable, both morally and politically.	这种状况无论从道德还是政治上都难以为继。


Of course, Europe cannot help all of those fleeing violence and destitution.	当然，欧洲无力为所有试图摆脱暴力和贫困的人提供帮助。


But, as the world’s wealthiest continent, it can certainly do more, especially if it adopts a unified approach.	但作为全世界最富有的大陆，尤其如果采取统一措施，欧洲无疑可以完成更多工作。


At a time when the number of displaced people is at an historic high, the European Union – which accounts for 29% of global wealth – hosts just 9% of refugees, leaving far poorer countries to carry most of the burden.	目前流离失所人数超过了以往任何时候，而拥有全球29%财富的欧盟却只收容了9%的难民，而任由贫困得多的国家承受大部分负担。


For example, tiny Lebanon shelters more than one million of the three million Syrians who are displaced, whereas the EU – 100 times larger – has taken in only about 100,000.	例如小小的黎巴嫩收容了叙利亚300万流离失所难民之中的超过100万，相比之下百倍于黎巴嫩欧盟却只收留了100,000人左右。


The EU is hardly powerless to address the tragic situation in and around the Mediterranean.	说欧盟无力解决地中海及其周边的惨状其实并不准确。


The new European Commission, Council, and Parliament should be able to uphold the EU’s humanitarian obligations by reducing the number of deaths at sea, thereby setting the stage for a more reasonable public debate about migration, while improving strained relations with Africa.	新一届欧盟委员会、理事会及议会应该通过减少死亡人数履行欧盟的人道主义义务，借此为有关移民的理性辩论做好准备，并改善与非洲的紧张关系。


This will demand, first and foremost, that EU leaders overcome the forces that have so far impeded action.	这首先需要欧盟领导人战胜迄今为止阻碍行动的势力。


One obstacle is anti-migrant populism, which has intensified owing to the serious economic challenges that Europeans have faced.	障碍之一是反移民民粹主义，欧洲人面临的严重经济挑战让反移民情绪更有市场。


With far-right political parties nipping at their heels, most mainstream politicians have avoided taking a stance on migration that might make them seem “soft.”	在极右翼政党的骚扰下，多数主流政界人士都竭力避免采取看似“软弱”移民态度。


Equally paralyzing is the way that the tragic episodes in the Mediterranean are portrayed: as sudden crises, rather than as part of a long-term trend.	同样棘手的是地中海悲剧的描述方式：它们被说成突发性危机，而不是一种长期趋势。


As such, they often provoke fiery rhetoric and defensiveness, instead of thoughtful debate.	因此这些事件往往会激起狂热的花言巧语和自我辩护，而不是发人深省的探讨。


For example, when the Arab Spring rebellions erupted in 2011, many Europeans immediately feared that millions of North Africans would descend on their shores.	比方说，当2011年“阿拉伯春天”革命爆发时，很多欧洲人立即担心数百万北非人会降落到欧洲的海岸线上。


In the three years since then, just 30,000 have arrived.	之后三年内，真正来到欧洲的移民只有30,000人。


Worse, this portrayal implies that little can be done to mitigate, or even prevent, such occurrences.	更糟的是，这样的描述意味着没有办法能够缓解、甚至避免这样的状况。


But the longer-term trends driving such tragedies – including demographic shifts, inadequate legal routes to Europe, poor governance and economic prospects in origin countries, and skewed public perceptions of refugees and migrants – can, to various degrees, be addressed.	但造成悲剧的长期趋势——包括人口结构变化、向欧洲移民的合法途径欠缺、源起国治理不善和经济前景灰暗以及歪曲移民和难民的公众形象——可以在不同程度上找到解决办法。


For starters, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, European Council President Donald Tusk, and the European Parliament should work to ensure that the public debate about refugees and migrants is anchored in fact.	首先，欧盟委员会主席让-克洛德·容克、欧洲理事会主席图斯克及欧洲议会应努力确保有关难民和移民的公开辩论以事实为基础。


As it stands, misconceptions are rampant, with residents of many EU countries believing, for example, that they host three times as many foreigners as they actually do.	现状是误解随处可见，比方说许多欧盟国家认为他们容纳的外国人是实际数量的三倍还多。


By debunking such myths, EU leaders can create space for action, while undercutting the credibility of populists.	通过揭穿这样的谎言，欧盟领导人能够争取到行动空间，同时降低民粹主义者的可信度。


Second, in designing asylum and migration policies, the European Commission should involve member states’ foreign, employment, and development ministers, instead of just their interior ministers.	其次，在制定避难和移民政策时，欧盟委员会应征询各成员国的外交、就业和发展部长，而不是只听取��政部长的意见。


The European Council also should deepen its engagement on these issues.	欧洲理事会也应当深入参与上述问题。


Third, the EU should craft asylum, migration, and border systems that equitably distribute financial, political, and other costs.	第三，欧盟应当建立公平分担财政、政治和其他成本的庇护、移民和边境制度。


The so-called Common European Asylum System that prevails today is perceived as unfair by many member states, and violates the rights of many asylum seekers.	很多成员国认为今天实行的所谓欧洲共同庇护制有失公平，而且侵犯了很多寻求庇护者的权利。


Fourth, the EU should increase the number of refugees that it accepts, and give more people the option of applying for asylum without having to reach Europe’s borders.	第四，欧盟应扩大接收的难民人数，让更多人拥有不必抵达欧洲边境即可申请庇护的选项。


This would result in fewer asylum-seekers making life-threatening voyages that leave their families deeply indebted – human traffickers charge as much as €15,000 ($19,700) to cross the Mediterranean – only to be turned away.	这样可以减少寻求庇护者冒着生命危险踏上欧洲之旅、致使家人债台高筑的状况——人贩子横渡地中海收费高达15,000欧元（合19,700美元）——而难民抵达后却根本无法进入。


Finally, in order to help prevent the crises that lead to displacement, the EU should work to strengthen its relationships with African countries, especially those bordering the Mediterranean.	最后，为防止导致民众流离失所的危机，欧盟应努力加强同非洲国家、特别是地中海沿岸国家的关系。


Talk of an African Marshall Plan – with loans issued to local businesses, which would repay them to their national governments to use for infrastructure development – proliferated after the Arab Spring, but led nowhere.	“阿拉伯春天”后到处都在谈论非洲马歇尔计划——即为当地企业发放贷款，企业还贷将用于国家政府开发基础设施。 但这项计划到现在也仅仅是空谈而已。


But such investment in Africa’s development, together with a regular, structured dialogue, could help to ease many Africans’ plight.	但用于非洲开发的上述投资，辅之以常规的结构性对话，可能有助于缓解很多非洲人的困境。


This would reduce their incentive to migrate and, in cases where people still aspire to reach Europe, facilitate a more orderly process.	这样做能够降低他们的移民欲望，并且在仍具备移民想法的情况下促进更为有序的移民过程。


The EU’s new leaders have an important opportunity to fashion a fresh approach to asylum and migration – one that recognizes that safe, orderly migration can bring major benefits to countries of origin and destination alike.	欧洲新一届领导人手握创造庇护和移民新途径的重要机会——新的方法必须认可安全有序的移民对源起国和目的地国同样有好处。


Given Europeans’ tendency toward generosity and reason – qualities that their political leaders often underestimate – such an initiative would likely even bring political gains.	鉴于欧洲人相对宽容和理性——欧洲政治领袖往往低估民众的这一特点——这样的举措甚至可能在政治上带来帮助。


In short, there is no compelling reason not to extend the principled policy approach on which Europe prides itself to those who would risk their lives to reach its shores.	简言之，没有任何令人信服的理由不让甘冒生命危险抵达欧洲海岸的移民享受到欧洲引以为豪的原则性政策。


A Step Closer to Brexit?	英国退出又近一步？


LONDON – The referendum on Scottish independence, due on September 18, comes at a time of growing opposition in the United Kingdom to remaining in the European Union.	伦敦—9月18日举行的苏格兰独立公投正逢英国留在欧盟反对声浪日益高涨之时。


This is significant, because Scotland is the strongest base of pro-European sentiment in the UK.	这一点十分重要，因为苏格兰是英国亲欧洲情绪最强的地区。


For example, a poll conducted earlier this year determined that if a referendum on continued EU membership had been held in June in the UK as a whole, 47.1% would have voted to leave, with 39.4% voting to remain.	比如，今年早些时候举行的民调表明，如果在7月在英国进行关于欧盟成员地位的公投，那么47. 1%将支持退出，39.


But a poll in February 2014 showed that in Scotland, 48.7% would vote for the UK to remain in the EU, with 35.4% voting to leave.	但2014年2月的民调显示，在苏格兰，48. 7%的人会支持英国留下欧盟，35.


Other polls have also shown a consistent and markedly more positive attitude toward the EU in Scotland than in England.	1%把票投给退出。 其他民调也一致表明，苏格兰对欧盟的态度比英格兰积极得多。


Of course, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions from these figures.	当然，光凭这些数字得不出笃定的结论。


The referendum on exiting the EU that Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed may not take place, regardless of the success (whatever that may mean) of his promised “renegotiation” of the terms of British membership.	首相卡梅伦所提出的退出欧盟公投也许根本不会发生，不管他所承诺的英国成员资格条件“重新谈判”是否成功（也不管这意味着什么）。


But, as a result of various ostensibly minor issues, the likelihood of a British exit seems to be increasing – which fundamentally alters the importance of the vote in Scotland.	但是，拜众多表面上较为次要的问题所赐，英国退出欧盟的可能性似乎在增加——而这让苏格兰投票的结果变得更加重要了。


For example, the proposal of the relatively unknown Jonathan Hill, the leader of the UK House of Lords, as the British member of the new European Commission headed by Jean-Claude Juncker was just the latest in a long series of British EU errors.	比如，准备让知名度相对较小的上议院领袖乔纳森·希尔（Jonathan Hill）代表英国出任让-克劳德·容克领导的新欧盟议会委员就是英国众多欧盟政策错误的最新例子。


Cameron’s spokesmen said in July that, at his first meeting with the new Commission president, Cameron would seek a prestigious portfolio, such as the internal market, for Hill.	卡梅隆发言人7月说，在与欧盟新主席的首次会晤中，卡梅伦将为希尔要求重要职位，比如负责内部市场。


Juncker’s office coldly replied that important portfolios in the new Commission would go to major political figures, and that Juncker “does not owe [Cameron] anything.”	容克办公室冷淡地回应说，新欧盟委员会的重要职位将留给重要政治人物，并且容克“对（卡梅伦）没有任何亏欠。 ”


Given Cameron’s opposition to Juncker’s candidacy for the Commission presidency, the abuse to which Juncker has been subjected by the British press, and Hill’s lack of centrality within British politics, Cameron may be justifiably nervous when Juncker announces his appointments to the new Commission.	卡梅伦反对容克的欧盟委员会主席提名，英国媒体对容克进行过口诛笔伐，希尔也不是英国政坛的核心人物，因此当容克宣布新欧盟委员会委员任命时，卡梅伦心情紧张不足为奇。


Juncker, after all, has many senior politicians to accommodate, and their approval by the European Parliament is no minor matter.	毕竟，容克有很多资深政客可供派遣，而要让欧洲议会批准任命亦非小事。


And, though it was perhaps unsurprising that Cameron should be unenthusiastic about Juncker’s candidacy, the vehemence of his opposition was extraordinary.	此外，尽管卡梅伦对容克被提名为主席人选反应冷淡或许并不令人惊奇，但他的激烈反对就有些出格了。


Cameron no doubt wished to reassure those in his Conservative Party who doubt his euroskeptic zeal.	毫无疑问，卡梅伦希望让保守党内部怀疑起反欧洲立场的成员放心。


Even so, Cameron’s supposed remark that the UK was more likely to leave the EU if Juncker’s candidacy succeeded was strange and disquieting, not least because any renegotiation of the terms of British membership will be carried out primarily with other member states, not with the Commission.	即便如此，卡梅伦的假定结论——如若容克成功当选，英国更有可能离开欧盟——既奇怪又令人不安，因为任何关于英国成员地位条件的重新谈判主要是与其他成员国而不是欧盟委员会谈。


Cameron’s bid to thwart Juncker’s candidacy mirrored his unsuccessful attempt to prevent the adoption of the EU’s fiscal compact in 2012.	卡梅伦试图阻挠容克获得提名的努力是他在2012年阻挠欧盟采纳财政契约未果的反映。


He overestimated German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s willingness and ability to support the British position.	他高估了德国总理默克尔支持英国立场的意愿和能力。


Many influential Germans are reluctant to help Cameron in what they regard as his self-created European problem.	许多德国要人都不愿意在他们视为卡梅伦自我捏造的欧洲问题上助其一臂之力。


They will not allow Merkel much latitude here, even if she seeks it.	他们不会允许默克尔在这方面有很大的余地，即使她积极争取。


If Cameron’s advisers overestimated the support that they might have received from Merkel and others, they clearly underestimated the power and effectiveness of the European Parliament.	如果说卡梅伦的顾问们高估了他们可以从默克尔和其他人那里获得的支持，那么他们显然低估了欧洲议会的权力和效率。


For many months, the European Parliament had made it clear that it had specific ideas about how it would exercise its new powers, granted by the Treaty of Lisbon, over the Commission presidency.	多个月来，欧洲议会清楚地表明，对于如何行使其根据里斯本条约（Treaty of Lisbon）所获得的关于欧盟委员会主席提名人选的新权力，它有着非常具体的想法。


But the rapid post-election agreement among the Parliament’s major political groups to support Juncker caught Cameron off guard.	但欧洲议会主要政治团体之间迅速在选举后形成一致支持容克打了卡梅伦一个措手不及。


Far from enhancing British influence, threats of withdrawal have undermined the Cameron government’s credibility and influence within the EU, as colleagues have become disinclined to engage in significant compromises with a UK that may not be a member in two years.	威胁退出欧盟并没有增强英国的影响力，反而损害了卡梅伦政府在欧盟内部的信誉和影响，同侪们不再愿意与两年后可能不再是欧盟成员国的英国达成重大妥协。


Traditionally, EU heads of state and governments try to help one another with their domestic political problems.	传统上，欧盟国家和政府领导人试图在国内政治问题上彼此帮助。


But there is a growing sense in the European Council that Cameron is abusing this goodwill.	但在欧洲理事会，人们日益感到卡梅伦在滥用这一善意。


Thus, Cameron’s claim that Juncker’s election would make it more difficult to ensure the UK’s continued EU membership risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.	因此，卡梅伦宣称容克当选会更加难以保证英国保留欧盟成员地位，这有可能成为自我实现的预言。


To present Juncker’s candidacy as a matter of high political principle, with Cameron heroically but unsuccessfully standing alone against the dark forces of federalism and centralization, could have only reinforced English feelings of alienation from Europe.	将容克的提名资格作为崇高政治原则问题，以及卡梅伦慨然但失败地单枪匹马面对联邦主义和中央集权黑暗势力，可能只会增强英国人与欧洲的疏离感。


That is less likely to be the case in Scotland.	在苏格兰，这种可能性要小一些。


If Cameron returns as prime minister after the general election in 2015, he will face an uphill battle in renegotiating the terms of British EU membership, owing to resistance not only from his European partners, but also from his own Conservative Party, which is close to advocating British withdrawal.	如果卡梅伦在2015年选举中以首相身份归来，他将面临关于英国欧盟成员地位条件重新谈判的艰苦战斗，因为不但他的欧洲伙伴会抵制他，其本人所在的、接近于支持英国退出的保守党也会抵制他。


Indeed, it is difficult to see how a re-elected Cameron could maintain the Conservative Party’s unity without endorsing a “no” vote in the referendum on the outcome of his own renegotiation.	事实上，很难想象连任的卡梅伦如何维持保守党的团结，同时又不支持对关于其自己的重新谈判结果的公投投出“否决”票。


Britain’s EU membership will be one of the major issues at stake in next year’s election.	英国的欧盟成员地位将是该国明年选举的一个重要问题。


It would be a tragedy if British voters cast their ballots without fully understanding the European implications of their choice.	如果英国选民在不能充分理解他们的选择对欧洲有何影响的情况下投出选票，这将是一场悲剧。


One thing, however, seems certain: If Scotland votes for independence in September, a referendum within the rump UK on continued EU membership would be even less likely to produce a victory for those who wish to remain.	但是，有一点是肯定的：如果苏格兰在9月通过独立公投，那么失去苏格兰的英国对欧盟成员地位的公投将更加不可能产生希望留在欧洲派获胜的结果。


Migration’s Hall of Mirrors	移民的镜厅


LONDON – On both sides of the Atlantic, anti-immigrant politics are undermining democracies and damaging lives.	伦敦—在大西洋两岸，反移民政治正在破坏民主，威胁生命。


Far-right nationalist parties are gaining traction in Europe, while millions of undocumented migrants suffer in the shadows.	极右翼民族主义政党正在欧洲得势，更有数百万未登记移民生活在阴影之中。


In the United States, President Barack Obama, concerned about his party’s ability to retain control of the Senate, has decided to put off immigration reform until after the election in November.	在美国，总统奥巴马担心其政党能否保留对参议院的控制权，决定将移民改革推迟到11月选举之后。


Yet that may be the wrong approach.	但这很可能是错误的方针。


A new public-opinion survey by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) reveals that anti-immigrant sentiment stems largely from misinformation, not entrenched animus.	德国马歇尔基金会（German Marshall Fund，简称GMF）的最新民调表明，反移民情绪主要来自信息失真，而不在于根深蒂固的敌意。


The most important finding of the GMF’s Transatlantic Trends survey is that concern about immigrants falls sharply when people are given even the most basic facts.	GMF的《跨大西洋趋势》（Transatlantic Trends ）调查的最重要的发现是，当人们获得最基本的事实时，对移民的担忧就会迅速减少。


For example, when asked if there are too many immigrants in their country, 38% of the Americans surveyed agreed.	比如，在被问及美国移民是否过多时，38%的美国人表示同意。


But when respondents were told how many foreigners actually reside in the US before being asked that question, their views changed significantly: just 21% replied that there were too many.	但如果在问问题之前告诉受调查者实际上有多少外国人生活在美国，他们的观点就会发生重大改变：只有21%表示移民太多了。


The same was true in country after country.	其他国家也是如此。


In the United Kingdom, 54% of respondents said that there were too many immigrants; that number fell to 31% among those who were given the facts about foreigners.	在英国，54%的受访者说移民太多； 而在获得了关于外国人的事实后，这一数字下降到31%。


In Greece, 58% became 27%; Italy went from 44% to 22%; and so on.	在希腊，这一数字从58%变为27%，意大利则是44%变为22%，如此等等。


The only countries without such a gap were those with either very little immigration, like Poland, or those with a more open, informed, and progressive political debate about immigration, like Sweden and Germany.	仅有的没有出现重大差异的国家要么移民数量极少（如波兰），要么本身就更加开放、信息更加充分、关于移民的政治争论也较为进步（如瑞典和德国）。


Other surveys have exposed extraordinary inaccuracies in perceptions of migrants.	其他调查表明，对移民的认知存在重大偏差。


In many developed countries, for example, the public believes that there are three times as many immigrants residing in their country as there really are.	比如，在许多发达国家，公众所认为的移民数量比实际定居移民数量多两倍。


The average Briton believes that 34% of UK residents are foreigners; the true number is just 11%.	普通英国人认为34%的英国居民是外国人，而实际上只有11%。


Such distortions disappear in countries where migration challenges are confronted openly, discussed reasonably, and addressed with conviction.	在移民挑战获得公开面对、理性讨论、令人信服的解决的国家，就没有这样的扭曲。


The average Swede, for example, believes that 18% of the country’s population is composed of migrants; the actual number is close to 13%.	比如，普通瑞典人认为18%的该国人口由移民组成； 实际数字则接近13%。


As a result, populism in these societies is not on the rise, and mainstream politicians do not vilify minorities and migrants.	因此，这些社会的民粹主义并未呈现上升之势，主流政客也不会诽谤少数族裔和移民。


This constitutes strong evidence that reality-based debate and policymaking can fundamentally transform the negative political dynamics generated by migration.	这就构成了强有力的证据，证明基于现实的争论和决策能从根本上改变由移民造成的消极政治动态。


It also suggests that, by failing to engage voters on the reality of migration, mainstream politicians in Europe are manufacturing support for extremist parties.	这还表明，由于没有让选民获知关于移民的现实，欧洲主流政客正在为极端政党制造支持。


This self-inflicted political wound is extremely dangerous.	这一自作自受的政治创伤是极其危险的。


The Transatlantic Trends survey also shows that the American public is not worried about legal migration, while around two-thirds believe that the children of immigrants are being well integrated into their communities.	《跨大西洋趋势》调查还表明，美国公众并不担心合法移民，并且有大约三分之二的人认为移民子女能够很好地融入他们的社会。


These findings should embolden policymakers to be more proactive in designing pathways for legal migration and policies to integrate migrants.	这些发现应该鼓励决策者更加主动地设计合法移民途径和让移民融入本地社会的政策。


Even when it comes to illegal immigrants, though US citizens express concern, they are more reasonable than their political leaders about how to solve the problem.	即使是对非法移民，尽管美国公民表示了担忧，但在如何解决这一问题方面，他们仍比他们的政治领导人更加理性。


A plurality of Americans surveyed by the GMF, for example, said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain legal status.	比如，在接受GMF调查的美国人中，多数认为非法移民应该获得合法身份。