《时代120206》俄中联手挑战西方：对伊朗来说意味着什么？
Russia and China Challenge the West on Syria: What Implications for Iran?By TONY KARON
February 6, 2012 |
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/06/russia-and-china-challenge-the-west-on-syria-what-implications-for-iran/
The breach among the Permanent Five members of the U.N. Security Council in Saturday’s vote on Syria’s increasingly bloody power struggle could have profound implications for Syria’s immediate future. But it may also signal trouble ahead for international diplomacy on Iran.
Russia and China prompted a furious reaction from the U.S. (as well as France and Britain, and Arab League countries) for vetoing a resolution watered down to accommodate their concerns by removing the explicit demand for President Bashar Assad to cede power. Russia complained that the resolution was “unbalanced” because it didn’t make sufficient demands on opposition groups to end attacks on the regime. Syria’s power struggle has certainly come to resemble a civil war in recent weeks as the regime’s willingness to deploy its armed forces to suppress challenges to its authority have prompted an increasingly militarized response. But the international community’s failure to agree on terms for a political solution underscore the likelihood of a more protracted and bloody settling of accounts in Syria.
The veto left Western and Arab countries seeking ways of supporting the Syrian opposition outside of a U.N. framework. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on “friends of a democratic Syria” to coordinate efforts to support the opposition — although there’s no appetite in Western capitals for any repeat of even the relatively limited NATO air war in support of Libya’s rebellion, and Secretary Clinton was careful to specify the need to promote peaceful democratic opposition, even if she expressed understanding for those who chose to take up arms in response to Assad’s repression.
The military option among the opposition is fast eclipsing hopes for a negotiated transition to democracy, and amid an escalating war it’s also to be expected that some regional players could seek ways to boost the fighting capacity of an opposition currently heavily outgunned by the regime. In response to rumors that Qatar has already begun secreting arms to rebel forces, the country’s minister of foreign affairs told Al Jazeera: “It is not the position of Qatar or the Arab League to supply arms. Our mandate, our clear mandate, is to stop the killing in Syria, put the regime with the opposition at one table, and start a serious dialogue to bring Syria out of this chaos.” Failing such an outcome, however, it’s worth remembering that the tiny but wealthy emirate has played the leading role in galvanizing the Arab League to take a more forceful stance, and also that in the Libya case, it went far beyond what was required by the U.N. resolution authorizing a NATO-led air campaign (which Qatar’s air force joined) but also reportedly sent weapons to insurgent fighters and eventually deployed special forces to help organize the rebel assault that captured Tripoli.
But the strength of the regime’s security forces, and the sectarian basis on which it claims support — relying more on the Allawite, Christian and Kurdish minorities’ fears for their prospects under a predominantly Sunni opposition than on love for Assad — suggest it may not fall nearly as easily as Gaddafi did.
Assad and his supporters expressed satisfaction with Russia and China’s veto, and as if to prove the point of its critics, regime forces on Sunday continued a ferocious artillery assault on the opposition stronghold of Homs, where activists claim hundreds have been killed in recent days.
But Russia — which continues to arm the Assad regime — appears to be making diplomatic moves of its own, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — accompanied by President Dmitry Medvedev and Russia’s intelligence chief — due to visit Damascus on Tuesday for talks with Assad, in which the Russian foreign ministry says they will press for “urgent reforms” to “stabilize the situation.”
Just what Russia will demand of Syria remains unclear — Lavrov last week told Australian TV that “We never said that President Assad remaining in power is the solution to the crisis” — nor whether the regime is willing to make a political accommodation with the rebellion. But having wielded its veto and continued its arms shipments, Moscow certainly has more leverage over Assad than most outside players.
Still, the growing body count most eloquently frames the question of whether a conflict that has taken on the form of open civil war can be resolved through a political settlement based on conditions that pertained before it broke out. Not only has Assad shown no inclination to stand down and instead taken a military path, but there’s no single opposition leadership that can credibly claim to speak for all those fighting the regime on the ground. The Syrian National Council may enjoy diplomatic favor in foreign capitals, but its authority has been questioned by opposition groups on the ground, and it has no control over the Free Syrian Army, the loose-knit organization of military defectors waging armed struggle against the regime.
By breaking with the Western powers and wielding a veto at the risk of considerable opprobrium, Russia and China may be signaling a new willingness to challenge Western influence in shaping Middle East outcomes. Their motivations range from domestic political and economic concerns to a geostrategic calculation that their own interests are served by limiting Western intervention in the region. Washington’s Russian “reset” has not produced a strategic rapprochement with Moscow, while its Asia policy is now effectively premised on a strategic rivalry with China — both countries may also be becoming more assertive in challenging the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East.
And the willingness of Beijing and Moscow to break with their Western counterparts among the Permanent Five (veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council) on Syria also casts a shadow over the Obama Administration’s efforts to isolate and pressure Iran over its nuclear program.
Russia and China have long made clear that their perception of the Iran issue is quite different from that of the Western powers — while they believe Iran is required to comply with its NPT obligations, they don’t believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons or that it’s program poses a threat to international security, and they have demanded a greater emphasis on dialogue with Tehran in resolving the issue and addressing its underlying strategic rivalry.
The Obama Administration has worked hard to win Russian and Chinese support for a limited set of Security Council sanctions, even though both countries have bluntly rejected compliance with the unilateral measures against Iran’s energy sector adopted by the U.S. and its European allies.
The Syria vote served up a reminder of just how unlikely it is that the Security Council will pass any significant escalation of sanctions against Iran, much less provide legal authorization for the military option President Obama insists has not been taken off the table.
Russia and China are part of the structure through which the Western powers negotiate with Iran — the “Permanent Five + One” (the one being Germany, which is not a permanent member by virtue of having been on the losing side of World War II).
The Council vote will have certainly reassured Iran that there are significant strategic differences between the Western powers and Moscow and Beijing. It may also portend a more assertive effort by Russia to sell its own version of a compromise on Iran, which has thus far not been embraced by Western powers.
Whereas Russia’s position on Syria has few regional backers, it’s stance on Iran — particularly the emphasis on dialogue over sanctions and military threats — may be closer to that of some of the regional powers most willing to confront the Assad regime, including Turkey and Qatar.
Qatari officials speaking at a security conference in Munich at the weekend rejected talk of military action or even of tightening sanctions against Iran, instead urging stepped up negotiations. Turkey’s foreign minister took a similar position on Iran, even as he criticized Moscow and Beijing for their Syria veto, which he branded a reflexive Cold War hostility to the West. Perhaps. But because the Cold War-proper is long over, the latest developments may signal a new era of geopolitical competition with significant consequences for the Middle East.
《时代》俄罗斯和中国在叙利亚问题上挑战西方：这对伊朗来说意味着什么？
译者注： 俄中与西方大国分道扬镳，动用了否决权，并冒险承担指责带来的耻辱，这可能预示它们准备挑战西方的影响力，塑造中东未来局势的意愿，中东地缘政治竞争新时代可能已经开启，并将产生重大的后果。
本文由"译者"志愿者翻译并校对
http://yyyyiiii.blogspot.com
周六，联合国安理会针对叙利亚日益血腥的权力斗争问题进行投票，五个常任理事国成员未能达成一致，这可能会在切近的未来对叙利亚产生深远的影响。但这还可能预示了国际外交在对伊朗问题上将出现麻烦。
俄罗斯和中国否决了这一提案，激起了美国（以及法国和英国，阿拉伯联盟国家）的愤怒反应，俄中对明确要求叙总统巴沙尔·阿萨德（Bashar Assad）放弃权力各有自己担心的问题。俄罗斯抱怨说该决议"不够平衡"，因为它在要求反对派停止攻击现政权没有提出足够的要求。在最近几个星期，叙利亚的权力斗争已经类似于一场内战，该政权部署军队来打击挑战其权威的抗议，立刻就引起了武装叛乱。但是，国际社会未能达成政治方案则更有可能让叙利亚的争端只有通过更加旷日持久和惨烈血腥的争斗才能解决。
本次提案被否决让西方世界和阿拉伯国家只有寻求联合国框架之外的方式来支持叙反对派。国务卿希拉里·克林顿呼吁"民主叙利亚的盟友们"可以联合起来支持反对派——虽然哪怕是重演以相对有限的北约空中支持利比亚的叛乱战争，西方国家对此也没有什么胃口，而且克林顿国务卿虽然表达了她理解那些想以武力来回应阿萨德的压迫的想法，她还是小心谨慎地说要鼓励的是和平的民主的反对力量。
目前，反对派的武装远远不敌叙政权，但是一些地区参与者可以找到方法在这场日益恶化的内战中增强反对派的力量，这是可以预期的，反对派选择了武力对抗，让通过谈判过渡到民主的希望正在快速消退。有传言说，卡塔尔已经在秘密为叛军提供武器，该国的外交部长告诉半岛电视台说："卡塔尔或阿盟的立场不是提供武器。我们的任务，明确的任务，是要停止叙利亚正在发生的屠杀，让现政权与反对派可以坐到同一张桌前开始认真的对话，让叙利亚走出这种混乱。"但是这种结果显然没有出现，值得记住的是，在类似的利比亚局势中，这个富裕的小酋长国在让阿盟采取更有力的立场方面发挥了主导作用，它所做的也远远超出了联合国决议授权由北约主导进行空袭（卡塔尔的空军加入了那次行动），据报道说，它还给叛乱战士发放武器，最后还部署特种部队，帮助组织叛军攻击以占领的黎波里。
但叙政权的安全部队的实力和它所声称得到的支持——主要是阿拉维特、基督徒和库尔德少数派，对主要由逊尼派主导的反对派的担心更胜于他们倾向于阿萨德的程度——表明叙利亚现政权不太容易象卡扎菲那样倒台。
阿萨德及其支持者对俄中投的否决票表示满意，仿佛是要让批评观点得到证实，周日，该政权武装继续在反对派聚集的霍姆斯进行强烈的炮火攻击，活动家们说最近数天已有数百人被杀害。
但是，尽管俄罗斯持续为阿萨德政权提供武器，似乎自己也做出了外交举动，其外交部长谢尔盖·拉夫罗夫（Sergei Lavrov）在总统梅德韦杰夫和俄罗斯情报部长的陪同下，准备在周二访问大马士革，与阿萨德会谈，俄罗斯外交部说，他们呼吁进行"紧急改革"，以"稳定局势。"
俄罗斯将要求叙利亚怎么做仍不清楚——拉夫罗夫上周在澳大利亚电视上说："我们从来没有说过，让阿萨德总统继续掌权是解决危机的办法。" 也不清楚现政权是否愿意与叛军作出政治妥协。不过一边动员否决权，一边继续运送武器的莫斯科对阿萨德肯定有大多数外人都不具备影响力。
尽管如此，死者人数在不断增加，这让如下问题不可回避：是否能够通过可以维系的条件，以政治途径解决问题，而不是通过公开的内战。阿萨德不仅没有主动下台的迹象，还采取了军事手段，而且，也没有迹象表明，反对派领导人中有谁可以名副其实地成为正在对抗现政权的所有反对派的代表。"叙利亚国民议会"可能在获得外国资本方面得到了外交优惠，但其权威已被正在战斗中的反对派团体质疑，而它对"解放叙利亚军队"——这个松散的军事化叛军——也没有控制力。
俄中与西方大国分道扬镳，动用了否决权，并冒险承担指责带来的耻辱，这可能预示它们准备挑战西方的影响力，塑造中东未来局势的意愿。他们的动机既包括对本国国内的政治和经济问题的担忧，也包括如果能限制西方在该地区的干预，则从地缘战略的角度来看对自身利益的考量。华盛顿的俄罗斯"重启"并没有带来与莫斯科的战略和解，而现在其亚洲政策又有效地把中国当成敌人提供了预设条件——在挑战美国及其中东盟国方面，这两个国家也可能会变得更加自信。
五个常任理事国（联合国安理会拥有否决权的成员）中，北京和莫斯科甘愿与西方国家决裂，这种意愿对奥巴马政府想要在核项目上孤立伊朗以向其施压的努力也投下了阴影。
俄罗斯和中国早已明确表示，他们对伊朗问题看法与西方大国相当不同——虽然他们认为伊朗必须遵守"核不扩散条约"，它们不认为伊朗正在发展核武器，也不认为这一计划对国际安全构成了威胁，他们要求要与德黑兰进行对话，并强调对话是解决这一问题和战略对抗的重点。
奥巴马政府一直努力赢得俄中的支持，让安理会通过有限的制裁措施，即使这两个国家都断然拒绝加入美国及其欧洲盟国采取的对伊朗能源采取的单方面措施。
叙利亚议题草案的表决可作为一种提醒，安理会若要通过任何重大的对伊朗扩大制裁的决议是多么不可能，更不要提将奥巴马总统坚持不要放到桌面上的军事途径合法化了。
俄罗斯和中国都是西方大国想要和伊朗进行谈判的框架的一部分——这个框架就是"五常+1"。（1是德国，作为二战的战败国它不是常任理事国。）
该表决也让伊朗再次确认，西方大国和莫斯科、北京之间有着巨大的战略分歧。它也可能预示着俄罗斯会更加自信地努力推销它自己的与伊朗妥协的方案，这一方案至今远未受到西方大国的欢迎。
而俄罗斯对叙利亚的立场基本上没有地区支持者，这一立场——主要强调对话而不是制裁和军事威胁——可能和一些区域大国，包括土耳其和卡塔尔对阿萨德政权的立场更接近。
周末，卡塔尔官员在慕尼黑的安全会议上就伊朗问题拒绝讨论军事行动，甚至也不谈加强对伊制裁，而是呼吁继续谈判。土耳其外长对伊朗采取了类似的立场，即使他也批评北京和莫斯科投了否决票，他表现出对西方的一种条件反射性的敌对。也许吧。但是冷战已结束良久，最新的事态发展可能预示着一个新的中东地缘政治竞争时代的开启，这将产生重大的后果。
如果不是他们給了反对派太多不且实际的希望和煽动，叙利亚的冲突早就结束了。 利比亚现在仍在内乱之中 卡塔尔似乎是个野心勃勃的国家，从半岛电视台的建立，到如今的四处干预，卡塔尔越来越显露出与它领土面积不相称的野心。
页:
[1]