知远/刘雷 编译
译者按：尽管美国口口声声说要打击恐怖主义，但本文却认为美国说一套做一套，其反恐政策具有鲜明的两面性特征，一方面是打击，一方面是拉拢和支持，对其国家利益有害的进行打击，对其国家利益有利的则不遗余力的支持。还认为，美国采取两面性政策符合其长远战略利益——遏制俄罗斯、中国和印度。则文章编译如下：
几天前，我在位于新德里的和平与冲突研究所(Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies)聆听了美国著名印度次大陆战略问题研究专家斯蒂芬•P•科恩(Stephen P Cohen)教授的报告，报告的内容是2014年美国主导的北约军队撤出后的阿富汗形势。新生的民主能在阿富汗幸存下去吗?阿富汗的女性能够继续保留学习和自由工作的权利吗?摆脱伊斯兰原教旨主义约束的大多数阿富汗人(73%的阿富汗人年龄都在25岁以下)能为自己开创一个更美好的未来吗?考虑到塔利班有可能会重掌政权，因此这些问题都具有重要意义。目前，美国正在本着“与那些信奉民主和与民主有关的价值观的人共存并分享权力”这一引人入胜的理念推动塔利班重新上台。
当然了，这些问题非常难以回答。如果就这些问题去问问战略专家们的意见，那么肯定不会得到一致的答案。有些专家对2014年之后的阿富汗形势看法非常悲观，并警告说阿富汗可能会出现种族分裂(重新开始一连串的内战，内战各方有的会得到巴基斯坦人的支持，有的会得到印度人的支持，有的会得到阿富汗人的支持，有的会得到伊朗人的支持)。有些专家则认为，过去十年来，阿富汗的城市化水平有了相当程度的提高，那些受过教育的年轻城市居民将不会容忍任何极端主义和分离主义的东西，因此阿富汗会有一个更美好的未来。
令人意外的是，科恩出言谨慎，没有就这些问题给出任何答案。在报告中，科恩反复强调说“我并不是阿富汗问题的专家”，他说，如果印度和巴基斯坦以及美国和伊朗能够谋求对阿富汗问题采取一致的方针，那么阿富汗就会越来越稳定。但是问题来了，谋求这样一种方针现实吗?科恩说：“谋求这种方针存在很多问题，但却非常值得为之付出努力。”根据他的观点，印度与巴基斯坦在南亚次大陆互相争斗的原因之一就是他们共同享有英国殖民统治剩下的战略遗产，所以两国在包括阿富汗在内相同地点展开了竞争。在对印度实施殖民统治的那个时期，英国也面临了同样的问题，莫卧儿王朝(Mughals)的几大势力为了获得相同的战略空间争斗不休。
“印度和巴基斯坦共同享有了英国在阿富汗的殖民遗产，两国都把阿富汗视为自己的战略空间，这就意味着两国会互相竞争。迄今为止，还没有哪个国家建议过印巴两国签署一个合作协议，我觉得美国本应该提出这种建议的。我们应该尝试让印度和巴基斯坦两国在阿富汗问题上进行合作，”科恩说，“两国都可以参与到训练阿富汗士兵和警察的工作中来。印度在帮助阿富汗重建国内经济和训练安全部队方面做了非常出色的工作。不过，印度却把训练安全部队作为了与巴基斯坦斗争的一个手段，因为后者是支持塔利班的。”
科恩强调，如果印度和巴基斯坦能够找到一个在阿富汗进行合作的方式，那么这对包括美国和伊朗在内的所有利益相关方来说都是好事。科恩很清楚，鉴于美国在西亚地区的军事干涉在国内越来越不得人心，因此美国已经没有任何兴趣在阿富汗或西亚任何地方继续战斗下去了。就此而论，值得一提的是，在新作《责任：战争部长回忆录》(Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War)中，美国前任国防部长罗伯特•盖茨(Robert Gates)对美国总统奥巴马的领导能力以及对阿富汗战争的决心给予了刺耳的评价。尽管盖茨将奥巴马描述为一个“正直的人”，但同时他也指出，奥巴马总统对伊拉克和阿富汗的战争不满意，“最终对他在2009年发布的增兵命令失去了信心”，他“即便没有完全相信增兵会以失败告终，至少也是觉得增兵有可能会落个失败的下场”。对奥巴马来说，“能够做的就只有脱身而出了”。
2002年“9•11”事件(“基地”组织在2002年9月11日对位于纽约的世贸中心发动的袭击)之后，美国出兵来到了阿富汗。从那时起，美军就开始了与“基地”组织及其附庸塔利班的斗争。但结果又如何呢?“基地”组织遭受了沉重打击，但却没有被消灭，即便是2011年5月美军在巴基斯坦阿伯塔巴德(Abbottabad)发动的袭击中击毙了本•拉登。而塔利班则保持了很强的生机和活力。现在，美国认为在阿富汗有一些“好的塔利班”，可以(或应该)与他们分享在喀布尔的权力。换句话说，美国人“没有在阿富汗取得胜利”，他们会带着某种程度的“失败”离开这个国家。然而，同样重要的是，如果把美国从阿富汗撤军放在西亚地区这个大背景下来看的话，人们也可以说美国已经承认自己被伊斯兰原教旨主义意识形态击败了。
不过，我的观点倒是有所不同。我并不认为美国想要与伊斯兰原教旨主义及其相关的恐怖主义对抗。有些学者可能会用美国外交政策或战略政策中常见的“不连贯性”来解释美国未能实现目标，半途而废。不过，我却认为，用“两面性”来解释美国的行为要比用“不连贯性”更恰当。下面我来解释一下自己的观点。
美国中央情报局在苏联入侵阿富汗期间建立了塔利班，这已是公开的秘密。那时还处在冷战时期。中央情报局为塔利班提供资助，鼓励他们走私毒品，并全力支持巴基斯坦(塔利班的基地)发展核武器。在《欺骗：巴基斯坦、美国和全球核武器阴谋》(Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear weapons Conspiracy)一书中，备受赞誉的调查记者阿德里安•利维(Adrain Levy)和凯萨琳•斯科特-克拉克(Catherine Scott-Clark)提供了在美国接受教育的巴基斯坦核武器项目之父阿卜杜勒•卡迪尔•汗(A Q Khan)如何从西方国家(包括美国)窃取核材料和核技术的细节。美国总统罗纳德•里根、老布什、比尔•克林顿和小布什不但向世人隐瞒了巴基斯坦开发核弹的事实，而且还在帮助巴基斯坦开发和改进核弹。在巴基斯坦1983年对核弹进行冷测试以及1984年在中国的帮助下中国境内对核弹进行热测试时，里根欺骗全世界说，他“忽视”了这些事情。老布什和克林顿则压制并惩罚了那些想要整个事件公布于众的官员。
最终，尽管事实情况是“有大量极为精确的情报显示巴基斯坦是全球不稳定的中心：它是伊斯兰恐怖主义的出产地和庇护者，并且由通过出售大规模杀伤性武器来获得资金并提高政治影响力的军事集团统治”，但小布什还是宽恕了巴基斯坦和阿卜杜勒•卡迪尔•汗犯下的所有罪行。所有这些都可以从两位对令人震惊的里奇•巴罗(Rich Barlow)事件的极佳描述中明显看出来。里奇•巴罗原本供职于中央情报局，是巴基斯坦核机密方面的专家，后因检举揭发美国掩盖实情被中情局解职。他的职业生涯已经毁于一旦，婚姻也惨遭破裂，现他在正在通过司法手段来讨回公道。
巴基斯坦的核弹与伊斯兰原教旨主义有着内在的联系，原因在于巴基斯坦曾以制造“伊斯兰炸弹”为托辞来谋求经济援助，并从阿拉伯国家尤其是沙特阿拉伯得到了这些资金。而事实情况是，在该地区，沙特阿拉伯一直是美国的亲密盟友。此外，调查报告显示，过去40年来，沙特阿拉伯已经向“基地”组织以及类似的叛乱组织提供了近10亿美元资金。沙特阿拉伯皇室成员可能并不是像本•拉登那样的原教旨主义者，但他们与极端激进主义并没有保持太远距离。
事实上，如果美国真的打算击败全球恐怖主义(大多发源于伊斯兰原教旨主义)，那么最简单的方法就是向沙特阿拉伯(恐怖分子的资金来源)和巴基斯坦(恐怖分子的训练地和行动策划地)施加令其难以承受的压力。然而，这两个国家却是美国的亲密盟友。
另外，在阿富汗打击塔利班和“基地”组织的同时，美国却一直在允许武器和物资流入到激进的反对派团体手中，用来打击他们与美国共同的敌人，以前是在伊拉克和利比亚，现在是在叙利亚。那些在埃及各地开展武装暴力活动的激进伊斯兰分子的最大支持者正是美国自己。在靠近印度的地方，美国对孟加拉国的原教旨主义者及其支持者怀有同情，而这些人正在极力谋杀民主并消除该国的非穆斯林人。事实上，人们越来越相信美国是世界伊斯兰原教旨主义的真正支撑者和推动者。在这一方面，人们可能还记得前些年《华盛顿邮报》刊发的一份调查报告，报告的内容是关于美国如何花费数百万美元资金印刷宣扬狂热思想的教科书的，这些教科书被运送到了阿富汗和其他西亚国家，并发放到了这些国家的学校。《华盛顿邮报》的报告称，“在这些初级读本中充斥着与圣战有关的内容，还配有枪支、子弹、士兵和地雷的图案。从那时起(也就是阿富汗世俗政府在上世纪90年代初被暴力推翻的那个时候)，这些教科书就成为了阿富汗学校系统的核心课程。甚至塔利班也在使用美国印刷的图书……。”
那么应该怎么解释美国政策的两面性呢?照我看来，这是符合美国长期战略目标(遏制俄罗斯、中国和印度)的。从长远看，这三个国家能够对美国的全球霸权构成挑战。在这三个国家的邻国，伊斯兰原教旨主义的影响力越来越大，只要看清这一点，我们就明白问题所在了。而且，2014年之后的阿富汗可能会使这三个国家面临的问题更加严重。美国在阿富汗取得“胜利”很有可能引发新的连锁反应，伊斯兰恐怖主义从中亚、南亚和东南亚的一个穆斯林国家蔓延到另外一个穆斯林国家，西亚就更不用说了。
原文：Islamic Terror and American Dualism
The other day I went to the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, with which I am associated in some way, to hear Professor Stephen P Cohen, the leading American expert on the Indian subcontinent in strategic matters, on the post-2014 Afghanistan minus the US-led NATO troops. Will the nascent democracy survive in the country? Will the Afghan women retain their rights to study and work freely? Will the Afghan people in general, 73 percent of whom are now under 25 years, be able to build a better future for themselves unrestrained by Islamic fundamentalism? All these questions are very relevant given the likelihood of the Taliban returning to power, something that the Americans are promoting under the catchy concepts of coexistence and co-sharing of power with those who believe in democracy and its associated values.
…every American President and his officials not only concealed but also helped Pakistan in making and improving the bomb. Reagan deceived the world as he ‘ignored” when Pakistan cold-tested the bomb in 1983 and hot-tested it in 1984…
Of course, these are very difficult questions to answer. If one goes by strategic experts, there is no unanimity of views. While some present a very gloomy picture of Afghanistan after 2014 and warn of its possible disintegration on ethnic basis (resumption of a series of civil wars – some supported by Pakistan, some by India, some by the Afghans, and some by the Iranians), some argue that a better future awaits the Afghans as the country over the last 10 years has urbanised considerably and the young, educated and urbanised will not tolerate anything that is extreme and divisive.
Surprisingly, Cohen played safe by not venturing into provide any answer on the subject. Saying repeatedly that “I am no expert on Afghanistan”, he said that Afghanistan would be really stable and stable if India and Pakistan on the one hand, and the United States and Iran on the other, pursue a shared approach towards Kabul. But then, is such an approach realistic? “It is problematic but highly desirable”, said Cohen. According to him, one of the reasons why India and Pakistan are after each other in the subcontinent is that they share the same strategic legacy of the British Raj, and so both compete in the same space, including Afghanistan. The British had the same problem and the Mughals also fought for the same strategic space.
“India and Pakistan share the British legacy in Afghanistan. Both India and Pakistan see Afghanistan as their strategic space. That means they compete with each other. Nobody has proposed – and I think America should have done – that the two countries sign an agreement to cooperate. An attempt should be made to bring them together in Kabul”, Cohen says. “Both can join to train Afghan soldiers and police. India has been doing a great job in helping in civil economic reconstruction and training of security forces of Afghanistan. But by training security forces, India is competing with Pakistan which is supporting the Taliban.”
Cohen is emphatic that If India and Pakistan find a way to cooperate in Afghanistan it would be a win situation for all stakeholders, including the United States and Iran. He is clear that the Americans have no stomach to continue fighting in Afghanistan, or for that matter in any part of West Asia, given the rising unpopularity of American military involvement in the region within the United States. It may be noted in this context that in his new book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offers a harsh assessment of President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. While Gates describes Obama as “a man of personal integrity,” he notes that the President was uncomfortable with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, writing that Obama “eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered [in 2009],” and that he was “skeptical, if not outright convinced it would fail”. For Obama, it was “all about getting out.”
Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are intrinsically linked with Islamic fundamentalism, because Pakistan sought financial assistance and got it from the Arab countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia… But then that fact remains that Saudi Arabia has been the closest ally of the United States in the region.
The Americans came to Afghanistan in 2002 after 9/11(attack on World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2002 by the Al Qaida). Since then they have been fighting the Al Qaida and its client Taliban. What have they achieved? Al Qaida is down not out, even though American troops conducted the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. But the Taliban is very much live and kicking. Now, Americans thinks that there are “good Taliban” and the power in Kabul can (or should) be shared with them. In other words, Americans have “failed to win in Afghanistan” and that they will be leaving the country somewhat “defeated”. But, what is equally important, if the withdrawal from Afghanistan is seen in the larger regional context of West Asia, one can also say that the Americans have conceded defeat to the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.
However, my take is little different. I do not think that the U.S. ever wanted to fight against the Islamic fundamentalism and the associated terrorism as such. Some scholars could cite the usual factor “inconsistency” in American foreign or strategic policy for the non-fulfillment of its objectives. However, in my considered view, “duality”, instead of “inconsistency”, is a better word to explain the American behaviour. Let me explain my position.
It is an open secret that that it was the American CIA that created the Taliban when the then Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. That was the period of the Cold war. The CIA financed the Taliban, encouraged drug trafficking and supported Pakistan (Taliban’s base) wholeheartedly in its nuclear weapon programme. In their book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear weapons Conspiracy, Adrain Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, award-winning investigative journalists , have provided details how A Q Khan stole, with full American knowledge, nuclear material and technologies from the Western countries, including the US. Be it Ronald Reagan or George Bush (father) or Bill Clinton or George Bush (son) – every American President and his officials not only concealed but also helped Pakistan in making and improving the bomb. Reagan deceived the world as he ‘ignored” when Pakistan cold-tested the bomb in 1983 and hot-tested it in 1984 in the Chinese soil with the Chinese help. Bush Sr. and Clinton suppressed and punished the officials who wanted to tell the world this entire story.
And finally, Bush Jr. forgave all the sins of Pakistan and A Q Khan, despite the fact that “ a mountain of incredibly precise intelligence portrayed Pakistan as the epicenter of global instability: a host and patron for islamist terrorism, ruled by a military clique that was raising capital and political influence by selling weapons of mass destruction”. All this is evident from the shocking story of Rich Barlow, superbly described by the two authors. He was the CIA’s expert on Pakistan’s nuclear secrets, but Barlow was thrown out and disgraced when he blew the whistle on a US cover-up. His career and marriage already destroyed, he is now spending his days in the American courts to seek justice.
The Saudi Royal family members may not be fundamentalists of the same ilk as Bin Laden, but they are not very far off the extreme radicalism.
Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are intrinsically linked with Islamic fundamentalism, because Pakistan sought financial assistance and got it from the Arab countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia, under the pretext that it was making “Islamic Bomb”. But then that fact remains that Saudi Arabia has been the closest ally of the United States in the region. Besides, investigating reports suggest that Saudi Arabia has funded nearly $1 billion to Al-Qaida and similar rebel groups over the past 40 years. The Saudi Royal family members may not be fundamentalists of the same ilk as Bin Laden, but they are not very far off the extreme radicalism.
In fact, if the U.S. wants to defeat the global terrorism, which, in turn, emanates mostly from the Islamic fundamentalism, then the easiest way to do is to impose unbearable pressure on two countries – Saudi Arabia( source of money) and Pakistan( place for training and planning). But these are two countries that happen to be America’s close allies.
Even otherwise, the U.S., while fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, has been allowing at the same time arms and material to flow to radical opposition groups fighting common U.S. enemies in Iraq, Libya and now Syria. The biggest supporter of the radical Islamists in Egypt, who are waging in armed violence in various parts of that country, happens to be the United States. Nearer home, see the way the Americans are shedding tears for the fundamentalists and their supporters in Bangladesh who are hell bent on murdering democracy in that country and eliminating non-Muslims from its soil. In fact, one is getting increasingly convinced that the U.S. is the real supporter and promoter of Islamic fundamentalism all over the world. One may remember in this context the investigating report appearing in the Washington Post some years ago how the US spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then transshipped and distributed in Afghanistan and other countries of West Asia! ”The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…” the Washington Post reported.
How does one explain the American duplicity? In my considered opinion, the duplicity could be in line with the long-term strategic American goal of containing Russia, China and India, the three countries that can challenge the U.S. global hegemony in the long run. Just see how each of these countries is now facing neighbours that are coming under the increasing influence of Islamic fundamentalism. And here, a post-2014 Afghanistan could aggravate their problems. There could well be a new domino theory – with the “victory” in Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism spreads from one Muslim country to another in Central Asia, South Asia and South-East Asia, not to speak of West Asia.
链接：http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/islamic-terror-and-american-dualism/
相关文章
「 支持！」
WYZXWK.COM
您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！
欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号
