回到頂端
|||
熱門: 蔡阿嘎 韓失業率 小嫻

血腥交易:賣武器戕害人權 強國被批偽善

立報/李威撰 2012.05.30 00:00
策劃、編譯■李威撰從軍火交易獲利比人權更重要。聯合國安理會未善盡本份,5個握有否決權的常任理事國都是全球最大的武器販子。政府只在口頭上保衛人權,處處充滿偽善。Profits from arms deals tend to trump human rights. The United Nations Security Council, whose five veto-wielding permanent members count among the world's biggest arms dealers, is falling down on its job. Hypocrisy(1) is rampant as governments pay lip service to human rights.總部設在倫敦的國際特赦組織上週公布最新年度報告,作出上述的表示。該報告也譴責了「普遍的領導失敗」,並表示在爆發阿拉伯之春的2011年,清楚顯示出「全球強權在競逐影響力的同時,人權比不上投機聯盟與財務利益」。So says Amnesty International, the London-based human rights organization, in its latest annual report, published this week. It deplores an "endemic failure of leadership" and says 2011 - the year of the Arab Spring - had made clear that "opportunistic alliances and financial interests have trumped human rights as global powers jockey for influence."報告提到的國家,包括提供敘利亞阿塞德政府武器的主要國家俄羅斯,以及最近重啟武器運輸給小國巴林王室統治者的美國。雖然巴林粗暴鎮壓異議人士,但敘利亞在根絕反對勢力的行動規模上更甚巴林。That reference covers Russia, chief armourer of the government of Bashar al-Assad, as well as the United States, which recently resumed arms shipments to the royal rulers of tiny Bahrain, whose crackdown(2) on dissidents has been brutal, though not nearly on the same scale as the campaign to wipe out the opposition in Syria. The death toll in Syria now stands at around 10,000.缺乏規範 管制漏洞百出國際特赦組織秘書長謝蒂表示,各國領袖對人權口惠而實不至,但今年7月的聯合國會議將是彌補前愆的機會。這場會議要制訂全球性的《武器貿易條約》(以下簡稱ATT),這個構想是在2003年首次由一群諾貝爾獎得主所提出,他們認為現行武器管制規定充滿漏洞。To hear Amnesty Secretary General Salil Shetty tell it, the leaders who have so far failed to match human rights rhetoric with arms export deeds have a chance to redeem themselves at a United Nations conference next July to work out a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), an idea first put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel laureates who argued that existing arms control regulations are full of loopholes(3).過去幾年,推動武器協定的運動氣勢大增。國際特赦組織提出報告的同時,代表51個非政府組織的一封信件,正好也寄給了美國總統歐巴馬。這些組織認為,7月的會議是避免武器流至人權侵犯者手中的歷史契機,信中寫道:「我們敦促您與您的政府能扮演強力的領導角色。」Campaigning for an arms treaty has gathered momentum over the past few years and in a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama timed to coincide with the Amnesty International report, representatives of 51 non-governmental organizations described the July conference as an historic opportunity to prevent weapons from ending up in the hands of human rights violators. "We urge you and your administration to play a strong leadership role," the letter said.武器管制專家表示,比起戰車、機槍、狙擊步槍與子彈的交易,香蕉貿易反而有更多的規定及管制。在缺乏共同國際規範的情況下,論點接著指出,每年有數千名平民死於獨裁政府、犯罪者及恐怖分子之手。According to arms control experts, there are more rules and regulations governing the trade in bananas than in the trade in tanks, machine guns, sniper rifles and bullets. The lack of common international standards, the argument goes, results in the deaths of thousands of civilians every year at the hand of dictatorial governments, criminals and terrorists.目前的武器禁運框架擋不住子彈。倡議ATT的重要救濟組織樂施會表示,自2000年以來,遭到武器禁運的國家進口了價值超過22億美元的武器與彈藥。達佛(位於蘇丹)便是一例:聯合國安理會在2004年通過決議施加武器禁運,儘管達佛傳出許多大規模侵犯人權的消息,但白俄羅斯、中國及俄羅斯等國仍持續提供武器。The existing framework of arms embargoes(4) is not bullet-proof. According to the relief organization Oxfam, which has taken a prominent role in advocating for the ATT, countries under arms embargoes imported more than $2.2 billion worth of arms and ammunition since the year 2000. Case in point: Darfur. It has been under an arms embargo imposed by the U.N. Security Council in 2004 but weapons from Belarus, China and Russia continue to flow despite reports of large-scale human rights violations.軍火交易長期以來遭人質疑,因此對條約可望為世界帶來改變的看法存在一些合理質疑。在這個世界裡,某人看來是踐踏人民權利的政府,在別人眼中卻是珍貴的盟邦,巴林即是一例。Given the long history of questionable arms deals, a dose of skepticism is in order about the prospect of a treaty that would change a world in which one man's rights-trampling government is another man's valuable ally. Case in point: Bahrain.去年9月,美國為對巴林強力鎮壓異議人士有所回應,宣布停止販售武器給巴林。但美國國務院今年5月11日表示,將解除對島國巴林的軍售限制,一名官員向記者表示,這是因為「這個決定攸關美國國家利益,所以要讓事情繼續進行」。這名官員毋須贅述國家利益的本質,美國第五艦隊的總部基地就設在巴林,該艦隊在當地保護運輸線路,全世界40%的油輪都行經此處。On May 11, the U.S. State Department said it would end a freeze on military sales to the island state - imposed in September in response to a violent crackdown on dissidents - because of "a determination that it is in the U.S. national interest to let these things go forward," in the words of an official who briefed reporters. He did not need to explain the nature of the national interest -- Bahrain is home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, there to guard shipping lanes that carry around 40 percent of the world's tanker-borne oil.利益擺第一 條約恐成空文國家利益戰勝對人權的考量,對全球最大武器生產及出口國美國來說是如此,對其他武器出口國來說也是如此。俄羅斯是全球第2大武器出口國,儘管俄國不是拿「國家利益」當作提供武器給敘利亞的藉口,而是表示自己有履行商業合同的義務。但俄羅斯的海軍基地就設在敘利亞的托土斯港,這顯然是個重要因素,因為這是莫斯科當局在地中海地區僅有的一個前哨基地。National interest trumps human rights concerns. That is as true for the United States, the world's largest arms manufacturer and exporter, as it is for other arms exporters. Russia, number two in the arms exporters' ranking, does not cite "national interest" for shipping weapons to Syria, it just refers to compliance with commercial contracts. But its naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, Moscow's only outpost in the Mediterranean, clearly plays a role.儘管條約支持者對聯合國全體193個會員國都同意新規定的可能性表示樂觀,但他們也表示,許多不同的途徑有待作出妥協。有人就要求,國家「不應當」將武器交給可能用來侵犯人權或人道法律的接收者。While proponents of a treaty sound optimistic about the possibility of all 193 members of the United Nations agreeing on new regulations, they also say there are different approaches that have yet to be reconciled. One would require that countries "shall not" transfer weapons to recipients (5) who might use them to violate human rights or humanitarian law.樂施會的史鐵狄恩表示:「少了『不應當』的規定,條約將是一紙空文。」當專家在為7月份的會議作準備時,第二個被拿來討論的途徑是要求簽約國將軍火交易的潛在風險「納入考量」。這是一個大到足以讓戰車穿過去的漏洞。"Without that 'shall not' requirement, the treaty would be ineffective," says Oxfam's Scott Stedjan. The second approach under discussion as experts prepare for the July conference would require signatories to "take into account" potential risks associated with an arms deal. That's a loophole big enough to drive a tank through.4月,國務院負責條約事務的主要負責人康垂曼,正確地將條約交付給由華盛頓智庫所安排的小組進行討論。但康垂曼表示,即使條約是有效的,但「既無法根本改變國際關係的本質,也無法靠條約本身來終結全球惡化的國際與內戰衝突」。In April, the State Department's point man on the treaty, Thomas Countryman, put things into perspective at a panel discussion arranged by a Washington think tank. Even an effective treaty, he said, "will not fundamentally change the nature of international politics nor can it by itself bring an end to the festering international and civil conflicts around the world."(路透Reuters/本文作者Bernd Debusmann為《路透》專欄作家)關鍵字詞1. hypocrisy (n.) 偽善、虛偽2. crackdown (n.) 壓迫、鎮壓3. loophole (n.) 法律上的漏洞4. embargo (n.) 禁運5. recipient (n.) 接受者

社群留言