共創一個和諧的同盟

華盛頓郵報　　
２００１年一月２４日 ＜1＞

共創一個和諧的同盟 <2>

歐洲的媒體與政治領袖對美國的選舉感到侷促不安, 其不安起因於他們希望大西洋兩岸能維持既有的關係。這種期望倒有些矛盾--既然關係不和諧，為何還希望持續下去呢？

英國除外，我們的盟國處處顯示要與我們疏遠，甚至要切割，例如制栽古巴，伊朗，伊拉克、又如我們對以阿及台海爭端的政策。他們公開的反對飛彈防禦系統的觀念，法國總統席哈客甚至在記者招待會上，站在蘇俄總統普丁身邊，很明顯的代表全歐抨擊之。歐盟正著手要創建與北約完全不同的軍事力量 。自冷戰結束後，各盟邦紛紛拋棄已往對蘇聯的共同政策而分別去尋求與莫斯科建立個別的「特殊關係」。

在經濟議題上我們的岐見更為明顯。美國因香蕉和牛肉事件威脅要對歐洲報復；歐盟則因美國對其 出口品課稅而威脅要對美報復。雙方對如何建立新的多邊貿易協訂也僵持不下，甚至對要不要有這個協訂都無共識 。另外能源政策上，雙方的裂痕也逐漸加深；如果油價不跌，爭執將會更大。

雙方情感上的維繫日漸減弱也是有目共睹的。美洲與歐洲的互訪雖然比以前頻繁，但總是作繭自縛於成見或只限於職業上的互訪，雙方都未嘗試去了解對方的歷史與政治背景。歐洲的媒體把美國一律看成是死刑當道，監獄擁擠，和缺乏免費的醫療保險的地方，甚至還有其他的陳腔爛調。在這種氣氛之下熱心整合歐洲的人士於是群起鼓動歐洲團結起來組織不同的聯盟與美國劃清界線，甚至反美。

柯林頓政府留下了一堆未解決的問題：大西洋盟約還是兩岸關係的核心嗎？若是，那麼應該如何定位盟約在冷戰後的目標？若否，那麼有什麼方式能取代這個盟約來加強兩岸的關係？

矛盾的是1990年代兩岸領導人間的私交竟是出奇的融洽。不過這是因為第一代的領導人都是在第二次世界大戰中長大而有共同的生活體驗，倒不是他們在政策上有共識。創盟那一代的人基本上認為美國的權勢是善意的，盟國之間的團結是重要的。他們的下一代在1960, 1970
年代的各種抗議活動中長大， 對美國的強勢無比的不信任；他們認為至少美國應該把大家的共同利益放在美國自己的利益之上。

創盟那一代的人把北約看成是民主國家的聯盟的起點 。1990年代的執政者把北約看為冷戰的遺物，甚至是一個必需克服的障礙，他們認為北約的目標 不在於強化盟約而在消除歧見。因此，在 1997年三月與蘇俄總統葉爾欽共同參加的記者招待會中，柯林頓總統把「舊的北約」與華沙公約相提並論；他把民主國家自願的結合與蘇聯的附庸國在淫威下不得已的結合視為一物。

這個矛盾的癥結在於西方國家一向將外交關係視為內政的一環。一些中間偏左的歐洲政府因施行了反應市場需求的經濟改革而激怒了黨內的激進派，於是不願在國家安全政策上與美國靠攏以免火上添油。但是美國這邊，國內反對柯林頓總統外交政策的聲浪卻來自右派。由於兩邊國內政治氣氛的差異，歐洲各國的領導人 雖然欽佩柯林頓的個人魅力，甚至還喜歡他，卻也能毫不猶豫的大聲反對他的政策；他們不覺得矛盾，因為他們了解在某些地方柯林頓是不得已的。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
<1> A style issue: Before I find a standard way of writing numbers in Chinese publications, I am creating my own convention: I use Chinese numerals for numbers up to 10 and use Arabic numerals for numbers larger than 10. The Time magazine spells out numbers up to twelve and using Arabic numerals for number larger 12. I am using that idea here.
<2> The culture of the TL is big on harmony. When two people see eye to eye, they are in agreement, which implies harmony. The TT of the title means “(Together, let’s build) a harmonious alliance”. I added the implied “together, let’s build”—I applied amplification to the ST, took a very liberal way in translating the title.
<3> The syntax of the SL requires an article or has to use a plural noun. The TL does not require articles, nor does it need to distinguish between singular and plural nouns; the context makes it clear. In “… creating a military force institutionally distinct from NATO”. The article “a” here is not translated, because translating into “one“ military force is not idiomatic. Throughout the document, I omit the article “a” and do not explicitly distinguishing plural from singular nouns unless it’s really important to distinguish them. This is more idiomatical.
<4> A SL-specific tool is used to make the TT clearer: In the English sentence “and the European Union has threatened the United States over American taxation of exports” the subject is EU, therefore, the exports refer to EU’s exports. In the TL it’s not as clear. Therefore, the word “其” is added to make it explicit that the exports are EU’s exports, not US’s.
<5> In the English sentence “The two sides are deadlocked on how, or even whether, to launch a new multilateral trade negotiation”, the pair of comas set up the “even whether” nicely. The punctuation rules of the TL are not as well defined. Therefore, I split the sentence into two clauses connected by a semi colon, instead of a period, to express the closeness of the two clauses/sentences. I use the semi colon as it is used in English punctuation guidelines. I use this style throughout the document. Back-translation of the TT: The two sides are deadlocked on how to launch a new multilateral trade agreement; they cannot even come to the common ground on whether to have this agreement or not.
<6> The same situation as in footnote 4, I separated the sentence into two: First sentence reads, “In addition, the dispute on energy is gradually growing bigger.” The second sentence, “This dispute will be even bigger should the oil price does not drop.”
<7> The ST sentence “… at a minimum, they wanted America to use its power only for universal causes transcending the national interest.” I applied amplification in the TT to make it explicit as (America’s) national interest. To avoid translating the words “universal” and “transcend” while maintaining the equivalence of pragmatics, the TT reads, “They want America to at least put everyone’s common interests above America’s national interests.”
<8> The “point of departure for” in the ST “The founding generation viewed the alliance as the point of departure for a union of democracies.” is translated to mean “the starting point of”. I am not sure whether this is faithful to the author’s intention.
<9> “Its goal was less to … than to …”. The pronoun “it” refers to “NATO”. I take it to mean, “The generation governing in the 1990s viewed NATO’s goal as less to … than to …”. If my understanding of the ST is correct, this is an amplification.
<10> “European leaders” is plural. TL does not add an ‘s” to denote plural. Using “們” to denote plural is grammatically correct but not idiomatic. I don’t want to lose the idea of the leaders being plural, either. Therefore, the term is translated into “the leader(s) of various European nation(s)”.