約翰遜成不了現代丘吉爾 Johnson has failed the Churchill test
In his highly entertaining biography of Winston Churchill, Boris Johnson observes that — “To some extent all politicians are gamblers with events. They try to anticipate what will happen, to put themselves on the right side of history.” Mr Johnson even interprets his hero’s decision to campaign against Hitler, early in the 1930s, in this cynical light, explaining that Churchill — “Put his shirt on a horse called anti-Nazism... his bet came off in spectacular fashion”.
鮑里斯約翰遜(Boris Johnson)在自己撰寫的關於溫斯頓丘吉爾(Winston Churchill)的極富趣味性的傳記中指出：“從某種程度上講，所有政客都是見風使舵的賭徒。他們設法預測將要發生什麼事，並讓自己站到歷史正確的一邊。”約翰遜甚至用一種嘲諷的語氣解釋丘吉爾在上世紀30年代反對希特勒(Hitler)的決定，他說，丘吉爾“把全部家當押在一匹被稱爲反納粹主義的馬上……他的押注獲得了輝煌的成功”。
I thought of that passage when I heard that Mr Johnson has thrown in his lot with the Leave campaign — ahead of Britain’s referendum on EU membership on June 23.
當我聽說約翰遜將自己的命運與英國退出歐盟運動緊密聯繫起來時（英國將於6月23日對其歐盟成員身份進行公投），我想起了書中所寫的這一段。
Mr Johnson has put his shirt on a horse called Euroscepticism. He is clearly hoping that his bet will also “come off in spectacular fashion” and carry him, like Churchill, all the way into 10 Downing Street — preferably without the added bonus of a world war.
約翰遜把自己的家當押在了一匹被稱爲“歐洲懷疑主義”的馬上。顯然，他希望自己的押注也能“獲得輝煌的成功”，並將他（像丘吉爾那樣）一路送入唐寧街10號——最好是沒有一場世界大戰作爲額外贈品。
The mayor of London’s decision is certainly a significant moment in the referendum campaign. A Vote Leave group that was in danger of being led by cranks, nobodies and octogenarians will now be headed by one of the country’s most popular politicians.
這位倫敦市長的決定無疑是本次公投運動中的重要事件。有被怪人、無名之輩及耄耋老人領導危險的支持退歐羣體，如今將由這個國家最有聲望的政治家之一率領。
June could also be a particularly propitious time to be making the case against the EU. By then, the Greek debt crisis may well have flared up again. Europe’s migrant crisis is also likely to have intensified, as improved weather increases the numbers of would-be refugees crossing the Mediterranean. That will increase infighting among the members of the EU, making the organisation look ever more shambolic.
6月或許還將是主張反對歐盟的特別有利的時機。屆時，希臘債務危機很有可能已再次爆發。歐洲移民危機同樣可能已進一步加劇——天氣好轉將使得穿越地中海的準難民人數增加。這將加劇歐盟成員國之間的明爭暗鬥，讓該集團看起來顯得愈發混亂。
The vision of hundreds of thousands more desperate would-be migrants, not too far from the English Channel, will also play directly into the most emotive argument that the Leave campaign will deploy: the fear of mass migration from Europe and the demand that the free movement of people from the EU should be halted.
數十萬絕望的準移民（在離英吉利海峽不太遠的地方）前景也將直接切合退歐運動可利用的最能激起民衆情緒反應的理由：歐洲對大規模移民的恐懼，以及叫停歐盟境內人員自由流動的訴求。
Seeing the potentially terminal difficulties that the EU is facing may have led Mr Johnson to try to “put himself on the right side of history”, by placing a bet against Europe.
看到歐盟面臨的這些潛在致命困難，可能已讓約翰遜試圖通過把寶押在反歐洲上，“讓自己站到歷史正確的一邊”。
But there is more than one way of being on the right side of history. The first is simply to anticipate the direction of events. The second, more important, way is to align yourself with the right causes and values — those that the history books will ultimately vindicate. Churchill’s decision to oppose the appeasement of Hitler was right in both senses. He saw how events were unfolding — and, yes, he ultimately benefited politically from his prescience. But he also stood up against evil.
但站到歷史的正確的一邊的路不止一條。第一是要預測事態的發展方向。第二（更重要）是從事正義的事業，秉持正確的價值觀——歷史最終將證明這一切。丘吉爾反對對希特勒實行綏靖政策的決定在這兩個方面都是正確的。他看清了事態的發展方向——沒錯，他最終在政治上獲益於自己的先見之明。但他同時也站起來反抗邪惡。
Mr Johnson’s decision to campaign for Brexit might put him on the right side of history, but only in the first and narrowest sense of foreseeing the direction of events. The EU is certainly in a sorry mess at the moment. There is also a strong strand of anti-establishment, anti-immigration populism loose in both the US and Europe, which could easily translate into a British vote to leave the EU. So betting against the EU could allow the London mayor to pocket some political winnings.
約翰遜支持英國退歐的決定或許會讓他站在歷史正確的一邊，但僅僅是在第一層也是最狹隘的意義上，即預測事態發展方向。當下的歐盟確處於一種令人遺憾的混亂之中。美國和歐洲都有一股強大的反政府、反移民的民粹主義鬆散力量，它們可以很容易地轉化爲支持英國退歐的投票結果。因此，押注退歐可以讓這位倫敦市長獲得些許政治資本。
But Mr Johnson is on the wrong side of history in the more important sense, because he is aligning himself with some of the most malign forces in Europe and Britain. Across Europe, it is the far-right and the far-left that are calling for the destruction of the EU — and they will cheer loudest if Britain votes to leave. On the borders of the EU, Vladimir Putin sees Brussels as a bitter enemy — and hugely resents the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea. The Russian president will be delighted and emboldened at any sign of the disintegration of the EU.
但在更重要的意義上，約翰遜站在了歷史的錯誤一側，因爲他跟歐洲和英國最有害的勢力站在了一起。在整個歐洲，正是極右翼和極左翼勢力在呼籲摧毀歐盟——如果英國通過投票脫離歐盟，他們的歡呼聲將是最響亮的。在歐盟的邊界上，弗拉基米爾渠京(Vladimir Putin)把歐盟視爲一個勁敵，而俄羅斯吞併克里米亞招致歐盟的制裁，也引起了俄羅斯的極大怨恨。歐盟解體的任何跡象，都將令這位俄羅斯總統感到歡欣鼓舞和信心大增。
In failing to appreciate the wider international context for his actions, Mr Johnson is following a distinctly un-Churchillian path. Churchill was the very opposite of a Little Englander. That is why he understood so quickly what the rise of Hitler meant for Britain, Europe and the world. It is also why he was one of the first politicians to understand the significance of Soviet actions in eastern Europe after 1945 — leading him to coin the term “iron curtain”.
約翰遜走上了一條不同於丘吉爾的道路，因爲他未能從國際大形勢的角度思考自己的做法。丘吉爾非常反對“小英格蘭主義者”(Little Englander)。正因如此，他才那麼快就明白了希特勒的崛起對英國、歐洲和世界意味着什麼。也正因如此，他才成爲最早理解1945年以後蘇聯在東歐行動的意義的政治家之一，他爲此創造了“鐵幕”一詞。
A modern Churchill, which is what Boris clearly aspires to be, would immediately understand that Britain’s decision about whether to stay in the EU has to be seen as part of a wider global picture. And that big picture is very worrying — with Russia rediscovering its taste for war, the Middle East disintegrating, violent jihadism on the rise, China flexing its muscles in the Pacific and the US flirting with the lunacy of “Trumpism”.
約翰遜明顯希望成爲現代丘吉爾。但丘吉爾如果活到現在，他立刻就會明白，必須在全球大形勢下權衡英國是否留在歐盟的決定。目前的大形勢非常令人擔心——俄羅斯再次燃起了戰爭意願，中東在分崩離析，殘暴的聖戰運動在興起，中國在太平洋地區伸展肌肉，而美國似乎有實行愚蠢的特朗普主義(Trumpism)之勢。
Given all that, it is depressingly small-minded of Mr Johnson to justify campaigning for Brexit partly on the grounds that Britain might save a bit of money on its contributions to the EU budget. The fact is that Britain will pay a very heavy price — directly and indirectly — if the EU disintegrates. As David Cameron, prime minister, correctly pointed out, this is ultimately a question of national security.
鑑於這一切，約翰遜以脫歐會節省一點對歐盟預算的攤派額作爲支持脫歐的部分理由，此舉目光短淺得令人沮喪。事實上，如果歐盟解體的話，英國將付出非常昂貴的代價——包括直接和間接代價。英國首相戴維(David Cameron)說的有道理，這從根本上來說是一個關乎國家安全的問題。
When Mr Johnson made his name as a journalist in the 1990s, campaigning against the follies of Brussels was fun. It was even possible to argue, back then, that the ambitions of the EU represented a serious threat to British self-government. But it would be absurd to look around today’s world and identify the EU as the biggest threat to British democracy or national security. The times have changed. Sadly, it seems that Mr Johnson has not changed with them.
當上世紀90年代約翰遜以記者身份成名的時候，反對歐盟愚蠢之舉是件趣事。在那時，甚至可以辯稱，歐盟的雄心對英國自治構成嚴重威脅。但是，環顧當今世界之後，還把歐盟說成英國民主或國家安全的最大威脅，將是荒謬可笑的。時代變了。遺憾的是，約翰遜並未隨着時代變遷而改變。
