美國不應對難民危機袖手旁觀
When historians weigh President Barack Obama’s record, the word Syria looks set to be a negative. It is four years since Mr Obama called for Bashar al-Assad’s ejection from power. The US president did almost nothing to follow through on it — and the little he tried arguably tightened Mr Assad’s grip.
當歷史學家權衡美國總統巴拉克攠巴馬(Barack Obama)的功過時，“敘利亞”一詞看上去肯定會成爲他的一個減分項。奧巴馬曾要求巴沙爾阿薩德(Bashar al-Assad)下臺。在那之後，他幾乎沒有做出任何努力去促成這件事——而他唯一做出的那一點點努力可以說反而加強了阿薩德對敘利亞的控制。
More than 200,000 deaths and 4m refugees later, it is hard to distinguish America’s response from that of other western democracies. With the notable exceptions of Germany and Sweden, the west has denied succour to Syria’s fleeing masses.
在超過20萬人死亡、400萬難民流離失所後，很難看出美國的反應與其他西方民主國家有什麼不同。除了德國和瑞典這兩個明顯的例外，西方國家一直拒絕向敘利亞難民伸出援手。
Mr Obama should be wary. Syria is not some footnote to a respectable diplomatic legacy. It is an indictment.
奧巴馬應該小心。敘利亞並不是一份令人尊敬的外交遺產的註腳。它是一項控訴。
America’s abstention so far from Syria’s human crisis can be measured in numbers. Germany has put its European neighbours to shame by saying it will process up to 800,000 refugee applications from Syria — a multiple of the rest of Europe put together. Since the start of Syria’s civil war, the US has taken just 1,434.
美國在敘利亞人道危機問題上到目前爲止的不作爲，可以用數字來衡量。德國表示將處理至多80萬份敘利亞難民申請，這個數字（數倍於歐洲其他國家的總和）足以讓其歐洲鄰國感到羞愧。自敘利亞內戰爆發以來，美國僅僅接收了1434名難民。
There was a period when the US was deporting more Mexican immigrants than that every day. Money only goes so far to make up. The US has spent $4bn on humanitarian relief, which is considerably more than Europe.
曾經有一段時間，美國每天遣返的墨西哥移民數量都超過這個數字。金錢只能在一定程度上起到彌補作用。美國在人道主義救援方面投入了40億美元，大大超過歐洲。
But it pales against the costs Syria’s neighbours are bearing. One in five people in Lebanon is now a Syrian refugee. Turkey is overwhelmed.
但敘利亞的幾個鄰國承擔的成本令美國的投入相形見絀。如今在黎巴嫩，每5個人裏就有1個敘利亞難民。土耳其也不堪重負。
The case for the US to open its doors to many more Syrians is compelling. First, there is little else the US can do to alleviate Syria’s suffering. As Mr Obama discovered, calling for Mr Assad’s departure is not the same thing as bringing it about. That was then.
我們有充分理由主張美國應大大增加接收敘利亞難民的數量。第一，美國在其他方面能爲緩解敘利亞痛苦做的事情很少。正如奧巴馬發現的那樣，要求阿薩德下臺，跟促成這件事不是一回事。並且現在的情況跟那時候已經不一樣了。
Today, it is unclear whether Mr Assad’s ejection would even be desirable. The revenge of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) against Alawite and other non-Sunni supporters of the Assad regime could put today’s slaughter into the shade. Nor is there the slightest chance the US-led training of the moderate Syrian Free Army will produce an effective force before Mr Obama leaves office.
如今，阿薩德下臺還是不是一個值得歡迎的結果都不確定。“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國”(Isis)對阿拉維派(Alawite)以及其他支持阿薩德政權的非遜尼派的報復，甚至可能會讓眼下的殺戮顯得沒什麼大不了。美國領導的對溫和的敘利亞自由軍(Syrian Free Army)的培訓，也沒有絲毫可能會讓這支武裝在奧巴馬離任前具備強大的戰鬥力。
The US-led bombing campaign may stem the human exodus in some parts of Syria — Isis has generated as many refugees as Mr Assad. But it will not lead to a political settlement.
以美國爲首的轟炸行動可能會止住敘利亞某些地區的大批難民（Isis造成的難民數量與阿薩德一樣多）外流。但是，這不會帶來政治上的和解。
Second, America’s brand in the Middle East is as tarnished under Mr Obama as it was under George W Bush. It may be unfair to compare them. Mr Bush’s were errors of commission — chiefly in his Iraq invasion. Mr Obama’s are errors of omission in how he has handled Mr Bush’s legacy. But their costs are real.
第二，奧巴馬任內，美國在中東的名聲跟在喬治圠布什(George W Bush)任內差不多臭。將這兩個人相提並論或許不公平。小布什的過錯是作爲之錯，主要錯在入侵伊拉克。奧巴馬的過錯是不作爲之錯，錯在沒收拾好前者留下的爛攤子。但是他們造成的代價是實實在在的。
From imprisoned democrats in Egypt, to Libyans fleeing their country’s disintegration, the US is no beacon under Mr Obama. The feeling — once articulated by the president himself — that the US could disentangle itself is mocked every day by the hordes escaping Syria and elsewhere. The spillover does not stop at Europe. In today’s world no region is an island, let alone the Middle East.
從埃及囚禁民主人士、到利比亞人逃離四分五裂的國家，奧巴馬執政下的美國並沒起到燈塔的作用。如總統本人曾清楚地說過的那樣，美國覺得自己可以置身事外，然而在大批難民不斷逃離敘利亞和其他地方的現實面前，這種感覺每一天都在受到嘲諷。溢出效應並不止於歐洲。當今世界，不用說中東，沒有任何地方是孤立於世界的島嶼。
The moral case for the US to accept more asylum seekers is long overdue. Since the 2003 invasion, the US has taken 157,000 Iraqis and a fraction the number of Afghans.
美國接收更多難民的道德依據早就應該提出了。自2003年入侵伊拉克以來，美國接收了15.7萬名伊拉克難民，美國接收的阿富汗難民數量則只有這個數字的幾分之一。
Thousands of those who worked for the US military, as interpreters, guides, and fixers, have failed to get visas — even though their lives are in danger from Isis, the Taliban and others. The Obama administration deserves some blame for this. The special visa for former Iraqi and Afghan employees of the US military only came into effect in 2008. For those who have made it to the US, the process took years. For those left stranded, the message is clear: America is capable of abandoning you. It is hard to think of a worse signal, or one more easily rectified.
成千上萬曾爲美軍工作，充當翻譯、嚮導和中間人的伊拉克人和阿富汗人一直未能獲得簽證——儘管Isis、塔利班(Taliban)和其他組織正威脅着他們的生命安全。奧巴馬政府在一定程度上對此難辭其咎。從2008年起纔有了針對曾效力於美國軍隊的伊拉克人和阿富汗人頒發的特別簽證。那些成功來到美國的人，在這個過程中耗時多年。那些仍困在國內的人，則面對一個明確的訊息：美國可以拋棄你們。很難想到比這更糟糕的信號了，也很難想到比這更容易糾正的事情了。
In this case, US politics is not to blame. Congress has passed laws with large bipartisan majorities to allow former Iraqi and Afghan employees into the country.
不應把這個問題歸咎於美國政治。在美國國會兩黨議員的共同支持下，美國國會以大多數票數通過了法律，允許接收曾經爲美軍效力的伊拉克人和阿富汗人進入美國。
The problem is bureaucratic constipation. The fear of letting in one terrorist clearly outweighs the benefit of letting in thousands of deserving innocents. Applicants must wade through a morass of the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and others. The hold up is in the executive branch. Only Mr Obama has the power to unclog it. Likewise, only he has the power to take the lead on the Syrian refugee crisis.
問題是官僚體制的層層阻礙。對於讓一名恐怖分子入境的擔憂，顯然超過了讓數千名有權獲得新生的無辜受害者入境的好處。申請者必須趟過美國國務院(State Department)、國土安全部(Department of Homeland Security)、美國聯邦調查局(Federal Bureau of Investigation)以及其他機構製造的各種泥沼。阻礙出現在行政分支。只有奧巴馬有能力排除阻礙。同樣的，也只有他有能力在敘利亞難民危機中發揮帶頭作用。
What is stopping him? Again, it is not politics. Evangelical groups have called on the US to take in more Syrian Christians, who make up a large share of Isis victims. A group of senators urged Mr Obama this year to take in 65,000 Syrian refugees of whatever background.
阻止他的是什麼？仍然不是政治。福音派組織一直呼籲美國接納更多敘利亞基督徒，這些人在Isis受害者中佔到很大比例。一些參議員今年敦促奧巴馬接納6.5萬名敘利亞難民，不管他們是什麼背景。
Mr Obama’s response was to say the US would take in up to 8,000 more in 2016, a number too paltry to have much effect. Even Donald Trump said last week that an exception could be made for Syria because its crisis was “so horrible”. The human cost is there on our smart phones. It is worth noting that Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, was the son of a Syrian immigrant.
奧巴馬的迴應是表示美國將在2016年再接納最多8千名敘利亞難民，這個數字杯水車薪。甚至連唐納德礠朗普(Donald Trump)上週也表示，可以爲敘利亞破例，因爲該國危機“非常恐怖”。我們可以在智能手機上查到這場危機的傷亡數字。有必要提一下，蘋果(Apple)創始人史蒂夫吠布斯(Steve Jobs)的生父就是敘利亞移民。
It is clear Mr Obama’s humanitarian instincts are strong. But he is standing back on Syria. Whenever Bill Clinton is asked about his presidential regrets, he brings up his failure to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Unless Mr Obama changes tack, Syria will come to haunt him too.
很明顯，奧巴馬的人道主義本能強烈。但他正在對敘利亞袖手旁觀。每當比爾克林頓(Bill Clinton)被問及他在擔任總統期間的遺憾時，他就會提起他未能阻止1994年的盧旺達大屠殺。除非奧巴馬改變策略，否則敘利亞也會一直縈繞在他的心頭。
