壟斷大國應該避免對俄製裁惡性循環

Call me Finlandised but there must be a better way than sanctions. Russia and the west are competing over who can hurt the other the most. This is no way to resolve a crisis.

你可以叫我“芬蘭化”分子，但肯定有比制裁更好的方式。俄羅斯和西方正在比拼誰能最大限度地傷害對方。這種做法不可能解決一場危機。

President Barack Obama says that sanctions are having an effect. Yes, they are. They are increasing popular support for Vladimir Putin. They are driving an ideological, political and cultural wedge between Russia and the west. While they hurt the Russian president’s close advisers, they also hurt Norwegian fishermen, Italian cheese makers, Finnish dairy companies, German technology companies and global energy companies. They drain hope from the European economy.

美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)宣稱制裁正在發揮作用。是的，的確起了作用。制裁提高了大衆對弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)的支持。制裁在俄羅斯和西方之間劃下了意識形態、政治和文化的鴻溝。制裁打擊了俄羅斯總統的親近顧問，但同時也損害了挪威漁民、意大利奶酪製造商、芬蘭奶製品企業、德國科技企業和全球能源企業的利益。制裁抽乾了歐洲經濟的希望。

But are they helping the situation in eastern Ukraine? No, they are not.

但這些制裁是否改善了烏克蘭東部的局勢？不，沒有。

Sanctions might work as a part of a proper strategy. At the moment, they are a substitute for policy. We need a cool-headed policy to deal with an assertive Russia. Do not get me wrong. If we do not respect human rights and the rule of law we are at the mercy of the powerful. If states do not respect the norms they have sanctified in international treaties, we turn the clock back to another century. Principles are dangerous only when they are not restrained by common sense.

制裁可能作爲一套合理戰略的一部分發揮作用。但眼下，制裁成爲了政策的替代物。我們需要冷靜的政策來應對強勢的俄羅斯。不要弄錯了我的意思。如果我們不尊重人權和法治，我們就只能任由強者擺佈。如果國家不遵守它們寫入國際條約中的規則，我們就倒退到了上一個世紀。只有當原則不被常識約束時，它們纔是危險的。

Remember the story about a drunken fight over a principle? Two men order drinks; one of them takes the change. “Hey, that’s my money,” says the other. “No, it’s mine,” the first retorts. “Are you calling me a liar?” Ugliness ensues; the police are called. “Did you get into a fight over 50 cents?” asks the officer as the two men are whisked away. “No, it was over a principle.”

還記得醉鬼因爲原則而打架的故事嗎？兩個男子點了酒水；其中一人拿走了找零。“喂，那是我的錢，”另一個人說。“不，是我的錢，”第一個人反駁。“你是在說我是騙子麼？”事情變得醜陋起來；警察被叫來了。“你們爲了50美分打架？”警官在帶走兩名男子時詢問。“不，是爲了原則。”

I am not suggesting that Crimea is small change (although Vyacheslav Molotov called Finland “small potatoes” during the postwar peace negotiations). I am suggesting that in a democracy, foreign policy requires a balance between realism and idealism. Realism without idealism leads to cynicism. Idealism without realism leads to a bloody nose.

我不是在暗示克里米亞是“找零”（儘管維亞切斯拉夫•莫洛托夫(Vyacheslav Molotov)在戰後和平協商時的確把芬蘭叫做“小角色”）。我的意思是，在民主國家，外交政策需要在現實主義和理想主義之間達成平衡。沒有理想主義的現實主義會導致憤世嫉俗。沒有現實主義的理想主義會遭遇迎頭痛擊。

The lessons of Finland’s experience of dealing with Russia can be summed up in two sentences. First, do not be naive. Second, do not be stupid. Great powers are good at changing their policies unexpectedly and Russia is no exception. One day they are friends, the next they are selling you down the river. Remember the Treaty of Tilsit? It led to Russia robbing Finland from Sweden with Napoleon’s consent. Remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? It lead to Josef Stalin taking over the Baltic states and trying (but failing) to take over Finland. Remember Yalta? Well, everyone remembers Yalta.

芬蘭應對俄羅斯的經驗教訓可以總結成兩句話。首先，別天真。其次，別犯蠢。大國擅於出其不意地改變政策，俄羅斯也不例外。今天他們和你是朋友，明天就會出賣你。還記得《提爾西特條約》(Treaty of Tilsit)嗎？該條約使俄羅斯得到拿破崙的許可，從瑞典手中奪取了芬蘭。還記得《蘇德互不侵犯條約》(Molotov-Ribbentrop pact)嗎？該條約使約瑟夫•斯大林(Josef Stalin)控制了波羅的海國家並試圖（雖然失敗了）控制芬蘭。還記得雅爾塔(Yalta)嗎？好吧，每個人都記得雅爾塔。

How can we stop the downward spiral of sanctions? Two things need to be done. First, there should be a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia, combining an agreement on borders with a commitment from Kiev to uphold the rights of Russian speakers, and a commitment from Moscow to stop supporting the rebels in eastern Ukraine. This offers both sides a face-saving way out. Second, Russia and the west should reconfirm their commitment to the so-called Helsinki principles: respect of territorial integrity and human rights. The Helsinki Accords will turn 40 next summer. This would be a good time to renew these vows. If Moscow chooses this course, the west should begin to dismantle the sanctions.

我們怎麼才能阻止制裁的惡性循環呢？需要做兩件事。首先，需要在烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間締結和平條約，並在兩國間達成邊境協定，基輔方面要承諾維護說俄語人羣的權利，而莫斯科方面要許諾不再支持烏克蘭東部的反叛分子。這給雙方提供了一個留存顏面的出路。第二，俄羅斯和西方應該再度確認對遵守“赫爾辛基原則”(Helsinki principles)的承諾：尊重領土完整和人權。明年夏天，《赫爾辛基協議》(Helsinki Accords)就簽署40年了。這是一個更新誓言的好時機。如果莫斯科選擇採取這樣的行動，西方就應該開始取消制裁。

It sounds idealistic, and perhaps it is. Just in case, Finland and Sweden should join Nato in due course. Moscow might complain that the western sphere of influence was again expanding. But these two countries are already part of the west. Their membership in Nato would benefit Russia: it would bring in two pragmatic countries who want to make Russia and Nato partners again. As surprising as it may sound these days, it is possible to balance idealism and pragmatism in a constructive way.

這聽上去很理想化，事實上可能也是如此。以防萬一，芬蘭和瑞典應該在適當的時候加入北約(Nato)。莫斯科或許會抱怨西方的勢力範圍又擴張了。但這兩個國家已經是西方的一部分了。它們加入北約會使俄羅斯受益：引入兩個信奉實用主義、希望俄羅斯和北約重歸於好的國家。眼下這聽上去或許讓人驚訝，但以一種建設性的方式平衡理想主義和實用主義是可能的。

The writer is secretary-general of the Northern Light, a European business leaders’ convention based in Helsinki

作者是赫爾辛基歐洲商界領袖大會“Northern Light”的祕書長