嗯 好東西
我昨天在報紙上看到英國國會的投票結果，聽說英國首相布萊爾的演講發揮了極大的作用
。而且比布希要有說服力多了(要比布希好，這應該不難.........)。所以我就很好奇，
放著一堆論文先不唸，我先讀了一下在英國BBC網站上他的演講的濃縮板，我想板上也很久
沒有水了，那我就拋磚引玉一下好了。
Blair speech: Key extracts
Key extracts of Tony Blair's speech to the Commons on Tuesday as distributed by
Downing Street.
"It is right that this House debate this issue and pass judgement. That is the
democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.
And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.
This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops
down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set. I believe we
must hold firm.
The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But: why does it
matter so much? Here we are: the government with its most serious test, its
majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The
main parties divided.
People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who
never agree on anything, finding common cause.
The country and Parliament reflect each other: a debate that, as time has gone
on has become less bitter but not less grave. (重大的，深思熟慮的，沉重的)
So: why does it matter so much?
Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the
Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalized(變殘忍，殘酷) by Saddam.
It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security
threat of the 21st Century; the development of the UN; the relationship between
Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with
the rest of the world.
It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next
generation.
1441 is a very clear Resolution(決議案). It lays down a final opportunity for
Saddam to disarm. It rehearses(詳述，列舉) the fact that he has been, for years
in material breach of 17 separate UN Resolutions.
It says that this time compliance(順從) must be full, unconditional and
immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given
on 8 December. I won't to go through all the events since then - the House is
familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC. The
8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach(違反、裂
痕). Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is
not fully co-operating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no
serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the
same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or
mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some co-operation; and the
world rightly hesitated(猶豫、不願) over war. We therefore approached a second
Resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with Resolution
1441 or be in material breach.
Not an unreasonable proposition(提議、計劃、聲明), given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full co-operation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up
five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like
interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or
documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis
to co-operate with them.
So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time
to fulfil all six tests to show full co-operation; that if he did so the
inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to
do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks(水準點); plus a clear ultimatum.
I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority
agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive
way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct
was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto(否決) a second Resolution
whatever the circumstances.
Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them.
Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we
made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to
anything which lays down an ultimatum authorizing(認可，批准) action in the
event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the Security Council
opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new
Resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any Resolution that
stipulates that failure to comply(順從) will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he
doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to
inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing. What changed his mind?
The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to
February, concessions were made. What changed his mind?
The threat of force.
And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents
he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent,
destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence(急迫) of force.
The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his
doorstep.
And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are
told that any Resolution that authorises force will be vetoed.
Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.
Let me tell the House what I know.
I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are
proliferating(繁殖) and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear
weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise(專家的技術、意見、知識).
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly
repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological
weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries
are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This
activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major
countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have
suffered serious terrorist outrages(侵害，暴行). Thousands have died in them.
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in
producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences
which they then use to justify further terror.
Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle
East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa.
The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow(災難，精神上的打擊).
But it has not gone away.
And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they
share one basic common view: they detest(憎惡) the freedom, democracy and
tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.
At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is
hardening.
And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in
possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my
judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about 11 September was not just the
slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able
to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and
the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
There should be a new UN Resolution following any conflict providing not just
for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq.
That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.
It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq.
And let the oil revenues - which people falsely claim we want to seize - be put
in a Trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.
And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process
of uniting the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting
human rights, as indeed the fledgling(剛生羽毛的雛鳥) democracy in Northern
Iraq - protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the
No Fly Zone - has done so remarkably.
And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of
WMD - for which its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be
lifted in their entirety.
I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act
within the terms set out in Resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a
clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation
of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year
before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished(赤貧的，貧窮的), 60% of its population dependent on
Food Aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture(刑求) camps, the
barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or
their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering(詆毀，中傷) Saddam was tied to a lamp post
in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated(使殘廢) and left to bleed
to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I
understood how grim it must be under the lash(鞭抽) of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to
live in perpetual(永久的，不斷的，無限期的) fear." And she is right. We take
our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or
debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken
away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in
face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in
place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means
all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let
us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in
the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again;
and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
And if this House now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from
this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the
point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?
What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states
who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what
will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.
Who will celebrate and who will weep?
And if our plea(請求，藉口) is for America to work with others, to be good as
well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it
not rather be the biggest impulse(刺激，鼓舞，衝動) to unilateralism there
could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the MEPP, devoid
(缺乏的) of our influence, stripped of our insistence?
This House wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in
this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.
But on this decision hangs the fate of many things.
I can think of many things, of whether we summon(鼓起) the strength to
recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi
people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces - brave men
and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is
clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to
come.
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard (憑運氣)all that we hold dearest
, turn the United Nations back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of
progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on
which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they
need our determination that Britain faltered(遲疑，畏縮). I will not be party
to such a course. This is not the time to falter.
This is the time for this House, not just this government or indeed this Prime
Minister, but for this House to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for
what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and
dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the
moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing. I beg to
move the motion.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw)
◆ From: 140.112.247.151
推
推 140.112.245.99 03/21, , 1F
推 140.112.245.99 03/21, 1F
推
推 140.112.245.99 03/21, , 2F
推 140.112.245.99 03/21, 2F
※ 編輯: hkj 來自: 140.112.247.151 (03/21 15:46)