策劃、編譯■李威撰、謝雯伃

在現代主權概念主導下，國內事務通常沒有外國政府置喙的餘地，

因此外部干預行動通常要符合最嚴格的條件，以人道主義做為正當性原則，

換句話說，聯軍任務不在促成「政權更迭」，而是盡「保護的責任」（RtoP）。

但如何在提供保護給異議者及公民的同時，又不以格達費的垮台做為前提？

這個問題對支持及反對干預的旁觀者而言，都有著不同的答案。

■在利比亞，阿傑達比亞通往班加比的路上，效忠格達費的軍用運輸工具遭聯軍的空襲行動所炸毀，圖為一名反抗軍高喊：「上帝是最偉大的！」（Allahu Akbar!）（圖文／路透）

聯軍對利比亞的空襲已逾一週；這些海外強權面臨的可能是一場長期戰爭，而各國對於此次征戰目標究竟是要保護利比亞平民免受格達費傷害，還是要罷黜這名領導人，沒有多少共識。

A week into military strikes on Libya, foreign powers may be at the beginning of a long war with little agreement on whether they should be protecting civilians （1） from Muammar Gaddafi or ousting the leader himself.

雖說英國、法國和美國聯軍的攻擊保護了在班加西的反抗軍，格達費仍舊控制首都的黎波里，並持續對西部城市米斯拉特的反抗軍進行轟炸。

While British, French and U S. attacks have saved the opposition in Benghazi, Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli and is still bombarding rebels （2） in the western city of Misrata.

分析人士指出，聯軍所面臨的問題，有一部分在於利比亞的統治者及反抗軍都沒有按照海外干預勢力所期待的劇本進行演出。

Part of the issue, some analysts say, is that neither Libya's rulers nor the opposition have followed the script that intervening powers had hoped for.

位於羅德島的美國海軍戰爭學院教授伏斯戴夫表示：「聯軍堅決的行動展示，會讓格達費倒台，並增加反抗運動的勇氣，重新直搗的黎波里。」

"That a resolute show of force would cause the Gaddafi edifice ... to collapse and embolden the rebel movement into resuming the march on Tripoli," said Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the United States Naval War College in Rhode Island.

「上述兩種假設都還沒發生。現在懸而未決的問題在於，聯軍是應該要保護平民百姓，還是要加速促進利比亞的政權轉移。」無論答案為何，他表示照目前情勢看來，這些外來強權將陷入一場更長久的戰爭，與此同時，在許多憂心人士的心目中，衝突尚未獲得解決的伊拉克及阿富汗也已成為陰影。

"Neither of these have happened as of yet. The unresolved question now is whether the mission is protecting civilians or forging ahead with regime change." Whatever the answer, he said it looked increasingly likely that foreign powers would be involved in a much longer war, with the spectre of far from resolved conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan still worrying many.

甚至連贊成干預利比亞的支持者都表示，這次的軍事行動其實可以更有效力，當然他們也說，在行動中總會面臨一些混亂狀況。

Even supporters of intervention （3） say the Libya campaign could be going better -- although they say some confusion was always to be expected.

「干預利比亞並非第一場定義渾沌不明的戰事。美國對阿富汗動兵的目的為何？幫助阿富汗推動民主？對抗恐怖主義？」歐洲理事會外交關係資深政策委員庫爾斯基表示，他本人是軍事行動的強力支持者。

"The Libya intervention is not the first fuzzily defined war. What's the aim in Afghanistan? Democracy? Counter-terrorism?" said Daniel Korski, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a strong backer of military action.

「也就是說，對於目的和手段均缺乏共識的這項雙重缺點……特別構成問題。」部分主張干預國際事務者相信，外國的干預行動應該要快速且猛烈行動，可能的手段包括訓練並武裝反抗軍，甚至是部署地面部隊。不過，以目前的狀況來看，有些反對激烈行動的聲音認為，猛烈且直接干預利比亞，會超過聯合國安理會所宣布以保護利比亞平民為主的行動方針。

"That said, the double whammy of lack of agreement on ends and lack of agreement on means... is particularly problematic." Some interventionists believe foreign action should be quickly ramped up, perhaps through training and arming of rebels or even deployment of some ground forces （4）. But there seems little appetite for that at present, with some arguing it could be dangerous to go beyond last week's Security Council resolution which endorsed protection of civilians but little more.

退役中將藍伯表示：「期待格達費下台、政權轉移或是與反抗軍攜手作戰，甚或是為了反抗軍而作戰，這都是虛假的神性。」他曾是英國特種部隊指揮官，也是伊戰及阿富汗戰爭時美軍指揮官的顧問。

"Expectations of Gaddafi going, regime change or fighting with or for the rebels are false gods," said retired Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, an ex-director of UK special forces and adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

「努力去達到這些期望（決議之外的期望）將會讓聯軍失去道德依據和阿拉伯世界的支持。取得國際和阿拉伯世界支持至關重要。這是為了讓利比亞人民自由選擇他們的領袖和未來，而不是我們來決定。」

"To attempt to service these expectations (beyond the resolution) would be to lose the moral high ground and the Arab street. Maintaining international and Arab support ... is critical. It is for the Libyan people to choose its leadership and future, not us."

聯合國安理會針對利比亞採取行動的決議案上，法國總統沙柯吉及英國首相卡麥隆發揮了主要的外交力量，而美國則是提供軍事力量。

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron provided the main diplomatic effort behind the UN Security Council resolution endorsing action, but the United States has provided the military muscle.

雖然說美國可能想撤出這次行動，但歐洲強權（其中有不少國家已大幅削減國防預算）是否能獨立繼續這次軍事行動，仍相當不明朗。

While the U.S. would like to roll back its involvement, it is far from clear that European powers -- many slashing already meagre defence budgets -- could carry on the campaign alone.

「15日的175次攻擊，有113次是由美國空軍所進行的。」美國海軍戰爭學院的伏斯戴夫表示。「如果美國減少利比亞軍事突襲次數，其他國家會補齊空缺行動數嗎？還是整起軍事行動會進入一個更被動的模式？」

"On Tuesday, there were 175 sorties -- of which 113 were undertaken by U.S. aircraft," said Gvosdev at the U.S. Naval War College. "If the U.S. reduces its operations, will others make up the difference? Or will the mission move into a more passive mode?"

北大西洋公約組織在17日達成一項協議，該同盟將組織一禁航區，不過本身並不會加入目前正在針對利比亞地面部隊所進行的空襲。

On Thursday, NATO states came to a messy deal whereby the alliance would organise the a no-fly zone （5） but would not itself coordinate the ongoing strikes against ground forces.

若美軍確實要撤出軍事行動，那麼聯軍的軍事干預將會縮減成僅剩空中巡邏、海運封鎖，以及偶爾才會進行的轟炸。到目前為止，聯軍嚴格控制不要造成任何的平民傷亡，儘管格達費政府經常宣傳說聯軍造成大批民眾傷亡。

If the U.S. military did cut back, intervention might be reduced to little more than air patrols, a naval blockade and perhaps very occasional bombing. So far, the coalition has managed to avoid any proven civilian casualties despite frequent claims from Gaddafi's government that many have been killed.

無論是由聯軍發動或由利比亞政府軍所造成的大批死亡人數，都會引起憤怒並造成外交失衡。除此之外，僵局與國家分裂的狀況將無可避免，可能會成為伊拉克長達10餘年禁航區的翻版，伊拉克禁航區在美軍2003年入侵伊拉克後才終止。

High profile mass deaths -- either inflicted by the coalition or government forces -- could spark outrage and tilt the diplomatic balance. Otherwise a stalemate and a divided country seem inevitable, perhaps echoing the decade-long no-fly zone in Iraq that lasted until the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

當時的伊拉克禁航區保護了北方半獨立的庫德族領地，不過卻無法阻止海珊殘暴地在伊拉克南部沼澤區鎮壓反抗軍。

That helped to protect a quasi-independent Kurdish enclave in the north -- but did little to stop Saddam Hussein from brutally crushing a revolt in the southern Iraqi marshes.

利比亞是否會演變成分裂的局面，很大一部分取決於戰火前線終止於何處，以及像是布瑞加附近的石油設施（目前由格達費所掌控）是否仍受到首都黎波里方面的控制，或改由另一大城班加西所掌控？抑或是在爭奪的過程中遭到摧毀？

If partition is the outcome, much will depend on where the frontline eventually stabilises and whether key oil facilities such as those around Brega -- currently Gaddafi-held -- remain under the control of Tripoli or Benghazi or are simply fought over and destroyed.

有些移居海外的利比亞人和反政府人士表示，他們希望聯軍能採取更多軍事行動，但他們也擔憂仍舊困在利比亞政府控制區民眾的生命安全。但整體來說，他們表示聯軍的空襲奏效，已拯救許多性命。

Some Libyan expatriate and opposition figures say they would like more action and worry over the fate of those trapped in areas still under government control. But on balance, they say the strikes are working and have already saved lives.

支持軍事行動的反對團體利比亞人權聯盟英國代表阿布薩果表示：「這很困難，特別是當格達費在平民區動用戰車。……但我想大眾在整件事情上認為事情發展順利。沒有軍事干預，利比亞的自由鬥士將會被殲滅。」

"It is difficult, particularly when Gaddafi has his tanks in amongst the civilian areas," said Khaeri Aboshagor, UK representative for the Libyan League for Human Rights, an opposition group supporting military action. "But I think people think overall it is going well. Without it, the freedom fighters would have been annihilated."

（路透Reuters）

1. civilian

(n.) 平民

2. rebel

(n.) 反抗政府者

3. intervention

(n.) 干預

4. ground force

(n.) 地面部隊

5. no-fly zone

(n.) 禁飛區

立報歡迎您投稿與指教。詳情請參投稿與聯絡立報