9月11日口譯文章：災黎危急磨練歐洲代價觀
德國總理安格拉默克爾(Angela Merkel)說得沒錯，今朝的災黎危急正迫使歐洲斟酌可否踐行本身所標榜的代價觀。遺憾的是，謎底很多是“不克不及”。
近500年以來，歐洲國度稱霸天下其他地域、舉行殖民，並將生齒輸往天下各地。1945年後，西歐國度殺青了一套新的後帝國主義及後法西斯主義的代價觀。這些代價觀基於普世的人權，並被寫入1951年版的結合國《關於災黎位置的條約》等文件中。
然則，天下上的失望和顛沛流離根本上都產生在距歐洲很遠之處，而歐洲人則持續享受著堪稱全球最高的生存程度。面臨“第三天下”使人悲痛的關於饑饉或戰斗的圖片刻，歐洲人可以經由過程向慈善構造捐錢或加入慈善音樂會來安慰本身的本心。
眼下災黎危急正在請求歐洲人以極可能價值昂揚、造成未便、並將加快深遠社會變更的方法，去踐行本身的代價觀。大量人群特地迎接抵達慕尼黑火車站的敘利亞災黎，以為這註解歐洲將完整遵照本身許諾的設法主意大概暖民氣房。但這也無邪得傷害。
已有跡象註解，德國當局乃至也在從新斟酌相幹的數字。德國人或允許以恥辱或恐嚇歐洲火伴，迫使後者經由過程一個配額系統配合承當災黎累贅。但數字加起來確切不敷。
歐盟委員會(European Commission)發起，歐盟應當吸收16萬災黎。與客歲7月歐盟委員會提出的4萬人的數字比擬，這標記著相稱可觀的增長。然則今朝已有400萬敘利亞災黎背井離鄉。僅德國本年估計就將收到80萬份來自敘利亞及其他地域的卵翼申請。
以為德國已決議吸收全部的敘利亞人、歐盟政策也有望進一步轉變的設法主意，仿佛極可能會煽動困在土耳其或中東收容所的數百萬災黎中的更多人去試下前去歐洲的傷害路程。敘利亞人並不是獨一悍然不顧的群體，另有共計數十萬的厄立特裏亞人、阿富汗人和伊拉克人位於遷徙當中。
在某個時候，災黎的失望和願望極可能會與歐洲選民的恐怖和不滿產生辯論。歐盟中的東歐成員國已異常明白地表現了其對災黎配額的不滿。比來的民調也註解，法國大多半人否決放松卵翼規矩，而多半英國人則支撐卡梅倫政府不接收歐盟強迫配額的刻意。
人們不該該對此覺得不測，歐洲對不法移民及追求卵翼者的恐怖一樣出如今澳大利亞和美國——這兩個曾為歐洲文明分支、富有且以白工資主的國度。在澳大利亞，托尼縠伯特(Tony Abbott)政府在許諾“阻攔”開往澳大利亞海岸的載有準災黎的船只後被選。艾伯特的政策遭到了結合國和人權構造的訓斥——然則在澳大利亞本國仿佛很受迎接。
在美國，唐納德礠朗普(Donald Trump)作為共和黨總統候選人提名熱點人選的異軍崛起，在很大水平上得益於其應用人們對不法移民的恐怖的才能。特朗普提出了驅趕1100萬不法移民並要沿墨西哥界限建築巨型斷絕墻的籌劃，專家們斥之為不確切際且不品德。但特朗普的突起迫使其他共和黨人也采用相似的態度。
精於剖析美國種族和政治題目的托馬斯埃茲爾(Thomas Edsall)以為，在應用移民題目上，“唐納德礠朗普是在北半球(包含歐洲)白人之間勢頭愈來愈大的一場活動的一部門”。正如埃茲爾所指出，這在很大水平上與種族相幹。現在，約有5050萬美國工資西班牙裔，而許多美國白人明顯感遭到了這帶來的威逼。在歐洲，白人又多了一個恐怖的來由，由於穆斯林移民帶來了對恐懼主義和社會凝集力的擔心。
特朗普大概永久不會成為總統，而歐洲的極右翼及反移民的政黨大概也不會在任何一個大國上台在朝。然則他們的主意已轉變了歐洲政治，而當前的移民危急將給他們可乘之機。
依據國際法的劃定，歐洲必需為每一名抵達歐盟的真正災黎供給卵翼。但政治實際是，所觸及的災黎數目太大，以致於很難保持海內對該項政策的支撐。在這一點上，歐洲的政治人士將想法回避本身的許諾——極可能會努力在一開端就阻攔災黎抵達歐盟。匈牙利和澳大利亞采用的嚴格隔絕辦法(今朝受到了廣泛訓斥)大概會變得加倍常見。
假如歐洲的政治人士沿著這條路走下去，他們會遭到未能實踐“歐洲代價觀”的責備——這類責備是適當的。然則，在實際中，他們面對著代價觀的辯論。默克爾說，歐洲有品德和司法責任回收真實的災黎。然則，在民主國度從政的政治人士也有品德和司法責任尊敬本身選民的意願。
【參考譯文】
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is right that the current refugee crisis is forcing Europe to consider whether it can live up to its own, self-proclaimed values. Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be “No”.
For almost 500 years, European nations dominated, colonised and populated the rest of the world. After 1945, the states of western Europe signed up to a new post-imperial and post-fascist set of values, based on universal human rights and enshrined in documents such as the 1951 UN Convention on refugees.
But the desperate and dispossessed of the world were largely kept at a distance, while Europeans continued to enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world. Faced with distressing images of famines or wars in the “third world”, Europeans could salve their consciences by making a donation to charity or attending a benefit concert.
Now the refugee crisis is asking Europeans to live up to their values in ways that are likely to be costly, inconvenient and that will accelerate far-reaching social changes. It would be heartwarming to believe that the crowds that turned out to welcome Syrian refugees arriving at Munich station show that Europe will respect its commitments in full. It would also be dangerously naive.
There are already signs that even the German government is having second thoughts about the numbers involved. The Germans may be able to shame and bully their European partners into sharing the refugee burden, through a system of quotas. But the numbers literally do not add up.
The European Commission, has proposed that the EU should take 160,000 refugees. This marks a considerable increase on the 40,000 the commission proposed last July. But there are already 4m Syrian refugees living outside their country. Germany alone expects to get 800,000 asylum applications, from Syria and elsewhere, this year.
The perception that Germany has now decided to accept all Syrians — combined with the hope of further changes in EU policy — seems likely to persuade more of the millions of refugees stuck in camps in Turkey or the Middle East to attempt the dangerous journey to Europe. Nor are the Syrians the only desperate group. There are also, collectively, hundreds of thousands of Eritreans, Afghans and Iraqis on the move.
At some point, the desperation and hopes of the refugees are likely to collide with the fears and resentments of European voters. The eastern European members of the EU have made their unhappiness with refugee quotas very clear. Recent opinion polls also show that a majority of French people oppose any softening of asylum rules, and a British majority back the Cameron government’s determination not to accept EU-mandated quotas.
These reactions should not come as a surprise, Europe’s fear of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is replicated in both Australia and the US — rich, largely white countries that were once offshoots of European civilisation. In Australia, the government of Tony Abbott won power after promising to “stop the boats” of would-be refugees, heading for Australian shores. Mr Abbott’s policies have been condemned by the UN and human-rights groups — but seem popular in Australia itself.
In the US, the remarkable emergence of Donald Trump as a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is driven, in large part, by his ability to play on fears of illegal immigration. Experts dismiss Mr Trump’s plan to deport 11m illegal immigrants and to build a giant wall along the Mexican border as impractical and immoral. But the Trump surge has pushed other Republicans to take similar positions.
Thomas Edsall, a shrewd analyst of race and politics in the US, argues that in his use of immigration “Donald Trump is part of a movement gaining momentum among whites across the northern hemisphere”, including Europe. As Mr Edsall points out, a lot of this is to do with race. Some 50.5m Americans are now Hispanic and many white Americans clearly feel threatened by that. White fears get an extra edge in Europe, where Muslim immigration plays on concerns about terrorism and social cohesion.
Mr Trump will probably never become president and Europe’s far-right and anti-immigration parties will probably fail to win power in a big country. But their arguments have already changed politics and the current migrant crisis will play into their hands.
International law suggests that Europe must offer asylum to every genuine refugee who reaches the EU. Political reality suggests that the numbers involved will be too large to sustain domestic support for such a policy. At that point, European politicians will try to wriggle out of their commitments — probably by trying to prevent refugees from reaching the EU in the first place. The harsh deterrents adopted by Hungary and Australia — currently the subject of widespread condemnation — may come to seem more normal.
If Europe’s politicians move down that path, they will be accused — rightly — of failing to live up to “European values”. But, in reality, they face a clash of values. Ms Merkel has said the Europe has a moral and legal obligation to accept genuine refugees. But politicians operating in a democracy also have a moral and legal obligation to respect the wishes of their voters.
市場價：HK$ 110
