作者:
kwei (光影)
2019-06-29 01:52:59The lessons of Chernobyl: It’s the West that now needs Glasnost
車諾比的教訓：現在是西方需要開放透明了
原文 (RT.com)：https://tinyurl.com/yys4hjkx
中譯 (觀察者)：https://www.guancha.cn/NeilClark/2019_06_21_506473.shtml
Neil Clark
英國記者、專欄作家
The much-acclaimed series ‘Chernobyl’ tells the story of the 1986 nuclear
disaster and the authorities’ attempts to play it down. Ironically, 33 years
on, it’s Western leaders who need to learn how to be honest and transparent.
被給予高度評價的美劇《車諾比》講述了一個故事，即1986年發生核災難事故後，當局是
如何試圖大事化小、小事化了的。諷刺的是，33年之後的今天，輪到西方國家領導人學習
如何做到講真話、不欺瞞了。
It was the accident which some think led directly to the fall of communism. “
Reformers in the Soviet Union, and Mikhail Gorbachev himself, used Chernobyl
as an argument for more accountability and greater frankness, because the
initial reaction of the Soviet authorities was anything but transparent. It
became a symbol of what was wrong with the Soviet system,” says Professor
Archie Brown, author of ‘The Rise and Fall of Communism’, as cited in
yesterday’s Sunday Express newspaper.
有些人認為，正是這次核事故直接導致了蘇共垮台。英國《星期日快報》不久前援引了《
共產主義的興衰》一書作者阿奇·布朗教授的一番話：“包括戈巴契夫本人在內的蘇聯改
革派，都以車諾比事故為例，要求政府強化責任制、更加開誠布公，因為蘇聯當局最初的
反應一點也不公開透明。車諾比事件成為了蘇聯體制問題的象徵。”
Just three-and-a-half years after Chernobyl, the Berlin Wall came down, and
in 1991, the USSR itself ceased to exist.
車諾比事故發生後僅僅三年半，柏林牆就倒塌了，而到1991年，蘇聯也不復存在了。
Western ideologues were quick to gloat, saying that a system which kept
telling people lies and trying to cover things up was always doomed to fail,
but in terms of openness and telling the truth, are we really much better
than the Soviet Union of the 1980s?
很快，西方的意識形態理論家們便幸災樂禍地說，一個不斷向人民撒謊、試圖掩蓋事實的
體制，注定是要失敗的。不過，在開放性和講真話方面，我們西方真的比上世紀80年代的
蘇聯好很多嗎?
Consider the way a succession of illegal wars has been sold to the public. We
were told in 2003 that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which could
be assembled and launched within 45 minutes. It was false, patently so, yet
the Chilcot Report was only published 13 years later, and even now, no one
has been prosecuted in relation to a war which led to the deaths of one
million and the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).
想想西方是怎麼向公眾兜售一連串非法戰爭的吧。2003年時，我們被告知伊拉克擁有可以
在45分鐘內完成組裝並發射的“大規模殺傷性武器”。儘管這種說法明顯是錯誤的，但直
到13年後《齊爾考特報告》才姍姍來遲，而且時至今日也沒有人因為這場導致100萬人死
亡和“伊斯蘭國”恐怖組織興起的戰爭而遭到起訴。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2019/06/18/20190618093439648.jpg
配圖：《齊爾考特報告》得出的結論是：伊拉克戰爭“沒有必要”
In 2011, we went to war again, against Libya. Once more, our politicians were
less than honest with us. We were told that we had to bomb because Colonel
Gaddafi was going to massacre the inhabitants of Benghazi. Only
five-and-a-half years later were we allowed to know the truth. In September
2016, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report held that “the
proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians
in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence… the Government
failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the
rebels included a significant Islamist element.”
2011年，我們又發動了戰爭，這次的目標是利比亞。西方政客們再一次欺瞞了我們。他們
告訴我們，由於格達費上校要屠殺班加西的居民，所以必須轟炸利比亞。直到五年半之後
，真相才得以公之於眾。2016年9月，英國下議院外交事務委員會的一份報告認為，“現
有證據不支持關於穆阿邁爾·格達費將下令屠殺班加西平民的主張……英國政府當時未能
察覺這種對平民的威脅被過於誇大，也未對反政府武裝中的極端伊斯蘭主義元素給予重視
。”
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2019/06/18/20190618093728984.jpg
配圖：2011年10月18日，時任美國國務卿的希拉蕊·克林頓對利比亞首都的黎波里進行為
期一天的訪問。兩天後格達費被槍殺。
Again, we were tricked into war. By ‘nice’ Western politicians, mark you,
and not ‘lying’ Soviet ones. Once more, there’s been no accountability.
Libya, a country which had the highest Human Development Index in the whole
of Africa, was destroyed. It was a far worse disaster than Chernobyl, as
indeed Iraq was. When will the HBO dramas on these catastrophes be screening?
就這樣，我們再次被蒙在鼓裡捲入了戰爭。需要強調的是，欺騙我們的是“親善的”西方
政客，而不是“撒謊成性”蘇聯政客。這一次，還是沒有任何人被問責。利比亞曾經是整
個非洲人類發展指數最高的國家，它就這樣被摧毀了。利比亞的災難和伊拉克戰爭一樣，
都比車諾比嚴重得多，不知HBO準備什麼時候把它們搬上螢幕呢？
It’s not just the illegal wars. There have been cover-ups of plenty of other
things, too. Three years after Chernobyl, there was the Hillsborough disaster
in which 96 Liverpool football fans were crushed to death. It was the worst
disaster in British sporting history. To add insult to tragedy, the fans
themselves were blamed. Rupert Murdoch’s Sun claimed on its front page that
fans had urinated on policemen and picked the pockets of victims. It took
nearly 30 years to get the record formally put right and achieve ‘Justice
for the 96’ when a jury held that the fans were ‘unlawfully killed’. The
Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which wants a public inquiry into the
way striking miners in South Yorkshire were ‘brutalised’ by police in the
so-called ‘Battle of Orgreave’ in 1984, are still waiting. In 2016, Home
Secretary Amber Rudd said there would be no inquiry.
西方隱瞞的不僅是非法戰爭的真相，還有許多其他事情。在車諾比事故發生三年後，英國
發生了希爾斯堡慘案，96名利物浦球迷被踩踏致死。這是英國體育史上最嚴重的災難。雪
上加霜的是，事故責任被全部推卸到球迷身上。默多克旗下的《太陽報》在頭版聲稱，球
迷們對著警員小便，並扒竊遇難者的財物。直到近30年後陪審團認定這些球迷是被“非法
殺害”的，案卷裡的錯誤才正式得到糾正，為96名死者伸張了正義。然而對於那些參與
1984年南約克郡罷工——即所謂“歐格里夫戰役”——並受到警察“殘暴對待”的礦工來
說，呼籲政府展開公開調查的“歐格里夫真相與正義運動”仍未等來答覆。2016年，時任
英國內政部長的安伯·拉德表示將不會對此進行調查。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2019/06/18/20190618095409817.jpg
配圖：歷史學家形容歐格里夫衝突“彷彿中世紀戰役，包括了攻堅、戰鬥、驅逐、追逃等
環節，是國家合法暴力的殘酷例證”
Where’s the openness and transparency here?
這哪裡有什麼公開和透明？
Likewise with the cover-ups over suspected Establishment pedophiles and other
high-up wrong-doers. We learnt only this year that Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher had, back in the 80s, personally protected a senior Conservative MP
who allegedly had a “penchant for small boys.”
同樣的手段，也被用來掩蓋當權的那些有戀童癖嫌疑和其他不法行為的高官。直到今年，
我們才瞭解到，上世紀80年代英國首相柴契爾曾經親自保護過一名據說“尤嗜童男”的保
守黨資深議員。
We don’t know whether a leading Soviet politician who was a child-abuser
would have been prosecuted. Probably not. But we do know that in Britain in
the 1980s, such cover-ups definitely occurred. And who really believes that’
s still not the case today?
我們不知道蘇聯高官如果虐童是否會遭到起訴，也許不會；但我們知道，上世紀80年代的
英國的確發生過這種掩蓋醜聞的行為。誰又真的相信今天的英國不存在這樣的情況呢?
Bergson and Popper famously divided societies into ‘open’ and ‘closed’
ones, but Western ‘openness’ is not quite as ‘open’ as we’re led to
believe. It does not extend to politicians frankly acknowledging the role
that Western foreign policy has played in aiding, directly or indirectly, the
very same terrorists who have gone on to target Western civilians. That’s a
taboo subject, even after the Manchester Arena bombings and the bomber’s
link to the MI5-‘sorted’ anti-Gaddafi LIFG, and the slaughter of tourists
on the beach in Tunisia by a man who reportedly trained at an IS camp in
neighboring ‘liberated’ Libya.
法國哲學家昂利·柏格森和奧地利哲學家卡爾·波普爾將社會分為“開放型”和“封閉型
”兩種，但所謂的“開放”的西方社會並不如我們在外界引導下所認為的那樣“開放”。
這種開放性不足以讓政客們坦率地承認西方外交政策直接或者間接地資助了恐怖分子，而
正是這些恐怖分子把矛盾對準了西方國家的平民。西方國家對這個問題三緘其口，哪怕曼
徹斯特體育場爆炸案的襲擊者已被查明與在軍情五處掛了號的反格達費武裝有關聯，哪怕
突尼斯海灘屠殺案的凶手就來自“被解放”的鄰國利比亞——他在那裡接受了“伊斯蘭國
”組織的訓練。
There are many more subjects too that are so taboo I dare not even mention
them here. By contrast, dishonest or fact-lite narratives, such as ‘
Russiagate’, or the one that holds that the UK Labour Party, an anti-racist
party, is ‘awash with anti-Semitism’, hold sway. We CAN talk about these
and indeed some commentators talk about little else.
西方此類禁忌話題還有太多太多，其中有些我甚至不敢在本文中提及。相比之下，諸如“
通俄門”或認為反種族主義的英國工黨內部“充斥著反猶主義”等不誠實或缺乏事實依據
的說法，卻大行其道。這些是我們能夠談論的話題，事實上，某些評論員除了這些，其他
幾乎什麼也不談。
It is the greatest of ironies that at the very same time that we are being
told how HBO’s Chernobyl exposes the rottenness of the ‘closed’ Soviet
system, a man who does believe in openness and transparency, a free press,
and government accountability, is languishing in a maximum security prison in
‘open’ London, facing a possible extradition to the US and sentences of up
to 175 years in jail. Julian Assange, whose only crime is wanting to show us
what was behind the curtain, is no less persecuted than the Soviet dissidents
about whom we heard an awful lot in the 1980s.
最大的諷刺在於，就在我們被告知HBO的《車諾比》揭露了蘇聯“封閉”體制的腐敗的同
時，一位真正信仰開放、透明、新聞自由和政府問責制的人，卻在所謂“開放”的倫敦城
裡頂級戒備的監獄中受苦受難，面臨可能被引渡至美國並被判處175年監禁的命運。維基
解密創始人朱利安‧阿桑奇唯一的罪行，就是想向我們展示隱藏在幕後的真相，他遭受的
迫害絕不亞於上世紀80年代我們時有耳聞的蘇聯異見人士。
It’s been said that if you feud with someone long enough you end up being
like them, or at least how you liked to portray them. When we think of the
old Cold War and what’s going on today, that seems to have come true.
有人說，長期鬥爭會使你越來越像你的宿敵，至少越來越接近對方在你描繪之下的形象。
回顧冷戰，再放眼當下，這種說法似乎已經成為現實。
In its lack of transparency and openness, and the way in which lying has
become the new normal, the West is now behaving the way the Soviet Union is
supposed to have operated at the time of Chernobyl.
今天的西方國家缺乏透明度和開放性，撒謊已成為新常態，像極了當年車諾比事故發生時
它們口中的蘇聯。
Who, I wonder, will be the equivalent of Mikhail Gorbachev to introduce some
much-needed Western Glasnost?
我好奇的是，西方的戈巴契夫在哪裡？我們迫切地需要他推出西方版的開放透明政策。
**
補充：有關齊爾考特報告 (摘自維基百科)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
伊拉克戰爭調查（英語：Iraq Inquiry），因其主席約翰·齊爾考特亦稱為「齊爾考特調
查」（Chilcot Inquiry），是一個目的為調查英國在伊拉克戰爭扮演之角色的英國政府
調查。
……中略……
2016年7月6日，調查委員會主席約翰·齊爾考特發佈調查報告，距宣佈開始調查超過七年
，報告常被英文媒體稱為「齊爾考特報告」（Chilcot report）。報告內容則指出 當時
薩達姆·海珊對英國利益並無造成迫切的威脅、英國情報部門當時並不確定伊拉克擁有大
規模殺傷性武器、英國政府當時仍未用盡戰爭以外和平解決的方法、英美兩國削弱了聯合
國安全理事會的權威、當時尋找法律依據進攻伊拉克的過程遠不令人滿意(far from
satisfactory)，以及於2003年並無必要發動戰爭。