http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/
29KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists
NYTimes.com > Opinion 紐約時報.com→意見
OP-ED COLUMNIST 反社論專欄
April 29, 2003 2003 四月 29 日
Matters of Emphasis
By PAUL KRUGMAN
重點何在
Paul Krugman 撰
"We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was
just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the
administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.
According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the
administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials
acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their
standpoint, the perfect target."
A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on
both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political
leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the
paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a
threat."
（「我們並沒有說謊。」在美國廣播公司新聞裡，一位布希政府官員如是說。「這只
不過是重點何在的問題而已。」這名官員所指的，是布希政府如何吹噓海珊對美國
所造成的威脅。根據美國廣播公司的報導，發動這場戰爭真正的理由，是政府「
希望以儆效尤。」為什麼挑上伊拉克？「官員們知道，從他們觀點來看，薩達姆
具備了一切讓自己成為最佳公敵的條件。」
英國報紙《獨立報》報導說「大西洋兩岸的情報人員提供給政治領袖的簡報在戰爭
狂熱裡遭到了扭曲，他們對此感到憤慨。」某位「高層消息來源」告訴該報：「
他們忽視情報所做的評估：伊拉克並不構成威脅。」）
Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to
believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological
weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a
small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known.
Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom
cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have
known that it didn't.
Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't:
we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard
questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.
（當然，我們尚未發現任何大規模毀滅性武器。很難相信我們永遠不會發現任何毒氣或
未經純化的生物武器。但這些東西都不是大規模毀滅性武器，只有該類型武器才能讓
一個既窮又小的國家威脅到史上已知的最大強權。還記得布希總統為戰爭找理由時，
警告裡出現「蕈狀雲」一詞。很明顯的，伊拉克沒有任何類似的東西—布希總統大概
早就知道伊拉克沒有這種東西了。
「我們是否被騙去作戰」，這個問題重要嗎？某些人認為並不重要：我們贏了，伊拉克
人自由了。但我們應該問些更難的問題—不光是伊拉克人的問題，而是我們自己的
問題。）
First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health
Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS
— called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries,
arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S.
share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small
fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush
administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.
Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a
plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to
enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost
too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just
to spite the French, would we?
So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to
suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic
might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any
occasion to stage a victory parade.
（首先，我們為何選擇性的發揮同情心？世界衛生組織（就是我們現在賴以防治 SARS
的機構）在2001年為一項對抗貧窮國家的傳染病的計畫提出呼籲，辯稱這項計畫每年
可以保住數百萬條人命。美國若是分攤經費，每年只要一百億美元；這跟我們花在
戰爭與佔領的經費相比，不過戔戔之數。但布希政府輕蔑的拒絕了這個提案。
或是看看在戰後，美國的第一項重要外交活動：阻撓派遣聯合國維安人員到象牙海岸
ꄠ（前法國殖民地）執行惡性內戰停火的計畫。美國抱怨這項計畫會花掉太多錢。這
當然就是理由了——我們不會光是因為討厭法國，就讓無辜百姓喪命的，對不對？
這麼看來，我們對伊拉克人民的深切關注，不會擴展到世界其它地區的苦難人民。
我猜，這大概也是重點何在的問題。犬儒一點的人可能會說，若是以和平方式拯救
人命，就沒有什麼機會辦場勝利遊行了。）
Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their
citizens the truth?
One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case
for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans
believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring
coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever
announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that
recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration
charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did
not.
（現在，民主國家的領袖們是不是該向國民說實話了？
人們也許會懷疑，大部分群眾是否會認為原先用來發動戰爭的理由是錯的。事實上，
我猜，大部分美國人會相信我們已經找到大規模毀滅性武器了。每條「疑似發現」的
消息都在電視報導上被大肆宣揚；有多少人會注意後續聲明（如果還有這種聲明的話）
說明這些消息只是虛驚一場？這種提供錯誤資訊的模式，只是把先前販賣戰爭的
方式重新運作一遍罷了。政府對伊拉克的指控，每一則都獲得顯著的報導；後續的
辨偽消息就沒有這麼好運了。）
Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the
administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For
example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency
report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear
weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the
report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's
Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq."
Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the
site.
Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions,
the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an
immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with
Sept. 11.
Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions,
right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its
citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?
（新聞媒體是否覺的質疑政府可信度就是不愛國？某些怪事自然會發生。例如，布希
先生在九月引述了一份國際原子能總屬的報告，他說這報告指出薩達姆只要再幾個月
就可以製成核子武器了。他說：「我不知道我們還需要什麼額外的證據。」事實上，
那一份報告根本沒有提到這一點；MSNBC 網站上的頭條摘要為〈白宮：布希錯引
伊拉克報告〉，這則摘要只出現了幾個小時。之後這則報導就消失了；不光是從首頁
移除，而是從整個網站中消失了。
多虧這類大聲斷言卻靜靜把話收回的模式，美國大眾或許會相信他們是為了除掉
立即的威脅而發動戰爭的；就像他們也相信薩達姆與九一一事件有關一樣。
沒錯，戰爭除掉了一個邪惡的暴君。但一個民主政體的決定，無論是對是錯，
都應該得到接受了充分資訊的公民的同意。但這件事並沒有在這次事件發生。
我們還是個民主政體，不是嗎？
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw)
◆ From: 61.64.75.158
※ 編輯: requiem 來自: 61.64.75.158 (05/01 12:43)
※ 編輯: requiem 來自: 61.64.75.158 (05/01 12:44)