This argument for caution is one that the anti-interventionists have made since the conflict started last year. But it is now gaining a less patient hearing. One senior EU diplomat says: “We have hung back for 18 months now and watched people die. That is long enough. In the US, one of the most articulate exponents of intervention is Anne-Marie Slaughter who, until last year, was head of policy planning at the state department. She wrote recently that by failing to intervene, the US is “betraying yet again what America claims to stand for and called for “decisive action to save tens of thousands of Syrian lives and possibly tip the balance of the conflict.
自从冲突去年爆发以来,反干预者便一直持这种谨慎观点。但如今,这种观点却得不到耐心的聆听。一位欧盟(EU)高级外交官说:“我们已经犹豫了18个月,目睹着人们死去。18个月够长了。安妮-玛丽·斯劳特(Anne-Marie Slaughter)是美国最积极的干预倡导者之一,直到去年她还在美国国务院主管政策规划。她最近写道,由于未能干预冲突,美国“再一次背叛了它的主张,并且呼吁“采取果断行动,拯救数万叙利亚人的生命,并在可能的情况下决定冲突的走向。
Alongside the humanitarian arguments, the interventionists also make a more pragmatic case. The rebels are making headway. The eventual fall of the Assad regime seems inevitable. But if the western powers have not provided armed assistance to the eventual victors, the west’s ability to shape post-conflict Syria could be much more limited. As one US official puts it: “We need some skin in the game.
【西方干预能挽救叙利亚吗?】相关文章:
★ 清明节双语介绍
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15