发信人: urey()
整理人: netfox(1999-06-23 11:42:04), 站内信件
|
外国的报道没找到，这有一个美国二十几岁教师的评论。（未加任何删节，
翻译和评论）请各位自便。
actually, i don't support the intervention as it now stands. bombing m
ay not
help, but only make matter worse. what we need is Nato ground forces
who
will protect the villages of albanian kosovars from the serbs, who wi
ll end
the murders and the forced expulsions.
unlike the news you see on TV in china, or in serbia, the press in th
e west
is independent; it tells you how many kosovars the serbs have killed,
and
exactly what horrors the serbs are committing; it also tells you how
many
serbian civilians the Nato planes are killing. what is hard for some
chinese to understand (not you-- i think you realize the importance o
f a
free press) is that the press in the US doesn't support the governmen
t -- in
fact it is always trying to attack it. the US war in vietnam was a te
rrible,
i think even evil, war. the press in america helped to turn public op
inion
against the government's war, which never would have happened if the
press
had been censored.
so i think all chinese need access to the story on both sides: if you
see
what the serbs have been doing to people living peacefully in their
villages, where they have been for centuries, just because they are a
different ethnic group, i think chinese would also be outraged. this
is
"ethnic cleansing" just like Hitler's...on a smaller scale of course,
but
qualitatively the same. hundreds of men lined up and shot, killed in
front
of their children. the world press is reporting these stories, but i
don't
see them here.
so the question is: when a leader does something terrible to people i
nside
his own country, should the world sit back and let it happen? what ar
e valid
reasons to act and what are invalid ones? i think the killing of inn
ocents
--usually an ethnic minority -- on a wide scale BY A GOVERNMENT is so
mething
which should not happen at the end of the 20th century. minorities ar
e not
killed by the government in china, nor in the US, nor in France, nor
in
India. in most nations this doesn't happen. it only happens in some
countries, and i believe when this happens, such as in iraq (the kill
ing of
kurds by saddam hussein) or rwanda (the genocide of tutsis by the hut
us) the
world should come together to prevent this terrible slaughter.
is intervention from outside in the internal affairs of a sovereign n
ation a
violation of the UN charter, and of international law? yes, it is. bu
t what
is the point of all the fancy rhetoric in those documents if the worl
d sits
by and lets horrors occur. if evil people take control of sovereign n
ations,
does that mean that these people then have the right to do whatever t
hey
want? should the rest of the world just let them commit atrocities?
what of
the millions killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia in the late 1970s? finall
y
vietnam invaded, which historians now tend to see as a "good" act of
intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state. if it had not
happened, Cambodia might even much worse off now that it already is.
i am half jewish. i'm not religious, and do not consider myself a jew
at
all, but half of my blood is from that population which was so almost
exterminated by Hitler. pretend, in a very unlikely hypothesis, that
some
racist politician took power in the US in the future, and decided to
slowly
introduce anti-semitic (=anti-jewish) policies, which led in the end
towards
a Nazi-like extermination of all jews and half-jews. would i hope ch
ina
would violate other nations would sovereignty and stop this from occu
rring?
of course i would. this is not a very good example, as kosovo in an
enclosed area, and jews are all around the US, as they were in german
y. but
my point is that sovereignty should not be some absolute measure of
international actions -- what if you were some farmer in kosovo, gett
ing
kicked off your land and having your house burned, and maybe getting
killed?
would you want outside help?
incidentally, i disagree with your implications about bosnia (if i
understood them correctly). i think the Nato intervention in bosnia w
as a
good thing, which came too late. many thousands died there who need n
ot have
died. the US had no ill will towards serbians in bosnia; only towards
those
who wanted to kill muslims; we also didn't like muslims who killed se
rbs.
the dayton agreement stopped a war which was killing people on all si
des.
it's thanks to US and Nato action that there is a fragile peace there
and
that the bloodshed has stopped. with time the wounds can heal...
i realize all of this then raises the question of "who decides who is
doing
something terrible to someone in their country?" now, those with powe
r, i.e.
Nato, decide. china will in the future have the power to decide also.
..i
would hope that at some point we'll have a world army (a UN army?) wh
ich
will go anywhere to stop the slaughter of innocents.
i say this because i think it's not so hard to tell when "crimes agai
nst
humanity" are being committed. we're all humans, and we all know that
violence which kills innocent people and drives them from their homes
is the
worst kind. maybe i'm being idealistic, but i believe we can come to
a point
when humans stop killing each other. it's hard, but not impossible.
but
look at western europe: for hundreds of years there were wars, even a
s
recently as 1945, and now they are moving toward economic and, increa
singly,
political union. it can happen, but i believe it will happen faster i
f, like
in northern ireland, the world works together to stop the killing an
d then
to bring people to the negotiating table.
--
※ 来源:．月光软件站 http://www.moon-soft.com．[FROM: 202.103.164.22]
|
|