警惕重劃歐洲版圖 重啓血腥爭端

Somebody born in Lviv in 1914, who died in 1992 and never moved out of the city, would have lived in five different countries during the course of a lifetime. In 1914, Lviv, then called Lemberg, was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire; by 1919 it was part of Poland and became Lwow; in 1941 it was occupied by the Germans; after 1945, the city was incorporated into the Soviet Union; and then in 1991 it became part of newly independent Ukraine.

如果一個人1914年出生在利沃夫，1992年去世，一生中一直在這個城市生活，那麼這個人一生中已經在5個不同的國家中生活過了。1914年，利沃夫(Lviv)還叫倫貝格(Lemberg)，是奧匈帝國的一部分；到1919年，這個城市已成爲波蘭的一部分，名稱也變成了利沃夫(Lwow)；1941年，這個城市被德國佔領；1945年後，這個城市被併入蘇聯；然後，在1991年，這個城市又成爲新獨立的烏克蘭的一部分。

Most of these changes were accompanied by warfare and bloodshed. So when it was suggested last week that, a few years ago, Russian president Vladimir Putin had proposed to Donald Tusk, then Polish prime minister, that Ukraine should be partitioned once again – with Russia claiming the eastern territories, and Poland Lviv and other parts of western Ukraine – there was an uproar.

這些變化的發生大多伴隨着戰爭和流血。正因如此，不久前的那個消息纔會引發軒然大波，該消息稱，俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾•普京(Vladimir Putin)幾年前曾向當時的波蘭總理唐納德•圖斯克(Donald Tusk)建議，應再次瓜分烏克蘭，東部的領土歸俄羅斯，利沃夫和西部的其他領土歸波蘭。

The details of the Putin-Tusk conversation – and indeed whether it ever really took place – were swiftly made murky by denials and clarifications on all sides. But the furore over the idea of a partition of Ukraine was still telling. For it revealed the deep and justified fear in Europe that national boundaries might shift once again, across the continent, with all the dangers that implies.

有關各方都表示否認並出面澄清，普京與圖斯克那次對話的具體情況隨之變得撲朔迷離，的確，就連那次對話是否真的發生過也成了一個謎。但瓜分烏克蘭的構想引發了公憤，這本身仍然很能說明問題，因爲這揭示出，對於歐陸版圖再次遭到重劃的可能性及其必將帶來的種種危險，歐洲感到深切和有理由的恐懼。

The dismemberment of Ukraine has, in a sense, already begun – with Russia’s forcible, but largely bloodless, annexation of Crimea this year. Since then thousands have died in fighting in the east of Ukraine, parts of which are now controlled by Russian-backed separatists. Even though Ukraine held elections at the weekend, the occupied parts of the country were unable to vote.

俄羅斯今年強行吞併了克里米亞（不過整個過程基本上沒有流血），意味着對烏克蘭的瓜分在某種意義上已經開始。自那以後，已有數千人在烏克蘭東部的戰鬥中喪生，該地區如今已局部由俄羅斯支持的分裂主義者控制。即便烏克蘭不久前舉行了選舉，但分裂主義者控制區域的選民無法投票。

There are influential voices within the EU urging the Ukrainians to “accept reality”. Rather than waging a draining and losing war to win back all of the east – then having to rebuild its devastated cities – they are advised to concentrate on making a success of the large majority of the country that they still control. They can deny the legality of Russian control. But they should accept its reality.

在歐盟(EU)內部，有重量級人物敦促烏克蘭人“接受現實”。他們建議烏克蘭人專注於搞好仍然在自己控制範圍內的大部分國土，而不要試圖通過打一場曠日持久、又不可能成功的戰爭以求贏回東部的所有國土，然後不得不重建那些淪爲廢墟的城市。烏克蘭人可以聲稱俄羅斯對那些區域的控制是不合法的。但他們應接受這一現實。

That is the “realist” case for partition. But there are other influential voices who think that even tacitly accepting that Europe’s borders can once again be redrawn by military force would be a disastrous mistake.

這是對領土被瓜分的“現實主義”看法。但還有一些重量級人物認爲，即便是有策略地接受可以用武力重劃歐洲的版圖，也是個災難性的錯誤。

Carl Bildt, who has just stepped down as Sweden’s foreign minister, puts it bluntly: “The borders of Europe are more or less all drawn in blood through centuries of brutal conflict.” Allowing these borders to be redrawn, he thinks, would be an invitation “for the blood to start flowing again”.

剛剛卸任的前瑞典外交大臣卡爾•比爾特(Carl Bildt)直言道：“歐洲的版圖或多或少都是用鮮血劃成的，在這個過程歐洲經歷了幾個世紀的血腥衝突。”他認爲，允許重劃歐洲版圖，無異於鼓勵“鮮血再次橫流”。

The most obvious risk is that the Russian government would redeploy the argument that it used to justify the annexation of Crimea – that these are lands that are historically and culturally Russian – and use it to justify seizing the roughly one-quarter of Ukraine that the Kremlin now habitually calls “Novorossiya”. That part of the country includes all of the Ukrainian coastline, and losing it would in effect cripple Ukraine as a nation.

最明顯的風險在於，俄羅斯將再次搬出它用來證明吞併克里米亞有理的那個理由，即這些土地在歷史上和文化上都屬於俄羅斯，並用這個理由來佔領如今已被克里姆林宮習慣性地稱爲“新俄羅斯”(Novorossiya)的烏克蘭約四分之一國土。這塊區域包含了烏克蘭的全部海岸線，失去海岸線將嚴重削弱作爲一個國家的烏克蘭。

If the dismemberment of Ukraine began in earnest, others might be tempted to join in. Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, referred to in some other EU capitals as a “mini-Balkan Putin”, has made clear he regards the loss of two-thirds of Hungarian land after the first world war as a tragedy. Parts of historic Hungary now lie across the border in Ukraine – as well as in Slovakia, Serbia and Romania. If Ukraine really began to fall apart, even some Poles might be tempted by the idea of the return of Lviv.

如果對烏克蘭的瓜分真正開始，其他國家或許也會忍不住加入。在某些歐盟國家素有“小巴爾幹的普京”之稱的匈牙利總理維克托•歐爾班(Viktor Orban)已明確表示，他認爲匈牙利在一戰後失去了三分之二的國土是個悲劇。一些曾經屬於匈牙利的土地如今有的在烏克蘭境內，有的在斯洛伐克、塞爾維亞或羅馬尼亞境內。如果烏克蘭真的開始分裂，就連波蘭都可能有人忍不住想要收回利沃夫。

The German government, although often accused of being soft on Russia, is particularly adamant in arguing that all talk of redrawing borders within Europe must be banished. It was only in 1970 that Germany dropped all claims to the lands it had lost to Poland and Russia after the second world war. Some of these regions were at least as central to German culture as Crimea is to Russia. The area that is now the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, for example, was once Königsberg – capital of Prussia and home of the great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

儘管德國政府常常被批對俄羅斯太軟弱，但德國政府特別堅定地主張禁止談論一切重劃歐洲版圖的話題。直到1970年，德國才放棄對二戰後被劃歸波蘭和俄羅斯的領土的主權要求。那些區域與德國文化的親近程度，至少不亞於克里米亞與俄羅斯文化的親近程度。比如說，現在爲俄羅斯飛地的加里寧格勒，曾經叫柯尼斯堡，是普魯士的首都，也是偉大的德國哲學家伊曼紐爾•康德(Immanuel Kant)的故鄉。

It was Kant who argued that the morality of an action can be judged by what would happen if it became “a universal law”. Or to put it another way: “What if everybody did that?” That rule explains why an apparently pragmatic acceptance of Russia’s annexation of parts of Ukraine contains so many dangers. If Europe once again allowed countries to start claiming bits of their neighbours’ territory – on historic or ethnic grounds – the process could convulse the continent.

正是康德提出，判斷一種行爲是否道德，方法之一就是假設這種行爲成爲“普遍規律”，看看會發生什麼。換句話說就是，“假設每個人都這麼幹，會怎樣？”這一定律解釋了爲何接受俄羅斯吞併烏克蘭部分領土貌似務實，但實則非常危險。如果歐洲再次允許各國以歷史或民族爲由，開始對鄰國的某些領土要求主權，整個歐洲大陸將陷入動盪。

The Russians argue that it is actually the west that started this dangerous process with Nato’s intervention in the Kosovo war of 1999, and the subsequent recognition in 2008 of Kosovo as an independent state.

俄羅斯方面辯稱，實際上是西方開啓了這一危險的進程，因爲北約(Nato)在1999年介入科索沃戰爭，隨後在2008年承認科索沃爲獨立國家。

That process remains controversial, even within the EU. But Kosovo, unlike Crimea, was not incorporated into a neighbouring country. It was a province of the former Yugoslavia that sought independence. Within that process, the border between Serbia and Kosovo remained unaltered. The Kosovo war also took place in the context of the many years of fighting that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.

科索沃獨立的過程確實仍有爭議，即便在歐盟內部也是如此。但跟克里米亞不同的是，科索沃並沒有被某個鄰國吞併，而是作爲前南斯拉夫的一個省爭取獨立。在整個過程中，塞爾維亞和科索沃之間的邊界沒有變化。此外，科索沃戰爭是在南斯拉夫解體後多年戰亂的背景下發生的。

However, the Balkan wars of the 1990s are relevant to Ukraine in one sense. They revealed how much blood can flow once Europe’s borders begin to crumble.

然而，上世紀90年代的巴爾幹戰爭在一種意義上對烏克蘭仍有借鑑意義，那就是，巴爾幹戰爭揭示出，一旦歐洲版圖開始破碎時，場面會變得多麼血腥。