作者 查爾斯-威廉-梅恩斯（Charles William Maynes）
首發於光明觀察，轉載請註明譯者及出處；本譯文僅供參考，引用請查對原文。
褪色的浪漫
（華盛頓）
西方同弗拉基米爾-普京（Vladimir Putin）治下的俄羅斯之間的浪漫關係似乎即將終結。美國駐俄羅斯大使提到了俄美間「價值觀的齟齬（原文『breech of values』疑為『breach of values』之誤——校者）」。西方官員公開指責俄最近對喬治亞、摩爾多瓦和烏克蘭的外交行動。美國國務卿柯林-鮑威爾（Colin Powell）在與俄總統普京會面時在俄報上刊文稱「文明社會的關鍵特徵——比如新聞自由和政黨的發展——（在俄國內）還沒有確立獨立角色的地位。」
難道我們眼睜睜地看著10年來推動俄羅斯融入西方的努力付之東流嗎？
許多人出於對普京本人的評價而對此持悲觀的立場。如上周一位頂級的俄羅斯問題專家就說：「普京作為一位溫和型的專制領導人的形象，幾乎已是人們的成見，而這對俄羅斯與西方的關係恰恰是一種危險。」
如今美國國務卿在接受一家俄羅斯報紙採訪時公開提出了西方關心的許多問題：「自由但是不公正」的議會選舉把絕大多數親西方黨派趕出了議會，所有國有電視臺的私有化改革日益停頓不前，對外界批評其在車臣地區採取的政策置若罔聞以及在追查頗受西方喜愛的石油大享米卡耶-霍多爾科夫斯基（Mikhail Khodorkovsky）逃稅案上施以高壓手段。
然而任何中途的政策修正必須正視一些政治現實和西方與俄羅斯關係結構性的困境。
首先，普京在俄廣受歡迎，而親西方的俄民主派則不那麼吃香，原因有很多相同，結果卻截然相反。一個在親西方的民主派掌權時既沒有方向也沒有希望的國家，在普京接手後重新獲得了方向和希望。
雖然普京與查爾斯-戴高樂出自的政治傳統迥異，但普京在俄國擔負的角色卻類似於戴高樂在法國——把自己的國家從懸崖邊拉了回來。像戴高樂一樣，到目前為止，普京的舉措在其選民眼中很有魅力——發放養老金、償付工資、激進的稅制改革、預算盈餘、貿易盈餘、俄羅斯在國際社會上是貢獻者而不是乞丐。
然而，普京現在是否會利用他非凡的政治地位推動俄走向民主，在一定程度上取決於一些結構性問題，西方必須迫切將這些問題壓到他肩上或者由西方自己提出來，即：
民主與接受之間的關係。俄國比較尖銳的批評家之一傑紐斯茨-布格季斯基（Janusz Bugajski）最近在《國家利益》(National Interest)上發表的文章裡承認，假如俄是一個民主國家的話，那麼，西方現在所指責的俄羅斯許多對外政策舉措，特別是經濟領域的舉措，將會被人視為「良性的或有益的」。
由於過去的不愉快回憶，如果俄羅斯挺直腰杆，不屈膝稱服，那麼，即便是換個角度完全可以接受的俄羅斯的舉動，鄰國也會變得警覺。如果俄羅斯打算成為被人接受的西方國家，它就必須成為一個民主國家。
美國的核戰略和北約東擴的結果。美國必須盡力降低莫斯科決策圈內國家安全力量的聲音。眼下這種聲音很強：俄國的將軍們會指出95%的美國核武器依然指向俄羅斯。
因此華盛頓應該向莫斯科倡議將雙方現在部署的數以千計的核彈頭各削減至少50%。這一步驟之後，剩下的飛彈仍足以摧毀雙方所有主要城市，但這樣做會傳達一種俄美關係的導向，鼓勵俄羅斯國家安全部門出現更民主的聲音。削減核彈頭數量，也會緩和北約穩步東擴所帶來的衝擊。
扶持中間地帶國家。在這方面，喬治亞、亞美尼亞、亞塞拜然、烏克蘭、摩爾多瓦或白俄羅斯等國在近些年內似乎不可能被批准加入歐盟。與此同時，美國和其它西方國家強烈抵制俄在歐盟東邊組建類似經濟空間的任何努力。這些國家有幾個與任何形成規模的市場相隔絕，在貧困的泥淖裡越陷越深。
一定有辦法鼓勵前蘇聯國家之間建立更為緊密、必不可少的經濟聯繫，以免使之重新落入莫斯科方面的掌控。否則我們將使有幾個這樣的國家變成經濟無人區。
不要放棄。幾乎可以肯定，今春普京會再次當選。此後不久，他就會帶領俄羅斯上路，在未來的多年內其進程難以改變。現在正是特別地打起精神幫助那些在俄國內為建立文明社會和加強民主而奮鬥的人，而不是談論葬送《自由支持法案》（the Freedom Support Act）的時候。歐美應該聯手給該地區提供充足的資金以保證在希望之火不熄。
當此歷史一刻，無論俄美，都不以廣交朋友為多，又都不需要樹敵對抗。
與俄羅斯打交道的時候，華盛頓不應該簡單地採取公開苛責求全的政策，而應該採取策略扭轉與俄關係當前運行的這種消極進程。
本文作者為歐亞大陸基金會主席。該基金會旨在為加強前蘇聯地區自由體制和市場的努力提供援助。
附：原文網址及內容
http://www.iht.com/articles/127854.htm
This is not the time to abandon Russia
Charles William Maynes IHT
Tuesday, February 3, 2004
A waning romance
WASHINGTON The Western romance with Vladimir Putin's Russia seems to be ending. The U.S. ambassador in Russia speaks of a "breech of values" between Russia and the United States. Western officials denounce recent Russian diplomatic moves in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Secretary of State Colin Powell says in an essay published in a Russian newspaper while he was meeting with President Putin that "key aspects of civil society - free media and political party development, for example - have not yet sustained an independent presence."
Are we seeing an end to the 10-year effort to integrate Russia into the West?
Many reach a pessimistic answer to this question because of their assessment of Putin himself. As one top specialist on Russia said last week, "The picture of Putin as a soft authoritarian leader is almost conventional wisdom, and that's a threat to the relationship."
Now the U.S. secretary of state has given an interview to a Russian newspaper in which he raises publicly many Western concerns: The "free but not fair" parliamentary elections that drove the most pro-Western parties out of the Parliament; the progressive end to private ownership of all national TV channels; the tone-deaf Russian response to outside criticism of its policies in Chechnya; and the high-handed manner in which the state has pursued the tax-evasion case against the oil baron and Western favorite, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Any midcourse correction in policy, however, must confront some political realities and some structural dilemmas in the West's relations with Russia.
First, Putin is popular for many of the same reasons that Western-style Russian democrats are unpopular. Putin took a country lacking direction and hope while the Western-style democrats were in charge, and he restored both.
Although from a very different political tradition, Putin has assumed in Russia a role similar to that of Charles de Gaulle in France - a man who pulled his country back from the precipice.Like de Gaulle's, Putin's performance so far is impressive in the eyes of his voters - pensions paid, wages restored, radical tax reform, budget surpluses, trade surpluses, Russia as a contributor internationally rather than a beggar.
Whether Putin now uses his extraordinary political position to push Russia in the direction of democracy, however, will depend in part on some structural issues, which the West must urgently press on him or address itself. To wit:
The nexus between democracy and acceptance. As one of Russia's harsher critics, Janusz Bugajski, recently acknowledged in an article in The National Interest, many of the Russian foreign-policy moves that the West now denounces, particularly those in the economic field, would be seen as "benign or beneficial" if Russia were a democratic state.
As Russia gets up off its knees, neighbors will become alarmed even by otherwise quite acceptable Russian behavior because of harsh memories. If Russia is to become an accepted Western state, it must become democratic.
The consequences of U.S. nuclear strategy and NATO expansion. The United States must try to reduce the voice of the security forces in Moscow policy circles. Now it is strong: Russian generals can point out that 95 percent of America's nuclear arsenal is still directed against Russia.
Washington should therefore challenge Moscow to remove at least 50 percent of the thousands of warheads now deployed on each side. Such a step would still leave enough missiles to destroy every major city in both countries, but it would convey a direction in the relationship that would encourage the more democratic voices in the Russian security establishment. Reducing the number of nuclear-tipped missiles would also soften the impact of steady NATO expansion to the East.
Assisting the Middle Ground states. At this point, it seems unlikely that Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova or Belarus will be allowed to join the European Union for years to come. At the same time, the United States and other western countries bitterly resist any effort by Russia to organize a similar economic space east of the EU. Cut off from any sizable market, several of these states are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty.
There must be some way to encourage closer and needed economic ties among the former Soviet states without relegating them to pawns of Moscow. Otherwise, we are leaving several of these states in an economics no-man's land.
Not giving up. Putin is almost certain to be re-elected this spring and soon thereafter he will set Russia on a course that will be difficult to alter for years to come. Now is the time to be especially energetic in helping those inside Russia who are struggling to build civil society and strengthen democracy. This is not the time to talk of ending the Freedom Support Act. European and America should work together to maintain a sufficient flow of funds in this area to keep hope alive.
At this point in their history, neither Russia nor the United States has a surplus of friends abroad. Neither needs another antagonistic country to contend with.
In dealing with Russia, Washington should not simply adopt a policy of public criticism. It should develop a strategy to reverse the course. on which the relationship with Russia is now moving.
The writer is president of the Eurasia Foundation, which supports efforts to strengthen free institutions and markets in the former Soviet Union.
文章來源：譯者賜稿