评论
打印
Later that year, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize and in December, he travelled to Oslo to give his dazzling acceptance speech.
当年晚些时候，奥巴马被授予诺贝尔和平奖，12月，他前往奥斯陆发表了令人眼花缭乱的获奖演讲。
The premise of his Nobel lecture was that terrorism, which he privately described (according to interviews) as a boring regulatory quandary, was so new and threatening that it required thinking “in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace”.
他的诺贝尔演讲的前提是，恐怖主义，他私下描述（根据采访）为一个无聊的监管困境，出现的时间很短，威胁很大，它需要 "以新的方式思考正义战争的概念和正义和平的必要条件"。
No matter the illusions some had cultivated when Obama ran, for a president, at least of the United States, an anti-war stance in power was out of the question.
无论奥巴马竞选时有些人抱有怎样的幻想，对于一位总统，至少是美国的总统来说，在执政期间采取反战立场是不可能的。
All respect was due to his elected ancestor Martin Luther King’s rejection of war when he won his own Nobel in 1964 with the message that violence “solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”
他的当选祖先马丁-路德-金在1964年赢得自己的诺贝尔奖时表示，暴力 "不能解决任何社会问题：它只会制造新的和更复杂的问题"，拒绝战争的他值得所有尊重。
But neither King nor Mohandas Gandhi before him had led a great nation.
但是，无论是金还是在他之前的莫汉达斯-甘地都没有领导过一个伟大的国家。
It was a brilliant self-defence, not only of the ethics of Obama’s own role, but of American violence in a world where, he insisted, too many naively demand peace.
这是一次出色的自我辩护，不仅是对奥巴马自己角色的伦理辩护，也是对美国在一个他坚持认为有太多人天真地要求和平的世界中实施暴力的辩护。
“In many countries,” Obama remarked, “there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause.
奥巴马说："在许多国家，不管出于什么原因，今天对军事行动都有一种深深的矛盾心理。
And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”
有时，这种情绪还伴随着对美国这个世界上唯一的军事超级大国的本能怀疑。"
As the New York Times editorialists pointed out in lauding Obama’s rhetoric, “he directly challenged the widespread ambivalence and aversion” toward the Afghan war among Americans, too.
正如《纽约时报》的社论在赞扬奥巴马的言论时指出的那样，"他直接挑战了美国人对阿富汗战争普遍存在的矛盾心理和厌恶情绪"。
In his eloquent rationale for the uses of US military power for a new age, the saving grace, perhaps, was that Obama insisted on humane constraints.
在他为新时代美国使用军事力量所提出的辩护理由中，也许值得庆幸的是，奥巴马坚持了人性化这个限制。
He recalled the US’s onetime contribution to a less war-torn globe, that is, after the second world war, constructing the international systems and institutions that were intended to reduce international conflict.
他回顾了美国曾经为一个不那么饱受战争摧残的世界做出的贡献，即在二战后构建旨在减少国际冲突的国际体系和机构。
And that contribution during and after the cold war left the world a “legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud”, though there may have been costs and mistakes along the way.
这种贡献在冷战期间及之后给世界留下了 "我的国家理应感到自豪的遗产"，尽管这一路走来可能也付出了不少代价，犯了不少错。
But in the face of terror, what the American contribution required was not an end to war but precisely playing by the rules of humane warfare.
但是，面对恐怖，美国的贡献所要求的不是结束战争，而是严格遵守人道战争的规则。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
