英国当代剧作家哈洛德.品特2005年诺贝尔文学奖获奖演讲（中英对照）

Art, Truth & Politics 艺术、真理以及政治

Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture


In 1958 I wrote the following:

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

1958年，我这样写道：

“在现实和幻境、真实与假象之间没有明显的界限。一件事情不一定是真的，但也未必是假的；它可能既是真的，也是假的。”

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

我觉得，这些观点还是有点意思的，尤其适用于艺术对现实的探索。因此，作为一个作家，我支持上述观点。但作为一个普通公民，我必须要问清楚：什么是真？什么是假？

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.

戏剧中的真相永远是超幻的，从没真正被找到过，但对真相的探索却是 不由自主的。探索就是你之所以孜孜不倦的动力，是你的任务。很多时候，你可能在黑暗中与真相邂逅、碰撞，或者可能偶尔看到一个似乎与真相相连的形象或形 体，但自己却没认识到。然而，真正的真相是，在戏剧艺术里，根本没有寻找真相这么一回事。因为真相太多了。这些真相互相挑战着，妥协着。它们相互映衬，但 又彼此忽略；互相揶揄，目中无人。有时候，你会觉得，真相已经被你所掌握，但转瞬间它就会从你的指间滑落，不知去向。

I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.

我经常被问及戏剧是怎么来的？我回答不了。发生了，也就产生了，这就是我对自己作品的解释----那就是他们所说所做的，除此之外，我无力作任何总结性的言论。

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

我的大多数剧作源自一句话、一个词或者一个形象。语言产生了，相应的形象也就出现了。在这里，我想举两个例子来解释一下，有两句话是如何出乎意料般地在我的脑子里形成的。随之而来的是，它们的形象和我自己想法。

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'

这两部戏是《回家》和《旧时光》。《回家》的第一句话是，“你用这把剪刀做了什么？”而《旧时光》的开场白是，“黑。”

In each case I had no further information.

在这两句话出现之前，我对这两部戏都没有更多的想法。

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.

在第一个例子中，很显然，有人在找一把剪刀，正问另一个人那剪刀的下落。而那个被问的人可能被怀疑偷了它。但阴差阳错，我就知道那被问的人不会为了这个而咒那把剪刀，也不会责骂那个发问的人。

'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

“黑”是我用来描述某人的头发的——一个女人的头发，同时也是一个问题的答案。在这两个例子中，我发觉我是被迫使着去发展事态。这个过程是看得到的——慢慢地，由暗到明。

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

一般来说，在设定角色A、B、C之后，我就开始着手写戏了。

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.

在写《回家》的过程 中，我看到一个男人走进一间空荡的房间，向一个正在研究赌马经的年轻人发问。那年轻人坐的那把沙发很难看。不知怎么，我觉得A应该是父亲，B是儿子，但没 法证实。当然，这马上就被确认了。因为B（后来就成为了莱尼）对A（后来的迈克斯）说：“爸爸，我们换个话题好不好？我要问你一些事情。我们刚吃的晚饭叫 什么？你怎么叫的？你为什么不去买只狗？你是一个煮狗食的。真的。你以为你是在煮东西喂一群狗吗？”这样，因为B叫A“爸爸”，所以我也就顺理成章地设定 他们是父子关系。A很显然也就是那个煮饭的人。他的烹饪似乎并不被看好。这是不是意味着没有母亲呢？我不知道。但在那时，我对自己说，我们的开端从来不认 识我们的结局。

'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.

“黑。”一扇巨大的窗户。夜空。一个男人（后来的迪雷）和一个女人（后来的凯特），正坐着喝东西。“胖或瘦？”那男人问道。他们在谈论谁？但我后来看到，在那窗边，在另一种光线条件下，站着一个女人C（后来的安娜）。她背对着他们。她的头发很黑。

It's a strange moment, the moment of creating characters who up to that moment have had no existence. What follows is fitful, uncertain, even hallucinatory, although sometimes it can be an unstoppable avalanche. The author's position is an odd one. In a sense he is not welcomed by the characters. The characters resist him, they are not easy to live with, they are impossible to define. You certainly can't dictate to them. To a certain extent you play a never-ending game with them, cat and mouse, blind man's buff, hide and seek. But finally you find that you have people of flesh and blood on your hands, people with will and an individual sensibility of their own, made out of component parts you are unable to change, manipulate or distort.

这真的是奇怪的瞬间——在此之前，那些被创 造出来的角色根本就不存在。然后，它就变得断断续续、犹犹豫豫，甚至幻梦一般。当然，有时候它可能会象火山爆发般地不可抑制。期间，作者的位置是尴尬的。 那些角色们抵制他。他们并不好对付，也很难定位。你肯定不能对他们颐指气使。在一定程度上，你是在和他们玩一场永无尽头的游戏——猫和老鼠式地捉迷藏游 戏。但最终你发现有血有肉的人物出现了。他们有七情六欲。你根本无力去改变、操纵或扭曲构成他们的组件。

So language in art remains a highly ambiguous transaction, a quicksand, a trampoline, a frozen pool which might give way under you, the author, at any time.

所以，语言艺术其实仍然处于一个极其模糊的转化过程之中。作为一个作者，你在创作过程中的任何时候都可能碰到这样的问题：它们有的象流沙般那样不可琢磨，有的象弹簧那样难以掌控，有的象冰封的水池那样令人束手无策。

But as I have said, the search for the truth can never stop. It cannot be adjourned, it cannot be postponed. It has to be faced, right there, on the spot.

然而，正如我刚才所说的，对真理的探究是从来不会停止的。它不可以被暂停，也不可以被推迟。我们必须要面对它。它就在那里，在现场。

月下 2006-03-07 21:41 先发一部分，看看有没有反应，如果没人看，下面一部分就不发了... 本翻译版本（虽然糟糕）属月下那小子所有，不许盗版... 当然，如果有人盗版的话，也算是对我的在某种程度上的肯定... 就象基督说，如有人打了你的左脸，你应该把右脸也迎上去让他打... 我打算让人盗了上部分之后，再让他盗下部分...

月下 2006-03-21 19:36 Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. This does not always work. And political satire, of course, adheres to none of these precepts, in fact does precisely the opposite, which is its proper function. 政 治剧目的问题则完全不同了。要不惜一切代价避免说教。客观性是必须的。剧中人物必须要有人身自由。作者不能把他们束缚于自己的品位、主张和偏见之中。要从 各种不同的角度，以全方位的视角，去接近他们。大体来说，要使他们的出现出乎意料。但一定要给他们走自己路的权利。这并不总是管用。当然，政治讽刺剧却不 是那么回事，而且，实际上刚好相反----这是由政治讽刺剧本身功能所致。 In my play The Birthday Party I think I allow a whole range of options to operate in a dense forest of possibility before finally focussing on an act of subjugation. 我认为，在《生日派对》里，在最终归结于征服的那一幕之前，我让所有选择的可能性都得到了充分的演绎。 Mountain Language pretends to no such range of operation. It remains brutal, short and ugly. But the soldiers in the play do get some fun out of it. One sometimes forgets that torturers become easily bored. They need a bit of a laugh to keep their spirits up. This has been confirmed of course by the events at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Mountain Language lasts only 20 minutes, but it could go on for hour after hour, on and on and on, the same pattern repeated over and over again, on and on, hour after hour. 《山语》则看上去没有这么一个整体的涵括范围。它的风格是残忍、短促而丑陋。但剧中的士兵们确实丛中得到了快乐。 有时候人们忘记了折磨他人者是很容易无聊的。他们需要一点笑声来保持振作。当然，这已经被在巴格达呵布.格拉布发生的事件所证实。此剧只有20分钟长。但 它也可以以不停重复的方式无尽地进行下去。 Ashes to Ashes, on the other hand, seems to me to be taking place under water. A drowning woman, her hand reaching up through the waves, dropping down out of sight, reaching for others, but finding nobody there, either above or under the water, finding only shadows, reflections, floating; the woman a lost figure in a drowning landscape, a woman unable to escape the doom that seemed to belong only to others. 《从灰烬到灰烬》则又是另一个层面，对我来说，他好象发生在水下。一个溺水的女人，视线已被淹没。她的手从波浪中伸 出来，想抓到别人，但周围没人。无论是在水上还是在水下，她看到的只有阴影、倒影和浮影。一个被遗弃的溺水女人。一个无法从毁灭中逃脱的女人——机会似乎 只属于他人。 But as they died, she must die too. 但如果他们死了，她也得跟着死。 Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed. 政治语言，由于被政客所使用，并没有被采纳到这个领域里 来，因为有证据让我们相信，大多数政客对真相不感兴趣。他们只对权力以及怎样维持手中的权力感兴趣。要维持权力，非常重要的一点是，人民要无知——让他们 对真相没有知觉，甚至连他们自己生命的真相都不知道。所以，在我们的身边满是谎言。谎言伴随着我们的成长。 As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true. 正如每一个人都知道，入侵伊拉克的理由是萨达姆拥有极其危险的大规模杀伤性武器。其中有些 武器可以在45分钟内投入使用，可以导致不可设想的毁灭性后果。我们被告知，这肯定是真的。但其实这是假的。我们被告知，伊拉克与基地组织有联系，而且对 “9.11”有责任。他们说这又是真的。但这其实还是假的。我们又被告知，伊拉克威胁世界的安全。而且再次被确认，这是真的。但这又是假的。 The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it. 真相却是完全不同的另一番景象：美国怎么对自己在世界上所扮演的角色的看法以及怎么来表现这个看法。 But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here. 但在我把话题返回到当今之前，我很想回忆一下近来不久之前的历史。我这里指的是美国在二站以后的对外政策。 Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. 大家都知道，战后在苏联和整个东欧所发生的下列种种：残酷的制度，肆虐的暴行，对个人想法的冷血打压。这一切都被完整地记录了下来，也得到了验证。 But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked. 但在这里，我的意思是，同时期美国的罪行却被淡化了。更不要说完整记录，公开宣称，或者被指有罪了。 我认为，必须指出美国的罪行，让真相成为支撑我们这个世界的主要力量。虽然，由于苏联的存在，美国受到了某种程度的钳制，但它在全世界的行为很清楚地表明 了，它有绝对权力去胡作非为。 Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer. 实际上，直接入侵一个主权独立的国家从来不是美国喜欢的伎 俩。总的来说，它喜欢“低强度对抗”——也就是说，让成千上万的人慢慢地死去而不是一次性把炸弹投向他们；侵蚀国民的心理，让腐朽滋生，发疽。一旦人民被 制服，或被打死，那么，你的美国老朋友们，那些军事组织和大公司，就舒服地掌权了。镜头前，人们在颂扬民主终于得以普及。这就是，战后，美国在我所指的那 段时间里对外政策的普通特征。 The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now. 发生在尼加拉瓜的悲剧极具典型性。所以，用它作为一个例子，可以表明美国在那时和现今是怎么看待自己在世界上所扮演的角色的。 I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s. 上世纪80年代，我曾有机会出席美国驻伦敦使馆的一次会议。 The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.' 美国国会 将要决定是否拨款支持尼加拉瓜反政府分子对抗国家的活动。我是代表尼加拉瓜的团体成员。但这个代表团最重要的成员是Father John Metcalf。美国代表团的负责人是Raymond Seitz（那时是仅次于大使以下的人物，后来升任为大使）。Father John Metcalf说：“先生，我的教区在尼加拉瓜的北部。我的教民们建了一所学校，一个健康中心，一个文化中心。他们曾生活得很平静。几个月前，一帮反政府 分子袭击了那里。他们毁坏了一切。他们残忍透顶，强奸护士和教师，杀害医生。他们简直就是禽兽。因此，我方提请美国政府撤回对这种明目张胆的恐怖活动的支 持。 Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch. Raymond Seitz，作为一个理智、负责、练达的男人，拥有良好的声誉。他在外交圈里广受尊重。他聆听着。然后，他打断了神甫的话，说：‘神甫，请允许我摆明我的看法：战争免不了让老百姓受苦。”接下来是一阵僵住了的沉默。我们盯着他。而他，并没妥协。 Innocent people, indeed, always suffer. 是的，无辜的人们总是遭殃。 Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?' 最后，有人说：“但这里的’无辜人们‘是可怕暴行的牺牲品。而这些施暴者就是由你们的政府所支持的。如果你们的国会拨更多的钱给他们，那么，更多更可怕的暴行将会发生。你不觉得这样的一个案例证明了你们的政府是有罪的吗？——你们在支持对一个主权国家公民的侵害和屠杀。” Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said. Seitz却很冷静，说：“我不敢苟同那些你拿来支持你观点的事例。” As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply. 当我离开使馆的时候，一个美国参赞告诉我，他很喜欢我的戏剧。我没理他。 I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.' 有必要提醒大家一下，那时的里根总统有如下说法：“从道德层面上来讲，这些反政府分子跟我国的开国功勋具有相同的分量。” The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution. 美国支持Somoza的残酷独裁超过40年。1979年，在the Sandinistas的领导下，尼加拉瓜人民颠覆了它。这是一场惊心动魄的群众革命。 The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated. The Sandinistas并不完美。他们傲慢自大。他们的政治主张里面有很多自相矛盾的东西。但他们是有知识的、理智的、文明的。他们在着手建立一个稳固、 体面、复合型的社会。死刑被取消了。几十万挣扎在贫苦之中的农民被从死亡线上拉了回来。10多万户家庭分到了土地。2，000所学校被建起来了。一个相当 规模的扫盲运动使该国的文盲率降低到1/7以下。免费的教育以及健康护理体制也建立起来了。婴儿死亡率减少了1/3。脊髓灰质炎被根除。 The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador. 美国谴责这样的成果是马列分子的颠覆。在美国政府看来，这开了一个危险的先河。如 果尼加拉瓜可以建立这种在社会经济方面具有公正性的基本社会形态，提高国民卫生护理和受教育标准，寻求社会团结和国家的自我尊严，邻近的国家会提出同样的 问题以及做同样的事情。在当时的厄瓜尔多，就存在着要求改变现状的强烈对抗情绪和行为。 I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships. 之 前，我曾谈及“精装的谎话”。我们被这些谎话所包围。里根总统把尼加拉瓜说成是“极权的地牢”。这普遍为媒体所接受和引用。当然还有英国政府，它把这种说 法奉为最精确而公正的评论。但实际上，在the Sandinista政府的领导下，根本没有死牢。没有刑讯逼供的记录。没有体制或人员方面的暴力军事行为记录。事实上，在那个政府里，有3个牧师在其中 任职。两个耶稣会士的，一个Maryknoll使命团的。极权的地牢事实上是在它的隔壁，在厄瓜尔多和危地马拉。1954年，美国把危地马拉民主选举的政 府搞下台。在那里，接连不断的军事政权独裁导致了20多万人受害。 Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright. 1989年，六个最受尊敬的教会领袖在圣.萨尔瓦多的中美大学里被一帮在美国乔治亚州本宁军事基地受训的 Alcatl军人杀害。最最勇敢的大主教Romero是在对群众讲话时被暗杀的。估计有7万5千人被杀。谁杀的？他们被杀，是因为他们相信过更好的生活是 可能，而且应该去实现它。这样的信念使他们立即被认定为共产主义者。他们被杀，是因为他们竟敢质疑现状，质疑望不到头的贫穷、疾病、生活恶化以及受压制 ——这本应是他们与生俱来的权利。 The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed. 美国最终颠覆了Sandinista政府。虽然进行了几年 相当规模的抵抗，但残酷的经济封锁以及3万人的死亡终于是尼加拉瓜人民的精神崩溃了。他们再次疲惫不堪，一贫如洗。赌场又重新在该国建立起来了。免费的健 康和教育体制被中止了。大公司重返那里，而且更为变本加厉。“民主”普及了。 But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened. 但这个政策绝不仅针对于中美洲国家。它在世界范围内被广泛采用，毫无止境，无迹可循。 The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. 二战后，美国支持世界上每一个右翼军事政权，而且很多都得逞了——印尼、希腊、乌拉圭、巴西、巴拉圭、海地、土耳其、菲律宾、危地马拉、萨尔瓦多，当然，还有智利——1973年，美国在智利所犯下的恐怖罪行是不可抹灭的，也永远不会得到原谅。 Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it. 在这些国家成千上万的人死于非命。这真的发生了吗？所有这一切是美国对外政策所造成的吗？是的，这确实发生了。这确实是美国对外政策所造成的。只不过，你不知道而已。 It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. 这从未发生过。没事发生过。即使它正在发生，也是没发生。因为它无关大局。不涉及利益问题。美国的罪行是体制性的、持续的、恶性而残忍的。然而，很少人谈及这些。因为这不得不由美国说了算。它已经在全世界为这种权力操纵游戏做了很多的临床实验——充当唯一正义的力量。

月下 2006-03-31 14:40 I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.' 我 可以告诉你们，毫无疑问，美国是世界上最大的作秀者。但是，也许它残忍、冷漠、傲慢、粗鲁，它也非常聪明。作为一个推销员，它悉心为己，其最畅销的商品是 自恋。它是胜利者。请听听所有的美国总统在电视上对所谓的“美国人民“所说的话吧：“我告诉美国人民何时该祈祷何时该维护他们的权利。我提请他们信任总统 代表全体人民所将要采取的行动。” It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US. 这 是一种辉煌的战略。事实上，在这里，语言是用来牵制思想的。象“美国人民”这样的词语为其保障性提供了极其华丽的铺垫。有了这样的铺垫，思考是多余的。这 样的铺垫也许会扼制你的智慧和思辩能力，但很舒服。当然，这并不适合那些遍布全美，生活在贫穷线下的4千万人们和被关在监狱里的2百万人们。 The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain. 美国已对所谓的低强度对抗失去耐心了。它觉得已经没有必要再保持缄默甚至委婉了。它敢于公然向任何人 摊牌，肆无忌惮。它不再卖联合国的帐了，它也不再当国际法律是一回事了。在美国眼中，它们是无能和不管事的。它而且还驯养了一只温顺的小羔羊，这就是对它 惟命是从、亦步亦趋、谨小慎微、令人怜悯的大不列颠。 What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up. 我们的道德判断能力到底出了什么问题？我们有过这样的能力 吗？这些话到底是什么意思？它们是不是就指那个当今已很少用到的术语——良心？不但自己的个人行为要有良心，而且还要在集体行为中信守良知，分担责任？这 一切都死了吗？请看一下关塔纳摩海湾吧。几百个人在没有聆讯的情况下已被关了三年多。没有合法有效的公开手续，从操作层面上来看，将被永远这样地监禁下 去。继续维持这种完全不合法的机构是对日内瓦公约的公然藐视。这种行径不但狭隘而且几乎丝毫也没有考虑过什么叫“国际社会”。而正是这么一个自称为“自由 世界领袖”的犯下了这些滔天罪行。想想关在关塔纳摩湾的那些人吧！媒体是怎么报导的？它们只是偶尔在不引人注目地报角上登一小块豆腐块文章了事。那些人可 是被关在一个荒芜人烟的孤岛上啊！他们也许永远回不来了。目前，其中很多人在作罢食斗争，但他们被强迫进食，其中还包括有英国公民。在这些强迫进食的过程 中是没有仁慈可言的。更没有止痛和麻醉。直接从鼻子插进管子通到喉咙。这使人吐血。这是酷刑。英国外相对此说了些什么没有？没有。为什么不呢？因为美国说 了，谁批评它在关塔纳摹的行为，谁就是不友好的。不是朋友，就是敌人。所以布莱尔只好闭嘴。 The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people. 入侵伊拉克是强盗行径，是耀武扬威，是国家恐怖主义， 是对国际法概念的彻底亵渎。一波又一波的谎话，媒体操纵，以及由此引起的公众意志促成了这场不负责任的侵略战争。这本是一场美国想对中东进一步加紧军事以 及经济控制而发起的战争，但却被美化为解放伊拉克人民的战争——作为最后一个伎俩，因为所有其他借口都不能自圆其说。正是如此的穷兵黩武，死伤了成千上万 的人。 We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'. 酷刑、集束炸弹、核泄露、滥杀无辜、人世痛楚、社会功能整体退化和死亡被强加到伊拉克人民身上，而我们却称之为“给中东自由和民主”。 How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London. 究竟杀多少人才能 够被称为大屠杀和战争犯罪？10万？我想这应该够了吧？因此，布什和布莱尔早就该被送上国际刑事法庭了。但布什很聪明，他从没正式承认过国际刑事法庭。因 此，如果任何一个美国大兵或者政客要去布什曾到过的地方，他们将由海军陆战队护送。然而，托尼.布莱尔是承认该法庭的，所以他应该出庭受审。我们可以给该 法庭提供布莱尔的地址：伦敦唐宁街10号。

月下 2006-03-31 17:29 真长啊... 还有差不多2，000字还没翻...

月下 2006-04-01 17:19 Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks. 死 亡在这里是不相关的。布什和布莱尔早把“死亡”这两字抛到了九霄云外。在伊拉克的暴乱开始之前，至少有10万伊拉克人死于美国炸弹与导弹的轰炸。这些人是 空白，他们生不逢时，他们的死亡犹如没有发生过一样甚至都不会有关于他们的死亡记录。——正如美国的一位将军Tommy Franks所说： “我们不数尸体。” Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television. 在入侵伊拉克的早期，曾经有这样一张照片被登在英 国报纸的首页上：托尼.布莱尔正在亲吻一个伊拉克小男孩的脸颊。照片的标题是《感激的孩子》。几天之后，在报纸的内页里出现了这样的照片和故事：一个失去 手臂的4岁男孩，除了他，全家都被导弹炸死了。他问：“我什么时候能要回我的手臂？”这个故事很快被遗忘了。因为托尼.布莱尔没抱着他。他是不会去拥抱那 些因战火而残的儿童的，更不会去拥抱那些鲜血淋漓的尸体。血腥是肮脏的。它会弄脏某些人的衬衣和领带——想想他们在电视上发表演说时振振有辞的样子吧。 The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves. 两千美军的死亡使他们很尴尬。战死者是在夜里下葬的。那是不敢大声张扬的、小心翼翼的葬礼。而那些伤残者则躺在床上发炎，某些人甚至就要这样度过余生。因此，死的和伤的其实都是在腐烂，只不过在不同的墓穴里。 Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things': And one morning all that was burning, one morning the bonfires leapt out of the earth devouring human beings and from then on fire, gunpowder from then on, and from then on blood. Bandits with planes and Moors, bandits with finger-rings and duchesses, bandits with black friars spattering blessings came through the sky to kill children and the blood of children ran through the streets without fuss, like children's blood. Jackals that the jackals would despise stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out, vipers that the vipers would abominate. Face to face with you I have seen the blood of Spain tower like a tide to drown you in one wave of pride and knives. Treacherous generals: see my dead house, look at broken Spain: from every house burning metal flows instead of flowers from every socket of Spain Spain emerges and from every dead child a rifle with eyes and from every crime bullets are born which will one day find the bull's eye of your hearts. And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry speak of dreams and leaves and the great volcanoes of his native land. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets. Come and see the blood in the streets!* PABLO NERUDA的诗作《我在解释一些事情》中，有如此句子： 那天早上 那个燃烧的早晨 炼狱之火席卷人间，吞噬生命 从那时起， 烈火、炸药和流血充斥世间 强盗！ 那些拥有飞机大炮的强盗 那些戴着戒指傍着美女的强盗 那些甜言蜜语的强盗 由空而降 他们杀害儿童，血流成河 无须大惊小怪—— 那确实就是 儿童的鲜血 豺狼和毒蛇的报应是 以牙还牙，以毒攻毒 而顽石，最终会 被苔藓咬得遍体鳞伤而崩裂 众目睽睽之下 西班牙之塔的鲜血 如潮水一般 它以傲慢与利刃之波 将你我吞没 叛徒们和将军们 请看看那些废墟 看看支离破碎的西班牙 在每一座燃烧着的房子里 没有鲜花，只有纷飞的碎片 衣不蔽体的西班牙呀， 你是被步枪瞄准着的孩子 你是从子弹里诞生出来的罪恶 有一天 你终会愧疚万分 为什么西班牙的诗 不再言及梦想的缤纷和 火山般的激情 来看看吧 来看看 在街道上到处流淌的鲜血 来看看，鲜血 流淌在大街上

月下 2006-04-01 17:29 注：Pablo Neruda是智利籍西班牙语文学家，1971年诺贝尔文学奖得主... 此诗作于西班牙内战时期——这个时期对他后期的思想和创作影响颇大...

月下 2006-04-07 21:31 Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians. 我得声明一下，引用Neruda的诗并不意味着我把西班牙共和国与撒达姆统治下的伊拉克相提并论。我之所以这样做是因为,在描述无辜平民被轰炸的方面，它是当代最具力度和深度的诗作。 I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. 正如我先前说过的那样，当今美国早就完全地肆无忌惮了。这是一个问题。现在，美国所正式发布的政策被当作“全方位垄断”。这不是我创造的叫法，而是美国人自己的。“全方位垄断“意味着对海、陆、航空、航天以及与之关联的所有资源的控制。 The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right. 美国现在在全世界132个国家设有702个军事基地或相应设施。当然，瑞典在这方面的例外，是值得称颂的。我们不十分清楚那些军事设施是怎么建立起来的，但显然它们就这样存在着。 The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. 美国拥有8，000个可立即投入使用的核弹头。其中有200个处于一级战备状态，可以在得到指令之后的15分钟内发射。而且它还在 发展新的核武器系统——集束大炸弹。可悲的是，英国人竟然与之合作，妄图以此取代原来的核导弹——三叉戟。我很困惑。他们的导弹瞄准的是谁？本.拉登吗？ 你？我？Joe Dokes？中国？巴黎？天知道！但我们清楚地知道，这种幼稚的极端行径——制造以及威胁性地使用核武器，是美国当今政治哲学的核心。我们必须提醒自己， 美国处于一种永久性军事扩张状态，而且，看来连一点放松的迹象都没有。 Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish. 如果说还没上百万的话，那么至少也有成千上万的美国人对他们政府的行为明显地反感——他们为此感到羞耻和愤怒。然而，现在的情况显示，他们还没形成一股团结的政治力量。但美国人心中日益增长的焦虑、不安和恐惧是无法抹去的。 I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man. 我知道布什总统有很多非常高明的演讲稿纂写人。但我想在此志愿性地为他写一次讲稿。我建议他就下列我所写的简短 献辞作一次全国性的电视演讲。让再次领略一下，他的庄严，他那精心护理过的发型，他的严肃，他那胜利者的姿态，他的诚挚，经常在他身上出没的欺骗性，时不 时挂在他脸上的那一缕邪笑。他的魅力 'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.' "上帝是好 人。上帝很伟大。上帝很好。我的上帝就是好。本.拉登的上帝就是坏。他的上帝是个坏家伙。撒达姆的上帝一定也是个坏家伙。除非他根本不信上帝。他是一头野 兽。我们不是野蛮人。我们不砍人的头。我们相信自由。上帝也一样。我不是野蛮人。我是一位民主选举出来的自由民主国家领袖。我们的社会是富有同情心。我们 赐予你“温情”的电椅和针筒注射死亡。美国是伟大的国家。我不是一个独裁者。我很文明。而他、他以及他是野蛮人。他们都是。我代表的是道德的权威。你看到 我的拳头了吗？这就是我的道德权威。切记切记！” A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection – unless you lie – in which case of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician. 一个作家的生命是非常容易受到伤害的——他的活动完 全暴露在公众的视线之下。我们没必要为此而咽泣。这是他自己的选择，也是他此生的牵挂。他经受人世间的种种沧桑——有些经历甚至彻人之骨。他就这样独自一 人，用自己的肢体支撑着。无处隐遁，也没有任何外来的保护——除非他说谎——这样，他当然可以得到保护，而且，成为一个有争议的政客。 I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'. 今晚，我已经好几次提到“死”了。借此机会，我想把我自己的一首命名为“死”的诗念给大家听： Where was the dead body found? Who found the dead body? Was the dead body dead when found? How was the dead body found? 尸体何处找？ 谁来把它找？ 真假尤难辨， 不知更何来！ Who was the dead body? Who was the father or daughter or brother Or uncle or sister or mother or son Of the dead and abandoned body? 谁人将尸横？ 竟无父兄领。 亲人何处觅？ 可怜暴尸人！ Was the body dead when abandoned? Was the body abandoned? By whom had it been abandoned? Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey? 未死遭遗弃， 抑或不曾弃？ 谁人将之弃？ 可曾戴冠衣？ What made you declare the dead body dead? Did you declare the dead body dead? How well did you know the dead body? How did you know the dead body was dead? 为何称已亡？ 作此汝何权？ 不知其状况， 请勿妄断言！ Did you wash the dead body Did you close both its eyes Did you bury the body Did you leave it abandoned Did you kiss the dead body 既已作此孽， 务请善葬之。 切勿将其唾， 临别须赠惜。 When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us. 对着一面镜子，我们以为眼前的形象是准确无误的。但只要你动一动，那形象就改变了。因此，我们其实是在看一段从未停止改变的反射图象。然而，有时候，作为作家，我们不得不打破那面镜子——因为真相在镜子的另一面凝视着我们。 I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. 我相信，尽管诸多的蹊跷存在于我们身边。但作为文明世界的公民们，我们应该毫无畏惧地、不折不挠地、无比智慧且坚定不移地去探究生活以及社会的真相。这是我们一项重要的义务。所谓“天下兴亡，匹夫有责”——事实上，这是我们不可逃避的责任。 If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man. 假如这样的坚定信念无法在政治生活中得到体现，我们就不可能重拾那即将逝去的希望——重建人类的尊严。

[+/-] show/hide this post