.h1 {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; FONT-SIZE: 22pt; MARGIN: 17pt 0cm 16.5pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 240%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify
}
.h2 {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; FONT-SIZE: 16pt; MARGIN: 13pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 173%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify
}
.h3 {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-JUSTIFY: inter-ideograph; FONT-SIZE: 16pt; MARGIN: 13pt 0cm; LINE-HEIGHT: 173%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify
}
DIV.union {
FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px
}
DIV.union TD {
FONT-SIZE: 14px; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px
}
In era of shrinking armed forces, America turns to private firms to carry out foreign military aid.
在武装部队缩减的时代，美国转而求助私营公司履行军事援外工作。
[1]Washington--faced with more overseas commitments and fewer resources, the US is increasingly relying on private military companies to do some of its most difficult international jobs.
[2] These aren't the mercenaries who parachute into hot spots, guns blazing, for cold cash. But they're controversial nonetheless.
[3] Over the past 10 years, private military companies, or PMCs, have quietly taken a central role in the exporting of security, strategy, and training for foreign militaries.
[4] In the process, PMCs are raising questions about the privatization of foreign policy, and whether a profit-seeking company can be accountable with limited government oversight. Oftentimes the companies are training armies in turbulent areas. And, once granted an export license, they are minimally supervised.
[5] "The worry tends to have less to do with the people involved than it has to do with the policy in place," says Deborah Avant, a George Washington University expert who is writing a book on PMCs. "It's a tool for foreign policy in a less public way--and that is not a good thing in the long term."
[1]华盛顿--面对日益增多的海外义务和逐渐减少的资源，美国正越来越多地依靠私营军事公司来完成某些最困难的国际任务。
[2]这些公司不是那种外国雇佣军，为了冰冷的金钱而空降到热点地区，枪口喷射着火焰。但是，他们仍然引起了人们的争议。
[3]在过去的10年里，私营军事公司(简称PMC)在输出安全、战略及训练外军等工作中悄悄地扮演着主要角色。
[4]与此同时，私营军事公司也引出了一些有关对外政策私营化的问题，以及一个营利的公司在政府监督有限的情况下做事是否会负责任的问题。这类公司经常是到动乱地区训练部队。而一旦获得出口许可，他们就很少受到监督了。
[5]德博拉·阿旺是乔治·华盛顿大学的一位专家，正在写一本有关私营军事公司的书。他说："这种担忧与其说是与参与此类活动的人有关，倒不如说更与此项政策是否合适有关。这是对外政策中一种不大公开的手段--长此以往不是件好事。"
[6] Most recently, for example, the State Department approved a license for a US company to help bolster security in Equatorial Guinea, an African country of half a million people that is run by a military dictator and has no US embassy.
Former four-star generals
[7] Defenders the PMCs note that they are staffed mostly by retired military officials and have eased the pressure on US troops, which are increasingly burdened by foreign interventions and peacekeeping missions.
[8] And PMCs dovetail with a larger US policy of encouraging military-to-military ties, in the hope that a professional army can stabilize a fragile democracy.
[9] Thus in some countries, the military firms may be tools of nation-building, not destruction. In Nigeria, where the US recently restored military aid after an era of dictatorship, some aid will pay for a private firm to train a more responsible military.
[10] Because PMCs are not categorized by the US government, and they have received little public attention, it is difficult to determine their scope.
[6]举例说，就在最近，国务院批准一家美国公司向赤道几内亚提供安全支援。赤道几内亚是一个非洲国家，人口50万，由一位军事独裁者统治着，美国在该国没有大使馆。
退役的四星将军
[7]私营军事公司为自己辩解说，公司里的职员大部分是退役军官，他们可以减轻美国部队因介入外国事务和维和任务而肩负的越来越沉重的压力。
[8]而且私营军事公司与美国一项较大的政策相吻合，即：鼓励军队与军队之间紧密联系，希望一支职业军队能够使脆弱的民主得以巩固。
[9]因此，在某些国家中，军事公司也许是建设而不是破坏国家的工具。在尼日利亚结束了独裁专制时代之后，美国最近恢复了对该国的军事援助，某些援助将采用付款的办法请一家私营公司帮助训练一支更负责任的军队。
[10]因为美国政府没有给私营军事公司归类，且这种公司很少引起公众的注意，所以很难确定他们的业务范围。
[11] But the industry has been expanding for the past 10 years, and is thought to be worth several billion dollars. During the 1990s, PMCs trained militaries in some 42 countries. Analysts estimate that there are as many as 20 legitimate companies in the US, the largest of which claims to do about $ 25 million a year in overseas business.
[12] Smaller organizations, which sometimes provide overseas security, are thought to be more numerous, but are hard to track little more than a company president and a Rolodex full of names.
[13] While some of the companies, particularly those from South Africa and Britain, have been labeled "mercenaries" , and have indeed provided firepower for hire, the US firms have far better reputations, and often work hand-in-hand with the Pentagon. Their ranks include former four-star generals.
[14] In the US, the training services are sometimes paid out of the annual foreign aid bill, doled out to friendly or promising countries that may have unstable governments or militaries, such as Nigeria and Colombia. Other times, companies are hired directly by the host country and approved by the US.
[15] Advocates of PMCs say they are more cost-efficient than traditional military forces, although some critics question that.
[11]但这个产业在过去的10年里一直在扩大，其产值据认为已达几十亿美元。20世纪90年代，私营军事公司曾为约42个国家训练了军队。分析家们估计，美国这类合法公司有20家之多，其中最大的一家称，其一年的诲外业务量约达2500万美元。
[12]一些较小的机构有时也提供海外安全服务，据说这类公司数量更多，但却很难找到一公司小到只有一位公司经理和一个写满名字的花名册。
[13]某些公司一特别是那些南非和英国的公司--名称就叫"雇佣军"，他们确实是受雇佣提供火力支援的；而美国公司的名声要好得多，他们经常与五角大楼联手工作。他们的雇员中还有退役的四星将军。
[14]在美国，训练服务所需经费有时是由每年的援外法案拨款的，主要发放给友好国家或前途光明的国家，这些国家(如尼日利亚和哥伦比亚)的政府或军队可能不够稳定。有时也有经美国批准、由东道国直接雇佣这些公司的情况。
[15]私营军事公司的拥护者说，这类公司比传统的军队更划算，然而一些持批评态度的人士对此表示怀疑。
[16] The only government regulation of PMCs comes through the State Department, which handles their export licensing in much the same manner as it would a crate of guns, says a State Department spokeswoman.
[17] The largest US company, Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) in Alexandria, Va., made a name for itself by training the Croatian Army near the end of the Yugoslav wars. It was viewed as the brains behind the army's most successful campaign, Operation Storm, although MPRI denied that. It also worked in Bosnia, including a mission to prevent cross-border arms transfers.
[18] The firm's employees are never armed, but, military experts say, knowledge and training are often just as valuable as fire-power in most armed conflicts.
[19] "No one has ever carried a gun while at MPRI," says Harry Soyster, a company spokesman who is a retired lieutenant general and a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "Sure, it gets in the way of business every now and then, but that's all right."
[16]国务院一位女发言人说，唯一一个有关私营军事公司的政府规定是由国务院批准下达的，按照该规定，办理私营军事公司出口许可事宜的方式大体上与办理成箱枪支出口的方式相同。
[17]弗吉尼亚州亚历山德里亚的军事专业资源股份有限公司(MPRI)是美国最大的私营军事公司，该公司因在南斯拉夫战争即将结束时向克罗地亚军队提供训练而出名。人们认为，它是克军那次最成功战役--"风暴行动"--背后的智囊团，但军事专业资源股份有限公司对此予以否认。该公司还在波斯尼亚做过业务，包括一次阻止武器越境运送的任务。
[18]该公司的雇员从来都不配备武器，但军事专家们说，在大多数武装冲突中知识和训练经常与火力同等重要。
[19]公司的一位发言人哈里·索伊斯特是一位退役陆军中将，曾任国防情报局局长。他说："军事专业资源股份有限公司的人从来不带枪。当然，有时这会妨碍做生意，不过这并不要紧。"
Test case in Africa
[20] This week, MPRI expects to get government approval to go into Equatorial Guinea, an agreement that illustrates the questions some critics have with a so-called privatization of foreign policy.
[21] The contract was initially rejected by two State Department desks, holding it up for two years, Soyster says. It was approved only after MPRI lobbied the department's Africa desk, arguing that if it was not allowed to do the job, someone else would.
[22] Equatorial Guinea, most of which is an island off western Africa, will pay for the contract. It wants to develop a coast guard to protect its vast oil resources, which are being tapped by Mobil Oil, Soyster says.
[23] In doing so, the government could secure probably strengthen its grip on power.
[24] Yet the government of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema is a rampant violator of human rights, accused of political killings, election fraud, and questionable monetary practices, according to the 1999 State Department world report on Human Rights.
[25] Equatorial Guinea's closest allies seem to be North Korea and Cuba, and it was once the brunt of State Department jokes as the worst overseas post. In 1993, US ambassador John Bennett received a death threat for trying to save local political prisoners.
[26] "The question is, 'Do you want to train a military in modern techniques so it can preserve itself?'" says Arvind Ganesan, who follows the issue for Human Rights Watch.
[27] David Isenberg, an arms-control analyst at DynMeridian, a consulting firm, says PMCs are often used in these borderline situations, when working through official channels is either too cumbersome or politically difficult . "The administration likes it because it avoids the prospect of creating a furor if ( something goes wrong)," he says.
[28] But, he explains, the US needs to do a better job of regulating PMCs, which by and large are willing to follow clearly laid rules.
[29] "If the government wants to get the most out of them, they need to regulate them," he says. "That would quiet.. .fear that they could become rogues or soldiers of fortune."
非洲的试验案例
[20)军事专业资源股份有限公司期待本周得到政府的批准前往赤道几内亚，这项双方达成的协议恰好说明了某些批评家指出的所谓对外政策私营化的问题。
[21]索伊斯特说，国务院的两个司最初都拒绝这项合同，使事情拖了两年。公司向国务院非洲司做了疏通工作，讲明即使不允许他们公司去做这项工作，也会有别人去做--只是在此之后，国务院才批准。
[22]赤道几内亚的大部分领土是非洲西部海岸外的一座岛屿，上述合同所需经费将由该国支付。索伊斯特说，赤道几内亚希望建立一支海岸卫队来保护本国庞大的石油资源，这些资源正由美孚石油公司进行开发。
[23]政府这样做可能可以保持住甚至强化其政权。
[24]然而，据国务院1999年世界人权报告介绍，特奥多罗·奥比昂·恩圭马总统的政府是一个疯狂践踏人权的政府，他被指责进行政治屠杀、在选举中舞弊，而且在金融币制方面也有问题。
[25]赤道几内亚最亲密的盟国好像是朝鲜和古巴，国务院有些人开玩笑时曾首当其冲地戏称该国为最差的海外岗位。1993年，美国大使约翰·贝内特因尽力解救当地的政治犯而收到了死亡威胁。
[26]阿尔温德·加内桑为《人权观察》工作，一直跟踪研究这个问题。他说："问题是，'你希望用现代技术训练出一支可以自我保存下来的军队吗?'"
[27]戴维·伊森伯格是DynMeridian咨询公司的军备控制分析家。他说，当遇到官方渠道做工作受到阻碍或政治上有困难等不确定情况时，就常常使用私营军事公司。"政府喜欢这样，因为如果(发生什么问题)，这可以避免引起抗议浪潮。"
[28]但是，他解释说，美国需要更好地对私营军事公司进行规范管理，总的来说，这些公司愿意遵循明确制定的规章。
[29]"如果政府想充分利用他们，就需要对他们进行规范管理，"他说。"那会平息……害怕他们会成为恶棍流氓或兵痞的恐惧心理。"
[/TD][/TR]
[TR] |
