‘A whole civilisation will die tonight’: Trump’s genocide threat against Iran was another new low for America
,

“今晚整个文明都会死”:特朗普对伊朗的种族灭绝威胁,让美国跌到了新的低谷

‘A whole civilisation will die tonight’: Trump’s genoci…

Rodrigo Praino, Professor & Director, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Donald Trump’s pre-ceasefire social media post was unprecedented, immoral, and a diplomatic blunder for the US’s standing in the world.

唐纳德·特朗普在停火前发布的社交媒体帖子,是前所未有的、不道德的,也是美国国际地位的外交失误。

Around 153 BCE, Cato the Elder, one of Rome’s most prominent senators, began ending every single one of his speeches with the same words: “Carthago delenda est”, or “Carthage must be destroyed”.

大约公元前153年,罗马最著名的参议员之一卡托长者开始在每一次演讲的结尾都说同样的词语:“Carthago delenda est”,或者说“迦太基必须被摧毁”。

His relentless campaign to destroy Carthage has been described as the first recorded incitement to genocide.

他摧毁迦太基的不懈运动被描述为有记录的第一次煽动种族灭绝。

The genocide actually happened: Rome destroyed Carthage and its entire civilisation.

种族灭绝确实发生过:罗马摧毁了迦太基及其整个文明。

Fast forward to today and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, the president of the United States, has declared a “whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, in reference to Iran.

快进到今天,世界上最强大的军队的最高指挥官,美国总统,就伊朗发表了“整个文明今晚将会死去,再也无法恢复”的声明。

Donald Trump’s words were even stronger than Cato’s. Fortunately, the follow-up was not and the episode ultimately ended in a two-week ceasefire between US-Israel and Iran.

唐纳德·特朗普的话比卡托的更强硬。幸好后续没有,该事件最终以美国-以色列和伊朗之间两周的停火告终。

Is this language unprecedented?

这种语言是前所未有的吗?

Put simply, yes. Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s language has been consistently aggressive and extreme.

简单来说,是的。自与伊朗开战以来,特朗普的言辞一直具有持续的攻击性和极端性。

But the “death of a civilisation” comment crossed a threshold that is striking even measured against his own record.

但“一个文明的消亡”这一评论,跨越了一个即使与他自身记录相比也令人震惊的门槛。

It came shortly after another expletive-laden social media post.

这是在又一篇充满脏话的社交媒体帖子之后不久发表的。

Trump’s words are unprecedented both in form and in substance.

特朗普的言论在形式和实质上都是前所未有的。

While US presidents have used plenty of profanities and expletives in private conversations, with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon probably winning any foul-language competition anywhere in the world, Trump is believed to be the only president to have ever deliberately used “fuck” in public.

尽管美国总统们在私人交谈中使用了大量的脏话和粗口,其中林登·约翰逊和理查德·尼克松可能在世界上任何地方的脏话比赛中都获胜,但人们认为特朗普是唯一一个曾在公开场合故意使用“fuck”的总统。

In substance, no modern US president has ever threatened or incited genocide.

从实质上讲,没有现代美国总统曾威胁或煽动过种族灭绝。

Trump’s infamous “a whole civilisation will die tonight” comment, though, can only be interpreted as an open threat to all 93 million Iranian citizens.

然而,特朗普臭名昭著的“整个文明今晚将会消亡”的评论,只能被解读为对所有9300万伊朗公民的公开威胁。

The closest parallel anywhere in the modern world may actually be the Iranian chants “death to America” and “death to Israel”, which have featured prominently in pro-regime rallies since the 1979 revolution.

在现代世界任何地方最接近的平行现象,可能是伊朗的口号“美国必死”和“以色列必死”,这些口号自1979年革命以来一直出现在亲政权集会中。

But even there, the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2019 the chants weren’t aimed at the US or the American people themselves, but at America’s rulers.

但即使在那里,已故伊朗最高领袖阿里·哈梅内伊在2019年说,这些口号并非针对美国或美国人民本身,而是针对美国的统治者。

Is this language illegal?

这种言论是否违法?

Trump’s language, and that of other members of his administration, is deeply concerning and disturbing.

特朗普的言论,以及他政府其他成员的言论,令人深感担忧和不安。

This includes statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that US forces would deny quarter to the enemy and that the US does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement”.

这包括战争部长皮特·赫格塞斯(Pete Hegseth)的声明,称美军将拒绝向敌人提供“交战方休战期”,并且美国不会用“愚蠢的交战规则”作战。

If these words turned into action, they would certainly constitute war crimes.

如果这些言论付诸行动,无疑将构成战争罪。

If Trump really meant he was willing to use the US military against Iran’s civilian population, this action would fall squarely within the definition of genocide provided by Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

如果特朗普真的意味着他愿意将美军用于攻击伊朗平民,此举将完全符合1948年《联合国防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第二条规定的种族灭绝定义:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
蓄意摧毁一个国家、民族、种族或宗教群体的行为(无论全部或部分)。

In other words, any action taken in the spirit of that post would constitute genocide and blatant violation of international law.

换句话说,任何以该立场采取的行动都构成种族灭绝,并公然违反国际法。

More broadly, the legality of the whole US attack on Iran is deeply contentious: most international and US law experts seem to agree the war violates the UN Charter.

更广泛地说,美国对伊朗的整个攻击的合法性存在巨大争议:大多数国际和美国法律专家似乎一致认为这场战争违反了《联合国宪章》。

There are also serious questions pertaining US constitutional law. The US Constitution does not grant the president the power to declare war – this power belongs to Congress.

此外,还涉及美国宪法法律的严重问题。《美国宪法》并未赋予总统宣战权——这项权力属于国会。

Presidents should therefore seek congressional approval before waging war. At the time of writing, the war has been going on for 41 days and no Congressional approval has been obtained.

因此,总统在发动战争前应寻求国会批准。撰写本文时,战争已经持续了41天,但尚未获得国会批准。

What can be done about this?

这能做些什么?

Probably nothing. The US political system does not include an easy way to remove a sitting president.

恐怕什么都不能。美国的政治体系没有简单的方式来罢免一位在任总统。

In the few hours between the infamous statement and the ceasefire declaration, several US political leaders talked about invoking the 25th Amendment.

在那段臭名昭著的声明和停火宣言之间,短短几个小时内,几位美国政界领袖讨论了援引《宪法第25修正案》。

Under that provision, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can remove a president from office when they believe the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.

根据该条款,副总统和多数内阁成员可以在他们认为总统“无法履行其职务的权力与职责”时,将其免职。

It is unlikely JD Vance and most of the cabinet would be willing to make this case.

JD·万斯和大多数内阁成员不太可能愿意提出这一指控。

The only other avenue would be impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by removal by the Senate. Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate both times.

唯一的其他途径是通过众议院弹劾,然后由参议院罢免。特朗普在其第一任期内曾被弹劾两次,并两次被参议院共和党多数派无罪释放。

Currently, Republicans control both chambers, making this option also very unlikely.

目前,共和党控制着两院,使得这一选项也极不可能。

Will this have lasting consequences?

这会有长期的后果吗?

Definitely. As political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr – who identified the concept of soft power – famously explained, soft power is “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies”.

绝对会。正如政治学家约瑟夫·S·奈年(Joseph S. Nye Jr.)——这位提出了“软实力”概念的人——所著名的解释的,软实力是“通过吸引力而非胁迫或金钱获得想要的东西的能力。它源于一个国家的文化、政治理想和政策的吸引力”。

The US has enjoyed significant soft power throughout the Cold War and beyond.

在整个冷战时期及以后,美国一直享有巨大的软实力。

Now 93 million Iranians have been threatened with the destruction of their entire civilisation by the president of the US, we must ask how far American soft power can realistically go in Iran and around the world moving forward.

现在,美国总统威胁要摧毁9300万伊朗人的整个文明,我们必须问,展望未来,美国的软实力在伊朗和世界各地能走多远。

In ancient Rome, Cato the Elder died three years before Rome destroyed Carthage. He never saw his words become action.

在古罗马,卡托长者(Cato the Elder)在罗马摧毁迦太基的前三年去世了。他从未亲眼看到自己的话成为行动。

Hopefully neither Trump nor anyone else will ever see the destruction of Iranian civilisation. But Trump is definitely overseeing the instantaneous destruction of American soft power.

希望特朗普或任何其他人都不会看到伊朗文明的毁灭。但特朗普无疑正在监督美国软实力的瞬间瓦解。

Rodrigo Praino receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Defence.

Rodrigo Praino 获得了澳大利亚研究理事会和国防部的资助。