17
十二月

民主議決的空襲

作者 : 雅帆   在 國際視野 A Global View

本年(2015年) 11月13日,法國巴黎發生連環恐怖襲擊,從當地時間晚上九時二十分開始,經午夜過後至翌日約零時二十分才結束,在七個公眾場所包括:足球場外、酒吧、食肆、音樂廳等,發生槍擊和自殺式爆炸,導致132人死亡和過百人受傷,有關詳情經各傳媒廣泛報導,在此不贅。翌日,「伊斯蘭國」(IS) 已承認責任,聲言繼續將法國定為襲擊目標,並擴展至英美等國。法國隨即反擊,據法國國防部消息,其空襲目標包括一個伊斯蘭國的指揮中心,內設有軍火庫、新兵招募站及訓練營等。

在英吉列海峽對岸的盟友英國,如何配合反應?怎樣預防於本土發生類似恐襲?亦引起其國民及國際社會關注。英國首相「金馬倫」(David Cameron) 並不急進,在事發後接近三星期,才採取「先安內、後攘外」的三項對策。首先,於「軍情5處」(MI5)、「軍情6處」(MI6) 及「政府通訊總部」(Government Communications Headquarters;GCHQ) 三個情報機構新增招聘合共1,900 名情報人員,將目前12,700名情報人員的總人數增加至14,600名,加速收集更快、更多、更準確的情報,防止恐怖活動發生。其次,於軍部增添兩支特種「攻擊部隊」(strike brigades),每支編制5千名軍隊成員,專責殲滅恐怖活動。其三,空襲為伊斯蘭國提供財政來源的油田,主動出擊殲滅恐怖份子。

英國國內對上述第三項政策:出動皇家空軍轟炸伊斯蘭國位處敍利亞的佔據點,意見紛紜。首相金馬倫於是向國會正式提出這項議題,於本年12月2日星期三上午十一時三十分在下議院開始辯論,經歷157名議員長達超越十小時各抒己見的激辯後,所有發言約在晚上九時三十分結束,並即時對議案投票。於國會辯論之前,在野「工黨」(Labour Party) 黨魁「郝爾彬」(Jeremy Corbyn) 極力反對遣兵空襲,批評執政「保守黨」(Conservative Party) 首相金馬倫企圖將英國拖入戰爭,做法鹵莽。然而,工黨黨內意見分歧,表態支持出兵空襲的議員亦為數不少,加上市民大眾和社會輿論的壓力,郝爾彬無奈宣怖,容許工黨議員可根據個人意願投票。

雅帆並不打算討論英國應否空襲伊斯蘭國的理據及其成效,卻有興趣聚焦瞭解該議案在英國國會的辯論過程和投票結果,與及所帶來的啟示和經驗,容或可堪學習與借鑑。

這項議案的寶貴經驗有二:其一,就是議員可享有免於政黨限制的「自主投票自由」。根據投票結果顯示,議案獲得:397票贊成;223票反對,以多出174票的大比數通過參與國際空襲行動。

其中贊成票包括:保守黨313票;工黨66票;自由民主黨 (Liberal Democratic Party) 6票;民主統一黨 (Democratic Unionist Party) 8票;阿爾斯特統一黨 (Ulster Unionist Party) 2票;英國獨立黨 (United Kingdom Independence Party) 1票;不隸屬任何政黨的獨立人士 (Independent) 1票。反對票則包括:工黨153票;蘇格蘭民族黨 (Scottish National Party) 55票;保守黨7票;社會民主工黨 (Social Democratic and Labour Party) 3票;自由民主黨2票;威爾斯民族黨 (Plaid Cymru) 2票;綠黨 (Green Party) 1票。另外有4名負責點票的議員 (包括兩名保守黨、一名蘇格蘭民族黨和一名威爾斯民族黨議員) 沒有投票。

從政黨背景分析兩大政黨的國會議員之投票取態,執政保守黨雖然穩守313票(佔該黨投票總數97.8%)的大多數贊成票,也有極少數的7名黨員(佔該黨投票總數2.2%)投下反對票。相對地,在野工黨雖然堅持153票(佔該黨投票總數69.86%)的大多數仍屬反對票,卻有為數不少的66名黨員(該黨投票總數30.14%)投下贊成票,兩者大約是七對三之比。再者,投下贊成票的在野工黨議員當中,竟包括11名黨內地位顯赫的「影子內閣成員」(Shadow Cabinet Members) 倒戈相向,譬如副黨魁「瓦特森」(Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of Labour Party)、影子外相「彭浩禮」(Hilary Benn, Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) 、影子國防大臣「伊格爾」(Maria Eagle, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence) 等。由此證明,英國國會議員可根據個人的良知信念和選區的民意取向而「自主投票」,不受所屬政黨的約束。

寶貴經驗其二,就是議員可享有免於政黨限制的「自主發言自由」。當辯論進入最後階段,在野工黨影子外相彭浩禮倒戈的總結發言,呼籲全體議員,包括在野反對派的議員,投票支持執政保守黨提出的空襲伊斯蘭國議案。傳聞他在出席會議期間,即場撰寫全篇講稿,情辭懇切,文章焦點最後兩段,尤其發人深省,鏗鏘有聲,引述如下:

【引述開始】
“…Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have – and we never should – walk by on the other side of the road.
(現在,議長先生,我希望議院可容忍我,如果我直接向我的工黨朋友和安坐在議院這一邊的同事致閉幕詞。作為政黨,我們一直受國際主義的定義所規範。我們相信彼此肩負責任,我們從來沒有– 我們亦從不應該– 祇在道路的另一邊走過。)

And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.
(我們在這裡所面對的法西斯主義者,不祇是其精打細算的暴行,卻還有他們的信念,均認定他們優於今晚在這個會議室內的我們每一個人,及全部我們所代表的人民。他們鄙視我們;他們鄙視我們的價值觀;他們鄙視我們對寬容和尊嚴的信念;他們鄙視我們今晚行使決定所憑藉的民主。我們深知法西斯主義是什麼 — 他們需要被擊敗。正因如此,我們今晚聽聞,社會主義者、工會成員和其他人加入的國際縱隊,在20世紀30年代為反對佛朗哥而戰鬥。也正因如此,這整個議院要站起來反對希特勒和墨索里尼。亦正因如此,我黨始終站在反對剝奪人權和公義。議長先生,我認為我們現在必須面對這種邪惡;現在是我們在敘利亞應盡責任的正確時刻。還正因如此,我要求我的同事們今晚投票支持這項議案。)”
【引述完畢】

當彭浩禮致辭完畢,議院內許多不同黨派的議員們,都奮然而起,鼓掌喝采,亦有被感動至泫然落淚。其後,執政保守黨外交及聯邦事務大臣「夏文達」(Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) 對彭浩禮惺惺相惜,稱許其演辭說:「這將在本下議院寫下真正偉大發言的其中一篇」(That will go down as one of the truly great speeches made in this House of Commons);其他議員亦讚譽為「真正歷史性發言」(truly historic speech) 、「最顯著的議會發言」(most remarkable parliamentary speeches)、「英國政治歷史上其中一篇最佳演辭」(one of the best in British political history) …等。由此再證明,英國國會議員也可根據個人的良知信念和選區的民意取向而「自主發言」,甚或是倒戈發言,不受所屬政黨的約束。

順帶一提的是,香港特區的公職人員,本年初曾公開發言比擬英國與香港兩地政制及議會的民主狀況,輕蔑前者亦不外如是;又徵引英國上議院的設立,來解釋香港立法會功能組別議員的存在;詳見網誌360〈香港公職人員的英國經驗〉。上述空襲議案的「民主議決」經驗 — 下議院民選議員的投票決定是最後決定,已將香港公職人員的謊言徹底粉碎。

總結來說,英國國會議員的議會行為,能夠放下黨團利益,祇建基於全部公民利益,亦即整體國家利益,充分彰顯民主的真諦,實為民主議會議事的楷模。由此觀之,全民追求民主政制及議會,不一定導致社會分裂;全民祇顧個人利益和權勢,卻必定導致社會分裂。上述議案的民主議決過程,所展現的「自主投票自由」與「自主發言自由」,或許可為香港人追求民主的目標,提供一點啟示?

彭浩禮演辭的英文原文,全文載錄如下,供有興趣的讀者參閱。

【引述開始】
“Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Before I respond to the debate, I would like to say this directly to the Prime Minister: Although my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will walk into different division lobbies tonight, I am proud to speak from the same Despatch Box as him. My right honourable friend is not a terrorist sympathiser, he is an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man and I think the Prime Minister must now regret what he said yesterday and his failure to do what he should have done today, which is simply to say ‘I am sorry’.

Now Mr Speaker, we have had an intense and impassioned debate and rightly so, given the clear and present threat from Daesh, the gravity of the decision that rests upon the shoulders and the conscience of every single one of us and the lives we hold in our hands tonight. And whatever we decision we reach, I hope we will treat one another with respect.

Now we have heard a number of outstanding speeches and sadly time will prevent me from acknowledging them all. But I would just like to single out the contributions both for and against the motion from my honourable and right honourable friends the members for Derby South, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Barnsley Central, Wakefield, Wolverhampton South East, Brent North, Liverpool, West Derby, Wirral West, Stoke-on-Trent North, Birmingham Ladywood and the honourable members for Reigate, South West Wiltshire, Tonbridge and Malling, Chichester and Wells.
The question which confronts us in a very, very complex conflict is at its heart very simple. What should we do with others to confront this threat to our citizens, our nation, other nations and the people who suffer under the yoke, the cruel yoke, of Daesh? The carnage in Paris brought home to us the clear and present danger we face from them. It could have just as easily been London, or Glasgow, or Leeds or Birmingham and it could still be. And I believe that we have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. And I am also clear, and I say this to my colleagues, that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met.

We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5 of which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

So the United Nations is asking us to do something. It is asking us to do something now. It is asking us to act in Syria as well as in Iraq. And it was a Labour government that helped to found the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. And why did we do so? Because we wanted the nations of the world, working together, to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.

So given that the United Nations has passed this resolution, given that such action would be lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter – because every state has the right to defend itself – why would we not uphold the settled will of the United Nations, particularly when there is such support from within the region including from Iraq. We are part of a coalition of over 60 countries, standing together shoulder-to-shoulder to oppose their ideology and their brutality.

Now Mr Speaker, all of us understand the importance of bringing an end to the Syrian civil war and there is now some progress on a peace plan because of the Vienna talks. They are the best hope we have of achieving a cease-fire. That would bring an end to Assad’s bombing, leading to a transitional government and elections. And why is that vital? Both because it will help in the defeat of Daesh, and because it would enable millions of Syrians, who have been forced to flee, to do what every refugee dreams of: they just want to be able to go home.

Now Mr Speaker, no-one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do, although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded, and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex.

We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc. 130 people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh – in trying to justify their bloody slaughter – called ‘apostates engaged in prostitution and vice’. If it had happened here, they could have been our children. And we know that they are plotting more attacks.

So the question for each of us – and for our national security – is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much – including Iraq and our ally, France.
Now, France wants us to stand with them and President Hollande – the leader of our sister socialist party – has asked for our assistance and help. And as we are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq where Daesh’s hold has been reduced and we are already doing everything but engage in airstrikes in Syria – should we not play our full part?

It has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so. Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. The House will remember that, 14 months ago, people were saying: ‘they are almost at the gates of Baghdad’. And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them. Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobani. Now of course, air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh – but they make a difference. Because they are giving them a hard time – and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory.

Now, I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh – who target innocent people.

Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there’s been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that. But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad. But I’ll tell you what else we know, is whatever the number – 70,000, 40,000, 80,000 – the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number. And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that airstrikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others, and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to airstrikes that is being proposed. And of course we should take action. It is not a contradiction between the two to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid, and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees including in this country and yes we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.

Now I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now. And it is also clear that many members have wrestled, and who knows, in the time that is left, may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is. But I say the threat is now, and there are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces. Now we heard very powerful testimony from the honorable member for Eddisbury earlier when she quoted that passage, and I just want to read what Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, said last week and I quote: ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’ And that is the argument Mr Speaker, for treating the two countries as one, if we are serious about defeating Daesh.

Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have – and we never should – walk by on the other side of the road.

And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.”
【引述完畢】

這篇文章發表 於 星期四, 十二月 17th, 2015 9:19 上午 在 國際視野 A Global View. 你可以回應這篇文章透過 RSS 2.0 feed. 你可以 留下回覆, 或 引用 從你的個人網站.

留下回覆

Name
Mail (will not be published)
URI
廻響