【宣战不是只有一种】

【宣战不是只有一种】
我这周一才追完《 #头号外交官 / The Diplomat》,这影集里面有个情节令我印象深刻,就是这些各国的外交高手们,哪怕是敌对又立场互异的各国外交官,都在用他/她们的外交手段在实行“开战和避战”。
影集中被栽赃、叫最凶、要战就战没在怕、看起来很耐打的伊朗,很没想到的也是选择能避战就避战的策略在协助女主角,只是伊朗在姿态上、在台面上仍是绝不退让半步的不可理喻。
女主角的人设是美国外交官Kate Wyler,我会把她界定为“理性鹰派”她十分清楚战争给人类文明的样貌是什么,不单是开战的两个国家,许多时候是大混战的到难分难解时,仇恨在这世化不开还迭加到下一个世纪去,别忘了还有一些无辜的国家也可能在战时被旋进去。Wyler虽然有个聪明老公在她背后协助,但毕竟Wyler还是太嫩了也半推半就的中了计。
这影集里很看得出来只有一个人好战,这等下在说。
看了这个影集会很清楚的,外交官要十分熟悉各国的地缘政治、掌握各式的情报,“外交官体系”另一个作用是当总统的“剎车系统”,当一国的总统在感性多于理性的下宣战牌的时候,外交官就要当那个外后拉,出来挡总统开战的人。
其实…
外交部、外交官也可以看成是“军队/战力”的衍生,可以用最低损失的策略、低伤亡的方式一样可以有效的向敌对国于以制裁。
所以为何影集中的伊朗台面上凶悍又野蛮,而台面下是希望化解掉的方式在处理开战的状态,则是因为他们在战争中被美国经济制裁的比被实际战争侵略还来得凄惨。
影集中的外交官要绝对的理性/务实,但也有感性流露的时候,我很喜欢透过剧情去描绘他/她们这些外交官们处处为国为民的设想,是有着悲天悯人的特质。
在这影集里…
唯有一个人是真正好战的,就是有着被害者形象的“英国首相/Nicol Trowbridge”,看到这段故事就心里有个底的在想这首相是的确怪怪的,但就像洋葱一层又一层的,在剖开第一层时会知道Trowbridge的好战是担心英国分裂,而必须安内,会试着理解他、用他的角度思考问题。
但看到最后一集会知道有个伏笔,似乎Trowbridge才是操纵着一切的最终大魔王。
「所以看一个人不是看一时,而是要看这人的一段时间,才能了解这人是否言行如一,是否值得信赖。」
我的心得是:
如果要选择避战的这个国家必须是…A-要有开发核武的能力,实际上拥有核弹头。B-进入全球经济上的强国梯次。有这两项,特别是A,根本不用烦恼要不要被侵略、该打不该打,而且“这样的避战才是最好的宣战”可攻可守。
还有真要小心那些喊打喊杀的“煽惑者”,特别是乱势中,这些人要不是太傻把自己搞得像“高龄/菁英8+9”、要不就是心眼坏。
不论哪一种都和爱国不爱国没有关系,但这些他/她会用爱国来包装自己和形象,用声势来蛊惑“希望利用战争来解决现实中一切痛苦和有着打掉重练而过度乐天的人”并且从煽动中得到他/她们的自私利益。
人类的历史、文明中就像不止的轮回,好奇在这次的轮回中人们会做什么样的选择?
是委屈的和平 ?
还是优雅的止战?
或者…傻傻的开战?
※ 图片版权: © 2023 Netflix, Inc.
【There's More Than One Way to Declare War】
I just finished watching "The Diplomat" this week, and there was one scene that left a deep impression on me. In this show, various skilled diplomats from different countries, even those with opposing positions, were using their diplomatic strategies to either start or avoid war.
Even Iran, which was portrayed as being blamed, fierce, and willing to fight in the series, surprisingly chose a strategy of avoiding war and assisted the female lead character. However, Iran did not back down in its stance or on the surface.
The female lead, Kate Wyler, a US diplomat, could be defined as a "rational hawk." She was very aware of what war could do to human civilization. It was not just the two countries at war, but also the chaos and hatred that could persist for decades, affecting even innocent countries. Although Wyler had a smart husband assisting her, she was still too young and fell into a trap.
The show clearly depicted that only one person was eager for war.
After watching the show, it's evident that diplomats need to be well-versed in geopolitical issues, master various types of intelligence, and serve as a "brake system" for the president. When a country's president is acting more on emotions than reason and declares war, diplomats must step in and be the ones to stop the president from going to war.
In fact...
The foreign ministry and diplomats can also be seen as an extension of the "military/force." They can effectively sanction an enemy country with the lowest losses and minimal casualties.
So, why was Iran portrayed as fierce and barbaric on the surface but actually sought to resolve war behind the scenes? It was because they suffered more from economic sanctions imposed by the US than from actual aggression in war.
The diplomats in the show had to be absolutely rational and pragmatic, but they also showed emotional qualities of compassion and empathy. I enjoyed how the show portrayed these diplomats' constant consideration for their country and people, and their capacity for sympathy towards others.
In this series...
There is only one person who is truly bellicose, and that is the "British Prime Minister/Nicol Trowbridge" who has the image of a victim. When watching this story, one may have a certain suspicion about Trowbridge, but as the layers of the onion are peeled back, it becomes clear that Trowbridge's bellicosity stems from a fear of the UK's fragmentation and the need for internal stability. This helps us understand him and think about the problems from his perspective.
However, at the end of the series, a plot twist reveals that Trowbridge may have been the ultimate mastermind behind everything.
"So, to understand a person, we must not judge them based on a single moment, but rather based on a period of time. We must examine whether this person's words and actions are consistent and whether they are trustworthy."
My impression is that if we want to choose a country that avoids war, it should have the ability to develop nuclear weapons and actually possess nuclear warheads. It should also be among the top tier of global economic powers. With these two factors, especially the possession of nuclear weapons, there is no need to worry about being invaded or whether to fight or not. Moreover, this kind of avoidance of war is the best way to declare war, since it can be both offensive and defensive.
We also need to be wary of the "agitators" who call for war and killing, especially during times of chaos. These people are either too foolish and end up making themselves look like "Boxers among the elites" or they have bad intentions. Regardless of which type they are, they may use patriotism to package themselves and their image, using their momentum to deceive those who hope to solve all their pain and problems through war. They also seek their own selfish interests through incitement.
In human history and civilization, it is like an endless cycle, and I am curious what choices people will make in this cycle. Will it be the grievance of peace? The elegance of ending war? Or...the foolishness of starting a war?
※ Image Copyright: © 2023 Netflix, Inc.