约翰逊成不了现代丘吉尔 Johnson has failed the Churchill test

In his highly entertaining biography of Winston Churchill, Boris Johnson observes that — “To some extent all politicians are gamblers with events. They try to anticipate what will happen, to put themselves on the right side of history.” Mr Johnson even interprets his hero’s decision to campaign against Hitler, early in the 1930s, in this cynical light, explaining that Churchill — “Put his shirt on a horse called anti-Nazism... his bet came off in spectacular fashion”.

鲍里斯约翰逊(Boris Johnson)在自己撰写的关于温斯顿丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)的极富趣味性的传记中指出：“从某种程度上讲，所有政客都是见风使舵的赌徒。他们设法预测将要发生什么事，并让自己站到历史正确的一边。”约翰逊甚至用一种嘲讽的语气解释丘吉尔在上世纪30年代反对希特勒(Hitler)的决定，他说，丘吉尔“把全部家当押在一匹被称为反纳粹主义的马上……他的押注获得了辉煌的成功”。

I thought of that passage when I heard that Mr Johnson has thrown in his lot with the Leave campaign — ahead of Britain’s referendum on EU membership on June 23.

当我听说约翰逊将自己的命运与英国退出欧盟运动紧密联系起来时（英国将于6月23日对其欧盟成员身份进行公投），我想起了书中所写的这一段。

Mr Johnson has put his shirt on a horse called Euroscepticism. He is clearly hoping that his bet will also “come off in spectacular fashion” and carry him, like Churchill, all the way into 10 Downing Street — preferably without the added bonus of a world war.

约翰逊把自己的家当押在了一匹被称为“欧洲怀疑主义”的马上。显然，他希望自己的押注也能“获得辉煌的成功”，并将他（像丘吉尔那样）一路送入唐宁街10号——最好是没有一场世界大战作为额外赠品。

The mayor of London’s decision is certainly a significant moment in the referendum campaign. A Vote Leave group that was in danger of being led by cranks, nobodies and octogenarians will now be headed by one of the country’s most popular politicians.

这位伦敦市长的决定无疑是本次公投运动中的重要事件。有被怪人、无名之辈及耄耋老人领导危险的支持退欧群体，如今将由这个国家最有声望的政治家之一率领。

June could also be a particularly propitious time to be making the case against the EU. By then, the Greek debt crisis may well have flared up again. Europe’s migrant crisis is also likely to have intensified, as improved weather increases the numbers of would-be refugees crossing the Mediterranean. That will increase infighting among the members of the EU, making the organisation look ever more shambolic.

6月或许还将是主张反对欧盟的特别有利的时机。届时，希腊债务危机很有可能已再次爆发。欧洲移民危机同样可能已进一步加剧——天气好转将使得穿越地中海的准难民人数增加。这将加剧欧盟成员国之间的明争暗斗，让该集团看起来显得愈发混乱。

The vision of hundreds of thousands more desperate would-be migrants, not too far from the English Channel, will also play directly into the most emotive argument that the Leave campaign will deploy: the fear of mass migration from Europe and the demand that the free movement of people from the EU should be halted.

数十万绝望的准移民（在离英吉利海峡不太远的地方）前景也将直接切合退欧运动可利用的最能激起民众情绪反应的理由：欧洲对大规模移民的恐惧，以及叫停欧盟境内人员自由流动的诉求。

Seeing the potentially terminal difficulties that the EU is facing may have led Mr Johnson to try to “put himself on the right side of history”, by placing a bet against Europe.

看到欧盟面临的这些潜在致命困难，可能已让约翰逊试图通过把宝押在反欧洲上，“让自己站到历史正确的一边”。

But there is more than one way of being on the right side of history. The first is simply to anticipate the direction of events. The second, more important, way is to align yourself with the right causes and values — those that the history books will ultimately vindicate. Churchill’s decision to oppose the appeasement of Hitler was right in both senses. He saw how events were unfolding — and, yes, he ultimately benefited politically from his prescience. But he also stood up against evil.

但站到历史的正确的一边的路不止一条。第一是要预测事态的发展方向。第二（更重要）是从事正义的事业，秉持正确的价值观——历史最终将证明这一切。丘吉尔反对对希特勒实行绥靖政策的决定在这两个方面都是正确的。他看清了事态的发展方向——没错，他最终在政治上获益于自己的先见之明。但他同时也站起来反抗邪恶。

Mr Johnson’s decision to campaign for Brexit might put him on the right side of history, but only in the first and narrowest sense of foreseeing the direction of events. The EU is certainly in a sorry mess at the moment. There is also a strong strand of anti-establishment, anti-immigration populism loose in both the US and Europe, which could easily translate into a British vote to leave the EU. So betting against the EU could allow the London mayor to pocket some political winnings.

约翰逊支持英国退欧的决定或许会让他站在历史正确的一边，但仅仅是在第一层也是最狭隘的意义上，即预测事态发展方向。当下的欧盟确处于一种令人遗憾的混乱之中。美国和欧洲都有一股强大的反政府、反移民的民粹主义松散力量，它们可以很容易地转化为支持英国退欧的投票结果。因此，押注退欧可以让这位伦敦市长获得些许政治资本。

But Mr Johnson is on the wrong side of history in the more important sense, because he is aligning himself with some of the most malign forces in Europe and Britain. Across Europe, it is the far-right and the far-left that are calling for the destruction of the EU — and they will cheer loudest if Britain votes to leave. On the borders of the EU, Vladimir Putin sees Brussels as a bitter enemy — and hugely resents the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea. The Russian president will be delighted and emboldened at any sign of the disintegration of the EU.

但在更重要的意义上，约翰逊站在了历史的错误一侧，因为他跟欧洲和英国最有害的势力站在了一起。在整个欧洲，正是极右翼和极左翼势力在呼吁摧毁欧盟——如果英国通过投票脱离欧盟，他们的欢呼声将是最响亮的。在欧盟的边界上，弗拉基米尔渠京(Vladimir Putin)把欧盟视为一个劲敌，而俄罗斯吞并克里米亚招致欧盟的制裁，也引起了俄罗斯的极大怨恨。欧盟解体的任何迹象，都将令这位俄罗斯总统感到欢欣鼓舞和信心大增。

In failing to appreciate the wider international context for his actions, Mr Johnson is following a distinctly un-Churchillian path. Churchill was the very opposite of a Little Englander. That is why he understood so quickly what the rise of Hitler meant for Britain, Europe and the world. It is also why he was one of the first politicians to understand the significance of Soviet actions in eastern Europe after 1945 — leading him to coin the term “iron curtain”.

约翰逊走上了一条不同于丘吉尔的道路，因为他未能从国际大形势的角度思考自己的做法。丘吉尔非常反对“小英格兰主义者”(Little Englander)。正因如此，他才那么快就明白了希特勒的崛起对英国、欧洲和世界意味着什么。也正因如此，他才成为最早理解1945年以后苏联在东欧行动的意义的政治家之一，他为此创造了“铁幕”一词。

A modern Churchill, which is what Boris clearly aspires to be, would immediately understand that Britain’s decision about whether to stay in the EU has to be seen as part of a wider global picture. And that big picture is very worrying — with Russia rediscovering its taste for war, the Middle East disintegrating, violent jihadism on the rise, China flexing its muscles in the Pacific and the US flirting with the lunacy of “Trumpism”.

约翰逊明显希望成为现代丘吉尔。但丘吉尔如果活到现在，他立刻就会明白，必须在全球大形势下权衡英国是否留在欧盟的决定。目前的大形势非常令人担心——俄罗斯再次燃起了战争意愿，中东在分崩离析，残暴的圣战运动在兴起，中国在太平洋地区伸展肌肉，而美国似乎有实行愚蠢的特朗普主义(Trumpism)之势。

Given all that, it is depressingly small-minded of Mr Johnson to justify campaigning for Brexit partly on the grounds that Britain might save a bit of money on its contributions to the EU budget. The fact is that Britain will pay a very heavy price — directly and indirectly — if the EU disintegrates. As David Cameron, prime minister, correctly pointed out, this is ultimately a question of national security.

鉴于这一切，约翰逊以脱欧会节省一点对欧盟预算的摊派额作为支持脱欧的部分理由，此举目光短浅得令人沮丧。事实上，如果欧盟解体的话，英国将付出非常昂贵的代价——包括直接和间接代价。英国首相戴维(David Cameron)说的有道理，这从根本上来说是一个关乎国家安全的问题。

When Mr Johnson made his name as a journalist in the 1990s, campaigning against the follies of Brussels was fun. It was even possible to argue, back then, that the ambitions of the EU represented a serious threat to British self-government. But it would be absurd to look around today’s world and identify the EU as the biggest threat to British democracy or national security. The times have changed. Sadly, it seems that Mr Johnson has not changed with them.

当上世纪90年代约翰逊以记者身份成名的时候，反对欧盟愚蠢之举是件趣事。在那时，甚至可以辩称，欧盟的雄心对英国自治构成严重威胁。但是，环顾当今世界之后，还把欧盟说成英国民主或国家安全的最大威胁，将是荒谬可笑的。时代变了。遗憾的是，约翰逊并未随着时代变迁而改变。