Joining Forces to Give Europe Its Own Army
德荷聯手 打造歐洲自己的部隊
By Katrin Bennhold

On a former Cold War base, German and Dutch soldiers, serving together in one tank battalion, stood to attention one recent morning and shouted their battle cry in both languages.
在一座前冷戰基地，同在一個戰車營服役的德國和荷蘭士兵最近某個早晨立正站好，用兩種語言高呼戰鬥口號。

“We fight – ,” their commander bellowed.
營長吼道：「我們戰鬥－」

“– for Germany!” the battalion replied in unison.
全營同聲回答：「為了德國！」

“We fight –,” the commander shouted.
營長再喊：「我們戰鬥－」

“– for the Netherlands!” his soldiers yelled back.
士兵大聲回答：「為了荷蘭！」

They are not shouting “for Europe.” Not yet.
他們沒有喊出「為了歐洲」，還沒有。

But the battalion – Europe’s first made up of soldiers from two countries – is an important baby step toward deeper European military cooperation. First floated after World War II, the idea of a European army is as old as the European Union itself, but has yet to become a reality.
但是這個營－歐洲第一個由兩個國家的官兵組成的營－是走向更深歐洲軍事合作重要而小小的一步。建立歐洲軍隊的構想首見於二戰後，歷史和歐盟本身一樣悠久，但尚未實現。

Now, though, the idea has taken on new urgency because of the Trump administration’s threat to withdraw the Continent’s security guarantee if it does not spend more on its defense.
不過，現在這個構想已經成為新的當務之急，因為美國川普政府已提出威脅，表示歐盟若不提高防衛支出，就要撤回保障歐洲安全的承諾。

At a high-level security conference last month, the breach between the United States and Europe burst into the open, leaving many European officials feeling increasingly on their own.
上個月在一場高層安全會議中，美國和歐洲公然翻臉，讓許多歐洲官員益發感覺必須自立自強。

“Everyone is talking about a European army,” Lt. Col. Marco Niemeyer, the German commander of the battalion, said. “We are pioneers.”
「每個人都在談論建立歐洲軍。」德國籍的戰車營長馬可．尼馬爾中校說，「我們是先鋒。」

Yet if some powerful European leaders are talking more loudly about a European military, the political moment is fraught. Populist parties are surging across the Continent, amid a rising nationalism that threatens European cohesion and has made the prospect of surrendering sovereignty on a sensitive issue like national security even harder.
即使一些深具影響力的歐洲領袖談論歐洲軍隊的聲量變大，政治時機卻十分不利。民粹政黨在歐盟各地崛起，高漲的民族主義威脅歐洲團結，而且使得在國家安全這類敏感議題上交出主權更加困難。

Moreover, the practical challenges to more credible European defense cooperation are immense.
此外，更可靠的歐洲防衛合作面對的實際挑戰也非常巨大。

For any progress, analysts agree that Germany, Europe’s biggest and richest country, must do more, including overcome its post-World War II reluctance to lead in strategic matters.
分析家同意，若想有任何進展，身為歐盟人口最多且最富裕國家的德國必須做得更多，包括克服自二戰後不願在戰略事務上領軍的心態。

The German military already has too few soldiers, too little equipment and faces shortages of just about everything, even thermal underwear, which in some cases is being reclassified as “functional” so that it can be reused by others.
德國軍隊當下已是兵員太少，裝備太少，而且幾乎樣樣東西都短缺，甚至連保暖內衣在一些情況下都被重新分類為「可用」，以便供其他人再度使用。

Given this backdrop, Tank Battalion 414 has become an informal test case for what needs to be done to achieve greater efficiencies and broader cooperation.
在這重背景下，第414戰車營已成為一非正式試驗個案，藉以了解需要做些什麼才能達致更佳效率與更廣泛的合作。

The military base in Lohheide is the continent’s difficult history writ small. Built by the Nazis in the 1930s, and used by Allied forces during the Cold War when West Germany was still NATO’s eastern border state, it is now home to an experiment in post-national defense.
位於洛海德的軍事基地是歐盟艱辛歷史的縮影，1930年代由納粹興建，西德仍屬北約東緣國家的冷戰時期供盟國軍隊使用，如今則是「後國族時代防禦」的試驗基地。

The battalion is German, but 1 in 4 of its soldiers are Dutch. The tanks are German, the radio system is Dutch and the language of command increasingly English. Often Germans and Dutch ride in the same tank.
這個營歸德國指揮，但四分之一官兵是荷蘭籍。戰車是德國的，無線電系統是荷蘭的，指揮語言則是英語越來越多。德國和荷蘭士兵常常乘坐同一輛戰車。

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/europe/germany-defense-spending-european-army.html

2019-03-17 聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析 莊蕙嘉

說文解字看新聞 張佑生

本文討論建立歐洲軍（European army，精確用語是EU army）的前景（prospect）。開頭的描述十分生動，其中有三個與喊叫有關的動詞。

Shout是大聲說話。Yell也是大喊，特別是因為憤怒、激動或痛苦。用法上，shout比yell更正式些。Bellow比較像咆哮，聲音大且低沉，尤其是希望很多人聽到，例如部隊值星官下口令：He was bellowing orders at the soldiers.另外Bellow也是姓氏，最有名的大概是1976年諾貝爾文學獎得主、美國小說家索爾．貝婁（Saul Bellow）。

早在二戰後，歐洲軍的概念就首度被拋出。Float指提出某個構想（floated the idea）看外界反應如何，就是試水溫、測風向。

歐洲軍是「後國族時代防禦」（post-national defense）的概念。Post-（後）指的是「不再重要或不再相關的」，如post-national（後國族的，指的是國家認同不再重要的）和post-racial（後種族的，指的是不再有種族偏見或種族歧視的）。麻煩的是國族（民族）主義（nationalism）在歐陸正夯，讓歐洲軍前途多艱。

How So Many Violent Felons Are Allowed to Keep Their Illegal Guns
美國重刑犯為何仍能擁槍
By Richard A. Oppel Jr.

The workplace shooting in a Chicago suburb last month that left five people dead exposed the failings of the system designed to keep guns away from felons and others deemed too dangerous to handle firearms.
芝加哥郊區上個月發生導致五人死亡的職場槍擊事件，暴露出旨在不讓被定罪重刑犯及其他被認定手上有槍會太危險者持有槍枝的制度，存在著缺陷。

Federal law bars gun ownership by felons, fugitives, drug abusers, people adjudicated to be mentally ill, those dishonorably discharged from the military or living in the country illegally, and by convicted domestic abusers or others subject to domestic violence restraining orders. But experts say the number of people who are barred from owning guns but have them anyway may reach into the millions.
美國聯邦法律禁止下列人等擁有槍枝，包括重刑犯，逃犯，吸毒者，被判定患有精神疾病者，軍方勒令退伍者，非法居留者，因家暴被定罪或受家暴禁制令約束者，但專家表示，依法不得擁有槍枝但還是擁槍者恐達數百萬人。

Only eight states have laws that provide an explicit mechanism so people suspected of having guns in violation of those prohibitions are actually required to give them up. And some of those states merely allow – but do not require – police to seek a court order to confiscate such guns.
只有八個州立法規定明確機制，要求涉嫌違反這些禁令擁有槍枝者真正交出槍枝，而其中又有些州僅允許、但不要求警察向法院申請沒收這類槍枝的許可令。

That was the case in Illinois, where authorities knew for more than four years that Gary Martin was a violent felon but apparently did nothing to ensure he surrendered the laser-sighted Smith & Wesson handgun that he used to kill five co-workers on February 15th.
伊利諾伊州的情況就是如此，當局四年多來一直知道蓋瑞·馬汀是個暴力重刑犯，但顯然未採取任何行動確保他交出2月15日用來殺害5名同事、有雷射瞄準功能的史密斯威森手槍。

Only a single state – California – has a database dedicated to tracking firearm owners who have lost their right to possess a gun.
只有1個州，也就是加州，具有特設的資料庫，用以追蹤失去持有槍枝權利的槍枝所有者。

Aside from California, only Connecticut and Nevada expressly require felons to provide proof to courts or to law enforcement they have turned over guns after conviction, according to the Giffords Law Center. Illinois and four other states – Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania – also provide statutory mechanisms for felons to turn over illegally possessed weapons, though the procedures are not as stringent.
「吉福茲防止槍械暴力法律中心」指出，加州以外，僅康乃狄克州和內華達州明確要求重罪犯向法院或執法部門提交證據，證明已在被定罪後交出槍枝。伊利諾州跟夏威夷、麻薩諸塞、紐約與賓夕法尼亞等4州，也為重罪犯交出非法持有武器提供了法定機制，即便程序並不那麼嚴格。

But when Illinois lawmakers sought to tighten state law so police would be mandated to confiscate guns owned by people barred from possessing them, or at least verify the guns had been transferred to legal owners, concerns about manpower helped doom the proposal.
但當伊利諾州立法者試圖讓該州法律更為嚴格，以便強制警察沒收遭禁止擁槍者的槍枝，或至少證實槍枝已轉移給合法持有者時，卻因擔心人力不足而使此案胎死腹中。

Martin was issued a state firearm owner’s card in January 2014 – and five weeks later he passed a background check to buy his handgun – even though he had been convicted of aggravated assault for stabbing a former girlfriend with a knife and hitting her with a baseball bat in Mississippi in 1995.
馬汀在2014年1月獲得該州擁槍證，並在5周後通過背景查核購買了他的手槍，儘管他1995年曾在密西西比州因為用刀刺傷前女友並用棒球棒毆打她，而被判處嚴重傷害罪。

Illinois State Police said Martin lied on his firearm owner’s card application about whether he had any felony convictions.
伊利諾州警方表示，馬汀申請擁槍證時，對是否有重罪前科部分撒了謊。

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/gun-seizures-felons-abusers.html

2019-03-17 聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析 陳韋廷