【宣戰(zhàn)不是只有一種】

我這周一才追完《 #頭號(hào)外交官 / The Diplomat》，這影集里面有個(gè)情節(jié)令我印象深刻，就是這些各國的外交高手們，哪怕是敵對(duì)又立場互異的各國外交官，都在用他/她們的外交手段在實(shí)行“開戰(zhàn)和避戰(zhàn)”。

影集中被栽贓、叫最兇、要戰(zhàn)就戰(zhàn)沒在怕、看起來很耐打的伊朗，很沒想到的也是選擇能避戰(zhàn)就避戰(zhàn)的策略在協(xié)助女主角，只是伊朗在姿態(tài)上、在臺(tái)面上仍是絕不退讓半步的不可理喻。

女主角的人設(shè)是美國外交官Kate Wyler，我會(huì)把她界定為“理性鷹派”她十分清楚戰(zhàn)爭給人類文明的樣貌是什么，不單是開戰(zhàn)的兩個(gè)國家，許多時(shí)候是大混戰(zhàn)的到難分難解時(shí)，仇恨在這世化不開還迭加到下一個(gè)世紀(jì)去，別忘了還有一些無辜的國家也可能在戰(zhàn)時(shí)被旋進(jìn)去。Wyler雖然有個(gè)聰明老公在她背后協(xié)助，但畢竟Wyler還是太嫩了也半推半就的中了計(jì)。

這影集里很看得出來只有一個(gè)人好戰(zhàn)，這等下在說。

看了這個(gè)影集會(huì)很清楚的，外交官要十分熟悉各國的地緣政治、掌握各式的情報(bào)，“外交官體系”另一個(gè)作用是當(dāng)總統(tǒng)的“剎車系統(tǒng)”，當(dāng)一國的總統(tǒng)在感性多于理性的下宣戰(zhàn)牌的時(shí)候，外交官就要當(dāng)那個(gè)外后拉，出來擋總統(tǒng)開戰(zhàn)的人。

其實(shí)…

外交部、外交官也可以看成是“軍隊(duì)/戰(zhàn)力”的衍生，可以用最低損失的策略、低傷亡的方式一樣可以有效的向敵對(duì)國于以制裁。

所以為何影集中的伊朗臺(tái)面上兇悍又野蠻，而臺(tái)面下是希望化解掉的方式在處理開戰(zhàn)的狀態(tài)，則是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)趹?zhàn)爭中被美國經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁的比被實(shí)際戰(zhàn)爭侵略還來得凄慘。

影集中的外交官要絕對(duì)的理性/務(wù)實(shí)，但也有感性流露的時(shí)候，我很喜歡透過劇情去描繪他/她們這些外交官們處處為國為民的設(shè)想，是有著悲天憫人的特質(zhì)。

?

在這影集里…

唯有一個(gè)人是真正好戰(zhàn)的，就是有著被害者形象的“英國首相/Nicol Trowbridge”，看到這段故事就心里有個(gè)底的在想這首相是的確怪怪的，但就像洋蔥一層又一層的，在剖開第一層時(shí)會(huì)知道Trowbridge的好戰(zhàn)是擔(dān)心英國分裂，而必須安內(nèi)，會(huì)試著理解他、用他的角度思考問題。

但看到最后一集會(huì)知道有個(gè)伏筆，似乎Trowbridge才是操縱著一切的最終大魔王。

「所以看一個(gè)人不是看一時(shí)，而是要看這人的一段時(shí)間，才能了解這人是否言行如一，是否值得信賴。」

?

我的心得是：

如果要選擇避戰(zhàn)的這個(gè)國家必須是…A-要有開發(fā)核武的能力，實(shí)際上擁有核彈頭。B-進(jìn)入全球經(jīng)濟(jì)上的強(qiáng)國梯次。有這兩項(xiàng)，特別是A，根本不用煩惱要不要被侵略、該打不該打，而且“這樣的避戰(zhàn)才是最好的宣戰(zhàn)”可攻可守。

還有真要小心那些喊打喊殺的“煽惑者”，特別是亂勢中，這些人要不是太傻把自己搞得像“高齡/菁英8+9”、要不就是心眼壞。

不論哪一種都和愛國不愛國沒有關(guān)系，但這些他/她會(huì)用愛國來包裝自己和形象，用聲勢來蠱惑“希望利用戰(zhàn)爭來解決現(xiàn)實(shí)中一切痛苦和有著打掉重練而過度樂天的人”并且從煽動(dòng)中得到他/她們的自私利益。

?

人類的歷史、文明中就像不止的輪回，好奇在這次的輪回中人們會(huì)做什么樣的選擇？

是委屈的和平 ？

還是優(yōu)雅的止戰(zhàn)？

或者…傻傻的開戰(zhàn)？

?

?

※ 圖片版權(quán)：?? 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.

?

?

?

?