Name: 尼古拉斯·馬杜羅落馬後，委內瑞拉將走向何方？| DW 新聞 (What comes next after the capture of Nicolas Maduro? | DW News)
Uploaded: 2026-01-06T08:52:43.000Z
Duration: 23 min 56 s

Venezuela's ousted president Nicolas Maduro has made his first appearance in a U.S. federal court where he pleaded not guilty to narco trafficking charges.

遭罷黜的委內瑞拉前總統尼古拉斯·馬杜羅首度現身美國聯邦法院，他對毒品販運的指控表示不認罪。

反身代名詞

Maduro declared himself a prisoner of war and insisted he was still Venezuela's leader.

馬杜羅宣稱自己是戰俘，並堅稱他仍是委內瑞拉的領導人。

基礎被動語態

He and his wife were seized in a US Military raid early on Saturday in Caracas.

他和他的妻子於週六清晨在加拉加斯的一次美國軍方突襲行動中被捕。

If convicted, the pair could face life sentences.

若定罪，這對夫婦可能面臨無期徒刑。

對尼古拉斯·馬杜羅來說，這真是漫長的一天。

The former Venezuelan leader and his wife, Sia Flores, were taken from jail and helicoptered to court in Manhattan.

這位委內瑞拉前領導人及其妻子絲亞·弗洛雷斯被從監獄帶走，搭乘直升機前往曼哈頓的法院。

There, they were officially charged with narco terrorism and other related crimes.

在那裡，他們被正式控以毒品恐怖主義及其他相關罪名。

Both pleaded not guilty, with Maduro saying he was still the president of his country.

兩人均表示不認罪，馬杜羅則說他仍是自己國家的總統。

And then shortly after, he was taken back to prison.

His next court appearance is set for March.

Meanwhile, across town, the United Nations Security Council met for an emergency session on Maduro's capture.

與此同時，在城鎮的另一邊，聯合國安全理事會召開了一場關於馬杜羅被捕的緊急會議。

The US Was widely criticized for its actions, which most say violated international law.

美國因其行動受到廣泛批評，大多數人認為這違反了國際法。

Much of the criticism was coated in the language of diplomacy, though Russia's ambassador was less restrained.

許多批評都以外交辭令包裝，不過俄羅斯的 ambasador 則毫不掩飾。

The assault against the leader of Venezuela, compounded by the deaths of dozens of Venezuelan and Cuban citizens in the eyes of many, has become a harbinger of a turn back to the era of lawlessness and US Domination by force and chaos which continues to afflict dozens of states in various regions of the world.

對這位委內瑞拉領導人的攻擊，加上許多人眼中數十名委內瑞拉和古巴公民的死亡，已成為重返無法無天時代的預兆，以及美國以武力與混亂主宰並持續困擾世界各地數十個國家的時代。

Back in Venezuela, Maduro's replacement was sworn in as the country's new president.

回到委內瑞拉，馬杜羅的繼任者已宣誓就任該國新任總統。

His former deputy, Delsey Rodriguez, now has a daunting task ahead of her.

他過去的副手德爾西·羅德里格斯，現在面臨艱鉅的任務。

She's already made some more conciliatory signals towards Washington.

她已經向華盛頓發出了一些較為和解的訊號。

But whether or not that will be enough is largely down to Donald Trump.

但這是否足夠，很大程度上取決於唐納·川普。

現在請出格洛麗亞·布朗·馬歇爾。

She's a constitutional lawyer and associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

她是一位憲法律師，也是約翰·傑刑事司法學院的副教授。

Thank you very much for being on the program.

So, Gloria, from an American point of view, can a leader of a foreign country who was forcibly detained outside of the United States be tried in a U.S. courtroom?

所以，格洛麗亞，從美國的角度來看，一個外國的領導人，如果他在美國境外被強制拘留，可以在美國法庭受審嗎？

To answer your question, it's not just that it's a leader of another country, you could take a foreign national and under a subpoena have that foreign national tried in a U.S. courtroom.

回答你的問題，這不只是外國的領導人，你可以找一個外國公民，然後根據傳票，讓這位外國公民在美國法庭受審。

In this particular case, because it's the president of another country, he's not just an average individual, but the law remains the same that an individual from another country, and we've had that happen in other instances as well, one of them being Noriega and other leaders who have been taken by US by force and tried in US Courts and actually had these trials go to full verdict and have them found guilty and serve time in U.S. prisons.

在這個特定的案例中，因為他是另一個國家的總統，他不是一個普通人，但法律是一樣的，一個來自另一個國家的人，我們在其他情況下也發生過，其中一個是諾瑞嘉和其他領導人，他們被美國軍方強行帶走並在美國法庭受審，而且這些審判都達到了完整判決，並被判有罪並在美國監獄服刑。

Now, as you were saying there, this action is legal by US Law, but at the same time, some have criticized the US Action as illegal under international law.

現在，就像你剛才說的，這個行動在美國法律上是合法的，但同時，有些人批評美國的行動在國際法上是非法的。

So the question is, is American law and international law at conflict in this situation?

所以問題是，美國法律和國際法在這個情況下是否衝突？

Very often domestic law is in conflict with many parts of international law.

國內法經常與國際法的許多部分發生衝突。

And in this particular instance, people have said, well, why isn't this person being tried in an International Criminal Court?

在這個特定的例子中，有人問，為什麼這個人不在國際刑事法院受審？

But the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

但美國不是國際刑事法院的成員國。

The countries who are members that are members had to sign on and have their nations agree to be tried under that court and therefore be one who could bring that law to bear against another country.

那些是成員的國家，必須簽署並讓他們的國家同意接受該法院的審判，是以才能將該法律應用於另一個國家。

Since the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, then if it is in fact in conflict with international law, then it's up to other bodies within the United nations to push back against the United States.

由於美國不是國際刑事法院的成員國，那麼如果它確實與國際法發生衝突，那麼就由聯合國內部的其他機構來反對美國。

All right, now let's focus on Maduro's lawyers and his defense.

好的，現在我們來聚焦馬杜羅的律師和他的辯護。

Now, his defense team are expected to contest the legality of his arrest, saying Maduro is immune from prosecution as a foreign head of state.

現在，他的辯護團隊預計將質疑逮捕的合法性，聲稱馬杜羅作為外國國家元首享有豁免權，不受起訴。

A person is not immune under US Law just because they are ahead of another state, president, prime minister, whatever that title may be.

一個人不會僅僅因為是另一個國家的領導人，無論是總統、總理還是其他頭銜，就享有美國法律下的豁免權。

That does not make them immune to prosecution based on U.S. law.

這不會讓他們免於依據美國法律受到起訴。

But once again, U.S. law can be in conflict with international law or policies under the United Nations.

不過，美國的法律有時會與國際法或聯合國的政策有所衝突。

But when you start looking at the actual charges against against him, you begin to see that these are somewhat antiquated.

但當你開始檢視對他的實際指控時，你會發現這些指控有點過時。

Possession of machine guns, for example, or even with the very general phrase, narco terrorism.

例如，持有衝鋒槍，或是非常籠統的「毒品恐怖主義」。

Is he supposed to be the leader of an organized narcotics ring, an international narcotics ring?

他應該是一個國際販毒集團的領導人嗎？

Now, we know under international law that that would be a violation, but under US Law, how are we proving that he is the head of this narco terrorist?

在國際法之下，這會是違法的，但在美國法律下，我們該如何證明他是這個毒品恐怖主義的頭目呢？

R. So when you start to look at the charges against him, then you have to see under U.S. court that a person is innocent until they're proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

所以當你開始檢視對他的指控時，你必須知道，在美國法庭上，一個人必須被證明有罪，而且要有合理的懷疑，才能定罪。

Not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

不是毫無懷疑，而是合理的懷疑。

So these charges within the indictment have to be proven in a court of law.

所以起訴書中的這些指控，必須在法庭上被證明。

And then, of course, we get into the very sticky territory of can he receive a fair trial in the United States?

然後，當然，我們就進入了一個非常棘手的領域：他能在美國得到公平的審判嗎？

So it sounds like there are a lot of legal avenues for his defense team to pursue.

聽起來他的辯護團隊有很多法律途徑可以追尋。

What more can you tell us about the legal team that will be defending the Venezuelan leader?

你能多告訴我們一些關於將要為這位委內瑞拉領導人辯護的法律團隊嗎？

Well, Barry Pollak is the leader of the legal team at this point.

嗯，巴瑞·波拉克是目前這個法律團隊的領導人。

He has worked on many high profile international cases.

他曾處理過許多備受矚目的國際案件。

但這裡有一個令人擔憂的地方。

When Donald Trump first gained presidency for the second term, he did something that was unprecedented along with many other things he did that were unprecedented, unprecedented, probably an unpresidential in that he had these major law firms, international law firms, actually come to him and sign agreements that they would be under his control, that they would give him and people he desired to have free legal attention their all.

當唐納·川普首次贏得第二任總統任期時，他做了許多前所未有的事，其中一件前所未有、大概也是不符總統身分的事，就是他讓這些大型國際律師事務所主動找上他，並簽署協議，表示他們將在他的掌控之下，並為他以及他想提供免費法律援助的人提供一切。

They would actually donate law hours and members of the legal team.

他們實際上會捐贈法律服務時間和團隊成員。

That means that when he went through and got the signatures of the major law firms signed on to his side.

這意味著，當他透過這種方式，讓大型律師事務所簽署協議並加入他這一邊時。

That means there's going to be a void of those people here who have the qualifications and have the financial background and resources in order to defend the people that this Trump presidency is now going against.

這意味著，在這裡將會出現一群缺乏資格、財力背景和資源的人，來為川普總統現在正在對抗的這些人辯護。

That puts us in a very difficult situation because the United States is a litigious country and there are many lawyers, many law firms, but these are very, very keen, narrow issues of law that require a type of background that not every lawyer has and going to be at a deficit in many ways because the lawyers with this international law background are some of the very lawyers that are now part of the legal teams or at least under contract with the Trump presidency.

這讓我們陷入一個非常困難的處境，因為美國是一個訴訟國家，律師和律師事務所很多，但這些是極其狹窄的法律議題，需要不是每個律師都擁有的背景，而我們將會在許多方面處於劣勢，因為擁有國際法背景的律師，正是那些現在已經加入川普總統法律團隊或至少與其簽約的律師。

Those are truly some concerning developments.

這些確實是一些令人擔憂的發展。

I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there.

That was Gloria Brown Marshall, a constitutional lawyer from New York City.

這是格洛麗亞·布朗·馬歇爾，一位來自紐約市的憲法律師。

讓我們請來萊斯利·文德姆裡。

She is the president and CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

她是芝加哥全球事務委員會的總裁兼執行長。

She works on international affairs and US Global engagement.

她專注於國際事務和美國的全球參與。

Leslie, to what extent do you believe Washington is trying to send a message to the world as much as it's sending one to Venezuela?

萊斯利，你認為華盛頓試圖向世界傳達訊息的程度，跟向委內瑞拉傳達訊息的程度一樣嗎？

Well, first of all, I think the number one message that the US Is sending is most definitely to Venezuela.

嗯，首先，我認為美國傳達的第一個訊息絕對是給委內瑞拉的。

我們已經看到這種集結一段時間了。

Even for those of us, including myself, who were very surprised when we woke up to the news that Maduro had been captured.

即使是我們這些，包括我自己，在醒來得知馬杜羅被捕的消息時感到非常驚訝的人。

If you walk this back, those signals had been sent by the fact that boats were being captured, that there was a military buildup in the region.

如果你回顧一下，這些訊號已經透過船隻被捕、該地區有軍事集結的事實發送出來了。

So I do think that the number one signal is to Venezuela.

所以我確實認為最重要的訊號是給委內瑞拉的。

Clearly, President Trump has a wider agenda in the Western Hemisphere and for the rest of the world.

顯然，川普總統在西半球和世界其他地區有更廣泛的議程。

And I know that in Europe, we're all worried about Denmark.

我知道在歐洲，我們都擔心丹麥。

Spend more, be strong, be Tough and be aligned with this US President and his administration if you wish to preserve your sovereignty.

如果你想維護主權，就要花更多錢，變得強硬、堅韌，並與美國總統及其政府保持一致。

It's a very, very unsettling message for many people.

這對很多人來說，是一個非常、非常令人不安的訊息。

But I think the number one focus right now is on the Western Hemisphere and on Venezuela.

但我認為，目前最重要的焦點是西半球和委內瑞拉。

As you well know, over the years there's been a lot of discussion on both sides of the political aisle in the United States about Washington avoiding endless wars.

正如你所知，多年來，美國兩黨一直在就華盛頓避免無休止的戰爭進行大量討論。

From the vantage point of your public opinion work, does this operation align with or cut against where Americans say they want US Power to be used in the world?

從你的民意調查工作來看，這次行動是否符合美國人希望美國力量在世界上的運用方式，還是與之背道而馳？

You know, we are running polling in the week ahead.

你知道，我們下週將進行民意調查。

I think that I anticipate that people will be very concerned.

我認為，我預計人們會非常擔心。

But you know, I think we have to be very clear about what's happening here.

但你知道，我認為我們必須非常清楚這裡正在發生什麼。

A, nobody's entitled, sure what the next steps are, B, we've seen a leader removed, but we have not seen a regime change.

A，沒有人確定下一步是什麼，B，我們看到一位領導人被罷免，但我們沒有看到政權更迭。

We've heard words articulated by the US President in that first press conference that America would be running the country that will send shivers and terror down the backbone of many Americans who fear US Occupation, the expenses, the personal costs associated with it.

我們聽到了美國總統在第一次記者會上說的話，美國將管理這個國家，這讓許多害怕美國佔領、害怕其相關開銷和個人付出的美國人感到脊背發涼、不寒而慄。

What we're seeing right now is language threatening the current regime with complying with US Wishes.

我們現在看到的是威脅現政權、要求其遵守美國意願的言論。

But we have basically injected the United States tremendous uncertainty into Venezuela.

但我們基本上給委內瑞拉注入了巨大的不確定性。

但到目前為止，你知道事實就是如此。

So far it's been a very limited, targeted from a military standpoint, highly effectively executed operation.

到目前為止，這是一次非常有限的、從軍事角度來看是針對性的、執行得非常有效率的行動。

But clearly the rest of the world and many Americans will be deeply concerned that this is going to lead to something more serious, more long term.

但顯然，世界其他國家和許多美國人會非常擔心這將導致更嚴重、更長期的後果。

I personally doubt that that will be the case there.

Certainly we're not seeing that kind of mobilization being prepared for a, for an actual occupation or takeover of Venezuela.

當然，我們沒有看到為實際佔領或接管委內瑞拉而準備的那種動員。

But I do want to ask you, how likely is it that we're witnessing, let's call it a Maduro Doctrine moment where Washington normalizes using military force plus the courts as tools of regime policy.

但我確實想問你，我們目睹了所謂的「馬杜羅主義」時刻的可能性有多大，也就是華盛頓將軍事力量加上法院正常化為政權政策的工具。

字幕列表影片播放

尼古拉斯·馬杜羅落馬後，委內瑞拉將走向何方？| DW 新聞 (What comes next after the capture of Nicolas Maduro? | DW News)

sort

immune

situation

term