英国经济学人南海问题:中国的两面手法

fatie81 收藏 0 232

转自:龙腾网 翻译:福禄寿禧



译文简介:来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章,澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。


正文翻译:Banyan


菩提树下


Asia


亚洲


The SouthChina SeaHaving it both ways


南海问题:中国的两面手法


Mar 9th 2012,2:20 by Banyan


2012年3月9日 菩提树下


ANINTERESTING and helpful piece by Robert Beckman, a professor of internationallaw at the National University of Singapore, clarifies some of the issuesbehind what has become, for now, the hottest ofthe myriad disputes in the South ChinaSea.

This onepits the Philippines against China. The Philippines has announced that it isgoing to open new maritime blocks off its island of Palawan for oil-and-gasexploration. It claims the area as part of the “exclusive economic zone” (EEZ)attached to the main Philippine archipelago. China has objected, since itclaims the area in question.

It isoften assumed that this is based on China’s mysterious “nine-dashed line” claim, a pieceof historic cartography which China sometimes insists gives it indisputablesovereignty over most of the sea, but whose legal basis seems at bestflimsy.


来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章,澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。


这次是菲律宾和中国的矛盾。菲律宾此前宣布将在巴拉望岛外的海洋区块进行油气开发。菲律宾宣称这些区域是菲律宾群岛专属经济区的一部分。中国对此表示反对,它认为这些区域仍有主权争议。


通常人们认为这是因为中国基于历史海图“九段线”,坚持主张对大部分海域拥有无可争议的主权,但其法理依据似乎很薄弱。




However,Mr Beckman points out that China also has an unresolvedterritorial claim to the Spratly archipelago (also claimed in its entirety by Taiwan and Vietnam). The Spratlysare mainly tiny rocks and islets, which under the United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be entitled just to “territorial waters”, of12 nautical miles (22km). However, some might be considered habitable, andhence count as “islands”, which would have a full 200-mile EEZ, overlappingwith the Philippines' archipelagic EEZ.

And so, onthis analysis, China does have a legitimate basis for its claim; the area is“in dispute”, and the Philippines would be in the wrong to pursue hydrocarbonexploration unilaterally.

One thingabout this seems odd though. If China follows UNCLOS in this area of the sea,can it ignore it in areas where it has no such claim, just its nine-dashedassertive line? The answer, I suppose, is yes; China can always have it bothways.


贝克曼教授同时指出:中国在南沙群岛(台湾和越南都声索南沙全部主权)也有领土主权争端。南沙群岛基本上都是很小的礁石和岛屿,在联合国海洋法公约中这种岛礁仅被赋予周围12海里(22公里)的“领海”。但是某些可能被认定为可居住的,因此会被算做“岛”,这些岛屿拥有200海里的专属经济区,而这将会与菲律宾本岛的专属经济区范围重叠。


当然从这个角度来说,中国的主张确实有法理依据,这些区域有主权“争议”,而菲律宾单方面采取行动开采油气资源可能确实是不对的。


有个问题看起来很奇怪。如果中国在这个海域遵循联合国海洋法公约,那么它在其他没有这么多主权主张的海域可以不遵循该公约而是按照它的九段线来划分?答案我想是可以的,中国经常玩两面手法。


评论翻译:以下为评论部分翻译

---------------------------

MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48

Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.

All major powers basically tryand do that.


他们当然可以,而且他们肯定想这么做。

基本上所有大国都想这么做。


-------------------------

sprinter3321March 9th, 06:52

I am a resident of Singapore,and my (Singaporean) neighbor told me yesterday that the US military presencein Singapore is a touchy subject. While it did not matter when the US was theglobal hegemon, now that China is competing for dominance in SEAsia, the USpresence in Singapore is putting the country at risk. Presumably, US forces arein Singapore in order to cut China's oil supply (89% of which passes throughthe Malaka Straits) in the event of conflict anywhere in the region (Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Spratleys, Philippines etc). China must be well aware of thisthreat to their energy lifeline.


我居住在新加坡,我的邻居(新加坡人)去年告诉我说美军在新加坡的存在是一个棘手的问题。当美国还是全球霸主的时候这不要紧,现在中国正在争夺亚洲海域的领导权,美军在新加坡的存在将这个国家置于险地。美军在新加坡的存在可能是为了在区域内(台湾、韩国、日本、南海、菲律宾等)发生冲突时切断中国的石油供应(89%通过马六甲海峡)。中国对这个能源供给的威胁肯定非常清楚。


Ah Beng in reply to sprinter3321March 9th, 15:27

.... HAHAHA what?

I am a (former) resident ofSingapore, also. What exists in Singapore is a regional JAG - a military court- and a refueling and logistics center, not a permanent military base. In fact,since the entirety of the facility at Sembawang is actually a Singaporemilitary base, partially leased by the US, Singapore could kick out the US aseasily as Uzbekistan has done, simply by refusing to renew the lease.

While the US presence may havegeopolitical implications, your speculation on the motives of the United Statesare asinine. Tell me, how does a rented refueling station interdict oil?


笑,什么?


我(之前)也住在新加坡。美军在新加坡的军事存在只不过是一个区域性的军事法庭、油料和后勤补给中心,不是永久军事基地。事实上,森巴旺已经是新加坡的军事基地,只是部分租借给美军使用,新加坡只需要拒绝续租就可以像乌兹别克斯坦那样轻易地把美军赶走。


美国的军事存在可能有地缘政治的考虑,但你关于美国可能所采取的行动的推测是愚蠢的。告诉我,一个租用的油料供应中心如何去切断石油供给线?


okydoky in reply to Ah BengMarch 9th, 22:01

Singapore is much more thanjust a refuelling depot for US forces. The US announced recently that two'littoral assault' ships will be based permanently at Singapore. There are onlytwo bases in SEASia which have the facilities to dock and servicenuclear-powered US aircraft carriers: Japan and Singapore. The only possiblereason for this concentration of US forces in Singapore is to interdict tradethrough the Malacca Straits. All of this is available on globalsecurity.org


新加坡的意义远不止于美军的油料供应点。美国最近宣布将把两艘滨海战斗舰永久部署在新加坡。在整个亚洲海域仅有两个地点可供美军核动力航母停泊和维修:日本和新加坡。美国军事力量对新加坡的关注的唯一原因就是为了切断经马六甲海峡的贸易往来。这些都可以在globalsecurity.org网站上查到。


Fish Eagle in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 01:36

It is reasonable to assume weAmericans are in Singapore for the same reason the British were in Singapore ahundred years ago: to participate in (and control) east-west trade. The factthe trade now includes China's oil is an added benefit, given our new focus onsecurity in the South China Sea.


怀疑我们美国在新加坡的存在和一百年前英国在新加坡的存在是因为同样的理由是有一定道理的:参与(控制)东西方贸易。事实上我们正关注南海的安全形势,(能控制)包括中国石油资源在内的贸易则是额外的好处。


tocharian in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 07:46

No worries here. Singaporewill very soon become a "vassal state" of "Greater China".It's part of the string of pearls strategy! Duh


不要担心。新加坡很快就会成为“大中国”的一个“附属国”。它是珍珠链战略上的一环。


PL123 in reply to tocharianMarch 10th, 12:14

Now Singapore is moreintergrated to Greater China's economy, they don't want to sink with a dyingempire.


如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈,他们不想为一个垂死的帝国(译注:指美国)陪葬。


viethong in reply to PL123March 11th, 00:50

I may show why peopl nowtalking US in sing: paper straits time had artical week before by ISEAS personRichardson, say 85 percen china oil come thru sing strait (not 89 like sayhere). Same day paper artical say 2 new americ ship come to sing, an americ wantnow look chine sea. sing peopl connecvt article togeter


我来说说为什么现在人们讨论美国在新加坡的军事存在:《海峡时报》周刊之前刊登了南亚研究所理查森的文章,谈到中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡(而不是文中的89%)。某一天周刊又说2艘美国新型军舰将部署到新加坡,美国对南海的新关注。新加坡人把这两篇文章放在一起来理解了。


Ex Patriot in reply to tocharianMarch 11th, 04:13

Singapore's been a vassalstate of China's for a very long time.


新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。


Dogsi in reply to sprinter3321March 16th, 04:45

Prior US sailor here. Theprimary reason why America is in the Malaka Straights is to secure trade, notto prevent it. There are hundreds of acts of piracy every year in that region.US destroyers, frigates, etc. are constantly in the region trying to keep theshipping lanes open and safe.

As for why America constantlyuses Singapore as a base of operations, that is because it has fairly advancedfacilities, is fairly politically neutral, and it is well located in theregion. Whether we are heading West towards the Indian ocean or the PersianGulf, South, towards Australia, or returning from these areas and heading Northtowards Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan, Singapore is an easily accessed port.

Stop the fear mongering.America is not attempting to cut off China's oil supplies. There will be no warbetween America and China. China and America both know that it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side of its own borders.


美国海军早就出现在那里了。美国在马六甲海峡的军事存在主要是为了贸易安全,而不是相反。每年在这区域有数百起海盗行为。美国驱逐舰、护卫舰经常在区域内巡逻以维护海运航道的开放和安全。


至于说为什么美军将新加坡作为一个行动基地,那是因为新加坡拥有完善的设施。政治上是完全中立的,而且美军的行动只限定在该区域内。无论我们是向西进入印度洋或波斯湾;或是往南进入澳大利亚;还是离开上述区域往北前往香港、韩国和日本,新加坡都是一个非常便捷的港口。


停止不必要的恐惧。美国并没有试图切断中国的石油供给。美中之间不会开战。中国和美国都知道还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。


new paradigm426 in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 06:06

"it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side of its ownborders"

So what happened in Vietnam?The US lost against (the Northern half) of a developing country. The mostpowerful country on earth beaten by (half) of one of the weakest.

Few doubt the US would win anaval engagement, but a land war is a different story. This is the mistake theBritish made: they assumed the Japs would come by sea, but they came down theMalay Peninsula instead. On bicycles. The Chinese will do the same, and theresult will be the same. The US is no match for China in a land war, the USelectorate will not tolerate hundreds of thousand of casualties in defence ofplace Americans can't even find on a map.

Singapore would be safer ifthe US were to pull out of Singapore altogether. Then Singapore can make it'sown agreements with China, based on the new reality. This way, armed conflictcan be prevented.


“还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。”


在越南发生了什么?美国输给了一个发展中国家(北越)。

世界上最强大的国家被(半个,译注:指北越,所以是半个国家)世界上最弱小的国家之一给击败了。


很少人怀疑美国会在海战中取胜,但是地面战争则不同。这是英国所犯的错误:他们认为日本会从海上发动进攻,但是日本从马来半岛侵入——靠自行车。中国也会这么做,而且结果也会一样。美国在地面战争中不是中国的对手,美国人民无法承受数十万的伤亡,而交战的地点美国人甚至都无法在地图上找到。


如果美国全面从新加坡撤出,新加坡将会更加安全。那样新加坡可以和中国在新的环境下签订条约。只有这样武装冲突才能避免。


Dogsi in reply to new paradigm426March 16th, 08:46

Your analogy is fallacious.Singapore is not part of China but is far from China's borders. Do you believethe Chinese are more willing to sacrifice lives in a war of aggression thanAmericans would be in a war to defend an ally? Do you believe that China's neighborswould sit ideally by while China rolled over other countries to invadeSingapore? Do you believe China has the logistics to wage war over a thousandmiles from its borders with American naval dominance?

China is not a threat toSingapore. Even if it was, it would not be a threat to Singapore with Americabacking it.

Now as your other assertion.America would trounce China in a land war. It is true that China's populationis larger than America's. However, the gap is not as drastic as it would be ifyou compared China to the UK, Germany, etc. America is about 1/4 the populationof China. However, it has far more resources, military technology, politicalallies, etc.

In the Vietnam war, Americatrounced the Vietnamese military. Approximately 3,000,000 Vietnamese diedduring that war. Approximately 60,000 Americans died in that war. For every 1American that died, Vietnam lost 50.

In the first gulf war againstIraq, America fought a military that was technologically more advanced and farmore experienced than China. America killed the Iraqi's at about an 90 to 1ratio.

There is a key difference withall of these wars in that America was fighting a war outside of our borders. Wewere fighting people defending their homeland from a hostile invader. People fightingto defend their home are far more fanatical than people fighting to promote theselfish desires of their own government.

Yes, an American invasion ofmainland China would be disastrous. I have no doubt that the US military couldroll over the Chinese military and seize control of any place in China.However, it would be a bloody and never ending affair. It would cost Americahundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and would end inAmerica eventually cutting our losses and bailing.

Finally, no, Singapore issafer with America. America is by far the strongest military power in theworld. America has showed no indications that it wishes to annex anything.America poses absolutely no risk to Singapore. China on the other hand hasshown increased belligerence with its neighbors. It has been increasinglyconfrontational with Vietnam, Japan, RP, etc.

China has not had a"peaceful rise" out of their benign nature but because they lack thepower to engage and win a conflict against American will. They know that anywar it fights would give the US government the justification that they wouldlove to have to military humiliate China. This is why China rattles its sabersat Taiwan, 1 or 2 US battle groups show up, and China backs down.

The Chinese and Americangovernments both know this. You acting like this is not the case is effectivelystating you are more knowledgeable on the topic than both the US and theChinese governments.


你的类比很荒谬。新加坡不是中国的一部分,它和中国距离遥远。你认为中国会愿意在一场侵略战争中比美国保卫盟友的战争中承受更多人员伤亡?你认为中国的后勤足以支撑一场千里之外和拥有制海权的美国的战争?


中国不是新加坡的威胁。即便是,它对美国援助下的新加坡也构不成威胁。


关于你的另一个论断。美国人将在地面战争中狠狠教训中国。中国的人口比美国多是事实。但是,如果将中国和英国、德国等相比你就会发现中美之间的差距不是那么大。美国的人口是中国的1/4,但是美国有更多的资源、更先进的军事技术和更多的政治盟友等。


在越战中,美国痛揍越南军队。将近300万越南人在战争中丧生,而与此相比只有约6万美国人丧生。每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人。


在对伊拉克的第一次海湾战争中,美国的对手比中国的科技水平更高且有更多实战经验的。美国/伊拉克阵亡比例大约是1:90。


这些战争中的一个很大区别是,美国是在国土外作战。我们是在和一个抵御侵略祖国的人作战。为祖国而战的人们比为政府的贪欲作战的有着更高的热情。


是的,如果美国入侵中国大陆这将会是个灾难。我并不怀疑美国军队可以碾碎中国军队并全面占领中国,但这将是一个血腥且永不止境的战争。这将让美国付出数十万的伤亡和数万亿的美元,而且战争会以美国最终不得不削减开支而告终。


总之,新加坡和美国在一起更安全。美国的军事力量目前仍是世界上最强。美国也从未有任何迹象想要吞并什么。美国不会对新加坡造成任何威胁。中国则相反,它对邻国的好战欲望正在增长。它和越南、日本、菲律宾等的对抗越来越强。


中国的善良本质并未带来“和平崛起”,因为他们缺乏同美国作战的力量。他们知道任何战争都会给美国政府理由来乐意地羞辱他们。这就是为什么中国对台湾耀武扬威时,只要一两个美国舰队一出现他们就退缩的原因。


中国政府和美国政府对此都心知肚明。你在这事情的表演并不能表示你在这问题上比美国和中国政府更聪明。



0
回复主贴
聚焦 国际 历史 社会 军事 精选
0条评论
点击加载更多

发表评论

更多精彩内容

热门话题

更多

经典聚焦

更多
发帖 向上 向下