你认为在特朗普和中国的两天会面之后中国会同意帮助处理朝鲜问题吗？ [美国媒体]

Do you think China agreed to help with North Korea after Trump’s 2 day summit with Xi?

你认为在特朗普和中国的两天会面之后中国会同意帮助处理朝鲜问题吗？




Louis Cohen, worked at Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream
Written Apr 8
China likes having a communist ally between them and the rich, successful South Korea. But they don’t want a nuclear war, either.

中国想要有一个共产主义盟友在他们和富有、成功的韩国之间。但他们也不想要核战争。

I syspect and hope that China has already suborned the DPRK military leadership. If Li’l Kim does anything really crazy, he’ll be killed in a military coup.

我怀疑并且希望中国已经教唆了朝鲜领导层，如果小金要干什么疯狂的事情，他会死于一场军事政变。

Jacky Mickey Lily, lives in China
Written Wed
Nope. Two guys will punch the pain in the ass together. Story about an ass threatening a gang usually end up with the ass being punched to dead. Business and world rulings require the two most powerful countries stick together so the boat does not sink too quickly.

不。这两个伙计会一起揍这个讨厌的家伙。一个蠢货威胁一个大团伙的故事，通常以蠢货被揍死而告终。商业和世界的规则要求这两个最强大的国家团结在一起，所以船不会下沉得太快。

America is getting weak while China need a ticket to get in the club. Well, let's see.

美国越来越弱而中国需要一张去俱乐部的票。好吧，等着看吧。

Cyrus Lacia, lived in China
Written Apr 8
Obviously yes.

显然是的。

Morally speaking, North Korea is China’s “socialist ally”, and is also a defense against capitalist South korea, led by America. And China aided North Korea a lot of materials as well, China won't give up unless it wanna waste all the previous efforts.

从道义上讲，朝鲜是中国的“社会主义同盟”，也是面对以美国为首的资本主义韩国的屏障。而且中国也援助了朝鲜很多物资，中国不会放弃，除非它想前功尽弃。

Based on the consideration of national security China will continue to support NK, and prop up Kim dynasty. As to Trump he doesn't seem to be very reliable, we can't guess what he's gonna do. At least till now what he did seems ridiculous.

基于国家安全的考虑，中国将继续支持朝鲜，扶植金家王朝。至于特朗普他似乎不太靠谱，我们猜不透他要干什么。至少直到现在他所做的似乎很荒唐。

If China associating with America cracks down on NK, it will lose faith and chill other socialist countries.

如果中国与美国一起打压朝鲜，它将失去信任，使其他社会主义国家寒心。

Wes Frank 
There are still other “socialist countries?” I thought even the Albanians gave up on Communism.

现在仍有社会主义国家吗？我想甚至阿尔巴尼亚人都放弃共产主义了。

Cyrus Lacia
Five. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.

五个。中国，朝鲜，越南，老挝和古巴。

Wes Frank
I haven’t seen any great political bonding between those nations over the last twenty years or so, nor do any of them still have totalitarian governments like North Korea’s.

在过去的二十年里我从未看到这些国家之间有任何大的政治联系，他们也不像朝鲜那样仍然有极权政府。

Flipping down the list, Vietnam fought a war with China more recently than it fought its war with the US, Cuba is figuring out how not not be Communist and still keep its socialist credentials, and I expect Laos is too impoverished to side with anyone.

抛开名单，越南和中国打过一仗，比和美国那一仗还要近。古巴正研究如何不成为共产主义而仍然保持它的社会主义凭证，并且我想老挝太贫穷而不能选边站。

China probably would just as soon be rid of North Korea as a dependency, but they cannot afford to look like they are not standing up to the US over any issue so close to their borders. Sensible American diplomats understand this and don’t raise a fuss when North Korea makes threats.

中国可能会尽快摆脱朝鲜作为它的附庸，但他们似乎不会在如此靠近他们国境线的问题上不站出来。明智的美国外交官了解这一点，并且在朝鲜发出威胁时没有大惊小怪。

Trump, because he is ignorant of diplomacy, wants to work with China to disarm North Korea, but wants to posture and show off for the home audience, as well. And, like most of the leadership in China and the United States and most of the media elite, as well, he keeps ignoring the South Koreans. They have the most to lose if a blow-up occurs, and it is simply indecent to keep blustering without mentioning them.

特朗普，因为他对外交的无知，想要和中国合作来解除朝鲜的武装，但他也想摆出姿态，向国内民众展示自己的形象。而且，就像大多数的中国和美国领导人以及大多数媒体精英一样，他一直无视韩国人。如果局势爆炸，他们的损失将会是最大的，继续咆哮而不提起他们是不得体的。

Cyrus Lacia
Yes. As communist camp, they don't seem to have any ideological relationship but common ones. Although there are only 5 impure communist countries, China, as the most successful one, has consciously acted as “Older Brother” and it needs to maintain this camp surrounded by capitalist countries. South Korea is a bridgehead of American force, threatening China in military, China doesn't want to directly border with such a country so it needs a buffer and that's why North Korea exists.

是的。作为共产主义阵营，他们似乎没有任何意识形态上的关系而只是普通关系。虽然只有5个不纯正的共产国家，中国，作为最成功的一个，自觉地担负起“老大哥”的角色，他需要维持这个被资本主义国家包围的阵营。韩国是美国力量的桥头堡，在军事上威胁着中国，中国不想直接和这样一个国家接壤所以它需要一个缓冲区，这就是朝鲜存在的原因。

If China couldn't support NK and NK collapsed at last, China wouldn't just lose its place in this camp because of incompetence but get itself endangered. Despite hating this neighbor China has to support it.

如果中国不能支持朝鲜并且朝鲜最后崩溃了，中国不仅会因为无能而失去他在阵营里的地位，还会使自己置身危险。尽管讨厌这个邻居，中国也不得不支持它。

Wes Frank
I hear this fairly often, and I have to point out that South Korea is NOT a bridgehead of American force. The United States 8th Army headquarters is there solely to act as a tripwire against attacks on South Korea by North Korea. At the time of the attack on South Korea in 1950, the American army had left Korea entirely and had to be rushed back to South Korea to help it defend itself. South Korea is perfectly capable of defending itself against anyone else these days. Once the threat from North Korea ends, the American military presence in South Korea will end, as well. The South Koreans and Americans would hold a ceremony, thank each other, and the Americans would take a plane to Washington state, where the support units for the 8th Army are stationed at Fort Lewis.

我经常听到这些。我必须指出韩国不是美国的桥头堡。美国的第八军指挥部仅仅是为了防止朝鲜进攻韩国。在1950年的进攻之前，美军已经离开了朝鲜后又不得不返回韩国去帮助保护它自己。如今韩国完全有能力保护自己不受任何人攻击。一旦来自朝鲜的威胁结束，美国在韩国的军事存在也将结束。韩国人和美国人将举行一个仪式，感谢彼此，而且美国人会搭乘飞机返回华盛顿州，第八军的支援单位驻扎在路易斯堡。

I checked a few months ago, and there are no longer any American infantry or armored units assigned to the skeleton of the 8th Army stationed north of Seoul. I believe that there are still some artillery and helicopter battalions there, but they are attached to South Korean units and will go into combat under South Korean command if some conflict should occur.

我几个月前检查过，已经没有任何美国的步兵或装甲部队被分配驻扎在首尔北部的第八军遗址了。我相信。那里仍然有一些火炮和直升机营，但他们与韩国军队联系，一旦发生冲突，将受韩国指挥。

Not much of a threat to anyone, and certainly not a threat to China.

对任何人都没有什么威胁，当然也不会对中国有威胁。

Cyrus Lacia
Wishful thinking. Everyone knows South Korea is a part of first island chain of the United States against China. Since you said South Korean is quite capable of protecting itself, then it makes no sense for the United States to station in South Korea. The fact is a considerable amount of US troops are still there and they even set out to deploy THAAD, as known it can cover the whole of northeast Asia and monitor missiles of China and Russia, as to North Korea, rocket guns are enough for them to have an attack on South Korea, and such weapon cannot be intercepted in time by THAAD. So it is obvious what American’s real mind is.

一厢情愿的想法。每个人都知道韩国是美国针对中国的第一岛链的一部分。既然你说韩国有能力保护自己，那么美军驻扎在韩国就失去了意义。事实上相当数量的美军仍然在那里，并且他们甚至要部署萨德，众所周知它可以覆盖整个东北亚。监视中国和俄罗斯的导弹。至于朝鲜，火箭炮足够一场对韩国的进攻了，而且这种武器不能被萨德及时拦截。所以美国的真实想法是什么很明显。

Wes Frank
Okay, what is a “first island chain of the United States against China?”

好吧，“美国针对中国的第一岛链”是什么？

The United States has not deployed THAAD in South Korea. The South Koreans are deploying THAAD in South Korea. If it weren’t capable of defending South Korea from North Korean missiles, I doubt that they would spend money on it.

美国没有在韩国部署萨德，是韩国在韩国部署萨德。如果萨德对保护韩国免受朝鲜导弹袭击没有用，我怀疑他们是否会花钱在这上面。

The roster of the US 8th Army is on the Internet . . . Organization . . . Its combat units consist of one air defense brigade, one armored brigade, one artillery brigade, and one combat aviation brigade. All of these are attached to a Korean division, as there are enough troops there to form a full-sized division on their own. That is enough troops to assist South Korea in the event of a North Korean attack, but hardly enough to present a military threat to anyone in Asia.

美国第八军的名单在网上。它的作战单位包括一个防空旅，一个装甲旅，一个炮兵旅和一个战斗航空旅。所有这些都在韩国的师级单位名下，因为那里有足够的军队来组成他们自己的完整的师级单位。这些部队足够在朝鲜的进攻中协助韩国，但不足以对亚洲的任何国家构成威胁。

As I noted, the primary purpose of the 8th Army HQ in Korea is to serve as a tripwire against any North Korean attack and to incorporate reinforcements from the United States quickly if North Korea starts a war. Given that ten million or so South Koreans live within range of North Korean artillery, that seems like an excellent way to save lives in the event of a war starting.

我说过，在朝鲜半岛的第八军司令部是为了防止朝鲜的进攻，并且如果朝鲜开启战端，能尽快整合来自美国的援军。考虑到有1000万韩国人生活在朝鲜大炮的射程之内，在战争开始的时候，这似乎是一种很好的拯救生命的方式。

The nearest reinforcements for the 8th Army, I should note, are the Marine brigade currently stationed in Australia and elements of the 25th Infantry Division in Alaska and Hawaii, some 6,000 miles away.

最近的第八军增派部队，我应该指出，是目前驻扎在澳大利亚的海军陆战旅和6000英里之外的阿拉斯加与夏威夷的第25步兵师的基本单位。

If it is so obvious what America’s real mind is, can you explain it to me? As I noted, the basic structure of American foreign policy is not a state secret. It is openly debated on various academic forums. The primary concerns of American diplomats with regard to China are how to get better deals with Chinese companies and how to avoid that nonsense in the Spratlys from causing more trouble. If someone were plotting military strategies threatening any foreign country, it would be being debated somewhere.

如果美国的真实意图显而易见，你能向我解释一下吗？正如我指出的，美国的外交政策不是国家机密，它在各种学术论坛上被公开讨论。美国对中国外交的核心利益在于如何更好地同中国企业贸易，以及如何避免在南沙群岛无意义的争端而造成更多麻烦。如果有人要策划威胁任何其他国家的军事战略，它会在某地被讨论。

Cyrus Lacia
Gosh You believe everything America declares. Is America a philanthropist? Hahaha, Does South Korea dare to deploy THAAD regardless of China’s opposition without the pressure from America?
You can google things about the first island chain.

哦天，美国说什么你就信什么。美国是个慈善家吗？哈哈哈，如果没有来自美国压力，韩国敢无视中国的反对而部署萨德吗？
你可以搜一下什么是第一岛链。

Wes Frank
I notice that you seem certain that the United States is planning some dastardly strategy against China, but you never explain exactly what that strategy is and what its objective might be. Can you provide some details?

我注意到你似乎确信美国正计划一些针对中国的卑鄙的战略，但你从未明确地解释这个战略是什么以及它的目标是什么。你能提供一些细节吗？

Cyrus Lacia
Not planning but doing. America’s purpose is to surround China and contain China. Truth is, however, since America wants to keep its domination over the world, it attempts to contain any potential threat to it, which was Russia and Japan, and now is China.

不是计划而是正在做。美国的目的是围堵中国和遏制中国。真相是，因为美国想要维持它对世界的统治地位，企图遏制任何对它潜在的威胁，从前是俄国和日本，现在是中国。

Here are some measures America takes against China:
1.Building an anti-missile system in Asia-Pacific, to weaken China's strategic nuclear force.
2.American military excercises are frequently conducted at China’s gate to flex its muscle.
3.The surge in Asia-Pacific for control of the sea.
4.On issues such as the south China sea issue concerning China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, America is actively seeking some countries to serve as a fulcrum for containing China, encourages and incites confrontation against China in these countries, attempts to use its asia-pacific allies, as well as conflicts on the islands, ocean rights between China and its neighbours to make trouble, implement containing strategy for China, and to poison surrounding environment of China,making the situation of south China sea more complicated.

以下是美国针对中国采取的一些措施：
1.在亚太构筑反导系统，削弱中国的战略核力量。
2.美军频繁地在中国家门口军演秀肌肉。
3.向亚太增兵掌握制海权。
4.在一些诸如南海争端等涉及中国主权和领土完整的争端上，美国积极寻找一些国家作为其遏制中国的的支点，鼓动煽动这些国家对中国的仇恨，企图利用它的亚太盟友，以及中国和它的邻居的岛屿，海洋权益的争端来制造麻烦，对中国实施遏制战略，毒化中国的周边环境，使得南海的局势更加复杂。

Wes Frank
What does “surrounding China” mean? How would this be done, and why would the United States want to do it?

“围堵中国”是什么意思。这怎么可能？美国为什么想那样做？

Why would the United States need to “contain” China? Does China have plains for expansion that would need to be contained?

为什么美国需要“遏制中国”？中国有计划扩张所以需要被遏制吗？

I note that both the United States and China a signatories to the United Nations treaty, which states specifically:

我注意到美国和中国都是联合国条约的签署国，具体地说：

“The Purposes of the United Nations are . . . to maintain international peace and security . . . to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace . . .”

“联合国的目的是……维护国际和平和安全……采取有效集体的措施阻止和除去和平的威胁，制止侵略和其他违背和平的行为。”

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

“基于人民的平等权利和民族自决的原则发展国际友好关系，并采取其他适当措施巩固世界和平。”

“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

“本组织基于所有成员国主权平等的原则。”

“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

“所有成员将以国际和平安全与正义的方式解决国际争端，而不是危险的（方式）”

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”

“所有成员应避免在他们的国际关系中受到威胁或使用武力破坏任何国家的领土完整和政治独立”

The United States has committed no acts of aggression against the Peoples Republic of China since the ceasefire in Korea was settled in 1954. Nor has China committed any acts of aggression against the United States. This all in spite of severe ideological differences between the two nations. The United States has committed no aggressive acts against South Korea, North Korea, Japan, or Russia in all that time. North Korea has committed acts of aggression against South Korean, the United States, and Japan, but the United States has never, in spite of provocations, ever responded with violence to those acts.

自1954年朝鲜停战以来，美国一直没有对中国采取任何侵略行为，中国也没有对美国有侵略行为。尽管两国之间存在着严重的意识形态差异，但一切都是如此。美国一直没有对韩国，朝鲜日本或者俄国采取侵略行为，但朝鲜对韩国，美国和日本采取了侵略行为，而美国从未做出过暴力回应，尽管有挑衅行为。

It strikes me that both of our nations have done a fair job of keeping the peace in Northeast Asia over the last sixty years. Why would either government wish to do anything to interrupt that long span of peace?

我认为在过去的六十年里两国政府在维护东北亚和平方面都做的很好，为什么两国政府都不愿打破这一长时间的和平呢？

Cyrus Lacia
To be honest, I feel like you're being funny. Why do you so believe in the words on paper rather than see what America really does.
Have you heard the word cold war, which means all of hostilities except war? America may not get that point against China yet, but it has taken various similar measures sidestep the treaty you mentioned.
China and the United States have cooperation as well as competition, you cannot heed only some idealistic words on paper but treat things dialectically.

说实话，我觉得你这个同志说话很搞笑。为什么你这么相信纸上的空谈而不是看看美国真正做了什么。
你听过冷战这个词吗？它的意思是除了战争以外的一切敌对行为。美国对中国也许还没到那个地步，但它已经采取了各种类似的措施，绕开了你提到的条约。
中国和美国有合作也有竞争，你不能只看纸面上那些理想主义的话语，而要辩证地看待事物。

Wes Frank
You have made several references to American actions that you describe as being hostile or aggressive towards China. Yet, none of them are particularly different from the routine actions the United States has taken in its role of guaranteeing peaceful trade and interaction in the Western Pacific for the last 60 years.

你多次提到美国的行为，你形容为对中国有敌意或侵犯。然而，没有一件与美国在过去六十年里，为保证西太平洋的和平贸易与互动扮演的角色而采取的常规行动有什么不同。

If you think the United States is “surrounding” China, could you at least explain what “surrounding” means? If you think the United States is trying to “contain” China, I would expect you to be able to explain what that is.

如果你认为美国在“围堵”中国，至少你能解释一下“围堵”是什么意思吗？如果你认为美国试图“遏制”中国，我希望你能解释一下那是什么。

Both of those words sound like references to the world that existed before 1945, when all the major powers were in competition with each other and constantly plotting alliances in the expectation of future wars. If you think that is what the relationship of China and the United States is like, I would hope that you can provide more evidence of it then the assumption of a hostile intent to mundane actions.

这两个词听起来都像涉及1945年以前的世界，当时所有的大国都在彼此竞争，不断地为未来的战争密谋结盟。如果你认为中美关系是这样的，我希望你能提供更多证据然后再对一个平常的举动假设一个敌对的意图。

Again, my frame of reference is that the traditional discourse on American foreign policy that goes on in the American press and in American academic circles. You get Jingo or paranoid politicians who speak of China as a threat to the United States, but neither they nor any professional diplomats, scholars, and military officers advocate any policies that would threaten China’s territory or people. There is no faction of that sort in the United States. There are people who use the word “contain” as you do, but that is not term of aggression; it is a defensive term, used because they worry that Chinese nationalists might be seeking to dominate or control the smaller nations in the region. That would, of course, violate the United Nations charter, and neither the United States nor China has any business bullying small nations.

再说一次，我的参考框架是对在美国媒体和学术圈讨论的美国外交政策的传统论述。你听到沙文主义者或偏执的政客说中国是对美国的威胁，但无论是他们还是职业外交官，学者，以及军官都不会提倡威胁中国领土和人民的政策。在美国没有这样的派系。有人像你一样使用“遏制”这个词，但那不是侵略性的术语而是防御性的，因为他们担心中国的民族主义者寻求主宰控制该地区的小国家才使用它。当然，这会违反联合国宪章，而且美国和中国都没有任何商业欺凌弱小国家。

Cyrus Lacia
You ask me to explain“surrounding”and“contain”again and again, but I want to say nothing to add but their literal meanings. Would any other countries defend itself at the gate of others like America?If what America does is legitimate then what if China deployed troops or missiles in Cuba? Why is China's military development deemed to be a threat to regional peace while America’s powerful armed force not. Similar cases are numerous. You should take down the mask of hypocrisy.
At bottom, it is because the west controls discourse power, maybe you are one of those deceived by false words.

你一次又一次要我解释“围堵”和“遏制”，但我想说除了字面意思没有别的意义。其他国家是否会像美国这样在别人家门口保卫自己呢？如果美国的所为是正当的，那么如果中国在古巴部署军队或导弹会怎么样呢？为什么中国发展军力被视为地区和平的威胁而美国的强大军事力量就不是。类似的案例比比皆是。你应该摘下伪善的面具。
说到底，是因为西方掌握了话语权，也许你就是被虚假话语欺骗的人之一。

Henry Ho
Written Apr 8
That is not gonna happen. Our government seldom interferes other countries and sends military forces overseas. Also, North Korea is unpredictable, we won't take a chance.
这是不会发生的。我们的政府很少干涉别国，并派遣军队去海外。而且，朝鲜是捉摸不透的，我们不会冒险。

Jimmy Wang, works at Casino Arizona
Written Apr 8
China have always helped North Korea with this in mind: they do not want much powerful South Korea border to reach Yalu River as a huge competitor for geopolitical reasons and control. Chinese aren’t stupid but had to walk a thin line to keep all party happy. Best turnout would be status quo by letting that boy in check.

中国一直在以这样的想法帮助朝鲜：他们不希望强大的韩国接壤鸭绿江，成为地缘政治和控制的强大竞争对手、中国人不傻但不得不一条道走到黑让所有人都高兴。最好的结果就是现状，让那个男孩在控制之下。

Ted McNabb, Security/Technology/History consultant
Written Wed
Only if the price is right.

只有价钱合适才行。

For the PRC government to “win” in this situation, all it has to do is “do nothing” because then it shows the world (at least that part of it that it has any interest in) that it “will not be pushed around by the United States”.

对中国政府来说，在这种情况下“赢”，所要做的就是“无为”因为它要向世界表明（至少是它感兴趣的那部分）它“不会受美国摆布”。

Mr. Trump has already paid part of the price that the PRC wanted for “cooperation” and we will just have to wait until we see what the rest of the price is.

特朗普先生已经支付了中国希望“合作”的部分订金，我们只要等着瞧剩下的价钱是什么。