南海争议是如何形成的？ [美国媒体]

The history behind China’s maritime ‘aggression’

南海争议是如何形成的？



By KEN MOAK 
There are two or more sides to every story, and the territorial disputes between China and Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei in the South China Seas and Japan in the East China Sea are no exception. Which side is “aggressive” depends on one’s perspective.

每个故事都有两面或两面以上的看法，中国与菲律宾、越南、马来西亚和文莱在南海的领土争端以及与日本在东海的领土争端也不例外，认为哪一方具有“ 侵略性”取决于一个人的立场。

The South China Sea
China has long claimed that it has owned the territory within the “Nine Dash Line” since ancient times. Chinese fishermen and mariners are said to have sailed to the regions within the two seas to fish and in search of trade opportunities for centuries, long before Europeans colonized southeastern China. Historical relics found on the islands in the South China Sea confirm the story.
At the end of World War II, the pro-US Nationalist government of China publicly claimed the territories within the “11 Dash Line,” drawn in 1947 based on a “Map of Islands in the South China Sea” published in 1935. The 1935 map was said to have been based on historical records produced in earlier Chinese dynasties.

南中国海
中国声称自古以来就拥有“九段线”范围内的领土，据说，早在欧洲人殖民中国东南部之前，中国渔民和海员就已航行到两洋内的地区捕鱼和寻找贸易机会，在南海诸岛上发现的历史遗物证实了这一说法。
第二次世界大战结束时，亲美的中国国民政府根据1935年出版的“ 南海诸岛地图”，公开宣称拥有“11段线”范围内的领土，据说1935年的地图是建立在中国早期历史记录的基础上的。

The Communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Once they were in power, premier Zhou Enlai deleted two of the 11 dashes within the Gulf of Tonkin, creating the “Nine Dash Line,” but did not give any reasons for the deletion.

中国总理周恩来删除了包含“北部湾”在内的11段线中的两条，创建了“九段线”，但没有给出删除的理由。

The governments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have never waived these territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Republic of China retreated to Taiwan (after the Nationalists’ defeat in 1949), but established a small military garrison on one of the islands to show its claim. It also sent warships to patrol the territories.

台湾海峡两岸的政府从未放弃在南中国海的领土主张，中华民国( 1949年国民党失败后 ) 撤退到台湾，但在其中一个岛屿上建立了一个小规模的军事要塞，以示其主权主张，它还派出军舰巡逻领土。

Between the 16th and 20th centuries, European imperialists colonized much of Southeast Asia. After winning independence, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam inherited the boundaries drawn by their former colonial masters. Some of the waters and islets with the Nine Dash Line are within these nations’ 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones.

16世纪至20世纪期间，欧洲帝国主义者在东南亚大部分地区实行殖民统治，在赢得独立后，菲律宾、马来西亚、文莱和越南继承了其前殖民主人划定的边界，一些拥有九段线内的水域和小岛位于这些国家200海里专属经济区内。

However, with the exception of the Philippines, which made a claim on some waters and islets in the 1950s, the South China Sea remained relatively calm, apart from some minor conflicts, such as over fishing in overlapping waters.

但是，除了五十年代声称对一些水域和小岛拥有主权的菲律宾之外，南海相对平静，除了一些小冲突，例如在重叠水域捕鱼。

The situation changed when Washington decided that the South China Sea was a US national-security interest, proclaiming the ‘pivot to Asia’ policy that would be enforced by 60% of its military forces. That decision alarmed Beijing, prompting it to become more assertive, building islands and installing military assets within the Nine Dash Line.

当华盛顿认定南中国海是美国的国家安全利益所在，并宣布将投射60%的美国军事力量以执行美国的“ 重返亚洲”时，情况发生了变化，这一决定震惊了北京，促使其变得更加激进，并在九段线内修建岛屿和部署军事设施。

In response, the US and its allies mounted “freedom of navigation and overflight operations” (FNOP), even though the issue had never existed before then. Ships of all sizes and designations (commercial and military) sailed freely in the waters. It could even be argued that Beijing prizes FNOP more than any country on Earth because most of the trade that transits through the South China Sea is China’s.

作为回应，美国及其盟国实施了“航行和飞行行动自由”( FNOP )，尽管这一问题在那之前从未存在过，各种大小和名义( 商业和军事 ) 的船只在水域自由航行，实际上可以说，中国比地球上任何一个国家都更重视“航行和飞行行动自由”( FNOP )，因为大部分通过南中海的贸易都是中国的。

A shooting war between Chinese and Vietnamese naval forces did occur on one of the islands, but that was not over a territorial dispute – it was part of a wider row between Hanoi and Beijing over Vietnam’s 1975 invasion of Cambodia, a Chinese ally. The Chinese forces captured a number of Vietnamese provinces but withdrew quickly to avoid a fight with the Soviet Union in March 1979. Vietnamese troops were not evicted. Both sides claimed victory. From then on, until 2012, the South China Sea was relatively stable.

中国和越南海军确实在其中一个岛屿上发生了交火，但这并不是领土争端，而是越南和北京之间围绕越南1975年入侵中国盟友柬埔寨的更广泛冲突的一部分，1979年3月，中国军队占领了越南的一些省份，但为了避免与苏联的战斗，他们迅速撤退，越南军队没有被驱逐，双方都宣称胜利，从那时起到2012年，南中国海相对稳定。

In 2013, the Philippines filed a complaint against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague. China refused to participate in the case and rejected the ruling.

2013年，菲律宾向海牙常设仲裁法院起诉中国，中国拒绝参与此案并驳回了裁决。

Current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte set aside the PCA ruling and reached out to China by forming cooperative stances such as investment ventures and trade. Vietnam, the other staunch claimant to disputed territory in the South China Sea, seems to have softened its position on the issue and followed in Duterte’s footsteps.

菲律宾现任总统罗德里戈·杜特尔特搁置了常设仲裁院的裁决，与中国建立了投资、合资和贸易等合作立场。
越南是南中国海争议领土的另一个坚定的诉求者，它在这个问题上的立场似乎有所软化，并追随了杜特尔特的脚步。

This year, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all claimant nations within the organization agreed to negotiate a code of conduct to address the issue and form joint development platforms.

今年，东南亚国家联盟（ASEAN） 和该组织内所有提出诉求的国家同意就一项行为守则谈判，以解决这一问题并形成共同的发展平台。

The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛

With regard to the Diaoyu Islands (or Senkaku Islands as Japan calls them) in the East China Sea, China first laid claim to them in the 14th century if not earlier. They are 120 nautical miles from the main island of Taiwan. Japan annexed Taiwan and the surrounding islands in 1895 but they were returned to China in 1945 under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration.

关于东海的钓鱼岛( 或日本所称的尖阁列岛 )，中国首先在14世纪( 如果不是更早的话 ) 就提出了主权主张，它们距台湾主岛120海里，1895年，日本吞并台湾及其周边岛屿，但根据1943年“开罗宣言”和1945年“波茨坦宣言”，这些岛屿于1945年归还中国。

The major powers – the US, Britain, China and Russia – and perhaps other Allied Powers drafted and signed the two declarations and restricted Japanese sovereignty to the main islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku. The two instruments also stipulated that the Allied Powers might grant Japan some minor islands, but did not specify which ones.

主要大国——美国、英国、中国和俄罗斯——或许还有其他盟国起草和签署了这两份声明，并将日本的主权限制在本州岛、北海道岛、九州岛和四国岛，这两项文书还规定，盟国可以给日本一些小岛屿，但没有具体说明是哪一个。

The Communists’ victory over the Nationalists changed the geopolitical calculus. The US reneged on its obligation and decided to maintain control over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands from 1952 under the Treaty of San Francisco. In 1972, the US included the islands in the Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Yet neither mainland China nor Taiwan participated in drafting or agreeing to these acts.

T·G对国民党的胜利改变了地缘政治的局势，美国违背了自己的义务，决定根据“旧金山条约”从1952年起对钓鱼岛/尖阁诸岛保持控制，1972年，美国将这些岛屿纳入了“冲绳复归条约”，然而，大陆和台湾都没有参与起草或同意这些行为。

What’s more, while China recognizes that the islands are in dispute, Japan denies this, perhaps emboldened by the guarantee of US protection. To make its stance more credible, the Japanese government paid the Japanese “owners” of the Senkakus, the Kurihara family, more than 2 million yen a year in rent and finally bought the islands for more than 2 billion yen ($17.6 million) in 2012. However, how the Kurihara family got to own the islands was never made explicit.

更重要的是，中国承认这些岛屿存在争议，而日本否认了这一点，这或许是因为美国的保护得到了保证，为了让自己的立场更可信，日本政府每年向尖阁诸岛的“所有者”栗原家族支付200多万日元的租金，并最终在2012年以20多亿日元(合1760万美元)的价格买下了这些岛屿，然而，栗原家族是如何拥有这些岛屿的，却从来没有明确过。

China insists it is only reclaiming its “inheritance” handed down from earlier governments. And given the fact that Taipei’s claims in both seas mirror those of Beijing, it seems clear that no future Chinese governments will act any different.

中国坚称，它只是在收回之前政府遗留下来的“遗产”，鉴于台北在两海的主权主张与北京的主张如出一辙，而且似乎很明显，未来的中国政府不会采取任何不同的行动。

The US and its allies label China as “aggressive” for “militarizing” the South China Sea. In 2007, Japan proposed the formation of a quadrilateral security agreement (“Quad”) comprising the US, Australia, India and itself, promoted as the “diamond of democracies,” to counter China’s “aggression.” It was nixed, but rumors of a Quad re-emerged this year when the US referred to the Asia-Pacific region as the “Indo-Pacific.”

美国及其盟友将中国称为南中国海“ 军事化”的“侵略性”国家。
2007年，日本曾提议成立由美国、澳大利亚、印度和日本本身组成的四方集团，被宣传成“民主国家的钻石组合”，以对抗中国的“侵略”，但今年，当美国称亚太地区为“印度-太平洋地区”时，有关“四方集团”的传言再次出现。

The ASEAN claimants are caught in the middle. They may want to side with the US, but geopolitical, economic and military realities dictate otherwise. Duterte doubts that the US would help his country in a fight against China. Last but not least, China is ASEAN’s biggest trade partner, valued at nearly $500 billion in 2016.

东盟的诉求国被夹了在中间，他们可能想站在美国一边，但地缘政治、经济和军事现实则不容它们这样做，杜特尔特怀疑美国是否会帮助他的国家对抗中国，最后但并非最不重要的一点是，中国是东盟最大的贸易伙伴，2016年的贸易额接近5000亿美元。

Will there be a war between the US and its allies, including ASEAN, and China? Probably not. The public in Australia and the US are not as anti-China as their governments are. In the meantime, China is content with leaving the disputes for wiser future leaders to address.

美国及其盟友(包括东盟)和中国之间会不会发生战争？可能不会。
澳大利亚和美国的公众并不像他们的政府那样反华，与此同时，中国乐于将争端留给未来更明智的领导人解决。

Hanyu Choi
You said "long before Europeans colonized southeastern China". What are you talking about? Only Hong Kong and Macao are the former European colonies. These tiny places DO NOT MAKE UP the whole southeastern China ( Shanghai was a treaty port not a western colony). Basically the international law is what big powers say it is. A lot of times, great powers DO NOT abide by the decisions of an international judicial body, if they don't like a particular decision by an international judiciuary. They just ignore it ( A good example of this is the U.S. ingorong the the unfavorable decision in 1985 by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua vs the United States). Also remember the infamous Monroe Doctrine of the U.S. Since all these maritime boundary lines in the South China Sea were originally drawn by European colonial powers that IGNORED the historical Chinese claims because China was very weak at the time, I don't see anything wrong with the resurgent and very poweful China redrawing those boundaries. That's the way things have always have been in the real world from time immemorial. Yes, it's the law of jungle that still prevails in the international affairs and it's going to stay like that in the future as well as it did in the past. On Diaoyu /Senkaku issue, the U.S. included Diaoyu islands along with Okinawa ON PURPOSE when it transfered Okinawan sovereighty to Japan in 1972 to make trouble between China and Japan. The U.S. at the time said only administrative power NOT SOVEREINTY over Daioyu islands was transfered to Japan. All China has to do is sending HUGE numbers of CIVILIAN ships to the inside 12 mile territorial sea limit and someday let them just occupy them. I don't think Japan or America would go to war against China over a "CIVILIAN"ocupation of the islands. Time is on Chinese side.

你说“早在欧洲人殖民中国东南部之前”——你这怎么说的呢 ? 只有香港和澳门是前欧洲殖民地。
这些小地方并不能构成整个中国东南部( 上海是一个条约港口，而不是一个西方殖民地 ) ，基本上那时候的国际法就是大国所说了算，很多时候，如果它们不喜欢一个国际司法机构的特定决定，这些大国不会遵守国际司法机构的裁决，他们对此置若罔闻( 一个很好的例子就是美国在1985年国际法庭对尼加拉瓜诉美国一案的不利裁决)， 还记得声名狼藉的美国门罗主义吗？
由于南中国海所有这些海上分界线最初是由欧洲殖民大国划定的，这些殖民国家无视中国的历史主张，因为当时中国非常弱小，我看不出中国重新划定这些边界有什么不对的地方，无论是自古以来，还是现实世界就一直都是这样的。
国际事务中仍然盛行的是弱肉强食的法则，而且将来也会像过去一样保持这种法则。
在钓鱼岛/尖阁诸岛问题上，1972年美国将冲绳主权转让给日本，有意将钓鱼岛和冲绳也包括在内，以制造中日之间的矛盾，当时美国表示，只有行政权力( 而非主权 ) 移交给日本，中国如果要做的话，只需把大量的民用船只送到12英里的领海界限以内，一天就能占领它们，我不认为日本或美国会因为岛屿被“平民”占领而对中国发动战争。
时间在中国一边。

Ken Moak （文章作者）
Thanks Hanyu for pointing out the mistake and comments. I meant Southeast Asia.

感谢Hanyu的评论并指出了错误，其实我的意思是东南亚。

Wood Wu
Ken Moak ....I think to make China's claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea to stand, China should first of all claim the other 3 seas clsoer to home as her territories. Failing to do this, China's claim in the SCS is meaningless and void. China's ancestors must have fished and transitted in her nearby seas more oftern than the faraway SCS. ,,,,,Besides, in order to make China's claim to stand, China should announce to the world she will support claims similar to hers; that is, if Japan claims the Sea of Japan as her territorial waters on similar historical reasons, China must support Japan's claim. If Japan claims a 9-dash-line enclosed waters in her east coast, China will support it. If India claims ownership over the entire Indian Ocean, China will also support it. Or if America claims ownership over the Pacific Ocean, China will support it. Who does not have historical activities faraway from home?

Ken Moak（文章作者），我认为，要使中国对南中国海的主权主张站稳脚跟，中国首先应该宣称其他三大洋是她的领土，如果做不到这一点，中国在南海的主张是毫无意义和无效的。
中国的祖先一定曾在比遥远的南海更远的海域捕鱼和转运贸易，此外，为了使中国的主张站得住脚，中国应该向世界宣布，她将支持与她类似的主张，也就是说，如果日本出于类似的历史原因而声称日本海为其领海，中国必须支持日本的主张。如果日本在其东海岸宣称拥有9段线内的封闭水域，中国必须予以支持，如果印度宣称对整个印度洋拥有主权，中国也必须支持它，或者，如果美国宣称对太平洋拥有主权，中国将予以支持。
谁还没有几个远离家乡的历史活动？

Hanyu Choi
Wood Wu : -Listen you little yelloow banana motherfucker, you make me sick. As I said before, international law is what the superpower at the moment says it is. Yes, if America or Japan or India has enough military and economic strength to dominate other countries, it can do anything it wants. But In very near futire, it will be China that will be the SUPERPOWER that is going to dictate it's terms to other countries

Wood Wu， 听着，你这个垃圾香蕉人，你恶心到我了。
正如我以前说过的那样，国际法就是目前的超级大国所说了算。
是的，如果美国、日本或印度有足够的军事和经济实力来操纵其他国家，它可以为所欲为。
但在不久的将来，将是中国成为超级大国，将是中国将它的条款强加给其他国家。

Ralph Jason Regudo 
Wood Wu good point

Wood Wu，说的好。

Wood Wu
Ralph Jason Regudo .....Thanks. I was looking for a response from the author Moak. His silence, if he had read my point, means my point is very legitimate and strong. All the disputants and America should use my point to fight China. If you are a Filipino, you should draw a 9-dash line on your east coast and claim sovereignty there and pass your map to the news media.

Ralph Jason Regudo，谢谢，我寻求的是作者 Moak 的回应，如果他读过我的观点，却保持了沉默，这意味着我的观点是非常合理和有力的，所有的争议国家以及美国都应该用我的观点来对抗中国。
如果你是一个菲律宾人，你应该在你的东海岸也画上9条线，然后声称拥有主权，并把你的地图交给新闻媒体。

Hanyu Choi
Wood Wu : You said" I was looking for a response from the author Moak. His silence, if he had read my point, means my point is very legitimate and strong ". Hey dumb ass, you are very delusional and I can see you are a legend in your own mind, LOL !!!! Dr. Moak is not obliged to reply to your stupid BS comment because it's not worth his time and effort.

Wood Wu，你说“寻求的是作者 Moak 的回应，如果他读过我的观点，却保持了沉默，这意味着我的观点是非常合理和有力的”——蠢货，你也太能妄想了，我能看出你有多愚蠢、自恋，Moak博士没有义务回复你愚蠢的废话，因为这不值得他花费时间和精力。

Loreto Abar
The author stupidly did not mention UNCLOS OF WHICH china was a signatory. UNCLOS main subject was the incorporation of EEZ to signatories which is 200NM off the shore of THE UNCLOS - SIGNATORY STATE.

作者愚蠢地没有提到中国是“海洋法公约”的签署国。“海洋法公约”的主要议题是将专属经济区并入签署国，即在“海洋法公约”签署国海岸以外200海里处设立专属经济区。

Hanyu Choi
Hey asshole, before ranting like an idiot, do a liittle reserach. China ratified the UNCLOS on the condition that it's rules must not infringe on China's sovereignty issues in the South China Sea. The Philippines also signed the UNCLOS under the same condition regarding it's own sovereignty over some maritime features in the South China Sea.

煞笔玩意，在像个白痴一样咆哮之前，先去做点小小的研究，中国批准“海洋法公约”的条件是，其规则不得侵犯中国在南中国海的主权，菲律宾也是在同样条件下签署的“海洋法公约”，内容涉及菲律宾对南中国海某些海洋领土的主权。

Ken Moak （文章作者）
China was a signatory, but China made the claims long before the signing of UCLOS in 1982 and its ratification in 1994.

中国是签署国，这没错，但中国早在1982年签署“海洋法公约”和1994年批准“海洋法公约”之前就提出了这一主张。