中国不是美国的敌人，至少目前还不是 [美国媒体]

China Isn't America's Enemy, at Least Not Yet
While we play checkers, they play a 200-year game of Go.

中国不是美国的敌人，至少目前还不是
——当我们在玩跳棋的时候，他们在下一场长达200年的围棋。

James Stavridis
(a Bloomberg columnist. He is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former military commander of NATO, and dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. )

作者：詹姆斯•斯塔夫里迪斯（James Stavridis）
（彭博社专栏作家。他是一名退休的美国海军上将和北约前军事指挥官，也是塔夫茨大学弗莱彻法律与外交学院院长。）



In HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” the most impressive single force on a very complex battlefield is the trio of dragons mastered by Queen Daenerys Targaryen. As she says, “We will lay waste to armies and burn cities to the ground!” The symbol of China, of course, is the dragon. The U.S., whose symbol is the eagle, will need to learn to fly in uneasy company of the dragon in the decades ahead. These metaphors can fly independently, but they are going to have to deconflict the airspace.

在HBO电视网播出的《权力的游戏》中，丹妮莉丝•坦格利安（Daenerys Targaryen）所掌握的三只龙成为了某个非常复杂的战场上最令人印象深刻的单一力量。就像她说的，“它们会吞噬军队，将城市化为一片焦土！”当然，中国的象征是龙。美国的象征是鹰，在未来的几十年里，它需要学会与不安的龙一起飞翔。它们可以独立飞行，但它们将必须消除发生在天空中的冲突。

Let’s begin with a hopeful disclaimer: I do not believe we are headed toward a war with China. Our interests are far more likely to converge than to diverge overall, and our economies are deeply intertwined. Yet the competition, assuming we can avoid outright conflict, will be fierce. A recent cover of the Economist talked about Chinese “sharp power,” meaning the combination of traditional “soft power” (hospitals, medical diplomacy, humanitarian operations) with more coercive tools (trade, economic domination, cyber piracy). The U.S. needs a strategy to deal with a China that is increasingly comfortable engaging aggressively in the world.

让我们从一个充满希望的免责声明开始：我不相信我们正走向与中国的战争。我们的利益更有可能趋同，而非出现整体分歧，而我们的经济是紧密相连的。然而，假使我们能够避免彻底的冲突，这场竞争仍将是激烈的。《经济学人》最近的一篇报道谈到了中国的“锐实力”，意指传统的“软实力”（医院、医疗外交、人道主义行动）与更强制的手段（贸易、经济支配、网络盗版）的结合。美国需要一个战略来应对一个在世界上日益随心所欲的、有吸引力的、攻势的中国。

A good primer on this is Graham Allison’s recent book, “Destined for War: Can America and China Avoid the Thucydides Trap?” Allison, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, tells the story of China’s truly meteoric rise over the past three decades, and makes the point that while we are playing checkers, the Chinese are not simply playing chess -- they are playing a different game altogether: Go. It is a complex, multi-move, long-dwell game of strategy. While we craft a strategy for the next decade or so (see the Donald Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy), China is planning the 200-year future. They are playing a long, long game.

关于这个话题，有一本很好的入门书——格雷厄姆•艾利森（Graham Allison）最近出版的《注定一战：美国和中国能否避开修西底德陷阱？》。哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院的教授艾利森讲述了中国在过去30年里飞速崛起的故事，并指出，当我们在玩跳棋的时候，中国人并不仅仅在下棋——他们在玩一种完全不同的游戏：围棋。这是一个复杂的、棋路多变的、长期的策略游戏。当我们制定未来十年左右的战略时（参见唐纳德•特朗普政府的新版《国家安全战略》），中国正在规划200年的未来。他们在进行一场时间跨度很长很长的博弈。

So what should America do? Where are there zones of cooperation, and where must we confront? Is there a sensible strategy we can pursue to ensure we are not incinerated in the dragon’s fire?

那么美国应该怎么做呢？哪些领域可以（和中国）开展合作，又有哪些领域我们必须针锋相对？是否有一种明智的策略可以确保我们不会被烧死在龙之火焰里？

Let’s start with confrontation. At the top of the tactical watch list is the controversial set of Chinese claims over the South China Sea. A body of water roughly the size of the Gulf of Mexico, it has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under its normally placid waves. Acquisition of this rich trove of hydrocarbons would complete China’s strategic suite of cards in the 21st century. The U.S. rightfully opposes such an appropriation, and will continue to fly planes overhead and drive ships through what Beijing insists are its “territorial seas.”

让我们先从对抗开始。排在战术关注列表最顶端的是中国对南海主权声索的争议。这是一个大致相当于墨西哥湾大小的水域，在正常平静的海水下，蕴藏着数十亿桶石油和数万亿立方英尺的天然气。对这些丰富的碳氢化合物的开采将补全21世纪的中国战略组合。美国理所当然地反对（中国的）这种侵吞行为，并将继续在北京坚称的“领海”区域执行飞行和航行任务。

Similarly, we are in conflict in another dimension of time and space altogether: the cyber world. The Chinese habit of stealing intellectual property and pressuring U.S. companies in the cyber sphere is accelerating, despite assurances from President Xi Jinping to former President Barack Obama and President Trump that he would rein in Chinese activities.

同样地，我们在另一个时间和空间的维度上也存在冲突：网络世界。尽管中国国家主席向美国前总统巴拉克•奥巴马以及特朗普总统保证，他将控制中国的活动，但中国在网络领域窃取知识产权并给美国企业施加压力的嗜好正在加剧。

Finally, the U.S. will continue to fight with China over what constitutes “free and fair trade,” and find ways to bring its trade deficit more into balance. There will be confrontation and hard negotiations (and hopefully not a full-blown trade war) ahead.

最后，美国将继续与中国就“自由和公平贸易”的构成问题进行斗争，并找到进一步平衡贸易逆差的办法。未来将会出现对抗和艰难的谈判（希望不是一场全面的贸易战）。

Here’s the good news: We do have a set of shared interests, starting with perhaps the most important one, Kim Jong Un. China wants to continue to see a divided Korean peninsula (fearing the creation of a powerful juggernaut in the form of a unified, Western-aligned democracy post-Kim). Beijing also wants to avoid a full-blown refugee crisis on the border. There is room to work together in crafting a compromise to solve the potentially catastrophic possibility of a war between the U.S. and North Korea.

这里有条好消息：我们确实有一系列共同的利益，来源于——也许也是最重要的一个共同利益——金三胖。中国希望继续看到一个分裂的朝鲜半岛（担心一个强大的、统一的、与西方结盟的后金家政权的建立）。北京还希望避免边境地区爆发一场全面的难民危机。在消除美国和朝鲜之间的战争可能带来的潜在的灾难性后果方面，双方有合作的空间。

The two nations can also work together on a wide range of global problems from climate change (the Trump administration is even talking about re-entering the Paris accords) to peacekeeping (perhaps on the turbulent Horn of Africa, where China is building a military base and has real interests). China and the U.S. could conduct medical diplomacy together (both nations operate hospital ships) and humanitarian operations in Africa and Latin America. There is the possibility of working together to reduce tensions in South Asia, where the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan and China holds great influence over Pakistan. None of these will be easy, but all are at least possible.

两国还可以就广泛的，从气候变化（特朗普政府甚至正在讨论重新加入巴黎协定）到维和行动（也许围绕动荡的非洲之角，中国正在那里建设军事基地，并有着真正利益）的全球性问题开展合作。中国和美国可以在非洲和拉丁美洲开展医疗外交（两个国家的医院船都在开展行动）和人道主义行动。我们有可能共同努力减少南亚地区的紧张局势，在那里美国仍身陷阿富汗战争之中，并且中国对巴基斯坦拥有巨大的影响力。这些合作都不容易开展，但至少还有开展的可能性。

The goal, then, is to craft a sensible strategic approach that confronts China where we must, but cooperates where we can. It should be developed together by the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury and Homeland Security (for the cyber piece), and led by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The working group should take input from outside experts and strategists including Allison, former ambassador to China and retired Navy 4-star Admiral Joe Prueher, current head of the U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Harry Harris (nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Australia), and Henry Kissinger. It should feature six key elements:

因此，我们的目标是制定一种明智的战略方针，在我们必须对抗中国的领域开展对抗，但在我们能够合作的领域开展合作。该战略应当由国防部门、国家、财政部和国土安全部门（网络安全部门）共同制定，由国家安全顾问麦克马斯特（H.R. McMaster）领导。工作组应接受外部专家和战略家的建议，包括前驻中国大使艾利森（Allison），退役海军四星海军上将、现任美国太平洋司令部司令亨利•哈里斯（Harry Harris）（他被提名为下一任美国驻澳大利亚大使）以及亨利•基辛格。它应该体现6个关键要素：

Use True Long-Term Thinking. Like China, the U.S. must stop thinking year-to-year or even over the current decade -- where do we see the U.S.-China relationship in a century? Two centuries? We are a Pacific nation, but sensible accommodations that can be made that reflect the power and reach of China. We need to think about long-term strategies and the resources necessary to execute them.

1、进行真正的远期考量。就像中国，美国必须停止搞年度思考甚至停止当前的十年期思考——（当前搞的这种短期考量）我们从哪能看出美中关系在今后一个世纪，甚至两个世纪的走向？我们是一个太平洋国家，但我们可以做出明智的调整，以反映中国的实力和影响力。我们需要思考远期战略，以及执行这些战略所必需的资源。

Conduct International Coalition-Building. The strategy needs to leave behind the mode of “China versus the U.S.” and into a truly integrated Asian coalition. We must not appear to encircle, contain, or intimidate China; we must avoid creating a stark choice between Washington and Beijing for our partners in the region. Rather, we want to build stronger coordinated approaches with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other allies, friends and partners. Above all, we must work with India, the other emerging superpower of the 21st century and a fellow democracy.

2、组织建立国际联盟。这一战略需要抛弃“中国VS美国”的模式，并转而形成一个真正融合的亚洲联盟。我们决不能表现得像在包围、遏制或威胁中国；我们必须避免让我们在该地区的合作伙伴在华盛顿和北京之间为做出一个严酷的选择。相反，我们希望与日本、韩国、澳大利亚、新西兰、新加坡和其他盟友、朋友和伙伴打造更强有力的协调措施。最重要的是，我们必须与21世纪的另一个新兴超级大国，同时也是一个民主国家的印度展开合作。

Retain a Values-Based Approach. We must not surrender the importance of democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, gender equality, racial equality and other human rights. The U.S. executes these values imperfectly, but they are the right ones and must be part of our strategic approach. Sometimes we think of this as a “war of ideas,” but that is not quite right. We are in a marketplace of ideas, and must compete with the alternate vision for structuring a society offered by China.

3、保留基于价值观的方式。我们不能放弃民主、自由、言论自由、性别平等、种族平等和其他人权的重要性。美国对这些价值观的实践是不完美的，但这些价值观是正确的，并且必须成为我们战略方针的一部分。有时我们认为这是一场“理念之战”，但这并不完全正确。我们身处一个社会理念的大市场，必须与另一种由中国提供的社会愿景展开竞争。

Enhance our Geo-Economic Posture. As the U.S. becomes an energy superpower, revitalizes its infrastructure (both physical and cyber), improves its global balance of trade, renegotiates important trade agreements, and uses Bretton Woods institutions -- the World Bank, International Monetary Fund -- aggressively, it will have a more robust set of economic tools. We should use them with confidence in dealing with China, starting with returning to the idea of a multistate Pacific trade agreement (a follow-on to the torpedoed Trans-Pacific Partnership) about which even Trump has mused. Energizing the private sector by defending its interests in China and our markets here can provide leverage.

4、强化我们的地缘经济的姿态。随着美国成为一个能源超级大国，重新振兴其基础设施（包括实体的和网络的），改善其全球贸易平衡，重新谈判重要的贸易协定，并积极利用布雷顿森林体系——世界银行和国际货币基金组织，将使美国获得一系列更强大的经济工具。我们应该满怀信心地利用它们与中国打交道，以回归到多国太平洋贸易协定（即被破坏的TPP的2.0版）的想法为出发点——甚至连特朗普都在思考这个问题。通过捍卫私营部门在中国和我们市场的利益来为它们注入活力，能够（为我们）提供巨大力量。

Integrate the Interagency. Today, various parts of the government are not well-coordinated in terms of an approach to China. The Defense Department is pursuing an aggressive strategy that names China (correctly) as a potentially dangerous peer-competitor; the State Department has a much softer approach. Treasury is hard-edged on currency manipulation, but the Department of Homeland Security is not aggressive enough in working on cyber defenses. We don’t have a two-speed approach -- we are more like a ten-speed bicycle.

5、整合不同部门。今天，政府的各个部门在对待中国的方式上都没有很好的协调。美国国防部正在推行一项积极的战略，将中国（准确地）列为潜在危险的同行竞争者；美国国务院的态度则温和得多。财政部在（中国）汇率操纵问题上态度强硬，但美国国土安全部在网络防御方面的工作力度不够大。我们没有一种协调两档速度的方法——我们更像是一辆十档速自行车。

Maintain a Qualitative Military Edge. While the U.S. still enjoys an overall military advantage over China, the margin is shrinking. It will require smart investments -- especially in cyber, unmanned vehicles, advanced maritime platforms and fifth-generation fighters -- to ensure we can succeed if forced into combat.

6、保持一种代差军事优势。尽管美国仍享有相对于中国的总体军事优势，但优势正在缩小。这将需要明智的投资——特别是在网络、无人驾驶载具、先进的海上平台和第五代战斗机方面——以确保我们能够在被迫卷入战斗的情况下获得胜利。

Above all, we need to move from a reactive China “policy” to a real strategy that connects ends, ways and means. We could easily take a page from Sun Tzu, the legendary Chinese strategist, who was known for his sophisticated blend of hard and soft power to win complex battles. Yet even he ultimately said, “In death ground, fight.” We are not yet on a death ground with China, but we will need a new approach to ensure we don’t stumble onto one.

最重要的是，我们需要实现从一种被动的中国“政策”到一种将目标、方法和举措联系起来的真正战略的转变。我们可以很容易地从孙子那里得到借鉴，这位传奇的中国战略家以精巧地混合运用硬实力和软实力从而赢得复杂的战役而闻名。然而，即便是他最终也说：“死地则战”。我们还没有在死地上与中国打交道，但我们需要一种新的措施来确保我们不会陷入死地。



AustrianSchool • 5 days ago 
When you realize that North Korea speaks for China, it gives you some perspective on how their government really feels about the west and their neighbors.

当你意识到朝鲜是在为中国代言时，你会看到他们的政府对西方和对他们的邻国的真实感受。

David  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago 
Do they?

他们为中国代言？

AustrianSchool  @David • 5 days ago 
Yup, they never left after the war with the UN in the 50's. There is long history with China and that part of Korea. Haven't you noticed that Korea seems to threaten all the traditional adversaries of China? They act all crazy but never threaten to nuke China.

是的，他们自50年代与联合国的战争之后从未分开。中国和朝鲜半岛的这一地区有着悠久的历史。难道你没有注意到朝鲜似乎恐吓了中国所有的传统对手吗？他们表现得都很疯狂，但从未威胁要对中国进行核攻击。

Joseph Siew  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago 
North Korea only threatens the hegemony cos the hegemony threatens her. I’m surprised you didn’t notice that.

朝鲜只恐吓霸权，因为霸权恐吓她。我很惊讶你竟然没有注意到这一点。

AustrianSchool  @joseph Siew • 5 days ago 
Only China would see nearby western friendly democracies and the west as "hegemony". And stop saying "North Korea", there is no such place. Its heretofor to be refered to as "China's security zone".

只有中国会把附近的西方友好民主国家和西方视为“霸权”。别再说“北朝鲜”了，没有这样的地方。该地区应该被称为“中国的安全区”。

Joseph Siew  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago 
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014 ... ess-whos-number-one
A new poll says these nations are the top 4 threats to world peace. Guess who's number one.
https://imgur.com/gallery/vEF7zLv
“Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” was asked to people of several countries, their answers are represented here.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014 ... ess-whos-number-one
《一项新的民意调查显示，这些国家是世界和平的四大威胁。猜猜谁是第一点。》——中国排第三
https://imgur.com/gallery/vEF7zLv
“你认为哪个国家是当今世界和平的最大威胁？”有人问了几个国家的人，他们的回答如下：
一图抵千言。

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China made number 3 in that poll. I actually agree with the poll right now, but I suspect China might become number 1 after a while. It’s an ambitious country and I have a high degree of confidence it’s very interested in harnessing genetic engineering and AI for weapons. Smart but perhaps dangerous. Of course, I don’t doubt the US is doing the same, just maybe with a little more secrecy. Deepmind technology is winning the AI race right now, but China knows that and is basing the massive new AI investment on what they know about it.

中国在这一调查中排名第三。事实上，我赞同目前的民意调查，但我怀疑中国可能会在一段时间后成为第一。它是一个雄心勃勃的国家，（对中国成为最大威胁）我有很高的信心。中国对利用基因工程和人工智能武器很感兴趣。中国聪明，但也许很危险。当然，我不怀疑美国也在做同样的事情，也许只是稍微保密一点。目前，深度思考（DeepMind）技术（译注：位于英国伦敦，由人工智能程序师兼神经科学家戴密斯•哈萨比斯等人联合创立的人工智能企业，开发了AlphaGo）正在赢得人工智能竞赛的胜利，但中国知道这一点，并正在以他们所知道的为基础进行大规模的人工智能投资。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago +1
You must understand China is no. 3 because the western propaganda have been bombarding her. For eg, which country has the most outposts in SCS? The western propaganda wouldn't tell you that. Everything that China has is to keep herself abreast with the developments of US military, especially the MAD.

你必须明白，中国排第3是因为西方的宣传一直在轰炸她。例如，哪个国家在南海拥有最多的据点？西方的宣传不会告诉你这一点。中国所拥有的一切都是为了让自己跟上美国军队的发展，尤其在导弹攻击和防御领域。

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
What evidence to you have to support this claim? It sounds like you think western propaganda is so powerful in can brainwash people across the world. I don't think people are that dumb...

你有什么证据支持这一说法？听起来你认为西方的宣传是如此强大，可以让全世界的人被洗脑。我不认为人们有那么蠢……

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
Western propaganda even was responsible for the separation of the world into "the iron curtain" and "land of the free". Western propaganda worked hard to bring down Saddam, worked hard trying to bring down Al Assad, responsible for the smearing of China during Mao, during TAM Sq Incident, and SCS disputes. Kishore Mahbubani, former Ambassador to UN, Dean of LKY School of Policy called the American media brainwashing, that feed on each other's fake news and misread the world.

西方的宣传甚至是将世界划分为“铁幕”和“自由国度”。西方的宣传全力运转让萨达姆下台，努力试图推翻阿萨德，抹黑毛爷爷时代的中国，天an门事件和南海纠纷。前驻联合国大使，李光耀政策学院的院长马凯硕（Kishore Mahbubani），称美国媒体洗脑，向大众报道假新闻，并误读世界。

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
The iron curtain was a result of a huge ideological difference between capitalism and Marxism. Given you can’t get basic history right, I can’t take you seriously at all. I’m very familiar with Western propaganda, and it’s easy to see through if you are paying attention. The free press has huge value because dissenting opinions can be heard. I agree with you about Saddam and Assad to a certain extent and plenty of American outlets have said as much, you just have to know where to look. You seem to accept Chinese propaganda uncritically when there is even more reason to be skeptical of it. The atrocities of Mao are well documented by people who escaped China. They obviously fled China for a reason, how many fled the US unless they committed espionage. You can’t cover this kind of stuff up here because of free expression and critical thinking. I’m going to point to US outlets being critical of our own government. Now point to Chinese outlets being critical of the Chinese government. You can’t because ALL you have is propaganda. We have the truth mixed with propaganda.
I honestly don’t trust the CIA very much. You have to trust your government because you don’t have a choice. I bet you have to be careful how you respond.

铁幕是资本主义和马克思主义之间巨大的意识形态差异的结果。鉴于你不能获得正确的基本史实，我不能把你当回事。我对西方的宣传很熟悉，如果你注意的话，很容易识破它们。自由媒体具有巨大的价值，因为可以听到不同的意见。在某种程度上，我同意你对萨达姆和阿萨德的看法，很多美国的媒体也这么说，只是你必须得知道该去哪里找新闻。你似乎不加鉴别地就认同了中国的宣传，即便存在更多的理由对此表示怀疑。从中国逃出来的人都详细记录了XXX的暴行。他们逃离中国显然是有原因的，又有多少人逃离了美国呢，除非他们从事间谍活动。你不能因为表达自由和批判性思维而在这里掩盖这种事情。我要指出的是，美国的媒体对我们自己的政府持批判态度。现在，要求中国的媒体对中国政府持批判态度。你们做不到，因为你所拥有的只有政治宣传。而我们既有真相也有宣传，二者交织在一起。
我真的不太相信中央情报局。而你们必须得相信你们的政府，因为你别无选择。我打赌你一定得小心你的言行。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago
The Iron Curtain separated the 2 ideologies, but the chief cause of the segregation was the Marshall Plan. The western propaganda was spreading half-truths about Soviet-Nazis agreement. People who subscribe to the western propaganda of course would disagree with me.
Theoretically, a free press is useful because dissenting opinions could be heard. But it can also lead to fake news, and free press are not free. They toe the official line depending on what is official.
We trust our government as long as they are doing good. You obviously don't trust your government. You don't have good leaders to start with.

“铁幕”将两种意识形态分隔开，但隔离的主要原因是马歇尔计划。西方的宣传传播了关于苏联和纳粹协议的半真半假的新闻。当然，那些赞同西方宣传的人会不同意我的观点。
理论上，自由媒体是有用的，因为可以听到不同的意见。但它也可能导致虚假新闻，并且自由媒体也不是自由的。它们不会脱离官方路线，而后者取决于官方。
只要我们的政府做得好，我们就相信我们的政府。你显然不相信你们的政府。你们从一开始就没有好的领导人（来打造一个好政府）。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
We are human beings first, and ideologies come second. You were manipulated by the politicians and the media to segregate human beings into "good" and "bad". For you to break the spell, you must first accept that both sides engage in propaganda. Otherwise, your views are always one-sided.

我们首先是人，意识形态是次要的。你们被政客和媒体操纵，把人分成“好人”和“坏人”。为了让你们打破这个魔咒，你们必须首先承认双方都在进行宣传。否则，你们的观点总是片面的。

life form  @Joseph Siew • 2 days ago
A "straw man argument" from word one to the end.

全篇都是“稻草人谬误”。（译注：指为了反驳对手，把对手的观点歪曲夸大成一个荒诞不经说法，然后批驳之。）

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
I just talked about how the west engaged in propaganda. Did you not understand what I wrote or are you playing games.

我刚刚谈到了西方是如何进行宣传的。你不明白我写的是什么，还是你在跟我玩文字游戏。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
My bad ;) will get back to you after dinner

我看错了；）晚饭之后我再来找你大战300回合

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
No problem and no rush. I tend to be consistently skeptical and expect most everyone to be out to manipulate me. I've actually studied the philosophical origins of Marxism and Capitalism, and have even read "Das Kapital", and "The Wealth of Nations". Das Kapital made good critiques of Captialism, but it historically required so much tyranny that it wasn't stable at all. Note Russia and China don't even try to be completely communistic anymore at all, it didn't work. This doesn't mean Capitalism doesn't require regulation and government intervention to keep it stable. Capitalism is also flawed in that it always gives customers what they want, and that often isn't what they need. Capitalism needs wise, knowledgeable, and virtuous individuals to function properly, and we are seeing a decline of those attributes in the west. If we continue to slack, and China continues to put serious effort into progress, it certainly has an advantage. I really do try to look at things from all sides, even though no one can do that perfectly. Everyone's knowledge is limited, even if you try to learn as much as you can.

没问题，不着急。我倾向于始终保持怀疑态度，并预计大多数人都在设法操纵我。我实际上研究过马克思主义和资本主义的哲学起源，甚至读过《资本论》和《国富论》。《资本论》对资本主义进行了精辟的批判，但它从历史观点上说对专制的需求太严重，以至于该理论根本牢靠。值得注意的是，俄罗斯和中国甚至都没有尝试过完全的TG主义，TG主义没有起过作用。但这并不意味着资本主义不需要监管和政府干预来使其保持稳定。资本主义也有缺陷，因为它总是给消费者提供他们想要的东西，而这往往不是他们所正真需要的。资本主义需要明智的、有知识的、有道德的个体才能正常运转，而我们看到西方的这些属性正在衰落。如果我们继续放松，中国继续认真努力，拿中国肯定会获得优势。我确实试着从各个方面去看问题，尽管没有人能做到完美。每个人的知识都是有限的，即使你尽可能多地学习。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago +1
Agree that pure Capitalism, like Democracy and Communism, are bound to fail. Be practical....the idea is to give the best to the people, that's the democracy that China is practising.

同意纯粹的资本主义，像民主制度和TG主义，注定会失败。实事求是……这个理念是为了最好地服务人民，这就是中国正在践行的民主。

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
Incredible! China does not practice Democracy!!! They are a one party state, devoted to ‘Harmony’ assured by State control.

难以置信！中国没有实行民主！！！他们是一个一党制国家，致力于国家所控制的“和谐”。

Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
Depending on your definition of democracy

这取决于你对民主的定义

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
If you define democracy as a one party state which decides who gets to vote, who the candidates are, and dissent is criminalized, you are delusional.

如果你把民主定义为一个一党制国家，它决定谁来投票，谁是候选人，提出异议会被定罪，那你就是在妄想。

Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
I define democracy as governance of a country with the people’s best interests at heart, with people’s input directly and indirectly, by a group technocrats who do it for a living. This is the closest to the true democracy that was practiced by the Greeks thousands of years ago.

我把民主定义为一种本质上关注着人民最大的利益，人民直接和间接地参与其中，通过一群技术官僚来执行的国家治理。这最接近于几千年前希腊人所实践的真正民主制度。

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
Democracy is already defined. You don’t get to have your own definition.
Here is a common definition:
‘a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives‘

民主已经有定义了。你不需要再创造自己的定义。
下面是一个公认的定义：
“一种由全体人民或所有符合条件的国家成员组成的政府体系，这些成员通常是通过选举产生的代表”

Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 3 days ago +1
This a simplified definition of Liberal Democracy.

这是自由民主的简化定义。

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 2 days ago
This is Orwellian, without redeeming irony.

这是奥威尔式的（译注：“奥威尔式”指现代保守政体藉宣传、误报、否认事实、操纵过去，来执行社会控制包括冷处理、蒸发，公开纪录和大多数人记忆不相符的情况，典型代表是斯大林时期的苏联。像现在，棱镜门被视为现代奥威尔主义的一个表现），没有讽刺意味的。

Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • 2 days ago +1
What is liberal democracy? Do you actually choose your leader? Who nominated the candidates? You don’t really have a choice; the political parties have. They give you 2 apples and you choose one. Can you choose an orange? No. Why do you do when both are rotten? You have no choice.
The Chinese takes away the political parties, and goes directly to the people. With the advancement of big data, what people need and want are taken into consideration for policy making. Without political parties and vote buying, interests groups cannot control the election. Long term plans can also be implemented.
Liberal democracy is degenerating into populism, and it’s a dangerous trend cos the extremists are taking over.

自由民主是什么？你的领导人真地是被你选出来的吗？谁提名了候选人？你没有真正的选择权；而政党有。他们给你2个苹果，你在其中选1个。你能选择一个橘子吗？不能。为什么当两个都是烂苹果的时候你还得选一个？（因为）你别无选择。
中国人取消了各种政党，直接面对人民群众。随着大数据的发展，人民的需要和期待在政策制定的过程中被加以考虑。离开了各种政党和金钱拉票，利益集团就无法控制选举。长期计划也能得以实施。
自由民主正在退化为民粹主义，这是一种危险的趋势，因为极端主义分子正在接管政权。

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • a day ago
Joseph, please, for the sake of your vote, stop ranting and start thinking.
Trump and Hillary were as identical as two apples? Really? The extremists populists are taking over but voters don’t matter? Huh?
Self/contradiction is not a good look. Make up your own mind. Make a choice. Then vote.
This is a democracy, after all.

Joseph，为了保护你投票的利益，别再咆哮了，想一想吧。
特朗普和希拉里就像两个苹果？真的吗？极端主义分子正在接管政权，但选民觉得无所谓？是吗？
自我/矛盾不是一种好的外表。下定决心。做出选择。然后投票。
毕竟，这是一个民主国家。

Joseph Siew  @dzacherl • a day ago
I have voted enough to realize all the candidates are not up to par. And I definitely did not nominate any of them. FGS, they have no relevant credentials to run for office.
Trump and Hillary are 2 equally bad apples. I don't think they are trained to lead the country. That is the problem with liberal democracy. In the end, interests groups that sponsored these people get rewarded, the people remain lost. So they become disgruntled and support extremists. This is populism, not democracy. The Chinese system is the closest to ancient greek democracy. All other countries should emulate them.

我已经参与了足够多的投票，认识到所有的候选人都没有达到标准，而且我显然也没有提名他们中的任何一个。老天啊，他们没有相关的资格去竞选公职。
特朗普和希拉里是两个一样的烂苹果。我认为他们没有接受过领导这个国家的培训。这就是自由民主的问题所在。最终，那些赞助这些人的利益集团得到了回报，人们仍然迷失了方向。因此他们变得不满和支持极端分子。这是民粹主义，而不是民主。中国的体制最接近古希腊民主制度。所有其他国家都应该效仿它们。

dzacherl  @Joseph Siew • 20 hours ago
Time to go. 
Hope you are happy there.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

那你去中国吧。
希望你在那里快乐生活。
走的时候别撞到门。

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Don't forget the influence of Russia on N. Korea. PRC has the primary influence. N. Korea serves the foreign policy goals of their northern neighbors. The PRC even said that they would not support N. Korea if they attacked the US or others. Xi wants peaceful understandings with the Pacific Rim neighbors.
The Dutch reclaimed land from the sea, and Xi was very impressed with their work and is copying it in the South China Sea by building islands. Islands can be very useful, such as resorts. You need runways to fly in the tourists, I am told.

别忘了俄罗斯对朝鲜的影响。中国对朝鲜影响最大。朝鲜为其北方邻国的外交政策目标提供服务。中国甚至表示，如果他们攻击美国或其他国家，他们不会支持朝鲜。中国主席希望与环太平洋地区的邻国达成和平协议。
荷兰填海造地，中国对他们的成果印象深刻，并在南中国海效仿他们建造岛屿。岛屿是非常有用的，比如度假胜地。我被告知需要跑道来起降搭载游客的班机。

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
PRC has very little influence on NK, much was through economic. After China split with Soviet Union, NK was loyal to the Kremlin. It was only after the collapse of SU that NK begged for aid from China.
Obama gave Xi the reason to build the islands.

中国对朝鲜的影响很小，很大程度上是通过经济施加的。在中国与苏联决裂之后，朝鲜对克里姆林宫忠心耿耿。只到苏联倒台之后，朝鲜才向中国乞求援助的。
奥黑子给了中国造岛的理由。

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Can you elaborate on "Obama gave Xi the reason to build the islands."

你能详细描述一下“奥黑子给了中国造岛的理由” 吗？

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +2
Heard of “Pivot to Asia”?

听说过“重返亚洲”吗？

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +2
Obama was all talk, little action. You didn't know him well.

奥巴马只是说说而已，很少采取行动。你不太了解他。

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
Obama was all talk, but it was HRC that took action. No strategist worth his salt would rest on his laurels and let the PTA happen.

奥巴马动动嘴，希拉里来跑腿。没有哪个战略家会满足于既得的成就，并让PTA发生。

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +4
Yes, Hillary threw her lot in with the Neocons, as you know the Neocons want war or a war time environment. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, those who like a war time environment to make money. Gen. Smedly Butler's famous book, "War is a Racket" shows that WWI was all about the money. 
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes. "

是的，希拉里和新保守主义者们在一起，正如你们所知道的，新保守主义者想要发动战争或营造战争时期的环境。艾森豪威尔警告我们，军工联合体是那些热衷于营造战争时期环境来赚钱的人。斯梅德莱•巴特勒（Smedly Butler）将军的着作《战争是一场骗局》，表明一战完全是关于钱的。
“战争是一场骗局。它从来都是。它可能是最古老，最容易盈利的，当然也是最恶毒的。它是世界上唯一一个。它是唯一一种利润是用美元和生命损失来计算的事物。
我认为骗局最能描述战争，而大多数人似乎不这么看。只有一个很小的“内部”群体知道它是什么。它是为了少数人的利益而进行的，以牺牲很多人的利益为代价。在战争中，少数人会攫取巨大的财富。”

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
What is PTA?

PTA是什么鬼？

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
Pivot to Asia, my friend...

“重返亚洲”，朋友……

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
my friend...
as long as you think you can provide Fake News you will call "friend" on the internet of someone you have no regard for.

“朋友……”
只要你认为你能提供假新闻，你就会在网上称一个你毫不尊重的人为“朋友”。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago +1
Bob is so much more knowledgeable than you. I have great respect for him.

Bob比你有文化多了。我很尊敬他。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
You respect those you can manipulate? Not very honorable.

你尊重那些能被你操控的人吗？不光彩吧。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China will invent - and you as a Chinese propagandist will defend - any reason for military expansion in the South China Sea area. There was never a reason to build and militarize small coral reefs where Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen went to earn their living. Now they are chased away by Chinese gunboats!

中国将创造——而你作为中国的宣传者，将捍卫——任何在南海地区进行军事扩张的理由。永远没有任何理由在菲律宾和越南渔民谋生的海域建立和军事化小型珊瑚礁。现在他们被中国的炮舰赶走了！

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
China's plans to exert control over the SCS was long before the Pivot to Asia - and was, in fact, the reason for the need to Pivot To Asia. China is an international criminal - though you deny it - since it lost it's case at the hague Tribunal (PCA case number 2013–19) . China refuses to negotiate with ASEAN so it can divide and conquer.

中国对南海进行控制的计划早在重返亚洲之前就已经有了——事实上，这也是需要重返亚洲的原因。中国是一个国际zui犯——尽管你否认了——因为它在海牙国际法庭输掉了官司（2013年第19号菲律宾诉中国南海仲裁案）。中国拒绝与东盟谈判，以便对东盟国家分而治之。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago +1
China started fortifying the islands in 2013. The PTA was announced in 2009.

中国2013年开始对这些岛屿进行加固。重返亚洲是在2009年宣布的。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
> The PTA was announced in 2009. FALSE!
Care to try again.
"In 2014 China claimed they were developing the islands for navigational purposes." We now know that was a lie. China has updated lies for today.
Fortification started in late 2016 - 2017.

>重返亚洲是在2009年宣布的。错！
再重申一次。
“中国在2014年声称他们是为了航行目的而开发这些岛屿的。”我们现在知道这是一个谎言。中国今天又更新了谎言。
防御工事的修建始于2016年底-2017年。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 4 days ago
No mistake.
China’s large-scale island-building in the South China Sea since late 2013

没有错。
中国在南中国海的大规模岛屿建设始于2013年底

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
"The Obama administration’s overall posture toward Asia has in fact evolved considerably over the course of the past couple of years.
The U.S. media portrayed this message as directed solely at confronting China in Asia, but it is in fact much more complex than that. How realistic is the strategy the president articulated, and how is it likely to affect U.S.-China relations and the roles of both countries in Asia? Does America have the resources to make good on the rhetoric concerning this historic "pivot"?
In this connection, it may be significant that Obama never uttered the term "pivot" during his Asia trip, and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon speaks in terms of "re-balancing" rather than making a "pivot." Clinton, by contrast, has repeatedly termed America’s policy a "pivot to Asia."
In fact, the pivot was not fully implemented until ISIS was defeated. It was not until near the end of the Obama Admin that this occurred. Additionally, the US military, specifically the Navy, needed to revamp its forces from an Atlantic/Mediterranean focus to the Pacific.
Your "No mistake" is highly questionable though surely not supported by your lone resource.

“奥巴马政府对亚洲的总体姿态在过去几年里实际上已经发生了很大的变化。
美国媒体将这一信息描述为在亚洲只针对中国的对抗，但实际上要比这复杂得多。奥巴马总统阐述的战略有多么现实，它可能对美中关系以及两国在亚洲的角色产生怎样的影响？美国是否有资源来兑现这个历史性的‘重返’言论？
在这种关联中，奥巴马在亚洲之行中从来没有说过‘重返’这个词，而国家安全顾问汤姆•多尼隆（Tom Donilon）则以‘再平衡’而不是‘重返’为中心。相比之下，希拉里一再将美国的政策称为‘重返亚洲’。”
事实上，在ISIS被击败之前，该战略还没有得到全面实施。直到奥巴马政府任期将满时才全面实施。此外，美国军方，特别是海军，需要从大西洋/地中海抽出力量关注太平洋地区。
你的“没有错”是非常值得怀疑的，尽管你的唯一论据并不支持你。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 3 days ago
ISIS was created by US and defeated by the Russians.

ISIS是美国创建的，被俄罗斯打败了。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
ha ha ha.

呵呵呵。

cowboybob  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
If NK begged for aid from the PRC and they got it, then the PRC does control the life and death of the NK regime. Russia also may be averse to crossing the border into North Korea, should the regime in Pyongyang become destabilized, the analyst said.
"I don't see Russia invading somebody there," or going into North Korea, Kireeva said. "In the event of regime collapse, I don't think Russia would deploy troops or do anything about that."
The analyst also suggested Russia would not welcome the presence of North Korean refugees, should they attempt to flee their country at a time of crisis.
The countries share an 11-mile border.

如果朝鲜向中国请求援助，并且他们得到了援助，那么中国的确控制了朝鲜政权的存亡。分析人士说，如果朝鲜政权不稳，俄罗斯也可能不愿意越过边境进入朝鲜。
Kireeva说：“我不认为俄罗斯入侵了那里”或者进入朝鲜。“在政权崩溃的情况下，我认为俄罗斯不会部署军队，也不会采取任何行动。”
分析人士还表示，如果朝鲜难民在危机时刻试图逃离朝鲜，俄罗斯也不会欢迎朝鲜难民的出现。
两国共有11英里的边界。

Joseph Siew  @cowboybob • 5 days ago +3
“...then the PRC does control the life and death of the NK regime”
That’s where the flaw is. US values “human rights” but is willing to see the North Koreans go hungry or die of hunger just to see Kim go. Reminds me of all the sanctions US imposed over several decades of hegemony.
Anyway, China will impose sanctions per the UN resolution, not to annihilate the North Koreans.

“……那么中国的确控制了朝鲜政权的存亡”
这就是缺陷所在。美国重视“人权”，但乐意看到朝鲜人饥饿或死于饥饿，只是为了看到金三胖下台。这让我想起了美国几十年来的霸权主义。
不管怎样，中国将根据联合国决议对朝鲜实施制裁，而不是消灭朝鲜。

Tyler2012  @cowboybob • 5 days ago
This guy is a Chinese propagandist who is giving you false info. He's here for China just as the Russian Trolls are for Putin.

这个人是中国的宣传者，他给你的信息是错误的。他在这里为中国效力，就像俄罗斯五毛为普京效力一样。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
PRC has tremendous influence as evidenced by the dire economic situation in NK since PRC implemented the UN sanctions.
More PRC propaganda?

自中国实施联合国制裁以来，朝鲜糟糕的经济状况正好证明了中国对朝鲜有着巨大的影响力。
你还有更多的中国宣传吗？

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 5 days ago
I said China will impose sanctions per the UN resolution. That will affect NK economically. But it won't kill NK, and it will fail just like it failed on China, Cuba, Iran etc.

我是说，中国将根据联合国决议对其实施制裁。这将对朝鲜经济产生影响。但它不会消灭朝鲜，以消灭朝鲜为目的的制裁注定失败，就像当年制裁中国、古巴、伊朗等国都失败了一样。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
If you think sanctions fail go to those countries. A sanction doesn't eliminate a country it makes life harder. Cuba has suffered as has Iran. To say otherwise is pure propaganda. The info is on the internet for you to read if you think otherwise.

如果你认为这些制裁失败了，那就去那些国家吧。制裁并不能消除一个国家，但它使生活更加困难。古巴和伊朗都受到了制裁的影响。你要说其他的东西就是纯粹地在搞宣传。如果你不这样认为，信息就会在网上供你阅读。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 4 days ago
It made their life harder and then what? Human rights.....LOL

这让他们的生活更加艰难，然后呢？人权呢.....哈哈

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
Iran came to the bargaining table. Cuba laid out the welcome mat. Putin is begging for sanctions to be lifted. You don't accept reality. I'll be stopping soon because after debunking your false claims you resort to idiocy.

伊朗来到谈判桌前。古巴摆出了欢迎的地毯。普京正在乞求解除制裁。你不接受现实。我马上就停下不说了，因为在揭穿你的虚假声明之后，你就会表现得跟白痴一样。

Joseph Siew  @Tyler2012 • 3 days ago
Iran didn't come running....neither did Cuba. It was Obama who said sanctions didn't work...and called it off.

伊朗没有重回谈判桌……古巴也没有。是奥巴马说制裁不起作用……然后叫停了制裁。

Tyler2012  @Joseph Siew • 3 days ago
If you don't think sanctions worked then you haven't read about what happened in Iran after the sanctions were lifted. Look at the condition of Cuba. Trump reversed Obama's position. Cuba continues to suffer. Russia, the same. NK speaks for itself. It asked for fuel from SK for the ship that brought the NK contingent to SK for the Olympics. That's sad and embarrassing.
You continue to demonstrate either a lack of knowledge or good judgement.

如果你不认为制裁有效，那么你就没有了解过制裁解除后伊朗发生的事情。看看古巴的情况。特朗普逆转奥巴马的立场。古巴将继续受到影响。俄罗斯也是一样的。朝鲜本身就说明了这一点。它要求从韩国获得燃料以维持航运，并且（制裁）使得朝鲜来到韩国参加奥运会。好悲伤好尴尬。
你还再继续表现得缺乏知识或良好的判断力。

Valence  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +2
Why do you think NK speaks for China?

你为什么认为朝鲜为中国代言？

AustrianSchool  @Valence • 4 days ago
When you put all the parts together, understand the history, its the only rational explanation. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Its the Wizard of Oz , the great leader of NK is the Great Oz, and the little man behind the curtain, the one you're supposed to not notice, is China.

当你把所有的局部联系在一起，理解历史，就会明白这是唯一合理的解释。听说过“”（译注：奥卡姆剃刀定律又称“奥卡姆剃刀”，由14世纪逻辑学家、圣方济各会修士奥卡姆的威廉提出。这个原理称为“如无必要，勿增实体”，即“简单有效原理”）吗？它是奥芝的法师，朝鲜伟大的领袖就是伟大的奥芝，而幕后的小人物，你应该没有注意到的，是中国。

Ultimate187  @AustrianSchool • 5 days ago +4
While China does exert a large degree of influence on them, North Korea is still its own sovereign nation, and makes its own decisions. They don't speak for China.

虽然中国对他们施加了很大的影响，但朝鲜仍然是自主的主权国家，并作出自己的决定。他们不会为中国代言。

AustrianSchool  @Ultimate187 • 4 days ago
That's just the official narrative, not the reality on the ground. It allows China to look civilized while NK does its dirty work.And it makes people think they need to placate China to get their help with their waywrd neighbor. That's why North Korea is the secretive "Hermet Kingdom", to hide the fact that they're just the military buffer zone against the west on the Korean peninsula.
We might as well just claim the Guam is an independent country that needs a huge navy and air base, that for some strange reason hates China and threatens to nuke it if it makes a wrong move.

这只是官方的说法，而不是现实。这种说法让中国看起来很文明，而朝鲜做着肮脏的工作。这让人们认为，他们需要安抚中国，以帮助他们的邻居。这就是为什么朝鲜是一个秘密的“赫里特王国”，来掩盖他们只是朝鲜半岛上的军事缓冲区的事实。
我们也可以宣称，关岛是一个独立的国家，需要一个庞大的海军和空军基地，出于某种奇怪的原因，它讨厌中国，并威胁说，如果中国采取了错误的行动，就会用核武器攻击它。

GrumpyOldMan10  @AustrianSchool • 4 days ago
China rarely speaks directly and NK is not its mouthpiece. But the state has ultimate power over most media. The film industry is pedaling highly nationalistic films while blocking films western films viewed as anti-party (nice article in the Economist a month ago.) It actions speak for themselves. Its island building and naval build up certainly point to it having no intention other than to be the big dog in both the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. But it is a long term strategy -- it is a minimum of 10 to 15 years for China's navy to rival the US in terms of equally capable assets -- and China realizes that no one will challenge it if restricts it bullying to a few targets that nobody is going to run to the rescue of.

中国很少直接说话，而朝鲜也不是它的喉舌。但是，政府对大多数媒体拥有最终的权力。电影行业正在步入高度民族主义的电影领域，同时阻止被视为反dang的西方电影（一个月前《经济学人》的一篇好文章）在国内上映。它们为自己说话。中国的岛屿建设和海军建设无疑表明，除了要成为西太平洋和印度洋的霸主之外，没有别的意图。但这是一个长期的战略——至少需要10到15年，中国海军才能拥有与美国相抗衡的硬件能力——中国意识到，如果仅限于欺负几个没有其他国家来救援的目标国家，就不会有谁来挑战它。

reaganite88 • 5 days ago +2
While I agree that a war with China is pretty unlikely... to quote Henry Kissinger, "China can be rich by selling us their stuff, or militarily powerful by opposing us... but they can't be both"... nonetheless the Chinese need to be put in their place. For a quarter century they have been allowed to "be both" by feckless US administrations that don't seem to understand that the Cold War is over... as is the need to ignore Chinese perfidy in trade relations.
That said, I also think people make too much of the Chinese "200 year strategy" thing. Last time I heard that was when the Japanese were "running rings around us" in the late 90s. The truth is that the Communist Party leadership of China is in a perpetual quandary... how to maintain a hold on a nation using a method of government that was outdated 200 years ago while moving that nation forward into the next 200 years. As it stands now it is an ancient autocracy surrounded by more and more democratically ruled nations... even Putin's Russia allows more citizen participation in civic affairs. Where will China be 200 years from now when all of its Asian neighbors and other trading partners are democratically run? While it may not be easy to see, China's leadership is always one misstep away from China becoming Cuba... a pariah nation whose economy is in ruins for generations.

虽然我同意与中国的开战是不太可能的。引用亨利•基辛格的话，“中国能够通过向我们出售他们的产品来致富，或者拥有强大的军力以反对我们……但是他们无法二者兼得”。尽管如此，中国人还是需要被打回原形。四分之一个世纪以来，他们都被无能的美国政府所允许，他们似乎不明白冷战已经结束了……同样，他们也忽略了中国在贸易关系中的不诚实行为。
也就是说，我也认为人们太过重视中国的“200年战略”了。上个世纪90年代末，我听说日本人在“围着我们转”。事实上，TG的领导正处于一个长期的困境中。如何利用一种过时的政府方式来保持对一个国家的控制，这种方法在200年前就已经过时了，而现在还要将这个国家向前推进200年。现在它是一个古老的毒菜国家，被越来越多的民主治理的国家所包围……就连普京的俄罗斯也允许更多公民参与公民事务。当所有的亚洲邻国和其他贸易伙伴都以民主方式运作的时候，中国如何再维持200年？虽然这种场景可能并不容易看到，但中国的领导层确实也总能在中国即将变成古巴一步之遥的时候又挽回大局……后者是一个低劣的国家，它的经济已经处于破坏状态长达好几代了。

Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +5
You mean leaving the fate of a country to chance is better than good governance? Good governance is outdated?
China simply wanted to grow economically but was forced to militarize itself cos US was containing her for no reason.

你的意思是说，把一个国家的命运寄托于机会要比寄托于良好的治理更好？良好的治理已经过时了吗？
中国只是想在经济上发展，但却被迫要军事化自己，因为美国霸道地遏制她。

Taishanese  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +5
Well, you're partly right. China began looking seriously at military modernization back in the 90's because of two aircraft carriers Clinton sent in to intervene between China and Taiwan.
Also, China was surprised at the efficiencies of the US military during the First Gulf War.
With that said, it was not necessarily a militarization as one would think of, i.e., a massive build up. But rather, it was simply military modernization and one that reflected, in tandem, China's growing economy and rising technological prowess.
China's declared military budget never exceeded 2% of GDP. This portion is normal for most countries. And even when China's declared military budget was and is in doubt, Pentagon's higher estimate still put her figures only slightly above 2% of GDP as opposed to China's declared budget which is slightly less than 2% of GDP.
So even without the real or perceived containment of the US, China's military expenditures and modernization over the last two 2+ decades is not an extreme undertaking by a country that is rapidly modernizing. Even if China develops a submarine fleet that is eventually twice as many as the US in total numbers, we need to keep in mind that China, after all, has four times the population of the US.

嗯，你说的有些内容是对的。在90年代，中国开始认真考虑军事现代化问题，因为克林顿派了两艘航空母舰来干预中国和台湾之间的关系。
此外，在第一次海湾战争期间，中国对美国军队的效率感到惊讶。
话虽如此，这个过程并不是人们所想象的那种完全的军事化，比如大规模的军力建设。更确切地说，这仅仅是个军事现代化的过程，同时也反映了中国不断增长的经济和科技实力。
中国对外宣布的军事预算从未超过GDP的2%。这个比例对大多数国家来说是正常的。甚至当中国宣布的军事预算存在疑问时，五角大楼对真实数字的估计仍然仅略高于GDP的2%，而中国公布的预算略低于GDP的2%。
因此，即使没有美国明里暗里的遏制，中国在过去的二十多年里的军事开支和现代化，也算不上是一个快速现代化的国家所做的极端行为。即使中国最终打造出一支数量是美国两倍的潜艇舰队，但我们需要记住，中国毕竟拥有美国四倍之多的人口。

reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Yeah right. China is militarizing because it wants to dominate its neighbors and because American politicians have NOT been paying attention. If America had any intention of "containing" China we simply could have denied her Most Favored Nation trading status.

是的对的。中国正在军事化，因为它想要主导邻国，而且美国的政客们还没有注意到这方面的问题。如果美国有任何“遏制”中国的意图，我们早就取缔中国“最惠国”的地位了。

Taishanese  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +4
Well, the terminology "Most Favored Nation" trading status was a misnomer and was eventually changed to "Normal Trade Relationship" (NTR), which is something most of the world's 200 nations enjoyed.
Prior to China's WTO entry, it was an annual debate in Congress in which the opponents of renewing China's NTR lost by a slim margin.
So those who regularly opposed China's trade status could not simply have denied China simply because they wanted to. They were up against other Americans who didn't feel that way.
So the anti-China's cannot willy nilly say that "we could do this and that to China if we wanted to". The reason why is because they are up against more powerful Americans (i.e., business interests) who want to profit from China's economic rise.
So there always were and still are people who do want to contain China. Thus far, they have not been successful.

好吧，“最惠国”的贸易术语是用词不当，最终被改成了“正常贸易关系”（NTR），这才是世界上200个国家最受欢迎的叫法。
在中国加入世贸组织之前，在一场国会的年度辩论中，反对恢复与中国“正常贸易关系”的议员们以微弱劣势输掉了这场辩论。
因此，那些经常反对中国贸易地位的人，不能因为他们个人的意愿就简单地拒绝中国。
他们反对其他没有这种想法的美国人。
因此，反华者不能说“只要我们愿意的话，我们可以这样或那样与中国打交道”。
原因在于他们这么做冒犯了更强大的美国人（即：商业利益），后者想从中国的经济崛起中获利。
所以，总是有很多人想要遏制中国。但到目前为止，他们还没有取得成功。

reaganite88  @Taishanese • 5 days ago
I pretty much agree with what you have written. The question becomes has the pendulum shifted again so that China is on the verge of losing its trade status with America. If so then China will only have itself to blame... refusing to abide by the norms of Free Trade while using the wealth created by open access to America's markets to create a military problem for the U.S. and our other allies in Asia.

我非常同意你说的这些。现在的问题是，钟摆再次摆向了中国，这样中国就有可能失去与美国的贸易地位。如果是这样，那么中国就只能怪自己了……拒绝遵守自由贸易的准则，却使用通过开放进入美国市场所创造的财富，为美国和我们在亚洲的其他盟友制造一个军事麻烦。

Taishanese  @reaganite88 • 4 days ago +2
I don't agree that China is creating a military problem for the US as it is China is merely modernizing her economy and the military along with it. And given China's size (pop. 1.4 billion) the military will naturally be one that will have significant leverage.
As far as the US turning on China in regards to trade, it probably has more to do with those who never liked China now have a voice in the White House. I personally believe most Americans in general have less animosity towards China today that in the 1990's. That's not to say it doesn't still exist, it's just less severe today than 20 years ago. But those who are anti-China are finding ways to step up their rhetoric and political position, e.g., Breitbart News, Trump in the White House, etc.

我不认为中国正在为美国制造军事麻烦，因为中国只不过是在使她的经济和军事现代化而已。考虑到中国的规模（14亿人口），其军队自然会成为一支有强大影响力的力量。
就美国对华贸易而言，这可能与那些从不喜欢中国的人有更多的关系，他们现在在白宫有了发言权。我个人认为，在1990年代，大多数美国人对中国的敌意都没有那么大。这并不是说敌意不存在，只是比20年前要好一些。但那些反华者正在设法提高他们的言论和政治地位，例如，布赖特巴特新闻网（Breitbart News），白宫里的特朗普等等。

Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +3
China doesn’t need to dominate its neighbors. She was big compared to the neighbors for centuries.
America couldn’t make up its mind; China was a potential market that shouldn’t be left out of WTO. So, on the one hand, US wooed China with the MFN, on the other hand, US tried to contain China.

中国不需要支配邻国。几个世纪以来，她一直比邻居们大得多（但也没支配它们）。
美国无法下定决心；中国是一个不应被排除在WTO之外的潜在市场。因此，一方面，美国用最惠国待遇拉拢中国，另一方面，美国又在试图遏制中国。

reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Actually, for the past three centuries, China has been of little importance in Asia. Her militarization is to reestablish a dominance she lost centuries ago.
I don't disagree with you that America's politicians in the 1980s and 90s thought of China as a potential market and welcomed her into the WTO. But the illusion that China was actually going to abide by the rules of the WTO should have been shattered for our politicians every single year since she entered. But they did nothing... far from containing China as you now claim. In fact, China's "rise" was predicated on their doing nothing.
Now with a different President in power... one who is likely to do a lot more than merely "pivot" in response to Chinese malfeasance... it is the Chinese leadership that is unsure of what to do next. Do they continue their rapid military buildup and other aggressions in Asia and risk losing access to the American markets... or do they moderate their buildup, abide by the WTO rules, and hope for a more pliable President to replace Trump?

事实上，在过去的三个世纪里，中国在亚洲几乎没有什么重要性。她的军事化是在重新确立她在几个世纪前失去的统治地位。
我不同意你的观点，美国上世纪八九十年代的政治家们认为中国是一个潜在的市场，并欢迎她加入世贸组织。但是，自她加入世贸组织以来，我们的政治家们关于中国能被世贸组织的规则所约束的幻想每年都会破灭。但是他们对此毫无作为……正如你现在所宣称的，绝不要遏制中国。事实上，中国的“崛起”就是建立在他们什么都不做的基础上的。
现在有了一位不同的总统。在应对中国的不当行为时，一个人可能会有更多作为而不仅仅是“重返”……不确定下一步该做什么的是中国领导层。他们是否继续在亚洲加快军力建设并做出其他侵犯行为，并冒着可能失去美国市场的风险……或者，他们是否会减缓自身建设，遵守世贸组织的规则，希望能有一个更温和的总统来取代特朗普？

Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago
I disagree with your first sentence. More like one century, the 100 years of shame. Her military prowess commensurates with the size of her economy, she doesn’t look bloated militarily.
I can’t disagree with your view about the US politicians doing nothing to China with regards to WTO. China was smart enough to not violate any WTO regulations as a developing country. As a result, US could sue China for violations, but China won most cases.
I agree Trump has the balls to do a lot more than the previous administrations. I’m also excited to see what US and China would do next. My prediction is, Trump will die of heart attack during his term.

我不同意你的第一句话。这更像是一个世纪以来，长达百年的耻辱。她的军事实力与她的经济规模相当，她在军事上并不显得过于庞大。
我不同意你对美国政客在WTO问题上无所作为的看法。中国很聪明，没有违反任何作为发展中国家的世贸组织规则。因此，美国可以起诉中国违反规定，但中国赢得了大多数案件。
我同意特朗普比前几届政府动作更大。我也很激动地等着看美国和中国下一步将采取什么行动。我的预测是，特朗普在任期内将死于心脏病。

reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
LOL... China has been violating the WTO rules on a DAILY basis. But because companies and politicians in the West continue to see her as nothing more than a large market they choose not to call her out on it. Their CHOICE to not bring her before the WTO you then turn around and use as a claim that she never violates the WTO rules.
You crack me up!
Let me guess... when the Trump Administration starts bringing these cases you are going to accuse them of aggression against China. I mean, if none of his predecessors did it (because according to you there were no cases to be brought) then it must mean that he has chosen to bring false cases in the WTO in order to clip China's wings.

呵呵……中国一直在违反世贸组织规则。但由于西方的企业和政界人士继续把她视为一个大市场，他们选择不把她因此而赶出去。他们选择不在世贸组织指控中国，然后你转过身来，声称她从未违反世贸组织的规则。
你太搞笑了！
让我猜猜……当特朗普政府开始提起这些诉讼时，你就会指责他们对中国的侵犯。我的意思是，如果他的前任都没有这样做的话（因为根据你的说法，没有任何中国违规案件被提请），那么这肯定表明他选择了在世贸组织中提起一些虚假的案件以遏制中国。

Joseph Siew  @reaganite88 • 5 days ago +1
I respect your opinions, but they are opinions. Ultimately, the WTO rulings are final. And if you google the WTO website, you would find US being sued more often than any other country.
Now that China has become the world factory / market, I think it’s too late to engage China in an economic warfare.

我尊重你的意见，但这只是意见。说到底，世贸组织的裁决是才是最终结果。如果你在世贸组织的网站上搜一下，你会发现美国被起诉的次数比其他任何国家都要多。
既然中国已经成为世界工厂/市场，我想现在跟中国打经济战已经太晚了。

reaganite88  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago +1
Because we are the biggest economic power... and the one most likely to play by the rules... it wouldn't surprise me at all if we had the most claims filed against us. A nation can get a lot of leverage even with a specious claim against a nation that wants to be seen as playing by the rules. For a very long time now it has been fashionable in American policy circles to think of defending our own trading rights as unnecessary because even if our trading partners don't allow us free access to their markets in exchange for free access to ours, at least we are still getting their stuff for cheap. Those ideas died on November 8th, 2016.
As to your "opinion" that it is too late for China to lose its status as the world's factory... that is obviously not shared by China's leaders who are groping for a strategy to avoid Trump punishing Chinese companies that play fast and loose. They are well aware (unlike you) that there are a lot of poor people in the world who would love to take away the jobs that the poor in China have been doing for the past couple of decades. China's plan to dominate Asia will come to a quick and unpleasant end if her economy shrinks even a little.

因为我们是最大的经济强国……也是最可能遵守规则的国家……如果我们遭到了最多的控告，我不会感到惊讶。一个国家可以获得很大的影响力，即使被一个希望被视为遵守规则的国家的莫须有地指控。在很长一段时间里，在美国的政策圈子里，流行着一种做法——认为维护自己的贸易权利是不必要的，因为即使我们的贸易伙伴不允许我们自由地进入他们的市场，以换取自由进入我们的市场，至少我们仍在以便宜的价格获取他们的产品。这种想法于2016年11月8日终结。
至于你的“意见”，认为要让中国失去世界工厂的地位已经太迟了。这显然不是中国领导人所认同的，他们正在摸索一种策略，以避免特朗普惩罚那些快速和松散的中国企业。他们很清楚（不像你），世界上有很多穷人愿意夺走中国穷人在过去几十年里一直在做的工作。如果中国的经济萎缩了一丢丢，那么中国主导亚洲的计划将会迅速而不愉快地被终结。

Bob • 5 days ago +5
The capitalists ate America's seed corn while China was planning for the future. 

在中国规划未来的时候，资本家们却吃光了美国的玉米种子。

Jasper_in_Boston  @Bob • 5 days ago +5
China enjoyed a roughly 11 point advantage over the US in average GDP growth during the 80s. That shrank to about nine points in the 90s. And perhaps 5.5 points in this decade. And it's now down to about 4 points.
If we were to graph the growth advantage of China vs the US, that graph would point to a convergence by the end of the next decade. That's right -- the US is likely to be growing faster than the PRC by the 2030s. China's demographics are awful for a would-be global dominator. (Most projections suggest China will have a smaller population at century's end than it does today and likewise suggest the US will grow to at least 500 million in that same span).
Chinese policy makers get a lot of things right. But they also get quite a few things wrong. And they're not superhuman. Nor have they repealed the laws of economics: they're not going to be doing 5 or 6 point annual GDP growth when they're dealing with a shrinking workforce any more than Italy or Japan are. And they're not going to be able to make up the difference via immigration, either.
I remain a "China optimist" mainly because I think it's likely that slowing economic growth in the near future will force a rethink of the Party's monopoly on political power.

在80年代，中国的平均GDP增长比美国高出大约11个百分点。在90年代，这一水平下降到大约9个百分点。在过去十年中，大概高5.5。现在下降到4。
如果我们要绘制出中国与美国的增长优势，这张图表将表明，到下一个十年结束时，将会出现一个趋同现象。没错——到本世纪30年代，美国的增长速度可能会超过中国。中国的人口结构对于想要成为全球主宰而言是可怕的。（大多数预测显示，中国在本世纪末的人口将比现在少，同样也表明美国将在同样的时间内增长到至少5亿人口）。
中国的政策制定者们做了很多正确的事情。但他们也会犯一些错误。他们不是超人。他们也没有废除经济法则：他们在面对劳动力萎缩的问题时，他们也无法维持GDP5%-6%的年度增长，不会比当年的意大利或日本好到哪去。他们也无法通过移民来弥补这一（劳动力）差距。
我仍然是一个“中国乐观主义者”，主要是因为我认为在不久的将来经济增长的放缓将迫使人们重新思考TG对政治权力的垄断。

Joseph Siew  @Jasper_in_Boston • 5 days ago +2
You are a US optimist, not China optimist. While China is constantly reforming, US has been stagnant for at least 20 years. The Trump Administration is the first Administration that has balls to carry out reforms and for that Trump deserves some credit. But, the political infighting will see that further reforms being resisted. China still has many more years of growth cos there are so many regions that require development. In addition, the BRI will keep the engine going for another 100 years or so. Just when people thought that China would hit the middle income trap, China bulldozers over the trap by upgrading to high tech manufacturing, and internet plus. In order to understand what is going on with China, you have to discard the western belief system. This dragon doesn’t leave things to chance, unlike Capitalism. For US, Detroit and Puerto Rico will be left to rot until money from the Chinese starts trickling in. China will simply create opportunities for provinces like Guizhou to bloom.

你是美国乐观主义者，而不是中国乐观主义者。在中国不断改革的同时，美国却停滞了至少20年。特朗普政府是第一个有勇气推行改革的政府，特朗普理应得到一些赞誉。但是，政治内斗将会让你看到改革被进一步抵制。中国还有许多年的增长期，因为有太多的地区需要发展。此外，“一带一路”还能让经济保持发展100年左右。就在人们以为中国会达到中等收入陷阱的时候，中国却通过升级到高科技制造和互联网+来推平了这个陷阱。想要了解中国的情况，你必须抛弃西方的信仰体系。与资本主义不同的是，这条龙不会听天由命。对美国来说，底特律和波多黎各将会被烂掉，直到中国的资金开始流入它们。而中国就会为贵州等省份创造机会以繁荣当地经济。

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 5 days ago
Capitalism doesn’t leave things to chance. Centralization has advantages and disadvantages, and one advantage of our decentralized system is innovative. Even recently, most of the big innovations have come from western countries. The company that created the AI that shocked China with the Go AI is from the UK. The discovery of CRISPR from the US. I think China has advantages from centralization, but there seem to be disadvantages, too.

资本主义不会听天由命。中央集权化有优势也有劣势，而我们分权化体制的优势在于创新。即使在最近，大部分的重大创新都来自西方国家。创造出震惊中国的“阿尔法狗”的人工智能的企业是来自英国的。基因编辑技术来自美国。我认为中国在中央集权方面有优势，但看起来也有劣势。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 5 days ago
Capitalism dictates that money(capital) goes to opportunities to make more money. Detroit will fail for a long time cos no decent money will go there till perhaps decades later. That's bad governance as far as I am concerned. I would expect the federal government to do something to boost Detroit's economy. Leaving to chance for Detroit is unthinkable for a great country like USA. But, that's a fact. Likewise for Puerto Rico......

资本主义要求金钱（资本）去创造更多的钱。底特律将会在很长一段时期内处于衰败状态，因为也许直到几十年之后，都没有上规模的资金流去那里。在我看来，这是糟糕的治理。我希望联邦政府能采取一些措施来振兴底特律的经济。对于像美国这样的大国来说，离开底特律是不可想象的。但是，这就是事实。同样，波多黎各……

Valence  @Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
It's not chance. Conditions are bad in Detroit for a variety of reasons. Demographics and local laws and regulations are problematic. It's like a big experiment. Capitalism invested heavily in China and played a huge role (foreign investment) in getting it to where it is today. Your country is a weird capitalist/state run hybrid, but it makes no sense for the chinese to dismiss Capitalism. You might be right that the US should guide the economy more, but that can have some bad consequences. Some of your government spending is highly wasteful (like ours) and more is certainly not always better.
If you are typing from China, I realize you can't be critical because you are being monitored. I don't doubt having Big Brother watching you can encourage people to be more productive, but I bet it has a side effect on creativity and free thinking (you should be afraid of some thoughts because they could have seriously negative consequences for you if voiced) and thus innovation. It's really hard to know how to balance the pros and cons between the two countries. I'm extremely skeptical of censorship and this kind of surveillance, however.

这不是听天由命。底特律的情况很糟糕，原因多种多样。人口统计和地方法律法规是有问题的。这就像一个大实验。资本主义在中国大举投资，并扮演了一个重要角色（外国投资），使其有了今天的地位。你的国家是一个奇怪的资本主义/国家主导运行的混合体，但中国对资本主义不屑一顾是没有道理的。你或许是对的，美国应该更多地引导经济，但这可能会带来一些不好的后果。你们的一些政府支出是非常浪费的（就像我们的），而且更多的支出是不总是好的。
如果你是在中国写评论，我意识到你不能提出批评意见，因为你正在被监视。我不怀疑有个毒菜者看着你可以鼓励人们提高工作效率，但我敢打赌，这种制度对创造力和自由思考有负面影响（你应该害怕一些想法，因为它们可能会给你带来严重的负面影响），从而遏制创新。要知道如何平衡两国之间的利弊是非常困难的。然而，我对审查制度和这种监视极其质疑。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 4 days ago
US can never be run like China cos you are ruled by Capital. And the elections destroy any policy continuity. And interest groups make governance an impossibility.
China is into censorship, not monitoring. So, people say what they want but if they touch on sensitive topics, the comments are censored. It is different from your NSA.

美国永远不能像中国那样运作，因为你们被资本所统治。选举破坏了任何政策的延续性。而利益集团使政府主导治理成为不可能。
中国正在进行审查，而不是监控。所以，人们想什么说什么，但是如果他们触及敏感话题，评论就会被审查。这和你们的国家安全局不同。

Valence  Joseph Siew • 4 days ago
Oh, I’m in tech, and I’m familiar with the architecture of China’s surveillance state. It’s pretty new and it did borrow from our NSA. The Great Firewall of China is impressive, though disturbing.

哦，我在科技行业工作，我对中国的监控体系很熟悉。这是一种全新的做法，它确实借鉴了美国国家安全局的做法。中国的“墙”令人印象深刻，尽管令人不安。

Joseph Siew  @Valence • 3 days ago
Exactly. The GFW is to censor fake news, it is not used to monitor comments. If you go to Chinese based forum, you would see anti-govt comments aplenty. You obviously don't know much about China.

完全正确。“墙”是对虚假新闻进行审查的，它不被用于监控评论。如果你去中国的论坛，你会看到很多反zheng府的言论。你显然对中国不太了解。