通过7个问答来了解中美 [美国媒体]

-------------译者：彳亍红尘-审核者：dodo1864------------

1. Why does China matter?
For America, China is arguably the most important country in the world.

1.中国为什么重要？
对美国来说，中国可谓是世界上最重要的国家了。







2. Is China still a poor country, or is it rich and powerful?
China, on the whole, is certainly a powerful country — able to forge new trade agreements, launch new international institutions, and send probes into space. But on an individual level, its people are not that rich — at least not yet.

2.中国仍然是个贫穷的国家，还是说已经富有而强大了呢？
总的来说，中国确实是一个强大的国家了——能够制定新的贸易协定，成立新的国际机构，并且向太空发射探测器。但是就个人而言，中国人并不富有——至少现在还不富有。





3. What do the Chinese really want?
The simple answer is “a lot of different things,” because there isn’t just one China. China can often seem monolithic from the outside, but internally it’s a diverse country where people have lots of different opinions, even if they can’t act on them politically.
When it comes to China’s leaders, it’s safe to say they want what any government around the world wants: to stay in power.

3.中国人真正想要什么？
答案很简单：很多不同的东西，“中国人”不只是一个"中国"而已。从外部看，中国似乎是一个整体，但是从国内看来，它却是一个多样性的国家，这里的人们有着许多不同的观点，尽管他们并不能在政治上实现这些。
对于中国领导人的话，可以说他们想要的和世界上任何政府想要的都一样：继续执政。





 -------------译者：mmmmm-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

4. Is China still communist?
For a country that nominally follows communism, China has a lot of Ferraris. That's because the Chinese economic system has changed dramatically since communism — the philosophy spawned by Karl Marx which argues that workers should collectively own the means of production, like factories, property and machines — first took over the country.

4。中国还是共产党吗？
名义上的共产主义国家，中国有很多法拉利。这是因为中国的经济体制已经发生了巨大的变化，因为共产主义--马克思卡尔提出的哲学主张工人应该集体拥有生产方式，比如工厂、房地产和机器--首先占领了国家。



5. Is China's economy in trouble?
You may have heard recently that the Chinese economy has some problems. That's true, but it also still has a lot of potential.

5。中国经济有麻烦吗？
你可能最近听说中国经济存在一些问题。这是真实的，但它仍然有很多的潜力。



6. Will China surpass the U.S. as the world's superpower?
Recent polls show Americans are very worried about Chinese cyberattacks, its growing military power, and the amount of American debt it holds — though actually, the Fed holds a lot more U.S. debt than China and Japan do.
Interestingly, many Americans appear to believe that China is already the world's superpower. But this isn't true, and it seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

6。中国会超越美国成为世界超级大国吗？
最近的民意调查显示，美国人非常担心来自中国的网络攻击，其日益增长的军事力量，与美国国债持有量——但实际上，美联储持有比中国和日本更多的美国国债。
有趣的是，许多美国人似乎认为中国已经是世界上的超级大国了。但这不是真的，短期内似乎不太可能发生。


7. Should the U.S. view China as a threat or an opportunity?
The U.S.-China relationship is broad, deep and complex, with tons of ties between our countries, including business partnerships, study abroad programs, co-produced movies, military exercises, counter-terrorism efforts, and joint studies of disease.

7。美国应该把中国视为威胁还是机会？
美中关系是广泛的、深入的、复杂的，我们两国之间有着大量的联系，包括商业伙伴关系、海外留学计划、共同制作电影、军事演习、反恐努力和共同研究疾病。


-------------译者：魔哥598543214-审核者：dodo1864------------

candyspaw
9/25/2015 11:46 PM GMT+0800
It has become to be my firm belief that one country has no business telling another country how to deal with their citizens in most cases. Quite frankly, how much religious or ecomomic freedom Chinese has is none of our busiess. In point of fact, there are so many citizens of China, that if they wanted to press a point for themselves, the government would be powerless to stop them. 

我坚信一个国家不应该干涉另一个国家如何处理它的国民问题。坦白说，中国人的宗教和经济自由不干我们的事。事实上中国有这么多人，如果他们想表达自己的一个观点，政府阻止不了他们。

the willingness to change must come from within the country. Our attempts in the Middle East and South America have mostly failed miserably.

变革之意愿必源起一国内部，我们在中东及南美的实践大多悲催收场。

As I understand it, China is so big, no one really controls it. They could probably give away vast numbers of citizens and land and never really feel it on the coast.
As far as our relationship with China goes, we need to be able to think like serpents and yet be as innocent as doves. The Soviets of old and the Chinese of new have found it much easier to let us develop the sweat equity and reap the rewards of our labors, costing them little.

据我所知，中国之大，无人能控。或许他们舍弃大批边境国民国土也没人觉察。
随着我们和中国关系继续发展我们应该装萌腹黑。以前的苏联和现在的中国窃取我们的知识产权，从而以极低的成本获得巨大的收益

-------------译者：氯化钠⊙▽⊙槑-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Woods Beldau
9/24/2015 3:28 PM GMT+0800 [Edited]

Superb article!

极好的文章

The major missing piece is some reference to the total absence of collaboration between the US and China in the peaceful uses of outer space.

文章没有提及的是中美在利用外太空上完全没有合作

Some will point to the infamous Wolf Amendment to NASA funding legislation that prohibits contact and collaboration between NASA / OSTP and China.

有些人可能会指出NASA融资立法的沃尔夫修正案所作出的限制，该修正案禁止NASA/科技政策办公室同中国进行接触和合作。

Some may ask how is this even possible due to the critical importance of space technologies in addressing climate change and other major global challenges.

有些人可能会问在太空技术在解决气候变化以及其他主要全球挑战中具有如此重要性的情况下怎么还会发生这种事情。

But, the problem lies much deeper than the relatively recent Wolf Amendment (2011).

但是，2011年的沃尔夫修正案还不是这个问题的核心所在。

China is not among US partners in the International Space Station, an initiative that dates to the Reagan era.

中国并非美国在国际空间站中的伙伴，国际空间站这个项目可以追溯到里根时期。

But, the history of lack of cooperation is far deeper, to the dawn of the space age.

但是缺乏合作的历史比这更久远，可以追溯到航天时代的黎明时期。

China chose not to participate in the International Geophysical Year (1957) due to US meddling in its affairs.

由于美国的干预中国没能参加（1957年的）国际地球物理年

The US and the USSR collaborated in space even at the height of the Cold War.

美国和前苏联（USSR）甚至在冷战的巅峰时期都在开展太空合作

But NASA personnel are prohibited from even talking with Chinese counterparts.

但NASA的人员甚至被禁止同中国同行进行交谈

A Cuban scientist that I know attended a conference in Beijing a couple years ago and served as an intermediary between NASA personnel and Chinese counterparts.

我了解的两三年前的一个古巴科学家参加了在北京举行的会议并且是作为一个中国和NASA交流的中间人被接待

He found it amusing insofar as Cuba did not even have diplomatic relations with the US at the time. But, it is an indictment. 

他觉得有趣的是在那时古巴和美国甚至没有外交关系 ，但这是一个控告

Certainly national security and IP must be protected, but the most powerful countries in the world need to be able to collaborate to jointly address global problems and opportunities.

国家安全和IP被保护是确定无疑的，但是世界上最强大的国家之间应该进行合作从而应对国际性问题和机遇

A way forward is suggested in this essay with the title "Major unfinished business in the the US space program",

本文中提出的一个好办法就是以下这个标题——“美国太空计划中未完成的重大事宜”

 -------------译者：烟一锅-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Lexi Mize
9/24/2015 9:15 AM GMT+0800 [Edited]
Thanks Ana, great job.

说得好 安娜

I'd like to have your opinion on China's expansion in Africa. Will African nations become the food and materials baskets to China in the next decade or three?

我想听听你对中国在非洲扩张的看法，在下一个十到三十年里非洲国家将变成中国的粮食和原材料来源地吗？
 
LoyalCitizen
9/24/2015 1:47 AM GMT+0800
Congratulations Ana Swanson and WaPo for this outstanding, fact-intensive article. This is like a breath of fresh air. This is such a contrast to the Politically Correct propaganda that seems to be drowning the Washington Post (and to be fair, virtually all the Establishment Media).

感谢Ana和《华盛顿邮报》的这篇优秀详实的文章。和华盛顿邮报（以及事实上几乎所有主流媒体）上大量政治正确的宣传文章相比，像是呼吸了新鲜空气一般。

Very little blame can or should be laid at the feet of the Chinese for the deficiency and in some cases, the abject stupidity, of United States policy towards, and trade relations with, China. That stupidity is all handily accommodated in that gerrymandered cesspool of corruption we call the United States Congress, with some well-earned blame that should be owned by the Executive Branch.

美国的对华贸易关系以及对华政策上所出现的一些不足和愚蠢状况，完全不应该由中国背锅。这些蠢事归咎于藏污纳垢的国会，行政部门也必须承担部分责任。

We forget sometimes that an unholy alliance between Government and Business (China) is no better, inherently, than an unholy alliance between Business and Government (USA). In China's case, their government could use a good dose of Market Economics. In our case, our Business Plutocracy could use a good dose of Regulation, Law and Order (restoring Glass-Steagall might be a nice place to start...) We need to revisit the halcyon days of the USA, then ask "Why and how?" A lot of questions would be answered, and many United States Corporatists would not be very happy with those answers.
In any case, congratulations Ana for a truly great article!
Smile

我们有时会忘记，本质上政府和企业（中国）之间的邪恶联盟并不比企业和政府（美国）之间的邪恶联盟更好。在中国的情况下，他们的政府可以利用市场经济进行调节。在我们的例子中，我们的商业集团可以使用法律规则进行调节。（恢复格拉斯 - 斯蒂格尔法案将是一个良好的开始...）我们需要重新审视美国的太平日子，然后问：“为什么和怎么样？”很多问题将得到解答，美国企业主们不会喜欢这些问题的答案。
不管怎么说，祝贺ana写了这篇真正伟大的文章！
微笑
ps
格拉斯-史蒂格法(Glass-Steagall Act)，是美国在1933年所通过的金融机构管制法，主要规定商业银行、证券公司(投资银行)与保险公司不得跨足彼此间的业务，也不得互相持股。
      之所以制定该法，主要是因为1930~1933年正为美国经济大萧条时期，华尔街股市崩盘，美国整体经济萎缩约30%，共计约1.1万家美国银行营运出现 问题，占当时所有银行的3分1。当时重重打击了美国的经济体系、怨声四起，国会议员一致将矛头指向银行，指责银行在风险过高的票券市场中进行操作，使存 款人的财产过度暴露在高风险的投资中，缺乏稳健的资产管理。故为了避免银行再犯同样的错误，遂推动上述法令以禁止商业银行进行投资银行的业务。
      不过，相对于欧洲国家管制较少的金融体系(Universal Banking)，美国制定的Glass-Steagall Act显然削减美国银行的获利能力，同时也削弱了美国金融机构的竞争力。而面对这样不利的情况，过去25年来该法案便遭到无数次的挑战，直到近年才逐渐克服政治上的阻碍，成功地于1999年底正式废止该项法案。
      但鉴于08年席卷全球的金融海啸，美国华尔街再度成为众矢之的，认为是引发此波危机的祸首，也因此，Glass-Steagall Act的必要性再度被外界重新提出。

 -------------译者：围观已一年-审核者：氯化钠⊙▽⊙槑------------

kl0202
9/24/2015 12:57 AM GMT+0800
(“xiao” is pronounced like the first syllable in “shower”) 
Is this useful in this article? 
Question 8: How to pronounce Chinese words in Beijing dialect...

（“小”的发音像“shower”(晓而，洗澡的意思)的首音节）
 在这篇文章中有用吗？
问题8：怎么用北京话进行中文发音。。
 
Elmothegreat
9/24/2015 12:31 AM GMT+0800
Hats off to Ana Swanson and the WP for an objective, balanced discussion of the complicated US-China relationship. This is a refreshing change from the usual highly biased and opinionated articles on this subject that is so prent in even mainstream media. For example, the daily offerings of the WSJ leaves no doubt that their columnists and editorial writers -and they alone- know exactly how to run a country of 1 billion people.
 
 致敬安娜斯旺森和WP关于复杂的中美关系客观和不带偏见的讨论。在目前主流媒体关于这个题目普遍极度偏见和冥顽不灵的观念中简直是个小清新的转变。比如，每日出版的华尔街日报毫不怀疑他们的专栏作家和社论员（仅仅是他们自以为）知道怎么管理运营一个十亿人的国家。
 
ROADEAGLE
9/23/2015 9:49 PM GMT+0800
Another well researched story from Ana. Nice work.

安娜写的又一篇精细的文章。干得不错。

-------------译者：ggnh-审核者：斯芬克斯的故事------------
East_Wind_Rain
9/23/2015 5:40 AM GMT+0800 [Edited]
re: "And while the Chinese government may seem all-powerful, its influence only goes so far. Many people still evade income or real estate taxes with impunity, while many businesses shirk government regulations."
And regional governments often ignore Beijing, too. The debt accumulated by those local governments for various developer projects is the main reason for China's high debt-to-GDP ratio. 
For a long time, the biggest conflict within China was between the central government and regional warlords. Today, something of that age-old problem still exists. Beijing must balance its superpower ambitions with its historical problems. Beijing does not want a set of well-armed warlords who could topple the central government. It is why 60 years after the Communists took power, the Chinese military still very much looks like a regional peasant army, rather than a modern fighting force.
 East_Wind_Rain
9/23/2015 5:40 AM GMT+0800 [Edited]

中国政府看似权力十足，但其影响却出不了北京多远。许多人可以不受惩罚的少申报收入、少纳税，许多公司也可以从政府机构逃税。
地方政府也经常无视北京。它们为各种发展项目筹集的贷款是中国债务占GDP高比率的主要原因。
很长时间中国最大的冲突在中央政府与地方军阀之间，今天这种古老的冲突依然存在。北京使中国成为超级大国的雄心受到这个历史问题的制衡。北京不想看到一系列的地方军阀颠覆中央政府，从而使中国军队在共产党夺取政权后依然像一个地方农民军，而不是一支现代战斗力量。

4blazek
9/23/2015 2:29 AM GMT+0800 [Edited]
For those folks not paying attention, China is our second leading trading partner for the simple reason our companies have exported US jobs. And in return they send us "somewhat" finished junk...
 4blazek
9/23/2015 2:29 AM GMT+0800 [Edited]

大家没有注意到，中国成为美国第二大贸易伙伴是因为那些资本家向中国出口“我们美国的工作”，并且回馈我们的都是垃圾产品