暗潮涌动的南中国海世界瞩目
Whoever replaces Barack Obama will face many difficult choices but few are likely to be as stark as those in the Asia Pacific region. In a 497-page, densely argued ruling this week, an internationAl tribunal in The Hague blew away the legal ambiguity that has long surrounded China’s claim to control the bulk of the South China Sea — one of the busiest trading routes in the world.
无论巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)的继任者是谁，都将面对许多艰难选择，但其中可能没几个像亚太地区的选择那样严酷。海牙国际仲裁庭上周公布了长达497页的详细仲裁结果，消除了长期以来有关中国对南中国海绝大多数区域领土主张的法律模糊。南中国海是世界上最繁忙的贸易路线之一。
How the White House responds to the verdict in the coming months will help define Washington’s relationship with Beijing for years, and dramatically influence the geopolitics of the region.
接下来几个月白宫对这一裁决所作反应，不但有助于定义未来数年美中之间的关系，还将对该地区地缘政治产生极大影响。
Washington sees the ruling, issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, after a complaint from the Philippines, as a victory for what some US officials describe as a 21st century rules-based order over China’s 19th-century plans for its own sphere of influence. By rejecting so many of the assumptions that underpinned Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea, the tribunal has put it on the spot.
华盛顿方面视这份由菲律宾提出仲裁、海牙常设仲裁法院(Permanent Court of Arbitration)作出的裁决是一次胜利，部分美国官员称，这是针对中国19世纪规划的势力范围，作出的一份21世纪的基于规则的裁决。仲裁庭否定了许多支撑中国南中国海领土主张的假设，令中国面临尴尬局面。
If China continues occupying reefs and developing them into potential military bases — a process that has accelerated since 2014 — it will be acting outside the bounds of international law. The US would then have to decide its next steps and how much military force it is prepared to deploy.
如果中国继续占领岛礁，并将它们发展为潜在军事基地——该进程在2014年后加速——其行为将越过国际法的边界。届时美国必须决定下一步行动，以及准备部署多少军事力量。
“China has to make a decision — is it going to adhere to the rule of law and act like a world leader with responsibilities, or is it going to go its own course,” says Ben Cardin, the senior Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee. However, he adds: “They will probably assert their sovereignty by additional island building or military activity.”
美国参议院外交关系委员会(Senate Foreign Relations Committee)资深民主党人本•卡丁(Ben Cardin)表示：“中国必须做出抉择，是要坚持法治，表现得像个负责任的全球领导者，还是要走自己的路线。”但他同时表示：“他们很可能会通过追加岛屿建设或军事行动来维护自己的主权。”
In an interview before the court ruling was announced, Max Baucus, US ambassador to China, said one of his messages to government officials in Beijing was that “we’re in a whole new chapter here . . . The old chapter was talk for the sake of talk, agree to disagree,” he added. “We’re past that. The new chapter is [about] actions”.
仲裁庭宣布裁决结果前，美国驻华大使马克斯•鲍卡斯(Max Baucus)在一次采访中表示，他想对北京的政府官员传递的信息之一就是“我们已进入一个全新的篇章……旧篇章是为了谈话而谈话，同意各自保留不同意见。我们已经翻过了这一篇，新篇章的内容是行动。”
Competing rivalries
竞争对手
There are multiple rivalries in the South China Sea and they operate on two levels. A host of islands, rocks and reefs are claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the disputes combine fishing rights, potential natural resources and national pride.
南中国海有多名角逐者，它们在两个层面上展开行动。中国、越南、菲律宾、马来西亚、文莱和台湾都对一众岛屿和岩礁提出了声索，争端牵涉捕鱼权、潜在的自然资源和民族自豪感。
For the US and China, the South China Sea is more a matter of the geopolitics of sea control. The US Navy has policed the crucial maritime waterway for most of the past 70 years, and believes that China wants to slowly nudge it out of crucial parts of the western Pacific. A dominant position in the South China Sea would give Beijing a platform to exert greater influence over the foreign policies of its neighbours and the terms of economic engagement in east Asia.
对于美国和中国来说，南中国海更多是一个关于海上控制权的地缘政治问题。过去70年的大多数时间里，美国海军一直充当这条重要海上航道的警察，同时相信中国想要一步步地将美国逼出这片西太平洋的关键海域。在南中国海占有主导地位将令北京得到一个平台，从而对邻国外交政策以及东亚经济合作条款施加更大影响。
The Hague ruling has delivered a significant blow to that project. The five-judge panel ruled unanimously that China does not have “historic rights” to the resources within its infamous “nine-dash line”, which delineates its claim to about 85 per cent of the waterway.
海牙国际仲裁庭的裁决对中国这一计划发出沉重的一击。五人仲裁小组一致裁定中国对其著名的“九段线”内的资源不拥有“历史性权利”。根据九段线划定的范围，中国主张对南中国海约85%的水域拥有主权。
The tribunal also said that none of the land features in the Spratlys archipelago — in the centre of the South China Sea — could be considered as islands, which under international law would give them a 200-mile “exclusive economic zone”. The result — which Beijing contests — sharply curtails its legal claim to control.
该仲裁庭还表示，斯普拉特利群岛（Spratly Islands，中国称南沙群岛）——位于南中国海的中心——内所有地物均不能被视作岛屿。依据国际法，岛屿可产生200海里的“专属经济区”。这一结果受到北京方面的反对，它极大限制了中国对南中国海控制权的法律主张。
For the US, the ruling gives it the chance to demonstrate that the channel is an international waterway where any navy can sail legally — and raises the potential cost for China should it expand its military footprint through further land reclamation. But officials hope the verdict could also provide the basis for a new round of regional diplomacy about the disputes.
对于美国来说，该裁决让它得以借机证明该航道为一条国际水道，任何海军都可以合法航行，它也提高了中国通过进一步填海造岛、扩大其军事足迹的潜在成本。但美国官员希望该裁决还可以为新一轮有关南中国海争端的地区外交提供基础。
Over the past four years, the Obama administration has tried to beef up its presence in the region in order to deter China — a policy known as the “pivot”. Michael McDevitt, a retired rear admiral, says that since 2013 there have been two US destroyers in the South China Sea at any one time.
过去4年奥巴马政府一直努力加强自己在该地区的存在，以遏制中国，即“重返亚洲”政策。退役海军少将迈克尔•麦克德维特(Michael McDevitt)表示自2013年以来，南中国海一直随时停留着两艘美国驱逐舰。
“The US presence has dramatically increased,” he says.
他说：“美国的存在显著增加了。”
The US has also revamped its military relationships in the region. Having kicked out US armed forces at the end of the cold war, this year the Philippines opened five bases to US aircraft. Washington is also discussing positioning military equipment for the first time in 40 years in Vietnam, at a base in Da Nang.
美国还改进了在该地区的军事关系。曾在冷战结束时赶走美军的菲律宾，今年向美国空军开放了5个基地。华盛顿方面还在讨论在越南岘港基地布置军事装备，这是40年来第一次。
Ambiguous environment
模糊的环境
At times, Beijing’s island-building has confused the US. It has found it difficult to respond to Chinese “salami-slicing”, where its moves to change the facts on the ground are too small to attract a backlash, in contrast to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.
北京方面的岛屿建设令美国不时感到困惑，它发现中国的“切香肠”策略很难对付。与2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚相比，中国改变地面事实的动作实在太小，不足以引起强烈反应。
The Obama administration has also found itself divided over how strongly it should push back against China, with the Pentagon — and especially Pacific Command — advocating tougher military action to deter further land reclamation. Yet at times, this has been in conflict with other goals, such as securing Chinese support for last year’s climate change agreement.
对于应该以多大的力度回击中国，奥巴马政府内部的意见也不统一。其中五角大楼——尤其是美国太平洋司令部(Pacific Command)——主张采取更强硬的军事行动，以遏制中国进一步填海造岛。然而，这种立场有时会与其他目标发生冲突，比如获得中国去年对气候变化协议的支持。
Before the ruling, China operated in an environment of much greater legal ambiguity. When the US Navy began a series of “freedom of navigation operations”, designed to challenge excessive claims, a senior official said Ashton Carter, the defence secretary, held “dozens of hours of meetings with lawyers, poring over maps”. Yet even then, some US officials believe that the resulting patrols by US ships sent signals that were often confusing in legal terms.
在此次裁决之前，中国是在一种法律模糊性更大的环境下行动的。当美国海军开始一系列旨在挑战过度领土主张的“航行自由行动”时，一名高级官员称，美国国防部长阿什顿•卡特(Ashton Carter)“与律师举行了几十小时的会议，钻研地图”。然而，即便如此，一些美国官员仍认为，作为其结果的美军船只巡航传达的信号在法律上往往是令人困惑的。
Backed by the ruling, the Pentagon has a much clearer view of the legal status of most of the features in the South China Sea to guide its patrols. “The ruling puts wind in the sails of what the US has already been doing,” says Timothy Heath, a China expert at the Rand Corporation.
在裁决的支持下，五角大楼对南中国海的大多数地物的法律地位有了更清晰的认识，这能指导美国的巡航。“裁决让美国对其已在进行的事情更有信心了，”兰德公司(Rand Corporation)的中国问题专家蒂莫西•希思(Timothy Heath)说。
But he does not anticipate any drastic changes. “China is not going to leave voluntarily anytime soon and the US does not want a war over this issue,” he says.
但他并不预计会发生任何剧烈的变化。“中国短期内不会自愿撤离，而美国不希望因为这个问题挑起战争，”他说。
The US is likely to encourage allies in the region, such as Australia and Japan, to conduct similar operations in order to emphasise the claim that these are international waters. European allies may also get involved. The UK and France have expressed an interest in conducting South China Sea missions, which they can justify in terms of defending international law.
美国可能鼓励日本、澳大利亚等其在该地区的盟友采取类似行动，以强调这些水域是国际水域的主张。其欧洲盟友也可能参与进来。英国和法国都表达了在南中国海开展行动的兴趣，它们可以以维护国际法的名义声称这些行动是正当的。
The Hague’s decision coincided with a Beijing summit between the EU and China. In his formal opening remarks hours ahead of its release, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, referred to the “important ruling” that was coming and told China’s premier, Li Keqiang, that “the rule-based international order is in our common interest . . . both China and the EU have to protect it”.
海牙国际仲裁庭的裁决适逢欧盟(EU)和中国在北京举行峰会。在裁决公布几小时前，欧洲理事会(European Council)主席唐纳德•图斯克(Donald Tusk)在正式的开幕致辞中提到即将到来的“重要的裁决”，并对中国总理李克强说，“基于规则的国际秩序符合我们的共同利益……中国和欧盟都必须保护它”。
“They were very upset that Tusk raised the matter publicly,” says one person briefed on the talks. “The Europeans have never seen the Chinese side so angry.” A scheduled press briefing featuring Mr Li and Mr Tusk was cancelled at short notice, when the EU insisted that journalists be allowed to ask questions that Beijing officials knew would be dominated by the territorial dispute.
“图斯克公开提到这个问题，他们非常恼火，”一名了解这次会谈情况的人说，“欧洲人从来没有看到中方如此愤怒过。”由于欧盟方面坚持允许记者提问，而北京方面的官员知道这些问题将会被领土争端主导，一场预定的李克强和图斯克的媒体发布会被临时取消。
US commitment
美国的承诺
The ruling comes during a US presidential campaign that is creating nervousness among Asian allies about the reliability of American commitments, especially with regard to the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.
裁决公布之际，美国总统大选激战正酣。这次大选正使美国的亚洲盟友对美国所作承诺的可靠性产生怀疑，尤其是悬而未决的贸易协定《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(TPP)。
For many in the region, the TPP is a once-in-a-generation commitment by the US — a reassurance that Washington genuinely see its future tied to Asia. It is for that reason that Mr Carter has said that the agreement would be “worth another aircraft carrier”.
对于该地区的许多国家而言，TPP是美国作出的几十年只有一次的承诺——美国真正认为其未来和亚洲联系在一起的保证。因为这个原因，卡特曾经说，这个协议“价值比得上一艘航空母舰”。
However, TPP is opposed by both the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump . Mr Trump has also raised the prospect of pulling US troops out of Japan and South Korea and encouraging both countries to develop their own nuclear deterrent against North Korea — which would substantially undercut the US military position if implemented.
然而，民主党和共和党的假定被提名人希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)和唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump，特朗普已正式获得共和党总统候选人提名——编者注)都反对TPP。特朗普还提出了一种可能，即把美国军队从日本和韩国撤出，鼓励两国发展自己的核威慑以对抗朝鲜——如果美国真的这样做，其军事地位将被大大削弱。
There is also the awkward irony that the US Senate has yet to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, the basis for The Hague ruling. When it was debated two years ago, some Republican senators warned it could be used to overrule American sovereignty claims — precisely the complaint China is making. As a result, Beijing is refusing to accept the ruling based on an agreement it has fully signed up to, while the US is calling for the enforcement of a treaty it has declined to back.
还有一个具有讽刺意味的尴尬事实是，美国参议院仍未批准《联合国海洋法公约》(UNCLOS)。《公约》正是海牙仲裁庭的裁决依据。两年前对此进行辩论的时候，一些共和党参议员警告称，《公约》可能被用来推翻美国的主权主张——这正是中国现在的不满。其结果是，北京方面拒绝接受基于其全面签署的一项协议作出的裁决，而美国则呼吁执行一项其拒绝支持的公约。
In the short term, top of the list of potential Sino-US flashpoints is Scarborough Shoal, 140 miles from the Philippines’ coast where China took control three years ago. Earlier this year, the Obama administration delivered private warnings to Beijing not to begin a new exercise in land reclamation. Although US officials refuse to say if Scarborough Shoal is covered by the mutual defence treaty between the countries, some in Washington would like to see a formal declaration in order to deter Beijing.
从短期来看，中美的头号潜在冲突点是距离菲律宾海岸线140英里、在3年前被中国控制的斯卡伯勒浅滩（Scarborough Shoal，中国称黄岩岛）。今年早些时候，奥巴马政府私下警告中国不要开始新的填海造岛。尽管美国官员拒绝说明美国与菲律宾之间的共同防御条约是否覆盖了斯卡伯勒浅滩，但华盛顿的一些人士希望美国作出正式声明以遏制中国。
“I think we should be prepared to take military action in Scarborough Shoal” if China tries to build a new artificial island, says Admiral Dennis Blair, former head of US Pacific Command. “Draw the line there.”
如果中国试图建一个新的人工岛，“我认为我们应该准备好在斯卡伯勒浅滩采取军事行动”，前美军太平洋司令部总司令丹尼斯•布莱尔海军上将(Admiral Dennis Blair)说，“要在那里划定界线。”
