超级军网英国经济学人南海问题：中国的两面手法
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 15:25:50
转自：龙腾网 翻译：福禄寿禧
译文简介:来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文
章，澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
正文翻译:Banyan
菩提树下
Asia
亚洲
The SouthChina SeaHaving it both ways
南海问题：中国的两面手法
Mar 9th 2012,2:20 by Banyan
2012年3月9日 菩提树下
ANINTERESTING and helpful piece by Robert Beckman, a professor of
internationallaw at the National University of Singapore, clarifies some of
the issuesbehind what has become, for now, the hottest ofthe myriad disputes
in the South ChinaSea.
This onepits the Philippines against China. The Philippines has announced
that it isgoing to open new maritime blocks off its island of Palawan for
oil-and-gasexploration. It claims the area as part of the “exclusive
economic zone” (EEZ)attached to the main Philippine archipelago. China has
objected, since itclaims the area in question.
It isoften assumed that this is based on China’s mysterious “nine-dashed
line” claim, a pieceof historic cartography which China sometimes insists
gives it indisputablesovereignty over most of the sea, but whose legal basis
seems at bestflimsy.
来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章，澄清了
导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
这次是菲律宾和中国的矛盾。菲律宾此前宣布将在巴拉望岛外的海洋区块进行油气开发
。菲律宾宣称这些区域是菲律宾群岛专属经济区的一部分。中国对此表示反对，它认为
这些区域仍有主权争议。
通常人们认为这是因为中国基于历史海图“九段线”，坚持主张对大部分海域拥有无可
争议的主权，但其法理依据似乎很薄弱。
However,Mr Beckman points out that China also has an unresolvedterritorial
claim to the Spratly archipelago (also claimed in its entirety by Taiwan and
Vietnam). The Spratlysare mainly tiny rocks and islets, which under the
United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be entitled
just to “territorial waters”, of12 nautical miles (22km). However, some
might be considered habitable, andhence count as “islands”, which would
have a full 200-mile EEZ, overlappingwith the Philippines' archipelagic EEZ.
And so, onthis analysis, China does have a legitimate basis for its claim;
the area is“in dispute”, and the Philippines would be in the wrong to
pursue hydrocarbonexploration unilaterally.
One thingabout this seems odd though. If China follows UNCLOS in this area
of the sea,can it ignore it in areas where it has no such claim, just its
nine-dashedassertive line? The answer, I suppose, is yes; China can always
have it bothways.
贝克曼教授同时指出：中国在南沙群岛（台湾和越南都声索南沙全部主权）也有领土主
权争端。南沙群岛基本上都是很小的礁石和岛屿，在联合国海洋法公约中这种岛礁仅被
赋予周围12海里（22公里）的“领海”。但是某些可能被认定为可居住的，因此会被算
做“岛”，这些岛屿拥有200海里的专属经济区，而这将会与菲律宾本岛的专属经济区
范围重叠。
当然从这个角度来说，中国的主张确实有法理依据，这些区域有主权“争议”，而菲律
宾单方面采取行动开采油气资源可能确实是不对的。
有个问题看起来很奇怪。如果中国在这个海域遵循联合国海洋法公约，那么它在其他没
有这么多主权主张的海域可以不遵循该公约而是按照它的九段线来划分？答案我想是可
以的，中国经常玩两面手法。
评论翻译:以下为评论部分翻译
---------------------------
MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48
Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.
All major powers basically tryand do that.
他们当然可以，而且他们肯定想这么做。
基本上所有大国都想这么做。
-------------------------
sprinter3321March 9th, 06:52
I am a resident of Singapore,and my (Singaporean) neighbor told me yesterday
that the US military presencein Singapore is a touchy subject. While it did
not matter when the US was theglobal hegemon, now that China is competing
for dominance in SEAsia, the USpresence in Singapore is putting the country
at risk. Presumably, US forces arein Singapore in order to cut China's oil
supply (89% of which passes throughthe Malaka Straits) in the event of
conflict anywhere in the region (Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Spratleys, Philippines
etc). China must be well aware of thisthreat to their energy lifeline.
我居住在新加坡，我的邻居（新加坡人）去年告诉我说美军在新加坡的存在是一个棘手
的问题。当美国还是全球霸主的时候这不要紧，现在中国正在争夺亚洲海域的领导权，
美军在新加坡的存在将这个国家置于险地。美军在新加坡的存在可能是为了在区域内（
台湾、韩国、日本、南海、菲律宾等）发生冲突时切断中国的石油供应（89%通过马六
甲海峡）。中国对这个能源供给的威胁肯定非常清楚。
Ah Beng in reply to sprinter3321March 9th, 15:27
.... HAHAHA what?
I am a (former) resident ofSingapore, also. What exists in Singapore is a
regional JAG - a military court- and a refueling and logistics center, not a
permanent military base. In fact,since the entirety of the facility at
Sembawang is actually a Singaporemilitary base, partially leased by the US,
Singapore could kick out the US aseasily as Uzbekistan has done, simply by
refusing to renew the lease.
While the US presence may havegeopolitical implications, your speculation on
the motives of the United Statesare asinine. Tell me, how does a rented
refueling station interdict oil?
笑，什么？
我（之前）也住在新加坡。美军在新加坡的军事存在只不过是一个区域性的军事法庭、
油料和后勤补给中心，不是永久军事基地。事实上，森巴旺已经是新加坡的军事基地，
只是部分租借给美军使用，新加坡只需要拒绝续租就可以像乌兹别克斯坦那样轻易地把
美军赶走。
美国的军事存在可能有地缘政治的考虑，但你关于美国可能所采取的行动的推测是愚蠢
的。告诉我，一个租用的油料供应中心如何去切断石油供给线？
okydoky in reply to Ah BengMarch 9th, 22:01
Singapore is much more thanjust a refuelling depot for US forces. The US
announced recently that two'littoral assault' ships will be based
permanently at Singapore. There are onlytwo bases in SEASia which have the
facilities to dock and servicenuclear-powered US aircraft carriers: Japan
and Singapore. The only possiblereason for this concentration of US forces
in Singapore is to interdict tradethrough the Malacca Straits. All of this
is available on globalsecurity.org
新加坡的意义远不止于美军的油料供应点。美国最近宣布将把两艘滨海战斗舰永久部署
在新加坡。在整个亚洲海域仅有两个地点可供美军核动力航母停泊和维修：日本和新加
坡。美国军事力量对新加坡的关注的唯一原因就是为了切断经马六甲海峡的贸易往来。
这些都可以在globalsecurity.org网站上查到。
Fish Eagle in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 01:36
It is reasonable to assume weAmericans are in Singapore for the same reason
the British were in Singapore ahundred years ago: to participate in (and
control) east-west trade. The factthe trade now includes China's oil is an
added benefit, given our new focus onsecurity in the South China Sea.
怀疑我们美国在新加坡的存在和一百年前英国在新加坡的存在是因为同样的理由是有一
定道理的：参与（控制）东西方贸易。事实上我们正关注南海的安全形势，（能控制）
包括中国石油资源在内的贸易则是额外的好处。
tocharian in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 07:46
No worries here. Singaporewill very soon become a "vassal state" of "Greater
China".It's part of the string of pearls strategy! Duh
不要担心。新加坡很快就会成为“大中国”的一个“附属国”。它是珍珠链战略上的一
环。
PL123 in reply to tocharianMarch 10th, 12:14
Now Singapore is moreintergrated to Greater China's economy, they don't want
to sink with a dyingempire.
如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈，他们不想为一个垂死的帝国（译注：指美国）陪
葬。
viethong in reply to PL123March 11th, 00:50
I may show why peopl nowtalking US in sing: paper straits time had artical
week before by ISEAS personRichardson, say 85 percen china oil come thru
sing strait (not 89 like sayhere). Same day paper artical say 2 new americ
ship come to sing, an americ wantnow look chine sea. sing peopl connecvt
article togeter
我来说说为什么现在人们讨论美国在新加坡的军事存在：《海峡时报》周刊之前刊登了
南亚研究所理查森的文章，谈到中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡（而不是文中的
89%）。某一天周刊又说2艘美国新型军舰将部署到新加坡，美国对南海的新关注。新加
坡人把这两篇文章放在一起来理解了。
Ex Patriot in reply to tocharianMarch 11th, 04:13
Singapore's been a vassalstate of China's for a very long time.
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
Dogsi in reply to sprinter3321March 16th, 04:45
Prior US sailor here. Theprimary reason why America is in the Malaka
Straights is to secure trade, notto prevent it. There are hundreds of acts
of piracy every year in that region.US destroyers, frigates, etc. are
constantly in the region trying to keep theshipping lanes open and safe.
As for why America constantlyuses Singapore as a base of operations, that is
because it has fairly advancedfacilities, is fairly politically neutral, and
it is well located in theregion. Whether we are heading West towards the
Indian ocean or the PersianGulf, South, towards Australia, or returning from
these areas and heading Northtowards Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan,
Singapore is an easily accessed port.
Stop the fear mongering.America is not attempting to cut off China's oil
supplies. There will be no warbetween America and China. China and America
both know that it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating
America out side of its own borders.
美国海军早就出现在那里了。美国在马六甲海峡的军事存在主要是为了贸易安全，而不
是相反。每年在这区域有数百起海盗行为。美国驱逐舰、护卫舰经常在区域内巡逻以维
护海运航道的开放和安全。
至于说为什么美军将新加坡作为一个行动基地，那是因为新加坡拥有完善的设施。政治
上是完全中立的，而且美军的行动只限定在该区域内。无论我们是向西进入印度洋或波
斯湾；或是往南进入澳大利亚；还是离开上述区域往北前往香港、韩国和日本，新加坡
都是一个非常便捷的港口。
停止不必要的恐惧。美国并没有试图切断中国的石油供给。美中之间不会开战。中国和
美国都知道还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。
new paradigm426 in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 06:06
"it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side
of its ownborders"
So what happened in Vietnam?The US lost against (the Northern half) of a
developing country. The mostpowerful country on earth beaten by (half) of
one of the weakest.
Few doubt the US would win anaval engagement, but a land war is a different
story. This is the mistake theBritish made: they assumed the Japs would come
by sea, but they came down theMalay Peninsula instead. On bicycles. The
Chinese will do the same, and theresult will be the same. The US is no match
for China in a land war, the USelectorate will not tolerate hundreds of
thousand of casualties in defence ofplace Americans can't even find on a
map.
Singapore would be safer ifthe US were to pull out of Singapore altogether.
Then Singapore can make it'sown agreements with China, based on the new
reality. This way, armed conflictcan be prevented.
“还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。”
在越南发生了什么？美国输给了一个发展中国家（北越）。
世界上最强大的国家被（半个，译注：指北越，所以是半个国家）世界上最弱小的国家
之一给击败了。
很少人怀疑美国会在海战中取胜，但是地面战争则不同。这是英国所犯的错误：他们认
为日本会从海上发动进攻，但是日本从马来半岛侵入——靠自行车。中国也会这么做，
而且结果也会一样。美国在地面战争中不是中国的对手，美国人民无法承受数十万的伤
亡，而交战的地点美国人甚至都无法在地图上找到。
如果美国全面从新加坡撤出，新加坡将会更加安全。那样新加坡可以和中国在新的环境
下签订条约。只有这样武装冲突才能避免。
Dogsi in reply to new paradigm426March 16th, 08:46
Your analogy is fallacious.Singapore is not part of China but is far from
China's borders. Do you believethe Chinese are more willing to sacrifice
lives in a war of aggression thanAmericans would be in a war to defend an
ally? Do you believe that China's neighborswould sit ideally by while China
rolled over other countries to invadeSingapore? Do you believe China has the
logistics to wage war over a thousandmiles from its borders with American
naval dominance?
China is not a threat toSingapore. Even if it was, it would not be a threat
to Singapore with Americabacking it.
Now as your other assertion.America would trounce China in a land war. It is
true that China's populationis larger than America's. However, the gap is
not as drastic as it would be ifyou compared China to the UK, Germany, etc.
America is about 1/4 the populationof China. However, it has far more
resources, military technology, politicalallies, etc.
In the Vietnam war, Americatrounced the Vietnamese military. Approximately
3,000,000 Vietnamese diedduring that war. Approximately 60,000 Americans
died in that war. For every 1American that died, Vietnam lost 50.
In the first gulf war againstIraq, America fought a military that was
technologically more advanced and farmore experienced than China. America
killed the Iraqi's at about an 90 to 1ratio.
There is a key difference withall of these wars in that America was fighting
a war outside of our borders. Wewere fighting people defending their
homeland from a hostile invader. People fightingto defend their home are far
more fanatical than people fighting to promote theselfish desires of their
own government.
Yes, an American invasion ofmainland China would be disastrous. I have no
doubt that the US military couldroll over the Chinese military and seize
control of any place in China.However, it would be a bloody and never ending
affair. It would cost Americahundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of
dollars and would end inAmerica eventually cutting our losses and bailing.
Finally, no, Singapore issafer with America. America is by far the strongest
military power in theworld. America has showed no indications that it wishes
to annex anything.America poses absolutely no risk to Singapore. China on
the other hand hasshown increased belligerence with its neighbors. It has
been increasinglyconfrontational with Vietnam, Japan, RP, etc.
China has not had a"peaceful rise" out of their benign nature but because
they lack thepower to engage and win a conflict against American will. They
know that anywar it fights would give the US government the justification
that they wouldlove to have to military humiliate China. This is why China
rattles its sabersat Taiwan, 1 or 2 US battle groups show up, and China
backs down.
The Chinese and Americangovernments both know this. You acting like this is
not the case is effectivelystating you are more knowledgeable on the topic
than both the US and theChinese governments.
你的类比很荒谬。新加坡不是中国的一部分，它和中国距离遥远。你认为中国会愿意在
一场侵略战争中比美国保卫盟友的战争中承受更多人员伤亡？你认为中国的后勤足以支
撑一场千里之外和拥有制海权的美国的战争？
中国不是新加坡的威胁。即便是，它对美国援助下的新加坡也构不成威胁。
关于你的另一个论断。美国人将在地面战争中狠狠教训中国。中国的人口比美国多是事
实。但是，如果将中国和英国、德国等相比你就会发现中美之间的差距不是那么大。美
国的人口是中国的1/4，但是美国有更多的资源、更先进的军事技术和更多的政治盟友
等。
在越战中，美国痛揍越南军队。将近300万越南人在战争中丧生，而与此相比只有约6万
美国人丧生。每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人。
在对伊拉克的第一次海湾战争中，美国的对手比中国的科技水平更高且有更多实战经验
的。美国/伊拉克阵亡比例大约是1：90。
这些战争中的一个很大区别是，美国是在国土外作战。我们是在和一个抵御侵略祖国的
人作战。为祖国而战的人们比为政府的贪欲作战的有着更高的热情。
是的，如果美国入侵中国大陆这将会是个灾难。我并不怀疑美国军队可以碾碎中国军队
并全面占领中国，但这将是一个血腥且永不止境的战争。这将让美国付出数十万的伤亡
和数万亿的美元，而且战争会以美国最终不得不削减开支而告终。
总之，新加坡和美国在一起更安全。美国的军事力量目前仍是世界上最强。美国也从未
有任何迹象想要吞并什么。美国不会对新加坡造成任何威胁。中国则相反，它对邻国的
好战欲望正在增长。它和越南、日本、菲律宾等的对抗越来越强。
中国的善良本质并未带来“和平崛起”，因为他们缺乏同美国作战的力量。他们知道任
何战争都会给美国政府理由来乐意地羞辱他们。这就是为什么中国对台湾耀武扬威时，
只要一两个美国舰队一出现他们就退缩的原因。
中国政府和美国政府对此都心知肚明。你在这事情的表演并不能表示你在这问题上比美
国和中国政府更聪明。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 08:49
The combined navies ofMalaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more than
capabable of taking care of afew pirates in the Melaca Strait, they don't
need the US Pacific Fleet forthat. And by the way, the issue is not only the
Melaca Strait and it's oilroute, it is also the Sunda Strait (between Bali
and Lombok), through whichcomes most of China's coal and iron, from
Australia. Turn off China's oil, coaland iron, and you turn off China.
马来西亚、印尼和新加坡的海军联合起来足以应对马六甲海峡内的少量海盗，他们并不
需要美国太平洋舰队来帮忙。而且问题不仅仅是马六甲海峡和石油航线，巽他海峡（巴
里岛和龙目岛之间）同样如此，中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石大部分经由该航线
运输。切断了中国的石油、煤炭和铁矿石进口，你就打败了中国。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 09:02
"For every 1 Americanthat died, Vietnam lost 50". And yet Vietnam still won
the war. Bodycounts don't impress an electorate, results do, and the result
in Vietnam (andnow Afghanistan) is that the USA lost the war.
China does not have to careabout what the electorate thinks, they don't have
an electorate. In Korea theysent human waves at artillery and machine gun
positions without regard forlosses. Human life is immaterial when you have a
population of 1.3 billion.
The US is in the last stagesof imperial overstretch, and if they take on
China it will be a catastrophe notonly for the US and China, but also for
the countries they decide to fighttheir battles across. Ask any Iraqi.
“每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人”
但是越南人赢得了战争。数人头对选民没有意义，结果才是，在越南（现在是阿富汗）
的结果就是美国输掉了战争。
中国不需要考虑选民在想什么，他们不存在选民。在朝鲜战争中他们向火炮和机枪射击
位置发动人海战术，毫不顾及伤亡。在一个13亿人口的大国，人命并不值钱。
美国正处在帝国过度扩张的最后阶段，和中国开战不只是美国和中国的灾难，也是所有
决定为国而战的全体人民的灾难。不信的话你问问任何一个伊拉克人。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:04
The Indonesian navy islaughable. The Malaysian and Singaporean navies likely
could handle the job butthey don't. Also, it is not a "few" pirates. The
Malacca straits havethe largest concentration of pirates in the world.
Recent concerted efforts byAmerica, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia as
well as increased defenses by shippingvessels has caused a notable decrease
in the rate of piracy. However, it isstill an issue. Indonesia is a very
poorly governed and controlled region withthousands of islands that are
completely unregulated. The corrupt governmentallows pirates to reliably get
their plundered goods to market.
Is America NEEDED? Nope.However, is that why America is there? Yes. America
also has a lot of tradepassing through the Malacca straits.
I was on the USS Paul F.Foster during its twilight cruise. We bordered and
seized a little over 30pirate ships in the 4 months we patrolled between
Singapore and Thailand.
Finally, America is not goingto war with China. Why would it? This is
nothing more than fear mongering.
印尼海军就是个笑话。马来西亚和新加坡海军看似能够应付，但实际上不能。还有，这
不只是“少量”海盗。马六甲海域内有全世界数量最集中的海盗。最近美国、新加坡、
马来西亚和印尼运用更多战舰集中行动显著地降低了海盗出现的频率，但这仍然是一个
麻烦。印尼的数千个岛屿缺乏有效管理。贪腐的政府甚至允许海盗将他们的掠夺物合法
地在市场上出售。
需要美国吗？不。那为什么美国人在那出现？因为美国也有大量的贸易需要通过马六甲
海峡。
我曾经在保罗-F-伏斯特号服役并参与巡逻。在新加坡和泰国间巡逻的4个月时间里，我
们抵近并逮捕了30多艘海盗船。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:09
Again, China does not borderSingapore.
You are ignorant if youbelieve the Chinese don't care about their own people
dying. Human life is notimmaterial. You are naive to think so.
The US is not in the"last stages of imperial overstretch". That is nothing
more than youranti-American wishful thinking. China will likely surpass
America over the nextcouple decades. However, it is not due to a decline of
America but because ofthe rise of China.
China is a larger country andshould by default be more powerful than
America. America is stronger thanGermany, the UK, France, etc. because it is
larger, not because of any innatesuperiority of the American people. The
"issue" with the"relative decline" of America is no different.
Finally, Iraq is better off.Check out their GDP. Iraq's GDP today is 9 times
what it was when Americainvaded in 2003.
强调一下，中国和新加坡并不接壤。
如果你相信中国人并不在意他们自己人的伤亡，那这纯属无知。人命并不是无足轻重的
，你那么想太幼稚了。
美国也不是处在“帝国过度扩张的最后阶段”。这只不过是你反-美国的一厢情愿。中
国在20年后很可能会超越美国，但是这不是因为美国的衰退而是中国的崛起。
中国比美国更大，它应该比美国更强大。美国比德国、英国、法国等等更强大不是什么
美国人天生的优越性而是因为美国本来就比它们更大。那个“问题”和美国的“相对下
降”说的是同一件事。
最后再说一点，伊拉克比以前更好。你可以看看他们的GDP，它目前的GDP是美国2003年
入侵时的9倍。
fruitcake22 in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 00:57
I must wade in here and makesome points:
1. 85% of China's oil comesthrough the Malacca Straits. This was written in
the Straits Times by thedefence analyst Michael Richardson at Singapore's
Institute of South East AsianStudies
2. Most of China's coal andiron ore comes through the Sunda Straits from
Australia, a few hundred milesEast of the Malacca Straits
3. Singapore is building hugeunderground oil storage tanks at Jurong Island
called the Jurong Rock Caverns.Why does Singapore need millions of gallons
of oil? And why does it need to beunderground? It is far cheaper and quicker
to build surface storage, andSingapore's navy is not large enough to need
it.
3. The US is 're-posturing'it's forces to the South China Sea to counter
China's agressive stance in theregion, including sending new warships to be
based in Singapore, thePhillipines, and Vietnam, and troops to Australia.
The fact that Singapore andIndonesia do not border China is irrelevent when
by closing two choke points,the US can render China incapable of making war.
The US is effectively holdinga knife to China's throat, and saying "if you
make trouble in Korea,Taiwan, Spratleys, Phillipines, Vietnam etc we will
turn off your trade"
This means that in the eventof war between the US and China, the Malacca
Straits and the Sunda Straits willbe the PLA's first stop, not their last.
我必须要说说：
1、中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡的。出自新加坡东南亚研究学院的国防战略研
究专家迈克尔·理查森在新加坡《海峡时报》的撰稿。
2、中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石资源大多数通过马六甲海峡以东100公里的巽他
海峡。
3、新加坡正在裕廊岛兴建被称为裕廊岩洞的大型地下石油存储库。为什么新加坡需要
成百上千万加仑的油料？为什么需要地下存储？建造地面存储更便宜和更快捷，而新加
坡的海军根本不需要这么多。
4、美国正在将兵力“重新部署”到南海以对抗中国在该区域内的进攻态势，包括将新
军舰部署到新加坡、菲律宾、越南和把部队派驻澳大利亚。
新加坡和印尼与中国不接壤没有关系，关键是美国只要控制住这两个咽喉就可以使得中
国没有发动战争的能力。美国正用小刀抵住中国的咽喉，然后说“如果你敢在韩国、台
湾、南沙、菲律宾、越南等地方制造麻烦的话，我就让你做不成贸易”。
这意味着如果美国和中国开战，马六甲海峡和巽他海峡将是解放军的第一站，而不是最
后一站。
转自：龙腾网 翻译：福禄寿禧
译文简介:来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文
章，澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
正文翻译:Banyan
菩提树下
Asia
亚洲
The SouthChina SeaHaving it both ways
南海问题：中国的两面手法
Mar 9th 2012,2:20 by Banyan
2012年3月9日 菩提树下
ANINTERESTING and helpful piece by Robert Beckman, a professor of
internationallaw at the National University of Singapore, clarifies some of
the issuesbehind what has become, for now, the hottest ofthe myriad disputes
in the South ChinaSea.
This onepits the Philippines against China. The Philippines has announced
that it isgoing to open new maritime blocks off its island of Palawan for
oil-and-gasexploration. It claims the area as part of the “exclusive
economic zone” (EEZ)attached to the main Philippine archipelago. China has
objected, since itclaims the area in question.
It isoften assumed that this is based on China’s mysterious “nine-dashed
line” claim, a pieceof historic cartography which China sometimes insists
gives it indisputablesovereignty over most of the sea, but whose legal basis
seems at bestflimsy.
来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章，澄清了
导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
这次是菲律宾和中国的矛盾。菲律宾此前宣布将在巴拉望岛外的海洋区块进行油气开发
。菲律宾宣称这些区域是菲律宾群岛专属经济区的一部分。中国对此表示反对，它认为
这些区域仍有主权争议。
通常人们认为这是因为中国基于历史海图“九段线”，坚持主张对大部分海域拥有无可
争议的主权，但其法理依据似乎很薄弱。
However,Mr Beckman points out that China also has an unresolvedterritorial
claim to the Spratly archipelago (also claimed in its entirety by Taiwan and
Vietnam). The Spratlysare mainly tiny rocks and islets, which under the
United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be entitled
just to “territorial waters”, of12 nautical miles (22km). However, some
might be considered habitable, andhence count as “islands”, which would
have a full 200-mile EEZ, overlappingwith the Philippines' archipelagic EEZ.
And so, onthis analysis, China does have a legitimate basis for its claim;
the area is“in dispute”, and the Philippines would be in the wrong to
pursue hydrocarbonexploration unilaterally.
One thingabout this seems odd though. If China follows UNCLOS in this area
of the sea,can it ignore it in areas where it has no such claim, just its
nine-dashedassertive line? The answer, I suppose, is yes; China can always
have it bothways.
贝克曼教授同时指出：中国在南沙群岛（台湾和越南都声索南沙全部主权）也有领土主
权争端。南沙群岛基本上都是很小的礁石和岛屿，在联合国海洋法公约中这种岛礁仅被
赋予周围12海里（22公里）的“领海”。但是某些可能被认定为可居住的，因此会被算
做“岛”，这些岛屿拥有200海里的专属经济区，而这将会与菲律宾本岛的专属经济区
范围重叠。
当然从这个角度来说，中国的主张确实有法理依据，这些区域有主权“争议”，而菲律
宾单方面采取行动开采油气资源可能确实是不对的。
有个问题看起来很奇怪。如果中国在这个海域遵循联合国海洋法公约，那么它在其他没
有这么多主权主张的海域可以不遵循该公约而是按照它的九段线来划分？答案我想是可
以的，中国经常玩两面手法。
评论翻译:以下为评论部分翻译
---------------------------
MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48
Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.
All major powers basically tryand do that.
他们当然可以，而且他们肯定想这么做。
基本上所有大国都想这么做。
-------------------------
sprinter3321March 9th, 06:52
I am a resident of Singapore,and my (Singaporean) neighbor told me yesterday
that the US military presencein Singapore is a touchy subject. While it did
not matter when the US was theglobal hegemon, now that China is competing
for dominance in SEAsia, the USpresence in Singapore is putting the country
at risk. Presumably, US forces arein Singapore in order to cut China's oil
supply (89% of which passes throughthe Malaka Straits) in the event of
conflict anywhere in the region (Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Spratleys, Philippines
etc). China must be well aware of thisthreat to their energy lifeline.
我居住在新加坡，我的邻居（新加坡人）去年告诉我说美军在新加坡的存在是一个棘手
的问题。当美国还是全球霸主的时候这不要紧，现在中国正在争夺亚洲海域的领导权，
美军在新加坡的存在将这个国家置于险地。美军在新加坡的存在可能是为了在区域内（
台湾、韩国、日本、南海、菲律宾等）发生冲突时切断中国的石油供应（89%通过马六
甲海峡）。中国对这个能源供给的威胁肯定非常清楚。
Ah Beng in reply to sprinter3321March 9th, 15:27
.... HAHAHA what?
I am a (former) resident ofSingapore, also. What exists in Singapore is a
regional JAG - a military court- and a refueling and logistics center, not a
permanent military base. In fact,since the entirety of the facility at
Sembawang is actually a Singaporemilitary base, partially leased by the US,
Singapore could kick out the US aseasily as Uzbekistan has done, simply by
refusing to renew the lease.
While the US presence may havegeopolitical implications, your speculation on
the motives of the United Statesare asinine. Tell me, how does a rented
refueling station interdict oil?
笑，什么？
我（之前）也住在新加坡。美军在新加坡的军事存在只不过是一个区域性的军事法庭、
油料和后勤补给中心，不是永久军事基地。事实上，森巴旺已经是新加坡的军事基地，
只是部分租借给美军使用，新加坡只需要拒绝续租就可以像乌兹别克斯坦那样轻易地把
美军赶走。
美国的军事存在可能有地缘政治的考虑，但你关于美国可能所采取的行动的推测是愚蠢
的。告诉我，一个租用的油料供应中心如何去切断石油供给线？
okydoky in reply to Ah BengMarch 9th, 22:01
Singapore is much more thanjust a refuelling depot for US forces. The US
announced recently that two'littoral assault' ships will be based
permanently at Singapore. There are onlytwo bases in SEASia which have the
facilities to dock and servicenuclear-powered US aircraft carriers: Japan
and Singapore. The only possiblereason for this concentration of US forces
in Singapore is to interdict tradethrough the Malacca Straits. All of this
is available on globalsecurity.org
新加坡的意义远不止于美军的油料供应点。美国最近宣布将把两艘滨海战斗舰永久部署
在新加坡。在整个亚洲海域仅有两个地点可供美军核动力航母停泊和维修：日本和新加
坡。美国军事力量对新加坡的关注的唯一原因就是为了切断经马六甲海峡的贸易往来。
这些都可以在globalsecurity.org网站上查到。
Fish Eagle in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 01:36
It is reasonable to assume weAmericans are in Singapore for the same reason
the British were in Singapore ahundred years ago: to participate in (and
control) east-west trade. The factthe trade now includes China's oil is an
added benefit, given our new focus onsecurity in the South China Sea.
怀疑我们美国在新加坡的存在和一百年前英国在新加坡的存在是因为同样的理由是有一
定道理的：参与（控制）东西方贸易。事实上我们正关注南海的安全形势，（能控制）
包括中国石油资源在内的贸易则是额外的好处。
tocharian in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 07:46
No worries here. Singaporewill very soon become a "vassal state" of "Greater
China".It's part of the string of pearls strategy! Duh
不要担心。新加坡很快就会成为“大中国”的一个“附属国”。它是珍珠链战略上的一
环。
PL123 in reply to tocharianMarch 10th, 12:14
Now Singapore is moreintergrated to Greater China's economy, they don't want
to sink with a dyingempire.
如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈，他们不想为一个垂死的帝国（译注：指美国）陪
葬。
viethong in reply to PL123March 11th, 00:50
I may show why peopl nowtalking US in sing: paper straits time had artical
week before by ISEAS personRichardson, say 85 percen china oil come thru
sing strait (not 89 like sayhere). Same day paper artical say 2 new americ
ship come to sing, an americ wantnow look chine sea. sing peopl connecvt
article togeter
我来说说为什么现在人们讨论美国在新加坡的军事存在：《海峡时报》周刊之前刊登了
南亚研究所理查森的文章，谈到中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡（而不是文中的
89%）。某一天周刊又说2艘美国新型军舰将部署到新加坡，美国对南海的新关注。新加
坡人把这两篇文章放在一起来理解了。
Ex Patriot in reply to tocharianMarch 11th, 04:13
Singapore's been a vassalstate of China's for a very long time.
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
Dogsi in reply to sprinter3321March 16th, 04:45
Prior US sailor here. Theprimary reason why America is in the Malaka
Straights is to secure trade, notto prevent it. There are hundreds of acts
of piracy every year in that region.US destroyers, frigates, etc. are
constantly in the region trying to keep theshipping lanes open and safe.
As for why America constantlyuses Singapore as a base of operations, that is
because it has fairly advancedfacilities, is fairly politically neutral, and
it is well located in theregion. Whether we are heading West towards the
Indian ocean or the PersianGulf, South, towards Australia, or returning from
these areas and heading Northtowards Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan,
Singapore is an easily accessed port.
Stop the fear mongering.America is not attempting to cut off China's oil
supplies. There will be no warbetween America and China. China and America
both know that it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating
America out side of its own borders.
美国海军早就出现在那里了。美国在马六甲海峡的军事存在主要是为了贸易安全，而不
是相反。每年在这区域有数百起海盗行为。美国驱逐舰、护卫舰经常在区域内巡逻以维
护海运航道的开放和安全。
至于说为什么美军将新加坡作为一个行动基地，那是因为新加坡拥有完善的设施。政治
上是完全中立的，而且美军的行动只限定在该区域内。无论我们是向西进入印度洋或波
斯湾；或是往南进入澳大利亚；还是离开上述区域往北前往香港、韩国和日本，新加坡
都是一个非常便捷的港口。
停止不必要的恐惧。美国并没有试图切断中国的石油供给。美中之间不会开战。中国和
美国都知道还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。
new paradigm426 in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 06:06
"it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side
of its ownborders"
So what happened in Vietnam?The US lost against (the Northern half) of a
developing country. The mostpowerful country on earth beaten by (half) of
one of the weakest.
Few doubt the US would win anaval engagement, but a land war is a different
story. This is the mistake theBritish made: they assumed the Japs would come
by sea, but they came down theMalay Peninsula instead. On bicycles. The
Chinese will do the same, and theresult will be the same. The US is no match
for China in a land war, the USelectorate will not tolerate hundreds of
thousand of casualties in defence ofplace Americans can't even find on a
map.
Singapore would be safer ifthe US were to pull out of Singapore altogether.
Then Singapore can make it'sown agreements with China, based on the new
reality. This way, armed conflictcan be prevented.
“还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。”
在越南发生了什么？美国输给了一个发展中国家（北越）。
世界上最强大的国家被（半个，译注：指北越，所以是半个国家）世界上最弱小的国家
之一给击败了。
很少人怀疑美国会在海战中取胜，但是地面战争则不同。这是英国所犯的错误：他们认
为日本会从海上发动进攻，但是日本从马来半岛侵入——靠自行车。中国也会这么做，
而且结果也会一样。美国在地面战争中不是中国的对手，美国人民无法承受数十万的伤
亡，而交战的地点美国人甚至都无法在地图上找到。
如果美国全面从新加坡撤出，新加坡将会更加安全。那样新加坡可以和中国在新的环境
下签订条约。只有这样武装冲突才能避免。
Dogsi in reply to new paradigm426March 16th, 08:46
Your analogy is fallacious.Singapore is not part of China but is far from
China's borders. Do you believethe Chinese are more willing to sacrifice
lives in a war of aggression thanAmericans would be in a war to defend an
ally? Do you believe that China's neighborswould sit ideally by while China
rolled over other countries to invadeSingapore? Do you believe China has the
logistics to wage war over a thousandmiles from its borders with American
naval dominance?
China is not a threat toSingapore. Even if it was, it would not be a threat
to Singapore with Americabacking it.
Now as your other assertion.America would trounce China in a land war. It is
true that China's populationis larger than America's. However, the gap is
not as drastic as it would be ifyou compared China to the UK, Germany, etc.
America is about 1/4 the populationof China. However, it has far more
resources, military technology, politicalallies, etc.
In the Vietnam war, Americatrounced the Vietnamese military. Approximately
3,000,000 Vietnamese diedduring that war. Approximately 60,000 Americans
died in that war. For every 1American that died, Vietnam lost 50.
In the first gulf war againstIraq, America fought a military that was
technologically more advanced and farmore experienced than China. America
killed the Iraqi's at about an 90 to 1ratio.
There is a key difference withall of these wars in that America was fighting
a war outside of our borders. Wewere fighting people defending their
homeland from a hostile invader. People fightingto defend their home are far
more fanatical than people fighting to promote theselfish desires of their
own government.
Yes, an American invasion ofmainland China would be disastrous. I have no
doubt that the US military couldroll over the Chinese military and seize
control of any place in China.However, it would be a bloody and never ending
affair. It would cost Americahundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of
dollars and would end inAmerica eventually cutting our losses and bailing.
Finally, no, Singapore issafer with America. America is by far the strongest
military power in theworld. America has showed no indications that it wishes
to annex anything.America poses absolutely no risk to Singapore. China on
the other hand hasshown increased belligerence with its neighbors. It has
been increasinglyconfrontational with Vietnam, Japan, RP, etc.
China has not had a"peaceful rise" out of their benign nature but because
they lack thepower to engage and win a conflict against American will. They
know that anywar it fights would give the US government the justification
that they wouldlove to have to military humiliate China. This is why China
rattles its sabersat Taiwan, 1 or 2 US battle groups show up, and China
backs down.
The Chinese and Americangovernments both know this. You acting like this is
not the case is effectivelystating you are more knowledgeable on the topic
than both the US and theChinese governments.
你的类比很荒谬。新加坡不是中国的一部分，它和中国距离遥远。你认为中国会愿意在
一场侵略战争中比美国保卫盟友的战争中承受更多人员伤亡？你认为中国的后勤足以支
撑一场千里之外和拥有制海权的美国的战争？
中国不是新加坡的威胁。即便是，它对美国援助下的新加坡也构不成威胁。
关于你的另一个论断。美国人将在地面战争中狠狠教训中国。中国的人口比美国多是事
实。但是，如果将中国和英国、德国等相比你就会发现中美之间的差距不是那么大。美
国的人口是中国的1/4，但是美国有更多的资源、更先进的军事技术和更多的政治盟友
等。
在越战中，美国痛揍越南军队。将近300万越南人在战争中丧生，而与此相比只有约6万
美国人丧生。每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人。
在对伊拉克的第一次海湾战争中，美国的对手比中国的科技水平更高且有更多实战经验
的。美国/伊拉克阵亡比例大约是1：90。
这些战争中的一个很大区别是，美国是在国土外作战。我们是在和一个抵御侵略祖国的
人作战。为祖国而战的人们比为政府的贪欲作战的有着更高的热情。
是的，如果美国入侵中国大陆这将会是个灾难。我并不怀疑美国军队可以碾碎中国军队
并全面占领中国，但这将是一个血腥且永不止境的战争。这将让美国付出数十万的伤亡
和数万亿的美元，而且战争会以美国最终不得不削减开支而告终。
总之，新加坡和美国在一起更安全。美国的军事力量目前仍是世界上最强。美国也从未
有任何迹象想要吞并什么。美国不会对新加坡造成任何威胁。中国则相反，它对邻国的
好战欲望正在增长。它和越南、日本、菲律宾等的对抗越来越强。
中国的善良本质并未带来“和平崛起”，因为他们缺乏同美国作战的力量。他们知道任
何战争都会给美国政府理由来乐意地羞辱他们。这就是为什么中国对台湾耀武扬威时，
只要一两个美国舰队一出现他们就退缩的原因。
中国政府和美国政府对此都心知肚明。你在这事情的表演并不能表示你在这问题上比美
国和中国政府更聪明。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 08:49
The combined navies ofMalaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more than
capabable of taking care of afew pirates in the Melaca Strait, they don't
need the US Pacific Fleet forthat. And by the way, the issue is not only the
Melaca Strait and it's oilroute, it is also the Sunda Strait (between Bali
and Lombok), through whichcomes most of China's coal and iron, from
Australia. Turn off China's oil, coaland iron, and you turn off China.
马来西亚、印尼和新加坡的海军联合起来足以应对马六甲海峡内的少量海盗，他们并不
需要美国太平洋舰队来帮忙。而且问题不仅仅是马六甲海峡和石油航线，巽他海峡（巴
里岛和龙目岛之间）同样如此，中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石大部分经由该航线
运输。切断了中国的石油、煤炭和铁矿石进口，你就打败了中国。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 09:02
"For every 1 Americanthat died, Vietnam lost 50". And yet Vietnam still won
the war. Bodycounts don't impress an electorate, results do, and the result
in Vietnam (andnow Afghanistan) is that the USA lost the war.
China does not have to careabout what the electorate thinks, they don't have
an electorate. In Korea theysent human waves at artillery and machine gun
positions without regard forlosses. Human life is immaterial when you have a
population of 1.3 billion.
The US is in the last stagesof imperial overstretch, and if they take on
China it will be a catastrophe notonly for the US and China, but also for
the countries they decide to fighttheir battles across. Ask any Iraqi.
“每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人”
但是越南人赢得了战争。数人头对选民没有意义，结果才是，在越南（现在是阿富汗）
的结果就是美国输掉了战争。
中国不需要考虑选民在想什么，他们不存在选民。在朝鲜战争中他们向火炮和机枪射击
位置发动人海战术，毫不顾及伤亡。在一个13亿人口的大国，人命并不值钱。
美国正处在帝国过度扩张的最后阶段，和中国开战不只是美国和中国的灾难，也是所有
决定为国而战的全体人民的灾难。不信的话你问问任何一个伊拉克人。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:04
The Indonesian navy islaughable. The Malaysian and Singaporean navies likely
could handle the job butthey don't. Also, it is not a "few" pirates. The
Malacca straits havethe largest concentration of pirates in the world.
Recent concerted efforts byAmerica, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia as
well as increased defenses by shippingvessels has caused a notable decrease
in the rate of piracy. However, it isstill an issue. Indonesia is a very
poorly governed and controlled region withthousands of islands that are
completely unregulated. The corrupt governmentallows pirates to reliably get
their plundered goods to market.
Is America NEEDED? Nope.However, is that why America is there? Yes. America
also has a lot of tradepassing through the Malacca straits.
I was on the USS Paul F.Foster during its twilight cruise. We bordered and
seized a little over 30pirate ships in the 4 months we patrolled between
Singapore and Thailand.
Finally, America is not goingto war with China. Why would it? This is
nothing more than fear mongering.
印尼海军就是个笑话。马来西亚和新加坡海军看似能够应付，但实际上不能。还有，这
不只是“少量”海盗。马六甲海域内有全世界数量最集中的海盗。最近美国、新加坡、
马来西亚和印尼运用更多战舰集中行动显著地降低了海盗出现的频率，但这仍然是一个
麻烦。印尼的数千个岛屿缺乏有效管理。贪腐的政府甚至允许海盗将他们的掠夺物合法
地在市场上出售。
需要美国吗？不。那为什么美国人在那出现？因为美国也有大量的贸易需要通过马六甲
海峡。
我曾经在保罗-F-伏斯特号服役并参与巡逻。在新加坡和泰国间巡逻的4个月时间里，我
们抵近并逮捕了30多艘海盗船。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:09
Again, China does not borderSingapore.
You are ignorant if youbelieve the Chinese don't care about their own people
dying. Human life is notimmaterial. You are naive to think so.
The US is not in the"last stages of imperial overstretch". That is nothing
more than youranti-American wishful thinking. China will likely surpass
America over the nextcouple decades. However, it is not due to a decline of
America but because ofthe rise of China.
China is a larger country andshould by default be more powerful than
America. America is stronger thanGermany, the UK, France, etc. because it is
larger, not because of any innatesuperiority of the American people. The
"issue" with the"relative decline" of America is no different.
Finally, Iraq is better off.Check out their GDP. Iraq's GDP today is 9 times
what it was when Americainvaded in 2003.
强调一下，中国和新加坡并不接壤。
如果你相信中国人并不在意他们自己人的伤亡，那这纯属无知。人命并不是无足轻重的
，你那么想太幼稚了。
美国也不是处在“帝国过度扩张的最后阶段”。这只不过是你反-美国的一厢情愿。中
国在20年后很可能会超越美国，但是这不是因为美国的衰退而是中国的崛起。
中国比美国更大，它应该比美国更强大。美国比德国、英国、法国等等更强大不是什么
美国人天生的优越性而是因为美国本来就比它们更大。那个“问题”和美国的“相对下
降”说的是同一件事。
最后再说一点，伊拉克比以前更好。你可以看看他们的GDP，它目前的GDP是美国2003年
入侵时的9倍。
fruitcake22 in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 00:57
I must wade in here and makesome points:
1. 85% of China's oil comesthrough the Malacca Straits. This was written in
the Straits Times by thedefence analyst Michael Richardson at Singapore's
Institute of South East AsianStudies
2. Most of China's coal andiron ore comes through the Sunda Straits from
Australia, a few hundred milesEast of the Malacca Straits
3. Singapore is building hugeunderground oil storage tanks at Jurong Island
called the Jurong Rock Caverns.Why does Singapore need millions of gallons
of oil? And why does it need to beunderground? It is far cheaper and quicker
to build surface storage, andSingapore's navy is not large enough to need
it.
3. The US is 're-posturing'it's forces to the South China Sea to counter
China's agressive stance in theregion, including sending new warships to be
based in Singapore, thePhillipines, and Vietnam, and troops to Australia.
The fact that Singapore andIndonesia do not border China is irrelevent when
by closing two choke points,the US can render China incapable of making war.
The US is effectively holdinga knife to China's throat, and saying "if you
make trouble in Korea,Taiwan, Spratleys, Phillipines, Vietnam etc we will
turn off your trade"
This means that in the eventof war between the US and China, the Malacca
Straits and the Sunda Straits willbe the PLA's first stop, not their last.
我必须要说说：
1、中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡的。出自新加坡东南亚研究学院的国防战略研
究专家迈克尔·理查森在新加坡《海峡时报》的撰稿。
2、中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石资源大多数通过马六甲海峡以东100公里的巽他
海峡。
3、新加坡正在裕廊岛兴建被称为裕廊岩洞的大型地下石油存储库。为什么新加坡需要
成百上千万加仑的油料？为什么需要地下存储？建造地面存储更便宜和更快捷，而新加
坡的海军根本不需要这么多。
4、美国正在将兵力“重新部署”到南海以对抗中国在该区域内的进攻态势，包括将新
军舰部署到新加坡、菲律宾、越南和把部队派驻澳大利亚。
新加坡和印尼与中国不接壤没有关系，关键是美国只要控制住这两个咽喉就可以使得中
国没有发动战争的能力。美国正用小刀抵住中国的咽喉，然后说“如果你敢在韩国、台
湾、南沙、菲律宾、越南等地方制造麻烦的话，我就让你做不成贸易”。
这意味着如果美国和中国开战，马六甲海峡和巽他海峡将是解放军的第一站，而不是最
后一站。
译文简介:来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文
章，澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
正文翻译:Banyan
菩提树下
Asia
亚洲
The SouthChina SeaHaving it both ways
南海问题：中国的两面手法
Mar 9th 2012,2:20 by Banyan
2012年3月9日 菩提树下
ANINTERESTING and helpful piece by Robert Beckman, a professor of
internationallaw at the National University of Singapore, clarifies some of
the issuesbehind what has become, for now, the hottest ofthe myriad disputes
in the South ChinaSea.
This onepits the Philippines against China. The Philippines has announced
that it isgoing to open new maritime blocks off its island of Palawan for
oil-and-gasexploration. It claims the area as part of the “exclusive
economic zone” (EEZ)attached to the main Philippine archipelago. China has
objected, since itclaims the area in question.
It isoften assumed that this is based on China’s mysterious “nine-dashed
line” claim, a pieceof historic cartography which China sometimes insists
gives it indisputablesovereignty over most of the sea, but whose legal basis
seems at bestflimsy.
来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章，澄清了
导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
这次是菲律宾和中国的矛盾。菲律宾此前宣布将在巴拉望岛外的海洋区块进行油气开发
。菲律宾宣称这些区域是菲律宾群岛专属经济区的一部分。中国对此表示反对，它认为
这些区域仍有主权争议。
通常人们认为这是因为中国基于历史海图“九段线”，坚持主张对大部分海域拥有无可
争议的主权，但其法理依据似乎很薄弱。
However,Mr Beckman points out that China also has an unresolvedterritorial
claim to the Spratly archipelago (also claimed in its entirety by Taiwan and
Vietnam). The Spratlysare mainly tiny rocks and islets, which under the
United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be entitled
just to “territorial waters”, of12 nautical miles (22km). However, some
might be considered habitable, andhence count as “islands”, which would
have a full 200-mile EEZ, overlappingwith the Philippines' archipelagic EEZ.
And so, onthis analysis, China does have a legitimate basis for its claim;
the area is“in dispute”, and the Philippines would be in the wrong to
pursue hydrocarbonexploration unilaterally.
One thingabout this seems odd though. If China follows UNCLOS in this area
of the sea,can it ignore it in areas where it has no such claim, just its
nine-dashedassertive line? The answer, I suppose, is yes; China can always
have it bothways.
贝克曼教授同时指出：中国在南沙群岛（台湾和越南都声索南沙全部主权）也有领土主
权争端。南沙群岛基本上都是很小的礁石和岛屿，在联合国海洋法公约中这种岛礁仅被
赋予周围12海里（22公里）的“领海”。但是某些可能被认定为可居住的，因此会被算
做“岛”，这些岛屿拥有200海里的专属经济区，而这将会与菲律宾本岛的专属经济区
范围重叠。
当然从这个角度来说，中国的主张确实有法理依据，这些区域有主权“争议”，而菲律
宾单方面采取行动开采油气资源可能确实是不对的。
有个问题看起来很奇怪。如果中国在这个海域遵循联合国海洋法公约，那么它在其他没
有这么多主权主张的海域可以不遵循该公约而是按照它的九段线来划分？答案我想是可
以的，中国经常玩两面手法。
评论翻译:以下为评论部分翻译
---------------------------
MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48
Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.
All major powers basically tryand do that.
他们当然可以，而且他们肯定想这么做。
基本上所有大国都想这么做。
-------------------------
sprinter3321March 9th, 06:52
I am a resident of Singapore,and my (Singaporean) neighbor told me yesterday
that the US military presencein Singapore is a touchy subject. While it did
not matter when the US was theglobal hegemon, now that China is competing
for dominance in SEAsia, the USpresence in Singapore is putting the country
at risk. Presumably, US forces arein Singapore in order to cut China's oil
supply (89% of which passes throughthe Malaka Straits) in the event of
conflict anywhere in the region (Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Spratleys, Philippines
etc). China must be well aware of thisthreat to their energy lifeline.
我居住在新加坡，我的邻居（新加坡人）去年告诉我说美军在新加坡的存在是一个棘手
的问题。当美国还是全球霸主的时候这不要紧，现在中国正在争夺亚洲海域的领导权，
美军在新加坡的存在将这个国家置于险地。美军在新加坡的存在可能是为了在区域内（
台湾、韩国、日本、南海、菲律宾等）发生冲突时切断中国的石油供应（89%通过马六
甲海峡）。中国对这个能源供给的威胁肯定非常清楚。
Ah Beng in reply to sprinter3321March 9th, 15:27
.... HAHAHA what?
I am a (former) resident ofSingapore, also. What exists in Singapore is a
regional JAG - a military court- and a refueling and logistics center, not a
permanent military base. In fact,since the entirety of the facility at
Sembawang is actually a Singaporemilitary base, partially leased by the US,
Singapore could kick out the US aseasily as Uzbekistan has done, simply by
refusing to renew the lease.
While the US presence may havegeopolitical implications, your speculation on
the motives of the United Statesare asinine. Tell me, how does a rented
refueling station interdict oil?
笑，什么？
我（之前）也住在新加坡。美军在新加坡的军事存在只不过是一个区域性的军事法庭、
油料和后勤补给中心，不是永久军事基地。事实上，森巴旺已经是新加坡的军事基地，
只是部分租借给美军使用，新加坡只需要拒绝续租就可以像乌兹别克斯坦那样轻易地把
美军赶走。
美国的军事存在可能有地缘政治的考虑，但你关于美国可能所采取的行动的推测是愚蠢
的。告诉我，一个租用的油料供应中心如何去切断石油供给线？
okydoky in reply to Ah BengMarch 9th, 22:01
Singapore is much more thanjust a refuelling depot for US forces. The US
announced recently that two'littoral assault' ships will be based
permanently at Singapore. There are onlytwo bases in SEASia which have the
facilities to dock and servicenuclear-powered US aircraft carriers: Japan
and Singapore. The only possiblereason for this concentration of US forces
in Singapore is to interdict tradethrough the Malacca Straits. All of this
is available on globalsecurity.org
新加坡的意义远不止于美军的油料供应点。美国最近宣布将把两艘滨海战斗舰永久部署
在新加坡。在整个亚洲海域仅有两个地点可供美军核动力航母停泊和维修：日本和新加
坡。美国军事力量对新加坡的关注的唯一原因就是为了切断经马六甲海峡的贸易往来。
这些都可以在globalsecurity.org网站上查到。
Fish Eagle in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 01:36
It is reasonable to assume weAmericans are in Singapore for the same reason
the British were in Singapore ahundred years ago: to participate in (and
control) east-west trade. The factthe trade now includes China's oil is an
added benefit, given our new focus onsecurity in the South China Sea.
怀疑我们美国在新加坡的存在和一百年前英国在新加坡的存在是因为同样的理由是有一
定道理的：参与（控制）东西方贸易。事实上我们正关注南海的安全形势，（能控制）
包括中国石油资源在内的贸易则是额外的好处。
tocharian in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 07:46
No worries here. Singaporewill very soon become a "vassal state" of "Greater
China".It's part of the string of pearls strategy! Duh
不要担心。新加坡很快就会成为“大中国”的一个“附属国”。它是珍珠链战略上的一
环。
PL123 in reply to tocharianMarch 10th, 12:14
Now Singapore is moreintergrated to Greater China's economy, they don't want
to sink with a dyingempire.
如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈，他们不想为一个垂死的帝国（译注：指美国）陪
葬。
viethong in reply to PL123March 11th, 00:50
I may show why peopl nowtalking US in sing: paper straits time had artical
week before by ISEAS personRichardson, say 85 percen china oil come thru
sing strait (not 89 like sayhere). Same day paper artical say 2 new americ
ship come to sing, an americ wantnow look chine sea. sing peopl connecvt
article togeter
我来说说为什么现在人们讨论美国在新加坡的军事存在：《海峡时报》周刊之前刊登了
南亚研究所理查森的文章，谈到中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡（而不是文中的
89%）。某一天周刊又说2艘美国新型军舰将部署到新加坡，美国对南海的新关注。新加
坡人把这两篇文章放在一起来理解了。
Ex Patriot in reply to tocharianMarch 11th, 04:13
Singapore's been a vassalstate of China's for a very long time.
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
Dogsi in reply to sprinter3321March 16th, 04:45
Prior US sailor here. Theprimary reason why America is in the Malaka
Straights is to secure trade, notto prevent it. There are hundreds of acts
of piracy every year in that region.US destroyers, frigates, etc. are
constantly in the region trying to keep theshipping lanes open and safe.
As for why America constantlyuses Singapore as a base of operations, that is
because it has fairly advancedfacilities, is fairly politically neutral, and
it is well located in theregion. Whether we are heading West towards the
Indian ocean or the PersianGulf, South, towards Australia, or returning from
these areas and heading Northtowards Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan,
Singapore is an easily accessed port.
Stop the fear mongering.America is not attempting to cut off China's oil
supplies. There will be no warbetween America and China. China and America
both know that it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating
America out side of its own borders.
美国海军早就出现在那里了。美国在马六甲海峡的军事存在主要是为了贸易安全，而不
是相反。每年在这区域有数百起海盗行为。美国驱逐舰、护卫舰经常在区域内巡逻以维
护海运航道的开放和安全。
至于说为什么美军将新加坡作为一个行动基地，那是因为新加坡拥有完善的设施。政治
上是完全中立的，而且美军的行动只限定在该区域内。无论我们是向西进入印度洋或波
斯湾；或是往南进入澳大利亚；还是离开上述区域往北前往香港、韩国和日本，新加坡
都是一个非常便捷的港口。
停止不必要的恐惧。美国并没有试图切断中国的石油供给。美中之间不会开战。中国和
美国都知道还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。
new paradigm426 in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 06:06
"it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side
of its ownborders"
So what happened in Vietnam?The US lost against (the Northern half) of a
developing country. The mostpowerful country on earth beaten by (half) of
one of the weakest.
Few doubt the US would win anaval engagement, but a land war is a different
story. This is the mistake theBritish made: they assumed the Japs would come
by sea, but they came down theMalay Peninsula instead. On bicycles. The
Chinese will do the same, and theresult will be the same. The US is no match
for China in a land war, the USelectorate will not tolerate hundreds of
thousand of casualties in defence ofplace Americans can't even find on a
map.
Singapore would be safer ifthe US were to pull out of Singapore altogether.
Then Singapore can make it'sown agreements with China, based on the new
reality. This way, armed conflictcan be prevented.
“还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。”
在越南发生了什么？美国输给了一个发展中国家（北越）。
世界上最强大的国家被（半个，译注：指北越，所以是半个国家）世界上最弱小的国家
之一给击败了。
很少人怀疑美国会在海战中取胜，但是地面战争则不同。这是英国所犯的错误：他们认
为日本会从海上发动进攻，但是日本从马来半岛侵入——靠自行车。中国也会这么做，
而且结果也会一样。美国在地面战争中不是中国的对手，美国人民无法承受数十万的伤
亡，而交战的地点美国人甚至都无法在地图上找到。
如果美国全面从新加坡撤出，新加坡将会更加安全。那样新加坡可以和中国在新的环境
下签订条约。只有这样武装冲突才能避免。
Dogsi in reply to new paradigm426March 16th, 08:46
Your analogy is fallacious.Singapore is not part of China but is far from
China's borders. Do you believethe Chinese are more willing to sacrifice
lives in a war of aggression thanAmericans would be in a war to defend an
ally? Do you believe that China's neighborswould sit ideally by while China
rolled over other countries to invadeSingapore? Do you believe China has the
logistics to wage war over a thousandmiles from its borders with American
naval dominance?
China is not a threat toSingapore. Even if it was, it would not be a threat
to Singapore with Americabacking it.
Now as your other assertion.America would trounce China in a land war. It is
true that China's populationis larger than America's. However, the gap is
not as drastic as it would be ifyou compared China to the UK, Germany, etc.
America is about 1/4 the populationof China. However, it has far more
resources, military technology, politicalallies, etc.
In the Vietnam war, Americatrounced the Vietnamese military. Approximately
3,000,000 Vietnamese diedduring that war. Approximately 60,000 Americans
died in that war. For every 1American that died, Vietnam lost 50.
In the first gulf war againstIraq, America fought a military that was
technologically more advanced and farmore experienced than China. America
killed the Iraqi's at about an 90 to 1ratio.
There is a key difference withall of these wars in that America was fighting
a war outside of our borders. Wewere fighting people defending their
homeland from a hostile invader. People fightingto defend their home are far
more fanatical than people fighting to promote theselfish desires of their
own government.
Yes, an American invasion ofmainland China would be disastrous. I have no
doubt that the US military couldroll over the Chinese military and seize
control of any place in China.However, it would be a bloody and never ending
affair. It would cost Americahundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of
dollars and would end inAmerica eventually cutting our losses and bailing.
Finally, no, Singapore issafer with America. America is by far the strongest
military power in theworld. America has showed no indications that it wishes
to annex anything.America poses absolutely no risk to Singapore. China on
the other hand hasshown increased belligerence with its neighbors. It has
been increasinglyconfrontational with Vietnam, Japan, RP, etc.
China has not had a"peaceful rise" out of their benign nature but because
they lack thepower to engage and win a conflict against American will. They
know that anywar it fights would give the US government the justification
that they wouldlove to have to military humiliate China. This is why China
rattles its sabersat Taiwan, 1 or 2 US battle groups show up, and China
backs down.
The Chinese and Americangovernments both know this. You acting like this is
not the case is effectivelystating you are more knowledgeable on the topic
than both the US and theChinese governments.
你的类比很荒谬。新加坡不是中国的一部分，它和中国距离遥远。你认为中国会愿意在
一场侵略战争中比美国保卫盟友的战争中承受更多人员伤亡？你认为中国的后勤足以支
撑一场千里之外和拥有制海权的美国的战争？
中国不是新加坡的威胁。即便是，它对美国援助下的新加坡也构不成威胁。
关于你的另一个论断。美国人将在地面战争中狠狠教训中国。中国的人口比美国多是事
实。但是，如果将中国和英国、德国等相比你就会发现中美之间的差距不是那么大。美
国的人口是中国的1/4，但是美国有更多的资源、更先进的军事技术和更多的政治盟友
等。
在越战中，美国痛揍越南军队。将近300万越南人在战争中丧生，而与此相比只有约6万
美国人丧生。每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人。
在对伊拉克的第一次海湾战争中，美国的对手比中国的科技水平更高且有更多实战经验
的。美国/伊拉克阵亡比例大约是1：90。
这些战争中的一个很大区别是，美国是在国土外作战。我们是在和一个抵御侵略祖国的
人作战。为祖国而战的人们比为政府的贪欲作战的有着更高的热情。
是的，如果美国入侵中国大陆这将会是个灾难。我并不怀疑美国军队可以碾碎中国军队
并全面占领中国，但这将是一个血腥且永不止境的战争。这将让美国付出数十万的伤亡
和数万亿的美元，而且战争会以美国最终不得不削减开支而告终。
总之，新加坡和美国在一起更安全。美国的军事力量目前仍是世界上最强。美国也从未
有任何迹象想要吞并什么。美国不会对新加坡造成任何威胁。中国则相反，它对邻国的
好战欲望正在增长。它和越南、日本、菲律宾等的对抗越来越强。
中国的善良本质并未带来“和平崛起”，因为他们缺乏同美国作战的力量。他们知道任
何战争都会给美国政府理由来乐意地羞辱他们。这就是为什么中国对台湾耀武扬威时，
只要一两个美国舰队一出现他们就退缩的原因。
中国政府和美国政府对此都心知肚明。你在这事情的表演并不能表示你在这问题上比美
国和中国政府更聪明。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 08:49
The combined navies ofMalaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more than
capabable of taking care of afew pirates in the Melaca Strait, they don't
need the US Pacific Fleet forthat. And by the way, the issue is not only the
Melaca Strait and it's oilroute, it is also the Sunda Strait (between Bali
and Lombok), through whichcomes most of China's coal and iron, from
Australia. Turn off China's oil, coaland iron, and you turn off China.
马来西亚、印尼和新加坡的海军联合起来足以应对马六甲海峡内的少量海盗，他们并不
需要美国太平洋舰队来帮忙。而且问题不仅仅是马六甲海峡和石油航线，巽他海峡（巴
里岛和龙目岛之间）同样如此，中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石大部分经由该航线
运输。切断了中国的石油、煤炭和铁矿石进口，你就打败了中国。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 09:02
"For every 1 Americanthat died, Vietnam lost 50". And yet Vietnam still won
the war. Bodycounts don't impress an electorate, results do, and the result
in Vietnam (andnow Afghanistan) is that the USA lost the war.
China does not have to careabout what the electorate thinks, they don't have
an electorate. In Korea theysent human waves at artillery and machine gun
positions without regard forlosses. Human life is immaterial when you have a
population of 1.3 billion.
The US is in the last stagesof imperial overstretch, and if they take on
China it will be a catastrophe notonly for the US and China, but also for
the countries they decide to fighttheir battles across. Ask any Iraqi.
“每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人”
但是越南人赢得了战争。数人头对选民没有意义，结果才是，在越南（现在是阿富汗）
的结果就是美国输掉了战争。
中国不需要考虑选民在想什么，他们不存在选民。在朝鲜战争中他们向火炮和机枪射击
位置发动人海战术，毫不顾及伤亡。在一个13亿人口的大国，人命并不值钱。
美国正处在帝国过度扩张的最后阶段，和中国开战不只是美国和中国的灾难，也是所有
决定为国而战的全体人民的灾难。不信的话你问问任何一个伊拉克人。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:04
The Indonesian navy islaughable. The Malaysian and Singaporean navies likely
could handle the job butthey don't. Also, it is not a "few" pirates. The
Malacca straits havethe largest concentration of pirates in the world.
Recent concerted efforts byAmerica, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia as
well as increased defenses by shippingvessels has caused a notable decrease
in the rate of piracy. However, it isstill an issue. Indonesia is a very
poorly governed and controlled region withthousands of islands that are
completely unregulated. The corrupt governmentallows pirates to reliably get
their plundered goods to market.
Is America NEEDED? Nope.However, is that why America is there? Yes. America
also has a lot of tradepassing through the Malacca straits.
I was on the USS Paul F.Foster during its twilight cruise. We bordered and
seized a little over 30pirate ships in the 4 months we patrolled between
Singapore and Thailand.
Finally, America is not goingto war with China. Why would it? This is
nothing more than fear mongering.
印尼海军就是个笑话。马来西亚和新加坡海军看似能够应付，但实际上不能。还有，这
不只是“少量”海盗。马六甲海域内有全世界数量最集中的海盗。最近美国、新加坡、
马来西亚和印尼运用更多战舰集中行动显著地降低了海盗出现的频率，但这仍然是一个
麻烦。印尼的数千个岛屿缺乏有效管理。贪腐的政府甚至允许海盗将他们的掠夺物合法
地在市场上出售。
需要美国吗？不。那为什么美国人在那出现？因为美国也有大量的贸易需要通过马六甲
海峡。
我曾经在保罗-F-伏斯特号服役并参与巡逻。在新加坡和泰国间巡逻的4个月时间里，我
们抵近并逮捕了30多艘海盗船。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:09
Again, China does not borderSingapore.
You are ignorant if youbelieve the Chinese don't care about their own people
dying. Human life is notimmaterial. You are naive to think so.
The US is not in the"last stages of imperial overstretch". That is nothing
more than youranti-American wishful thinking. China will likely surpass
America over the nextcouple decades. However, it is not due to a decline of
America but because ofthe rise of China.
China is a larger country andshould by default be more powerful than
America. America is stronger thanGermany, the UK, France, etc. because it is
larger, not because of any innatesuperiority of the American people. The
"issue" with the"relative decline" of America is no different.
Finally, Iraq is better off.Check out their GDP. Iraq's GDP today is 9 times
what it was when Americainvaded in 2003.
强调一下，中国和新加坡并不接壤。
如果你相信中国人并不在意他们自己人的伤亡，那这纯属无知。人命并不是无足轻重的
，你那么想太幼稚了。
美国也不是处在“帝国过度扩张的最后阶段”。这只不过是你反-美国的一厢情愿。中
国在20年后很可能会超越美国，但是这不是因为美国的衰退而是中国的崛起。
中国比美国更大，它应该比美国更强大。美国比德国、英国、法国等等更强大不是什么
美国人天生的优越性而是因为美国本来就比它们更大。那个“问题”和美国的“相对下
降”说的是同一件事。
最后再说一点，伊拉克比以前更好。你可以看看他们的GDP，它目前的GDP是美国2003年
入侵时的9倍。
fruitcake22 in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 00:57
I must wade in here and makesome points:
1. 85% of China's oil comesthrough the Malacca Straits. This was written in
the Straits Times by thedefence analyst Michael Richardson at Singapore's
Institute of South East AsianStudies
2. Most of China's coal andiron ore comes through the Sunda Straits from
Australia, a few hundred milesEast of the Malacca Straits
3. Singapore is building hugeunderground oil storage tanks at Jurong Island
called the Jurong Rock Caverns.Why does Singapore need millions of gallons
of oil? And why does it need to beunderground? It is far cheaper and quicker
to build surface storage, andSingapore's navy is not large enough to need
it.
3. The US is 're-posturing'it's forces to the South China Sea to counter
China's agressive stance in theregion, including sending new warships to be
based in Singapore, thePhillipines, and Vietnam, and troops to Australia.
The fact that Singapore andIndonesia do not border China is irrelevent when
by closing two choke points,the US can render China incapable of making war.
The US is effectively holdinga knife to China's throat, and saying "if you
make trouble in Korea,Taiwan, Spratleys, Phillipines, Vietnam etc we will
turn off your trade"
This means that in the eventof war between the US and China, the Malacca
Straits and the Sunda Straits willbe the PLA's first stop, not their last.
我必须要说说：
1、中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡的。出自新加坡东南亚研究学院的国防战略研
究专家迈克尔·理查森在新加坡《海峡时报》的撰稿。
2、中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石资源大多数通过马六甲海峡以东100公里的巽他
海峡。
3、新加坡正在裕廊岛兴建被称为裕廊岩洞的大型地下石油存储库。为什么新加坡需要
成百上千万加仑的油料？为什么需要地下存储？建造地面存储更便宜和更快捷，而新加
坡的海军根本不需要这么多。
4、美国正在将兵力“重新部署”到南海以对抗中国在该区域内的进攻态势，包括将新
军舰部署到新加坡、菲律宾、越南和把部队派驻澳大利亚。
新加坡和印尼与中国不接壤没有关系，关键是美国只要控制住这两个咽喉就可以使得中
国没有发动战争的能力。美国正用小刀抵住中国的咽喉，然后说“如果你敢在韩国、台
湾、南沙、菲律宾、越南等地方制造麻烦的话，我就让你做不成贸易”。
这意味着如果美国和中国开战，马六甲海峡和巽他海峡将是解放军的第一站，而不是最
后一站。
转自：龙腾网 翻译：福禄寿禧
译文简介:来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文
章，澄清了导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
正文翻译:Banyan
菩提树下
Asia
亚洲
The SouthChina SeaHaving it both ways
南海问题：中国的两面手法
Mar 9th 2012,2:20 by Banyan
2012年3月9日 菩提树下
ANINTERESTING and helpful piece by Robert Beckman, a professor of
internationallaw at the National University of Singapore, clarifies some of
the issuesbehind what has become, for now, the hottest ofthe myriad disputes
in the South ChinaSea.
This onepits the Philippines against China. The Philippines has announced
that it isgoing to open new maritime blocks off its island of Palawan for
oil-and-gasexploration. It claims the area as part of the “exclusive
economic zone” (EEZ)attached to the main Philippine archipelago. China has
objected, since itclaims the area in question.
It isoften assumed that this is based on China’s mysterious “nine-dashed
line” claim, a pieceof historic cartography which China sometimes insists
gives it indisputablesovereignty over most of the sea, but whose legal basis
seems at bestflimsy.
来自新加坡国立大学国际法教授罗伯特·贝克曼很有趣并很有意义的一篇文章，澄清了
导致南海争议中目前最热门的问题产生的原因。
这次是菲律宾和中国的矛盾。菲律宾此前宣布将在巴拉望岛外的海洋区块进行油气开发
。菲律宾宣称这些区域是菲律宾群岛专属经济区的一部分。中国对此表示反对，它认为
这些区域仍有主权争议。
通常人们认为这是因为中国基于历史海图“九段线”，坚持主张对大部分海域拥有无可
争议的主权，但其法理依据似乎很薄弱。
However,Mr Beckman points out that China also has an unresolvedterritorial
claim to the Spratly archipelago (also claimed in its entirety by Taiwan and
Vietnam). The Spratlysare mainly tiny rocks and islets, which under the
United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be entitled
just to “territorial waters”, of12 nautical miles (22km). However, some
might be considered habitable, andhence count as “islands”, which would
have a full 200-mile EEZ, overlappingwith the Philippines' archipelagic EEZ.
And so, onthis analysis, China does have a legitimate basis for its claim;
the area is“in dispute”, and the Philippines would be in the wrong to
pursue hydrocarbonexploration unilaterally.
One thingabout this seems odd though. If China follows UNCLOS in this area
of the sea,can it ignore it in areas where it has no such claim, just its
nine-dashedassertive line? The answer, I suppose, is yes; China can always
have it bothways.
贝克曼教授同时指出：中国在南沙群岛（台湾和越南都声索南沙全部主权）也有领土主
权争端。南沙群岛基本上都是很小的礁石和岛屿，在联合国海洋法公约中这种岛礁仅被
赋予周围12海里（22公里）的“领海”。但是某些可能被认定为可居住的，因此会被算
做“岛”，这些岛屿拥有200海里的专属经济区，而这将会与菲律宾本岛的专属经济区
范围重叠。
当然从这个角度来说，中国的主张确实有法理依据，这些区域有主权“争议”，而菲律
宾单方面采取行动开采油气资源可能确实是不对的。
有个问题看起来很奇怪。如果中国在这个海域遵循联合国海洋法公约，那么它在其他没
有这么多主权主张的海域可以不遵循该公约而是按照它的九段线来划分？答案我想是可
以的，中国经常玩两面手法。
评论翻译:以下为评论部分翻译
---------------------------
MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48
Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.
All major powers basically tryand do that.
他们当然可以，而且他们肯定想这么做。
基本上所有大国都想这么做。
-------------------------
sprinter3321March 9th, 06:52
I am a resident of Singapore,and my (Singaporean) neighbor told me yesterday
that the US military presencein Singapore is a touchy subject. While it did
not matter when the US was theglobal hegemon, now that China is competing
for dominance in SEAsia, the USpresence in Singapore is putting the country
at risk. Presumably, US forces arein Singapore in order to cut China's oil
supply (89% of which passes throughthe Malaka Straits) in the event of
conflict anywhere in the region (Taiwan,Korea, Japan, Spratleys, Philippines
etc). China must be well aware of thisthreat to their energy lifeline.
我居住在新加坡，我的邻居（新加坡人）去年告诉我说美军在新加坡的存在是一个棘手
的问题。当美国还是全球霸主的时候这不要紧，现在中国正在争夺亚洲海域的领导权，
美军在新加坡的存在将这个国家置于险地。美军在新加坡的存在可能是为了在区域内（
台湾、韩国、日本、南海、菲律宾等）发生冲突时切断中国的石油供应（89%通过马六
甲海峡）。中国对这个能源供给的威胁肯定非常清楚。
Ah Beng in reply to sprinter3321March 9th, 15:27
.... HAHAHA what?
I am a (former) resident ofSingapore, also. What exists in Singapore is a
regional JAG - a military court- and a refueling and logistics center, not a
permanent military base. In fact,since the entirety of the facility at
Sembawang is actually a Singaporemilitary base, partially leased by the US,
Singapore could kick out the US aseasily as Uzbekistan has done, simply by
refusing to renew the lease.
While the US presence may havegeopolitical implications, your speculation on
the motives of the United Statesare asinine. Tell me, how does a rented
refueling station interdict oil?
笑，什么？
我（之前）也住在新加坡。美军在新加坡的军事存在只不过是一个区域性的军事法庭、
油料和后勤补给中心，不是永久军事基地。事实上，森巴旺已经是新加坡的军事基地，
只是部分租借给美军使用，新加坡只需要拒绝续租就可以像乌兹别克斯坦那样轻易地把
美军赶走。
美国的军事存在可能有地缘政治的考虑，但你关于美国可能所采取的行动的推测是愚蠢
的。告诉我，一个租用的油料供应中心如何去切断石油供给线？
okydoky in reply to Ah BengMarch 9th, 22:01
Singapore is much more thanjust a refuelling depot for US forces. The US
announced recently that two'littoral assault' ships will be based
permanently at Singapore. There are onlytwo bases in SEASia which have the
facilities to dock and servicenuclear-powered US aircraft carriers: Japan
and Singapore. The only possiblereason for this concentration of US forces
in Singapore is to interdict tradethrough the Malacca Straits. All of this
is available on globalsecurity.org
新加坡的意义远不止于美军的油料供应点。美国最近宣布将把两艘滨海战斗舰永久部署
在新加坡。在整个亚洲海域仅有两个地点可供美军核动力航母停泊和维修：日本和新加
坡。美国军事力量对新加坡的关注的唯一原因就是为了切断经马六甲海峡的贸易往来。
这些都可以在globalsecurity.org网站上查到。
Fish Eagle in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 01:36
It is reasonable to assume weAmericans are in Singapore for the same reason
the British were in Singapore ahundred years ago: to participate in (and
control) east-west trade. The factthe trade now includes China's oil is an
added benefit, given our new focus onsecurity in the South China Sea.
怀疑我们美国在新加坡的存在和一百年前英国在新加坡的存在是因为同样的理由是有一
定道理的：参与（控制）东西方贸易。事实上我们正关注南海的安全形势，（能控制）
包括中国石油资源在内的贸易则是额外的好处。
tocharian in reply to sprinter3321March 10th, 07:46
No worries here. Singaporewill very soon become a "vassal state" of "Greater
China".It's part of the string of pearls strategy! Duh
不要担心。新加坡很快就会成为“大中国”的一个“附属国”。它是珍珠链战略上的一
环。
PL123 in reply to tocharianMarch 10th, 12:14
Now Singapore is moreintergrated to Greater China's economy, they don't want
to sink with a dyingempire.
如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈，他们不想为一个垂死的帝国（译注：指美国）陪
葬。
viethong in reply to PL123March 11th, 00:50
I may show why peopl nowtalking US in sing: paper straits time had artical
week before by ISEAS personRichardson, say 85 percen china oil come thru
sing strait (not 89 like sayhere). Same day paper artical say 2 new americ
ship come to sing, an americ wantnow look chine sea. sing peopl connecvt
article togeter
我来说说为什么现在人们讨论美国在新加坡的军事存在：《海峡时报》周刊之前刊登了
南亚研究所理查森的文章，谈到中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡（而不是文中的
89%）。某一天周刊又说2艘美国新型军舰将部署到新加坡，美国对南海的新关注。新加
坡人把这两篇文章放在一起来理解了。
Ex Patriot in reply to tocharianMarch 11th, 04:13
Singapore's been a vassalstate of China's for a very long time.
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
Dogsi in reply to sprinter3321March 16th, 04:45
Prior US sailor here. Theprimary reason why America is in the Malaka
Straights is to secure trade, notto prevent it. There are hundreds of acts
of piracy every year in that region.US destroyers, frigates, etc. are
constantly in the region trying to keep theshipping lanes open and safe.
As for why America constantlyuses Singapore as a base of operations, that is
because it has fairly advancedfacilities, is fairly politically neutral, and
it is well located in theregion. Whether we are heading West towards the
Indian ocean or the PersianGulf, South, towards Australia, or returning from
these areas and heading Northtowards Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan,
Singapore is an easily accessed port.
Stop the fear mongering.America is not attempting to cut off China's oil
supplies. There will be no warbetween America and China. China and America
both know that it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating
America out side of its own borders.
美国海军早就出现在那里了。美国在马六甲海峡的军事存在主要是为了贸易安全，而不
是相反。每年在这区域有数百起海盗行为。美国驱逐舰、护卫舰经常在区域内巡逻以维
护海运航道的开放和安全。
至于说为什么美军将新加坡作为一个行动基地，那是因为新加坡拥有完善的设施。政治
上是完全中立的，而且美军的行动只限定在该区域内。无论我们是向西进入印度洋或波
斯湾；或是往南进入澳大利亚；还是离开上述区域往北前往香港、韩国和日本，新加坡
都是一个非常便捷的港口。
停止不必要的恐惧。美国并没有试图切断中国的石油供给。美中之间不会开战。中国和
美国都知道还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。
new paradigm426 in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 06:06
"it will be decadesbefore China has any hope of defeating America out side
of its ownborders"
So what happened in Vietnam?The US lost against (the Northern half) of a
developing country. The mostpowerful country on earth beaten by (half) of
one of the weakest.
Few doubt the US would win anaval engagement, but a land war is a different
story. This is the mistake theBritish made: they assumed the Japs would come
by sea, but they came down theMalay Peninsula instead. On bicycles. The
Chinese will do the same, and theresult will be the same. The US is no match
for China in a land war, the USelectorate will not tolerate hundreds of
thousand of casualties in defence ofplace Americans can't even find on a
map.
Singapore would be safer ifthe US were to pull out of Singapore altogether.
Then Singapore can make it'sown agreements with China, based on the new
reality. This way, armed conflictcan be prevented.
“还需要数十年后中国才有希望能在其国境之外击败美国。”
在越南发生了什么？美国输给了一个发展中国家（北越）。
世界上最强大的国家被（半个，译注：指北越，所以是半个国家）世界上最弱小的国家
之一给击败了。
很少人怀疑美国会在海战中取胜，但是地面战争则不同。这是英国所犯的错误：他们认
为日本会从海上发动进攻，但是日本从马来半岛侵入——靠自行车。中国也会这么做，
而且结果也会一样。美国在地面战争中不是中国的对手，美国人民无法承受数十万的伤
亡，而交战的地点美国人甚至都无法在地图上找到。
如果美国全面从新加坡撤出，新加坡将会更加安全。那样新加坡可以和中国在新的环境
下签订条约。只有这样武装冲突才能避免。
Dogsi in reply to new paradigm426March 16th, 08:46
Your analogy is fallacious.Singapore is not part of China but is far from
China's borders. Do you believethe Chinese are more willing to sacrifice
lives in a war of aggression thanAmericans would be in a war to defend an
ally? Do you believe that China's neighborswould sit ideally by while China
rolled over other countries to invadeSingapore? Do you believe China has the
logistics to wage war over a thousandmiles from its borders with American
naval dominance?
China is not a threat toSingapore. Even if it was, it would not be a threat
to Singapore with Americabacking it.
Now as your other assertion.America would trounce China in a land war. It is
true that China's populationis larger than America's. However, the gap is
not as drastic as it would be ifyou compared China to the UK, Germany, etc.
America is about 1/4 the populationof China. However, it has far more
resources, military technology, politicalallies, etc.
In the Vietnam war, Americatrounced the Vietnamese military. Approximately
3,000,000 Vietnamese diedduring that war. Approximately 60,000 Americans
died in that war. For every 1American that died, Vietnam lost 50.
In the first gulf war againstIraq, America fought a military that was
technologically more advanced and farmore experienced than China. America
killed the Iraqi's at about an 90 to 1ratio.
There is a key difference withall of these wars in that America was fighting
a war outside of our borders. Wewere fighting people defending their
homeland from a hostile invader. People fightingto defend their home are far
more fanatical than people fighting to promote theselfish desires of their
own government.
Yes, an American invasion ofmainland China would be disastrous. I have no
doubt that the US military couldroll over the Chinese military and seize
control of any place in China.However, it would be a bloody and never ending
affair. It would cost Americahundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of
dollars and would end inAmerica eventually cutting our losses and bailing.
Finally, no, Singapore issafer with America. America is by far the strongest
military power in theworld. America has showed no indications that it wishes
to annex anything.America poses absolutely no risk to Singapore. China on
the other hand hasshown increased belligerence with its neighbors. It has
been increasinglyconfrontational with Vietnam, Japan, RP, etc.
China has not had a"peaceful rise" out of their benign nature but because
they lack thepower to engage and win a conflict against American will. They
know that anywar it fights would give the US government the justification
that they wouldlove to have to military humiliate China. This is why China
rattles its sabersat Taiwan, 1 or 2 US battle groups show up, and China
backs down.
The Chinese and Americangovernments both know this. You acting like this is
not the case is effectivelystating you are more knowledgeable on the topic
than both the US and theChinese governments.
你的类比很荒谬。新加坡不是中国的一部分，它和中国距离遥远。你认为中国会愿意在
一场侵略战争中比美国保卫盟友的战争中承受更多人员伤亡？你认为中国的后勤足以支
撑一场千里之外和拥有制海权的美国的战争？
中国不是新加坡的威胁。即便是，它对美国援助下的新加坡也构不成威胁。
关于你的另一个论断。美国人将在地面战争中狠狠教训中国。中国的人口比美国多是事
实。但是，如果将中国和英国、德国等相比你就会发现中美之间的差距不是那么大。美
国的人口是中国的1/4，但是美国有更多的资源、更先进的军事技术和更多的政治盟友
等。
在越战中，美国痛揍越南军队。将近300万越南人在战争中丧生，而与此相比只有约6万
美国人丧生。每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人。
在对伊拉克的第一次海湾战争中，美国的对手比中国的科技水平更高且有更多实战经验
的。美国/伊拉克阵亡比例大约是1：90。
这些战争中的一个很大区别是，美国是在国土外作战。我们是在和一个抵御侵略祖国的
人作战。为祖国而战的人们比为政府的贪欲作战的有着更高的热情。
是的，如果美国入侵中国大陆这将会是个灾难。我并不怀疑美国军队可以碾碎中国军队
并全面占领中国，但这将是一个血腥且永不止境的战争。这将让美国付出数十万的伤亡
和数万亿的美元，而且战争会以美国最终不得不削减开支而告终。
总之，新加坡和美国在一起更安全。美国的军事力量目前仍是世界上最强。美国也从未
有任何迹象想要吞并什么。美国不会对新加坡造成任何威胁。中国则相反，它对邻国的
好战欲望正在增长。它和越南、日本、菲律宾等的对抗越来越强。
中国的善良本质并未带来“和平崛起”，因为他们缺乏同美国作战的力量。他们知道任
何战争都会给美国政府理由来乐意地羞辱他们。这就是为什么中国对台湾耀武扬威时，
只要一两个美国舰队一出现他们就退缩的原因。
中国政府和美国政府对此都心知肚明。你在这事情的表演并不能表示你在这问题上比美
国和中国政府更聪明。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 08:49
The combined navies ofMalaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more than
capabable of taking care of afew pirates in the Melaca Strait, they don't
need the US Pacific Fleet forthat. And by the way, the issue is not only the
Melaca Strait and it's oilroute, it is also the Sunda Strait (between Bali
and Lombok), through whichcomes most of China's coal and iron, from
Australia. Turn off China's oil, coaland iron, and you turn off China.
马来西亚、印尼和新加坡的海军联合起来足以应对马六甲海峡内的少量海盗，他们并不
需要美国太平洋舰队来帮忙。而且问题不仅仅是马六甲海峡和石油航线，巽他海峡（巴
里岛和龙目岛之间）同样如此，中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石大部分经由该航线
运输。切断了中国的石油、煤炭和铁矿石进口，你就打败了中国。
popeyethesailorman in reply to DogsiMarch 16th, 09:02
"For every 1 Americanthat died, Vietnam lost 50". And yet Vietnam still won
the war. Bodycounts don't impress an electorate, results do, and the result
in Vietnam (andnow Afghanistan) is that the USA lost the war.
China does not have to careabout what the electorate thinks, they don't have
an electorate. In Korea theysent human waves at artillery and machine gun
positions without regard forlosses. Human life is immaterial when you have a
population of 1.3 billion.
The US is in the last stagesof imperial overstretch, and if they take on
China it will be a catastrophe notonly for the US and China, but also for
the countries they decide to fighttheir battles across. Ask any Iraqi.
“每一个美国人的丧生对应的是50个越南人”
但是越南人赢得了战争。数人头对选民没有意义，结果才是，在越南（现在是阿富汗）
的结果就是美国输掉了战争。
中国不需要考虑选民在想什么，他们不存在选民。在朝鲜战争中他们向火炮和机枪射击
位置发动人海战术，毫不顾及伤亡。在一个13亿人口的大国，人命并不值钱。
美国正处在帝国过度扩张的最后阶段，和中国开战不只是美国和中国的灾难，也是所有
决定为国而战的全体人民的灾难。不信的话你问问任何一个伊拉克人。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:04
The Indonesian navy islaughable. The Malaysian and Singaporean navies likely
could handle the job butthey don't. Also, it is not a "few" pirates. The
Malacca straits havethe largest concentration of pirates in the world.
Recent concerted efforts byAmerica, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia as
well as increased defenses by shippingvessels has caused a notable decrease
in the rate of piracy. However, it isstill an issue. Indonesia is a very
poorly governed and controlled region withthousands of islands that are
completely unregulated. The corrupt governmentallows pirates to reliably get
their plundered goods to market.
Is America NEEDED? Nope.However, is that why America is there? Yes. America
also has a lot of tradepassing through the Malacca straits.
I was on the USS Paul F.Foster during its twilight cruise. We bordered and
seized a little over 30pirate ships in the 4 months we patrolled between
Singapore and Thailand.
Finally, America is not goingto war with China. Why would it? This is
nothing more than fear mongering.
印尼海军就是个笑话。马来西亚和新加坡海军看似能够应付，但实际上不能。还有，这
不只是“少量”海盗。马六甲海域内有全世界数量最集中的海盗。最近美国、新加坡、
马来西亚和印尼运用更多战舰集中行动显著地降低了海盗出现的频率，但这仍然是一个
麻烦。印尼的数千个岛屿缺乏有效管理。贪腐的政府甚至允许海盗将他们的掠夺物合法
地在市场上出售。
需要美国吗？不。那为什么美国人在那出现？因为美国也有大量的贸易需要通过马六甲
海峡。
我曾经在保罗-F-伏斯特号服役并参与巡逻。在新加坡和泰国间巡逻的4个月时间里，我
们抵近并逮捕了30多艘海盗船。
Dogsi in reply to popeyethesailormanMarch 16th, 09:09
Again, China does not borderSingapore.
You are ignorant if youbelieve the Chinese don't care about their own people
dying. Human life is notimmaterial. You are naive to think so.
The US is not in the"last stages of imperial overstretch". That is nothing
more than youranti-American wishful thinking. China will likely surpass
America over the nextcouple decades. However, it is not due to a decline of
America but because ofthe rise of China.
China is a larger country andshould by default be more powerful than
America. America is stronger thanGermany, the UK, France, etc. because it is
larger, not because of any innatesuperiority of the American people. The
"issue" with the"relative decline" of America is no different.
Finally, Iraq is better off.Check out their GDP. Iraq's GDP today is 9 times
what it was when Americainvaded in 2003.
强调一下，中国和新加坡并不接壤。
如果你相信中国人并不在意他们自己人的伤亡，那这纯属无知。人命并不是无足轻重的
，你那么想太幼稚了。
美国也不是处在“帝国过度扩张的最后阶段”。这只不过是你反-美国的一厢情愿。中
国在20年后很可能会超越美国，但是这不是因为美国的衰退而是中国的崛起。
中国比美国更大，它应该比美国更强大。美国比德国、英国、法国等等更强大不是什么
美国人天生的优越性而是因为美国本来就比它们更大。那个“问题”和美国的“相对下
降”说的是同一件事。
最后再说一点，伊拉克比以前更好。你可以看看他们的GDP，它目前的GDP是美国2003年
入侵时的9倍。
fruitcake22 in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 00:57
I must wade in here and makesome points:
1. 85% of China's oil comesthrough the Malacca Straits. This was written in
the Straits Times by thedefence analyst Michael Richardson at Singapore's
Institute of South East AsianStudies
2. Most of China's coal andiron ore comes through the Sunda Straits from
Australia, a few hundred milesEast of the Malacca Straits
3. Singapore is building hugeunderground oil storage tanks at Jurong Island
called the Jurong Rock Caverns.Why does Singapore need millions of gallons
of oil? And why does it need to beunderground? It is far cheaper and quicker
to build surface storage, andSingapore's navy is not large enough to need
it.
3. The US is 're-posturing'it's forces to the South China Sea to counter
China's agressive stance in theregion, including sending new warships to be
based in Singapore, thePhillipines, and Vietnam, and troops to Australia.
The fact that Singapore andIndonesia do not border China is irrelevent when
by closing two choke points,the US can render China incapable of making war.
The US is effectively holdinga knife to China's throat, and saying "if you
make trouble in Korea,Taiwan, Spratleys, Phillipines, Vietnam etc we will
turn off your trade"
This means that in the eventof war between the US and China, the Malacca
Straits and the Sunda Straits willbe the PLA's first stop, not their last.
我必须要说说：
1、中国石油进口的85%是通过马六甲海峡的。出自新加坡东南亚研究学院的国防战略研
究专家迈克尔·理查森在新加坡《海峡时报》的撰稿。
2、中国从澳大利亚进口的煤炭和铁矿石资源大多数通过马六甲海峡以东100公里的巽他
海峡。
3、新加坡正在裕廊岛兴建被称为裕廊岩洞的大型地下石油存储库。为什么新加坡需要
成百上千万加仑的油料？为什么需要地下存储？建造地面存储更便宜和更快捷，而新加
坡的海军根本不需要这么多。
4、美国正在将兵力“重新部署”到南海以对抗中国在该区域内的进攻态势，包括将新
军舰部署到新加坡、菲律宾、越南和把部队派驻澳大利亚。
新加坡和印尼与中国不接壤没有关系，关键是美国只要控制住这两个咽喉就可以使得中
国没有发动战争的能力。美国正用小刀抵住中国的咽喉，然后说“如果你敢在韩国、台
湾、南沙、菲律宾、越南等地方制造麻烦的话，我就让你做不成贸易”。
这意味着如果美国和中国开战，马六甲海峡和巽他海峡将是解放军的第一站，而不是最
后一站。
Dogsi in reply to fruitcake22March 17th, 01:54
1: Yes.
2: No. Most of China's imports come through there. After America, China has
themost coal in the world. China is the worlds largest producer of coal.
3: Singapore refines and exports large quantities of oil. China is the
centraltrade hub in SEA. If you buy fuel in Indonesia, odds are good that it
comesSingapore.
4: Yes. China is being belligerent and attempting to bully its neighbors.
Sowhat? China can't complain that America won't let it bully people.
However, no, America is not"stationing" ships in Vietnam, RP, and Singapore.
We have contractswith Singapore and good military and political
relationships with Singapore.Singapore sees about twice as much US naval
traffic as Hong Kong. If Singaporeis an American Naval base then so is Hong
Kong. The others see very little USnaval activity. It is simply improved
relationships. If China doesn't like it,then maybe China shouldn't be
pushing them to run to America for protectionfrom China.
Finally, the PLA would have toroll over numerous countries to get to
Singapore. You are missing that littlepoint. There's something like 1300
miles between the closest major Chinese cityand Singapore. Over 1600 miles
between the closest major Chinese military baseand Singapore. China has
almost no capability to sustain a military engagementoutside of their own
borders. Singapore is not N. Korea. It is far enough fromChina that China
would be completely unable to invade it with the US navy andair force
helping Singapore. Hell, Singapore's military technology is not baditself.
While it's a tiny country of around 3-5 million (forget exactly), it isan
regional power house that punches well above its weight. All male citizensof
Singapore must serve in the military. It invests a large portion of
itsresources in to its military. Singapore would not be an easy nut to
crackitself.
Again, Singapore has norealistic fear from China. China has shown itself to
be pushy and unyieldingwith its desires. America pays large amounts of money
and shares militarytechnology with Singapore. America is easily the better
partner for Singapore.
第一点正确。
第二点不对。中国进口货物的大部分都通过该海峡。而中国是美国之后全世界第二大的
煤炭拥有国，而中国还是全世界最大的煤炭生产国。
第三点：新加坡精炼并大量出口石油。中国是海上贸易的枢纽中心。如果你在印尼购买
燃油，那有很大可能是来自新加坡的。
第四点正确。中国好战且正试图恐吓它的邻国。那又怎么样？中国不能抱怨说美国不让
它欺负别人。美国并没有向越南、菲律宾和新加坡“部署”军舰。我们和新加坡有协议
，而且我们和他们有着良好的军事和政治关系。新加坡见到美国海军的数量大约是香港
的两倍。如果新加坡是美国海军基地的话，那香港也是了。其他地方很少见到美国军舰
的活动，这就是纯粹的良好关系。如果中国不喜欢，那中国当初就不该把他们推到美国
那边来寻求保护。
最后一点，解放军必须推倒众多国家才能到达新加坡，你漏了这个小问题了。中国最近
的大城市离新加坡有1600多公里。中国基本上没有能力在他们国境之外维持军事行动。
新加坡不是朝鲜，在美国海空军的帮助下，中国入侵新加坡是鞭长莫及。还有，新加坡
自身的军事技术也不差。它虽然是一个仅有3-500万人口（记不清楚了，译注：截至
2011年518万）的小国，但远超出它的规模来说可算是新加坡是一个地区性强国。新加
坡的所有男性公民必须在军队服役。它在国防军队建设上投入很大，新加坡本身并不是
个软柿子。
再次强调，新加坡对中国没有什么现实的担忧。中国已经证明自己是一个有进取心和顽
强的国家。美国则对新加坡投入大笔资金并和它分享军事技术，很显然美国是新加坡更
好的盟友。
Mongabay in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 03:04
Have been following thisdiscussion with interest. So good to see some
intelligent debate. May I suggestsome reading:
Singapore In The NewMillenium: Challenges Facing The City State
Editor: Derek Da Cunha, Institute Of South East Asian Studies, ISBN981-230-
130-5
Quote page 146:
"The SAF is a formidabledeterrent force. But to what extent is it a viable
warfighting force? Theanswer to this question would be purely dependent upon
the kind of conflict theSAF confronts. A low-intensity conflict fought at a
distance from Singaporeshores will likely see the SAF acquit itself well,
not least because theairforce and navy would take the lead roles in such a
military action. However,should a major conflict occur in a way that places
the island in the directline of fire, then a positive outcome is less
certain"
我对这个讨论很感兴趣，我很高兴看见一些有趣的争论。谈谈我自己的看法：
摘自新加坡东南亚研究所德里克达库尼亚的著作《新世纪里的新加坡：城市国家面临的
挑战》ISBN981-230-130-5第146页：
“新加坡武装部队是一个强大的威慑力量。但它到底在多大程度上是可行的作战部队？
这要看SAF面临的是何种冲突类型。在距离新加坡海岸线不远的低烈度冲突中，SAF将会
有出色表现，海空军将在这样的军事行动扮演领军角色。但是，如果发生大规模冲突而
将这个小岛推到交火的第一线，就很难得出乐观的结论”。
He goes on to give thereasons, I quote selections from the text:
"The SAF has no recentcombat experience"
"It is uncertain how active-duty troops would stand up in a major
combatsituation right at their doorstep"
"Singapore is not a country that is used to taking casualties of anysort"
"Extreme fragility of civilian moral"
"The collective memory of Singaporeans of the second world war...is
ofhardship, deprivation, humiliation, and total domination by the enemy"
随后他给出了理由，我从他的文章中摘选出来：
“SAF没有战斗经验”
“不确定现役部队在面对家门口的大规模战争中能坚持多久”
“新加坡不是个习惯于承受伤亡的国家”
“民众精神的极度脆弱”
“新加坡人民对于二战的集体记忆：艰辛、贫困、屈辱和被敌人的全面统治”
This book is published by theInstitute of South East Asian Studies, a
Singapore government-funded thinktank. I expect the US (and probably the
Singapore government) has consideredthese points and come to the same
conclusion as the author: that a strategicseaway such as the Malacca
Straits, one of the main arteries of world trade,requires the presence of
Uncle Sam.
As to whether the US controlsthe seaway as a means to interrupt trade to any
possible adversary is aquestion that it is impossible to answer, until such
a situation develops. Butwhy would the US not use it's strategic control of
this waterway to confound anenemy? Indeed, if Singapore's armed forces are
adequate to the task of defenceagainst any local adversary, why is the US
required there at all? I tend to theconclusion that the US regards the
Malacca Straits as the entrance to the SouthChina Sea, a region it has
called it's "core interest", and throughwhich it's only possible adversary
in the region (China) imports and exportsit's goods.
这篇文章由新加坡政府资助的智库东南亚研究学院出版发行。我希望美国（新加坡政府
也一样）考虑到这些问题并能得出和作者相同的结论：像马六甲海峡这样的战略航道，
世界贸易的最主要动脉之一，需要美国的存在。
至于说美国控制了这样航道是否意味着对可能的对手的贸易遏制是一个难以回答的问题
，只能等待这样的情况出现才能回答。但是美国为什么不利用对这个航道的战略控制来
遏制对手呢？事实上，如果新加坡武装部队足以完成对抗区域对手的任务，美国何必部
署在那里？我个人倾向于这样的看法，即美国将马六甲海峡视为进入南海—称其为“核
心利益”和区域内唯一可能的对手（中国）进出口贸易的必经之路—的大门。
Dogsi in reply to MongabayMarch 17th, 03:27
Nice response.
I have no doubt that theSingaporean military would fall to the Chinese
military. I just do not believeit would be as easy as people here seem to
imply. Singapore is not aneighboring country as I keep finding myself
stating. The Chinese troops willnot suddenly appear in Singapore.
I agree that America wouldlikely use it's positioning to cut off supplies to
China if war were to occur.However, America doesn't need Singapore to do
that. America's naval superiorityis unquestionable. With or with out
Singapore's help, America would quiteeasily cut China off from the seas and
not simply in the Malacca straits.
However, having served in thenavy and in particular the Malacca straits, I
am fairly confident when I statethat America is there to ensure that trade
is kept open, not to close it. Theprimary purpose of the US military is to
keep world trade flowing. Disruptionsin world trade are bad for the global
economy which is in turn bad for the USeconomy.
What I do not understand iswhy Singapore should turn to a weaker ally that
is demanding and belligerentrather than a stronger ally that is neither.
America is not threatening thecountries of S.E. Asia. China is. America is
simply using its position as asuperior military force to gain position and
favor in the region. There's ahuge difference in the politics.
The only reason why S. E.Asian countries are dealing with China in a
friendly manner at all is becauseof its economic significance in the region.
Politically, China is boorish.
说得好。
我确信新加坡军队会败给中国军队，我只是不相信会像人们在这里说的那么轻易地被打
败。新加坡和中国并不接壤，因此中国军队不会突然出现在新加坡。
我也认同说美国在战争爆发时，可能利用自身的优势切断中国资源补给线。但是美国并
不需要新加坡来做这种事情，美国的海上优势毫无疑义。有或没有新加坡的帮助，美国
都可以很轻地切断中国的海上交通而不仅仅是马六甲海峡。
但是，曾经在海军尤其是在马六甲海峡服役过，我可以肯定美国在那里的存在是维护贸
易开放而不是相反，美军的主要目的就是为了维护世界贸易正常进行。世界贸易的割裂
对全球经济不利，而这最终将影响美国经济。
我不明白的是：为什么新加坡要投靠一个更弱但是更加贪婪好战的盟友，而不是更强大
且没有上述两点的盟友？不是美国人在威胁亚洲海域的国家，中国人才是。美国纯粹只
是利用超级军事力量这个地位来在区域内赢得位置和尊重。这两者在政治上有很大区别
。
亚洲海域国家在和中国打交道时保持良好风度的唯一原因是因为中国经济在区域内的影
响力。政治上，中国非常粗暴。
Melissia in reply to new paradigm426March 17th, 15:52
In Vietnam, America defeateditself.
在越南，美国败给了自己。
Russian Monkey in reply to MelissiaMarch 17th, 22:35
A wise comment indeed, andindisputably true. The US electorate forced
President Lindon B. Johnson toabandon the Vietnam war due to US casualties
approaching 60,000, Vietnamesecasualties in the hundreds of thousands, and
no real progress on thebattlefield.
China does not have theproblems that come with democracy. China can continue
a war without regard tothe opinion of a vote-wielding proletariat.
很好的评论，而且完全正确。美国选民在美军伤亡人数接近6万人时迫使林登约翰逊总
统放弃越南战争，越南的伤亡人数则是数十万，而且在地面战争上没有取得过任何成绩
。
中国没有民主引发的问题。中国可以无视挥舞着选票的无产阶级的抗议继续进行战争。
1: Yes.
2: No. Most of China's imports come through there. After America, China has
themost coal in the world. China is the worlds largest producer of coal.
3: Singapore refines and exports large quantities of oil. China is the
centraltrade hub in SEA. If you buy fuel in Indonesia, odds are good that it
comesSingapore.
4: Yes. China is being belligerent and attempting to bully its neighbors.
Sowhat? China can't complain that America won't let it bully people.
However, no, America is not"stationing" ships in Vietnam, RP, and Singapore.
We have contractswith Singapore and good military and political
relationships with Singapore.Singapore sees about twice as much US naval
traffic as Hong Kong. If Singaporeis an American Naval base then so is Hong
Kong. The others see very little USnaval activity. It is simply improved
relationships. If China doesn't like it,then maybe China shouldn't be
pushing them to run to America for protectionfrom China.
Finally, the PLA would have toroll over numerous countries to get to
Singapore. You are missing that littlepoint. There's something like 1300
miles between the closest major Chinese cityand Singapore. Over 1600 miles
between the closest major Chinese military baseand Singapore. China has
almost no capability to sustain a military engagementoutside of their own
borders. Singapore is not N. Korea. It is far enough fromChina that China
would be completely unable to invade it with the US navy andair force
helping Singapore. Hell, Singapore's military technology is not baditself.
While it's a tiny country of around 3-5 million (forget exactly), it isan
regional power house that punches well above its weight. All male citizensof
Singapore must serve in the military. It invests a large portion of
itsresources in to its military. Singapore would not be an easy nut to
crackitself.
Again, Singapore has norealistic fear from China. China has shown itself to
be pushy and unyieldingwith its desires. America pays large amounts of money
and shares militarytechnology with Singapore. America is easily the better
partner for Singapore.
第一点正确。
第二点不对。中国进口货物的大部分都通过该海峡。而中国是美国之后全世界第二大的
煤炭拥有国，而中国还是全世界最大的煤炭生产国。
第三点：新加坡精炼并大量出口石油。中国是海上贸易的枢纽中心。如果你在印尼购买
燃油，那有很大可能是来自新加坡的。
第四点正确。中国好战且正试图恐吓它的邻国。那又怎么样？中国不能抱怨说美国不让
它欺负别人。美国并没有向越南、菲律宾和新加坡“部署”军舰。我们和新加坡有协议
，而且我们和他们有着良好的军事和政治关系。新加坡见到美国海军的数量大约是香港
的两倍。如果新加坡是美国海军基地的话，那香港也是了。其他地方很少见到美国军舰
的活动，这就是纯粹的良好关系。如果中国不喜欢，那中国当初就不该把他们推到美国
那边来寻求保护。
最后一点，解放军必须推倒众多国家才能到达新加坡，你漏了这个小问题了。中国最近
的大城市离新加坡有1600多公里。中国基本上没有能力在他们国境之外维持军事行动。
新加坡不是朝鲜，在美国海空军的帮助下，中国入侵新加坡是鞭长莫及。还有，新加坡
自身的军事技术也不差。它虽然是一个仅有3-500万人口（记不清楚了，译注：截至
2011年518万）的小国，但远超出它的规模来说可算是新加坡是一个地区性强国。新加
坡的所有男性公民必须在军队服役。它在国防军队建设上投入很大，新加坡本身并不是
个软柿子。
再次强调，新加坡对中国没有什么现实的担忧。中国已经证明自己是一个有进取心和顽
强的国家。美国则对新加坡投入大笔资金并和它分享军事技术，很显然美国是新加坡更
好的盟友。
Mongabay in reply to DogsiMarch 17th, 03:04
Have been following thisdiscussion with interest. So good to see some
intelligent debate. May I suggestsome reading:
Singapore In The NewMillenium: Challenges Facing The City State
Editor: Derek Da Cunha, Institute Of South East Asian Studies, ISBN981-230-
130-5
Quote page 146:
"The SAF is a formidabledeterrent force. But to what extent is it a viable
warfighting force? Theanswer to this question would be purely dependent upon
the kind of conflict theSAF confronts. A low-intensity conflict fought at a
distance from Singaporeshores will likely see the SAF acquit itself well,
not least because theairforce and navy would take the lead roles in such a
military action. However,should a major conflict occur in a way that places
the island in the directline of fire, then a positive outcome is less
certain"
我对这个讨论很感兴趣，我很高兴看见一些有趣的争论。谈谈我自己的看法：
摘自新加坡东南亚研究所德里克达库尼亚的著作《新世纪里的新加坡：城市国家面临的
挑战》ISBN981-230-130-5第146页：
“新加坡武装部队是一个强大的威慑力量。但它到底在多大程度上是可行的作战部队？
这要看SAF面临的是何种冲突类型。在距离新加坡海岸线不远的低烈度冲突中，SAF将会
有出色表现，海空军将在这样的军事行动扮演领军角色。但是，如果发生大规模冲突而
将这个小岛推到交火的第一线，就很难得出乐观的结论”。
He goes on to give thereasons, I quote selections from the text:
"The SAF has no recentcombat experience"
"It is uncertain how active-duty troops would stand up in a major
combatsituation right at their doorstep"
"Singapore is not a country that is used to taking casualties of anysort"
"Extreme fragility of civilian moral"
"The collective memory of Singaporeans of the second world war...is
ofhardship, deprivation, humiliation, and total domination by the enemy"
随后他给出了理由，我从他的文章中摘选出来：
“SAF没有战斗经验”
“不确定现役部队在面对家门口的大规模战争中能坚持多久”
“新加坡不是个习惯于承受伤亡的国家”
“民众精神的极度脆弱”
“新加坡人民对于二战的集体记忆：艰辛、贫困、屈辱和被敌人的全面统治”
This book is published by theInstitute of South East Asian Studies, a
Singapore government-funded thinktank. I expect the US (and probably the
Singapore government) has consideredthese points and come to the same
conclusion as the author: that a strategicseaway such as the Malacca
Straits, one of the main arteries of world trade,requires the presence of
Uncle Sam.
As to whether the US controlsthe seaway as a means to interrupt trade to any
possible adversary is aquestion that it is impossible to answer, until such
a situation develops. Butwhy would the US not use it's strategic control of
this waterway to confound anenemy? Indeed, if Singapore's armed forces are
adequate to the task of defenceagainst any local adversary, why is the US
required there at all? I tend to theconclusion that the US regards the
Malacca Straits as the entrance to the SouthChina Sea, a region it has
called it's "core interest", and throughwhich it's only possible adversary
in the region (China) imports and exportsit's goods.
这篇文章由新加坡政府资助的智库东南亚研究学院出版发行。我希望美国（新加坡政府
也一样）考虑到这些问题并能得出和作者相同的结论：像马六甲海峡这样的战略航道，
世界贸易的最主要动脉之一，需要美国的存在。
至于说美国控制了这样航道是否意味着对可能的对手的贸易遏制是一个难以回答的问题
，只能等待这样的情况出现才能回答。但是美国为什么不利用对这个航道的战略控制来
遏制对手呢？事实上，如果新加坡武装部队足以完成对抗区域对手的任务，美国何必部
署在那里？我个人倾向于这样的看法，即美国将马六甲海峡视为进入南海—称其为“核
心利益”和区域内唯一可能的对手（中国）进出口贸易的必经之路—的大门。
Dogsi in reply to MongabayMarch 17th, 03:27
Nice response.
I have no doubt that theSingaporean military would fall to the Chinese
military. I just do not believeit would be as easy as people here seem to
imply. Singapore is not aneighboring country as I keep finding myself
stating. The Chinese troops willnot suddenly appear in Singapore.
I agree that America wouldlikely use it's positioning to cut off supplies to
China if war were to occur.However, America doesn't need Singapore to do
that. America's naval superiorityis unquestionable. With or with out
Singapore's help, America would quiteeasily cut China off from the seas and
not simply in the Malacca straits.
However, having served in thenavy and in particular the Malacca straits, I
am fairly confident when I statethat America is there to ensure that trade
is kept open, not to close it. Theprimary purpose of the US military is to
keep world trade flowing. Disruptionsin world trade are bad for the global
economy which is in turn bad for the USeconomy.
What I do not understand iswhy Singapore should turn to a weaker ally that
is demanding and belligerentrather than a stronger ally that is neither.
America is not threatening thecountries of S.E. Asia. China is. America is
simply using its position as asuperior military force to gain position and
favor in the region. There's ahuge difference in the politics.
The only reason why S. E.Asian countries are dealing with China in a
friendly manner at all is becauseof its economic significance in the region.
Politically, China is boorish.
说得好。
我确信新加坡军队会败给中国军队，我只是不相信会像人们在这里说的那么轻易地被打
败。新加坡和中国并不接壤，因此中国军队不会突然出现在新加坡。
我也认同说美国在战争爆发时，可能利用自身的优势切断中国资源补给线。但是美国并
不需要新加坡来做这种事情，美国的海上优势毫无疑义。有或没有新加坡的帮助，美国
都可以很轻地切断中国的海上交通而不仅仅是马六甲海峡。
但是，曾经在海军尤其是在马六甲海峡服役过，我可以肯定美国在那里的存在是维护贸
易开放而不是相反，美军的主要目的就是为了维护世界贸易正常进行。世界贸易的割裂
对全球经济不利，而这最终将影响美国经济。
我不明白的是：为什么新加坡要投靠一个更弱但是更加贪婪好战的盟友，而不是更强大
且没有上述两点的盟友？不是美国人在威胁亚洲海域的国家，中国人才是。美国纯粹只
是利用超级军事力量这个地位来在区域内赢得位置和尊重。这两者在政治上有很大区别
。
亚洲海域国家在和中国打交道时保持良好风度的唯一原因是因为中国经济在区域内的影
响力。政治上，中国非常粗暴。
Melissia in reply to new paradigm426March 17th, 15:52
In Vietnam, America defeateditself.
在越南，美国败给了自己。
Russian Monkey in reply to MelissiaMarch 17th, 22:35
A wise comment indeed, andindisputably true. The US electorate forced
President Lindon B. Johnson toabandon the Vietnam war due to US casualties
approaching 60,000, Vietnamesecasualties in the hundreds of thousands, and
no real progress on thebattlefield.
China does not have theproblems that come with democracy. China can continue
a war without regard tothe opinion of a vote-wielding proletariat.
很好的评论，而且完全正确。美国选民在美军伤亡人数接近6万人时迫使林登约翰逊总
统放弃越南战争，越南的伤亡人数则是数十万，而且在地面战争上没有取得过任何成绩
。
中国没有民主引发的问题。中国可以无视挥舞着选票的无产阶级的抗议继续进行战争。
兔子的能源资源进口和工业品出口在创造巨量财富的同时，也成了最大的弱点，面对美帝及其盟友，兔子海军在未来一二十年内仍不能取得相对优势，鼻屎国抱美帝大腿是个很现实的选择。
兔子如果不能拉大内需、提高资源利用率、增加陆路通道，同时建设强大海空军，那么我们的喉咙就会一直被美帝扼在手中，不能安心发展。
兔子如果不能拉大内需、提高资源利用率、增加陆路通道，同时建设强大海空军，那么我们的喉咙就会一直被美帝扼在手中，不能安心发展。
兔子腿已经伸到李家坡了？
nimizi333 发表于 2012-3-31 17:06 ![]()
兔子的能源资源进口和工业品出口在创造巨量财富的同时，也成了最大的弱点，面对美帝及其盟友，兔子海军在未 ...
美关系，兔鹰是有基情的
兔子的能源资源进口和工业品出口在创造巨量财富的同时，也成了最大的弱点，面对美帝及其盟友，兔子海军在未 ...
美关系，兔鹰是有基情的
通篇美国人的自以为是 美国海军有多强？幻觉罢了 和中国开战 关岛以西的海域 美国就不要考虑了 美国的国力支撑不起的。美国人该睁眼看世界了 看一看中国钢产量是世界前六位的总和 就不要想与中国开战的事了
see1981 发表于 2012-3-31 18:10 ![]()
通篇美国人的自以为是 美国海军有多强？幻觉罢了 和中国开战 关岛以西的海域 美国就不要考虑了 美国的国力 ...
钢产量高有什么用？你也不看看兔子一年造的楼有美帝的几倍
通篇美国人的自以为是 美国海军有多强？幻觉罢了 和中国开战 关岛以西的海域 美国就不要考虑了 美国的国力 ...
钢产量高有什么用？你也不看看兔子一年造的楼有美帝的几倍
为什么中国的和平意愿老是得不到理解呢
如今新加坡正日渐融入大中国经济圈，他们不想为一个垂死的帝国（译注：指美国）陪葬。
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
-----------------------------------------
这两句很H啊，尤其是第二句
新加坡曾经在很长历史时间内都是中国的属国。
-----------------------------------------
这两句很H啊，尤其是第二句
TB生来就是世界秩序的颠覆者，但颠覆不代表战争，这就是TB的和平崛起
MelissiaMarch 9th, 04:48
Of course it can, and it willattempt to do so.
All major powers basically tryand do that.
他们当然可以，而且他们肯定想这么做。
基本上所有大国都想这么做。
这是个明白人
一个到处打架的国家指责一个自建国以后基本都是防御战的国家“政治粗暴”，嗯……
米妖的洗脑水准太高了。
米妖的洗脑水准太高了。
这反映了美国人的心态，他们认为自己是维护世界和平的（美国下的和平）。谁反对他谁就是破坏和平，谁就是坏蛋。要改变这种情况就要全面超越西方（经济、军事、文化、政治）。
新加坡自己决定不了自己的命运，是投靠中国还是投靠美国取决于中美之间的实力较量，新加坡人在论坛上讨论啥并不重要，改变不了任何东西。
新加坡人只要记住自己的祖坟埋得好，家里有一条马六甲海峡，能帮老大看好这条海峡，至于老大是谁，新加坡不用管也没能力管。
新加坡人只要记住自己的祖坟埋得好，家里有一条马六甲海峡，能帮老大看好这条海峡，至于老大是谁，新加坡不用管也没能力管。
nimizi333 发表于 2012-3-31 17:06 ![]()
兔子的能源资源进口和工业品出口在创造巨量财富的同时，也成了最大的弱点，面对美帝及其盟友，兔子海军在未 ...
提高资源利用率
附加一行小字：真正建设循环经济。
兔子的能源资源进口和工业品出口在创造巨量财富的同时，也成了最大的弱点，面对美帝及其盟友，兔子海军在未 ...
提高资源利用率
附加一行小字：真正建设循环经济。
没看出文章有什么具体地方详细讲中国的两面派手法,而是替美国不断粉饰.
绿林奸汉 发表于 2012-4-1 11:03 ![]()
提高资源利用率
附加一行小字：真正建设循环经济。
你这个说法更专业，我就是这个意思，却不知怎么说
提高资源利用率
附加一行小字：真正建设循环经济。
你这个说法更专业，我就是这个意思，却不知怎么说
美国人总是闭着眼，不肯睁开眼看下世界新格局。也许狠狠踹他们头一下会帮他们更清醒些