暗潮涌動的南中國海世界矚目
Whoever replaces Barack Obama will face many difficult choices but few are likely to be as stark as those in the Asia Pacific region. In a 497-page, densely argued ruling this week, an international tribunal in The Hague blew away the legal ambiguity that has long surrounded China’s claim to control the bulk of the South China Sea — one of the busiest trading routes in the world.
無論巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)的繼任者是誰，都將面對許多艱難選擇，但其中可能沒幾個像亞太地區的選擇那樣嚴酷。海牙國際仲裁庭上週公佈了長達497頁的詳細仲裁結果，消除了長期以來有關中國對南中國海絕大多數區域領土主張的法律模糊。南中國海是世界上最繁忙的貿易路線之一。
How the White House responds to the verdict in the coming months will help define Washington’s relationship with Beijing for years, and dramatically influence the geopolitics of the region.
接下來幾個月白宮對這一裁決所作反應，不但有助於定義未來數年美中之間的關係，還將對該地區地緣政治產生極大影響。
Washington sees the ruling, issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, after a complaint from the Philippines, as a victory for what some US officials describe as a 21st century rules-based order over China’s 19th-century plans for its own sphere of influence. By rejecting so many of the assumptions that underpinned Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea, the tribunal has put it on the spot.
華盛頓方面視這份由菲律賓提出仲裁、海牙常設仲裁法院(Permanent Court of Arbitration)作出的裁決是一次勝利，部分美國官員稱，這是針對中國19世紀規劃的勢力範圍，作出的一份21世紀的基於規則的裁決。仲裁庭否定了許多支撐中國南中國海領土主張的假設，令中國面臨尷尬局面。
If China continues occupying reefs and developing them into potential military bases — a process that has accelerated since 2014 — it will be acting outside the bounds of international law. The US would then have to decide its next steps and how much military force it is prepared to deploy.
如果中國繼續佔領島礁，並將它們發展爲潛在軍事基地——該進程在2014年後加速——其行爲將越過國際法的邊界。屆時美國必須決定下一步行動，以及準備部署多少軍事力量。
“China has to make a decision — is it going to adhere to the rule of law and act like a world leader with responsibilities, or is it going to go its own course,” says Ben Cardin, the senior Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee. However, he adds: “They will probably assert their sovereignty by additional island building or military activity.”
美國參議院外交關係委員會(Senate Foreign Relations Committee)資深民主黨人本•卡丁(Ben Cardin)表示：“中國必須做出抉擇，是要堅持法治，表現得像個負責任的全球領導者，還是要走自己的路線。”但他同時表示：“他們很可能會通過追加島嶼建設或軍事行動來維護自己的主權。”
In an interview before the court ruling was announced, Max Baucus, US ambassador to China, said one of his messages to government officials in Beijing was that “we’re in a whole new chapter here . . . The old chapter was talk for the sake of talk, agree to disagree,” he added. “We’re past that. The new chapter is [about] actions”.
仲裁庭宣佈裁決結果前，美國駐華大使馬克斯•鮑卡斯(Max Baucus)在一次採訪中表示，他想對北京的政府官員傳遞的信息之一就是“我們已進入一個全新的篇章……舊篇章是爲了談話而談話，同意各自保留不同意見。我們已經翻過了這一篇，新篇章的內容是行動。”
Competing rivalries
競爭對手
There are multiple rivalries in the South China Sea and they operate on two levels. A host of islands, rocks and reefs are claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the disputes combine fishing rights, potential natural resources and national pride.
南中國海有多名角逐者，它們在兩個層面上展開行動。中國、越南、菲律賓、馬來西亞、文萊和臺灣都對一衆島嶼和岩礁提出了聲索，爭端牽涉捕魚權、潛在的自然資源和民族自豪感。
For the US and China, the South China Sea is more a matter of the geopolitics of sea control. The US Navy has policed the crucial maritime waterway for most of the past 70 years, and believes that China wants to slowly nudge it out of crucial parts of the western Pacific. A dominant position in the South China Sea would give Beijing a platform to exert greater influence over the foreign policies of its neighbours and the terms of economic engagement in east Asia.
對於美國和中國來說，南中國海更多是一個關於海上控制權的地緣政治問題。過去70年的大多數時間裏，美國海軍一直充當這條重要海上航道的警察，同時相信中國想要一步步地將美國逼出這片西太平洋的關鍵海域。在南中國海佔有主導地位將令北京得到一個平臺，從而對鄰國外交政策以及東亞經濟合作條款施加更大影響。
The Hague ruling has delivered a significant blow to that project. The five-judge panel ruled unanimously that China does not have “historic rights” to the resources within its infamous “nine-dash line”, which delineates its claim to about 85 per cent of the waterway.
海牙國際仲裁庭的裁決對中國這一計劃發出沉重的一擊。五人仲裁小組一致裁定中國對其著名的“九段線”內的資源不擁有“歷史性權利”。根據九段線劃定的範圍，中國主張對南中國海約85%的水域擁有主權。
The tribunal also said that none of the land features in the Spratlys archipelago — in the centre of the South China Sea — could be considered as islands, which under international law would give them a 200-mile “exclusive economic zone”. The result — which Beijing contests — sharply curtails its legal claim to control.
該仲裁庭還表示，斯普拉特利羣島（Spratly Islands，中國稱南沙羣島）——位於南中國海的中心——內所有地物均不能被視作島嶼。依據國際法，島嶼可產生200海里的“專屬經濟區”。這一結果受到北京方面的反對，它極大限制了中國對南中國海控制權的法律主張。
For the US, the ruling gives it the chance to demonstrate that the channel is an international waterway where any navy can sail legally — and raises the potential cost for China should it expand its military footprint through further land reclamation. But officials hope the verdict could also provide the basis for a new round of regional diplomacy about the disputes.
對於美國來說，該裁決讓它得以藉機證明該航道爲一條國際水道，任何海軍都可以合法航行，它也提高了中國通過進一步填海造島、擴大其軍事足跡的潛在成本。但美國官員希望該裁決還可以爲新一輪有關南中國海爭端的地區外交提供基礎。
Over the past four years, the Obama administration has tried to beef up its presence in the region in order to deter China — a policy known as the “pivot”. Michael McDevitt, a retired rear admiral, says that since 2013 there have been two US destroyers in the South China Sea at any one time.
過去4年奧巴馬政府一直努力加強自己在該地區的存在，以遏制中國，即“重返亞洲”政策。退役海軍少將邁克爾•麥克德維特(Michael McDevitt)表示自2013年以來，南中國海一直隨時停留着兩艘美國驅逐艦。
“The US presence has dramatically increased,” he says.
他說：“美國的存在顯著增加了。”
The US has also revamped its military relationships in the region. Having kicked out US armed forces at the end of the cold war, this year the Philippines opened five bases to US aircraft. Washington is also discussing positioning military equipment for the first time in 40 years in Vietnam, at a base in Da Nang.
美國還改進了在該地區的軍事關係。曾在冷戰結束時趕走美軍的菲律賓，今年向美國空軍開放了5個基地。華盛頓方面還在討論在越南峴港基地佈置軍事裝備，這是40年來第一次。
Ambiguous environment
模糊的環境
At times, Beijing’s island-building has confused the US. It has found it difficult to respond to Chinese “salami-slicing”, where its moves to change the facts on the ground are too small to attract a backlash, in contrast to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.
北京方面的島嶼建設令美國不時感到困惑，它發現中國的“切香腸”策略很難對付。與2014年俄羅斯吞併克里米亞相比，中國改變地面事實的動作實在太小，不足以引起強烈反應。
The Obama administration has also found itself divided over how strongly it should push back against China, with the Pentagon — and especially Pacific Command — advocating tougher military action to deter further land reclamation. Yet at times, this has been in conflict with other goals, such as securing Chinese support for last year’s climate change agreement.
對於應該以多大的力度回擊中國，奧巴馬政府內部的意見也不統一。其中五角大樓——尤其是美國太平洋司令部(Pacific Command)——主張採取更強硬的軍事行動，以遏制中國進一步填海造島。然而，這種立場有時會與其他目標發生衝突，比如獲得中國去年對氣候變化協議的支持。
Before the ruling, China operated in an environment of much greater legal ambiguity. When the US Navy began a series of “freedom of navigation operations”, designed to challenge excessive claims, a senior official said Ashton Carter, the defence secretary, held “dozens of hours of meetings with lawyers, poring over maps”. Yet even then, some US officials believe that the resulting patrols by US ships sent signals that were often confusing in legal terms.
在此次裁決之前，中國是在一種法律模糊性更大的環境下行動的。當美國海軍開始一系列旨在挑戰過度領土主張的“航行自由行動”時，一名高級官員稱，美國國防部長阿什頓•卡特(Ashton Carter)“與律師舉行了幾十小時的會議，鑽研地圖”。然而，即便如此，一些美國官員仍認爲，作爲其結果的美軍船隻巡航傳達的信號在法律上往往是令人困惑的。
Backed by the ruling, the Pentagon has a much clearer view of the legal status of most of the features in the South China Sea to guide its patrols. “The ruling puts wind in the sails of what the US has already been doing,” says Timothy Heath, a China expert at the Rand Corporation.
在裁決的支持下，五角大樓對南中國海的大多數地物的法律地位有了更清晰的認識，這能指導美國的巡航。“裁決讓美國對其已在進行的事情更有信心了，”蘭德公司(Rand Corporation)的中國問題專家蒂莫西•希思(Timothy Heath)說。
But he does not anticipate any drastic changes. “China is not going to leave voluntarily anytime soon and the US does not want a war over this issue,” he says.
但他並不預計會發生任何劇烈的變化。“中國短期內不會自願撤離，而美國不希望因爲這個問題挑起戰爭，”他說。
The US is likely to encourage allies in the region, such as Australia and Japan, to conduct similar operations in order to emphasise the claim that these are international waters. European allies may also get involved. The UK and France have expressed an interest in conducting South China Sea missions, which they can justify in terms of defending international law.
美國可能鼓勵日本、澳大利亞等其在該地區的盟友採取類似行動，以強調這些水域是國際水域的主張。其歐洲盟友也可能參與進來。英國和法國都表達了在南中國海開展行動的興趣，它們可以以維護國際法的名義聲稱這些行動是正當的。
The Hague’s decision coincided with a Beijing summit between the EU and China. In his formal opening remarks hours ahead of its release, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, referred to the “important ruling” that was coming and told China’s premier, Li Keqiang, that “the rule-based international order is in our common interest . . . both China and the EU have to protect it”.
海牙國際仲裁庭的裁決適逢歐盟(EU)和中國在北京舉行峯會。在裁決公佈幾小時前，歐洲理事會(European Council)主席唐納德•圖斯克(Donald Tusk)在正式的開幕致辭中提到即將到來的“重要的裁決”，並對中國總理李克強說，“基於規則的國際秩序符合我們的共同利益……中國和歐盟都必須保護它”。
“They were very upset that Tusk raised the matter publicly,” says one person briefed on the talks. “The Europeans have never seen the Chinese side so angry.” A scheduled press briefing featuring Mr Li and Mr Tusk was cancelled at short notice, when the EU insisted that journalists be allowed to ask questions that Beijing officials knew would be dominated by the territorial dispute.
“圖斯克公開提到這個問題，他們非常惱火，”一名瞭解這次會談情況的人說，“歐洲人從來沒有看到中方如此憤怒過。”由於歐盟方面堅持允許記者提問，而北京方面的官員知道這些問題將會被領土爭端主導，一場預定的李克強和圖斯克的媒體發佈會被臨時取消。
US commitment
美國的承諾
The ruling comes during a US presidential campaign that is creating nervousness among Asian allies about the reliability of American commitments, especially with regard to the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.
裁決公佈之際，美國總統大選激戰正酣。這次大選正使美國的亞洲盟友對美國所作承諾的可靠性產生懷疑，尤其是懸而未決的貿易協定《跨太平洋夥伴關係協定》(TPP)。
For many in the region, the TPP is a once-in-a-generation commitment by the US — a reassurance that Washington genuinely see its future tied to Asia. It is for that reason that Mr Carter has said that the agreement would be “worth another aircraft carrier”.
對於該地區的許多國家而言，TPP是美國作出的幾十年只有一次的承諾——美國真正認爲其未來和亞洲聯繫在一起的保證。因爲這個原因，卡特曾經說，這個協議“價值比得上一艘航空母艦”。
However, TPP is opposed by both the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump . Mr Trump has also raised the prospect of pulling US troops out of Japan and South Korea and encouraging both countries to develop their own nuclear deterrent against North Korea — which would substantially undercut the US military position if implemented.
然而，民主黨和共和黨的假定被提名人希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)和唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump，特朗普已正式獲得共和黨總統候選人提名——編者注)都反對TPP。特朗普還提出了一種可能，即把美國軍隊從日本和韓國撤出，鼓勵兩國發展自己的核威懾以對抗朝鮮——如果美國真的這樣做，其軍事地位將被大大削弱。
There is also the awkward irony that the US Senate has yet to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, the basis for The Hague ruling. When it was debated two years ago, some Republican senators warned it could be used to overrule American sovereignty claims — precisely the complaint China is making. As a result, Beijing is refusing to accept the ruling based on an agreement it has fully signed up to, while the US is calling for the enforcement of a treaty it has declined to back.
還有一個具有諷刺意味的尷尬事實是，美國參議院仍未批准《聯合國海洋法公約》(UNCLOS)。《公約》正是海牙仲裁庭的裁決依據。兩年前對此進行辯論的時候，一些共和黨參議員警告稱，《公約》可能被用來推翻美國的主權主張——這正是中國現在的不滿。其結果是，北京方面拒絕接受基於其全面簽署的一項協議作出的裁決，而美國則呼籲執行一項其拒絕支持的公約。
In the short term, top of the list of potential Sino-US flashpoints is Scarborough Shoal, 140 miles from the Philippines’ coast where China took control three years ago. Earlier this year, the Obama administration delivered private warnings to Beijing not to begin a new exercise in land reclamation. Although US officials refuse to say if Scarborough Shoal is covered by the mutual defence treaty between the countries, some in Washington would like to see a formal declaration in order to deter Beijing.
從短期來看，中美的頭號潛在衝突點是距離菲律賓海岸線140英里、在3年前被中國控制的斯卡伯勒淺灘（Scarborough Shoal，中國稱黃巖島）。今年早些時候，奧巴馬政府私下警告中國不要開始新的填海造島。儘管美國官員拒絕說明美國與菲律賓之間的共同防禦條約是否覆蓋了斯卡伯勒淺灘，但華盛頓的一些人士希望美國作出正式聲明以遏制中國。
“I think we should be prepared to take military action in Scarborough Shoal” if China tries to build a new artificial island, says Admiral Dennis Blair, former head of US Pacific Command. “Draw the line there.”
如果中國試圖建一個新的人工島，“我認爲我們應該準備好在斯卡伯勒淺灘採取軍事行動”，前美軍太平洋司令部總司令丹尼斯•布萊爾海軍上將(Admiral Dennis Blair)說，“要在那裏劃定界線。”
