用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
首页|听力资源|每日听力|网络电台|在线词典|听力论坛|下载频道|部落家园|在线背单词|双语阅读|在线听写|普特网校
您的位置:主页 > 英语能力 > 翻译 > 口译 > 练习材料 > 政治 >

驻美国大使崔天凯就南海局势接受《华尔街日报》专访

2015-06-19    来源:驻美大使馆    【      美国外教 在线口语培训

Ambassador Cui Tiankai’s Interview with The Wall Street Journal on South China Sea
驻美国大使崔天凯就南海局势接受《华尔街日报》专访

On May 28, 2015, Ambassador Cui Tiankai had an interview with Mr. Adam Horvath, World Editor of The Wall Street Journal.
2015年5月28日,驻美国大使崔天凯就南海局势接受《华尔街日报》外事主编霍瓦特专访。

The Wall Street Journal: Ambassador, thanks for being here. As we speak, this week rhetoric has kind of been heating up between the U.S. and China over a development in the South China Sea – what most countries call the Spratly Islands and China calls the Nansha Islands, and both what China has been doing there and the U.S. response to it. Can you tell me where you think this kind of battle of words is going, over what is the right thing for each country to be doing in that region?
霍瓦特:大使先生,感谢你来到《华尔街日报》。本周,美中之间围绕南海局势的论战不断升温,主要关于中方在斯普拉特利群岛(南沙群岛)采取的行动以及美方对此的反应。你认为这场论战会发展到什么程度?地区有关各方在这一问题上应采取哪些正确的行动?

Ambassador Cui Tiankai: Well, first of all, it’s really nice to be here and talk to you. Maybe we should start by setting a few facts straight. First, what China is doing is only on the islands and reefs that fall within our sovereignty and our control. We are not trying to take back the islands and reefs occupied by others, although we believe such occupation is illegal. Number two, what we are building there is mainly for civilian purposes. Of course, we have facilities for defense purposes – but the main components are for civilian services. The services will be rendered to the ships not only of China, but also other countries – services like shelter, search-and-rescue, meteorological observation, marine environment protection, fishery production and so on and so forth. Number three: It was very surprising to us that the United States has overreacted to the situation and is escalating the situation. The U.S. is sending military reconnaissance planes to the region and with reporters on board – which is clearly an attempt to provoke and escalate the situation. And the U.S.A. is also making a lot of statements – making false accusations against China and taking sides in the territorial disputes in the region. That would really make the situation in the region less stable. So we are worried about such overreaction from the United States.
崔天凯:首先,我很高兴来到这里接受专访。也许我们应该先搞清一些基本事实。第一,中方目前所做的事情仅限于中国主权管辖范围内的岛礁上。我们现在并没有试图收回那些被其他国家侵占的岛礁,虽然我们认为这些侵占是非法的。第二,我们进行的建设活动主要出于民用目的。当然,岛礁上有一些军事防御设施,但主要功能还是为各类民事需求服务。这些服务不仅提供给中方的船只,也提供给其他各国船只,比如海上保护和搜救、气象观测、海洋环境保护、渔业生产等等。第三,近来美方对南海局势做出过度反应,不断采取导致紧张局势升级的言行,我们对此感到很意外。美方向这一地区派出搭载媒体记者的军用侦察机,显然是试图挑动和加剧紧张局势。美方还发表大量言论,对中国进行无理指责,并在地区领土主权争议问题上选边站队。这些言行只会使地区局势变得更不稳定。我们对美方上述过度反应感到担忧。

WSJ: As the U.S. explains it, they’re responding to some moves by China that the U.S. views as provocative and other neighbors in the region view as provocative. One is to claim airspace over a territory that is more than just the reefs themselves. And another is concern about – you mentioned some defense facilities – militarization of that area, which is strategically important lying between China and several of its neighbors. Can you understand the idea of provocation that other countries are seeing on China’s part?
霍瓦特:目前美方的解释是,上述行动是在回应中方采取的被美及有关周边邻国感到具有挑衅性的行动。一是中方可能对一些礁石提出领空声索;二是中方在有关岛礁上修建军事设施,使这一地区军事化,而这一地区是中国和多个周边邻国之间重要的战略通道。对一些国家认为中国正在采取挑衅行动这一观点,你怎么看?

Cui: I think that the fact is that we are more concerned than anybody else about the safety and freedom of navigation in the region, because China is one of the major trading countries in the world. We have such a huge volume of import and export going through South China Sea. So, stability is very much of our interest, and I believe it will serve the interests of everybody else – unless someone has a different agenda. If somebody really wants to see escalation of the tension in the region, that could be made as excuses for advancing their military deployment, for setting up Cold War-type alliances there, and setting up new missile defense systems. If that is the real intention of somebody, then everything else will fall into place – it’s easier to see the logic. Otherwise, I don’t see the logic why they’re making such statements.
崔天凯:事实上,中国比其他任何国家都更关心南海的安全和航行自由。中国是世界主要贸易国之一,每年都有大量进出口货物通过南海航道进行运输。因此,保持南海的稳定不仅符合中国的利益,也符合其他各国的利益,除非有人另有所图。如果有人真的希望看到地区局势紧张升级,那这种紧张局势就会被他们当作推进军事部署、组建冷战式的军事同盟、部署新型反导系统的借口。如果这确实是一些人的真实意图,那么他们做的其他事情就顺理成章了,其中的逻辑也更加显而易见。否则,我看不出这些公开表态背后到底有什么逻辑。

WSJ: Well, I’ve seen this language about the idea of a hidden agenda before and officials from the China foreign ministry talking about – seem to be talking about – the U.S. Does China really feel that the U.S. is trying to use an excuse here to ramp up its military engagement in this region?
霍瓦特:我注意到中国外交部官员曾提到美方“另有所图”。中方是否真的认为美国正以此为借口加强在地区的军事力量?

Cui: I think, as I said earlier, stability in the region will certainly serve the interests of everyone: China, United States, the regional countries. But, what the U.S. is doing has given rise to a lot of questions in China: Why are they overreacting? Why are they reacting like this? Why are they sending more and more military ships, airplanes, for close-in reconnaissance activities so close to China? What is the real intention? Is there any attempt to replay the Cold War in Asia?
崔天凯:正如我刚刚谈到的,维护地区稳定符合包括中国、美国和地区国家在内的各方利益。但美方目前的所作所为在中国受到很多质疑。为何美方有这些反应?为何美方反应过度?为何美方派越来越多的军舰和军机对中国进行抵近侦察?美方真实意图何在?是试图在亚洲重新上演冷战吗?

WSJ: Does China feel encircled by recent U.S. moves with its allies? There are a few things I know you can point to – there’s enhanced defense cooperation with Japan and with Philippines, and with Australia as well. But again, in all of those, the countries involved see themselves as responding to China’s ramping up of its projection of strength, its plans for military building of aircraft carriers and claiming more ownership of the seas and airspace in the area.
霍瓦特:中方是否感到美国及其盟友近来采取的行动对中国形成了包围?几件事情我认为你也许会提到,包括日本与菲律宾和澳大利亚提升防务合作等。但这些相关国家都认为他们的行动是对中方加强地区力量投放、航母建造计划以及声索更多领海和领空主权的回应。

Cui: Actually, we are not worried of our relations with our neighbors. I think our relations with our neighbors are developing quite well. For instance, our relations with the Asian countries, on the whole, are quite good. And you see recent developing relations with India – even with Japan. So China stands for relationships of friendship and cooperation with our neighbors.…But what concerns us is not that we might be encircled, or contained – I don’t think anybody in the world has the capability to contain or encircle China. What worries us is that such action would have implications on the regional and global stability. If we let this Cold War mentality continue to play out, then there might be a replay of the Cold War in Asia. There might be confronting military blocs – kind of Cold War military blocs confronting each other in Asia. Will that serve the interest of anybody: China, the United States, Asians? I don’t think so, because if regional stability is disrupted, if the good momentum of economic growth is weakened, if the good prospect of regional economic cooperation is diminished – everybody will be hurt. Those are the consequences. I don’t know if people in Washington, D.C. have ever given serious thought to such consequences.
崔天凯:实际上,我们并不担心与邻国的关系。我认为我们与邻国的关系发展得相当好。比如,我们与亚洲国家的整体关系就非常好,如你所知,最近我们同印度甚至日本的关系都在发展。中国始终致力于同邻国发展友好合作关系。使我们感到担忧的不是我们可能被包围或遏制,我也不认为世界上哪个国家有能力包围或遏制中国。我们真正感到担忧的是那些可能对地区以及全球安全造成影响的行动。如果我们继续放任这种冷战思维,冷战就有可能在亚洲重演,亚洲就可能出现如同冷战时期一样大国军事集团相互对峙的局面。出现这种局面对谁有利呢?中国,美国还是亚洲人民?我认为对谁都不利,因为如果亚洲地区的稳定受到干扰、经济发展的良好势头被削弱、区域经济合作被抑制,各方利益都将受损。这是非常严重的后果。我不知道华盛顿是否认真思考过这些后果。

WSJ: It’s true what you say about other agreements with your neighbors and good relations in other ways – and in a way, I think that’s sometimes what is so confusing to people watching this set of disputes from afar: Why is this combination of reefs so important – not only to claim, but to build upon and to expand claims on?
霍瓦特:你对中国与邻国在其他方面友好关系的评价是准确的。但有些时候,正是这样的友好关系,令那些地区以外看到这一系列纷争的人们感到困惑:为什么这些岛礁如此重要?相关国家不仅要进行声索,还要在上面开展建设活动并通过它们来扩大主权声索?

Cui: These claims – the disputes over territorial claims – have been there for a long, long time. And I think, if everybody is taking a constructive approach, we will be able to manage them – to control them – so the overall relationship will not be disrupted. This is still China’s stance. But it is important that no major power try to intervene.…What is even more important is the intention. What is the intention for doing all of these things, to have such frequent, high-intensity, reconnaissance activities. We are not talking about the Gulf of Mexico; we are not talking about the coast of California – we are not even talking about Hawaii. We are talking about South China Sea, which is so close to China. If you don’t have any hostile intention, why are you doing all this?
崔天凯:这些主权声索和领土争议由来已久。我认为,如果有关各方都采取建设性姿态,我们是能够处理或管控好这些问题的,各国之间的整体关系也不会受到干扰。这仍然是中国的既定立场。但重要的是大国不要采取干涉行动。而更为重要的是行动背后的意图。那些高频率、高强度的抵近侦察活动以及所有相关行动背后的真实意图到底是什么?我们现在谈的不是墨西哥湾,不是加利福尼亚海岸,也不是夏威夷,我们谈的是中国南海,距离中国如此之近。如果美方没有任何敌意,为什么要做这些事情?

WSJ: Well, I think you know the answers, because the U.S. has alliances with China’s neighbors that also have interests in that region –
霍瓦特:我想你知道答案,因为美国同中国的一些邻国有盟友关系,他们在本地区也有自己的利益。

Cui: But that would imply these alliances are anti-China in nature, if that is an explanation. If these alliances are committed to common security, to cooperation with all of the regional countries, then they should not have done all of these things. The only explanation is that these alliances would aim at China as a rivalry or even an enemy. That’s the most dangerous thing.
崔天凯:如果按照这种解释,就意味着美国同这些国家的同盟关系本质上是以反华为目的的。如果这些军事同盟致力于维护地区共同安全并与所有地区国家开展合作,那么它们就不应该做现在这些事。唯一的解释就是这些军事同盟将中国看作对手甚至敌人。这是最危险的。

WSJ: But this does seem like an example where I see the rhetoric rising from what I think I’ve seen before, on both sides. Is it anti-China for the U.S. to have defense relationships with Australia, and the Philippines, and so forth?
霍瓦特:你是否认美国同澳大利亚、菲律宾等国的军事同盟关系是反华的?

Cui: Well, I think that’s up to the U.S. government to give you a clarification – but I think that it will be most counterproductive and even stupid to have such a policy – such an anti-China policy and try to form military alliances that aim against China.
崔天凯:这个问题应该由美国政府来澄清。我认为,采取建立反华军事同盟的政策只会适得其反,甚至是愚蠢的。

WSJ: But I’m just saying that they do have alliances – they do have defense cooperation. That’s not new, that’s been going on for some time. To term that as anti-China sounds to me like you’re seeing it as more of a threat than before, or publicly calling it more of a threat than before.
霍瓦特:但我想说,这些军事同盟确实存在着并相互开展防务合作。这不是什么新事物,已经存在了很长时间。你使用“反华”这个词给我的感觉是,你比以前更加认为这种军事同盟对中国是一个威胁,或者是在公开场合更视其为威胁。

Cui: It is not what we are seeing – I think the question is “what they are doing?” You should not do anything that will convince people back in China that you are really directed against us. We only look at the facts.
崔天凯:问题不是我们怎么看,而是这些军事同盟怎么做。它们不应该做那些使中国人更加确信它们是在针对中国的事情。我们只看事实。

WSJ: Let me ask you this: Ashton Carter, the U.S. defense secretary, asked for all building by all countries to stop in the islands – to basically take a pause by everybody from this development, because other countries have done [building] as well. Would China be willing to take that pause and stop and have a broader conversation about what’s appropriate in the region?
霍瓦特:美国国防部长卡特呼吁,由于除了中国之外还有别的国家也进行了填海造地,考虑到当前局势,所有参与填海造地的国家都应停止建设行动,至少是暂停。请问中方愿意暂停或停止建设行动,并就地区局势进行广泛讨论吗?

Cui: What about the buildings, the constructions, the facilities that have been built by others for many years? What about them?
崔天凯:那其他国家过去多年来已经建起来的设施怎么办?

WSJ: He’s saying stop and have a moratorium for everybody.
霍瓦特:卡特是说各方都停止或暂停建设。

Cui: Are they going to pull them down?
崔天凯:其他国家会将那些设施拆除吗?

WSJ: I guess that would be the next question, right? If you got together to talk about it – that would be one of the next questions.
霍瓦特:我想那大概是下一步的问题,对吗?如果你们各方都能够坐下来进行讨论的话,那将是下阶段的问题之一。

Cui: The first thing the United States could do in a very constructive way is to stop reconnaissance flights or ships so close to China. 
崔天凯:美国能做的第一件有建设性的事,就是停止舰机对中国的抵近侦察。

WSJ: If a U.S. aircraft or a Navy vessel goes within 12 nautical miles of one of these reefs, would China consider that reason to fire on the craft?
霍瓦特:如果美方舰机进入这些岛礁12海里以内,中方认为有理由对其开火吗?

Cui: Like every other sovereign country in the world, we certainly have the right and capability to defend ourselves.
崔天凯:同世界上其他主权国家一样,中国有自卫的权利和能力。

WSJ: I feel that even asking that question kind of shows the level mutual hostility, or lack of understanding, that’s developed around this issue whereas, as you say, around other issues that’s not there. I mean, there’s plenty of discussion and cooperation on trade and economic issues.
霍瓦特:我感到,仅仅提出这些问题,就能反映出美中之间的敌意,或者说缺乏互信,至少在海上问题上是这样。但在其他问题上,如贸易和经济问题上,美中之间实际上有很多对话与合作。

Cui: Yeah, right – you are right. I think we have a much bigger relationship than just these issues. And besides, South China Sea should not be an issue between China and the United States. The United States has no territorial claim in the region. Why should there be an issue between us? And also, as I said earlier: Intention is the most important thing. We’ll make our own judgment on what the U.S. is doing and is saying. And we certainly want to have a very positive, cooperative and developing relationship with the United States – not only on trade, on climate change, on disaster prevention – but also on security issues. We are ready for a very positive interaction with the U.S. in the Pacific, in South China Sea. But such approach should be reciprocated and we have always exercised restraint – but restraint should not be one-way traffic.
崔天凯:的确,中美关系之广,远远超出了这些问题。此外,南海问题不应成为中美之间的问题。美国在南海没有领土主权声索,为什么要让这个问题成为中美之间的问题?正如我此前所指出的,意图最重要。我们将根据美方的言行做出自己的判断。我们当然希望同美国发展积极、合作的关系,不仅在贸易、气候变化、防灾等问题上,也包括安全问题。我们愿同美方在太平洋、在南海开展良性互动,但这种互动应该是双向的。中方一直保持着克制,而克制不应是单方面的。

WSJ: But why would you think the U.S. is seeking to ramp up tensions in that region – what would be the purpose of doing that from the U.S. perspective?
霍瓦特:为什么你认为美国寻求挑起本地区的紧张局势?从美方的角度来看,这么做的目的是什么?

Cui: There is an interpretation of all this, although I’m not convinced yet and I hope that this interpretation will prove to be wrong. But it goes like this: Some people want to see tensions – or even heightened tensions in the region – so that there will be good reason for them to advocate for advancement of military deployment; setting up of new missile defense systems; strengthening the military alliances there and try to make China a landlocked country. So there would be an Asian NATO and the Cold War will replay in the region. There is such a school of thought – although I’m not convinced by it yet.
崔天凯:关于这个问题有一种解释,尽管我并未接受这种说法,我也希望这不是真的。这种说法是:有些人希望本地区出现紧张局势,甚至进一步加剧,这样他们就有理由鼓吹加强军事部署,建立新的反导系统,加强在本地区的军事同盟,把中国限制为一个“内陆”国家。这样,就会形成一个亚洲版的北约,冷战就会在这里重现。有一些人持这种观点,虽然我对此并不认同。

WSJ: But that’s the balance that China has to strike, isn’t it? To project the strength that you want and move without being constrained militarily – and yet not rattle your neighbors to the extent where they all band together, ramp up their own approach, and then look provocative to you in return.
霍瓦特:中国是否试图达成一种平衡,即一方面在军事上不受制约地投放自己的力量,另一方面避免惹恼邻国,防止他们联合起来向中国挑衅?

Cui: I don’t think all our neighbors –
崔大使:并非所有的邻国都这样。

WSJ: Some neighbors.
霍瓦特:一部分邻国。

Cui: Some of them, that’s quite true. But you see, China’s growing military strength, and maybe presence, is driven not by some grand strategy – but by the growing economic and other needs since China’s economy is integrating into the global economy ever closely. And we have such a growing interest in many issues, even in faraway places. So, it’s only natural that we should develop capabilities to defend such a legitimate interest. To make sure that our trade with others – our energy resources, imports, and all these economic relations with others – are well-protected. And also, as China develops, there’s a growing expectation in the world that China will shoulder a great international responsibility. And we are ready to do that. We are fully aware of this growing need for China to take up more responsibilities internationally. We are ready to do that. I don’t think people should see this as kind of a threat. We are responding to the economic needs – we are responding to the growing international expectations. And we are ready to fulfill our international obligations. This will open up a good opportunity for China, the U.S. and others to cooperate with each other – because there are so many global issues. I don’t think any country can handle all these issues single-handed. Not China, certainly – but also not the United States. We have to work together on this.
崔天凯:对,一部分邻国。中国军力的增长并非由什么大的战略驱使,而是由于日益增长的经济和其他方面的需要。因为中国正前所未有地融入全球经济体系。中国在许多方面拥有更多利益,甚至在远离中国的地方。因此,中国提升维护自身合法权益的能力是顺理成章的事。这样才能使我们在贸易、能源资源等对外经济关系方面的利益受到更好保护。同时,随着中国的发展,国际社会对中国承担更大国际责任的期待也在上升。我们充分了解到这种期待,并为此做好了准备。我认为,人们不应把中国视作威胁。我们(军力的发展)是为了满足经济发展的需要,也是为了回应国际社会的期待,愿意履行应尽的国际义务。这为中国、美国和其他国家开展合作提供了机遇。世界上还有那么多问题需要解决,没有哪个国家可以独立应对。中国不行,美国也不行,我们必须合作。

WSJ: Thank you, Ambassador, for coming and speaking with us.
霍瓦特:感谢大使先生光临并接受采访。

Cui: Thank you. I’m glad to be here.
崔天凯:谢谢。很高兴来到这里。

(中国驻美国大使馆)



顶一下
(0)
0%
踩一下
(0)
0%
手机上普特 m.putclub.com 手机上普特
[责任编辑:elly]
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
  • 推荐文章
  • 资料下载
  • 讲座录音
普特英语手机网站
用手机浏览器输入m.putclub.com进入普特手机网站学习
查看更多手机学习APP>>