【09.07.27.华尔街日报】经济制裁能推动中国民主改革吗？
本帖最后由 vivicat 于 2009-8-14 19:12 编辑【原文标题】 Can Economic Sanctions Drive Democratic Change in China?
【中文标题】经济制裁能推动中国民主改善吗？
【登载媒体】华尔街日报
【原文链接】http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124772040277049653.html
【译者】静水伊涟
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-184638-1-1.html
WSJIDEBATE is a forum for discussion on the top current affairs, economic and social issues of the day. It is led by a panel of students at Indian universities and colleges selected by The Wall Street Journal to write their views and to stimulate comment and debate among their peers. Each week, the panel will publish four pieces on a theme that keys off a major story that has run on india.wsj.com. To participate, just register and then add your comments through the Comment tab at the top of the panelist's article. We hope this will serve as a useful platform for young, engaged Indian readers to add their voices to the debate on the most important issues of our time.
WSJIDEBATE是一个对时政、经济和社会最热话题进行讨论的论坛。它是由一群由华尔街日报挑选出来的印度大学和中学生领导的，他们写下自己的观点，并在他们同龄人间引发评论和争议。每周，这些年轻人都要发表关于india.wsj.com网上重要事件主题的四篇稿件。要想参与，只需要注册登录并将你的评论通过点击这些文章顶端的“发表评论”键就可以了。我们希望这将能为年轻而富有活力的印度读者提供一个平台，来让他们对有关我们这个时代最重要的主题的辩论里发出自己的声音。
Raghuvir Dass: Cut Trade, Force Change Raghuvir Dass：
中断贸易，强力改变
Raghuvir Dass is a 2nd year History Student at Delhi University. He enjoys reading a wide variety of fiction and spends most of his time watching movies and playing scrabble on the internet.
Raghuvir Dass是德里大学历史系二年级学生。他喜欢广泛阅读各类小说，并将大部分时间花在上网看电影和玩拼字游戏上。
China is an authoritarian regime which violently suppresses any and all forms of political dissent. It affords virtually no rights to its citizens, working conditions are considered slave-like in nature and peaceful demands for rights such as the right to religion, movement and the freedom of association or expression result in disappearances, detentions and harassment. The use of torture is widespread and accepted by the Chinese state.
中国是一个暴力镇压任何以及一切形式的不同政见者的政体。它几乎不为它的国民提供一点权利，工作条件被认为在事实上和奴隶一般，而对如宗教权、发起运动的权利、结社或言论自由权利的和平要求，都以失踪、拘留和骚扰告终。暴力的使用非常广泛，并被中国政府所接受。
The first question is why should we care? After all, the computer I'm typing this on was made in China; the iPod I will listen to after I am finished was made in China. The fact that I can afford all of this is due to cheap Chinese labor, many of whom are prisoners forced into work and the rest who are exploited by relaxed and unenforced labor laws.
第一个问题是为什么我们要关注？毕竟，我正在打字的这台电脑是在中国生产的，我结束之后听的iPod是产自中国。我能够负担得起所有这些东西要拜中国廉价劳动力所赐，他们中的许多人是被强迫工作的囚犯，而剩下的人则被宽松的无威慑力的劳动法剥削着。
This matters because everything from the food I eat to the electronics I use, to the new tiles being bought for my bathroom, whenever I consume something, I am benefiting a government which uses slave labor and torture, and provides no due process to any of its citizens. I am in my own tiny, insignificant way perpetuating a system of brutality, suppression and pain. This is why it matters and this is why the proposal of using economic sanctions to make an effective protest seems the only way to get the message across. The few miserable bans on the trade of weapons by the U.S. and Europe is an absolutely failed response, having had no effect whatsoever.
这很有必要，因为从我吃的食物到我使用的电子产品，再到我浴室里新买的瓷砖，无论我何时消费，我都从一个使用奴隶劳工和暴力，并对它的公民没有提供一点法定诉讼程序的政府获益。我用自己那微小的、微不足道的手段，来推进一个充斥着暴行、镇压和痛苦的系统。这是为什么这很重要，也是为什么以经济制裁来做出有效抗议的提议似乎是传达这一信息的唯一途径。少数的对欧美武器贸易的禁令显然是失败的回应，且没有收到任何效果。
Let's assume for a moment that the major powers of the world create a common policy, that they unite together and in unison stop all trade with China. China's economic strength depends in large part on exports, 40% of their GDP comes from exporting goods to other countries (this statistic is disputed by Chinese organizations.) Without access to a big share of the world market their economy reels and growth slows. There are two possible outcomes. First, they cave in and introduce certain reforms and we wait and see if they hold to them. Second, they refuse to comply and the increasing unemployment generates tensions and unrest leading to protest which again forces China to give its people access to human rights.'
让我们来假设，在某一时期世界上的主要力量制定出一项共同的政策，让他们联合起来一致停止和中国的贸易。中国的经济实力很大部分依赖出口，40%的GDP是从出口到其他国家的物资中而来的（该数据受到中国组织的质疑）。不能进入全球市场占取一大份额，他们的经济便会步履蹒跚并放缓增速。如此将导致两种可能的结果。第一种结果是，他们为此屈服，并引进某些改革，而我们就拭目以待，看他们能否坚持住。第二种结果，他们拒绝遵守，而不断上升的失业率会产生紧张和动乱，并导致抗议，再次要求中国赋予它的国民以人权。
The question is: Are nations around the world willing to harm their own economic growth in order to bring about a change in the policies of the Chinese government? Probably not. The truth is governments are scared of offending one of the growing powers of the world when they can reap the benefits of a plum trade agreement. In reality the chance of change occurring is highly unlikely. The EU feels that the key issues are now the rule of law and political representation. They're unsurprisingly silent. With China as their biggest trade partner it would be impossible to admit that, "We should be doing something but...well, it's a bit difficult to do anything at all"
问题在于：世界上的国家都愿意破坏他们的自身经济增长来引起中国政府政治上的变革吗？或许不会。真相是这些政府都担心得罪一个他们可以从令人向往的贸易协定中获益的、在世界上权力不断增强的国家。事实上，变革发生的几率是非常之低。欧盟认为，问题关键在于现今的法律和政策的代表性。他们毫不奇怪地保持沉默。鉴于中国是他们最大的贸易伙伴，承认这或许不太可能。“我们应该做些什么，但是……嗯，这毕竟有点难。”
Would it be difficult? Yes.
这会很难吗？是的
Is there any other way? There is currently a ban on arms trading with China and a general belief that democratization will naturally set in with access to Western culture through movies and the Internet. This won't work as the flow of information is tightly controlled by the Chinese government. So much as accessing a forbidden website is grounds for punishment.
还有别的方法吗？目前存在一个针对中国的军火贸易禁令，而且（大家）普遍相信，民主化会在通过电影和网络进入西方文化后自然而然地成型。事实并非如此，因为信息的流通被中国政府严厉控制着。访问过多违禁网站将面临惩罚。
The last solution left is to cut off the trade which supports China. Our economies would be hurt yes, but surely it is wrong to give greater importance to our conveniences over the blatant trampling of the human rights of others.
最后一招就是终止支撑着中国的贸易。是的，我们的经济将受到伤害，但愈发重视我们自身的便利，而将其建立在对其他人民人权的公然践踏上，这肯定是错误的。
Mihir Chattopadhyay: Sanctions Hurt Only the People
Mihir Chattopadhyay：经济制裁只会伤害到人民
This is a question that has started to do the rounds recently primarily because of the bloody conflict in the Xinjiang province of north-western China. The conflict is between the Uighurs (ethnic Turkic-Muslims native to the region) and the Han Chinese. At the root of the problem is the fact that the Uighurs believe that the massive Han immigration (something that is promoted by the Chinese government) poses a real threat to their land, traditions and religion. They believe that economic development has helped the Han Chinese of the region far more than it has them and that they are inherently treated like second-class citizens. On the flip-side, some of the Han Chinese believe the Uighurs to be ungrateful, backward and pampered by preferential policies of the state, like being allowed to have more children.
由于发生在中国西北部新疆省的流血冲突，这一问题最近几轮开始变得重要。冲突发生在维吾尔族（突厥穆斯林在该地区的宗族）和汉族人之间。问题的根源在于维吾尔人坚信占大多数的汉族移民（由中国政府推动）对他们的土地、传统和宗教造成了实质性威胁。他们相信经济发展对当地汉人的帮助远甚于对他们，而且他们本质上被当做二等公民来对待。另一方面，一些汉民相信维族人是忘恩负义的、落后的、并被不公正的国家政策袒护着，比如维族人可以多生一个孩子。
This conflict has once again put the spotlight on China's handling (or mishandling) of its minorities and many in the press have drawn parallels with the unrest in Lhasa last year. That in turn has prompted many to look at China's attitude towards human rights.
这场冲突再次将中国对少数民族的掌控（或者说不当处理）成为公众瞩目的焦点，而且很多新闻报道都和去年拉萨暴乱时一致。这都一一促使人们关注中国对人权的态度。
Undoubtedly China doesn't have the best track record when it comes to human rights. Even in the handling of the current situation, the fact that the Chinese government has heavily curtailed to use of the internet within China (Twitter and Facebook have been banned in certain areas) counts as a violation of human rights as it impinges on freedom of speech and expression. However, I don't think that the world community can impose economic sanctions on China in order to make it improve the human rights situation within its borders.
毫无疑问，中国在面对人权问题时没有留下什么好记录。即使是在目前这一形势下，中国政府对在中国境内的网站（微博客和脸谱网站在某些地方都被禁用）有严格限制，这一事实被视作是对人权的侵犯，因为它对言论和出版自由有影响。然而，我并不认为国际社会可以为了改善中国境内人权状况而对其实施经济制裁。
History teaches us that economic sanctions rarely manage to stop human rights violations or even garner adherence to any political or military demands, even if the sanctions are upheld for a long period of time. For example, the sanctions imposed on Myanmar didn't make headway in the process of democratization or increased respect for human rights.
历史告诉我们，经济制裁很少能够制止对人权的侵犯，甚至屈服于任何政治或军事要求，即使是这个经济制裁实施了很长时间。例如，对缅甸的制裁在民主化进程或对人权的尊重上没有起到任何作用。
Furthermore, with economic sanctions, damage to the economy and the civilian population is necessary. Sanctions are intended to directly damage the economy (and hence the people) and therefore generate either political pressure or a civilian uprising. This is supposed to (indirectly) influence the leadership into giving way to the demands put forward. Sanctions are actually considered unsuccessful if the lives of the people are not sufficiently disrupted. Therefore sanctions tend to intrinsically go against their guiding principle of "hit the regime rather than the people."
此外，有了经济制裁，那么对经济和平民百姓的伤害不可避免。经济制裁的目的是对经济（因而还有人民）造成直接破坏，从而产生政治压力或国民暴动。这被认为是对领导层产生（间接）影响，来迫使他们对出现的问题进行让步。一旦人民生活没有被充分扰乱，制裁实际上就被认为是失败的。因此，制裁往往本质上和它们的指导原则“打击制度，勿扰人民”背道而驰。
Therefore the question of economic sanctions goes out the window. This, however, raises another question: What is the world supposed to do?
因此，经济制裁的疑问就不攻自破了。然而这却带来了另一个问题：世界究竟该做什么？
With regard to China I feel that the world has to take a stance similar to the one it took when the atrocities in Tibet were taking place last year. The press and the media in general can be a very powerful tool. This coupled with public condemnation by various governments of any human rights violation taking place in China will help. I say this because the feeling I get is that China is really trying to change the way the world looks at it. It's trying desperately to fit into the shoes of a super-power that the world respects. The effects of last year's Tibet debacle can already be seen. The Chinese government has allowed the foreign media access into Urumqi to cover the riots. It has, on the whole, handled this situation with far more tact than it did the Tibet situation.
出于对中国的尊重，我感觉世界是在采取和去年西藏暴乱时相似的态度。新闻报道和媒介在总体上可以作为强有力的工具。再加上各国政府对中国境内人权侵犯的公开谴责，这将起到作用。我这样说是因为我感觉中国真的想要改变世界对它的看法。它正拼命试图达到世界对“超级大国”的期待。去年西藏暴乱产生的效应已然可见。中国政府已经允许国外媒体进入乌鲁木齐来报道暴乱。总而言之，比起西藏，它已经非常明智地控制了局面。
Even though it seems passive - condemnation and bad press seem the best way to deal with an emerging China.
虽然看上去很被动——谴责和负面新闻似乎是面对一个新兴中国最好的解决方式。 Q6)Q67)印度大学和中学生 靠，看完这篇文章我知道是个奴隶。 文章矛盾重重,一会说维族是二等公民,一会说维族拥有比汉人优惠的政策.
而且也毫无根据的,还大学生?咋这个大学的学生质素和逻辑这么低下 又见华尔街日报，话说第一段说的真的只要“发表评论”就可以发表评论了吗？
ps：如某位所说，看这种文章会看到受到侮辱，岂只是侮辱！！！ 这人是不是脑子有毛病 印度人对自己很有信心嘛，好像他们自己都比中国过得好啊，哈哈，笑死人了。 呵呵，制裁，现在还真说不好是谁制裁谁？
二十年前，西方玩制裁，现在这玩样似乎更适合中国人玩，
去年到今年那么多事，如果真的能制裁或是敢制裁，有些白鬼早就去干了~ 一群由华尔街日报挑选出来的印度大学和中学生领导的
------------------
精心挑选的
PS:西方国家得了便宜还卖乖.要不是中国廉价的商品,你们的物价一定高得让你们受不了.
经济制裁能推动中国民主改革吗？这样的议题真是可笑.如果民主是个好东西,还用得着逼人家接受吗? 制裁吧，我不反对
老美第一个先把印度做掉了 原作者是阿三？
果然出口语惊四座，不吓死人不偿命！ 要理解
作为一亿人口的、世界上唯一保持种性制度的失败文明和劣等国家，与上邦大国比邻，浮尸国人压力很大。 哈哈， 阿三的大学生，应该喝着漂浮着尸体的恒河水长大的 信口开河的文章,也可以在这么大的报纸上发表? 如果真这样做，中国必然报复，西方受到的是三重打击：出口、投资、通货膨胀，中国因为缺少西方的高端产品，产业升级会比较容易，只要条件合适，这也许值得欢迎。 哎，我们都是奴隶，这个好像已经被印度阿三论证成事实了！o3O101) 然后我想补充，华尔街日报能报道这样的文章，显然品味在慢慢下降啊。大学生甚至中学生都搬上来了！ 西方国家怎么不因为印度的种姓制度制裁印度?!
难道他们认为印度低种姓老百姓的人权不是人权?! 18# sam712 Q20) 本帖最后由 达到诬赖 于 2009-7-30 18:31 编辑
1# 静水伊涟 “中国是一个暴力镇压任何以及一切形式的不同政见者的政体。它几乎不为它的国民提供一点权利，工作条件被认为在事实上和奴隶一般，而对如宗教权、发起运动的权利、结社或言论自由权利的和平要求，都以失踪、拘留和骚扰告终。暴力的使用非常广泛，并被中国政府所接受。 ”
；p
我怎么不知道我是奴隶呢！难得我不是生活在中国？
皇帝不急，太监急了。
一下想起文革期间的一句话：全世界还有五分之四的劳苦大众在受苦，我们生活在毛泽东时代很幸福。
我们文革结束了，他们的文革开始了。他们觉得我们都活不下去了！
真好笑，印度的哥们，你还是把你们的文盲率降下来、把种姓的歧视解决掉（比如你娶一个低种姓的女孩为妻）、别让女孩出嫁再被嫁妆所累、把贫民窟翻修成现代公寓（北京类似的地方龙须沟，现在叫金鱼池小区，早在2001年就已经改造完了）。等等。
把这些事都做完了再来替我们担心吧。也真难为你了，自己肚子还没填饱，就要解放劳苦大众了！
精神可嘉，给与鼓励。但可惜你的信息来源也太不靠谱了。都谁告诉你的，还是想象的？