【10.12.01 外交政策】放弃六方会谈的时刻到来了吗？
【原文标题】Time to give up on six-party talks?【中文标题】放弃六方会谈的时刻到了吗？
【登载媒体】外交政策
【来源地址】http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/30/time_to_give_up_on_six_party_talks
【译者】Sven-elf
【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。
【译文】
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration is resisting Beijing's call to respond to the latest crisis on the Korean peninsula by launching another round of the six-party talks. The administration is wise to resist the temptation to put the short-term desire to respond to heightened tensions ahead of the long-term need to resolve the North Korean problem once and for all.
据纽约时报，为应对最近的朝鲜半岛危机，北京号召重启六方会谈，奥巴马政府拒绝了这一要求。中国想一劳永逸地把应对目前升级的紧张局势提前于这个需要长期解决的朝核问题，而奥巴马政府明智地抵制了这一诱惑。
As Mike Green explained, this is a temptation to which previous Administrations, including the Bush administration, fell prey. When all of the options look bad, sitting down and talking with North Korea can seem, on the surface at least, to be a least-bad way of "doing something." But it has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work this time.
正如Mike Green所解释的，对历届政府来说这都是个诱惑，就连布什政府，都是它的牺牲品。当所有选择看起来都不可行时，坐下来与朝鲜谈判，至少从表面开来，是个“能够做点什么的”还行的方法。但在过去，坐下来与朝鲜谈判一直没能取得成效，这次大概也如此。
The theory behind the six-party talks was plausible, and many people (including myself) endorsed the approach as a way of breaking a regional impasse that derived from several structural conditions.
六方会谈背后的理论看似可行，并且很多人（包括我在内）都支持这个途径来打破一些来自结构性条件的区域僵局。
Condition 1: North Korea favors regime preservation above all else and viewed nuclear weapons as its best guarantor of regime survival. Only if its possession of nuclear weapons could be seen as threatening its own survival is it plausible that the regime would agree to an adequate diplomatic solution. 条件1：与别的相比，朝鲜最偏好保留政权，并把核武器作为其政权存活的最佳保证。只有当朝鲜认识到核武器是对自身政权的威胁时，这个政权才有可能同意采用一个适当的外交途径解决方式。
Condition 2: Given decades of economic sanctions, U.S. non-military leverage over North Korea is limited. Not zero, as we found out when we started deploying new financial sanctions, but substantially less than the leverage China wielded. Only if we can get China to wield that leverage would North Korea begin to feel sufficient pressure that might alter condition one. 条件2：由于几十年的经济制裁，美国对朝鲜的非军事化影响受限。当我们开始部署新的经济制裁时，我们发现我们对朝鲜的非军事化影响虽然不为零，但还是远远小于中国的影响力。所以只有我们让中国在实现朝鲜无核化问题中发挥重大作用，使朝鲜感到前所未有的压力，才能改变条件1的状况。
Condition 3: The United States and China have fundamentally different preference orderings regarding the various possible outcomes. While both might prefer a nuclear-free peninsula above all, China next prefers living with a North Korea with nuclear weapons to living next door to a collapsed North Korean regime. The United States, by contrast, clearly prefers North Korean regime collapse to living with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Nothing either side can say to the other will change this preference ranking. Only if other costs and benefits are applied can the strategic calculus change. 条件3：美国和中国在各种可能的结果排序上有本质不同的倾向。除了朝鲜无核化是中美共同的第一期待之外，中国其次希望的是与有核装备的朝鲜为邻，而不是与一个坍塌的朝鲜政权为邻。相比之下，美国则更愿意朝鲜政权崩溃，而不是与一个核武装的朝鲜共存。双方都不会承诺对方自己将改变这种期待结果的排列次序，除非有其他适用于双方的代价或好处，他们才可能改变战略演算。
Condition 4: Given that the status quo trajectory defaults in its favor (i.e., reinforces condition three), China is happy to free-ride off of U.S. diplomatic efforts, even fruitless efforts. Only if China has more of a stake in the success of the diplomacy will they be likely to shoulder any actual burden.条件4：鉴于对自己有利的现状（也就是条件3），中国十分乐意搭美国的外交便车，即使美国的外交努力无果而终。只有中国在这次外交成功与否的赌注上押更大筹码，中国才更有可能承担任何的实际负担。
The six-party talks were a plausible way to change these conditions. The idea was to give China an equity stake in the success of the non-proliferation effort. As host and co-leader, failure of the six-party talks would become China's failure. North Korea's belligerence would, of necessity, be directed at all of the six-party members, including China. Few people thought the six-party talks would by themselves yield a diplomatic solution. More people, myself included, thought that the collapse of the six-party talks, if demonstrably North Korea's fault and demonstrably China's problem, might adjust the incentives sufficiently to elicit more responsible Chinese leadership on the security issue.
重启六方会谈是一个改变现状看似可行的办法。这一举措让中国在无核化努力的成功实现中也持有一份股权。作为东道主和共同负责人，六方会谈的失败也将会是中国的失败。朝鲜的好战性是针对所有的六方成员，必然也包括中国。几乎没有人认为六方会谈可以成功得出一个外交解决方案。而更多的人，包括我在内，认为如果六方会谈失败，将明显是朝鲜的错和中国的问题，会谈的失败也将充分调整对中国政府的激励机制，以促使中国在安全问题上承担更多责任，发挥更大作用。
That theory was tested and found wanting. As expected, North Korea repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Yet the hoped-for response from China never materialized. Instead of ratcheting up pressure on North Korea, China has responded to North Korean belligerence with successive rounds of concessions and cover-ups. The situation rather resembles a weak parent seeking to excuse the public misbehavior of a spoiled child.
这一理论被证实自己的不足之处。正如预料的一样，朝鲜多次背信弃义，然而众所期待的来自中方的回应也一直没有出现。中国没有给朝鲜渐进施压，而是对朝鲜一再妥协并掩盖朝鲜的不义行为，这就像一个软弱的家长努力在为自己溺爱坏了、行为不检的孩子辩解似的。
The Obama administration is wise not to rush in to rescue China from this latest embarrassment, and it is wise not to make other concessions that China is demanding -- for instance, restricting U.S. naval activity in the Yellow Sea. Instead, the United States should take visible steps to deepen cooperation with our regional treaty allies. And we should insist that China take similarly responsible steps to reign in North Korea.
奥巴马政府没有贸然解救陷入窘境的中国，是非常明智的；对于中国的要求比如限制美军在黄海的军事演习，奥巴马政府也没有做出让步，这也是非常明智的。相反，美国应采取实际措施加深与区域条约盟友的合作，并且坚决主张中国采取与美国相似的举措来支配朝鲜。
The six-party talks only make sense if China is willing to shoulder its regional security responsibilities. Until that is demonstrated, there is not much to talk about.
只有中国愿意承担起地区安全责任，六方会谈才有意义。直到有一天事实证明，没有再谈的必要为止，六方会谈才会被放弃。
注释：本文作者为Peter Feaver
前几天上外媒的时候，一股脑的都在那边指责中国不做任何举动无作为。现在中国作出努力了，看下他们的回应。 没事，朝鲜闹去呗，反正闹心的不是我们。你们不理，我们也不理，看最终谁没好果子吃。最终顶不住的还是韩国。 美韩拒绝六方会谈，那就继续军演吧，将军演HI到死。几万人的军演要花多少钱啊！ 朝鲜闹的这一出，有给自己增加谈判筹码的含义。所以，美国和韩国在这个时间里，拒绝谈判也是情理之中。如果事情闹大了，那必须要坐下来谈，否则就出大事情了。如果美国和韩国通过一系列努力使这个事情淡化了，当筹码不再那么扎眼的时候，那一样也会坐下来谈。
中国这时候表态，其实根本就是如字面的意思一样：展现一下愿意做和事老的姿态而已。
证明我们还是关注这个事情的，也希望和平、一劳永逸的解决问题。你们不谈那不是我的责任咯~
其实仔细想想文章里写的，中国本质上并不希望彻底解决朝鲜和韩国的分裂矛盾。这点大家应该也都能看出来或想的到。那在这个前提下，中国自然是乐于表个姿态就收手了。
朝鲜和韩国在没中美的授意下，打不大的。那既然如此，让他们去闹吧。 谈个鸟
灭了丫一天到晚的原子弹当鞭炮放
烦 要开六方会谈 本帖最后由 net2003 于 2010-12-3 19:12 编辑
六方会谈，爱谈不谈。
如果韩国执意要通过军事行动来解决半岛问题，
那么中国在不得已的时候，也只能放弃和平会谈了。
往最坏处想，中国无非就是经济倒退，而韩国有可能会从地球上消失。
美国、日本最happy，
朝、韩忙打仗，
美、日忙数钱。 中国应避免直接出兵,应改为暗地的支持!!!!
页:
[1]