|
|
本帖最后由 yusuf1124 于 2011-11-23 12:55 编辑
【中文标题】反对向东亚战略转移
【原文标题】Againstthe East Asia 'pivot'
【登载媒体】外交政策
【来源地址】http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/18/against_the_east_asia_pivot
【译者】doraemonls
【翻译方式】人工
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-3240803-1-1.html
【声明】欢迎转载，请务必注明译者和出处 bbs.m4.cn。
【译文】
There has been much ado in the media and from the Obama administration about a great strategic shift from the Middle East and South Asia to East Asia. Obama and senior administration officials are making the case for this shift by claiming that we have accomplished our Iraq and Afghanistan goals, and that the time has come to focus on the "real problem": China.
奥巴马当局从中东、南亚向东亚的战略转移，无疑为媒体带来了许多麻烦。奥巴马总统和政府高级官员为这项战略转移提出了充分的理由，他们声称：美国已经实现解放伊拉克和阿富汗的目标，现在应该关注一个更现实的问题：中国。
This week, the president announced the basing of 2,500 marines in Australia and a pushed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional free trade agreement that excludes China. The U.S. military has also released some details on its new AirSea battle concept -- an answer to the dense network of submarines, mines, anti-aircraft capabilities, and missiles that China has created to keep the United States out of China's periphery. All of these moves are to be commended. However, they do not and should not add up to a new "pivot."
本周，奥巴马总统宣布了以下三件事：美国将在澳大利亚驻兵2500人；推动跨太平洋战略伙伴关系；签订了不包括中国在内的区域自由贸易协定。美国军方还发布了一些关于空海一体战概念的细节。中国创造性的使用潜艇、水雷、防空能力、导弹构建了密集的网络，使美国远离中国周边。空海一体战就是解决这一问题的关键。美方所有的行动都是值得赞扬的。然而，他们不应当做出战略重心的转移。
Here are some reasons why:
原因有以下几点。
1) There is no way for the U.S. to project the necessary influence into East Asia if Afghanistan and Pakistan are on fire. One major reason is that if India is tied down in a competition with Pakistan, China, and Iran in Afghanistan, it cannot become the kind of East Asian power we wish it to be. The Bush administration's India strategy was designed to help India break out of its squabbles in South Asia and exert influence in East Asia. A hasty pull-out of Afghanistan will reverse that sensible strategy.
1）假如阿富汗和巴基斯坦开战，美国无法向东亚施加其影响力。这主要是由于，假如印度被拖入和巴基斯坦、中国、伊拉克与阿富汗的斗争中去，它就不可能成为我们理想中的东亚力量。当初布什当局对印度的政策目标就在于帮助印度摆脱其在南亚的争端，并使用其在东亚的势力。仓促使用阿富汗这个棋子将使这一明智决策变得愚蠢透顶。
2) China is exercising more influence in the Middle East in ways harmful to our larger goals (e.g., support of Iran). To compete with China in East Asia, we must retain our influence in the Middle East and South Asia and check destabilizing Chinese diplomacy.
2）中国在增强他们在中东的势力，这在许多方面妨碍了美国更大的目标。为了在东亚和中国竞争，美国必须保持我们在中东和南亚的势力，并不断动摇中国的外交立场。
3) The deployment of U.S. Marines to Australia and the highlighting of a military concept to respond to China's military build-up are necessary but insufficient first steps. These developments cannot make up for the fact that our military has faced deep cuts in its budget and will face more. No matter what administration officials say, these cuts will affect our posture in Asia profoundly. We need more ships, more aircraft, more missile defense.
3）美国向澳驻军并且高唱针对中国军事集结的空海一体战的军事概念都是必要的，但却只是很不够的第一步。这些行动并不能改变一个事实，那就是我们的军事力量正在面临消减预算的困难，而今后要消减的预算会更多。无论当局如何解释，消减预算都会深刻影响我们在亚洲的姿态。我们确实需要更多的舰艇和导弹防御。
//这一句可能我理解的有点问题，而且翻译的比较口语化，求指点修改，
To be a bit flippant, we are putting Marines in Australia without sufficient equipment to get out of Australia. Our allies and China need to see and feel our presence. That can only be accomplished with more sea patrols, surges in exercises that promote freedom of navigation, and so on.
轻率一点的话，我们可以让驻澳美军轻装上阵，轻装到他们都没办法离开澳大利亚去作战。这会让我们的盟国和中国感到我们的存在。但这也只有在促进自由航行的海上巡逻、海上救援等演习更加频繁的情况下才能实现。
4) The AirSea battle concept is a serious effort to meet the China challenge. But based on information released about it, the concept suffers from two flaws. First, the resource question -- how would we shut down Chinese military operations without sufficient platforms and munitions? Second, AirSea battle fails to take into account China's nuclear ambitions.
4）空海一体战的概念是迎接中国挑战的重大努力方向。但据目前发布的信息，这一概念还有两个瑕疵。其一，资源问题。没有足够的平台和弹药，我们如何打击中国的军事行动？其二，它错在没有考虑到中国的核野心。
China is already a nuclear-armed country with every incentive to continue its build-up of nuclear forces. That is because we have agreed on a bilateral (with Russia) rather than multilateral basis to cap our nuclear forces. Since China is bound by no important arms control treaties, and because we are openly talking about major conventional strikes on the Mainland, China has every reason to seek nuclear parity with us over time.
中国已经拥有核武器，任何一点刺激都会促使它加强核力量建设。这样说是由于美国一致认为与俄罗斯的双边关系比多边关系更有利于增强美国的核力量。由于中国没有受到重要军控条约的约束，而我们又大谈特谈针对中国大陆的主要常规打击，随着时间推移，中国完全有理由追求与我们平等的核地位。
5) The TPP is a great idea. In particular, securing Japanese agreement to an FTA would be a great success. The question is, are we serious? It took the better part of Obama's term to ratify the FTA with South Korea. Are we really to believe that he will take on his base and sign more major FTAs?
跨太平洋伙伴协议是个伟大的想法。确保与日本的自由贸易协定更是一个巨大的成功。问题在于，我们是认真的吗？奥巴马确实在任期内签订了与韩国的自由贸易协定。我们真的可以相信他会在其任期内签署更多的自由贸易协定吗？
There is no dispute that we need to take serious steps to balance China's power. But we cannot do so by "pivoting" away from two critical areas of the world. We need India to have peaceful borders in order to compete with China, and we need to diminish China's influence in the Middle East. And finally, the Obama Administration needs to resource its stated Asia strategy, which it so far shows little sign of doing.
我们应当认真采取措施以平衡中国的力量，这一点毋庸置疑。但从两个关键区域的政策转移无法帮助我们实现这一目标。我们需要有和平的边境的印度与中国竞争，并降低中国在中东的影响力。最后，奥巴马当局需要重新考虑其既定的亚洲战略，这是迄今为止当局几乎没有做的事情。
------------------------------------------------完---------------------------------------------
请教关于“we”这一词翻译是直接用“我们”还是“美国”或者“美方”？好像翻译成后者正式一些，直接说“我们”有点太过口语化了，不过老说“美国”又感觉重复了很多次也不太好。
另外请教文中红色部分
To be a bit flippant, we are putting Marines in Australia without sufficient equipment to get out of Australia.
如何翻译。{:soso_e141:}
ps原文第三段第四段没有分开，翻译的时候为方便看就分开成了两段。
|
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
楼主
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-11-23 11:53
