中国战斗机是否曾危险地接近美国间谍飞机-是次要问题。
The recent quarrel between China and the U.S. over the narrowly avoided midair incident between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet has again put China-U.S. relations under pressure.
Most commentaries focus on the seeming danger of the Chinese fighter jet intercepting the U.S. spy plane.
While it is correct to emphasize the potential danger of a possible collision between the two aircraft, we should not neglect the root cause of this near collision.
问题的关键是:为什么美国间谍飞机会出现在中国海南岛附近?
美国间谍飞机的意图是什么?难道是用于和平目的?
航行自由是否意味着可以损害其他国家的安全利益?
The question of whether the Chinese fighter jet was dangerously close to the U.S. spy plane is a minor one. Rather, the key questions are: why was the U.S. spy plane near China’s Hainan island in the first place?
What were the intentions of the U.S. spy plane? Was it there for peaceful purposes? Does freedom of navigation mean that you can harm other’s national security?
不过, 这并不意味着某些国家可以这样做。最终的标准应该是：这样的间谍活动是否有损其他国家的主权和安全利益。
Many scholars and pundits have offered three possible justifications for U.S. activities near Hainan, but a closer analysis reveals that none of them is a reasonable defense of U.S. actions.
The first justification many U.S. officials and scholars offer is that spying on China in international space does not violate international law.
From a very strict legal point of view, spying activities might not violate international law since international law currently does not explicitly prohibit them.
Still, this does not mean that it is ok to engage in such practices. The ultimate criterion should be whether such spying activities hurt or damage other countries’ national sovereignty or security.
如果是, 那么这些活动应该被国际法禁止，各国也应避免开展此类活动，以显对其他国家的尊重。
第二个经常被提及的理由是, 美国间谍飞机只是在行使航行自由权。这是一种误导。
正如一项法律研究显示，根据海洋法 “飞行自由”和“航海自由”必须仅限于和平目的。
If yes, then such activities should be prohibited by international law and states should refrain from engaging in such activities in order to respect other countries.
The second often-mentioned justification is that the U.S. spy plane was simply exercising the freedom of navigation.
This is misleading. According to the law of the sea, “freedom of over-flight” and “freedom of navigation” must be limited to peaceful purposes, as one legal study shows.
Article 58 of UNCLOS states: “In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.”
Article 87 also states: “These freedoms [over-flight and navigation] shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.”
一些美国官员提出的第三个相关解释是：美国欢迎中国前往自己海域开展间谍活动。
Thus, the key issue is: are the U.S. spying activities for peaceful purposes? According to one study, the main purpose of the U.S. activities near Hainan is to spy on China’s strategic submarine force, which is of vital security interest for China.
Furthermore, a number of states support China’s position that military activities within one’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) threaten its national security.
A related, third argument put forward by some U.S. officials is that China is welcome to spy on the U.S. as well.
This argument, on the surface, seems fair and transparent. But given the military technology gap between China and the U.S., this is like a big guy with an AK-47 telling a little guy armed with only stones and sticks, “You are welcome to attack me as well.” Thus, this argument is disingenuous at best.
In the end, the real intention of U.S. activities near Hainan is to spy on China’s strategic submarine force, thus posing a threat to China’s national security.
The U.S. can continue to deny the threat it is posing to China, but it cannot deny the damage it has done to China-U.S. relations, particularly military-to-military relations.
In this case, China had the right to intercept the U.S. spy plane, even aggressively, because from the Chinese perspective it was perhaps the only way to deter U.S. spying activities near Hainan.
What is going to happen remains to be seen.
Both countries need to find a way to cool down the situation to avoid another incident like the EP-3 incident in 2001.
A possible consequence is that China now will seriously consider setting up an air defense identification zone in the South China Sea.
发表于 2014-8-29 17:48
QQ好友和群
QQ空间
腾讯微博
腾讯朋友
收藏
