No Way, Sangay——没门，森格

Source: Economist.com http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/05/china_and_tibet
--------------------------
China and Tibet

中国和西藏

No way, Sangay

没门，森格

AS CHINA gears up to celebrate the 60th anniversary of its annexation of Tibet, it has issued a stinging rebuff to the newly elected prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, Lobsang Sangay. The winner of an election among Tibetans outside China, Mr Sangay will have a higher profile than his predecessors. The Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, has said he will withdraw from his political role, giving the elected leader greater prominence and responsibility.
在中国准备庆祝其统一西藏60周年之际，它给了西藏流亡政府新当选的总理洛桑森格一个刻薄的回绝。作为中国境外进行的藏人选举的获胜者，森格先生将比其前任者有更高的姿态。西藏的精神领袖达赖喇嘛已表示，他将退出其政治角色，给予政委当选的领导者更多的突显以及责任。
So Mr Sangay, a 43-year-old fellow at Harvard Law School, has been visiting his electorate, most of whom are in India, and discussing his plans. He offered to negotiate with China “any time, anywhere”. China’s response came in the form of an interview in the official magazine “China’s Tibet” with Zhu Weiqun, a senior official in the Communist Party’s “United Front” department, and a frequent spokesman on Tibet. 
森格先生， 43岁，一个曾就读哈佛法学院的学生，访问过他大多都在印度的选民，讨论他的计划。他表示会与中国“在任何时间，任何地点”进行商讨。而中国的反应则是在官方杂志《中国西藏》中发表了一篇对朱维群的访问。朱维群是中共统一战线部门中的高级官员，也经常是在西藏问题上的发言人。
Mr Zhu’s contempt almost splutters off the page, as he rants about “that government-in-exile of his”:  “it’s all just a separatist political clique that betrays the motherland, with no legitimacy at all and absolutely no status to engage in dialogue with the representatives of the central government.”
朱先生的藐视覆盖了一整页。他对“其流亡政府”进行叱责：“这只不过是一个背叛祖国的分裂主义政治团体，它不具有合法性且完全没有资格与中央政府的代表进行谈判。”
So that’s clear then. It would appear that the Dalai Lama’s decision to democratise his government-in-exile has made reconciliation with China even less likely. At least, under the previous dispensation, a series of fruitless talks between China and Tibetan exiles has lurched ahead every few months since 2002, usually breaking down in acrimony. Even that now seems too much to hope for.
因此很明确，达赖喇嘛将其流亡政府民主化的决定，使得与中国和解的可能性更小。至少在之前的体制中，自2002年起，中国跟西藏之间每隔几个月都会进行一次没有成果的会谈，而会谈的结果往往是恶言相向。而现在，就连这种会谈都看似是一种奢望。
But Robert Barnett, a Tibet expert at Columbia University in New York, points out that there is nothing new in China’s rejection of Mr Sangay’s overture. It has never had any truck whatsoever with the government-in-exile. The Tibetan side in the talks has always been filled by the Dalai Lama’s representatives. There is no reason that should not continue. Indeed, the Tibetan exile parliament, discussing a new constitution, last month approved a draft which asks the Dalai Lama and his successors, despite his retirement, to “speak on behalf of the Tibetan people, to explain and discuss their concerns and needs as well as to appoint representatives and envoys to serve the interests of the Tibetan people in any part of the world.”
然而，位于纽约的哥伦比亚大学西藏专家Robert Barnett指出，中国拒绝森格先生的建议并没有什么新的原因。它从未与流亡政府有过任何的交流。会谈中，西藏方面总是由达赖喇嘛的代表组成。因此没有理由认为这种情况不会继续。其实，正在讨论新宪法的西藏流亡议会，上月批准了一份草案，其中要求达赖喇嘛及其继承人，即使退位，依然要“代表藏民发言，解释并讨论他们所关注的事以及所需 ，并出于服务全球任何地区的藏民的利益的目的，指派代表与信使。”
By distancing himself from the exile government, the Dalai Lama has in effect met a Chinese demand. China could, if it chose, regard it as a concession. It could also look that way on the Dalai Lama’s resignation statement in March, in which he said that two pro-independence “political promulgations” he had made in the past would become “ineffective”. The Dalai Lama has long given up the demand for independence in favour of enhanced autonomy under Chinese sovereignty. China has always presented this as a tactical ruse.
通过让他自己远离流亡政府的方式，达赖喇嘛实际上确实满足了中国的需要。如果中国愿意选择的话，它可将之视为一种让步。中国亦可用同样的方式解读达赖喇嘛三月份的卸任声明，其中他提到他过去颁布的两个支持独立的政策，将会“失效”。达赖喇嘛早已放弃对独立的诉求，转而希望在中国的统治下获得更大的自治空间。中国一直将此视为策略上的诡计。
China seems to hope that with the passing of this Dalai Lama, Tibetans, deprived of an internationally revered figurehead, will give up the struggle. So it may have been alarmed by the Dalai Lama’s remark at a press conference in New Jersey, America, this month, that Tibetans are close to “finalising” the process for finding his successor—his reincarnation as the 15th Dalai Lama. He said that all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism are involved in this. He seems in good health, but is now 75.
中国似乎希望在该任达赖喇嘛去世后，藏民们在失去了其在国际间受到尊重的领导者以后，会放弃抗争。中国可能因达赖喇嘛于美国新泽西州的记者招待会上的说辞而警觉；达赖喇嘛表示藏人即将完成对其继承人的寻找——他作为第十五世达赖喇嘛的转世。他说所有藏传佛教的学派皆参与其中。他看似健康状况良好，但他已经75岁。
This unity among the various schools would be unprecedented—and  important, since it seems quite likely that the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama will be contested, with one candidate backed by China and one, probably in exile, revered by most Tibetans. 
这种各个学派之间的团结，可谓前所未有——且重要，因为下一任达赖喇嘛的转世很有可能会出现竞争；其中一方是中国支持的候选人，而另一方，有可能也处于流亡当中，则是受到大多数藏人的敬仰。
The Dalai Lama appears to retain the loyalty of most Tibetans inside China, too. The focus of Tibetan resistance since March has been around the Kirti monastery in an area of Sichuan province that Tibetans regard as Amdo, part of historic Tibet. Protests that started with the self-immolation of a young monk have seen hundreds of monks detained, two elderly laypeople trying to protect them killed, a continuing heavy security presence in the area, and the burning of books not approved by the authorities.
同样，达赖喇嘛似乎享有那些身在中国境内的大多数藏民的忠心。自三月起的藏民的反抗活动的中心，是在格德寺；它位处四川省某地，该地被藏民们视为历史上属于西藏的“安多”。由于一个年轻僧侣自焚所导致的示威活动，导致了上百名僧侣遭到拘禁，两名尝试保护他们的年老的信徒死亡。高度安全措施依然在该地区内施行，当局禁止的书籍也遭到焚毁。
So, as it celebrates, on May 23rd, the 60th anniversary of the “17-point agreement” in which a young Dalai Lama agreed to accept Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, China can be confident that there is no immediate threat to its rule. But it knows that many Tibetans still resent its rule. 
因此，当中国庆祝“十七点协议”达成60周年，它可以明确的看出其统治没有面临任何直接的威胁；在“十七点协议中”年轻的达赖喇嘛同意接受中国对西藏的统治。然而，中国同样明白，许多藏人憎恶其统治。
It is, for China, in some ways a peculiar document to commemorate. In it, China promised not to alter “the existing political system in Tibet”, a promise swept aside in 1959 as China crushed a Tibetan rebellion and the Dalai Lama and 80,000 followers fled into exile. In 1951, the political system was a feudal theocracy. Now that exiles enjoy the forms of parliamentary democracy, they find China no more trustworthy. China’s leaders, for their part, find their political system no more appealing.
对于中国而言，它是在纪念一个特别的文件。此文件中，中国承诺不会改变“西藏现有的政治系统”。而这一承诺在1959年被打破，当时中国镇压一场藏民的起义，达赖喇嘛及其80000名追随者开始流亡。1951年，当时的政治系统是一个封建神权制。而如今的流亡政府享有着议会民主制，他们发现中国不再值得信任。对于中国的领导者而言，他们发现他们的政治系统不再那么吸引人。

外交基本方針－－The Fundamental Strategies in Diplomacy

Source: 中華民國外交部網站

----------

外交基本方針

The Fundamental Strategies in Diplomacy

中華民國外交部主管我國外交及有關涉外事務，憲法第一百四十一條：「中華民國之外交，應本獨立自主之精神，平等互惠之原則，敦睦邦交，尊重條約及聯合國憲章，以保護僑民權益，促進國際合作，提倡國際正義，確保世界和平」明確指出我國外交政策方針之基本精神與原則，外交部據以做為爭取並維護國家最高利益之圭臬。

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China administrates diplomatic affairs, and foreign affairs related, of the country. As provided in the Article 141 of the Constitution: ‘the diplomacy of the Republic of China shall be founded upon the spirit of independence and self dominance and the principle of reciprocal benefits, and to promote harmonious relationship with diplomatic allies and respect treaties and the Charter of the United Nations, in order to protect the interest of citizens overseas, to promote international cooperation, and to advocate international justice for securing international peace.’ it clearly points out the fundamental spirit and principle of the diplomatic policies and strategies of our country, and the Ministry applies this article as a standard for obtaining and protecting national any interest of the highest value.

外交政策之最終目標在於確保並提供國家生存與永續發展之良好環境。中華民國的歷史就是一部爭取國家生存和國際空間發展的奮鬥史。21世紀以來「全球化」浪潮已經在安全、能源、經濟和生存環境方面對人類造成愈來愈明顯的衝擊，也使我國面臨當前外在環境極為嚴重的挑戰。我們的國家在接受如此挑戰的同時，內部也經歷兩次民主政黨輪替，顯示台灣人民對政府有很大的期待，希望順利帶領國家通過「全球化」的各項考驗，使得經濟能獲得進一步提升和發展，我們國家更安全，民生更樂利。

The ultimate goal of diplomatic policies is to secure and provide a country with proper conditions for its maintenance and continuously sustainable development. The history of the Republic of China is a history of struggling for the survival of the country and the development of an international space for diplomacy. Since the beginning of the 21^st century, the wave of globalization has created increasingly conspicuous impacts on humans in the areas of security, energy, economy and the living environment; which has also led our country to face extremely intense challenges from the current outside world. While our country has been undertaking these challenges, two domestic democratic government shifts have also been carried out. They indicate a high expectation of the people in Taiwan on their government, as they hope the government may lead the country to pass through every challenge in the process of globalization, and bring further enhancement and development to the economy; making a more secure country and livelihood with higher sense of well-being.

當前外交施政最重要的任務，就是為台灣的經濟發展營造一個良好的外在環境，我們必須在「全球化」過程中和其他國家既競爭又合作；在全力爭取生存和發展的同時，也要發揮人溺己溺之精神，協助其他開發程度較低的國家，尤其是要讓友邦有機會共同分享我們發展成果；而「全球化」的挑戰更在於我們不僅要生存發展，更要為全球環境的永續發展作出貢獻，畢竟我們都活在同一個地球村之中。因此，我們必須全方位加強國力，並且善盡國際公民的義務。

The most important task in exercising diplomatic power at the moment is to provide the economic development of Taiwan with a suitable external environment. We must, in the process of globalization, compete against but also cooperate with other countries. While struggling for survival and development, we must also perform in the spirit of common well-being to assist other countries at a relatively lower level of development; we shall especially share our achievement of development with our diplomatic allies. The challenge of globalization is also revealed in the requirement that we need to struggle for survival and development while contributing to the sustainable development in the global environment, as we all live in a same earth village. Therefore, we must improve the strength of the country in a comprehensive manner, and satisfactorily fulfill the obligation as a member of international citizenship.

Save the fourth amendment——守护第四修正案

Source: Economist.com http://www.economist.com/node/18681714

------------------------

Save the fourth amendment

守护第四修正案

Fear of crime, not just fear of terrorism, has nibbled away at America’s liberties

对犯罪的恐惧，而不仅仅是恐怖主义，正逐渐啃噬美国的自由

 

IT IS only a mile or so from the colonnade of the Supreme Court to some of Washington, DC’s most dangerous neighborhoods. But these two parts of the nation’s capital could be in different countries. On any given night, armed police prowl north-east Washington in search of guns or drugs. So routine are these patrols that black men sitting on stoops or standing on corners will reflexively lift their T-shirts when the police approach, to show that they have no pistol tucked into their waistbands. Often the police will frisk them anyway, and search their cars as well. You might almost forget, in light of these encounters, that the fourth amendment to the constitution establishes the right of the American people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

从最高法院的柱廊到华盛顿特区最危险的街区，中间的距离仅约一英里左右。然而同样位于该国首都内的这两个区域，却如同位于不同的国度里一样。任何一晚，荷枪实弹的警察会向华盛顿东北方向巡逻，以搜查枪械跟毒品。出于惯例，每当警察靠近，那些坐在门廊或是站在角落的黑人会不自觉地掀起自己的短袖衫，告诉警察他们的腰带里没有藏枪。警察往往会对其进行搜身，也会搜查他们的车。大家可能几乎忘记，考虑到这一类状况，美国宪法的第四修正中规定美国人民有权“保护其个人、住所、证件跟财物的安全，并拒绝无理的搜查及扣押”。

David Shipler, a former New York Times reporter and winner of the Pulitzer Prize, does not want you to forget. In a new book (“The Rights of the People”, Alfred Knopf) he argues that America’s search for safety is relentlessly eroding the precious protections in the Bill of Rights. He decided to write the book—the first of a pair—on September 11th 2001, the day al-Qaeda struck the twin towers. After watching the awful images on television, he suddenly understood: “There go our civil liberties.”

David Shipler，一名曾获得普利茨奖的前《纽约时报》记者，不希望你将之忘记。在其一本新书（《民权》）中，他认为美国对于安全的寻求，正无情地侵蚀着《权利法案》带来的可贵的保护。在2001年9月11日阿尔盖达组织 袭击了双子楼的当天，他决定写这本书。在他看到电视上可怕的图像之后，突然明白：“我们的自由也因此而毁。”

This column argued last week that the fears engendered by September 11th had made America a less trusting and innocent place, permanently on its guard against the danger of terrorism. An abiding symbol of this change is the prison camp at Guantánamo. A stash of 700 more WikiLeaks documents made public recently contains details of how and why people from all over the world were taken there and how they were treated. The overall picture, in the only slightly overwrought words of the New York Times, one of the newspapers that published the documents, is of a “legal and moral disaster”. Innocent men were picked up on the basis of scant evidence and in many cases subjected to abuse and torture. One man—allegedly a terrorist, but a man nonetheless—was “leashed like a dog, sexually humiliated and forced to urinate on himself”. His testimony was then used to incriminate others.

该专栏上周指出，911事件造成的恐慌，使得美国因其对恐怖主义威胁的防范，而永久性地变成了一个不那么值得信任与无辜的地方。与这一改变相符的标志，是位于关塔那摩的监狱。一处另存有700个“维基解密”文件最近为人们所知，其中包含了有关来自世界各地被关押在关塔那摩的人的资料。这些资料涉及他们被抓的方式与原因，以及他们所受到的对待。字句经过《纽约时报》稍微的过分装点，给人的整体印象是“法律及道德的灾难”；而该报也公布了这些文件。无辜的人在证据不足的情况下被抓，而且在许多情况下他们都受到了侮辱与折磨。有一个人——被指控为恐怖分子，尽管他只是普通人——被“如同狗一样绑着，他遭到了性方面的羞辱并被迫往自己身上撒尿。”他的证词后来被用来对其他人进行指控。

It is, however, not just the war on terror that has nibbled away at liberties. So, says Mr Shipler, have the fights against crime and illicit drugs. “In criminal justice, as in counter-terrorism,” he notes, “the executive branch has grabbed immense authority, distorting the process of determining guilt or innocence.”

然而，并不仅仅是反恐战争造成了对自由的啃噬。Shipler先生说，对于犯罪与非法毒品的打击造成了同样的结果。他提到：“在犯罪司法中，正如在反恐领域，执法部门获得的权力过大，扭曲了判定有罪与清白的过程。”

Part of the damage is done by the habit of police everywhere to cut corners and stretch their prerogatives. But the Supreme Court has played a part, too. To take just one of Mr Shipler’s examples, the police must still usually show “probable cause” if they want a warrant to search a house. But for street encounters in which there is even the slightest possibility of danger to life, the court has over time substituted the woollier “reasonable grounds” or “reasonable suspicion”, thereby giving officers on the beat a latitude they are delighted to exploit. Most street pat-downs are never recorded, scrutinised by a prosecutor, challenged by a lawyer or adjudicated by a judge. Yet, says Mr Shipler, they weaken the fourth amendment and poison life on the street in a thousand poor neighbourhoods in America.

这种损害有一部分是各地警察习惯性地检查街角以及延伸其特权的行为造成的。然而最高法院也在其中扮演者部分角色。以Shipler先生的其中一个例子来说，如果警察希望搜索一栋房子，通常来说，他们依然需要提供 “可能原因”的证明。然而，尽管在街边的检查带来生命威胁的可能性微乎其微，法院在过去一段时间里以其他理由替代了模糊不清的“合理原因”或“合理怀疑”，因而使警员拥有他们乐见，且可以将之用尽的最大的权限范围。多数街头盘查从未被记录、由检察官详细检视、被律师反诘或为法官裁定。Shipler先生说，然而他们削弱了第四修正案的力量，且毒害了美国上千个贫困街区内的生活。

Not much has changed since the election of Barack Obama. In his inaugural speech, the new president said that America did not have to make a “false” choice between its safety and its ideals. But having promised to close Guantánamo within a year, he has put the closure on hold in the face of resistance from Congress and public opinion. He has also had to drop a plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, by his own confession one of the September 11th plotters, in a criminal court. This trial was going to showcase America’s system of justice. Now Mr Mohammed is to be tried in Guantánamo, by a military commission.

巴拉克奥巴马的当选也没有改变太多。在其就职演说中，这位新总统表示，美国在其安全与理念之间做选择时，没有必要牺牲其中一者。然而，关于在一年内关闭关塔那摩监狱的承诺，在国会的反对声及大众的观点面前，他尚未履行。他同样放弃了在犯罪法庭上审问Khalid Sheikh Mohammed的计划——该人承认自己是911事件的策划者之一。此次审讯本是为了展现美国司法体系的优点。如今Mohammed先生却要在关塔那摩由一个军事委员会审问。

As in the war on terrorism, so in the war on crime: the sharp question is how much risk a society is willing to absorb in order to preserve liberty. Mr Shipler’s conclusion is that America is increasingly prone to give the wrong answer. The premise underpinning its justice system is that it is far worse to convict wrongly than to fail to convict at all. But in its responses to drug-trafficking and organised crime that ideal has been severely weakened.

如反恐战争一样，反罪战争也是如此：一个锋利的问题在于，一个社会愿意吸收多大的风险，以保护自由。Shipler先生的结论是，美国正越来越倾向于给出错误的答案。支持美国司法体系的基础，是“与其错抓，不如不抓”的理念。然而，面对贩毒及有组织犯罪，该理念正遭到严重的削弱。

Complacency, fear and fashion

自满、恐惧与潮流

Since American politicians talk about liberty all the time, why are they so feeble in its defence? Part of the explanation is complacency: America is one of the world’s freest countries—why worry about the bending of a rule here or there? Part is fear: contrary to what Mr Obama says, there is a choice to be made between safety and liberty, and in many minds safety wins. Part is fashion. There are some libertarians in American politics, but on the conservative wing of the Republican Party the liberty talk has come lately to dwell more on the alleged threat to economic freedom posed by Mr Obama’s alleged taste for big government and less on the sort of freedoms entrenched in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment, on the right to keep and bear arms, is treated as holy writ, but the fourth has somehow lost its sex appeal.

既然美国的政客总是谈论自由，那为何在保卫自由时他们会如此软弱？部分的解释是“自满”，即“美国是世界上最自由的国家之一，为何要担心对规则的扭曲呢？”部分原因是恐惧：与奥巴马所说的相反，安全与自由之间存在着选择，而在多数人的思想中安全占上风。部分则是因为潮流。美国政界有一部分自由主义者，然而在共和党的右翼方面，与自由相关的讨论中，近来更侧重于所谓的“对经济自由的危害”议题上；这种自由是基于奥巴马所谓的“大政府的品味”，而更少地基于“人权法案”中保护的那类自由。当保护“持有枪械的权力”的第二修正案被视为神圣文件，第四修正案却失去了其魅力。

That is a pity. Mr Shipler used to report from the Soviet Union. He sees reminders of Soviet thinking in the United States since al-Qaeda’s attacks. Though a bold line separates Soviet dictatorship and American democracy, people are much the same everywhere. That is why James Madison said two centuries ago that “all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”. The lesson from the founders, Mr Shipler concludes, is that freedom depends not on the virtue of leaders or officials but on a “durable foundation of constitutional protections”. The message from Guantánamo, and from the mean streets of north-east Washington, is that the foundation needs shoring up.

这是件憾事。Shipler曾在前苏联做报道。如今，在美国遭受阿尔盖达组织袭击之后，他的见闻让他想起苏维埃式思维。尽管苏联的独裁与美国民主之间有着明显的分界，人民在哪都是一样的。这就是为什么两个世纪前James Madison曾说过：“拥有权利的人，在某种程度上应遭到怀疑”。Shipler先生总结，从这位国父那里学来的，是自由并不依靠领导者或者官员的品德，而是依靠“宪法保护的持久基础”。关塔那摩以及华盛顿东北边的普通街区告诉人们的是：这一基础需要支持。

The guns that won't fall silent——枪声不停

Source: Economist.com http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/04/thailand_and_cambodia_clash

------------------------------

Thailand and Cambodia clash

泰柬冲突

The guns that won’t fall silent

枪声不停

AS MANY others enjoyed a quiet Easter break, the Thais and Cambodians were back to trading gunfire and diplomatic insults over disputed temples along their shared border.

当许多人享受安逸的复活节假日时，泰国与柬埔寨再度因其边境上的数坐争议庙宇，而发生交火与外交谴责。

Eleven soldiers were killed on the two sides of the border in the three days of artillery shelling, while scores were wounded. It was the second time in only a few months that the land along the border has become the scene of such bloodshed: in February a very similar flare-up left ten soldiers dead. Then the fighting focused on the disputed Preah Vihear temple: this time the two armies were skirmishing around two other disputed temples, Ta Moan and Ta Krabey, about 90 miles from Preah Vihear. Hundreds of civilians from nearby villages were forced to flee their homes.

为时三天的炮轰当中，双方共有七名阵亡，多人受伤。仅仅数月，该边境地区再次出现这类流血的景象：二月的一场极为相似的冲突中，造成十名士兵死亡。其后的冲突主要集中在有争议的Preah Vihear佛庙；而这次，双方军队则在另外两座争议庙宇——Ta Moan跟Ta Krabey周边发生遭遇战；这两座庙宇距离Preah Vihear庙约90英里。大批附近的民众被迫逃离家园。

The firing seemed to stop during the daylight hours of April 25th, only to flare up again in the evening. By the morning of Tuesday the 26th it was plainly back into full swing. Diplomatic attempts to resolve the conflict have been disappointing. Under the terms of a deal to stop the fighting in February, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to which both Thailand and Cambodia belong, had arranged to send Indonesian observers to the border in order to monitor the situation—what was to have been a ceasefire. However the deal was never finalised. In a further setback for the credibility of ASEAN, Indonesia’s foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, had been due to fly in to chair talks between the two sides on April 25th, only for the trip to be cancelled at late notice. The Thais, apparently, were unhappy at his terms of reference for the talks. But the UN did little better. From New York the secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, appealed for a ceasefire on April 23rd, only to be ignored as well.

交火于四月二十五日日间出现缓和，然而在晚间再度爆发。二十六日周二早间，当地回到全面的战争状态。目的在解决冲突的外交尝试令人失望。基于某份旨在二月份促成停战的协议的条款，东南亚国家联盟（东盟），即泰国与柬埔寨双方皆隶属旗下的组织，安排了来自印尼的观察员前往其边境监视状况——目的是促成停火。然而该协议始终未能达成共识。由于东盟介入并促成停火的可信性下降，印尼外交部长Marty Natalegawa当时准备前往该地区，并于四月二十五日主持双方的会谈，但稍后取消了行程；很明显，泰国方面对此会谈的权责范围感到不满。而联合国的努力也不见得有更大的贡献。在纽约，联合国秘书长潘基文于四月二十三日呼吁双方停火，但也遭到忽视。

Probably the only thing that will stop the two ASEAN countries scrapping like this will be a change in the internal political dynamics of either or both countries. Some elements on the Thai side, in particular, have every interest in rallying nationalist sentiment with a good border dispute in an election year.

或许唯一能让这两个东盟国家停止“互殴”的办法，是在双方或在某一方的内部政治力量中出现的改变。尤其在泰国方面，其国内的某些群体颇为热衷于在选举年利用边境冲突作为题材，鼓动国家主义的情绪。

The conservative yellow-shirt movement has made a lot of political capital out of demanding a firm stand against Cambodian “aggression”; they hope to force the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva to sway in their direction. There is even speculation in Bangkok that the whole border fighting is being whipped up by the army in order to precipitate a sense of crisis in the country, in order to have the election cancelled altogether. What the army fears most is a victory at the polls for the red-shirted supporters of the deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

保守派的黄衫运动，因其要求对柬埔寨的“侵略”行径持坚定的反对立场，而获得了大量政治资本；他们希望Abhisit Vejjajiva政府能倒向他们的一方。在曼谷甚至有人猜想认为，边境上的整场战事完全是军队指使的，目的在于通过在国内制造危机感，而使得选举被取消。使军方最为忧心的，是在民意调查中获胜的，前总统他信的红杉支持者。

What is not in doubt is that this won’t be the last time that Thailand and Cambodia lob shells at each other over the border. They have been tussling over this land for many years, and politicians know better than to be reasonable and generous in a situation like this. 

毋庸置疑，这绝非泰柬双方最后一次在边境上炮击对方。他们在这片土地上“打斗”多年，而与理性和宽容相比，在这类情况下，政治家们知道的更多。