主题：【文摘+翻译】麦克斯韦尔：中印领土争端是尼赫鲁犯傻的结果 -- 愚弟

China, India and the fruits of Nehru’s folly

Venkatesan Vembu

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1101845

（英文原文是用 google 自动翻译机先过堂，但是 google 的翻译太高深莫测了，我用大白话重新整理了一下。因为我对这种外交、政治英语拿不准，大家可以中英文一段一段对照地看，欢迎纠错，有则改之，无则加免。）

India's refusal to enter into a negotiation with China to address the boundary dispute is at the root of the current crisis between the two emerging giants of Asia, says journalist and writer Neville Maxwell, author of India's China War.In an exclusive interview to DNA in the context of the recent escalations in tensions between the two countries over developments relating to Arunachal Pradesh, Maxwell noted that "the Indian refusal to negotiate (with China) is the A to Z of this problem. While that lasts, things will just get worse…"

《中印 战争》一书的作者，记者兼作家，麦克斯韦尔说：两个新兴亚洲巨人之间之所以出现这种紧张局面，根源是因为印度不愿意跟中国进行解决边界争端的谈判。近来由于阿鲁纳恰尔邦的开发和发展而引起的中印两国之间的关系紧张逐步扩大。在DNA对麦克斯韦尔的有关专访中，他指出，“印度的拒绝谈判是这个问题的根本所在（A to Z），越耗下去，事情会变得越糟糕。”

Drawing on decades of research and writings, which have made an important contribution to the historiography of the 1962 Sino-Indian war, Maxwell said that the Indian side "is still impaled on Nehru's folly of declaring India's boundaries fixed, final and non-negotiable. No successor Indian government has dared - and many have not been inclined - to challenge that assertion."

麦克斯韦尔对1962年中印战争的历史研究作出了重要的贡献。根据他几十年来的研究和写作，麦克斯韦尔说：印度一方仍然僵化地坚守尼赫鲁所说的‘中印边界已经是确定的，无须再谈判。即使是有些领导人并不同意这种观点，没有一个后继的印度领导人敢于挑战这种说法。

Excerpts:

摘要：

India's refusal to enter into a negotiation with China to address the boundary dispute is at the root of the current crisis between the two emerging giants of Asia, says journalist and writer Neville Maxwell, author of India's China War. In an exclusive interview to DNA in the context of the recent escalations in tensions between the two countries over developments relating to Arunachal Pradesh, Maxwell noted that "the Indian refusal to negotiate (with China) is the A to Z of this problem. While that lasts, things will just get worse…"

《中印战争》一书的作者，记者兼作家，麦克斯韦尔说：两个新兴亚洲巨人之间之所以出现这种紧张局面，根源是因为印度不愿意跟中国进行解决边界争端的谈判。近来由于阿鲁纳恰尔邦的开发和发展而引起的中印两国之间的关系紧张逐步扩大。在DNA对麦克斯韦尔的有关专访中，他指出，“印度的拒绝谈判是这个问题的根本所在（A to Z），越耗下去，事情会变得越糟糕。”

Drawing on decades of research and writings, which have made an important contribution to the historiography of the 1962 Sino-Indian war, Maxwell said that the Indian side "is still impaled on Nehru's folly of declaring India's boundaries fixed, final and non-negotiable. No successor Indian government has dared - and many have not been inclined - to challenge that assertion." 

麦克斯韦尔对1962年中印战争的历史研究作出了重要的贡献。根据他几十年来的研究和写作，麦克斯韦尔说：印度一方仍然僵化地坚守尼赫鲁所说的‘中印边界已经是确定的，无须再谈判。’即使是有些领导人并不同意这种观点，没有一个后继的印度领导人敢于挑战这种说法。

Excerpts:

摘要：

What is your assessment of the current controversy over Arunachal Pradesh and the overall state of Sino-Indian relationship?

你如何评价当前对阿鲁纳恰尔邦的争议和中印关系现状？

The protracted talks between the governments of China and India are not negotiations proper. The Indian side is still impaled on (Jawaharlal) Nehru's folly of declaring India's boundaries fixed, final and non-negotiable. No successor Indian government has dared - and many have not been inclined - to challenge that assertion. A boundary dispute is soluble only in the context of negotiations. If one side or the other refuses to negotiate, a conflict is almost inevitable…

这个拖延已久的中印两国政府之间的对话不是真正合理的谈判。尼赫鲁做了一件蠢事，他宣布印度的边界已经最后固定，不容在谈判。没有一个后继的印度领导人，即使是有些领导人并不同意这种观点，也无人敢于挑战这种说法。边界矛盾只能在谈判中协商解决。如果有一方拒绝谈判，冲突几乎是不可避免的。 

The present position, as far as India is concerned, is the worst of all possible worlds. Since these are not 'negotiations', neither side can move from its originally stated position.

就印度而言，他们目前所处的立场是一切可能情况下最糟糕的。既然不存在谈判的可能，没有一方能够从他们最初的的立场变动一点。 

Ever since the question arose in diplomatic exchanges in the 1950s and the prime ministerial correspondence between Zhou (Enlai) and Nehru, China's position has been: 'There is a dispute between us. It results from history, particularly Imperial history. But we will resolve it to mutual satisfaction once we open negotiations.'

在50年代，在中印之间的外交对话中和两国总理，周（周恩来）和尼赫鲁，的来往信函里中印边界问题就被提出来，从那时起，中国的立场一直是：我们之间的争端是历史上，尤其是帝国主义，遗留下来的。但是一旦我们开始进行谈判，我们应该可以找到是双方都满意的解决办法。 

Unfortunately, the Indian position from the beginning until today has been: 'We'll tell you where the Sino-Indian boundaries lie, and you'll have to respect the conclusion that we reach. And should you decline, we'll charge you with aggression, and public pressure will force us to take military action against you…'

不幸的是，印度的立场从一开始直到今天都不变：“我们将会告诉你们中印边界的划线在哪里，而你们必须尊重的我们的结论。如果你们不遵守我们的划线，我们就认为你们是‘侵略’，那么公众的压力将迫使我们采取军事行动。”

That's what happened in 1962. China, therefore, made use of a well-established principle in international law, and acted in pre-emptive self-defence. The Indian side had already been moving militarily against China for a couple of years, and the Indian government, in the voice of their Prime Minister Nehru, had publicly and internationally declared that it was going to attack China.

这正是1962 年发生的事。根据既定的国际法原则，中国于是采取了先发制人的自卫。印度已经对中国采取了好几年的军事行动，而印度总理尼赫鲁，代表印度政府，公开地在国际上宣称：印度将进攻中国。

Your view that India is to blame for the war with China in 1962 has been challenged by scholars like John Garver, who have argued that Mao Zedong committed a fundamental 'attribution error' by concluding that Nehru sought to seize Tibet from China. How do you respond to that?

你认为，在1962年是印度挑起了对中国的战争。而一些学者，象约翰·加弗，对你的观点提出质疑，他的论点是毛泽东犯了一个基本的‘结论性（归属）错误’，那就是他认为尼赫鲁是要把西藏从中国分出去。对此你如何回应？

It's utter nonsense… The facts on the ground were quite clear-cut. India was bent on military aggression against China to confirm its badly based territorial claims, and China reacted with an entirely legitimate act of pre-emptive self-defence. That is the legal position, and perceptions about Mao and Tibet don't come into it. That's just absurd.

这纯属无稽之谈。基本事实是很清楚的，印度一心想用军事进攻来迫使中国确认其无理的领土要求，而中国‘先发制人的自卫’的反应是完全合法的行为，这种关于毛和西藏的看法根本对不上号。他的说法太荒唐了。

（太长了，分两页.）