【上】为什么所有东盟领导人都声称越南入侵了柬埔寨?有多少国家支持柬埔寨抗击越南的入侵?
2019-06-11 飞雪似炀花 26836
原文地址
原文地址:www.quora.com
正文翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-486546-1-1.html

Why did all ASEAN leaders say that Vietnam invaded Cambodia? How many countries supported Cambodia against Vietnamese invasion?

为什么所有东盟领导人都声称越南入侵了柬埔寨?有多少国家支持柬埔寨抗击越南的入侵?
评论翻译
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处
论坛地址:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-486546-1-1.html

答案一:

James Wu, Studied Southeast Asian history and politics
Answered Fri
Because it did.

因为越南的确入侵了柬埔寨。

Copied from my answer to a similar question:

以下内容来自我针对类似问题的一个回答:

First off, Vietnam invaded Cambodia not to put an end to the humanitarian abuses of the Khmer Rouge regime, but out of pure realpolitik. They were facing repeated territorial incursions by the new regime and were threatened by the presence of a Chinese client state on their border. So all those Vietnamese netizens trumpeting about the “noble” agenda of their intervention are sadly misinformed. The invasion had the laudable humanitarian consequence of ending the Khmer Rouge’s genocide, but its motives were hardly humanitarian. Vietnam wasn’t saving Cambodia, it was securing itself.

首先,越南入侵柬埔寨不是为了终结红色高棉政权的人道主义暴行,而是出于纯粹的现实政治的考量。他们面临着新政权的多次领土侵犯,并受到中国附庸国在其边界上持续存在的威胁。因此,所有那些鼓吹干预行动的“高尚”目的的越南网民都被可悲地误导了。这场入侵结束了红色高棉的种族灭绝行为,带来了值得称道的人道主义结果,但其动机远非人道主义的。越南不是在拯救柬埔寨,而是为了保护自己。

Singapore, along with the other non-communist ASEAN states, perceived a clear security threat in further Vietnamese expansionism in the region. Thailand being a staunchly anti-communist US ally was gravely concerned. Militarily, the recently-unified state of Vietnam had a massive, battle-hardened army supplied by the Soviets with equipment and weapons. They had just bled the US into a humiliating defeat. Before that they had successfully fought the French and expelled them from Indochina. To date, I think Vietnam retains the largest army in Southeast Asia in terms of size. If, through conquest or otherwise, Vietnam was allowed to consolidate Laos and Cambodia into an Indochinese communist bloc, Thailand might be next to fall.

新加坡和其他非GCZY东盟国家认为,越南在该地区的进一步扩张构成了显而易见的安全威胁。作为美国坚定的反共盟友,泰国对此深感担忧。在军事上,新近统一的越南拥有一支由苏联提供装备和武器的庞大的、久经沙场的军队。他们刚刚让美国输得一败涂地。在此之前,他们成功地与法国人作战,并将后者驱逐出中南半岛。时至今日,我仍然认为越南保留了东南亚地区规模最大的军队。如果越南被允许通过征服或其他方式将老挝和柬埔寨合并为一个中南半岛的GCZY集团,那么泰国就可能是下一个倒下的国家。

Ideologically, communism appeared ascendant. The domino theory was being vindicated. In 1975 three Southeast Asian governments had rapidly fallen to communism: south Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The Vietnamese were pretty high from their own revolution and their successful unification and triumph over the US. Thailand was on the frontline against what looked like communist expansionism. If mainland Southeast Asia fell, communism might spread down the Malayan peninsula and eventually to Singapore. Or native communists might be emboldened to carry out subversion.

在意识形态方面,GCZY当时似乎占据了优势。多米诺骨牌理论被证明是正确的。1975年,三个东南亚国家的政权迅速落入GCZY阵营手中:南越、柬埔寨和老挝。越南人从他们自己的革命,以及他们成功的统一和对美国所取得的胜利中得到了极大的鼓舞。泰国则处于对抗GCZY扩张主义的前线。如果东南亚大陆沦陷,GCZY可能就会蔓延到马来半岛,最终到达新加坡。甚至本土的GCZY者也有可能会鼓起勇气颠覆现政权。

So, yes. We supplied weapons to the remnants of the Khmer Rouge and other Cambodian resistance movements. We mobilized diplomatic support in the UN and ASEAN to condemn the Vietnamese invasion and prevent the international community from accepting it as fait accompli. As far as that accusation goes, we are guilty as charged.

所以,是的。我们向红色高棉残余势力和其他柬埔寨抵抗运动提供了武器。我们在联合国和东盟调动外交上的支持力量,谴责越南入侵,阻止国际社会接受这一事实。就那项指控而言,我们是有罪的。

But I think what most people don’t understand is Singapore’s motivation for doing so. Our foreign policy has always been predicated on a neoliberal institutionalist view of the importance of the rule of law. And as far as we were concerned, the Vietnamese invasion was a violation of international law. One Southeast Asian state had forcibly invaded another and imposed regime change without the sanction of the UN. Think about Libya 2011 and Iraq 2003. Such a precedent could not be allowed to take root in the region. Laws are social constructs. They are “real” insofar as they are reproduced and enforced via practice and discourse. As a small state Singapore saw the need to take action. If a wrong precedent was set, malaysia or Indonesia could conceivably do the same to us in the future without any reaction from the international community. Moreover there was the ASEAN norm of non-interference in internal affairs and respect for sovereignty. What would regime change mean for this? Granted, the Indochinese states weren’t part of ASEAN at that time, but you get my point.

但我认为,大多数人不明白的是新加坡这么做的动机。我们的外交政策一向以看重法治的新自由主义制度立场作为基础。在我们看来,越南的入侵行动违反了国际法。一个东南亚国家在未经联合国批准的情况下,悍然入侵另一个国家并实施政权更迭。想想2011年的利比亚和2003年的伊拉克。我们不能允许这种先例在该地区出现。法律是社会的结构。它们是“真实的”,因为它们是通过实践和话语进行复制和实施的。作为一个小国,新加坡看到了采取行动的必要性。如果出现了一个错误的先例,可以想象,马来西亚或印度尼西亚将来也会对我们这样做,而不需要顾及国际社会作出的任何反应。此外,还有东盟不干涉内政和尊重主权的准则。政权更迭对这些原则而言意味着什么?当然,中南半岛国家当时并不属于东盟,但你明白我的意思。

Norms and laws are important in international relations. They constrain state behavior and prescribe appropriate patterns of interaction. For small states like us, it’s important that we use them to restrain the bigger powers. Whats the implication if someone breaks a law and receives no punishment? What does it say about that law/norm? In this case, it was the norms of sovereignty and territorial integrity that were called into question. The Indonesia/Malaysia scenario that I raised was only an example. The point here was about upholding the broader security architecture and the kind of normative regional order we want in ASEAN. It‘s about laying down what should or should not be seen as acceptable in the region.

规范和法律在国际关系中很重要。它们约束国家的行为,并规范了恰当的互动模式。对我们这样的小国来说,重要的是我们要利用它们来约束大国。如果某个国家违反了法律却没有受到惩罚,这意味着什么?它对法律和规范而言意味着什么?在这种情况下,人们将对主权和领土完整的准则提出质疑。我提出的印度尼西亚和马来西亚的情况只是一个例子。这里的重点是维护更广泛的安全架构和我们希望在东盟建立的那种规范的地区秩序。也就是制定规范,说明在该地区内哪些事情应该或不应该被视为可被接受的。

So that’s my understanding of the issue. We supported a vicious genocidal government, but one that we recognized to be the legal government of Cambodia, more so than the puppet regime illegally imposed by Vietnam. We did so in order to shore up international law, in which our security interests were and are crucially vested.

所以,这就是我对这个问题的理解。我们支持了一个邪恶的种族灭绝政府,但我们承认它是柬埔寨的合法政府,它比越南非法强加的傀儡政权还要合法。我们这样做是为了支持国际法,而在过去和现在,我们的安全利益都仰赖于国际法。

Our foreign policy has never really been overtly moralistic or humanitarian, unlike the hypocritical US and the West more broadly. I would describe it as principled, but realist. Some people might call it cynical.

不像虚伪的美国和更广义的西方世界,我们的外交政策从来没有真正公开表现出过道德主义或人道主义。我认为这是有原则的作法,但也是现实的作法。有些人可能会称之为愤世嫉俗。

评论:

Chan Wy
Fri · 2 upvotes including James Wu
It's the same excuse the Japanese used, that they came to liberate us.

日本人也曾用过同样的借口,那就是他们是来解放我们的。

Th? Nguy?n
Fri · 4 upvotes
We weren't the ones who killed off 1/4 of the Cambodian populace thank you very much. We also didn't conduct any inhuman experiment on any Cambodian or caused any genocide anywhere like the Japanese did thank you very much. Vietnam was provoked and returned fire. 100% of Vietnamese Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge. 50% of Chinese Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge. 300 000 Vietnamese were killed before Vietnam returned fire. No one provoked Japan first in WWII. Not the effing same.
And what's your excuse for ramdomly bringing up Cold War propaganda against Vietnam and the current government of Cambodia as a part of an eulogy for a third party's death?

我们不是杀害柬埔寨四分之一国民的凶手,谢谢。我们也没有对柬埔寨人进行过任何不人道的实验,也没有像日本人那样制造过任何的种族灭绝。越南被激怒并予以了还击。100%的越南裔柬埔寨人被红色高棉政权杀害了,50%的华裔柬埔寨人被红色高棉政权杀害了。在越南发动还击之前,有30万越南人为此而丧生。而在二战中,却没有人先去挑衅日本。两者是完全不一样的。
你有什么理由把冷战时期针对越南和柬埔寨现政府的负面宣传作为第三方葬礼悼词的一部分?

James Wu
Original Author · Sun
Can you really call it propaganda when the threat of Vietnamese expansionism seemed pretty real?

当越南扩张主义的威胁看起来相当真实的时候,你真的认为它仅仅是宣传吗?

答案二:
Terence Helikaon Nunis, Former commissioned officer, security and intelligence.
Answered Fri
When the Prime Minister of Singapore said that Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, it is factually correct. In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, ostensibly to overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime. ASEAN’s condemnation of Vietnam’s invasion should not be viewed as support for the Khmer Rouge regime, since those are two separate issues.

新加坡总理说越南1979年入侵了柬埔寨,这是事实。1979年,越南入侵了柬埔寨,表面上是这为了推翻红色高棉政权。东盟对越南入侵的谴责不应被视为对红色高棉政权的支持,因为这是两个相互独立的问题。

On one hand, we can say that ASEAN could have come out stronger against the Khmer Rouge regime, but that is a simplistic view of history. The Khmer Rouge were a Chinese proxy, and ASEAN was not in a position to do so without risking antagonising China.

一方面,我们可以说东盟本可以更强有力地对抗红色高棉政权,但这是一种被简化的历史观。红色高棉政权是中国的代理人,东盟不可能冒着与中国对抗的风险这样做。

We forget, that in 1979, ASEAN was just over a decade old. ASEAN’s first summit meeting was in 1976, in Bali. It consisted of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. The US had just pulled out of South Vietnam in defeat, in 1976, and there was a very real fear of Communist expansion.

我们不要忘了,在1979年,东盟才刚刚成立10多年。东盟的第一次首脑会议于1976年在巴厘岛举行。当时它由印度尼西亚、马来西亚、菲律宾、新加坡和泰国组成。1976年,美国战败后刚刚从南越撤军,当时人们对GCZY扩张存在着一种真切的恐惧。

The rise of the Khmer Rouge was at Chinese sponsorship. This was at the height of the tripartite Cold War with three main belligerents: the US, the USSR and Communist China. The Chinese and Soviets had just fought a border war a decade earlier. Mao Zedong’s China was the belligerent, whereas Khrushchev had a policy of rapprochement with the West.

红色高棉政权的崛起得到了中国的支持。当时正值三方冷战的高潮,主要的交锋国家是美国、苏联和中国。十年前,中国和苏联刚刚打过一场边境战争。毛的中国是好战的,而赫鲁晓夫所奉行的政策则是与西方修好。

ASEAN, as the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, were in a difficult place. The Khmer Rouge were involved in an internal conflict, killing their own people. But Vietnam was an ascendant military power with Soviet backing, with the stated goal of expanding the Communist revolution throughout Southeast Asia.

东盟作为不结盟运动的领导人则处于一种困难的境地。红色高棉卷入了一场内部冲突,它杀害了自己的人民。但越南在苏联的支持下则成为了一个崛起中的军事强国,其明确的目标是将GCZY革命扩展到整个东南亚。

Accordingly, ASEAN took the calculated risk of opposing Vietnam, and leading world condemnation of their invasion. The fear was that Vietnam would not stop at Cambodia, but continue east. We must also remember that the fight between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge was a proxy war between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, both nuclear powers. Had China decided to intervene then, the USSR would have reignited the Sino-Soviet Border War. There were almost 50 light divisions of the PLA confronting almost 40 full divisions of the Soviet military along the border still. As early as 1969, the Nixon Administration took the unusual step of warning Khrushchev that a unilateral Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear facilities would lead to World War III. So, even the American were wary of the split between the Communist bloc.

因此,东盟冒着公然反对越南的风险,带头谴责了他们的入侵。人们担心越南不会止步于柬埔寨,而是继续前进。我们还必须记住,越南和红色高棉政权之间的战争是苏联和土共之间的代理人战争,而后两者都是核大国。如果当时中国决定进行干预,苏联就会重新点燃中苏边境的战火。在边境线上,解放军近50个轻装师与近40个整装师的苏军相对峙。早在1969年,尼克松政府就采取了不同寻常的步骤,警告赫鲁晓夫,苏联单方面攻击中国的核设施将导致第三次世界大战。因此,即使是美国也对GCZY集团内部的分裂持谨慎态度。

When Vietnam invaded, ASEAN was thrust into the forefront of the Cold War, and they realised that they were hilariously outgunned by the Vietnamese military. Amid an American pullout, Thailand alone was in no position to confront the Vietnamese war machine, with its hundreds of thousands of war veterans, fresh from defeating a superpower.

当越南入侵时,东盟被推到了冷战的最前沿,他们意识到自己被越南军队打得措手不及。在美国撤军的背景下,仅泰国一个国家无法对抗越南的战争机器。越南拥有数十万刚刚打败超级大国的老兵。

Accordingly, ASEAN lead the diplomatic efforts to isolate Vietnam and strangle its trade and economy to starve that military. ASEAN, particularly Singapore, poured millions into supporting any group fighting the Vietnamese to bog them down into the very stalemate they did with the Americans. They had learned the lessons of the Vietnam War, and the shoe was on the other foot.

因此,东盟主导了孤立越南的外交努力,扼制越南的贸易和经济,使其军队陷入挨饿的境地。东盟,尤其是新加坡,投入数百万美元支持任何打击越南人的组织,使他们陷入他们曾经与美国纠缠的那种僵局。他们从越南战争中吸取了教训,现在的形势也完全不同了。

In the meantime, Singapore sought diplomatic relations with China, on behalf of ASEAN, so that they had another card to play should the Vietnamese still win. This also reaped economic benefits under Deng Xiaoping later.

与此同时,新加坡代表着东盟寻求与中国建立外交关系,以求在越南获胜的情况下,他们还有另一张牌可打。之后为它们带来了经济效益。

When seen in context, these were difficult decisions to make, but it underlines the practical diplomacy that Singapore undertook to preserve our sovereignty, and the safety of the region. As a small nation, a new nation then, we did not have the military and economic strength then, so we had to make some sacrifices and play the long game. This is a testament to the calibre of our policymakers and diplomatic corps, and we make no apologies for it.

从当时的背景来看,这些都是很难作出的决定,但它强调了新加坡为维护我们的主权和该区域的安全所进行的务实外交。作为一个小国,一个新兴的国家,我们当时没有军事和经济实力,所以我们必须做出一些牺牲,打一场持久战。这证明了我们的政策制定者和外交团队的才干,我们不会对此作出任何道歉。

评论:

Tran Khanh Nong
Fri · 14 upvotes
Regardless of how people define invasion, the fact that PM Lee mentioned that in the public was like a direct slap to both Cambodian government by doubting their legitimacy over these 4 decades, as well as Vietnamese soldiers' families who died fighting for a greater cause.
The real issue is never about whatever the definition of invasion is, but why it is mentioned now? For what agenda?

不管人们如何定义侵略,李显龙总理在公共场合提及此事,就是给了柬埔寨政府和越南士兵家属一记耳光,因为他们在过去40年里一直怀疑柬埔寨政府的合法性,也在质疑那些为了更伟大的事业而牺牲的越南士兵的家属的合法性。
真正的问题从来不是关于侵略的定义是什么,但是为什么现在重新提起它?其中有何目的?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 13 upvotes
Both assertions are false.
Cambodia has had several changes in government. If we are talking about legitimacy, Hun Sen replaced the elected government of Norodom Ranariddh in a military coup. That should be a bigger factor in questioning the legitimacy of the Cambodian government. Hun Sen was himself a former member of the Khmer Rouge before defecting.
The Vietnamese soldiers did not die for a greater cause. They died in the invasion of another country. Vietnam invaded to replace a Chinese proxy on their border, and that had the side effect of ending the Khmer Rouge regime. It was not done because the Vietnamese cared for the intellectual elite of Cambodia.
The events were mentioned during the eulogy of former Thai premier and Privy Council president General Prem Tinsulanonda, who lead the ASEAN efforts during the Vietnam War.

这两种说法都是错误的。
柬埔寨政府发生了几次变动。如果我们谈论合法性,洪森在一场军事政变中取代了诺罗敦·拉那烈的民选政府。这应该是质疑柬埔寨政府合法性的一个更大因素。洪森在变节之前曾是红色高棉政权的成员。
越南士兵也没有为了什么更伟大的事业而牺牲。他们死于对另一个国家的侵略行动之中。越南发动入侵是为了取代中国在其边境设置的代理人,这导致了终结红色高棉政权的副作用。这并不是因为越南人关心柬埔寨的知识精英。
新加坡总理是在泰国前总理、枢密院院长炳·廷素拉暖将军的悼词中提到了这些事件。廷素拉暖将军在越南战争期间曾经领导了东盟国家的各种行动。

Tran Khanh Nong
Fri · 10 upvotes
Greater cause here is not for liberating Cambodia. Ask China what was the great cause for sending millions of volunteered soldiers to North Korea and any Chinese can tell you it was to protect China, not defending NK. As I mentioned in othrr answers, if Vietnam was helping Cambodia, it would have done so in 1975 instead.
Regarding legitimacy of Hun Sen regime, there are many factors but Vietnamese intervention is the only external factor. Regardless of viewpoint, PM Lee shouldn't have voiced out his opinion in such manner. I wonder if he dares question US invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan and call those events invasions in international summits?

在这里,更重要的事业并不是解放柬埔寨。如果你问中国,向朝鲜派遣数百万志愿军的最大原因是什么,每一个中国人都会告诉你,这是为了保卫中国,而不是为了保卫朝鲜。正如我在其他答案中所提到的,如果越南是在帮助柬埔寨,它应该早在1975年就这样做了。
关于洪森政权的合法性,还有着很多的影响因素,但越南的干预是唯一的外部因素。不管观点如何,李显龙总理都不应该以这种方式表达他的观点。我不知道他是否敢于质疑美国入侵伊拉克和阿富汗,并在国际峰会上把这些事件称为入侵行动?

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 8 upvotes
China’s involvement in North Korea is irrelevant. The same with the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, however, directly impacted our local geopolitics. You are obfuscating the issue by bringing in a lot of irrelevant events.

中国介入朝鲜战争与此无关。美国入侵伊拉克和阿富汗也是如此。然而,越南入侵柬埔寨直接影响到了我们当地的地缘政治。你引用了许多不相干的事件,混淆了这个问题的实质。

Tran Khanh Nong
Fri · 8 upvotes
Geopolitical or not, it was an issue of 40 years ago. Using the same logic, why bring it up now? Both Vietnamese and Cambodian governments are vastly different from how they were 40 years ago. If something of similar nature happening in 21st century is unrelated the how an event 40 years ago is related? Sorry, I fail to see any sensible reasons for PM Lee to bring that up at wrong time wrong place. I wouldn't bat an eye if he said that 40 years ago.

无论它是否与地缘政治相关,这都是40年前的问题了。用同样的逻辑来思考一下,为什么现在提出这个问题?越南和柬埔寨的政府都与40年前大不相同了。如果21世纪发生的一些类似的事情是不相关的,那么40年前发生的事情又是如何与之相关的呢?对不起,我看不出李显龙总理在错误的时间、错误的地点提出这个问题的任何合理理由。如果他在40年前这么说,我是不会认为有什么问题的。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 5 upvotes
Perhaps you were not paying attention. It was an eulogy, for the Thai premier who lead ASEAN then. This was his defining achievement: stopping Vietnamese aggression and the Communist threat.

也许你没有注意到,这是一篇献给当时领导东盟行动的泰国前总理的悼词。这就是他的重要成就:阻止越南的侵略和GCZY的威胁。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 4 upvotes
Yes, but that was 40 years ago. How is it relevant now? What agenda does PM Lee have by bringing it up now, knowing fully how it can damage relationships among Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam.
My whole point in this post is never about what was the situation 40 years ago, but why bring it up now? You and many other Singaporeans in this post are great at dodging my question.

是的,但那是40年前的事了。与现在又有什么关系呢?李显龙总理现在提出这个问题有什么目的?他完全知道这个问题会损害新加坡、柬埔寨和越南之间的关系。我在这篇文章里的全部观点从来都不是关于40年前的情况,但是为什么他要在现在提出来呢?你和这篇文章里的许多新加坡人都很善于回避我的问题。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 6 upvotes
Because it is the truth. It was brought up in the context of the life of the premier. Are you implying we should self-censor for fear of offending the Vietnamese? We say what we need to say. The Vietnamese can choose to take it however they want to take it.

因为这是事实。这是在阐述泰国前总理生平的背景下提出的。你是说我们应该进行自我审查,以避免冒犯越南人吗?我们只是在说出我们需要说出的话。越南人则可以选择按照自己的方式去接受它。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 11 upvotes
What truth? The truth that Singapore in the 1980s supported more than 50M USD to Khmer Rogue along with many other nations, knowing fully what kind of atrocities Khmer Rogue did commit in their own country?
The event has everything to do with Cambodia, Vietnam, China and maybe Thailand too but it is absolutely none of Singapore's business.
Oh and please see how your newspapers respond to this event over the last few days. Not a single word of defense of excuse for what PM Lee has spoken. Even your own minister of foreign affairs feels bad about what PM Lee said.
So much ignorance and mostly arrogance.

什么事实?上世纪80年代,新加坡和其他许多国家一起向红色高棉这个流氓政权提供了5000多万美元的援助,他们完全知道红色高棉政权在自己的国家犯下了什么样的暴行。
这一事件与柬埔寨、越南、中国或许还有泰国都有关系,但绝对不关新加坡的事。
哦,请看看你们的报纸对过去几天的事件有何反应吧。对于李显龙总理所说的话,它们可没有说出一句辩解的话。就连你们的外交部长也对李总理的话感到抱歉。
真的是非常无知和傲慢。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 7 upvotes
I don’t see how just because it is not directly affecting Singapore that one cannot comment on an event. Just because one takes a position that is unpopular to someone that does not mean we have suffer censorship. This is why sites like Quora exists.
Our position was taken based on policy not sophistry. It is what it is. The invasion happened. Regime change happened. Our position was not based on support for the old regime but in the way the regime was replaced.
Two wrongs do not make a right.

我不明白,仅仅因为它没有直接影响到新加坡,我们就不能对一件事发表评论了吗?仅仅因为一个人的立场不受欢迎,并不意味着我们就要遭受审查。这就是像Quora这样的网站存在的原因。
我们的立场是基于政策而不是诡辩。事情就是这样的。入侵的确发生了。政权更迭的确发生了。我们的立场不是基于对旧政权的支持,而是基于该政权被取代的方式。
别人错了,不等于你就做对了。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 4 upvotes
We are not talking about an event on Quora but in real life, in political world. And yes, in the political world, careful choice of word is a basic skill any politicians should acquire. You or me, we can comment freely and no one bat an eye. But for PM Lee, a leader of a country to comment such, that is unthinkable. Not everyone is Trump. Words from a national leader are heavy and serious.
Please don’t divert the focus of our topic. We are talking about comments of Mr Lee, your PM, not a commoner like us. It’s naive to think a national leader can comment freely how he or she thinks. Trump is an exception.

我们谈论的不是Quora上的事件,而是现实生活中的政治世界。是的,在政治世界里,用词谨慎是任何政治家都应该掌握的一项基本技能。无论是你还是我,我们都可以畅所欲言,谁也不会认为有什么问题。但对于一个国家的领导人李总理来说,发表这样的言论是不可想象的。不是所有人都是特朗普。一位国家领导人的讲话应该是有分量和严肃的。
请不要转移我们的话题。我们谈论的是你们的总理李显龙先生的评论,而不是像我们这样的平民的言论。认为一个国家领导人可以自由地发表他的想法是天真的。特朗普只是一个例外。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 3 upvotes
It’s up to each country to weigh the pros and the cons.
If you’re bringing the conversation back to whether or not we should be blackmailed by fear of what Vietnam would do in reprisal. Then let me put it this way:
We didn’t give way to the Americans during the Michael Faye incident nor did we give the Americans any consideration when LKY published the CIA attempt to bribe him. When China attempted to pressure us during the Terrex incident, we resisted as well.
I don’t think we’re about to cave in to any pressure by Vietnam. Especially if our view is an accurate one. It’s just not our policy.

这取决于每个国家的利弊权衡。
如果你把话题转回到我们是否应该被越南的报复行为所威胁。那么我这样说吧:
在麦可·彼特·费尔受鞭刑案中,我们都没有向美国人做出妥协,当李光耀公布称中央情报局试图贿赂他时,我们也没有向美国人做出任何妥协。在战车被扣事件中,当中国试图向我们施压时,我们也进行了抵抗。
我认为我们不会向越南的任何压力屈服。尤其是如果我们的观点是正确的时候。这不是我们的政策。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 2 upvotes
Well, it’s up to you to upkeep your opinion. I prefer to observe your political leaders’ responses in these days. Their voices are official and representative, not yours.
Talking about Michael Faye, I’m sorry I fail to see why you are proud of such menial event. Any country, big or small, will do the same. US couldn’t retaliate very seriously in that case because she didn’t want to appear as a bully, blatantly trampling on other countries’ legal system. Such a small event can’t be compared to an event where its content affects the legitimacy of a government and justice of a war.
Thailand had the say because they genuinely feared Vietnam would invade Thailand next (totally understandable). Singapore, however, is really unrelated in this whole issue. Various Thai leaders have never made such kind of comments over these years because they feel pressurized by Vietnam? No way. It;s simply because country’s politics is a representation of benefit and there is simply no benefit doing so, just downside.

好吧,你是否要坚持自己的观点,这完全取决于你自己。我更乐意观察你们的政治领导人这几天的反应。他们的声音才是官方的、有代表性的,而不是你们的。
说到麦可·彼特·费尔受鞭刑案,我很抱歉,我不明白你为什么对这样的低级事件感到自豪。任何国家,无论大小,都会这么做。在那起案件中,美国无法进行非常严厉的报复,因为它不想表现得像一个恃强凌弱者,公然践踏其他国家的法律体系。这样的一件小事件根本无法与内容影响到了政府的合法性和战争的公正性的事件相比拟。
泰国对此有发言权,因为他们真的担心越南接下来会入侵泰国(这一点完全可以理解)。然而,新加坡在这整个问题上真的毫无关联。多年来,泰国领导人从未发表过这样的言论,因为他们感到越南给他们施加了压力?不可能。这仅仅是因为一个国家的政治是利益的代表,这样做没有任何好处,只会带来坏处。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 2 upvotes
As a group ASEAN (including Thailand) made our common position very clear to the UN Security Council in 1979. Also, I’m not sure where you got that I was proud of the Michael Faye incident. It was just mentioned as point. Just like I am sure the invasion of Cambodia was an offhand and accurate point made. Vietnam just chose to over-react.

作为一个集团,东盟(包括泰国)在1979年向联合国安理会明确表达了我们的共同立场。还有,我不知道你从哪里知道我为麦可·彼特·费尔受鞭刑案感到骄傲。它只是作为一个观点被提到了。就像我确信对柬埔寨的入侵也是我的一个明确的观点。越南却选择做出了过度的反应。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 3 upvotes
You think it’s an over-reaction because Singapore never got involved in the event. For Vietnamese and Cambodia, blood was shed, people sacrificed. Vietnam government must defend the interest of those families with volunteered soldiers who died or injured during the war? And you call that one an over-reaction? Ignoring the welfare of those poor families seems very right to you? They were seriously hurt by what PM Lee said. Defending them is the responsibility of Vietnam government.

你认为这是反应过度,只是因为新加坡从未参与过这一事件。为了越南和柬埔寨,人们流血牺牲。越南政府必须保护那些在战争中牺牲或受伤的志愿军人家属的利益,你却说这是反应过度?你认为忽视那些贫困家庭的利益是对的吗?他们被李显龙总理的话严重伤害了。保护他们是越南政府的责任。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 1 upvote
Again if we lied that’s one thing. We did not. When ASEAN moved we agreed to that position. Just because you viewed it differently doesn’t mean we have to cave to your position. The truth hurts but it is what it is.

如果我们说谎了,那就是另一回事了。但是我们没有说谎。在东盟采取行动时,我们都对这一立场表示了赞同。仅仅因为你有不同的看法并不意味着我们必须向你的立场屈服。事实很伤人,但它就是如此。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat · 4 upvotes
Oh but you do. In fact at this very moment your government members are trying your best to redefine what MP Lee have said to redirect that comment into something non-offensive. As I said, I don’t care how common people think. The fact that your government is trying hard to solve the consequences by sending clarification letters to both Vietnam and Cambodia government, as well as voicing out explanation on your newspapers speak loudly enough. You don’t represent your government and what they are doing right now contradict what you say completely.

但你的确在撒谎。事实上,就在此时此刻,你们的政府成员正在尽最大努力重新定义李总理所说的话,把评论转向一些非冒犯性的内容。就像我说的,我不在乎普通人怎么想。贵国政府正努力通过向越南和柬埔寨政府发出澄清的信号,并在你们的报纸上做出解释来解决这些问题,这一事实已经够清楚的了。你不能代表你的政府,他们现在所做的和你所说的完全是矛盾的。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 1 upvote
Perhaps we would have to do some damage control. But you won’t see us taking those words back. Otherwise you would have heard it by now. The noises will be placating and no doubt Vietnam will choose to hear what it wants to hear. And that’s how it will end.
PS. The clarification letters do not change our position one letter. The only thing it clarified is that we do not support the Khmer Rouge. And we do not. I’ve just checked to see if there has been any edits to the PM’s post. Nope. Not one word reworded. So there’s your “bend” right there. It’s easy enough to change the post. It’s a Facebook post.

也许我们得控制一下损失。但你不会看到我们收回那些话的。否则你现在应该已经就听到了。这些噪音将会平息下来,毫无疑问,越南将会选择听它想听的。这就是结局。
另外:澄清函并没有改变我们的立场。它澄清的唯一一件事是,我们并不支持红色高棉政权。而我们的确也没有。我刚查了一下总理的帖子是否有被修改。但是没有。一个字也没有被改写。这就是你在“歪曲事实”了。要更换帖子非常容易。这是其中的一篇脸书文章。

Tran Khanh Nong
Sat
No, it's your minister of foreign affairs who had to do the dirty work, not Lee Hsien Long himself. He can't afford to correct his Facebook post, or else he will be in big trouble. This is common in politics, when great leaders commit mistake, it is the subordinates who have to stand out to take the damage.
One last thing and I'll stop here. If the Cambodians themselves don't regard 1978 event as invasion, then no other countries in the world have the right to redefine the event on behalf of Cambodia. People have different opinions and viewpoints but when it doesn't involve you but involve others directly, better keep the thoughts to your own peace of mind.

不,是你们的外交部长干的脏活,不是李显龙本人干的。他不能去纠正他的脸书文章的内容,否则他会有大麻烦。这在政治中是很常见的,当大领导者犯错误时,必须站出来承担损失的往往是下属。
我要说的最后一件事是,如果柬埔寨人自己不把1978年的事件视为侵略,那么世界上任何其他国家都无权代表柬埔寨重新定义这一事件。人们有不同的意见和观点,但当它不涉及到你自己,而是直接涉及到别人时,那你最好就别多想了。

Marcus Yan
Sat · 2 upvotes
*Sigh* Look you’ve been proven wrong over and over again. I don’t think anything will convince you that we stand by everything we say. We’re not retracting anything. Even your last comment is inaccurate. There are any number of Cambodians who do not remember your intervention so favourably as you say.
The post stands. And if you think that any kind of apology is implied and accepted when the Facebook post saying the exact opposite is still there, then buddy I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Like I said before Vietnam will probably read what they want to read and this problem will go away - with Singapore still maintaining its position. You have proven my point exactly.
As we learnt from the Japanese, admitting fault will never be easy. Here in Singapore I think we’re cynical enough not to hold our breath expecting an admission. But we won’t be changing our position.
PS. I will not assume your last line is an implied threat. But I will have Quora moderators look at it.

看,你一次又一次地被证明是错的。我不认为有什么能说服你,我们会坚持我们各自所说的一切。我们不会收回任何说辞。甚至你最后的评论也是不准确的。有许多柬埔寨人并不像你所说的那样,他们对你们的干预记忆犹新。
那篇文章已然还在。如果你认为我们进行了任何隐晦的道歉并且被接受了,然而事实上脸书上的帖子所反映的情况却截然相反,那么伙计,你真的是太牛了。
就像我之前说的,越南可能会宣传他们想宣传的东西,这个问题会就此消失——新加坡仍然维持着它的立场。你准确地证明了我的观点。
正如我们从日本人身上学到的,承认错误从来就不是一件容易的事。在新加坡,我想我们已经够愤世嫉俗的了,不会屏息以待你们的坦白。但我们也不会改变我们的立场。

Dave Choy
Sun
I am old enough to remember Vietnamese refugees in boats coming to our shores and those of our neighbouring countries.
Were you born then?
You might have been fed really bad stuff.

我年纪够大了,我还记得越南难民乘船来到我们和邻国的海岸边的场景。你是在那时出生的吗?你可能被喂了一大堆糟糕的食物。

Uwé Tan
Sun · 2 upvotes
Not sure we had the kind of money then, especially our former defence minister was known from his frugality. Even it is true, it is understandable because the spread of communism was a clear and imminent danger for the world and the event happened near our doorstep.

当时我们并不确定自己是否有那么多钱,尤其是我们的前国防部长以节俭著称。即使这是真的,这也是可以理解的,因为GCZY的传播对世界来说是一个明显和迫在眉睫的危险,而这一事件就发生在我们家门口。

??t Lê
17h ago
The spread of communism was the reason for keeping a hand on your eyes to be blinded from the genocide, and it was well-colored by political decisions for the good of your people. So while people were afraid of communism, why PM Lee Kwang Yew and CCP’s secretary Deng had a tight relationship?
Leaders’ move doesn’t need to be political-correctness, while it is the fact as someone said, and the fact that hurts the relationship and the standing or the good of some nations can turn friends into foes. So the fact, why?
Today’s fact may not be sweet, PM Lee Hsien Loong’s fact may hurt some nations, the people often don’t care. While the fact maybe bitter, please tell justice and be honest, it is the real fact.

GCZY的传播就是让你们对种族灭绝视而不见的原因,为了你们人民的利益,政治决策让你们的眼睛被蒙蔽了。如果当时人们害怕GCZY,为什么李光耀总理和中国的关系那么密切?
领导人的举动不需要政治正确,但正如有人所说,伤害两国关系、损害某些国家的地位或利益的事实,可能就会把朋友变成敌人。为什么呢?
今天的事实可能并不怎么甜蜜,新加坡总理李显龙所说的事实可能会伤害一些国家,人民则往往不在乎这一点。虽然事实可能是苦涩的,但请诉诸正义和诚实,这就是真正的事实。

Steven Teo
15h ago
history dude! we bring up world war 2 every 5 to 10 years even it have happened more than 40 years ago. we learn from history! if we continue to be sore about it, we learn nothing and that’s when they use the phrase “when history repeats itself”

伙计,我们说的是历史!我们每5到10年就会提到第二次世界大战,即使它发生在40多年前。我们从历史中学习教训!如果我们继续为此感到痛苦,我们就什么也学不到,这时他们就会说“当历史重演的时候”了。

Uwé Tan
Sun · 3 upvotes
“Geopolitical or not, it was an issue of 40 years ago. Using the same logic, why bring it up now? Both Vietnamese and Cambodian governments are vastly different from how they were 40 years ago. If something of similar nature happening in 21st century is unrelated the how an event 40 years ago is related?”
Quoting you, the current governments are vastly different from the belligerent ones 40 years ago. The current governments should be proud of their achievements. Why should they feel uneasy over an event 40 years ago? Are they hiding something?

“无论它是否与地缘政治相关,这都是40年前的问题了。用同样的逻辑来思考一下,为什么现在提出这个问题?越南和柬埔寨的政府都与40年前大不相同了。如果21世纪发生的一些类似的事情都是不相关的,那么40年前发生的事情又是如何与之相关的呢?”
引用你的话,现在的政府已经与40年前好战的政府大不相同了。现在的政府应该为他们的成就感到自豪。他们为什么要对40年前的一件事感到不安呢?他们在隐瞒什么吗?

Benjamin Ho
17h ago · 1 upvote
Don’t throw red herrings about China and North Korea, or the USA in the Middle-east. This is regarding the events in South-east Asia.
By the way, PM Lee was voicing a fact as supported by both ASEAN and later at the UN. And another fact: For Vietnam and Cambodia to receive aid was from Singapore was for (1) Cambodia to have free elections without the Khmer Rouge, and (2) that Vietnam would have to withdraw from Cambodia and cease hostilities.

不要用中国、朝鲜或美国的中东问题来转移注意力。这是关于在东南亚发生的事件。
顺便说一句,李显龙总理只是阐述了东盟和联合国都支持的一个事实。另一个事实是:越南和柬埔寨接受新加坡的援助是为了:(1)柬埔寨在红色高棉政权缺位的情况下举行自由选举;(2)越南必须从柬埔寨撤军,停止敌对行动。

Kevin Dam
Sat · 10 upvotes
Yep, it's ridiculous to think Vietnam sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its young men and untold treasures to “liberate” Cambodians from a murderous government. Vietnamese just don't love Cambodians that much. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was an act of self-defense which had the side effect of ending the Khmer Rouge genocidal regime. Any mention of “greater cause” is just plain idiotic.

是的,认为越南牺牲了成千上万的年轻人和无数的财富来“解放”柬埔寨人脱离凶残的政府的观点是非常荒谬的。越南人就是不那么喜欢柬埔寨人。越南入侵柬埔寨是一种自卫行为,只是其副作用是终结了红色高棉的种族灭绝政权。任何提及“更伟大的事业”的说法都是愚蠢的。

Vincent Nguyen
Sun · 6 upvotes
finally, a fellow Vietnamese who hasn’t drunk the kool-aid. The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to overthrow a hostile government that was killing Vietnamese on its borders. The Vietnamese could give a shit about the massacre of Cambodians; it just happened that the Khmer Rouge are murderous genocidal maniacs, and the invasion and overthrow of the Rouge fit the geopolitical goals of Hanoi, AND had a moral justification.

最终还是出现了一个没有被冲昏头脑的越南人。越南人入侵了柬埔寨,推翻了在其边境杀害越南人的敌对政府。越南人会对柬埔寨人的大屠杀是不屑一顾的;只是碰巧红色高棉是凶残的种族灭绝狂热分子,入侵和推翻红色高棉政权符合河内的地缘政治目标,而且也让其师出有名。

Ngoc Vu
56m ago
You are not vietnamese. You are american. Do you hold vietnames passport?
you are traitor who fled away after 1975 has no right to judge the peoples who stay and continuous to fight for the country.

你不是越南人。你是美国人。你持有越南人护照吗?
你是叛徒,1975年后逃跑的人没有权利审判留下来继续为国家战斗的人民。

Say Keng Lee
Fri · 1 upvote from Terence Helikaon Nunis
Singapore has indeed always played the long - geopolitical and geostrategic - game ever since the inception of our sovereign nationhood in 1965.

新加坡自1965年建立主权国家以来,确实一直在进行长期的地缘政治和地缘战略博弈。

Kevin Dam
Sat · 1 upvote from Terence Helikaon Nunis
Recognize these guys?



It's interesting to note that the guy on the right was later edited out from the photo. Yep, that man was none other than Pol Pot himself. The guy in the middle was of course Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam's “founding father”. What does this picture tell you? Yep, you got that right. Without the help of the Vietnamese communists Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would never have been able to gain power and those killing fields would never have materialized.

你认识这些人吗?
有趣的是,右边的人后来被从照片中删除了。是的,那个人正是波尔布特本人。中间的那个人当然就是越南的“国父”胡志明了。这张照片能够告诉你什么?是的,你答对了。如果没有越共的帮助,波尔布特和红色高棉政权就永远无法夺取政权,而这些杀戮也就永远不会成为现实。

??i Nguyên Tr?n
Sat
This picture was taken in 1966, included President of Laos Phomvihan, President Ho Chi Minh and Polpot. At that time, Polpot represented The Communist Party of Khmer Isarak which didn’t relate to genocide actions afterwards. Khmer Rouge was found by the retrograde and degenerate elementsnly of The Khmer Isarak. Vietnamese communists have not ever supported Khmer rouge.

这张照片拍摄于1966年,其中包括了老挝总统丰威汉、胡志明和波尔布特。当时,波尔布特代表的是柬共,该党后来没有参与过种族灭绝行动。红色高棉是在柬共倒退和退化的基础上建立起来的。越共从来没有支持过红色高棉政权。

Stefan Onk
Fri · 2 upvotes
Was there any real evidence for Vietnamese ambitions?
However, whatever the geopolitical conditions have been: not apologizing for supporting Khmer Rouge is not acceptable.

越南的野心有什么真凭实据吗?然而,无论地缘政治条件如何,不为支持红色高棉政权而道歉都是不可接受的。

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 2 upvotes
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the intelligence of the time were of the opinion that the Vietnamese would not stop at Cambodia. In fact, there were border skirmishes with Thai troops. You can google that.
There is nothing to apologise. Politics is the projection of the national interest, and it was in our national interest to stop the Communists by whatever means possible. In that, we are no different from any other nation.

正如在其他地方所提到的,当时的情报人员认为越南人不会在柬埔寨进行停留。事实上,越南军队与泰国军队还发生了小规模的边境冲突。你可以搜索得到这一事件。
没什么好道歉的。政治只是国家利益的投射,我们只是用尽一切可能的办法来阻止越共,这么做是符合我们国家利益的。在这一点上,我们与任何其他国家没有什么不同。

Stefan Onk
Sat · 1 upvote
Don’t you see that you could justify everything with this rationale?
If you ask me, the people of Cambodia deserve your president to pick the next flight to Phnom Penh and beg for forgiveness on his knees - as Willy Brandt did in Warsaw:
However, you are in good company with dozens of other countries which refuse to apologize properly for their past crimes.
Besides that, fighting the vague idea of a threat of a spread of communism by backing a Stone Age communism regime isn’t too smart, is it? Without the Vietnamese soldiers Cambodia could be much similar to North Korea today.

难道你不明白你可以用这个理由来为一切辩护吗?
如果你问我,柬埔寨人民是否应该让你们的总统搭乘下一班飞往金边的航班,跪着乞求宽恕——正如勃兰特在华沙所做的那样。
然而,你们和其他几十个国家一样,都拒绝为他们过去的罪行作出适当的道歉。
除此之外,通过支持一个回到石器时代的GCZY政权来对抗GCZY蔓延的威胁的模糊构想其实并不明智,不是吗?没有越南士兵,柬埔寨可能就与今天的朝鲜非常相似。
收藏译文