網頁

2015-12-20

美B52轟炸機 「誤闖」陸南海人造島礁○聯合(2015.12.20)

Comment
誤闖,很奇怪的用語。不應該是宣示維護公海航行自由的美國(尤其是國防外交部門)會用的字眼。
假使如此,就是美中高層演政治戲碼。


根據網友STA指稱,BBC轉述的五角大廈發言人原文是:「B-52的飛越並非此政策的一部分」(the B-52 over-flight was not part of this policy),並非「誤闖」。而BBC解釋「美國的政策是主張軍機艦有航行自由權利」(has a "freedom of navigation" policy asserting right of passage for its military.)


B52轟炸機 「誤闖」陸南海人造島礁○聯合(2015.12.20)
美國國防部十八日表示,兩架參與例行任務的美國B—52轟炸機,上周飛越南海上空,其中一架進入中國大陸在南海的人造島礁兩海里範圍內。

美國防部官員以「非蓄意」、「誤闖」形容這架飛機的行動;大陸方面表示對該軍機予以警告驅離,並已針對此事向美國大使館提出外交抗議。

事件發生於本月十日,轟炸機誤闖的新聞及中方的反應,是在美國宣布計畫軍售台灣、惹惱大陸數天後出現。美國國防部發言人戴維斯說:「中方已向我方就最近一架B—52轟炸機訓練任務的飛行路徑表達關切。我們正調查這個事件。」

「華爾街日報」報導,兩架B—52轟炸機十日飛臨南沙群島的華陽礁上空,當時大陸軍隊一直在密切監視兩架轟炸機的行動,其中一架比預定路徑還要靠近華陽礁。一名美國國防部高級官員說,「天候惡劣」是導致飛行員偏離航線,進入大陸聲稱擁有主權地區的原因。

十月底時,美國的「拉森號」導彈驅逐艦進入大陸聲稱擁主權的南海渚碧礁周圍十二海里內,引發中方不滿,稱「拉森號」巡航南沙是「非法」行為,還要美國不要製造麻煩。十一月時,兩架美國轟炸機也飛近同一人工島礁,但未進入十二海里,中方地面控制人員發出警告,但未阻礙任務執行。十二海里是一國領海的範圍。

美軍這兩項巡邏都是依計畫進行,也未事先知會大陸。針對「拉森號」的巡航行動,美國官員表示若事先通知,即無法傳遞要傳達的訊息。

不過,美國國防部發言人厄班強調,和上述兩次巡邏不同,上周一架B—52轟炸機進入南海華陽礁人造島礁兩海里範圍內,並不在計畫之中,「就那次的任務而言,並沒有飛到南海島礁十二海里內的想法」。

最新這起轟炸機事件是美國外交處境進退兩難的又一例,白宮既想與全球第二大經濟體大陸維持穩定關係,卻又必須對美國的亞洲盟國、美國國會、國防部的施壓有所反應。大陸持續擴建南沙島礁,引來亞洲其他主權聲索國的反感,並要求美國對大陸施壓。


6 則留言:

  1. owever, Pentagon spokesman Cmdr Bill Urban said the B-52 over-flight was not part of this policy, which analysts say might suggest a navigation error.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35140802

    回覆刪除
  2. 作者已經移除這則留言。

    回覆刪除
  3. Thanks to Tony Chen’s sharing on his fb page,
    https://www.facebook.com/carol.chen.3382118/posts/10153831745113130
    I read the following “Guardian” piece on the same issue.
    South China Sea: US bomber angers Beijing with Spratly islands flypast
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/south-china-sea-us-bomber-angers-beijing-with-spratly-islands-flypast?CMP=share_btn_fb

    Here’s my comment to Tony Chen’s post.

    ————————————————————————
    I feel this Guardian article a bit confusing.

    The article first reports the Pentagon mouthpiece stating that there was no plan for the B-52 to fly within 12 nautical miles of any artificial island. That sounds lame. A knee-jerk response.

    But in the next paragraph the same mouthpiece, Navy Commander Bill Urban is quoted verbatim saying, “(f)or this mission, there was no intention of flying to within 12 nautical miles,” PERIOD.

    Might not the Pentagon be saying to Zhongnanhai, “You are complaining that our B-52 flight path intruded into China’s 12 nautical miles. Our B-52 mission included flying over the Spratly islands area of the South China Sea. We are unaware that overflight of this area amounts to trespassing into Chinese territory.“

    —————————————————
    My search for Navy Commander Bill Urban's statement on the US-DOD News page failed. If someone could get ahold of this precise Pentagon news briefing, here is the entry point.

    http://www.defense.gov/News

    回覆刪除
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k50DiE9pwwM

    回覆刪除
  5. @Konami
    Thanks for providing that link. What the spokesperson says here seems to confirm what I thought. Unfortunately this video grab is the wrong one. See the header below the video?

    It says, “Published on Nov 12, 2015
    http://www.newsbharati.com/ South China Sea- Pentagon Admits Flying B-52 bomber Close to Chinese Artificial Islands
    South China Sea dispute”

    It refers to an incident that occurred back in November. The one below seems more relevant.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xrUkDTgkgA
    Published on Dec 19, 2015
    http://www.newsbharati.com/ South China Sea- China Accuses US of 'Provocative' B-52 Bomber Flypast.

    The wording follows that of the Guardian and BBC reports. This once, US-DOD's wording of its response sounds disappointingly lame. I would agree with this blog owner when he comments that 「不應該是宣示維護公海航行自由的美國(尤其是國防外交部門)會用的字眼。假使如此,就是美中高層演政治戲碼。」

    Yes, this steamy tango has been lasting way too long already. Commenters in Japan would say no different. Weighing whether Japan should shoulder its share of policing the South China Sea, they assume that Japan could find herself once more the 鴨 — you know, that artless duck who flies right into the pot of broth graciously holding leeks in its bill — of that perennial US-China anti-Japanese Axis.

    回覆刪除
  6. 消息最先是由wsj流出
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-jet-flies-over-waters-claimed-by-china-1450466358

    回覆刪除

請網友務必留下一致且可辨識的稱謂
顧及閱讀舒適性,段與段間請空一行