澳洲通過(guò)反外國(guó)干預(yù)法，或使中澳關(guān)系更加復(fù)雜化

SYDNEY, Australia — Australia approved sweeping national security legislation on Thursday that bans foreign interference in politics, stiffens the punishment for leaking classified information and makes it a crime to damage Australia’s economic relations with another country.

澳大利亞悉尼——澳大利亞周四通過(guò)了一項(xiàng)影響廣泛的國(guó)家安全法規(guī)，內(nèi)容包括禁止外國(guó)干涉政治，加大對(duì)泄露機(jī)密信息的懲罰力度，并將損害澳大利亞與他國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系的行為定為犯罪。

Attorney General Christian Porter told Parliament that the new laws represented the most significant counterintelligence overhaul since the 1970s.

司法部長(zhǎng)克里斯蒂安·波特(Christian Porter)對(duì)議會(huì)說(shuō)，新法律代表著20世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái)最重大的反間諜法改革。

“The practices of modern espionage are now being encountered in so many Western democracies around the globe,” Mr. Porter said.

“全球許多西方民主國(guó)家現(xiàn)在都遇到了實(shí)際的現(xiàn)代間諜活動(dòng)，”波特說(shuō)。

“To counter this threat,” he continued, “Australia must have a robust, modern legislative framework to ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies are sufficiently empowered to investigate and disrupt malicious foreign interference.”

他接下來(lái)說(shuō)，“為了應(yīng)對(duì)這一威脅，澳大利亞必須有一個(gè)健全的、現(xiàn)代的立法框架，以確保我們的執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)和國(guó)家安全機(jī)構(gòu)有足夠的權(quán)力去調(diào)查和阻止惡意的外國(guó)干涉。”

The new laws are similar to but more far-reaching than those passed in Britain and the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They prioritize an approach favored by security officials and give great discretion to the Australian attorney general, with limited checks and balances.

這些新法律與2001年9月11日的恐怖襲擊之后英國(guó)和美國(guó)通過(guò)的法律類似，但影響更深遠(yuǎn)。法律優(yōu)先考慮了安全官員們喜歡的做法，并賦予澳大利亞司法部長(zhǎng)很大的自行決定權(quán)，但只提供了有限的制約與平衡。

Though government officials have said they are not aimed at any country, the laws have passed at a moment when Australia is especially anxious about Chinese power. They could further complicate Australia’s relationship with Beijing, which has treated the laws as an insult — especially since China is Australia’s largest trading partner.

盡管政府官員表示，這些法律并不針對(duì)任何國(guó)家，但法律是在澳大利亞對(duì)中國(guó)的影響力感到特別焦慮的時(shí)刻通過(guò)的。法律可能會(huì)使澳大利亞與中國(guó)的關(guān)系進(jìn)一步復(fù)雜化。中國(guó)一直將這項(xiàng)立法視為一種侮辱，尤其是因?yàn)橹袊?guó)是澳大利亞的最大貿(mào)易伙伴。

The extensive legislation adds 38 new crimes to the record, including stealing trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government, and broaden the definitions of existing crimes like espionage.

這項(xiàng)涉及廣泛的立法正式增加了38項(xiàng)新罪行，包括替外國(guó)政府竊取商業(yè)機(jī)密，同時(shí)擴(kuò)大了間諜活動(dòng)等現(xiàn)有罪行的定義。

The new laws do not ban foreign political donations (a separate law is being drafted for that), but they do require that foreign lobbyists register on a public list, similar to the way it works in the United States.

新法律并不禁止外國(guó)政治捐款(正在起草的另一項(xiàng)單獨(dú)立法是針對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的)，但它們確實(shí)要求外國(guó)游說(shuō)者在一個(gè)公開的名單上注冊(cè)，這類似于美國(guó)的做法。

They also make it illegal to engage in any covert activity on behalf of a foreign government that aims to influence the process of Australian politics — including activities typically protected in a democracy, like organizing a rally.

新法律還規(guī)定，代表外國(guó)政府參與任何旨在影響澳大利亞政治進(jìn)程的秘密活動(dòng)都是非法的，包括那些通常在民主國(guó)家受到保護(hù)的活動(dòng)，比如組織集會(huì)。

Punishments for foreign interference crimes range from 10 to 20 years in prison.

對(duì)外國(guó)干涉罪的刑事處罰是最低10年、最高20年的監(jiān)禁。

Some security experts argue the laws are overdue, and necessary for an age when Russian hackers can undermine American democracy without going near a voting booth, and when China’s mingling of economic and political interests is redefining geopolitics.

一些安全專家認(rèn)為，早就該通過(guò)這些法律，它們?cè)谶@個(gè)時(shí)代必不可少，現(xiàn)在，俄羅斯黑客可以在不接近投票站的情況下破壞美國(guó)的民主，而中國(guó)把經(jīng)濟(jì)利益和政治利益融合起來(lái)的做法也在重新定義地緣政治。

“It’s a big deal,” said Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “It modernizes our intelligence laws at a time when the government’s saying that the spying threat is extremely high.”

“這是一件大事，”澳大利亞戰(zhàn)略政策研究所(Australian Strategic Policy Institute)執(zhí)行主任彼得•詹寧斯(Peter Jennings)說(shuō)。“在政府聲稱間諜威脅極高的時(shí)候，立法將我們的情報(bào)法規(guī)現(xiàn)代化了。”

But the laws have met with opposition since they were proposed six months ago.

但這些法律自從六個(gè)月前提出以來(lái)就一直遭到反對(duì)。

The Chinese government has responded coolly, canceling visas for Australian business leaders and suggesting that the country’s politicians are motivated by xenophobia and racism.

中國(guó)政府已做出冷淡反應(yīng)，取消了澳大利亞商界領(lǐng)袖的簽證，并暗示，澳大利亞政客這樣做的動(dòng)機(jī)是仇外和種族主義。

Lu Kang, spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said in response to a question this week about the new Australian laws that China does not interfere in other countries’ affairs.

中國(guó)外交部發(fā)言人陸慷本周在回答有關(guān)澳大利亞新法律的問(wèn)題時(shí)說(shuō)，中國(guó)不干涉他國(guó)內(nèi)政。

“We hope that all countries could cast off Cold War mind-set and strengthen exchanges and cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment,” he said.

“希望各國(guó)都能摒棄冷戰(zhàn)思維，在相互尊重、平等相待的基礎(chǔ)上，更好推進(jìn)相互交流和合作，”陸慷說(shuō)。

Some experts worry that Australia is neglecting or even undermining traditional diplomacy by focusing on covert activity that security officials tend to hint at but do not fully explain.

一些專家擔(dān)心，澳大利亞正在忽視甚至削弱傳統(tǒng)的外交手段，將重點(diǎn)放在了安全官員往往只暗示、但并不完全解釋的秘密活動(dòng)上。

“No compelling evidence has been offered to show why these laws are really needed,” said Hugh White, a prominent defense strategist. “We have been asked to take that on trust, but there is a risk that we are jumping at shadows.”

“沒有人提供過(guò)令人信服的證據(jù)，解釋為什么真正需要這些法律，”著名的國(guó)防策略師休·懷特(Hugh White)說(shuō)。“我們被要求聽信這一點(diǎn)，但這里的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是，我們?cè)诓讹L(fēng)捉影。”

Human rights groups, scholars and journalists have been arguing for months that too much is being given up out of fear. They said first drafts of the laws went too far in restricting democratic rights — making it a crime, for example, to receive something marked “classified” even if its disclosure served the public interest.

幾個(gè)月來(lái)，人權(quán)組織、學(xué)者和記者一直在爭(zhēng)辯新法案，他們認(rèn)為，法案出于恐懼放棄了太多的東西。他們說(shuō)，最初的法律草案在限制民主權(quán)利方面做得太過(guò)火了——比如，接受標(biāo)有“機(jī)密”的信息就是犯罪，即使這些信息的公開符合公共利益。

Some even said the laws threatened to make Australia more like the authoritarian regimes that it aims to resist.

一些人甚至說(shuō)，這些法律有讓澳大利亞變得更像法律旨在抵制的威權(quán)政府的危險(xiǎn)。

Amendments to the laws sought to address some of those concerns.

間諜法修正案尋求解決一些上述擔(dān)憂。

The secrecy offenses have been narrowed. Journalists accused of violating the restrictions on sharing government information can also now claim a “public interest” defense, arguing that the information they disclose has value for democracy.

有關(guān)保密信息的犯罪定義已被縮小。因公布政府信息而被指控違反保密法的記者，現(xiàn)在也能用“公共利益”的說(shuō)法為自己辯護(hù)，他們可以爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，信息的披露對(duì)民主有利。

Beyond journalists and secrecy, though, the laws have few exceptions.

但除了記者和保密法規(guī)外，新法律幾乎沒有考慮其他的例外。

Churches, charities and human rights groups with international interests or funding may still need to be listed on the public register for foreign lobbyists, one of the core tenets of the laws, which aim to make foreign influence on Australian politics more transparent.

與國(guó)際利益有關(guān)、或有國(guó)際資金的教堂、慈善機(jī)構(gòu)和人權(quán)組織仍可能需要在外國(guó)游說(shuō)者的公開登記部上注冊(cè)，這是旨在讓外國(guó)對(duì)澳大利亞政治的影響更加透明的新法律的核心原則之一。

David Brophy, a senior lecturer in modern Chinese history at the University of Sydney, said he was worried about the threat to transnational activism.

悉尼大學(xué)(University of Sydney)中國(guó)現(xiàn)代史高級(jí)講師戴維·布羅菲(David Brophy)說(shuō)，他擔(dān)心新法律會(huì)威脅跨國(guó)活動(dòng)人士。

“Much of the discussion around the laws has centered on the need to defend our democracy against Chinese influence,” he said. “But ironically, someone collaborating with democracy activists in China to organize rallies in Australia could find themselves facing prosecution for illegal foreign interference.”

“有關(guān)這些法律的討論大都集中在保護(hù)我們的民主制度不受中國(guó)影響這個(gè)需求上，”他說(shuō)。“但具有諷刺意味的是，如果有人與中國(guó)的民主活動(dòng)人士合作，在澳大利亞組織集會(huì)的話，他們可能會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己因外國(guó)干涉罪而受到起訴。”

Elaine Pearson, Australia director at Human Rights Watch, said the laws also still included severe punishments for sharing classified information, including several years in prison, which “will have a chilling effect on disclosures.”

人權(quán)觀察組織(Human Rights Watch)的澳大利亞負(fù)責(zé)人伊萊恩·皮爾森(Elaine Pearson)說(shuō)，這些法律還包括對(duì)分享機(jī)密信息行為的嚴(yán)厲懲罰，包括數(shù)年的監(jiān)禁，這“將對(duì)信息披露產(chǎn)生寒蟬效應(yīng)”。

“The problem remains that the definition of national security is overly broad,” she said, “and includes the political, military and economic interests with other countries.”

“現(xiàn)有的問(wèn)題是，國(guó)家安全的定義過(guò)于寬泛，”她說(shuō)，“把與他國(guó)有關(guān)的政治、軍事和經(jīng)濟(jì)利益都包括了進(jìn)來(lái)。”

The next challenge for Australia will be enforcement. The new laws contain a “notice regime” that allows the attorney general to unilaterally name individuals as foreign agents without due process.

澳大利亞面臨的下一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)將是新法律的執(zhí)法。新法律包含一個(gè)“通知規(guī)則”，允許司法部長(zhǎng)在不采取正當(dāng)程序的情況下單方面地把某人列為外國(guó)代理人。

That means Mr. Porter is likely to face pressure to add several wealthy Chinese-born businessmen whose political donations started the Australian debate about Chinese influence last year.

這意味著波特可能面臨著把幾個(gè)富有的、在中國(guó)出生的商人列上名單的壓力，這些商人的政治捐款開啟了去年澳大利亞就中國(guó)影響問(wèn)題的辯論。

Many of them, including Chau Chak Wing, an Australian citizen and well-known political donor, have denied links to the Communist Party of China.

他們中的許多人，包括澳大利亞公民、有名的政治捐款者周澤榮(Chau Chak Wing)在內(nèi)，都否認(rèn)自己與中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨有關(guān)系。

Will the attorney general add them anyway?

司法部長(zhǎng)仍會(huì)把他們列入名單嗎?

“The first prosecutions under the new anti-interference laws are now keenly anticipated,” said Clive Hamilton, the author of a recent book about Chinese interference, “Silent Invasion.” “I expect we will all be surprised at what the authorities reveal.”

“現(xiàn)在備受期待的是用新的反干涉法提起的首批訴訟，”克萊夫·漢密爾頓(Clive Hamilton)說(shuō)，他是最近出版的關(guān)于中國(guó)干涉的書《無(wú)聲的侵略》(Silent Invasion)的作者。“我預(yù)計(jì)，當(dāng)局公布的消息將會(huì)讓我們所有的人吃驚。”

Speaking from Germany, one of several countries he has visited to discuss Chinese interference, Mr. Hamilton added: “Australia is now leading the world in measures to respond to foreign interference in democratic processes, and our response is being watched closely by other nations.”

漢密爾頓說(shuō)此番話時(shí)人在德國(guó)，他為討論中國(guó)干涉問(wèn)題訪問(wèn)了包括德國(guó)在內(nèi)的一些國(guó)家，他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)，“澳大利亞在應(yīng)對(duì)外國(guó)干預(yù)民主進(jìn)程上目前處于世界領(lǐng)先地位，我們的反應(yīng)正受到其他國(guó)家的密切關(guān)注。”

But Stephen FitzGerald, Australia’s first ambassador to China, said that the Australian government may not yet realize the complexity of what it has taken on.

但澳大利亞的首任駐華大使斯蒂芬·菲茨杰拉德(Stephen FitzGerald)說(shuō)，澳大利亞政府可能尚未意識(shí)到自己正在采取的措施的復(fù)雜性。

“I think it is going to be tricky,” he said. Policing foreign influence is always complicated, he said, but “we don’t have a bill of rights in Australia. Governments have consistently rejected the idea, saying we have enough checks and balances in the system.”

“我認(rèn)為這將會(huì)很微妙，”他說(shuō)。對(duì)外國(guó)影響進(jìn)行監(jiān)管永遠(yuǎn)是復(fù)雜的事情，他說(shuō)，但“澳大利亞沒有權(quán)利法案。各屆政府一直拒絕考慮權(quán)利法案，他們說(shuō)，我們的體制中有足夠的制約與平衡。”

Australians may soon see, he said, whether those governments were right.

澳大利亞人可能很快會(huì)知道那些政府正確與否，他說(shuō)。