Untitled Document

　　於 2001 April 13 的紐約時報報導，覺得很有意義，亦值得大家來深思，我給內容的重點做敘述，以提供各位參考。

　　由最近的撞機事件，美國政府應該得到教訓：
(一)應付中共必須運用正負、雙向的手段。
(二)美中關係本來就是一種傳承的敵對狀態。
(三)中共經常性的反應，已經是慣例。

　　再則美中處於穩定與不穩定的狀況，其中兩個穩定因素為：
(A) 中共依靠美國甚多，包括貿易、高科技、消費龐大的市場需求。
(B) 中共對寄望美國的持續支持，包括WTO後的千億美元商機、2008年奧運同意權與在美國就讀的五萬四千員中國留學生。

　　專欄作家 THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 就認為中共留機放人是因為人道理由的說法，讓人笑掉大牙，事實上，中共此刻尚不想得罪美國。

　　另外不穩定的因素為：
(A) 中共領導階層有非時之交替，權利內鬥的情形難料。
(B) 中共新興的大中國民族意識，會是可怕的力量。　
(C) 中共對台灣的威脅，並未稍減。

　　他特別強調，台灣確實是美國式的民主國家，其軍事、經濟、政治的獨立性不容懷疑，美國亦有保護台灣的使命，但是台灣面對中共的要求，亦要能勇於思考解決之道，中共近來較能彈性的看待台灣，台灣要存異求同。

　　他在結論就明白指出，中共領導居於不安全感，可能會有不理性的行動，要取得真正的美中和平認定，美國必須盡一切力量，無時無刻，隨時隨地，善於運用雙方的互動，逐漸改變中共的專制集權統治，行開放合法的多黨政治，並擔負其國際和平的責任，以減緩對鄰國的威嚇，他預估，如果中美雙方打仗，絕對是全球的厄夢，其結果會是兩敗俱傷，而生靈塗炭。　

One Nation, 3 Lessons

So what are the lessons from this latest China-U.S. crisis? They are: (1) When dealing with China, carry a big stick and a big dictionary. (2) This is an inherently unstable relationship. (3) Get used to it ?it's going to be this way for a long time.

Let's start with Lesson 2, because it's the crux of the matter. We learn from this incident that the U.S.-China relationship has within it two highly stabilizing and two highly destabilizing elements, and the future will be shaped by the balance between them.

The two stabilizing elements are China's economic dependence on U.S. trade, technology transfers and the American market, and China's more general, but steady, integration into the world. When China's foreign minister declared that China was releasing the U.S. surveillance plane's crew for "humanitarian reasons," I burst out laughing. One thing the Chinese are expert at is calculating their interests. And they had clearly calculated that dragging this affair on another day could imperil China's entry into the World Trade Organization, its $100 billion in trade with the U.S., its application to be host to the 2008 Summer Olympics, its 54,000 students studying in America, etc. etc.

These things matter. They matter to a regime whose Communist ideology is largely defunct and whose only basis of legitimacy is its ability to keep incomes rising. And they matter deeply to the people of China, who see themselves as a rising power and want to be accepted as such. The more China is integrated with the global economy and international rules-based systems like the W.T.O., the more these will be a source of restraint on the regime.

But they are not foolproof, because these stabilizing elements in the relationship are counterbalanced by two highly destabilizing ones: the authoritarian character of the Chinese regime, and China's rising popular nationalism and unquenchable aspiration to absorb Taiwan into one China.

Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake. That's why you need a big stick and big dictionary when dealing with them. The idea that a slow-moving, propeller-driven surveillance plane, flying on autopilot, rammed into a Chinese fighter jet is ludicrous. But since China's leaders lacked the self-confidence to admit this, the Bush team wisely found a way to apologize without really apologizing.

The same tools need to be applied to Taiwan. Taiwan's character ?the fact that it is a country that has built itself in America's image, economically and politically ?mandates that we defend it. We cannot shirk that responsibility. But Taiwan's history and geography mandate that Taiwan find a way to accommodate with mainland China ?without sacrificing its de facto independence or character. China has actually shown a lot of flexibility in proposing different formulas lately, and Taiwan needs to respond. Pass the dictionary.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize here, folks. Those voices in the U.S. now calling for America to "stick it to China" and to "teach them a lesson" sound as silly as the China People's Daily hectoring America. China is a unique problem. It represents one-fifth of humanity. It threatens us as much by its weaknesses as by its strengths. We may be doomed to a cold war with China, but it is not something we should court. A cold war with Russia, a country that made tractors that were more valuable as scrap steel and TV's that blew up when you turned them on, was one thing.

A cold war with one- fifth of humanity, with an economy growing at 10 percent a year, is another. At the same time, trying to collapse the Chinese regime overnight would produce a degree of chaos among one-fifth of the world's inhabitants that would affect everything from the air we breathe to the cost of the clothes we wear to the value of our currency.

Our strategy toward China needs to remain exactly as it was: Build bridges to China everywhere possible, because they have clearly become a source of restraint on the regime; and draw red lines everywhere necessary, because China's rising nationalism and insecure leadership can produce irrational behavior that overrides all other interests. Do this, and hope that over time China continues, as it slowly has been, becoming a more open, legalized, pluralistic society, with a government more responsive, and less threatening, to its people and neighbors. Lurching to any other extremes with China would be utterly, utterly foolhardy.

　　台灣必須彈性因應來自中共的壓力，而行使正反雙向的不確定方式，最重要的是台灣內部要團結，以民主台灣人為榮，也許台灣景氣不振，但是台灣比之中共，就顯得自然可親，軍武勢力的足以抗衡中共突來的攻擊，則是急急第一要務。

　　引述自由電子報於2001 April 5 的報導，亦甚為可取，其文如下：

　　美國ＥＰ─３偵察機與中國殲八戰鬥機四月一日在南海海域碰撞，造成一架殲八戰鬥機失蹤，美國偵察機隨後也緊急迫降中國海南陵水軍用機場，偵察機與機上二十四名人員都遭到中國滯留。　

　　這起軍機碰撞發生以來，隨著中美雙方各執一詞，隔空喊話日趨強硬，台灣的戰略價值也跟著受到重視。許多國會議員、智庫、媒體都從這起軍機碰撞及後續發展中看到，中國威脅的確不是一個虛構的理論，而是已經存在的現實，因此對於首當其衝的台灣格外重視。昨天，一百餘名美國國會議員致函布希總統，除了支持售台紀德級驅逐艦之外也要求出售神盾級驅逐艦給台灣。先前，美國太平洋艦隊官員所撰寫的一份機密報告，也指出美國應出售包括神盾級驅逐艦在內的先進武器給台灣，以因應中國不斷增強的武力。　

　　多位美國智庫研究員昨天也根據實際分析建議，布希政府應當採取更加放寬的軍售台灣政策，要避免台灣遭到中國武力威脅，現在就必須加強台灣的防禦能力。一位最近曾來台訪問的研究員指出，他發現台海軍事平衡已經傾向對中國有利，台灣需要美國提供許多軍事硬體和軟體，以防禦中國的軍事攻擊。華盛頓郵報還在針對軍機碰撞的社論中表示，布希政府正在考量台灣提出的採購武器清單，中國當然會反對任何美國對台軍售，但實在很難想像提供台灣防禦能力，對十三億人口的中國何能構成威脅？　

　　以上國會議員、智庫、媒體所表達的種種觀點，其實從來就是如此，只不過日前發生中美軍機碰撞，中國的強硬態度讓他們備覺向來擔憂的情況更加不容輕忽，而勇於在中美摩擦升高之際、台美軍售會議之前，大聲疾呼布希政府重視台灣的防禦需求。他們為何如此重視台灣？一言以蔽之，就是台灣固有的地緣戰略價值，以及近年來加速民主改革所創造的民主戰略價值，完全符合美國在內的所有民主陣營的共同利益。特別是後者，堅定支持民主台灣的主權地位不受中國武力威脅，就是有力反制中國專制政權對區域穩定和國際和平的威脅。　

　　凡是有基本常識的人都能看出，近來轉向正面的國家外部環境，是台灣在致力發展產經、鞏固民主政治的同時，必須倍加珍惜的國家總體戰略優勢。不過，過去一年期間，少數親中人士和紅頂商人為了自己的政經利益，不惜施壓政府走到與台灣長遠利益背道而馳的方向，而部分政府官員也被其不一而足的論調蠱惑，不事挽救產業凋敝、經濟衰退，反而在推動三通、鬆綁戒急用忍、追求一中共識上面白費工夫，施政作為偏離了最有利於台灣生存與發展的正途。結果，不到一年的短短時間內，台灣居然出現了政經逐漸向中國傾斜的現象，連美國智庫、日本人士都公開對此提出警告！　

　　在此期間，有些蓄意與新政府唱反調的在野人士，為了虛張自己的聲勢竟然頻出下策，與中國當局一搭一唱鼓吹一個中國原則，完全不顧台灣的主權尊嚴和二千三百萬人民的福祉。甚而，在江澤民蠻橫宣稱一國兩制是台灣唯一的選擇之後，還一廂情願地賣力推銷九二共識。另外，更有在野立委三不五時組團赴北京朝貢，以獲得中國領導人接見而沾沾自喜，而不用心於探究台灣經濟危機的根源所在，致力於改善投資環境與解決失業問題。這幾天，某在野黨在北京的立委訪問團，似乎對中美軍機碰撞所牽動的國家情勢正面轉向渾然無知，在北京向中國官員卑躬屈膝地探問，中國過去所說統一後中國人不到台灣當官、台灣人可以到中國當官的話是否依舊有效？我們實在想問，立委如此喪權辱國，是否也應交由立法院的紀律委員會嚴予議處？而先前該黨領導人不顧中國積極擴張軍備，批評美國軍售台灣會引起軍備競賽，難道是為了準備到中國去當官？　

　　布希政府上台之後，新政策明顯從傾斜中國轉向支持台灣，中美軍機碰撞的發展可望催化這種趨勢。我們相信，政府當局應能洞悉這種大勢所趨。此時此刻，政府當局除了審慎因應中美軍事、外交的可能發展之外，首要之務當是儘速扭轉過去一年政經向中國傾斜的趨勢，包括莫再無視中國威脅白費心思於推動三通、鬆綁戒急用忍、追求一中共識。我們尤其以為，在台灣的主權地位與戰略價值同受重視之際，政府當局應當掌握時機，將奄奄一息的產業和岌岌可危的經濟從根救起，從而徹底解決益形嚴重的失業問題，以強化台灣的自主能力。　

　　「台灣優先」不是一句口號。半個多世紀以來，台灣生存與發展的根基所在，一是扮演民主陣營堅定捍衛和平前線的角色，二是全力發展產經厚植國力以維護自主地位。前總統李登輝執政期間，就是充分實現了這兩項原則，奠定「台灣優先」的穩固基礎。如今，中美關係介於攤牌與洗牌之間，台灣再一次站在考驗與機會的十字路口，「台灣優先」會向上提升還是向下沉淪，端看政府當局能否正確掌握主流民意，善加運用國際形勢，為所當為，不為所不當為。


		Chapter １８
		台灣的戰略重點在於足以捍衛台灣民主


		於 2001 April 13 的紐約時報報導，覺得很有意義，亦值得大家來深思，我給內容的重點做敘述，以提供各位參考。　　由最近的撞機事件，美國政府應該得到教訓： (一)應付中共必須運用正負、雙向的手段。 (二)美中關係本來就是一種傳承的敵對狀態。 (三)中共經常性的反應，已經是慣例。　　再則美中處於穩定與不穩定的狀況，其中兩個穩定因素為： (A) 中共依靠美國甚多，包括貿易、高科技、消費龐大的市場需求。 (B) 中共對寄望美國的持續支持，包括WTO後的千億美元商機、2008年奧運同意權與在美國就讀的五萬四千員中國留學生。　　專欄作家 THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 就認為中共留機放人是因為人道理由的說法，讓人笑掉大牙，事實上，中共此刻尚不想得罪美國。　　另外不穩定的因素為： (A) 中共領導階層有非時之交替，權利內鬥的情形難料。 (B) 中共新興的大中國民族意識，會是可怕的力量。　 (C) 中共對台灣的威脅，並未稍減。　　他特別強調，台灣確實是美國式的民主國家，其軍事、經濟、政治的獨立性不容懷疑，美國亦有保護台灣的使命，但是台灣面對中共的要求，亦要能勇於思考解決之道，中共近來較能彈性的看待台灣，台灣要存異求同。　　他在結論就明白指出，中共領導居於不安全感，可能會有不理性的行動，要取得真正的美中和平認定，美國必須盡一切力量，無時無刻，隨時隨地，善於運用雙方的互動，逐漸改變中共的專制集權統治，行開放合法的多黨政治，並擔負其國際和平的責任，以減緩對鄰國的威嚇，他預估，如果中美雙方打仗，絕對是全球的厄夢，其結果會是兩敗俱傷，而生靈塗炭。　　　 One Nation, 3 Lessons April 13, 2001 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN So what are the lessons from this latest China-U.S. crisis? They are: (1) When dealing with China, carry a big stick and a big dictionary. (2) This is an inherently unstable relationship. (3) Get used to it ?it's going to be this way for a long time. Let's start with Lesson 2, because it's the crux of the matter. We learn from this incident that the U.S.-China relationship has within it two highly stabilizing and two highly destabilizing elements, and the future will be shaped by the balance between them. The two stabilizing elements are China's economic dependence on U.S. trade, technology transfers and the American market, and China's more general, but steady, integration into the world. When China's foreign minister declared that China was releasing the U.S. surveillance plane's crew for "humanitarian reasons," I burst out laughing. One thing the Chinese are expert at is calculating their interests. And they had clearly calculated that dragging this affair on another day could imperil China's entry into the World Trade Organization, its $100 billion in trade with the U.S., its application to be host to the 2008 Summer Olympics, its 54,000 students studying in America, etc. etc. These things matter. They matter to a regime whose Communist ideology is largely defunct and whose only basis of legitimacy is its ability to keep incomes rising. And they matter deeply to the people of China, who see themselves as a rising power and want to be accepted as such. The more China is integrated with the global economy and international rules-based systems like the W.T.O., the more these will be a source of restraint on the regime. But they are not foolproof, because these stabilizing elements in the relationship are counterbalanced by two highly destabilizing ones: the authoritarian character of the Chinese regime, and China's rising popular nationalism and unquenchable aspiration to absorb Taiwan into one China. Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake. That's why you need a big stick and big dictionary when dealing with them. The idea that a slow-moving, propeller-driven surveillance plane, flying on autopilot, rammed into a Chinese fighter jet is ludicrous. But since China's leaders lacked the self-confidence to admit this, the Bush team wisely found a way to apologize without really apologizing. The same tools need to be applied to Taiwan. Taiwan's character ?the fact that it is a country that has built itself in America's image, economically and politically ?mandates that we defend it. We cannot shirk that responsibility. But Taiwan's history and geography mandate that Taiwan find a way to accommodate with mainland China ?without sacrificing its de facto independence or character. China has actually shown a lot of flexibility in proposing different formulas lately, and Taiwan needs to respond. Pass the dictionary. We need to keep our eyes on the prize here, folks. Those voices in the U.S. now calling for America to "stick it to China" and to "teach them a lesson" sound as silly as the China People's Daily hectoring America. China is a unique problem. It represents one-fifth of humanity. It threatens us as much by its weaknesses as by its strengths. We may be doomed to a cold war with China, but it is not something we should court. A cold war with Russia, a country that made tractors that were more valuable as scrap steel and TV's that blew up when you turned them on, was one thing. A cold war with one- fifth of humanity, with an economy growing at 10 percent a year, is another. At the same time, trying to collapse the Chinese regime overnight would produce a degree of chaos among one-fifth of the world's inhabitants that would affect everything from the air we breathe to the cost of the clothes we wear to the value of our currency. Our strategy toward China needs to remain exactly as it was: Build bridges to China everywhere possible, because they have clearly become a source of restraint on the regime; and draw red lines everywhere necessary, because China's rising nationalism and insecure leadership can produce irrational behavior that overrides all other interests. Do this, and hope that over time China continues, as it slowly has been, becoming a more open, legalized, pluralistic society, with a government more responsive, and less threatening, to its people and neighbors. Lurching to any other extremes with China would be utterly, utterly foolhardy. 　　台灣必須彈性因應來自中共的壓力，而行使正反雙向的不確定方式，最重要的是台灣內部要團結，以民主台灣人為榮，也許台灣景氣不振，但是台灣比之中共，就顯得自然可親，軍武勢力的足以抗衡中共突來的攻擊，則是急急第一要務。　　引述自由電子報於2001 April 5 的報導，亦甚為可取，其文如下： 90.04.05／自由電子新聞網　　美國ＥＰ─３偵察機與中國殲八戰鬥機四月一日在南海海域碰撞，造成一架殲八戰鬥機失蹤，美國偵察機隨後也緊急迫降中國海南陵水軍用機場，偵察機與機上二十四名人員都遭到中國滯留。　　　這起軍機碰撞發生以來，隨著中美雙方各執一詞，隔空喊話日趨強硬，台灣的戰略價值也跟著受到重視。許多國會議員、智庫、媒體都從這起軍機碰撞及後續發展中看到，中國威脅的確不是一個虛構的理論，而是已經存在的現實，因此對於首當其衝的台灣格外重視。昨天，一百餘名美國國會議員致函布希總統，除了支持售台紀德級驅逐艦之外也要求出售神盾級驅逐艦給台灣。先前，美國太平洋艦隊官員所撰寫的一份機密報告，也指出美國應出售包括神盾級驅逐艦在內的先進武器給台灣，以因應中國不斷增強的武力。　　　多位美國智庫研究員昨天也根據實際分析建議，布希政府應當採取更加放寬的軍售台灣政策，要避免台灣遭到中國武力威脅，現在就必須加強台灣的防禦能力。一位最近曾來台訪問的研究員指出，他發現台海軍事平衡已經傾向對中國有利，台灣需要美國提供許多軍事硬體和軟體，以防禦中國的軍事攻擊。華盛頓郵報還在針對軍機碰撞的社論中表示，布希政府正在考量台灣提出的採購武器清單，中國當然會反對任何美國對台軍售，但實在很難想像提供台灣防禦能力，對十三億人口的中國何能構成威脅？　　　以上國會議員、智庫、媒體所表達的種種觀點，其實從來就是如此，只不過日前發生中美軍機碰撞，中國的強硬態度讓他們備覺向來擔憂的情況更加不容輕忽，而勇於在中美摩擦升高之際、台美軍售會議之前，大聲疾呼布希政府重視台灣的防禦需求。他們為何如此重視台灣？一言以蔽之，就是台灣固有的地緣戰略價值，以及近年來加速民主改革所創造的民主戰略價值，完全符合美國在內的所有民主陣營的共同利益。特別是後者，堅定支持民主台灣的主權地位不受中國武力威脅，就是有力反制中國專制政權對區域穩定和國際和平的威脅。　　　凡是有基本常識的人都能看出，近來轉向正面的國家外部環境，是台灣在致力發展產經、鞏固民主政治的同時，必須倍加珍惜的國家總體戰略優勢。不過，過去一年期間，少數親中人士和紅頂商人為了自己的政經利益，不惜施壓政府走到與台灣長遠利益背道而馳的方向，而部分政府官員也被其不一而足的論調蠱惑，不事挽救產業凋敝、經濟衰退，反而在推動三通、鬆綁戒急用忍、追求一中共識上面白費工夫，施政作為偏離了最有利於台灣生存與發展的正途。結果，不到一年的短短時間內，台灣居然出現了政經逐漸向中國傾斜的現象，連美國智庫、日本人士都公開對此提出警告！　　　在此期間，有些蓄意與新政府唱反調的在野人士，為了虛張自己的聲勢竟然頻出下策，與中國當局一搭一唱鼓吹一個中國原則，完全不顧台灣的主權尊嚴和二千三百萬人民的福祉。甚而，在江澤民蠻橫宣稱一國兩制是台灣唯一的選擇之後，還一廂情願地賣力推銷九二共識。另外，更有在野立委三不五時組團赴北京朝貢，以獲得中國領導人接見而沾沾自喜，而不用心於探究台灣經濟危機的根源所在，致力於改善投資環境與解決失業問題。這幾天，某在野黨在北京的立委訪問團，似乎對中美軍機碰撞所牽動的國家情勢正面轉向渾然無知，在北京向中國官員卑躬屈膝地探問，中國過去所說統一後中國人不到台灣當官、台灣人可以到中國當官的話是否依舊有效？我們實在想問，立委如此喪權辱國，是否也應交由立法院的紀律委員會嚴予議處？而先前該黨領導人不顧中國積極擴張軍備，批評美國軍售台灣會引起軍備競賽，難道是為了準備到中國去當官？　　　布希政府上台之後，新政策明顯從傾斜中國轉向支持台灣，中美軍機碰撞的發展可望催化這種趨勢。我們相信，政府當局應能洞悉這種大勢所趨。此時此刻，政府當局除了審慎因應中美軍事、外交的可能發展之外，首要之務當是儘速扭轉過去一年政經向中國傾斜的趨勢，包括莫再無視中國威脅白費心思於推動三通、鬆綁戒急用忍、追求一中共識。我們尤其以為，在台灣的主權地位與戰略價值同受重視之際，政府當局應當掌握時機，將奄奄一息的產業和岌岌可危的經濟從根救起，從而徹底解決益形嚴重的失業問題，以強化台灣的自主能力。　　　「台灣優先」不是一句口號。半個多世紀以來，台灣生存與發展的根基所在，一是扮演民主陣營堅定捍衛和平前線的角色，二是全力發展產經厚植國力以維護自主地位。前總統李登輝執政期間，就是充分實現了這兩項原則，奠定「台灣優先」的穩固基礎。如今，中美關係介於攤牌與洗牌之間，台灣再一次站在考驗與機會的十字路口，「台灣優先」會向上提升還是向下沉淪，端看政府當局能否正確掌握主流民意，善加運用國際形勢，為所當為，不為所不當為。