Untitled Document

　　雖然是為了美國在亞太地區的利益，可是美國媒體民眾支持台灣，絕不是著眼利益因素，而在於民主台灣的政權和平轉移。

　　美國宣佈賣武器給台灣，乃居於中國與台灣的武力平衡考量，雖然在柴油潛水艇方面，尚未得到荷蘭、德國的互應，這是美國與歐盟之間有著NMD的爭執所致。

　　請參考英文報導：

2001.04.25／BBC NEWS　　

　　Plans by US President George W Bush to sell weapons including eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan have received an embarrassing setback at the hands of European governments.

　　Neither the Germans nor the Dutch, who have sown up the market in diesel submarines, are willing to allow the sale of the subs to Taiwan.

　　That leaves Mr Bush in the unusual position of having promised to sell technology his country does not control, and may have difficulty supplying.

　　US Government officials implied recently that the Germans or the Dutch may be able to supply the controversial subs.

　　However Juergen Rohweder, a spokesman for the German shipbuilders, HDV, told the BBC: "We have not been asked by the US or the Taiwanese Governments to sell the submarines."

　　He admitted the company would like a share of the $1.1bn deal, but "the German Government rules are clear," he said: "It's not allowed."

　　Michael Steiner, senior foreign policy adviser to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, was equally categorical.

　　"No application has been made and it would never be approved," he said.

　　German and Dutch rules forbid arms exports to regions in crisis, and few relationships are as tense as that between China and Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province.

　　布希發表軍售項目之後，於4月25日接受ABC所屬的美國早安訪問，更打破美國20年來對台的模糊政策，明確要不惜一切代價保護台灣，不受中共武力攻擊，他的直率反應，可以想像布希總統累積已久的戰略構想，亦是直接反射美國人對台灣長期受中共打壓的印象。在下列英文稿中，亦有反對的聲音，麻州民主黨參議員John F. Kerry 就認為，布希放棄糢糊政策會導致美中關係的尖銳化，他反問，如果台灣主動攻擊中共，是否亦要派軍參戰？

　　請參考英文報導：

April 26, 2001

Bush Tells Beijing the U.S. Is Ready to Defend Taiwan

By DAVID E. SANGER

　　LITTLE ROCK, Ark., April 25

　　President Bush, offering a more explicit commitment to Taiwan than his recent predecessors, said in a television interview broadcast today that if the island came under attack from China, he would order "whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself.

　　Mr. Bush did not go so far as to say he would send American forces into battle with China. During his presidential campaign, however, he questioned the wisdom of the policy of maintaining "strategic ambiguity" about how the United States would react if hostilities broke out across the Taiwan Strait, and said repeatedly that, in contrast, his administration would be "clear about Taiwan."

　　While the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to help Taiwan defend itself, presidents have deliberately kept vague how they would respond in the case of an armed conflict. The policy was designed so as not to encourage Taiwan to be bolder in its own statements, and to contain the political factions on the island that have argued for declaring independence, a move China says would prompt an armed response.

　　Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China, Mr. Bush replied: "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would."

　　The interviewer, Charlie Gibson, pressed further, asking, "With the full force of American military?"

　　Mr. Bush said, "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself." He did not elaborate.

　　Mr. Bush's comments seemed to trigger some confusion on Capitol Hill and among China experts over what the president meant and what signal he was sending to Taiwan. But his aides said tonight he had chosen his words quite carefully.

　　Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who traveled here with Mr. Bush for a Republican fund-raising event, said tonight that he was not changing policy. But she made clear that he was deliberate in his choice of words. "What he said clearly is how seriously and resolutely he takes this obligation," she said. "A secure Taiwan will be better able to engage in a cross-straits dialogue."

　　The Taiwan Relations Act says: The president is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The president and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.

　　Mr. Bush's statement was part of what his aides say is a "rebalancing" of American policy away from Beijing ?where Mr. Bush's aides believe President Clinton veered ?and back toward Taiwan.

　　That is bound to gratify the conservative wing of his party, which has grumbled that his arms sales to Taiwan on Tuesday should have included the sophisticated Aegis radar system. It is also sure to further inflame Beijing. In that regard, it seemed similar to his statements about North Korea in the first weeks of his presidency, when he appeared to turn his back on missile talks that President Clinton had begun, to the discomfort of South Korea's president, Kim Dae Jung, and take a harder line toward the Communist regime in Pyongyang. Those comments essentially froze peace talks between North and South Korea.

　　Earlier today, Chinese officials denounced Mr. Bush's decision to sell destroyers, submarines, helicopters and other military hardware to Taiwan even though the Aegis had been excluded from the list. Admr. Joseph W. Prueher, the American ambassador to Beijing, was summoned by the deputy foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, and according to state television was asked to tell Mr. Bush to "immediately withdraw this mistaken decision and stop selling arms to Taiwan to avoid new grave damage to China-U.S. relations."

　　Mr. Bush's statements about Taiwan came in the course of a series of television interviews marking the approach of his 100th day in office. The interviews were taped at the White House on Tuesday, though they were broadcast just before Mr. Bush came here for a rally in support of his tax plan and his budget.

　　Within hours of the broadcast the State Department said there had been no change in the American policy. "Our policy hasn't changed today, it didn't change yesterday, and it didn't change last year, it hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since 1979 with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act," Philip T. Reeker, a State Department spokesman, told reporters today. "And the president was very clear on our position, and I think he reiterated what we've always said."

　　But to many of Mr. Bush's own aides and allies, his statement today sounded much like what George W. Bush the candidate had said, but not what past presidents including his father or American diplomats had said in carefully worded statements.

　　Until now, the essence of American policy has been to keep the peace by keeping both sides guessing. Presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have wanted Beijing to believe that the United States would defend Taiwan, but also to leave Taiwan wondering about the extent of that commitment. Washington has always feared that if the Taiwanese believed the American commitment to their security was ironclad, they would be emboldened in their dealings with Beijing, perhaps to the point of provoking a conflict.

　　But Mr. Bush's advisers during the campaign said they viewed that policy as outmoded. Taiwan is now a full-fledged democracy, they said, and has elected a longtime opposition leader as the president. Moreover, they argued that Beijing's military buildup in recent years made it imperative for Washington to be more explicit about supporting the island.

　　Outside experts on China and Asia policy said that while Mr. Bush has changed the language, he may not have changed the understanding of both sides about how the United States would react.

　　"He covered both sides of the argument," said Richard H. Solomon, president of the United States Institute of Peace, and a longtime Republican foreign policy adviser, though he has not advised this White House.

　　"He said we'll defend Taiwan, but he doesn't want Taiwan to precipitate a crisis," said Mr. Solomon, referring to comments Mr. Bush made in an interview with CNN today.

　　Mr. Solomon noted that "the big issue that's not being discussed is whether Taiwan is to be dealt with as a military or a political problem." President Nixon, he noted, had converted the Taiwaproblemn issue to a political question when he opened up relations with Beijing. Mao said at that time that Taiwan was a long-term problem, taking the immediacy out of the issue of how it might reunify with China.

　　But during Mr. Clinton's term, the conflict became remilitarized. President Jiang Zemin made it clear, during Taiwan's 1996 presidential election, that China would not wait indefinitely, and triggered a crisis by conducting military tests off Taiwan's coast. Mr. Clinton sent two carriers into the area, though not directly into the Taiwan Strait, as a show of resolve. China backed off.

　　Mr. Bush's comments triggered an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill. Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is considered a possible presidential contender in 2004, took to the Senate floor this afternoon to speak out against Mr. Bush's comment on Taiwan.

　　"If what the president said is in fact what he means or if it is indeed the new policy of the United States, it has profound implications for our country," Mr. Kerry said. "He made a far-reaching comment this morning on the American defense of Taiwan, a comment that suggests that without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, that a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now being changed with implications that I believe are serious."

　　Mr. Kerry said that the United States had never said what it would do if Beijing tried to use force to reclaim Taiwan because "we understood the danger of doing so."

　　He said that if Mr. Bush had decided to abandon the "so-called strategic ambiguity," it was a "major policy change" that "serves neither our interest nor Taiwan's."

　　Mr. Kerry noted that any situation that resulted in the use of force across the Taiwan Strait was unlikely to be black and white. "For example, if China attacked in response to what it sees as a Taiwanese provocation would we then respond?" he asked. "Apparently so, according to President Bush."

　　Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat and member of the International Relations Committee, said that Mr. Bush had apparently confused a policy of providing Taiwan with defensive weapons with a broader defense commitment.

　　"Has this become a unilateral defense treaty?" Mr. Ackerman asked. " `Whatever it takes' means you will do anything to defend Taiwan," Mr. Ackerman said. "Does it mean that if Taiwan attacks China, we are at war with China?"

　　事實上，台灣不可能主動挑起台海之戰是人盡皆知的道理，此位仁兄竟然忘了中共坐大的事實，乃因為美國對中共大幅容忍所引起，今日之中共能壯大，亦是美國於中共建交之後的發酵，台灣受到矮化，亦是美中的熱流，引發台灣外交上的孤立。

　　三十年來台灣還能自立自強，峙立亞洲民主國的典範，這種傲人的成績，的確值得讓布希政府重新考慮台美政策。


		Chapter ３２
		台灣的民主改革成為美國支持台灣的最大動力


		雖然是為了美國在亞太地區的利益，可是美國媒體民眾支持台灣，絕不是著眼利益因素，而在於民主台灣的政權和平轉移。　　美國宣佈賣武器給台灣，乃居於中國與台灣的武力平衡考量，雖然在柴油潛水艇方面，尚未得到荷蘭、德國的互應，這是美國與歐盟之間有著NMD的爭執所致。　　請參考英文報導： 2001.04.25／BBC NEWS　　　　Plans by US President George W Bush to sell weapons including eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan have received an embarrassing setback at the hands of European governments. 　　Neither the Germans nor the Dutch, who have sown up the market in diesel submarines, are willing to allow the sale of the subs to Taiwan. 　　That leaves Mr Bush in the unusual position of having promised to sell technology his country does not control, and may have difficulty supplying. 　　US Government officials implied recently that the Germans or the Dutch may be able to supply the controversial subs. 　　However Juergen Rohweder, a spokesman for the German shipbuilders, HDV, told the BBC: "We have not been asked by the US or the Taiwanese Governments to sell the submarines." 　　He admitted the company would like a share of the $1.1bn deal, but "the German Government rules are clear," he said: "It's not allowed." 　　Michael Steiner, senior foreign policy adviser to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, was equally categorical. 　　"No application has been made and it would never be approved," he said. 　　German and Dutch rules forbid arms exports to regions in crisis, and few relationships are as tense as that between China and Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province. 　　布希發表軍售項目之後，於4月25日接受ABC所屬的美國早安訪問，更打破美國20年來對台的模糊政策，明確要不惜一切代價保護台灣，不受中共武力攻擊，他的直率反應，可以想像布希總統累積已久的戰略構想，亦是直接反射美國人對台灣長期受中共打壓的印象。在下列英文稿中，亦有反對的聲音，麻州民主黨參議員John F. Kerry 就認為，布希放棄糢糊政策會導致美中關係的尖銳化，他反問，如果台灣主動攻擊中共，是否亦要派軍參戰？　　請參考英文報導： April 26, 2001 Bush Tells Beijing the U.S. Is Ready to Defend Taiwan By DAVID E. SANGER 　　LITTLE ROCK, Ark., April 25 　　President Bush, offering a more explicit commitment to Taiwan than his recent predecessors, said in a television interview broadcast today that if the island came under attack from China, he would order "whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself. 　　Mr. Bush did not go so far as to say he would send American forces into battle with China. During his presidential campaign, however, he questioned the wisdom of the policy of maintaining "strategic ambiguity" about how the United States would react if hostilities broke out across the Taiwan Strait, and said repeatedly that, in contrast, his administration would be "clear about Taiwan." 　　While the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to help Taiwan defend itself, presidents have deliberately kept vague how they would respond in the case of an armed conflict. The policy was designed so as not to encourage Taiwan to be bolder in its own statements, and to contain the political factions on the island that have argued for declaring independence, a move China says would prompt an armed response. 　　Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China, Mr. Bush replied: "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would." 　　The interviewer, Charlie Gibson, pressed further, asking, "With the full force of American military?" 　　Mr. Bush said, "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself." He did not elaborate. 　　Mr. Bush's comments seemed to trigger some confusion on Capitol Hill and among China experts over what the president meant and what signal he was sending to Taiwan. But his aides said tonight he had chosen his words quite carefully. 　　Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who traveled here with Mr. Bush for a Republican fund-raising event, said tonight that he was not changing policy. But she made clear that he was deliberate in his choice of words. "What he said clearly is how seriously and resolutely he takes this obligation," she said. "A secure Taiwan will be better able to engage in a cross-straits dialogue." 　　The Taiwan Relations Act says: The president is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The president and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger. 　　Mr. Bush's statement was part of what his aides say is a "rebalancing" of American policy away from Beijing ?where Mr. Bush's aides believe President Clinton veered ?and back toward Taiwan. 　　That is bound to gratify the conservative wing of his party, which has grumbled that his arms sales to Taiwan on Tuesday should have included the sophisticated Aegis radar system. It is also sure to further inflame Beijing. In that regard, it seemed similar to his statements about North Korea in the first weeks of his presidency, when he appeared to turn his back on missile talks that President Clinton had begun, to the discomfort of South Korea's president, Kim Dae Jung, and take a harder line toward the Communist regime in Pyongyang. Those comments essentially froze peace talks between North and South Korea. 　　Earlier today, Chinese officials denounced Mr. Bush's decision to sell destroyers, submarines, helicopters and other military hardware to Taiwan even though the Aegis had been excluded from the list. Admr. Joseph W. Prueher, the American ambassador to Beijing, was summoned by the deputy foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, and according to state television was asked to tell Mr. Bush to "immediately withdraw this mistaken decision and stop selling arms to Taiwan to avoid new grave damage to China-U.S. relations." 　　Mr. Bush's statements about Taiwan came in the course of a series of television interviews marking the approach of his 100th day in office. The interviews were taped at the White House on Tuesday, though they were broadcast just before Mr. Bush came here for a rally in support of his tax plan and his budget. 　　Within hours of the broadcast the State Department said there had been no change in the American policy. "Our policy hasn't changed today, it didn't change yesterday, and it didn't change last year, it hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since 1979 with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act," Philip T. Reeker, a State Department spokesman, told reporters today. "And the president was very clear on our position, and I think he reiterated what we've always said." 　　But to many of Mr. Bush's own aides and allies, his statement today sounded much like what George W. Bush the candidate had said, but not what past presidents including his father or American diplomats had said in carefully worded statements. 　　Until now, the essence of American policy has been to keep the peace by keeping both sides guessing. Presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have wanted Beijing to believe that the United States would defend Taiwan, but also to leave Taiwan wondering about the extent of that commitment. Washington has always feared that if the Taiwanese believed the American commitment to their security was ironclad, they would be emboldened in their dealings with Beijing, perhaps to the point of provoking a conflict. 　　But Mr. Bush's advisers during the campaign said they viewed that policy as outmoded. Taiwan is now a full-fledged democracy, they said, and has elected a longtime opposition leader as the president. Moreover, they argued that Beijing's military buildup in recent years made it imperative for Washington to be more explicit about supporting the island. 　　Outside experts on China and Asia policy said that while Mr. Bush has changed the language, he may not have changed the understanding of both sides about how the United States would react. 　　"He covered both sides of the argument," said Richard H. Solomon, president of the United States Institute of Peace, and a longtime Republican foreign policy adviser, though he has not advised this White House. 　　"He said we'll defend Taiwan, but he doesn't want Taiwan to precipitate a crisis," said Mr. Solomon, referring to comments Mr. Bush made in an interview with CNN today. 　　Mr. Solomon noted that "the big issue that's not being discussed is whether Taiwan is to be dealt with as a military or a political problem." President Nixon, he noted, had converted the Taiwaproblemn issue to a political question when he opened up relations with Beijing. Mao said at that time that Taiwan was a long-term problem, taking the immediacy out of the issue of how it might reunify with China. 　　But during Mr. Clinton's term, the conflict became remilitarized. President Jiang Zemin made it clear, during Taiwan's 1996 presidential election, that China would not wait indefinitely, and triggered a crisis by conducting military tests off Taiwan's coast. Mr. Clinton sent two carriers into the area, though not directly into the Taiwan Strait, as a show of resolve. China backed off. 　　Mr. Bush's comments triggered an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill. Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is considered a possible presidential contender in 2004, took to the Senate floor this afternoon to speak out against Mr. Bush's comment on Taiwan. 　　"If what the president said is in fact what he means or if it is indeed the new policy of the United States, it has profound implications for our country," Mr. Kerry said. "He made a far-reaching comment this morning on the American defense of Taiwan, a comment that suggests that without any consultation with Congress, without any prior notice to the Congress, that a policy that has been in place for 30 years is now being changed with implications that I believe are serious." 　　Mr. Kerry said that the United States had never said what it would do if Beijing tried to use force to reclaim Taiwan because "we understood the danger of doing so." 　　He said that if Mr. Bush had decided to abandon the "so-called strategic ambiguity," it was a "major policy change" that "serves neither our interest nor Taiwan's." 　　Mr. Kerry noted that any situation that resulted in the use of force across the Taiwan Strait was unlikely to be black and white. "For example, if China attacked in response to what it sees as a Taiwanese provocation would we then respond?" he asked. "Apparently so, according to President Bush." 　　Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat and member of the International Relations Committee, said that Mr. Bush had apparently confused a policy of providing Taiwan with defensive weapons with a broader defense commitment. 　　"Has this become a unilateral defense treaty?" Mr. Ackerman asked. " `Whatever it takes' means you will do anything to defend Taiwan," Mr. Ackerman said. "Does it mean that if Taiwan attacks China, we are at war with China?" 　　事實上，台灣不可能主動挑起台海之戰是人盡皆知的道理，此位仁兄竟然忘了中共坐大的事實，乃因為美國對中共大幅容忍所引起，今日之中共能壯大，亦是美國於中共建交之後的發酵，台灣受到矮化，亦是美中的熱流，引發台灣外交上的孤立。　　三十年來台灣還能自立自強，峙立亞洲民主國的典範，這種傲人的成績，的確值得讓布希政府重新考慮台美政策。