網路城邦
回本城市首頁 往事曾經如此
市長:blackjack  副市長: juntruth
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【往事曾經如此】城市/討論區/
討論區時事評論 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
布希對台政策的微妙轉變
 瀏覽1,103|回應8推薦0

blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

還記得2001424時,布希說了「美國有義務協助台灣防禦,對於中國武力犯台,美國將「不計一切代價」協助台灣自我防禦」,如今卻變了?

 

看看本文末的報導「布希談兩岸:不能片面挑釁對方 美中關係複雜

這則報導很有意思,尤其在倫斯斐的談話之後。

 

我的看法是,這對倫斯斐之前的「中國威脅論」有「一點」平衡的作用,但看不出美國對兩岸政策有何改變。

 

但是,這是布希表明他替台灣協防的底線,即「中國片面侵略」(If China were to invade unilaterally, we would rise up in the spirit of Taiwan Relations Act.

 

但若台灣片面宣佈台獨呢?

 

it would be a unilateral decision that would then change the U.S. equation

既說台獨將改變美國維持均勢的態度,是否是說不會介入台海!

 

布希最後一句話很有意思!

 

time will heal this issue

 

時間站在誰那邊呢??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158960,00.html

CAVUTO: Do we still stand by an agreement, Mr. President, that if Taiwan is ever invaded, we will defense Taiwan?

BUSH: Yes, we do. It's called the Taiwan Relations Act (search). The policy of the U.S. government is this: We're for a One China policy based upon what they call the Three Communiqués, and that we adhere to the Taiwan Relations Act, which means this: Neither side will unilaterally change the status quo. In other words, neither side will make a decision that steps outside the bounds of that statement I just made to you. If China were to invade unilaterally, we would rise up in the spirit of Taiwan Relations Act. If Taiwan were to declare independence unilaterally, it would be a unilateral decision that would then change the U.S. equation.

My attitude is, is that time will heal this issue. And therefore we're trying to make sure that neither side provokes the other through unilateral action.

布希談兩岸:不能片面挑釁對方 美中關係複雜


華盛頓特派員張宗智/八日電

美國總統布希8日接受福斯電視網專訪時,用「複雜」 (complex) 形容美國與中國大陸的關係,並指兩岸問題得靠時間解決,兩岸任一方都不能片面使用武力或宣布獨立挑釁另一方,改變台海現狀。

繼日前美國國務卿賴斯形容美「中」關係「既大又複雜」後,布希在福斯新聞網「你的世界」節目專訪中,再次以複雜形容美「中」關係。

「(關係)它複雜,是因為雙方要在許多不同面向上彼此應對。」布希說,其中一項議題,就是美國的防禦部署態勢,但布希不願回應他是否信任中國大陸的問題,只說還得再看看。

布希並以人民幣匯率為例說,中國大陸會理解他們要對貨幣做點事,「時間會證明一切。」

節目主持人卡巫托問布希,如果台灣被入侵,美國是否會根據什麼協定,防禦台灣?布希說,「有!它叫台灣關係法。」

布希表示,美國政府的政策是基於三項公報的「一個中國」政策,此外美國也堅守台灣關係法,「這項政策意謂,兩岸任一方都不能片面改變現狀。」

「換言之,如果中國片面侵略(台灣),美國會依據台灣關係法的精神挺身而出。」布希說,如果台灣片面宣布獨立,「就是個會改變美國同等(equation)(看待兩岸關係)的片面決定。」

布希並說:「我的態度是,時間會彌合(兩岸)這項議題;因此,美國會試著確認,兩岸任一方都不會透過片面行動,挑釁另一方。」

此外,布希也特別提到,他和中共國家主席胡錦濤在北韓問題上的互動具建設性。

2005/06/09 聯合晚報】   http://udn.com 


回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1277531
 回應文章
聯合筆記》美國的「等式」政策
推薦0


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

聯合筆記》美國的「等式」政策


孫揚明

美國布希總統日前用了個有意思的概念來形容美國的兩岸政策:等式(equation)。換句話說,他期待的台海情勢,是一個雙方平衡的政策。

「等式」其實不是什麼新概念,只是第一次有人用這個說法來談兩岸。在布希的概念中,這個等式的一邊是中共不得片面對台動武,否則美國必定介入;等式的另一邊則是台灣不得宣布獨立,否則就「打破了這個等式」,屆時中共動武,台灣就不必期待美國的介入了。

而北京的立場也非常清楚:只要台灣走向獨立,一定會動武。北京甚至可以接受,在這樣的一場戰爭中,因美國的介入而可能遭擊敗;絕不會因為害怕被擊敗,就放任台灣獨立。

這是今年三月中共國家主席胡錦濤就反分裂法發言以來,布希總統首度就兩岸政策做如此清楚的發言。這不妨看成是美國與中共在台灣問題上的一次公開對話,就雙方各自的兩岸政策做某種宣示;至於進一步的結果,應可在未來兩個月內雙方領導人的高峰會中大致看出。

問題是,美國從未有如此高階的政治人物,公開把這種半警告式的訊息說得這麼明白,讓台北這樣難堪。美國期待,台海兩岸在該一等式的架構下,相互交流往來,進行對話,以減少緊張、消除敵意,達到最終的「和平解決」,或說是「和平統一」。

相當一陣子以來,美國的台海政策其實就是奠基在此一概念上。但這個概念其實並不太完整。因為美國的概念,是要防止中共片面對台動武,而中共又是正在快速崛起的強權,近年大量投資在軍事相關項目,美方因而被迫必須在亞太地區部署愈來愈多部隊,投入愈來愈多的資源,以為因應。

若在平時,這可能不致構成太大的問題;但美國目前還在阿富汗與伊拉克戰場同時用兵,軍事預算排擠效應就非常嚴重。美國除關閉數以百計的海內外軍事基地撙節開支,就連美國太平洋司令部的空軍都被迫刪除三十億美元預算應急。於是,布希的釜底抽薪之計,就是強迫台北直接緩和兩岸關係。

未來半年,北京和華府領導人至少將有三次高峰會;「等式」政策會如何發展,屆時應可看出端倪。

2005/06/16 聯合報】   http://udn.com

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1282183
更多中國人投奔案曝光 澳洲面臨更大壓力
推薦0


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

更多中國人投奔案曝光 澳洲面臨更大壓力


中央社雪梨十四日法新電

澳洲在處理中國外交官陳用林申請政治庇護案上正面臨越來越強大壓力,因為今天又有兩起中國異議人士尋求庇護案浮出檯面,使得申請庇護案增至四起。

澳洲反對黨要求參院針對政府處理陳用林案展開調查時,扯出其他中國異議人士申請庇護案。現年三十七歲的中國駐雪梨總領事館一等秘書陳用林,上個月公開放棄職位後向澳洲政府申請政治庇護。

被公開提起的在澳洲尋求庇護最新案例的當事人是曾任北京大學法學教授的袁紅冰及其助手趙晶。袁紅冰、趙晶已加入陳用林和前中國公安郝鳳軍的行列,對他們所受待遇發出不平之鳴。

據趙晶表示,去年抵澳洲的袁紅冰原本預定今天發表聲明,但因律師反對而作罷。

澳洲綠黨發言人左勃表示,移民部門已審查袁紅冰和趙晶的申請案將近一年時間。

左勃表示,前教授兼作家袁紅冰曾於一九九四年在中國遭監禁六個月,獲釋後被流放到偏遠的貴州省。

當局查禁袁紅冰的著書並摧毀其手稿,禁止他再寫作。但在趙晶協助下,袁紅冰持續執筆並在獲悉當局打算再度拘捕他後,逃離中國。

左勃要求移民部門就為何花如此長時間審理袁紅冰和趙晶的申請案提出說明,並質疑移民部門是否刻意刁難投奔澳洲的中國異議人士。

左勃說:「澳洲很可能基於貿易原因,正積極阻止中國異議人士在澳洲立足,以討好中國政府。」

澳洲政府上個月與中國展開自由貿易談判,此外,坎培拉當局也正考量出售獲利豐厚的鈾礦給中國。

澳洲綠黨領袖布朗預定今天稍後要求參院針對陳用林申請庇護案展開調查。陳用林指控中國在澳洲部署龐大間諜網。

澳洲移民部長范斯東表示,陳用林申請庇護案已遭駁回,他接獲改申請保護簽証建議,目前本案被列為優先處理事項。

據澳洲人報今天報導,澳洲安全情報機構(ASIO)已針對中國間諜網傳聞,約談陳用林以及今年二月申請庇護的郝鳳軍。

兩人均指稱,如果遭強制遣返,性命將會不保。陳用林表示,他擔心自己會遭到迫害,因為他致力協助澳洲境內中國異議人士,包括在中國遭查禁的法輪功成員在內。

陳用來昨天呼籲其他中國人叛逃。昨天在雪梨一場集會上宣讀的陳用林信函表示,「良心督促我離開中國共黨政權,擺脫中國共產黨的邪惡掌控,如今已值敲碎禁錮身體和靈魂的枷鎖,擁抱自由生活的時刻,如同我走出陰暗迎向新生活般,不論有多艱難絕不畏縮。」

2005/06/14 中央社】   http://udn.com 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1281114
陳用林案澳態度 引起美警惕
推薦0


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

2005.06.11  中國時報
陳用林案澳態度 引起美警惕
大陸新聞中心/台北報導

    美《紐約時報》發自坎培拉的報導指出,中共駐雪梨總領事館一等秘書陳用林投誠一事,透過媒體的大篇幅報導,除了造成澳洲政府的困擾之外,也足以引起美國警惕。據指出,此案可以看成中共在東南亞國家勢力,甚至在美國堅強盟邦勢力的一個晴雨表。

    根據原先的估計,當一個中共外交官向一個西方國家政府表達投誠意願,並表示將提供中共情報系統網絡資訊時,該名外交官理應得到擁抱。但卅七歲的陳用林遭遇卻不是如此,澳洲政府拚命與他保持距離,因為澳洲政府擔心惹惱中共。近年來,中國大陸已經是澳洲煤礦及其它許多原料的最大買家。

  在迴避多日之後,澳洲外長唐納日前終於公開表示,澳洲已經拒絕了陳用林的外交庇護申請,但他的保護性簽證申請目前仍在處理中。根據澳洲本地媒體的報導,被澳洲拒絕之後,陳用林已經接觸美國駐澳洲大使館,美國方面也證實此事。

    澳洲的作為與美國布希政府的政策相左,美國國防部長倫斯斐上周才再度表示將增加施壓中共,但澳洲先前早已經表明,如果台灣受到中共攻擊,澳洲不會加入戰鬥;此外,澳洲也支持歐盟解除對中共的軍售禁令。

    澳洲是美國最重要的情報盟邦,除了英國之外,澳洲從美國獲取的情報訊息,超過其它任何國家,但與此同時,中共在澳洲派駐大量間諜問題,也成為澳洲政府目前的主要關切問題之一。中共目前在澳洲登記在案的外交官員為四十人,是駐澳的最大外國外交機構。

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1278652
聯合筆記》美「中」關係3C變1C by 張宗智
推薦1


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

叮咚

聯合筆記》美「中」關係3C1C 


張宗智

最近布希政府用來形容美「中」關係的辭彙,似乎已經悄悄從三個C,變成一個C了。

第一任布希政府朗朗上口的candid(坦率)、constructive(具建設性)與cooperative(合作的)等三C形容詞,到了第二任布希政府,已有好一陣子沒有再提了。

前幾天,國務卿賴斯用了另外一個C,也就是complex(複雜的),重新定義美「中」關係。隔了兩天,布希總統也採用了complex。看來,第二任布希政府的美「中」關係,大概也就「複雜」定了調。

在外交上,兩國關係定義的改變,代表的可能就是政策與做法的重新思考。面對中國崛起成為區域甚至全球強權,布希政府對外一向表示樂見其成,只希望中國在發展同時,也能多擔些責任。然而,這絕不是華府的底蘊。

誠如亞太助卿希爾日前在國會作證時,形容擁有核武並積極擴軍的中國,已不僅是亞洲一個固守現狀的局中人,而是一個足以影響經濟與政治的強權。布希政府對此早有體認,否則五年前競選時,也不會給中國貼上「戰略競爭者」的標籤。後來則是因為九一一事件,布希政府才改用「三C貼紙」,企圖軟化中國的競爭者形象。

賴斯雖承認美中關係還是歷來最好,但也批評中國擴軍構成美國在區域的安全挑戰。希爾在國會點明中國是「美國及盟邦」在未來廿五年「最關鍵的挑戰和機會」,也具體而微地形容了美國面對中國崛起的矛盾心態。

或許也因此,美國才捨三C而就一C。但原本的坦率、建設性與合作沒有了,取而代之的竟是「複雜」,美國處理這項關係卻等於從十足的自信,轉進到最保守的遲疑。

顯然,華府想用「複雜」這個新詞,企圖一言以蔽自己身為全球霸權,卻無法掌控美「中」關係的無力與難堪。可用了這個「複雜」後,卻又十足欲蓋彌彰!

布希改口稱美「中」關係「複雜」,對照過去歷任美國政府處理對中國關係時常見的鐘擺模式,雖然見怪不怪,只是「複雜」(complex)這個英文字,在心理學中,本有「情結」之義。布希政府仍脫不了鐘擺「情結」的宿命,用「複雜」名之,也算一語雙關了。

2005/06/11 聯合報】   http://udn.com

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1278403
布希總統在兩岸扮演平衡與仲裁的角色 by 傅建中
推薦1


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

華碩

2005.06.10  中國時報
布希總統在兩岸扮演平衡與仲裁的角色
傅建中

    美國福克斯(Fox)電視八日播出對布希總統的專訪,其中一個問題是:如果台灣遭受攻擊(invaded),美國是否依然信守協議(agreement)防衛台灣,布希的答覆是肯定的(Yes,we do),和四年前接受ABC電視訪問時所表達的立場基本上是一致的。二○○一年四月海南島上空美中撞機事件過後不久,布希在ABC的訪問中被問到如果台灣遭到攻擊(attacked),美國有無義務防衛台灣,他的答覆也是:Yes,we do還提醒中(共)方必須了解這一點。然後記者追問美國是否在軍事上全力以赴,保護台灣,布希直截了當的說:「竭盡所能的幫助台灣自衛」(Whatever it took to helpdefend Taiwan.)這句話已成為布希保衛台灣決心的名言。八日的訪問中,布希雖然沒有重申四年前的名言,但也表示要「依據台灣關係法的精神,挺身而出」(…We would riseup in the spirit of Taiwan Relations Act.)不過,美國挺身而出有個前提,那就是中共「片面進攻台灣」(If china were to invade unilaterally…)。

    布希在這次的訪問中,先說明美國的政策是基於「三項公報」的一個中國,但也信守「台灣關係法」。然後強調海峽兩岸任何一方(neither side)都不能「片面改變現狀」,也就是說「不能超出布希政策聲明的範圍之外」。

 此次訪問值得注意的一點是布希把兩岸視為對等的equation(方程式)。從幅員、人口、實力等方面看,台灣和大陸並非對等的equation,如今所以能成為對等的equation,是因為有美國在兩者之間扮演平衡與等號(=)的角色。由於美國現行的政策是兩岸任何一邊都不可片面改變現狀,在答覆完中共片面進攻台灣的問題後,布希主動提起台灣片面宣布獨立的問題。布希說:那樣就會改變兩岸之間的「對等情勢」(equation)和「美國的決策過程」(U.S. decision-making process)。至於後果,布希雖未明言,但已不言而喻,即是如果台灣片面宣布獨立,受到中共的攻擊,美國就不會「依據台灣關係法的精神,挺身而出了」。

    布希的結論是:我的看法是,時間會治癒這一問題(My attitude is that time will heal the issue.)因為兩岸之間的問題是傷痕,需要時間治療,在傷痕癒合之前,美國就得確保「任何一方都不得以片面行動去挑釁另一方」。(Therefore we are trying to makesure that neither side provokes the other through unilateral action.

    從布希總統上述關於台灣的最新政策聲明,不難看出他在兩岸之間扮演著「平衡與仲裁的角色」,為了演好這個角色,他一方面要穩住陳水扁,不讓阿扁出軌,另一方面則積極拉攏胡錦濤,建立與胡的「私人關係」(personalrelationship),在陳、胡之間發揮equation的作用。為了達到仲裁的目的,布希不得不訂下一些規範,這規範最重要的一項是「保持現狀,不得片面行動」,也就是兩岸的動作都不得超越布希所說的範圍,雖嫌霸道了些,但布希為維持兩岸之間的equation不得不如此耳。

    布希訪問談話值得指出的另一點是:當台灣受到攻擊時,美國要根據台灣關係法的「精神」挺身而出,布希在此的用字遣詞是極為審慎而用心良苦的。這裡只說「精神」(Spirit)而非「條文」(letter),因為台灣關係法並無條文規定美國必須防衛台灣。該法涉及台灣前途與安全最關鍵的一段話是:「任何企圖以和平以外的方式決定台灣未來的努力,包括杯葛、禁運等方式,都將被視為對西太平洋地區和平與安全的威脅,為美國嚴重關切之事」(台灣關係法第二條B項第4款)。

    看看上面這段話,美國若引用「條文」防衛台灣,勢將師出無名,所以布希捨條文而就精神。誰說布希不懂外交,即使複雜萬端的兩岸問題,他都拿捏得極為精確呢,看來還真得對布希刮目相看啊。


回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1278232
別干涉我 by 陳文茜
推薦0


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

別干涉我

1958年我出生那一年,Elvis Presley唱了一首歌,《別干涉我》。這首曲子奠定他無人可比的歌壇地位。他是第一個黑人風格的白人歌手;他歌喉的多變性,使現代的我們重聽,仍充滿顫慄。
唯一一人,「別干涉我」;某個年代、某個地區,在相同的信仰中,我們一天天成長。

接受施恩反被操縱
五十年後,回頭一看,我們仍日日活於他人的干涉中。為什麼?因為干涉是一種政治,更是一種道德;它往往以慈悲的形式出現。你有困難了,需要錢,典當隨身之物;從此它不但拿走了你的物品,也操控了你的靈魂。
你本來以為這一切,只是一場外帶感激的平等交易,結果「施恩者」以高利息,以你無法償還的某種對價關係,逼著你還錢更還人情,愈滾愈多;直到有朝一日,某個情境出現,你才赫然領悟,他或它本質上就是操縱者,但一切已太遲。
你發現自己只是皮影戲中的皮影,影子的起伏全由背後那隻看不見的手決定;你不過是偶然的投影者;隨時可以被頂替與丟棄的皮影。
不只個人驚覺不了干涉者的慈悲陰謀,國家更脫離不了。
毛澤東夠硬了吧,1949年中國共產黨革命後兩個月,毛澤東生平第一次出國。兩個月前,他才剛剛在天安門廣場前,宣告「中國人,站起來了」。如今他坐在前往莫斯科的飛機上,像一個跑三點半的缺錢老闆,即將面臨開口借錢的難堪。他被安置於莫斯科西部幾哩外的邸宅,四面樺木包圍著,很安靜,但更寂寞。足足等了幾個星期,誰也不理他。
他急需錢。窮苦飢餓邊緣的中國,急需三億美元貸款;革命後的勝利是短暫的,革命後的困境,才是長遠無盡無邊的折磨。
你們知道結果嗎?幾個月後韓戰爆發,毛澤東在史達林的請求下,出兵朝鮮;不只他的兒子後來死在戰場,他屈辱求得的三億貸款,竟然全用來回頭向蘇聯買武器,好挽救戰場上中國士兵的生命。毛澤東,終究白跑了一趟。

慈悲的干涉最可怕
美國前在台協會理事長夏馨,前陣子來台訪問。一場餐會,全是冠蓋雲集,她坦率地說:「我不是來賣軍火的。」席間一位來賓天真建議:「美國為什麼不說服兩岸簽和平協議,中國不武,台灣也不用花錢買軍購呢?」夏馨回:「我們從沒想過這個問題。」
美國的確沒想過,多年來西方國家借錢給開發中國家,前提條件之一,便是這些錢的一部分得拿回西方購買武器;他們從來不問這些不斷循環的高負債可能帶給他國的傷害;相反的他們像隻禿鷹,愈窮或者愈危險的國家,他們愈有利可圖。

慈悲者的干涉,永遠是最可怕的干涉。


回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1278036
台灣正在美中磨合風暴中航行 / 吳玉山 / 2001/4/25
推薦0


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

台灣正在美中磨合風暴中航行
作者:吳玉山 


美國總統布希於廿四日在接受ABC 訪問的時候明白地說出美國將防衛台灣對抗中共的攻擊。由於自從中美斷交以來,美國對於台灣就從來沒有明白清楚地做過防衛的承諾,因此布希總統的此番談話被外界視為可能代表華府中國政策的大轉向。究竟布希是一時快語、還是美國真正是在做戰略調整,是非常值得台北密切注意的。 

布希的談話中有兩點值得注意之處。一是在以往美國對於台灣的安全承諾常常是透過意喻的方式(例如嚴重關切),並且是有條件的(例如台灣方面不可先有所挑釁)。這次則是直接而且無條件的,就是只要中共攻擊,美國就要幫助台灣防衛。另外一點是在過去美國對台灣的防衛協助是被理解為有限度的,而在此次布希所強調的是盡一切必要手段(whatever it took),這是非常強烈的語氣。 

布希在競選總統的時候曾經做過類似的表態(如果中國用武,美國必須協助台灣防衛自己),然而那是一個總統候選人的競選語言。在過去的二十年當中,所有在野黨的美國總統候選人都對於台灣有過承諾(例如雷根的重新承認中華民國)、對中共有過抨擊(例如柯林頓痛罵北京領導階層是天安門的屠夫),其著眼點莫不是在於凸顯現任總統現實主義的中國政策有其道德上的瑕疵。然而一旦當選之後,理想主義的總統候選人不旋踵就豹變成現實主義的在位總統,權力政治和大陸市場的商機馬上就取代了民主和人權,成為在位者最重要的考慮因素。我們有理由相信布希也會很快地走向他父親當年現實主義的中國政策。 

可是一些事故發生了,而北京處理這些事故的方法讓布希放不下他在做總統候選人時候的調子。從錢其琛主動訪美、對華府施加壓力開始,到軍機碰撞事件,再到對台軍售,沒有一樣是布希政府刻意安排的,可卻一件件都刺激著北京。 

中共太在意布希在競選時的言論,什麼事件盡從壞處假設,結果自己的調子訂得太高,製造出許多緊張,而布希也就放不下身段來。在軍機事件上,北京藉著扣留美國機員,一定要美方道歉,嚴重傷了布希新政府的國際威信,把雙方的關係搞到惡劣透頂,至今在是否歸還美國軍機的上面,雙方還相持不下。華美軍售的舉行是年度性的,但是北京派錢其琛訪美時就鎖定這個議題,要美國表態,作為檢驗布希對華政策的試金石。北京三番五次的試探和作勢,讓中國政策尚未定調的布希政府十分著惱。事實上如果北京低調處理這些事件,小布希走回老布希的現實主義中國政策是指日可待的事。然而中共呷緊弄破碗的結果,是美國反中氣氛的高漲,和布希重拾他在做總統候選人時的語言。他現在對北京所說的是:「把我惹惱了,一旦你膽敢攻打台灣,我一定盡全力幫助台灣對付你」,這是從雷根以來歷任美國總統敢想而不敢說的話,現在小布希卻說出來了。 

為什麼北京如此沈不住氣呢?中共的領導班子面臨權力接班是一個最主要的因素。江澤民長期被黨內視為對美國和台灣軟弱,因此在軍機碰撞和對台軍售上他必須表現強硬。事實上從現在到明年十六大中共政治接班塵埃落定之前,我們都不能夠期待江澤民會做出任何妥協的動作。除了和美國的齟齬之外,近日日本政局的波動,和李登輝成功的獲得美日簽證,都容易讓北京產生「圍城心態」,以為美國、日本和台灣在聯合對付它。在此種心態下,北京的反應容易過硬,其結果就是來自美日更大的壓力。這樣惡性循環的結果,東亞局勢會很快緊張起來。 

造成目前緊張態勢的根本原因是美國剛經歷過了權力轉移,新總統的中國政策尚未塵埃落定,而北京又將面臨權力轉移,因此它的對美政策缺乏彈性。華盛頓和北京的立場需要磨合,而這個過程可能會充滿衝突。在上一次類似情況發生的時候,是美國柯林頓總統初就任,談論人權不遺餘力,而中共方面是江澤民接班不久,正在鞏固政權。當時中共的姿態較低,它的外交政策在錢其琛的帶領下正一步步地走出天安門事件後的孤立。那時候的磨合大約花了一年的時間。到了一九九四年,柯林頓就提出把中國大陸的人權和最惠國待遇脫鉤。此次華盛頓和北京還是有可能會重複一九九四年的模式,在現實主義的基礎上找到相互對應之道。但是由於中國大陸的實力已經今非昔比,因此會認為更應該獲得美國的尊重,而雙方磨合之途便不會像七年前順利。 

從台灣的立場而言,美國和中國大陸磨合期的緊張足夠讓我們提心吊膽的。它們磨合得不順利,則台灣會很快捲入一場巨大的風暴當中,成為美國海權勢力與中國大陸新興的陸權相碰撞中的一個戰場。如果華盛頓和北京磨合順利成功,台灣又有可能成為一個禮物或是犧牲品。李總統的赴日美之旅正巧把台灣推入磨合的風暴當中,今後我們必須更加謹慎地看著天象來航行,才能維持安全。 

——原載《中國時報》 (作者為台灣大學政治系教授)

 
美不防衛台報導 布希主導
【記者林寶慶/華盛頓報導】

華府消息靈通 的「尼爾森報導」指出,向台灣表明如情況看來是台灣挑釁,美國幾乎可以確定不會防衛台灣的做法,是布希總統所主導的。

報導說,這可見於布希一年前派遣當時白宮國家安全會議亞太事務資深主任莫健,赴台灣晉見陳水扁總統,面交布希私函,指布希擔憂台灣當時的一些發展,可能讓北京感到挑釁而作出不符合美台利益之舉動。美國反對任何台灣可能導致和平現狀改變的單方面行動,請求陳水扁協助降溫。

「尼爾森報導」指出,美國副國務卿阿米塔吉十日在日本接受訪問時所說,「美國同意台灣是中國一部份」的談話,顯示美台關係2001年以來的持續穩定惡化。

【華盛頓特派員張宗智/廿二日電】

美國副國務卿阿米塔吉指台灣是美「中」關係「最大的地雷」,引起台灣政府關切後,美國國務院發言人包潤石22日表示,阿米塔吉只是「用非常熟悉的詞語,重述美國的政策」。

包潤石在回答美國是否曾與台灣官員討論過阿米塔吉談話時表示,他並不知道美台之間是否討論過此事,「但如果他們(台灣)問起,我們會告訴他們,他(阿米塔吉)只是用非常熟悉的詞語,重述美國的政策」。

【2004/12/23 聯合晚報】




本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1277536
美國總統布希8日接受福斯電視網專訪全文
推薦1


blackjack
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

likolalo

Transcript: President Bush on 'Your World'

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

This is a partial transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," June 8, 2005, that was edited for clarity.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Mr. President, welcome to FOX. It's great to have you.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: We were thinking of you, Mr. President, we knew you had won the election and now we have heard that you had better grades than your opponent too in college.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: What did you think with the release of those transcripts?

BUSH: I didn't think much about it. You know, I've always tried to lower expectations, and I feel like if people say, well, you know, maybe, you know, I don't think you handle the tough job, and when you do, it impresses people even more. But my view is the campaign is over.

CAVUTO: Yes. He was billed as the intellectual, though, and you had better grades in college.

BUSH: Yes. Well, as I said, I like to lower expectations.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: On a more serious note, Mr. President, this morning we got word of an Al Qaeda-linked (search) cell potentially broken up in California. One of the participants in that cell supposedly was taking target practice off a picture of you. What did you think when you heard it?

BUSH: I think that our FBI and Homeland Security people are working hand-in-glove to protect America on a daily basis. I was briefed on some of the particulars about the matter you just described. I can assure the America people that we're following every lead, that we're doing everything we can to keep us protected.

The best way to protect America is to keep on the offense and bust up these terrorist networks overseas by doing two things: one, committing our troops and intelligence services to the task, and also spreading freedom.

The way to defeat hatred and hopelessness in the long term is to lay foundations for peace by spreading freedom. So we've got a dual strategy that requires a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice, but it's working.

CAVUTO: Do you suspect there are other such cells still operating in this country?

BUSH: You know, I don't know. I really don't know. The one thing I do know is that a lot of people are looking for them and that we're running down every possible lead, that we're doing a better job of sharing intelligence now between the CIA and the FBI as a result of the Patriot Act (search). That within the FBI, there is better intelligence-sharing. That there's a lot of really good people who are spending a lot of time on potential terror cells.

Today Mike Chertoff (search), who's the secretary for Homeland Security, and Director Mueller were in the Oval Office, briefing me about this group of folks in California.

I was very impressed by the use of intelligence and the follow-up. And that's what the American need to know, that when we find any hint about any possible wrongdoing or a possible cell, that we'll follow up by the way, honoring the civil liberties of those to whom we follow up. In other words, we're just not going to pick up the telephone and listen to somebody without a proper court order. That's protecting the civil liberties of Americans.

CAVUTO: Speaking of civil liberties, one of your predecessors, Jimmy Carter, was very critical of our operations at Guantanamo Bay (search), saying they should be shut down, that abuses there, if proven true, are dragging our name through the mud globally. What do you make of that?

BUSH: Well, I first of all want to assure the American people that these prisoners are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I say in accordance with because these weren't normal, you know, military-type fighters. They had no uniforms. They had no, you know, government structure. These were terrorists, swept up off the battlefield in a place like Afghanistan, for example.

And it's in our nation's interest that we learn a lot about those people that are still in detention, because we're still trying to find out how to better protect our country.

Secondly, that anytime there's an allegation of abuse, we investigate. That's what transparent societies do. We've got a press corps that's constantly asking tough questions about prisoner treatment, for example. You just asked one. And that's what open societies do, they answer the questions by saying...

CAVUTO: But now President Carter has said, sir, shut it down. Joe Biden said shut it down. Do you think it should be shut down?

BUSH: Well, you know, we're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America. What we don't want to do is let somebody out that comes back and harms us.

And so we're looking at all alternatives and have been. And when there have been questions of abuse and allegations like the Koran, the Pentagon went through a full investigation and then released the data for everybody to see.

And I will tell you that we treat these prisoners in accordance with international standards. And that's what the American people expect. When somebody put out that Amnesty International report, they asked me about it. I said it's just absurd to equate Gitmo and Guantanamo with a Soviet gulag. It's just not even close.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you about the economy, sir. Almost any objective read tells you that we're still doing very, very well. Productivity is very high. Had a strong GDP report. Retail sales are very, very strong. The unemployment rate, at 5.1 percent, used to be considered full employment when Hubert Humphrey (search) was alive. Do you think you get a bum rap in the media on the economy?

BUSH: No, I don't think so. I think that when the numbers are good, the media puts it out there. Housing starts are strong. Unemployment's down to 5.1 percent.

I do think there are some troubling signs in the economy. One is the fact that we haven't passed an energy bill in four years, and we're dependent on foreign sources of energy, and therefore, gasoline prices are up. I think that troubles the American people.

CAVUTO: So you think the fact that we're dealing with these high gas prices is wiping out whatever benefits we're seeing in other areas?

BUSH: You know, I think polls are polls. I mean, they're just kind of snapshots of the moment. And to the extent that some say, well, I'm unsettled about the future of our economy, they're basically, I think, reflecting the fact that gasoline prices have risen quite dramatically. And I'm concerned about that, too, because I understand a gasoline price rise is like a tax. It's a tax on families. It's a tax on small businesses.

And I understand why gasoline prices are going up, and that is because we're dependent upon foreign sources of energy. And the price of crude oil is going up, which is the main price driver for gasoline.

CAVUTO: But you've been warning about this, Mr. President. Four years ago, you said this. But you've had a Republican Congress to push these things through, and nothing.

BUSH: Well, listen, I share your frustration. We haven't had a national energy plan for years. And as a result, we're dependent. And so four years ago, I called upon my administration to come up with a strategy and then to go to the Congress for that part of the strategy that required law. And you're right, it's been stuck in the Congress for four years.

CAVUTO: Do you ever get mad at of your fellow Republicans?

BUSH: Well, no. Part of the problem is that, in a certain body in Congress, a minority can block anything. But I do believe we'll get an energy bill. The House passed a good bill. And by the way, the House passed a bill more than one time.

CAVUTO: That's right.

BUSH: And the Senate passed a bill out of committee. They'll get it on the Senate floor. I'm confident we can resolve the differences. And we'll get us a good energy bill.

Now, an energy bill is not going to immediately solve the problem. What the energy bill will do is put America on the course of using technology to diversify away from the hydrocarbon world in which we live.

You know, for example, I went out to a facility that refines soybeans. Twenty years ago, that was a pipedream. Today, it's reality. It can work. Soy diesel works. There's got to obviously be more market development for that type of product, more diesel engines that can use a soybean extract. But nevertheless, it's coming. Bio-diesel will be a reality, which would mean we're diversifying away from foreign sources of oil.

We need to have more clean nuclear power, safe nuclear power. We need clean coal technology to continue to be developed. I mean, we're doing a lot of things in this administration that will help say, we're going to use technology to change our habits, change our way of life for the good of the environment, for the good of national security and for the good of economic security.

CAVUTO: Speaking of economic security, you have staked your reputation, maybe much of your second term, Mr. President, on Social Security (search) reform. You've argued that it is broken, does need fixing. But it doesn't seem to be getting much traction with the American people. Why?

BUSH: Well, first of all, I think what is getting traction with the American people is the fact that they are now understanding there is a problem. In other words, you can't get anything through Congress unless the people are willing to say to members of Congress, we've got a problem.

CAVUTO: But few of them are.

BUSH: A few of Congress is reacting so far? Well, I can understand this. This is a hard issue for them.

CAVUTO: Do you regret that you made this your focal point in the second term?

BUSH: No.

CAVUTO: That maybe if you had done, maybe, tax reform ahead of it.

BUSH: First of all I have got more than one focal point. I mean, I've got a tough budget I sent up that got passed. I got legal reform I'm trying to get done to make sure that this economy continues to grow. I want them to get that energy bill out. In other words, I'm pretty confident I can say to you with certainty that I can do more than one thing at one time.

Now Social Security is a difficult issue for members of Congress, because they think, well, it may be a tough vote. In other words, Social Security has been used as a political club for years. My attitude is this: Once the people realize there is a problem and there is a huge problem. And the problem exists because Baby Bombers like me are getting ready to retire, and we're going to live longer than our predecessors, that we have been promised more benefits than our predecessors, and there's fewer people paying into the system. And so you've got a system literally headed toward bankruptcy. And that's not fair to the younger generations of America, by the way, not to deal with the problem now.

CAVUTO: Well, do you think wealthier folks like you, when you retire, and maybe TV anchors too, should not get Social Security, or should have their benefits pared?

BUSH: No, I think you ought to get Social Security, because you paid into the system. But I don't think your benefits ought to rise faster than the rate of inflation. And I do think poorer citizens ought to have their benefits rise at the rate of wages, which would enable us to say two things. One, no one should retire in poverty. In other words, if you worked all your life in a tough job and you contributed to the Social Security system, when you retire, you ought not to retire into poverty.

And secondly, such a plan, called progressive indexing, will go a long way towards solving the Social Security problem permanently.

CAVUTO: You know, a lot of economists agree with that, Mr. President. Do you think, though, that the public in this country has been distracted by other events? Even Representative Conyers, a Democrat, not exactly a fan of yours, has said that the media is fixated on things like Michael Jackson. Do you think that's true?

BUSH: Here's what I think. I think my job is to lead. I think the people in this country want the president of the United States to take on the tough problems if he sees one. And I see one. I really do not worry about the second-guessing and the focus groups and all that.

CAVUTO: So when you see these polls that show your popularity ebbing a bit, it doesn't frustrate you?

BUSH: No, not at all.

CAVUTO: Really?

BUSH: Polls go up, and polls go down. But I also know my job. See, I could not be here in Washington, D.C., and take on an issue like Social Security and live with myself. In other words, if I didn't take this on, I'd have said, "What did you go to Washington for in the first place?"

I also believe we'll get something done. I truly believe it. I believe it because what the people are beginning to realize is, we've got a problem and seniors are beginning to understand, nothing changes for them when it comes to them getting a check. And that's an important dynamic, because it means we're shifting the debate from an older set of Americans who rely upon the system today and when they realize they're going to get it, they're going to start saying, how about doing something for my grandkids?

And it takes work, Neil. It takes work to get over this hump. It takes a lot of effort to convince people that they got to take the hard decision in life. You got to take the hard path sometimes in politics.

CAVUTO: But in the meantime, the news channels then hear what you're saying, and then later on, we have this Michael Jackson (search) update. I mean, his trial and his ongoing saga has gripped the nation for the past four-and-a-half, five months as you've been on this campaign.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I know this is a little outlandish, Mr. President

BUSH: No, that's all right, Neil.

CAVUTO: Do you think that the focus on Michael Jackson has hurt you?

BUSH: I have no idea. I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out, you know, the viewing patterns of American TV audiences. I do know what my job is, and there's a serious problem with Social Security. I mean, we've got a bunch of young kids getting ready to pay minimum 12.4 percent payroll tax into a system that's going bust. I just don't think it's fair to a young generation to say, "Work hard. Contribute to a system," and know that unless we do something today, the system will be bankrupt for them. It is not right, and it's not fair.

Look, I fully understand some in Washington say, I wish he hadn't brought it up. You know, how come he's making us do this?

And the answer is, because those of us have been elected have a duty, have an obligation to solve problems. And I would tell people when I campaign, I'd say, "Elect me. I will confront problems and not pass them on to future presidents." Which is sometimes the tendency in the political world, just kind of shuffle it along.

Well, it's not going to be the case for the Bush administration. You ask about standing. I think the American people, when it's all said and done, appreciate Republicans or Democrats or whoever who are willing to take on the tough issues.

CAVUTO: You don't think this costs your party next year?

BUSH: No. I think it will cost our party if we don't deal with Social Security. I think the American people expect people to solve problems. And there may be distractions. They may not stay nearly as focused on this issue as I do. But my job is to stay focused on the issue, because I've got to convince people about the reality of the problem and the certainty that you're going to get your check if you're born prior to 1950.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you, if you don't mind, Mr. President, switching gears a little bit to China (search).

BUSH: Sure.

CAVUTO: We have sort of this maybe, I don't know, love-hate relationship with the Chinese. They're a booming economy, a great market. They see us as a great market. But invariably, we fight over the value of their currency. Without getting arcane, do you find it odd that this country, who your own Defense secretary has said is not really threatened by anyone, is putting so much money into its military, by some reports, close to 3 percent of its GDP?

BUSH: Let me step back and characterize the relationship with China this way: It is a complex relationship. It is complex because we deal with each other on a variety of fronts. One front, of course, is our defense posture.

CAVUTO: Well, do you trust them?

BUSH: Trust on defense matters?

CAVUTO: China, period.

BUSH: Well, that's a broad question. So far, I do. We'll see. I mean, we're getting indications out of the government, for example, that they understand they've got to do something with their currency. Time will tell.

CAVUTO: Do we still stand by an agreement, Mr. President, that if Taiwan is ever invaded, we will defense Taiwan?

BUSH: Yes, we do. It's called the Taiwan Relations Act (search). The policy of the U.S. government is this: We're for a One China policy based upon what they call the Three Communiqués, and that we adhere to the Taiwan Relations Act, which means this: Neither side will unilaterally change the status quo. In other words, neither side will make a decision that steps outside the bounds of that statement I just made to you. If China were to invade unilaterally, we would rise up in the spirit of Taiwan Relations Act. If Taiwan were to declare independence unilaterally, it would be a unilateral decision that would then change the U.S. equation.

My attitude is, is that time will heal this issue. And therefore we're trying to make sure that neither side provokes the other through unilateral action.

CAVUTO: North Korea (search) has said that it would be maybe interested in multi-party talks again. Are you considering, since they've talked back and forth on this issue, Mr. President, U.N. sanctions?

BUSH: Well, that is option down the road.

CAVUTO: Not now?

BUSH: Well, it's option. It's on the table. And what North Korea must understand is that the United States is serious about working with four other countries to convince them to get rid of their weapons systems and their plans and their actual equipment that develops nuclear weaponry, including what we may think is a plutonium-type device.

The change of strategy, the change of U.S. policy occurred when I decided to make sure that China had a seat at the table with us, that in other words, it wasn't just a bilateral relationship between North Korea and the United States. It was a multilateral relationship between partners in peace and North Korea on the theory that more than one voice that has different interests in the region speaking to Kim Jong-Il will have a better effect on him.

And so you asked whether or not I trust China. China has been at the table. Can they do more at a different time frame than we're interested in? Perhaps. But the relationship is such that I'm able to explain to Hu Jintao, my counterpart, that, you know, keep the pressure on.

Or the other day when Kim Jong-Il announced he had a weapon, I said to Hu Jintao, remember our common policy is no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. Now we have got to move.

In other words, they're at the table, and that's been constructive.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you about the real estate bubble people talk about in this country. Do you think there is one?

BUSH: You know, I'm not a very good economic prognosticator, but I do know that there are a lot of first-time house-buyers or homebuyers entering into the market. And the reason I know that is, for example, more minority families own a home today than ever before. And a lot of that has to be one, good policy. For example, we're helping poor families with down payments. A lot of it has to do with interest rates. But, you know, I'll let the experts determine whether or not there's a housing bubble or not.

CAVUTO: When you have regions like Florida and Silicon Valley going at 30, 40 percent a year, even Alan Greenspan worries that we might have pockets of bubbles. Do you?

BUSH: You know, if Alan Greenspan (search) worries about it, I should worry about it, because he's done a heck of a good job, and he's a smart guy.

CAVUTO: Is he gone next year? Does he leave next year?

BUSH: Let me just finish on the housing market right quick.

CAVUTO: Sure.

BUSH: One thing is for certain is that people have got more money in their, more after-tax disposable income, and interest rates are such that people are now enjoying homeownership, which is a really important part of America.

Let me just talk about ownership real quick. First of all, Alan Greenspan has indicated that he is going to finish his term. And then we'll find a suitable replacement, hopefully somebody as good as Alan Greenspan, although that will be hard to do...

CAVUTO: A Democrat? Would you consider a Democrat?

BUSH: I would consider somebody who can do the job.

CAVUTO: Robert Rubin?

BUSH: Here you are trying to get me to, right on your TV show, make news by naming different people, which I refuse to do. Let me talk about ownership for a minute.

CAVUTO: Go ahead.

BUSH: If you look at a lot of our policy, we encourage ownership, and the reason why is because an ownership society is an optimistic society. It's a society in which the individual has got such a vital stake in the future of our country.

So when somebody owns their own home, you know, that's their home. It provides security of a home. It is an asset that they call their own.

When you have your own health savings account, it's something you can carry with you. It means you're in charge of your health care decisions, not a, you know, somebody far away in an office complex that you'll never visit.

When you have a personal savings account, a voluntary personal savings account as a part of a retirement system, it's your asset. You look at it on a quarterly basis to see whether or not you're getting a compound rate of interest that is suitable to your needs.

Ownership really is a v

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=51040&aid=1277534