|
|
本帖最後由 穿鞋的蜻蜓 於 2011-3-10 22:46 編輯
作者文章本文：Getting Real About Taiwan
Bartering Taiwan for better ties with China is a mistake. Ambitious powers see such concessions as an appetizer, not dessert.
Writing off Taiwan for the sake of Sino-American amity probably qualifies as optimism of a kind—unless you have the misfortune to actually live on the island. Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, George Washington University Prof. Charles Glaser maintains that to date, 『the China debate among international relations theorists has pitted optimistic liberals against pessimistic realists.』 The former, he says, believe today』s liberal international order can accommodate China』s rise, building on economic interdependence. The latter point to China』s mounting economic and military strength, prophesying that power will impel Beijing 『to pursue its interests more assertively, which will in turn lead the United States and other countries to balance against it.』
For realists of such leanings, this cycle of action and reaction is apparently apt to produce 『at least a parallel to the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, and perhaps even a hegemonic war.』 Times of transition bring established powers intent on preserving their privileged positions into conflict with rising powers determined to remake the system to suit themselves.
What should be done? Glaser claims there』s a third way, namely a 『realist optimism』 in which power politics makes not for conflict and war, but for a manageable peace—the established power should give up things that are of secondary value in order to satisfy a rising power that places inordinate value on these things. But this vision has a disturbingly 19th century ring to it. In effect, Glaser would abandon Taiwan, a secondary object for the United States, to China while reaffirming the alliances with Japan and South Korea. But buying peace with land has been tried many times before—with ephemeral results at best.
So how would this work? Glaser maintains that 『structural forces』 aren』t propelling the Asia-Pacific heavyweights inexorably into combat. Now (as always) the vast emptiness of the Pacific Ocean separates the two main antagonists, limiting frictions while making it hard for them to get at each other militarily. And US nuclear superiority remains unchallengeable. Such structural factors apply a damper to transpacific competition while imposing restraint on Chinese actions. By this logic, Washington and Beijing should be able to fashion an arrangement through mutual concessions, fending off war. So far, so good. The United States should make every effort to enlist China as co-guarantor of the international system over which it has presided since 1945—a system that benefits all stakeholders in globalization, including China and fellow Asian nations. But with apologies to President John F. Kennedy, Washington can』t pay any price for an Asia-Pacific entente.
Glaser apparently would. He terms Taiwan a 『less-than-vital』 US interest. In international relations-speak, that means an interest for which the United States shouldn』t fight. The island and its residents—US friends of long standing—would be the most obvious casualty of this effort to create a new normal in East Asia. The author admits Americans will find this 『disagreeable.』 But sympathy for stricken friends is not the only thing at stake for the United States. It』s far from clear that trading the island away would stabilize broader Sino-US relations or Asian security.
==================
讀者討論
Formosa Forever March 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Let China continue to wait patiently and peacefully for Taiwan to submit to its rule.
As long as Taiwan doesn』t go for formal independence, China has no pretext to attack Taiwan.
REPLY
John Chan March 8, 2011 at 10:12 am
It is an article of fallacy; the scenarios presented in the article have serious disconnect from reality. The article was written by people from predatory ex-imperial powers, the arguments in the article are based on what those ex-imperial powers would do in according to their aggressive and predatory nature.
Taiwan is an integral part of China, so there is no territory trading involved as those ex-imperial powers often did at somebody』s expenses. So the majority arguments in the article are out of window. China is only building up military strength to protect its independence and integrity of its sovergnty; it is completely different from those ex-imperial powers, which use their military powers for aggression only.
USA mistakenly believes that Taiwan is providing leverage for it to squeeze more benefits from China, albeit the US does not gain any meaningful benefits from Taiwan itself directly. Once the US learn that it will only benefit from China』s win-win approach to the world events as well as Taiwan』s flourish under China』s one nation two system model, USA will dump Taiwan as political liability like a hot potato.
No Japanese politician with right mind will compete against China with remilitarization of nuclear weapons, because such move will put the whole Japanese race on a roll-the-dice gamble. Maybe it is a wishful thinking of the West to see Asians blowing each other up. Japan and SK just have to coexist with China like they have been coexisting with the US.
USA is the root of the instability of Asia and the world, once USA becomes reasonable, all US』 lackeys will do as Chuck Colson said 「When you』ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.」 Asia and the world will return to peace and prosperity.
REPLY
mareo2 March 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Unlike totalitarian states, democracies like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan dont need to expend more money on internal security.
「China internal security spending jumps past army budget」
「…BEIJING, March 5 (Reuters) – China』s spending on police and
domestic surveillance will hit new heights this year, with
「public security」 outlays unveiled on Saturday outstripping the
defence budget for the first time as Beijing cracks down on
protest calls…
「…The 13.8 percent jump in China』s planned budget for police,
state security, armed civil militia, courts and jails was
unveiled at the start of the annual parliamentary session, and
brought planned spending on law and order items to 624.4 billion
yuan ($95.0 billion).
By contrast, China』s People』s Liberation Army budget is set
to rise 12.7 percent to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.5 billion)…」
http://www.reuters.com/article/2 ... USTOE72400920110305
Control chinese people: $95.0 billion > defend chinese people: $91.5 billion.
The CCP is burdened by the cost of repress freedom, while democracies can expend that money in defend their freedom.
REPLY
harry March 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Seriously dont know how your useless slogans have anything to do with what is being discussed in the article.
REPLY
SunZhongShan1@hotmail.com March 9, 2011 at 3:04 am
Right, Mr Chan,
Firstly, since when has Taiwan been an integral part of China
Prehistory and early settlements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
About 4,000 years ago, ancestors of current Taiwanese aborigines settled in Taiwan. These aborigines are genetically related to Malay and maternally to Polynesians, and linguists classify their languages as Austronesian.[16] It is thought likely that Polynesian ancestry may be traceable throughout Taiwan.
Records from ancient China indicate that the Han Chinese might have known of the existence of the main island of Taiwan since the Three Kingdoms period (third century, A.D. 230), having assigned offshore islands in the vicinity names like Greater Liuqiu and Lesser Liuqiu (etymologically, but perhaps not semantically, identical to Ryūkyū in Japanese), though none of these names has been definitively matched to the main island of Taiwan. Han Chinese began settling in the Penghu islands in the 1200s, but Taiwan』s hostile tribes and its lack of the trade resources valued in that era rendered it unattractive to all but 「occasional adventurers or fishermen engaging in barter」 until the 16th century.
INVASION of Taiwan:
Dutch
Ming Dynasty
Qing Dynasty
Nationalists
In reference to the above list Taiwan is a colony of the Han and Man,
So, what you say about imperialist westerners is a huge contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tianxia_zh-hant.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism
John Chan March 10, 2011 at 8:27 am
@SunZhongShan1@hotmail.com, imperial powers always traded territories during the power struggles between them from 15th century to the first half of the 20the century, the arbitrary boundary of majority of the nations in the world are the result of their handy work. Those arbitrary boundaries have been causing untold amount of grief between different people. It is a historical fact.
The earliest human being in Taiwan was 左鎮人 who were migrant from China about 30,000 years ago. Current Taiwan aborigines were the latecomers. 230BC China stationed more than 10,000 troops in Taiwan. Large-scale Chinese migration and administrating Taiwan as prefecture continued since that time. Therefore Taiwan is an integral part of China, what is the huge contradiction?
The Taiwan page in Wikipedia seems to be originated from the US by a non-Chinese who only has superficial knowledge about China and Taiwan. Anyhow your argument against Taiwan being an integral part of China is common from the West, its lackeys, Japanese wannabe and surrogate Chinese who want to pry Taiwan away from China just like the way USSR pried Outer Mongolia away from China.
Don』t take the information on Wikipedia as truth for granted. I have seen a white man who said he was Phd declared that Japanese Kanji was developed on it own separately from China. He cited a theory 「parallel synchronization」 to support his claim as well as writings from Japanese professors in Japan. He didn』t realise Japanese historical documentation before Meiji Restoration were written in Chinese mostly.
REPLY
Bob March 8, 2011 at 8:10 am
There』s a critical point that has been missed here: Taiwan is a democracy. Unlike the Chinese people on the other side of the strait, the Taiwanese have the right to vote for what they want for their own future. The citizens of Taiwan certainly won』t opt for unification with a China, nor will they allow their hard-fought freedoms be traded away. Should the U.S. one day lose its moral-compass and forsake its commitments to Taiwan (fortunately not likely), Taiwan could easily and quickly produce nuclear weapons to provide for the ultimate deterrent against Beijing』s predations. Taiwan already has delivery systems for such weapons well under development. Thus Glaser』s plan for appeasement (no doubt stemming from his recent trips to Beijing) is thus extremely dangerous. It would both destabilize the region and betray the values our country stands for.
REPLY
yang zi March 8, 2011 at 1:33 pm
some good points.
the key is the feud between Taiwan and China. if people on the taiwan island all want to unify with China, the whole taiwan problem goes away.
the majority of people in Taiwan want the status quo. What US can do is to not interfere with the natural development of taiwan, which will be drawn closer to China because of the culture affinity.
the arms sales to Taiwan is not going help anybody. To think it can forever keeps the military balance between small Taiwan and the huge mainland is a wishful thinking.
On the nuclear issue, if it ever happens, China will definitely act and bomb Taiwan』s nuclear facility.
REPLY
John Chan March 8, 2011 at 11:38 pm
It is questionable whether Japan and SK can escape the fate of Iraq and Syria when they tried their nuclear bomb aspiration. J-20 is being developed for a reason. Bob demonstrated the ugly nature of the West, putting the whole population of Taiwan at the risk of nuclear holocaust for their minimal benefits.
REPLY
mareo2 March 9, 2011 at 4:45 pm
The PRC have these delusion that if the USA leave the region there is no way that Taiwan, South Korea Japan and South Korea are not going to become a nuclear powers. The best way to describe such view is 「naive」. Only an ignorant can compare democratic, rich and technologically advanced first world countries with dictatorships, impoverished and technologically behind third world countries like Syria and Irak. The cold fact is that North Korea play the nuclear holocaust card almost every day and the PRC never complain.
REPLY
John Chan March 10, 2011 at 1:45 am
@mareo2, it is your wishful thinking that China would have delusion about the real nature of the US and its lackeys, so China would let its guard down against the predatory aggressors like the US and Japan. You can dream it, but it won』t happen.
Alan March 8, 2011 at 8:03 am
When I was eight years old (1956), in my native England, my country still thought it was a victorious world power. The British government, along with the French government and the Israeli government, decided that the Nasser nationalization of the Suez canal was unacceptable. An invasion was arranged and begun.
A phone call was made from Washington to London. Anthony Eden was told by Dwight Eisenhower that this shouldn』t be done. Eden insisted that the Empire had to do this. Eisenhower threatened to sell British Treasury Bonds.
The troops had withdrawal orders within a week.
Currently, Obama plays Eden to Hu』s Eisenhower
REPLY
yang zi March 8, 2011 at 4:09 am
What will happen is that US will have a weakened commitment to Taiwan.
Legally, Taiwan is a part of China by its own constitution. US』s support to Taiwan is in effect a support to one faction of a civil war.
This is untenable in the face of a rising China. The rising nationalism and military in China has their roots in 1996, when US dispatched 2 aircraft carriers near Taiwan.
Looking at the big picture, US arm sales to Taiwan are beneficial to China. Because it stimulates and sets the high bar for China』s military progress. The bigger the challenge, the better China will be when it overcomes it.
A prudent US administration would gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan so not to stimulate a stronger and more militarized China. US is the greatest country in the world and I hope it continues to be so, but it cannot think it can do anything without detrimental consequences to itself. The Taiwan』s strategic value is limited to US and it is more about saving face than anything.
Never over estimate US commitment to allies. Americans don』t want to lose lives for a foreign country. A war far from homeland with a strong and fierce enemy is a recipe for failure. China is fighting for its survival and the determination is much higher.
In the end, all the war talk is a waste of time. The future is the economic competition. When a corporation can make money across border, people can travel freely, the border is not as important as before. A country can expand its influence by trade and economic expansion, why bother to invade and change border? This is the future of the world, not the war.
REPLY
Stefan Stackhouse March 8, 2011 at 2:53 am
Things to keep in perspective:
1) The relations between the US and Taiwan are complicated, but in no way do they rise to the level of our alliances with recognized sovereign states (such as Japan or Australia, for example). The Taiwan Relations Act, and US policy implimentation thereof, is deliberately ambiguous as to the extent to which the US is obligated to actually commit to the military defense of Taiwan. We simply do not have the same level of commitment to Taiwan as we do to our 「real」 allies.
2) The US may have the largest military in the world, and we may still outclass the PRC. That does not mean that we will have the luxury forever of engaging in any fight, anytime and anywhere, for any and all reasons. It is pretty clear that we have overstretched and, especially for the sake of our long term fiscal health, need to retrench. We are going to have to pick our fights carefully, and only engage in conflicts that are truly vital for our own national security and that of our bona fide allies.
3) Even granting the thesis of the PRC』s 「One China」 policy, it must nevertheless be admitted as an inconvenient fact that Taiwan has always been a peripheral territory, and its historic relations with 「China Proper」 have always been, to select a careful word, 「complicated」. The government of the PRC would be well advised to take these realities into account, and to seek a settlement that recognizes and leaves undisturbed the unique characteristics of Taiwan and its people.
4) On the other hand, it must also be recognized that the mainland today is not the mainland of the Cold War era. Things have changed – a lot. They are still changing, too. There are undoubtedly still reasons why people on Taiwan might not want to be reunified within the PRC, but there are also undoubtedly fewer and less intense reasons than there used to be. The mainland is not through changing, either. There is good reason to hope that the prospect of reunification with the PRC might become even less objectionable to the Taiwanese in the future.
5) Finally, to a large extent it is up to the people of Taiwan. If they really want to pursue independence, they may very well have to do so entirely on their own, and be prepared to accept the likely bloody consequences with no help from us. If they decide they want to try to pursue an eventual negotiated settlement that preserves as much autonomy as possible for themselves, then far should be be from us to second guess and interfere in that; it is their land and their future. The really difficult problem is if Taiwan continues to opt for something intermediate between those two policy options, and if the PRC grows too impatient and cocky. Even in that case, though, in the final analysis it is still mostly up to the people of Taiwan. If they want to fight the mainland, then they are going to have to be the ones doing the fighting. I think they know that already, but there should be no illusions to the contrary.
|
|
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發
樓主