超级军网绥靖政策，别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 09:09:29
绥靖政策，别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克
正文翻译
Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.
放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心，反而会让它越发膨胀。
J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015
J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日
With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.
随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近，认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样，要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党，也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人，而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。
[copy]What is even more extraordinary about this lopsided logic is that its adherents do recognize the extraordinary accomplishments that have been made by Taiwan over the decades. And yet they still find it within themselves to propose policies that are as defeatist as they are bereft of human decency—or logic, for that matter, as we shall see.
对于这一显得十分不公平的论调而言，有一点显得很奇怪，那就尽管是它的支持者们并不否认台湾在过去几十年里所取得的非凡成就，但这群被剥夺了人类尊严和逻辑思维能力的失败者们依然坚持其原有观点。对于这点，且听我慢慢道来。
One of the high priests of the abandonment strategy is Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. Every once in a while, White regurgitates that point in op-eds and speeches (he tiptoed around the issue during a talk in Taipei last year, which I attended).
澳大利亚国立大学战略研究战略研究院教授修·怀特，就是这种放弃战略的一个鼓吹者。每隔一段时间，怀特都会在公开演讲中复述他的观点。（去年在台北的一次演讲中他曾小心翼翼地围绕这一问题发表过讲话，当时笔者也在场）[/copy]
The gist of his idea is that China’s national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.
他的观点有一个核心内容，那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步，而包括美国在内的国际社会，将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。
In an op-ed, titled“The harsh reality that Taiwan faces” published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. “Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us.”
怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为“台湾所面对的严酷事实”的署名评论文章，他在该文中称：“台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期，以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。”
“The conclusions,” he writes, “will be uncomfortable, but inescapable.” In other words, White argues that Taiwan’s capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.
他写道：“其结论必将令人感到不舒服，但却是不可逃避的。”言下之意，国际社会只能放弃台湾，而台湾，唯一的选择就是投降。
The problem with White’s über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn’t get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing’s impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not “return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen”—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)
怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说，他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁，以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人“不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策”——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他（她）的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决，后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。（未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待）
However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:
然而，不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵，他还是犯了一些错误。他写道：
No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan’s behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹，不仅是经济上的，还是政治，社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言，中国，在经济上太重要，在军事上又太强大，尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn’t resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.
这种“当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时，小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持”的论断就是灾难的种子，它无疑是在开历史倒车，当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。
We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn’t to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn’t the best answer to it.
我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论，而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数，以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。
[copy]Giving Taiwan away (as if it were the international community’s to give away to start with) would be akin to a sacrificial ceremony to appease an angry god. The problem is that doing so would likely be interpreted by Beijing as a sign of weakness, which almost certainly would fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them. In fact, the annexation of Taiwan would further contribute to China’s might by adding the world’s 19th largest economy to its national power while providing Beijing with an “unsinkable carrier” facing an open Western Pacific. In this sense, it would provide China with a new front from which to confront Japan and the Philippines, not to mention U.S. forces deployed in the region.
放弃台湾（就好像国际社会一开始就打算放弃似的）将无异于为了平息神明的愤怒而送上祭品一般。问题在于，这样做毫无疑问等于是向北京示弱，非但不能遏止中国人扩张的野心，反而会使其越发越膨胀。事实上，对中国来说，吞并台湾将意味着它将世界第19大经济体收入囊中并在面向西太平洋的地方拥有了一艘“永不沉没的航空母舰”。这也就意味着中国在与日本，菲律宾甚至部署在该地区的美军对抗时拥有了新的前线。[/copy]
Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn’t simply a symptom of wishful thinking by nave liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists’ point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.
不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾；从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说，和缓和紧张局势相比，同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子
Another problem with White’s argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was “falling behind” the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.
怀特的论断还有另外一个问题，那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认，华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战，只是我们似乎已经持续“衰落”了四分之三个世纪，尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月（话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年）。在过去，诸如“美国已经不如苏联了”或者“美国已经不想打仗了”“美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了”之类的话我们听的还少吗？如果我们多读读历史，就会知道，美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折，但是，困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。
In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo’s ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn’t fall into China’s hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.
况且在当下，我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱，日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。
Yet another flaw in White’s worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:
而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬，那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手，他写道：
the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.
如今，残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时，美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化：中国有能力击沉航空母舰，加上中美之间经济往来密切，如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。
He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.
他还说到：
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争，甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难，当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。
Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.
这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义，说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此，它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗，居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战，这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读，正如怀特在其文章中所提到的，他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾，让它自己将自己双手奉上。
For all its might, China isn’t above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hasn’t had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.
尽管中国有些实力，但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味，回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。
And while White warns that “There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough,” he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.
而怀特在警告“台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持”时却忽略了这一点，那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。
The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren’t the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists’ playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing’s—and PLA—control.
从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的，怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点，那就是在亚洲，一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是，对于台湾而言，民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看，台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。
J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.
J·迈克尔·科尔，前加拿大安全情报局分析师，www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编，诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员，台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
评论翻译
Mr. Wang4 days agoThe reality is that Taiwan is much more in China's sphere of concern than it is in America's. In this way it is similar to the Russia/Ukraine issue. The west is obviously upset by Russia's actions in the Ukraine, but NATO isn't going to risk war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
事实是中国远比美国要更加关心台湾。这点和俄罗斯/乌克兰问题很相似。西方很明显对俄罗斯在乌克兰的动作感到不爽，但是北约是不会为了乌克兰和俄罗斯开战的。
And I'm afraid that the US would not risk war with China for the sake of Taiwan. Japan too may not like it, but it is hard for me to imagine large numbers of Japanese willing to risk their lives for the sake of Taiwan. Could their aging population even muster a significant fighting force?
我恐怕美国不会为了台湾和中国开战，日本同样不可能，我实在无法想象一大群日本人会为了台湾来牺牲掉自己的性命。他们在面对的人口老龄化问题的情况下还能拼奏出一支具有着一定实力的军队吗？
Also, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about Taiwan. I've lived in the US before and when I told people where I'm from most thought I was from Thailand. How can you expect Americans to risk their lives for a place and people they know nothing about? Yes, they've certainly done it plenty of times in the past (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.). But I sense a war weariness in the US population after their recent adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. America has a multitude of domestic problems and an astronomical national debt. Today (and increasingly so in the future) It would be challenging to convince the American public to invest countless lives and treasure to defend a land they've never heard of. As it would take more than a few remote controlled drone strikes to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
况且美国大众根本就对台湾的事情一无所知。以前我在美国的时候每当告诉别人我是哪里人时总会被认为是泰国人。你说美国人怎么会为了一个他们连听都没听说过的地方去拼命呢？没错，同样的事情他们以前干过很多次（朝鲜，越南，科威特等等）。但是自从阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争之后，我在他们身上感觉到了很强的厌战情绪。美国面临着很多国内问题和天文数字般的外债。如今（或未来）动员美国公众献出生命和金钱去保卫一处他们闻所未闻的地方可不是一件简单的事。毕竟要想阻止中国入侵台湾，光靠几架无人机发射几枚空对地导弹远远不够。
There are many reasons why China seeks to control Taiwan (history, nationalism, etc). However, one important reason is defense. Cole speaks of how China could use Taiwan as a launching pad for further expansion in the Pacific (I doubt this is China's goal). However, the opposite is also true. From the PRC's point-of-view a Taiwan that is allied with hostile forces could be a launching pad for strikes into the mainland. As China grows in power it will seek to eliminate this potential threat. There is nothing sinister or unusual in China wanting to make sure its neighborhood is secure. Every great power does this.
I want Taiwan to maintain its democracy and current way of life. However, a war (even a victorious one) isn't the way to make that happen. Taiwan would be on the front lines of any war, which would result in the destruction of our cities and countless lives lost. How would the destruction of Taiwan be beneficial for anyone? I don't pretend to know how to solve the thorny China/Taiwan issue, but whichever way it goes a peaceful resolution is best.
中国有很多理由控制台湾（历史，民族主义等等）。然而，最重要的一个理由则是防御。科尔说道中国把台湾用作向太平洋进行扩张的跳板（但我怀疑这是不是中国的目的）。但是反过来从PRC的角度来看，一个和敌对势力结盟的台湾也可以成为进攻中国大陆的跳板。随着中国实力的增强它迟早会要拔掉这颗眼中钉。中国想要让周边安全是无可厚非的。每个大国都会这么做。我希望台湾能维持民主制度和现在的生活方式。但是，这不能通过战争（即使是胜仗）来实现。台湾将会变成任何一场战争的最前线，我们将付城市毁灭尸横遍野的高昂的代价。台湾都没了，谁还能得到什么好处吗？我不会自以为知道该怎么解决台湾问题，但不管怎么样，和平解决是最好的。
CETMr. Wang4 days agoI would guess we'll see a continuation of the status quo. Neither the US nor China want a hot war against each other, and if re-unification ever becomes a truly attractive option for the Taiwanese, force won't be necessary. Barring a miscalculation by one side or the other, there's no reason for war.
我猜会维持现状。美中都不想和对方开战，等哪天统一对台湾人来说变得更具有吸引力时，武力也就没有意义了。要防止任何一方发生误判，没必要打仗。
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoChina will not allow a continuation of the status quo, will push step by step towards unification
中国不会容忍你维持现状的，它会一步一步地推进统一。
CETting_m_19994 days agoThey will push, yes. But my read is that as long as PRC leadership doesn't start believing its own military propaganda, and as long as the US continues to support Taiwan's independence (but not so much that PRC leadership regards our hardware in Taiwan as an existential threat), it'll be fine.
他们会的，但是我的观点是，只要PRC领导层不被自己军队的宣传所欺骗，以及美国继续支持台湾独立（但是不要达到让PRC领导层认为我们部署在台湾的装备构成了威胁的那种程度）的话就不会有事。
Part of that is that right now, both sides think they have time on their side - I think most US policymakers are pretty skeptical about the long term sustainability of China's current system, and my general impression of Chinese policy is that they still regard their rise as inexorable. So why would either side risk making a move that might force a war now?
有一点就是双方都认为时间站在自己这一边。我想美国大部分的决策者都对中国现行的政治体制还能维系多久表示怀疑，而我对中国政策的印象是他们依然认为他们的崛起是不可阻挡的。那么既然这样，双方干嘛要现在就开战呢？
Of course, if the calculus changes, particular if PRC leadership gets desperate, things could get ugly in a hurry . . .
当然，如果事态有变，尤其是当PRC的领导层越来越沉不住气时，局势一定会急转直下……
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoThe shackle put on China by America on the Taiwan issue will be broken one way or other. We all advocate equality, freedom and democracy, rule by law but not defined by America for America's own interest or the world would not like to be ruled by a dictatorial America. America's support of Taiwan's independence violates international rule of law if America ever believe rule of law. China will not stop attempting to free itself from the bondage placed on China by America. The recent AIIB is just an example. America can regard that as a threat to its financial supremacy,is desperate and can start a war. Similar incidences will happen in the future and the world will be looking at America when America will start another war as America has been doing that all the time.
台湾问题就像是美国套在中国身上的一条枷锁，它迟早会被打碎。我们都主张自由民主平等法制，但这些不应该由美国为了自己的利益来定义。世界不应该处在美国的独裁统治之下。美国支持台湾独立本身就违反国际法，如果美国还相信法治的话。中国不会放弃冲破美国所施加的束缚。最近的亚投行就是个例子。美国可以把它当做是对自己的金融霸权的威胁而发动战中。类似的事情以后会发生。美国将在全世界的注视下再次发动战争，这是美国的一贯作法。
CETting_m_19993 days agoIn no particular order:
1) I can pretty confidently assert that the US is not going to go to war over wholly economic issues. There might be diplomatic and economic wrangling, but things like the AIIB aren't seen over here as legitimizing the use of military force. If WWIII starts in the pacific, it will be over a series of military escalations (like the PLAN doing something dumb and risky to claim part of someone else's maritime territory).
2) Support of 'equality, freedom and democracy' is a good reason to help Taiwan maintain its independence from a power that, quite frankly, has a terrible record of integrating new polities (see Tibet, Hong Kong). If Taiwan decides to become part of mainland China, fine. But 'rule of law' and 'support for freedom' arguments hardly support letting China beat Taiwan into submission either economically or militarily.
3) It might be useful to consider this situation as being loosely analogous to US/Cuba relations during the cold war. Cuba was a nominally hostile power in our backyard, that in actuality posed virtually no threat (except for the missile crisis, which illustrates the dangers to both sides of escalating). US operations against Cuba (both military and covert) were uniformly disastrous, and their only effect was to delay the eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. In general, given the mess that is Latin America, it's worth thinking twice before emulating US cold war policy towards smaller neighboring states.
1.我可以肯定美国不可能纯粹因为经济原因就发动战争。也许亚投行之类的事情会引起一些经济和外交上的纠纷，但绝不会成为动用军事力量的理由。如果第三次世界大战在太平洋战场上开打，也只会因为军事上的升级（比如说中国海军干了诸如声称他国领海是自己的之类的蠢事）。
2.支持“自由民主平等”就已经足够作为帮助台湾独立的理由了。尤其是从一个劣迹斑斑的国家那里独立（详情见XZ，香港）。如果台湾想成为中国大陆的一部分，行。但是“法制”和“支持自由”这两条却使得中国不管是通过经济手段还是军事手段迫使台湾屈服都缺乏应有的正当性。
3.冷战时期美国和古巴的关系可以大致上拿来做参考。古巴是一个身处我们后院的敌对势力，但是其带来的实质威胁却极为有限（除了古巴导弹危机，那件事对双方来说都很危险）。美国针对古巴采取的行动（包括军事上和谍报上）几乎都损失惨重，所带来的后果无非是拖延了两国关系正常化。总的来说，美国在冷战时对弱小邻国所推行的政策不值得去效仿，看看拉美现在成什么样子了。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
1. America has been starting wars on any excuse America deems fit including false excuse and expect no other nations dare to stop it. China will claim someone else so-called maritime territory which was stolen from China.
2. You are so ignorant not to know thatTaiwan is not an independent country and not recognized by majority of UN members. No excuse can refute the fact that China has sovereignty over Taiwan and China has the right to unite with Taiwan in whatever way it deems fit.
3. It is only in USA mind that Cuba is a threat. It is because of this USA distorted fear that threatens Cuba's freedom of choice of its own destiny and creates the mess around the world.
1.只要美国想打仗，借口根本就不是问题，反正它觉得只要它想打，谁也挡不住。中国索求的那些所谓他国领海都是从中国那里偷走的。
2.你这个人太无知了，居然连台湾不是一个受联合国大部分成员国承认的独立国家都不知道。任何理由都改变不了中国拥有对台湾的主权的事实，中国无论如何都有权统一台湾。
3.全世界只有美国认为古巴是威胁。因为古巴有选择自己命运的自由，美国对这点感到莫名的恐惧，这种恐惧驱使着美国在世界各地到处捣乱。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
Ah, I see we've now dropped all pretense at respecting freedom or rule of law (everything that China wants belongs to China, because they say so . .. ). That's what I was afraid of.Blind and grasping nationalism is not an asset, Trust an American on that - we've been there, we've done that, and it has pretty much never worked out well.
啊，看来我们都已经背离了尊重自由和法治（不管什么东西只要中国说那是它的，那就是它的），这正是我所担心的。听我这个美国人一句劝吧，盲目的煽动民族主义可不是什么好点子——我们是过来人，这个办法向来都不管用。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
You raised three points, I responded your three points. Now you don't uphold your three points, meaning you agree with my responses.
你提出了三点，我一一作出了回应。你现在没有支撑你的论点，这意味着你同意我的看法。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
I think there might be a subtlety there that you missed - I find your counterpoints to be so bizarre so that they don't merit a detailed response. Asserting that, for example, mainland China owns Taiwan outright and can dispose of the island as it wishes, indicates that we don't agree on enough to merit further discussion.
Still, I would encourage you to read up on US history, particular our misadventures in Latin America - the last 50 years are a pretty strong indictment of the hypernationalistic worldview you espouse. Like I said - we've been there, we've done that, and it generally just leads to more problems.
我觉得你没有说到点子上。你的回复都很奇妙，根本算不上是细致的回答。比如说，你坚持认为中国完全拥有台湾，可以随心所欲地对其进行处置，这说明着我们没有必要再继续讨论下去了。
我还是建议你好好学习学习美国的历史，尤其是我们在拉丁美洲闯的那些祸。过去50年的历史已经很好地证明你所拥护的那种极端民族主义世界观有多危险。就像我刚才说的，我们是过来人，那些蠢事我们都干过，没有一点好处。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
So you agree that China has sovereignty on Taiwan. China's approach to ASEAN is completely different from American approach to South America. The result will be different.
看来你同意中国拥有对台湾的主权。中国之于东盟完全不同于美国之于南美。结果也不一样。
http://m.ltaaa.com/Index-article-pid-16464.html绥靖政策，别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克
正文翻译
Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.
放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心，反而会让它越发膨胀。
J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015
J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日
With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.
随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近，认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样，要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党，也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人，而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。
[copy]What is even more extraordinary about this lopsided logic is that its adherents do recognize the extraordinary accomplishments that have been made by Taiwan over the decades. And yet they still find it within themselves to propose policies that are as defeatist as they are bereft of human decency—or logic, for that matter, as we shall see.
对于这一显得十分不公平的论调而言，有一点显得很奇怪，那就尽管是它的支持者们并不否认台湾在过去几十年里所取得的非凡成就，但这群被剥夺了人类尊严和逻辑思维能力的失败者们依然坚持其原有观点。对于这点，且听我慢慢道来。
One of the high priests of the abandonment strategy is Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. Every once in a while, White regurgitates that point in op-eds and speeches (he tiptoed around the issue during a talk in Taipei last year, which I attended).
澳大利亚国立大学战略研究战略研究院教授修·怀特，就是这种放弃战略的一个鼓吹者。每隔一段时间，怀特都会在公开演讲中复述他的观点。（去年在台北的一次演讲中他曾小心翼翼地围绕这一问题发表过讲话，当时笔者也在场）[/copy]
The gist of his idea is that China’s national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.
他的观点有一个核心内容，那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步，而包括美国在内的国际社会，将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。
In an op-ed, titled“The harsh reality that Taiwan faces” published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. “Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us.”
怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为“台湾所面对的严酷事实”的署名评论文章，他在该文中称：“台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期，以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。”
“The conclusions,” he writes, “will be uncomfortable, but inescapable.” In other words, White argues that Taiwan’s capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.
他写道：“其结论必将令人感到不舒服，但却是不可逃避的。”言下之意，国际社会只能放弃台湾，而台湾，唯一的选择就是投降。
The problem with White’s über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn’t get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing’s impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not “return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen”—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)
怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说，他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁，以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人“不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策”——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他（她）的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决，后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。（未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待）
However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:
然而，不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵，他还是犯了一些错误。他写道：
No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan’s behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹，不仅是经济上的，还是政治，社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言，中国，在经济上太重要，在军事上又太强大，尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn’t resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.
这种“当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时，小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持”的论断就是灾难的种子，它无疑是在开历史倒车，当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。
We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn’t to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn’t the best answer to it.
我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论，而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数，以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。
[copy]Giving Taiwan away (as if it were the international community’s to give away to start with) would be akin to a sacrificial ceremony to appease an angry god. The problem is that doing so would likely be interpreted by Beijing as a sign of weakness, which almost certainly would fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them. In fact, the annexation of Taiwan would further contribute to China’s might by adding the world’s 19th largest economy to its national power while providing Beijing with an “unsinkable carrier” facing an open Western Pacific. In this sense, it would provide China with a new front from which to confront Japan and the Philippines, not to mention U.S. forces deployed in the region.
放弃台湾（就好像国际社会一开始就打算放弃似的）将无异于为了平息神明的愤怒而送上祭品一般。问题在于，这样做毫无疑问等于是向北京示弱，非但不能遏止中国人扩张的野心，反而会使其越发越膨胀。事实上，对中国来说，吞并台湾将意味着它将世界第19大经济体收入囊中并在面向西太平洋的地方拥有了一艘“永不沉没的航空母舰”。这也就意味着中国在与日本，菲律宾甚至部署在该地区的美军对抗时拥有了新的前线。[/copy]
Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn’t simply a symptom of wishful thinking by nave liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists’ point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.
不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾；从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说，和缓和紧张局势相比，同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子
Another problem with White’s argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was “falling behind” the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.
怀特的论断还有另外一个问题，那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认，华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战，只是我们似乎已经持续“衰落”了四分之三个世纪，尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月（话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年）。在过去，诸如“美国已经不如苏联了”或者“美国已经不想打仗了”“美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了”之类的话我们听的还少吗？如果我们多读读历史，就会知道，美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折，但是，困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。
In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo’s ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn’t fall into China’s hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.
况且在当下，我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱，日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。
Yet another flaw in White’s worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:
而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬，那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手，他写道：
the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.
如今，残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时，美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化：中国有能力击沉航空母舰，加上中美之间经济往来密切，如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。
He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.
他还说到：
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争，甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难，当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。
Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.
这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义，说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此，它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗，居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战，这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读，正如怀特在其文章中所提到的，他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾，让它自己将自己双手奉上。
For all its might, China isn’t above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hasn’t had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.
尽管中国有些实力，但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味，回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。
And while White warns that “There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough,” he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.
而怀特在警告“台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持”时却忽略了这一点，那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。
The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren’t the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists’ playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing’s—and PLA—control.
从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的，怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点，那就是在亚洲，一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是，对于台湾而言，民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看，台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。
J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.
J·迈克尔·科尔，前加拿大安全情报局分析师，www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编，诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员，台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
评论翻译
Mr. Wang4 days agoThe reality is that Taiwan is much more in China's sphere of concern than it is in America's. In this way it is similar to the Russia/Ukraine issue. The west is obviously upset by Russia's actions in the Ukraine, but NATO isn't going to risk war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
事实是中国远比美国要更加关心台湾。这点和俄罗斯/乌克兰问题很相似。西方很明显对俄罗斯在乌克兰的动作感到不爽，但是北约是不会为了乌克兰和俄罗斯开战的。
And I'm afraid that the US would not risk war with China for the sake of Taiwan. Japan too may not like it, but it is hard for me to imagine large numbers of Japanese willing to risk their lives for the sake of Taiwan. Could their aging population even muster a significant fighting force?
我恐怕美国不会为了台湾和中国开战，日本同样不可能，我实在无法想象一大群日本人会为了台湾来牺牲掉自己的性命。他们在面对的人口老龄化问题的情况下还能拼奏出一支具有着一定实力的军队吗？
Also, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about Taiwan. I've lived in the US before and when I told people where I'm from most thought I was from Thailand. How can you expect Americans to risk their lives for a place and people they know nothing about? Yes, they've certainly done it plenty of times in the past (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.). But I sense a war weariness in the US population after their recent adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. America has a multitude of domestic problems and an astronomical national debt. Today (and increasingly so in the future) It would be challenging to convince the American public to invest countless lives and treasure to defend a land they've never heard of. As it would take more than a few remote controlled drone strikes to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
况且美国大众根本就对台湾的事情一无所知。以前我在美国的时候每当告诉别人我是哪里人时总会被认为是泰国人。你说美国人怎么会为了一个他们连听都没听说过的地方去拼命呢？没错，同样的事情他们以前干过很多次（朝鲜，越南，科威特等等）。但是自从阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争之后，我在他们身上感觉到了很强的厌战情绪。美国面临着很多国内问题和天文数字般的外债。如今（或未来）动员美国公众献出生命和金钱去保卫一处他们闻所未闻的地方可不是一件简单的事。毕竟要想阻止中国入侵台湾，光靠几架无人机发射几枚空对地导弹远远不够。
There are many reasons why China seeks to control Taiwan (history, nationalism, etc). However, one important reason is defense. Cole speaks of how China could use Taiwan as a launching pad for further expansion in the Pacific (I doubt this is China's goal). However, the opposite is also true. From the PRC's point-of-view a Taiwan that is allied with hostile forces could be a launching pad for strikes into the mainland. As China grows in power it will seek to eliminate this potential threat. There is nothing sinister or unusual in China wanting to make sure its neighborhood is secure. Every great power does this.
I want Taiwan to maintain its democracy and current way of life. However, a war (even a victorious one) isn't the way to make that happen. Taiwan would be on the front lines of any war, which would result in the destruction of our cities and countless lives lost. How would the destruction of Taiwan be beneficial for anyone? I don't pretend to know how to solve the thorny China/Taiwan issue, but whichever way it goes a peaceful resolution is best.
中国有很多理由控制台湾（历史，民族主义等等）。然而，最重要的一个理由则是防御。科尔说道中国把台湾用作向太平洋进行扩张的跳板（但我怀疑这是不是中国的目的）。但是反过来从PRC的角度来看，一个和敌对势力结盟的台湾也可以成为进攻中国大陆的跳板。随着中国实力的增强它迟早会要拔掉这颗眼中钉。中国想要让周边安全是无可厚非的。每个大国都会这么做。我希望台湾能维持民主制度和现在的生活方式。但是，这不能通过战争（即使是胜仗）来实现。台湾将会变成任何一场战争的最前线，我们将付城市毁灭尸横遍野的高昂的代价。台湾都没了，谁还能得到什么好处吗？我不会自以为知道该怎么解决台湾问题，但不管怎么样，和平解决是最好的。
CETMr. Wang4 days agoI would guess we'll see a continuation of the status quo. Neither the US nor China want a hot war against each other, and if re-unification ever becomes a truly attractive option for the Taiwanese, force won't be necessary. Barring a miscalculation by one side or the other, there's no reason for war.
我猜会维持现状。美中都不想和对方开战，等哪天统一对台湾人来说变得更具有吸引力时，武力也就没有意义了。要防止任何一方发生误判，没必要打仗。
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoChina will not allow a continuation of the status quo, will push step by step towards unification
中国不会容忍你维持现状的，它会一步一步地推进统一。
CETting_m_19994 days agoThey will push, yes. But my read is that as long as PRC leadership doesn't start believing its own military propaganda, and as long as the US continues to support Taiwan's independence (but not so much that PRC leadership regards our hardware in Taiwan as an existential threat), it'll be fine.
他们会的，但是我的观点是，只要PRC领导层不被自己军队的宣传所欺骗，以及美国继续支持台湾独立（但是不要达到让PRC领导层认为我们部署在台湾的装备构成了威胁的那种程度）的话就不会有事。
Part of that is that right now, both sides think they have time on their side - I think most US policymakers are pretty skeptical about the long term sustainability of China's current system, and my general impression of Chinese policy is that they still regard their rise as inexorable. So why would either side risk making a move that might force a war now?
有一点就是双方都认为时间站在自己这一边。我想美国大部分的决策者都对中国现行的政治体制还能维系多久表示怀疑，而我对中国政策的印象是他们依然认为他们的崛起是不可阻挡的。那么既然这样，双方干嘛要现在就开战呢？
Of course, if the calculus changes, particular if PRC leadership gets desperate, things could get ugly in a hurry . . .
当然，如果事态有变，尤其是当PRC的领导层越来越沉不住气时，局势一定会急转直下……
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoThe shackle put on China by America on the Taiwan issue will be broken one way or other. We all advocate equality, freedom and democracy, rule by law but not defined by America for America's own interest or the world would not like to be ruled by a dictatorial America. America's support of Taiwan's independence violates international rule of law if America ever believe rule of law. China will not stop attempting to free itself from the bondage placed on China by America. The recent AIIB is just an example. America can regard that as a threat to its financial supremacy,is desperate and can start a war. Similar incidences will happen in the future and the world will be looking at America when America will start another war as America has been doing that all the time.
台湾问题就像是美国套在中国身上的一条枷锁，它迟早会被打碎。我们都主张自由民主平等法制，但这些不应该由美国为了自己的利益来定义。世界不应该处在美国的独裁统治之下。美国支持台湾独立本身就违反国际法，如果美国还相信法治的话。中国不会放弃冲破美国所施加的束缚。最近的亚投行就是个例子。美国可以把它当做是对自己的金融霸权的威胁而发动战中。类似的事情以后会发生。美国将在全世界的注视下再次发动战争，这是美国的一贯作法。
CETting_m_19993 days agoIn no particular order:
1) I can pretty confidently assert that the US is not going to go to war over wholly economic issues. There might be diplomatic and economic wrangling, but things like the AIIB aren't seen over here as legitimizing the use of military force. If WWIII starts in the pacific, it will be over a series of military escalations (like the PLAN doing something dumb and risky to claim part of someone else's maritime territory).
2) Support of 'equality, freedom and democracy' is a good reason to help Taiwan maintain its independence from a power that, quite frankly, has a terrible record of integrating new polities (see Tibet, Hong Kong). If Taiwan decides to become part of mainland China, fine. But 'rule of law' and 'support for freedom' arguments hardly support letting China beat Taiwan into submission either economically or militarily.
3) It might be useful to consider this situation as being loosely analogous to US/Cuba relations during the cold war. Cuba was a nominally hostile power in our backyard, that in actuality posed virtually no threat (except for the missile crisis, which illustrates the dangers to both sides of escalating). US operations against Cuba (both military and covert) were uniformly disastrous, and their only effect was to delay the eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. In general, given the mess that is Latin America, it's worth thinking twice before emulating US cold war policy towards smaller neighboring states.
1.我可以肯定美国不可能纯粹因为经济原因就发动战争。也许亚投行之类的事情会引起一些经济和外交上的纠纷，但绝不会成为动用军事力量的理由。如果第三次世界大战在太平洋战场上开打，也只会因为军事上的升级（比如说中国海军干了诸如声称他国领海是自己的之类的蠢事）。
2.支持“自由民主平等”就已经足够作为帮助台湾独立的理由了。尤其是从一个劣迹斑斑的国家那里独立（详情见XZ，香港）。如果台湾想成为中国大陆的一部分，行。但是“法制”和“支持自由”这两条却使得中国不管是通过经济手段还是军事手段迫使台湾屈服都缺乏应有的正当性。
3.冷战时期美国和古巴的关系可以大致上拿来做参考。古巴是一个身处我们后院的敌对势力，但是其带来的实质威胁却极为有限（除了古巴导弹危机，那件事对双方来说都很危险）。美国针对古巴采取的行动（包括军事上和谍报上）几乎都损失惨重，所带来的后果无非是拖延了两国关系正常化。总的来说，美国在冷战时对弱小邻国所推行的政策不值得去效仿，看看拉美现在成什么样子了。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
1. America has been starting wars on any excuse America deems fit including false excuse and expect no other nations dare to stop it. China will claim someone else so-called maritime territory which was stolen from China.
2. You are so ignorant not to know thatTaiwan is not an independent country and not recognized by majority of UN members. No excuse can refute the fact that China has sovereignty over Taiwan and China has the right to unite with Taiwan in whatever way it deems fit.
3. It is only in USA mind that Cuba is a threat. It is because of this USA distorted fear that threatens Cuba's freedom of choice of its own destiny and creates the mess around the world.
1.只要美国想打仗，借口根本就不是问题，反正它觉得只要它想打，谁也挡不住。中国索求的那些所谓他国领海都是从中国那里偷走的。
2.你这个人太无知了，居然连台湾不是一个受联合国大部分成员国承认的独立国家都不知道。任何理由都改变不了中国拥有对台湾的主权的事实，中国无论如何都有权统一台湾。
3.全世界只有美国认为古巴是威胁。因为古巴有选择自己命运的自由，美国对这点感到莫名的恐惧，这种恐惧驱使着美国在世界各地到处捣乱。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
Ah, I see we've now dropped all pretense at respecting freedom or rule of law (everything that China wants belongs to China, because they say so . .. ). That's what I was afraid of.Blind and grasping nationalism is not an asset, Trust an American on that - we've been there, we've done that, and it has pretty much never worked out well.
啊，看来我们都已经背离了尊重自由和法治（不管什么东西只要中国说那是它的，那就是它的），这正是我所担心的。听我这个美国人一句劝吧，盲目的煽动民族主义可不是什么好点子——我们是过来人，这个办法向来都不管用。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
You raised three points, I responded your three points. Now you don't uphold your three points, meaning you agree with my responses.
你提出了三点，我一一作出了回应。你现在没有支撑你的论点，这意味着你同意我的看法。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
I think there might be a subtlety there that you missed - I find your counterpoints to be so bizarre so that they don't merit a detailed response. Asserting that, for example, mainland China owns Taiwan outright and can dispose of the island as it wishes, indicates that we don't agree on enough to merit further discussion.
Still, I would encourage you to read up on US history, particular our misadventures in Latin America - the last 50 years are a pretty strong indictment of the hypernationalistic worldview you espouse. Like I said - we've been there, we've done that, and it generally just leads to more problems.
我觉得你没有说到点子上。你的回复都很奇妙，根本算不上是细致的回答。比如说，你坚持认为中国完全拥有台湾，可以随心所欲地对其进行处置，这说明着我们没有必要再继续讨论下去了。
我还是建议你好好学习学习美国的历史，尤其是我们在拉丁美洲闯的那些祸。过去50年的历史已经很好地证明你所拥护的那种极端民族主义世界观有多危险。就像我刚才说的，我们是过来人，那些蠢事我们都干过，没有一点好处。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
So you agree that China has sovereignty on Taiwan. China's approach to ASEAN is completely different from American approach to South America. The result will be different.
看来你同意中国拥有对台湾的主权。中国之于东盟完全不同于美国之于南美。结果也不一样。
http://m.ltaaa.com/Index-article-pid-16464.html
正文翻译
Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.
放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心，反而会让它越发膨胀。
J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015
J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日
With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.
随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近，认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样，要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党，也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人，而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。
[copy]What is even more extraordinary about this lopsided logic is that its adherents do recognize the extraordinary accomplishments that have been made by Taiwan over the decades. And yet they still find it within themselves to propose policies that are as defeatist as they are bereft of human decency—or logic, for that matter, as we shall see.
对于这一显得十分不公平的论调而言，有一点显得很奇怪，那就尽管是它的支持者们并不否认台湾在过去几十年里所取得的非凡成就，但这群被剥夺了人类尊严和逻辑思维能力的失败者们依然坚持其原有观点。对于这点，且听我慢慢道来。
One of the high priests of the abandonment strategy is Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. Every once in a while, White regurgitates that point in op-eds and speeches (he tiptoed around the issue during a talk in Taipei last year, which I attended).
澳大利亚国立大学战略研究战略研究院教授修·怀特，就是这种放弃战略的一个鼓吹者。每隔一段时间，怀特都会在公开演讲中复述他的观点。（去年在台北的一次演讲中他曾小心翼翼地围绕这一问题发表过讲话，当时笔者也在场）[/copy]
The gist of his idea is that China’s national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.
他的观点有一个核心内容，那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步，而包括美国在内的国际社会，将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。
In an op-ed, titled“The harsh reality that Taiwan faces” published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. “Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us.”
怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为“台湾所面对的严酷事实”的署名评论文章，他在该文中称：“台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期，以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。”
“The conclusions,” he writes, “will be uncomfortable, but inescapable.” In other words, White argues that Taiwan’s capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.
他写道：“其结论必将令人感到不舒服，但却是不可逃避的。”言下之意，国际社会只能放弃台湾，而台湾，唯一的选择就是投降。
The problem with White’s über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn’t get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing’s impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not “return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen”—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)
怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说，他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁，以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人“不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策”——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他（她）的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决，后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。（未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待）
However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:
然而，不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵，他还是犯了一些错误。他写道：
No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan’s behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹，不仅是经济上的，还是政治，社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言，中国，在经济上太重要，在军事上又太强大，尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn’t resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.
这种“当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时，小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持”的论断就是灾难的种子，它无疑是在开历史倒车，当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。
We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn’t to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn’t the best answer to it.
我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论，而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数，以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。
[copy]Giving Taiwan away (as if it were the international community’s to give away to start with) would be akin to a sacrificial ceremony to appease an angry god. The problem is that doing so would likely be interpreted by Beijing as a sign of weakness, which almost certainly would fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them. In fact, the annexation of Taiwan would further contribute to China’s might by adding the world’s 19th largest economy to its national power while providing Beijing with an “unsinkable carrier” facing an open Western Pacific. In this sense, it would provide China with a new front from which to confront Japan and the Philippines, not to mention U.S. forces deployed in the region.
放弃台湾（就好像国际社会一开始就打算放弃似的）将无异于为了平息神明的愤怒而送上祭品一般。问题在于，这样做毫无疑问等于是向北京示弱，非但不能遏止中国人扩张的野心，反而会使其越发越膨胀。事实上，对中国来说，吞并台湾将意味着它将世界第19大经济体收入囊中并在面向西太平洋的地方拥有了一艘“永不沉没的航空母舰”。这也就意味着中国在与日本，菲律宾甚至部署在该地区的美军对抗时拥有了新的前线。[/copy]
Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn’t simply a symptom of wishful thinking by nave liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists’ point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.
不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾；从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说，和缓和紧张局势相比，同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子
Another problem with White’s argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was “falling behind” the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.
怀特的论断还有另外一个问题，那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认，华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战，只是我们似乎已经持续“衰落”了四分之三个世纪，尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月（话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年）。在过去，诸如“美国已经不如苏联了”或者“美国已经不想打仗了”“美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了”之类的话我们听的还少吗？如果我们多读读历史，就会知道，美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折，但是，困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。
In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo’s ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn’t fall into China’s hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.
况且在当下，我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱，日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。
Yet another flaw in White’s worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:
而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬，那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手，他写道：
the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.
如今，残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时，美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化：中国有能力击沉航空母舰，加上中美之间经济往来密切，如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。
He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.
他还说到：
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争，甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难，当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。
Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.
这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义，说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此，它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗，居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战，这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读，正如怀特在其文章中所提到的，他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾，让它自己将自己双手奉上。
For all its might, China isn’t above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hasn’t had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.
尽管中国有些实力，但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味，回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。
And while White warns that “There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough,” he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.
而怀特在警告“台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持”时却忽略了这一点，那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。
The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren’t the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists’ playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing’s—and PLA—control.
从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的，怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点，那就是在亚洲，一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是，对于台湾而言，民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看，台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。
J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.
J·迈克尔·科尔，前加拿大安全情报局分析师，www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编，诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员，台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
评论翻译
Mr. Wang4 days agoThe reality is that Taiwan is much more in China's sphere of concern than it is in America's. In this way it is similar to the Russia/Ukraine issue. The west is obviously upset by Russia's actions in the Ukraine, but NATO isn't going to risk war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
事实是中国远比美国要更加关心台湾。这点和俄罗斯/乌克兰问题很相似。西方很明显对俄罗斯在乌克兰的动作感到不爽，但是北约是不会为了乌克兰和俄罗斯开战的。
And I'm afraid that the US would not risk war with China for the sake of Taiwan. Japan too may not like it, but it is hard for me to imagine large numbers of Japanese willing to risk their lives for the sake of Taiwan. Could their aging population even muster a significant fighting force?
我恐怕美国不会为了台湾和中国开战，日本同样不可能，我实在无法想象一大群日本人会为了台湾来牺牲掉自己的性命。他们在面对的人口老龄化问题的情况下还能拼奏出一支具有着一定实力的军队吗？
Also, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about Taiwan. I've lived in the US before and when I told people where I'm from most thought I was from Thailand. How can you expect Americans to risk their lives for a place and people they know nothing about? Yes, they've certainly done it plenty of times in the past (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.). But I sense a war weariness in the US population after their recent adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. America has a multitude of domestic problems and an astronomical national debt. Today (and increasingly so in the future) It would be challenging to convince the American public to invest countless lives and treasure to defend a land they've never heard of. As it would take more than a few remote controlled drone strikes to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
况且美国大众根本就对台湾的事情一无所知。以前我在美国的时候每当告诉别人我是哪里人时总会被认为是泰国人。你说美国人怎么会为了一个他们连听都没听说过的地方去拼命呢？没错，同样的事情他们以前干过很多次（朝鲜，越南，科威特等等）。但是自从阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争之后，我在他们身上感觉到了很强的厌战情绪。美国面临着很多国内问题和天文数字般的外债。如今（或未来）动员美国公众献出生命和金钱去保卫一处他们闻所未闻的地方可不是一件简单的事。毕竟要想阻止中国入侵台湾，光靠几架无人机发射几枚空对地导弹远远不够。
There are many reasons why China seeks to control Taiwan (history, nationalism, etc). However, one important reason is defense. Cole speaks of how China could use Taiwan as a launching pad for further expansion in the Pacific (I doubt this is China's goal). However, the opposite is also true. From the PRC's point-of-view a Taiwan that is allied with hostile forces could be a launching pad for strikes into the mainland. As China grows in power it will seek to eliminate this potential threat. There is nothing sinister or unusual in China wanting to make sure its neighborhood is secure. Every great power does this.
I want Taiwan to maintain its democracy and current way of life. However, a war (even a victorious one) isn't the way to make that happen. Taiwan would be on the front lines of any war, which would result in the destruction of our cities and countless lives lost. How would the destruction of Taiwan be beneficial for anyone? I don't pretend to know how to solve the thorny China/Taiwan issue, but whichever way it goes a peaceful resolution is best.
中国有很多理由控制台湾（历史，民族主义等等）。然而，最重要的一个理由则是防御。科尔说道中国把台湾用作向太平洋进行扩张的跳板（但我怀疑这是不是中国的目的）。但是反过来从PRC的角度来看，一个和敌对势力结盟的台湾也可以成为进攻中国大陆的跳板。随着中国实力的增强它迟早会要拔掉这颗眼中钉。中国想要让周边安全是无可厚非的。每个大国都会这么做。我希望台湾能维持民主制度和现在的生活方式。但是，这不能通过战争（即使是胜仗）来实现。台湾将会变成任何一场战争的最前线，我们将付城市毁灭尸横遍野的高昂的代价。台湾都没了，谁还能得到什么好处吗？我不会自以为知道该怎么解决台湾问题，但不管怎么样，和平解决是最好的。
CETMr. Wang4 days agoI would guess we'll see a continuation of the status quo. Neither the US nor China want a hot war against each other, and if re-unification ever becomes a truly attractive option for the Taiwanese, force won't be necessary. Barring a miscalculation by one side or the other, there's no reason for war.
我猜会维持现状。美中都不想和对方开战，等哪天统一对台湾人来说变得更具有吸引力时，武力也就没有意义了。要防止任何一方发生误判，没必要打仗。
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoChina will not allow a continuation of the status quo, will push step by step towards unification
中国不会容忍你维持现状的，它会一步一步地推进统一。
CETting_m_19994 days agoThey will push, yes. But my read is that as long as PRC leadership doesn't start believing its own military propaganda, and as long as the US continues to support Taiwan's independence (but not so much that PRC leadership regards our hardware in Taiwan as an existential threat), it'll be fine.
他们会的，但是我的观点是，只要PRC领导层不被自己军队的宣传所欺骗，以及美国继续支持台湾独立（但是不要达到让PRC领导层认为我们部署在台湾的装备构成了威胁的那种程度）的话就不会有事。
Part of that is that right now, both sides think they have time on their side - I think most US policymakers are pretty skeptical about the long term sustainability of China's current system, and my general impression of Chinese policy is that they still regard their rise as inexorable. So why would either side risk making a move that might force a war now?
有一点就是双方都认为时间站在自己这一边。我想美国大部分的决策者都对中国现行的政治体制还能维系多久表示怀疑，而我对中国政策的印象是他们依然认为他们的崛起是不可阻挡的。那么既然这样，双方干嘛要现在就开战呢？
Of course, if the calculus changes, particular if PRC leadership gets desperate, things could get ugly in a hurry . . .
当然，如果事态有变，尤其是当PRC的领导层越来越沉不住气时，局势一定会急转直下……
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoThe shackle put on China by America on the Taiwan issue will be broken one way or other. We all advocate equality, freedom and democracy, rule by law but not defined by America for America's own interest or the world would not like to be ruled by a dictatorial America. America's support of Taiwan's independence violates international rule of law if America ever believe rule of law. China will not stop attempting to free itself from the bondage placed on China by America. The recent AIIB is just an example. America can regard that as a threat to its financial supremacy,is desperate and can start a war. Similar incidences will happen in the future and the world will be looking at America when America will start another war as America has been doing that all the time.
台湾问题就像是美国套在中国身上的一条枷锁，它迟早会被打碎。我们都主张自由民主平等法制，但这些不应该由美国为了自己的利益来定义。世界不应该处在美国的独裁统治之下。美国支持台湾独立本身就违反国际法，如果美国还相信法治的话。中国不会放弃冲破美国所施加的束缚。最近的亚投行就是个例子。美国可以把它当做是对自己的金融霸权的威胁而发动战中。类似的事情以后会发生。美国将在全世界的注视下再次发动战争，这是美国的一贯作法。
CETting_m_19993 days agoIn no particular order:
1) I can pretty confidently assert that the US is not going to go to war over wholly economic issues. There might be diplomatic and economic wrangling, but things like the AIIB aren't seen over here as legitimizing the use of military force. If WWIII starts in the pacific, it will be over a series of military escalations (like the PLAN doing something dumb and risky to claim part of someone else's maritime territory).
2) Support of 'equality, freedom and democracy' is a good reason to help Taiwan maintain its independence from a power that, quite frankly, has a terrible record of integrating new polities (see Tibet, Hong Kong). If Taiwan decides to become part of mainland China, fine. But 'rule of law' and 'support for freedom' arguments hardly support letting China beat Taiwan into submission either economically or militarily.
3) It might be useful to consider this situation as being loosely analogous to US/Cuba relations during the cold war. Cuba was a nominally hostile power in our backyard, that in actuality posed virtually no threat (except for the missile crisis, which illustrates the dangers to both sides of escalating). US operations against Cuba (both military and covert) were uniformly disastrous, and their only effect was to delay the eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. In general, given the mess that is Latin America, it's worth thinking twice before emulating US cold war policy towards smaller neighboring states.
1.我可以肯定美国不可能纯粹因为经济原因就发动战争。也许亚投行之类的事情会引起一些经济和外交上的纠纷，但绝不会成为动用军事力量的理由。如果第三次世界大战在太平洋战场上开打，也只会因为军事上的升级（比如说中国海军干了诸如声称他国领海是自己的之类的蠢事）。
2.支持“自由民主平等”就已经足够作为帮助台湾独立的理由了。尤其是从一个劣迹斑斑的国家那里独立（详情见XZ，香港）。如果台湾想成为中国大陆的一部分，行。但是“法制”和“支持自由”这两条却使得中国不管是通过经济手段还是军事手段迫使台湾屈服都缺乏应有的正当性。
3.冷战时期美国和古巴的关系可以大致上拿来做参考。古巴是一个身处我们后院的敌对势力，但是其带来的实质威胁却极为有限（除了古巴导弹危机，那件事对双方来说都很危险）。美国针对古巴采取的行动（包括军事上和谍报上）几乎都损失惨重，所带来的后果无非是拖延了两国关系正常化。总的来说，美国在冷战时对弱小邻国所推行的政策不值得去效仿，看看拉美现在成什么样子了。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
1. America has been starting wars on any excuse America deems fit including false excuse and expect no other nations dare to stop it. China will claim someone else so-called maritime territory which was stolen from China.
2. You are so ignorant not to know thatTaiwan is not an independent country and not recognized by majority of UN members. No excuse can refute the fact that China has sovereignty over Taiwan and China has the right to unite with Taiwan in whatever way it deems fit.
3. It is only in USA mind that Cuba is a threat. It is because of this USA distorted fear that threatens Cuba's freedom of choice of its own destiny and creates the mess around the world.
1.只要美国想打仗，借口根本就不是问题，反正它觉得只要它想打，谁也挡不住。中国索求的那些所谓他国领海都是从中国那里偷走的。
2.你这个人太无知了，居然连台湾不是一个受联合国大部分成员国承认的独立国家都不知道。任何理由都改变不了中国拥有对台湾的主权的事实，中国无论如何都有权统一台湾。
3.全世界只有美国认为古巴是威胁。因为古巴有选择自己命运的自由，美国对这点感到莫名的恐惧，这种恐惧驱使着美国在世界各地到处捣乱。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
Ah, I see we've now dropped all pretense at respecting freedom or rule of law (everything that China wants belongs to China, because they say so . .. ). That's what I was afraid of.Blind and grasping nationalism is not an asset, Trust an American on that - we've been there, we've done that, and it has pretty much never worked out well.
啊，看来我们都已经背离了尊重自由和法治（不管什么东西只要中国说那是它的，那就是它的），这正是我所担心的。听我这个美国人一句劝吧，盲目的煽动民族主义可不是什么好点子——我们是过来人，这个办法向来都不管用。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
You raised three points, I responded your three points. Now you don't uphold your three points, meaning you agree with my responses.
你提出了三点，我一一作出了回应。你现在没有支撑你的论点，这意味着你同意我的看法。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
I think there might be a subtlety there that you missed - I find your counterpoints to be so bizarre so that they don't merit a detailed response. Asserting that, for example, mainland China owns Taiwan outright and can dispose of the island as it wishes, indicates that we don't agree on enough to merit further discussion.
Still, I would encourage you to read up on US history, particular our misadventures in Latin America - the last 50 years are a pretty strong indictment of the hypernationalistic worldview you espouse. Like I said - we've been there, we've done that, and it generally just leads to more problems.
我觉得你没有说到点子上。你的回复都很奇妙，根本算不上是细致的回答。比如说，你坚持认为中国完全拥有台湾，可以随心所欲地对其进行处置，这说明着我们没有必要再继续讨论下去了。
我还是建议你好好学习学习美国的历史，尤其是我们在拉丁美洲闯的那些祸。过去50年的历史已经很好地证明你所拥护的那种极端民族主义世界观有多危险。就像我刚才说的，我们是过来人，那些蠢事我们都干过，没有一点好处。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
So you agree that China has sovereignty on Taiwan. China's approach to ASEAN is completely different from American approach to South America. The result will be different.
看来你同意中国拥有对台湾的主权。中国之于东盟完全不同于美国之于南美。结果也不一样。
http://m.ltaaa.com/Index-article-pid-16464.html绥靖政策，别让台湾成为下一个捷克斯洛伐克
正文翻译
Allowing China to conquer Taiwan would almost certainly fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them.
放任中国征服台湾非但不会遏止其扩张的野心，反而会让它越发膨胀。
J. Michael Cole
April 23, 2015
J·迈克尔·科尔
2015年4月23日
With the prospects of a transition of power next year, the punditry is once again shifting into high gear with alarmist messages about the risk of renewed tensions in the Taiwan Strait. As always, it is the Taiwanese side—not only the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) but also the millions of Taiwanese who want to maintain their way of life—that is being blamed for the potential risks, not the bully on the other side who is aiming his canons at the island.
随着将于明年到来的权力交接越来越近，认为台湾海峡将再次笼罩在紧张的气氛之中的看法也随之而来。和往常一样，要为此背黑锅的那一方在台湾——不光是民进党，也包括了数百万想要保持自己的生活方式的台湾人，而不是对岸那个把炮口对准了这座岛屿的恶霸。
[copy]What is even more extraordinary about this lopsided logic is that its adherents do recognize the extraordinary accomplishments that have been made by Taiwan over the decades. And yet they still find it within themselves to propose policies that are as defeatist as they are bereft of human decency—or logic, for that matter, as we shall see.
对于这一显得十分不公平的论调而言，有一点显得很奇怪，那就尽管是它的支持者们并不否认台湾在过去几十年里所取得的非凡成就，但这群被剥夺了人类尊严和逻辑思维能力的失败者们依然坚持其原有观点。对于这点，且听我慢慢道来。
One of the high priests of the abandonment strategy is Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. Every once in a while, White regurgitates that point in op-eds and speeches (he tiptoed around the issue during a talk in Taipei last year, which I attended).
澳大利亚国立大学战略研究战略研究院教授修·怀特，就是这种放弃战略的一个鼓吹者。每隔一段时间，怀特都会在公开演讲中复述他的观点。（去年在台北的一次演讲中他曾小心翼翼地围绕这一问题发表过讲话，当时笔者也在场）[/copy]
The gist of his idea is that China’s national power has become such that Taiwan cannot hope to resist it and the international community, the United States included, will not intervene on its behalf, lest doing so spark a major conflagration in the Asia-Pacific and hurt their economies.
他的观点有一个核心内容，那就是中国的国力已经强大到令台湾所望尘莫及的地步，而包括美国在内的国际社会，将不会冒着在亚太地区掀起战火并损害自身的经济的风险来替台湾撑腰。
In an op-ed, titled“The harsh reality that Taiwan faces” published in the Straits Times on April 15, White spells it all out. “Taiwan and its friends and admirers everywhere have to think very carefully about how to handle the dangerous period that lies ahead and to consider what is ultimately in the best interest of the Taiwanese people, as well as the rest of us.”
怀特于4月15日在新加坡《海峡时报》上发表了一篇题为“台湾所面对的严酷事实”的署名评论文章，他在该文中称：“台湾和它的朋友以及各地的仰慕者们应该认真思考一下应当如何应对即将到来的危险期，以及台湾人民的最大利益究竟是什么。我们大家都应该思考这个问题。”
“The conclusions,” he writes, “will be uncomfortable, but inescapable.” In other words, White argues that Taiwan’s capitulation, and abandonment by the international community, is the only option.
他写道：“其结论必将令人感到不舒服，但却是不可逃避的。”言下之意，国际社会只能放弃台湾，而台湾，唯一的选择就是投降。
The problem with White’s über-Realist position is that it rests on a series of false assumptions about China. To be fair to White, he doesn’t get it all wrong. He correctly identifies Beijing’s impatience under Xi Jinping and is almost certainly right when he says that a future DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leader would not “return to policies as provocative to China as those of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chen”—referring to former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian—but that he or she would likely be more assertive than President Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy over the past seven years has primarily been to bend over backwards to please Beijing. (The so-called greater assertiveness of the future leader will be nothing more than a reflection of popular expectations in democratic Taiwan.)
怀特的这一立场是建立在对中国的一系列误判之上等的。不过老实说，他并不完全是错的。至少他正确指出了XJP治下的中国变得越来越急躁，以及民进党和国民党未来的领导人“不会重新推行李先生和陈先生的那些挑衅味十足的政策”——他指的是前总统李登辉和陈水扁——但是他（她）的立场将会比马英九总统更加坚决，后者在过去七年的政策就是卑躬屈膝地去讨好北京。（未来领导人的所谓的更加坚决将仅仅是是回应民主的台湾公众的期待）
However, White fails in his prescriptions, however laudable his intention to avoid major escalations may be. He writes:
然而，不管他那试图避免局势恶化的意图多么正当和可贵，他还是犯了一些错误。他写道：
No one visiting Taipei can fail to be impressed by what the Taiwanese have achieved in recent decades, not just economically but also politically, socially and culturally. But the harsh reality is that no country is going to sacrifice its relations with China in order to help Taiwan preserve the status quo. China is simply too important economically, and too powerful militarily, for anyone to confront it on Taiwan’s behalf, especially when everyone knows how determined China is to achieve reunification eventually.
没有人在拜访了台北之后不为台湾人在过去几十年里取得的成就而感到惊叹，不仅是经济上的，还是政治，社会和文化上的。但是严酷的事实确是没有一个国家会为了台湾而牺牲和中国的关系。对于任何企图给台湾撑腰的国家而言，中国，在经济上太重要，在军事上又太强大，尤其是大家都知道中国为了完成统一的决心有多大。
The argument that a regional hegemon has become so powerful that smaller parties shouldn’t resist it and are undeserving of international support is a recipe for disaster, as it presages a return to an international relations system that led to two world wars.
这种“当一个地区霸主变得十分强大时，小势力既不应该反抗也不应该寻求国际支持”的论断就是灾难的种子，它无疑是在开历史倒车，当年就是这种国际关系模式导致了两次世界大战。
We all know what good it did the world when the great powers left Czechoslovakia to fend for itself against Nazi Germany. The idea here isn’t to compare Beijing to Berlin under Hitler, but simply to point out the internal logic and dynamics of expansionism, and how appeasement isn’t the best answer to it.
我们都知道当年列强为了安抚纳粹德国而牺牲掉捷克斯洛伐克给世界带来了什么。当然这里不是把北京和小胡子时期的柏林相提并论，而是要指出扩张主义的本质和可能带来的变数，以及绥靖政策为什么不是最好的应对方式。
[copy]Giving Taiwan away (as if it were the international community’s to give away to start with) would be akin to a sacrificial ceremony to appease an angry god. The problem is that doing so would likely be interpreted by Beijing as a sign of weakness, which almost certainly would fan the flames of Chinese expansionism rather than extinguish them. In fact, the annexation of Taiwan would further contribute to China’s might by adding the world’s 19th largest economy to its national power while providing Beijing with an “unsinkable carrier” facing an open Western Pacific. In this sense, it would provide China with a new front from which to confront Japan and the Philippines, not to mention U.S. forces deployed in the region.
放弃台湾（就好像国际社会一开始就打算放弃似的）将无异于为了平息神明的愤怒而送上祭品一般。问题在于，这样做毫无疑问等于是向北京示弱，非但不能遏止中国人扩张的野心，反而会使其越发越膨胀。事实上，对中国来说，吞并台湾将意味着它将世界第19大经济体收入囊中并在面向西太平洋的地方拥有了一艘“永不沉没的航空母舰”。这也就意味着中国在与日本，菲律宾甚至部署在该地区的美军对抗时拥有了新的前线。[/copy]
Arguing for the preservation of Taiwan isn’t simply a symptom of wishful thinking by nave liberals who want to save a democracy against authoritarianism; the Realists’ point that it should be bargained away can be met on similar terms. Abandoning Taiwan would likely encourage Chinese expansionism while giving it more tools to do so. In other words, the tradeoff, rather than ease tensions, would risk much greater instability in future.
不仅仅是那些天真地喊着要从专制独裁手中拯救自由民主的自由主义者们喜欢讨论保卫台湾；从实际的角度上来看也会得到相似的结论。放弃台湾很有可能将鼓励中国的扩张主义并让其获得更多手段达到其目的。换句话说，和缓和紧张局势相比，同对方进行交易反而会给未来埋下动乱的种子
Another problem with White’s argument is that it relies on the belief that the U.S. and its allies are a spent force. While it is true that Washington faces great challenges, this is a refrain that we have heard time and again over the past three quarters of a century, perhaps most emphatically in the months following the Vietnam War, which concluded 40 years ago this week. How often did we hear that the United States was “falling behind” the Soviet Union, or that it had no will to fight and was about to abandon its allies in Europe and Asia? If we can learn one thing from history, it is that the United States has been there before, and that it has a tendency to bounce back.
怀特的论断还有另外一个问题，那就是他认为美国和其盟友已经衰落。不可否认，华盛顿目前的确面临了很大的挑战，只是我们似乎已经持续“衰落”了四分之三个世纪，尤其是越南战争刚结束后的那几个月（话说这周就是越南战争结束40周年）。在过去，诸如“美国已经不如苏联了”或者“美国已经不想打仗了”“美国就要放弃欧洲和亚洲的盟友了”之类的话我们听的还少吗？如果我们多读读历史，就会知道，美国以前也曾遇到过困难和挫折，但是，困难挫折和是压不倒美国的。
In the present scenario, we should also not discount Tokyo’s ability and desire to ensure that Taiwan doesn’t fall into China’s hands. As a pillar of the U.S. security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Japan is unlikely to sit by idly as its next-door neighbor is taken over by China.
况且在当下，我们也不应忽略东京确保台湾不落入中国之手的能力和决心。作为美国在亚太安地区全结构的中流砥柱，日本不大可能眼巴巴的看着自己的邻居被中国占领。
Yet another flaw in White’s worldview is his depiction of Beijing as an unbeatable opponent. He writes:
而怀特的世界观还有一点很荒谬，那就是他把北京描绘成了一个不可战胜等的对手，他写道：
the stark reality is that these days, there is not much the US can realistically do to help Taipei stand up to serious pressure from Beijing.
Back in 1996 when they last went toe-to-toe over Taiwan, the US could simply send a couple of aircraft carriers into the area to force China to back off. Today the balance of power is vastly different: China can sink the carriers, and their economies are so intertwined that trade sanctions of the kind the US used against Russia recently are simply unthinkable.
如今，残酷的事实却是美国几乎无法为台湾在受到来自北京的强大压力时提供多少实质性的帮助。1996年台海危机时，美国只要派几艘航空母舰过去就能喝退中国。而如今双方的力量对比已经发生了很大的变化：中国有能力击沉航空母舰，加上中美之间经济往来密切，如今美国拿经济制裁这种用来对付俄罗斯的手段来对付中国是行不通的。
He continues:
Any US effort to support Taiwan militarily against China would be almost certain to escalate into a full-scale US-China war and quite possibly a nuclear exchange. That would be a disaster for everyone, including, of course, the people of Taiwan itself—far worse than reunification, in fact.
他还说到：
美国采取任何军事手段来帮助台湾对抗中国将毫无疑问挑起中美之间的全面战争，甚至是核战。那将是所有人的灾难，当然包括台湾人自己——这种结果比统一更可怕。
Not only is this defeatism, it treats China as if it did not rely just as heavily on the world economy for its own prosperity. It also assumes that the untested Chinese military would prevail in any scenario and would even risk nuclear annihilation for the sake of seizing Taiwan, which arguably misreads the intentions (and pragmatism) of the Chinese leadership, whose main strategy is to achieve exactly what White counsels in his article—to win the war against Taiwan without a fight, to have it handed over on a silver platter.
这种思维简直就是是彻头彻尾的失败主义，说得好像中国自己的繁荣就不用靠经济似的。不仅如此，它还臆想中国那支没有经过考验的军队居然能在任何情况下都能打胜仗，居然会为了拿下台湾不惜打核战，这无疑是对中国领导层的意图的一种误读，正如怀特在其文章中所提到的，他们的主要策略就是兵不血刃地拿下台湾，让它自己将自己双手奉上。
For all its might, China isn’t above the sting of sanctions or embarrassing defeats in wartime, given that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hasn’t had actual combat experience since 1979 when it ventured into Vietnam and got a bloody nose for its troubles.
尽管中国有些实力，但它并不是没有尝过制裁和战败的滋味，回想起来人民解放军自从1979年在越南进行军事冒险并被打得头破血流以来就没有过实战经验了。
And while White warns that “There is a real danger that the Taiwanese overestimate the international support they can rely on if Beijing decides to get tough,” he fails to mention that for its part, the international community tends to underestimate the dedication of the Taiwanese topreserve their way of life and identity.
而怀特在警告“台湾人高估了他们会在北京打算动粗时所能得到的国际支持”时却忽略了这一点，那就是国际社会也低估了台湾人保卫自己的生活方式和国家认同的决心。
The defense of Taiwan along moral lines is a perfectly sensible position to take, and as White himself seems to imply, it would be very sad indeed if this successful experiment in democratization in Asia were to fail because larger forces held different ideas regarding its future. Luckily for Taiwan, the virtues and defensibility of its democracy aren’t the only arguments in its favor. In the Realists’ playbook, there is every reason for making sure that Taiwan does not fall under Beijing’s—and PLA—control.
从道德角度上来看保卫台湾是完全正当的，怀特本人也在试图表达这样一点，那就是在亚洲，一次成功的民主实验仅仅因为有一个更庞大的势力对其未来抱有异议就要遭受失败是一件令人痛心的事。不过幸运的是，对于台湾而言，民主所带来的吸引力和生命力并不是它手中唯一的筹码。从现实的角度来看，台湾不会落入北京和解放军的控制的理由还有很多。
J. Michael Cole, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, is editor in chief of www.thinking-taiwan.com, a senior non-resident fellow at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, and an Associate researcher at the French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC) in Taipei.
J·迈克尔·科尔，前加拿大安全情报局分析师，www.thinking-taiwan.com网站总编，诺丁汉大学中国政策研究所非常驻研究员，台北法国当代中国研究中心副研究员。
评论翻译
Mr. Wang4 days agoThe reality is that Taiwan is much more in China's sphere of concern than it is in America's. In this way it is similar to the Russia/Ukraine issue. The west is obviously upset by Russia's actions in the Ukraine, but NATO isn't going to risk war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
事实是中国远比美国要更加关心台湾。这点和俄罗斯/乌克兰问题很相似。西方很明显对俄罗斯在乌克兰的动作感到不爽，但是北约是不会为了乌克兰和俄罗斯开战的。
And I'm afraid that the US would not risk war with China for the sake of Taiwan. Japan too may not like it, but it is hard for me to imagine large numbers of Japanese willing to risk their lives for the sake of Taiwan. Could their aging population even muster a significant fighting force?
我恐怕美国不会为了台湾和中国开战，日本同样不可能，我实在无法想象一大群日本人会为了台湾来牺牲掉自己的性命。他们在面对的人口老龄化问题的情况下还能拼奏出一支具有着一定实力的军队吗？
Also, the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about Taiwan. I've lived in the US before and when I told people where I'm from most thought I was from Thailand. How can you expect Americans to risk their lives for a place and people they know nothing about? Yes, they've certainly done it plenty of times in the past (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.). But I sense a war weariness in the US population after their recent adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. America has a multitude of domestic problems and an astronomical national debt. Today (and increasingly so in the future) It would be challenging to convince the American public to invest countless lives and treasure to defend a land they've never heard of. As it would take more than a few remote controlled drone strikes to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
况且美国大众根本就对台湾的事情一无所知。以前我在美国的时候每当告诉别人我是哪里人时总会被认为是泰国人。你说美国人怎么会为了一个他们连听都没听说过的地方去拼命呢？没错，同样的事情他们以前干过很多次（朝鲜，越南，科威特等等）。但是自从阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争之后，我在他们身上感觉到了很强的厌战情绪。美国面临着很多国内问题和天文数字般的外债。如今（或未来）动员美国公众献出生命和金钱去保卫一处他们闻所未闻的地方可不是一件简单的事。毕竟要想阻止中国入侵台湾，光靠几架无人机发射几枚空对地导弹远远不够。
There are many reasons why China seeks to control Taiwan (history, nationalism, etc). However, one important reason is defense. Cole speaks of how China could use Taiwan as a launching pad for further expansion in the Pacific (I doubt this is China's goal). However, the opposite is also true. From the PRC's point-of-view a Taiwan that is allied with hostile forces could be a launching pad for strikes into the mainland. As China grows in power it will seek to eliminate this potential threat. There is nothing sinister or unusual in China wanting to make sure its neighborhood is secure. Every great power does this.
I want Taiwan to maintain its democracy and current way of life. However, a war (even a victorious one) isn't the way to make that happen. Taiwan would be on the front lines of any war, which would result in the destruction of our cities and countless lives lost. How would the destruction of Taiwan be beneficial for anyone? I don't pretend to know how to solve the thorny China/Taiwan issue, but whichever way it goes a peaceful resolution is best.
中国有很多理由控制台湾（历史，民族主义等等）。然而，最重要的一个理由则是防御。科尔说道中国把台湾用作向太平洋进行扩张的跳板（但我怀疑这是不是中国的目的）。但是反过来从PRC的角度来看，一个和敌对势力结盟的台湾也可以成为进攻中国大陆的跳板。随着中国实力的增强它迟早会要拔掉这颗眼中钉。中国想要让周边安全是无可厚非的。每个大国都会这么做。我希望台湾能维持民主制度和现在的生活方式。但是，这不能通过战争（即使是胜仗）来实现。台湾将会变成任何一场战争的最前线，我们将付城市毁灭尸横遍野的高昂的代价。台湾都没了，谁还能得到什么好处吗？我不会自以为知道该怎么解决台湾问题，但不管怎么样，和平解决是最好的。
CETMr. Wang4 days agoI would guess we'll see a continuation of the status quo. Neither the US nor China want a hot war against each other, and if re-unification ever becomes a truly attractive option for the Taiwanese, force won't be necessary. Barring a miscalculation by one side or the other, there's no reason for war.
我猜会维持现状。美中都不想和对方开战，等哪天统一对台湾人来说变得更具有吸引力时，武力也就没有意义了。要防止任何一方发生误判，没必要打仗。
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoChina will not allow a continuation of the status quo, will push step by step towards unification
中国不会容忍你维持现状的，它会一步一步地推进统一。
CETting_m_19994 days agoThey will push, yes. But my read is that as long as PRC leadership doesn't start believing its own military propaganda, and as long as the US continues to support Taiwan's independence (but not so much that PRC leadership regards our hardware in Taiwan as an existential threat), it'll be fine.
他们会的，但是我的观点是，只要PRC领导层不被自己军队的宣传所欺骗，以及美国继续支持台湾独立（但是不要达到让PRC领导层认为我们部署在台湾的装备构成了威胁的那种程度）的话就不会有事。
Part of that is that right now, both sides think they have time on their side - I think most US policymakers are pretty skeptical about the long term sustainability of China's current system, and my general impression of Chinese policy is that they still regard their rise as inexorable. So why would either side risk making a move that might force a war now?
有一点就是双方都认为时间站在自己这一边。我想美国大部分的决策者都对中国现行的政治体制还能维系多久表示怀疑，而我对中国政策的印象是他们依然认为他们的崛起是不可阻挡的。那么既然这样，双方干嘛要现在就开战呢？
Of course, if the calculus changes, particular if PRC leadership gets desperate, things could get ugly in a hurry . . .
当然，如果事态有变，尤其是当PRC的领导层越来越沉不住气时，局势一定会急转直下……
ting_m_1999CET4 days agoThe shackle put on China by America on the Taiwan issue will be broken one way or other. We all advocate equality, freedom and democracy, rule by law but not defined by America for America's own interest or the world would not like to be ruled by a dictatorial America. America's support of Taiwan's independence violates international rule of law if America ever believe rule of law. China will not stop attempting to free itself from the bondage placed on China by America. The recent AIIB is just an example. America can regard that as a threat to its financial supremacy,is desperate and can start a war. Similar incidences will happen in the future and the world will be looking at America when America will start another war as America has been doing that all the time.
台湾问题就像是美国套在中国身上的一条枷锁，它迟早会被打碎。我们都主张自由民主平等法制，但这些不应该由美国为了自己的利益来定义。世界不应该处在美国的独裁统治之下。美国支持台湾独立本身就违反国际法，如果美国还相信法治的话。中国不会放弃冲破美国所施加的束缚。最近的亚投行就是个例子。美国可以把它当做是对自己的金融霸权的威胁而发动战中。类似的事情以后会发生。美国将在全世界的注视下再次发动战争，这是美国的一贯作法。
CETting_m_19993 days agoIn no particular order:
1) I can pretty confidently assert that the US is not going to go to war over wholly economic issues. There might be diplomatic and economic wrangling, but things like the AIIB aren't seen over here as legitimizing the use of military force. If WWIII starts in the pacific, it will be over a series of military escalations (like the PLAN doing something dumb and risky to claim part of someone else's maritime territory).
2) Support of 'equality, freedom and democracy' is a good reason to help Taiwan maintain its independence from a power that, quite frankly, has a terrible record of integrating new polities (see Tibet, Hong Kong). If Taiwan decides to become part of mainland China, fine. But 'rule of law' and 'support for freedom' arguments hardly support letting China beat Taiwan into submission either economically or militarily.
3) It might be useful to consider this situation as being loosely analogous to US/Cuba relations during the cold war. Cuba was a nominally hostile power in our backyard, that in actuality posed virtually no threat (except for the missile crisis, which illustrates the dangers to both sides of escalating). US operations against Cuba (both military and covert) were uniformly disastrous, and their only effect was to delay the eventual normalization of relations between the two countries. In general, given the mess that is Latin America, it's worth thinking twice before emulating US cold war policy towards smaller neighboring states.
1.我可以肯定美国不可能纯粹因为经济原因就发动战争。也许亚投行之类的事情会引起一些经济和外交上的纠纷，但绝不会成为动用军事力量的理由。如果第三次世界大战在太平洋战场上开打，也只会因为军事上的升级（比如说中国海军干了诸如声称他国领海是自己的之类的蠢事）。
2.支持“自由民主平等”就已经足够作为帮助台湾独立的理由了。尤其是从一个劣迹斑斑的国家那里独立（详情见XZ，香港）。如果台湾想成为中国大陆的一部分，行。但是“法制”和“支持自由”这两条却使得中国不管是通过经济手段还是军事手段迫使台湾屈服都缺乏应有的正当性。
3.冷战时期美国和古巴的关系可以大致上拿来做参考。古巴是一个身处我们后院的敌对势力，但是其带来的实质威胁却极为有限（除了古巴导弹危机，那件事对双方来说都很危险）。美国针对古巴采取的行动（包括军事上和谍报上）几乎都损失惨重，所带来的后果无非是拖延了两国关系正常化。总的来说，美国在冷战时对弱小邻国所推行的政策不值得去效仿，看看拉美现在成什么样子了。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
1. America has been starting wars on any excuse America deems fit including false excuse and expect no other nations dare to stop it. China will claim someone else so-called maritime territory which was stolen from China.
2. You are so ignorant not to know thatTaiwan is not an independent country and not recognized by majority of UN members. No excuse can refute the fact that China has sovereignty over Taiwan and China has the right to unite with Taiwan in whatever way it deems fit.
3. It is only in USA mind that Cuba is a threat. It is because of this USA distorted fear that threatens Cuba's freedom of choice of its own destiny and creates the mess around the world.
1.只要美国想打仗，借口根本就不是问题，反正它觉得只要它想打，谁也挡不住。中国索求的那些所谓他国领海都是从中国那里偷走的。
2.你这个人太无知了，居然连台湾不是一个受联合国大部分成员国承认的独立国家都不知道。任何理由都改变不了中国拥有对台湾的主权的事实，中国无论如何都有权统一台湾。
3.全世界只有美国认为古巴是威胁。因为古巴有选择自己命运的自由，美国对这点感到莫名的恐惧，这种恐惧驱使着美国在世界各地到处捣乱。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
Ah, I see we've now dropped all pretense at respecting freedom or rule of law (everything that China wants belongs to China, because they say so . .. ). That's what I was afraid of.Blind and grasping nationalism is not an asset, Trust an American on that - we've been there, we've done that, and it has pretty much never worked out well.
啊，看来我们都已经背离了尊重自由和法治（不管什么东西只要中国说那是它的，那就是它的），这正是我所担心的。听我这个美国人一句劝吧，盲目的煽动民族主义可不是什么好点子——我们是过来人，这个办法向来都不管用。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
You raised three points, I responded your three points. Now you don't uphold your three points, meaning you agree with my responses.
你提出了三点，我一一作出了回应。你现在没有支撑你的论点，这意味着你同意我的看法。
CETting_m_19993 days ago
I think there might be a subtlety there that you missed - I find your counterpoints to be so bizarre so that they don't merit a detailed response. Asserting that, for example, mainland China owns Taiwan outright and can dispose of the island as it wishes, indicates that we don't agree on enough to merit further discussion.
Still, I would encourage you to read up on US history, particular our misadventures in Latin America - the last 50 years are a pretty strong indictment of the hypernationalistic worldview you espouse. Like I said - we've been there, we've done that, and it generally just leads to more problems.
我觉得你没有说到点子上。你的回复都很奇妙，根本算不上是细致的回答。比如说，你坚持认为中国完全拥有台湾，可以随心所欲地对其进行处置，这说明着我们没有必要再继续讨论下去了。
我还是建议你好好学习学习美国的历史，尤其是我们在拉丁美洲闯的那些祸。过去50年的历史已经很好地证明你所拥护的那种极端民族主义世界观有多危险。就像我刚才说的，我们是过来人，那些蠢事我们都干过，没有一点好处。
ting_m_1999CET3 days ago
So you agree that China has sovereignty on Taiwan. China's approach to ASEAN is completely different from American approach to South America. The result will be different.
看来你同意中国拥有对台湾的主权。中国之于东盟完全不同于美国之于南美。结果也不一样。
http://m.ltaaa.com/Index-article-pid-16464.html
回复的人里面居然有脑子清醒的
——————这十分的不科学阿
这种论调还有这么多美国人支持真是令人欣慰，就是有这样的人存在，帝国主义进行军事冒险的可能性才越来越大，美帝才有可能轰然倒塌
老美劝我们学习他们过去五十到两百年的历史
中线小兵 发表于 2015-5-1 14:34
老美劝我们学习他们过去五十到两百年的历史
白皮猪应该学习我华夏五千年的历史
老美劝我们学习他们过去五十到两百年的历史
白皮猪应该学习我华夏五千年的历史
中线小兵 发表于 2015-5-1 14:34
老美劝我们学习他们过去五十到两百年的历史
本年度最佳笑话之一
老美劝我们学习他们过去五十到两百年的历史
本年度最佳笑话之一
料敌从宽，我们不能通过指望日美不来干涉来做准备。我们应该做好这个准备：如果日美一齐来干涉，我们是否有决心动用最后的手段来维护祖国的统一，民族的尊严！
我们也有第五纵队？
观海同志照了照镜子：你妹的，老子哪里长得像张伯伦了
下面的评论里居然有旗帜鲜明支持兔子的······
文中充满了偏见和无知，不值一驳，倒是怀特这种人，作为了解中国的外国人，不能拉拢就是隐患。
下面的评论里居然有旗帜鲜明支持兔子的······
从遣词造句来看，可能是个中国人，很可能是留学生。美国人自大的形象跃然纸上啊。真希望他们永远那么自大，所有人包括五角大楼和白宫的。
从遣词造句来看，可能是个中国人，很可能是留学生。美国人自大的形象跃然纸上啊。真希望他们永远那么自大，所有人包括五角大楼和白宫的。
Jack slow fuck来自: Android客户端
来自:关于超级大本营
yudeshen 发表于 2015-5-1 23:11
下面的评论里居然有旗帜鲜明支持兔子的······
很简单，有的人只有出了国，才会爱国，在国内是感受不到的。
下面的评论里居然有旗帜鲜明支持兔子的······
很简单，有的人只有出了国，才会爱国，在国内是感受不到的。