老共最近又混水摸魚，企圖竊取「美國所監護的台灣主權」(中)
三
對於老共喜歡蓄意扭曲美國政府在台灣議題上的立場與發言的習性[狗改不了吃屎]，美國的專家學者Bonnie Glaser (葛來儀)與Jacqueline Vitello(麥特羅) 在CSIS(美國戰略與國際研究中心)亞洲計劃的部落格上發表了一篇文章，加以評論:
“China Must Cease Willful Distortion of U.S. Policy toward Taiwan”
By Bonnie Glaser & Jacqueline Vitello
cogitasia.com
3/27/2014
Discussions between Presidents Obama and Xi on the margins of the nuclear security summit in The Hague were dominated by pressing issues such as Russia’s annexation of Crimea, persistent use of cyber by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for commercial advantage, North Korea and Iran. Taiwan was likely mentioned only in passing, but it is notable that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs opted to highlight Taiwan in its coverage of the meeting. In what was almost certainly a willful mischaracterization of President Obama’s remarks, a report posted on the MFA website maintains the U.S. president said, “on the Taiwan issue and Tibet-related issues, the U.S. side respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This stance remains unchanged.” The Chinese media is clearly attempting to portray the United States as supporting Beijing’s interpretation of the “one China” policy, which is patently untrue.
First and foremost, U.S. policy differs greatly when it comes to Tibet and Taiwan, and President Obama almost certainly did not lump the two together. With regard to Taiwan, there are several important documents that outline U.S. policy on cross-strait relations, including the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982, under which the United States “acknowledges” but does not endorse Beijing’s “one China” position.
The United States’ long-standing policy on the concept of “one China” has been purposefully vague. Indeed, since the United Nations formally admitted the PRC in 1971, U.S. presidents have — both publicly and in secret — articulated a “one China” policy, but have never recognized the PRC’s claim over Taiwan nor have they recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state. Ambiguity allows the United States to maintain a stable relationship with mainland China and to simultaneously support Taiwan as necessary.
This distortion of Obama’s statements is not the first time that the Chinese have twisted the words of a U.S. president to suggest that the United States recognizes and respects China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. In November 2009, U.S. and Chinese officials negotiated a joint statement, which contained a single paragraph about Taiwan. That paragraph included two sentences that highlighted the long-standing differences in policy between Washington and Beijing on the status of Taiwan. In one sentence, China unilaterally “emphasized that the Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” and on the other side of the coin, “the United States stated that it follows its one China policy and abides by the principles of the three U.S.-China joint communiqués.” The United States once again maintained its now standard level of ambiguity in direct discussions regarding the status of Taiwan.
The paragraph that followed in the joint statement began with, “The two countries reiterated that the fundamental principle of respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués which guide U.S.-China relations.” According to a U.S. official who cited the joint statement negotiating record, this subsequent paragraph was intended to pertain to Tibet and Xinjiang, not Taiwan. U.S. policy toward Tibet and Xinjiang are in important ways distinct from policy toward Taiwan, and the 2009 joint statement was worded carefully to reflect that distinction. But in the joint press appearance by the two presidents, Hu Jintao wove together these two separate policies in what appeared to be a deliberate effort to distort what had been agreed to. Hu told reporters:
“President Obama on various occasions has reiterated that the U.S. side adheres to the one-China policy, abides by the three Sino-U.S. joint communiqués, and respects China’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity when it comes to the Taiwan question and other matters. The Chinese side appreciates his statements.”
President Obama unquestionably did not state that the United States would respect China’s sovereignty in regard to Taiwan. Like his predecessors, Obama assuredly upheld the long-standing policy of ambiguity regarding the Taiwan’s status–to do anything else would be a reversal of over 40 years of U.S. policy.
China should be rebuked for deliberately distorting President Obama’s words and U.S. policy. As the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act approaches, a re-statement of the U.S. “one China” policy would be well-timed. The United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. At the same time, the United States should remind the Chinese that the dispute between Beijing and Taiwan over sovereignty should be worked out peacefully between the two sides of the Strait, not between China and the United States.
(Ms. Bonnie S. Glaser is Senior Adviser for Asia within the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS. Ms. Jacqueline Vitello is a Research Associate and Program Coordinator with the Freeman Chair in China Studies. )
四
無風不起浪，老共今天之所以會這樣惡搞，除了他們有惡搞及詐騙的習性之外，歐巴馬行政團隊的作為也給了老共裝神弄鬼及混水摸魚的機會。
建州運動在3/28/2014發表的「老共又就台灣的政治地位放消息，騷擾與打擊台灣人」一文中:---Read More---
/再來，我們請大家閱讀歐巴馬與胡錦濤在2009年11月與2011年1月所簽的兩項「美中聯合聲明」中有關「領土與主權的完整」的部分，建州運動在那段期間，就這個問題撰述與發表了不下20篇的文章。我們一直希望能從各方取得一些可信的資料，包括從當年美方的主談者James B. “Jim” Steinberg(副國務卿)與Jeffrey A. Bader(國家安全會議亞洲部資深主任)的談話中獲得一些可做判斷的線索，但可惜在這方面沒有什麼可以稱道的斬獲，我們也曾多方試圖請白宮及國務院的其他高階官員做些解釋與澄清，但也沒有得到什麼令我們滿意的答案。//
//[台北當局派駐華盛頓的]李[澄然]副代表「美國從未就台灣政治地位表達立場」這句話，基本上是對的，但由於我們與各界人士都尚無法拿到歐巴馬行政團隊與胡錦濤政權當年有關「美中聯合聲明」的談判的會議紀錄，所以沒有人能真正知道歐巴馬團隊到底就台灣的領土與主權的問題對北京做了什麼承諾。//
建州運動與其他團體或研究單位一樣，根本沒有機會讀到那些尚未解密的會議記錄或談判記錄，但是歐巴馬行政團隊認為，由於像「台灣建州運動」這樣的組織常常希望得到有關這方面的重要訊息， 再加上老共經常胡說八道，對美國形成困擾，所以乾脆就釋出一點會議記錄，以釋群疑。
Bonnie Glaser 與 Jacqueline Vitello文中有這麼一段，這一段總算給了我們四年多來想要的答案，這個答案是被老共日前的胡言亂語逼出來的:
//According to a U.S. official who cited the joint statement negotiating record, this subsequent paragraph was intended to pertain to Tibet and Xinjiang, not Taiwan. U.S. policy toward Tibet and Xinjiang are in important ways distinct from policy toward Taiwan, and the 2009 joint statement was worded carefully to reflect that distinction. But in the joint press appearance by the two presidents, Hu Jintao wove together these two separate policies in what appeared to be a deliberate effort to distort what had been agreed to. Hu told reporters: “President Obama on various occasions has reiterated that the U.S. side adheres to the one-China policy, abides by the three Sino-U.S. joint communiqués, and respects China’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity when it comes to the Taiwan question and other matters. The Chinese side appreciates his statements.”// [根據一位引用「美中聯合聲明的談判記錄」的官員的說法，在 聯合聲明後頭緊接著的那一段，是指涉圖博與東土耳其斯坦，而非台灣。美國對圖博與東土耳其斯坦的政策與對台灣的政策，是有很大的不同的。2009年的「美中聯合聲明」的謹慎措詞，就是在反映那種重大的差異。但是中方都蓄意將台灣與圖博與東土耳其斯坦混在一起談，試圖製造一個「美國在談『尊重中國的領土與主權的完整』時，也將台灣包括進去」的假象。]
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
對於老共喜歡蓄意扭曲美國政府在台灣議題上的立場與發言的習性[狗改不了吃屎]，美國的專家學者Bonnie Glaser (葛來儀)與Jacqueline Vitello(麥特羅) 在CSIS(美國戰略與國際研究中心)亞洲計劃的部落格上發表了一篇文章，加以評論:
“China Must Cease Willful Distortion of U.S. Policy toward Taiwan”
By Bonnie Glaser & Jacqueline Vitello
cogitasia.com
3/27/2014
Discussions between Presidents Obama and Xi on the margins of the nuclear security summit in The Hague were dominated by pressing issues such as Russia’s annexation of Crimea, persistent use of cyber by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for commercial advantage, North Korea and Iran. Taiwan was likely mentioned only in passing, but it is notable that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs opted to highlight Taiwan in its coverage of the meeting. In what was almost certainly a willful mischaracterization of President Obama’s remarks, a report posted on the MFA website maintains the U.S. president said, “on the Taiwan issue and Tibet-related issues, the U.S. side respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This stance remains unchanged.” The Chinese media is clearly attempting to portray the United States as supporting Beijing’s interpretation of the “one China” policy, which is patently untrue.
First and foremost, U.S. policy differs greatly when it comes to Tibet and Taiwan, and President Obama almost certainly did not lump the two together. With regard to Taiwan, there are several important documents that outline U.S. policy on cross-strait relations, including the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982, under which the United States “acknowledges” but does not endorse Beijing’s “one China” position.
The United States’ long-standing policy on the concept of “one China” has been purposefully vague. Indeed, since the United Nations formally admitted the PRC in 1971, U.S. presidents have — both publicly and in secret — articulated a “one China” policy, but have never recognized the PRC’s claim over Taiwan nor have they recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state. Ambiguity allows the United States to maintain a stable relationship with mainland China and to simultaneously support Taiwan as necessary.
This distortion of Obama’s statements is not the first time that the Chinese have twisted the words of a U.S. president to suggest that the United States recognizes and respects China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. In November 2009, U.S. and Chinese officials negotiated a joint statement, which contained a single paragraph about Taiwan. That paragraph included two sentences that highlighted the long-standing differences in policy between Washington and Beijing on the status of Taiwan. In one sentence, China unilaterally “emphasized that the Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” and on the other side of the coin, “the United States stated that it follows its one China policy and abides by the principles of the three U.S.-China joint communiqués.” The United States once again maintained its now standard level of ambiguity in direct discussions regarding the status of Taiwan.
The paragraph that followed in the joint statement began with, “The two countries reiterated that the fundamental principle of respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the core of the three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués which guide U.S.-China relations.” According to a U.S. official who cited the joint statement negotiating record, this subsequent paragraph was intended to pertain to Tibet and Xinjiang, not Taiwan. U.S. policy toward Tibet and Xinjiang are in important ways distinct from policy toward Taiwan, and the 2009 joint statement was worded carefully to reflect that distinction. But in the joint press appearance by the two presidents, Hu Jintao wove together these two separate policies in what appeared to be a deliberate effort to distort what had been agreed to. Hu told reporters:
“President Obama on various occasions has reiterated that the U.S. side adheres to the one-China policy, abides by the three Sino-U.S. joint communiqués, and respects China’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity when it comes to the Taiwan question and other matters. The Chinese side appreciates his statements.”
President Obama unquestionably did not state that the United States would respect China’s sovereignty in regard to Taiwan. Like his predecessors, Obama assuredly upheld the long-standing policy of ambiguity regarding the Taiwan’s status–to do anything else would be a reversal of over 40 years of U.S. policy.
China should be rebuked for deliberately distorting President Obama’s words and U.S. policy. As the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act approaches, a re-statement of the U.S. “one China” policy would be well-timed. The United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. At the same time, the United States should remind the Chinese that the dispute between Beijing and Taiwan over sovereignty should be worked out peacefully between the two sides of the Strait, not between China and the United States.
(Ms. Bonnie S. Glaser is Senior Adviser for Asia within the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS. Ms. Jacqueline Vitello is a Research Associate and Program Coordinator with the Freeman Chair in China Studies. )
四
無風不起浪，老共今天之所以會這樣惡搞，除了他們有惡搞及詐騙的習性之外，歐巴馬行政團隊的作為也給了老共裝神弄鬼及混水摸魚的機會。
建州運動在3/28/2014發表的「老共又就台灣的政治地位放消息，騷擾與打擊台灣人」一文中:
/再來，我們請大家閱讀歐巴馬與胡錦濤在2009年11月與2011年1月所簽的兩項「美中聯合聲明」中有關「領土與主權的完整」的部分，建州運動在那段期間，就這個問題撰述與發表了不下20篇的文章。我們一直希望能從各方取得一些可信的資料，包括從當年美方的主談者James B. “Jim” Steinberg(副國務卿)與Jeffrey A. Bader(國家安全會議亞洲部資深主任)的談話中獲得一些可做判斷的線索，但可惜在這方面沒有什麼可以稱道的斬獲，我們也曾多方試圖請白宮及國務院的其他高階官員做些解釋與澄清，但也沒有得到什麼令我們滿意的答案。//
//[台北當局派駐華盛頓的]李[澄然]副代表「美國從未就台灣政治地位表達立場」這句話，基本上是對的，但由於我們與各界人士都尚無法拿到歐巴馬行政團隊與胡錦濤政權當年有關「美中聯合聲明」的談判的會議紀錄，所以沒有人能真正知道歐巴馬團隊到底就台灣的領土與主權的問題對北京做了什麼承諾。//
建州運動與其他團體或研究單位一樣，根本沒有機會讀到那些尚未解密的會議記錄或談判記錄，但是歐巴馬行政團隊認為，由於像「台灣建州運動」這樣的組織常常希望得到有關這方面的重要訊息， 再加上老共經常胡說八道，對美國形成困擾，所以乾脆就釋出一點會議記錄，以釋群疑。
Bonnie Glaser 與 Jacqueline Vitello文中有這麼一段，這一段總算給了我們四年多來想要的答案，這個答案是被老共日前的胡言亂語逼出來的:
//According to a U.S. official who cited the joint statement negotiating record, this subsequent paragraph was intended to pertain to Tibet and Xinjiang, not Taiwan. U.S. policy toward Tibet and Xinjiang are in important ways distinct from policy toward Taiwan, and the 2009 joint statement was worded carefully to reflect that distinction. But in the joint press appearance by the two presidents, Hu Jintao wove together these two separate policies in what appeared to be a deliberate effort to distort what had been agreed to. Hu told reporters: “President Obama on various occasions has reiterated that the U.S. side adheres to the one-China policy, abides by the three Sino-U.S. joint communiqués, and respects China’s sovereignty and the territorial integrity when it comes to the Taiwan question and other matters. The Chinese side appreciates his statements.”// [根據一位引用「美中聯合聲明的談判記錄」的官員的說法，在 聯合聲明後頭緊接著的那一段，是指涉圖博與東土耳其斯坦，而非台灣。美國對圖博與東土耳其斯坦的政策與對台灣的政策，是有很大的不同的。2009年的「美中聯合聲明」的謹慎措詞，就是在反映那種重大的差異。但是中方都蓄意將台灣與圖博與東土耳其斯坦混在一起談，試圖製造一個「美國在談『尊重中國的領土與主權的完整』時，也將台灣包括進去」的假象。]
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
沒有留言:
張貼留言