「張伯倫病毒」(Chamberlain virus)捲土重來，正在入侵自由民主大本營的大腦與心臟，正在試圖危害「自由國際秩序」(liberal international order)與台灣的生存

「張伯倫病毒」(Chamberlain virus)捲土重來，正在入侵自由民主大本營的大腦與心臟，正在試圖危害「自由國際秩序」(liberal international order)與台灣的生存

---身為美國現實派(realist)大將的德州農工大學Christopher Layne教授在英國與世界的主流媒體「倫敦金融時報」發表他很典型的言論，他說「今天中國在崛起，為了防止美中即將到來的一場衝突，美國還有最後的一次機會，美國若要掌握這個機會，那就必須在台灣問題上進行真正的讓步，同時也要在中國對東海與南海的領土與主權的主張上，做出真正的讓步。 」他是在製造與散播「張伯倫病毒」，一種非常致命的、un-American的思想病毒。什麼叫做「在台灣問題上進行真正的讓步」?那還用得著說嗎?他的意思就是，「美國必須讓出台灣，拱手把台灣讓給中國帝國主義者」。


一

在美國與世界各地擁有為數大約七千五百萬讀者的、宣揚自由市場經濟與民主政治的美國主流雜誌Forbes系統不久前被港資與中資聯手買下。

有北京在背後撐腰的中國資本在美國、英國與其他地區攻城掠地，現在還直搗美國與英國的資本主義大本營，這種狀況若持續下去，自由陣營與民主世界的前途堪虞，也就是由於這個原因，所以建州派才會主張以美國為首的自由民主世界與陣營必須有「一個可以對奉行me  rcantilism的威權政體的經濟掠奪加以反制的政治與財經機制以及一部可以對外來的或內部自發的反民主思想與組織加以妥善處理的『民主自衛機制』」，我們也期待由美國國會透過立法組建的 「美中經濟安全審查委員會」(US-China Economic and Security Review Commission)之類的「經濟警察機構」能夠發揮更大的功能與角色。

二

我們現在先來讀一則中國人所做的報導，來看看老中與老共最近對美國的一個資本主義象徵的旗艦雜誌系統的收購與滲透。

「中國商人為何買“福布斯」
7/19/2014

//7月19日，傳媒圈爆出重大新聞：美國福布斯傳媒公司（Forbe s Media）將向兩名中國商人出售多數股權，價格是4.7億美元。交易包括《福布斯》、《福布斯亞洲》和《福布斯生活》三本雜誌以及Forbes.com網站。出售完成後，福布斯家族將持有少數股權。公司將保留現有的業務、名稱，仍是總部設在美國的私人公司，現任管理團隊將被留用。

這不僅僅是媒體圈內的大新聞，也是一樁頗為吸引眼球的公共新聞。過去十年來，中國資本在全球攻城略地，到處收購兼併。從森林、礦山到石油公司、銀行、著名車企，無不涉及。但有一個行業一直沒有突破，這就是西方發達國家的核心媒體。如果此次收購《福布斯》成功，顯然是中國資本的一次重大突破。但中國資本又可以細分為大陸資本和港澳台資本。這次收購行為，其資本來自何方呢？
據媒體報導，收購《福布斯》的企業註冊於香港，名為本匯鯨媒體投資有限公司（Integrated Whale Media Investments），這個企業應該是為此次收購專門成立的。其背後，是本匯資產管理（亞洲）有限公司（Integrated Asset Management （Asia） Limited），控制人是任德章，該公司專注於科技、財經和電信領域投資。另一個主要投資者是台灣商人謝偉琦，華碩電腦的主要創始人。此外，收購平台上還有一些暫時沒有公佈姓名的中小股東。

目前關於該事件的報導，多將注意力放在謝偉琦的身上，因為他知名度高。 1990年，謝偉琦與童子賢、徐世昌、廖敏雄在台灣創立華碩電腦，謝偉琦一度持有華碩股份最多，成為當時富豪榜上的常客，估計也上過福布斯排行榜。後來，宏基電腦7位創始人之一的施崇棠加盟華碩，成為公司董事長兼總經理。 2003年底因不滿華碩的內部管理，謝偉琦憤然離開公司，從此淡出了公眾視野。

本匯資產的任德章知名度不算高，但從收購平台的名稱看，任才是主角。很難說任德章是個公眾人物，他此前被媒體唯一一次聚焦，是跟著他的老搭檔丁鵬雲去收購深圳足球隊。當時丁鵬雲還是香港潤迅國際的董事長，而任德章是大股東，所以媒體報導說是潤迅收購了深足。隨後，潤迅以及丁、任二人都更正說，收購是丁、任的個人行為。但由於深足影響力不大，這件事僅僅被廣東媒體充分報導過

種種跡象顯示，任德章雖然生意在香港，但心系大陸，他的很多生意都跟大陸密切相連。收購深足僅僅是其中一例。他跟丁鵬雲聯合入主和退出潤迅，是第二例。潤迅創立於1997年，創辦人侯東迎曾任職於廣東電信局，1985年至1989年任深圳深大電話公司總經理，後創立香港潤迅。隨後，多名深圳、廣州行業管理者辭職加盟潤迅，迅速 ​​將潤迅做成當時中國第一大傳呼業品牌。潤迅霸氣側漏的一呼天下應的廣告詞，很多深圳、香港人至今記憶猶新。而馬化騰的第一份工作，就是潤迅的技術人員。手機和QQ的普及，終結了潤迅的光輝歲月，潤迅的創始人也陷入各種官司不能自拔，於是丁鵬雲和任德章控制了這家企業。 2013年，在掌控潤迅七八年之後，丁、任二人將潤迅控制權出讓，接盤的是吉林乳業富豪柴琇，她將自己的房地產業務借殼上市，所以潤迅目前在香港交易所的名稱是廣澤地。

任德章跟內地的另一聯繫，是香港上市的內地企業中國信貸（08207），這家公司因為涉足網絡金融，股價從去年12月的0.6港元，上漲到今年3月的2.35港元。任德章作為大股東，顯然大賺了一筆。這波巨大的行情，正是在他增持公司股權至14%以後啟動的。他還為公司引入了歐洲股神安東尼波頓為大股東。;

此外，任德章還跟在香港上市的豐臨集團（01152）、眾彩股份（08156）、新海能源（00342）、北亞資源（00061）、中國包裝（00572）等有過密切聯繫，或者擔任過主要高管 。很顯然，任德章非常熟悉資本市場，善於抓住時機製造時髦的炒作題材，他跟內地應該有密切的聯繫。

任德章有位好基友，就是跟他在潤迅共進退的丁鵬雲。凡是有任德章出現的投資項目，往往有丁鵬雲現身，反之亦然。再比如剛剛讓任德章賺了大把銀子的中國信貸，其實就是丁鵬雲姐夫創立的企業。如今，任德章是中國信貸的大股東，丁鵬雲是主席（但據媒體報導，目前真正控制中國信貸是神秘、而又能量龐大的內地隱形金融富豪張振新，他的旗艦是擁有多張金融牌照的中國先鋒金融集團，這個人很有可能在幾年之後名震天下）。但奇怪的，任德章收購福布斯這樣的大舉動，竟然沒有丁鵬雲公開現身。我想，沒有公開現身不等於沒有投資，只是為了收購的順利，他們刻意迴避收購方的香港+內地的身份。而引入謝偉琦可以將收購平台塑造成香港+台灣的形象。而且華碩在國際上有較高知名度，收購的商業性質可以得到突出。

從公開資料上看，任德章和謝偉琦此前沒有涉足過傳媒。他們突然進入傳媒圈，到底想做什麼呢？僅僅是為了增加自己的知名度？還是準備炒作一下，將來再高價賣給陳光標這種呆鳥？或者還有更多不為人知的意圖？讓我們拿出足夠的耐心，泡上一壺茶，慢慢圍觀吧。

但有一點是肯定的，這筆買賣很難虧錢，因為中國有西方傳媒情結的商人很多，他們在這方面撒銀子的興趣遠遠超過足球，以前只是沒有機會而已。

福布斯傳媒公司董事長、總編輯斯蒂夫•福布斯，昨天發表的聲明中有一段話很有意味，引述在這裡作為結尾：我們的新合作夥伴尊重福布斯的使命以及我們對創業資本主義和自由市場的堅定信念。他們自己就是企業家。他們贊成新聞獨立和卓越報導的重要性。這非常符合他們的自身利 ​​益。 //

（天天說錢，本名劉曉博，中國的財經媒體人，高級編輯，現居深圳 。 ）

緊接著，我們來讀一個西方媒體的報導:

“Forbes magazine sold to Asian investor group
By Keith J. Kelly
New York Post
July 18, 2014 | 2:13pm

//Asian businessmen now control the Capitalist Tool.

Forbes Media is selling a majority stake to a group of Asian investors known as Integrated Whale Media. The Forbes family, including Chairman and Editor-in-chief Steve Forbes, will continue to hold a minority stake in the 97-year-old publishing company .

Financial terms weren't disclosed, but a source estimated the cash price at $215 million, primarily to buy out the sizable minority stake held by Elevation Partners.

The new ownership team is led by Hong Kong-based Integrated Asset Management, founded by Tak Cheung Yam. Another investor with a significant stake is Singapore businessman Wayne Hsieh, the co-founder of Asustek Computer.

This is a major milestone for the company and our family and we're pleased to partner with a forward looking investor group to further drive the evolution and growth of this exceptional company, said Steve Forbes, who retain keep both his current titles.

Forbes magazine was founded by his grandfather BC Forbes in 1917. After the sale, the family's stake will be reduced to around 20 percent.

Elevation, the investment group that includes Irish rocker Bono and Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee, will fully exit their investment in publishing company.

Elevation paid an estimated $265 million for 44 percent of the company in August 2006, but wrote down most of the investment when Forbes slipped into the red during the recession.

The company has since rebounded and said that 2013 was the company's most profitable year in the last six.

Although some reports valued Forbes Media at $475 million, that was the enterprise value of the entire company, not the actual cash that was forked over by the Asian investors.

The sale process dragged on for eight months. In November, the company hired Deutsche Bank to shop it for around $400 million.

But potential suitors ranging from Germany's Axel Springer to Time Inc. were unwilling to pay that price. Fosun International, a diversified company that publishes the Chinese edition of Forbes, also dropped out of the bidding as did Singapore-based Spice Global.

Still, the betting from Day One was that the suitor would hail from Asia, where the Capitalist Tool, as Forbes is known, enjoys a higher profile than it does on the domestic front.

The Forbes family has sold a lot of its assets from its real-estate holdings to its unique collection of Faberge eggs. Earlier this year, it announced plans to move out of its current Greenwich Village headquarters to Jersey City. It sold its iconic headquarters townhouse five years ago to NYU but stayed on as a renter.

CEO Mike Perlis said there will be no layoffs and no cutbacks as a result of the ownership change.

This is an investment move, he said. The reason it took as long as it did to do the deal was that we were looking for a particular kind of buyer who would understand the tradition of the Forbes brand and an investor would back the family's and current management's plan to grow the company.//


我們必須說，一個資本主義象徵的西方旗艦媒體被老中控制，這可是令台灣建州運動極為不舒適以及值得世人警惕的一件大事。

三

像Forbes這種媒體被老中控制，後果是十分嚴重的，因為老中與老共會開始利用這種世界統治菁英在閱讀的媒體，搞置入性行銷，開始種一些思想病毒，以遂行老共與老中稱霸與控制世界的企圖。

老中與老共控制Forbes不到一個月，它就出現了一篇可怕的文章


這篇由Stephen Harner所寫的文章，首先藉Cato Institute智庫的Justin Logan所說的話，來指責美國的領導層。Logan說，美國的領導層對美國政策總是「不說實話」，當老中或有些人說，美國其實正在圍堵中國時，美國政府總是對此提出抗議，說美國沒有在圍堵中國，但真相是，美國正在圍堵中國。

Time For Honesty And Change In Obama s Failed China Policy”
By Stephen Harner
Forbes Asia
8/12/2014

American leaders constantly lie about U.S.-China policy, writes Justin Logan, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute on the China-US Focus website July 23. They consistently protest when people claim the United States is encircling or containing China. But, in fact, Washington is encircling and containing China.

As apparent as the U.S. encircling actions are, and as hollow as U.S. denials ring in the ears of China s leaders, Logan asks the obvious question of who Washington is seeking to convince. He answers that the rhetoric is not so much directed at China as at other countries in the region. If the United States forthrightly explained that it seeks to contain China s military power countries in the region from which Washington seeks cooperation would have a harder time providing it.;

Logan s point turns on Washington s more genuine and demonstrable actions naturally promoted by U.S. business interests that have supported China s economic development. That the U.S. supports China economically makes it easier and less risky for countries with important economic ties with China to remain aligned with the United States.

If this picture seems confused, it reflects the conflicts and contradictions of American policies toward Asia, not least, indeed, perhaps more importantly, in the realm of “grand strategy.”

In an important new book entitled Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy, MIT director of strategic studies Barry R. Posen explains how U.S. grand strategy since the end of the Cold War, which he labels Liberal Hegemony. [MIT的Barry Posen教授說，冷戰結束後，美國在執行的「世界大戰略」是要建立一個Liberal Hegemony”(自由霸權)。註: 美國希望建立的「自由霸權」就是建州運動希望見到的世界以及我們所提出與分享的願景。]

Posen argues trenchantly that Liberal Hegemonywhich has been supported with equal fervor by Republicans and Democrats, including President Obama, sees bogus threats to U.S. interests everywhere, is ruinously expensive, and is inherently interventionist and accident prone–does not serve U.S. interests and should be scrapped. He offers an alternative that he calls Restraint. [Posen反對美國建立自由霸權，他說，這種世界大戰略是美國共和黨與民主黨的菁英的共識與願景，但他認為， ---Read More--- 這種大戰略與藍圖太昂貴，毀滅性地昂貴，且會導致結構性地及與生俱來的對外干涉，他認為，這樣不符合美國的利益，因此這種世界大戰略必須被廢棄，他因此提出「自制」做為替代方案。]

The end of the Cold War had virtually no impact on U.S. strategy toward East Asia, or China. It has been Liberal Hegemony supporting huge inertial forward military presence, now being recharged and retasked. Writes Posen: The Obama administration’spivot to Asia is an effort to initiate a Cold War style containment strategy of China, one based on U.S. political and military leadership of an opposing coalition.” [Posen說，歐巴馬行政團隊的「重返亞洲」就是要啟動對中國進行圍堵的冷戰，「重返亞洲」的戰略與政策奠基於美國在亞洲所組建的對抗性聯盟的政治與軍事領導。註: 美國在亞太或東亞的持續與強大的軍事與政治存在是挫折與擊敗中國的擴張與侵略的最大保證，美國不「重返東亞」，美國不執行建立「自由霸權」的世界大戰略，都會導致台灣的滅亡。]

Posen points to the distinctive Cold War flavor the Pentagon s Air-Sea Battle concept, announced at the same time as the pivot,which is easily read as an offensive military strategy to deny China the ability to defend itself against U.S. air, sea, and nuclear attack through sustained offensive operations against the Chinese mainland.

Posen calls for the staged withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe and South Korea (which can easily shoulder is defense needs), but hedges on substantially reducing overwhelming U.S. military power in Asia from bases in Japan. Why? Because the United States has a strategic interest in preventing a single state [read: China] from dominating Eurasia. and to do so it must preserve its access to Eurasia. [麻省理工的Posen教授與芝加哥大學的Mearsheimer教授雖然都是主張「離岸戰略」，主張美國不在海外駐軍，不在海外從事前進部署的「現實派」，但他們與Cato Institute中的幾名「現實派」專家不同，他們沒有後者那麼極端，他們兩位還是贊成美國在東北亞應維持駐軍，只是應該要減小駐軍的規模，這是因為美國在避免中國控制歐亞陸塊擁有戰略利益，為了不讓中國控制歐亞陸塊，美國必須維持它進入歐亞陸塊的管道或機會。]

China presently does, and will certainly continue to, dominate the continental East Asia (but never before and not now Eurasia), and has done so for most of the past millennium, to the great benefit and peace of the region s people. It would seem that very existence of a China that is sovereign and not prostrate is a clear and present threat to Obama’s Liberal Hegemony and a worry for Posen s Grand Strategy of Restraint. [中國現在而且將來也會繼續想要對東亞大陸進行壟斷性地控制，但Harner卻說，中國這樣做，對東亞的人民有利，也有利本地區的和平，他接著說，對美國的「自由霸權」藍圖而言，中國是一個威脅，對Posen的「自制」戰略而言，也形成憂慮。]

The first Obama term was disastrous for U.S.-China relations. Hillary Clinton s State Department, under the inordinate influence of DoD careerists like Kurt Campbell, as well as the bellicose character of Hillary herself, seemed to outsource policy-making toward Asia to the Pentagon. [Harner說，美中關係在歐巴馬的第一任期中是「災難性的」，因為「帶有好戰性格」的柯林頓夫人擔任國務卿，加上對她有很大的影響的、具有國防部背景的Kurt Campbell擔任東亞事務助卿，所以導致他們把國務院的東亞政策的決策外包給國防部。註: 從「美中關係在歐巴馬的第一任期中是「災難性的」這句話，我們就可知道，Harner在立場上是親中的。]

Hopes were high in Beijing for a relationship “reset” from the June 2013 Obama-Xi Sunnylands Summit. But the refusal of the U.S. to budge on such key issues for China as U.S. cyber sabotage against China s military systems (revealed by Edward Snowden), or to engage in a purposeful discussion of core interests (the White House rebuffed China and insists now on dialogue about common interests that are often not really common), or to alter any of what China reasonably sees as provocative military surveillance operations off its coasts and in its skies, or U.S. rhetorical and material intervention (new system transfers to Japan and ceaseless exercises and a new troop deployment agreement with the Philippines) on the side of China s adversaries in East and South China Sea territorial disputes, have made a mockery of the promised Sunnylands Summit reset, leaving only greater suspicion.

All this is doubtless much to the liking of the U.S. Department of Defense, and to the nationalists in the Abe government in Japan, which have also been lying about the purpose of the massive new base on Okinawa planned to replace Futenma Marine Air Station. [Harner把美中關係的惡化全部歸罪於美國，但其實歐巴馬對北京是最調適與軟弱的，只是因為北京認為美國在走下坡，也認為歐巴馬軟弱可欺，所以在東亞地區囂張跋扈起來，導致歐巴馬必須改弦更張，決定並宣佈「重返東亞」，來面對竄起的、囂張跋扈的中國。]

But the mendacity is not serving American interests now, and can only lead to greater damage, if not disaster in the future. It is time for honesty and candor, a recognition that (contrary to Obama s Freudian slip in Manila in April, when he said the U.S. is an Asian-Pacific nation), Asia does belong to Americans, but rather to the people of Asia who should be allowed to construct their own regional political and strategic order.

Most of all, we should heed the warning from Zbigniew Brezinski, that if we treat China like an enemy, they will become an enemy. [Harner在結尾中說，華府的「虛偽」不符合美國現在的利益，而只會導致較大的「損害」，即便不是未來的「災難」。他說，美國現在正是「要誠實與坦白」的時候，亦即是要「承認亞洲是屬於美國，但更是屬於應該被允許建立自己的區域政治與戰略秩序的亞洲人民的時候」，美國不應將中國視為敵人。註: Harner顯然在呼應習近平「亞洲是亞洲人的亞洲」、不是外人的亞洲、企圖把美國勢力排除的陳腔爛調。建州運動必須嚴正指出，亞洲是全亞洲人與美國人的亞洲，不是中國人想獨霸與獨吞的亞洲，中國周邊所有國家或絕大部分的國家或地區的人民都歡迎與需要美國的保護，美國在東亞及西太平洋建立「自由霸權」與「大美和平」(Pax Americana)，完全符合中國周邊最大多數國家或地區人民的利益。Harner這種為中國的霸權鳴鼓開道的言論，我們可以完全不予理會。]

四

在美國國安與外交事務學界與智庫界中存有一派叫「現實派」(realists)，Cato Institute智庫是他們落腳的地方之一。

如果這一派人得勢，入主國務院、五角大廈與白宮，那「美國秀異主義」[American exceptionalism，這是美國的heart and soul，它讓美國之所以成為美國這樣與眾不同、帶有天命與特殊使命的國家]會被拋棄，美國即便仍是超級強國，它也將淪為平庸與一般國家，最可怕的是，他們會放任像台灣這樣的政治實體被中國這種強權與惡霸侵凌與吞噬，即使他們之中有一些人[但也僅是極少數人]認為台灣、南韓與日本都應該自求多福，都應該調高國防預算，整軍經武，致力國防建設，向美國軍購，保衛自己。因為這一派人都主張美國應採「離岸戰略」(offshore strategy)，不應在海外駐軍，不應進行「軍事前進部署」(forward deployment)。

我們以前曾向鄉親們介紹這一派人中的芝加哥大學教授John Mearsheimer，對我們台灣人而言，Prof. Mearsheimer算是現實派中最有良心與良知的學者，他過去都一直主張美國應採「離岸戰略」，但也主張防衛台灣及幫助日本與南韓自衛，也就是說，他把台、日、韓列為「離岸戰略」的例外。不過，他在數月前，主張台灣應該與中國進行政治談判，尋求台灣問題的解決，因為他認為，中國崛起之勢不可擋，美國終究無法保護台灣，換句話說，他對美國在東亞的軍事存在並不看好，對台灣的前途極其悲觀。

現實派中走得最遠、最可怕的是德州農工大學的教授Christopher Layne，如果他的思想與主張成為主流或成為白宮的政策與戰略指導，那美國在台海的唯一政策就是讓出台灣給北京，美國在亞太的唯一政策就是把東亞與西太平洋讓給中國，而台灣唯一的結局就是被中國惡霸五馬分屍，拆卸入肚。

建州派沒有冤枉他，也沒有危言聳聽，我們現在把他最新的一篇文章張貼出來，讓鄉親們看看: 

America s view of China is fogged by liberal ideas
By Christopher Layne
Financial Times
8/14/2014

---The spiral of animosity is largely a creation of American policy, writes Christopher Layne.
---The dominant ideology is liberalism and, as in pre-1914 Britain, it shapes our image of our supposed adversary.

Do the events that led to the outbreak of the first world war carry lessons for the Sino-American relationship? A century ago it was the ascent of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II that unsettled the world; today a rising China is roiling east Asia. Then, as now, domestic politics on both sides played a role; one that is too easily neglected. [Prof. Layne在開頭幾段指出，今天欲維繫或建立「自由霸權」的美國有要防堵及擊敗野心勃勃的、黷武的、想摧毀「自由國際秩序」的中華新邪惡帝國的挑戰的雄心壯志，就如同第一次世界大戰及之前的「自由霸權」英國要防堵及擊敗野心勃勃的、黷武的、想摧毀「自由國際秩序」的德意志帝國的挑戰一樣。為什麼會有第一次世界大戰?都是因為倫敦堅持自由的意識型態，這種意識型態把專制、黷武及掠奪性的德國視為威脅，總之，錯不在德國的擴張本質，而在信奉自由的英國。註: Prof. Layne的歷史解釋在顛覆我們所認識的自由與理性的世界所賴以存在的基礎。]

Why did Britain and Germany linked by trade, dynastic ties, culture and religion find themselves at war in August 1914? In part, as historian Paul Kennedy has argued, it was because London’s liberal ideology contributed to its perception of a growing German threat.

Filtered through liberalism’s lens, Germany looked militarist, autocratic, mercantilist and statist – and contempt for the country’s political culture added to London’s disquiet. When the war began, it quickly came to be seen as a liberal crusade against “Prussianism”.

In this respect, today s Sino-American rivalry resembles the pre-1914 Anglo-German antagonism. The speed of China s growth worries US policy makers, as do the geopolitical implications of its economic transformation.

Across the American political spectrum, China s success is attributed to its failure to play by the rules of free trade for instance, its habit of manipulating the value of its currency and engaging in industrial espionage. Market-oriented liberalism is the dominant ideology in the US and, as in pre-1914 Britain, it shapes policy makers image of their supposed adversary.

American leaders view China as a nation whose undemocratic political system raises doubts about both the scope of its foreign policy ambitions and its trustworthiness as a diplomatic partner. Moreover, China s combination of political authoritarianism and state-directed capitalism causes unease because it challenges the supposed universality of the American model of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.

Aaron Friedberg, a Princeton University professor, says that for Americans, “the success of a mainland [Chinese] regime that blends authoritarian rule with market-driven economics is an affront.” For members of the US foreign-policy elite, the Chinese threat is not so much geopolitical as ideological.

Powerful external and domestic forces are putting the US and China on the road to confrontation. China aspires to be the regional hegemon in east (and southeast) Asia. The US the incumbent hegemon, having dominated the region since 1945 is blocking its path.

The dominant ideology is liberalism and, as in pre-1914 Britain, it shapes our image of our supposed adversary‧ Yet America s predominance in east Asia contributes little to the security of a nation whose geography and unsurpassed military capabilities would anyway make it close to invulnerable. The US is the most secure great power in history even more so if you factor in the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. The true cause of American insecurity is not an imminent encroachment on its territory but the risk that US alliances especially with Japan will draw it into a regional conflict.

The US wants to maintain its east Asian dominance to keep the region’s markets open to American goods and its people open to liberal ideas. China threatens this openness, on which America s security is wrongly believed to depend. [美國希望維持它在東亞的dominance，以便保持此地區的市場對美國開放，也要讓此地區的人民對美國所珍視的自由理念的開放，但中國在威脅這種開放，這種開放卻是美國人把美國的安全「錯誤地」寄望與依賴在其上的認知與期待。註: Prof. Layne認為，美國這種依賴與寄望是「錯誤的」，他這種看法在我們看來，十分危險。]

The liberal assumptions embedded in American foreign policy put the US at odds with China, and also heighten Beijing s mistrust of Washington s intentions and ambitions. The spiral of animosity that threatens to culminate in a confrontation between the two countries is in large part a creation of American policy. [在美國外交政策中的liberal假定與中國相左，同時讓北京對華府的意圖及企圖心產生高度的不信任。讓美中兩國陷入敵意的惡性循環、且最終會導致對抗的原因，有極大的一部分是由於美國的政策。註: 在Prof. Layne看來，美中兩國關係之所以緊張，錯都在美國，中國是無辜的。若在日本發動太平洋戰爭以及希特勒發動歐洲侵略戰爭後，Prof. Layne這派人的思想在美國成為主流，我們真的無法想像，今天的世界到底是什麼世界。]

As China s rises, Washington has a last clear chance to avoid the looming Sino-American conflict. This would entail making real concessions on Taiwan and on China s territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. It would also involve a commitment that Washington would not interfere in China s internal affairs. [今天中國在竄起，為了防止美中即將到來的衝突，美國「有最後的一次機會」， 美國若要掌握這個機會，那就必須在台灣問題上進行真正的讓步，而且要在中國對東海與南海的領土與主權的主張上做出真正的讓步，美國還不得干涉中國內政。註: Prof. Layne就好比是今日的張伯倫，搞出「慕尼黑協定」、滿足與養大希特勒的領土擴張野心的胃口的英國首相張伯倫。歐巴馬「重返東亞」的政策與戰略旨在記取歷史教訓，設法要把正在發展成為納粹德國的中華新邪惡帝國加以圍堵與牽制，但Prof. Layne這類的「現代張伯倫」卻要反其道而行。]

America s political culture based on exceptionalism, liberal ideology, and openness is a big obstacle to coming to terms with a resurgent China. So is the fact that the foreign-policy elite remains wedded to American primacy, and refuses to accept that this will inevitably slip away because of the relative decline of US power. [Prof. Layne攻擊美國的heart and soul，他認為，美國獨特的政治文化---建築在「美國秀異主義」、自由意識型態以及開放理念---是讓美國能與崛起中的中國妥協的「障礙」，美國外交政策的菁英層仍然堅持美國的優越性的事實以及他們拒絕「美國的優越性終有一天會因為美國國力的相對衰退，無可避免地會消失」的事實也構成美國與中國妥協的「障礙」。註: Prof. Layne是要未戰先敗，拱手把世界領導權讓給中華新邪惡帝國的典型，還好他這類人只是少數中的少數，不過，他這類型人士的存在已夠台灣人、台美人、中國周邊國家的人民憂慮及警惕了 。]

History is also a problem. US policy makers are quick to invoke what they take to be the lessons of the 1930s while overlooking the causes of the first world war. David Calleo, a professor at Johns Hopkins, has observed that what we should learn from the earlier conflict is not so much the need for vigilance against aggressors, but the ruinous consequences of refusing reasonable accommodation to upstarts. [

If the US wants to avoid a future conflict with China, it cannot allow liberal ideology to obstruct a reconciliation with an ever more powerful China. That is the real lesson of 1914. [若美國想要避免未來與中國的衝突，那它就不應容許自由意識型態來阻止與一個力量已比以前強大的中國的妥協，這就是1914年真正的歷史教訓。]

(The writer is a professor at Texas A&M University and author of the forthcoming ‘After the Fall’)

讀完了這篇「現代張伯倫」的降書之後，我們相信台灣人與台美人鄉親心頭又會很沉重，我們會在這幾天注意有沒有什麼重量級的專家、學者或退休官員出來，為文駁斥與批判，也會注意有沒有讀者投書。

這篇文章驚人的不是Prof. Layne老生常談的、不健康的言論，而是他的言論上了英國與世界菁英層在閱讀的倫敦「金融時報」，這顯示致命的「張伯倫病毒」試圖在入侵世界菁英的心臟與大腦。中華新邪惡帝國的頭頭們今天在中南海的魔宮中可以打開茅台、喝它個爛醉了，這是他們受到鼓舞、可以躊躇滿志與開懷暢飲的美好時刻，看起來他們要統治世界的邪惡計劃又往前跨一步了，因為張伯倫的幽靈又在四出亂闖了。

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)