3/16/2014將舉辦的「克里米亞加入俄羅斯聯邦的複決」與建州派主張的未來 「台灣加入美國公投」之不同(下)

3/16/2014將舉辦的「克里米亞加入俄羅斯聯邦的複決」與建州派主張的未來 「台灣加入美國公投」之不同(下)

三

我們現在提供幾則新聞報導，供台灣與台美鄉親參考。

由於現在普廷與俄羅斯運用西方的語言與遊戲規則還有西方人的「人民自決」觀念、原則與權利來將西方國家一軍並企圖建立他的新俄羅斯帝國，因此，我們現在看到的是一場精彩的國際法理與法律的論辯與攻防，除了外交與財經的制裁與可能發生的局部性、低強度的準軍事衝突之外。這場國際法理與法律的論辯與攻防也讓我們看到一些當局者、當事人與參與其中的人的角色與精神的錯亂。


“Ukraine's Crimea Raises Tension by Setting Secession Vote”
Western Diplomats Convene in Rome in Bid to Resolve Ukrainian Crisis
By Lukas I. Alpert in Moscow and 
Margaret Coker in Simferopol, Ukraine 
March 7, 2014 
Wall Street Journal

As brazen as Russia's invasion of Ukraine is, it is at least consistent with a philosophy Russian leaders outlined after its war with Georgia in 2008. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports on what Russia means when it talks about a "sphere of privileged interests." Photo: Associated Press. 

Crimea's Moscow-backed government voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia and accelerated a snap referendum to ratify the move, a dramatic escalation of tension that pushed the West closer to imposing sanctions if Russian troops don't withdraw.

The scheduling of the vote for March 16 means that Crimea could be absorbed into Russia in a matter of weeks. It also means the referendum could be held while the region is under de facto Russian occupation—with no opportunity for a free and fair campaign.

A Russian move to absorb Crimea against the will of Ukraine's national government would mark the first time since World War II that such a maneuver had been attempted in Europe.

U.S. and European leaders said Thursday that such a referendum would violate the Ukrainian constitution and international law.

President Barack Obama spoke for an hour Thursday afternoon with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the White House said, stressing Russian violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and urging Moscow to talk to the new government in Kiev. He also urged Mr. Putin to ensure all Russian forces return to their bases and to support new elections in May.

In a televised address in the capital of Kiev, acting Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov called the referendum "a farce and a crime against the state, organized by Russia." 

On Tuesday, Mr. Putin said Russia wasn't interested in annexing Crimea, a predominantly Russian-speaking region that is home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet. On Thursday, the Kremlin said Mr. Putin had discussed the possibility of Crimea becoming part of Russia with his security council.

The Russian parliament also was preparing to move up consideration of a draft law that would ease the annexation of new territories, and officials said it could be passed in time for the referendum.

European leaders had been caught between a desire to show forceful action and a desire to leave a pathway for diplomacy. The Crimean parliament's action tipped the balance, since it seemed a big step in the process of Russia taking over the region. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the leaders felt that "we must react in view of what happened today."

"These last days have seen perhaps the most serious challenge to security on our continent since the Balkan wars," said Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, who chaired the summit. 

Ukraine's Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was in Brussels meeting with European leaders, said his country's constitution has no provision for such a referendum, making it illegal.

"This is an illegitimate decision," he said. "Crimea was, is, and will be an integral part of Ukraine."

Crimea's parliament said the decision to hold a referendum was "the result of the unconstitutional coup" that put a new government in place in Kiev last month following months of street protests. It also cited the "flagrant violation of the laws of Ukraine" by nationalist forces since the ouster of the former president.

The gunmen took over the parliament and presided over the installation of a new pro-Russian governor for the region, who then announced a referendum would be held on the more vaguely described issue of increased autonomy from Kiev. 

It was initially set for May 25, the same day Kiev's new government has set to pick the country's next president. Crimea's parliament later moved it forward to March 30, then Thursday moved it to March 16. 

Crimea's parliament also voted Thursday in favor of joining Russia, but lawmakers said the final decision will rest with the people, with a simple majority in the referendum sufficing.

Among the issues being explored, according to U.S. and Russian officials, are the introduction of more international monitors into Ukraine, clearer guidelines for May's presidential election and ways to safeguard ethnic Russians in the country.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials began delivering on increased military support to other countries in the region and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Pentagon sent six additional F-15 fighter jets to Lithuania, bringing the total U.S. force to 10 fighter planes available to participate in air patrols in the Baltic region. 

The Pentagon also is stepping up aviation training in Poland, but has not decided on how many airmen it will send. Polish officials said they expect 300 U.S. airmen, but a defense official said the military is "considering a range of options."

(Naftali Bendavid and Carol E. Lee contributed to this article.)




“Crimea Approves a Secession Vote as Tensions Rise”
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ALISSA J. RUBIN
New York Times
MARCH 6, 2014 

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — The volatile confrontation over the future of Ukraine took another tense turn on Thursday as Russian allies in Crimea sought annexation by Moscow and the United States imposed its first sanctions on Russian officials involved in the military occupation of the strategic peninsula.

The pro-Russia regional Parliament in Crimea crossed another line set by the United States and Europe by voting to hold a referendum on whether to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia. It scheduled the vote for March 16, hoping to win popular approval for the Russian military seizure of the region. But the authorities in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, backed by the United States and Europe, denounced the move.

In Yalta and Simferopol, Crimean citizens spoke about the planned referendum on whether to break from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

“Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine,” Mr. Obama said in his only public remarks on the crisis on Thursday. “In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”

Early Friday, the Kremlin released a statement describing the phone call. “In the course of the discussion there emerged differences in approaches and assessments of the causes which brought about the current crisis and the resulting state of affairs,” the statement said. “Vladimir Putin, for his part, noted that this had occurred as a result of an anticonstitutional coup which does not have a national mandate.”

It went on to say that the current Ukrainian leadership has imposed “absolutely illegitimate decisions” on the eastern and southeastern regions of the country. “Russia cannot ignore appeals connected to this, calls for help, and acts appropriately, in accordance with international law,” the statement said. Mr. Putin, the statement said, appreciated the importance of the Russian-American relationship to global security, and added that bilateral ties “should not be sacrificed for individual — albeit rather important — international problems.”

European Union leaders issued a statement in Brussels calling an annexation referendum “contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution and therefore illegal.”

The sanctions Mr. Obama approved Thursday imposed visa bans on officials and other individuals deemed responsible for undermining Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The administration would not disclose the names or number of people penalized, but a senior official said privately that it would affect just under a dozen people, mostly Russians but some Ukrainians.

Ukraine’s acting president, Oleksandr V. Turchynov, scoffed at a planned referendum under the watch of foreign troops. “This will be a farce,” he said in a televised address. “This will be false. This will be a crime against the state.”


If the referendum is held and most Crimeans opt to join Russia, it could create a thorny problem for the United States and European countries that typically support self-determination but oppose independence for regions in their own borders, like Scotland or Catalonia. [若克里米亞人民的複決被舉辦且多數的克里米亞人選擇加入俄羅斯，這將給美國及西歐國家製造一個棘手的問題，因為 

3/16/2014將舉辦的「克里米亞加入俄羅斯聯邦的複決」與建州派主張的未來 「台灣加入美國公投」之不同(上)

3/16/2014將舉辦的「克里米亞加入俄羅斯聯邦的複決」與建州派主張的未來 「台灣加入美國公投」之不同(上)

一

建州運動於3/7/2014發表「我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍」一文。

在該文中，我們張貼了「自由時報」3/7/2014的一篇報導，該報導標題是「克里米亞議會要求加入俄羅斯」，它根據一些外電的報導，指出克里米亞議會已議決於3/16/2014在克里米亞舉辦公民複決，讓克里米亞人民來決定是否加入俄羅斯聯邦。

對於克里米亞議會這項決議，建州運動立即在該文中表達了我們的基本立場與觀點:

//「台灣建州運動 」主張「台灣人民透過公投加入美國，先成為美國的領地，最終成為美國一州」。//

//台灣人民有權利這麼做，但這個權利的行使必須得到美國的背書與支持 ，否則這個權利沒有機會行使。//

//「台灣建州運動」是台灣人民內部自發性的運動 ，所以我們現在不禁要問: 「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決，要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動嗎? 若是，即使俄軍先開進克里米亞，克里米亞人民再舉辦「加入俄羅斯聯邦」的自決與公投，全世界的國家、政府與人民也無權反對，就像全世界的國家、政府與人民無權反對美國未來派兵保護台灣人民進行[ 加入美利堅合眾國」的自決與公投一樣。//

//建州運動這麼說，並不表示我們相信「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動，相反地，我們認為這是俄羅斯邪惡帝國的侵略與擴張行動。//

//建州運動這麼說，並不表示我們相信「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動，相反地，我們認為這是普廷政權所操控與指使的行動。//


//建州運動這麼說，並非我們天真地以為以恢復帝俄及蘇聯帝國版圖為職志的普廷會對「台灣建州運動」投桃報李，相反地，我們認為普廷這個邪門的傢伙還會繼續跟老共扯什麼「台灣是中國的一部分」的鬼話。//

//西方國家若有人以為他們可以動員或說服老共在克里米亞事件上反對普廷，那他們就太不了解老共了 ，老共與普廷是一對活寶，他們會有樣學樣，普廷在喬治亞與烏克蘭達陣，會鼓勵老共在中國的周邊地區繼續進行軍事冒險，以便建立自己的帝國與勢力範圍。//

二

3/16/2014將舉辦的「克里米亞加入俄羅斯聯邦的複決」與建州派主張的未來 「台灣加入美國的公投」兩者之間有很大的不同。

在終戰後，原來「被永久割讓」給日本的台灣成為「國際法律地位未定，而其歸屬尚未確立的主權至今仍在美國的政治監護之中的自治政治實體」，所以在「台灣關係法」保護下的台灣人民有百分之百的權利就台灣的前途進行自決與公投，台灣人民要透過自決與公投讓台灣加入美國或獨立建國，都不存在分裂什麼國家或會侵害任何國家的領土與主權的完整的問題，但克里米亞的主權屬於烏克蘭，所以「克里米亞人民的人民自決的權利」[這勉強可被類比為魁北克欲脫離加拿大的「民主自決」，這也與世人所理解的、傳統的殖民地人民的「民族自決」有些不同]就會與烏克蘭「維護領土與主權的完整的權利」產生衝突。

(待續)

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)

支持台灣獨立建國的白樂崎大使也注意到了芝加哥大學國際關係學泰斗Prof. John Mearsheimer最近的言論 (下)

支持台灣獨立建國的白樂崎大使也注意到了芝加哥大學國際關係學泰斗Prof. John Mearsheimer最近的言論 (下)

續 二

這事情看在親台的美國愛國者白樂崎大使的眼裡，當然要挺身站出來，為台灣人仗義執言，白大使現在「英文台北時報」發表了一篇英文文章，按照慣例，該文將會被譯成漢文，然後刊登在「自由時報」上。

“Say goodbye to Taiwan, say goodbye to peace”
By Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎 /
Taipei Times
Sun, Mar 09, 2014 - Page 8

An article by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer titled “Say Goodbye to Taiwan” in the March-April issue of the National Interest is thought-provoking. In his essay, first published online on Feb. 25, Mearsheimer predicts that in the face of China’s continued rise, Taiwan will have to give up even its present de facto independent status and seek a Hong Kong-style accommodation with Beijing.

Mearsheimer, who is a political scientist from the “offensive realism” school of international relations, did do his homework for the essay and studied local political attitudes carefully. For instance, he presents recent statistics showing that — assuming that China will not attack Taiwan — the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese, 80.2 percent, would opt for independence.

He also writes that: “… most Taiwanese would like their country to gain de jure independence and become a legitimate sovereign state in the international system. This outcome is especially attractive because a strong Taiwanese identity — separate from a Chinese identity — has blossomed in Taiwan over the past 65 years.”

However, he concludes that, in spite of locals’ strong desire that Taiwan be accepted as a legitimate sovereign state in the international system, China’s continued rise will make it increasingly difficult to resist Beijing’s pressure toward unification. [雖然Prof. Mearsheimer了解多數台灣人要建立獨立主權國家的願望，但他做出一個結論或與預測: 中國持續的竄起將會讓台灣人對北京統一台灣的壓力的抵抗的困難逐漸增加。]

The main flaw in Mearsheimer’s reasoning is that he believes in the inevitability of an unfettered continuation of China’s rise. In his attempt to apply his theoretical construct to the real world, Mearsheimer neglects a number of important aspects, such as the push-back from Taiwanese, from the US and from other nations in the region against a rising and increasingly aggressive China.

In addition, China’s continued rise is by no means certain because its economic and political fundamentals are weak at best: The economy has been liberalized, but the Chinese Communist Party’s political control is as tight as ever and there are manifold bubbles — like housing and banking — waiting to burst. This fuels internal tensions which could derail China’s aspirations.

Yet Mearsheimer’s essay is an important wake-up call to global policymakers: If the present “status quo” and “one China” policies are maintained, there is an increasing likelihood that democratic Taiwan will be absorbed by its neighbor.

This would not only be highly undesirable for Taiwanese, but it would also fundamentally upset the regional balance of power.
Mearsheimer describes how control over Taiwan could greatly enhance Beijing’s ability to project military power. This would certainly cause deep anxiety in neighboring countries like South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Mearsheimer concludes that China will try to dominate Asia in the way that the US dominates the western hemisphere.

Mearsheimer reveals the perception that Washington and Taipei’s current policies have brought about a reduction in cross-strait tensions is only a short-term fata morgana. These policies simply do not form a solid basis for longer-term stability. At some point, the democratic aspirations of Taiwanese will collide with the designs of Beijing, leading to sharply higher tensions.

To ensure that Taiwan remains among free, democratic nations and to maintain a stable and free Western Pacific, it is essential that the US, Asian democracies and Western Europe significantly improve economic and political ties with Taiwan. Perhaps it is time to promote a “Community of Democracies in East Asia.” [為了讓台灣繼續留在自由民主陣營，美國、亞洲的民主國家以及西歐應該大幅地增進與台灣的政經聯繫，或許促進「東亞民主共同體」現在正是時候。]

(Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 to 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.)

三


白大使提起「東亞民主共同體」這個概念，這讓我們想起安倍晉三在二度出任日本首相之前提出的「亞洲民主安全鑽石聯盟」， ---Read More--- 建州派以前為文介紹過，我們現在再貼出來，讓大家溫故知新。

Shinzo Abe: “Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond”
12/27/2012
http://project-syndicate.org/

TOKYO – In the summer of 2007, addressing the Central Hall of the Indian Parliament as Japan’s prime minister, I spoke of the “Confluence of the Two Seas” – a phrase that I drew from the title of a book written by the Mughal prince Dara Shikoh in 1655 – to the applause and stomping approval of the assembled lawmakers. In the five years since then, I have become even more strongly convinced that what I said was correct.

Peace, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Pacific Ocean are inseparable from peace, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean. Developments affecting each are more closely connected than ever. Japan, as one of the oldest sea-faring democracies in Asia, should play a greater role in preserving the common good in both regions. [安倍採納了「印太戰區」的概念，

支持台灣獨立建國的白樂崎大使也注意到了芝加哥大學國際關係學泰斗Prof. John Mearsheimer最近的言論 (上)

支持台灣獨立建國的白樂崎大使也注意到了芝加哥大學國際關係學泰斗Prof. John Mearsheimer最近的言論 (上)

一

關於芝加哥大學現實派的國際關係學泰斗Prof. John Mearsheimer於12/7/2013在台北的一場以”Taiwan in the Shadow of a Rising China”為題的演講，建州派是「反中國併吞台灣、反中國國民黨賣台」的台灣與台美黨派中首先加以正視與介紹的，我們已經多次提及，並建議獨派的領袖與菁英也要研讀，不可矇著眼睛，也不可摀著耳朵，假裝沒有這回事。

建州派之所以這麼做，有幾個原因，這些原因我們先前就已說過，我們今天加以列舉:

(1)建州派在為台灣與台灣人民籌謀或盤算時，一向採「料敵從寬」與「做最壞的打算，做最好的準備」的忠誠謀國的態度，我們不要讓台灣人活在童話、神話與謊言世界之中，我們希望台灣人知道真相，了解自己處境的艱難與危險，我們希望台灣人強化憂患意識，能把自己置之死地而後求生。

(2)建州派不是要嚇唬台灣鄉親，而是希望鄉親們「做最壞的打算」，能做最壞的打算，才可望做最好的準備。如果大家都只聽那些只會報喜不報憂的人士大吹法螺，到時候沒被告知的最壞的情況來臨時，大家都可能亂成一團 ，然後在那些「唐景崧們」、「丘逢甲們」閃人時，重演當年短命的「台灣民主國」那一齣荒唐而可笑的戲碼。我們今天的台灣人輸不起，我們若輸了，那我們就會失去一切，包括我們與我們的前輩們奮鬥幾十年而得來不易的、雛形的、正在流失的、隨時會失去的自由與民主。

(3)我們當然不是採「失敗主義」，我們是採「健康的悲觀主義」的哲學，我們採「料敵從寬」與「做最壞的打算，做最好的準備」的態度，因此我們主張要積極地「為台灣人增加籌碼」、「拉長time frame.」、「加大戰略縱深」、「勸使獨派人士採取間接與迂迴的approach」。

(4)我們進一步要請支持「台灣獨立建國」或「維持現狀」或支持台灣的民主與共和體制的台灣人與台美人鄉親都來支持「台灣建州運動」所提出的務實與穩健的路線與策略 [建州派建議獨派走「漸進與迂迴路線」，也就是說，在現階段，與建州派一起推「台灣成為美國領地」的方案] 。

二

在Prof. John Mearsheimer在台北發表了那場演說後，老共與在台灣的「大中國主義者」肯定如獲至寶，大喜過望，因為Prof. Mearsheimer的演說有如在傳播「台灣必亡論」或「台灣滅亡宿命論」，這有如一場「預知台灣滅亡記事」的告白。我們當時就說，這宛如他在跟台灣告別。果然，不久之後，他就改以「向台灣說再見」為題，把在台北演講的文字做了極小幅的調整，然後在現實派的旗艦刊物”National Interest”發表。[建州派必須特別指出: Prof. Mearsheimer不是主張賣台或棄台，他從沒有做此主張，相反地，他在過去所發表的文章中，雖然一再主張offshore strategy，但他一直都把台灣視為例外，他主張保衛台灣。]

該文在美國重要的期刊發表後，親中的被統媒當然不會放過，他們之所以加以報導，目的是為了打擊台灣人的士氣，強化「在台中國人」協助老共併吞台灣的信念。

(待續)

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)

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(下)

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(下)

九


在美國正在或準備大幅裁軍之時，中國這個邪惡帝國卻不斷增加國防預算，大幅擴軍，企圖成為打倒美國的世界霸權。

“China Leader Assures Army's Growth” 
By Jeremy Page
Wall Street Journal
March 6, 2014 

BEIJING—The double-digit increase in China's 2014 defense budget amounts to the biggest increase in absolute terms in at least a decade—$14.4 billion—and illustrates Beijing's determination to prioritize military spending as the Pentagon faces cutbacks.

The 12.2% rise in military spending unveiled in a government budget plan Wednesday wasn't unusually big in percentage terms; China's defense budget has grown by an annual average of more than 10% for over two decades.

Measured in absolute terms, the 88.03 billion yuan ($14.4 billion) increase is the largest since at least 2005 and takes China's overall military budget to 808.23 billion yuan ($131.57 billion)—more than double what it was in 2007, according to official Chinese figures.

Coming at a time of overall slower economic growth, the outlay suggests that Chinese President Xi Jinping is ring-fencing military-spending rises to ensure political support from commanders and to finance his stated goal of re-establishing China as a major world power, analysts said.

"It just shows how sacrosanct the defense budget is. They've made this decision that defense spending will be supported, no matter what," said Richard Bitzinger, an expert on regional military modernization at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

"This is the rich-nation, strong-military syndrome. It's the idea that you have to be able to show hard power as well as soft power. A strong military is part of the China Dream," he said, referring to one of Mr. Xi's signature slogans.

Turning the People's Liberation Army into a modern fighting force has been a mission for two decades. Mr. Xi has upped the stakes for himself and the military by taking a more forceful approach to territorial claims in the East China Sea, where they are contested by Japan, and the South China Sea, where they are disputed by several Southeast Asian countries, analysts said.

The continued pace of China's military spending stems in part from a calculation that it has a chance to close a capability gap with the U.S. military, whose budget is likely to shrink or remain flat until at least 2023, analysts said.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama unveiled a budget for fiscal 2015 that proposed sharp reductions in troop levels and a $400 million cut in Pentagon spending, to $495.6 billion. 

That is still about four times as large as China's 2014 defense budget, but some defense experts predict Beijing could close the gap by around 2030 if current economic trends continue.

China doesn't seek to match U.S. military strength, as the Soviet Union did, but is seeking sufficient strength to prevent the U.S. from intervening in conflicts in Asia, Chinese and foreign analysts said.

(Kersten Zhang contributed to this article)





“Military Spending Rises Sharply Despite Slower Growth”
By Jeremy Page 
The Wall Street Journal
March 6, 2014 

Some U.S. and Asian officials and defense analysts have said Pentagon spending limits will make it difficult for the U.S. to uphold its commitments to its allies in Asia, and to remain the dominant military power in the region over the long term.

Other countries in Asia are already ramping up their military spending to hedge against China's military rise, raising the prospect of a regional arms race.



十


把軍隊開進克里米亞、準備讓它成為俄羅斯聯邦的一部分的普廷已經展現了他的真正想法: ---Read More--- 


「克里米亞議會要求加入俄羅斯」 
自由時報 
2014-03-07

〔編譯張沛元╱綜合六日外電報導〕

將於16日舉行公投

//烏克蘭自治共和國克里米亞的議會六日通過表決要求加入俄羅斯聯邦，並在十六日就此舉行公民投票，俄羅斯總統普廷稍後已召開國家安全會議商討克里米亞此一要求。在此同時，歐盟領袖就俄羅斯軍事干預烏克蘭召開緊急高峰會，美俄外長最新會談仍無結論，美國總統歐巴馬宣佈對俄羅斯祭出凍結資產與簽證限制的制裁。

烏克蘭政府斥違憲

在六日的閉門會議中，克里米亞議會的八十六名議員中有七十八人贊成「加入俄羅斯聯邦、具備俄羅斯聯邦公民權利」的動議，也要求普廷與俄羅斯國會考慮此一要求。但此舉遭到烏克蘭臨時政府斥為非法與違憲，烏克蘭並不承認目前的克島議會，而烏國憲法規定，領土變更應由全民複決。

克里米亞人民將在十六日的公投票上看到兩個問題，分別是「是否希望克里米亞成為俄羅斯的一部分，以及成為俄羅斯公民」，與「克里米亞是否應恢復一九九二年前憲法所賦予的較大自治權」，當時該憲法賦予克里米亞形同獨立的地位。

據信事先獲普廷首肯

外交人士指出，克里米亞議會該決議必定事先得到普廷的首肯，普廷似乎決心要在西方還沒拿定主意前創造事實，發給克島說俄語的人民護照，方便他可用俄國公民在克島受威脅的理由出兵干預，一如二○○八年的喬治亞戰爭。但這也會升高這場自冷戰結束以來最嚴重的東西方對峙的緊張情勢，俄國股匯市六日也因此下挫。

稍早，俄羅斯伊塔塔斯社引述俄羅斯國會議員米洛諾夫的話報導說，一份簡化讓「他國的一部分」加入俄羅斯聯邦之程序的法案，下週將在俄羅斯國會過關。米洛諾夫表示，這是他為了克里米亞而提出來的法案。

歐盟領袖六日在比利時首都布魯塞爾召開緊急高峰會，商討如何迫使俄羅斯對克里米亞收手及接受調停，但預料最後只會通過象徵性措施，畢竟俄羅斯是歐洲最大的天然氣供應國，此外，工業大國德國及金融重鎮英國也不願與俄羅斯硬碰硬。不過，美國總統歐巴馬六日已對俄羅斯與軍事干預克里米亞有關人士，實施凍結在美資產與赴美簽證禁令。

克里米亞當地情勢依然緊張，一個前往克里米亞的「歐洲安全暨合作組織（ＯＳＣＥ）四十人軍事觀察小組」遭一群槍手包圍，無法進入克里米亞。

為因應烏國危機，美國六日從英國增派六架戰機前往波羅的海國家立陶宛的空軍基地，加強北大西洋公約組織的空中巡航兵力。//


十一


「台灣建州運動 」主張「台灣人民透過公投加入美國，先成為美國的領地，最終成為美國一州」。

台灣人民有權利這麼做，但這個權利的行使必須得到美國的背書與支持 ，否則這個權利沒有機會行使。

「台灣建州運動」是台灣人民內部自發性的運動 ，所以我們現在不禁要問: 「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決，要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動嗎? 若是，即使俄軍先開進克里米亞，克里米亞人民再舉辦「加入俄羅斯聯邦」的自決與公投，全世界的國家、政府與人民也無權反對，就像全世界的國家、政府與人民無權反對美國未來派兵保護台灣人民進行[ 加入美利堅合眾國」的自決與公投一樣。

建州運動這麼說，並不表示我們相信「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動，相反地，我們認為這是俄羅斯邪惡帝國的侵略與擴張行動。

建州運動這麼說，並不表示我們相信「克里米亞的議會六日通過表決要求加入俄羅斯聯邦」是克里米亞人民自發性的行動，相反地，我們認為這是普廷政權所操控與指使的行動。


建州運動這麼說，並非我們天真地以為以恢復帝俄及蘇聯帝國版圖為職志的普廷會對「台灣建州運動」投桃報李，相反地，我們認為普廷這個邪門的傢伙還會繼續跟老共扯什麼「台灣是中國的一部分」的鬼話。

西方國家若有人以為他們可以動員或說服老共在克里米亞事件上反對普廷，那他們就太不了解老共了 ，老共與普廷是一對活寶，他們會有樣學樣，普廷在喬治亞與烏克蘭達陣，會鼓勵老共在中國的周邊地區繼續進行軍事冒險，以便建立自己的帝國與勢力範圍。



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)

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(中)

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(中)

六

國防部長Hagel在日前發表的”FY15 Budget Preview”(2015會計年度預算預覽)必然會遭到國會參眾兩院的軍事委員會那些巨頭們的砲轟，我們現在先來讀Rep. J. Randy Forbes (Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee)於3/6/2014在The Wall Street Journal上的投書:


//Your editorial "Obama's Shrinking Army" (March 1) makes clear the many dangers associated with the administration's decision to reduce the U.S. Army to its smallest size since World War II. History shows us the inherent danger in reductions of this size, particularly as the international environment, from Ukraine to the South China Sea, becomes increasingly unstable. Yet the negative implications of the president's defense reductions extend far beyond the Army. //

//The U.S. Navy, today numbering just 283 vessels, seems poised to shrink even further as sea-power investments are regularly deferred in the name of savings. Despite Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's insistence that the Navy must grow to "support the global demands for naval presence," he proceeded to announce further cuts to the Navy's size and strength, including removing 11 cruisers from the fleet and canceling the planned procurement of 20 relatively inexpensive littoral combat ships. The administration also appears ready to reduce our aircraft-carrier fleet by forgoing needed maintenance on the USS George Washington, shortening her service life and stretching the demands on our carrier force. Alongside these cuts, in key classes of ships, including attack submarines and amphibious ships, the Navy will experience continued requirement shortfalls in the coming years.//

//If Chinese and Russian boldness in recent years is any indication, the world is watching our decisions and calculating its response. I am reminded of the late Congressman Carl Vinson's maxim that, "The most expensive thing in the world is a cheap Army and Navy." //

來自維吉尼亞第四國會選區的眾議員Randy Forbes澈底反對裁減海軍與陸軍 ，因為這不但違反他的選區的利益，也違反美國的國家利益、自由民主陣營的利益及世界各地愛好自由民主的人民的利益 。

七

俄羅斯最近在東歐的侵略與擴張行動提供了國會議員反對國防部長Hagel在日前發表的”FY15 Budget Preview”(2015會計年度預算預覽)的柴火，我們現在來讀一則報導:


“Russia Rift Fuels U.S. Defense Debate”
By Dion Nissenbaum And Julian E. Barnes
The Wall Street Journal
March 3, 2014

WASHINGTON—The deepening East-West standoff over Ukraine is triggering a shift in political pressures in Washington, as Russia reprises its role as an American nemesis against the backdrop of U.S. military spending cuts.

President Barack Obama is facing calls to rethink diplomatic strategies and exert a more forceful American response. At the same time, however, even self-professed Republican hawks aren't urging military action, a recognition of limits on U.S. options.

Still, the facedown with Moscow is breeding demands for more strenuous action than the administration has so far taken. While the U.S. has said it may boycott the June Group of Eight summit in Sochi, for instance, lawmakers are urging that the U.S. lead a charge to evict Russia from the group.

Lawmakers also have demanded more funding for missile defense programs across Europe and for strengthening Georgia and Moldova—two other former Soviet republics at odds with Moscow.

"Every time the president goes on national television and threatens (Russian President Vladimir) Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll, including mine," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Sunday on CNN. "We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression."[參議員Graham說，我們美國有一個在邀請侵略的軟弱與 ---Read More--- 優柔寡斷的總統。這句話可能是我們所聽過的對一位美國總統最嚴厲的批評。 ]

However, the GOP in Washington has been splitting between traditional defense hawks and a rising wing of conservatives skeptical of what they see as overseas adventurism.

Rep. Mike Rogers, (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the Obama administration and said it had been outwitted by Mr. Putin, but urged caution on the U.S. response.

"Candidly—and I'm a fairly hawkish guy—sending more naval forces to operate in the Black Sea is really not a very good idea," Mr. Rogers said. "Unless you're intending to use them, I wouldn't send them."

The Ukraine crisis comes just as Mr. Obama this week planned to unveil a budget plan that calls for cutting the size of the U.S. Army and for other reductions.

That fate of timing has opened the administration to a new round of criticism. Rep. Buck McKeon (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the military cutbacks are likely emboldening Mr. Putin in Ukraine.

"Putin's not a dummy," he told a small group of reporters last week. "He looks at it and says: 'Hey, America is cutting back their defense. I can push here.' "

Senior administration officials updated members of Congress over the weekend on the president's handling of the crisis, although there were no formal briefings.

Pentagon officials scoffed at the idea that their spending plan represents a retreat from the world. "There is no retreat from the world," one defense official said. "The sun rises and sets on literally hundreds of countries where American troops are operating or are based."

Officials said the new budget, with its investments in modernized weaponry will put the U.S. in an even better position to respond toand deter countries with advanced military, such as Russia.


美國國防部於3/4/2014發表了一份新的「四年國防評估報告」(Quadrennial Defense Review, 2014)，眾院軍事委員會主席竟把它退回，要國防部重擬 ，國會這麼做，可能史無前例。我們來讀一則報導。

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(上)

我們仍然活在危險的年代: 歐亞陸塊兩個邪惡帝國張牙舞爪，忙著恢復或建立它們的勢力範圍(上)

一

建州運動在2/27/2014發表「只要認真執行『重返東亞』的大戰略與『海空一體作戰』的戰略，建州運動支持五角大廈新的建軍方案與方向」一文，3/3/2014接著發表「關於『重返東亞』的大戰略、『海空一體作戰』的戰略、『福特號』超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃」一文，這都涉及美國的國防與台灣及東亞安全的議題，我們今天再接著談下去。

二

我們在「只要認真執行『重返東亞』的大戰略與『海空一體作戰』的戰略，建州運動支持五角大廈新的建軍方案與方向」一文中說:

//我們之所以比台灣任何其他黨派都重視這兩個議題，是因為台灣的安全以及中國周邊的國家(俄羅斯、巴勒斯坦與印度除外)與地區是否能免於中國的威脅、侵略與併吞，都有賴美國政府確實執行「重返東亞」(或「向亞太再平衡」)的大戰略與「海空一體作戰」的戰略。//

//美國與其他國家國安、外交、戰略、軍事界的專家學者大概對歐巴馬行政團隊執行「重返東亞」的大戰略與「海空一體作戰」戰略的決心與誠意不會懷疑，但是卻有不少人懷疑在國防預算大規模刪減與自動減支的雙重打擊下，美國是否在財政上有足夠的能力去執行或支撐它們。//

請鄉親們注意「但是 卻有不少人懷疑在國防預算大規模刪減與自動減支的雙重打擊下，美國是否在財政上有足夠的能力去執行或支撐它們」這句話。

另外，我們在「關於『重返東亞』的大戰略、『海空一體作戰』的戰略、『福特號』超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃」一文中有一段這麼說:

//Mr Hagel’s speech raises two fundamental questions about the US military, the first strategic, the second political. Is such a big cut in the army evidence of an American retreat from the world or is it a smart readjustment to the new threats that confront Washington? [美國國防部長Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是美國從世界撤守的證據 ，還是美國對付諸多新的威脅的聰明調整?][註: 關於美國是否已在或正在從世界撤守一事，我們以後會寫文章來討論]And second, can the Pentagon boss implement the big changes he has announced in the face of tenacious vested interests, both within the Pentagon and in Congress?(美國國防部長Hagel在面對來自國防部內部與國會既得利益者的強力反對之下，能否執行他所宣佈的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃?)//

在這裡，我們提到美國國防部內部也有人反對現任國防部長Hagel的大規模裁軍計劃。

三

事實上，五角大廈內部日前就有人選擇在國會議員面前說實話或者說他們想說的話。 ---Read More---

五角大廈負責採購的助理國防部長麥法蘭（Katrina G. McFarland，Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition）3/4/2014在一場會議中說，「美方正在評估亞洲再平衡政策，因為坦白說，這項政策無法實現。」

國防部負責台灣與中國地區事務的副助理部長海大衛 (David Helvey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense)同一天在國會參議院外交委員會亞太事務小組也發表了同樣的談話。

他們了兩人坦率的發言引起了十分關切中國擴軍與亞太安全的國會議員的極大關切。

此事既經披露(被披露是好事)，必然會引起關切台灣與亞太地區安全的建州運動、台灣人、台美人以及美國國安事務專家學者的嚴重關切，建州派希望因為麥法蘭與海大衛的發言促使美國國會迫使五角大廈設法改善。此事若不願或無法改善，Prof. John J. Mearsheimer的「向台灣說再見」就會一語成籤，不幸言中。

四

我們現在來讀一則報導:

「重返亞洲不可能實踐？ 美國防部忙澄清 」
自由時報
2014-03-06

〔駐美特派員曹郁芬╱華府四日報導〕//俄國軍事入侵烏克蘭的克里米亞，導致美國領導角色受挑戰之際，美國防部主管採購的助理部長麥克法蘭今天又表示，預算削減使國防部的重返亞洲計畫「不可能實踐」（can’t happen）。這番坦率告白立即引起亞洲盟邦的關注，並引起國會議員的質問以及國防部的澄清。

美官員發言引起亞洲盟邦關注

美國國防部長哈格爾上週已宣佈美國陸軍將大幅裁員到二戰前的水準。國防新聞週刊報導，麥克法蘭今天出席在維州舉行的國防科技與需要會議時表示， 重返亞洲政策不可能實踐，國防部正在創造一個輪調的模式，以期做到對區域盟邦的承諾。

不過，麥克法蘭稍後透過國防部發言人澄清說，她當時是在回答一個預算與美國重返亞洲政策有何關聯的問題，她只是重申哈格爾上週的說法，把焦點轉換到亞太需要國防部調適、創新並在預算和採購上做出困難的決定，以確保美軍維持足夠的妥善率和能力，亞太再平衡政策會繼續執行。

參議員卡登[註: Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin， Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs 召集人] 今天下午主持外委會亞太小組聽證會時，也要求國務院亞太助卿羅素[註: Daniel Russell]以及國防部主管亞太事務的副助理國防部長海大衛，說明美國的重返亞太政策是否有變。

海大衛說，中國軍事預算不透明以及對海事爭議的態度愈來愈強硬是美國關切的，美國會繼續執行亞太再平衡政策，並且顯現在國防部二○一五年的預算上。他說，資源固然重要，但美國政策是評估後的結果，不全是依資源行事。歐巴馬總統的亞太再平衡反映了美國長期的利益。

羅素也表示，歐巴馬政府仍將亞太再平衡當做優先政策，而且白宮過去在跨部會會議中討論這項政策時，都已顧及預算的分配，但他強調這項政策不是針對中國。

美國的兩岸專家葛來儀表示，歐巴馬將於四月訪問亞洲，亞洲國家對中國崛起十分憂慮，像是馬來西亞、菲律賓、越南和日本都願意與美國站在一起，美國的亞太再平衡政策必須連貫，她不認為克里米亞事件會影響美國在亞洲的政策。//


五

鄉親們肯定已注意 到麥(克)法蘭「預算削減使國防部的重返亞洲計畫『不可能實踐』（can’t happen）」這段坦率與可怕的發言。

為何有人願意說實話而不選擇呼儱與敷衍 ?

可能因為: (1)他們若不在國會面前說實話，會付出代價，(2)國會議員也有很厲害的國防與軍事事務助理，他們瞞騙不了國會議員，(3)他們可能本身就不同意國防部長的政策與做法。

(待續)

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)

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(下)

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(下)

[您可以跳過英文的部分]

五

「美國之音」日前在一項新聞報導中，提及美國的「亞太再平衡」大戰略，我們現在把它的英文與漢文內容張貼出來，供鄉親們參考，但我們只提供前一部分，後面五段從缺 。

「美國繼續推進亞太再平衡戰略」
「美國之音」首次發佈時間:1/27/2014

One of the main features of the global defense strategy laid out by President Barack Obama two years ago, shifting the U.S. military's focus from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific region, is meeting significant challenges from China and its rapidly developing military power.

But U.S. military officials say American dominance of the Asia Pacific is not diminishing.

Recent actions by China, including its imposition of an aircraft identification zone over the East China Sea and a near collision between Chinese and U.S. warships, show that dominance is being challenged.

The Obama administration, in its efforts to shift focus from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Pacific, where China has been building up its forces, includes strategic placement of a new aircraft carrier and the development of hypersonic missile technology.

According to Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, interactions with Chinese forces in the region will only increase, and he is calling for a pragmatic approach that includes boosting military-to-military relations with China.

"We have to do better at being able to communicate with each other in a way that allows us to not lead to miscalculation that won't be productive in the security environment,” he said.
Defense analysts such Barry Pavel of the Washington-based Atlantic Council, a nonpartisan think tank that promotes constructive leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the central role of the Atlantic Community, question whether the shift in focus has actually meant a strengthening of forces in the Pacific.

“We have the deployment of 2,500 or so Marines to northern Australia that'll be there on a routine basis, not a very big nor significant deployment in my estimation," he said. "There's a couple of ships. I think they were littoral combat ships that were discussed as being home ported in Singapore, and then there really hasn't been anything else.”

The placing of a combat ship in Singapore is one of the visible signs of that refocus. The United States has announced the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan is replacing the George Washington at Yokosuka in Japan - a one-for-one swap, but one the Navy says is an element of the rebalance.

U.S. officials are reviewing their military commitments to allies in the region and say they could add more ships, equipment and troops in the future.

With the U.S. military facing its biggest downsizing since the end of World War II, analysts say it remains to be seen how large any future military investment in the Pacific will be.

奧巴馬總統星期二晚上向國會發表國情咨文講話的時候，對外關係，特別是與亞太地區的關係，將是一個主要議題。兩年前，奧巴馬總統提出新的全球防禦戰略，其中一個要點是美軍把重點從中東轉移到亞太。正是在亞太地區，美軍受到了來自中國，特別是其迅速發展的軍事力量的挑戰。 

美國軍方官員說，美國在亞太地區的主導優勢並沒有減弱。

但最近中國的一系列行動，包括劃定東中國海防空識別區以及中美軍艦幾乎碰撞的事件表明，美國在該地區的主導地位正在受到挑戰。

奧巴馬政府正推行一套再平衡戰略，將戰略重心從伊拉克和阿富汗轉移到太平洋。中國已經在這一地區增強了軍事力量，包括這艘新航母，以及高超音速導彈技術的發展。

美軍太平洋司令部司令、海軍上將塞繆爾‧洛克利爾(Adm. Samuel Locklear)說，與中國軍隊在該地區的互動會越來越多，他呼籲以務實的方式處理問題，包括加強美中兩軍之間的聯繫。

“我們需要改善與對方交流的方式，以防止由於誤判而損害我們的安全環境。”

國防分析專家質疑這一重心轉移是否真的意味著加強美軍在太平洋的力量。華盛頓大西洋理事會的巴里‧帕維爾說：

“我們在澳大利亞北部有2500左右海軍陸戰隊的常規部署，但在我看來，這並不算是很大的部署。另外我們在新加坡水域有幾艘瀕海戰鬥艦。除此之外，真沒甚麼別的部署了。”

美國國防部長哈格爾去年在新加坡視察了一艘部署在那裡的瀕海戰鬥艦，這恐怕是美國重返亞洲的一個最明顯的標誌。

美國已宣佈用羅納德‧里根號航空母艦取代部署在日本橫須賀的喬治‧華盛頓號航空母艦，這充其量不過是一次換防，但海軍說這是再平衡的一部分。

美國官員正在審查華盛頓對亞太地區盟友的軍事承諾，並且說這些盟友可以在未來添加更多的軍艦、裝備和部隊。

美軍正面臨著自第二次世界大戰結束以來最大規模的縮減，分析家說，美國今後在太平洋地區的軍事投資會有多大，人們還得拭目以待。 

六

在歐巴馬第一任期時擔任國務院東亞事務助卿的Dr. Kurt Campbell[Lady Hillary Clinton若順利當選下一任總統，他可望成為副國務卿或國家安全副顧問或更高的職位]在隨國務卿Hillary Clinton離開國務院前，我們曾為文指出，歐巴馬行政團隊的「重返東亞」大戰略是由Dr. Campbell首先向國務卿Hillary Clinton提出，並由國務卿先在東南亞國家的會議中發出訊號。現在若干報導與訊息指出，在那時擔任國家安全會議的亞洲部資深主任的Daniel Russell也是這個大戰略的初期發動者，我們從他那時的老闆Tom Donilon過去有關此方面的若干重要談話可以加以印證。

2/20/2014，The Los Angeles Times有一則關於現在已轉任國務院東亞事務助卿的Daniel Russell[2014年8月上任]的報導[標題是“High Disciple of Combat Avoidance”]，這篇報導對他的生平、教育、背景、思想與哲學均加以著墨，

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(中)

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(中)

[您可以跳過英文的部分]

三

Hagel部長的「2015會計年度預算預覽」發表了之後，各方都加以評論，我們先來讀「華爾街日報」的社論。

“Obama's Shrinking Army”
Plenty of cash for entitlements, but not enough for defense.
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 28, 2014 


The White House made clear last week that it had no interest in Social Security reform, citing budget projections showing a shrinking deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio. This week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rolled out a budget that would shrink the Army to pre-World War II levels, on the excuse that the Pentagon needs to recognize "the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."

So we're rolling in dough when it comes to entitlements, and on Wednesday the President also proposed to spend $302 billion on roads. Yet we're out of cash for defense. This is the policy combination that has made much of Europe bankrupt and defenseless at the same time. 

Speaking Monday at the Pentagon, Mr. Hagel stressed how much better off the military was under his budget than it would have been under sequestration, which may be true. And there are points in the Hagel plan to support. It preserves the Marine Corps at close to its current strength of 190,000. It maintains a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. It promises investment in our decaying nuclear infrastructure. It retires the Eisenhower-era U-2 spy plane in favor of unmanned Global Hawks and cuts purchases of the problem-plagued and vulnerable Littoral Combat Ship to 32 ships from 52, in favor of plans for a more capable frigate-like alternative.

The Secretary also called for paring personnel costs, which account for about half the Pentagon budget. He's asking for further base closures and warned that he'd use his discretionary authority to cull bases if Congress balked. He'd be within his rights. The Pentagon "is operating at 20% excess capacity in bases—many billions a year," says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C. think tank. "This is the height of waste." 

That's the good news. The bad news is Mr. Hagel's promise of a military structured to "carry out a variety of missions more relevant to the President's defense strategy." 

Thus the special-ops forces favored by Mr. Obama will grow to nearly 70,000 personnel, a force larger than the entire German Army. We're all for the SEALs and Rangers, but it didn't require a brigade to kill Osama bin Laden or free Captain Phillips. The Army's helicopter fleet will be cut by 25%. The entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground-attack jets, one of the most reliable combat aircraft the U.S. has ever fielded, will be retired, presumably to be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but not until 2020. 

Those decisions are of a piece with the headline news that the Army will shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops from 520,000 today. "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of [the current] size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy," Mr. Hagel said. Translation: Since we're never going to fight a war like Iraq again, we can do with a much smaller force.

One problem with this thinking is that it ignores that the Army was too small even at the height of the Iraq War. As former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane reminds us, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had to be fought sequentially, not concurrently, because the U.S. lacked the manpower to conduct two full counterinsurgency campaigns at the same time. "And they weren't big wars," Gen. Keane adds. 

It is hubris and bad policy to assume the U.S. will never again fight another lengthy, manpower-intensive war that begins abruptly and requires a swift response—think of Korea or Kuwait. Critics of Iraq often claim it was a "war of choice," but the reality of these cuts is that it will leave the next Commander in Chief with far fewer choices to deter aggression or respond to a threat. There could not have been a surge in Iraq, and thus a military victory, with an Army of 450,000 troops.

The steep reduction in manpower and equipment is an invitation to unexpected aggression. [大規模裁軍是在對無法被預測的侵略發出邀請] In his speech, Mr. Hagel insisted that the force levels he envisions would be sufficient to protect the homeland, win a war in one theater, and conduct a successful holding action in a second. But how would a U.S. that found itself in another Gulf War respond if China took advantage of the opportunity to seize Taiwan, or if Russia took Ukraine? The purpose of fielding a large Army is to minimize the temptations for aggression. [國防部長在演說中堅持， ---Read More--- 他所展望與規劃的未來武裝部隊的規模足以保護美國本土、在一個戰場獲勝並能在第二個戰場從事有效的牽制行動。但是在美國發現它得打另一場中東戰爭時 ，如果中國趁機佔領台灣或俄羅斯佔領烏克蘭時，美國將如何應付?「華爾街日報」為什麼主張要建立較大規模的陸軍呢?因為這可以把侵略的引誘減到最小]。[註: 在許多美國媒體與學者專家的文章中，都會順便提到台灣的安全問題，這表示它們與他們的雷達視距中有台灣。親美的台灣人應該對它們與他們表示感謝。]

Mr. Hagel concluded Monday's speech by quoting Henry Stimson, the Republican statesman Franklin Roosevelt recruited in July 1940 to prepare the country for war. Stimson inherited an Army of 270,000 troops and within a year it had grown to 1.46 million. Mr. Hagel, another Republican named to the Pentagon by a Democratic president, may imagine he's walking in Stimson's footsteps, but he and the President are taking the Army in the opposite direction. 


四

接下來我們來讀 倫敦「金融時報」一篇很精彩的評論文章。

“US military: Boots off the Ground”
Plans to cut the US army are sparking political resistance at home 
By Geoff Dyer
The Financial Times
February 28, 2014 

Before he stood down as US defence secretary in 2011, Robert Gates issued a memorable warning about an American military that has now been at war for more than 12 consecutive years in Afghanistan and Iraq. 


“Any future defence secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,” he told cadets at West Point. [美國前國防部長Robert Gates在西點軍校的演講中說: 任何再向總統建議派遣一支大規模的陸軍部隊到亞洲或中東或非洲的未來的美國國防部長的頭殼都應該被檢查，他這句話是小布希總統打伊拉克戰爭一段時間後到今天的美國主流民意，受中國或俄羅斯威脅的亞洲或歐洲國家或地區的人民必須警惕。]

Chuck Hagel, his successor at the Pentagon, has taken the advice to heart. In a speech this week that outlined plans to bring the military into line with the reality of a new era of lower budgets, the US defence secretary announced that the army would bear the bulk of the burden. [很顯然，現任的美國國防部長把前任的話銘記在心。]

Having reached a peak of 566,000 soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the US army will be scaled back to between 440,000 and 450,000. It will leave the US with the smallest force since before the start of the second world war. 


“This is the first time in 13 years we will be presenting a budget to the Congress of the United States that is not a war-footing budget,” Mr Hagel said this week. “You may say that it is a defining budget because it starts to reset, reshape, rebalance and refine our enterprise for the future.”


The headline-grabbing reductions in land forces come at a time when the US public has soured on military entanglements overseas and when many questions are being asked about America’s ability and willingness to project power – especially after President Barack Obama’s public wobble last year over military action in Syria. 


For members of the military, the implications of cuts in Pentagon welfare spending are just as painful. “After everything we have been through, it is just sickening that they want us to keep paying more,” says James Rodriguez, an Iraq veteran who was coming out of an appointment at Walter Reed Military Medical Center near Washington on Thursday. 


Mr Hagel’s speech raises two fundamental questions about the US military, the first strategic, the second political. Is such a big cut in the army evidence of an American retreat from the world or is it a smart readjustment to the new threats that confront Washington? [美國國防部長Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是美國從世界撤守的證據 ，還是美國對付諸多新的威脅的聰明調整?][註: 關於美國是否已在或正在從世界撤守一事，我們以後會寫文章來討論]And second, can the Pentagon boss implement the big changes he has announced in the face of tenacious vested interests, both within the Pentagon and in Congress?(美國國防部長Hagel在面對來自國防部內部與國會既得利益者的強力反對之下，能否執行他所宣佈的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃?)


In a war-weary country, a big cut in the size of the army – which surged in the years after September 11 2001 – is very much in line with the popular mood. The decision fits neatly with Mr Obama’s claims that his presidency will see the two big wars of the past decade come to a close and that the US should do some nation-building at home. [作者同意 ，Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是符合現在的主流民意的 ，也符合現任美國總統要把注意力轉向美國國家內部建設的主張。]


“The worst phrase in American politics right now is boots on the ground,” says William Galston, a former Clinton official now at the Brookings Institution. “From the point of view of the American people, naval power is clean, air power is clean, but land power is dirty.” (從美國人民的觀點來看 ，海軍與空軍的力量是乾淨的，而陸軍則是污穢的。)[註: 這就是為什麼建州派在現階段強力支持美國從柯林頓第二個任期以來從事以對付中國威脅為出發點的「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設工程，可惜這項大工程的許多預算被911以後的反恐戰爭及伊拉克戰爭吃掉。]


In his speech this week, Mr Hagel was at pains to suggest the cuts in the army did not represent a retreat by the US from its global role. Rather than preparing for big land operations that the administration is desperate¬¬ to avoid, he said the Pentagon was focusing on the major challenges and threats that the US was facing, notably terrorism and the rise of potential competitors such as China. [唯恐被外界以為陸軍大規模的裁軍計劃意味著美國將從它在全球性的角色中撤退，國防部長Hagel說，他的建軍計劃將聚焦在對付對美國的主要威脅與挑戰，特別是恐怖主義與像中國這種潛在的競爭者的竄起。][註: Hagel的確是注意到中國這個邪惡帝國的竄起對美國所帶來的威脅。不過，建州派必須不斷提醒他認真地執行「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設與作戰準備。]


While the headline figures for the army and the marines are being slashed, the number of special operations forces – the sorts of units that conducted the operation to kill Osama bin Laden – is expected to rise by¬¬ 6 per cent. Projecting power in the western Pacific is much more about the navy and the air force than the army. (在西太平洋投射美國武力主要是海空武裝力量 ，而非陸軍)

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(上)

關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(上)

[您可以跳過英文的部分]

一 

建州運動在2/27/2014發表與張貼 「只要認真執行『重返東亞』的大戰略與『海空一體作戰』的戰略，建州運動支持五角大廈新的建軍方案與方向」一文。

我們引述美軍「星條旗報」一篇報導中的一段:

“It’s important to U.S. allies in the Pacific that whatever results from the defense budget cuts doesn’t lead to more debate about the rebalance. “(對美國在太平洋地區的盟友來說是很重要的: 不管美國如何刪減國防預算，都不要涉及或導致美國「向亞太再平衡」的大戰略的論辯。)

建州運動與美國在太平洋地區的盟國的觀點與立場相同，我們希望美國為了因應中國的對外擴張所制定的「[從中東與中亞]向東亞與西太平洋再平衡」的大戰略以及相應的「海空一體作戰」戰略不要被改變，不管這世界上其他地區發生了什麼事。

這雖然看起來有點自私 ，可是也不得不如此。

大量刪減國防預算，甚至從世界各地撤守(孤立主義)，是美國目前民意的主流，建州派[至少在現階段]無法為美國人民設定議題，無力主導美國民意，也無法拂逆這個美國主流民意，所以我們只有退而求其次，這就是我們說，「只要認真執行『重返東亞』的大戰略與『海空一體作戰』的戰略，建州運動支持五角大廈新的建軍方案與方向」的根本原因。

在美國準備大規模裁軍的時候，國防部長在日前發表的”FY15 Budget Preview”(2015會計年度預算預覽) 還說: “To fulfill this strategy DoD will continue to shift its operational focus and forces to the Asia-Pacific (國防部將繼續把它的作戰焦點及作戰部隊或力量轉移到亞太地區), ---------The forces we prioritized can project power over great distances and carry out a variety of missions more relevant to the President’s defense strategy, such as---------, strategic deterrence, building partnership capacity, and----------. They are also well-suited to the strategy’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, (國防部要優先建立的武裝力量能將武力投射到遠方，它們也將適合執行「對亞太地區戰略再平衡」的任務) to ----------“，這真的已經很照顧美國在東亞的盟邦(如日本、南韓、菲律賓)與安全夥伴(如台灣、越南)中的親美派了[只有親美派或親美派佔上風的地區才值得美國來保護]。

在裁軍計劃中受影響最大的是陸軍，它將回復到第二次世界大戰前的規模 ，這是從過去的「同時可以打兩場戰爭」的建軍主張與政策中退却。美國國防部長說: “The changes to end strength would result in a smaller Army, --------our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater – as it must be – while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary------ “ [未來的陸軍規模只能同時打一場半的戰爭，一場攻勢作戰，一場守勢作戰]。

建州運動說: 「就對付中國的威脅與擴張的Air-Sea Battle而言，陸軍的確可以被裁減」[建州派在美國的盟友多半不會同意我們這句話，因為他們也要保護美國在歐洲與中東的盟邦與安全夥伴(如以色列)]。不過，如果中國與俄羅斯這兩個邪惡帝國同時在歐陸與東亞發動戰爭，那回到第二次世界大戰前的規模的美國陸軍顯然將會難以應付。倘若這種狀況發生，美國武裝部隊與日軍、澳軍必須在東亞打一場決定性的戰爭，而歐陸戰場則必須先交給以英德法三國的武裝部隊為主力的歐美聯軍，待亞洲戰場取得決定性的勝利並將維持秩序的任務交給日澳聯軍後，再將整補後的美軍主力投入歐洲戰場。

二

關於海軍建設，國防部長Chuck Hagel說: ---Read More---
“The spending levels proposed under the President’s budget plan would also enable the Navy to maintain 11 carrier strike groups. However, we will have to make a final decision on the future of the George Washington aircraft carrier in the 2016 budget submission. If sequestration spending levels remain in place in Fiscal Year 2016, she would need to be retired before her scheduled nuclear refueling and overhaul. That would leave the Navy with 10 carrier strike groups. But keeping the George Washington in the fleet would cost $6 billion – so we would have no other choice than to retire her should sequestration-level cuts be re-imposed. At the President’s budget level, we would pay for the overhaul and maintain 11 carriers.” (在目前總統的預算層級上，國防部將提撥預算來支付華盛頓號航艦的翻修，以維持11個航艦戰鬥群的規模。但若在2016年度國防部仍需受自動減支的制約，那我們就只有被迫讓華盛頓號航艦提前退休，而不進行翻修與核燃料再填充。) [雷根總統時代，美國海軍擁有15個航艦戰鬥群，1992年降為14個，1994-2007年間再降為12個，2007年以降，維持11個的規模。現在美國政府有意維持這個規模，但若自動減支持續下去，就會降為10個。新一代的福特級第一艘核動力超級航艦福特號可望於2015或2016年正式服役，第二艘甘迺迪號已在建造，將於2020年服役，第三艘企業號正在被計劃的階段，預計2025年服役。]

我們在Hagel部長的談話後面做了一段補述，在其中，我們提到新一代的福特級第一艘核動力超級航艦「福特號」，現在我們請鄉親們來讀一篇報導，以了解「福特號」現在的狀況:

“Shipbuilder Says Carrier Deal Is on Course”
By Doug Cameron
The Wall Street Journal
2/28/2014

Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., the U.S. Navy's largest shipbuilder, said it expects to complete a $4 billion contract to build a new aircraft carrier this year. [美國海軍最大的造艦承包商Huntington Ingalls說 ，它預計在今年完成「福特號」航艦的建造]But