Saturday, October 17, 2009

轉載: Is Foreign Criticism Helpful? (國外的批評有幫助嗎?)

[版主按] 這篇在中時其實有完整中譯,我在下面的英文連結裡也有提供. 但是,台灣一些媒體過去有多次誤譯的現象(蓄意否不清),我寧可中英對照讓讀者自己去評斷. 又,致於特定媒體亂凹,之前稍微討論過,但不是本文重點,就不重複了,有興趣者見下面的延伸閱讀.

What I had actually criticized was not the Taiwan government’s decision to ban Ms.Kadeer’s visit but the explanation offered by Interior Minister Jiang Yi-Huah. ...............It had simply noted that the timing of the visit was “inappropriate,” the unspoken but understood premise being that the visit would strain the sensitive new effort at cross-strait reconciliation. Whether or not one agreed with that decision, the explanation given was honest, respectful of audiences in both Taiwan and abroad, and not harmful to anyone.


Minister Jiang’s explanation, by contrast, linked Ms. Kadeer to terrorism. At least at this juncture, that accusation seems inaccurate and unfair. It echoed Beijing’s as yet unproven claims rather than the conclusions of many democratic governments
(Cohen)

我批評的是內政部長禁止熱比婭訪台所提出的解釋. 台灣政府大可以援用前例(指達賴於去年底欲訪台一事),簡單表示"目前時機不宜". 不管你喜歡這個緣由,時機不宜的理由是誠實的,且尊重台灣與國外人士, 也不會傷害到任何人.

然而江宜樺的說詞,相反的把熱比婭與恐怖份子扯上關連. 至少在這個節骨眼,這個指控不實且不公平--他只是呼應了北京未經求證的說法,而不是其他許多民主國家的共識. (孔傑榮)



------
IS FOREIGN CRITICISM HELPFUL?
Oct 14th, 2009 By USAsialawNYU Category: Jerome A. Cohen's Blog

An edited version of this text appeared in Chinese in the China Times(Taiwan) on October 15, 2009 (繁体中文)(简体中文),and in English, under the title “Viewed From Afar,” in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong).

by Jerome A. Cohen

When told I had criticized the Taiwan government’s recent decision to bar Rebiya Kadeer from visiting the island, Taiwan’s new Prime Minister, Wu Den-Yih, remarked:”People who do not live in our land may not understand…and need not take any responsibility. We respect their comments but do not necessarily adopt all of them.” This polite “putdown” deserves our reflection.

當被告知我(孔傑榮)對台灣政府拒絕熱比婭訪台所做出的批評後,吳敦義院長表示: 不是生長在這塊土地上的人不會了解, 也不用負責任. 我們尊重那些評論但卻不需要逐一採納. 這個禮貌的拒絕值得探討.

Of course, a foreign observer rarely appreciates the interests of a country in the same way as the country’s leaders and citizens do. But should that preclude foreign criticism or exempt the target government from giving a well-reasoned explanation of its actions? The standing of the United States in world opinion — confirmed by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama — has been immeasurably improved thanks to Obama’s reaction to the hail of foreign criticisms of his predecessor’s policies. George W. Bush’s administration had frequently condemned such criticisms as the irresponsible carping of outsiders who did not understand or support American interests.

當然,國外觀察者或評論家很少用關心自己國家的熱忱來關心自己以外的國家. 但這不該作為拒絕國外評論的理由.

Politicians and commentators frequently stoke nationalistic feelings in brushing off foreigners and sometimes dismiss foreign critics as sinister or condescending. China’s Foreign Ministry, in particular, often describes foreign criticism as “rude interference into China’s domestic affairs,” made with “ulterior motives”, that “hurts the Chinese people’s feelings.” But is such rhetoric really in the interest of its government and people?

政客或是評論家常操作民族主義來駁斥國外的評論...中國最常以"傷害中國人民感情"來駁斥西方的評論

Foreign critics are useful precisely because their distance gives them a different perspective. Also, although perhaps insufficiently informed, they are not burdened with the distractions of daily decision-making. Especially if they are “wrong”, it may be wiser to offer them what Chinese Communists call “persuasion-education” rather than opaque dismissal. Informative government responses to foreign critics also benefit domestic audiences.

但來自國外的評論通常最為一針見血. 因為旁觀者清,國外的評論往往提供一個不同的觀點. 另外,雖然沒有充分的資訊,國外的評論沒有政治包袱(not burdened with the distractions of daily decision-making). 因此,即使國外評論是"錯誤"的,國外的評論通常比中國共產黨的洗腦教育來得有智慧,而非只是一些難以理解的打發說詞. 政府根據充分的資訊具體回覆國外評論通常可以嘉惠國內大眾.

What I had actually criticized was not the Taiwan government’s decision to ban Ms.Kadeer’s visit but the explanation offered by Interior Minister Jiang Yi-Huah. He might have followed the precedent set by his government last December when temporarily declining a visit by another figure opposed by the Chinese Government, the Dalai Lama. It had simply noted that the timing of the visit was “inappropriate,” the unspoken but understood premise being that the visit would strain the sensitive new effort at cross-strait reconciliation. Whether or not one agreed with that decision, the explanation given was honest, respectful of audiences in both Taiwan and abroad, and not harmful to anyone.

我批評的是內政部長禁止熱比婭訪台所提出的解釋. 台灣政府大可以援用前例(指達賴於去年底欲訪台一事),簡單表示"目前時機不宜". 不管你喜歡這個緣由,時機不宜的理由是誠實的,且尊重台灣與國外人士, 也不會傷害到任何人.

Minister Jiang’s explanation, by contrast, linked Ms. Kadeer to terrorism. At least at this juncture, that accusation seems inaccurate and unfair. It echoed Beijing’s as yet unproven claims rather than the conclusions of many democratic governments — including that of her host, the United States. Worst of all, it appeared to defame a person who enjoys wide respect for her struggle against the Chinese Government’s oppression of her ethnic group.

然而江宜樺的說詞,相反的把熱比婭與恐怖份子扯上關連. 至少在這個節骨眼,這個指控不實且不公平--他只是呼應了北京未經求證的說法,而不是其他許多民主國家的共識

To be sure, every country imposes restrictions on entry. The United States itself maintains an overly broad barrier against Taiwan’s highest leaders, in order not to cast doubt on its recognition of the People’s Republic as China’s only legitimate government. Such barriers restrict domestic audiences’ democratic rights to interact with important speakers and must be frequently challenged.

每個國家都有發許入境許可的一些限制. 例如美國基於一個中國政策, 通常不許可台灣高層訪美

Another recent case of an unfortunate Taiwan reaction to foreign criticism occurred when William Stanton, the new head of the “unofficial” United States mission in Taipei, pointed out that many knowledgeable Americans had expressed concern about the fairness of former president Chen Shui-Bian’s criminal trial. This led some Taiwan legislators and media to label his remarks impermissible foreign interference in the administration of justice. Minister of Justice Wang Ching-Feng, however, rejected this charge. She is more aware than most of the importance to Taiwan of American perceptions of its legal system, since she is attempting to negotiate an agreement that would require the United States to extradite fugitives back to Taiwan. The United States, like any country that is contemplating extradition, has a valid interest in the quality of justice in the country that is requesting it and a right to express reasonable concerns.

台灣政府最近一個拒絕國外評論的反應是關於司徒文與王清峰會面時提及國外對扁案的一些關切. 台灣政府與媒體對此貼了干涉台灣司法的標籤. 而王清峰也拒絕了這些指控. 然而,王部長應該比台灣多數人還要了解美國的司法體系才是,畢竟她正在與美國政府協商與台灣合作引渡罪犯. 美國,如同其他國家,對於要求引渡合作的國家的司法系統有興趣並表達關切是正常的.

More generally, as President Ma Ying-Jeou emphasized last week, despite his efforts to improve relations with China, Taiwan cannot afford to neglect its military defense. That defense relies implicitly on the security guarantees of the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act. They in turn rest on the American people’s continuing belief that the island is worth defending, even at the cost of nuclear war. While Taiwan was once valued mainly for its strategic location, its thriving democracy and developing rule of law are now seen to deserve protection in and of themselves. Its leaders and people should keep this in mind.

---------
延伸閱讀:
孔傑榮vs. 台灣媒體
回應"對外電入返聯公投結果的報導" 與讀”有偏見的媒體不好嗎?”有感
白樂崎教英文, what does it mean by "We have every expectation that...."?
克魯曼說簽ECFA是好事, 真的嗎?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.usasialaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/10.15.09.pdf

GGs Adventure said...

感謝無名提供連結

我其實知道該連結,甚至在轉載的英文原文一開始也有該連結

但是,該媒體過去有多次誤譯的現象(蓄意否不清),我寧可中英對照讓讀者自己去評斷.

GGs Adventure said...

另,關於台灣媒體對外電一些移花接木, 這篇有稍微討論過

http://ggsadventure.blogspot.com/2009/04/ecfa.html