Sunday, January 17, 2010

轉載: Gilley’s ‘Finlandization’ is wrong (白樂崎:季禮的芬蘭化是錯誤的)(全文中英對照) (updated on 1/25)

前陣子季禮的芬蘭化引起討論.前AIT主席白樂崎對該文提出反駁. 我翻譯後對照中英文全文如下.


=update on 1/25==
不是我要說嘴, 這篇文章竟然慢了一整個禮拜才刊出
(《白樂崎專欄》 誰說「海峽不太危急」),真有爭取時效的事情的話,一個禮拜都不知道演變成怎樣了! 不過我猜遲到總比不到好? 媒體刊載總是比我這種沒人看自己寫爽的小格張貼有影響力多了!

Gilley’s ‘Finlandization’ is wrong

By Nat Bellocchi

Monday, Jan 18, 2010, Page 8

The relations between Taiwan, the US and China have given rise to many an academic analysis. This is understandable and even laudable: The network of relations is complex and is open to various interpretations and insights. Many past treatises have made valuable contributions to the understanding of developments between the three countries.

台灣,美國與中國之間的關係引發許多學術分析.這不但是可以了解甚至是值得嘉勉的:(國際)關係組成的網路複雜,容許各種解讀與見解. 過去已有許多論文幫助我們了解這三個國家之間關係的發展.

However, once every so often an academic publishes an analysis that is so far removed from reality that it would be dismissed out of hand for its lack of understanding and its outright naivite. Bruce Gilley’s article, titled “Not So Dire Straits” — published in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs (January/February 2010) — is such a work.

然而,偶爾會有或是缺乏對現實的了解,亦或是過於天真而有偏離現實的學術研究發表,我們大可以忽略此類不切實際的發表.季禮發表在國際事務(Foreign Affairs)一二月刊,標題為"不再迫切的台灣海峽"就屬此類.

Gilley’s basic thesis is that the present “rapprochement” between Taiwan and China opens the way for the “Finlandization” of Taiwan, and for the US to allow Taiwan to move from the present US strategic orbit towards China’s sphere of influence. Gilley’s misplaced assumption is that this process will somehow lead to democratization in China.


Gilley’s misconceptions are multiple, so in a brief essay like this one can only touch on a few major points.


To start with, the perception that “Finlandization” enjoyed “wide support in Finland at the time.” The question is: did the Finnish people have much of a choice, with the Russian gun pointed at their head?


A second general point is one of historical accuracy: Gilley writes that in 1949 “Taiwan and mainland China became separate political entities.” The truth of the matter is that Taiwan — as a Japanese colony — had been a separate entity for some 50 years, while before that period the influence of the Chinese imperial governments on the island was minimal at best.

第二(個錯誤)是關於歷史正確性:季禮寫到,在1949年"台灣和中國成為兩個獨立的政治實體". 事實是台灣,一個日本殖民地,中國清朝對台灣的影響即使在日本殖民那五十年前也非常小,如果真有任何影響可言.

The problem arose when the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was driven out of China and landed in Taiwan, treating it like occupied territory. It is also incorrect to say “most of the international community came to accept Beijing’s claim to territorial sovereignty over Taiwan.” This was only the case for pro-Beijing regimes of the likes of Zimbabwe and the Sudan. The US and other Western nations only “noted” or “acknowledged” Beijing’s claims, but took the position that it remained an unresolved issue, and that the island’s future needed to be determined in accordance with the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

問題在於戰敗的國民黨撤退到台灣,把台灣是為自己的土地進而佔領. (季禮)所謂的"國際社會大致上已接受北京政府宣稱對台擁有主權"的說法也不正確. 這僅對親中政權如辛巴威與蘇丹而言.美國與其他西方國家僅僅"注意"或是"承認"北京有此宣稱,但對此採取"有待解決"的立場,而且台灣的未來也必須以符合1952年舊金山合約的方式解決.

But the most serious fallacy of the article is that it posits that a Chamberlain-like appeasement of China on the Taiwan issue will somehow democratize and pacify a rising China rather than embolden it. That is a fundamental misconception: Repressive regimes are never mollified by concessions; it only increases their appetite.

但最嚴重的謬誤在於該文裡提議在台灣議題上對中國採取一種類似內務,姑息靖綏主義的方將或多或少促進民主,安撫興起中的中國而不會促使北京更加大膽妄為. 這是個根本的錯誤: 退讓從不會安撫高壓政權,相反的,(姑息)只會讓中國食髓知味(它胃口更大). (按:在季禮芬蘭化一文中提到:Finlandization posed a direct challenge to the dominant realist logic of the Cold War, which held that concessions to Soviet power were likely to feed Moscow's appetite for expansion."芬蘭化對冷戰實務派提出一種直接的挑戰:該派認為對蘇聯的妥協只會讓莫斯科的胃口更大").

It would be a fundamental error to sacrifice the hard-won achievements of a vibrant and democratic Taiwan and let it drift into an uncertain, fuzzy “principled neutrality.”


Gilley wants us to believe that there is a distinction between this “Finland-style” status and “cowering acquiescence” as he calls it. An authoritarian power like China is hardly likely to be bothered by such finessing, and will remove any opposition to its rule; Tibet and East Turkestan are rather illustrative examples.

季禮要我們相信(志願性的)芬蘭化(Finland-style status)與(非志願性的)魁儡政權之間有所不同.極權國家如中國才懶得區分這種不同,並且會移除不利其政權的任何異議.圖博(西藏)與東土耳其斯坦(新疆)就是最好的例證.
(按:關於芬蘭化與魁儡政權之不同,見原文:Mouritzen stressed the fundamental difference between a Finlandized regime and a client, or "puppet," state, explaining that the former makes some concessions to a larger neighbor in order to guarantee important elements of its independence -- voluntary choices that the latter could never make.Mouritzen強調芬蘭化(Finalized)的政權與魁儡政權之間根本的差異在於:前者志願性的選擇對一個強大的鄰國讓步以換取獨立,後者則是毫無自主選擇權.)

Gilley also argues that China’s claims to Taiwan may be less motivated “nationalism and … a broader national discourse of humiliation and weakness,” and more by a geostrategic rationale: By virtue of its location, Taiwan has strategic importance, and by bringing it into its sphere of influence it could enhance its ability to project its naval power, and thereby exert its influence in the Western Pacific.

季禮還宣稱,中國宣稱擁有台灣並不是出自於民族主義的理由,而是基於地理位置鄰近使然: 就地理位置來看,台灣具戰略重要性,將台灣納入將強化中國在西太平洋的海軍與影響力.

On this point he is correct: Taiwan has tremendous strategic importance, not only for Japan and South Korea, but also for US interests in the East Asia and Pacific region. And this is precisely the reason why it was most wise for the US to stand by Taiwan in recently offering it anti-missile technology.

在這點上季禮是正確的:台灣在戰略上非常重要,不只是對日韓而言,對美國在東亞與太平洋利益而言亦然. 正因此,美國更應該固守立場,美國最近提供台灣飛彈防禦系統最為明智之舉.

From the perspective of the Taiwanese, a drift in China’s direction would mean a loss of the freedom and democracy they worked so hard to achieve. US credibility around the world — and particularly in East Asia — does depend on its adherence to the basic principles for which we stand. Allowing a free and democratic Taiwan to slide into the sphere of influence of an authoritarian China is not acceptable.


Thus, instead of “Finlandization” of Taiwan, the US should pursue a policy of stronger engagement with Taiwan by helping the country defend itself against a belligerent neighbor, and by signing a free-trade agreement to strengthen US economic and political ties with that democratic nation. Only by bringing Taiwan into the international family of nations, can real stability in East Asia be achieved.


Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.

==update on 1/20==
Taking path of Finland could leave Taiwan cold By Chen Yi-nan 陳逸南
Forget Finland, think Hong Kong By Huang Chih-ta 黃致達 Wednesday, Jan 13, 2010, Page 8
THE LIBERTY TIMES EDITORIAL: Taiwan must uphold sovereignty Monday, Jan 04, 2010, Page 8

No comments: