【狂人總統】中方不會放棄台灣？ 學者：特朗普不應幻想談判
蘋果日報 2017/02/01 14:00
台美關係黎安友特朗普中美關係蔡英文
特朗普（Donald Trump）當選美國總統後，與台灣總統蔡英文通電話，不少台灣人認為將台美關係推上新高峰。不過中國問題專家、哥倫比亞大學東亞研究所主任黎安友（Andrew Nathan）接受《蘋果》獨家專訪坦言，這場可能只是特朗普抱持幻想的「即興演出」，用以試探中國：「北京不會放棄台灣，無論誰掌權都不會改變，所以特朗普政府不應該把台灣作為談判的籌碼，做出『北京可能讓步』這樣的假設。」
駐紐約記者：王筱辰洋
對於蔡英文在特朗普上台後的一系列舉動，黎安友說歸根究底，蔡英文也承認最有利於台灣的是維持現狀：「蔡英文非常聰明，她沒有說維持現狀，但她的意思是維持現狀，這和馬英九的政策其實一樣，只不過是用不同的角度呈現。」他表示贊同這個立場。
黎安友認為台灣是比較小的政治實體，美中都異常龐大，台灣經濟需要依靠前兩者，尤其中國。台灣在國際環境上非常脆弱，很容易受威脅：「所謂『統一』有各個方式、辦法，聯邦、邦聯、一個中華等等有很多種，主要是防止別國利用台灣，現在的局面美國是可以利用台灣來作威脅的。」
黎安友表示儘管台灣是個政治實體，但與台灣建交的國家並未把她看作「台灣國」，而是「中華民國」，沒有外交關係的國家則把她視為「中國的一部份」，國際上並沒有「台灣國」存在:「沒有一個國家把台灣看作台灣國，這個名詞在國際領域不存在」，「特朗普可能還不理解為甚麼自1972年以來，所有總統都在維持『一中政策』而非打破？他能理解維持這個政策的理由何在？」他指目前鷹派的「中國通」白邦瑞（Michael Pillsbury）與特朗普聯繫密切，預料會在對中政策方面發揮作用。
談到特朗普上任以後的美中台關係走向，他奉勸特朗普政府不要抱有幻想，中國永遠不會拿「一中」作為交易：「特朗普已經麻煩纏身，或許暫時沒有精力碰中國、台灣問題，但特朗普政府所預想的前提就錯了，北京不會放棄台灣，無論誰掌權都不會改變。」
除去歷史原因、愛國主義等主觀因素，黎安友認為地緣政治這項客觀因素，才是真正讓北京不可能讓步的原因：「對中國來說，台灣最重要的是戰略價值，所謂『不會沉沒的航空母艦』（指台美邦交）。中國從軍事安全角度出發，能不能控制『近海』很關鍵，而台灣是近海領域的一塊地，只要別的國家利用台灣威脅大陸，大陸不會安全，這是地理的邏輯，是不可能動搖的。」
更新：黎安友教授來函全文如下
The interview with me that Apple Daily recently published on its website http://m.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/international/20170201/1046725/ (and I suppose also in the print edition) partially misrepresents my views, especially in the headline and also in parts of the text. According to my memory, I did not say some of the things quoted here. However, I acknowledge that it is possible that I misspoke. In either case, I request that you publish the following statement of my actual views.
I do not believe that the unification of Taiwan is only a matter of time 統一是遲早的事. I continue to hold the view that the future of Taiwan (like other matters in international affairs) is unpredictable. That is why I told your reporter that I think President Tsai's mainland policy is wise, because her policies endeavor to keep the future open for a longer period of time in order to see whether fresh opportunities open up that will serve the interests of the people of Taiwan.
On the question of whether or not President Tsai has ever named her policy as 維持現狀，I said that I do not remember her using this exact phrase, but I said that this is what her policy essentially amounts to, as I understand it.
Your report is correct to say that I believe that the mainland will never give up its goal to unify Taiwan 事實上北京不會放棄台灣. I do not believe that Beijing's goal would change even if the mainland government were to become a democracy. In my view, the most important reason for this is not nationalism or emotion or domestic politics in the mainland, but is the island's strategic value for the defense of the mainland. In my view, Beijing's key goal is not to control Taiwan's internal affairs, but to deny the access of any hostile foreign power to use Taiwan to threaten the security of the mainland 只要別的國家利用台灣威脅大陸. And that is why I believe that if/when Taiwan is unified with the mainland, the form of that unification could be any one of many models, such as federation, confederation, one loosely defined cultural China, or other models that we cannot now imagine 只是取決於何種形式，可能是聯邦、邦聯、一個中華等等. Any framework that allows Beijing to veto the use of Taiwan as a strategic base to threaten the security of the mainland would satisfy Beijing's fundamental interest in Taiwan. However, to repeat, I am not predicting that this outcome will actually occur. That actual outcome in the long run of history might be better, or might be worse, than this.
Your headline, 「台灣國」不存在, is misleading. It seems to me that the text of your article makes clear that I was only making a narrow point about international diplomatic practice: there is no Republic of Taiwan in the sphere of international diplomacy. Every country that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan does so under the title of Republic of China, not Republic of Taiwan. Taiwan itself does not use the name Republic of Taiwan. That is all that I meant by this statement, as correctly quoted in the text: "國際上並沒有「台灣國」存在."
Finally, I have not been a CIA advisor 曾任美國中央情報局顧問. I believe that if you check the tape of my interview you will find that I was describing the career of one of Trump's advisors, Michael Pillsbury, who has been a CIA advisor, as he states in his book, The Hundred Year Marathon.
The main point I wanted to make in the interview is that the Trump administration is making a mistake if it thinks that it can turn Taiwan into a bargaining chip in its relations with Beijing. I am glad that your reporter conveyed this point correctly: 川普政府不應該把台灣作為談判的籌碼. Doing this will not work because of Beijing's commitment to unify Taiwan in one form or another in order to advance its security interest in denying access to Taiwan to other powers. I'm sure most of your readers agree that being turned into a bargaining chip would not be in the interest of the people of Taiwan.
The interview with me that Apple Daily recently published on its website http://m.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/international/20170201/1046725/ (and I suppose also in the print edition) partially misrepresents my views, especially in the headline and also in parts of the text. According to my memory, I did not say some of the things quoted here. However, I acknowledge that it is possible that I misspoke. In either case, I request that you publish the following statement of my actual views.
I do not believe that the unification of Taiwan is only a matter of time 統一是遲早的事. I continue to hold the view that the future of Taiwan (like other matters in international affairs) is unpredictable. That is why I told your reporter that I think President Tsai's mainland policy is wise, because her policies endeavor to keep the future open for a longer period of time in order to see whether fresh opportunities open up that will serve the interests of the people of Taiwan.
On the question of whether or not President Tsai has ever named her policy as 維持現狀，I said that I do not remember her using this exact phrase, but I said that this is what her policy essentially amounts to, as I understand it.
Your report is correct to say that I believe that the mainland will never give up its goal to unify Taiwan 事實上北京不會放棄台灣. I do not believe that Beijing's goal would change even if the mainland government were to become a democracy. In my view, the most important reason for this is not nationalism or emotion or domestic politics in the mainland, but is the island's strategic value for the defense of the mainland. In my view, Beijing's key goal is not to control Taiwan's internal affairs, but to deny the access of any hostile foreign power to use Taiwan to threaten the security of the mainland 只要別的國家利用台灣威脅大陸. And that is why I believe that if/when Taiwan is unified with the mainland, the form of that unification could be any one of many models, such as federation, confederation, one loosely defined cultural China, or other models that we cannot now imagine 只是取決於何種形式，可能是聯邦、邦聯、一個中華等等. Any framework that allows Beijing to veto the use of Taiwan as a strategic base to threaten the security of the mainland would satisfy Beijing's fundamental interest in Taiwan. However, to repeat, I am not predicting that this outcome will actually occur. That actual outcome in the long run of history might be better, or might be worse, than this.
Your headline, 「台灣國」不存在, is misleading. It seems to me that the text of your article makes clear that I was only making a narrow point about international diplomatic practice: there is no Republic of Taiwan in the sphere of international diplomacy. Every country that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan does so under the title of Republic of China, not Republic of Taiwan. Taiwan itself does not use the name Republic of Taiwan. That is all that I meant by this statement, as correctly quoted in the text: "國際上並沒有「台灣國」存在."
Finally, I have not been a CIA advisor 曾任美國中央情報局顧問. I believe that if you check the tape of my interview you will find that I was describing the career of one of Trump's advisors, Michael Pillsbury, who has been a CIA advisor, as he states in his book, The Hundred Year Marathon.
The main point I wanted to make in the interview is that the Trump administration is making a mistake if it thinks that it can turn Taiwan into a bargaining chip in its relations with Beijing. I am glad that your reporter conveyed this point correctly: 川普政府不應該把台灣作為談判的籌碼. Doing this will not work because of Beijing's commitment to unify Taiwan in one form or another in order to advance its security interest in denying access to Taiwan to other powers. I'm sure most of your readers agree that being turned into a bargaining chip would not be in the interest of the people of Taiwan.