Time to bury AIT Washington: 該撤銷AIT/華盛頓總部了 William Stanton 20190528 Taimocracy翻譯

【Comment】

司徒文的發現與建議，建立在實務與合法性上：美台直接接觸、TRA沒有「總部」的額外規定。

William Stanley wrote that it is time to bury “AIT/Washington,” because the U.S. can contact Taiwanese authorities directly, besides no such thing as “ATI/Washington” in TRA.

Time to bury AIT Washington: 該撤銷AIT/華盛頓總部了      William Stanton 20190528    Taimocracy翻譯

Taiwan’s government announced on May 25 it was changing the name of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA), the organization it originally established in 1979 to oversee Taiwan’s relationship with the United States, to the Taiwan Council for U.S. Affairs (TCUSA).

台灣政府於5月25日宣布改變「北美事務協調委員會」（CCNAA）的名稱，該委員會最初成立於1979年，負責監督台灣與美國的關係，並改為「台灣美國事務委員會」（TCUSA）。

President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) welcomed the positive development, reached by consensus between the two governments, as the latest example of progress in Taiwan’s relations with the United States.  Remarkably, the original name by design gave no indication that CCNAA had anything to do specifically with Taiwan or the U.S.

蔡英文總統對兩國政府達成共識所取得的積極進展表示歡迎，認為這是台灣與美國關係取得進展的最新例證。值得注意的是，原名稱設計CCNAA，與台灣或美國都無關連。

As welcome as the name change therefore is, it also serves as a reminder that the U.S. government now also needs to address problems associated with TCUSA’s counterpart organization in Rosslyn, Virginia: AIT Washington.  In our enthusiasm for any progress at all in U.S. relations with Taiwan, we may forget to ask whether TCUSA and AIT Washington really need to exist, if at all, as anything more than transparent fig leaves.

因此，隨著歡迎名稱變更迎，此事也提醒人們，美國政府現在還需要解決與TCUSA在維吉尼亞州羅斯林的對應組織：AIT/華盛頓，的相關題。我們熱衷於在美國與台灣的關係中取得任何進展，但我們可能忘記問一句：TCUSA和AIT華盛頓是否真的需要存在，如果有的話，就像透明無花果一樣。

Concerns about AIT Washington

有關AIT/華盛頓

I cannot knowledgeably comment about TCUSA’s role or the roles of its top-notch representatives whom I have met and respect.  I do, however, have fundamental concerns about AIT Washington.  These include the fact that it plays no official role in the U.S. government’s policy toward Taiwan, has no place in the policy chain of command, and it has a history of sometimes acting contrary to U.S. policy.

我無法評論TCUSA的角色，或我遇到並尊重的頂尖代表的角色。但是，我確實對AIT/華盛頓有著根本的關切。其中包括，它在美國政府對台政策中沒有任何官方角色，在政策指揮鏈中沒有地位，並且有時有違反美國政策的歷史。

It also delivers messages to the Taiwan government and others different from what they have heard from AIT Taipei. Finally, it has had a record of acting independently of U.S. laws and regulations. (On the last point, see the redacted version of the State Department Office of the Inspector General’s 2012 report on AIT Washington at https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/taiwan.pdf).

它還向台灣政府和其他人提供了與他們從AIT/台北互異的消息。最後，它有獨立於美國法律法規行事的不良記錄。（關於最後一點，請參閱國務院監察總長2012年關於AIT/華盛頓的報告的國務院辦公室的編輯版本，網址為https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/taiwan.pdf。

Most important, the very existence of AIT Washington impedes and offers an excuse for less direct contact between U.S. government officials and representatives of the Taiwan government.  This in fact was clearly the intention of those who created it.

最重要的是，AIT/華盛頓的存在阻礙了美國政府官員與台灣政府代表之間直接接觸的藉口。事實上，這顯然是創造它的人的意圖。

Meanwhile, AIT Washington expends substantial U.S. government funds to maintain its office in Rosslyn, Virginia, -- whose rent alone the last time I checked cost $US 2 million per year -- performing minimal duties that could be equally well done and in a more coordinated fashion by a slightly expanded Office of Taiwan Coordination (OTC) and other offices at the State Department.

此時，AIT/華盛頓花費了大量的美國政府資金，來維持其在維吉尼亞州羅斯林的辦公室 - 僅在我上一次檢查時，它的租金每年花費200萬美元 - 執行最低限度的工作，同樣可以做得更好，而且更多由稍微擴大的台灣協調辦公室（OTC）和國務院其他辦公室協調時尚。

This would include visas, administrative arrangements for high-level visits to and from Taiwan, and greeting high-level Taiwan visitors.  Even in the absence of an AIT Washington, a Board of Directors could still meet periodically in conjunction with the Bureau of East Asian Affairs and OTC to exercise oversight.

這包括簽證，台灣高層訪問的行政安排，以及台灣高層訪客的問候。即使在沒有AIT/華盛頓的情況下，理事會仍可以與東亞事務局，和台灣協調辦公室定期會面以進行監督。

The TRA Makes No Mention of AIT Washington or an AIT Chairman

TRA根本未提AIT/華盛頓或AIT理事主席

Significantly, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) which established the American Institute in Taiwan makes no mention of an “AIT Washington”:

值得注意的是，〈台灣關係法〉（TRA）雖建立美國在台協會，卻未提及AIT/華盛頓：

“Section. 6.

“Programs, transactions, and other relations conducted or carried out by the President or any agency of the United States Government with respect to Taiwan shall, in the manner and to the extent directed by the President, be conducted and carried out by or through–

美國總統或美國政府各部門與臺灣人民進行實施的各項方案、交往或其他關係，應在總統指示的方式或範圍內，經由或透過下述機構來進行實施：

“The American Institute in Taiwan, a nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, or such comparable successor nongovernmental entity as the President may designate, (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘Institute’).”

1. 美國在台協會，這是一個依據哥倫比亞特區法律而成立的一個非營利法人：
2. 總統所指示成立，繼承上述協會的非政府機構。（以下將簡稱「美國在台協會」為「該協會」。）

Notably, the TRA speaks only about establishing the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and does not specify that there will be an “AIT Washington.” It also does not define any administrative structure, call for an office in Washington, or make a distinction between having a "Director" in Taiwan and a "Chairman" in Washington.

值得注意的是，TRA只談到建立「美國在台協會」（AIT），並沒有說明會有「AIT/華盛頓」。它也沒有規定任何行政結構，要求在華盛頓設立辦事處，或作出區分在台灣有理事和在華盛頓有理事主席。

The idea of a Chairman of an AIT Washington ultimately derives from the TRA’s stipulation that the American Institute in Taiwan will be a "nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia." These laws mandate a Board of Directors. Such a Board usually has a Chair but this is not a stipulation of the TRA.

設置AIT/華盛頓理事主席的想法，最終源於TRA的規定，即美國在台協會將成為「依據哥倫比亞特區法律而成立的一個非營利法人」。這些法律規定了理事會。這樣的理事會通常會有一個主席，但這並不是TRA的規定。

Much of the frequent confusion in Taiwan about who speaks with authority on U.S. policy stems from the Chinese translations of the “Director” (處長, Chuzhang) in Taipei and the “Chairman” (主席, Zhuxi) in Washington: a much higher rank than a director, even though most Chairmen have had no involvement in determining U.S. policy toward Taiwan, much less the day-to-day affairs of AIT.

台灣對「誰有權威發表美國政策」經常混淆的大部分源頭在中文翻譯的：台北的「處長」和華盛頓的「理事主席」：雖然大多數主席都沒有參與決定美國對台政策，更不用說AIT的日常事務了。但後者讓人感覺等級更高。

The two most recent AIT Chairmen over the last 13 years have both continued to live in Hawaii, which means it is difficult to stay abreast of the latest developments in U.S. toward, and relations with Taiwan.  Any sensitive information has to be read at CINCPAC, where the best most relevant information may not be sent.

過去13年來最近兩位AIT理事主席都繼續長住夏威夷，意味著他們很難跟上美國對台灣，以及台灣關係的最新發展。必須在CINCPAC，才能讀取敏感訊息，但其中可能不會對外發送最相關的訊息。

Moreover, AIT Washington plays no role in the policy process or the chain of command. When I was appointed Director of AIT, I received a letter of instructions from the Secretary of State, reinforcing that I would be reporting to her or her designees (usually the Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs or his Deputy Assistant Secretary overseeing Taiwan policy.)  There was no mention of AIT Washington, and no requirement that I brief them or coordinate with them.  Although that office had access to most of our AIT reporting, they had to go to the State Department to read anything classified.  AIT Washington produced no reporting cables and they rarely included AIT Taipei on their email messages about meetings they might have with the head of TECRO in Washington or other even more important developments.

此外，AIT/華盛頓在政策過程，或指揮系統中沒有任何作用。當我被任命為AIT理事主任時，我收到了國務卿的指示信，強調我要向國務卿或其指定人員（通常是負責亞洲事務的助理國務卿，或負責監督台灣政策的助理副部長報告。）完全沒有提到AIT/華盛頓，也沒有要求我向他們簡要介紹，或要與他們協調。雖然AIT/華盛頓辦公室可以閱讀我們AIT的大多數報告，但他們必須到國務院才能閱讀機密報告。AIT/華盛頓沒有發出任何電文，他們也很少將AIT/台北包括在他們可能與華盛頓TECRO負責人，或其他更重要的發展的電子郵件中。

U.S. Self-Imposed Restrictions

美國的自我限制

Like so much else governing U.S. policy toward Taiwan after diplomatic recognition of China on January 1, 1979, everything beyond those brief words in the TRA has been based on the interpretations and conclusions of U.S. government lawyers whose principal aim was to convince China that we had in fact severed “diplomatic” ties with Taiwan even while maintaining, as the TRA puts it, “commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.”

美國在1979年1月1日外交承認中國之後，美國對台政策如此之多，除了TRA中那些簡短的詞語之外的所有內容都是基於美國政府律師的解釋和結論，其主要目的是說服中國我們擁有事實上，即在TRA所說的「繼續維持美國人民與在台灣人民間之商業、文化及其他關係，以促進美國外交政策，並為其他目的」的同時，也與台灣斷絕了「外交」關係。

Thus, when I first went to Taiwan to study Mandarin at the Foreign Service-run language school, all USG officials dealt with the following few (among many) examples of “self-imposed” restrictions:

因此，當我第一次去台灣，在外國語服務語言學校學習華語時，所有美國政府官員都處理了以下幾個（在許多）「自我設限」的例子：

-- We had to surrender our diplomatic or official passports for fear we might use them.

 - 我們不得不放棄我們的外交或官方護照，因為怕哪天我們可能還會使用它們。

-- We had to sign a document resigning from the Foreign Service while receiving assurances that our status as U.S diplomats would be restored once our assignments were over.

 - 我們必須簽署一份辭去外交部門的文件，同時獲得保證：一旦我們的任務結束，我們將恢復美國外交官的身份。

--The U.S. flag was not flown over AIT and, although our name was the American Institute in Taiwan, our AIT logo bore no suggestion of the American flag. (The logo we used was rumored to have been borrowed from the design of the AIG logo.) It was not until I was Director of AIT (2009 - 2012) that we raised the U.S flag and put an aspect of the American flag into our AIT logo).

 - AIT不升起美國國旗，雖然我們的名字是美國在台協會，但我們的AIT標誌並沒有暗示美國國旗。（傳聞我們使用的徽標是從AIG徽標的設計中藉來的。）直到我擔任AIT（2009  -  2012年）總監，我們才舉起美國國旗並將美國國旗的一面加入我們的行列。 AIT標誌）。

All of such piddling efforts fooled no one of course, and certainly not Beijing, but it was not until 2002 that Congress took action to instruct that serving civilian officials and military officers could work at AIT. We no longer had to resign or turn in our diplomatic passports but were still instructed not to use them.

所有這些瑣碎的努力當然都不會愚弄，當然也不是北京，但直到2002年，國會才採取行動，指示在職文官和現役軍官可以在AIT工作。我們不再需要辭職或上交我們的外交護照，但仍然被指示不要使用它們。

I later learned, however, that many diplomats from other countries in their respective “trade offices” regularly used their diplomatic passports to travel to and from Taiwan.

不過，我後來了解到：許多來自各「貿易辦事處」的外交官，經常使用外交護照往返台灣。

After all, Taiwan would not complain, and many foreign ministries and their diplomats did not want to go to the trouble and apparent indignity of applying for “tourist” passports.

畢竟，台灣不會抱怨，許多外交部和外交官不願意為申請「旅遊」護照，而感到麻煩和明顯的侮辱。

AIT Washington Devised to Avoid Direct Contact AIT華盛頓設計避免直接接觸

So the role of AIT Washington other than to serve as a Board of Directors was never clearly nor specifically defined. But it was self-evidently designed by Washington lawyers, after the Japanese model, to serve as a cut-out between the Taiwan representative office in Washington and the U.S. government.

因此，除了擔任董事會之外，AIT/華盛頓的角色從未明確或明確地定義。但華盛頓的律師在日本模式之後，無疑將其設計為華盛頓台灣代表處與美國政府之間的切斷點。

In the same way, the parallel Coordination Council for North American Affairs in Taipei was intended to serve as (or at least appear to be) a cut-out between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taiwan government.  As far back as I can remember, however, AIT had not used this intermediary office and instead directly dealt with all levels of the Taiwan government.

同樣，在台北的北美事務協調委員會的目的是作為（或至少看起來是），美國在台協會與台灣政府之間的轉介。然而，據我所知，AIT沒有使用這個中介管道，而是直接與台灣各級政府接洽。

Clearly, the Taiwan Government itself had no interest in using such a cut-out.  Indeed, the Taiwan representatives in Washington (TECRO) usually called on AIT Washington only when and because they had no direct access to higher level USG officials.

顯然，台灣政府本身並沒有興趣使用這種管道。實際上，華盛頓的台灣代表處（TECRO）通常只會在沒有直接接觸更高級別的美國政府官員管道時，與AIT/華盛頓開會。

When I was Director of AIT, I usually met at most twice a year for an exchange of lunches or dinners with the head of CCNAA.  That was all.  My regular practice and that of my colleagues was to call on any appropriate government official we needed to see, as it should be for Taiwan representatives in the U.S.  With the passage of the Taiwan Travel Act on March 16, 2018 calling for high-level bilateral communication and visits both in Taiwan and the U.S., it would appear that this entire strategy or charade of indirect contacts is now officially dead.

當我擔任AIT理事主任時，我通常每年與CCNAA負責人午餐或晚餐最多會見兩次。頂多只是這樣而已。我和同事的常規做法是，如美國的台灣代表需要，約見的任何適當政府官員。2018年3月16日〈台灣旅行法〉的通過後，要求高層雙邊在台灣和美國的交流和訪問，現在正式不需要整個戰略或間接接觸的遊戲了。

Mixed Messages from AIT Chairs 來自AIT理事主席的混淆訊息

Sometimes the intervention or more active roles of AIT Chairs have also proven problematic, especially when they were political appointments.

有時，期待AIT理事主席的干預或更積極的角色，也證明是有問題的，特別是當他們是政治任命時。

James C. Wood, Jr., apparently a friend of President Clinton, was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of the American Institute in Taiwan on December 14, 1995 and forced to resign a little over a year later on Jan. 17, 1997.

鄔杰士，顯然是柯林頓總統的友人，於1995年12月14日被任命為美國在台協會理事主席與常務董事，並於一年多後的1997年1月17日被迫辭職。

This followed media reports that he had "solicited donations" from Taiwanese businessmen for Clinton’s re-election campaign, reportedly arguing that they should "thank" Clinton for protecting Taiwan when Beijing had conducted military exercises off the island's coast.

據媒體報導，他曾為柯林頓的競選連任向台灣商人「請求捐款」。據報導，他稱當北京在台灣海岸進行軍事演習時，他們應該「感謝」柯林頓保護台灣。

Therese Shaheen, the next political appointee, this time of President George W. Bush, served as the Chair and Managing Director of AIT Washington from Dec. 31, 2002 to April 7, 2004.  Although she resigned after only about 15 months, media reports said she was forced to do so because she was so frequently “off the Washington reservation,” making unapproved public statements in support of Taiwan independence.

夏馨，下一任政治任命者，這次是小布什總統，她於2002年12月31日至2004年4月7日間擔任AIT/華盛頓的理事主席與常務董事。雖然她在大約15個月後辭職，但媒體報導她說，她被迫這樣做是因為她經常「不在華盛頓的座位上」，也發表了未經批准的公開言論以支持台獨。

She reportedly angered the White House and former Secretary Colin Powell whom Chen Shui-bian had also reportedly upset with his own remarks which Washington feared might lead to a war with China.

據報導，她惹惱了白宮和前任國務卿鮑威爾，據說對陳水扁的言論感到不滿。華盛頓擔心這些言論可能導致與中國發生戰爭。

Apparently recognizing the difficulty of reining in political appointees, the White House since 2004 has appointed only retired Foreign Service officers as chairs even though the positon is designated in the “plum book” for political appointees.  The former diplomats were much more likely to follow instructions.

自2004年以來，白宮顯然已經認識到控制政治任命人員的困難，他們只任命退休外交官擔任理事主席，儘管這個位置是政治任命人員的「爽缺」，因為前外交官更較可能遵循上頭指示。

There remains nonetheless a strong risk of AIT Chairs delivering mixed messages, especially when they may only visit Taiwan as well as Washington only a few times a year. In my experience, there were at least two damaging examples of this.

儘管如此，AIT理事主席仍然存在很大的風險，特別是當他們每年只訪問台灣，以及華盛頓幾次時。根據我的經驗，至少有兩個具有破壞性的例子。

One was a strong suggestion that Washington was seriously thinking about the sale of more sophisticated arms to Taiwan when in fact that claim had no basis.

其中一個強烈暗示：華盛頓正在認真考慮向台灣出售更複雜的武器，而事實上沒有任何根據。

Another was a case of public remarks following a key Taiwan election indicating that Washington expected the Taiwan government to quickly resolve the dispute over the import of U.S. beef, creating the false impression -- as many Taiwanese already believed -- that evident U.S. support for the winning candidate had been a quid pro quo for solving the beef issue.

另一個是在一次關鍵的台灣選舉後發表公開言論，表明：華盛頓期待台灣政府迅速解決有關美國牛肉進口的爭議，這造成錯誤的印象 - 正如許多台灣人已經相信的那樣 - 美國一直以解決牛肉問題為交換條件，明顯支持獲勝的候選人。

AIT’s Organization Needs to Keep Up with Changing Policy

AIT的組織需要跟上不斷變化的政策

Finally, we need to consider that we are now witnessing the greatest shift in U.S. policies toward Taiwan and the PRC since the Shanghai Communiqué. We find this shift in Congressional resolutions, U.S. government statements on defense and trade policy, in the opinion columns of elite commentators, public opinion polls, and even in the views of the U.S. business community. Now, more than ever, we need increased direct contact between the U.S. and Taiwan governments. AIT Washington is a relic of the past whose continuing existence can no longer be justified. It needs to be buried.

最後，我們需要考慮到，自〈上海公報〉以來，我們正在目睹美國對台灣和中國政策的最大轉變。我們在國會決議，美國政府關於國防和貿易政策的聲明中，在精英評論員，民意調查的意見欄中，甚至在美國商界的觀點中，都發現了這種轉變。現在，我們比以往任何時候都需要增加美國和台灣政府之間的直接接觸。AIT/華盛頓是過去的遺物，讓其繼續存在不再是合理的。它需要被裁撤。