【雙魚之論】
This joint seminar hosted by the Brookings Institution and the RAND
Corporation featured a critical review of diverse perspectives regarding U.S.
policy toward China and Taiwan. Among the viewpoints presented, Jennifer Kavanagh’s
proposal is the most detached from reality. She suggests that “Washington
could use the pullback of its support for Taiwan’s defense to pursue a grand bargain
with Beijing, whereby Beijing commits to engage in cross-Strait dialogue and reduce
its military pressure against Taiwan.” Her recommendation is essentially a rehash
of a failed historical policy—specifically the August 17 Communiqué of 1982—yet
it is being repackaged as a fresh initiative to break the current deadlock and influence
policy.
Fittingly,
Matt Turpin’s article provides a robust rebuttal to this stance. He
argues that “America’s declaratory policies on Taiwan were designed for a different
era. America’s ‘One China’ policy and its posture of strategic ambiguity were compromises
intended in part to secure China’s commitment to peaceful means in pursuit of unification.”
He contends that China has effectively invalidated this approach through
its massive military buildup and increasingly aggressive actions toward Taiwan.
這Brookings Institute與RAND聯合舉辦的研討會，對美國的對中、對台政策有不同觀點的檢討。其中，Jennifer Kavanagh的「華盛頓可以利用減少對台灣國防支援的契機，與北京達成一項「大協議」，促使北京承諾開展兩岸對話並減少對台軍事壓力。」最脫離現實：其建議明明是證實失敗的政策歷史——即1982年的〈八一七公報〉，卻反過來以新姿態要解決僵局、影響政策。果然，Matt Turpin的文章以簡單的「美國對台政策的表態是為不同的時代而設計的。美國的「一個中國」政策及其戰略模糊姿態，部分是為了確保中國承諾以和平方式實現統一而做出的妥協。他認為，中國大規模的軍事擴張和日益咄咄逼人的對台行動，已經使這項策略失效。」做了堅實反駁。
調整美國對台政策以適應新的戰略現實 Adapting US Taiwan policy for a new strategic
reality Ryan Hass / Jude Blanchette 20260320
