2005-03-13 10:57:08Louishakespeare
2005 Taiwan/China/USA Politics
華盛頓郵報以漫畫諷刺中國持槍向台灣求愛
【中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓十二日專電】
美國華盛頓郵報今天除了發表一篇以「無恥的中國」為題的社論，譴責中國制訂反分裂法，企圖為軍事攻擊台灣建立法源之外，並配合社論，在社論版的對頁刊登一幅漫畫，諷刺中國持槍向台灣求愛。
這幅漫畫是描述一家餐廳裡的鏡頭。在一個餐桌上，一個口袋上畫有五星旗的男士，右手掐著坐在對面，裙子上寫有「Taiwan」字樣的女士的脖子，嘴巴猛親女士的臉頰，頭上還冒出心狀的星星，左手卻持一把手槍，邊親邊威脅：「不准動！否則我就開槍！」。
這幅漫畫的作者AnnTelnaes是美國著名的政治漫畫家，作品曾獲普立茲新聞獎。對頁的社論以「無恥」（brazen）的強烈字眼形容中國，譴責中國使用兩面手法，一面與台灣進行修好動作，一面又制訂反分裂法，為入侵台灣建立法源。而在此同時，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻積極運作，企圖恢復對中國軍售，無視一個獨裁政權欺凌一個民主政權的事實，實在是完全不負責任的行為。
新聞來源：中央社
華盛頓郵報社論：無恥的中國
【中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓十二日專電】
美國華盛頓郵報今天發表一篇題為「無恥的中國」（BrazenChina）社論，譴責中國使用兩面手法，一面與台灣進行修好動作，一面又制訂反分裂法，為入侵台灣建立法源。而就在此時，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻積極運作，企圖恢復對中國軍售，實在是完全不負責任的行為。
郵報社論說，中國領導人似乎擔心世界誤會他們最近與台灣政府進行一些修好動作的意思，以為中國已有可能用文明及和平的方式與鄰國處理問題，迫不及待地要推出反分裂法，告訴世人他們公開以戰爭威脅台灣的政策並沒有改變。
社論說，反分裂法就是以法律規定，如果台灣的作法不符合中國的政治要求，中國就依法攻擊台灣。而最重要的政治要求之一，就是要求民主選出的陳水扁總統放棄他主要政綱之一的修憲。
社論指出，陳水扁尚未進行任何修憲動作，即使修憲了，很大成份也只是裝飾作用。而自從十二月立委選舉敗選後，陳水扁已不斷向中國釋出善意，他甚至和親北京的反對黨領袖達成協議，宣示將放寬到大陸投資及交通的限制，並重申他不尋求台灣獨立的諾言。
不過胡錦濤對陳水扁這些動作的回應，竟是以法律威脅台灣，台灣的和平民主政治活動將招致中國軍事攻擊。
社論強調，胡錦濤的非常好戰姿態是有其本的，上週北京才宣佈國防預算增加百分之十二，持續每年以兩位數字成長的勢頭。中國的軍事支出在全球僅次於美國。
社論說，一旦台灣發生戰爭，美國很可能被拖下水。中國目前在台灣射程內已部署了數百顆飛彈，而且又向俄羅斯購買新型戰艦和潛水艇。
社論最後指出，正當獨裁的中國政府以實際行動公開地重申其發動戰爭的決心的時候，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻不理會布希總統和美國國會的警告，一心只想趕快解除對中國軍售的禁令。他們不思協助美國維持亞洲和平，也無視於一個獨裁政權正式表明將侵略一個民主政權，他們在乎的只是自己狹窄的貿易利益。總而言之，那是一個完全不負責任的政策。
940312
Brazen China
Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page A18
The Washington Post
PERHAPS CHINA'S Communist leadership was worried that the world would get the wrong idea from the recent flurry of conciliatory gestures and concessions it has exchanged with the government of Taiwan -- steps that have suggested the possibility of a civilized and peaceful rapprochement between the neighbors. In any case, President Hu Jintao has now made clear that Beijing's policy of openly threatening Taiwan with a war of aggression remains intact. The centerpiece of this month's meeting of the rubber-stamp National People's Congress is "anti-secession" legislation that legally binds China to attack the island -- a move that likely would mean a military conflict with the United States -- if it fails to meet China's political demands. Chief among these is that Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, drop one of the central planks of his platform, which is reform of Taiwan's constitution.
Mr. Chen hasn't taken any steps toward the constitutional reform, which in any case would be largely cosmetic. Since suffering defeat in a legislative election in December, he has been reaching out to China; he even struck a deal with a pro-Beijing opposition leader in which he pledged to work to relax investment and transport restrictions and reiterated promises not to seek independence for Taiwan. Mr. Hu's answer is to mandate, by law, that peaceful democratic political activity on Taiwan trigger invasion by China. This extraordinary bellicosity is backed up by deeds: Last week Beijing announced a 12 percent increase in its defense budget, continuing years of double-digit growth that have made it the largest military spender in the world after the United States. In recent years the buildup has been designed to prepare for an invasion and to repel U.S. forces that might seek to intervene. Hundreds of missiles have been deployed within range of Taiwan, and new surface ships and submarines have been purchased from Russia.
In sum, a totalitarian Chinese government has openly renewed its resolve to wage war and is working hard to acquire the means to do so. Which brings us to the European Union, which is preparing to lift its embargo on arms sales to China despite appeals and warnings of the Bush administration and Congress. France and Germany -- fierce opponents of military force when used by the United States against a vicious dictator -- remain eager to sell weapons systems to a regime that has formally committed itself to aggression against a democracy. Rather than joining with the United States to help keep the peace in Asia, they would cater to the country that promises to break it. In effect, the Europeans place their own narrow commercial interests -- which they pursue in competition with U.S. companies -- above security cooperation with their NATO ally. It is a grossly irresponsible policy.
【中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓十二日專電】
美國華盛頓郵報今天除了發表一篇以「無恥的中國」為題的社論，譴責中國制訂反分裂法，企圖為軍事攻擊台灣建立法源之外，並配合社論，在社論版的對頁刊登一幅漫畫，諷刺中國持槍向台灣求愛。
這幅漫畫是描述一家餐廳裡的鏡頭。在一個餐桌上，一個口袋上畫有五星旗的男士，右手掐著坐在對面，裙子上寫有「Taiwan」字樣的女士的脖子，嘴巴猛親女士的臉頰，頭上還冒出心狀的星星，左手卻持一把手槍，邊親邊威脅：「不准動！否則我就開槍！」。
這幅漫畫的作者AnnTelnaes是美國著名的政治漫畫家，作品曾獲普立茲新聞獎。對頁的社論以「無恥」（brazen）的強烈字眼形容中國，譴責中國使用兩面手法，一面與台灣進行修好動作，一面又制訂反分裂法，為入侵台灣建立法源。而在此同時，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻積極運作，企圖恢復對中國軍售，無視一個獨裁政權欺凌一個民主政權的事實，實在是完全不負責任的行為。
新聞來源：中央社
華盛頓郵報社論：無恥的中國
【中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓十二日專電】
美國華盛頓郵報今天發表一篇題為「無恥的中國」（BrazenChina）社論，譴責中國使用兩面手法，一面與台灣進行修好動作，一面又制訂反分裂法，為入侵台灣建立法源。而就在此時，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻積極運作，企圖恢復對中國軍售，實在是完全不負責任的行為。
郵報社論說，中國領導人似乎擔心世界誤會他們最近與台灣政府進行一些修好動作的意思，以為中國已有可能用文明及和平的方式與鄰國處理問題，迫不及待地要推出反分裂法，告訴世人他們公開以戰爭威脅台灣的政策並沒有改變。
社論說，反分裂法就是以法律規定，如果台灣的作法不符合中國的政治要求，中國就依法攻擊台灣。而最重要的政治要求之一，就是要求民主選出的陳水扁總統放棄他主要政綱之一的修憲。
社論指出，陳水扁尚未進行任何修憲動作，即使修憲了，很大成份也只是裝飾作用。而自從十二月立委選舉敗選後，陳水扁已不斷向中國釋出善意，他甚至和親北京的反對黨領袖達成協議，宣示將放寬到大陸投資及交通的限制，並重申他不尋求台灣獨立的諾言。
不過胡錦濤對陳水扁這些動作的回應，竟是以法律威脅台灣，台灣的和平民主政治活動將招致中國軍事攻擊。
社論強調，胡錦濤的非常好戰姿態是有其本的，上週北京才宣佈國防預算增加百分之十二，持續每年以兩位數字成長的勢頭。中國的軍事支出在全球僅次於美國。
社論說，一旦台灣發生戰爭，美國很可能被拖下水。中國目前在台灣射程內已部署了數百顆飛彈，而且又向俄羅斯購買新型戰艦和潛水艇。
社論最後指出，正當獨裁的中國政府以實際行動公開地重申其發動戰爭的決心的時候，以法國及德國為首的歐盟卻不理會布希總統和美國國會的警告，一心只想趕快解除對中國軍售的禁令。他們不思協助美國維持亞洲和平，也無視於一個獨裁政權正式表明將侵略一個民主政權，他們在乎的只是自己狹窄的貿易利益。總而言之，那是一個完全不負責任的政策。
940312
Brazen China
Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page A18
The Washington Post
PERHAPS CHINA'S Communist leadership was worried that the world would get the wrong idea from the recent flurry of conciliatory gestures and concessions it has exchanged with the government of Taiwan -- steps that have suggested the possibility of a civilized and peaceful rapprochement between the neighbors. In any case, President Hu Jintao has now made clear that Beijing's policy of openly threatening Taiwan with a war of aggression remains intact. The centerpiece of this month's meeting of the rubber-stamp National People's Congress is "anti-secession" legislation that legally binds China to attack the island -- a move that likely would mean a military conflict with the United States -- if it fails to meet China's political demands. Chief among these is that Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, drop one of the central planks of his platform, which is reform of Taiwan's constitution.
Mr. Chen hasn't taken any steps toward the constitutional reform, which in any case would be largely cosmetic. Since suffering defeat in a legislative election in December, he has been reaching out to China; he even struck a deal with a pro-Beijing opposition leader in which he pledged to work to relax investment and transport restrictions and reiterated promises not to seek independence for Taiwan. Mr. Hu's answer is to mandate, by law, that peaceful democratic political activity on Taiwan trigger invasion by China. This extraordinary bellicosity is backed up by deeds: Last week Beijing announced a 12 percent increase in its defense budget, continuing years of double-digit growth that have made it the largest military spender in the world after the United States. In recent years the buildup has been designed to prepare for an invasion and to repel U.S. forces that might seek to intervene. Hundreds of missiles have been deployed within range of Taiwan, and new surface ships and submarines have been purchased from Russia.
In sum, a totalitarian Chinese government has openly renewed its resolve to wage war and is working hard to acquire the means to do so. Which brings us to the European Union, which is preparing to lift its embargo on arms sales to China despite appeals and warnings of the Bush administration and Congress. France and Germany -- fierce opponents of military force when used by the United States against a vicious dictator -- remain eager to sell weapons systems to a regime that has formally committed itself to aggression against a democracy. Rather than joining with the United States to help keep the peace in Asia, they would cater to the country that promises to break it. In effect, the Europeans place their own narrow commercial interests -- which they pursue in competition with U.S. companies -- above security cooperation with their NATO ally. It is a grossly irresponsible policy.