現在位置 : 新聞 > 美國媒體指蔡英文「租用暴民」- Rent A Mob
美媒指蔡「租用暴民」 美應檢視對台安全承諾 中國時報 劉屏 2015年08月10日 美國著名刊物《外交家》刊登專文指出,據報導,台灣的民主進步黨擁抱中東暴民路線,花錢資助極端份子攻擊官署,根本放棄了民主。文章並指出,民進黨的總統候選人蔡英文如果當政,可能因為主張台獨而把美國拖入危機,故美國必須通盤檢討對台灣的安全承諾。 台海議題專家、密蘇里州立大學教授兼國際事務研究主任郝志堅(Dennis V. Hickey)在最新一期《外交家》(Diplomat)雜誌撰文指出,美國的國防政策規劃人士質疑,民進黨為了實現台獨夢想,會把美國捲入台海危機,但蔡英文卻沒有做多少工作來化解美國疑慮;且「在許多最重要的議題上,特別是她打算如何處理與北京間的關係」,態度模糊不清。 文章並指出,儘管蔡英文在民調中領先,但很多人擔心民進黨已經放棄民主,因為有報導稱,民進黨採行中東的聚眾滋事作法(rent a mob),「並資助極端份子攻擊台灣的政府部門」,使得美國愈來愈難認為台灣是民主模範。 文章以「rent a mob」形容民進黨的作法。這個詞彙直譯是「租用暴民」或「租用群眾」,係描繪非理性或不真誠的抗議行為,包括花錢雇人抗議等。這種雇用的「好處」是使「群眾」累積經驗,不需再加訓練,而且「群眾」久經戰陣,行為顯得很逼真。 美國一篇文章寫道,這種雇用演變為暴力抗爭等技倆,往往出現在較落後的國家,「在巴黎和倫敦的街頭是看不到的」。一些文章討論埃及、敘利亞等國的群眾運動時,用了這個字,例如寫道「敘利亞rent-a-mob 聖戰士凌虐居少數的基督徒」。 美國密蘇里州佛格森市一位非裔美國人遭到白人警察槍擊致死,引發黑人大規模抗議。一位專門撰寫調查報導的記者Matthew Vadum後來寫了一篇《佛格森市雇用暴民曝光》(Ferguson Rent-A-Mobs Exposed),披露有人出錢雇用暴民,「目的是掀起種族仇恨,並攻擊警察」,後來因為有人沒有拿到錢,事情才曝了光。 郝志堅的文章受到重視,一是他的學術地位,有講座教授等頭銜。二是他是東亞議題專家,獨自完成的有關台海的專書計4本,包括台灣的外交決策;兩岸及日、韓的軍事;美國與台灣的安全聯繫等。另有3本與其他學者共同編著的專書。他發表過50篇以上的論文,也是CNN等電子媒體與《華爾街日報》等平面媒體的常客,國際通訊社也經常引述他的評析。三是他擔任美國國會、多個行政部門、智庫、私人機構的顧問,經常就相關議題提供建言。 上個月,美國《國家利益》(National Interest) 刊登專文,稱雖然蔡英文承諾維持台海現狀,但北京仍然擔心她如果勝選會追求法理台獨;一旦如此,北京當局會激烈反應,包括搶走台灣的邦交國,甚至動武。文章寫道,如果蔡當選,台海很有可能危機再起 (There is a significant possibility that if Tsai Ing-wen is elected president of Taiwan next January, a cross-Strait crisis could ensue.)。 文章期盼兩岸都以負責任的態度維繫穩定與合作,也期盼美國發揮力量,例如及早協助兩岸訂定臨時協議,以確保兩岸溝通管道順暢與持續務實合作。(中時即時) 美學者:蔡搞模糊 台獨拖累美國 中國時報 簡恒宇 2015年08月10日 隨著民進黨可能贏得台灣明年總統大選,美國台海專家、密蘇里州立大學教授郝志堅(Dennis Hichey)在最新一期的學術權威期刊《外交家》撰文評論,民進黨總統候選人蔡英文在兩岸議題上未有明確闡述,因此美國政府必須檢視與台灣的關係,尤其是對台海安全的承諾。 文章內容稱,美國國防政策規劃者質疑,民進黨尋求台獨夢想,會把美國拖入台海危機,但蔡英文卻未盡力解除美國的疑慮,且對於如何處理與北京當局的關係,態度亦模糊不清。美國也擔憂民進黨背棄民主,因為民進黨被指控擁抱中東「聚眾滋事」作法,煽動抗議群眾攻占台灣政府機構。 美國係台灣首要安全夥伴,也是在發生台海衝突時,唯一可能提供軍事援助的國家,且多數人認為台海一旦爆發衝突,美國會派兵協助台灣,但美國獨立智庫「芝加哥全球事務委員會」(CCGA)在2014年所做的民調顯示,高達71%的美國民眾反對美國介入台海戰爭。 另外,美國若派兵介入台海戰事,不會有國家會「自願結盟」,即美國不能期盼加拿大、澳洲或歐洲盟邦提供協助。由於台海危機與越戰情況相似,美國前國防部長麥納馬拉(Robert S. McNamara)警告,美國要記取越戰慘敗的教訓,對多邊軍事行動必須三思。 文章結尾寫道,世界一直在變化,但美國對台安全政策卻數十年來未改變,1970年代所制定的政策,在現代勢必被淘汰。不過郝志堅也說,美國不應急於強化、修改或廢除對台安全承諾,並強調台美雙邊防衛關係是值得深思的議題。(中時即時) |
蔡英文出席台灣獨派國是會議 (2015-3-14)
被罵 「租用暴民」,民進黨為什麼不去告?
黃智賢世界 2015-8-10 從太陽花到反課綱事件,我都在第一時間,說這是「反民主運動」。 是背離民主,違反民主,踐踏民主的暴力奪權。 但我毫不意外,在台灣這樣不正常的社會裡,會有這麼多人,顛倒是非,把這種事,指鹿為馬,吹捧為民主嘉年華。 把暴力歪曲為和平的 "公民不服從"。 不誠實的野心人,硬昧著良心,用全世界民主國家絕不同意的謊話,在台灣卻行得通。 好了,美國外交家雜誌”八月號,郝志堅(Dennis V. Hickey)拆穿了沒有穿衣服的民進黨。 (1) 他毫不客氣,直接指控民進黨用「租用暴民」(rent a mob)的手法做政治操作。 對一個號稱民主進步的政黨,用這樣重大而直接的指控,是最大的羞辱。 前兩個月,人民批評蔡英文家族和海霸王的關係,蔡英文是直接提告的。 網民批評八仙樂園和民進黨的關係,民進黨更直接指揮台北市刑大,如狼似虎的撲上人民家裡,用刑案處理,警告民眾。 民進黨被郝志堅罵「租用暴民」,卻為什麼悶不吭聲? 為什麼不告 ? 倫敦政經學院和康乃爾出身的蔡英文,不知道「租用暴民」,就是批評你反民主? 台灣的眾多媒體,為什麼多半假裝沒這回事? 台灣人也許不知道 “租用暴民”是甚麼意思? 政大外交系,美國喬治城大學出身的宋楚瑜,會不知道他所歌頌,讚美的太陽花和反課綱,就是「租用暴民」? (2) 郝志堅甚至說:「雖然民調領先,可是許多人們擔心,民進黨已經放棄民主。」(And despite its lead in the polls, there are concerns that the DPP has given up on democracy.) 這幾年來,我一直說的,就是這讓人不忍看到,卻真實的現狀:民進黨根本是違反民主,傷害民主的惡勢力。 民進黨使用暴民政治做政治布局,民進黨市長竟然不進議會接受監督,黨主席可以用前身是違警罰法的社維法,對付人民。 而台灣居然只有很微弱的批判和質疑。 大多數媒體,吹捧,讚聲都來不及。 不識字,還不承認自己不識字。 反民主,還自我吹捧為支持民主。 (3) 郝志堅這一段文,對民進黨直接開罵:「民進黨擁抱中東式的租用暴民,資助極端份子攻擊政府部門。 這讓美國更難為台灣辯護,說它是民主的模範生。」 ( it is reportedly embracing a Middle Eastern practice known as “rent a mob” and subsidizing extremists who attack Taiwan’s government ministries. This makes it increasingly difficult for Americans to sensibly argue that Taiwan is a “model of democracy.”) 台灣幾十年來民主模範生,因為民進黨而毀了。 還要指鹿為馬,說太陽花和反課綱是民主行動? (4) 郝志堅之前對太陽花的評價是:「這個星球上沒有任何其他政府會容忍這種行為。」 當然,除了馬政府以外。 馬政府除了容忍,還會乖乖聽話。 我很好奇,他會怎麼看另一群老中青,加上未成年的「暴民」攻佔教育部,逼教育部在重要政策上退縮? 為什麼他和台灣無良學者,像姚立明和林火旺,對太陽花的看法差這麼大? 為什麼任何舉世有公論的事,台灣都可以用「多元」來混淆是非 ? (5) 郝志堅之前說太陽花是「一群未經選舉的烏合之眾」,「自我標榜的幫派」(self-appointed gang)。 這種說法,算是客氣了。 一小群暴民,可以藉著暴力攻佔國會和官署,而讓媒體驚艷,讓媒體恐懼屈服,而取得莫大權力。 而台灣的無行文人和學者,吹捧追隨,為虎做倀的,爭先恐後。 台灣跟人類文明世界,真的差得很遠。 (6) 郝志堅之前批評馬政府「太陽花被允許阻礙立法長達數週,馬政府也沒有採取行動。」 但這還不夠精準。 其實不但暴力攻佔國會,還阻礙立法,還下令不准通過法案,還逼迫要依照他們的指令,另提新法。 傷害民主,有比這個還大的嗎? 馬政府卻唾面自乾,違法屈從這批暴民。 這是馬英九最對不起國家的事。 他沒有堅定的捍衛這個國家的民主和法治。 而今年,更發生了反課綱版的「租用暴民」,而且是未成年暴民。 馬英九又讓步了。 違法反民主的勢力,又得勝了。 (7) 台灣這幾年來民主倒退,郝志堅認為是因為有一批人拋棄民主和選舉, 無法無天。 其實真相是,台灣人其實根本不在乎世界上發生了甚麼事。 也不在乎,民主到底是甚麼東西。 台灣人只要 "一窩蜂的爽的感覺"。 所以縱容無法無天的這一群人,把權力給他們。 台灣人不在乎別人在想甚麼。 台灣人不在乎,美國民調,有71%的美國人反對為台灣出兵打仗。 台灣人只活在自己的小宇宙,自我感覺,永恆良好。 但我好奇的是,民進黨為什麼不去告郝志堅 ? 更好奇的,是當他以後寫反課綱,發現民進黨租來的暴民,竟是未成年的,他會怎麼說 ? |
单击此处进行编辑.
Time to Review US Policy on Taiwan?
The world has changed. It is time for a thoughtful debate on U.S. defense ties with Taiwan. Diplomat By Dennis V. Hickey August 05, 2015 There is big trouble brewing in “Little China” – the Republic of China (Taiwan). The time has arrived for the U.S. Department of State to spearhead a detailed interagency policy review of America’s relationship with Taiwan with a special focus on its security commitments to the island. Numerous considerations point to the need for such a study. Every American is familiar with the rise of China. The U.S. needs China’s cooperation to cope with a wide range of pressing global problems, including worldwide economic challenges, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, health issues, dwindling energy supplies, and the sporadic crises on the Korean Peninsula to name just a few. Moreover, China is now the world’s second largest economy, one of the world’s fastest growing economies, third largest military power, and the single largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt. The changes occurring within China are astounding. But some things remain constant – including Beijing’s steadfast opposition to Washington’s military support for Taipei. U.S. decision-makers are painfully aware that, while American support for Taiwan is not the only issue that divides Washington and Beijing, it is the most contentious and longstanding problem. So lobbyists are correct when they claim that “Taiwan matters.” Relations between Taipei and Beijing have improved enormously since 2008. However, the military buildup opposite Taiwan continues. In 2015, China’s “official” defense budget climbed 10.1 percent to approximately $141.5 billion. This marked the 24th consecutive annual increase in defense outlays. A major focus of the military modernization program appears to be improving China’s ability to conduct military operations against Taiwan and to deter, delay, and deny U.S. intervention in a cross-strait conflict. In other words, the cost of U.S. intervention in a Taiwan crisis is mounting. Meanwhile, defense spending in Taiwan is trending downward. Taiwan’s military budget as a percentage of GDP has dropped from 3.8 percent in 1994 to 2.0 percent in 2014, and from 24.3 percent of total government spending to 16.2 percent in the same period. Troop levels dropped from 450,000 in the 1990s to 210,000 in 2014. More cuts are on the horizon. Some hope the arrival of a new president and administration in 2016 will reverse this trend. But security analysts remain skeptical. Military spending is unpopular in Taiwan. Internal trends in Taiwan hold the potential to complicate U.S. security policy. Most people on the island now identify themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. Moreover, opinion polls conducted in 2013 show that 37.7 percent of the people now support de jure independence from China even if it causes the mainland to attack the island (76.1 percent support independence if the mainland does not attack). Perhaps equally worrisome for Washington, a majority of the Taiwan population believes that the U.S. will send troops to defend them if a declaration of independence leads to war with China. And a growing number (almost 40 percent) do not think the Chinese threat to attack the island is credible. This comes at a time when support among the American people for U.S. military action to help Taiwan defend itself has dropped to an all-time low. According to a poll conducted in 2014 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the overwhelming majority of the American public (71 percent) opposes sending troops to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China. Many predict that Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will return to power in 2016. The party has sought to “rebrand” itself as a “responsible” alternative to the ruling Kuomintang (KMT). But U.S. defense planners cannot help but wonder if the DPP will seek to entrap the U.S. in a cross-strait crisis in an effort to achieve its dreams of independence from China. Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP presidential candidate, has done little to assuage such fears. The candidate’s positions on many of the most important issues of the day remain opaque and unclear, especially her plans for handling relations with Beijing. And despite its lead in the polls, there are concerns that the DPP has given up on democracy. For example, it is reportedly embracing a Middle Eastern practice known as “rent a mob” and subsidizing extremists who attack Taiwan’s government ministries. This makes it increasingly difficult for Americans to sensibly argue that Taiwan is a “model of democracy.” The U.S. is Taiwan’s primary security partner and the only country that might provide it with military support in a conflict with China. In the event of war, there will be no “coalition of the willing.” America cannot expect assistance from Canada, Australia, or any country in Europe. When discussing America’s failure in the Vietnam conflict, the late Robert S. McNamara, former U.S. Defense Secretary, warned that if the U.S. cannot persuade governments with similar interests and similar values of the merits of multilateral military action, it should think long and hard before proceeding unilaterally. The world is changing. But the fundamentals of U.S. policy toward Taiwan have not changed for decades and U.S.-Taiwan security ties remain largely frozen in time. Many policies that were deemed necessary in the 1970s are obsolete today. Does this observation apply to America’s defense relationship with Taiwan? To be sure, this question makes some uncomfortable. And Washington should not rush to strengthen, revise or repeal the U.S. security commitment to Taiwan. However, it makes little sense to adopt an inertial approach to the matter. Irrespective of one’s position toward the Taiwan issue, there are questions about this bilateral defense relationship that deserve thoughtful study and debate among Americans at both the popular and elite levels. Dennis V. Hickey is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Program in Global Studies at Missouri State University and the author of numerous books and articles about U.S.-Taiwan security relations. |
单击此处进行编辑.