美台矛盾研究（1949－2000）

【作者】 李洪波；

【导师】 许嘉；

【作者基本信息】 中国人民解放军外国语学院 ， 英语语言文学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 自国民党集团逃到台湾之后,美台关系的发展合作与斗争并存。而对美台双边关系中矛盾方面的研究,可以为寻求台湾问题的解决办法提供一种新的视角。就美台双边关系中的矛盾方面而言,其大致发展轨迹为:杜鲁门政府时期,美国与蒋介石统治集团的矛盾主要集中在美方曾经积极策划台湾的“自治”乃至“独立”,阻止国民党集团败退到台湾,甚至考虑要抛弃蒋介石。而国民党集团逃到台湾之后,杜鲁门政府决定采取与其“拉开距离”的政策。即便朝鲜战争爆发后,杜鲁门政府仍然决定采取与台湾当局保持“一臂之遥”距离的政策。艾森豪威尔政府上台后,美台关系进入了相对平稳的发展期,通过《共同防御条约》的签署,美台结成了正式盟友关系。但即使在此时期,先后爆发的两次“台海危机”使得美台矛盾凸显,具体表现为台湾当局企图依赖美国的支持实现“反攻大陆”的迷梦,而美国政府则要压迫台湾当局从外岛撤兵、努力促成台海地区的停火、实现所谓的台海“中立化”,以避免被卷入与中国大陆的直接军事冲突。此外,美台间围绕美援的使用、台湾当局的独裁统治、以及联合国中的“中国代表权”问题和蒙古人民共和国加入联合国的问题,也产生了诸多分歧。进入肯尼迪政府时期之后,美台一如既往地围绕台湾的“反攻”计划发生了激烈争吵。此外,此一时期的美台矛盾还沿着肯尼迪政府企图调整对华政策、美方在联合国“中国代表权”问题上准备抛弃“延期审议”手段转而采取“重要问题”案、是否应该允许蒙古人民共和国加入联合国等三条主线展开。约翰逊政府时期美台矛盾的大框架并未发生改变,相对集中于美国政府调整对华政策、约束台湾当局的“反攻行动”、美削减对台军援,以及在联合国框架内的斗争等几个方面。然而,约翰逊政府时期的美台矛盾既有对以前时期继承的一面,更有深化的一面。虽然矛盾的基本框架没有发生变化,但性质上更难调和,对抗上更为激烈。进入20世纪70年代以后,美台矛盾出现了新的变化。“反攻大陆”这个长期困扰美台关系发展的因素基本消失,美台矛盾相对集中表现为美国政府出于现实政治的需要,采取切实的步骤改善与中华人民共和国的关系,并逐渐实现关系正常化。相应地,美国就要“断绝”与台湾当局的所谓“外交”关系。里根政府上台时,美台关系进入了发展“实质性关系”的新阶段。这种“实质性关系”把美台间一些原先被共同的反共目标所掩盖的矛盾暴露出来。美台在军事安全、意识形态、经济领域内矛盾凸显,具体表现为台湾当局不满里根政府与中华人民共和国签订《八?一七公报》及美国限制其发展进攻性武器、美国政府压迫台湾进行“政治改革”、要求缩减双方的贸易逆差、开放岛内的农产品进口和保护知识产权问题上。克林顿执政时期的美台矛盾则具有非常明显的内在逻辑连贯性。台湾当局认为克林顿政府1994年对台政策调整远未达到其期望值,反而施加了新的限制。因此,在很大程度上出于对1994年公布的政策调整结果的不满,台湾当局开始挑战克林顿政府的新政策。为“拓展国际活动空间”,以及为了挑战克林顿政府对台湾领导人施加的旅行限制,李登辉努力要挤进美利坚合众国的大门。然而,李登辉的访美却引发了“第三次台海危机”。受“第三次台海危机”的刺激,美国政府开始采取更加平衡的对华政策,一方面提出“全面接触”的口号以修补中美关系,另一方面约束台湾当局的挑衅性行为。由此,美台围绕两次“江克会晤”、“三不政策”及“两国论”发生了激烈的斗争。导致美台矛盾的原因既有内部因素,又有外部因素。从内部因素来说,在各个历史阶段上美台对发展双边关系的目标期待不同是导致矛盾产生的根本因素。而从外部因素上来说,中国大陆的对美、对台政策,以及美国的国际盟友对其外交政策的牵制,都是导致美台矛盾产生的重要因素。美台矛盾实际上分别沿双边关系和两岸关系两条主线展开。在双边关系范畴内,美台矛盾的实质就是控制与反控制的斗争。而在两岸关系范畴之内,美台矛盾主要体现为围绕“一个中国”原则的斗争。这种斗争经历了两个不同的历史阶段。在第一阶段――即蒋氏父子统治台湾时期,美台矛盾的核心是两岸间是否应搞“两个中国”,而在第二阶段――即李登辉、陈水扁统治时期,矛盾的核心则转换为如何搞“两个中国”的问题。然而,不管在哪个阶段,美台在两岸关系上的斗争都具体表现为维持现状与打破现状之争。虽然美台双边关系的发展过程充斥着矛盾与争议,但毕竟美台双方都在发展双边关系中存在巨大的利益,因此双方都采取了一些措施来管理双边关系,使双边关系不致因这些矛盾的存在而破裂。美国方面采取的措施主要是安抚与施压并重。而台方采取的措施则相对复杂一些,主要表现为三个方面:尽可能地利用美国国内的政治制度设计,寻找可资己用的操纵空间,迫使美行政当局采取于己有利的政策;通过使用威胁手段,迫使美国政府做出让步;部分顺应美方要求,不断调整内部统治方式,以拉近与美方的认同感。对美台矛盾的研究启示我们:在现阶段解决台湾问题,挑战与机遇并存。挑战主要表现为我解决台湾问题的难度加大,紧迫性增强。机遇则表现为我们可以在充分了解美台矛盾的生成机理的基础上,利用各种手段来促成美台矛盾的产生,从而达到推进祖国统一大业的目的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since it fled to Taiwan, the Kuomingtang (KMT) regime and its successors on that island have developed a multi-dimensional relationship with the United States, which ranges from cooperation and coordination to controversies and contradictions. A full-scale study of the controversies and contradictions between Taiwan authorities and the successive United States administrations from Truman to Clinton will surely shed a new light onto the solution of the so-called Taiwan issue.To put it briefly, US-Taiwan contradictions have been evolving along the following lines:The Truman Administration witnessed the most turbulent episodes in US relations with the KMT regime. Out of great disappointment with and resentment for the KMT regime, the Truman administration, by way of designing various schemes for Taiwan’s“autonomy”or“independence”, or even seeking a replacement for Chiang Kai-shek, endeavored to prevent Chiang Kai-shek and his followers from finding a sanctuary on Taiwan. And as the efforts failed, the Truman administration turned a much cold shoulder to Chiang by distancing itself away from Chiang and his regime in Taiwan. Even the breaking-out of the Korea War didn’t change Truman’s mind from adopting a kind of“an arm’s length”policy toward the Taiwan authorities.The installment of Dwight D. Eisenhower into the White House helped to bring about a relatively smooth period in the US-Taiwan relationship. With the signing and taking-effect of the Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States and Taiwan formed a security alliance, relieving the Taiwan authorities of previous uneasiness and worries of being abandoned by the US side. Yet, controversies and contradictions persisted even with the alliance in place. This was especially true during the two successive“strait crisis’s”. While the Taiwan authorities was counting on the US to help it“recover the mainland”by force, the US side did whatever it could to avoid any direct confrontation with PRC. To ensure that, it tried its best to persuade or even press the Taiwan authorities to pull KMT forces out of the offshore islands, to realize ceasefire between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and to neutralize the Strait. This, in turn, generated resentment among the Taiwan authorities. On top of this, contradictions also occurred in other fields, such as how to make a proper use of American assistance, Chiang’s arbitrary ruling, the problem of Chinese representation in the United Nations and Mongolia’s application to join UN.The Kennedy administration, like its predecessors, fell into heated quarrels with the Taiwan authorities over the latter’s“counter-attack on the mainland”plans. Besides this, during this period, US-Taiwan controversies and contradictions also developed along three other separate lines: US attempts to adjust its China policy, US determination to replace its obsolete, working-no-longer strategy of“moratorium”on Chinese representation in the United Nations with a new one called the“important issue”formula, and again, Mongolia’s application to enter UN.The Johnson administration inherited most of its foreign policies from J. F. Kennedy as well as its policies toward Taiwan. This led US-Taiwan contradictions to center around American attempts to adjust its China policy, American efforts to restrain Taiwan’s“counter attack”plans, American plans to reduce assistance to Taiwan, and Chinese representation in the United Nations. However, while the framework of US-Taiwan contradictions was left almost untouched in this period, the subsistence did get deepened, both in the difficulty to compromise and in the fierceness of confrontation.Upon entry into 1970s, some new facets appeared in US-Taiwan relations, one of which being the evaporation of contradictions over Taiwan’s“counter-attack”plans which had perplexed the United States and Taiwan for nearly two decades. In this period, the US-Taiwan contradictions took on a rather unitary look, that is, most contradictions were resulted from the reconciliation and normalization of Sino-American relations and the subsequent breaking of“diplomatic”relations between the United States and Taiwan.US-Taiwan relations entered a new stage in the Reagan administration. The furthering of US-Taiwan“substantial relations”led to the protruding of various contradictions previously covered up by US-Taiwan common cause of fighting against communist and PRC. Under the Reagan administration, US-Taiwan contradictions mostly focused on Taiwan’s dissatisfaction with the Sino-US Communiquéto restrain US arms sales to Taiwan and the restraints US put on Taiwan’s development of offensive weapons, US pressure on Taiwan to initiate“political reforms”characterized by so-called“political democratization”, US demands for Taiwan to cut down its trade surplus, to open its market for American agricultural products and to protect American intellectual property rights.After Bill Clinton came into power in the United States, US-Taiwan contradictions were closely interconnected and logically coherent. Frustrated by Clinton’s 1994 Taiwan policy review, which, in the Taiwan authorities’eyes, was far from being satisfactory, or even worse in some aspects, Lee Teng-hui decided to break the traveling restraints by joining a“re-union”at the Cornell University. This step cleared the way to the so-called“the third strait crisis”which startled the Clinton administration greatly. When the crisis subsided, the Clinton administration began to adopt a more balanced China policy, putting Sino-American relations back on the right track through promoting“comprehensive engagement”on the one hand, and leashing Taiwan’s provocative behaviors on the other hand. Due to this, the United States and Taiwan confronted bitterly over the two Sino-American summits, Clinton’s statement of“3 no’s”in Shanghai, and Lee Teng-hui’s clamor for a“two-state theory”.Factors contributing to US-Taiwan contradictions are both internal and external. For the internal ones, the most significant should be the two parties’incongruous expectations for developing relations with the other. And for the external ones, they should be constituted of many, among which are the mainland government’s American and Taiwan policies, the check of America’s allies on its foreign policy, etc.US-Taiwan contradictions developed in two different scopes. In the scope of bilateral relations, the essence is that the US side wants to preside over the social and political developments in Taiwan and the Taiwan authorities, in turn, want to shake off US influence. The most intensive contradictions take place in another scope, the scope of cross-strait relations. In this aspect, US-Taiwan contradictions, which mainly evolve over the“One China”principle, have undergone a two-phased evolution. In the first phase, when Taiwan was under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek and his son, US-Taiwan contradictions was, at the core, whether there should be“one China”or“two Chinas”. And in the second phase, when Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian held /is holding office in Taiwan, the core has shifted to how to create a“two-China”situation. Yet, in whichever stage, the United States and Taiwan have been fighting for the maintenance of the status quo or breaking it.Even though the evolution of US-Taiwan relations has been characterized by controversies and contradictions, both parties have huge stakes in bilateral relations, thus leaving them no choice but to carefully manage this relationship to prevent it from breaking down. For the American side, measures taken range from appeasement to pressure. In comparison, the Taiwan authorities have applied more sophisticated skills to manage its relations with the United States: manipulation of American domestic political systems, occasional threats against the US governments, and partial concessions to US demands.The study of US-Taiwan contradictions enlightens us that there are both challenges to and opportunities for the solution of the Taiwan issue. On the one hand, difficulties have been intensified and emergency has been highlighted; on the other hand, based on the full knowledge of the nature and generation of US-Taiwan contradictions, something can be done to wedge in the US-Taiwan relationship, to the benefits of the reunification of China.更多还原