嗯，事情是這樣的。。。

中國時報九日的報導(標題﹕見美副卿消「獨」，蔡英文達成任務)
引用傳統基金會亞洲研究中心主任武爾茲的談話。

據報導，一向對台灣友好的傳統基金會亞洲研究中心主任武爾茲，
在出席蔡英文說明會後指出陳總統談話的「時機不好」，也反映他的
「判斷不佳」。

在看完這篇報導後，我立刻寫信向武爾茲先生求證。

前天早上我收到武爾茲先生親自給我的回函。

現在我將收到的信件整理一下，給各位做參考。

.................................................................

首先，我大概把信件的內容說明一下。因為信件內容很長，所以我只能大概
解釋一下，不能完全翻譯，還請各位見諒。

一、當我第一次向武爾茲先生求證時，他告訴我他並沒有接受任何
中國時報記者的訪問，引用他談話的內容也不正確。
他並向我要中國時報的剪報、以及那位報導記者的姓名。

第二次我告訴他，那位記者叫Norman Fu(傅建中)，我並應他的要求，附上
中國時報相關的報導。

他說，他認識Norman Fu。九日當晚他們曾聚在一起，喝了一杯。
但他很驚訝傅建中記者如此引用他的談話，因為這和他們當晚談話
的內容不符合。但他又說，這位Norman Fu先生是民主時代前的人物。
言下之義，就是他對這樣的行為不感到意外。

回函:
Thanks, I know Norman and had a drink with him that night.
I am surprised that he attributed that quote to me because it
definitely doesnt reflect our conversation. Then again,
Norman is an old-school, pre-democracy guy who probably isnt
much of a suppporter of President Chen or the DPP, Larry

.................................................................
二、武爾茲先生的回信也回應了美國副國務卿「作出重大決策，美促台先磋商」
的談話，詳情請參閱武爾茲先生的信。

.................................................................
三、我也問了蔡英文美國之行的問題。

據武爾茲先生表示，蔡英文委員在和美國智庫人士的座談會當中，
只是重申陳總統一中一台談話內容、及陳總統就職演說的內容罷了。

所以傅建中記者的標題「見美副卿消「獨」，蔡英文達成任務」，
是完全和事實不符的。

.................................................................
其他問題請參閱武爾茲先生的信件。

PS: thank you for taking the time to read this email

Dr. Wortzels Reply

Subject: your question
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:42 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Wortzel, Larry
To:

Not an accurate quote.

What I said was that this was poorly timed, given the magnitude
of other contingencies facing the United States at this time.
I questioned the value of the statement (to a few thousand non-voting,
overseas supporters) in Tokyo compared to the damage that the
statement seems to have done to investor confidence, the level of
support of the Government of Japan, and the potential impact on regional
security.

This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use
of [remove] and may contain information that is confidential.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this email. Any views or opinions presented in this
email are solely those of Larry Wortzell and do not necessarily represent
those of The Heritage Foundation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:28:58 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Wortzel, Larry
To:

i couldnt find the article, would you fax it or attach it to an e-mail.
who was the reporter? no one from china times interviewed me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:02:17 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Wortzel, Larry
To:

To go further, Kevin, by bad timing I mean that if the US is
fighting a war on terror, a war in Afghanistan, may have to fight
one in Iraq, and has to deter war on the Korean Peninsula, American
military forces already pretty heavily committed. Therefore, statements
that could create conflict in the Taiwan Strait are not very helpful
at the present time. So President Chens remarks may have served his
own domestic political agenda, but I doubt they were made in full
consideration of the broader international and regional security
situation. Therefore, is judgement in balancing his priorities and
those of his allies could have been better. And some consultation
with friends would have been useful. Again, please fax me the story
(202-675-1779) or attach it to an e-mail as embedded text and I can
read the article myself.

Larry

Again, thank you for your help. I really appreciate the
detailed explanation you provided.

Dr. Wortzels Reply

Subject: RE: Article you requested
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:52:17 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Wortzel, Larry
To:

Marcos email

Dr. Wortzel,

With your permission, Id like to post your responses on
an online media watch groups message board, as well as
on an political forum I often frequent. Please let me
know if youre okay with it.

Also, while were on the subject of Ms. Tsai Ing-Wens
trip to the States, could you shed some light on the
purpose of Ms. Tsais meeting with members of US-based
think tanks?

I understand that youre probably not at liberty to
discuss it, so I would not ask you to go into specific
details.

Im just wondering, did Ms. Tsai ever reiterate Taiwans
position on the subject of Taiwanese statehood (that
Taiwan or Republic of China is an independent nation) at
any point during her speech?

Im asking this because according to most of reports
released by Taiwanese news media, Ms. Tsai retracted from
her previous position and offered apology during her visit
to the US.

Im hoping that you would shed some light on it for me.

Thanks

Dr. Wortzels Reply

Subject: RE: 2nd email
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:48:44 -0400
Message-ID:
From: Wortzel, Larry
To:

這篇我在外獨貼過了

相信也有不少這裡的朋友看過

所以假如板主覺得這樣兩邊貼不合適，就請幫我刪掉

傅建中報導利用許多暗示性字眼,如「後遺症」、「不再犯類似錯誤」、『不過一向對台灣友好的武爾茲直言不諱的指陳總統談話的「時機不好」，也反映他的「判斷不佳」。 』
，意圖讓讀者產生『蔡英文為陳水扁的一邊一國談話在美國到處致歉、求饒』的印象！

( 即我前文所言: 在前後行文環境中, 設定一個使讀者易誤解的方向, 去除事實間整體的關連性質, 而僅陳列片斷, 讓讀者在暗示下錯誤組合、推導它們. )

完全同意！

>>上一次壹周刊涉及的劉冠軍洩密案, 聽說也是 ‘負賤中’ 這個匪類, 向
>>美國記者保護協會誣告台灣政府迫害牠們的造謠自由.

另外從紅鹿兄的發言，我想各位都可以清楚看到，
統派駐外記者對台灣的負面影響，不僅止於扭曲美國方面的談話而已。

從某一方面來說，因為駐外記者的工作性質（如..常有機會接觸到外國政要，和他們
的發言反映台灣民眾關心的議題等），他們可以說是台灣的不正式代表。

在這個情況下，駐外記者的素質就非常重要。

像每次美國方面開記者會，這些自稱台灣來的中國記者總是扯著兩岸
「統一」問題不放（手上有不少資料），這會給別人什麼種印象呢？
現階段來說，「統一」真的是台灣人民關心的議題嗎？

還有，在信中，武爾茲先生提到他對陳總統一邊一國談話的價值存疑。
原因是陳總統的談話似乎造成台灣股價的滑落。但這是事實嗎？
他為何有這樣的想法呢？

題目﹕狡猾的媒體- 美國防部副部長伍夫維茲記者會全文

首先復習一下。

媒體說，國防部副部長伍夫維茲親口說出了美國政府
對台的新政策---反對台獨. 並且美國政府有「反對
台獨」的國策.

=====================================================

美政府對台最友善的官員,國防部副部長伍夫維茲親口說出了
美國政府對台的新政策---反對台獨.

這有些石破天驚.也是對台獨的一技致命的打擊,特別是這話出自
對台灣頗為友善的布希政府中對台最為友好的伍夫維茲之口,不知
陳水扁是否還能「吃的下,睡的著」.

半個月前伍夫維茲就公開聲明：「我們無意也無願望使台灣與大陸
分離，讓台灣獨立。」 今天,他更進一步的闡明了美國政府「反對
台獨」的國策.

現在,布希政府的對華政策:「一個中國」和「反對台獨」。

在柯林頓時期的對台「三不政策」中,是「不支持」台獨。
在布希政府中,「不支持台獨」的政策強化為「反對台獨」了。

布希上台初期,對台灣極為友好,為什麼?恐怕是拿了台灣大量的好處
和資助,不得不還人情吧?如今,個人的人情已還,布希就走向了以美國
國家利益為主的正常面了.

以下節錄和台灣獨立有關的談話﹕

聯合報記者Vincent Chen:

部長先生，在您成為國防部副部長以前，曾在多個場合提到，保持兩岸
「戰略模糊」是最符合美國國家利益的方式。您認為保持「戰略模糊」還是
美國對中國政策的主流思想嗎？

另外一提，在上一個記者會，您曾提到，美國不會支持台灣脫離大陸。我想
知道，美國期望在不久的將來看到一個統一的中國大陸和台灣 --- 一個包括
大陸和台灣的統一中國嗎？

Q: Mr. Secretary, my name is Vincent Chen with United Daily News, Taiwan.
Before you joined this administration, you said in several occasions that
the U.S. -- it serves the best of the U.S. interests to maintain a
strategic-ambiguity policy towards cross- strait issues. Do you think
strategic ambiguity is still mainstream thinking in the U.S.-China policy?
And by the way, in a previous conference, you said that the U.S. does not
support the separation of Taiwan from the mainland. Im just wondering,
is this a new message or connotation that the U.S. would foresee a unified
mainland China and Taiwan -- a unified China consisting of mainland China
and Taiwan?

伍夫維茲:

我不記得我說過的每一句話。但是，我不記得對保持「戰略模糊」有特別的興趣。

事實上，我認為對現今的情況來說，維持一定程度的清晰是有價值的。我想，總統
已經清楚的說過，我們只支持一個中國政策；這指到，如同你先前引用我說的話，
美國不會支持台灣獨立。

在另一方面，我們支持以和平的方式解決兩岸的問題。我們相信，這是對兩岸中國人
最有利的方式，也是最符合美國國家利益的方式。

Wolfowitz: I guess the trouble with having been around a while is I dont
remember everything Ive ever said. But I -- (laughter) -- I dont remember
particularly being entranced with the idea of strategic ambiguity. In fact,
I think a certain amount of clarity is valuable now, and I think the president
has been very clear, has been very clear that we support a one-China policy;
that that means, as you, I think, correctly quoted me, we do not support
independence for Taiwan. But the other half of that equation is we oppose
strongly any attempt to settle that issue by force. We support a peaceful
resolution, even if it takes a very long time and a great deal of patience.
We think that that is something that best serves the interests of Chinese
people on both sides of the Taiwan strait and best serves the interests of
the United States.

中國時報記者Norman Fu:

部長先生，您是如何看待中國？是和前任科林頓政府一樣，視中國為戰略伙伴，或是視
中國為一競爭者？還是您把中國視為一個威脅？這是我第一個問題。

第二個問題是，您最近兩次提到，越快能找出一個「和平解決台灣問題」的方式，越好。
您認為「台灣問題」是有急迫性的嗎？您認為「台灣問題」應該迅速被解決嗎？

Q: Mr. Secretary, Norman Fu with the China Times of Taipei. Youre considered
the conceptualizer of the Bush administration. So my question, first,
conceptually how do you view China? Is it like the previous administration, a
strategic partner? Or in the current administrations language, a competitor,
which we dont hear much these days. Or China is a threat, as suggested
by the book, The Coming Conflict With China. So thats my first question.

The second question, you have recently said at least twice that the sooner a
peaceful solution to the Taiwan question is found, the better. That suggests
to me there apparently is some kind of an urgency. Am I right in making that
kind of an assumption? Is there some kind of urgency that the Taiwan issue
should be resolved as soon as possible?

伍夫維茲:

首先讓我回答第二個問題。我希望我沒有說過那樣的話。我相信[..一笑..]，我相信我
說的是，如果要用和平的方式解決問題，一方必需要有很大的耐心，而付出耐心最終會
有回報的。

我想我說的是，中國越快用和平的方式對待台灣，兩岸問題就能越快解決。我沒說過
「台灣問題」必需迅速解決。我只認為，如果你真心要解決兩岸問題的話，和平的方式
是唯一的方法，威脅和對立不能解決問題。

[第一個問題的回答很長，在此跳過]

Wolfowitz: Let me take the second part first. I hope I didnt say anything
like that. In fact, I believe I -- (laughter) -- I believe I said something
more like the commitment to a peaceful approach may mean that one has to be
very patient, but the patience is worth it. What I think I did say was the
sooner the PRC adopts a peaceful approach to Taiwan, the sooner it will solve
the problems. I didnt say it was urgent to solve them soon; I just think
if you want them solved, a peaceful approach is the way to go, not threats
and not confrontation.

A good friend of mine, Vernon Walters, who was a great diplomat, had three
rules of human behavior. Ive forgotten two and three, but number one was,
Anyone who says flattery will get you nowhere has obviously never received
any. But -- (laughs; laughter) -- Im not here to be the great conceputalizer.

I think -- I mean, I think one of the challenges about our relationship
with China over the coming years, and even decades, is that you cant
categorize it, you cant put it in a box. Chinas future is still very
much to be shaped. And the real issue is will China develop into a powerful
force for peace in the East Asia region, which it has the potential, or
will it develop into a new, threatening power? It seems almost certain that
China is going to be more powerful, certainly on the trajectory that its on.
The question is to what end is that applied? And I think its extremely
important for everyone -- Chinese and non-Chinese -- to try to do everything
we can to ensure that it takes the first course and not the second.

最後一段就是有關「反對台獨」的談話

台灣中天電視台記者Jiang Zhan:

這是一個和上一個有關的問題。對于美國對台政策，我們常聽到「美國反對台灣獨立，
並且不支持使用武力解決問題」。

我們前幾天也聽到您談到，「美國沒有意願，也不希望將台灣從大陸分裂出來」。
當您說這句話時，你指的是什麼？這句話的背後是否有特殊的意義？

謝謝

This is a follow-up question to a previous question. On U.S. policy towards
Taiwan, we usually hear U.S. opposition to Taiwan independence and the
emphasis on the opposition on the use of force. We also heard something that
you said a few days ago that went beyond the kind of statements that we have
heard in recent years, which is, The United States has no intention, has no
desire to separate Taiwan from the mainland. What do you mean by this
statement? Is there any particular meaning behind this?
Thank you.

伍夫維茲:

我想，這句話只是「我們反對台獨」的另一種說法罷了。如同你說的，我們的立場是
很清楚的。