Google
WWW を検索 「園田義明めも。」を検索

日韓台共同「世界の中心で核武装を叫ぶ」運動をポール・ケインに捧げよう2011/12/02 07:48

日韓台共同「世界の中心で核武装を叫ぶ」運動をポール・ケインに捧げよう


米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズに掲載されたポール・ケインの台湾売り渡し論。
リストラ売却を加えた新手のオフショア・バランシング登場か。

その内容はとてもとても現実的とは思えない。

そんなことをすれば台湾はすぐさま核武装。日本も韓国も当然核武装。
東アジアに核兵器大量生産祭りの宴。

しかし、「米国にとっての最も大きな安全保障上の脅威は米国債務である」のは事実。
「カネの切れ目が縁の切れ目」で何をしでかすかわからない。

ならば、日韓台共同「世界の中心で核武装を叫ぶ」運動をポール・ケインに捧げよう。
「その標的が中国のみとは限らない」とのキャッチコピーも添えてあげようか。
日本が抱える大量の米国債を売却して核兵器開発費に充ててもいいんだぜ。


<関連記事引用>

▼米国 経済救済のために台湾を売り渡すのか?
1.12.2011, 14:27
http://japanese.ruvr.ru/2011/12/01/61308104.html

 米紙「ニューヨーク・タイムズ」で発表された意外な提案が大きな議論を呼んでいる。これは米国が台湾への支持を取りやめることによって、中国が米国に対して有している1兆ドルに上る債権を放棄するというものだ。これによってオバマ大統領の再選が確実になるだろうとされている。

 このような意外なアイディアを考え付いたのは、イラク戦争に参戦したポール・ケイン氏だ。ケイン氏はかつてハーバード大学で学術研究員として勤務した経験があり、国際安全保障問題に取り組んでいた。ケイン氏は、冷戦型の思考を止め、経済的繁栄のほうが軍事的業績よりもはるかに重要であるという単純な事実に目を向けるよう呼びかけている。

 ケイン氏はこのような考えから、米国が台湾を軍事的に支援するのをやめることは、米国の国益に反するものではない、と論じている。台湾問題の解決は大きな象徴的な意味を持つものであり、しかも台湾経済は中国経済に確実に統合される途上にあり、大陸との結合は不可避のものだ。そしてもし台湾が最終的に中国に統合されるのであれば、台湾は米国にとって戦略的意味を持つものではなくなる。

 また中国にとっても、台湾問題が解決されることによって、多額の軍事予算の負担から解放されることになる。台湾関連で中国は毎年300億ドルから500億ドルの軍事予算を割り当てている。

 モスクワ国立大学アジアアフリカ諸国大学のアンドレイ・カルネエフ副総長は、VOR「ロシアの声」とのインタビューのなかで、このようなアイディアがそれほど現実離れしたものではないことを指摘し、次のように述べている。

―これはオバマ政権が台湾に対して感じている増大する不満を反映しているものといえます。米国が中国から譲歩を引き出すために、台湾を犠牲にするといったようなシナリオの現実性が議論されているのも偶然ではありません。このような傾向があるというのは多くの人が感じていることです。これは米国が中国経済に大きく依存していることが背景にあります。

 また他の専門家らは、米国がアジア太平洋地域において軍事プレゼンスを拡大するなかでも、台湾へのコミットメントが少なくなっていくことがあり得ると指摘している。しかも米国はすでに台湾に対するF-16戦闘機の売却を拒否している。

 おそらく我々はまったく新しい世界を迎えようとしているようだ。米軍の軍事力も中国にとっての抑止力とはならず、逆に米国経済の中国への依存が、米国をして新たな行動に駆り立てている。

 ケイン氏は、「ニューヨーク・タイムズ」紙の論説のなかで、元統合参謀本部議長を務めたマイケル・マレン氏の言葉を引用し、「米国にとっての最も大きな安全保障上の脅威は、米国の債務である。」ことを指摘している。

 その意味で、台湾を犠牲にするというアイディアはそれほど奇抜なものではないのかもしれない。


▼米で台湾売却論や日・韓売却論=アジア諸国を自国の資産視する米国―SP華字紙
配信日時:2011年11月28日 19時44分
http://www.recordchina.co.jp/group.php?groupid=56411&type=1

2011年11月25日、シンガポール華字紙・聯合早報に「日韓は米国の資産なのか?」と題した中国人読者の寄稿が掲載された。以下はその内容。

「米国は台湾を放棄する代わりに中国に債務を免除してもらえば良い」と主張したハーバード大学研究員の寄稿が米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズに最近掲載され、物議を醸している。さらに米インターネット新聞ハフィントン・ポストには「台湾を売るくらいなら、日本や韓国を売れば良い」とする政治評論家の反論も掲載された。

パッと見れば両者の意見は対立しているようだが、実は「日本も韓国も台湾も米国の資産」という考えでは一致している。これらの国・地域は彼らにとって独立した自主権を持たず、自由にどうにかして良い存在のようだ。「売る」という言葉に米国の帝国主義的考えや実用主義哲学(プラグマティズム)が存分に表れている。

パネッタ米国防長官は先日、中国とインドを「米国の軍事的脅威」と発言した。その後、慌てて弁明していたが、ついポロッと本音が出たのだろう。中国はこうした二面性にとっくに気づいていたが、米国を真のパートナーだと思っていたインド人は深く傷ついたに違いない。日本人や韓国人も米国人の本音を知り、嫌な気分でいるだろう。

こうしたことから考えると、米軍のオーストラリア駐留も対中国だけでなく、インドネシアやインドも念頭に置いたものに違いない。米国の著名な政治学者、ジョン・ミアシャイマー氏はこう指摘している。「米国は他の国が発展して、その競争相手になることを決して許さない」と。彼らはどんなに友好的な相手でも決して容赦することはない。

だが、アジア人も馬鹿ではない。先日のASEAN首脳会議ではインドのシン首相と温家宝(ウェン・ジアバオ)首相が会談で、両国の戦略パートナー関係を強化することで合意した。世界中のどこにも中国とインドの共同発展を止められる勢力はない。アジア人は自己意識に目覚めたのだ。米国は日韓などアジア諸国が自分たちの資産ではないことに気付くべきだろう。

日本経済が目覚ましい勢いで台頭した時、米国は日本との盟友関係を無視して日本を脅威だとし、叩きのめした。これが米国の帝国主義的な国策なのだ。日本人も韓国人もインド人も、そして中国人も目を覚まそう。アジア人同士が協力せず、いがみ合っているばかりでは、米国の資産に成り下がってしまうということを。(翻訳・編集/NN)


▼アメリカ太平洋軍顧問、「台湾放棄論」に反論
2011/11/21 18:25:48
http://japan.cna.com.tw/Detail.aspx?Type=Classify&NewsID=201111210010

(台北 21日 中央社)先週付の米紙「ニューヨークタイムズ」で「台湾放棄論」が掲載されたことをうけて、アメリカのリベラル系インターネット新聞「ハフィントン・ポスト」は18日、アメリカ太平洋軍顧問の政治評論家、デビッド・ミラー(David Miller)氏の反論文を掲載した。

「台湾放棄論」は元ハーバード大研究員のポール・ケイン(Paul V Kane)氏が発表したもので、「経済は軍事より重要」として「台湾を放棄し、経済を救済しよう」と主張する内容だった。

これに対しミラー氏は、「Why You Should Care About Taiwan」(なぜ台湾を気にかけなければならないのか)と題し、「もし敵意を露わにする隣国のそばに位置する小さな科学技術先進国が、突然アメリカとの防衛協定に疑念を抱いたら、その国はすぐに核兵器を大量生産するだろう」「そうなれば、APEC会議の議題は貿易や為替、投資問題ではなくなり、放射能汚染や核兵器削減について話し合わねばならなくなるだろう」と警告した。

ミラー氏はまた、「もし我々が台湾を売ったとしたら、それは自分たちが宣言している“特別な(exceptional)”国家という位置づけを放棄することになる。」と強調、アフガニスタン再建に4750億米ドル(約36兆5千億円)をつぎ込んで“安全で自由な民主国家“を目指したアメリカが台湾放棄論を論じるのは、民主の放棄にあたると批判した。


Op-Ed Contributor
To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan
By PAUL V. KANE
Published: November 10, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/to-save-our-economy-ditch-taiwan.html

WITH a single bold act, President Obama could correct the country’s course, help assure his re-election, and preserve our children’s future.

He needs to redefine America’s mindset about national security away from the old defense mentality that American power derives predominantly from our military might, rather than from the strength, agility and competitiveness of our economy. He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess.

As Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared last year, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”

There are dozens of initiatives President Obama could undertake to strengthen our economic security. Here is one: He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015.

This would be a most precious prize to the cautious men in Beijing, one they would give dearly to achieve. After all, our relationship with Taiwan, as revised in 1979, is a vestige of the cold war.

Today, America has little strategic interest in Taiwan, which is gradually integrating with China economically by investing in and forming joint ventures with mainland Chinese firms. The island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable.

But the status quo is dangerous; if Taiwanese nationalist politicians decided to declare independence or if Beijing’s hawks tired of waiting for integration and moved to take Taiwan by force, America could suddenly be drawn into a multitrillion-dollar war.

There will be “China hawks” who denounce any deal on Taiwan as American capitulation, but their fear of a Red China menacing Asia is anachronistic. Portraying the United States as a democratic Athens threatened by China’s autocratic Sparta makes for sensational imagery, but nothing could be further from reality.

The battle today is between competing balance sheets, and it is fought in board rooms; it is not a geopolitical struggle to militarily or ideologically “dominate” the Pacific.

In fact, China and the United States have interlocking economic interests. China’s greatest military asset is actually the United States Navy, which keeps the sea lanes safe for China’s resources and products to flow freely.

China would want a deal on Taiwan for several reasons. First, Taiwan is Beijing’s unspoken but hard-to-hide top priority for symbolic and strategic reasons; only access to water and energy mean more to Chinese leaders.

Second, a deal would open a clearer path for the gradual, orderly integration of Taiwan into China.

Third, it would undermine hard-line militarists who use the Taiwan issue to stoke nationalist flames, sideline pro-Western technocrats and extract larger military budgets. And finally, it would save China the considerable sums it has been spending on a vast military buildup.

Jeffrey Lewis, an East Asia expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, estimated that one-fourth to one-third of China’s defense spending goes to forces in the vicinity of Taiwan — at a cost of $30 billion to $50 billion a year. A deal for the resolution of Taiwan’s status could save China $500 billion in defense spending by 2020 and allow Beijing to break even by 2030, while reducing America’s debt and serving our broader economic interests.

The Chinese leadership would be startled — for a change — if the United States were to adopt such a savvy negotiating posture. Beyond reducing our debt, a Taiwan deal could pressure Beijing to end its political and economic support for pariah states like Iran, North Korea and Syria and to exert a moderating influence over an unstable Pakistan. It would be a game changer.

The deal would eliminate almost 10 percent of our national debt without raising taxes or cutting spending; it would redirect American foreign policy away from dated cold-war-era entanglements and toward our contemporary economic and strategic interests; and it would eliminate the risk of involvement in a costly war with China.

Critics will call this proposal impractical, even absurd. They will say it doesn’t have a prayer of passing Congress, and doesn’t acknowledge political realities. They might be right — today.

But by pursuing this agenda, Mr. Obama would change the calculus and political reality. And Congress should see a deal with China as an opportunity to make itself credible again.

Debt is not in itself bad, when managed, but today’s unsustainable debt will suffocate our economy, our democracy and our children’s futures.

By tackling the issue of Taiwan, Mr. Obama could address much of what ails him today, sending a message of bold foreign policy thinking and fiscal responsibility that would benefit every citizen and be understood by every voter.

Paul V. Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a Marine who served in Iraq.


Why You Should Care About Taiwan
Posted: 11/18/11 01:15 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-millar/why-you-should-care-about_2_b_1001169.html

It was a bright, sunny day as Chinese President Hu Jintao woke up for his first full day at the APEC summit in Hawaii last Friday. Everything seemed just perfect.

Maybe it was the fresh, clean air coming off the Pacific. Maybe it was the tropical water, the sun, the aloha spirit of the Hawaiian people. Or, maybe it was the op-ed in the New York Times, calmly proposing that the U.S. sell out Taiwan in return for China writing off America's $1.14 trillion debt.

"With a single bold act," Paul Kane writes, "President Obama could correct the country's course, help assure his re-election, and preserve our children's future... [through] a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement." After all, Kane reasons, "America has little strategic interest in Taiwan... [and] the island's absorption into mainland China is inevitable."

In another era, Kane's article might have been interpreted as a clever nod to Jonathan Swift's treatise, "A Modest Proposal", in which Swift lampoons the British aristocracy by satirically advocating that poor Irish be permitted to sell their children for food. "I know!" it seems to say. "Let's sell out a thriving, peaceful democracy to an oppressive dictatorship -- it's the perfect solution to the debt we incurred from all our saving-democracy-from-oppressive-dictatorships." Put that way, you could almost be fooled into think it was satire -- but it's not, not as far as I can tell. I imagine that the fact that we're even debating this must make someone in Beijing very, very happy.

Kane's proposal shows initiative and creativity, but he fundamentally misunderstands our relationship with Asia. The fact that we are $1.14 trillion in debt to China is not, per se, a good thing -- but it may be a good thing for peace. After all, there's very little to be gained by going to war with your biggest debtor, to say nothing of your biggest export market -- and keeping the peace between the superpowers goes a long way toward helping all nations in the region succeed. And while Kane may see Taiwan's absorption into China as "inevitable," it certainly does not seem inevitable to the 23 million people currently living under a freely-elected government in Taipei, nor to the host of American allies that look at Taiwan as a bellwether of U.S. commitment to the region.

After all, if the U.S. is willing to sell out Taiwan for a few bucks, why not Korea? Why not Japan? And what would you do if you were a small, technologically-advanced nation sitting in the shadow of a sometimes-hostile neighbor, suddenly in doubt about whether you could rely on your defense agreement with the U.S.? I know what I would do: I would build nuclear weapons, lots of them, and fast. And what do other countries do when all their neighbors start a nuclear program? They arm themselves too. Soon, annual APEC meetings are no longer about ho-hum trade routes, exchange rates, and investment -- they're about radiation poisoning and nuclear disarmament. Not exactly the cheery end to a vestigial cold war that Kane envisions.

But it's more than that. It's undeniable that much of China has been taught to see Taiwan as an aggravating, irritating, barely tolerable remnant of colonialism that will never be right until it is reunited with the motherland. Chinese leaders indeed do see Taiwan as a precious prize that they would "give dearly" to retrieve, and they would be heartened -- to say the least -- by such a cynical, unprincipled, and frankly reasonable change in U.S. policy. But would they come through on their side of the deal?

Not likely. Because negotiation with the Chinese is almost never a "grand bargain" of the type Kane proposes, but rather a subtle and ever-shifting adjustment of pieces on twenty different chessboards. An open admission that the debt issue had weakened American resolve to the point of putting Taiwan on the table would only confirm what many in China already suspect-- that the U.S. is on the decline and soon will be unable to fulfill its commitments in East Asia. But of course, if the Chinese became convinced that the U.S. had reached that point, why compromise at all? The smartest thing to do would be to happily agree to the arrangement -- maybe even write off a few hundred-million -- and then watch as the U.S. government goes around convincing Congress and Joe Public that Taiwan is no longer worth fighting for. By the time they were done, you could just accept Taiwan's capitulation gracefully and still call in the remaining debt.

But all of this ignores the most obvious problem, which is that if we sell out Taiwan we would also give up our claim to ever having been an "exceptional" country. When we took over Afghanistan -- a $475 billion project -- we said it was because we were going to build a safe, free, and democratic nation where terrorists could no longer hide and plot attacks. When we went into Iraq -- a$803 billion project -- we claimed it was because we were freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal and capricious dictator. Whatever you might think about the rationality or strategic wisdom of these two decisions (I was firmly for the first, firmly against the second), we resolved to finish the job because we could not simply abandon a newly free country to the forces of tyranny.

If we were to give up Taiwan, in the way Mr. Kane suggests, we might gain the whole world but forfeit our soul. What would it mean to be American, once we give up on democracy? And although I have lived on Taiwan, and I do know people there, this is not a sentiment that comes from being a Taiwan nationalist or a "China hawk." If the people of Taiwan elect, in their own time, to rejoin the mainland -- or even if Beijing is savvy enough to make it a fait accompli-- I can live with that. People have a right to determine their own fate. But to give up Taiwan just because it's expedient would be to betray our basic values as a nation -- a nation of people who threw off oppression and then refused to be cowed by the large hegemonic power that wanted us back. As Americans, we should all think about that before we start debating what a small island in the Pacific is worth to us.


<画像引用>

Paul V. Kane
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-V-Kane/114489801900038