Tuesday, September 25, 2007

為經濟日報上一堂經濟學

就所得效果言,貿易條件改善一如技術進步,但實質GDP卻忽略了前者。「實質GNI」能糾正實質GDP的缺失。若依實質GNI計算,2000-06年七年平均,南韓每年經濟成長率由上述5.2%大幅調低為3.4%,而台灣則由上述3.8%略調升為4.0%妄言「最近七年來經濟表現停滯不前」,馬先生的經濟學要死當!

林環牆, 部落格專論, 09-25-2007; 自由時報, 09-26-2007

馬英九先生曾說:「台灣經濟發展,在2000年前一直是亞洲四小龍的第一名。最近七年來經濟條件快速惡化,經濟表現停滯不前」。在一些特定媒體筆下,台灣經濟似已頹敗了,並被南韓超越。有趣的是,陳水扁總統九月十一日出席世界台灣商會聯合會年會,發表「台灣經濟比韓國好」的相反看法。

果然,聯合報系經濟日報於九月二十日發表的 「台灣經濟真比韓國好?」社論,否定陳總統的看法,謂:「將時間擴及陳總統執政的整個七年比較後,還有人相信陳總統所斷言,台灣經濟一定比韓國好?

筆者在此特為經濟日報社論上一堂經濟學,當然也希望民進黨上下仔細旁聽,不要因媒體唱衰,迷失於經濟數據,而不知如何擘化台灣經濟的戰略。

經濟成長率代表一國「總合產出」或「總合所得」在一定期間內的增長速度,的確是一般衡量一國經濟表現的關鍵指標。誠如該篇社論提及,民進黨「執政的2000-06年七年平均,台灣每年經濟成長率只有3.8%,較韓國的5.2%,落後四分之一以上。」照理說,台灣經濟表現應該是遠不如南韓。事實不然!

沒錯,一般各國都用實質GDP計算經濟成長率,台灣亦然。惟假使一國對外貿易條件(即「出口單價/進口單價」比率),出現持續單向惡化變動,實質GDP就會顯著高估這個國家的「總合所得」,因現行GDP統計並沒有考量貿易條件變動的損益。台灣如此,他國亦然。

就所得效果言,貿易條件改善一如技術進步,但實質GDP卻忽略了前者。

按亞銀資料,在民進黨執政之前的一九九九年,南韓貿易條件指數114.1,一路下滑至二OO六年的73.2,跌幅累計高達36%,即實質GDP,已顯著高估南韓「總合所得」。反觀台灣貿易條件指數則變動不大:一九九九年為91.9,二OO六年為92.6,仍微增0.8%,即實質GDP略為低估台灣「總合所得」。是以,在比較台、韓最近七年經濟表現時,根據實質GDP變動的經濟成長率,一定會錯得離譜!

所幸,「實質GNI」這項所得指標能反映貿易條件變動產生的損益,從而糾正實質GDP的缺失。按亞銀資料,若依實質GNI計算,2000-06年七年平均,南韓每年經濟成長率由上述5.2%大幅調低為3.4%,而台灣則由上述3.8%略調升為4.0%,結果,台灣贏了,符合筆者之前的邏輯推論。

實質GDP會因貿易條件變動,導致所得及經濟成長率失真,一直是經濟學界活躍的研究課題。針對此,聯合國簡稱93SNA的國民經濟會計制度也首度提出統計方法。台灣當然有經濟問題的一面,但妄言「最近七年來經濟條件快速惡化,經濟表現停滯不前」,馬先生的經濟學要死當!

(作者為美國「台灣公共政策諮議會」研究員暨北卡大學經濟學副教授)

繼續閱讀...

Sunday, September 16, 2007

自由是不可轉讓的人道要求

美國政府動輒反對台灣改變現狀,壓抑台灣人民「人道尊嚴不可轉讓的要求」,足見布希政府的國際主義,只剩「國家利益」,而看不到其過去標榜人道尊嚴的價值理念。

林環牆, 部落格專論, 09-16-2007;

美國政府在二OO二年九月發表長達三十一頁的「美國國家安全戰略」報告,布希總統在序文中說:「自由是人道尊嚴不可轉讓(Nonnegotiable)的要求,是每一個文明裡每一個人與生俱來的權利。」該報告內文進一步闡釋:「美國必須堅毅地聳立守護這些人道尊嚴不可轉讓的要求:法治、節制國家絕對權力、言論自由、信仰自由、平等公義 、尊重女性。」

然而,對照最近美國副助理國務卿柯慶生發表的對台政策演說 (英文演說全文附在文末),布希政府外交政策出現嚴重的雙重標準,傷害了台灣人民的感情,以及台灣人民長期追求民主自由的努力。同時再次凸顯布希政府推行的「國際主義」,也是美國國家安全戰略的基石,已經出現缺口,因為人道價值與國家利益融合的戰略觀,已不再雙軌並行,而是分離和虛偽。

柯慶生的演說,除了重申美國政府不支持台灣加入需要國家身份的國際組織的老調外,終於也較不戰略模糊地代表美國政府提出對台政策的框架與底線:

一、美國所以持續關切台灣及台灣的安全,是基於戰略、道德、及法律三項要求。

二、一個強大而走溫和路線的台灣,攸關台灣人民立即與長期安全的需要;否則,會傷害到台灣本身,危及區域和平,以及威脅美國利益。

三、美國必須強烈反對台灣之名入聯公投,因為它旨在改變現狀,純屬法律範疇,會傷害到台、美雙方利益。

四、美國定義自己的利益,也據此定義,詮釋東亞的區域發展,因此聲稱美國和北京協調其對台政策,是無的放矢。

柯慶生強調,演說的每一件事,都是基於一個認知:即中國對台灣日增的軍事威脅,以及中國拒決排除對台動武。美國是台灣的朋友,也是在太平洋制衡中國崛起的關鍵力量。台灣政府自然必須審慎研究與因應美國政府傳達的訊息。筆者建議,台灣政府也應同樣循此「戰略」、「道德」、及「法律」三項要求,為台灣及其人民辯護。

在戰略面,建構一個強大的民主台灣,不是只有軍事,也絕對需要一個多邊開放的經貿平台,但是美國政府向北京叩頭,始終推辭不願與台灣締結自由貿易協定,而東協+中國的區域整合,台灣又遭北京排擠。在美、中如此聯手設置的框袈下,奢言「強大而溫和」的台灣,足見強權的虛偽。

在道德面,美國政府私自劃下紅線,反對台灣之名入聯公投,等於在逼迫台灣人民放棄「自由」,或即布希總統所謂「人道尊嚴不可轉讓的要求」,這不是雙重標準,是什麼?

法律面,自一九五二年舊金山合約生效後,台灣及澎湖諸島即不再是任何國家的領土,而是屬於台灣人民集體擁有。是以,台灣人民在台灣島上行使民主與自由抉擇,如何會威脅區域和平?如果會,那也是因為中國政府毫無節制地在台灣海峽濫用絕對的國家權力所致。

美國政府動輒反對台灣改變現狀,壓抑台灣人民「人道尊嚴不可轉讓的要求」,足見布希政府的國際主義,只剩「國家利益」,而看不到其過去標榜人道尊嚴的價值理念。

(作者為美國「台灣公共政策諮議會」研究員暨北卡大學經濟學副教授)


_______________________________________________________

柯慶生 (Thomas J. Christensen) 對台政策演說

A Strong and Moderate Taiwan

Thomas J. Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Speech to U.S.-Taiwan Business Council
Defense Industry Conference, Annapolis, Maryland
September 11, 2007

Vice Minister Ko Cheng-heng, Dr. Su Chi, Rupert, other distinguished guests, I am delighted to be able to speak today at this important event. Many thanks to all of you for being here – especially our friends from Taiwan, who have taken time from busy schedules and traveled so far. I would also like to thank the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, which has established this conference as the premier annual venue for discussing Taiwan’s security. As the State Department’s representative, I will touch on broad issues in Taiwan security in my remarks this morning, leaving detailed questions of defense strategy and arms procurement to the military experts. My remarks represent the agreed views of the United States Government. I invite you to consider my comments in that light.

This conference is timely. In the year ahead, we will again celebrate Taiwan’s democracy, and we will also closely follow how Taiwan’s leaders navigate the often difficult circumstances in relations across the Taiwan Strait. Their actions will be a major factor in determining whether the interests of their people are protected; whether Taiwan will continue to flourish in an environment of peace and security; or whether all that Taiwan has achieved might be put at risk by cross-Strait tensions or, worse still, conflict.

For reasons that I will elaborate in a moment, the United States has an abiding interest in a stable and peaceful relationship across the Taiwan Strait in which Taiwan thrives. Anything that makes Taiwan stronger and safer is good for the United States, and, for obvious reasons, is also good for the people of Taiwan. Anything that places such peace and stability at risk runs directly against the interests of the United States. For these reasons, we look to Taiwan to adopt strategies toward cross-Strait relations that combine strength – both military and economic – with moderation. When we see policies that diverge from these goals, we owe it to ourselves and to the Taiwan people to speak out.

Origins of U.S. Interest

I would first like to address two fundamental questions: why does the United States care about Taiwan’s security, and what is the basis for our expression of views on this important subject? The answers to the first are straight-forward. As a Pacific power with global interests and obligations, the United States has a natural interest in peace throughout Asia. Because the Taiwan Strait is a potential flashpoint for conflict, the area demands our constant attention. Meanwhile, through our decades of close friendship with the people of Taiwan, we have acquired deep admiration for their achievements under difficult circumstances and a special concern for their democracy, freedom from coercion, and prosperity. A successful Taiwan is a beacon for East Asia and beyond. Finally, U.S. support for Taiwan is enshrined in U.S. domestic law in the Taiwan Relations Act. In short, strategic, moral, and legal requirements compel a continuous U.S. interest in Taiwan and its security.

The same arguments, in turn, give us a legitimate voice on issues touching on Taiwan security. Naturally, judgments about how to defend Taiwan rest ultimately with the people of Taiwan, as articulated through their democratic institutions. We respect that prerogative. At the same time, to defend our own interests, satisfy our legal obligations, and, indeed, support people whom we regard as old friends, we believe we are right to express our views, including our real concerns, regarding Taiwan’s security policies. Because Taiwan is a democracy, the Taiwan people will decide for themselves how to respond to the views expressed by their friends in the United States.

With that, I would like to speak today about Taiwan’s security in the broadest sense and about the factors that are critical to sustaining it. Everything I say here is based on a recognition of the growing PRC military threat to Taiwan posed by the fast-paced military build-up opposite Taiwan and by Beijing’s refusal to rule out the use of force against Taiwan. The United States has demonstrated its rejection of any coercion of Taiwan through both its defensive arms sales to Taipei and maintenance of our unilateral capability to respond to such coercion, if our President were so to choose. Actions speak louder than words, and no one on either side of the Strait has an excuse for being ignorant of U.S. expectations and determination to protect our own interests. At the same time, our resolute defense of these interests has benefited the region for decades, providing the indispensable conditions for stability in the Strait, a dramatic increase in prosperity on both sides, rich and growing cross-Strait connections, and a democratic transformation on Taiwan that is an inspiration to the world.

The Need for Taiwan’s Strength and Moderation

As I stated at the outset, the United States believes that a strong and moderate Taiwan is essential to the immediate and long-term security needs of the people of Taiwan. Anything less than strength and moderation leaves Taiwan vulnerable, endangers regional peace, and potentially threatens U.S. interests. Let me address these two fundamental elements in turn.

A Strong Taiwan

A strong Taiwan is, very simply, one that maintains the military capacity to withstand coercion for an extended period of time. To the extent Beijing knows it cannot subdue Taiwan swiftly -- before the international community would be able to react -- deterrence is reinforced. Taiwan’s prosperity and social stability are, of course, additional sources of strength, but the military dimension is indispensable. A Taiwan that can defend itself is a major factor for peace. A strong Taiwan can also negotiate with Beijing with greater confidence and thereby pursue more effectively durable, equitable arrangements for cross-Strait peace.

After a frankly disappointing performance for several years, there recently has been good news in this area. In budgetary terms alone, Taipei has done much to provide for its defense. For some time the Taiwan defense budget declined as a percentage of GDP. Even during that period, however, it remained substantial – higher than in all but a few other Asian peers. As a portion of a large economy, those budgets provided a basis for some progress. This year, the defense budget has at last begun to increase as a portion of GDP. We congratulate Taiwan’s leaders from all major parties for finding a way to break this logjam.

Funding is only part of the defense equation, of course. Taiwan also is pursuing smarter priorities and defensive strategies. It is allocating more money to hardening and sustainment, and it is embracing modern warfighting doctrine, taking advantage of Taiwan’s greatest practical asset, its geography. Taiwan and its surroundings constitute an intrinsically challenging military environment, and wise defense expenditures and planning can keep it that way.

U.S. arms sales have played an important role in keeping Taiwan strong, and, of course, today’s audience has a special interest in the subject. The Bush Administration demonstrated its recognition of the U.S. role when it approved its 2001 arms package. The Administration’s commitment to fulfillment of TRA requirements remains beyond question. The principal issue in Taiwan’s defense, however, is not whether Taipei buys a particular weapon system or whether that system comes from domestic factories or from abroad. The principal issue is the substance of Taiwan’s overall defensive strategy and the maintenance of core capacities to sustain it. And the decision on that strategy, once again, rests with the Taiwan people themselves. Frankly, an abiding U.S. concern is that Taiwan as yet has still not had the sort of sustained, general debate on security that we think it deserves. We hope that, in the coming election season, the people of Taiwan will demand of their political candidates an intelligent and productive discussion of this profoundly important subject.

At the same time, I want to give credit to both Taiwan’s ruling party and the opposition for the very real progress that they have made in recent years. Under President Chen’s leadership, the MND has begun compiling more sophisticated budgets and sought increases in overall funding. For its part, the opposition-controlled legislature has performed its role by vetting and passing these budgets, giving the executive branch most of what it requested. The United States welcomes these developments as hopeful signs that we are witnessing a maturation of the public debate on Taiwan, one in which political leaders lay aside damaging accusations against one another’s basic patriotism and agree to place defense above partisan politics. Whether or not these recent events become a long-term trend will depend on leaders from all political parties, including many in the audience today.

A Moderate Taiwan

I would now like to turn to the other indispensable dimension of Taiwan’s security, a moderate, sophisticated, effective political approach toward cross-Strait relations. Without moderation, Taiwan’s security will be compromised, no matter how much money Taipei spends on defense and no matter how wisely those defense dollars have been allocated. On the other hand, all things being equal, a moderate approach by Taipei to relations across the Strait will reduce the challenges faced by Taiwan’s armed forces.

Taiwan occupies a delicate and, indeed, unique political position. The absence of a resolution of cross-Strait disputes causes understandable frustration among many people, but it’s a fact of life that the majority of Taiwan citizens understand. That recognition is reflected in opinion polling that shows powerful, consistent support for the status quo.

In terms of security, the proposition is reasonably simple: as long as Taiwan maintains a credible defensive capability, the chief threats to its welfare are political actions by Taipei itself that could trigger Beijing’s use of force. The United States has repeatedly made clear that the use of force would be unacceptable, and we have repeatedly called on Beijing to demonstrate more military transparency, to cease its arms buildup opposite Taiwan, and to reduce its armed threat to Taiwan. But as much as we oppose Beijing’s threat to use force, we also take it seriously, and Taipei cannot afford to do otherwise. It is for this reason that Taiwan’s security is inextricably linked to the avoidance of needlessly provocative behavior. This does not mean that Taipei should or can be passive in the face of PRC pressure. But it means that responsible leadership in Taipei has to anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations.

The USG’s recent expression of concern about certain policies advocated by the Chen Administration has flowed directly from this perspective. I want to emphasize that the overall U.S.-Taiwan relationship is as close and mutually beneficial as ever. The friendship between the American people and the people of Taiwan has deep roots and continues to flourish. The disagreements that have arisen occur in a comparatively narrow part of the U.S.-Taiwan agenda. Since it is the part that directly relates to peace and stability, however, the disagreement is very important.

In particular, we have expressed special concern about Chen Administration support for a proposed referendum on UN membership in the name of Taiwan. Much has been said on Taiwan about U.S. positions, a lot of it wrong. Let me try to provide some clarity.

The United States is not opposed to referenda; Taiwan is as entitled to hold referenda as is any other democracy. But the topic and content of any particular referendum must be considered. A referendum on applying to the UN without the suggestion of name change as part of that referendum – while striking us as odd and unproductive - would not elicit a very strong reaction from the United States. Given that everyone knows the bulk of Taiwan’s citizens would like to see Taipei apply to the United Nations and given that such a referendum would have no prospect of improving the likelihood of success in such an application, everybody would know that support for such a referendum would only be useful in domestic political posturing in Taiwan. For the United States’ part, the matter of how to respond would be straightforward: we would reiterate that we do not support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations that require statehood and therefore would not support such a referendum.

The particular referendum supported by President Chen concerns us considerably more than would a generic referendum on applying to the UN. What worries us, very specifically, is the issue of name change. This draft referendum raises the question of what Taiwan should be called in the international community. Moreover, it does so in what could be interpreted by many to be a legally-binding popular vote. In an ideal world, we would not have to worry about this. In the vernacular, we all speak of “Taiwan.” The State Department does, people in Taiwan do, even Beijing does. So why worry about using the same word in this more formal political and legal context? The simple reality is that, in the world of cross-Strait relations, political symbolism matters, and disagreements over it could be the source of major tensions or even conflict. President Chen recognized the importance of such “symbolic” issues in 2000 and 2004 when he promised our President and the international community not to pursue a change in Taiwan’s official name, and he has reaffirmed that promise repeatedly.

It is the apparent pursuit of name change in the referendum, therefore, that makes the initiative appear to us to be a step intended to change the status quo. Arguments that the referendum, even if passed, would not amount to a pursuit of name change, frankly, strike us as purely legalistic. After all, if the specific nomenclature does not matter, why include it in the referendum in the first place? At a fundamental level, such legalistic arguments from supporters of the referendum make it seem that they do not take seriously Taiwan’s commitments to the United States and the international community, are willing to ignore the security interests of Taiwan’s most steadfast friend, and are ready to put at some risk the security interests of the Taiwan people for short-term political gain. Our bottom line is that the downsides of such an initiative for Taiwan and U.S. interests are potentially large, and, as with any UN referendum, the benefits for Taiwan’s international status are non-existent, so we must oppose such an initiative strongly.

I would like to face head-on the accusation that the U.S. position on the referendum constitutes interference in Taiwan’s democracy. On behalf of the U.S. Government, I reject this accusation categorically. Given the decades of America’s commitment to Taiwan’s security and support for its democratization, the idea just does not stand up to scrutiny. The reality is that democracies can and do disagree over policies. It happens all the time around the world. Moreover, friends have an obligation to warn friends who are moving in an unwise direction. The U.S. obligation is even stronger, given our interest in Taiwan’s security. After all, it is not just Taiwan’s peace and stability that Taipei’s actions may threaten.

The United States has neither the power nor the right to tell the Taiwan people what they can and cannot do. As friends, however, we feel it is our obligation to warn that the content of this particular referendum is ill-conceived and potentially quite harmful. Bad public policy initiatives are made no better for being wrapped in the flag of “democracy.” Fortunately, if the referendum goes forward unchanged, we anticipate that Taiwan’s perceptive, intelligent citizens will see through the rhetoric and make a sound judgment that the referendum does not serve their interests because it will be fundamentally harmful to Taiwan’s external relations.

Beyond the obvious threat to stability in the Taiwan Strait, the United States also opposes the proposed referendum because it will do the exact opposite of what it promises: it will limit, not expand, Taiwan’s international space. Arguments to the contrary sound heroic, but they stand in opposition to the evidence all around us. I can say this to you with real experience, because it is the State Department that takes the lead in the U.S. Government in trying to help preserve and expand the Taiwan people’s international space. The frustrating truth is that needlessly provocative actions by Taipei strengthen Beijing’s hand in limiting Taiwan’s space and scare away potential friends who might help Taiwan.

This is again an area where we have to acknowledge a tough truth. Whether we like it or not, most countries in the world accept Beijing’s characterization of Taiwan, and, when energized, the PRC can call in overwhelming support to marginalize Taipei. The Taiwan people are, of course, long accustomed to PRC pressure, and we are certainly not telling them not to resist these efforts; our own position is far from passive. That said, Taipei needs to push back intelligently and in a sophisticated manner that plays to its strengths. Frontal assaults on Beijing’s sensitivities are bound to fail and, at the end of the day, leave Taipei further behind. The referendum on applying to the UN under the name Taiwan is just such a frontal assault with no hope of changing Taiwan’s actual status on the international stage while increasing cross-Strait tensions and alienating potential supporters of Taiwan’s increased international space.

I would like to emphasize that we do not like having to express publicly our disagreement with the Chen Administration on this or any other policy. Taiwan is a longstanding U.S. friend, and we do not like there to be gaps between us on important issues. I can assure you that we would not have done so had we not exhausted every private opportunity through consistent, unmistakable, and authoritative messages over an extended period of time. The problem here is not misunderstanding or lack of communications: it is that we believe this initiative is not good for Taiwan or us and that we have found ourselves with no alternative but to express our views directly to the Taiwan people.

A Confident Taiwan

While I am using this podium to convey tough truths, let me raise a more positive point that is not often mentioned but deserves to be: let me debunk the myth that the people of Taiwan are isolated or that Taiwan is an international orphan. Yes, Taipei has formal diplomatic relationships with only a small number of states, and it is not a member of the United Nations. The reality, however, is that Taiwan could not be the first world, democratic, commercial powerhouse it is if it were not extensively integrated into global society. Its citizens could not travel the world on business and pleasure, its airliners and freighters could not span the globe, and it could not be one of the world’s premier sources of information technology. Taipei may not have many embassies, but it has dozens of unofficial offices around the planet staffed with professional representatives who carry on the business of the people of Taiwan. In the trade arena alone, Taipei would be an economic backwater if it were not thoroughly linked into the dense web of global institutions that support international commerce. Many of Taipei’s most important relationships are unofficial, and yet genuine communication and cooperation goes on every day of the year.

To confirm this, just follow the news to see the steady stream of senior Taiwan officials who visit Washington and other parts of the United States. People often focus on the absence of visits at the highest levels, but those are infrequent in any relationship. For anybody who bothers to pay attention, it quickly becomes clear that the U.S.-Taiwan dialogue is comparable in substance and scope to that with any other medium-size partner.

I am not trying to downplay the genuine limitations on the international space of the Taiwan people, and I appreciate the frustrations that these must generate. At the end of the day, Taiwan occupies an unusual place in the global community. For Taiwan’s elected leadership, the challenge ahead is how to maximize the people’s interest within this context. Fortunately, Taiwan has done remarkably well, and, when Taipei plays its hand well, it has a range of positive opportunities in the years ahead.

Strategic U.S. Interests

The United States has a consistent policy toward the Taiwan Strait. Year in and year out, and over administrations from both major parties, that policy has provided great benefits not only for the American people but also for the people of Taiwan. If there is any doubt about this, just consider Taiwan’s circumstances at the time of de-recognition nearly 30 years ago now. Its vibrant democracy and prosperous, first world society today offer a vastly better life to the people of Taiwan. And as a friend of Taiwan, as an indispensable supporter of its democracy and freedoms, the United States ranks second to none. Americans can feel justifiably proud for having done the right thing, again and again.

While our support for Taiwan is beyond question, nobody here will be surprised if I say that the United States defines its own interests and interprets East Asian regional developments for itself. There is, therefore, absolutely no foundation to the assertion that the United States coordinates its Taiwan policy with Beijing. It just does not happen. Words like coordination and cooperation simply do not apply to the relationship between Washington and Beijing on Taiwan policy. Do Chinese views influence U.S. thinking? Of course: we would be reckless, as would Taipei, if we did not take them into consideration. But I can assure you that no USG official at any level spends any amount of time coordinating our policies toward Taiwan with Beijing. Rumors of such coordination abound, but as with many rumors, they have no basis in fact.

By the same token, while we have a close, friendly relationship with Taipei, we also do not let Taipei define our positions. For well-established reasons, the United States has declared its opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo by either side of the Taiwan Strait. Some Taiwan leaders in recent years have asserted that Taiwan independence is the status quo that should be defended. On that point, let me be perfectly clear: while U.S. opposition to Chinese coercion of Taiwan is beyond question, we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state, and we do not accept the argument that provocative assertions of Taiwan independence are in any way conducive to maintenance of the status quo or peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. For the reasons I have given above, in fact, we rank such assertions along with the referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan as needless provocations that are patently not in the best interests of the Taiwan people or of the United States.

Conclusion

Let me bring this presentation to a close by returning to the fundamental issue that has brought all of us together here. Regardless of whether members of this audience are officials in President Chen’s Administration, opposition party leaders, U.S. corporate executives, journalists, scholars, or U.S. Government officials, we all share an abiding interest in the security of Taiwan, an important friend of the United States occupying a delicate position in a sensitive neighborhood. The United States Government believes that a strong and moderate Taiwan is essential to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and we will remain the steadfast partner of the people of Taiwan as they seek to advance their interests in the years ahead.



Released on September 11, 2007

繼續閱讀...