關於台灣關係法

剛好Richard Bush寫了一篇文章叫 "Thoughts on the Taiwan Relations Act", 裡面特別去釐清了一些大家對TRA常有的誤解, 常引用其security provision但卻可能有不符合實際情況的interpretation. 比如說:

"The TRA provisions that are most cited but less understood are the security sections. Individuals who assert that the TRA requires that the United States sells arms to Taiwan and comes to its defense exaggerate the legal meaning of the act. In fact, to ensure that President Carter would approve the bill, the congressional managers quietly adjusted its language in a way that reduced the bill’s impact on Executive Branch policy.

Take arms sales, for example. First of all, in U.S. legislative practice, the Congress uses the word “shall” to ensure that the executive takes the desired action. But the TRA says that “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles. . . .” That is more a statement of intention than a binding mandate for action. Second, there is no indication either in the legislation itself or the legislative history to indicate how, substantively, the U.S. government should decide Taiwan’s equipment needs. Obviously, U.S. sales to Taiwan would vary tremendously depending on the criteria used to gauge its requirements. Third, the bill seems to require that the administration take congressional views into account during the decision-making process. But it qualifies that “requirement” with the phrase “in accordance with law.” All administrations have therefore believed that the obligation to Congress is simply to notify it at the end of the process. In short, the TRA does not mandate the sale of arms to Taiwan because the Act is not self-enforcing in either a substantive or procedural sense. "

這就讓我想到最近家鋒提到的自由時報與中時關於 "every expectation" 的解讀方式的爭論...美國人還真是會玩文字遊戲阿!讓我們推敲了半天有時候還會錯意, 不過中文也是有很多英語系國家很難翻譯的用詞, 特別是對岸的領導人有時候會用一些詞讓大家都不知該怎麼翻譯才好, 像是胡錦濤用的北方方言 "不折騰" 可就難倒了大家阿...(我去查了一下, "折騰"的意思是有直路不走, 偏偏要走彎路,給自己找麻煩, 比如說文革就是典型的民族折騰)