伊莉討論區

標題: [蔡總統錯用雷根言論 張競：幕僚作業粗糙][中國時報][2018年08月14日] [打印本頁]

---

作者: joey213213    時間: 2018-8-15 11:09 AM     標題: [蔡總統錯用雷根言論 張競：幕僚作業粗糙][中國時報][2018年08月14日]



總統蔡英文13日過境美國，在參訪雷根總統圖書館時，曾在講話中引述前美國總統雷根所言：「任何事情都是可以談的，除了我們的自由及未來，是不能被妥協的」。但專家指出，這與雷根的原文內容有所差異，總統幕僚工作應再加強。

中華戰略學會研究員張競14日受訪時表示，蔡英文總統講話後，中文媒體紛紛轉載，但是非常遺憾的是，到目前為止，總統府幕僚人員並未適時製作中英文新聞稿，讓全國民眾與媒體知道雷根總統所講原文真貌為何？而雷根本人又是在何時何地，以及對誰講出此項感言。

張競說，當各個媒體新聞發布後，就有諸多人士希望找到此語出處，但查遍雷根演說稿與公開發言，目前尚未找到真正答案。而最接近蔡英文總統所講文詞者，僅為1977年2月6日，雷根尚未出馬競選總統時，在共和黨保守派第四屆年度行動大會（Fourth Annual Conservative Political Action Conference）上，以「新共和黨」（The New Republican Party）為題演說中，所提到的下列文字：

「The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. （美國必須永遠為舉世和平與自由，以及個人權利而奮鬥）We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. （我們必須與盟友組成堅強夥伴，以便保衛自由）We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that can not be compromised. （我們隨時都願意協商歧見，但在此同時，亦以同樣決心堅持美國理想絕不妥協）」

張競表示，元首出訪幕僚作業務必週延，特別是君無戲言，到外國總統紀念圖書館公開講話，講話時引述其金言玉句，本來是美事一件。但是總統講話時間不到一兩分鐘，居然不能很快轉譯成英文稿對外發表，這不就是白去雷根總統圖書館，無法發揮元首對外發聲重要目的。最後搞到大家到現在還查不到雷根講話原文，不就是弄巧成拙嗎？

張競強調，中華民國對於涉外發言，從抗戰時期就十分重視，來台後在新聞局服務之外事編譯人才，更是讓全球刮目相看。歷代新聞局長擔任政府發言人，表現亦是可圈可點，更是在培養未來政治明星。

張競指出，因為政府組織再造，將具有優良傳統的新聞局支解裁編，如今看到總統在國外發言，不過區區幾分鐘，到現在卻無法公布英文全文譯稿，可見總統出訪幕僚作業粗糙，值得深入檢討補強。


2018-08-15 聯合報 蔡總統幕僚遭疑錯用雷根言論 府：至少尊重一下google
對此，「總統府發言人」臉書表示，雷根這篇演講稿，在很多地方都找得到。當天在現場的外媒，都已經有相關的報導並且引述正確來源。外媒的報導都已經把原文引述出處了，卻還說什麼大家都找不到，拜託至少尊重一下google。
總統府發言人臉書表示，關於蔡總統引述雷根總統的部分：「總統說，自由民主確實是台灣的重要價值，台灣也信守承諾，在國家利益及自由民主的原則下，願意共同促進區域穩定及和平。雷根總統曾說過一句值得我們省思的話，『任何事情都是可以談的，除了我們的自由及未來，是不能被妥協的』。她相信，這也是台灣人在此時此刻的心情。」
總統府發言人表示，這一段「任何事情都是可以談的，除了我們的自由及未來，是不能被妥協的」是出自雷根總統1986年在冰島和戈巴契夫會面後，對美國人民所發表的演說稿。演說時間是1986年10月3日。
總統府發言人也附上外媒報導蔡總統的新聞，指出「對於張競先生在未經查證的情形下做出的批評，我們深表遺憾，也希望在還原後，他可以針對相關不實的批評，向協助總統文稿的幕僚公開表達歉意。」
總統府發言人也附上雷根總統當初談話的原文：
Ronald Reagan
Address to the Nation on the Meetings With Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in Iceland October 13, 1986
“I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future. “

Ronald Reagan
Address to the Nation on the Meetings With Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in Iceland October 13, 1986
全文如下:
Good evening. As most of you know, I've just returned from meetings in Iceland with the leader of the Soviet Union, General Secretary Gorbachev. As I did last year when I returned from the summit conference in Geneva, I want to take a few moments tonight to share with you what took place in these discussions. The implications of these talks are enormous and only just beginning to be understood. We proposed the most sweeping and generous arms control proposal in history. We offered the complete elimination of all ballistic missiles—Soviet and American—from the face of the Earth by 1996. While we parted company with this American offer still on the table, we are closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons.
But first, let me tell you that from the start of my meetings with Mr. Gorbachev, I have always regarded you, the American people, as full participants. Believe me, without your support none of these talks could have been held, nor could the ultimate aims of American foreign policy-world peace and freedom—be pursued. And it's for these aims I went the extra mile to Iceland. Before I report on our talks, though, allow me to set the stage by explaining two things that were very much a part of our talks: one a treaty and the other a defense against nuclear missiles, which we're trying to develop. Now, you've heard their titles a thousand times—the ABM treaty and SDI. Well those letters stand for: ABM, antiballistic missile; SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative.

Some years ago, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to limit any defense against nuclear missile attacks to the emplacement in one location in each country of a small number of missiles capable of intercepting and shooting down incoming nuclear missiles, thus leaving our real defense—a policy called mutual assured destruction , meaning if one side launched a nuclear attack, the other side could retaliate. And this mutual threat of destruction was believed to be a deterrent against either side striking first. So here we sit, with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on each other and capable of wiping out both our countries. The Soviets deployed the few antiballistic missiles around Moscow as the treaty permitted. Our country didn't bother deploying because the threat of nationwide annihilation made such a limited defense seem useless.

For some years now we've been aware that the Soviets may be developing a nationwide defense. They have installed a large, modern radar at Krasnoyarsk, which we believe is a critical part of a radar system designed to provide radar guidance for antiballistic missiles protecting the entire nation. Now, this is a violation of the ABM treaty. Believing that a policy of mutual destruction and slaughter of their citizens and ours was uncivilized, I asked our military, a few years ago, to study and see if there was a practical way to destroy nuclear missiles after their launch but before they can reach their targets, rather than to just destroy people. Well, this is the goal for what we call SDI, and our scientists researching such a system are convinced it is practical and that several years down the road we can have such a system ready to deploy. Now incidentally, we are not violating the ABM treaty, which permits such research. If and when we deploy the treaty—also allows withdrawal from the treaty upon 6 months' notice. SDI, let me make it clear, is a nonnuclear defense.

So, here we are at Iceland for our second such meeting. In the first, and in the months in between, we have discussed ways to reduce and in fact eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. We and the Soviets have had teams of negotiators in Geneva trying to work out a mutual agreement on how we could reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons. And so far, no success. On Saturday and Sunday, General Secretary Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Shevardnadze, and Secretary of State George Shultz and I met for nearly 10 hours. We didn't limit ourselves to just arms reductions. We discussed what we call violation of human rights on the part of the Soviets—refusal to let people emigrate from Russia so they can practice their religion without being persecuted, letting people go to rejoin their families, husbands, and wives—separated by national borders—being allowed to reunite.

In much of this, the Soviet Union is violating another agreement—the Helsinki accords they had signed in 1975. Yuriy Orlov, whose freedom we just obtained, was imprisoned for pointing out to his government its violations of that pact, its refusal to let citizens leave their country or return. We also discussed regional matters such as Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. But by their choice, the main subject was arms control. We discussed the emplacement of intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Asia and seemed to be in agreement they could be drastically reduced. Both sides seemed willing to find a way to reduce, even to zero, the strategic ballistic missiles we have aimed at each other. This then brought up the subject of SDI.

I offered a proposal that we continue our present research. And if and when we reached the stage of testing, we would sign, now, a treaty that would permit Soviet observation of such tests. And if the program was practical, we would both eliminate our offensive missiles, and then we would share the benefits of advanced defenses. I explained that even though we would have done away with our offensive ballistic missiles, having the defense would protect against cheating or the possibility of a madman, sometime, deciding to create nuclear missiles. After all, the world now knows how to make them. I likened it to our keeping our gas masks, even though the nations of the world had outlawed poison gas after World War I. We seemed to be making progress on reducing weaponry, although the General Secretary was registering opposition to SDI and proposing a pledge to observe ABM for a number of years as the day was ending.

Secretary Shultz suggested we turn over the notes our note-takers had been making of everything we'd said to our respective teams and let them work through the night to put them together and find just where we were in agreement and what differences separated us. With respect and gratitude, I can inform you those teams worked through the night till 6:30 a.m. Yesterday, Sunday morning, Mr. Gorbachev and I, with our foreign ministers, came together again and took up the report of our two teams. It was most promising.

The Soviets had asked for a 10-year delay in the deployment of SDI programs. In an effort to see how we could satisfy their concerns—while protecting our principles and security—we proposed a 10-year period in which we began with the reduction of all strategic nuclear arms, bombers, airlaunched cruise missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and the weapons they carry. They would be reduced 50 percent in the first 5 years. During the next 5 years, we would continue by eliminating all remaining offensive ballistic missiles, of all ranges. And during that time, we would proceed with research, development, and testing of SDI—all done in conformity with ABM provisions. At the 10-year point, with all ballistic missiles eliminated, we could proceed to deploy advanced defenses, at the same time permitting the Soviets to do likewise.

And here the debate began. The General Secretary wanted wording that, in effect, would have kept us from developing the SDI for the entire 10 years. In effect, he was killing SDI. And unless I agreed, all that work toward eliminating nuclear weapons would go down the drain—canceled. I told him I had pledged to the American people that I would not trade away SDI, there was no way I could tell our people their government would not protect them against nuclear destruction. I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future. I'm still optimistic that a way will be found. The door is open, and the opportunity to begin eliminating the nuclear threat is within reach.

So you can see, we made progress in Iceland. And we will continue to make progress if we pursue a prudent, deliberate, and above all, realistic approach with the Soviets. From the earliest days of our administration this has been our policy. We made it clear we had no illusions about the Soviets or their ultimate intentions. We were publicly candid about the critical, moral distinctions between totalitarianism and democracy. We declared the principal objective of American foreign policy to be not just the prevention of war, but the extension of freedom. And we stressed our commitment to the growth of democratic government and democratic institutions around the world. And that's why we assisted freedom fighters who are resisting the imposition of totalitarian rule in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, and elsewhere. And finally, we began work on what I believe most spurred the Soviets to negotiate seriously: rebuilding our military strength, reconstructing our strategic deterrence, and above all, beginning work on the Strategic Defense Initiative.

And yet, at the same time, we set out these foreign policy goals and began working toward them. We pursued another of our major objectives: that of seeking means to lessen tensions with the Soviets and ways to prevent war and keep the peace. Now, this policy is now paying dividends—one sign of this in Iceland was the progress on the issue of arms control. For the first time in a long while, Soviet-American negotiations in the area of arms reductions are moving, and moving in the right direction-not just toward arms control, but toward arms reduction.

But for all the progress we made on arms reductions, we must remember there were other issues on the table in Iceland, issues that are fundamental. As I mentioned, one such issue is human rights. As President Kennedy once said, "And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights?" I made it plain that the United States would not seek to exploit improvement in these matters for purposes of propaganda. But I also made it plain, once again, that an improvement of the human condition within the Soviet Union is indispensable for an improvement in bilateral relations with the United States. For a government that will break faith with its own people cannot be trusted to keep faith with foreign powers. So, I told Mr. Gorbachev-again in Reykjavik, as I had in Geneva—we Americans place far less weight upon the words that are spoken at meetings such as these than upon the deeds that follow. When it comes to human rights and judging Soviet intentions, we're all from Missouri-you got to show us.

Another subject area we took up in Iceland also lies at the heart of the differences between the Soviet Union and America. This is the issue of regional conflicts. Summit meetings cannot make the American people forget what Soviet actions have meant for the peoples of Afghanistan, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Until Soviet policies change, we will make sure that our friends in these areas—those who fight for freedom and independence-will have the support they need.

Finally, there was a fourth item. And this area was that of bilateral relations, people-to-people contacts. In Geneva last year, we welcomed several cultural exchange accords; in Iceland, we saw indications of more movement in these areas. But let me say now: The United States remains committed to people-to-people programs that could lead to exchanges between not just a few elite, but thousands of everyday citizens from both our countries.

So, I think, then, that you can see that we did make progress in Iceland on a broad range of topics. We reaffirmed our fourpoint agenda. We discovered major new grounds of agreement. We probed again some old areas of disagreement.

And let me return again to the SDI issue. I realize some Americans may be asking tonight: Why not accept Mr. Gorbachev's demand? Why not give up SDI for this agreement? Well, the answer, my friends, is simple. SDI is America's insurance policy that the Soviet Union would keep the commitments made at Reykjavik. SDI is America's security guarantee if the Soviets should—as they have done too often in the past—fail to comply with their solemn commitments. SDI is what brought the Soviets back to arms control talks at Geneva and Iceland. SDI is the key to a world without nuclear weapons. The Soviets understand this. They have devoted far more resources, for a lot longer time than we, to their own SDI. The world's only operational missile defense today surrounds Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union.

What Mr. Gorbachev was demanding at Reykjavik was that the United States agree to a new version of a 14-year-old ABM treaty that the Soviet Union has already violated. I told him we don't make those kinds of deals in the United States. And the American people should reflect on these critical questions: How does a defense of the United States threaten the Soviet Union or anyone else? Why are the Soviets so adamant that America remain forever vulnerable to Soviet rocket attack? As of today, all free nations are utterly defenseless against Soviet missiles fired either by accident or design. Why does the Soviet Union insist that we remain so—forever?

So, my fellow Americans, I cannot promise, nor can any President promise, that the talks in Iceland or any future discussions with Mr. Gorbachev will lead inevitably to great breakthroughs or momentous treaty signings. We will not abandon the guiding principle we took to Reykjavik. We prefer no agreement than to bring home a bad agreement to the United States. And on this point, I know you're also interested in the question of whether there will be another summit. There was no indication by Mr. Gorbachev as to when or whether he plans to travel to the United States, as we agreed he would last year in Geneva. I repeat tonight that our invitation stands, and that we continue to believe additional meetings would be useful. But that's a decision the Soviets must make.

But whatever the immediate prospects, I can tell you that I'm ultimately hopeful about the prospects for progress at the summit and for world peace and freedom. You see, the current summit process is very different from that of previous decades. It's different because the world is different; and the world is different because of the hard work and sacrifice of the American people during the past 5 1/2 years. Your energy has restored and expanded our economic might. Your support has restored our military strength. Your courage and sense of national unity in times of crisis have given pause to our adversaries, heartened our friends, and inspired the world. The Western democracies and the NATO alliance are revitalized; and all across the world, nations are turning to democratic ideas and the principles of the free market. So, because the American people stood guard at the critical hour, freedom has gathered its forces, regained its strength, and is on the march.

So, if there's one impression I carry away with me from these October talks, it is that, unlike the past, we're dealing now from a position of strength. And for that reason, we have it within our grasp to move speedily with the Soviets toward even more breakthroughs. Our ideas are out there on the table. They won't go away. We're ready to pick up where we left off. Our negotiators are heading back to Geneva, and we're prepared to go forward whenever and wherever the Soviets are ready. So, there's reason, good reason for hope. I saw evidence of this is in the progress we made in the talks with Mr. Gorbachev. And I saw evidence of it when we left Iceland yesterday, and I spoke to our young men and women at our naval installation at Keflavik—a critically important base far closer to Soviet naval bases than to our own coastline.

As always, I was proud to spend a few moments with them and thank them for their sacrifices and devotion to country. They represent America at her finest: committed to defend not only our own freedom but the freedom of others who would be living in a far more frightening world were it not for the strength and resolve of the United States. "Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been ... unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers," John Quincy Adams once said. He spoke well of our destiny as a nation. My fellow Americans, we're honored by history, entrusted by destiny with the oldest dream of humanity-the dream of lasting peace and human freedom.

Another President, Harry Truman, noted that our century had seen two of the most frightful wars in history and that "the supreme need of our time is for man to learn to live together in peace and harmony." It's in pursuit of that ideal I went to Geneva a year ago and to Iceland last week. And it's in pursuit of that ideal that I thank you now for all the support you've given me, and I again ask for your help and your prayers as we continue our journey toward a world where peace reigns and freedom is enshrined. Thank you, and God bless you.

雷根總統的演講
http://www.youtube.com/v/j4iKoVAVapE
=========================================================================================================================================================
對於車輪黨的研究員，看不懂英文，我不驚訝，驚呀的是連谷歌都懶得去查。算了，本身還是研究員勒。外國文章看不懂，也不查。坐井觀天嗎？1986年的演講，雷根還不是總統哩。(維基百科介紹雷根總統也附上圖片。)

---

作者: wen056    時間: 2018-8-15 01:30 PM



樓主說

1986年，雷根還不是總統哩...

1986年，雷根還不是總統哩...

1986年，雷根還不是總統哩...

可是...雷根是美國40任美國總統，

總統任期： 1981 年 1 月 20 日 – 1989 年 1 月 20 日


[attach]124570576[/attach]


到底是誰「坐井觀天」?

---

作者: joey213213    時間: 2018-8-15 01:43 PM

wen056 發表於 2018-8-15 01:30 PM
樓主說

1986年，雷根還不是總統哩...

引述當時雷根總統講的話，卻有人說雷根當時還不是總統，找不到出處，當然是那位偉大的研究員說得，現在哩，那位研究員躲到哪裡去了哩。竟然還有白目幫忙護航。對於看不懂英文的人，不想跟它們爭辯。引述的那一段話，Google輸入就可以找的到了。記得，輸入英文。

---

作者: 西瓜汁小梅    時間: 2018-8-15 01:45 PM



多謝英文原文，我大致看了一下，一看令人失望...蔡英文她引言的確是不當!雷根總統當時是與蘇聯秘談算雙方減少核武器，這是兩個超級大國協談，和蔡所言的"談"是完全無關，外賓聽了只能在旁偷笑...

*樓主心得說"1986年的演講，雷根還不是總統..."可是樓主自己貼的圖不是都註明雷根總統任期是1981~1989年?1986年雷根就是美國總統呀!怎麼會有人沒常識還自己貼圖來自打臉呢?

---

作者: wen056    時間: 2018-8-15 01:52 PM

joey213213 發表於 2018-8-15 01:43 PM
引述當時雷根總統講的話，卻有人說雷根當時還不是總統，找不到出處，當然是那位偉大的研究員說得，現在哩 ...

張競說1977年2月6日，雷根當時的確尚未出馬競選總統，

還不會這麼離譜...

樓主比較離譜!居然說 1986年，雷根還不是總統哩...  

---

作者: joey213213    時間: 2018-8-15 01:56 PM

wen056 發表於 2018-8-15 01:52 PM
張競說1977年2月6日，雷根當時的確尚未出馬競選總統，

還不會這麼離譜...

他說找不到出處，笑死人了。輸入原文就有。找都沒找過，還有一堆白目在護航哩。把Google找的證據給你看。英文輸入就有。先決條件是你要懂英文。
還1977年哩。有去找過再來說嘴。

---

作者: wen056    時間: 2018-8-15 01:57 PM

joey213213 發表於 2018-8-15 01:56 PM
他說找不到出處，笑死人了。輸入原文就有。找都沒找過，還有一堆白目在護航哩。把找的證據給你看。原文輸 ...

喔～～有人承認演講稿都是利用Google 剪貼來的，其實跟記者也沒兩樣，演講的人也不想去了解與考證，反正就當讀稿機就好，這就是目前國家的領導人...

---

作者: wen056    時間: 2018-8-15 02:12 PM



雷根的這段談話，其實是針對「戰略防禦倡議」（Strategic Defense Initiative）或SDI 而來。
冰島高峰會中，戈巴契夫要求美國暫緩發展SDI 10年，雷根不願意，因此說了「任何事情都是可以談的，除了我們的自由及未來，是不能被妥協的」。
雷根給予厚望的這個SDI，後來被戲稱「星際大戰」，主要是想用衛星配合地面裝備，再利用微波雷射等手段摧毀來襲的彈道飛彈。
這個好萊塢般的軍備構想投入了大量經費，但從未成真。
冷戰結束核武威脅降低後，美國各界也對「星際大戰」失去興趣，整個計畫最終在柯林頓任內終結。
雷根讓柏林圍牆倒下的事蹟令人敬佩，
但1986年的這場演講，雷根還在推銷那虛幻的「星際大戰」，
蔡總統幕僚似乎可以引用與化解冷戰對立更直接的後期雷根講話。
缺乏對背景的了解，只截取一句話，也可能被認為是欠缺歷史感的Google 式作文...

---

作者: ben6705    時間: 2018-8-15 02:46 PM

民進黨工joey213213要護航蔡英文了喔.
可見蔡英文一定有問題,大概民進黨工又加薪了,又拿了不少贓款了.

---

作者: play1458    時間: 2018-8-15 03:20 PM

最大的悲劇，不是壞人的囂張，而是好人的過度沉默——馬丁路德金

---

作者: le7514    時間: 2018-8-15 03:23 PM

難怪台灣治安不好！？
理由：
「任何事情都是可以談的，除了我們的（貪污和殺人）自由
及未來（抱網紅和及不可判死刑）是不能被妥協的」
（貪污和殺人）自由
（抱網紅和及不可判死刑）是不能被妥協的
台灣治安堪虞！？

---

作者: curryon    時間: 2018-8-15 03:45 PM

有什麼無能的長官，就有多無能的下屬，我前公司就是這樣.......................

---

作者: 幻龍真君    時間: 2018-8-15 07:14 PM

這很意外嗎??

整天不幹正事推銷農產品

結果國家大事好像都新潮流在管

她就是個花瓶或者說是出事背鍋的

---

作者: ai0201    時間: 2018-8-16 09:12 PM

我想重點還是只有一個

出事了或是發言不妥，都不應該第一時間就讓下屬去揹責任.....
不是不能出錯，而是不是有肩膀去面對問題和責任...

---

作者: wangminyuan    時間: 2018-8-16 09:55 PM

不知道蔡英文學校的成績如何, 沒有念過書, 也有幕僚幫忙吧,

---

作者: simon7437    時間: 2018-8-19 11:19 AM

果然是藍綠黴體妓者....只會見縫插針搞些小動作!!真是國家社會方向的建議跟討論一點也不care!!

---

作者: juneqcd1    時間: 2018-8-19 02:00 PM

何止粗糙，根本就是不在意，還要去google，你政府官員都已怠惰成這樣了嗎？

---

作者: yalittleblack    時間: 2018-8-20 07:31 PM

到底這兩黨甚麼時候能倒
快被他們煩死

---

歡迎光臨 伊莉討論區 (http://www95.eyny.com/)

Powered by Discuz!