钓鱼岛，当年美国人的纠结想法
本帖最后由 塔里木河 于 2013-6-7 16:50 编辑美国人曾经控制了硫球列岛和钓鱼岛。在美国人放弃硫球列岛和钓鱼岛的过程中，他们面临选择。
最近有一些美国的文件，对事情的经过作了一些描述。应该说，里面的新内容并不多。但是，作为原始资料，还是可以看看。至少，可以肯定，在美国政府的内部，对钓鱼岛的去向是有争议的。尽管1971年的结果大家都知道，但是，通过这个资料我们可以了解一点过程细节。
这个决策的过程和某个经济协议放在一起进行过讨论。讨论的结果是要把经济协议的重要性放低。这个讨论的真实性如何呢？
A}
Eyes Only for Amb Kennedy, Taipei from Peter Peterson. After lengthy discussion, the President's decision on the Islands is that the deal has gone too far and too many commitments made to back off now. I showed your wire on this and even reread portion dealing with its importance.The President was deeply regretful that he could not help on this, but he felt that the decision was simply not possible. The President has instructed me to tell you that he will send a senior military representative in August to review with GRC in “a favorable and forthcoming way” important defense possibilities. I've explained that this makes final negotiations now very difficult but decision is August visit because of need to do this while Congress is out in August. Not to complicate your life further but I just talked withRoger Bryce Harlow confirms from high sources that Mills has made some kind of commitment to support quota bill next spring.Apparently, the 2.7 billion that industry representatives there agreed to strikes them as too much here in this country and that 2.2 billion was the ceiling.I have just called Milliken to say that the President would certainly appreciate their staying with us in this effort and if it breaks up now it would be hard to reconstitute the effort. He said they felt that likelihood is good enough for quota legislation that they would probably take their chances and come home now.
B}
On June 7 Kennedy told Chiang Ching-Kuo of the decision on the Senkaku Islands. Chiang asked that the U.S. Government categorically state at the time of the signing of the Okinawa reversion agreement that the final status of the islands had not been determined and should be settled by all parties involved. (Backchannel message from Kennedy to Peterson, June 9; ibid., White House Special Files, Staff Member and Office Files, Peter Peterson, Box 1, 1971, Textile Negotiations (cables)) In a June 10 memorandum to Kissinger, Johnson noted that Rogers had raised this issue with Japanese Foreign Minister Aichi at their meeting in Paris on June 9. (Ibid., RG 59, U. Alexis Johnson Files: Lot 96 D 695, Kissinger, Henry, 1971) On June 12 Peterson informed Kennedy, who was in Seoul, that Rogers had approached Aichi, “strongly urging GOJ to discuss issue with GRC prior to signature of Okinawa Agreement on June 17.” He also noted that a Department of State spokesman would announce on June 17 that a return of “administrative rights” to Japan of the Senkaku Islands “can in no way prejudice the underlying claims of the Republic of China.” (Ibid., Nixon Presidential Materials, White House Special Files, Staff Member and Office Files, Peter Peterson, Box 1, 1971, Textile Negotiations (cables)) On June 15 Peterson cabled Kennedy, in Seoul, stating that Aichihad met with the ROC Ambassador in Tokyo to discuss the Senkaku issue. (Ibid.) On July 12 Chiang Ching-Kuo complained to McConaughy that “the Japanese so far have refused to talk in any meaningful way on the subject.” (Telegram 3388 from Taipei, July 12; ibid., RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL CHINAT)
里面的内容就不翻译了。茶友应该都很熟悉英文。不过，也许有人对Peter Peterson不熟悉，这个人是当时的美国总统助理，负责国际事务。 钓鱼岛问题，要和尼克松访华，甲级战犯牌位进入靖国神社，国民党放弃南沙，菲律宾占领中业岛，进而越南，马来西亚，文莱瓜分南沙，美国从越南撤军，连起来看。就变得很简单了。
就是到了70年代，美国受越南战争拖累，不得不和tg和好。美国非常准确的判断，一旦放tg进入西方的物质循环世界，中国在东亚的经济崛起不可避免，所以美国从南到北打下一系列伏笔，到时候准确引爆，一来可以延阻中国的崛起，二来为自己从东亚撤退争取时间。 曾自洲 发表于 2013-6-8 11:19 static/image/common/back.gif
钓鱼岛问题，要和尼克松访华，甲级战犯牌位进入靖国神社，国民党放弃南沙，菲律宾占领中业岛，进而越南，马 ...
美国人当年没有打算撤退吧？现在一定程度的收缩时被迫的。 本帖最后由 塔里木河 于 2013-6-9 15:16 编辑
曾自洲 发表于 2013-6-8 11:19 static/image/common/back.gif
钓鱼岛问题，要和尼克松访华，甲级战犯牌位进入靖国神社，国民党放弃南沙，菲律宾占领中业岛，进而越南，马 ...
同意要把不同的事情联系起来。
美国对中国大陆没有基本的信任。这也是事件进展方向的起因之一。
至于美国的判断，我觉得没那么神奇，那么准确，那么早。
美国人肯承认失误，从失误中走出来的策略倒是值得研究。 friedchicken 发表于 2013-6-8 11:45 static/image/common/back.gif
美国人当年没有打算撤退吧？现在一定程度的收缩时被迫的。
美国当年利用规模优势顶替了英国，所以他心里很明白中国是什么概念。 曾自洲 发表于 2013-6-8 15:11 static/image/common/back.gif
美国当年利用规模优势顶替了英国，所以他心里很明白中国是什么概念。
在大英帝国面前，美国有什么规模？美国取代的是大英帝国，是大英帝国，不是英国。 齐的隆冬强 发表于 2013-6-9 10:15 static/image/common/back.gif
在大英帝国面前，美国有什么规模？美国取代的是大英帝国，是大英帝国，不是英国。
大英帝国不在殖民地搞工业生产。所以没有规模能力。
规模更多的是指生产能力的规模，而不是消费的规模。 曾自洲 发表于 2013-6-9 11:50 static/image/common/back.gif
大英帝国不在殖民地搞工业生产。所以没有规模能力。
规模更多的是指生产能力的规模，而不是消费的规模 ...
说大英帝国不在殖民地搞工业，印度笑而不语，南非笑而不语，加拿大笑而不语，澳大利亚笑而不语 齐的隆冬强 发表于 2013-6-9 12:07 static/image/common/back.gif
说大英帝国不在殖民地搞工业，印度笑而不语，南非笑而不语，加拿大笑而不语，澳大利亚笑而不语
这几个的工业能力有，但好像也不怎么强啊。（指的是当时） 不能忽左忽右了 发表于 2013-6-9 12:56 static/image/common/back.gif
这几个的工业能力有，但好像也不怎么强啊。（指的是当时）
我们换一句话说也可以，据说1895年的时候，美国的工业产值已经是世界第一了，他顶替英国是哪一年的事情？真的是利用规模优势顶替的？注意，我这里不是否认规模的价值，而是问，规模到底起了多大的作用， 齐的隆冬强 发表于 2013-6-9 12:07 static/image/common/back.gif
说大英帝国不在殖民地搞工业，印度笑而不语，南非笑而不语，加拿大笑而不语，澳大利亚笑而不语
工业强的，好像大英帝国都控制不住。
所谓金字塔结构在国与国的关系中是玩不转的。
现在的美国也想玩当年大英帝国玩的游戏，也玩不转。美国现在企图用美元统治中东，日韩，澳大利亚，拉丁美洲，还有欧洲，中国，但是也玩不转。论货币的规模，美元远远强于人民币，但是论货币的质量和国家的生产能力，中国正在大踏步的超过美国。这个过程和当年美国跨越大英帝国非常像，美国非常容易理解中国会发生什么。
最近在读一本书：金融帝国：美国金融霸权的来源和基础，链接:http://pan.baidu.com/share/link?shareid=1671945856&uk=1476969940 密码:22uy。
页:
[1]