西安,古中國14朝代首都

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

5.jpg

49136568_2005384203092752_3507446735465086976_n.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

“China launches more rockets than US, Russia in 2018”

Li Ruohan, Global Times Dec 28, 2018 pp3

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

2018年中國發射37枚衛星,美國34枚,俄國18枚。

 

49699307_2244729872225083_6904778274761605120_o.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

“Putin: A Leader made for the Russian Federation”

Ruslan Pukhov, Defense News Dec.10, 2018

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

From Defense News Dec.10, 2018
國防新聞 20181210
-- According to a Russian security expert in Moscow, Putin, though portrayed in the West as "an architect of an anti-Western approach" , is "far more liberal and pro-Western than most of the Russian public or majority of the Russian elites."
根據莫斯科的俄羅斯安全專家所寫,普丁雖然在西方被認為是反西方的領袖,卻比大多數俄羅斯菁英更親西方而且更傾向自由主義。
-- He also writes that " In the general public opinion in Russia...even Moscow were to capitulate on all key foreign policy fronts, there would be no tangible easing of U.S. sanctions."

他同時寫道:「俄羅斯輿論普遍認為,即使俄羅斯在所有關鍵的外交戰線上屈服,美國的制裁也不會實際解除」。

-- Look at what former US security officials say about Putin. Sure enough:

端看美國前國防官員們是如何敘述普丁的,便知確實如此: 

"Putin is a bully" (Leon Paneta, former secretary of defense)

前國防部長李昂・潘內達:「普丁是個惡霸」。
"Putin...operates ...opportunistically ...but has a vision based on fear..."(H.R.McMaster, former national security advisor)

前國家安全顧問H.R.麥馬斯特:「行事上,普丁是個被恐懼所驅動的機會主義者」。
"Putin is afraid of his middle class coming out in the streets.(Mike Morels, former acting director of the CIA)

前中情局代理局長麥克・莫里斯:「普丁害怕俄羅斯的中產階級走上街頭」。

網站連結

49826043_2245115852186485_6993727820555878400_n.jpg49266731_2245115765519827_5273143245805715456_o.jpg

文章全文

The main Russian event of 2018 was President Vladimir Putin’s re-election for another six-year term. In view of the nature of the Putin regime, the re-election itself came as no surprise. But it has also demonstrated that there is still no alternative to Putin as the Russian national leader — the president continues to enjoy broad grassroot support and has the unanimous backing of the Russian elites.

As a result, Russia’s domestic and foreign policy course is set to remain unchanged for many years to come; no one is in any doubt that one way or another, Putin will remain in charge even after his current presidential term runs out in 2024. In fact, most Russians perceive that continuity and stability of Putin’s course as his main achievement because he has been instrumental in the steady improvement of the Russian economy, prosperity, and law and order. Putin has basically put into practice the famous strategy formulated by the early 20th century Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin: “Give me 20 years of calm and you won’t recognize Russia.”

In that sense, by voting for Putin, the Russian electorate votes primarily for a continued “calm” that is fundamental to the country’s modernization. The success of that modernization, the rapid growth in Russian prosperity and the impressive improvement in the Russian infrastructure were amply demonstrated by the success of the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Putin and his administration still remain a powerful engine of Russia’s Western-style modernization. In that sense, we can only admire the president’s determination to maintain the country’s pro-Western course — which is especially impressive given the ongoing foreign policy confrontation with the West.

In the West itself, Putin is portrayed as an architect of an anti-Western approach, a leader of the global anti-Western forces and a man determined to undermine Western democracy. It is clear, however, that in the Russian context, Putin is far more liberal and pro-Western than most of the Russian public or the majority of the Russian elites.

According to opinion surveys and election results, most Russians are far less liberal and far more populist, or socialist-minded, on economic issues than their president. They also advocate a far more forceful and conservative domestic and foreign policy course. In that sense, Putin embodies Alexander Puskhin’s 200-year-old dictum that “the government are the only Europeans in this country.”

The authoritarian nature of Putin’s rule enables the Russian government to pursue a sensible and responsible financial policy, taking unpopular measures — such as the recent rise in the retirement age — when the situation calls for it. As a result, Russia’s macroeconomic indicators remain sound, despite the growing pressure of U.S. sanctions.

In his domestic policy and on matters of defense, Putin is likely to carry on with the cautious approach that aims to minimize the costs of the confrontation with the West. A case in point is the draft federal budget for 2019-2021, which includes real-term defense spending cuts. (Based on our own estimates, defense spending will remain flat thanks to various budgetary chicanery, but there will certainly be no increase.)

Russia will continue to pursue a cautious and conservative program of bolstering its military capability, with an emphasis on gradual technological modernization — including a continued buildup of forces stationed along the border with Ukraine in order to give Moscow more instruments for intervening in the course of the Ukrainian conflict. At the same time, Moscow will desist from any tangible military buildup in the European (northwestern) theater, despite the mutually belligerent rhetoric by NATO and Russia, and the growing U.S. military presence in Europe.

Judging from the new State Armament Program for 2018-2027, which Putin signed off in December 2017, many of the most ambitious and expensive aerospace and naval weapons programs have effectively been pushed back to the mid-2020s or even beyond 2027.

In Syria, Putin will keep trying to convert the military success of the Russian intervention into political and diplomatic gains, but he will be hampered by the growing Syrian involvement of the United States. Unlike Moscow, Washington has no constructive agenda in Syria, which gives the Americans a greater freedom of maneuver.

The growing U.S. pressure in recent years, including the constant ramping up of anti-Russian sanctions, has led the Russian political elite to believe that there are no tangible prospects for any political normalization with the United States anytime soon, and that the sanctions are here to stay. It is now the general opinion in Russia that even if Moscow were to capitulate on all the key foreign policy fronts, there would be no tangible easing of U.S. sanctions — and the sanctions themselves would be vindicated as an effective instrument of pressure.

As a result, the Russian public opinion is increasingly determined to endure a long-term confrontation with the West and with the United States in particular. Long-term stability of the Russian economy and society will be crucial if Russia is to emerge relatively unscathed from that confrontation.

In fact, Russia can probably survive 10 to 15 years of such confrontation without too much damage to itself. It is believed, however, that the West will gradually become weary of that confrontation in the absence of any ideological underpinnings for it. That Western weariness — as well as the changing global balance of power, reinforced by the growing Sino-U.S. confrontation — will eventually open up a window of opportunity for Moscow to achieve a normalization with the West without relinquishing any of its key holdings (such as Crimea and the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics).

In the eyes of the Russian people, Vladimir Putin is the ideal leader to steer their country during such a period of confrontation.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

“American Companies Need Chinese Consumers”

Weijian Shan, New York Times January 7, 2019

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

 

 

-- China accounts for about $52 billion in sales for Apple, and its third largest market. 

大中華地區(含大陸、香港、台灣)2018年為蘋果貢獻了約520億美元的營收,是蘋果第三大市場。
-- Others with big bets on China include Intel (24% of sales), Micron Technology (51%), and Texas Instruments (44%).

其他在中國押大注的還包括了Intel(24%的銷售額),美光科技(51%),以及德州儀器(44%)
-- The perception of China as the "factory of the world" is badly out of date...

中國是世界工廠的看法已經嚴重過時了。
-- Exports have dropped from 36% of China's gross domestic product in 2006 to 20% in 2018.

出口額佔中國GDP的比例已經從2006年的36%下降到2018年的20%
-- General Motors sells more car in China than in North America.

通用汽車在中國賣出的車比在美國還多。
-- And the threat of trade war with the U.S. is real (for China). But the long-term outlook has not changed. The Chinese consumer market will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace.

貿易戰的威脅是真實的,但是長遠的展望仍然不變。中國的消費力道會以較為緩和的方式持續成長。

網站連結

50009489_2260941840603886_3181319427614310400_o.jpg

文章全文

In a rare bit of bad news for its investors, Apple last week laid the blame for lower than expected revenue on its performance in China. The news sent Apple’s stock price plunging, and investors also ditched other companies with significant exposure in China. The scale of the damage, both to Apple’s bottom line and to the broader market, underscores how critically important China — and Chinese consumers — have become for American companies.

China accounts for about $52 billion in sales for Apple, and is its third-largest market. Apple is not the only technology company that relies on sales in China. For Qualcomm, a chip maker whose technology is used in many Apple smartphones, the figure is $15 billion, or about 65 percent of its total sales, according to an estimate by FactSet. Others with big bets on China include Intel (24 percent of sales), Micron Technology (51 percent), and Texas Instruments (44 percent).

These numbers make it very clear that the perception of China as the “factory of the world,” flooding global markets with cheap goods, is badly out of date. Exports and capital investments such as buildings and roads are no longer the main engines of China’s growth. Exports have dropped from 36 percent of China’s gross domestic product in 2006 to 20 percent in 2018. Going after China’s exports with tariffs, as the Trump administration is attempting, is, to a certain extent, fighting yesterday’s war.

In recent years, China’s economy has shifted to one that is much more dependent on domestic household consumption — ordinary Chinese people buying things for themselves and their families. In China over the last decade, the growth in private consumption has outpaced overall economic growth rate. In 2018, G.D.P. in China grew by 6.5 percent, and household consumption accounted for about four-fifths of that growth.

China is now the fastest-growing consumer market in the world, with private consumption amounting to about $5 trillion, more than 10 percent of the world’s total. Competition for Chinese consumers’ hard-earned renminbi has become intense.

Consider the smartphone market. As recently as 2016, Apple was China’s leading maker of handsets. But by the third quarter of 2018, China’s dominant telecommunications company, Huawei, was on top, with 23 percent of the market. The Chinese smartphone makers Oppo, Vivo and Xiaomi occupy the next three spots, while Apple ranked fifth, with 9 percent. South Korea’s Samsung, the global leader in smartphone sales, has all but disappeared from China, having failed to recover from the fiasco over its dangerously overheating Galaxy Note 7 batteries.

Even industries where American consumers once reigned supreme are now increasingly shifting toward China. General Motors, for example, sells more cars in China than in North America. For global filmmakers, box office sales in 2018 totaled about $9 billion in China, compared with almost $12 billion for North America in 2018.

My company made a decision more than a decade ago not to invest in China’s export sector. Costs for Chinese manufacturers are rising, and prices for their exports are flat or falling. Instead, I feel strongly that there is much greater potential for companies — inside and outside China — that cater to the Chinese consumer market.

Yes, China’s economic growth has begun to slow, and there has been a decrease in investments as Beijing has moved to tighten credit. And the threat of a trade war with the United States is real. But my long-term outlook has not changed. The Chinese consumer market will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace, and it will continue to be a market that any global company must pay serious attention to if it wants to remain competitive.

So where does this leave companies like Apple that find themselves caught in the middle of the trade war? They must hope, first of all, for a swift conclusion to the latest round of trade negotiations between China and the United States, which began in Beijing on Monday. The best possible outcome is a deal that will encourage China to open its economy further, commit to shrinking its bloated state-owned sector and ease barriers to further foreign investment and trade.

Tariffs were supposed to hurt China by hitting its exports to the United States. That hasn’t happened. Should it persist, the trade war will, of course, hurt Chinese companies, just as it has already hurt so many American companies. But if the conflict eventually drags down Chinese consumer demand, businesses all over the world will be the losers.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

“Why 2018 was the best year ever”

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times January 9, 2019 pp.11

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

-- 2018是人類歷史上最好的一年。
-- 世界的人口活得更常了,過得更好了。
-- 全球媒體都一樣,報導戰爭、殺戮、飢荒,但不聚焦於人類的進步。
-- 美國是例外,平均壽命下降。而全世界別處都在上升。

網站連結點此

50184517_2260958420602228_890429853847781376_o.jpg

The world is, as everyone knows, going to hell, but there’s still the nervous thrill of waiting to see precisely which dark force will take us down. Will the economy collapse first, the ice sheets melt first, or chaos and war envelop us first?

So here’s my antidote to that gloom: Let me try to make the case that 2018 was actually the best year in human history.

Each day on average, about another 295,000 people around the world gained access to electricity for the first time, according to Max Roser of Oxford University and his Our World in Data website. Every day, another 305,000 were able to access clean drinking water for the first time. And each day an additional 620,000 people were able to get online for the first time.

Never before has such a large portion of humanity been literate, enjoyed a middle-class cushion, lived such long lives, had access to family planning or been confident that their children would survive. Let’s hit pause on our fears and frustrations and share a nanosecond of celebration at this backdrop of progress.

 

On a dirt road in rural Angola a few years ago, I met a woman named Delfina Fernandes who had lost 10 children, out of 15; she had endured perhaps the greatest blow any parent can, and she had suffered it 10 times.

Yet such child deaths are becoming far less common. Only about 4 percent of children worldwide now die by the age of 5. That’s still horrifying, but it’s down from 19 percent in 1960 and 7 percent in 2003.

 

Indeed, children today in Mexico or Brazil are less likely to die by the age of 5 than American children were as recently as 1970.

The big news that won’t make a headline and won’t appear on television is that 15,000 children died around the world in the last 24 hours. But in the 1990s, it was 30,000 kids dying each day.

Perhaps it seems Pollyannish or tasteless to trumpet progress at a time when there is so much butchery, misrule and threat hanging over us. But I cover the butchery and misrule every other day of the year, and I do this annual column about progress to try to place those tragedies in perspective.

 

One reason for this column is that journalism is supposed to inform people about the world, and it turns out that most Americans (and citizens of other countries, too) are spectacularly misinformed.

For example, nine out of 10 Americans say in polls that global poverty is worsening or staying the same, when in fact the most important trend in the world is arguably a huge reduction in poverty. Until about the 1950s, a majority of humans had always lived in “extreme poverty,” defined as less than about $2 a person per day. When I was a university student in the early 1980s, 44 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty.

Now, fewer than 10 percent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty, as adjusted for inflation.

Likewise, Americans estimate that 35 percent of the world’s children have been vaccinated. In fact, 86 percent of all 1-year-olds have been vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

“Everyone seems to get the world devastatingly wrong,” Dr. Hans Rosling, a brilliant scholar of international health, wrote in “Factfulness,” published in 2018, after his death. “Every group of people I ask thinks the world is more frightening, more violent and more hopeless — in short, more dramatic — than it really is.”

I suspect that this misperception reflects in part how we in journalism cover news. We cover wars, massacres and famines but are less focused on progress.

In the last year, I’ve covered atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar, starvation in Yemen, climate change in Bangladesh, refugees and child marriage at home, and some of the world’s worst poverty, in Central African Republic. All those stories deserve more attention, not less. But I never wrote columns or newsletters about three nations that registered astounding progress against authoritarianism and poor governance in 2018, Armenia, Ethiopia and Malaysia.

 

It is of course true that there are huge challenges ahead. The gains against global poverty and disease seem to be slowing, and climate change is an enormous threat to poor nations in particular. And the United States is an outlier, where life expectancy is falling, not rising as in most of the world. 

So there’s plenty to fret about. But a failure to acknowledge global progress can leave people feeling hopeless and ready to give up. In fact, the gains should show us what is possible and spur greater efforts to improve opportunity worldwide.

Every other day of the year, go ahead and gnash your teeth about President Trump or Nancy Pelosi, but take a break today (remember, just for a nanosecond!) to recognize that arguably the most important thing in the world now is not Trumpian bombast. Rather, it may be the way the world’s poorest and most desperate inhabitants are enjoying improved literacy and well-being, leading to a day when no mom will again lose 10 children.

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

“Hear the notes. See the notes. Be the notes.”

Corina Da Fonseca-Wollheim, New York Times January 19, 2019

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

-- 結合古典音樂和靜坐開闢新的天地。
-- 普林斯頓大學宗教生活院地院長 Matthew Weiner 說:"佛教提倡的靜坐並不是指舌頭不動的安靜,而是淡化內心的活動,以除去阻礙我們如實的活在當下。"

 

50592056_2260986947266042_6044591905575010304_o.jpg

For as long as I can remember, I have loved the silences of the concert hall almost as much as the sounds. The expectant hush that falls on an auditorium when the oboe’s A pierces through the hum of voices and the lights dim. The way a spellbound audience can wrap a protective silence around a pianissimo ending. But on a recent afternoon in Richardson Auditorium at Princeton University here, silence became an equal partner to the music. I was in the hall for a series called Live Music Meditation. (The next event, on March 28, features the violinist Patricia Kopatchinskaja.) For the first 20 minutes, while listeners quietly filed in, I sat motionless with my eyes closed, noting the sounds of footsteps and the rustle of coats. Gradually, the calm deepened, broken now and then by a male voice inviting us to focus on our breath, relax our shoulders and clear our minds. From inside this stillness, the sound of a gong rang out like a bright explosion, followed by waves of amber overtones that seemed to dance with each other in space. Then more silence, long minutes of nothing to hear but the breathing of strangers. When the first notes of a clarinet threaded their way into my consciousness, they seemed to come from inside me. For the next half-hour, as a piano joined the clarinet, music wound its way through me as sound turned pure sensation. Eventually the last note settled back into silence. Then one more time the gong, followed by that male voice, sounding a little sheepish: “Some people would find it appropriate to clap now.” The applause, when it came, did seem out of place. And the performers, the clarinetist Martin Frost and the pianist Henrik Mawe, didn’t bow. In an onstage discussion after the unusual concert, they professed to being somewhat overwhelmed. “We were so aware of you listening to us so intensely that we started to listen to ourselves even more intensely, too,” Mr. Mawe said. An audience member told the musicians that, for him, “the most special thing was the silence before and after you played. There was anticipation without expectation.” The series, which is free to the public, was conceived by Dasha Koltunyuk, a pianist and a longtime member of a meditation group led by Matthew Weiner, a dean in the office of religious life at the university. By combining guided meditation with live music, she hoped to create a space in which, she said in a statement, “our tendency toward passivity or judgment while hearing music disperses into a pure, perceptive and receptive state of intense, present listening.” Composers have long played with silence. In the 20th century, they began to dissolve the border between scripted silence inside the music — the rests — and the ambient silence of a given acoustic space. Ligeti’s “Lux Aeterna” fades into seven bars of rest at the end. John Cage’s “4’33”” consists entirely of notated silence. These days, more presenters are experimenting with ways to make the audience aware of its role in creating the silence out of which music grows. When the artist Marina Abramovic presented the pianist Igor Levit in Bach’s “Goldberg” Variations at the Park Avenue Armory in 2015, listeners were relieved of their cellphones and outfitted with noise-dampening headphones that helped them sink into deep quiet for 30 minutes before the first notes of Bach. Concerts inside the Moab Music Festival’s red rock grotto in Utah begin with an invitation to take in the stillness of the natural setting. A twominute “celebration of silence” is at the center of Chatter in Albuquerque, N.M., and Gather NYC at SubCulture in Manhattan, both Sunday morning series combining classical music and storytelling. In a telephone interview, the violinist and conductor David Felberg, who runs Chatter, said that most audience members close their eyes for that period. “They’re either meditating or trying to listen to the sounds that exist naturally around them,” he said. “For us, it’s a bit of a palate cleanser. It’s almost like you’re fresh and ready to listen to the music.” Mr. Weiner, the Princeton dean, who led the guided meditation, said in an interview that he thinks of the quality created in the room not so much as silence but as sensitivity. In Buddhism, he said, that “doesn’t just mean verbal silence with your tongue. It means softening the constructions in your mind that get in the way of experiencing what’s in front of you.” As a critic normally tasked with shaping those constructions into written words, I was keenly aware of that softening. And as a diligent but novice meditator, I caught a glimpse, through the music, of what it means to let thoughts bubble up without engaging with them — through applause or judgment. Here was music not as a text to be read nor a recreational drug to be consumed for mood management, but as an audible process of coming into being and fading away. And, for a short while, listening turned into a state of pure receptivity: beginner’s ear.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

林中斌我們還需要國防嗎

《財訊》200941

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

以下為10年前在財訊登載的拙作"我們還需要國防嗎?"
最近整理文件時浮出。
當時為國民黨馬總統就職後第二年,
據財訊編輯說,這篇被網民瘋狂攻擊。
曾幾何時,當時情景已漸隨時間淡去。

但此文中,若干淺見今日回顧尚可博君一笑。
林中斌 2019.1.18

50510994_2264820346882702_1518059227313078272_o.jpg50104275_2264820366882700_8706807339388239872_o.jpg

50022343_2264820386882698_4096860082636062720_o.jpg

財訊20090401林中斌專欄(淡江大學國際事務與戰略研究所教授)
我們還需要國防嗎?
面臨新情勢 建設新國防
字數:2202 口述:20090309 修訂:20090318

 

目前兩個問題困擾台灣國防。一、兩岸情勢趨緩,戰爭可能下降,為什麼台灣還需要建軍?二、全球金融風暴下,台灣經濟更不景氣,政府收入縮水,龐大國防經費仍佔政府支出首位,為十八%,遠在居次位的財政經費十%之上,為何不削減國防預算來救經濟?如何花得起大錢買昂貴的高科技武器?

其實,無論兩岸關係如何良好、經費如何拮据,台灣仍需要國防。理由有三:第一,國防是政經談判的後盾。沒有扎實的國防,談判桌上,會讓對方予取予求。而且,如果國防不足,人民對談判沒信心不支持。

第二,軍事實力確保和平。台灣即使成為中立國,仍需國防。中立國瑞士依賴堅實的國防,維持了五百年的和平。其國防也是軍力凶猛的以色列建軍的藍本。如果台灣有足夠的國防,會提高中共動武的代價,不讓中共內部好戰派振振有詞,也有助他們理性派佔上風。

第三,因應「非傳統安全」挑戰。近年來,全球天然和人為災害頻仍。雪災、森林火災、地震、火山爆發、海嘯、海盜劫船、恐怖攻擊、傳染病變多。包括中國在內的世界大國,都更重視發展「戰爭以外的軍事行動」能力,台灣如何能例外?台灣加強此種能力,可因應國內災變,也可參與國際救援。

我們面臨的是新的情勢,需要建設新國防。目前專一化人才訓練無法應付未來多樣化國防的挑戰。除了軍事、科技、管理以外,我們需要更多元化的軍人。人才培育的成本,遠低於購買高科技武器,而且發揮出的長期效益,遠高於高科技武器。

七年六月七日的解放軍報專文「軍事軟實力當論」指出「軍事軟實力與軍事硬實力密不可分,如影隨形,相得益彰…()從政治、經濟、外交、文化、軍事等多個層面進行建設」。最近國內提倡「軍事軟實力」,以及「上兵伐謀」(以謀略取勝為優先)的思維,雖然已慢一步,還不算太晚。我建議台灣朝三方向著手:

第一,多元化軍事教育。在先進超強的美軍,預備軍官佔總軍官人數三九%,佔四星上將十四%。美軍至今七百八十二位四星上將中,預備軍官有一六位。第一次波灣戰爭統帥、後來的國務卿包威爾(Colin Powell)便是其中之一。

對岸解放軍從九八年開始推動預備軍官制度(稱國防生)。當時參與民間大學僅兩所,到七年,增為一一六所。這些預備軍官,周末寒暑假受軍訓,其它時間與一般大學生無異,畢業後接受一年的軍事訓練,結訓後待遇與一般軍校畢業生全同。他們將佔二年新進軍官中的一半。這些軍官所具備的高科技專常、政治經濟知識、國際視野與語言能力,皆非傳統軍事教育能提供的。未來軍事需求將多元化,軍人要對軍隊外的社會事務,以及國家外的外交事務具敏銳度。最近我國防部宣布將恢復已終止的預備軍官制度是睿智的。

我應提升軍事外交能力。目前兩岸交流談判以經貿、旅遊、學術為主,但遲早將升高至軍事層面。關於軍事互信機制的談判無法由外交部、陸委會代表進行。必須由有備涉外經驗的軍人出面,研擬妥切務實的方案。

美軍許多將領有碩、博士學位。八年代美軍最高職位的參謀聯席會主席(相當於我參謀總長)科勞(William Crowe)上將就有博士學位。目前指揮伊拉克及阿富汗作戰的佩崔烏斯(David Petraeus)上將也是博士。共軍近年來大幅增加碩、博士軍官。比起美軍與共軍鼓勵在職軍人入研究所進修,國軍已落後。迎頭趕上應為台灣下一個國防建設的必要和重要決定。

解放軍正在提倡複合性指揮人才,也就是「軍政兼通、指揮與科技合一、熟悉國際政治經濟,甚至社會人文等方面全盤性思考的人才。」七年三月廿二日解放軍報裡,中國軍科院研究部部長姚有志將軍表示:「軍事人文素質決定一支軍隊的戰鬥力的高低,影響戰場對抗勝敗是打贏信息化〔即資訊化〕戰爭必然的要求」。表面上與軍事無關的人文素養,其實是新型態國防中的重要一環。相較之下,我軍尚無法接受軍人「人文素質」的觀念,其實已稍落後國軍以往所鄙夷的「土八路」。

第二方面,多元化將領晉升。在一九七年代,美國晉升一位幾乎沒帶過兵的海格(Alexander Haig)為四星上將,和一位出身士兵的四星上將魏塞(John Vessey)為參謀聯席會主席。八年十一月,美國甚至晉升了第一位女性四星上將鄧伍迪(Ann Dunwoody)。解放軍效法美軍,九八年解放軍晉升了未統御大部隊的曹剛川為上將,後昇國防部長。兩千年,解放軍晉升長於外交、收集情報與語言能力,但從未帶過兵的熊光楷為上將。

女人、預備軍官、士官,未帶兵的人,在國軍不可能晉升上將。國軍不妨打開視野,跟上時代:以洋為師,以敵為師。

第三,調整國防綱領。台灣未來的國防,經費有限,也需配合兩岸和緩政策,應採「戰略守勢,多重嚇阻」為指導綱領。宣稱「守勢戰略」,會令人質疑為何要獲取雄風飛彈等有戰術攻擊能力的武器。「戰略守勢」包括了「戰術攻勢」,比「守勢戰略」更彈性、更周全。一旦敵人開第一槍進犯,我當然要有戰術攻擊的能力。

「多重嚇阻」指的是同時獲取昂貴的高科技武器(先進艦艇、戰機、導彈),與便宜的低科技游擊戰及特種部隊裝備。高科技武器阻敵在先,是第一層嚇阻。低科技戰力是第二層嚇阻。類似伊拉克游擊隊對抗先進美軍的方式:在敵人進入國土後,以小部隊形式獨立作戰,以零星、局部的方式騷擾共軍,令其灰頭土臉無法結束戰爭。如果只依靠昂貴的第一層嚇阻,不止經費困難,戰略縱深也單薄。蛋都放在一個籃子裡,一旦不保,喪失一切。

目前國防指導綱領「防衛固守,有效嚇阻」方向正確,但文字尚可推敲。「防衛」及「固守」語意重疊,浪費寶貴的用字空間。「有效嚇阻」意味「無效嚇阻」的存在,語氣不夠堅定,與軍人說話算話、斬釘截鐵的精神不合。在新情勢下,檢討舊情勢下的指導綱領,時間已到。

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

林中斌 心靈:民主的救藥

《聯合報》2014417A17

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

美國政府關門已28天,超過之前紀錄20天已一周多。何時恢復?遙遙無期。
今天重讀五年前所發表的拙見,頗有所感。
在此貼上敬請賜教。
林中斌 2019.1.17

《名人堂》心靈:民主的救藥

2014-04-17/聯合報/A17/民意論壇】
聯合知識庫-全文報紙資料庫

連結點此

49948975_2263519593679444_2086451535658614784_o.jpg

 

【林中斌】
民主一度是全世界夢寐以求的制度。人民安逸、社會自由、政府能幹、國家強盛,廿世紀的美國曾被認為是人間天堂。

今日美國,貧富極端化遠超過世界平均曲線,每天八個兒童死於槍枝暴力。但限制財富集中,或立法管制槍枝,政府無能為力。因為政黨惡鬥,政策癱瘓。

兩黨相互制衡,以防政策偏頗,是開國元勳精心設計的制度,而今導致兩黨僵持不下,政府寸步難行。

為何之前兩百年兩黨制衡運作良好,而今反成障礙?

「制衡制君子不制小人。」這是我曾教過的高材生林怡舟所答。

為何以前兩黨多君子,而今不然?

「榮譽感沒有了。」他答。

為何榮譽感以前有,現在沒有了?

美國不是有最好的民主制度,以及制度培養出的公民素質、法治社會嗎?難道都不管用了嗎?

顯然,之前美國民主運作良好的根源不是制度。

美國民主制度若沒有開國元勳高風亮節的精神充沛其中,只是空殼子,撐不起來。

華盛頓戰勝英軍,解散軍隊,拒稱帝,總統不多連任。第二任總統亞當斯和繼任者傑佛遜,皆為以國為重的君子,因政見不同成政敵,但卸任後恢復友誼。

這些高貴的精神後來為何流失了?

物質淹沒了心靈。

過去兩百年,科學快速發展,物質文明突飛猛進,影響社會價值。學術界,七年代達顛峰的「行為主義」便是典型。它重視外在行為和物質,蔑視內在心靈和道德。優點是追求客觀排斥主觀,提倡「價值中立」(value free),但演變到極端成為沒有對錯(value relativism)。教授甚至嘲笑探索道德是非的學生。廿世紀中期之後,政治學重視講權力的現實主義,嘲笑講理念的理想主義。其實歷史上成功的領袖無不兼顧現實與理想。

許多人認為:榮譽、道德是空的,是心中自我欺騙的幻影。實在的是金錢、權力、地位。

其實,物質和心靈應該並重。在今日的美國,甚至世界,物質掛帥。以前的美國,兩黨領袖為了國家整體利益,會妥協合作。廿多年前,共和黨總統雷根和民主黨眾院領袖歐尼爾就是範例。卅年前,大企業老闆,守護社會風氣,至少不好意思公開貪婪。這些行為今日難見。心靈物質失衡,道德淪亡,才是民主失序的根本病因。

一九九一年底,前蘇聯崩解,共產主義實驗七十多年後失敗了。曾經在六九年預言此結局的布里辛斯基(Zbigniew Brzezinski)教授接受訪問:「您過去預言實現了。您對將來的預言是什麼?」他曾主持卡特總統的國安會,任教哈佛及哥倫比亞大學,兼具學理背景和實務經驗。

「心靈主義將復興(the renaissance of spiritualism)。」他的回答令我吃驚。

他不是教宗,也不是達賴。他是國際關係學門,以現實主義訓練出來的學者和官員。現實主義講具體的「權力和利益」,卑視空泛的「理想和道德」。

他解釋:「因為共產主義的基礎是物質主義(唯物辯證法),它否定心靈的存在,說宗教是群眾的鴉片。它已經失敗了。而我們美國的資本主義何嘗不立足於物質主義?賺錢賺錢!其弊病已浮現。將來人類要尋找補救之路。」

透過長期教育的耕耘,恢復人類心靈和物質的平衡,將是未來的希望。近來嚴謹的科學證實心靈的存在,是有力的助因。一一年九月,首款腦波電視問世,一三年六月念力遙控飛機成功,都是事實。

(作者為前華府喬治城大學外交學院講座教授,曾任國防部副部長)

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

林中斌川普逆勢頓增 剋星華倫入場

《聯合報》2019115A15

Accessed Jan 21 , 2019

試簡述此短文寫作過程,敬請卓參。
-- 2019.1.3 ()下午開始找及讀資料
-- 2019.1.8 ()上午寄出稿件。1100字共花5天。週六例外 
未登山。
-- 2019.1.13()寄出二次修正稿。
-- 2019.1.15 () 稿件登出。從找資料至登出共12天。
-- 參考資料21件如下圖所示。
林中斌 2019.1.16

50096363_2260716150626455_4719430031871311872_o (1).jpg

49946669_2262041567160580_7135800730207649792_o.jpg

林中斌
聯合報名人堂 2019115A15
交最後修正稿日期:20190113 
本文字數:1099 
目標字數:1100

 

川普就任美國總統將屆兩年。雖爭議不斷,但無損其賴以當選及可能連任的民調支持度。自上月十六日至一月三日九次民調平均為四十二趴,與一六年十一月當選時數字同(Realclearpolitics)
然而近來不利他狀況密集爆發,為他原先看好的前景遮上烏雲。例如:
重臣離職:川普打破歷任總統紀錄,就任兩年內,撤換或流失六十五趴政府最重要的六十五位A團隊官員。最矚目的是備受尊重的國防部長馬提斯求去,至一月六日止,已帶動三位國防部高官辭職。原副總統幕僚長Nick Ayers,是川普上月下旬宣佈的新總統幕僚長,以接任被川普撤換的凱利上將。Ayers次日便公開回絕。 
眾院失守:原為川普共和黨掌控的眾議院,其主導權於十一月期中選舉為在野民主黨所奪。後者不同意川普撥款建美墨邊境圍牆,川普關閉聯邦政府以要脅。至一月十二日,已停擺廿二天,打破歷史紀錄。眾院有權發動彈劾總統,民主黨力尋把柄,不會放過。雖難達陣,但今後兩年將不斷纏擾川普。
通俄門進逼:川普一六年大選是否非法的獲得俄羅斯協助打擊對手希拉蕊?負責調查的美國司法部特別檢察官前FBI局長穆勒至今已獲得八位有關人士認罪,包括川普國安會顧問Michael Flynn,他的競選經理Paul Manafort,以及他的律師Michael CohenManafort下月將判刑,Cohen將赴國會作證。一旦至今仍保持緘默的穆勒發言,對川普威脅不可小覷。
基金會關門:「川普基金會」為川普設立由其子女經營。上月中,紐約法官起訴它諸多違法運作事件。它已關門,但是案子未了,是未爆彈。
經濟隱憂:上月,美國股市遭遇一九三一年來最大的十二月跌幅。美國歷史上第二長的經濟復甦在去年十月開始有減緩的跡象。十一月三日Economist雜誌稱川普減稅刺激經濟的效用已開始消退。十一月中,通用公司宣布關閉五個汽車廠。去年美國宣布破產農場共八十四家,高於金融海嘯之後高峰。一年多後若經濟明顯下滑,不利川普連任。
近幾月,滾滾而來的諸多逆勢雖尚未減損川普的支持度,但它們一旦發酵,情況難料。何況,上月底,清潔工的女兒,曾任哈佛大學教授的麻州參議員,伊莉莎白˙華倫宣佈代表民主黨投入大選。
相對於億萬富豪,靠父親錢財起家的川普,窮苦出身,單親媽媽,致力於打擊社會不公、保護弱勢族群的華倫,更能吸引川普的基本盤支持者¬¬。他們是金融危機之後,國家拯救大企業卻置失業又付不出房貸者於不顧的受害者,也是卅年來美國貧富不均超過其他西方國家的犧牲者。
華倫辯才無礙、魅力四射、形象清新正是惡言不斷、多方樹敵、弊案纏身川普的剋星。
一六年大選,華倫只為制度不公而大聲疾呼,從未參選大位。之後,被認為已出局。但敗選的民主黨黯淡無光,只反川普,而無建言。華倫不同,一向政綱明確,八年前曾落實成立消費者財務保護局。
放眼二年大選,川普聲勢或已臻頂。而華倫正蓄勢攀登美國首位女總統的高峰。

作者為前華府喬治大學外交學院講座教授,曾任國防部副部長

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Lily Marlene/Lili Marleen 莉莉瑪蓮

 Accessed Dec 24 , 2018

 

以下附上兩項 Youtube 音樂 以及 英文和德文的歌詞。

Below please find links to two Youtube pieces and both the Englsih and German lyrics

Outside the barracks, by the corner light

I'll always stand and wait for you at night

We will create a world for two

I'll wait for you the whole night through

For you, Lili Marlene

For you, Lili Marlene

Bugler tonight don't play the call to arms

I want another evening with her charms

Then we will say goodbye and part

I'll always keep you in my heart

With me, Lili Marlene

With me, Lili Marlene

Give me a rose to show how much you care

Tie to the stem a lock of golden hair

Surely tomorrow, you'll feel blue

But then will come a love that's new

For you, Lili Marlene

For you, Lili Marlene

When we are marching in the mud and cold

And when my pack seems more than I can hold

My love for you renews my might

I'm warm again, my pack is light

It's you, Lili Marlene

It's you, Lili Marlene

My love for you renews my might

I'm warm again, my pack is light

It's you, Lili Marlene

It's you, Lili Marlene

 

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/lili-marleen-lili-marlene.html?fbclid=IwAR0pa2RfVFSjuD4qx6wDOTSaR9Rm3oonMTdf0q0QzpGUA_KHGC-YW-VbqcU

 

Lied eines jungen Wachpostens (Lili Marleen)

 

1. Vor der Kaserne

Vor dem grossen Tor

Stand eine Laterne

Und steht sie noch davor

So woll'n wir uns da wieder seh'n

Bei der Laterne wollen wir steh'n

Wie einst Lili Marleen.

 

2. Unsere beide Schatten

Sah'n wie einer aus

Dass wir so lieb uns hatten

Das sah man gleich daraus

Und alle Leute soll'n es seh'n

Wenn wir bei der Laterne steh'n

Wie einst Lili Marleen.

 

3. Schon rief der Posten,

Sie blasen Zapfenstreich

Das kann drei Tage kosten

Kam'rad, ich komm sogleich

Da sagten wir auf Wiedersehen

Wie gerne wollt ich mit dir geh'n

Mit dir Lili Marleen.

 

4. Deine Schritte kennt sie,

Deinen zieren Gang

Alle Abend brennt sie,

Doch mich vergass sie lang

Und sollte mir ein Leids gescheh'n

Wer wird bei der Laterne stehen

Mit dir Lili Marleen?

 

5. Aus dem stillen Raume,

Aus der Erde Grund

Hebt mich wie im Traume

Dein verliebter Mund

Wenn sich die späten Nebel drehn

Werd' ich bei der Laterne steh'n

Wie einst Lili Marleen.

20181224 平安夜 渴求和平聲音 OK.jpg

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()