小編快報
《柏林脈動》（The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。

這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。

今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題，作者有五位，分別是：
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使，現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson，以及台灣的龍應台。

德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表，提問是：「面對中國，你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益，即使犧牲經濟利益？」
答案：贊成 76%
反對 19%

小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文，跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好，那那那，那表示你英文很好，你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來

反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天，我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的，用問句來表達自己的悲觀，譬如，「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的，用黑色幽默來表達樂觀，譬如，「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了，沒時間管台灣。」

跟德國一樣，台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差，在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國，中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而，隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張，反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續，而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。

和歐洲一樣，台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時，很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」，當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時，很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是，中國兩者兼備。後果就是，台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。

如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的，你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命，一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨，不管你說它是自願還是被迫，放下了政權，分享權力。沒有流血，昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後，政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。

台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主，時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位，但是，就如同當年對於德國，美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是，在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時，中國也宣布，它在台灣海峽及其領空，要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。

所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅，這個威脅，往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅，卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本，刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功，對台灣的民主制度和機構本身，是個真實的危險。

國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人，其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價，很大的代價，而得到今天的成果。這個成果，太珍貴了，不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。

德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了，如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護，一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解，一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰，又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由，德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員，德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力，發揮最大的影響力。

但是，歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?

首先，如果沒有台灣模式，全世界大概就都得接受一種說法，就是，儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的，而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事：未必如此。

第二，台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯，如果中國是一艘航空母艦，那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員，就人口論，台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國，比波蘭稍小，但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看，台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以，歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?

23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future

Lung Yingtai

On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”

Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.

As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.

Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.

Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.

However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.

Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.

Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.

But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?

The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf

【語言偽術練成法】

語文除了用來傳情達意，有時也用來矇混敷衍、塗脂抹粉。此道官員政客、公關人員最擅長。舉個例，公司要裁員減開支，直截了當的說法是：To cut costs, we will sack some of you.（為減開支，我們要炒些人。）但通告上一定不會這樣寫，而可能是：

In response to the current global economic downturn, we are planning to better manage our costs by introducing a series of business restructuring initiatives which will result in an increase in non-voluntary turnovers.（為應對目前環球經濟衰退，我們正籌備一系列商務重組計劃以更有效地控制成本，其間非自願人員更替的數量會因而上升。）

因為語言在此的功用不在達意，而在粉飾。這些粉飾壞事、醜事、尷尬事的句子，其實不難寫。只須掌握以下五招，再加一張厚臉皮就行。

第一招：Use the passive and omit the agent. 轉主動為被動，不要加「by」

主動句的主語通常是做事的所謂agent，假如改寫成被動句即可把他從句子剔走。所以不說 Tom stole the apple 而說 The item was stolen（物件被盜）。當然不要加 by Tom。

第二招：Prefer the abstract to the concrete. 棄精確，取模糊。

所有精確的字，都要用含混語言代替：棄 kill，steal，rape，sack，dump，而取 occur，engage，conduct，render，undergo。所以，不是 We are going to sack some people（我們將要炒人），而是 Our company is undergoing a restructuring process（本公司正進行業務重組的過程。）

第三招：Prefer nouns to verbs. 棄動詞，取名詞

這與第二招互相補足。總之生動鮮明的動詞，都改成名詞，再配上 abstract verb。所以，不說 Tom raped Mary（Tom強姦Mary了）而說 Tom and Mary engaged in non-consensual sexual activities（Tom跟Mary發生非自願的性行為）。

第四招：Prefer the long to the short. 字越長越好，句子亦然

因為讀起來較廢勁，表達亦較間接。所以 steal 不夠 misappropriate 好，misappropriate 又不夠 temporarily remove from the lawful owner（從合法物主處暫時拿走）好，所以：Tom temporarily removed the apple from its lawful owner。假如配合第一招一起用，就變成：The item was temporarily removed from its lawful owner（物件被人暫時從合法物主處拿取）。從 Tom 的角度看，這樣寫肯定比赤裸裸的「Tom stole the apple」（Tom偷了個蘋果）順眼。以上四招的目標相同，都務求令讀者花最大力氣才能把文字和文字代表的事物連繫起來。最後，畫龍還要點睛：

第五招：Sprinkle with favourable modifiers. 有利己方的修飾詞，不妨多加

別說 We tortured the suspects（我們虐待疑犯），要說 We subjected the suspects to some harmless but effective interrogation methods（我們在疑犯身上進行了一些無害但有效的審問措施）。別說 We burn coal to get electricity（我們燒煤取電），卻說 We have devised a fuel strategy that enables us to produce electricity in a sustainable and environmentally-responsible manner（我們的燃料政策，讓我們能以可持續和有利環境的方式發電）。

實際應用

說了這麼多，看例子吧。兩軍打仗，傷及無辜在所難免，但政府通常怎樣向公眾交代無辜平民傷亡增加的消息？最符合現實、最容易理解的寫法是：

We are killing more and more innocent civilians in the war.（我們殺的無辜平民越來越多。）

怎樣令它變得「得體」？首先改成被動句，就不必寫「我們」：

More and more innocent civilians are killed in the war.（越來越多無辜平民被殺。）
再用名詞配上模糊的動詞。現在「kill」不見了，變成委婉詞「collateral damage」（這個詞，根據新出的牛津英漢漢英詞典 Oxford Chinese Dictionary，中文譯為「附帶性破壞」，跟英文的有異曲同工之妙）。「More and more」太直接了，改成「There is an increase in」；「war」也因為太敏感而改成「operation」：

There is an increase in the occurrence of collateral damage during the course of our operation.（我方執行任務其間，附帶性破壞的發生次數上升了。）

血腥味頓時消減不少。最後，「There is an increase」語氣太肯定了，改成「There have been reports of the possibility of an increase」（有報告顯示有可能增加）。而「our operation」可進一步修飾成「our peacekeeping operation」（維持和平任務）：

There have been reports of the possibility of an increase in the occurrence of collateral damage during the course of our peacekeeping operation.（有報告顯示，我方執行維持和平任務其間附帶性破壞的發生次數可能上升了。）

這樣就把血淋淋的慘劇化妝成冰冷的陳述，大功告成。

蕭叔叔