时论广场》中共全会与拜习会后兵推系列七：台湾的盲点 欠缺民众视角（方恩格Ross Darrell Feingold）

民众观看拜习会播放画面。(图/路透)

这次由中时媒体集团与中华战略暨兵棋研究协会合办的「2021中共历史决议评估及因应兵棋推演」，时机正好巧妙落在「中国共产党第十九届中央委员会六中全会」以及美中「拜习会」视讯之后。

这次兵棋推演再度邀请到杰出的政治学者、前外交官与前军官等专家与会，大家随即也在会后各自分享了从这次推演之中观察到的评论与感想。本次推演的重点之一，在于讨论中共会议在习近平授意下所通过的《中共建党百年历史决议》内容及其重要性，此决议以习近平过去近10年自诩的执政成就为基础，并且被中国共产党视为未来几年的发展指标。

就笔者观察，台湾许多学者专家将焦点放在计算此《历史决议》中「习近平」所出现的次数，比其他过去中共领导人的名字出现次数多出多少，比较这次《历史决议》与之前中共高层谈话、决议等内容，到底是哪一个比较重要。也有许多人专注讨论中国共产党的内部分工与生成此决议的运作机制为何。笔者认为与其将心神花在争论这些事情上，不妨将重点放在分析于此《历史决议》与中国非共产党员的13亿人口之关联性。笔者的忧心在于，台湾的相关利益者，无论是学术界、媒体，尤其是政府，都大篇幅偏重于对中国进行宏观分析，例如试图分析中国共产党的运作方式、仔细检视中国共产党与台湾相关的政府决策与用词，以及其针对台湾所进行的军事行动等大动作所做出的反应。相较之下，对于中国的微观分析则显不足。

举例而言，若能在研讨过程中还原中国公众对于此《历史决议》的反应、模拟当地公众对于习近平的支持度是否持续增长？从他获得下一任期的理念与正当性来看，公众对他的支持度如何变化？以及如何将习所得到的民众支持有效解读为当地公众对其政府对台政策的支持？虽然要准确推演当地公众的意见并非易事，但若有这些研讨，我们的兵棋推演可能能获得更完整的面向。

至于拜习会，双方的讨论重点皆放在两位领导人在会中所发表与台湾相关之言词。正如上述所提，缺乏了纳入台湾民众想法的推演，要是现场关于拜习会的讨论也能加入台湾的2300万民众的想法，此次推演的讨论内容或许会更具体且完整。作为两岸外交、军事方面的专家，我们应该更深入研讨：民众所关心这次拜习会的重点为何？他们有什么期许？或者在选举期间的炒作才会让某些特定议题被引导关注？

台湾外交部长吴钊燮近日对瑞士媒体表示，两岸情势从未像现在这样紧张。但就笔者观察，在这样的危急情况之间，台湾政府并未特意宣传民众关注攸关台湾国家安全的拜习会或中共六中全会及其《历史决议》。

在这方面，台湾政府的盲点与上述所提到的专家学者问题类似，缺乏了将民众的参与程度纳入考量。若能鼓励台湾民众普遍更了解当前局势，进而让全民在政府决策如何保护台湾的繁荣与安全性时，能有更强大的内部共识，若两岸关系继续恶化时，知己知彼，才能更有胜算。（作者为前美国共和党亚太区主席）

原文：

What Does One Resolution Mean for Taiwan?

By Ross Darrell Feingold

Former Asia Chairman, Republicans Abroad

Twitter: @RossFeingold

The timing of the recent table top exercise hosted by China Times and Council on Strategic & Wargaming Studies was excellent, coming days after both the 19th Communist Party of China Central Committee 6th Plenary Session as well as the “virtual” summit between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping.

As usual the participants in the table exercise included distinguished scholars, retired diplomats, and retired military officers. Their commentaries published afterwards provide their perspectives on important lessons for Taiwan that result from the table top exercise.

With regard to the Chinese Communist party meeting, the importance of the historical resolution passed at Xi Jinping’s behest was the focus of our discussion and analysis. Certainly, the historical resolution is relevant in understanding what Xi Jinping considers his successes over the past ten years, and as an indicator of what his continued leadership will entail in the coming years. However, this author is concerned about the amount of time scholars in Taiwan might spend on the number of references to Xi Jinping versus other past leaders, the importance of the resolution versus past historical resolutions or other important speeches or statements by the party or its leaders, or trying to understand the inner workings of Chinese Communist Party decision making process that resulted in the production of the resolution.

Little time was spent trying to analyze the relevance of the resolution to the approximately 1.3 billion people in China who are not party members. This brought to mind my own concern that relevant stakeholders in Taiwan, whether in academia, media and especially government, spend too much time on macro analysis of China (such as trying to understand the Chinese Communist Party, government