Please help me translate this Chinese article
Here's the text
香港文汇报今日刊登台湾问题专家李家泉的文章，对美国日前重启对台军售的用心等进行了分析。作者同时指出，中国未来总是要统一的，美国在台湾问题上还是主动解套比被动的好。
文章摘录如下：
美国对台“延宕五年的军售案”，最近重新启动。据报道，美已宣布将向台湾出售价值65亿美
元的先进武器，其中包括四套E-2预警机升级套件、30架“阿帕奇”攻击直升机、330枚“爱国者”-3型防空飞弹及相关设备、32枚潜射“鱼叉”飞弹、182枚反坦克飞弹、F-16及F-5E/F等多型式战斗机配套零件等。报道并认为，这将“大幅提升”台湾军队的战斗能力。此时此刻，美国如此做究竟为哪般？
美国志在牵制 收渔人之利
笔者一向认为，美国为了牵制中国大陆，正像“顽木偶戏”者一样，旨在把国民党和民进党视同手中操控的蓝绿两个“木偶”，随着自己的需要而不时摆弄表演。当国民党执政时，就鼓动和利用民进党加以牵制；反之，当民进党执政时，就又鼓动和利用国民党加以牵制。现在又是国民党执政了，两岸关系出现了缓和与改善的势头，美国表面上赞赏，而实际上则很担心民进党因陈水扁家族弊案的冲击而倒下去，从而影响到美国对台湾政坛的操控，于是又在悄悄扶植和鼓动民进党重振旗鼓，以牵制国民党，防止其在改善两岸关系上与对岸“靠得太近”，“搞得太热乎”。即使如此，美国也还是不放心，于是又大量出售先进武器，“充实其国防战力”，一方面为国民党“壮胆”，一方面让共产党“猜疑”，从而使海峡两岸的红(共产党)、蓝(国民党)、绿(民进党)三个政党继续保持相互抗争、相互牵制、“不统不独”，以使美国永远享受“渔人得利”的地位和好处。美国真是想得太周到了！
然而，笔者在这里要提醒美国的是，中国未来总是要统一的，美国在台湾问题上还是主动解套比被动的好。台湾著名学者王晓波教授，不久前在中国大陆“第十七届海峡两岸关系学术研讨会”上有一段讲话，颇值得美国深思。他说：“要不要付出代价‘拆散中国’，打倒中国，那是美国的抉择”，但是他又认为，美国又有“打不倒就入伙”的道理，“美国若能在‘马英九时代’，协助马英九和平解决台湾问题，未来的美国必然会拥有一个友好而强大的中国，否则美国就必须面对十三亿中国人民以血肉筑成的钢铁长城。”说得好啊，也是充满善意的，但愿美国三思之！
"，“美国若能在‘马英九时代’，协助马英九和平解决台湾问题，未来的美国必然会拥有一个友好而强大的中国，否则美国就必须面对十三亿中国人民以血肉筑成的钢铁长城。”说得好啊，也是充满善意的，但愿美国三思之！ "
If USA supports and helps the unification between mainland CHina and Taiwan, USA will face the USA-friendly China with 13 billions of people. But if USA breaks up the unification, USA will face the USA-hostile China with 13 billions of people.
Well said!
U.S. to blame for damage of bilateral relations
The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday renewed its condemnation on the United States' proposed arms sale to Taiwan and said the American side should take full responsibility for the damage of ties between the two countries and their respective armed forces.
"The U.S. side's act has seriously blocked bilateral exchanges and contacts in various fields, including high-level visits between the two armed forces. The U.S. side should take full responsibilities for the current situation of damaged military-to-military ties," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular press conference here.
He said China always valued the relations with the U.S. armed forces, and had made active efforts to promote the Sino-U.S. military exchanges over many years.
The relationship between the Chinese and U.S. militaries as a whole enjoyed sound momentum of positive growth. In such a condition, the U.S. government, in spite of China's strong objection, on Friday notified the U.S. Congress about its plan to sell arms to Taiwan, including Patriot III anti-missile system, E-2T airborne early warning aircraft upgrade system, Apache helicopters, Javelin missiles, Harpoon submarine-launched missiles, and some airplane accessory parts.
"The U.S. move undoubtedly poisoned the good atmosphere of the military relations between the two nations, seriously endangered Chinese national security, and severely hindered the exchanges in various fields, including the high-level exchanges between the two armed forces," Qin said.
He said "the United States should bear full responsibility for the current situation of Sino-U.S. military relations."
Stuart Upton, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman, on Monday said Washington's arms sale program acted upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Qin said China, at the very start, firmly opposed the so-called "Taiwan Relations Act," which ran counter to the principles of the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques and the fundamental norms governing international relations.
The United States had no right to place domestic law above international ones, or use it as an excuse to sell weapons to Taiwan, Qin noted.
Upton also said "uncertainty over the motivations and direction of China's military expansion leads others to hedge," and "this could lead to a security environment less favorable to China's interests, the region's, and our own."
Qin said he noticed the "absurd comment" of Upton on China's military power, saying such a response was totally "confounding black and white" and "making unfounded counter-charges."
"China firmly takes the road of peaceful development and follows an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy that is defensive in nature," Qin said. "China is an active force of promoting world and regional peace."
He said China aimed at safeguarding national sovereignty, territorial integrity and security to maintain limited defense power, adding the country does not seek hegemony or expansionism, nor an arms race. "China's development poses no threat to anybody," he said.
But the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan had disturbed the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and damaged peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, Qin said.
He said "we demand the U.S. side to fulfill its commitments of adhering to the one-China policy and opposing 'Taiwan independence' with real action, immediately cancel relevant arms sales to Taiwan and end military relations with Taiwan to avoid damaging peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and China-U.S. state-to-state and military-to-military ties."
Anti USA arms sales!
We are so poor and we are unemployeed,please give me money to our poor people ! How can we do for those arms? Arms can't be food!
To Guest Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:30 am GMT
Translating such a long article is far beyond the service a normal helping hand would render on a liberal forum like this.
Strongly recommend you to turn to translation firms for help!
Off-topic:
可見作者根本什麼都沒說過。說來說去都是那幾句，廢話。是誰都知道兩岸問題只是在乎雙方（多方）勢力和權術的運用。太陽的確是從東面升起的。
十三亿 = 1.3 billion
亿 = 100 million, not billion
众所周知，在很长的一段时间中，言论自由被西方国家作为批评中国人权状况经常使用的武器。这种批评往往充斥了对中国政治制度、人权状态，甚至是历史文化的偏见。一些西方人用一种普世理想作为政治武器，攻击另一个国家的不同意识形态和价值观，这种滥用西方话语优势的做法迟早要付出代价。
你有興趣討論，我也有興趣發表一下。有時（我作為平民）是不用很認真很嚴謹去求證這個眾所週知是不是真確。
道理很簡單，就是這本身正是”西方”眼中的虛偽。粵語有句俗話，叫做神又是你，鬼又是你，是指雙重標準的人自處於一個不敗之地，在這種虛假的道德高地（又或者有所謂言論自由的高地）四處指責任何意見相左、好像相對不這麼自由和民主，甚至只要是有文化衝突的國家，就例如中國。
在這裡，我也不妨提出最直接簡單的諷刺：美國人（一般歐洲人反而是他們的副手了，這也”眾所週知”，你可以不信）自己就是雖然不擁有全世界，但就自行為世界下了所有定義，你提出異議就是你不對，就是你有人品問題。 To put it in English (now, here is antimoon): My "prejudice" is (I don't think this is blunt, Americans, do listen to me beforehand) Americans THINK they have defined the world thru giving all the definitions they THINK we need, and for you guys, too, but after all, that's just definitions, and most of us, while perfectly conscious of this, still might have to (most probably) follow the American instructions anyway. That's FINE. The unilateralism just won't triumph all the time, because naturally geopolitics is always going to prevent perfect unilateralism.
Well, at least before Chinese like me die, at least my country wouldn't succumb to this kind of implicitly malicious political libel that are so tacitly accepted and relied on by some morons who don't even know that the sovereignty of their own countries... eh... kinda get undermined thru the years. So they are embracing the American definitions without knowing that they are losing their own, and still say freedom rulz, China sucks, etc.
This is strictly not about something that this forum doesn't allow. That is what I can draw from personal knowledge after a lecture about political philosophy - not a rant, not flaming, either. I'd just say individuals, yeah, you guys, may find it beneficial (or inspiring, enlightening...) to read a bit of cultural and political history of a particular country X before you blame X for having some of the "oh, that really sucks and is retarded!" qualities like not having "liberty and freedom of speech".