中國涉台智庫的論述分析：以四個台灣研究機構為例，2008─2014

Abstract

2008年後國民黨取得執政權，其兩岸政策訴求在於強化兩岸政治、經濟、社會及文化的交流。在兩岸關係的新形勢之下，本文以2008年國民黨重新取得執政至2014年作為研究的截點，探討此一時期中國大陸涉台研究智庫對於台灣問題的研究論述，進而理解當前涉台智庫對於台灣問題的認知，反思並重新整理智庫在研究台灣問題時的立場，藉以勾勒出當前中國大陸涉台智庫的真實形象。對於研究議題的劃分上，以高階政治與低階政治兩者作為分類的起點，並透過台灣政局、經濟、社會文化，以及兩岸高階、低階政治議題作為子議題進行分析。 本研究透過智庫旗下之期刊以及對智庫人員的訪談進行分析及整理，發現因資訊傳播以及兩岸交流的發達，中國大陸涉台智庫對於台灣問題的研究有了更為客觀的結果。相較過去「國家主導」的研究論述，否定「干預兩岸終極統合因素」的存在論點已有改變；然而基於智庫政治背景及國家主導的情形下，對於兩岸政治及台灣政局議題的論述並無明顯的立場差異。而對於台灣問題的立場和派別，本文認為以「主戰」、「主降」作為判別智庫具有鴿派或者是鷹派的立場是一種錯誤。真正劃分智庫差異的應為智庫基於當前時空環境背景下的議題研究選擇，而越靠近政治中心的智庫，在研究議題的選擇上越以高階政治及政策議題作為研究重心。因此研究議題的選擇劃分出了智庫的「南派」和「北派」的差異，而非基於「主戰」或是「主降」作為區分智庫的標準。

After the KMT (Kuomingtang) obtained the right to rule in 2008, the appeal of its cross-strait policy has focused on strengthening the exchange of cross-strait politics, economies, social norms, and cultures. Under the new cross-strait state of affairs, this thesis examined the time period between 2008 and 2014. It also investigated the research discussion of China’s think tanks on Taiwan affairs during this period. By understanding current China think tanks’ perceptions of Taiwan affairs as well as reflecting on and reorganizing the think tanks’ stance toward Taiwan affairs research, the real image of current China’s think tanks regarding Taiwan affairs can be outlined. In terms of the division of research issues, this thesis used high politics and low politics as the basis of categorization, and analyzed the sub-issues of Taiwan’s political situation, economy, social culture, and the cross-strait topics of high and low politics. Through analyzing think tanks’ journals and researchers’ interviews, this study discovered that the research by China’s think tanks have become more objective in respective to Taiwan affairs as a result of advancements in information dissemination and cross-strait exchange. In regard to the standpoints and factions toward Taiwan affairs, this thesis believed that distinguishing think tanks as “doves” or “hawks” by their standpoints to “advocate war” or “advocate surrender” would be erroneous. The real criterion that distinguishes among different think tanks should be their choices of research topics given the current time and space. The think tanks that are closer to the center of politics tend to choose topics related to high politics and policies as their research focus. Therefore, the choice of research topics distinguishes think tanks between the “south” and “north” factions, rather than their choices to “advocate war” or “advocate surrender.”