川普與賴清德通話可能強化嚇阻——也可能讓台灣看起來可交易

川普與賴清德通話可能強化嚇阻——也可能讓台灣看起來可交易

27 May 2026 | Nathan Attrill | ASPI 研究員 | 《海峽情勢》

https://deepltranschinese.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post.html

參考：

蘇利文談台灣、裴洛西與意外戰爭的風險

一、引言：蘇利文在2025年給了我們一把風險量尺（250字）

開場引用蘇利文原話：「那次訪問為台灣帶來的代價遠大於收益」＋「戰術失誤→戰略後果」假設情境

提出核心命題：用蘇利文本人的風險管理框架，去重新評分2022年的裴洛西訪台

結論先行：按蘇利文的標準，高市這一次的風險遠高於裴洛西，甚至可能是拜登時代最危險的盟友單邊行動。

二、蘇利文的五維風險矩陣（350字）

列出蘇利文最在意的五個維度（可做表格或條列）

是否讓北京感到「不可接受的地位挑戰」

是否把第三方盟友綁上「不可撤銷的戰車」

是否給了北京「必須立即強烈回應」的台階

意外升級路徑的長度與可控性

收益是否真的值得代價（國內政治與國際信號）

三、2022裴洛西訪台：蘇利文眼中的「高風險、低收益」（450字）

當時美國內部決策過程（拜登反對、軍方洩密、五角大樓評估後果嚴重）

實際後果：新中線誕生、常態化越線、第四次台海危機

收益評估：象徵意義強，但實質戰略收益微乎其微

蘇利文私下評分：8/10 風險，3/10 收益 → 代價遠

https://deepltranschinese.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_294.html

辯論 | 台灣民主的未來是什麼？

> 也許習近平向川普提出的「建設性戰略穩定關係」，意味著他願意以新的戰略耐心，在不開一槍的情況下收回台灣。如此一來，台灣得以維持其民主，而「中國特色」則留待未來再說。

https://deepltranschinese.blogspot.com/2026/05/blog-post_6584.html

美國海軍代理部長高雄日前公開表示，美國正暫停對台140億美元的軍售案，引發國內各種不同聲浪。對此，中華戰略暨兵棋研究協會理事長黃介正在風傳媒節目《下班國際線》接受主持人路怡珍專訪時指出，台美關係目前仍舊堅如磐石，但出現了兩條裂痕，也就是中美兩國元首公開談論台灣問題，以及美國與中共商談對台軍售問題，而這兩條裂痕在過去相當長一段時間沒有發生。

黃介正說明，高雄事後收回在參議院聽證會中，美國暫停對台140億軍售的證詞，因為白宮後來稱尚未做決定。他分析，海軍代理部長會參與部分會議討論，但並非主要決策者，尤其對台軍售並非其業務管籌範圍，因此仍要看美國總統川普（Donald Trump）如何決定。

https://deepltranschinese.blogspot.com/2026/06/14040.html

😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃

美國總統川普暗示可能直接與台灣總統賴清德通話討論武器銷售事宜，這件事之所以重要，並不是因為通話已經排定（事實上並未排定），而是因為他使用的語言已經傳達出明確訊號。川普將台灣防衛置於他與中國國家主席習近平交涉的脈絡中討論，這等於是讓美國對台軍售看起來像是美中談判中的可交易項目——這正是北京最希望看到的框架。

自從1979年華盛頓與台北斷交、轉而承認北京以來，公開記錄中只有一次美國總統或當選總統與台灣現任領導人直接通話，那就是2016年12月川普當選總統後與當時總統蔡英文的通話。在此期間，沒有公開記錄的元首級面對面會晤，也沒有其他已知的電話通話。這反映出美台關係的非官方性質。

**川普與賴清德的通話將比2016年的通話更具突破性**。因為這次川普是現任總統，他將可能的通話直接與一筆據報高達140億美元（約190億澳幣）的軍售方案連結在一起，而且這發生在川普與習近平舉行峰會之後——峰會中川普表示台灣和軍售是主要討論議題。因此，這通可能的通話不僅是禮儀上的震撼，更會發生在台灣安全議題正處於實質談判的背景下。

從法律層面來看，川普與賴清德通話並沒有明顯的法定障礙。美國的「一個中國」政策並不禁止高層溝通。近年來，華盛頓已逐步擴大與台灣的接觸，包括國會議員訪台、高層官員互動、過境安排，以及更新後的國務院指導方針。

但真正的問題不在於合法性，而在於**訊號意義**。

支持川普與賴清德通話的最強理由是：在川普自己製造了大量不確定性的情況下，此舉能安撫台灣。賴清德幾乎一定會在通話中強調台灣維持兩岸現狀的承諾，並指出是中國而非台灣，透過脅迫手段在破壞區域穩定。一場有紀律的通話可以強化以下訊息：美國軍售是為了嚇阻而非挑釁；台灣的民主值得尊重；北京無權否決美台之間的各種溝通形式。

此外，也有一個合理的論點：華盛頓不應讓北京獨自定義其「一個中國」政策的每一個象徵意義。自1979年以來，美台關係已發生巨大變化。台灣如今已是鞏固的民主政體、在全球科技體系中佔有核心地位，並正面臨中國軍事、網路、外交與政治脅迫的前線。把台灣民選總統視為「美國總統不能直接對話」的對象，看起來越來越不自然。

但這是最佳情境的假設。它假設通話經過充分準備、保持紀律，並具有戰略目的。而對川普而言，這些都不能視為理所當然。問題在於，川普並未將此事框定為一次謹慎的安撫行動，而是將台灣武器銷售描述成與習近平討論後才要權衡的事項，甚至可能作為美中更廣泛交易的籌碼。這非常危險。

根據《六項保證》（雷根政府為指導美台關係而提出的原則），美國長期以來的立場是：華盛頓不會就對台軍售事宜與北京進行磋商。根據《台灣關係法》，提供防衛性武器並非對台北的恩惠，也不是與北京討價還價的籌碼，而是美國政策的法律與戰略基礎。

這正是為何與賴清德的通話可能適得其反。它可能在象徵意義上安撫台灣，卻在戰略上削弱台灣。如果川普與賴清德通話後，卻因為與習近平的討論而延遲、修改或降低軍售方案，那麼這通電話就無法展現決心，反而會凸顯台灣在更交易導向的美國外交政策下的脆弱性。

北京很可能會利用這種模糊性。它最希望傳達的敘事是：台灣並非擁有主體性的夥伴，而是華盛頓手中的一張牌，最終會被用來與北京交易。川普的語言正冒著替北京做宣傳的風險。一通與賴清德的直接通話看似大膽，但如果包裹在交易語言之中，可能會強化「台灣安全可被談判」的認知。

一場經過精心準備的川普—賴清德通話，若明確與嚇阻、支持現狀及批准防衛性軍售連結，將會是有益的。它能強化華盛頓不讓北京壟斷高層政治溝通管道的立場。

但一場即興的、與對習近平交易掛鉤的川普—賴清德通話，則會是壞事。它可能模糊安撫與交易之間的界線，招致中國報復，並加深台北的疑慮——認為川普把台灣視為談判籌碼。

問題不在於川普「能不能」與賴清德通話。他可以。  

真正的問題是：他能否以一種**強化嚇阻、而非讓台灣看起來可交易**的方式進行通話。目前，這正是最大的風險。

---

**《海峽情勢》（State of the Strait）完整資料庫可在此查閱。**  

政府與組織若有意共同出資支持本計畫並取得完整資料庫，請聯繫：ctspartnerships@aspi.org.au

---

翻譯完成。如需調整語氣（更正式/更口語）、修改特定詞彙，或針對某些段落再優化，請告訴我！

😃😃😃😃😃😃

A Trump–Lai call could strengthen deterrence – or make Taiwan look tradable

27 May 2026|Nathan AttrillASPI staffState of the Strait

US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he might speak directly with Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te about weapons sales matters not because a call has been scheduled – it has not – but because of what his language already signals. By discussing Taiwan’s defence in the context of his dealings with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump risks making US arms sales look like a tradable item in US–China bargaining. That is exactly the frame that Beijing wants.

Since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, there has been only one publicly documented direct conversation between a US president or president-elect and Taiwan’s sitting leader: Trump’s December 2016 phone call, as president-elect, with then president Tsai Ing-wen. There are no publicly documented face-to-face meetings and no other known phone calls between US presidents and Taiwanese leaders during that period. This reflects the unofficial nature of the United States’ relationship with Taiwan.

A Trump–Lai call would be more norm-shattering than even the 2016 call. Trump is now a sitting president. Trump has tied the possible call directly to a pending arms package reportedly worth up to US$14 billion (A$19 billion). And it follows a Trump–Xi summit at which Trump said Taiwan and arms sales were major topics of discussion. The possible Lai call would not just be a protocol shock but would sit inside a live negotiation over Taiwan’s security.

Legally, there is no obvious statutory bar on Trump speaking with Lai. The One-China policy of the US doesn’t prohibit high-level communication. Washington has steadily expanded contact with Taiwan in recent years, including through congressional visits, senior official interactions, transit arrangements and updated State Department guidelines.

But the real issue is not legality; it is signalling. The strongest argument for a Trump–Lai call is that it could reassure Taiwan when Trump himself has generated so much uncertainty. Lai would almost certainly use the call to stress Taiwan’s commitment to the cross-strait status quo and to argue that China, not Taiwan, is destabilising the region through coercion. A disciplined call could reinforce that US arms sales are about deterrence, not provocation; that Taiwan’s democracy deserves respect; and that Beijing doesn’t get a veto over every form of US–Taiwan communication.

There is also a reasonable case that Washington should not allow Beijing to define every symbol of the latter’s One-China policy. The US–Taiwan relationship has changed dramatically since 1979. Taiwan is now a consolidated democracy, an economy central to global technology systems, and a frontline target of Chinese military, cyber, diplomatic and political coercion. Treating its elected president as someone no US president can directly speak to looks increasingly artificial.

But that is the best-case version. It assumes preparation, discipline and strategic purpose. With Trump, those are not safe assumptions. The problem is that Trump has not framed the issue as a careful act of reassurance. He has framed Taiwan’s weapons sales as something to be weighed after discussions with Xi and potentially as leverage in a broader US–China bargain. That is dangerous. Under the Six Assurances – principles outlined by Ronald Reagan to guide US–Taiwan relations – the US position has long been that Washington did not agree to consult Beijing on arms sales to Taiwan. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, defensive arms are not a favour to Taipei or a bargaining chip with Beijing. They are part of the legal and strategic basis of US policy.

That is why a call with Lai could easily backfire. It could reassure Taiwan symbolically while undermining it strategically. If Trump speaks with Lai but then delays, reshapes or downgrades the arms package because of his discussions with Xi, the call will not demonstrate resolve. It would demonstrate Taiwan’s vulnerability to a more transactional US foreign policy.

Beijing would likely exploit that ambiguity. Its preferred narrative is that Taiwan is not a partner with agency but a card to be played by Washington and ultimately traded with Beijing. Trump’s language risks doing Beijing’s work for it. A direct call with Lai could look bold, but if it comes wrapped in the language of dealmaking, it may strengthen the perception that Taiwan’s security is negotiable.

A carefully prepared Trump–Lai call, explicitly tied to deterrence, supporting the status quo and approval of defensive arms sales, would be useful. It would reinforce that Washington does not let Beijing monopolise the channels of top-level political communication.

But an improvised Trump–Lai call linked to bargaining with Xi would be a bad thing. It risks blurring the line between reassurance and transaction, inviting Chinese retaliation, and deepening fears in Taipei that Trump sees Taiwan as a negotiating chip.

The issue is not whether Trump can speak to Lai. He can. The issue is whether he can do so in a way that strengthens deterrence rather than making Taiwan look tradable. Right now, that is the risk.

 

State of the Strait is available here. Governments and organisations can contact ctspartnerships@aspi.org.au to discuss co-funding this project and gaining access to the entire State of the Strait database.