西方媒體造謠成癮，難以戒除？

中國大陸要在赤道幾內亞共和國設立海外軍事基地？美國華爾街日報又有驚人內幕報導，我只能說，謠言年年有，沒有今年多！

首先要提醒一下，雖然赤道幾內亞(Equatorial Guinea)國名中有「赤道」字樣，但該國國土並非位於赤道，各位只要查閱地圖，就可以確認此項有趣的事實。

其次是赤道幾內亞共和國政治情勢與地緣戰略價值，其實都很清楚明確，不論就任何觀點來說，中國大陸並無在該國設立軍事基地之動機與理由。

不要聽到外國媒體報導就深信不疑，不要看到洋文就變成毫無抵抗力，聽到洋和尚唸經，就被騙得團團轉。只要有點腦袋想一想，過去十年內，中國大陸在此處曾經有過任何軍事活動嗎？有任何足夠誘因要在非洲此處進駐軍隊，而且情況重要到專門設立軍事基地嗎？

像華爾街這種不負責任報導，就是刻意作球開出第一槍，然後一堆評論分析，就會打蛇隨棍上，東猜西想亂扯胡講到不可思議地步。這種圍毆北京猛嗑難飯小流氓街頭耍狠手法，真是證明西方媒體專業道德淪喪。

基本論點就是圍繞中國威脅論，再搭配擴張威脅到西方；反正隨便臆測，歪打正著就是情報正確料事如神，假若事後證明是子虛烏有，還可以厚著臉皮聲稱，由於揭露北京陰謀，所以在事跡敗露後，迫使其放棄原有企圖。這真是神也是你、鬼也是你，穩賺不賠造謠生意，因此讓西方媒體樂此不疲。

此種報導若不是聲稱是依據機密情報，就是轉述匿名官員透露內部分析結論；但是從來就沒有任何人因為洩密被處份或起訴，美國政府對於此種媒體爆料，總是擺出默許態度，請問美國政府軍事體系從來不去管束洩密事件，您相信嗎？

其實就是因為中國大陸投資在赤道幾內亞蓋了個港，結果西方媒體就開始充份發揮聯想力，繪聲繪影編織謠言。這種造謠劇本在過去十年，在全球各地上演幾十遍，最後解放軍反而是在西方媒體從來就沒預言過之吉布地，建造設立海外補給基地，以便支持其印度洋護航編隊後勤需求；西方東猜西想全部落空。

美國向來惡人先告狀，請大家想一想，美國國家安全高層官員出訪赤道幾內亞，會是去籌謀本身想建立軍事基地，還是會為阻止空穴來風並不可能設立之中國大陸解放軍軍事基地？用點腦子想想就能明白其中原因。

您假若還不相信，看看該國Bata國際機場停機坪上，究竟是那個國家軍機？用用腦袋就知道誰打算在該國進行軍事活動與進駐部隊。下面則是美國國防部發言人Kirby在例行記者會，回答記者涉及此議題之發言內

MR. KIRBY: Carla?

Q: Hi, thank you. Two different topics, if I may. First, as I'm sure you've seen the Wall Street Journal report about China's attempt to seek a military base in Equatorial Guinea. Can you confirm that -- that they -- that you've seen evidence that there are trying to establish a base there?

MR. KIRBY: What I would just tell you as -- as part of normal diplomacy to address maritime security issues there in that region, we have made clear, the administration has made clear, I don't know about the Department of Defense necessarily, to the leaders of the Equatorial Guinea that certain potential steps involving the PRC and the PRC's activity there would raise national security concerns for us.

And the administration has been clear about that.

Q: When you say national security concerns, can you help our audience understand what some of those may entail?

MR. KIRBY: Well look, again, just like we were talking about the Indo-Pacific, in Africa they continue to try to coerce behavior out of many African nations and try to intimidate, use economic leverage to seek their own national security goals there, which do not contribute in the end run, we don't believe, to the betterment of security stability there and for the interest of many of these African nations.

Now obviously look, these are sovereign nations and we respect that they will have bilateral relations of their own. That's the way the system works. But what we have seen China try to do there and elsewhere around the world is establish a foothold that they could use. That could advance their own military goals and I think that's the real crux of the issue. I really don't think I want to get any deeper than that.

此處接續無關此議題之問題與回答，直到有人再提此事

Q: So just on Carla's question, you said that what we've seen China trying to do is establish a foothold there and elsewhere, so you're confirming then that China is trying to build a military installation?

MR. KIRBY: No. I'm not confirming that they're trying to build a military installation in Equatorial Guinea. I've said that we've expressed to leaders there our national security concerns. And we absolutely have seen China try to establish footholds. I'm not saying just military footholds. Just footholds in other places around the world, influence that they're trying to gain.

Q: And what -- I mean, what leverage does the U.S. have over Equatorial Guinea? You know, you can express that you have national security concerns about it, but I mean, what can the U.S. do really to convince them not to allow China to establish this foothold? Is there something that the U.S. is offering them or?

MR. KIRBY: It's probably a better question put to my State Department colleagues. Obviously that's a really diplomatic issues, but I would just offer that it's not so much about leverage. It's not so much about trying to get some sort of quid pro quo here. It's really about having an honest conversation with them about the concerns that we have, and we've done that.

Obviously like I said it's a sovereign nation, and we respect their right to have bilateral relations in manners that they see fit, but we wouldn't be doing right by our relationship, our bilateral relationship with them if we weren't honest about what our concerns were. But it's not about enforcing some sort of leverage on them.

Q: Just to be clear, what level were those conversations? About like a DOD to...

MR. KIRBY: It wasn't the Department of Defense. It was done through diplomatic channels. Yes. Yes, sir?

假若美國國防部發言人都拒絕證實此事，然後在不斷打高空，最後再推給國務院，大家就可以心知肚明囉！但是這兩天會有一堆傻瓜跟進，跟著這個謠言起舞搭唱；沒辦法，現在這是個全球媒體「圍毆北京造謠產業鏈」囉！