中共傳統上對統戰的模糊定義致使針對統戰的研究很難找到共通實踐，本文透過歷史資料的檢視整理相關案例。本文自1925 年到1998 年間的中共黨史與臺灣過去的限閱書籍整理1,368 案例，並將之區分為守勢發展型、攻勢寄生型與攻勢侵略型等三個類型。本文發現：其一，中共的操作相當重視「散布假消息」與「操弄訊息」，因為類似策略的操弄有助於在社會輿論中取得優勢地位。其二，當中國認為局勢對其有利之際，中國統戰的攻勢更強。其三，當中國與假想敵之間存在地理連結之際，中國統戰實踐的攻勢會更強。最後，當中國的發展戰略以經濟為重之際，中國統戰實踐會更傾向守勢。

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of China’s united front (UF) practices by reviewing historical records from both Beijing and Taipei. The lack of a clear definition of united front work by China has made studying their practices challenging. To overcome this, this essay created a database of 1,368 cases and classified China’s UF practices into three models: defensive development, offensive parasitism, and offensive invasion, in which the research found that China tends to spread misinformation and disinformation in most cases, as these tactics enable China to manipulate public opinion. When China believes they have an advantage over their main adversary in an ongoing dispute, their UF practices become more offensive. Additionally, China tends to be more aggressive when there are geographic and personnel connections between them and their adversary. Finally, when China prioritizes economic development, their UF practices become more defensive. Overall, this research provides valuable insights into China’s UF practices and their motivations. The database created can be used to further analyze China’s UF practices and develop strategies to counter them.

統戰、南方局、認知作戰、銳實力

United Front Work, The Southern Bureau (Nanfang Ju), Cognitive Warfare, Sharp Power