偵測台灣地位
Sleuthing Taiwan Status
每逢天災地變，救難人員得藉助訓練有素之搜索犬，以高度靈敏嗅覺，協助尋找落難者。自從1951年9月8日舊金山和平條約簽署後，至今60年，有如被埋藏在地下之台灣地位，自然需要培養高法理靈敏度以行偵測。
美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光(AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt)最近認為：「詭辯台灣國際地位有如詭辯神學一般，花時間在上頭並不會非常有用，因無論你走那條路，都會讓自己陷入更多麻煩。 quibbling over the international status of Taiwan is similar to theology and it’s not terribly useful to spend time on it, because each way you go, you get yourself into more trouble.」
薄瑞光之說法，言下之意是：「既然台灣地位走那條路都不通，就不必浪費時間費心了。」由結果論來看，美國對台灣地位的認知顯然有實際的落差，而由因果論來 看，錯誤之果必是錯誤之因所造成。本土台灣人就是因美國糢糊政策，錯誤認知台灣地位，放任中國國共政權爭議無關中國主權之日本台灣，以致至今本土台灣人仍 然淪於政治煉獄。
美國總統因政治理由認同台灣應成為中國一部份之歷史證據：
1. 第32位美國總統Franklin D. Roosevelt是在1943年12月1日所發佈之「開羅公報」中，認知台灣應歸還中華民國：
" , and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." 日本所竊自中國人之全部領土如滿洲、福爾摩沙及澎湖應歸還中華民國。
2. 第33位美國總統Harry S. Truman，在1949年12月22日之記者會上宣稱："Taiwan is not a free country, but rather that it is part of Nationalist China." 台灣不是自由的國家，而是國民黨中國之一部份。
3. 第37位美國總統Richard M. Nixon，是在1972年2月28日所發布之「上海公報」中「得知」台灣是中國一部份：
"The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China." 美國「得知」在台灣海峽兩邊之所有中國人，都堅持只有一個中國，並「承認」台灣是中國一部份。
美國Franklin D. Roosevelt總統一方面是為防止蔣介石元帥和日本和談，另一方面則是為鼓勵蔣介石元帥堅持對日抗戰，而政治性認同台灣應歸還中華民國。 Harry S. Truman總統應是毫無知悉台灣已於1945年4月1日編入為日本國土一部份，成為萬國公法所適用之領土。在當時反共時空背景下，接受同為反共之國民政 府佔領台灣。Richard M. Nixon總統則是為使美國和中國能順利建立外交關係，而「得知」台灣是中國一部份。
美國政府對台政策(policy toward Taiwan)60年來，一向沒有遵循國際法理，於是只能將錯就錯，以致一錯再錯而迷失於錯誤的台灣認知中。可以體會薄瑞光理事主席「無論走那條路都不 通」之感嘆。無法確定美國政府如依照杜勒斯所構想之國際程序(international processes)，處理台灣地位會有何困難，然可以確定的是：
A. 依美國憲法Article 1 Section 8，美國總統如違反萬國公法，美國國會可予以界定及懲罰(define and punish offences against the Law of Nations)。
B. 依美國憲法Article 2 Section 1，美國總統就任時得宣誓會遵循美國憲法。而美國憲法是承認萬國公法及其所衍生之戰爭法。
被埋藏地下60年之台灣地位，在地下迷宮中無論怎麼走，都是阻力重重而徒勞無功。本土台灣人應該結合「歷史和法理」以偵測，台灣地位終會被挖掘出土而重見天日：
1. 日本台灣在國際上之地位
美國政府如不承認西班牙依於1898年12月10日簽署美西巴黎和約所讓與美國之波多黎各是美國佔領下之西班牙領土，就不應承認大清帝國依1895年4月17日簽署之日清下關條約所讓與日本國之台灣是日本國佔領下之中國領土。否則就是持雙重標準而無正當性。
有別於波多黎各地位至今仍然是美國之「未編入領土」，台灣地位則是已於1945年4月1日，被日本政府編為國土一部份而成為日本之「已編入領土」。在萬國公法拘束下，日本國家不得變更或免除其對台灣之主權義務，是以仍保有殘餘主權，無法將台灣主權讓與任何方。
美國對台灣既無主權，並無立場依美國政府政策，片面決定台灣在國際上之地位。一方面，台灣主權歸屬並非美國總統說了算，美國總統即使「得知」台灣是中國一 部份，台灣也不會因此而成為中國一部份，以致其為無效承認(invalid recognition)。另一方面，基於台灣自1945年4月1日起已成為萬國公法所適用之日本國土一部份，美國總統如將台灣承認為中國一部份是違反萬 國公法，美國國會依美國憲法之授權可予以彈劾。
2. 日本台灣在日本國之地位
日本國憲法(和平憲法)於1947年5月3日施行後，日本天皇依憲法第4條-1, 只能執行憲法所規定之國事，無有關政府之權力(shall not have powers related to government)。
儘管如此，在1951年9月8日對日和約簽署前夕，杜勒斯曾打算讓日本天皇參與和平及安保兩項條約之簽署。根據盟軍最高統帥麥克阿瑟將軍政治顧問 William J. Sebald回顧所述，不只是美國，就連英國也比美國更強力主張讓日本天皇參與講和。依「日本占領外交之回顧」，當時英國政府向美國政府及日本政府提議， 或許應該要求日本天皇出席簽署條約。
由以上歷史事實可得知，美國制定日本憲法規定天皇不能參與國政，然在關鍵時刻，卻期待天皇能介入以促成，實在是諷刺。有道是「解鈴還需繫鈴人」，就日本天 皇之國政參與，征服日本之美國總統杜魯門既有權剝奪，其本人或後繼者當然就有權賦予。只要美國總統不反對，日本天皇或許也能有所做為。
日本天皇需遵從美國律師為日本所制定之日本國憲法，意味日本天皇需遵從美國旨意。美國雖無立場決定台灣在國際上之地位，然是有立場在萬國公法架構內安排台 灣和日本建立關係，完成地位正常化。台灣領土既歸屬日本天皇，一方面，台灣民政府依舊金山和平條約Article 2(b)，自是有立場主張「日本國土內之自治」，而另一方面，日本天皇在美國同意下，認可台灣在內閣總理大臣監督下發展地方自治(develop local autonomy)，並無背離杜勒斯處理台灣之構想。台灣地位之所謂未定(undetermined)，是看美國究竟要如何安排以決定(to arrange so as to determine)日本和台灣之關係。
台灣地位如是以政治處理，則誠如美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光所言：「無論走那條路，都會讓自己陷入更多麻煩。」反之，堅持法理，則終有走出活路的一天。
作者：林 志昇（武林 志昇˙林 峯弘）
福爾摩沙法理建國會 執行長
2011/10/03
參考資料:
1. Joshua Tin: Moving on from an historical argument
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/09/27/2003...
By Joshua Tin 田台仁
After World War II, Taiwan and Penghu fell into the hands of the Allied forces and came under the legal control of the US. At the time, however, Washington delegated control of the territories to the Republic of China (ROC) government of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
The way events transpired, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was allowed to remain on Taiwan and Penghu unchallenged, and the people living there were subjected to brainwashing at the hands of the ROC. From an historical perspective, Taiwan was not governed by an “alternative China,” but rather the Taiwan Authority — the same “governing authorities on Taiwan” referred to in the US’ Taiwan Relations Act.
Since this time, China has developed unquestioned economic clout, while the Taiwan question has remained unresolved. It was this Gordian knot that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) addressed during a speech titled, “Taiwan’s national security challenges and strategies in the next decade,” at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Tsai scrutinized the relationships between Washington, Taiwan and Penghu, Beijing and the Western Pacific region. Not only is she aware of the Achilles’ heel of Washington and Beijing, she also knows how to use it to her advantage.
Tsai expressed hope that both Washington and Beijing would understand and respect the choice of the people of Taiwan and Penghu, and said that the best strategy for all concerned would be for them to respect Taiwan’s right to live a free and democratic existence.
Tsai not only discussed the challenges, she also expressed her resolve to address them. One challenge she discussed was the need to ensure regional peace and stability. To achieve this, Taiwan needs to expand cooperation and coordination with other countries in the region, particularly with the US and its allies, she said.
The current situation in the Western Pacific region, and especially the complex nature of the Taiwan Strait, cannot be resolved by relying simply on national identity and a political stance.
On the matter of the South China Sea, Tsai said the DPP support freedom of navigation and the settlement of disputes within a multilateral framework and through international law.
More importantly, she said that there has never been animosity between Taiwanese and Chinese, but that historically there were “wars and conflicts between the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] and the KMT.”
Tsai intends to save Taiwan from the animosity between the KMT and the CCP and seek out a place for the nation within the stable framework of the West Pacific region.
The paradigm shift she is proposing has the potential to finally lift the people of Taiwan and Penghu out of the independence/ unification trap devised by politicians from the KMT and CCP. After all, these two parties remain embroiled in the same endless dispute, an argument that has got absolutely nothing to do with Taiwan and Penghu.
Joshua Tin is an economist.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Comments:
Jeff Geer (Joshua Tin: Historical Sleuthing)
This is a much better attempt to dig deeper into the history of Taiwan.
It is attempting to assemble the pieces of the Taiwan Puzzle together.
How does the UNCLOS III relate to Taiwan? Freedom of Navigation especially the Taiwan Straits.
How does the UNCLOS protect Taiwan? Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
How does the TRA relate to UNCLOS and PSI? Civil affairs regulations.
Is there a naval history of Taiwan? Commodore Perry in 1854. Lt Kerr in WWII.
Why is the naval history important?
The legislative history of the TRA human rights clause points to role of military government. And FAPA says that there is nothing there. It seems like they have something to hide from you.
Keep digging and digging. You will probably dig a big hole through the One China policy.
2. Ascertaining the status of Taiwan
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/09/27/2003...
By Dennis Hickey
Does the US government believe that Taiwan is a province of China, a nation separate from China, or perhaps something else? There is no answer to this question. If anything, the US position toward the international status of Taiwan has been “consistently inconsistent.”
In November 1943, then-US president Franklin Roosevelt, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) met in Cairo. The outcome of the meeting was the Cairo Declaration. This was a World War II era accord outlining the disposition of territories “stolen” by Japan — including Manchuria, the Pescadores and Taiwan. In keeping with the terms of the agreement, these territories were “restored to the Republic of China [ROC]” in 1945. Although lower-level officials in the US Department of State discussed other options, US policy held that Taiwan was part of China.
When Chiang’s forces retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the US position toward the island’s status was still clear. During a news conference on Dec. 22, 1949, then-US president Harry Truman declared that Taiwan is “not a free country,” but rather that “it is part of Nationalist China.” During private discussions with US lawmakers on Jan. 5, 1950, then-US secretary of state Dean Acheson argued that Taiwan was “essentially a Chinese territory” and that its fate had been “morally sealed by some form of prior agreement.”
Following the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the US reversed its position. Much to the chagrin of Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and Chiang, Washington adopted the position that the status of Taiwan was “undetermined.” On June 27, 1950, Truman declared that “the future status of Formosa [Taiwan] must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.” However, the island’s status was not determined by any of these events. Moreover, the US did not adopt a clear position on Taiwan’s status when it concluded a defense treaty with the ROC in 1954. And when anticipating Taipei’s withdrawal from the UN in 1971, the US Department of State announced that “in our view, sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores is an unsettled question.”
Some contend that the series of US-People’s Republic of China (PRC) communiques negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s settled the matter. They did not. In the US versions of the communiques, the US recognizes the PRC as the legitimate government of China and acknowledges Beijing’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of it. The word “acknowledge” was deliberately chosen as it indicates cognizance of, but not necessarily agreement with, the Chinese position. Interestingly, the PRC versions of the communiques state that both sides “agree” that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of it.
These public proclamations do not tell the whole story. Recently declassified documents reveal that former US president Richard Nixon stated plainly that Taiwan was a part of China during his 1972 visit to China. In top secret discussions with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來), the president declared that “there is one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. There will be no more statements made — if I can control the bureaucracy — to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined.” Even more astonishing, then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger seems to have conceded that Taiwan eventually will be absorbed by the PRC. Like Nixon, Kissinger pledged that Washington would never again refer to Taiwan’s status as “undetermined.”
Despite the promises of Nixon and Kissinger, statements about Taiwan’s “undetermined” status continued. With the end of the Cold War, the US Department of Defense released a study that referred to Taiwan, along with the Spratly (南沙群島) and Paracel (西沙群島) islands, as “unresolved territorial issues.” The ensuing uproar prompted the Department of Defense to backtrack and explain, “our policy is unchanged. The US acknowledges the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” Of course, this meant nothing.
Confusion over US policy continues. The behavior of former US president George W. Bush’s administration was especially perplexing. According to a congressional study, in 2003, Bush reportedly promised Beijing’s leaders that the US opposes Taiwan’s independence from China. Some believe the inference was clear — namely, Taiwan belongs to China. Leaked diplomatic cables show that the Bush administration played a key role in crafting a secret agreement in 2005 whereby Taipei might participate in the WHO as “Taiwan, China.” Washington pressured Taipei to accept the nomenclature and urged it to keep the matter secret. However, according to leaked US diplomatic cables, in 2007, Washington pressured the UN and its secretary-general to stop using the phrase, “Taiwan is a part of China.” Confusing, isn’t it?
US policy toward Taiwan’s international status remains a favorite topic for discussion among activists with varying political agendas. It enables them to selectively “cherry pick” certain US statements to support almost any argument about Taiwan’s international status.
However, the preoccupation with US policy toward this issue may be misplaced. Despite its “superpower” status, the US government is in no position to unilaterally determine the international status of foreign territories or countries. Just because Nixon said Taiwan is part of China does not make it true or false.
In the final analysis, as AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt opined recently, quibbling over the international status of Taiwan is similar to theology and “it’s not terribly useful to spend time on it, because each way you go, you get yourself into more trouble.”
Dennis Hickey is the director of the graduate program in global studies at Missouri State University and co-editor of New Thinking about the Taiwan Issue: Theoretical insights into its origins, dynamics and prospects.
Sleuthing Taiwan Status
每逢天災地變，救難人員得藉助訓練有素之搜索犬，以高度靈敏嗅覺，協助尋找落難者。自從1951年9月8日舊金山和平條約簽署後，至今60年，有如被埋藏在地下之台灣地位，自然需要培養高法理靈敏度以行偵測。
美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光(AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt)最近認為：「詭辯台灣國際地位有如詭辯神學一般，花時間在上頭並不會非常有用，因無論你走那條路，都會讓自己陷入更多麻煩。 quibbling over the international status of Taiwan is similar to theology and it’s not terribly useful to spend time on it, because each way you go, you get yourself into more trouble.」
薄瑞光之說法，言下之意是：「既然台灣地位走那條路都不通，就不必浪費時間費心了。」由結果論來看，美國對台灣地位的認知顯然有實際的落差，而由因果論來 看，錯誤之果必是錯誤之因所造成。本土台灣人就是因美國糢糊政策，錯誤認知台灣地位，放任中國國共政權爭議無關中國主權之日本台灣，以致至今本土台灣人仍 然淪於政治煉獄。
美國總統因政治理由認同台灣應成為中國一部份之歷史證據：
1. 第32位美國總統Franklin D. Roosevelt是在1943年12月1日所發佈之「開羅公報」中，認知台灣應歸還中華民國：
" , and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." 日本所竊自中國人之全部領土如滿洲、福爾摩沙及澎湖應歸還中華民國。
2. 第33位美國總統Harry S. Truman，在1949年12月22日之記者會上宣稱："Taiwan is not a free country, but rather that it is part of Nationalist China." 台灣不是自由的國家，而是國民黨中國之一部份。
3. 第37位美國總統Richard M. Nixon，是在1972年2月28日所發布之「上海公報」中「得知」台灣是中國一部份：
"The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China." 美國「得知」在台灣海峽兩邊之所有中國人，都堅持只有一個中國，並「承認」台灣是中國一部份。
美國Franklin D. Roosevelt總統一方面是為防止蔣介石元帥和日本和談，另一方面則是為鼓勵蔣介石元帥堅持對日抗戰，而政治性認同台灣應歸還中華民國。 Harry S. Truman總統應是毫無知悉台灣已於1945年4月1日編入為日本國土一部份，成為萬國公法所適用之領土。在當時反共時空背景下，接受同為反共之國民政 府佔領台灣。Richard M. Nixon總統則是為使美國和中國能順利建立外交關係，而「得知」台灣是中國一部份。
美國政府對台政策(policy toward Taiwan)60年來，一向沒有遵循國際法理，於是只能將錯就錯，以致一錯再錯而迷失於錯誤的台灣認知中。可以體會薄瑞光理事主席「無論走那條路都不 通」之感嘆。無法確定美國政府如依照杜勒斯所構想之國際程序(international processes)，處理台灣地位會有何困難，然可以確定的是：
A. 依美國憲法Article 1 Section 8，美國總統如違反萬國公法，美國國會可予以界定及懲罰(define and punish offences against the Law of Nations)。
B. 依美國憲法Article 2 Section 1，美國總統就任時得宣誓會遵循美國憲法。而美國憲法是承認萬國公法及其所衍生之戰爭法。
被埋藏地下60年之台灣地位，在地下迷宮中無論怎麼走，都是阻力重重而徒勞無功。本土台灣人應該結合「歷史和法理」以偵測，台灣地位終會被挖掘出土而重見天日：
1. 日本台灣在國際上之地位
美國政府如不承認西班牙依於1898年12月10日簽署美西巴黎和約所讓與美國之波多黎各是美國佔領下之西班牙領土，就不應承認大清帝國依1895年4月17日簽署之日清下關條約所讓與日本國之台灣是日本國佔領下之中國領土。否則就是持雙重標準而無正當性。
有別於波多黎各地位至今仍然是美國之「未編入領土」，台灣地位則是已於1945年4月1日，被日本政府編為國土一部份而成為日本之「已編入領土」。在萬國公法拘束下，日本國家不得變更或免除其對台灣之主權義務，是以仍保有殘餘主權，無法將台灣主權讓與任何方。
美國對台灣既無主權，並無立場依美國政府政策，片面決定台灣在國際上之地位。一方面，台灣主權歸屬並非美國總統說了算，美國總統即使「得知」台灣是中國一 部份，台灣也不會因此而成為中國一部份，以致其為無效承認(invalid recognition)。另一方面，基於台灣自1945年4月1日起已成為萬國公法所適用之日本國土一部份，美國總統如將台灣承認為中國一部份是違反萬 國公法，美國國會依美國憲法之授權可予以彈劾。
2. 日本台灣在日本國之地位
日本國憲法(和平憲法)於1947年5月3日施行後，日本天皇依憲法第4條-1, 只能執行憲法所規定之國事，無有關政府之權力(shall not have powers related to government)。
儘管如此，在1951年9月8日對日和約簽署前夕，杜勒斯曾打算讓日本天皇參與和平及安保兩項條約之簽署。根據盟軍最高統帥麥克阿瑟將軍政治顧問 William J. Sebald回顧所述，不只是美國，就連英國也比美國更強力主張讓日本天皇參與講和。依「日本占領外交之回顧」，當時英國政府向美國政府及日本政府提議， 或許應該要求日本天皇出席簽署條約。
由以上歷史事實可得知，美國制定日本憲法規定天皇不能參與國政，然在關鍵時刻，卻期待天皇能介入以促成，實在是諷刺。有道是「解鈴還需繫鈴人」，就日本天 皇之國政參與，征服日本之美國總統杜魯門既有權剝奪，其本人或後繼者當然就有權賦予。只要美國總統不反對，日本天皇或許也能有所做為。
日本天皇需遵從美國律師為日本所制定之日本國憲法，意味日本天皇需遵從美國旨意。美國雖無立場決定台灣在國際上之地位，然是有立場在萬國公法架構內安排台 灣和日本建立關係，完成地位正常化。台灣領土既歸屬日本天皇，一方面，台灣民政府依舊金山和平條約Article 2(b)，自是有立場主張「日本國土內之自治」，而另一方面，日本天皇在美國同意下，認可台灣在內閣總理大臣監督下發展地方自治(develop local autonomy)，並無背離杜勒斯處理台灣之構想。台灣地位之所謂未定(undetermined)，是看美國究竟要如何安排以決定(to arrange so as to determine)日本和台灣之關係。
台灣地位如是以政治處理，則誠如美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光所言：「無論走那條路，都會讓自己陷入更多麻煩。」反之，堅持法理，則終有走出活路的一天。
作者：林 志昇（武林 志昇˙林 峯弘）
福爾摩沙法理建國會 執行長
2011/10/03
參考資料:
1. Joshua Tin: Moving on from an historical argument
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/09/27/2003...
By Joshua Tin 田台仁
After World War II, Taiwan and Penghu fell into the hands of the Allied forces and came under the legal control of the US. At the time, however, Washington delegated control of the territories to the Republic of China (ROC) government of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
The way events transpired, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was allowed to remain on Taiwan and Penghu unchallenged, and the people living there were subjected to brainwashing at the hands of the ROC. From an historical perspective, Taiwan was not governed by an “alternative China,” but rather the Taiwan Authority — the same “governing authorities on Taiwan” referred to in the US’ Taiwan Relations Act.
Since this time, China has developed unquestioned economic clout, while the Taiwan question has remained unresolved. It was this Gordian knot that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) addressed during a speech titled, “Taiwan’s national security challenges and strategies in the next decade,” at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Tsai scrutinized the relationships between Washington, Taiwan and Penghu, Beijing and the Western Pacific region. Not only is she aware of the Achilles’ heel of Washington and Beijing, she also knows how to use it to her advantage.
Tsai expressed hope that both Washington and Beijing would understand and respect the choice of the people of Taiwan and Penghu, and said that the best strategy for all concerned would be for them to respect Taiwan’s right to live a free and democratic existence.
Tsai not only discussed the challenges, she also expressed her resolve to address them. One challenge she discussed was the need to ensure regional peace and stability. To achieve this, Taiwan needs to expand cooperation and coordination with other countries in the region, particularly with the US and its allies, she said.
The current situation in the Western Pacific region, and especially the complex nature of the Taiwan Strait, cannot be resolved by relying simply on national identity and a political stance.
On the matter of the South China Sea, Tsai said the DPP support freedom of navigation and the settlement of disputes within a multilateral framework and through international law.
More importantly, she said that there has never been animosity between Taiwanese and Chinese, but that historically there were “wars and conflicts between the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] and the KMT.”
Tsai intends to save Taiwan from the animosity between the KMT and the CCP and seek out a place for the nation within the stable framework of the West Pacific region.
The paradigm shift she is proposing has the potential to finally lift the people of Taiwan and Penghu out of the independence/ unification trap devised by politicians from the KMT and CCP. After all, these two parties remain embroiled in the same endless dispute, an argument that has got absolutely nothing to do with Taiwan and Penghu.
Joshua Tin is an economist.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Comments:
Jeff Geer (Joshua Tin: Historical Sleuthing)
This is a much better attempt to dig deeper into the history of Taiwan.
It is attempting to assemble the pieces of the Taiwan Puzzle together.
How does the UNCLOS III relate to Taiwan? Freedom of Navigation especially the Taiwan Straits.
How does the UNCLOS protect Taiwan? Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
How does the TRA relate to UNCLOS and PSI? Civil affairs regulations.
Is there a naval history of Taiwan? Commodore Perry in 1854. Lt Kerr in WWII.
Why is the naval history important?
The legislative history of the TRA human rights clause points to role of military government. And FAPA says that there is nothing there. It seems like they have something to hide from you.
Keep digging and digging. You will probably dig a big hole through the One China policy.
2. Ascertaining the status of Taiwan
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/09/27/2003...
By Dennis Hickey
Does the US government believe that Taiwan is a province of China, a nation separate from China, or perhaps something else? There is no answer to this question. If anything, the US position toward the international status of Taiwan has been “consistently inconsistent.”
In November 1943, then-US president Franklin Roosevelt, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) met in Cairo. The outcome of the meeting was the Cairo Declaration. This was a World War II era accord outlining the disposition of territories “stolen” by Japan — including Manchuria, the Pescadores and Taiwan. In keeping with the terms of the agreement, these territories were “restored to the Republic of China [ROC]” in 1945. Although lower-level officials in the US Department of State discussed other options, US policy held that Taiwan was part of China.
When Chiang’s forces retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the US position toward the island’s status was still clear. During a news conference on Dec. 22, 1949, then-US president Harry Truman declared that Taiwan is “not a free country,” but rather that “it is part of Nationalist China.” During private discussions with US lawmakers on Jan. 5, 1950, then-US secretary of state Dean Acheson argued that Taiwan was “essentially a Chinese territory” and that its fate had been “morally sealed by some form of prior agreement.”
Following the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the US reversed its position. Much to the chagrin of Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and Chiang, Washington adopted the position that the status of Taiwan was “undetermined.” On June 27, 1950, Truman declared that “the future status of Formosa [Taiwan] must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.” However, the island’s status was not determined by any of these events. Moreover, the US did not adopt a clear position on Taiwan’s status when it concluded a defense treaty with the ROC in 1954. And when anticipating Taipei’s withdrawal from the UN in 1971, the US Department of State announced that “in our view, sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores is an unsettled question.”
Some contend that the series of US-People’s Republic of China (PRC) communiques negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s settled the matter. They did not. In the US versions of the communiques, the US recognizes the PRC as the legitimate government of China and acknowledges Beijing’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is a part of it. The word “acknowledge” was deliberately chosen as it indicates cognizance of, but not necessarily agreement with, the Chinese position. Interestingly, the PRC versions of the communiques state that both sides “agree” that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of it.
These public proclamations do not tell the whole story. Recently declassified documents reveal that former US president Richard Nixon stated plainly that Taiwan was a part of China during his 1972 visit to China. In top secret discussions with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來), the president declared that “there is one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. There will be no more statements made — if I can control the bureaucracy — to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined.” Even more astonishing, then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger seems to have conceded that Taiwan eventually will be absorbed by the PRC. Like Nixon, Kissinger pledged that Washington would never again refer to Taiwan’s status as “undetermined.”
Despite the promises of Nixon and Kissinger, statements about Taiwan’s “undetermined” status continued. With the end of the Cold War, the US Department of Defense released a study that referred to Taiwan, along with the Spratly (南沙群島) and Paracel (西沙群島) islands, as “unresolved territorial issues.” The ensuing uproar prompted the Department of Defense to backtrack and explain, “our policy is unchanged. The US acknowledges the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” Of course, this meant nothing.
Confusion over US policy continues. The behavior of former US president George W. Bush’s administration was especially perplexing. According to a congressional study, in 2003, Bush reportedly promised Beijing’s leaders that the US opposes Taiwan’s independence from China. Some believe the inference was clear — namely, Taiwan belongs to China. Leaked diplomatic cables show that the Bush administration played a key role in crafting a secret agreement in 2005 whereby Taipei might participate in the WHO as “Taiwan, China.” Washington pressured Taipei to accept the nomenclature and urged it to keep the matter secret. However, according to leaked US diplomatic cables, in 2007, Washington pressured the UN and its secretary-general to stop using the phrase, “Taiwan is a part of China.” Confusing, isn’t it?
US policy toward Taiwan’s international status remains a favorite topic for discussion among activists with varying political agendas. It enables them to selectively “cherry pick” certain US statements to support almost any argument about Taiwan’s international status.
However, the preoccupation with US policy toward this issue may be misplaced. Despite its “superpower” status, the US government is in no position to unilaterally determine the international status of foreign territories or countries. Just because Nixon said Taiwan is part of China does not make it true or false.
In the final analysis, as AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt opined recently, quibbling over the international status of Taiwan is similar to theology and “it’s not terribly useful to spend time on it, because each way you go, you get yourself into more trouble.”
Dennis Hickey is the director of the graduate program in global studies at Missouri State University and co-editor of New Thinking about the Taiwan Issue: Theoretical insights into its origins, dynamics and prospects.
沒有留言:
張貼留言