（注一）“吾人(筆者按：美國參議院外交委員會)業已以行動及默示方式接受中華民國政府為在臺灣之合法當局…。” 參考：《臺灣法律地位問題的研究》p.65，酆邰著，黎明文化事業出版，1985年4月初版。 （注二）ARTICLE VII The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement. （注三）美國於１９５３年１２月２５日曾發出“美國民政府第２７號令”，即關於“琉球列島地理界線”的佈告。該佈告稱，“根據１９５１年９月８日簽署的對日和約，有必要重新指定琉球列島的地理界線，並將當時美國政府和琉球政府管轄的區域指定為，包括北緯２４°、東經１２２°區域內各島、小島、環形礁、岩礁及領海。” (2) The dispute of Diaoyu islands
Tze-chung Li
The dispute that China and Taiwan and Japan all claim sovereignty over the islands has been for decades. But it is the U.S. who has intentionally or unintentionally caused the dispute.
Diaoyu islands are part of China and during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, they were under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. The island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all islands appertaining or belonging to Formosa, was ceded from China to Japan by the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895,
The 1945 Potsdam Declaration provides Athe terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we [United States, Great Britain, and China] determine.@ These terms were accepted by Japan in her Surrender Instrument of 1945.
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan stipulates that Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. The treaty was followed by the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. Furthermore, the 1952 treaty stipulates that Aall treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war. A The Shimonoseki treaty noted above by which Taiwan and other islands were ceded to Japan becomes null and void. Therefore, Taiwan and all islands entertaining or belonging to Taiwan should be returned to China as a matter of course.
In the 1970s, the U.S. unilaterally turned over the Diaoyu islands administrative control though not sovereignty to Japan. The transfer of control which causes the dispute is a clear violation of the Potsdam Declaration and peace treaty and a disappointed departure from U.S. commitment.
1 条评论:
杜魯門作此宣佈之後不久，同年6月25日朝鮮戰爭爆發。這時他為了給第七艦隊進駐臺灣海峽找法律依據，同時又為了避免“干預中國內政”的指責，便於6月27日發表聲明，說是“臺灣將來的地位，必須等到太平洋地區的安全恢復，對日和約的簽訂或經由聯合國的考慮之後再決定。”也就出於這種戰略需要，1951年9月，美英等13個國家與日本簽訂了《舊金山和約》，其中，只規定了日本放棄臺灣及澎湖列島，但卻刻意迴避對台、澎的歸屬作出任何規定。
對此，《舊金山和約》的主要策劃人，當時美國助理國務卿魯斯克（Dean Rusk）後來在回憶錄裏都自承：在國際行為上乃是炮製出來的“假條約”，它完全不具正當性，甚至炮製這些程式規則是蠻橫的。想起我自己在這些會議策略中所扮演的角色，使我臉紅！
1952年初，蔣介石與日本簽訂了內容與《舊金山和約》相似的《中日和約》。國民政府之遷就於美國，當然一方面是為了尋求美國的保護，其次便是爭取日本承認其臺北政府為中央政府。
國民政府為了政權利益而犧牲國家主權固然無可辯駁，但也並非如輿論界所評擊的一無是處。以《中日和約》為例，第四條便規定“茲承認中國與日本國間在中華民國三十年即西曆一千九百四十一年十二月九日以前所締結之一切條約、專約及協議，均因戰爭結果而歸無效。 ”
由此觀之，國民政府儘管不敢對“臺灣地位未定”做直接挑戰，但卻不忘間接地點出“《馬關條約》既然無效，臺灣便始終是中國的領土部分。”
從另一個側面，我們也可看出國民政府始終對“地位未定”問題耿耿於懷。1954年，由於美國亟亟於把臺灣納入西太平洋的反共軍事聯盟，突然間使得臺北政府的地位水漲船高。於是乎，臺灣一方面於1954年正式與美國簽訂《中美共同防禦條約》，成為圍堵共產世界的一環；但從此之後，也把自己的軍事活動壓縮於台、澎、金、馬範圍，而成為西太平洋戰略佈局的守護者。通過討價還價，臺北政府也難能可貴地爭取到該條約第六條的“國際承認”，即“所有『領土』等辭，就中華民國而言，應指臺灣與澎湖”。換言之，至少，美國正式承認中華民國的領土主權涉及臺灣與澎湖”。（注一）
除此之外，一個較不為人所留意的條文內容還涉及臺灣當局對美國的授權。依據《中美共同防禦條約》第七條，“中華民國政府給予，美利堅合眾國政府接受，依共同協議之決定，在臺灣、澎湖及其附近，為其防衛所需而部署美國陸海空軍之權利。 ”（注二）。
實際上，美國也幾乎在簽訂此條約的同時，正式把釣魚島劃入其軍管、託管範圍（注三）。此後，1972年，又把該島嶼與琉球一道“移交”給日本。
如前所揭示，臺灣需要依靠美國的保護，因此把臺灣、澎湖及其附近領土交由美國保護原是權宜之計。問題在於，美國卻單方面把釣魚島視為“託管地”而併入琉球範圍。於是乎，法理上便出現一個美國必須面對的尷尬問題，即根據《聯合國憲章》第七十八條，“凡領土已成為聯合國之會員國者，不適用託管制度；聯合國會員國間之關係，應基於尊重主權平等之原則。”這就是說，美國把當時會員國授權其保護的領土當成“託管地”的做法根本就是抵觸《聯合國憲章》。因此，除非美國能夠提出充分理由，證明釣魚島從來不屬於中國的領土範圍，否則，必須把釣魚島交還受到《中美共同防禦條約》和《聯合國憲章》雙重條約保護的臺北政府。
結語
弱肉強食，弱國無外交可說是中國錯過工業革命列車之後必經之路。前百年經歷的蹂躪史讀來固然觸目驚心，但也符合人類發展史的規律。真正令人痛心疾首的卻是第二次世界大戰結束之後，作為四強之一的中國所受到的羞辱與玩弄。
綜觀近65年的發展，不論我們的交涉對向是昔年的盟軍、戰友，或是敵國，也不論中國處於什麼政體、國體狀態，當中央與地方發生摩擦時，所謂的國際勢力永遠站在分離主義那一邊；當中國與任何外國發生糾紛時，也始終是中國最受孤立與委屈。看透了“掣肘中國便是國際勢力的不變法則”，對策不由豁然開朗，即除了據理與據力力爭之外，別無更佳選擇。2010/10/01
（注一）“吾人(筆者按：美國參議院外交委員會)業已以行動及默示方式接受中華民國政府為在臺灣之合法當局…。”
參考：《臺灣法律地位問題的研究》p.65，酆邰著，黎明文化事業出版，1985年4月初版。
（注二）ARTICLE VII
The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.
（注三）美國於１９５３年１２月２５日曾發出“美國民政府第２７號令”，即關於“琉球列島地理界線”的佈告。該佈告稱，“根據１９５１年９月８日簽署的對日和約，有必要重新指定琉球列島的地理界線，並將當時美國政府和琉球政府管轄的區域指定為，包括北緯２４°、東經１２２°區域內各島、小島、環形礁、岩礁及領海。”
(2) The dispute of Diaoyu islands
Tze-chung Li
The dispute that China and Taiwan and Japan all claim sovereignty over the islands has been for decades. But it is the U.S. who has intentionally or unintentionally caused the dispute.
Diaoyu islands are part of China and during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, they were under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. The island of Formosa [Taiwan], together with all islands appertaining or belonging to Formosa, was ceded from China to Japan by the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895,
The 1945 Potsdam Declaration provides Athe terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we [United States, Great Britain, and China] determine.@ These terms were accepted by Japan in her Surrender Instrument of 1945.
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan stipulates that Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. The treaty was followed by the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. Furthermore, the 1952 treaty stipulates that Aall treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war. A The Shimonoseki treaty noted above by which Taiwan and other islands were ceded to Japan becomes null and void. Therefore, Taiwan and all islands entertaining or belonging to Taiwan should be returned to China as a matter of course.
In the 1970s, the U.S. unilaterally turned over the Diaoyu islands administrative control though not sovereignty to Japan. The transfer of control which causes the dispute is a clear violation of the Potsdam Declaration and peace treaty and a disappointed departure from U.S. commitment.
发表评论