釐清外界對建州派與何(瑞元)林(志昇)派的混淆(四)

                              釐清外界對建州派與何(瑞元)林(志昇)派的混淆(四)
2009年2月20日 

撰述人: 「台灣建州運動」發起人 周威霖

序目:

一、「台灣建州運動」(建州派)與何瑞元的「屬美建國派」(美屬派)不同
二、何瑞元對建州的質疑 
三、建州派對何瑞元的回應
四、何林派對建州派的攻擊與攻訐
五、建州派就何林派對建州派的攻擊與攻訐所做的回應
六、若干人士對何林派的質疑 
七、台裔美國律師江建祥對何林派的質疑與反擊
八、何林派為何控告美國
九、「何林派控美案」將以敗訴收場，且有後遺症

六、若干人士對何林派的質疑

何林派在北加州一名狂熱的工作人員寫信給他那選區的國會議員Richard Pombo，宣稱「台灣是美國的海外領土」，2006年4月24日，美國國務院「台灣協調辦公室」主任夏千福(CliffordA. Hart, Jr.)回函給該名狂熱份子，信上說: 你曾寫信給Pombo眾議員，「臆測台灣可能是美國的領地，此項立場與美國官方的政策不同，而且沒有歷史或法律基礎」("conjecturing that Taiwan might be a territory of the United States, a position that differs from our official policy and that has no historical or legal basis")。

夏千福給何瑞元的主張及理論定了調，我們從這裡看到了林志昇控美案必以敗訴收場的命運，而何林派高層還到處放風聲(包括對獨派幾個派系領袖)，把那些獨派大老及小老們唬得一愣一愣地。

台灣獨派沈建德博士對何瑞元所提的「中國航道論」批評不遺餘力，他認為何瑞元的理論十分危險，沈博士認為，台灣只要逕行宣佈獨立即可，無需先成為美國的「海外未合併領土」，他認為，台灣即使先被置於這種狀態下，也不能保證美國會讓台灣獨立，更何況是何瑞元認定與主張「美國將台灣置於中國航道上」。

美國著名的學者林蔚(Arthur Waldron)曾指出，「台灣的主權」問題將不會是透過法律來解決(The issue is not going to be solved through law, however.)，這項看法與建州派不謀而合。他認為"The solution will come when elite public opinion around the world and in the United States begins to recognize that Taiwan is a going concern having its own law and government all fully Y2K compliant." 建州派則認為，台灣問題的解決關鍵性因素在美國，而不在世界菁英層的輿論。

紐約復旦大學法學院教授江永芳寫了一篇文章，他不認為台灣是美國的領地。建州派大約在2003-2004時，在一篇文章中，對何瑞元「台灣是美國軍事政府統治下的海外未合併領土」進行首次評論(該文至今尚未能再找到)，大意是: (1)我們在國際的條約或協議中，在白宮或國防部的建制中，在白宮或國務院的聲明或指令中，或在國會的法案或決議案中，都找不到「美國在台軍事政府」的蹤跡、存在或遺跡，「美國在台軍事政府」只存在書生的象牙塔中，而不存在也不曾存在於真實世界中(這種觀點與 江永芳 教授不謀而合)。(2)我們認定，「台灣法律地位」或「台灣主權歸屬」的問題是「政治問題」，而且是十分敏感的「政治問題」，美國法院會裁定它無權管轄，即使美國法院做出對原告林志昇等人有利的裁決，美國行政部門也不可能執行或會拒絕執行。何瑞元派根據「美國是法治國家」的認識而提出訴訟，一來是政治誤判，二來是對美國聯邦法院管轄權及判例的一知半解。我們的文章發表後，遭到何林派文宣旗手惡毒的人身攻擊，他們從此與建州派及周威霖有了不共戴天的血海深仇。

現在我們來讀一讀 江永芳 教授的文章:

'TAIWAN IS IN NO WAY A US TERRITORY'
By Frank Chiang 江永芳 The Taipei Times
Jun 15, 2006, Page 8 

`In international customary law, a victorious state which
occupies the territory of the defeated state does not
acquire title to the occupied land by occupation.'

In the past, I have expressed my view that China has no
title to Taiwan ("No other state has title to Taiwan ," Oct.
3, 2005, page . Recently, a few commentators have argued
that Taiwan is an American territory. According to them, the
US , as the state which defeated Japan at the end of the
World War II, has sovereignty over Taiwan . 

The argument has no support in international law. It is
true, when two states have engaged in a war, the victorious
state may take a piece of territory of the defeated state
that has unconditionally surrendered. John Foster Dulles,
the US representative to the San Francisco conference on the
peace treat y with Japan , supported this point. 

At the conference on Aug. 15 , 1951, he stated that "the
United States , which for [six] years has been and is the
occupying power [in Japan ], could practically do [as] much
as it wanted."

However, the island of Taiwan is not, and has never been, a
territory of the US . 

First, the US has not acquired title to Taiwan by
occupation.

It is true that the US, as the major allied power during
World War II, delegated its power to occupy and administer
Taiwan to Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) government, the
Republic of China (ROC). But, in international customary
law, a victorious state which occupies the territory of the
defeated state does not acquire title to the occupied land
by occupation. 

Both the US Supreme Court in a 1822 case (American
Insurance Co versus Cantor) and the 1907 Hague Convention
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land recognized
this international customary rule. The victorious state is
considered merely an administrator, not the owner, of the
enemy's territory which it occupies during a war. 

The rule of international law is, if the defeated state is
not entirely annexed, then any transfer of conquered
territory from the defeated state to the victorious state
must be achieved by a peace treaty. 

Second, the US did not acquired title to Taiwan by the San
Francisco peace treaty. The peace treaty between Japan and
the Allied powers required Japan to renounce title to the
islands of Taiwan and Penghu without designating a
transferee. 

Rather than transferring Taiwan and Penghu to one of the
Allied powers, the San Francisco peace treaty left both
islands free of any nation's sovereignty. 

Since the US did not receive title to Taiwan under this or
any other treaty, it does not own Taiwan . Conversely, the U S
acquired all its present territories by treaties or
agreements: Guam in 1898, Puerto Rico in 1899, American
Samoa in 1904, the Virgin Islands in 1916, and the Northern
Mariana Islands in 1976. 

Third, no US government has ever claimed that Taiwan is its
territory. In all legal documents, including congressional
statutes, dealing with the territories of the US , the US
government never lists Taiwan as its territory.

Documents issued by the US government specifically provide
that "the US territory includes the 50 states, the District
of Columbia , Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the territorial
waters adjoining the land areas of the US ." Despite this
detailed listing of US territories, Taiwan is not included
as a US territory. 

In addition, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) offers definite
proof that the US government does not regard Taiwan its
territory. The TRA was enacted by the US Congress in 1979
when the US government switched recognition of the
representative government of the state of China from the ROC
to the People's Republic of China (PRC). 

Section 3 of the act provides that, "in furtherance of the policy of this Act, the United States will make available to
Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such
quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability."

In every country, the national government is responsible
for protecting its people and territory against foreign
invasions. Such responsibility is so fundamental and clear
that it does not need any executive announcement or
legislation to spell it out.

No country in the world would leave the national defense of
a part of its territory to that territory itself. As a
matter of law, if the US government had considered Taiwan an
American territory, it would not have needed to enact the
TRA.

There are some in Taiwan who have put forth the idea that
Taiwan petitions Washington that the island becomes a US
territory.

At present, the people of Taiwan , who collectively own the
island, have many options to choose their own future. Even
if they desire Taiwan to be a part of the US , approval by
the US Congress is required for the US to acquire a new
territory.

Until then, Taiwan is not a US territory.

[Citations of the quotations in this paper can be found in
the article "The Territorial State and Taiwan " (The
Comparative Law Journal of Japan , The Japanese Comparative
Law Institute, Tokyo , Japan , 2003).]

(Frank Chiang is president of the Taiwan Public Policy Council in the US and a professor of law at Fordham
University School of Law, New York City .) 


七、台裔美國律師江建祥對何林派的質疑與反擊

支持台灣獨立建國的台裔美國執業律師江建祥先生以「南方快報」為活動基地，他在那裡發表了很多文章，批評何林派的主張與理論，也以美國律師的訓練與經驗，對何林派諸多誇張不實的文宣加以無情地披露與解剖，何林派的文宣旗手當然不是他的對手，在詞窮理屈與憤怒之餘，只能扣江律師「台奸」、「中共走狗」、「中共同路人」的帽子(這是何林派網路文宣旗手對付異議者的標準手法)，我們特地在本文收錄江律師的文章，大家可以從江律師的反應，領略一下何林派文宣旗手潑辣的作風。 

(張貼江建祥律師的文章)