答覆Mr. Frank Shen (沈博均先生): 建州運動從來不認為『台灣是美國在海外的未合併領土』(上)

答覆Mr. Frank Shen (沈博均先生): 建州運動從來不認為『台灣是美國

在海外的未合併領土』(上)

一

 

「台灣建州運動」自1994年創立與公開活動以來公開發表的statement是「台灣法律地位未定，但被日本拋棄的、歸屬尚未確立的台澎主權至今仍在美國政府的政治監護之中」。

 

二

 

11/11/2013，Mr. Frank Shen在建州運動臉書網頁上頭問: 「建州運動是否同意二戰結束以來或現階段『台灣是美國在海外未合併的領土』」？

 

我們隨即在臉書網頁上這樣簡略地答覆: 建州派與美國國務院台灣協調辦公室前主任夏千福(Clifford A. Hart)一樣，認為該項statement沒有歷史與法律的依據，但如果我們要說政治語言，我們會同意王能祥前輩的statement: 台灣是美國的「準領地」。

 

今天我們準備對Frank的詢問做第一次進一步的說明。

 

讓我們首先指出: 4/24/2006，Clifford在一封信中，答覆有關「台灣是美國軍事政府統治下的海外未合併領土」的理論，他說，有人提出一種說法，"conjecturing that Taiwan might be a territory of the United States, a position that differs from our official policy and that has no historical and legal basis" (臆測台灣可能是美國的領土，此項立場與美國官方的政策不同，且沒有歷史與法律的基礎)。

 

也就是說，美國政府官員透過一封信，來表明美國政府對”Geer-Hartzell Theory”的反應、立場與觀點，美國的行政部門拒絕了”Geer-Hartzell Theory”，也就是說，美國行政部門(該管部門與單位) 拒絕接受「台灣是美國軍事政府統治下的海外未合併領土」的理論。

 

在”Geer-Hartzell Theory”於2003年左右出爐後，建州運動就沒有贊同過它，理由是: 那只是學者(有的甚至還是沒受過一天的法學院科班訓練、半路出家的「國際法研究者」)在象牙塔中製造出來的、很難通過檢驗的純理論，我們在當時就指出: 由於美國政府的三個部門從未透過任何作為，如聲明、行政命令、國際條約、法案、決議案或裁決，來將台灣與澎湖納為美國的海外unincorporated territory，所以台澎現在仍非「美國的海外未合併領地」。

 

我們必須指出: 倘若”Geer-Hartzell Theory”有歷史與法律的支撐且被美國政府接受或承認，那對建州派所推動的「台灣加入美國的議程」是絕對有利的，可惜它沒有歷史與法律的支撐，所以我們從一開始就沒有接受它，因為我們一旦接受它，就得為它辯護，可是替它辯護註定是一場會失敗的戰役，建州派若把建州運動的基礎與成敗放在一個很難通過檢驗的純理論之上，那它就是在打一場必敗的戰爭。

 

三

 

在政治操作的領域中，建州派卻可以贊成也可以說「台灣是美國的準領地」這種「政治語言」。

 

住在華盛頓的台美人大老王能祥先生在「王能祥、張文隆著: 前進D. C.:國會外交的開拓者王能祥八十回憶」一書中這麼說:

 

「事實上，台灣關係法的立法精神就是把台灣視為美國的準領土」(p. 234)。

 

又說: 「台灣人權聽證會的結果是，美國制訂了國內法---台灣關係法，將台灣定位為準領土」(p. 258)。

 

當王能祥老先生這麼解釋與陳述時，您必須特別尊重也必須相信，理由是: 他從頭到尾參與及投入美國參眾兩院當年在「台灣關係法」的立法過程中，而且是台美人與流亡美國的台灣人這股力量參與立法程序的主要代表，他特別是與裴爾參議員(Sen. Claiborne Pell)緊密互動與合作，如果有人認為他不夠格來指陳或詮釋「台灣關係法」的立法精神，那還有誰夠格?

 

根據周威霖對王能祥老先生有關談話的回憶，「在一開始，Sen. Pell就有意藉『台灣關係法』 的立法，把台灣納為美國的領地」。Sen. Pell曾親口這樣告訴王能祥先生(我們還沒有或並沒有找到任何有關的文獻或紀錄，這只是王先生口頭告訴周威霖)，雖然王先生出於台灣安全與策略的考量，不反對Sen. Pell這種想法，但他認為，Sen. Pell的想法在當時條件不成熟，不但支持國民黨政權的許多共和黨議員不會接受這麼前衛且尚未被廣為宣導的想法，就是一心走台灣獨立建國道路的流亡美國的台灣人腦筋一時也還轉不過彎，因此也不會接受，就因為這樣，所以當年「台灣成為美國領地」的一個機緣就因此錯失了。

 

明白了這段歷史，我們今天才能充分理解王能祥前輩的陳述與詮釋。

 

四

 

關於「台灣現在是不是美國的領地」(事實的認定)的問題，我們可以參考紐約Fordham University法學院的法學教授江永芳博士的一篇文章:

 

"Taiwan is in no way a US territory"

By Frank Chiang 江永芳

Taipei Times

6/15/2006 

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 8). 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 treaty 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 US 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.

 

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.

 

Prof. Chiang說，台灣現在不是美國的領地，建州派同意他的論證與結論。

 

但他指出: “There are some in Taiwan who have put forth the idea that Taiwan petitions Washington that the island becomes a US territory.” 他指的是，建州派提出向華府請願，希望台灣成為美國的領地(這是政治主張與行動)。

 

他又說: “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.” Prof. Chiang說，有美國國會的批准，台灣才能成為美國的一部分(“Until then, Taiwan is not a US territory.”) ，這就是為什麼建州派從1994年起只要碰到有利時機，就會在AIT台北辦事處進行「台灣加入美國」的小規模請願。

台灣建州運動發起人周威霖

David C. Chou

Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement

(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)