AIT台北辦事處與馬英九所組建的「在台灣的治理當局」派駐華盛頓的代表沈呂巡在雙橡園升起所謂的「中華民國國旗」的事件

AIT台北辦事處與馬英九所組建的「在台灣的治理當局」派駐華盛頓的代表沈呂巡在雙橡園升起所謂的「中華民國國旗」的事件

一

美國東區時間(EST)一月一日上午八點三十分，馬英九所組建的「在台灣的治理當局」派駐華盛頓的代表沈呂巡在雙橡園升起所謂的「中華民國國旗」，中華人民共和國外交部隨即向美國國務院提出抗議，美國政府接受了抗議，並對馬英九當局採取了訓誡與約束行動。

根據「自由時報」駐美特派員曹郁芬於美國東區時間一月五日從華盛頓發出的報導[見附錄三]，歐巴馬政府一位資深官員於當天接受她的獨家訪問時，提出了「七點聲明」，內容如下:

一、美國政府沒有同意，也不知道元旦的升旗典禮。任何相反的說法都是不正確的。
二、美國對這項行動及廣泛的宣傳感到非常失望。這明確地違反了雙方如何執行非官方關係的諒解。
三、在歐巴馬政府六年來做出重大投資並取得重大成就後，這項行動「損傷了信任並傷害了我們的關係」。
四、這項行動把象徵意義置於實質內容之前，造成了關係發展的倒退。華府許多人在問，「台北是誰在掌管美台關係？」
五、美方在台北和美國都提出嚴重關切，「台灣官員只是互相指責」。
六、美國希望馬英九總統確保這類的事情不再發生，以展現他對這個關係的優先順序是什麼。
七、美國希望美台關係的焦點可以轉換到可能達成進展的領域。

曹小姐謹守新聞界的倫理，沒有公佈該美國資深官員的大名，不過，既然叫「資深官員」，那應該就是國務院東亞事務助卿Daniel R. Russel，要不就是國家安全會議亞洲部資深主任Evan Medeiros，不過，我們認為，應該是Daniel，因為Nadia在參加了當天的國務院發言人的新聞簡報會後，就順道去東亞局辦公室見助卿，這似乎是比較符合邏輯的安排與行程。

Russel助卿把「七點聲明」給了Nadia，他的辦公室當然也會把訊息發給AIT台北辦事處，AIT的發言人就根據這份文件的內容，來會見台北的新聞界。

二

根據台灣媒體的報導: AIT發言人Mark Zimmer(金明) 於台北時間1/7/2015提出三點聲明。第一，重申美國對雙橡園升旗一事事先並不知情，也沒批准。第二，AIT對這行動感到失望，也向台灣當局提嚴正關切。第三，AIT希望台灣確保這類事情不再發生。

由於AIT台北辦事處的官網並沒有公佈Mark對台灣新聞界的公開發言，所以，建州派必須檢視台灣電子媒體的報導，並把Mark的發言公佈出來，供我們的台灣鄉親與台美人鄉親做參考:

“We reiterate that we did not approve or know about the January 1 flag-raising at Twin Oaks in advance.”

“We are disappointed with this action, and we have raised our serious concerns with senior Taiwan authorities in Taipei and Washington.”

“We hope Taiwan will demonstrate the priority it puts on the U.S.-Taiwan relationship by ensuring that these kinds of things do not happen again.”

三

AIT這個大動作真是罕見，此事也耐人尋味，台灣建州運動尚無法確認美國國務院與AIT這次為什麼不再寵溺(spoil)馬英九的原因。過去，不管馬某說什麼或做什麼，即便我們台灣人與台美人都認為很嚴重，有損台灣人與美國的利益，但華府的官員或AIT的人馬都好像少了一根筋，總是說他們「深受鼓舞」，好像馬某是山穆大叔的掌珠，讓我們台灣人與台美人都為之瞠目結舌或氣結。

但這次Uncle Sam卻板起面孔，這到底為了哪樁? [去年所謂的「雙十國慶日」，雙橡園就升起車輪旗，AIT的官員不但出席酒會，還發表談話，美方並沒有對此事採取任何行動]我們現在只能先猜測原因: 

第一，馬某以為Uncle Sam把他看成”can do no wrong”的掌上明珠，因此恃寵而驕，先斬後奏[何況這已非第一次]，給了Uncle Sam一個big surprise，華府覺得馬某已經被寵壞了，變成肆無忌憚、沒大沒小的「孔二小姐第二」，所以必須板起面孔，給個教訓，讓他知道還有大人在管事。

第二，華府與北京可能在某一或某些議題上有外界難以想像的緊密合作，所以在北京嚷嚷時，華府為了不讓這些合作破局或中途生變，所以，就打馬英九這個小孩給北京那個大人看(就像以前小布希在白宮當著溫家寶這個笑面虎的面罵阿扁一樣)，以求息事寧人，反正在這件事壓制台北，對台灣人民的利益也不會造成更進一步的損害，台灣與台灣人民就好比是死豬，不會怕再被滾水燙一次。

第三，「中華民國」或台灣對華府而言，並非國家，所以在華盛頓的雙橡園升起做為國家象徵的所謂「國旗」是違反美國的台海政策、跨越紅線的行為，華府必須加以告誡或制止，否則馬某以及他的人馬膽子會越來越大。

四

由於美國與台灣存在著一種極為特殊的關係，所以AIT台北辦事處是一個很殊的機構，雖然如此，一般而言，台北辦事處的工作人員行事向來還是保持低調，特別是在馬啟思擔任主任之後，也因此，我們可以說，這次AIT的發言人的動作與發言誠屬罕見。

在「台灣關係法」的立法會議記錄中，我們發現，當年參議院在處理Section( 2)(c)這個條款時，曾在一份報告中表示: 參院外交委員會”also specified that Institute officials were not authorized to become involved in matters affecting the international status of Taiwan.”[ 參院外交委員會特別指陳，「美國在台協會」的官員沒有被授權去涉入會影響台灣的國際地位的事務]。AIT這次的訓令嚴格說起來，是在處理美台關係，與台灣的國際地位無涉。

五

關於這次在雙橡園升旗的事件，當然也是美國說了算，台北當局只有照辦，不能還嘴，若要還嘴，只有讓自己越下不了台，最後必以沈代表離開華盛頓來做為收場。

在2007年時，小布希行政團隊的官員雖然說「中華民國不是國家」，但也說「中華民國是一個多年來未決的問題」[見附錄一]。不過，這一次，也就是在2015年初，歐巴馬的行政團隊卻對「中華民國的象徵」[即所謂國旗]加以打壓，讓這個「多年來未決的問題」的空間更形緊縮，看起來，那些做為所謂「中華民國」的遺老們[如馬英九、金溥聰、沈呂巡]的日子是越來越不好混了。

關於「在台灣的治理當局」在雙橡園升旗的事，台灣建州運動的立場是:台灣[「台灣關係法」稱台灣與澎湖群島為台灣]現在仍處於國際法律地位未定的狀態，台灣與「中華民國」均非國家，台灣也非中國、中華民國或中華人民共和國的一部分，所以，我們主張: (1)現階段與未來在台灣駐美國的代表的官邸不得升上也不得懸掛任何與中國有關的旗幟，我們反對在該處升上所謂「中華民國」的國旗或中華人民共和國的國旗或任何屬於中國人(包括「在台中國人」 )所建立的政治實體的旗幟。(2)我們希望也樂見將來在台灣成為美國的領地後，做為台灣領地派駐在美國國會的常駐代表的官邸的雙橡園升上台灣領地的旗幟。

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)

========================================================================================================

附錄一

“ROC statehood undecided: US official”

By Charles Snyder / STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
The Taipei Times
9/1/2007

---Dennis Wilder said moves to hold a referendum on UN membership were perplexing given that Taiwan cannot join the organization under present circumstances

The US' senior director for East Asian affairs at the National Security Council (NSC), Dennis Wilder, told reporters on Thursday that Taiwan's statehood was an undecided issue, and as such it is not qualified to be a member of the UN.

"Membership in the United Nations requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, that it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years," said Wilder, during a special White House briefing on US President George W. Bush's trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Australia next week.

Wilder said that Bush will explain to Chinese President Hu Jintao ( 胡錦濤 ) US policy toward President Chen Shui-bian's ( 陳水扁 ) plan for a UN membership referendum and, at the same time, will express US concern over China's "worrisome" military buildup opposite Taiwan when Bush and Hu meet on the sideli nes of the APEC meeting.

Bush and Hu will hold a bilateral discussion in Sydney next Thursday afternoon with Taiwan among the topics to be discussed, Wilder said.

The meeting will be the first time the two leaders have conferred face-to-face since the referendum issue heated up in recent weeks, culminating in an accusation by US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte this week that the referendum is seen in Washington as a move toward a declaration of independence.

The Bush administration "find[s] the attempt by the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] in Taiwan to call for a referendum on [UN membership] a little bit perplexing as to why this would be useful, given the fact that Taiwan is not going to be able to join the United Nations under current circumstances and that it only adds a degree of tension to cross-straits [sic] relations that we deem unnecessary," Wilder said.

"So the president will talk about this, I'm sure, with Hu Jintao," he said.

Bush "will explain the American position. Hu Jintao usually wants a recommitment by the United States to the three communiques and to our standing one-China policy. I'm sure the president will be willing to give him that," Wilder said.

Bush's reminder to Hu that the US considers Taiwan's status still unresolved would be in stark contrast to Beijing's position that Taiwan is part of China, and would come as China is reportedly considering an attempt to get the UN General Assembly to assert Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan at its meeting next month.

In his remarks, Wilder also noted that Washington is "very supportive of Taiwan on many, many fronts," including efforts to make sure Taiwan is treated "appropriately" in APEC, the WHO and "many other international organizations."

As part of the Bush-Hu discussion of Taiwan, Bush will also call on China "to do things to lower the tensions in the straits [sic]," Wilder said.

"There has been a large-scale, for example, Chinese military buildup opposite Taiwan, and that is worrisome," he said.

"And we certainly do not want to see any situation in which Beijing would consider the use of force or the threat of force against Taiwan," he said.

"We also think Beijing could do more to reach out to the duly elected leaders in Taiwan. We're hopeful, for example, that once elections take place in Taiwan, that Beijing will do more to reach out to those leaders," Wilder said.

"So there are things that Beijing could be doing to ease the tensions as well, and I'm sure the president will be talking to President Hu about that," Wilder said.

In Taipei, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday issued a statement in response to Wilder's remarks.

"Taiwan's independent sovereignty is unquestionable. Such a fact would not be changed because of foreign officials' comments," the statement said. "Taiwan and the US currently do not have an official diplomatic relations, but it would not affect the fact that Republic of China [Taiwan] is an independent sovereignty."

When approached for comment yesterday, DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) said that other countries' recognition was not a requirement for statehood.
Taiwan, having its own judiciary, military, legislature and budget, and where voters elect their own president, is definitely a country, he said.

DPP Legislator Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇) yesterday urged the public not to worry about the US' denial of Taiwan's statehood, saying that recognition by other countries was not one of the four constitutive elements of a country's existence.

"We have the four elements -- a people, a territory, sovereignty and the ability to interact with other countries, therefore we are a country. As for recognition, it is just a principle upon which diplomatic relationships can be established," Hsu said.

Hsu said the US denial of Taiwan's statehood was irrelevant given that the US does not have diplomatic ties with the nation.

KMT Legislator Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said the party disagreed with Wilder "given the fact that the ROC was a country in the past, is a country now and will be a country in the future."

"It was the DPP's UN referendum plan that provoked the strong reaction from the US which vented its anger on the name `ROC,'" Kuo said.

Kuo said that what Wilder had said would not stop the KMT from pushing for the country's "return" to the UN, even though the US had denied Taiwan's statehood.
"The KMT will make the move at the right time in a practical and acceptable way," she said.

Kuo called on the DPP to back off from its UN proposal and unite with the KMT to make Taiwan visible and audible in the international community.

(Additional reporting by Shih Hsiu-chuan & CAN)

附錄二

國務院發言人Jen Psaki1/5/2015的例行新聞簡報

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 5, 2015

TRANSCRIPT:
1:29 p.m. EST

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Happy New Year.

QUESTION: Happy New Year.

MS. PSAKI: Everybody had a nice holiday. Two AP folks. Well, happy New Year.

QUESTION: Happy New Year.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have anything at the top. I know there are a lot of topics on all of your minds, so why don’t we get straight to it?

QUESTION: Switching the topic to Taiwan –[我們把話題轉到台灣]

MS. PSAKI: Let’s just finish Iran and then we can – Iran? Or –

QUESTION: On Iran. On Iran. There’s been a lot of reports that with the new Republican Senate they’re going to push through new Iran sanctions. Is there – what’s the State Department’s position on that?

MS. PSAKI: Our position hasn’t changed. We obviously don’t think that that would be productive or the right step. We want to give the negotiators room to have the negotiations. That remains our position.
Taiwan? [台灣?]

QUESTION: Yes. The Republic of China, Taiwan. The national flag was raised at Twin Oaks a few days ago during the New Year ceremony. I’m just wondering: Is United States aware of this event in advance? And did you get any formal or informal protest from the People’s Republic of China – that China? [是的，中華民國，台灣。幾天前，在新年的典禮上，國旗在雙橡園被升起來。我有一個疑惑: 美國在事前是否知情? 還有，您們有沒有得到正式或非正式的抗議，來自中華人民共和國---那個中國?]

MS. PSAKI: We did not know about the January 1st flag-raising at Twin Oaks in advance. The ceremony is not consistent with U.S. policy. We remain fully committed to the U.S. One China Policy, based on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. No U.S. Government personnel attended the event in any capacity. [發言人答覆: 我們事前並不知道元月一日在雙橡園升旗的事，這個升旗典禮與美國的政策並不相符，我們仍然對「美國的一中政策」有完全的承諾，這項政策建築在「美中三項公報]以及「台灣關係法」之上，沒有任何美國政府的官員以官方的身份參加該項升旗典禮。] (注: 「美國的一中政策」是，第一，世界上只有一個中國，美國在外交與法律上承認中華人民共和國代表中國，美國在外交與法律上不承認中華民國。第二，美國認識到台海問題是一種複雜難決的政治現實，所以在事實上與政治上，仍然還不願解決「中華民國在台灣」的問題，前美國國家安全會議亞洲部資深主任葦德寧曾說: “Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, that it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years,------" 。他的談話要旨是，中華民國在法律上不是國家，不過，事實上仍然存在於台灣，「中華民國體制」實際上仍在台灣運作，中華民國對美國而言，事實上仍是一個尚未解決的問題，這可能也就是小布希政府後來在執政的末期會同意馬英九的「九二共識，一中各表」的原因。)

QUESTION: So can we say that is a stronger relationship – mutual trust between the Taiwan and the U.S. relationship? Can we say that? [所以，我們可以說，美台之間有一個比較強的關係或互信，我們可以這樣說嗎?]

MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed as it relates to our relationship. [發言人答覆: 美台關係至今沒有任何改變。]

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I should probably know more about this. You are objecting to a private ceremony at which there was – that some people raised the Taiwanese flag? [抱歉，關於這件事，我可能知道得比較多，美國是否當下在反對有一些人在非官方的典禮中於雙橡園升起台灣旗?]

MS. PSAKI: We just said the ceremony is not consistent with our policy. That’s it. [發言人答覆:我們只是說，該項典禮不符合美國的政策，僅此而已。]

QUESTION: Well, so what? I mean –

MS. PSAKI: She asked what our position was on it. (Laughter.) . [發言人答覆: 她剛剛問的是，美國在此事件的立場是什麼?]

QUESTION: Well, I don’t get why you’re –

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I mean, if I raise the flag of Narnia over my house, that’s going to be inconsistent with U.S. policy? [我的意思是，若我在我自己的家升起Narnia旗，那也會不符合美國的政策嗎?]

MS. PSAKI: We may talk about you, but I don’t know if I’ll have a U.S. Government comment on it. [我們也許可以談您，但是我卻不知道我是否能從美國政府那裡得到一個評論。]

QUESTION: Well, was the U.S. Government involved in any way, shape, or form in this – [美國政府是否曾以任何方式或途徑介入此事?]

MS. PSAKI: No, we were not. [`發言人答覆: 不我們沒有介入。]

QUESTION: -- displaying of the flag?

MS. PSAKI: We didn’t attend. We didn’t know about it. That’s our specific comment on --[發言人答覆: 我們沒有參加或出席升旗典禮，那是我們具體與明確的評論。]

QUESTION: Can you not raise the Taiwan flag in the United States? Is that what you’re saying? Sorry, I don’t know much about – [您不能在美國升台灣旗嗎?那是您想說的嗎?]

QUESTION: It’s probably illegal. [發言人答覆:在美國升所謂的中華民國國旗，可能是不合法的。]

QUESTION: But did you get any formal or informal protest from China? [但是您有接到從中國那裡來的任何正式的或非正式的抗議嗎?]

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more. I’d point you to the Chinese on that. [發言人答覆: 關於此事，我無法再提供什麼給新聞界。]

附錄三

「沒批准，也不知情---雙橡園升旗，美方批：傷害互信」
自由時報
2015-01-07(台北時間)

踩紅線 嗆台北誰在當家

〔駐美特派員曹郁芬／華府五日報導〕台北駐美代表處元月一日在雙橡園公開舉行升旗典禮並讓駐美軍官著軍服接受忠勤勳章，顯然踩到了美國政府的紅線。歐巴馬政府一位資深官員今天接受本報獨家訪問時提出七點聲明，強調美國政府沒有批准也不知道元旦的升旗典禮，這明顯違背雙方對如何執行非官方關係的諒解。美方官員批評這項行動傷害美台互信，讓關係發展倒退，華府許多人在問，「台北是誰在掌管美台關係？」

國務院發言人莎琪今天也在簡報會表示，美國事前不知道雙橡園的元旦升旗典禮，這不符美國的政策，沒有任何美方人員出席。美國仍完全信守基於三公報和台灣關係法的一個中國政策。

沈呂巡稱 與美方有默契

駐美代表處於元旦在雙橡園公開舉行升旗典禮，駐美代表沈呂巡不但邀近百位駐處人員和僑界代表出席，也為四位身著中華民國軍服的校級軍官頒贈忠勤勳章。沈當天稍晚出席僑界升旗典禮時，公開宣布這是雙方斷交三十六年以來的突破，隨後駐美代表處發布新聞稿和照片知會媒體。沈呂巡說，升旗典禮和授勳都和美方達成默契。

不過，歐巴馬政府對此反應激烈，分別在華府和台北向馬政府提出強烈關切。有資格評論此事的美方資深官員，以背景說明方式接受本報採訪時提出七點聲明︰

一、美國政府沒有同意，也不知道元旦的升旗典禮。任何相反的說法都是不正確的。
二、美國對這項行動及廣泛的宣傳感到非常失望。這明確地違反了雙方如何執行非官方關係的諒解。
三、在歐巴馬政府六年來做出重大投資並取得重大成就後，這項行動「損傷了信任並傷害了我們的關係」。
四、這項行動把象徵意義置於實質內容之前，造成了關係發展的倒退。華府許多人在問，「台北是誰在掌管美台關係？」
五、美方在台北和美國都提出嚴重關切，「台灣官員只是互相指責」。
六、美國希望馬英九總統確保這類的事情不再發生，以展現他對這個關係的優先順序是什麼。
七、美國希望美台關係的焦點可以轉換到可能達成進展的領域。

這位官員說，不但美國未同意雙橡園的升旗典禮，也沒有同意台灣駐華府軍官著軍服接受沈呂巡頒贈勳章，歐巴馬政府十分關切，台灣不但採取違反彼此諒解的動作，事後還宣稱美方知道並支持。

至於外交經驗豐富的沈呂巡為什麼這麼做？美方官員表示，「你要去問他」。這位資深官員證實，美國已經接到了中國抗議的外交照會，但美國不會有後續動作。

附錄四

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 6, 2015

TRANSCRIPT:
12:47 p.m. EST

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I think about if former President Chen Shui-bian’s medical parole you had some statement but didn’t bring it up. Could you set it on the record? And regarding the flag raising ceremony, you said U.S. didn’t know that in advance. Taiwan’s representative in the U.S. admit that he didn’t inform U.S. in advance but they have reached understanding afterward. And U.S. official said they can just – left everything behind and move on. I wonder if this is true.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to add to yesterday, which I already gave an on-the-record comment yesterday. I don’t know if you have a new question to offer. I’m happy to answer it if you do.

QUESTION: You mean President Chen Shui-bian’s medical parole?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, yes, that. Sure. Let’s see. We have noted former President Chen Shui-bian’s release on medical parole while the United States has raised concerns about Mr. Chen’s health with the Taiwan authorities. We were not involved in his release. This issue was for the Taiwan authorities to decide.

QUESTION: And Jen, about the flag-raising ceremony yesterday, you said U.S. did not – notified – was not notified in advance, but Taiwan’s government said they have reached understanding afterward. Could you comment on that? [關於昨天我們談到的升旗典禮，您說美國並沒有事前被台灣方面告知，但台灣政府則說，他們在事後已與美方取得理解，您能否對此進行評論?]

MS. PSAKI: Well, one, I think I would just reiterate what I said yesterday, is that it’s inconsistent with our policy, and not notified in advance means you didn’t know about it in advance, which seems consistent with what you just said.[國務院發言人: 我的確有一個評論，我想我只要`重申我昨天所說的，也就是說，升旗不符合我們美國的政策。]

Do we have any more on Taiwan?

QUESTION: Well, yeah, because after the briefing yesterday, I read a couple of reports about this and I’m just – had it previously been not allowed for the Taiwanese mission here to raise the flag at the representative’s office – residence? [在您昨天做簡報之後，我讀了一些有關此事件的報導，倘若台灣的駐美代表處事前並沒有被准許在雙橡園升旗?]

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the issue is that it’s inconsistent with the spirit of our policy, and it’s violated our longstanding understanding on the conduct of our unofficial relations. I’m not sure if there was a previous incident to speak of. [國務院發言人: 我想問題是，升旗不符合美國的政策的精神，同時它也已破壞了對長期的美台非官方關係的行為的理解。]

QUESTION: So – well, had the Chinese – well, you were asked yesterday if the Chinese had complained directly to you. Do you know if they have? [您昨天被問是否中方曾直接對美方提出抱怨您是否知道他們曾-------?]

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more specifics on that. I’d point you to the Chinese. [國務院發言人: 我沒有更多的細節可以奉告。]

QUESTION: But this is the first time you’re aware of this ever happening?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any historic record of flag-raising issues, so I don’t have a confirmation of that or not.

QUESTION: Is there any repercussion, is there any consequence to people – I mean, I presume that there’s an American flag at the AIT in Taipei, yeah? I mean, is there any – does it have any consequence that they – [關於升旗這事有沒有任何反應?]

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re in discussions with – U.S. officials in Taipei and Washington are in discussions with Taiwan authorities about the matter. I don’t have any other specifics for you. [國務院發言人: 我們與美國在台北的官員討論此事，華府也與台灣的當局在討論此事，換句話說，華盛頓這邊與AIT駐台北辦事處的官員在討論此事，也與馬英九當局及外交部討論此事，但國務院發言人無法提供更多的訊息給新聞界。]

QUESTION: And what’s the – how does it get remedied? Did they have to take it down? [那此事如何救濟或善後?他們是否應該把旗子降下來?]

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything to predict for you at this point. [國務院發言人: 就在現在，我無法為您做預測。]

QUESTION: Well, wait. But can we find out? Because as --

MS. PSAKI: If I have something more to offer, I’m happy to share it. I’m not sure that I will at this point, because we’re still discussing with them. [國務院發言人: 我們現在仍在與台北當局討論此事，所以我無法告訴您更多。]

QUESTION: So Jen, does the U.S. consider it (inaudible) or official capacity? [美方認為雙橡園帶有官方性質嗎?]

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s not about the U.S. views it – it’s a representative compound; it’s not a private person’s home. [國務院發言人: 這跟美國怎麼看無關，雙橡園是台灣代表的官邸，它並非一座平民百姓的家。]

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, when you said yesterday the ceremony is not consistent with U.S. policy, so what kind of message you would like to deliver to Taiwan, such as “Don’t do that again,” or – [您昨天說，雙橡園升旗一事與美國的政策不符，那麼美方準備傳達什麼訊息給台灣? 比如說，「此類行為不能再度發生」-----]

MS. PSAKI: I think the message is what we’ve been conveying, which is that we’re disappointed with the action. It’s – the flag-raising ceremony violated our longstanding understanding on the conduct of our unofficial relations. We have a robust set of cultural relations, but we do not have diplomatic relations. And we’ll continue to discuss this with the proper officials. [國務院發言人: 美台之間有很強的文化關係，但沒有外交關係。]

QUESTION: But that’s a bit more than you said yesterday. You’re disappointed in it.

MS. PSAKI: I believe I said exactly that yesterday.

QUESTION: You did say that? Okay.

MS. PSAKI: But --

QUESTION: I must have missed it. Well, regarding other disputed areas, I mean, would you have the same problem if – I don’t know, if the Dalai Lama’s office here put a Tibetan flag up?

MS. PSAKI: We can discuss that if that happens, Matt. I’m happy to talk to our team about that.

附錄五

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 7, 2015

TRANSCRIPT:
1:20 p.m. EST

QUESTION: Jen, do you have any update on the flag-raising controversy at Twin Oaks? You said yesterday that Twin Oaks is the representative’s compound, not a private person’s home. But nevertheless, it is a piece of property that belongs to the Taiwanese Government and is in the control of Representative Shen. That’s probably why he insists in Taipei that it is within his right to hold an internal private flag-raising ceremony. And also he said it’s not unprecedented. Last October during the national day celebration flags were raised and AIT officials were present and they made addresses. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details on that. I’m happy to look into it. I don’t have anything to add to what I offered yesterday. I think the point you mentioned is that it’s an official government facility, it’s not a private individual’s home, and that’s what I was referencing yesterday. And the question was: What is the United States’ view? I offered the United States’ view.

All right.

QUESTION: One follow-up?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There are those in Taipei who say that the U.S. disappointment with the ceremony has more to do with China’s strong protest and representation rather than with real U.S. displeasure. Is there any truth to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it has to do with our consistent policy. That’s what it has to do with.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So on this issue, I don’t want to belabor it, but yesterday I asked: Is there any repercussion? Is there any consequence for --

MS. PSAKI: We’re in discussions. We continue to be in discussions with Taiwan authorities on this matter, but I don’t have any updates on that.

QUESTION: And the other thing is --

MS. PSAKI: I believe the flag has actually been taken down regardless. [國務院發言人: 不管如何，我相信雙橡園的旗子實際上已經被降下了。]

QUESTION: And is that – in your view, that’s a good thing that the flag was taken down?

MS. PSAKI: It wasn’t an ask we made, is my understanding. [國務院發言人: 根據我的了解，雙橡園的旗子被降下並非出於美方的要求。]

QUESTION: It was not? [不是美方的要求?]

MS. PSAKI: But it has been. I don’t have any other update beyond that. [國務院發言人: 我無法再做進一步的說明。]