關於
The Formosa Statehood Movement was founded by David C. Chou in 1994. It advocates Taiwan become a territory of the United States, leading to statehood.
簡介
[台灣建州運動]在1994年被周威霖與他的同志們在台灣建立, 這個運動主張[台灣人民在美國政府所認為的適當時機, 透過自決與公投, 加入美國], 第一個階段先讓台灣成為美國的領地, 第二階段再經一次公投成為美國一州.

[台灣成為美國的領地]是台灣前途解決的[中程解決方案], 在台灣成為美國領地之後, 經過一段時間, 台灣領地人民再來進行第二次的公投, 那時公投的選項當然可以包括[台灣成為美國一州].[台灣獨立建國].[台灣繼續做為美國的領地]及其它的方案.

[台灣建州運動]現階段極力主張與強力推動[台灣成為美國的領地], 這應該是 [反國民黨統治當局及中國聯手偷竊台灣主權] 的所有台灣住民目前最好的選擇.

在[舊金山和約]中被日本拋棄的台灣主權至今仍在美國政府的政治監護之中, [台灣建州運動]決心與台灣住民. 台美人.美國政府及美國人民一起捍衛台灣主權, 並呼籲台灣住民將台灣主權正式交給美利堅合眾國, 以維護並促進台灣人民與美國的共同利益.

2015年6月12日 星期五

舊文重讀: 關於馬英九「先生」、英國鎮撫大將軍Sir William Howe、長島戰役、美國(前)衛生部長Kathleen Sebelius與台灣的法律地位

舊文重讀: 關於馬英九「先生」、英國鎮撫大將軍Sir William Howe、長島戰役、美國(前)衛生部長Kathleen Sebelius與台灣的法律地位
[前言: 台灣建州運動於11/4/2008在「外獨網」等平台發表了「可被稱為『先生』的馬英九與拒絕被稱為『先生』的華盛頓」 一文。該文後來被一些台派的人士與他們經營的網站或部落格轉貼,台灣鄉親對該文的反應不錯,所以我們在該文發表滿三年後,又撰寫與發表了一篇以「有台灣網站與鄉親說建州派的一篇文章『讓人很感動』」為題的文章,我也把該文寄給洪姐(她就是大名鼎鼎、笑口常開、為台灣做出無私奉獻的洪銘媛小姐)。洪姐最近又把該文寄給鄉親們及我,我自己再讀一遍,把其中的一句話以註腳的方式加以修正及調整。此事雖已過了將近六年,但當年那兩篇文章還是有參考價值,因為北京政權還是繼續稱馬英九為「先生」,拒絕稱他的官銜。]

有台灣網站與鄉親說建州派的一篇
文章「讓人很感動」

第一部分 



「台灣建州運動」在三年前曾發表了一篇文章,我們現在把它重貼出來,讓台灣與台美的鄉親們再來回顧一下。在今天的重貼文章中,我們重新做了標點,我們也順便調整及增加了幾個字,讓鄉親們更便於閱讀。

「可被稱為『先生』的馬英九與拒絕被稱為『先生』的華盛頓」
(11/4/2008 發表)

(一)

//今年六月中旬,馬先生執政不到一個月,台北與北京宣佈第二次「江陳會」將在台北舉行,台灣的媒體馬上提出中國「海協會」會長陳雲林將要如何稱呼馬英九的問題,馬先生在第一時間就主動公開表示,北京的來使可稱呼他為馬先生。/

//這證實了我們在大選前一兩年就依據馬先生的性格而開始將他比擬為「小兔子」是正確的,兔子的個性就是懦弱,馬英九這個在女人堆裡長大並在「國民黨宮廷」裡被培養的小兔子,一見北京的土狼,就先腿軟,他除了認命投降之外,腦子是空空的。//

(二)

//話說美利堅十三個殖民地的代表所組成的「第二屆大陸會議」於1776年7月2日通過了一項決議案,宣佈了脫離英國而獨立,7月4日,「大陸會議」且發表了「獨立宣言」。//

//7月14日,在率領英國大軍與德意志[黑森]傭兵壓境的當時,英國北美派遣軍陸軍總司令兼謀和招降大臣 (類似鎮撫大將軍) 的郝[威廉]將軍 (Gen. Sir William Howe) 派遣一名副官,持函到美利堅「大陸軍」總司令的紐約指揮部,請求他的副官長James Patterson上校是否能被准許與華盛頓見面。//[「請求他的副官長James Patterson上校是否能被准許與華盛頓見面」這一段文字應改成: 請求華盛頓的祕書Joseph Reed上校,安排Patterson上校與華盛頓會見]

(三)

//郝大將軍的副官攜來的一封信,指名要給「華盛頓先生」,為了維持「尊嚴與對等」,前往接待的華盛頓的秘書Joseph Reed上校說,「我們軍隊裡沒有你指名的那個收信人」, 英國軍官問,要如何稱呼華盛頓,Reed說,「你們應該很清楚華盛頓將軍在我們軍隊中的官銜」。//

//幾天後,英國軍官再度前往美利堅軍營,信件的收信人變成了「華盛頓先生,等等,等等」(George Washington, Esq., etc., etc.),傲慢的英國人怎麼說都不肯稱華盛頓的官銜,Reed上校因此還是拒絕接受。//

//隔天,以上國姿態君臨與鄙視北美「叛亂份子」的郝大將軍再度派遣副官送信,由於吃了兩次閉門羹,這次只好收斂一下,他的副官這次改口詢問「華盛頓將軍」是否願意接見郝將軍的副官長 Patterson上校,因為英國軍官已懂分寸,所以這次被允許。//

(四)

//7月20日,Patterson上校抵達華盛頓將軍的指揮部,將軍接見了他。//

//Patterson上校拿出了那封收信人仍為George Washington, Esq., etc., etc的信件,華盛頓將軍聽任這個企圖矮化美利堅以及他本人的信件被擺在桌上,碰都不碰一下。//;

//華盛頓將軍訓斥Patterson說: A letter, addressed to a person acting in a public character should have some inscriptions to designate it from a mere private letter, and I should absolutely decline any letter addressed to myself as a private person when it related to my public station." 華盛頓將軍的意思是,寫信給他這種具有公職身份的人,就應該要指明他的官銜,否則只是私人信函,因此這樣的信他不收。//

(五)

//馬英九急著表示他可以被北京方面的來使稱為先生,除了展現他的小兔子性格之外,也向世人展現了他並不認為他是一個「國家的元首」(他在競選期間,跟選民說,他選的是「中華民國的總統」),與華盛頓將軍相比,台灣人與台灣的建州派可以說他連給華盛頓將軍當馬伕或擦馬靴的資格都沒有。//




建州派把「馬被統」與華盛頓將軍兜到一起來談,不是我們認為「馬被統」的事功可與華盛頓匹敵,我們只是要拿他來凸顯一個巨大的反差,我們在前面已說了,「與華盛頓將軍相比,台灣人與台灣的建州派可以說他(馬英九)連給華盛頓將軍當馬伕或擦馬靴的資格都沒有」。



「可被稱為『先生』的馬英九與拒絕被稱為『先生』的華盛頓」一文被發表之後,台灣若干網站與私人部落格曾將它轉貼,如「鯨魚網站」(http://www.hi-on.org.tw/bulletins.jsp?b_ID=85198, 「財團法人彭明敏文教基金會」)與「雲程的雙魚鏡」(http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/hoon-ting/article?mid=10095)。

他們在張貼建州派的文章前,來了一段簡短的評論: 「一篇網路上轉傳的佚名信件 「可被稱為『先生』的馬英九與拒絕被稱為『先生』的華盛頓」讓人很感動,也透露有趣的訊息---------加以整理後,轉引做功德」。

很顯然,台灣的鄉親們讀了建州派寫的這篇文章,覺得很有趣,也深受感動,也就是說,我們沒有白寫。

在早期,建州派發表的文章並沒有像現在這樣,在文後註明是「台灣建州運動」發表的文章,不過,在文章中通常會提到建州派,好讓大家知道那是建州派撰寫與發表的。由於轉貼的鄉親沒有把該文的最後一段也貼上去,所以轉傳幾手之後,大家就完全不知作者是誰,因此Hi-On[鯨魚]與Hoon-Ting[雲程]就乾脆說作者是「佚名」了(也有可能第一個轉貼的人士基於黨派與門戶之見,刻意不把該文最後一段也貼上去,不讓建州派得到credit) 雖然如此,但還是有轉貼的朋友把我們的全文加以轉貼,也有朋友只轉貼最後一段,因此讀到的鄉親與朋友就會聯想到該文應出自建州派
第二部分:

在美國獨立革命戰爭中,紐約「布魯克林戰役」也相當值得研究(研究華盛頓在長島的部隊究竟如何安全撤退),在這一役,英軍進行大規模集結與登陸,對美利堅的獨派與武裝部隊進行大軍壓境,實力懸殊的「大陸軍」一路從長島與曼哈頓島撤退,轉進到紐約(在美洲大陸的紐約地區的東南部)與新澤西,當時若華盛頓統率的「大陸軍」與民兵在紐約的長島被殲滅,很可能美利堅獨立建國的事業就此瓦解,但是非常神奇的是,華盛頓如獲神助,竟能在犧牲了部分部隊之下,讓主力部隊安全撤退。這件事至今仍是個謎,因為當時英國有足夠的海軍兵力,可以將長島與曼哈頓島之間的東河完全封鎖或阻絕,可是郝家兄弟卻沒有這麼做,讓華盛頓在長島的部隊能神奇地渡過東河,進行戰略撤退或轉進,基本上保全了實力。

由於「布魯克林戰役」是如此地「有趣」,很值得鄉親們來回憶,所以建州派現在要轉貼一篇文章,讓大家閱讀與參考。我們貼這篇文章,因為它不是軍事研究專業的文章,所以大家容易讀,再來,因為其中有一部分談到了英軍統帥稱「大陸軍」統帥華盛頓將軍為「先生」的故事。

The Battle of Brooklyn"
By William Bryk 
Wednesday, July 28,1999

It was June 19, 1776, and the British had come. McCurtin, a private in the Continental army, later wrote that the "whole Bay was full of shipping as it ever could be and the masts of the ships moored by Staten Island "resembled a forest of pine trees with their branches trimmed. Gen. Sir William Howe, commanding His Majestys forces in North America, had passed the Narrows with 48 men-of-war and transports. Neither McCurtin nor the hundreds of New Yorkers who soon lined the Battery and the waterfront piers had seen anything like it.

They had seen nothing yet. During the next day, Sir William's seafaring brother, Admiral Richard, Lord Howe (dark, like most of that family, and popular with his command, as his brother was with his, Lord Howe's sailors called him Black Dick), joined him with 82 more ships. By July 12, more than 150 ships stood off Staten Island; by mid-August, more than 400. King George III and his ministers had assembled the greatest seagoing invasion since the Spanish Armada nearly two centuries before.

On July 12, 1776, the British did three things.

First, they landed on Staten Island. The county militia, mustered for home defense, surrendered as one man. 

Then, two frigates, H.M.S. Phoenix and H.M.S. Rose, testing the harbor defenses, swept up the Bay under full sail. The Rose's commander opened a particularly fine claret as the American artillery fired on him from Red Hook, Governor s Island, Paulus Hook in New Jersey and Forts Washington and Lee. They missed. They all missed. They never came close. The two men-of-war cruised some 30 miles north to Tappan Bay and returned a few days later, utterly undamaged.

Finally, the Howe brothers tried to open negotiations. Sir William Howe (Sir Billy" behind his back) was a civilized man, preferring peace to war. Perhaps it was his sensuality. Howe s paunch spoke of his weakness for the pleasures of the bottle and the table, even as the presence in his suite of Mrs. Joshua Loring, a charming Bostonian, evidenced a fondness for those of the bed (Sir William had appointed the complaisant Mr. Loring to the lucrative post of His Majesty s Commissary of Prisoners).

But love of pleasure was not professional incapacity. William Howe, tall, pleasant and taciturn, was in his late 40s. He had held the King s commission for more than 30 years. A careful, intelligent commander who generally eschewed wasteful frontal assaults against entrenched positions, Howe s massive popularity with his troops stemmed from their confidence that he would not waste their lives in the pursuit of glory.

Yet Howe could be magnificently, even wildly brave. In September 1759, Howe had scaled the Cliffs of Abraham, leading 4000 troops in the surprise attack on the French at Quebec, still considered among the most audacious feats in military history. On June 17, 1775, at Bunker Hill, he personally led his grenadiers second assault against "an incessant stream of fire...more than flesh could endure" from Israel Putnam s militiamen, and when his men broke and ran, William Howe momentarily remained, defiant and nearly alone on the hillside in his cocked hat and bright scarlet coat, before turning and walking away.

[從這裡開始談到郝威廉將軍派遣使者,欲送達招降文書的故事]

The Howe brothers, knowing war from experience, preferred peace. But how to address the letter to the rebel commander? General" might seem to recognize the legitimacy of Congress, which had commissioned him.Colonel, his highest rank as a militia officer in the King s service, might be insulting. Ah! the best address for a Virginian gentleman: George Washington, Esq.

In They Fought for New York, John Brick describes the arrival of Lieut. Brown, R.N. of H.M.S. Eagle, with the letter under flag of truce. He saluted a blue coated colonel at the Battery stairs. 

"Sir, Brown said, "I have a letter from Lord Howe to Mr. Washington.

Sir, replied Col. Joseph Reed, Philadelphia lawyer turned adjutant general of the United States Army, "we have no person here in our army with that address."

Opening negotiations is difficult when your foes won t even accept your mail on a lawyer s advice. 

Sir William then addressed another letter to George Washington, Esq., etc., etc. This, too, was refused. The bearer, Lieut. Col. James Patterson, Howe s adjutant general, then asked whether General Washington would care to meet with him. 

Washington received Patterson at his headquarters at 1 Broadway. Patterson explained the etc., etc. as terms used in diplomacy when a man s precise rank was in doubt. Washington replied there was no doubt about his precise rank and that etc., etc. could mean anythingor nothing. Patterson then suggested negotiations between Lord Howe and Washington. The Commander-in-Chief refused. He was merely a soldier, powerless to negotiate political issues: That was Congress domain.

By Aug. 19, 1776, Sir William had 32,000 professional soldiers on Staten Island, including two regiments of Guards, the Black Watch, and 8000 mercenaries, rented for the occasion from the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. Three days later, he invaded Brooklyn at Gravesend Bay. By noon, he had 15,000 men ashore with scarcely a shot fired.

Although Washington had fortified Brooklyn Heights, building Fort Greene, Fort Putnam and Fort Box, the American forces largely stood forward on the Heights of Guan (now Crown Heights, Stuyvesant Heights, Ocean Hill and Ridgewood). Apparently none of the American commanders knew of the Jamaica Pass, a deep winding cut" at what is now Broadway Junction, near East New York. This led to the Jamaica Rd., roughly parallel to what are now Fulton St. and Atlantic Ave., which curved between the Americans on the Heights of Guan and their fortifications near Brooklyn Heights. During the early morning of Aug. 27, Howe sent 4000 light infantrymen unopposed through the Pass. By dawn, they held the Jamaica Rd.

The Battle of Long Island opened with desultory skirmishing. Several hours after sunrise, two cannons boomed in the American rear. As the British and Hessians in their front suddenly stopped fooling around and began formal attacks, the Americans found Howe s light infantrymen charging from behind.

The rebel left and center collapsed. Many soldiers simply surrendered. Others fled into the woods. Through the ranks of British grenadiers sprinted Hessian jagers, vanishing into the trees after the rebels. They were green-coated professional huntsmen and gamekeepers, superbly fit, disciplined to an edge of ruthlessness, and armed with short-barreled rifles. They were trained to fight in forests, for at home they tracked poachers and thieves, and tended to take no prisoners. Decades later, the skulls of men run down and bayoneted by the jagers were still turning up on building sites, roadsides and tilled fields.

The American right comprised 1500 troops under Gen. William Alexander, a stocky, jovial Scots eccentric, who, though fighting for a republican cause, claimed the title of Lord Stirling. He had been more than holding his own: Two of his regiments had driven British regulars from a flanking crest and seized the high ground. Stirling had not held the hill for 15 minutes when thousands of British and German troops unexpectedly smashed into his front. His scouts then told him his left flank was in the air, the American left and center were gone and British regulars were cutting him off.

Stirling, unlike the other American commanders, had apparently studied his ground and even considered possible routes of retreat. He had one left: through marshes to Gowanus Creek, 80 yards wide at the mouth. Even then, his men would be slaughtered in the mud unless the British advance was stopped, if only for an hour.

Stirling, "with grim-faced Scottish fortitude," detached 250 Marylanders. They were militiamen. This was their first battle. He ordered his officers to move the rest of his command across the Gowanus. Then he rode to the Marylanders and put himself at their head.

They faced 10,000 British and German regulars, advancing in broad ranks two or three lines deep, now confident of victory, the field music s drummers beating a quick step, the King s and the regimental colors unfurled. The company-grade officers marched beside their men, swords at the carry, and the field-grade officers rode behind the lines, not out of cowardice but to maintain communications and control. As the enemy s shooting became effective, the ranks would close up, again and again, while marching forward. At 100 yards or so, they would halt. The soldiers would fire a volley and then charge at a full run, bayonets fixed, probably yelling at the top of their lungs. The effect was intentional: to seem terrifying, invincible and nearly inhuman.

Anyone watching the Guards trooping the color on the Queen s birthday is observing 18th-century tactics. American propaganda trains us to ridicule this kind of magnificent formal spectacle. But the British and Germans fought thus because it usually worked. It certainly did on Aug. 26, 1776. British soldiers generally were, as the Duke of Wellington later called them, the scum of the earth: semi-literate at best, thuggish, crude and boisterous. They were controlled through harsh discipline, with floggings ordered on the slightest pretext. Their lives were a constant round of drill and maintenance (blacking boots, polishing buckles, pipe-claying breeches to keep them white and sponge-cleaning the red coats, dry cleaning being unknown), occasionally interrupted by whoring and drinking. The constant drill strengthened the habit of obedience, enabling officers and non-coms to control and maneuver their men with great flexibility amidst the horror of battle.

But Stirling had seen it before. He told his men that he knew James Grant, the British general commanding the troops on his front, and had been in the House of Commons when Grant had boasted he could march from one end of America to the other with 5000 men. He urged them to prove Grant wrong.

Then his sword flashed from its scabbard, and with a broad sweep, Stirling pointed at the advancing enemy, roared, Charge! and spurred his horse forward. The 250 went with him. They charged, broke, withdrew, regrouped and charged again five times. Because they "fought like wolves," they bought the time their comrades needed to cross the marshes. Of the 250, 10 men and one officer stumbled by nightfall into the American entrenchments at Brooklyn Heights. Stirling was not among them.

It was only noon. Howe had lost 65 killed and 255 wounded while inflicting more than 2000 casualties on the rebels. One imagines the response of Patton to a demoralized enemy hopelessly off balance with his back to a river. Howe could have ended the war that afternoon, and there would have been no United States.

Imagine Elizabeth II's elegant profile on the shillings in our pockets. 

And Sir William Howe said no. His men prepared for a careful assault on the American fortifications. In the harbor, Lord Howe s captains expected orders to place their ships in the East River between Brooklyn and New York to bottle up Washington in Brooklyn. The orders never came. Lord Howe did not even send out cutters small boats, manned by expert oarsmen, carrying light cannon in swiveling mounts to patrol.

More than 220 years later, this remains inexplicable. Probably, the Howe brothers, being half a world away from London, were making policy despite their orders. Thomas Fleming, in Liberty, wrote: To achieve the kind of [negotiated] peace Admiral Howe envisioned, Washington s army had to survive. If it was battered into mass surrender in Brooklyn or slaughtered on the East River, hard-liners...would insist on a peace of unconditional surrender, [making] America another Ireland.

Washington had a genius for retreat. Few things are as difficult as the organized, controlled withdrawal of a defeated army. His mind turned to the 14th Continentals, a regiment of American regulars, mostly sailors in civilian life, largely raised from Marblehead, MA (characterized by one of his officers as a dirty erregular stincking place). Between nightfall on Aug. 26 and Aug. 29, Washington and his staff assembled every boat that could be kept afloat and had either sails or oars. The 14th Continentals manned them. The army was gradually withdrawn from the lines and ferried to Manhattan under cover of darkness. At dawn on Aug. 30, the last boats left. One carried George Washington. He had not slept in 48 hours.

Washington s withdrawal from Brooklyn, his army intact, was the first step in his retreat to victory.


第三部分: 建州派修正以前發表的一篇文章中的錯誤



「台灣建州運動」在先前發表了一篇有關WHA(世界衛生大會)與美國衛生部長(Secretary K. Sebelius)的文章,我們現在把該文中的一部分重貼出來:

「美國衛生部長(Secretary K. Sebelius)一句話,台灣人民受益,但『馬被統』意外撿了大便宜」 
(5/20/2011 發表) 

(一)

//由於(來自中國香港、被老共提拔成為WHO秘書長的) Margaret Chan 的辦公室於9/14/2010對WHO的會員國發出一項秘密備忘錄(Application of the International Health Regulations (2005) to Taiwan, Province of China"),將台灣貶為「支那台灣省」,讓台灣人民義憤填膺,群情激憤,而擔心選情受到重傷的「馬被統」也為之「跳腳」。/

//「馬被統潘金蓮政權」遭「支那西門慶政權」調戲與霸王硬上弓,在台灣人民面前演了兩三年的戲破了功,為了明年的大選,不得不握起粉拳,裝模做樣,對西門慶親哥哥乾咳幾聲,但「西門慶」叫「潘金蓮」冷靜,「潘金蓮」當然只有趕緊放低調。// 

//「台灣建州運動」在5/18/2011發表「華府應該積極協助台灣參與國際事務,不可要求台北與北京就此議題進行交易」一文,我們以很大的篇幅來探討台灣與WHO的議題,建州派希望美國國會與美國的行政部門今後應更積極地與主動地(1)幫助台灣打開國際空間,協助台灣加入國際組織,(2)幫助台灣「以台灣之名」,加入國際組織,(3)若北京再在聯合國及其他任何國際組織以「中國台灣省」或「台灣,中國」等不三不四的名稱貶低台灣及偷竊「台灣主權」,華府應訓令駐各國際組織的代表團,協助台灣,不讓台灣被北京貶低,也不讓「台灣主權」被支那竊取,至少要維護「台灣主權歸屬未定的現狀」。// 

(二) 

//昨天(5/18/2011),台灣藍綠各大報都刊載類似的消息,該消息指參加WHA會議的美國衛生部長Kathleen Sebelius於5/17/2011,在日內瓦舉行記者會,針對台灣人民最關心的所謂「支那台灣省」的問題,她在記者會中答覆台灣的媒體記者時表示: "No organization of UN has unilaterally determined the position of Taiwan."。//

建州派先請台灣與台美人鄉親來讀「中國時報」的一則報導: 

「美:UN組織不能片面決定台灣地位」


(中國時報,江靜玲/日內瓦十七日電,5/18/2011)

//針對台灣遭世界衛生組織(WHO)在其內部文件中矮化為「中國一省」,美國衛生部長希伯莉絲十七日表示,美國支持台灣參與世界衛生大會(WHA)的立場不變,沒有任何一個聯合國組織可片面決定台灣的地位(No organization of UN has unilaterally determined the position of Taiwan.)。//

(三)

//美國衛生部官網已公佈了Sebelius部長在日內瓦的記者會的談話與聲明 ("Remarks as Prepared by HHH Secretary Sebelius, U.S. Delegation Press Briefing, 2011 World Health Assembly", News Release, May 17, 2011)。// 

//台灣的媒體所刊載的內容並沒有出現在美國衛生部官網所公佈的News Release上。// 

(四)

//台灣的媒體都受到Sebelius部長"No organization of UN has unilaterally determined the position of Taiwan."這句話的鼓舞,台灣人民似乎也都受到了鼓舞,一掃陰霾與鬱卒。// 

(五)

//Sebelius部長"No organization of UN has unilaterally determined the position of Taiwan."這一句話的原文只出現在「中國時報」之上(其他非傳統與主流媒體出現不同的版本)。//

//建州派現在假定這句話的傳播無誤,基於這項假定,我們現在來進行評論。//

//(1)綠媒的漢文翻譯是: 「聯合國機構無權片面決定台灣地位」,藍媒的漢文翻譯是: 「聯合國組織不能片面決定台灣地位」。//

//這樣的翻譯都與(江靜玲提供的英文)原文有很大的出入,但這樣立場很強烈的翻譯訊息可以鼓舞綠營的民眾與台灣人,另外,可以讓台灣人民與台灣選民誤以為美國替「馬被統政權」撐腰,並誤以為「馬被統捍衛了台灣的主權」。//

(2)//這句話最忠實的翻譯是: 聯合國的機構不曾片面決定過台灣的地位。//

(3)//建州派認為也很有理由認為(透過我們在華盛頓的一名友人,該友人在最近一直在WHO這件事上為台灣做些貢獻): 「聯合國的機構不曾片面決定過台灣的地位」這句話才是Sebelius部長想要表達的,她這麼說,是正確反映了事實(指「美國駐聯合國代表團」曾向聯合國大會祕書處遞出聲明,指出聯合國大會在10/25/1971通過的2758號決議案只就支那代表權的問題進行處置,但沒有涉及台灣法律地位與歸屬的問題)。//

//建州派呼籲美國衛生部能在官網公布Sebelius部長在記者會中的問答紀錄全文,以做為歷史見證及文獻。//




WHA這個事件經過了數個月,建州派發現「中國時報」江靜玲女士所提供的Sebelius部長談話的英文原文好像有問題,所以我們今天必須對該事進行追蹤並加以修正。

我們在美國「國會研究處」擔任研究員的簡淑賢(Shirley A. Kan)與她的同事Wayne M. Morrison所撰寫的U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues (CRS, August 4, 2011)"一篇研究報告發現了如下這麼一段: 

"--------in May 2011, a secret WHO Memorandum dated September 14, 2010, came to light in Taiwan, showing that the WHO had an "arrangement with China" to implement the IHR for the "Taiwan Province of China." At the WHA last month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius protested to the WHO, saying that no U.N. organization has a right to determine the status of Taiwan."

請台灣與台美鄉親們特別注意-----no U.N. organization has a right to determine the status of Taiwan." 這幾個字與綠媒所報導的「聯合國機構無權片面決定台灣地位」吻合,也與江靜玲自己所寫的「沒有任何一個聯合國組織可片面決定台灣的地位」落差不大。

到現在為止,我們認為江女士所提供的英文原文應該有問題,我們先前曾為此發函給江女士,請她進一步查證,但她至今尚未回應。

「台灣建州運動」發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement 
(an organization devoted to making Taiwan a state of the United States)

沒有留言:

張貼留言