焦點專欄

回文章列表

2013-08-25 台灣戰爭史回顧(144)

台灣人應該杯葛中華民國體制內任何選舉(Boycotting Chinese Taipei Elections)。Just as the Tibetan Exiled Government in Dharamsala is without any position to represent India, Chinese Taipei, which is in essence the Chinese Exiled Government in Taipei, is without any position to represent Taiwan, an incorporated territory of Japan with the United States of America as the principal occupying power under Article 23(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.正如西藏流亡政府在印度達蘭薩拉,沒有任何立場代表印度,本質為中國流亡政府在台北之「中華台北」,沒有任何立場代表台灣,其為日本之國土,依舊金山和平條約第23條(a)美國為其主要佔領權國。

On May 17, 2011, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said in Geneva: 2011年5月17日,美國衛生部長凱瑟琳西貝柳斯女士在日內瓦說:

1. "We have made it very clear to the WHO, and I think the United States' position is that no organization of the U.N. has a right to unilaterally determine the position of Taiwan."
「我們已很清楚地向世界衛生組織表明, 而我認為美國的立場是, 沒有一個聯合國組織有片面決定台灣地位之權利。」


"Pursuant to Article 107 of the Charter of the United Nations: "Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.” Consequently, the United Nations is completely not concerned in concluding the ultimate status of Formosa and the Pescadores, now more commonly called Taiwan, under Article 2(b) of the San francisco Peace Treaty. 依聯合國憲章第107條,聯合國對二次世界大戰後和平條約之規定是無緣置喙。因此,舊金山和平條約第2條(b)下之福爾摩沙及澎湖, 現今通常稱為台灣, 其最終地位之決定和聯合國完全無渋。

2. "It needs to be a resolution that includes China and Taiwan in a discussion, and we would very much welcome that road forward, " she added. 她接著說:「中國和台灣需商量以解決,我們非常樂觀其成。」

It is a pity that Ms. Sebelius made a mistake to correlateTaiwan with China. Within the context of the Shanghai Communique, the US side expects a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question could be reached between the Chinese on the west side of the Taiwan Strait represented by the Chinese Communist Government on the China mainland and the exiled Chinese on the east side of the Taiwan Strait represented by the Chinese Nationalist Government on Taiwan. On the one hand, the people on the "politically oriented Taiwan" under Taiwan Relations Act represented by the Chinese colonial regime is supposed to reach a resolution with China in the name of Chinese Taipei, not Taiwan. On the other hand, the people of the "legally oriented Taiwan" under the San Francisco Peace Treaty represented by the Taiwan Civil Government does not recognize any resolution concluded between China and Chinese Taipei in the name of Taiwan.

西貝柳斯女士犯了將台灣和中國牽扯在一起的錯誤,令人遺憾。在上海公報架構內,美方期待在台灣海峽西邊,以在中國大陸之中國共產黨政府為代表之中國人,和在台灣海峽東邊,同時以在台灣之中國國民黨政府為代表之流亡中國人之間,能和平解決台灣問題。在一方面,在台灣關係法架構內,由中國殖民政權所代表的「政治導向之台灣」,必須以中華台北而非台灣之名義,和中國達成協議。而在另一方面,在舊金山和平條約架構內,由台灣民政府所代表的「法理導向之台灣」,不承認中華台北以台灣之名義和中國所達成之任何協議。

Over the past thirty-five years, continual problems have arisen with Taiwan’s nomenclature in international organizations. Pursuant to Article 2(b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. But in the view of the State Department, as described in the Supreme Court in 1960, no agreement has purported to transfer the Japanese sovereignty over Formosa to (the Republic of) China. In fact, since mid December 1949, the ROC government has been in exile on Formosa, a Japanese soil from the viewpoint of the international law. 過去三十五年來,國際組織不斷出現台灣問題的稱呼。根據舊金山和平條約第2條(b),日本放棄了其對台灣之所有權力、權利和主張。但在美國國務院看來,如同最高法院1960年所闡述:沒有協議曾明文將日本對福爾摩沙之主權移轉給「中國(中華民國)」。事實上,從國際法觀點來看,中華民國政府自1949年12月中旬以來已經流亡在日本領土之福爾摩沙。

Here in mid 2011, we call on the White House and all U.S. Executive Branch agencies to reconfirm the legal status of Taiwan in compliance with the Laws of War under the Law of Nations, and to corroborate the conclusions in the State Dept. publication "Treaties in Force", which holds that: "The United States does not recognize the Republic of China as a state or a government." Based on these legal realities, it should be clear that the ROC Constitution cannot be regarded as the true “organic law” of Taiwan. Accordingly, any and all elections held on the authority of this Constitution should be considered absurd and invalid. Following this line of reasoning, we maintain that the upcoming Jan. 14, 2012 election in Taiwan should be boycotted. 2011年中旬,我們呼籲所有美國白宮和行政機構,在萬國公法下遵循戰爭法,重新確認台灣的法理地位,並且確證美國務院所公佈有效條約之結論:「美國不承認中華民國是一個國家或政府。」根據這些法律事實,應該清楚中華民國憲法不能被視為真正的台灣「根本法」。因此,任何根據這個憲法所舉行的選舉,應被視為荒唐而且無效。基於這個理由,我們主張:即將於2012年1月14日舉行之台灣選舉應被抵制。

The people of Taiwan should clearly proclaim to the world community that: “Taiwan is not a province of China, and Chinese Taipei is non-representative to Taiwan. Any election held in Taiwan under the Constitution of the Republic of China should not be recognized.” 本土台灣人應明確向國際社會宣佈:「台灣並非中國之一省, 而中華台北並不代表台灣。任何在中華民國憲法下所舉行的台灣選舉不應被承認。」

 

作者:林志昇(武林 志昇˙林 峯弘)
台灣民政府 秘書長
2011/05/23初稿 2013/08/25 再論

附注:
An organic law or fundamental law is a law or system of laws which forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law for a sovereign state.

"organic law"或稱"fundamental law",是建構政府、公司或其他組織之法律或法律系統。憲法對主權國家是一種特殊型式之"organic law"。基於憲法是被稱為「國家根本大法」,"organic law"如譯為「根本法」應是較譯為「組織法」更貼切。

30