228 網路電台
用微軟Window Media Player播放器收聽  用Winamp播放器收聽  用iTunes播放器收聽  用RealPlayer播放器收聽  用有支援Flash Player的瀏覽器收聽
狀態:播放中; 0 Online
首頁 arrow 新聞快報 arrow Understanding the One China Policy
【聖山教育 線上展版】
Understanding the One China Policy 列印 E-mail
新聞 - Other Sources
作者 twclarify   

Understanding the One China Policy

張宏鵬: 茲將此Video口述原文及譯文紀錄如下:若有疏漏或錯誤,煩請線上更正。附記:如能看懂英文者,最好以原文為主,較不失原意,此集乃法理精髓之最。甚少媒體原意披露,海外中文媒體亦不例外。

Understanding the "One China Policy"

Many professors, researchers, think tank scholars, academics and members of Congress are confused about the subject of China. Some people who professed to have thorough knowledge of this entire matter are quite vehement in claiming that there are two Chinas. We are forced to ask why does the US executive branch insist on saying that there is only one China?

Let's go back to the year 2oo4 testifying before the House of International Relations Committee on April 21, 2004 Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacific Affairs James Kelly was asked to explain the underlying rationale for the one China Policy. He was unable to do so. Unfortunately from 2004 to the present, no US State Department official offered any further detail remarks on this important issue. This is very puzzling to many people.

In fact, US executive branches insistence on one China can only be explained by reference to a branch of international law which is largely unknown to most civilian. That is the laws of war and their subset~the laws of occupation. With no knowledge of this branch of law, most persons assume that the dispute over two Chinas arose due to the Chinese civil war of the 1940s. However this conceptualization of this subject is an error.

More accurately the Taiwan question must be understood as an issue left over from WWll, many of the so called China experts seem to acquiesce to the idea that Chiang Kai~shek of the ROC could define the significance of the Oct. 25, 1945 Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taiwan anyway he wanted. At those ceremonies CKS military offices said that the sovereignty of Taiwan now belong to China,and proclaim Taiwan Retrocession Day. Under the laws of war, however, which include the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and other established international precedent such an explanation is impossible.

The surrender ceremonies only mark the beginning of the military occupation. The conqueror has the right and indeed the obligation to conduct the military occupation of conquered territory, to delineate any transfer of territorial sovereignty. A formal peace treaty is necessary.

All military attacks (or at least 99.5% ) against Taiwan in the WWll period were made by US military forces but General MacArthur delegated the administrative authority for the occupation to the Chinese Nationalist under CKS.

Japanese sovereignty continued after Oct. 1945 since the SF Peace Treaty did not come into effect until Apr. 28, 1952. Notably the SFPT designates the USA as the principal occupying power. With the above information we can quickly make three important observations.

First, beginning in Oct. 25, 1945 the ROC was only exercising delegated administrative authority for the military occupation of Taiwan.

Second, In Dec. 1949 when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan,it was moving outside of Chinese national territories.

Third, with the coming into force of the peace treaty in 1952, the allies have disbanded. However, the US, ie, the principal occupying power, has assented tacitly or otherwise to pre~existing arrangements for continuing the military occupation of Taiwan.

In other words, the ROC is serving as a proxy ooccupation force for the USA. In addition to maintaining its status as a government in exile. At this point, two questions may be asked

(#1) Is Taiwan a part of the ROC ?

(#2) Is Taiwan a part of PRC ?

:In fact, the US executive branch has never recognized the forceable incorporation of Taiwan into the territory of ROC or the PRC. Hint: the answer to these two questions should be very clear.  Relevant documentation is as follows :

Taiwan is not part of the ROC.

In the case of Shen vs. Rodger, DC. Circuit Oct. 6, 1959 voting from official pronouncements of the Dept. of State. The judges held that the provisional capital of the ROC has been at Taipei, Taiwan since Dec. 1949, that the government of ROC exercises authority over the island, that the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China and that Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the government of the ROC, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the ROC.

Taiwan is not part of the PRC.

In the Congressional research service report: China/ Taiwan : Evolution of one China Policy dated July 9, 2007 the following points were made

(1) the US did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US~PRC Joint Communique of 1972, 1979 and 1982.

(2) The US acknowledged the one China position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

(3) US policy has not recognized the PRC`s sovereignty over Taiwan.

(4) US policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country. and

(5) US policy has considered Taiwan status as undetermined.

In conclusion the PROC. founded Oct. 1, 1949 in Beijing is the sole legitimate government of China. Taiwan does not belong to China, nor is it an independent entity. Taiwan is an occupied territory of the USA.

Does this mean Taiwan belong to the US? The answer is no. Taiwan`s legal status is a type of quasi USA insular law framework. Hopefully US executive branch officials can be more precise in explaining the underlying rationale behind the one China Policy in the near future.

(The end)



讓我們回顧2004年在眾院國際關係委員會的作証:於2004年的4月21日東亞及太平洋事務委員會的助卿James Kelly 被要求解釋"一個中國政策"的基本闡述,他沒有辦法做到。很不幸地從2004年一直到現今沒有一個國務院官員對這個重要的問題做出任何進一步詳細的評論,令很多人感到相當困惑。






















答案:不是. 台灣的法理地位是有如在美國獨特的法律架構內,作為軍事政府佔領的託管地。希望在不久的將來,美國行政當局能夠在一中政策下更明確地解釋“基本闡述“。

Source: Youtube - twclarify

 Facebook! Plurk! LINE send!  
< 前一個   下一個 >