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)
譯文如下：
許多教授，研究員，智庫學者，學術界的人，以及國會委員們對於中國的主題都感到很困惑。在這整個事件的知識方面，某些自稱具有相當專業的人士都公然斷言有兩個中國，我們被迫質疑為什麼美國行政當局堅持說"只有一個中國"?
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。
事實上美國行政部門所堅持的"一中政策"僅僅能夠用對一般大眾很不熟知的〈國際法理〉來解釋，那就是戰爭法和它所屬的佔領法。大部份沒有這一方面法理知識的人都以為兩個中國的爭議是起源於在1940年代的國共內戰。其實這種概念是錯誤的。
對台灣問題要有較正確地認識應該從二次大戰裡太平洋戰區遺留下來的問題來探討。回顧過去二戰的歷史，很多所謂的中國專家似乎默認中華民國蔣介石將1945年10月25日在台灣的日本投降典禮日，定義成蔣介石想要的重大意義的日子。在那些典禮上蔣軍官員都說台灣主權屬於中國並宣稱是“光復節“。然而在戰爭法下，包括日內瓦公約，海牙公約和其他已製定的國際慣例來解釋都是“不可能的“。
投降典禮僅是像徵著“軍事佔領的開始“。征服者有權利和切實的義務來佔領已征服的地區並解釋任何佔領區主權的轉移。
在二戰期間所有軍事攻擊台灣(或者至少有99.5%)都是來自美國的軍事武力，但是麥克阿瑟將軍派遣的行政當局是由蔣介石的國民政府來佔領。
在1945年10月以後台灣還是日本的主權地區直到1952年4月28日舊金山和約生效之後才結束。很明顯地，舊金山和約裡面指明美國是主要佔領權國，由上述的資訊我們可以很快地做出三個重要的意見。
第一，在1945年10月25日中華民國(ROC)僅是被派遣來執行軍事佔領台灣的行政當局而已。
第二，在1949年十二月ROC中央政府遷來被佔領的台灣，它是遷到中國國土以外的區域。
第三，由於1952年舊金山和約生效起，盟軍已經解散，但是主要佔領權國美國卻默認(或是既成的事實安排)繼續佔領台灣。
換句話說ROC是當作代理美國佔領。另外為了維持流亡政府的法理地位，在這點上有兩個疑問。
(1)台灣是ROC的一部份？
(2)台灣是PRC(中華人民共和國)的一部份？
：事實上美國行政當局從未承認台灣被武力合併到ROC或PR的區域內。暗示：這二個問題的答案很清楚，相關的文件証明如下：
台灣不是ROC的一部份
在Shen對Rodger的案子裡，哥倫比亞特區巡迴法庭於1959年10月6日由國務院官方宣示表決
。判決：從1949起ROC的臨時首都在台灣台北，並且在這島上執行行政權，但是福爾摩沙的主權並沒有轉移給中國，福爾摩沙不是中國的一部份，至少還沒有，而且除非有適當的條約生效之後。福爾摩沙可以說是被ROC政府管理的區域或被佔領的地區，但不是被官方認定為ROC的一部份。
台灣不是PRC的一部份
在國會的研究報告：中國/台灣：一個中國政策的演變到2007年7月9日可分下列幾點：
(1)在美中三個公報(1972，1979，和1982)中關於台灣的主權美方沒有明確地敍述。
(2)美國認知台灣海峽兩岸只有一個中國。
(3)美國政策裡沒有承認PRC對台灣擁有主權。
(4)美國政策裡沒有承認台灣是主權國家，並且
(5)美國政策認為台灣地位未決定。
總結：
1949年10月1日PROC於北京建立，是唯一的合法中國政府。台灣不屬於中國，也不是獨立的實體，台灣是美國的佔領區。這個意思是台灣是美國的一部份嗎？
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
