譚慎格 John J. Tkacik, Jr. 華爾街日報 Wall Street Journal 9.1.2009
(台灣公論報翻譯轉載）
可能因為已是很久以前的歷史吧，Richard V. Allen【１】 對尼克森台灣政策的記憶是很模糊了。我以美國外交官的身份處理中國及台灣的事務有二十年之久，我可以証實美國從未同意中國對台灣是其領土的主張。尼克森總統也未曾公開如此的政策。
事實上， 雖然當時尼克森及季辛吉都知道美國在聯合國大會沒有足夠的票數反對， 尼克森還是指示他當時的駐聯合國大使喬治．H．W．布希【２】於１９７１年１０
月２５日投票反對中華人民共和國進入聯合國。這就是因為這個案包含驅逐由台灣來的代表。尼克森的政策是要「雙重代表」，支持台北及北京同時為聯合國會員。到今天，美國的政策還是拒絕承認中國對台灣的領土主張。最近，在２００７年６月，美國國務院（由其法律顧問起稿）對關心台灣的美國公民的反應中說美國「並沒有正式承認中國對台灣有所主權，並且對台灣的政治地位尚未做一個決定」。
在２００７年，美國警覺到聯合國秘書長所發表的文件中說「從任何角度來看，台灣是中華人民共和國不可分裂的一部分」。美國代表通知秘書處說「雖然此項主張與中國的立場相符，卻不是由包括美國在內的所有聯合國會員國普遍接受」。
美國駐聯合國代表團又說美國「敦促聯合國秘書長再次復習聯合國對台灣地位的政策，以避免對這個聯合國會員國３５年來已經互相同意有不同主張的、一個很敏感的題目有所靠邊」，美國代表團又警告說「如果聯合國秘書處堅持描述台灣為中華人民共和國的一部份，或對台灣使用隱含此喻意的名稱，美國將在一個國家的基礎上不得不和此立場撇清關係.」聯合國秘書長真的就停止主張台灣是中國不可分離的一部份了。
Allen 先生說一句「中國只有一個，台灣是中國的一部份」是純粹中國所用的程式。甚至是台灣友人的 Allen 先生都將中國的對台政策混淆為是美國的對台政策，由此可以看出中國公眾外交的成功（也相對表示美國國務院的弱點）。（許世模譯）
＊ 作者John J. Tkcik, Jr 譚慎格 曾任傳統基金會（The Heritage Foundation）亞洲研究中心的資深研究員。 譚慎格是一位退休的美國外交官，曾駐台灣、冰島、香港及中國，並曾在美國國務院任情報研究局中國分析主任。
【１】Richard V. Allen 是尼克森總統的國家安全顧問（1981-1982）
【２】喬治．H．W．布希 後來成為美國第４１任總統（1989-1993）
美國有關台灣地位之 “非文件”
譚慎格 John J. Tkacik, Jr.
（台灣公論報9/11/2009)
(在外交辭令上，'非文件'是指當一政府要向其他政府/國家行為者傳達一個訊息，而同時沒有其他記錄在案的文件.)
1. 美國重申其一中政策是基於美中之間簽訂的三個公報和台灣關係法。其大意是，美國 認 識 到中國認為台灣是中國的一部分的觀點。美國對台灣地位不採取任何立場，既不接受，也不拒絕台灣是中國的一部分的聲明。
2. 長期以來，美國敦促台灣地位應以和平方式解決，俾使台海兩岸人民同感滿意。除此之外，我們不對台灣的地位下任何有關政治的定義。
3. 美國指出，中華人民共和國在國際舞台上已變得較為活躍，中華人民共和國更進一步呼籲聯合國秘書處和會員國接受中華人民共和國擁有台灣主權的要求。在某些情況下，北京要求國際組織和其會員國對台灣使用隱含贊同中國對台灣擁有主權的名稱，並以此作為中華人民共和國自己的參與國際組織的條件。
4. 美國關注的是，有些聯合國組織最近宣稱，要依照聯合國的先例，要求把台灣視為中華人民共和國的一部分，並應在名稱上，顯示這種地位。
5. 美國已悉知聯合國先後頒布了文件，聲稱“台灣為中華人民共和國不可分割的一部分”. 雖然此項主張與中國的立場相符，卻不是由包括美國在內的所有聯合國會員國普遍接受。
6. 美國指出，聯合國在1971年10月25日通過的第2758號決議，並不將台灣視為中華人民共和國的一個省。該項決議案只承認中華人民共和國政府的代表是中國在聯合國的唯一合法代表，並驅逐在蔣介石時代被佔有的聯合國和有關組織的議席。在第2758號決議中並沒有提到，中國對台灣有主權的聲明。
7. 雖然美國不支持台灣加入以建國為先決條件的組織，如聯合國，但我們支持台灣專家在適當的時機有意義的參與這類組織。我們支持台灣加入不以國家地位為先決條件的國際組織。
8. 美國敦促聯合國秘書處檢討其對台灣地位的政策，並避免對過去三十五年來聯合國會員國同意各持已見的敏感問題採取立場。
9. 如果聯合國秘書處堅持描述台灣為中華人民共和國的一部分，或對台灣使用隱含此喻意的名稱，美國將在一個國家的基礎上不得不和此立場撇清關係。
U.S. Non-Paper on the Status of Taiwan
The United States reiterates its One China policy which is based on the three US–China Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act, to the effect that the United States acknowledges China’s view that Taiwan is a part of China. We take no position on the status of Taiwan. We neither accept nor reject the claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
The United States has long urged that Taiwan’s status be resolved peacefully to the satisfaction of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Beyond that, we do not define Taiwan in political terms.
The United States noted that the PRC has become more active in international organizations and has called on the UN Secretariat and member states to accept its claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. In some cases, as a condition for the PRC’s own participation in international organizations, Beijing has insisted the organization and its member states use nomenclature for Taiwan that suggests endorsement of China’s sovereignty over the island.
The United States is concerned that some UN organizations have recently asserted that UN precedent required that Taiwan be treated as a part of the PRC and be referred to by names in keeping with such status.
The United States has become aware that the UN has promulgated documents asserting that the United Nations considers “Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC.” While this assertion is consistent with the Chinese position, it is not universally held by UN member states, including the United States.
The United States noted that the UN General Assembly resolution 2758 adopted on 25 October 1971 does not in fact establish that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. The resolution merely recognized the representation of the government of the PRC as the only lawful representation of China to the UN, and expelled the representative of Chiang Kai-shek from the seats they occupied at the UN and all related organizations. There is no mention in Resolution 2758 of China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
While the United States does not support Taiwan’s membership in organizations such as the UN, for which statehood is a prerequisite, we do support meaningful participation by Taiwan’s experts as appropriate in such organizations. We support membership as appropriate in organizations for which such statehood is not required.
The United States urged the UN Secretariat to review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a sensitive matter on which UN members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years.
If the UN Secretariat insists on describing Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a national basis from such position.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The U.S. Doesn't Recognize China's Claims to Taiwan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574358892939590708.html
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009, 7:56 P.M. ET
The U.S. Doesn't Recognize China's Claims to Taiwan
It may be ancient history, but Richard V. Allen's memory of Nixon's Taiwan policy is garbled ("The Next Step in the Taiwan-China Dance," Aug. 17). As a U.S. foreign service officer I worked on China and Taiwan affairs for 20 years, and I can attest that the U.S. has never subscribed to China's territorial claims on Taiwan. Nor did President Richard Nixon ever publicly articulate such a policy.
In fact, Nixon instructed his ambassador to the United Nations (then George H. W. Bush) to vote against the People's Republic of China's admission to the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971 (even though he and Henry Kissinger knew they didn't have the votes in the U.N. General Assembly) precisely because that vote required the expulsion of Taiwan's representatives. Nixon's public policy was "dual representation" in support of U.N. seats for both Taipei and Beijing. To this day, official U.S. policy eschews recognition of China's claims to Taiwan. As recently as June 2007, the State Department's response (drafted by the Office of the Legal Advisor) to citizens concerned about Taiwan was that the U.S. has "not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and [has] not made any determination as to Taiwan's political status."
In 2007, the U.S. became alarmed that the U.N. Secretariat had issued documents asserting that the U.N. considered "Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC." U.S. diplomats informed the secretariat that "while that assertion was consistent with the Chinese position, it is not universally held by U.N. member states, including the United States."
The U.S. Mission then "urged the U.N. Secretariat to review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a sensitive matter on which U.N. members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years." They warned that "if the U.N. Secretariat insists on describing Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a national basis from such position." The U.N. Secretariat has indeed ceased to assert that Taiwan is an integral part of China.
Mr. Allen's phrase "there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China" is a purely Chinese formula. It is testimony to the effectiveness of Beijing's (and the weakness of the State Department's) public diplomacy that Mr. Allen, himself a friend of Taiwan, confuses China's policy with America's.
John J. Tkacik, Jr.
Alexandria, Va.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009, 7:56 P.M. ET
The U.S. Doesn't Recognize China's Claims to Taiwan
It may be ancient history, but Richard V. Allen's memory of Nixon's Taiwan policy is garbled ("The Next Step in the Taiwan-China Dance," Aug. 17). As a U.S. foreign service officer I worked on China and Taiwan affairs for 20 years, and I can attest that the U.S. has never subscribed to China's territorial claims on Taiwan. Nor did President Richard Nixon ever publicly articulate such a policy.
In fact, Nixon instructed his ambassador to the United Nations (then George H. W. Bush) to vote against the People's Republic of China's admission to the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971 (even though he and Henry Kissinger knew they didn't have the votes in the U.N. General Assembly) precisely because that vote required the expulsion of Taiwan's representatives. Nixon's public policy was "dual representation" in support of U.N. seats for both Taipei and Beijing. To this day, official U.S. policy eschews recognition of China's claims to Taiwan. As recently as June 2007, the State Department's response (drafted by the Office of the Legal Advisor) to citizens concerned about Taiwan was that the U.S. has "not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and [has] not made any determination as to Taiwan's political status."
In 2007, the U.S. became alarmed that the U.N. Secretariat had issued documents asserting that the U.N. considered "Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC." U.S. diplomats informed the secretariat that "while that assertion was consistent with the Chinese position, it is not universally held by U.N. member states, including the United States."
The U.S. Mission then "urged the U.N. Secretariat to review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a sensitive matter on which U.N. members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years." They warned that "if the U.N. Secretariat insists on describing Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a national basis from such position." The U.N. Secretariat has indeed ceased to assert that Taiwan is an integral part of China.
Mr. Allen's phrase "there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China" is a purely Chinese formula. It is testimony to the effectiveness of Beijing's (and the weakness of the State Department's) public diplomacy that Mr. Allen, himself a friend of Taiwan, confuses China's policy with America's.
John J. Tkacik, Jr.
Alexandria, Va.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
