台灣的認同
荷蘭前總理 范奈格 Andreas Van Agt專題演講中文譯稿
「2006台灣歷史與文化國際會議」，2006年5月29日，台灣台北。
轉載請務必註明以上兩行並加註「2006台灣歷史與文化國際會議http://blog.yam.com/2006tw提供。」
台灣是民主政體的典範，漫長的戒嚴令在西元1992年解除後（1987年解除台灣戒嚴令，金門戰地政務至1992年才解除），台灣完成了第一次的議會選舉。接下來在西元1996、2000及2004年的總統選舉，更確立了台灣成為一個新聞自由、司法獨立的法治國家法統。這些值得讚揚的成就，與對岸超級強權的崛起形成了強烈對比。全世界的人權擁護者及嚴守民主制度的社會，應該要對台灣的成就感到高興。台灣的徹底民主化進程，不僅僅是台灣人民的福祉，更是讓台灣成為一座燈塔，如夜空之中的一顆明星般照耀著東亞及其他地方。
這樣一個值得被讚揚的國家，卻一直被世界上大部分的國家所遺忘，難道不該令人驚訝嗎？台灣被聯合國及其隸屬的組織機構排除在外，就連申請成為觀察員身分的要求也被拒絕。在聯合國憲章前言宣告著其對「……大小各國平等權利之信念」，而在憲章第一條宣告：「發展國際間以尊重人民平等權利及自決原則為根據之友好關係」；憲章第四條款也提到「凡其他愛好和平之國家，接受本憲章所載之義務，經本組織認為確能並願意履行該項義務者，得為聯合國會員國。准許上述國家為聯合國會員國，將由大會經安全理事會之推薦以決議行之。」可惜的是，任何安理會會員國皆可以動用其否決權來阻礙安理會提出的入會案。儘管它是「聯合國」組織，聯合國不僅是一個組織，並且是一個由國家組成的組織，如此看來，台灣是一個國家嗎？或者台灣是組成中國的一部分？
現在讓我們大略的看一下台灣的歷史。西元 1624年，荷蘭人來到這個島，順便一提，他們並非最先發現這個島的歐洲人(荷蘭人於西元1624 來到這個島並在南邊開始殖民，他們的大量的紀錄與麻六甲 (馬來)-玻里尼亞人原住民人種相關。但是中國人在台灣屯墾居住的資料並不曾在這時期的記錄中出現過，更遑論來自中國的統治階層。) 兩年後，於西元1626年西班牙人佔領了北部地區的一部分，但卻很快地就被荷蘭入侵者趕走了。說這件事我並不感到驕傲，然而部分荷蘭的殖民時期的條例卻保留下來。
鄭成功我們稱他國姓爺，在西元1662年趕走了荷蘭人，鄭成功Koxinga原是一個海上商人也是一個海盜，效忠於中國明朝政府，但這並不相當於中國接管台灣。明朝皇帝正流亡著，而當時滿族人已經在北京掌握政權，鄭成功與他的兒子則在台灣及澎湖群島建立了他們自己的統治權，直到西元1683年一位滿清將軍入侵這個島，並擊敗鄭成功然後執政。這位滿清將軍的入侵，並未解決台灣漸漸被中國所合併，這個島仍然維持一個落後的狀態，台灣作為這相隔遙遠的河岸彼方，仍被北京的管轄所漠視。兩百年後的西元1885年，中國清朝宣告台灣為其一省份，顯然是為了試圖阻止日本這個擴張主義者的接近，但卻於西元1895年的甲午戰爭之後，清國割讓台灣給日本，簽訂了馬關條約使日本擁有台灣永久所有權。
西元1945年第二次世界大戰結束時，同盟國的最高指揮官麥克阿瑟上將，全權授權給蔣介石的軍隊代表同盟國暫時軍事佔領台灣，這是同盟國命令指示的說辭，代表著同盟國。由於同盟國正全神貫注於巨大的戰後問題，並無暇顧及台灣。那短暫的風采過了，之後轉變為中國國民黨的永久統治更在某個時間國民黨與當地居民間的緊張關係發展到沸騰點。於西元1947年二月的最後一天，全島性的示威運動在將近三萬人被屠殺的衝突中結束了，爾後於西元1949年，民族獨立主義的中國人與蔣介石，被毛澤東底下共產黨的紅衛兵所擊敗，蔣介石大將軍及他的部下避難台灣，並且宣布維持了近四十年的戒嚴令，直到蔣將軍及他的兒子過世後才解除戒嚴令，然後在八○年代後期民主化開始起飛且逐漸成長蓬勃發展。
同盟國於西元1951年迫使日本於舊金山簽下了舊金山條約，並於西元1952年簽訂國民政府與日本間對等的和平條約，當時由國民黨代表的台灣將一疊文件具體化 。而西元1951及1952 年所簽訂的條約裡，台灣尚沒有國際承認的國家地位，日本宣佈放棄對台灣的一切「權利，權利根據與要求」，不過兩個條約都沒有明白指出這個放棄權利的接收人是誰？如此一來台灣雖脫離日本卻不屬於任何人的狀態便受到爭議。這樣的本質仍持續存在於現在台灣主權上的爭議上。
台灣的治權歸屬於誰?誰是國際法體系所認定具有統治台灣權利的一方?關於這個問題有兩派的看法：有些人認為西元1912年的台灣，為大清帝國的合法繼承者；也有人認為二次世界大戰後中華民國擁有台灣的統治權？如我所說的，日本經由簽訂前述的兩份合約重新交出主權，日本於西元1951、1952年所做的事並對所謂國際法之「遺棄」產生影響。由於所謂「遺棄」，台灣便成了「無主地」，是一塊沒有人擁有並且不屬於任何人的土地，然而這樣的領土很容易受到另一個權力的取得。
究竟中華民國是如何在1945年後取得台灣的呢? 答案是時效性原則取得的領土所有權。其所參考的依據是由於「有效佔領」的事實。所謂有效佔領必須同時符合：一、有意願在其地實行其管轄。二、於其地事實上已實行其管轄權。中華民國佔領台灣的事實在這兩個條件上成立，在1949年把中華民國政府轉進台灣後更是如此。
就台灣現狀而言，還有另一派說詞：就是這個國家單純的處於一個非法的中間地帶，持這樣觀點的擁護者強調，大多數於西元1951年舊金山共同簽訂和平條約的參與者，發表意見希望台灣人民對於他們未來的希望，應該在合法地位確立前被考慮到。舉例來說，英國的代表團提出聲明：「必須提出一個符合聯合國憲章的宗旨及原則的解決辦法」，憲章中規定國際關係應以民族自決為指導方針（第一條）。在西元1955年，即爾後成為大英國協外交部長的 Anthony Eden於眾議院發表聲明，：「根據和平條約日本聲明放棄對台灣及澎湖群島的所有權利、權利根據與要求」但此宣言並沒有將其對台灣的主權轉移給中國，不管是中華人民共和國還是國民黨政府。他們因此主張，台灣及澎湖群島的主權如Eden所說，是「未被決定」的。美國賓州大學教授 Arther Waldern（一位美國人）不久前才表示，美國從未正式承認中國對台灣的主權，不管是北京或是蔣介石。
我在此提出一些能夠讓雙方都可以接受，足以解決海峽兩岸結構性危機的想法。
首先，解決問題的前提及辦法，應該是一個藉由和平談判而達成的結果，這不是因為道德或是倫理上的觀點所得到的結論。以國際法的觀點來看，中國應該停止以飛彈瞄準台灣、軍事演習或類似手段來恐嚇台灣的人民。無庸置疑的，武力侵犯台灣的行為將被視為危害國際和平及安全的侵略行為，而非中國內部事務管轄權之行使，為此也勢必會召開聯合國安全理事會議。明白的來說，台灣逆境的一大原因，是中國佔有世界上五分之一的人口，中國越是富有，則他們政治的影響力也就會越發強大，這點從歐洲的總理跟首相們時常率領著一群熱切渴望的商人前去造訪北京就是最好的例子。這種現象已經不再讓我驚訝，然而卻讓我為這些歐洲國家及政府的領袖討好北京當局，一味奉承的行為，感到難堪及不齒。眾所皆知，台灣仍是歐洲很重要的貿易伙伴，台灣在科技上的發展有目共睹的，來自台灣的投資也被高度重視。然而「中國、中國、中國」已經慢慢開始催眠並使人開始產生幻覺。即使政治迫害、示威抗議跟衝突、妨害人權等事件仍然時有所聞，然而這些道德的觀點，都已經被中國的新淘金熱效應所排擠。歐盟政府對台灣嘗試取得世界衛生組織觀察員資格，以及其他國際事務參與的支持，都因為中國從中阻撓而停頓下來。當台灣由民主選舉所選出的總統出訪，為了不讓中國視為一種挑釁，一般國家除了允許其過地加油外，甚至不願允許其自機場入境。自1994年起，台灣當局便給予歐盟國家居民免簽證待遇，然後歐洲方面至今尚未在這件事上給予台灣相同的優惠待遇，而這一切都與其想要討好中國有關，想要藉此在經濟上，相對於其他在政治上與北京較不合作的國家，如美國及日本等，能取得更加有利的條件。
台灣要如何從這前所未有的孤立情勢中掙脫出來？在可見到的未來中，台灣形式上的主權獨立似乎已經無法達成，台灣的盟友們都敦促中國能夠保證不危害台灣安全及治權完整獨立，保有台灣的民主，自由及法治運作。所以，一個與香港模式一樣的處理方法？一國兩制？看起來這個模式在當時是讓人充滿希望，不過這個模式是中國及英國已就香港問題達成協議後才去特別擬定的。聯邦制呢？看起來，施行這種制度會讓台灣保有比實行香港模式更多的自治權，然而要建立一個由大陸及台灣共同組成的聯邦，達成兩個自治地區行政平等時，尚且要台灣的人民能認同北京為聯邦中央政府的地位。以美國的加利福尼亞州及德拉威州為例，一個是幅員廣大的州，另一個是相對小的多的州，他們在聯邦的地位上平等，享有充分而完整的自治權，然而聯邦政府所在地的華盛頓依然大權在握。同樣的情況也可以在德國的聯邦制上顯現。
與中國大陸一直建立「邦聯」則是另一種更鬆散的關係。在第一次世界大戰後瓦解的前奧地利-匈牙利帝國原是聯邦，卻只有一個名稱及一個首長，但實際上每一州每一個部份都擁有獨立政府及軍隊，同樣的其中有一致性，將這樣的結構套用到我們現在在討論的問題之下，至少無論如何都能保住雙方面子。
我所能想到最鬆散的國家形式是邦聯。像是加拿大、澳洲等國仍然在英國的王權之下。複製這個模式將帶來薄弱的統一形式，當然對岸的統治者如果對這樣的結果感到滿意的話這也是一個方式。我說這樣的形勢對台灣不利，但這樣陰鬱的調子需要被讚美，發展上也是有光明面。中國大陸驚人的轉變為以資本主義為基調市場經濟，一定遲早會帶來政治上的自由化，絕不能讓北京執政黨阻止這樣的政治過程。
就長程或是中程的來看，無論中國大陸樂意或是不樂意的朝著民主化前進，對台灣來說這是一個吸引人的遠景。同樣的理由：第一、中國大陸在民主化之後將能成為一個對話者，願意以一個講理的溝通方式來談判；第二、台灣也許不會想強烈要求的表達超過對外部自治權或更多其他的需要。
現階段我建議在台灣的朋友們，仍要堅忍的處理當前艱困的政治窘境。
Taiwan’s Identity
Andreas Van Agt (Former Dutch Prime Minister)
International Conference
On History and Cultures on Taiwan
Taipei, by May 2006
All rights reserved. When reproduction or quoting in whole or in part, the title of both the author and the conference should be stated
Taiwan is a paragon of democracy. In 1992, a few years after martial law was at long last lifted, this country managed to run its first-ever parliamentary elections. Presidential elections followed in 1996, 2000 and 2004. Taiwan rightly boasts of freedom of press, its judiciary is truly independent, the rule of law reigns supreme here. These admirable achievements present a stark contrast with the state of affairs in the rising superpower across the Strait. The entire world community of adherences to democracy and proponents of human rights should rejoice at this remarkable accomplishment of Taiwan. The thorough democratization of Taiwan is more than just blessing for its own people, it furthermore makes this country a light house, a lode- star in the East Asian region and beyond.
Is it not astonishing that this praiseworthy country keeps being treated by most of the surrounding world as an outcast? Taiwan finds itself excluded from the UN and the as well as from its affiliate organizations and agencies. Even its request for observer status continues to be brushed aside. The UN Charter proclaims in its preamble, inter alis, its” faith in the equal right of nations, large and small and in its Article 1, that its purpose and principles are among others” to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, To which Article 4 of the Charters adds, ”membership in the UN is open to all ….peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such state to membership will be effected by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
Most unfortunately, any recommendation by that Security Council can be blocked by any council member wielding its veto rights.
Despite its name the Untied Nations is not an organization of nations but of states. So, is Taiwan a state? Or is it an integral part of the state presently called the Republic of China? Now let us take a brief look at Taiwan’s history. In 1624, the Dutch came to the island they were not the first Europeans to discover this island and settled in the South. Their extensive records relate about Malayo-Polynesian aborigines population. No mention in these records si made of Chinese settlements here let alone a Chinese administrative structure. Two years later 1626 Spaniards took possession of parts of the island in the North but they were kicked out by the Dutch invaders fairly soon. Dutch colonial rule was short lived, however, Koxinga, as we call him, expelled the Dutch in 1662. He was a merchant and a pirate, loyal to Ming Dynasty in China. This did not amount to China taking over Taiwan. The Ming Emperor lived in exile, at that time, as the Manchu has already ascended the throne in Beijing. On Taiwan and the Pescodores, as we call the islands, Koxinga and subsequently his son established their own dominion. That came to and end in 1683 when a Mancu general invaded the island and defeated the Koxinga descendent there in power.
That invasion by a Manchu general did not resolve in Taiwan getting incorporated into the Chinese empire. The island remained a backwater, remote hinterland disregarded by the rule of Beijing. Two centuries later, in 1885 China’s Ching Dynasty proclaimed Taiwan its province, obviously attempting to keep expansionist Japan at bay. But already in 1895, after the Sino Japanese War, China ceded Taiwan to Japan.” In perpetuity as the treaty of Simonoseki put it.
By the end of the 2nd World War 1945, the allied Supreme Commander General MacArthur authorized a temporary military occupation of Taiwan by Chiang Kai-Shek army on behalf of the Allied. Mind the wording: on behalf of the Allied. That temporary presence has been turned over the years into a permanent rule by the Chinese Nationalist Party since the Allied powers were too absorbed in enormous post-war problems, thus unable to pay attention to Taiwan.
Between the Kuomingtang and the local population, tensions developed sometimes up to the boiling point. Island wide demonstration ended in a clash on the last day of February 1947, with tens of thousands of people massacred. When in 1949, the Nationalist Chinese under the Chiang Kai-shek were defeated by Mao Zedong’s Communist Red Army, the generalissimo and his followers took refuge in Taiwan. There declared Martial Law which was to last for almost four decades. Only after General Chiang and his son had passed away, Martial Law was lifted. And then in the second half of the 1980s democratization took off, as of then evolving at an unstoppable speed.
The Allied powers and Japan signed a peace treaty in 1951 San Francisco. A bilateral Peace Treaty between Japan and China came about in 1952 China at that time was embodied by the Republic of China, represented by the Nationalist Government. The PRC had no legal persona at all yet. In both treaties, 1951 and 1952, Japan renounced, I quote “all right, title and claim “ to Taiwan. None of the two treaties did, however, identify a beneficiary of that renunciation. Thus, it is argued Taiwan was detached from Japan but attached to no one.
In which entity is sovereignty over Taiwan vested now? Who is measured by international law in charge of Taiwan nowadays? There are two schools of thought.
Some take the view that the Republic of China as of 1912 Republic of China was a legitimate successor to the imperial Ching Dynasty. So some take the view of the Republic of China take the sovereignty over Taiwan after World War II. How did that happened? As I mentioned Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan by signing the two peace treaties. And what Japan did in 1951, 1952 amounts to what is called the international law “dereliction” as a result of that “dereliction” Taiwan became “teras Nullius” A territory owned by no one, belonging to no one. Though such territory is subject to acquisition by another power.
So, why and how did the ROC acquire Taiwan after 1945? The answer is by acquisitive prescription. How does this come about? The protagonists of the view now under consideration point out that this is effected by “effective occupation.” Which presents itself when two conditions are met: a - when the intention and will to act as a sovereignty are demonstrated as well as b - the actual exercise of such authority. Both conditions were realized in the ROC’s occupation of Taiwan especially after the ROC government moved to Taiwan in 1949. Yet I wonder whether this doctrine fits Taiwan’s post World War II history marked by an ever-smoldering and sometimes flaring opposition against a repressive regime and a waxing awareness, more and more frequently expressed, of Taiwan’s xxxx identity. There is another view, another school of thoughts regarding the present status of Taiwan. This views holds that this country in a legal limbo. The proponents of this view emphasize that most of the participants of the conference which produced the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951 voiced the opinion that the wishes of the Taiwanese about their future should be taken into account prior to determining Taiwan’s legal status. The British delegation for example stated that I quote “ A solution must be found in accord with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.” That charter stipulates that self-determination should be a guiding principle of international relations (Article 1). In 1955, Anthony Eden, then Foreign Minister of UK, stated in the House of Commons, I quote “Under the Peace Treaty Japan renounced all right title and claim to Formosa and Pescodores have this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the PRC or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities. they further said that Formosa and the Pescadores are therefore, Mr. Eden said, territory, the “de jure” sovereignty of which is uncertain, undetermined. Professor Arthur Waldron from the University of Pennsylvania, recalled not long ago that the US has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan whether claimed by Beijing of or Chiang Kai-shek.
Fascinating as the confrontation of the different views on Taiwan’s legal status, maybe from the viewpoint of international law, they converged since the heirs of Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan have dropped their claim on the mainland. All parliamentary groupings now share the view and subscribe to the thesis that Taiwan is a separate entity, not just a province of China. Opinions differ on whether Taiwan should seek unification with China or strive, however cautiously, for “de jure” independence.
A few notes on how a mutually acceptable solution of the structural crisis between the parties on either side of the Strait could conceivably be arrived at.
First a preliminary note. Any solution ought to be the outcome of the peaceful negotiations. China should stop browbeating the people of Taiwan, by deploying hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan, by holding military exercises or in any similar way. And there cannot be a scintilla of doubt, that a military assault on Taiwan would not qualify as an internal matter, as a matter within China’s domestic jurisdiction, but as an act of aggression endangering international peace and security, hence calling in the Security Council of the United Nations.
To put it boldly, the tide goes against Taiwan. The wealthier China, harboring one fifth of the world population, the wealthier China grows, the stronger its political clout. European presidents and prime ministers flock to Beijing often with a pack of eager businessmen in their wake. I am no longer surprised, I am rather embarrassed and sometimes even ashamed of watching European heads of state and government coaxing their hosts in Beijing. It is just kowtowing at times.
Admittedly, Taiwan still is a big trade partner for Europe. Taiwan’s technological advances are most impressive. Taiwan’s investments are greatly appreciated. But China! That becomes mesmerizing, not to say hallucinating. Political oppression , demonstrations crushed, human rights trampled , what about this major injustices? Alas in this new gold rush on China such moral inhibitions are readily crowded out. Political support from European Union countries for Taiwan’s efforts to be accorded observer status in the Word Heath Organization and elsewhere is de facto paralyzed, simply because China groans us down. When Taiwan’s democratically elected president goes on travel abroad, he is hardly permitted to make a stopover for refueling, as China would consider a fuss about granting hospitality to him. Since 1994, Taiwan has provided unilateral visa-exempt entry to the citizens of many European countries, but there is still no reciprocation from Europe. This is all about cajoling China, trying to reap economic advantages over the US and Japan, countries that have been less obedient to Beijing’s wishes and whims.
How could Taiwan be released from its ever tightening isolation? Since full-fledged “ de jure” independence is out of reach, as far as we can look into the future, friends of Taiwan engage in a quest for an arrangement with China that would not hurt anyone’s pride, secure far-reaching autonomy, safeguard Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and rule of law. So, a Hong-Kong type of arrangement? One state two systems? It looked fairly promising at the time but the expectation that China-UK deal offered were not fully met. So what about a federation? That would, as it looks, grant Taiwan more autonomy than the Hong-Kong formula. Even so, establishing a Chinese federation comprising two equal components would still require the people of Taiwan to recognize Beijing as the center of the federal government. California and Delaware, a big state and a small one, have a broad latitude to mind their own business. But the federal government of Washington is yet powerful. The same goes for the German states in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Creating a confederation with mainland China would make for an even looser connection. The former Austro-Hungarian Empire which fell apart after World War I was a confederation. That country had a single name and a single head of state, but in actual fact each state, each part of the confederation, had its own government and armed forces. All the same, there this was unification. Transposing this construction to the problem now under discussion could anyway be face saving, to say the least.
The loosest connection I can think of is a commonwealth. Countries like Canada and Australia are still under the British crown. Copying that model would bring about the flimsiest form of unification. It remains to be seen of course if the rulers across the Strait would be content with such an outcome. I said the tide goes against Taiwan but this gloomy note needs to be complemented. There is a bright side to the developments too. China’s spectacular transformation into a market economy with capitalistic overtones is bound to bring political liberalization along. There is no way for the ruling party in Beijing to stop this political process. China is heading, willing or unwilling, for democratization in the medium or long term. And that is a beckoning perspective for Taiwan. For two reasons even. First, China turned a democracy will become an interlocutor more willing to negotiate and to negotiate on reasonable terms. Secondly, Taiwan may not feel urged any longer to present demands that go to the outer limits of autonomy or beyond.
For the time being, I command my friends in Taiwan on perseverance in coping with recurring political adversities.
(From: http://blog.yam.com/2006tw )
