讓人愈看愈生氣的李敖的論述:"誰說台灣地位未定?"
該討論的回覆
-
固定鏈接由野田於回覆
-
2013年08月26日美國國會發表 : 台灣地位未定 U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.
美國國會研究服務部 ( CRS ) CRS report number : RL30341
官方文件 :
pc.state.gov/documents/organization/213994.pdf
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/213994.pdf
fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdfhttp://www.ait.org.tw/en/focus201310.html
Kan, Shirley A.
"U.S. Policy on One China" from China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. Click to read the full-text
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, August 26, 2013 (updated), 31 pages.
"Since 1971, U.S. Presidents—both secretly and publicly—have articulated a 'one China' policy in understandings with the PRC. Congressional oversight has watched for any new agreements and any shift in the U.S. stance closer to that of Beijing's 'one China' principle—on questions of sovereignty, arms sales, or dialogue. Not recognizing the PRC's claim over Taiwan or Taiwan as a sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. With added conditions, U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait: a 'peaceful resolution' with the assent of Taiwan's people and without unilateral changes. In short, U.S. policy focuses on the process of resolution of the Taiwan question, not any set outcome."CRS report number: RL30341
China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China”
Policy—Key Statements from Washington,
Beijing, and Taipei
Shirley A. Kan
Specialist in Asian Security Affairs
August 26, 2013
..........Since 1971, U.S. Presidents—both secretly and publicly—have articulated a “one China” policy
in understandings with the PRC. Congressional oversight has watched for any new agreements
and any shift in the U.S. stance closer to that of Beijing’s “one China” principle—on questions of
sovereignty, arms sales, or dialogue. Not recognizing the PRC’s claim over Taiwan or Taiwan as a
sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled. With added conditions,
U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait: a
“peaceful resolution” with the assent of Taiwan’s people and without unilateral changes. In short,
U.S. policy focuses on the process of resolution of the Taiwan question, not any set outcome.
..........
-
固定鏈接由jason dan 26於回覆
-
SFPT的主要簽約國是大日本和美國以征服者身分簽的條約，谁的立場和觀點才有效？是常識！其他的當作“狗吠火車” 隨空氣忽焉而去！！！
-
-
http://usmgtcg.ning.com/page/6473745:Page:3952
舊金山和平條約
第 1 條 【戰爭狀態結束、承認日本主權】
(a).日本與各聯盟國之戰爭狀態，依據本條約第 23 條之規定，為自日本與各聯盟國之條約生效日起結束。
(b).聯盟國承認日本與其領海之日本國民之完全主權。
第 2 條 【領土放棄】
(a).日本承認朝鮮獨立並予以放棄對朝鮮包括濟州島、巨文島與鬱陵島等島嶼的一切權利、權利名義與要求。
(b).日本放棄對台灣、澎湖等島嶼的一切權利、權利名義與要求。
...
第 4 條 【財產】
(b).日本承認前述第 2 條與第 3 條中美國軍事政府對日本與日本國民財產處分的有效性。...
第 23 條 【批准、生效】
(a).本條約之簽署國，包括日本在內，應經國會批准。本條約自日本之批准文書、以及包含做為主要佔領國的美利堅合眾國之下述多數批准國送達之後，將對所有批准國家生效，包括澳洲、加拿大、錫蘭、法國、印尼、荷蘭王國、紐西蘭、巴基斯坦、菲律賓共和國、大不列顛王國與北愛爾蘭，以及美利堅合眾國。本條約應自個別國家之批准書送達後，對該批准國家個別生效。(b).若本條約在日本批准文書送達後九個月內未生效，在任一批准國之正式通告日本政府與美國政府後，本條約在日本與該批准國間逕自生效。但此正式通告應於日本之批准書送達後三年內為之。
