美國國會研究服務部 ( CRS ) : 台灣地位未定 U.S. policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled.

[野田]

2013/08/26 美國國會研究服務部 ( CRS ) :
 U.S. policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled. 

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. 

轉载 :  http://www.ait.org.tw/en/focus201310.html

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.

.........

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/213994.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf

[野田]

June 19, 2008 
美國華府智庫「傳統基金會」資深研究員John J. Tkacik, Jr. 譚慎格 
Taiwan's "Unsettled" International Status: Preserving U.S. Options in the Pacific

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/taiwans-unsettled-...

.....

.....

Over the past year, the State Department has quietly but unmistakably reaffirmed that the United States has important interests in maintaining Taiwan as a competent international actor separate from China.

.....

.....

The Status Quo for Six Decades

For 60 years, the United States has remained strictly agnostic about Taiwan's legal status in the international community. To be precise, the United States has "not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and [has] not made any determination as to Taiwan's political status."[25] This policy has given legitimacy under international law to the U.S.'s long-term defense commitment to aid the Taiwan people's resistance to Beijing's claimed "sovereign" right to control them.

This long-standing position dates at least to April 11, 1947, when Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China "has not yet been formalized."[26] Consequently, the United States chose to preserve its say in the disposition of Taiwan. As a "top secret" State Department position paper explained:

[The future status of Taiwan] was deliberately left undetermined, and the U.S. as a principal victor over Japan has an interest in their ultimate future. We are not willing that that future should be one which would enable a hostile regime to endanger the defensive position which is so vital in keeping the Pacific a friendly body of water.[27]

.....
.....

That few of Taiwan's allies recognized that the Taipei-based Republic of China exercised sovereignty over Taiwan was not only an accepted fact of life in the ROC government; at times, even the ROC government itself seemed to recognize it. When asked about "the status of Taiwan" during congressional hearings on the ROC–Japanese Peace Treaty of 1952, Taiwan's foreign minister replied:

[T]he delicate international situation makes it that [Taiwan does] not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer [Taiwan] to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes…. In the [ROC]–Japanese peace treaty, we have made provisions to signify that residents including juristic persons of [Taiwan] bear Chinese nationality, and this provision may serve to mend any future gaps when Formosa and the Pescadores are restored to us.[32]

.....

[翻一本書]

United States has important interests in “maintaining Taiwan” as a competent international actor separate from China.

翻一本書以杜勒斯防線來解讀，即變成維護台灣的杜勒斯防線 “maintaining Dulles Defense Line to make Taiwan”

只是以前杜勒斯防線還沒被發現，所以就寫成

“maintaining Taiwan”

少寫了“Dulles Defense Line to make”