台灣戰爭史回顧 (403)

[TCG]

台灣關係法的另一個真相；美國模糊台灣地位的原由。 Why US Put Taiwan in Ambiguity？美國製造真假台灣並且模糊台灣 The False Taiwan and the True
"The human rights provision was brought up while both Pell and Helms were present. Both Senators asked to be heard on this specific issue, but for quite different reasons. Pell explained to the other conferees that the reason for his insistence on this provision was 'somewhat personal'. He apologized to his Senate colleagues for having told the story many times then went on to recite his personal experience of studying Taiwan issues in a military government school at Columbia University during WWII. He concluded by stating this experience had convinced him to launch a personal crusade for the human rights of Formosans." The Making of the Taiwan Relations Act: Twenty Years in Retrospect by David Tawei Lee. P. 164. (Citing the unpublished 'Stenographic Transcript of Conference Committee' stored in House Foreign Committee Files, 96th Session, National Archives).

Lt. Claiborne Pell, U.S. Coast Guard
http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/Claiborne_Pell.asp

Lt. George Kerr, U.S. Navy
Director, Formosa Research Unit, Naval School of Military Government and Administration, U.S. Navy, at Columbia University, New York.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Kerr

Naval School of Military Government and Administration
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1023162

依2010年10月11日「路透社(Reuters)」記者在越南河內報導：「美國國防部長Robert Gates和中國國防部長梁光烈舉行30分鐘會談後，對媒體記者稱:」
1. The reality is the Secretary of Defense does not make decisions with respect to Taiwan arms sales. It is fundamentally a political decision by Congress and political leaders. 事實是國防部不做有關「台灣軍售」決定，其基本上是國會和政治領袖作政治決定。

2. Why the military relationship should be held hostage to what is essentially a political decision seems to me curious, and I believe it should not be. If there is a decision to be had, it is at the political level. 為何軍事關係會被本質上是政治決定之「台灣軍售」所挾持？在我看來是奇怪的，我認為是不應該。如要做決定，其實乃政治層次。

正如美國擬軍售中國國民黨政權，是一個「政治決定」，美國擬和中國共產黨政權建立軍事關係，則是另一個「政治決定」，兩個「政治決定」中間，由於互相矛盾，導致要脅，其實並不奇怪。至於有媒體將Robert Gates之發言：「台灣軍售基本上是一個政治決定(The arms sales to Taiwan is fundamentally a political decision)」。擅自詮釋成「台灣未來基本上是一個政治決定(The future of Taiwan is fundamentally a political decision)」，基本上是錯誤理解，為嚴重誤解，有必要予以糾正。

有關「台灣軍售」方面，美國國防部依美國國會所片面制定，自我拘束之國內法的「台灣關係法TRA」，將武器售予台灣關係法定義下，本質為「中國殖民政權(Chinese on Taiwan)」之台灣治理當局，基本上，是美國政府依其和中華台北當局，亦即「政治台灣」，間因「代理事實」而成立之「政治關係」所做成之政治決定，無涉及「法理台灣」之未來地位恢復。

在「台灣未來」方面，美國國防部依「戰爭法」和「台灣民政府」，亦即「法理台灣」間，事實上是存在「法理關係」，美方無從迴避。基於因征服日本，而得以佔領日本台灣事實，美國依國際法本來就有承擔及履行，保護「本土台灣人(people of Taiwan)」生命和財產之義務，根本無需另行制訂任何涉及「政治層次(at the political level)」之「台灣關係法」。

美國政府對所謂「台灣軍售」，是依其和「政治台灣」間之「政治關係」，被定位為「政治層次」所做成之「政治決定(a "political decision" made at the "political level " under the "political relationship" with the "political Taiwan")」。

相對地，美國政府對所謂「台灣未來」，是必須依其和「法理台灣」間之「法理關係」，定位為「法理層次」，以做成「法理決定( to make a "legal decision" at the "legal level" under the "legal relationship" with the "legal Taiwan")」。

美國對台灣關係法架構內添加「中國成份(Chinese element)」之「政治台灣」，其用意只是軍售，是基於美國利益之政治考量，對舊金山和平條約架構內削減「日本成份(Japanese element)」之「法理台灣」，未來則是基於美國利益之法理考量；兩者是風牛馬不相及，不能混為一談。

例如2011年3月4日，澎湖上空竟然出現兩個太陽。依氣象專家解釋，原來這是高空薄雲折射太陽光線所形成，有如海市蜃樓般之「幻日現象」，一個真實的太陽和一個虛假的太陽比鄰而現，真可說是難得一見之「天象奇觀」，這與現實中「政治台灣和法理台灣」一模一樣的情況。

無獨有偶，1979年4月10日由美國國會通過，經美國總統Jimmy Carter核准之「台灣關係法」，溯及1979年1月1日生效後，福爾摩沙因同時存在一個舊金山和平條約架構內，不含中國人成份之「真實或法理台灣」和一個台灣關係法架構內，包含中國人成份之「虛假或政治台灣」，島上也是出現國際社會中難得一見，同時有兩個台灣之「政治奇觀」；基於「天無二日」而「土無二王」，澎湖上空之兩個太陽，其中必有一為假，福爾摩沙島上之兩個台灣，其中也必有一為假。正如虛假太陽終將因物理因素消失，回歸虛空，虛假台灣終將因政治因素消失而走入歷史；天理就是如此，無庸置疑。

1979年之3月13日，經美國眾議院及於3月14日經美國參議院通過，而於4月10日經美國總統卡特簽署後生效之「台灣(political Taiwan)關係法」，模糊「台灣(legal Taiwan)地位」至今32年。由Jeff Geer先生所提供美國國會制訂台灣關係法過程之歷史真相「TRA Legislative Fact Finding」，可得知：「美國參眾議員們在1979年制訂台灣關係法過程中，事實上是有爭議」：

A. 會議報告(Conference Report)

The conference substitute further states that nothing in this act shall contravene the United States interest in the human rights of Taiwan's approximately 18 million inhabitants. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of the Taiwan people are reaffirmed as United States objectives. [Conf. Rpt. at 13].
會議替代修正案進一步聲明，本法案不得違背美國對台灣約1800萬住民人權之關心。保護及促進台灣人民之人權，是被再肯定為美國的方針。

由會議報告推論：美國當局默認流亡日本台灣之中國人，為「台灣人民(the Taiwan people)」之一部份，這是違反「流亡政權不得就地合法」之國際法原則。

B. 參議院報告(Senate Report)

The Committee has made that this section was not to be construed as authority for Institute officials to intervene in Taiwan's domestic affairs by favoring one or another group of people on Taiwan, nor was it to be construed as giving the Institute official status. The Committee also specified that Institute officials were not authorized to become involved inmatters affecting the international status of Taiwan. [Sen. Rpt. at 26.]
委員會已作成，讓此段不得被解釋為協會官員藉支持一派或另一派在台灣的人，介入台灣內政之根據，也不得被解釋為賦予協會官方地位。委員會也明確說明：協會官員沒有被授權涉入影響台灣國際地位之事宜。

由參議院報告可得知，美國在台協會之性質為：
1. 不具美國官方地位。

2. 對「在台灣的人之中處於被佔領方之本土台灣人(people of Taiwan as the occupied group of people on Taiwan)和在台灣的人之中處於佔領方之在台中國人(Chinese on Taiwan as the occupying group of people of Taiwan)」，必須保持中立，不偏坦任何一方。

美國當局在美國利益考量下，無視被佔領方之本土台灣人和佔領方之在台中國人政治立足點不平等之事實，規定美國在台協會持中立立場，等同允許因佔領而為強勢之在台中國人，壓迫因被佔領而為弱勢之本土台灣人，致使淪於政治煉獄，實在是不符人間「公平正義」。

3. 不得涉入影響台灣國際地位之事宜。

基於台灣地位正常化是涉及台灣國際地位，台灣民政府訴願之對口單位並非台灣關係法架構內之「美國在台協會」，而是舊金山和平條約架構內之「美國國防部」。美國當局總是刻意迴避舊金山和平條約架構內之「法理台灣」，反而強調台灣關係法架構內之「政治台灣」，其為違背美國憲法第六條：

Article 6:
All treaties made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land. 所有由美國當局所簽訂之條約為國土之最高法律。

C. 有關培爾參議員(About Senator Claiborne Pell)

"The human rights provision was brought up while both Pell and Helms were present. Both Senators asked to be heard on this specific issue, but for quite different reasons. Pell explained to the other conferees that the reason for his insistence on this provision was 'somewhat personal'. He apologized to his Senate colleagues for having told the story many times then went on to recite his personal experience of studying Taiwan issues in a military government school at Columbia University during WWII. He concluded by stating this experience had convinced him to launch a personal crusade for the human rights of Formosans."
人權條款在Pell及Helms兩者皆出席時被提出。兩位參議員要求對此特定議題發言，然是為了非常不同的理由，Pell向其他與會議員說明，他之所以堅持這個條款多少是有些個人因素，他因已多次說過這個故事，向其參議院同事道歉後，接著敘述他在二次大戰期間，在哥倫比亞大學之軍政府學校研讀台灣問題之個人經驗。他以陳述這個讓他自覺要為福爾摩沙人之人權，投身個人聖戰的經驗作為結論。

D. 國會議員們發言(FLOOR STATEMENTS)

1. Senator Pell:

I believe that the Senate should, in this bill, give some recognition to the plight of the Taiwanese majority and the need for the new Institute to concern itself with the human rights of the majority. The recent events in Iran have, I hope, made it clear that the United States ought not to be seen as the underwriter of a particular regime.

In promoting human rights of Taiwan, it is my expectation that the new Institute will apply all the elements, including the one relating to political rights, that Secretary of State Vance set forth in his Athens, Ga., speech of April 30, 1977. The pertinent statement made by Secretary Vance on this point is as follows:
Third, there is the right to enjoy civil and political liberties--freedom of thought, of religion, of assembly; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of movement both within and outside one's own country; freedom to take part in government. 【S. 2152, March 7, 1979.】
參議員Pell 發言(1979年3月7日)：
我認為參議院在本法案中多少應承認，佔大多數之本土台灣人處境及需要有一個新協會，以關心大多數之人權。最近在伊朗所發生的事件，我希望已清楚顯示，美國不應被看成是某一特定政權的背書者。

就提昇台灣人權，我期待新協會將會應用包括國務卿Vance於1977年4月30日，在Athens, Georgia之演講中，所述及關於政治權利之所有成分。
國務卿Vance就此點所做之相關聲明如下：

第三，有享有公民和政治自由之權利--思想、宗教、集會自由；言論自由；媒體自由；國內外活動自由；參政自由。

由Pell參議員發言可得知：美國原有在攻打並佔領福爾摩沙後，成立福爾摩沙美國軍政府之計劃。Pell參議員依其對福爾摩沙的經驗和理解，良心挺身悍衛福爾摩沙人之人權，實在是值得本土台灣人尊敬和紀念。然而遺憾的是，Pell參議員有所不知，本土台灣人所需要的不是被編入中國殖民政權體制內，以模糊台灣地位之「虛假民主(false democracy)」，而是台灣地位正常化後，台灣政府體制內之「真實民主(true democracy)」。

2. Rep. Ashbrook:

Whom are we trying to fool? If we are only talking about commercial and cultural relations with Taiwan, and we specifically put that in the principles governing the U.S. policy with regard to Taiwan, that is a message about as clear as can be sent anywhere that our main interest is only commercial and cultural, ballets and balance sheets.
The members may that is not that important.

眾議員Ashbrook發言：
我們是打算愚弄誰? 如果我們只是談到與台灣之商務和文化關係，並特別將其當作左右美國對台政策之原則，其明顯是昭告世人，我們的主要興趣只是商務和文化、芭蕾和資產負債表。其成員可能是沒那麼重要。

3. Rep. Wolff:

Does the gentlemen imply that we should become involved in the political affairs of the people of Taiwan?

眾議員Wolff發言:
貴席是暗示我們應介入本土台灣人之政治事務?

上文中所稱之"the people of Taiwan"，依文意推斷其應是指"the people on Taiwan".

4. Rep. Ashbrook:

To the extent that they want to maintain their freedom, I would say.
眾議員Ashbrook發言:

我會說，那要看他們想維持他們的自由到什麼程度。

上文中所提及之「維持自由」的程度，應是指「施行民主」的程度。由眾議員Ashbrook上述之發言，足以證明：「本土台灣人(the people of Taiwan)」是有待爭取自由之被佔領方，而「在台中國人(Chinese on Taiwan)」，則是被美國授權以賦予本土台灣人自由之佔領方。

5. Rep. Wolff:

What about the native Taiwanese? There are a great number of native Taiwanese on the island. Does the gentlemen believe that we should inject ourselves into the political machinations that might take place to provide the Taiwanese the equipment or the ability to overthrow the existing government.

眾議員Wolff發言:
那本土台灣人怎麼辦? 在島上有許多本土台灣人。貴席是認為我們應將我們自己注入，能發生供應台灣人裝備或能力，推翻現有政府之政治陰謀中?

眾議員Wolff上述之發言中所稱之the native Taiwanese即是the people of Taiwan.

6. Rep. Ashbrook:

I do not believe that that is a policy that I would support at all. We are talking about defensive and political.

眾議員Ashbrook發言:
我一點都不認為那是我會支持的政策。我們在談有關防衛和政治。

7. Rep. Wolff:
The gentlemen included "political" as well.

眾議員Wolff發言:
貴席也將「政治」包括進去了。

8. Rep. Ashbrook:

Yes. That is correct. Generally when we talk in terms of political rights we mean civil rights and human rights. It does not necessarily mean the protestations of the leaders and what they want to do. We talk about the people on Taiwan, the political rights, and the defensive rights of the people on Taiwan.

眾議員Ashbrook發言:
是的。那是正確的。通常在我們說到政治權之語詞時，其意為民權及人權。並不必然意為領導人之主張及其所欲為。我們所談的是在台灣的人，在台灣的人之政治權及防衛權。

9. Rep. Wolff:
The defensive rights are covered in other portions of the bill. However, the one element that really disturbs me is getting involved in the the internal political affairs of Taiwan. I take it the gentlemen is at the present time satisfied with the present authorities on Taiwan.

眾議員Wolff發言:
防衛權是被包括在其他部份之法案。然而，一個實在是令我困擾的成分是介入台灣內部之政治事務。我認為貴席此時是滿意目前在台灣的當局。

10. Rep. Ashbrook:
Compared with what is on the mainland, I would say I am abundantly satisfied.

眾議員Ashbrook發言:
與在中國相較下，我會說我很滿意。

11. Rep. Wolf:
I just raised this point because this political element here raises all sorts of questions as to how we should proceed in the future.

眾議員Wolff發言:
我剛才提起這點，因為此處這個政治成分引發未來我們應如何進行之各種問題。

12. Rep Ashbrook:

I think the word "politically" does not extend in the areas my friend, the gentleman from New York is indicating. I think all of us know when we have cultural-commercial, cultural-political relations with a country, what we are talking about. We have had political relations with the people on Taiwan. I think we should continue those, and to state in our Declaration of Principles that we are only really interested in close, friendly, commercial, and cultural relations I think belies what the gentleman is saying he wants to do in the rest of the bill. This is certainly not to throw a snare, a time bomb, or to unravel anything. 【 H. 1177, March 8, 1979.】

眾議員Ashbrook發言(1979年3月8日):
我認為「政治地」這個字，並沒有及於我這位來自紐約的朋友所指出之領域。當我們與一個國家有文化-商務及文化-政治關係時，我想我們大家都知道我們說的是什麼，我們已經和在台灣的人有政治關係，我認為我們應繼續那些關係，在我們的原則宣言中，聲明我們實際上只對密切的、友好的、商務的及文化的關係有興趣，而我認為是和貴席所言，想要在其餘之法案所做的是有所出入。這當然不是去投置一個陷井，一個定時炸彈，或去解決任何事情。

由眾議員Ashbrook上述之發言足以證明：美國當局和本質為中國殖民政權之台灣治理當局，即所謂「在台灣的人(the people on Taiwan)」，所已有的是舊金山和平條約Article 23(a)架構內，因成立「代理關係(the principal-agent relationship)」，企圖持續模糊台灣法理地位之「政治關係(political relations)」，台灣民政府，即「本土台灣人(the people of Taiwan)」，所要堅持的是舊金山和平條約Article 23 (a)架構內，美國為「佔領權國(occupying power)和Article (2b)」架構內，包括福爾摩沙及澎湖之台灣是有「法理關係(legal relations)」。

13. Rep. Leach:

In the case of Taiwan the subcommittee has the opportunity to build into the legislation language which clearly demonstrate to the world and to the Taiwanese that the U.S. Congress is willing to go on record as encouraging authorities on the island to grant the native Taiwanese full democratic participation in the political process. Majority rule based on respect for individual rights is the lynch-pin of our own society as well as our human rights foreign policy. We should not shy away from advocating such a policy for the Taiwanese people. H. 1164, March 8, 1979.

眾議員Leach發言(1979年3月8日)：
就台灣而論，委員會召集小組有機會建立法律語言，明確地言向世界及台灣人表明，美國國會樂意正式鼓勵在島上之當局，允許本土台灣人完全參與民主政治。在尊重個人權利基礎上之多數法，則是我們本身的社會，以及我們的人權外交政策所不可或缺的。我們不應閃避為台灣人倡導這個政策。

由眾議員Leach上述之發言合理推論：美國依其對台灣「地位未定」之認知，衍生其對台灣之「巧妙模糊」政策，鼓勵佔領方中國殖民政權，將被佔領方本土台灣人，納入台灣關係法定義下台灣治理當局之所謂「民主政治體制」。然而，美國原本是為尊重台灣人權之美意，卻演變成繼「開羅公報效應」，再次弄巧成拙，將「本土台灣人(people of Taiwan)和在台中國人(Chinese on Taiwan)」強制送作堆，變成「在台灣的人(people on Taiwan)」，反而陷本土台灣人於「政治煉獄」。
美國知名學者與維權人士「杭士基(Noam Chomsky)」教授，在2011年4月21日所發表之文章「Is the world too big to fail?(世界是大到不能失敗嗎?)」提及：

1. The guiding principle was articulated clearly by Carnegie Endowment Middle East specialist Marwan Muasher, formerly a high official of the Jordanian government: "There is nothing wrong, everything is under control." In short, if the dictators support us, what else could matter?
過去曾任約旦政府高層之卡內基基金會，中東專家馬阿謝爾明白地清楚表示，美國的指導原則是：「沒什麼不對的，一切都在掌控中。」簡而言之，如果獨裁者支持我們，其他有什麼是大不了的。

完整解讀此所謂「馬阿謝爾信條(the Muasher doctrine)」之內容為：
There is nothing wrong with the dictators' efforts to keep everything under control. As long as the dictators support the United States, nothing else matters.
獨裁者致力掌控一切並沒有錯。只要獨裁者是支持美國，其他都不重要。

2. The Muasher doctrine is rational and venerable. To mention just one case that is highly relevant today, in internal discussion in 1958, president Eisenhower expressed concern about "the campaign of hatred" against us in the Arab world, not by governments, but by the people. The National Security Council (NSC) explained that there is a perception in the Arab world that the U.S. supports dictatorships and blocks democracy and development so as to ensure control over the resources of the region. Furthermore, the perception is basically accurate, the NSC concluded, and that is what we should be doing, relying on the Muasher doctrine. Pentagon studies conducted after 9/11 confirmed that the same holds today.
馬阿謝爾信條是合理而嚴肅的。提出一個和當今高度相關事例：在1958年之一個內部討論中，艾森豪總統表達對來自阿拉伯世界之人民，而非政府其「仇美運動」之關切。國家安全局解釋稱：阿拉伯世界的認知是，美國支持獨裁阻礙民主和發展，確保對該地區資源之控制。而且，這個認知基本上是正確的。國家安全局作了我方應依馬阿謝爾信條行事之結論。美國國防部在911事件後，研究確認該信條至今適用。

3. It is small wonder that the "campaign of hatred" against the U.S. that concerned Eisenhower was based on the recognition that the U.S. supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies.
基於認為美國，一如其盟友支持獨裁者阻礙民主和發展，為艾森豪所關切之「仇美運動」是一個小疑惑。

由以上敘述可知，美國認為反正當地人民安靜不作聲，所以一切太平。就算有民怨，只要人民保持靜默，一切都沒問題。這些政策所透露的是，美國對民主和民意的輕蔑。美國並非無條件，而是基於經濟和戰略之國家利益考量，決定是否支持其他國家或地區，實現民主化。合理懷疑，美國支持台灣民主化，是為模糊台灣法理地位，閃避戰爭法架構內舊金山和平條約所賦予之佔領義務。

然而，「民主」是涉及「政治操作(political manipulation)」，而「義務」則是涉及「法理拘束(legal binding)」，兩者不可混為一談。台灣地位釐清至此，美國政府不應繼續運作所謂「巧妙模糊(masterful ambiguity)」，將本土台灣人託管於中國殖民政權假象之民主體制內，迴避對本土台灣人之佔領義務。

曾經參與1979年美中建交，以及台灣關係法制定之前紐約州眾議員Lester Wolff，在經過32年後，以92歲之高齡出席美國眾議院外交事務委員會主席Ileana Ros-Lehtinen於2011年6月16日所主持之「台灣為何重要」聽證會。在聽證會開場致詞中，Ileana Ros-Lehtinen女士曾四度提及「the people of Taiwan」：

a. Turning to Taiwan’s round of free elections early next year, it should be perfectly clear: the people of Taiwan must be able to choose their leaders and influence their future, free from outside bullying or coercion.
話題轉到明年初台灣之自由選舉，其應十分清楚：台灣人民必須能選出他們的領導人，並影響他們的未來，而無外來欺凌或威嚇之憂。

b. I have heard that some communist cronies in Beijing even recently urged the people of Taiwan to "choose the right person" in the upcoming elections -- or else.
我聽得傳聞，一些在北京之共產黨老友甚至最近還勸告台灣人民，在即將到來之選舉要「選對的人」-- 否則˙˙˙

c. The people of Taiwan must be vigilant in remembering that all that glitters is not gold.
台灣人民必須切記，並非所有會發亮的都是黃金。

d. We can look forward to the continuation of the vibrant democracy and free market economy enjoyed by the people of Taiwan.
我們可以期盼台灣人民繼續享有活力之民主及自由市場經濟。

以上陳述足以證明：無論是眾議員Lester Wolff或眾議員Ileana Ros-Lehtinen信口所稱之「the people of Taiwan」，應就是眾議員Ashbrook及台灣關係法所稱之"the people on Taiwan"，其正是模糊「台灣人身份」之原點。

此外，Ileana Ros-Lehtinen女士也在該聽證會開場致詞中提及：

To avoid any misinterpretation about Congressional commitment to Taiwan’s security and its survival, I will soon introduce legislation to enhance the Taiwan Relations Act.
為避免對國會有關台灣的安全及其生存之承諾有任何誤解，我將儘速立法，加強台灣關係法。

富有正義感之Ileana Ros-Lehtinen女士雖是出於善意，卻是有所不知：美國國會加強台灣關係法，等同讓台灣地位「更模糊」，也讓本土台灣人陷入「更深層」之政治煉獄。

被邀請出席作證之「東亞及太平洋事務助理國務卿(Assistant Secretary of State, East Asian and Pacific Affairs) Kurt Campbell 和亞洲及太平洋安全事務首席副助理國防部長(Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs) Derek Mitchell ，並未參與該聽證會為Ileana Ros-Lehtinen女士之立場背書.究竟代表美國民意，有言論免責權之立法部門，或可無視國際法理，暢所欲言，然而代表美國政府，無言論免責權之行政部門，則是必須遵循國際法理，而謹言慎行。

Bill Clinton's Inaugural Address on January 21, 1993:
柯林頓總統於1993月1月21日之就職演說:
1. Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
我們的民主必須不只是世界之所羨慕，也是我們本身革新之引擎。沒有什麼美國之錯誤是不能被美國之正確所救治。
遵循台灣關係法是美國對法理台灣之錯誤，遵循舊金山和平條約是美國對法理台灣之正確。美國遵循舊金山和平條約實現台灣地位正常化之正確，才可彌補美國遵循台灣關係法，模糊台灣地位之錯誤

2. To renew America, we must be bold.
為革新美國，我們必須大膽。

柯林頓總統所言甚是。本土台灣人為實現台灣地位正常化，當然更是必須在法理道上「大膽」向前行。

作者：林 志昇（武林 志昇˙林 峯弘）
台灣民政府 秘書長
2011/04/12
2011/06/20補寫於美國眾議院外交事務委員會主席Ileana Ros-Lehtinen2011年6月16日所主持之「台灣為何重要」聽證會後。

參考資料:

1. Committee News
Thursday, June 16, 2011

Ros-Lehtinen Opening Statement at Hearing on Taiwan

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, held a Committee hearing earlier today examining the U.S. relationship with Taiwan. In her opening statement, Ros-Lehtinen expressed her strong commitment to Taiwan’s security and her support for the immediate sale of new F-16 fighters to Taiwan, and announced that she will be introducing legislation to strengthen the Taiwan Relations Act. Ros-Lehtinen also expressed her strong disagreement with suggestions that the U.S. should cut ties to Taiwan and seek closer relations with China. (click here to view the video)

Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:

“Today’s hearing is titled, ‘Why Taiwan Matters.’ The answer simply is that Taiwan matters because people matter. I do not mean ‘people’ as in ‘People’s Republic of China.’ I refer to ‘people’ as in ‘We, the People.’

“Taiwan has taken the ‘We, the People’ principles of democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, and a free market economy, and transplanted them firmly into East Asian soil. Taiwan has belied those critics who asserted that a Confucian-based, hierarchical society is ill-suited for the tenets of Jeffersonian democracy. Taiwan offers the audacity of hope to those survivors of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

“Taiwan inspires all victims of Beijing’s totalitarian oppression that they need not be faint of heart. It is for this very reason, this shining example of liberty, that the cynical old men who still rule in Beijing are so fearful of Taiwan. It is for this very reason that they strive to eliminate this beacon of democracy. And it is for this very reason that Congress, through the Taiwan Relations Act, must strive to help preserve a Taiwan that reflects the aspirations of its people.

“This hearing is especially timely and necessary because it has come to my attention that there is a new spirit of appeasement in the air. Some in Washington policy circles are suggesting that the time has come to recognize the reality of a rising China, and to cut our ties to Taiwan. This would be a terrible mistake which would have far-reaching ramifications about how the U.S. treats its democratic allies; its friends.

“Turning to Taiwan’s round of free elections early next year, it should be perfectly clear: the people of Taiwan must be able to choose their leaders and influence their future, free from outside bullying or coercion. I have heard that some communist cronies in Beijing even recently urged the people of Taiwan to ‘choose the right person’ in the upcoming elections – or else. These naysayers would seem to be subscribing to Chairman Mao’s old dictum that ‘political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’ To the communist leaders in Beijing I say this: the ballot box is mightier than the gun’s barrel.

“And I have news for the naysayers on Taiwan policy as well: the United States is a Pacific power and plans to remain so for this century and beyond. The commitments made in the Taiwan Relations Act have remained unchanged for over thirty years and still hold true today. The pledges in the Six Assurances given by President Ronald Reagan to Taiwan, including the one ‘not to set a date for termination of arms sales to Taiwan’ remain as firm today as they were back in 1982.

“With over sixteen hundred missiles pointed directly across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan needs the means to defend itself from threats and intimidation. Taiwan needs the next generation of F-16 fighters now in order to protect its skies. With CIA Director (and incoming Defense Secretary) Leon Panetta recently telling our Senate colleagues that China is preparing for ‘potential contingencies’ that may involve Taiwan, there is the clear and present danger of sending Beijing the wrong signal. To avoid any misinterpretation about Congressional commitment to Taiwan’s security and its survival, I will soon introduce legislation to enhance the Taiwan Relations Act.

“I would like to add a final word of caution for our friends, regarding Taiwan. The American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, in its annual white paper, cautioned Taiwan against an overreliance on trade with China, and urged a diversification of Taiwan’s overseas markets. I too cautioned last year, and repeat here today, that Beijing’s pursuit of ever-deepening trade ties with Taiwan could prove to be a Trojan horse. Beijing’s game plan seems to be that economic integration will lead inevitably to political integration. The people of Taiwan must be vigilant in remembering that all that glitters is not gold.

“The challenges in the 32 years since the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act have been many, and they remain so today. But we in Washington and in Taipei give due diligence to the challenges at hand. We can look forward to the continuation of the vibrant democracy and free market economy enjoyed by the people of Taiwan.

“Before recognizing the Ranking Member for his opening remarks, I would like to note the presence in our audience today of former Congressman Lester Wolff of New York. He was Chairman of this Committee’s Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee during the crucial period of the late 1970s. Congressman Wolff played a leadership role in the framing and legislative enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act. I would also like to note the presence of the Formosa Foundation Student Ambassadors, with whom I will meet later today.
“And now I turn to Ranking Member Berman for his opening remarks.”

2. 美議員擬提案 強化台灣關係法

〔駐美特派員曹郁芬／華府十六日報導〕多位眾議員今天重申台灣關係法應繼續做為美台關係的基石，並呼籲歐巴馬政府盡速對台出售F16C/D戰機等防禦武器。眾院外交關係委員會主席羅絲蕾婷娜指出，因為中國崛起而忽略台灣是錯誤的想法，她將提出一項決議案強化台灣關係法。
美國會聽證會 聚焦台灣問題

眾院國際關係委員會今天以「台灣為何重要」為題舉行聽證會，這也是七年來國會首次以台灣為焦點的聽證會。羅絲蕾婷娜表示，美國做為亞太強權的決心不會變，台灣關係法與六項保證仍有效指導美台關係，台灣人民有權利不在中國威嚇下自己選擇領導人，她擔心目前兩岸的經貿交流會成為木馬屠城記，變成中國政治統一台灣的手段。她促請美國政府邀請台灣總統出席今年在夏威夷舉行的亞太經合會領袖會議。

民主黨資深議員柏曼則表示，肯定馬英九總統的兩岸和解政策，當馬英九兩年前提出「不統、不獨、不武」時，中國可以放棄對台動武回應，結果相反地，中國卻增加飛彈部署，對北京難有期待。柏頓眾議員則要求委員會將今天所有證詞送交白宮及國務院，讓歐巴馬總統及希拉蕊閱讀，他對行政官員今天未出席作證深表不滿。

應邀作證的有邁阿密大學教授金德芳、前亞太副助卿薛瑞福、喬治城大學教授唐耐心、美台商會會長韓儒伯。

薛瑞福表示，美國往往以美中交往的時程做為美國對台軍售或美台重要議題推動的依據，這不是台灣關係法當初設計的宗旨，美國對台軍售應單單依據台灣的防禦需求考慮。他並表示，近來有人主張因中國崛起或兩岸和解，美國應減少對台軍售或放棄台灣，但這是虛幻的想法，美中關係不會因為台灣消失而不再有問題，美台軍售事實上有助兩岸關係的和解。

唐耐心說，她不認為美國會放棄台灣，因為台灣的民主是美國協助建立的。她呼籲美國政府讓F16A/B升級及對台出售F16C/D，並恢復美台閣員級官員的訪問，給予台灣免簽證待遇。她也敦促國會更積極地監督台灣事務，幫助美國民眾了解台灣為何重要。

再籲歐巴馬 速售台F16C/D

韓儒伯認為，美台關係目前因為缺乏美國領導和企圖心而受害，歐巴馬政府毫無理由拖延F16A/B升級，也不接受台灣F16C/D的採購意向書。韓儒伯、薛瑞福與金德芳也主張，美國應該出售潛艦給台灣。

阿拉斯加州聯邦參議員穆考斯基十三日也致函歐巴馬，表示她願加入四十五位參院同僚，敦促歐巴馬政府迅速通知國會出售六十六架F16C/D型戰機給台灣，以助台灣空軍現代化。四十五位共和黨、民主黨參議員五月底曾聯名致函歐巴馬，敦促他接受台灣F16C/D型戰機的採購意向書。