◎ 傅雲欽 2019.05.22
![]()
王振義
▲ 1950年6月27日美國報紙（左）報導杜魯門總統（右）命令美軍加入韓戰，並宣告「台灣地位未定」。（圖：Communities Digital News）
我昨天寫了《「當局者迷」，不能當卸責的藉口》一文。面友王振義老師在文下留言，提出不同意見，並談到「台灣地位未定論」的問題。
王君是音樂家、戲劇家，關心政治，支持台獨，實在感心，但台灣的地位問題涉及法律。法律不是他的專長，他講的那些都是傳統獨派的陳腔濫調。傳統獨派有很多人也是學法律，但他們一談到台灣地位，就失去理智，管窺蠡測，漏洞百出。我已經寫了很多文章批駁他們。現在，王君既然來留言，寫了一大段傳統獨派的說法。我就不辭重述之苦，逐點答覆如下。
一、王君說：「舊金山和約，日本只聲言放棄台澎主權。接著蔣介石軍事佔領，統治台灣。」
王君所謂「蔣介石軍事佔領，統治台灣」是指1949年中國的國民政府的中央遷台嗎？不妥。中國的台灣省行政長官公署1945年就來台統治了。又「軍事佔領」應指「經過軍事行動而強制佔領」。中國政府來台，不管1945年還是1949年，都不是經過軍事行動而強制佔領，而是無反抗的和平佔領。台灣人民甚至興高采烈迎接中國王師。
不管年代如何，王君要表達的意思似乎是，日本先放棄，中國政府才來台統治。這點沒錯，符合事實。但日本何時放棄呢？應該是1945年8月15日日本天皇宣布投降之時。有人說是同年9月2日日本簽訂降書之日。無論如何，絕不是一般所說的，舊金山和約生效之日1952年4月28日。至於中國政府何時才來台統治？眾所周知，是1945年10月25日。
二、王君說：「日本只聲言放棄台灣，之後台灣被蔣介石軍事佔領統治。這顯示台灣地位未定——可能的發展是盟軍或聯合國託管、台灣前途由台灣人自己決定。」
日本放棄台灣而已，沒有說要把台灣交給誰。日本放棄台灣，與其後台灣歸屬何處，是兩回事。也就是，日本沒有說要把台灣交給誰，不表示台灣就一直沒有歸屬，而一直「地位未定」。
日本放棄之後，台灣歸屬何處，是法律問題，必須看後來發生了什麼新的法律事實。新的法律事實不外有沒有其他國家想要、有沒有其他國家接管及台灣人民同意不同意等。其中決定性的關鍵在台灣人民的意願。中國想要並實際統治，這也重要，但屬於次要。至於美國或其他國家並不想爭奪台灣，其意見如何（贊成與否），有政治意義，但在法律上，無關重要。
中國於二戰期間就表示戰後要收回台灣。日本投降之際，台灣人民的意願如何呢？有人想由盟軍或聯合國託管嗎？有，但聲音微不足道。有人想獨立建國嗎？沒聽說。很多人沒意見。大部分的聲音是回歸中國。因此，中國政府在美國的幫助下，1945年10月25日接收台灣，建立台灣省。當時，台灣人民無人反對，甚至張燈結綵，大事慶祝。中國政府從此持續有效統治台灣。在此情況下，在法律上，可認定台灣於1945年10月25日歸屬中國。
三、王君說：「蔣介石集團強佔台灣，還血洗台灣。盟軍、美國、聯合國都裝聾作啞（當然與爆發韓戰有密切關係）。台灣固然有人迎接王師（蔣介石），但反對、反抗的的言論與動作還是不少，甚至要求美國或聯合國出面干涉，並不能擴大解釋為台灣人（全意）接受中國統治這一事實。」
如上所述，台灣人民接受中國統治是1945年的事，台灣的歸屬就因此確定了。王君所謂「蔣介石集團血洗台灣」的二二八事件是1947年的事，與1950年的韓戰沒有關係。
又王君所講的反對、反抗的言論與動作，都是1947年二二八事件發生以後的事，不影響1945年台灣人民迎接中國王師的法律效果。何況，二二八事件的訴求根本不是反對台灣歸屬中國或爭取台灣獨立，只是反對陳儀政府的不良省政措施，希望改善而已。解嚴開放之後，台獨運動興起，很多台灣人民主張台獨建國。但台獨的勢力到今天還是不足以廢除兩岸法律上一中的「中華民國」憲政體制。也就是，台灣絕大多數人民到今天還是接受兩岸法律上一中的「中華民國」憲政體制，並接受該體制下的「中華民國」政府統治，不是嗎？
四、王君說：「七十多年來美國都保留這台灣地位未定的意思，不輕易的直認中國擁有台灣的主權。到今天的川普政府，已有意的強調用『台灣』取代『中華民國』。這是台灣成為正常國家的良好契機。」
台灣在二戰中屬於太平洋戰區，是美國攻下來的，照理美國可以像佔領日本本土一樣，也佔領台灣。事實上，美國沒有佔領台灣，而是把台灣交給中國。為什麼？很多獨派說，美國不是把台灣「交給」中國，只是「命令」中國來台灣受降而已，中國受降之後，賴著不走云云。這是瞎子摸象之論，或明眼人說瞎話！
中國政府來台的任務只是受降嗎？美國只是叫中國政府來台受降嗎？受降只是一個儀式，美國當然有能力自己做。為什麼美國不自己做？理由就是美國要遵守開羅宣言的政治承諾，將台灣交還中國。既然要將台灣交還中國，受降事務就一併交給中國辦理，由日本直接與中國辦交接，不必經過美國轉手。這應該也是中國的要求，因為中國怕由美軍受降之後，美軍後悔而不將台灣轉交中國。喬治柯爾的《被出賣的台灣》有寫到中國政府戰後來台時，防範美軍捷足先登，或那些協助中國政府來接管的美軍賴在台灣不走。再說，如果中國政府的任務只是來台受降，他們敢受降之後賴著不走嗎？戰後中國政府疲弱，他們來台的人員、物資都是美軍的飛機、船艦運送的。他們有能力違抗美國意思，賴著不嗎？用膝蓋想就知道。
總之，二戰後美國幫助中國政府來台灣，不只是處理受降事務，還包括建立台灣省。美國也認為台灣於戰後歸屬中國。不過，台灣由中國接收之後，中國的國共內戰加劇。在美國袖手旁觀，而蘇聯積極支持中共的情況下，中共勢力越來越大，於1949年成立新政府。國民黨舊政府同年退守到台灣。中國分為兩個政權，分區而治。台灣事實上（de facto）獨立，法律上（de jure）屬於中國。
1950年1月5日，中共新政權正準備追殺到台灣，台灣的國民黨政府岌岌可危之際，美國的杜魯門政府還對台灣的國府落井下石，發表「不干涉聲明」，表示美國不干涉、不捲入中國內戰，不會提供軍事援助給在台灣的中國軍隊，包括不在台灣設置軍事基地。其中特別聲明：「美國無意掠奪台灣或中國其他領土。」（The United States has no predatory designs on Formosa or on any other Chinese territory.）。從「台灣或中國其他領土」等語也可見美國到那時還認為台灣是中國的領土。
同日，美國國務卿艾奇遜於說明該項聲明時，也說：「中國人已經管理台灣達四年之久，美國及其盟國對於該統治當局及其佔領從未質疑。當台灣被納為中國的一省時，也沒有人提出法律上的質疑。這種情形要被視為同意。」（The Chinese have administered Formosa for 4 years. Neither the United States nor any other ally ever questioned that authority and that occupation. When Formosa was made a province of China, nobody raised any lawyers' doubts about that. That was regarded as in accordance with the commitments.）
但是，半年之後，1950年6月25日，韓戰爆發，共府因抗美援朝，變成美國的敵人。台灣的國府與美國恢復友好關係。美國杜魯門政府怕共府入侵台灣，除了協防台灣之外，又發表「台灣中立化聲明」，稱：「台灣若落入共產勢力手中，將影響到全太平洋區域的安全。……台灣未來的地位，必須等待太平洋地區的安全恢復，以及對日本的和平條約成立，或經過聯合國討論後，再作決定。」這是台灣地位未定論的起源。
美國的台灣地位未定論是美國因應韓戰而硬抝出來的政治語言，違背「禁反言原則」，豈可採信？！何況，關於台灣領土主權的歸屬，美國不是當事國，美國怎麼說都不會改變台灣原來的法律地位。
韓戰之後，國府從風雨飄搖中站穩，有效統治台灣，強調台灣屬於中國，反對台獨。美國就漸漸不提台灣地位未定了。美國的尼克森政府為了拉攏共府，以制衡蘇聯，配合共府的「一個中國原則」，而提出所謂的「一個中國政策」。共府的「一個中國原則」與美國的「一個中國政策」有所不同，但雙方說的「一中」都指兩岸一中。這是美國與共府、國府三方的共識。美國到今天還說，台灣將來如何發展，兩岸好好對話，不要片面改變現狀，也不可打架。美國這樣說，當然有認定兩岸法律上一中的意味。否則，台灣的將來如何發展，跟對岸何干？美國何必要求台灣要跟對岸對話？
美國總統川普總統上台之後，為了對抗中國，打「台灣牌」，沒錯，但不可說美國到了他上台才用「台灣」取代「中華民國」。美國自從1979年與台北政府斷交之後，就不用「中華民國」了。
川普政府較少強調一中，甚至會在「一中政策」上玩文字遊戲，講得模模糊糊。不過，那都是政客玩政治的政治語言。台灣的法律地位如何，客觀存在，不因美國政客如何說而改變。台灣的法律地位要改變必須依照法律。法律中最重要的一條是「（台灣人民）人民自決的原則」。這項原則優先於「（中國）主權完整的原則」。只有台灣人民才能改變台灣的地位。台灣人民的意願最大，台灣人民說的才算。美國說的不算，聽聽就好。
目前台灣人民的意願如何？眾所周知，台灣人民願意維持兩岸法律上一中，事實上獨立的「中華民國」體制的現狀，也就是美國前總統歐巴馬說的「自治」（autonomy）的狀態。
台灣人民不表示要建國，就永遠不是國家。在此情形下，美國不可能改變一中政策。除非美國「逼」怯懦的台灣人民鼓起勇氣建國，也就是，台灣人民要先宣布台獨建國，美國才會改變一中政策。這是邏輯、常識。
美國的川普政府對中國強硬，是「台灣獨立建國」的契機，不是王君說的，「成為正常國家」的契機。傳統獨派和民進黨政客主張台灣已經是國家，地位已定，但不正常，因此才有國家正常化的問題。但王君認為台灣地位未定，那麼台灣就還不是國家，哪有國家正常化的問題？世界上有「國家主權地位未定」的國家嗎？
● 相關拙作
-----------------------------
參考資料
-----------------------------傅雲欽面書 2019.05.22
一、舊金山和約，日本只聲言「放棄台澎主權。二、接著蔣介石軍事佔領、統治台灣。
第一點，顯示台灣地位未定——可能發展是盟軍或聯合國託管、台灣前途由台灣人自己決定。
這個「台灣地位未定論」，仍是國際討論的議題，也可能美國可能藉以發揮的問題——我認為七十多年來美國的有關「美中」或「美台」關係，都保留這一「台灣地位未定」的意思，不輕易的直認中國擁有台灣的主權。到今天的川普政府，已有意的強調用「台灣」取代「中華民國」。我認為這是台灣成為正常國家的良好契機。
就第二點說，蔣介石集團強佔台灣，還血洗台灣，聯軍、美國、聯合國都「裝聾作啞」（當然與爆發韓戰有密切關係）。台灣固然有人迎接王師（蔣介石），但反對反抗的的言論與動作還是不少，甚至要求美國或聯合國出面干涉，並不能擴大解釋為台灣人（全意）接受中國統治這一事實。
總之，台灣脫離中國的幾十年的獨力發展，已成為世界舞台的重要的成員，台灣能否成為法理上的正牌國家，端看台灣人的意志展現，台灣人如果再由「一中立場」的蔡英文或國民黨統治，由民意，選出的總統出面與中國「和平協議」，那美、日等民主國家將失去協助台灣抗中的口實。這是台灣擺在眼前最大的危機所在。
-----------------------------
Department of State Bulletin
January 16, 1950
Statement by President Truman
[Released to the press by the White House January 5]
The United States Government has always stood for good faith in international relations. Traditional United States policy toward China, as exemplified in the open-door policy, called for international respect for the territorial integrity of China. This principle was recently reaffirmed in the United Nations General Assembly resolution of December 8, 1949, which, in part, calls on all states —
To refrain from (a) seeking to acquire spheres of influence or to create foreign controlled regimes within the territory of China ; (b) seeking to obtain special rights or privileges within the territory of China.
A specific application of the foregoing principles is seen in the present situation with respect to Formosa. In the joint declaration at Cairo on December 1, 1943, the President of the United States, the British Prime Minister, and the President of China stated that it was their purpose that territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Formosa, should be restored to the Republic of China. The United States was a signatory to the Potsdam declaration of July 26, 1945, which declared that the terms of the Cairo declaration should be carried out. The provisions of this declaration were accepted by Japan at the time of its surrender. In keeping with these declarations, Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and for the past 4 years, the United States and the other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the Island.
The United States has no predatory designs on Formosa or on any other Chinese territory. The United States has no desire to obtain special rights or priviliges or to establish military bases on Formosa at this time. Nor does it have any intention of utilizing its armed forces to interfere in the present situation. The United States Government will not pursue a course which will lead to involvement in the civil conflict in China.
Similarly, the United States Government will not provide military aid or advice to Chinese forces on Formosa. In the view of the United
States Government, the resources on Formosa are adequate to enable them to obtain the items which they might consider necessary for the defense of the Island. The United States Government proposes to continue under existing legislative authority the present ECA program of economic assistance.
Extemporaneous Remarks by Secretary Acheson
[Released to the press January 5]
I am having this conference this afternoon at the request and at the direction of the President for the purpose of going into the background of the statement which he made this morning on the subject of Formosa.
I should like to make a few remarks on this subject for the purpose of trying to put it in its setting for you, and then we will get down into such details as you want to get into.
Why was the statement made at this particular time? That is a question that arises in all of your minds and I want to recall to you that I have said very often in these meetings that the foreign policy of the United States is determined not merely by what the State Department says, or not even by what the President says, and not even by what the Congress says, but reflects the sum total of the activities, thoughts, and speech of the American people. For the past week or 10 days, this subject of Formosa has become one of the foremost subjects of discussion throughout the country.
The ordinary processes of life in this town of Washino;ton have made their contribution. We have had leak and counterleak, gossip and countergossip. We have had the contributions of distinguished statesmen in the debate. We have had a great deal of talk in the press and on the radio. Much of that is good and much of that is desirable, and all of it has to go on to make the United States the democracy that it is. But we slide very easily from discussion to the statement of fact. I have here a distinguished foreign newspaper dated Friday last [December 30] which announces as a fact that President Truman has decided, et cetera, and et cetera, giving something which President Truman had not decided and had not intended to decide. Therefore, what has occurred is that we have gotten a great deal of confusion in the minds of our own people. We have gotten a great deal of confusion in the minds of foreign people. We have stirred up a good deal of speculation, all of which, if allowed to continue, would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the United States of America. And therefore, it was the President's desire to clarify the situation. He was not primarily concerned in stating anything new, and you will find very little which is new in the statement. What he was interested in doing was bringing clarity out of confusion.
That, I think, gives you the background as to why it was necessary to make the statement at the present time. It would have been desirable from our point of view if the whole question of the Far East, and all of the parts of the Far East and of Formosa, which after all is a small part of the great question of the Far East, could have been discussed very fully with members of both parties on the Hill before any statement was made. But one has to choose in this life, and it was more important to clarify thinking than it was to go on and have the most desirable of all possible things which is consultation.
Now, getting down to this statement, let's be clear about one or two things. There has been a great deal of amateur military strategy indulged in in regard to this matter of Formosa. The underlying factors in the decision are not in that area. They have to do with the fundamental integrity of the United States and with maintaining in the world the belief that when the United States takes a position it sticks to that position and does not change it by reason of transitory expediency or advantage on its part. If we are going to maintain the free nations of the world as a great unit opposed to the encroachment of communism and other sorts of totalitarian aggression, the world must believe that we stand for principle and that we are honorable and decent people and that we do not put forward words, as propagandists do in other countries, to serve their advantage only to throw them overboard when some change in events makes the position difficult for us.
We believe in integrity in our foreign relations. We believe also in respect of the integrity of other countries. That is a view not held by some other countries. That is a view not held by some other countries with respect to China.
It is important that our position in regard to China should never be subject to the slightest doubt or the slightest question.
Now, what has that position been? In the middle of the war, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the President of China agreed at Cairo that among the areas stolen f i-om China by Japan was Formosa and Formosa should go back to China.
As the President pointed out this morning, that statement was incorporated in the declaration at Potsdam and that declaration at Potsdam was conveyed to the Japanese as one of the terms of their surrender and was accepted by them, and the surrender was made on that basis.
Shortly after that, the Island of Formosa was turned over to the Chinese in accordance with the declarations made and with the conditions of the surrender.
The Chinese have administered Formosa for 4 years. Neither the United States nor any other ally ever questioned that authority and that occupation. When Formosa was made a province of China nobody raised any lawyers' doubts about that. That was regarded as in accordance with the commitments.
Now, in the opinion of some, the situation is changed. They believe that the forces now in control of the mainland of China, the forces which undoubtedly will soon be recognized by some other countries, are not friendly to us, and therefore they want to say, "Well, we have to wait for a treaty." We did not wait for a treaty on Korea. We did not wait for a treaty on the Kuriles. We did not wait for a treaty on the islands over which we have trusteeship.
Whatever may be the legal situation, the United States of America, Mr. Truman said this morning, is not going to quibble on any lawyers' words about the integrity of its position. That is where we stand.
Therefore, the President says, we are not going to use our forces in connection with the present situation in Formosa. We are not going to attempt to seize the Island. We are not going to get involved militarily in any way on the Island of Formosa. So far as I know, no responsible person in the Govenmient, no military man has ever believed that we should involve our forces in the island.
I do not believe that is new policy. It would be new policy if we decided to do that. The President is affirming what so far as I know has been the view of his Administration, and the unquestioned view ever since I have known about it.
The President goes on to say that we do not intend to give military assistance or advice, that is materiel and military people, to the forces on Formosa, and he says why. He says that there are resources on that Island which are adequate to enable those on the island to obtain whatever necessary military supplies they believe they have to have. That is against a background of very considerable gifts on our part at a time when the Government on Formosa was recognized by everybody as the Government of China and was in control of a very large part of China. We gave vast amounts of military equipment to that government after the war up until 1948. In 1948 another act of Congress was passed, and 125 million dollars of military equipment was turned over.
That is not where the difficulty lies in maintaining the Island by the forces on it. It is not that they lack rifles or ammunition or that, if thoy do have any deticiencies in any of those, they cannot purchaso what they need. That is not the trouble. The trouble lies elsewhere, and it is not the function of the United States nor will it or can it attempt to furnish a will to resist and a purpose for resistance to those who must provide for themselves.
That is the background of this statement. The President goes on to say that in regard to economic assistance which we have been furnishing, we will furnish it for as long as the legislation that Congress has passed permits us to. Whether that legislation will be extended or not, I don't wish to
Srejudice this afternoon. That is a matter for iscussion with the leaders, and for action by the Congi-ess.
We have been, through the ECA, conducting programs one of which has resulted in all the fertilizer necessary for the spring crop on the Island of Formosa. Others have been the purchase of necessary oil for refining on the Island
and for running the power plants and other things on the Island. Other programs have had to do with keeping their power plants and other factories in repair and in operation. Those are going forward.
Now those are the main statements of background which I wish to make. I am informed by Mr. McDermott that some of you wish me to say what if any significance is to be attached to the sentence inthe ne.xt-to-last paragraph of the statement which says, "The United States has no desire to obtain special rights or privileges or to establish military bases on Formosa at this time." The question is, what does that phrase "at this time" mean. That phrase does not qualify or modify or weaken the fundamental policies stated in this declaration by the President in any respect. It is a recognition of the fact that, in the unlikely and unhappy event that our forces might be attacked in the Far East, the United States must be completely free to take whatever action in whatever area is necessary for its own security.