Declaration of Taiwan Status

 

台灣地位宣言

 

 

 

 

公元二零零四年四月二十一日,美國眾議院國際關係委員會舉行台灣問題聽證會,主管東亞洲和太平洋事務的美國副國務卿,重申美國對台灣基本政策,這些主要政策包括:

 

˙美國繼續維持一個中國政策是基於中美的三個公報和台灣關係法。

˙美國政府不支持台灣獨立或單方面改變現狀,而所謂的現狀,則是美國所定義的現狀。

˙對北京而言,這表示中國不能以武力威脅台灣;對台灣而言,這表示台灣必須小心謹慎並且以智慧處理兩岸問題;對兩岸而言,這表示雙方都不要有挑釁行為,或單方面企圖改變台灣地位現狀的動作。

 

不論如何,此政策立刻產生新的問題:什麼是台灣地位現狀?這是一個謎題,困惑所有的研究人員幾

十年,美國國務院自從第二次世界大戰結束以來,從來也沒有講清楚。

 

但是,在此刻,我們可以很明確地得到台灣地位謎題的解決訣竅,根據美國最高法院首席大法官

Marshall   先生,在他所判決一八二八年著名的美國保險公司案例中,可以發現並且得到分析結論:

 

【美國憲法賦予聯邦政府戰爭權以及締結條約權,所以,聯邦政府有獲得新領土的權力,無論是因征服而獲得,或因條約而獲得。】

 

還有更明確的陳述,在一八七二年美國的United States v. Huckabee的案例中有一位大法官 Justice Clifford

先生提到【因為征服或條約獲得領土的權力是美國憲法所賦予聯邦政府的權力,但是已經征服的領

土,通常是被置於美國軍事佔領管轄下,一直到被征服的國家命運被最終處理與決定˙˙˙】更進一

步,一八二八年「美國保險公司」的判例內容被大法官 Joseph Story先生 在一八三三年出版的『憲法評

論』中提示,這位大法官解釋憲法中『領土條款』(第四條第三項第二款):

 

【美國國會有權力處置和制定所有法律或規定來規範屬於美國的領土或其他財產˙˙˙】的歸納範圍

「美國保險公司」判例後來在最高法院判例中多次被引用,例如在一八五零年Fleming v. Page案、一九零一年Downes v. Bidwell案、一九零四年Dorr v. US案以及後來多起判例。

 

詳細研讀過去歷史紀錄,日本攻擊珍珠港後,美國在一九四一年十二月八日對日本帝國宣戰,戰爭期

間所有對日本台灣軍事攻擊全部來自美國,美國很明確「獲得」日本台灣,是依據美國是台灣地區的

征服者。

 

美國是日本台灣領土的「征服者」,依照拿破崙時代以後的戰爭慣例法,美國確定就是台灣的「主

要」佔領權國。

 

依據美國最高法院定義,一八六六年在Ex parte Milligan案提起,美國憲法對美國的『軍事管轄權』共有

三種,特別是對「軍事政府」的定義:

 

『軍事政府的運作是在外國的戰爭,在美國以外的領土才執行˙˙˙』

 

 換言之,以現代的措辭,所謂「軍事政府」就是佔領權國對佔領地的合法管理型態。

 

美國在一九四五年九月二日,以一般命令第一號命令,將台灣的軍事佔領委託給蔣介石集團(所謂的

中國國民黨或中華民國),日本台灣在一九四五年十月二十五日舉行投降典禮,因此,美國軍事政府

在當天正式在台灣開始運作,很重要的是,美國在佔領日本四島的「軍事政府」與美國在日本台灣的

「軍事政府」是不一樣而分別管理。

 

在國際法和美國法律中很令人難以理解的是:為什麼在一九四五年十月底中華民國國旗在全台灣島到

處飄揚?而為何「征服者」和「主要佔領權國」美國的國旗卻不見蹤影?

 

在當時非常不穩定的年代,中國內戰不斷擴大,中華人民共和國在一九四九年十月一日成立,中華民

國逃難至台灣,當時,台灣是由美國軍事政府委託在台灣的中華民國軍隊在台灣實施軍事佔領中。

 

接著,戰後舊金山和平條約規定,日本放棄台灣領土,但是沒有指定收受國,因此,台灣一直是被留

置於「美國軍事政府」管轄下的狀態與地位。

 

在考慮到根據美國憲法第六條規定

 

【美國憲法及依憲法所制定之美國聯邦合眾國法律;以及美國聯邦合眾國已經締結及將來要締結的一切條約,皆為全國之最高法律。˙˙˙】

 

 我們可以無庸置疑確認,舊金山和平條約是可以約束美國所有政府機關,包括行政、立法、司法等機

 構。在人類歷史事務發展過程中,當一個民族必須解除其與另一個民族之間的關聯,會是因為對方使

用詐欺和不合法的政治束縛,作為在這世上的虛假聯繫的理由,在上帝的引導和事實自然法則的正確

指引下,對於我們自己的領土主張,依照法理的根據,以適當而且尊重的態度提出要求,在根據美國

憲法、舊金山和平條約、海牙公約、一個中國政策、中美三個公報和台灣關係法的文件,我們願意以

坦白的文字,充分而且清晰的理由,來表述歷史事實:

 

(一)、在舊金山和平條約中,台灣領土主權並沒有移交給中華民國,一九五二年四月以後,也沒有任何國際法或美國法律,允許中華民國國旗單獨在台灣(台灣是包括台灣本島與澎湖)上空飄揚。

 

(二)、依照舊金山和平條約規定,美國國旗應該在台灣上空飄揚,這是基於該條約明文規定:美國在泛太平洋區域是「主要佔領權國」。而且,在台灣被割讓以後,台灣自動成為美國軍事政府管轄下的海外領土,說的更清楚,在美國憲法的領土條款定義之下,台灣是美國軍事政府管轄下的「未合併領土」,是屬於美國列島區第一類的領土。在美國與西班牙戰後,還沒有在當地成立「平民政府」運作以前,波多黎各、關島、菲律賓和古巴的身分地位相同。

 

(三)、美國最高法院的列島系列案例確定,就算美國國會沒有任何動作,美國憲法中的基本人權保障規定,適用於所有列島區,最重要的,這些基本人權包括憲法第五修正案,「沒有人能夠剝奪人們的生命、自由、財產,除非有正當法律程序」的保障,還有憲法第一條第八項規定,美國國會必須處理共同國防。美國海外所有領土中沒有一個地區有自己的國防,也沒有自己對當地人民的徵兵制度。

 

(四)、美國憲法第五修正案「自由」,包括旅行的權力,而旅行權力則包括擁有護照,根據舊金山和平條約以及一九零一年美國最高法院DeLima v. Bidwell的案例,毫無疑問可以解讀「台灣是在美國統治之下」,台灣人民的國籍可以根據最高法院在一八九二年Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel Thayer案例得到確認:

 

【因征服或因條約所獲得領土的當地居民的國籍,應該都是歸屬於統治國的國籍】這項判決也在最高法院一八九八年US v. Wong Kim Ark案和在一九零四年的Gonzales v. Williams案例得到再次的確認和更深一層的了解:

 

  

   【對國籍而言,屬地主義的本質是當事人出生就能獲得國籍,而且對當地政府應該效忠,但是如 

      果國家一部分被征服者佔領,征服者獲得領土以及佔領地的統治權˙˙˙這是一般英國法體系所

     規定,如果父母親在原來國土被佔領時期所出生的孩子,換言之,也就是在被統治體系內出生

     者,應該其效忠之對象是征服者。】

 

(五)、台灣島上的居民如果真的是可以屬於中華民國的公民,則必須符合兩項條件:

 

  (甲)、在舊金山和平條約中,將台灣領土主權移交給中華民國。

  (乙)、該和平條約生效後,中華民國必須在台灣有法律通過「台灣居民集體歸化為中華民國國籍」的手續,同時給予台灣居民至少一年的思考期。

 

                    事實上,這兩項法理要求都沒有做到。

 

(六)、要注意,中華民國憲法第四條規定:【中華民國領土,依其固有之疆域,非經國民大會之決議,不得變更之。】中華民國國民大會從來沒有表決,通過將台灣合併入中華民國的領土。

 

        (七)、舊金山和平條約或台灣關係法都沒有任何法律權利規定,授權中華民國核發台灣本地居民護照,包括台灣本島和澎湖群島範圍。依照美國移民歸化法INA 101 a)(30

  【所謂「護照」是權責機關所核發之旅行證件,內容包括出生地、身分證明和國籍,這是一種被當事人持有的證明,以便進入外國的證件】中華民國外交部依法不能充當權責機關,核發護照給台灣居民,事實上,台灣居民的中華民國公民身分都是假的,台灣與澎湖的領土主權在舊金山和平條約並沒有過戶給中華民國,所以美國的移民歸化署必須清楚解釋中華民國護照是偽造文書,中華民國沒有權力核發護照給台灣居民。

  

        (八)、戰後被割讓的領土,其主要佔領權國的軍事政府並不會因為和平條約生效而跟著消失,根據

                    美國法律8 USC 1408和國務院外交手冊7 FAM 1111.37 FAM 1121.17 FAM 1121.2-2,和7  

                    FAM 1121.4-3,台灣本地居民都是『美國國民非公民』身分,在舊金山和平條約生效以後直到

                    今日,台灣人依法效忠對象必須是美國,而非中華民國,在美國法律彙編美國移民與歸化法8

                    USC 1101a)(30),美國之國務院才是「權責機關」,必須核發台灣居民身分證(包括護

                    照),給台灣居民。

 

       (九)、台灣地位目前還是「過渡時期」,是一種「暫定狀態」,在舊金山和平條約下的主要佔領權國

                   軍事政府管轄下實施中,澄清這個事實是很重要,所以目前沒有所謂「台灣共和國」或「一個中

                   國、一個台灣」或「兩個中國」甚至「分裂的中國」問題,因為台灣目前尚未到達「最終政治地

                   位」。

 

      (十)、中華民國在一九四五年十月二十五日,是以「次要佔領權」國身分在台灣,隨後在一九四九年

                  十二月中旬變成流亡政府,中華民國憲法並不是「台灣割讓區」的基本法,台灣人民有權利在美

                  國管轄下,擬定自己的憲法,這種權力是跟美國其他列島區的居民同樣有權力。

 

      (十一)、在一九七二年美國總統擅自跟中華人民共和國簽署「上海公報」,公報內容「有關台灣地位

                     安排」,我們必須嚴肅指出,這種安排是嚴重違反在美國憲法第五修正案中,對台灣人民人權

                     的保障,台灣人民堅決反對,因為所謂「正當法律程序」的基本要求,就是人民的聲音「有被

                     聽到的權力」,換言之,美國必須與台灣人民討論,這可以在美國最高法院一九一四年Grannis

                     v. Ordean案例找到法源,表明美國政府必須在有意義的時間、場合和機會給台灣人民表達自己

                    的意見,可是在「上海公報」擬定以前,並沒有和台灣人民磋商,讓台灣人民表達自己意見的

                    機會,所以這是違反美國憲法的行為。

 

  我們基於以上不可否認的事實,憑藉善良台灣人民的名義和台灣人民所給予的權力,茲公佈並宣佈:

  美國國會依據美國憲法領土條款,必須實施對於居住在台灣地區人民的「人權與政治地位」的管轄,

  同時,白宮、國務院和國防部以及其他行政部門的屬、局、司、處等單位,應該立刻進行一切為彌補

  自從第二次世界大戰以來,錯誤處理台灣問題的補救措施,這是為了維持,為了保護以及為了悍衛美

  國憲法,對抗一切來自國內或國外的一切敵人。

 

 

  最後,更進一步支持本宣言,我們在此提出,台灣人民已經準備好,要提出美國國民護照之申請。

 

 

  中文請參考http://taiwanus.net讓台灣回到歷史原點

 

 

 

˙   撰文於二零零六年三月二十九日

 

 


 

 

Declaration of the Taiwan Status

 

 

In testimony at a hearing on Taiwan in the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives on April 21, 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs reiterated the core principles of US policy toward Taiwan.  Among the most important of these was the recognition that:   

 

      * The United States remains

committed to a One China policy based on the three Joint Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act;

* The US does not support independence for Taiwan or unilateral moves that would change the status quo as the US defines it;

* For Beijing, this means no use of force or threat to use force against Taiwan. For Taipei, it means exercising prudence in managing all aspects of cross-Strait relations. For both sides, it means no statements or actions that would unilaterally alter Taiwan’s status.

 

 

However, the question immediately arises: What is Taiwan’s status?  This is a riddle which has puzzled researchers for decades, and which the US State Department has failed to clarify at any time in the post WWII period.

 

 

Yet, at this juncture, we the undersigned say with certainty that the key to solving the riddle of Taiwan’s status can be found in the writings of US Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, who offered this penetrating analysis in the famous American Insurance Company case (1828):

 

“The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.” 

 

 

And more explicitly, in United States v. Huckabee (1872), the Court speaking through Mr. Justice Clifford, said:

 

“Power to acquire territory either by conquest or treaty is vested by the Constitution in the United States. Conquered territory, however, is usually held as a mere military occupation until the fate of the nation from which it is conquered is determined ….. ”

 

 

Indeed, the American Insurance Company (1828) case is cited in Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), in his explanation of the scope of application of the “territorial clause” (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2):

 

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ….

 

and has been repeatedly cited in later US Supreme Court cases such as Fleming v. Page (1850), Downes v. Bidwell (1901), Dorr v. US (1904), and others.

 

 

Looking at the historical record, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941.  During the war, all military attacks on (Japanese) Taiwan were conducted by United States military forces, so it is clear that the United States has acquired Taiwan under the principle of conquest.  

 

 

The United States is the “conqueror,” and according to the customary laws of warfare in the post-Napoleonic period, the United States will be the (principal) occupying power.

 

 

As defined by US Supreme Court justices in Ex parte Milligan (1866), “military jurisdiction” under the US Constitution is of three kinds.  In particular, so-called “military government” is

 

“to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States ….. ”.  

 

Or, in more modern terminology, “military government” is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory.

 

 

In General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945, the United States delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to Chiang Kai-shek (aka Chinese nationalists or Republic of China). The surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops in Taiwan were held on October 25, 1945, thus marking the beginning of United States Military Government (USMG) in Taiwan.  Importantly, the authority for this occupation was handled separately from that of the four main Japanese islands. 

 

 

Under international law, and indeed under United States law, it is impossible to understand why the flag of the Republic of China has been prominently displayed everywhere in Taiwan beginning in late October 1945, and why the flag of the “conqueror” and “principal occupying power” (the United States) is not flying on any flagpole.

 

 

As the Chinese Civil War continued to rage in those turbulent years, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded on October 1, 1949, and the remnants of the Republic of China regime fled to Taiwan, an area over which their military troops were exercising military occupation under the delegated authority of the United States Military Government.

 

 

Then in the post war San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, but no recipient country was named.  Hence, Taiwan has remained under the jurisdiction of USMG. as an interim status condition. 

 

 

In consideration that Article 6 of the US Constitution specifies that 

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land …..

 

we must unequivocally state that the specifications of the San Francisco Peace Treaty are binding on all US government branches, including the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

 

 

And, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the dishonest and illegal political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the true and proper station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should make clear the causes which impel them to the declaration of connectedness with their sovereign.  To this end, after a thorough review of the US Constitution, the SFPT, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the One China Policy, the three Joint Communiqués, and the Taiwan Relations Act, we the undersigned hold that the following facts are abundantly clear, and hereby submit these facts to a candid world:

 

 

(1) In the SFPT, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to the Republic of China.  After April 1952, there is no basis under international law, or under United States law, for the Republic of China flag to be flying over “Formosa and the Pescadores” (herein referred to as Taiwan).

 

 

(2) In Taiwan, the flag of the United States should be flying. This is because the SFPT confirms that the United States is the “principal occupying power.” Upon cession by Japan, Taiwan has by default become an overseas territory of the United States under military government.  More specifically, under the US Constitution’s territorial clause, Taiwan is “unincorporated territory under USMG,” which is correctly classified as an insular area of the United States.  A similar status was enjoyed by Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba after the Spanish American War, and prior to the beginning of “civil government” in those island groups. 

 

 

(3) The Insular Cases of the US Supreme Court clarified that even without any action by Congress, “fundamental rights” under the US Constitution apply in all insular areas. Most importantly, these so-called “fundamental rights” include the Fifth Amendment stipulations that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Article 1, Section 8 provision that Congress shall “provide for the common defense.”  No overseas territories of the United States maintain their own “Ministry of National Defense,” nor have they instituted their own military conscription policies over the local populace.

 

 

(4) The “liberty” of the Fifth Amendment includes the right to travel, and the right to travel includes the right to obtain a passport.  Based on the provisions of the SFPT and the decision in DeLima v. Bidwell (1901), “Taiwan is under the dominion of the United States.” The nationality of native persons in Taiwan is thus provided by Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel Thayer (1892) where the Supreme Court asserted that:

 

“The nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass …. ”

 

This determination was confirmed again in Gonzales v. Williams (1904), and amplified by the decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Court held that:

 

“To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, ….. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.” 

 
 

(5) For native Taiwanese persons to be bona fide ROC citizens, two conditions would have to be fulfilled. First, the SFPT would have to award sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC. Second, there would have to be a law passed in Taiwan regarding these mass-naturalization procedures, after the peace treaty came into effect on April 28, 1952. In fact, neither of these two conditions has been fulfilled.

 

 

(6) Notably, Article 4 of the ROC Constitution specifies that “The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly.”  In regard to the alleged incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory, there is no resolution of the National Assembly on record.

 

 

(7) The Republic of China is not recognized under either the SFPT or the TRA with any power to issue passports for native Taiwanese persons, in the areas of “Formosa and the Pescadores.”  As defined in INA 101(a)(30),

 

The term "passport" means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country. 

 

the Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot be construed as the “competent authority” for issuing passports to these persons. The false claims of “citizenship of the Republic of China” for native Taiwanese persons holding ROC passports make those passports illegal under US law.

 

 

(8) For a territorial cession after war, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty. Based on the specifications in 8 USC 1408, 7 FAM 1111.3, 7 FAM 1121.1, 7 FAM 1121.2-2, and 7 FAM 1121.4-3, native Taiwanese persons are “US national non-citizens.” Upon the coming into force of the SFPT, and up to the present day, the allegiance of native Taiwanese persons is to the United States of America. Under 8 USC 1101 (a)(30), it is the USA which is the “competent authority” for issuing ID documentation to native Taiwanese persons.

 

 

(9) Currently, Taiwan is in a transitional period, or period of “interim status,” being held by the military government of the principal occupying power under SFPT.  It is important to clarify that while this interim status condition under SFPT persists there is no “Taiwan Republic”, nor any “One China, One Taiwan”, nor “Two Chinas,” nor “a divided Chinese nation.”  This is because Taiwan has not yet reached a “final (political) status.”

 

 

(10) The Republic of China in Taiwan is a “subordinate occupying power” beginning October 25, 1945, and a “government in exile” beginning December 1949.  The Republic of China Constitution is not the “organic law” of the Taiwan cession. The Taiwanese people are entitled to draft their own Constitution under United States administrative authority, similar to the inhabitants of other US overseas territories.

 

 

(11) In 1972, the Commander in Chief concluded a “Shanghai Communique” with the PRC which contained certain specifications regarding Taiwan’s envisioned future status.  We allege that the making of these specifications is a violation of the Taiwanese people’s Fifth Amendment rights to “due process of law.”  A fundamental requirement of due process is “the opportunity to be heard,” see Grannis v. Ordean (1914). It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Significantly, the Taiwanese people were not consulted before the drafting of the Shanghai Communique.

 

 

We, therefore, in regard to the above statements of fact, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of Taiwan, solemnly publish and declare, that the US Congress should assume jurisdiction over the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of Taiwan, according to the US Constitution’s territorial clause, and that the White House, State Dept., Defense Dept., and other departments, agencies, boards, commissions, committees, etc. of the Executive Branch should take immediate action to remedy their mishandling of the Taiwan question in the post-WWII period, in order to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

 

And in further support of this Declaration, we also give notice that the native inhabitants of Taiwan are ready to submit their DS-11 applications for US national non-citizen passports.

 

英文請參考http://www.taiwanadvice.com/declare.htm